Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1989.volume.9/vol9.iss301-350

Text File | 1990-01-14 | 786.5 KB | 18,274 lines

Date:     Wed, 16 Aug 89 2:15:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #301
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 Aug 89 02:10:36 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Michigan Bell Strike Brings Vandalism (Bob Leffler)
    The Strike (John Higdon)
    Help Needed With Voicemail System (L. J. Judice)
    Re: Cellular Calls to 911 (Dave Fenske)
    Re: Summary of Comments About "Watson" Voice Processing (A.E. Mossberg)
    Re: Info About 2600 Magazine (Andrew Boardman)
    Re: Types of Service (Roy Smith)
    Re: Incorrect Use of Area 202 (John Kennedy)
    Re: Operator Service (James J. Sowa)
    Re: Touring the CO (Larry Kollar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue Aug 15 20:14:27 1989
From: Bob Leffler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism

Somebody cut 1800 pairs with a chainsaw today.  Service was interupted
for Mich Bell customers in Troy and Madison Heights area.  Service
was also interupted to a local hospital, but Mich Bell established
service to the hospital with mobile phones until the lines can be
repaired.

The lines were cut in such a way that makes it extremely difficult to repair
according to a local news report.

The union denies that any of their members has anything to do with this
incident.  My personal opinion is that the timing is too close to
the strike to not be a disgrutled employee.

It's too bad that the strikes occur in the first place, but this type of
activity can't be tolerated.


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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: The Strike
Date: 16 Aug 89 05:56:05 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


With the strike at Pac*Bell and elsewhere droning on without much
evident progress, the decline in service is becoming apparent. Every
other word out of the mouth of a strike fill-in person is a reference
to the work stoppage and how they can't help you. Every operator
service is prefaced with "Due to the work stoppage...".

If an airline is on strike, do you stay home? Or worse, do you buy a
ticket and then stay home. What we are being told by our operating
companies is, "Due to the fact that we have a labor problem (for which
we were at least partly responsible), we will provide you, our
customer, with substandard service at full price. During this time we
will be saving a great deal of money, but will have no fear that we
will lose your business because you have nowhere else to go."
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 12:26:42 PDT
From: "L. J. Judice (DTN: 323-4103 FAX: [phone]" <[e-mail]>,
Subject: Help Needed With Voicemail System

Our office has recently installed an ASPEN (Octel Communications) Voicemail
system. The mode of operation is for users to BUSY/DA FORWARD their phones
(on an AT&T DIMENSION) to the ASPEN's incoming hunt group.

        o When you call from an outside telephone, you are connected
                    to ASPEN, and to the voicemail-box associated with the
                  extension you were dialing. So, for example if you call me
                  at 201-xxx-xxxx, you will get "hello this is lou...."

        o But, when you call from an extention inside the facility,
          you get the ASPEN main menu. This makes life a bit
          annoying since you have to dial someone, wait for them
          not to answer, wait for ASPEN to pick up and then
          dial the extension AGAIN!

I am confused. I assume DIMENSION has no Calling Extension ID, so that
explains why it can't transfer to the right voicemailbox. But when
dialing from outside, is it safe to assume the CO has CLID, and that
THIS is what is used to make the association?

Thanks for any insight...

/ljj

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

Date: Tue Aug 15 07:35:40 1989
From: Dave Fenske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Calls to 911
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dave Fenske)
Organization: Lake Systems - Milwaukee, Wisconsin

In article <[e-mail]> Kent Borg <lloyd!kent@
husc6.harvard.edu> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Doug Davis) writes:
>>As a side note, anyone want to post their experences about fun things
>>to do with your portable cell phone?  So far I have this list:

Well, here are two things.  One is fun, the other isn't.

For a real treat, carry a transportable phone. Then, when you arrive at
someone's house, do the following:  before you knock or ring the doorbell,
have his/her number all set to be dialed.  Lastly, dial the number and after
a slight pause, ring the bell.  See if you can predict, in advance, whether
your host(ess) will answer the door or the phone first.

On a serious note, some months ago, I glanced out  a window to see a neighbor's
house on fire.  It didn't take me long to reach for the phone and try to dial
the fire department.  Unfortunately, the fire had already melted the phone
cables.  Luckily, I have a transportable with a charged battery pack which I
did use to call for help.

DF

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

From: "a.e.mossberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Summary of Comments About "Watson" Voice Processing
Date: 15 Aug 89 14:04:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


mergvax![e-mail] (Mark Donnelly) writes:
>>I was wondering if any one as experiences or comments about Natural
>>Microsystems product called "Watson". It is a PC based voice processing
>>system that I was thinking of buying.

Whoops, sorry. I didn't see your original request.

I wrote a real estate inquiry service using the Watson system.  A month after
we had bought the system, they upgraded the software and ROMs on the board.
They charged us two hundred dollars to upgrade, though the upgrade was
merely bug fixes, serious enough to delay the project. The interface was
designed for people who didn't know anything about using a computer, and was
very awkward to write a program with. All the advanced features required buying
their "application software" or their "developer's package". The board itself
was very slow at picking up DTMF and halting outgoing speech. After some inital
tests of the system, Watson was put in a closet. We found it to have too many
problems to be used robustly in an inquiry service.

I liked the idea of Watson.  Unfortunately, we found it to be poorly designed
and extremely overpriced. ("Well, we only make a small number"-- Less than a
month after putting it in a closet, we saw Watson from mail-order houses for
less than our "dealer-incentive price")

Unless it has significantly changed, I couldn't recommend it.

(If I seem vague on some details, this was three and a half years ago..)

aem

a.e.mossberg - [e-mail]/[e-mail] - Pahayokee Bioregion
I have a simple philosophy. Fill what's empty. Empty what's full. Scratch where
it itches.                - Alice Roosevelt Longworth


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

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 13:32:09 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info About 2600 Magazine
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science

In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:
>[...]
>That particular BBS has been defunct for a year and a bit; there is however
>a bunch of BBS's associated with 2600.  (Five others, I think.)  If anyone
>is *really* interested I can dredge up the numbers; send me mail.

OK!  I give up!  The number of people requesting this information is getting
close to three digits and accellerating!

                   BBS's associated with 2600 magazine
                   ===================================
#1 OSUNY [defunct -- for now, anyway] near White Plains,New York  914-725-4060
#2 The Central Office                 Bedford, NY                 914-234-3260
#3 Yoyodyne                           Omaha, Nebraska             402-564-4518
#4 Beehive                            NOVA (northern VA)          703-823-6591
#5 The Switchboard                    Brooklyn, New York          718-358-9209
                                      (or was it Queens... NYC, anyway)
#6 Farmer Pete's                      Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania    412-829-2767

Now *please* stop killing my mailbox.  I won't vouch for the quality or
content, etc. etc., of any of the above, except for #1.

 Andrew Boardman             [e-mail]     ROLM is a four letter
(and if you really have to, ab4@cunixc on bitnet)           word.

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

From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Types of Service
Date: 15 Aug 89 14:52:29 GMT
Reply-To: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)


In vol 9, issue 297, msg 1/8, Mike Morris <[e-mail]> writes:
> Her comment was that GTE stood for Graft, Theft & Extortion.  Something
> like $100 _per line_ for something that took me under 10 minutes for all 6!.

    I used to think it was outrageous what TPC charged for service
changes when all it involved was throwing a few switches (or, more likely,
typing a few commands).  Then, I had a second line put in where I used to
live.  Some guy shows up in a truck to make the connections (yes, we
already had phone service, but didn't have a spare pair into the apartment
from the box in the back yard (4 unit apartment building).  So the guy has
to get into the back yard.  But, the only normal access to the back yard is
through the garden apartment, and nobody is home there, so the guy ends up
climbing down our fire escape.  In the pouring rain.  With all his gear.
All his gear turns out to include his ladder, since it seems there aren't
any good pairs from the pole to the box in the back yard.  To make a long
story short, he was there for several hours piecing together a pair all the
way down to some panel on the next block.  All for the same $60 or whatever
it was.  I don't know what a man and a truck cost for several hours (not
including travel time) but I'm sure TPC lost money on that one.  It
probably averages out.

--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- [e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

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

Date: 15 Aug 89 12:35:27 GMT
From: John Kennedy <opel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Incorrect Use of Area Code 202
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Kennedy)
Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)
writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 296, message 4 of 8

>I have seen 2 recent cases where area code 202 was used in front of a Maryland
>number which has metro DC-area service but is beyond area 202 (they are only
>in area 301). In one case, 202-621 was displayed on the back of a panel
>truck.  In the other case, 202-261 was displayed in a fast-food restaurant in
>an employment ad.

It's my understanding that that's supposed to work, since the numbers in
the metro DC area are "local" to one another, even though they may be in
area codes 202, 703 or 301.  Now, not all of the exchanges in 703 and 301
are local calls in the DC area, but the ones that are local are dialable
with the 202 area code.

For example, my home phone exchange is 858.  It's in distant Maryland, but
is one of the exchanges with the privelege of being local to DC
and is dialable (from outside the area) with a 202
area code.  Likewise, phones in Northern Virginia (703 are code) are
also dialable with 202.

The US-gov't FTS service didn't used to support 703 or 301 for the
DC suburbs.  You always dialed 202.

John Kennedy                     [e-mail]
Second Source, Inc.
Annapolis, MD

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

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 14:40:51 EDT
From: James J Sowa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Service
Reply-To: [e-mail] (james.j.sowa)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:

>  ...
>However, up at my weekend house in NW Connecticut, dialing 0 or 00 brings
>up the SNET operator.
>  ...
>Shouldn't 00 bring up the AT&T operator directly?

S.N.E.T. was not a fully owned operating company in the "old" bell
system and as such is not under the same operating rules/laws as the
Ameritechs, NYNEXs etc. are. In this case they were not mandated to
provide equal access for carrier selection. In the case of 00 that is
an equal access method of providing carrier selected operator service.

                                                Jim
You guessed it - these are not necessarily the opinions of my employer!!!

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

From: "Larry E. Kollar" <dcatla!sunb![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touring the CO
Date: 15 Aug 89 18:11:11 GMT
Organization: DCA, Inc., Alpharetta, GA


In <[e-mail]> zygot![e-mail]
(John Higdon) writes:
> If you live in an area that still has functional electromechanical CO equip-
> ment, do whatever it takes to wangle a tour before it's all gone forever.

During my summers as a teenager in Moline, MI (10-15 miles south of Grand
Rapids), the rotary stepper exchange (616-877) building often had its
doors left propped open.  I'd just walk right in and look around; one of
the Michigan Bell technicians there went to my church.  They threw all
sorts of old stuff out the back; I still have a few old Bell books and
wiring maps of the area that I just picked off the ground & took home (hey,
they threw it out; they must not want it anymore, right?).

It was fun to watch the step relays going up, then across as someone dialed
a number.  On a hangup, the rotor would rapidly spin out of the contact area
and drop:  ker-chunk!  Maybe these were more "modern" steppers than those
someone else mentioned, which stepped out and down.  LOTS of batteries; a
whole wall of 'em (and plenty of NO SMOKING signs all over the place :-).

I have no idea whether that rotary switch is still there; I doubt it.  I
seem to remember one of the techs saying they were gearing up to replace it.
Anyone at Michigan Bell know when/if it was replaced?

>[Moderator's Note: The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago also has
>such an exhibit in their Telecommunications Exhibit Area. It is fun to
>watch.  PT]

I've been there too; it's fascinating.  I particularly liked the "improvements
in sound quality" part of the exhibit.

--
Larry Kollar    ...!gatech!dcatla!mclek
: life BEGIN funds @ enough_to_retire < WHILE work REPEAT ;

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #301
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 17 Aug 89 0:41:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #302
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Aug 89 00:40:08 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 302

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Junk Fax: Urban Legend (John Levine, via Steve Elias)
    Re: Unusual Recorded Messages (Dave Esan)
    Re: Brother's Solution (really: 12345678) (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Telephone Numbering Change in Denmark (S|ren Oskar Jensen)
    Re: International Direct dial codes (Daniel O'Callaghan)
    Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (A.E. Mossberg)
    Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Bay of Eagle Fiasco (Randal L. Schwartz)
    Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Pete Fleszar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 00:10:27 EDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>

another fax article...

>From: [e-mail] (John Levine)
>Newsgroups: alt.fax
>Subject: Re: Junk Fax: urban legend?
>Date: 13 Aug 89 16:50:00 GMT
>Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Levine)
>Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:
>I just can't BELIEVE all the stuff I am reading in print media about
>Junk Fax.  ...
>Is this really a problem?  I think not.  ...

It's real, all right.  The problem is not so much that the machine is tied
up so you can't send anything (although this apparently happened to the
governor of Connecticut when the incredibly stupid junk faxers were flooding
him with junk faxes urging him not to sign an anti-junk-fax bill.  He signed
it, of course.)

The problem is that you come in in the morning or after lunch and find your
fax machine's hopper full of junk faxes using up your expensive fax paper to
advertise overpriced fly-by-night vendors of fax supplies.  Another problem
is that junk calls tie up your line and make it more difficult for people
from whom you want to hear to contact you.  The junk faxers would send junk
mail except that they know that we're already smart enough to throw that
away without looking at it.

The problem is really no different from that of junk phone calls in general,
just that you have a pile of paper to remind you of it.  I'd define junk
calls as making more than four identical or substantially similar calls in a
single day to callees who have not requested it, and outlaw that.  This would
not accidentally also cover mechanical and human voice junk phone calls.  Bah.

I suppose that when fax machines are commonly attached to computers and
people preview their faxes on the screen before looking at them, it'll be
less of a big deal to ignore them, but they're still a pain in the neck.
--
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
{ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, [e-mail], [e-mail]
Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old.  -The Globe

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual Recorded Messages
Date: 15 Aug 89 15:11:51 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


>[Moderator's Note: Can someone please explain what a 'rambam' is; as in
>'Dial A Rambam'??? Is it anything like Dial A Gay Atheist?  Should I spend
>thirteen cents on Reach Out tonight to find out? Is it worth thirteen
>cents?  PT]

Rambam is the Hebrew acronym given to the famous philosopher Maimonedes.
Acronyms, particularly of famous rabbis, occur frequently in Jewish usage.
Maimonedes's full name was Rabbenu Moshe ben Maimon, or RMBM which in
Hebrew is read Rambam.  It is nothing like Dial-a-gay-atheist.  Whether or
not it is worth 13c is your decision.
Rambam was born in Spain, exiled by anti-semitism to Morocco, and finally
ended up as the court physician in Egypt.  His writings covered both Jewish
and general philosophy, as well as medical procedures, astronomy, etc.  The
800th anniversary of Rambam's birth  was celebrated with a conference in Spain
in which the Spanish, Jews and Arabs tried to claim him as their own.  No
matter that in his lifetime the Spanish and Arabs had viewed him as an infidel,
and some segments of Judaism viewed him as a heretic.

 -->        David Esan                rochester!moscom!de

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

Date: Wed Aug 16 02:02:21 1989
From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Brother's Solution (really: 12345678)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: Linton Technology - SwitchView

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

>So when he opened a new exchange near some mining camp or other such
>outpost (using Harris D-1200 PBXs as COs, btw), Ma gave him the prefix
>"234".  Gee, that's a nice one, though Art.  Until he noticed thousands
>of incompleted pegs to a vacant number.  Yep, 234-5678.

What I liked was his solution to the problem; he installed an answering
machine and started turning them into billable calls!

Vance Shipley                          uucp:  ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances
Linton Technology - SwitchView         INTERNET:            [e-mail]
180 Columbia Street West                            (soon)  [e-mail]
Waterloo, Ontario
CANADA                                                      tel:  [phone]
N2L 3L3                                                     fax:  [phone]
# if it ain't got an interface it ain't much use!                             #
------------------------------

From: S|ren Oskar Jensen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Numbering Change in Denmark
Date: 16 Aug 89 09:40:44 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

>Recently Denmark changed its system of telephone numbers and area codes, going
>through a stage where the area code was compulsory even for local calls.

>They moved to 8 digit numbers recently, I think, although that seems excessive
>for a country of only 5 million people. ( 7 digits will serve about 15 million
>people, if pushed to the limit, and that is without area codes)

>Can anyone give details of the Danish situation now, please?

The main reason for the change was a shortage of numbers in the
central Copenhagen (our capitol - it has a population of approx. 1.2
million). Especially some of the centrals in the office district had a
shortage of numbers (the two first digits of the six digit number was
a central prefix). What the telcos have done is to implement a three
step plan:

1) make the area code compulsory - ie. 01 for Copenhagen.

2) differentiate the area code - the 01 for Copenhagen has been split
into 31,33,35,36,38,39 (no I don't know why they haven't used
32,34,37)

3) change the last 6 digits of the numbers in areas where this is
needed.

So far step 2 is implemented but you can still use the old area codes
inside Denmark 'til next year.

    Sergej

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

From: munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 17:40 +1000
Subject: Re: International Direct dial codes
Organization: The University of Melbourne

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> writes:
>>Why is 00 more logical than 009 (or 011 in Canada and the US), or 0011
>>(in Australia)?
>
> Because in most countries (outside Northern America), all area codes begin
> with a 0, indicating the start of "national" dialling. Another 0 would
> (logically) imply an even larger numbering plan - "international". Simlpe?
> If/when we get interplanetary dialling the logical prefix would be 000.
> I shudder to think what four zeroes would mean...
>

But in Australia, 0011 is normal international access code, 0015 is for faxes
(Partially conditioned data lines - have not noticed any difference myself)
and 0012 is for automatic ring back with price - just dial the number you want
with 0012, and when you hang up the operator tells you the cost of the call.

Australia is the only country I know of with 4 digit international access
codes, but they are versatile.

> [Moderator's Note: I don't think too many countries have our penchant here
> in the USA for pulling zero to get the operator either. Right/wrong??  PT]

Too true, but in Oz you have to know which operator you want.
013  local DA
0175  non local DA
0103  overseas DA
011  Operator connected calls within Oz
012  charge enquiries (Oz)
0102 charges (international)
0108 calls to ships at sea

The list goes on......

Daniel

Daniel O'Callaghan, University of Melbourne


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

From: "a.e.mossberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones
Date: 16 Aug 89 14:34:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Lou Judice 15-Aug-1989 0916) writes:
>While moving offices recently, we noticed the following odd label on the
>bottom of AT&T straight sets (normal single line phones):

>        WARNING

>        USE FOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONLY OR YOU
>        RISK AN ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT.

When we got new phones (at a former company) the first thing I did was borrow
someone elses's phone (-:) and plug it into an outside line in my office.
Worked fine. My guess was that the notice was to discourage people from
taking home these nice phones.  Though, it could be that some of the
line-powered features on these phones have no protection--and count on being
on fairly well protected circuits.

aem


a.e.mossberg - [e-mail]/[e-mail] - Pahayokee Bioregion
Chances that a homeless American holds a full- or part-time jobs: 1 in 5
                            - Harper's Index 2/89


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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 11:54:38 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

>I just want to call home! I eventually succeeded, but I vowed to fight
>any similar efforts to deregulate Canada's telecommunications industry.

>Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are
>lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take
>Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)).

>Richard Sargent                   Internet: [e-mail]
>Systems Analyst                   UUCP:     uunet!pantor!richard

You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect
on safety.  In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_,
the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has
continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation.
The truth is not that airline deregulation has led to "enormously
higher risks"; rather, deregulation has had little effect on the
historically increasing airline safety level.

Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
62 Alexander Drive            [e-mail]
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 09:35:03 PDT
From: iwarp.intel.com!iwarpq0.intel.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Bay of Eagle Fiasco
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
|>OK, gang, another mystery from the AT&T system of the late 1960s-early 1970s:
|
|>Once upon a time, my brother (who was about ten years old at the time) picked
|>up the phone and dialed:
|
|>1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0
|
|>[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it of curiosity. Dialing 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8
|>sent me to immediate intercept with a message saying, "When dialing a call
|>outside the 312 area, you must dial '1' before the number. When calling
|>within 312, do not dial '1' first."    PT]
|
|Here I got 'the number you have dialed has been disconnected or no longer in
|service.  If you feel that you have dailed the correct number, please hang
|up and try again.  Thank you.

A local freebie classified-ads paper owner paid $BIG$ $MONEY$ for the
right to use the phone number 234-5678 for his paper.  Within one
month, he had so many kids calling 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 on the phone
blocking his lines, he just stuck an answer-only answering machine on
the line telling them to call some other number to place a classified
ad.

Them's the breaks...
--
/== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ====\
| on contract to Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA                           |
| [e-mail] ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn             |
\== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone
Date: 16 Aug 89 22:19:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (P. Fleszar)
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies, Ithaca NY

In article <[e-mail]> John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]> writes:
>X-Administrivia-To: [e-mail]
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 299, message 3 of 8

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>>The price has been twenty-five cents in most places now for several years.

>It's still a dime in Dawson County, GA...how many places can still say that?
>          Turner                                       John Wheeler
>                 Networks

It's still a dime in ConTel service areas near (and between) Cortland and
Ithaca, NY, and I suspect also in other ConTel areas throughout other
Upstate NY places no one has heard of (like Eagle Bay :-) ).

N.B. The ConTel payphones around here were all tone 3 years before NY Tel
started installing tone payphones hereabouts. NY Tel *still* has some
dial payphones in this area!

Pete, KB2CCL
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #302
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 17 Aug 89 1:35:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #303
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Aug 89 01:20:50 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 303

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller ID Privacy Question (Bill Nickless)
    Montgomery Ward Selects MCI (TELECOM Moderator)
    Phone tells you who's calling? ([e-mail])
    NJ Bell responds to Sabotage (Mark Robert Smith)
    Re: BOC Strike - One Good Side-Effect (Frank Haynes)
    Re: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism (A.E. Mossberg)
    AT&T calling card demo (John Boteler)
    When A CO Is Cutover (John Boteler)
    International Calls From/To the U.S.A. (Tom Hofmann)
    Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Dave Davis via Will Martin)
    313 Area (was: NPA Dialing Procedure Changes) (Carl Moore)
    DC Area (was: NPA Dialing Procedure Changes) (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 16 Aug 89 16:35:01 EDT (Wed)
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>

First, a thanks to Patrick for his time and energy as moderator.

I believe the biggest problem with Caller ID is that it is new.  If telephones
had originally come with this facility there would have been no privacy
question.  (I realize it was technically infeasible in the early days, but
that's beside the point!)  In the United States we are used to a certain
model of telephone service.  Unless specifically blocked, subscriber's
telephone numbers are publicly available information.  With some exceptions,
the government cannot legally snoop on telephone conversations.  And the
idea of knowing who is calling before you answer is simply new.

If Abner Doubleday had decided on a pentagon shape instead of a diamond shape,
(and it had caught on!) do you think major league baseball would reshape
their playing fields because someone thought it was better to have three
bases and a home plate?  No.  It would require adjustments in expectations
from coaches, players, talent coaches, and everyone.

Let us not forget that telephone usage is not one of the civil liberties
protected by the constitution.  Nobody is *forced* to use a telephone, nor
to reveal their telephone network "address."  However, without Caller ID,
people can call others without disclosing this information.  This is the way
things have been.  This is not the way things have to be.

In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that
when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of
where the call is originating.  Simple solution: have a public agency such
as the police place the call.  No invasion of privacy, no danger to the
bettered women.  Just a *different* way of looking at things.

And if we can stop these obscene phone calls without getting Big Brother
involved, more power to Caller ID.  Since it's now technically feasible,
let's do it.  In 10 years people will wonder how they ever got along without
it.  Secretaries can get written or digital record of who calls, without
getting numbers mixed up.  All kinds of other benefits present themselves.

Just because something is new doesn't mean it's bad.

Aside:  As of 1984, a local call in Dillingham, Alaska (907) 842-xxxx costed
        10 cents at the local payphones.  And that included Aleknagik, which
        was 25 miles away.  This was an independant phone company, the
        Nushagak Bay Telephone Cooperative (or something like that!)

Bill Nickless               | [e-mail] or
Andrews University          | sharkey!aucis!bnick or uunet!zds-ux!aucis!bnick
Computer Science Department |------------------------------------------------
Unix Support Group          | "Help!  I'm locked up in a .signature factory!"

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

Date:     Wed, 16 Aug 89 2:25:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Montgomery Ward Selects MCI

On Tuesday, Montgomery Ward and Company announced that MCI had been selected
to provide private network service to its 420 locations.

Terms of the 3-year, multimillion dollar agreement were not disclosed. Wards
said the selection followed a six month comparative test of MCI, Sprint,
AT&T and other carriers.

Montgomery Ward's corporate phone bill is approximatly *one million dollars
per month*.

I'd say MCI landed a juicy one this time.


Patrick Townson


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone Tells You Who's Calling?
Date: 16 Aug 89 15:41:38 GMT
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>


Hello, everyone!

    Gotta question.

    Is is possible to find out who actually is calling you
    when the phone's ringing?

    1) Is it legal (well, I can't see any reasons why not)?

    2) Is such a phone available ANYWHERE on the market (i.e.
       can I buy one)?

    As I see it, ideally it should have a small screen, where
    the number you're called from is displayed. Nice feature,
    isn't it?

    Regards,
    Uri.

<Disclaimer>

[Moderator's Note: The service you refer to is Calling Party ID, and it
will become available nationally once the telcos succeed in overcoming
the objections of those people who believe their own right to privacy
includes the right of making telephone calls anonymously if they desire.
Presently, the service is available in New Jersey and a few other selected
locations, primarily in the eastern United States. See the first message
in this issue of the Digest for a discussion of the legal objections. And
yes, the terminal has a little screen, and it is a *great* feature.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 19:50:18 EDT
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: NJ Bell Responds to Sabotage

NJ Bell has placed ads in the Bergen Record, and probably many other NJ papers.
These ads offer a $25,000 reward for the first person to provide information
leading to the arrest of the vandals who have damaged telephone equiptment.

They provide two numbers to call:  NJ Bell at 1-800-843-0106, or the FBI
at 1-201-622-1412.

According to the ad, a violation of Federal Law (which this is) can lead to
a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 10 years.


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.

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

Subject: Re: BOC Strike - One Good Side-Effect
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 19:36:15 EDT
From: Frank Haynes <csense![e-mail]>

 From article <[e-mail]>, by RS%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@
mintaka.lcs.mit.edu (Robert E. Seastrom):
> ...Maybe we should just flush the current employees and let the
> supervisors man the phones.  It took a little extra time, but the
> operator's pleasantness made the wait worthwhile.

> [Moderator's Note: If the make-do operator sits there much longer, her
> pleasant disposition will begin to erode, believe me you. Operators take
> a tremendous amount of abuse at times from customers, ...

If you only knew!

[Moderator's Note: Believe me, I do know. I was a switchboard operator from
1958 - 62 for the University of Chicago. I got the job when I was a junior
in high school (working part time of course, and full time in the summer),
and full time when I graduated from high school. In those days the phone
setup was an *eighteen position* cord board. All manual service inbound
and outbound. As I recall, 135 trunks to the CO; a couple dozen tie-lines
direct to Long Distance; about 3000 internal extensions. On the sixth
floor of the building at 5801 South Ellis Avenue. During the summer when
school was not in session, I was *the* overnight operator. Fifty dollars
a week and all the fools I could talk to at night. My employment there is
another story for another time. My ears soon lost their virginity!  PT]

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

From: "a.e.mossberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism
Date: 16 Aug 89 21:10:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Bob Leffler) writes:
>The union denies that any of their members has anything to do with this
>incident.  My personal opinion is that the timing is too close to
>the strike to not be a disgrutled employee.

It is very rare for unions to encourage or know of any activities like this
by individual members. Unfortunately, people who already have strong anti-union
sentiments use incidents like this to cast shadows on unions and union activity
in general.  Management has done these type of things far more often than
unions, just to try to make unions look bad, which helps management to break
unions and further exploit workers.

Followups via email please.

aem

a.e.mossberg - [e-mail]/[e-mail] - Pahayokee Bioregion
Chances that a homeless American holds a full- or part-time jobs: 1 in 5
                            - Harper's Index 2/89

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

Subject: AT&T Calling Card Demo
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 20:30:06 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>

In issue 282 of TELECOM Digest, an unidentified author wrote:
>This may be old news to some of you, but AT&T has a "calling card tutorial"
>line installed.  You can reach it at 1-800-255-3439. You don't really need a
>valid AT&T card...any 14 digits will work.

I called it.

Great demo...it doesn't even say "Thank you for using AT&T!"
after dialing the calling card number.


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

Subject: When A CO is Cutover
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 20:51:31 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>

I go one further to suggest that anyone seriously interested in
the telecommunications systems of this nation should make every
effort to attend a 'cutover party'.

I was fortunate enough to watch one of the last #5 crossbar offices
in the Washington D.C. area cutover to #5 ESS last year.

It really is difficult to imagine just how this process operates
without witnessing it: the evening of the cutover, arrangements
are made to minimize loss of service to emergency and priority
subscribers, while phone phreaks gather around the telephone chair
to record the event for posterity.

As the critical moment approaches, the mucky-mucks (local politicians,
telephone company big-wigs, etc.) hunch around the console of the
new switch watching the operator sit back and view the high-tech
computerized graphic display...and wait.

Meanwhile, your tail is over on the business end of the cutover
where the cutover crew prepares for its work, which means literally cutting
the wires connecting the subscriber loops to the old switching
machine. (Probably why it's called a 'cutover':)  When the foreman
has verified that everyone is ready, the signal is given and
the cutover crewmembers start up their equipment--hand-held
power drills with huge duckbill cutter attachments in place of
drill bit chucks; the mucky-mucks watch the console...and wait.

Each member of the cutover crew races down a particular row and
severs the wires at lightning speed! The crew I witnessed was
so rehearsed after umpteen-dozen cutovers around here that
the cutover schedule was actually moved earlier! These guys
and gals really flew!!

After a few minutes of frenzy, wire segments flying everywhere,
the cutters turned off, the only sound remaining in the huge
equipment room was the lonely gong of the old XBAR5 trouble alarm,
calling out for some craftsperson to please, please say it isn't so.

Bote
Old & Improved path!: uunet!comsea!csense!bote
New & Improved path!: {zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!cyclops!csense!bote

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

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: International Calls From/To the U.S.A.
Date: 16 Aug 89 09:02:36 GMT
Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland


In consideration of several of long-distance carriers (LDC) in the
U.S.A., I have two questions concerning international calls.

1. International calls TO the U.S.A.
   Who handles these calls?  Always AT&T?  If not: Can it be influenced
   by the calling/called party?

2. International calls FROM the U.S.A.
   Have each LDC their own international access, or are all international
   calls forwarded to one single LDC (AT&T)?  In the first case: Are the
   direct dialable countries the same for each LDC?

Another question arises, not restricted to the U.S.A.:  What is the
reason that some countries cannot be dialed directly from one country
while they can be dialed directly from other countries?  The USSR e.g.
cannot be dialed directly from the U.S.A. but from Western Europe.
I think it cannot be a technical problem.  Must there be an agreement
between the two governments?

Tom Hofmann        [e-mail]

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

Date:     Wed, 16 Aug 89 9:12:10 CDT
From:     Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm

This was on Risks -- thought it was worth getting into Telecom:

>Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 08:17:31 -0400
>From: dave davis <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Cellular Telephone Causes Airliner Fire Alarm

A morning radio news report here in Washington, DC reported that a commercial
airline crew noted a fire alarm signal from a cargo hold in mid-flight.  Upon
returning to their originating airport, the cargo hold was examined carefully,
and no evidence of fire was found.  Apparently, a cellular telephone in a
passenger's luggage had received an incoming call, that activated the smoke (I
assume) detector via RF interference.

This occurrence shows why we have systems engineers.  That is, someone who must
consider not only electromagnetic compatibility between system components, but
also with other systems in the same operating environment.  As a result of this
event, the aircraft companies may have to redesign a lot of sensors.

Dave Davis, MITRE Corp., McLean, VA
----- End of forwarded messages

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

Date:     Wed, 16 Aug 89 11:39:02 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  313 area (was: NPA Dialing Procedure Changes)

It's noted that 1+7D is going away (in favor of 7D) at an unknown date in
area 313, which includes Detroit.  What about 0+7D?  And is 313 running
short of NNX prefixes?

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

Date:     Wed, 16 Aug 89 11:56:36 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  DC area (was: NPA Dialing Procedure Changes)

Fred G. Monti writes
>Not announced:  what will happen to the (relatively few) cases where local
>and extended area calls within an NPA are currently dialed with 1 + 10 digits
>due to code duplication.  They'll probably be reduced to 7 digits.
I don't know what this refers to.  From Maryland prefixes 621,261,858 you
currently dial 1-301-569-xxxx (NOT a toll call) to reach 569 prefix in Severn,
because 569-xxxx reaches 569 prefix in Springfield, Va.; that local call to
Severn was 1-569-xxxx until the DC area got N0X/N1X prefixes.  I guess it'll
take a while to reduce that local call to Severn to 7 digits, because you don't
want people reaching Severn where Springfield was intended.  That's the only DC-
area case I know of where more than 7 digits are currently needed on a local
call.

Your announcement of 1 Oct. 1990 is the first time I have heard a date for
that change.  I previously asked in this Digest:  Does that mean that Md.
& Va. suburbs are being removed from area code 202?
(I know there are points elsewhere in Md. where local calls to another area
are available by dialing 7D only.  I am not as familiar with area 703 in this
regard.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #303
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 17 Aug 89 2:16:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #304
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Aug 89 02:10:47 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 304

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: US Sprint Rep Comments, ISDN progress (Bill Cerny)
    Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Tom Wiencko)
    Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Ron Natalie)
    Which Access Code is 'More Logical'? (John R. Covert)
    Direct Inward Dial, Twin Channel Fax Card Announced (Steve Elias)
    Gas Cylinders (Jim Gonzalez)
    Phone Numbers For ATI Supply (Denis Filipetti)
    More about Deep Springs and also Grapevine 1 (George Adams)
    Local Calls Across NPA Boundaries From NYC (Carl Moore)
    35 Cent Payphones In Iowa (Miguel Cruz)

[Moderator's Note: There is currently about a two day backlog of messages
waiting for transmission. I received 41 new messags today alone. Most
of the backlog should be transmitted Friday morning.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Cerny <toto![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Rep Comments, ISDN progress
Date: 16 Aug 89 12:47:44 GMT
Organization: Little 3B1 on the Prairie, St. Marys, KS

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

> He also commented about ISDN and how US Sprint is ready for ISDN,
> whereas ATT is behind, and MCI is way behind.  Sprint already has
> CCS7 (switching something-or-other), a fiber network, and 100% digital
> transmission.  ATT is accelerating the depreciation of their equipment
> because they have to modernize their network in order to support ISDN,
> and to keep up with the competition -- in this case, US Sprint.

AT&T has been providing true ISDN via its Primary Rate Interface for
over a year now.  AT&T is providing new calling services made possible
with ISDN, including call-by-call service selection and calling number
delivery.  A recently announced service will allow enhanced routing
capability on an electronic tandem network (Service Node Controller).
AT&T will complete the installation of CCS7 in its network by the end
of this year; all major routes have been CCS7 since earlier this year.
SouthernNet was the first carrier to install a 100% CCS7 network,
followed by US Sprint in Dec. '88, and MCI this past spring.

The US Sprint network uses 41 Northern Telecom DMS-250 tandem switches.
The MCI network has a mix of DSC, Northern Telecom and Ericsson AXE
tandems.  Sprint plans to offer real ISDN (like AT&T did) next year
_from all of its POPs_, while AT&T provides ISDN from a steadily
growing number of its POPs.  MCI plans to offer _ISDN-like_ services
(read "inband" signaling vice the Q.931 outband signaling of ISDN) in
the fourth quarter of this year, to be followed by real ISDN next year.
Consider the degree of difficulty in getting ISDN up and flying on
your network: it's more likely to work if you have fewer brands of
switches to talk to each other (standards?  yes, but...  8-) 8-) ).

There are three vendors with working ISDN CPE in this field today:
AT&T (System 85), Northern Telecom (SL-1) and Rockwell (Galaxy ACD).
Many vendors have announced ISDN CPE this year.  The CPE to work with
MCI's ISDN-like services is under development.

Too much ISDN hype, eh?  Today's ISDN users aren't talking; there is a
perceived advantage that they must obscure from their competitors.  But
in one published report, a telemarketing firm found that calling number
delivery trimmed an average of 8 seconds off each call (the customer's
record was automatically retrieved according to phone number).  If you
carry this calculation forward, a center that handles 2,000 calls/day
saves about 4.5 hours.  It's up the sweatshop owner to decide whether to
reduce the number of agents, provide longer breaks to the agents, or go
after more business.

(These facts extracted from trade press, announcements, and industry
contacts.  Please e-mail corrections.  Thanks!)
--
Bill Cerny
[e-mail]       "I'm gone to San Diego in my mind."

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

From: Tom Wiencko <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop!
Date: 16 Aug 89 16:26:32 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Wiencko <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick
Adams) writes:
>Background:
>My Sprint bill is $30,000 - $40,000 per month. My phone bill comes in a big
>box with detail of every call. I have NEVER found one of those details
>to be a call that was not answered.

>I consider the offhanded and uninformed response of the moderator that
>"Sprint doesn't have answer supervision" to be uncalled for bashing.
>It is not factual and it as uncalled for.

>For some reason, very little of the Sprint "information" is factual or
>current. This is what I object to.

Nonsense.  Sprint will admit it to you if you push them hard enough.

With this large a phone bill, unless you happen to make long calls to
areas with Feature Group D trunks, it is almost impossible for you not to
have some 1 minute phone calls (or whatever minimum billing interval Sprint
happens to use on your account) which are not real completed calls.  The
technology is simply not in place for them to be able to provide call
supervision everywhere (unless they get Feature Group C lines as I mentioned
in a previous message).

This is not "Sprint bashing"; this is simple exposure of the facts of the
matter.  The fact that you find Sprint's service and billing procedures
acceptable does not mean that it is acceptable to everyone, and in particular,
it does not mean that they take the same good care of residental or small
business customers.  Not all of us have $30,000 phone bills, but would like
to get quality phone service, accurate billing, and reasonable response to
problems.

I, for one, have have good experiences with Sprint line quality, but horrid
experiences with their billing and so-called "security" procedures.  I have
had months where 40% (yes, almost half) of the calls on a Sprint bill were
one minute calls which actually were busy, no answer, or even dropped calls.

So believe it when people complain about Sprint's billing procedures.  There
is proof.  They will even occasionally admit it themselves.

Tom

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop!
Date: 16 Aug 89 20:34:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I wasn't one of the Sprint bashers but your comment:

> Just because they offer lousy residential service, you can't damn the entire
> company for it. If they happen to make a business decision to care
> less about residential services, than business services, fine. Don't
> use them from your home. However, you would be a fool to refuse to
> consider them for business use based on their residential services.

Sure I can damn the entire company for it.  I had very unfortunate experiences
with Sprint about two and a half years ago that convinced me that I would
never want to use them again.  Just last May (much more current information
that they have not changed their ways)  I had another run in with them and
again as a residential customer I got screwed by them.  The local operating
company told me that the type of complaints I had were common place with
Sprint (Sprint gratuitously changed my mother's long distance carrier to them,
Sprint claims C&P Telephone did it, C&P claims Sprint instigated it).

If they want to screw me as an individual they've already lost a lot of ground
as to my objectivity of me committing my whole business to such levels of treachery.

-Ron

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

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 06:03:06 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  15-Aug-1989 0829" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Access Code is 'Most Logical'?


>00, whether more logical or not is certainly the most widespread, at least in
>Europe and the Med.

It may be the most widespread in Europe and the Med, but it is certainly not
the most widespread in the world.

011 is easily the most widespread, being used in the U.S. and Canada (and much
of the Caribbean).  The population of the U.S. and Canada is 272 million, and
covers an area of more than 7.5 million square miles, with the most telephones
per person of any countries in the world.  In 1980 40.7% of the world's tele-
phones were in World Numbering Zone 1.

The total population and area of Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czecho-
slovakia, Germany (West), Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg,
Morocco, Portugal, Switzerland, and Tunisia is 245 million in an area of 1.6
million square miles.

/john

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 09:39:53 EDT
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Direct Inward Dial, Twin Channel Fax Card Announced
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Elias)

This probably belongs in the new product announcement group, but I'm
not sure if you folks read that one!

Brooktrout has announced a twin channel, DID fax card.  this is a first
in the market -- both the twin channel, and DID capability.  DID will allow
each person at a site to have their own fax number -- this solves the
problem of routing the fax to the proper person, or proper computer.

Check the current issues of Network World, MIS Week, and InfoWorld
for more information.  Feel free to contact me directly as well...
I'm not really up on the details of these new products, but I have
read the Network World article and do speak with the folks at Brooktrout
occasionally.

 ... Steve Elias ([e-mail]);6172399406;6178906844;6178591389; {}
/* */


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

Subject: Gas Cylinders
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 12:15:46 -0400
From: [e-mail]

In a recent issue of this digest, Michael Warfield comments on color codes
for gas cylinders.  The facts he presented are largely correct, but here is
some more detail.  The information below is from 1982 issue of the Airco
Industrial Gases (AIG) Data Book.

AIG markets compressed gases for a variety of applications, including wafer
semiconductor fabrication.  Airco Welding Products (AWP) markets the other
equipment needed for gas and arc welding.  Both are headquartered at 575
Mountain Avenue in Murray Hill, NJ, directly across the street from Bell
Labs.  Lovely neighborhood.  Anyway, here's the data:

Oxygen:
    USP (medical) oxygen is supplied in green cylinders with green
    caps.  All other standard grades are supplied in orange cylinders
    with orange caps, with an aluminum ("silver") collar to specify
    higher pressure.

    Specialty grade comes in aluminum cylidner with orange collar.

Nitrogen:
    For all standard grades, lower half of cylinder is painted orange.
    Upper half is red or aluminum, depending on grade. Blue band in
    middle denote prepurified nitrogen.  Cap is orange, except for
    2485 psig (as opposed to 2200 psig), which is aluminum.

    Specialty grades come in aluminum cylinders with with collars.
    White shoulder band denotes 6000 psig (3000 or less is normal).

Helium:
    All standard grades have brown body with orange collar.  Silver
    shoulder band indicates 2200 psig, as opposed to 1800 or 2485.

    Specialty grades have aluminum cylinder with brown collar.  Brown
    shoulder band indicates 6000 psig.

Carbon Dioxide:
    All grades have aluminum body with orange, green, blue or brown
    collar indicating grade (beverage, industrial, welding and "siphon").

Acetylene:
    Black cylinder and cap.

Compresed Air:
    Only specialty grade is listed.  It is aluminum with white collar
    and orange shoulder band.

Oddly enough, I had never given much thought to those cylinders by the
telephone poles.  You can bet I will, now.

                -Jim.

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

From: wellflt!svenny![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 12:17:49 EDT
Subject: Phone Numbers For ATI Supply


Folks,

    I have just got some mail saying that the number I gave for ATI
Supply doesn't seem to work. Since I have been having trouble sending
mail into DECs enet, where the sender is, and since perhaps others are
having trouble with that number, I'll respond here.

    Their outside CA number is still good, I just tried it.  They
verified their inside CA number. The rest are off of the back of their
catalog.

800.826.4821    Outside CA
800.468.6278    Inside CA
818.889.9236    If you want to spend some money
818.889.7680    FAX
910.250.6958    Telex
703.444.6751    Atlantic Dist.
916.344.8080    N. Ca. Dist.
312.537.0520    Central Dist.
602.894.1606    Western Dist.

    Hope this helps.

P.S. I haven't ordered from them yet, for no good reason, So I can't
vouch for their service or products.

Denis Filipetti


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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 11:44:54 -0500
From: George Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: More about Deep Springs and also Grapevine 1

I too got literature from Deep Springs College, but it was 15 years
ago.  Three years ago when I lived in California I drove by the
place on a long weekend of putzing around on dirt roads ('bout the
only kind there) in the Death Valley area.

Deep Springs College is in fact in California, although by the
topographic map on my desk here, it is only 10 miles from Nevada as
the crow flies.  The "no radio reception during the day" fits with
both my recollection and what the map shows.  Deep Springs Valley is
dramatic geography.  About 10 miles long, 3 miles wide, flat and at
an elevation of 5270 (at the college) still a full 8996 feet below
the summit of White Mtn. Peak, rising on the northwest side of the
valley.  The south and east sides of the valley are rimmed by
mountains rising steeply but only 2500 feet above the valley floor.
Cal Tech operates a several radio telescopes in Owens Valley, just
over the pass west out of Deep Springs, so the whole area is probably
fairly radio quiet.

Driving east and then south from Deep Springs you can take Bureau
of Land Management dirt roads into the north end of Death Valley
National Monument.  A few miles after you reach pavement in the park
there is a ranger station with a standard phone boot beside it.  A
standard booth, but not ordinary.  You can see all of Death Valley
from there on a clear day and other than the ranger station a few
feet away, there is not a building in sight to the naked eye from
this phone booth.  With binoculars you can just make out the
campground buildings down below sea level at Furnace Creek, 40 miles
away.  The phone is toll station Grapevine 1 (the road runs along the
foot of the Grapevine Mountains).  Made a credit card call from there.
The Pacific Bell operator asked for where I was calling from and didn't
ask twice, so some are used to toll stations.  It was interesting to
see Grapevine 1 on the bill the next month.

George

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

Date:     Wed, 16 Aug 89 13:13:07 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Local Calls Across NPA Boundaries From NYC

The subject calls (between 212 and 718 areas, also to Nassau and southern
Westchester) are shown as 1+NPA+7D.  Back in 1986, I noticed 212-516 prefix
on a pay phone in Manhattan; 516 used to be a NEIGHBORING area code.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 01:08:30 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa

Speaking of US West (somebody was...), I was just in their area this past
week.  I noticed that payphones cost $.35 for a local call.  Is that something
just peculiar to Iowa or is it a sweeping trend I'll have to deal with all
the time soon?

People always have a quarter on them.  But who has a quarter and a dime?
Yeech.

[Moderator's Note: Are you sure these were US West payphones, or perhaps
privately owned COCOTS under the auspices of a greedy shop-keeper?   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #304
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 18 Aug 89 0:27:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #305
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Aug 89 00:25:04 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 305

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cellular! (Bob Frankston)
    Taconic Tel (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Compuserve and the Internet (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    PBX Dialing Tones (Was Re: Bay of Eagle Fiasco) (Andrew Boardman)
    Automatic Collect Calls (John Higdon)
    Re: Buffalo, Texas (Peter da Silva)
    Split Communities (Carl Moore)
    Re: London (UK) New Area Codes. (Harry Broomhall)
    1-234-5678 (Ken Rossen)
    Calling 800's From Outside USA (Kenneth Selling)
    Default Carrier On a Pay Phone (Carl Moore)
    One Operator Does All (Kenneth Selling)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Frankston (BFrankston) <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular!
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 14:38:06 EDT

I'm gathering this comments in my first attempt to travel with my cellular
phone.  I have travelled with a car phone in the Northeast and that worked.
Travelling wider than that is more difficult.  In speaking to Geoff Goodfellow,
I can understand his frustrations with the cellular system.  I thank him for
help in getting as far as I did.

My base system is Cellular One (SW Bell) in Boston.  They do not (yet) have
follow-me roaming and do not have roaming agreements in the Bay area (San
Francisco).

1. They list the roaming number as 415-770-ROAM.  Turns out that it is really
860 for the A carrier (Cellular One, not related) and 722 for the B (GTE
Mobile).

2. It is difficult to phone these companies since information only gives out
the 800# which is useless outside of California.

3. Cellular companies only work during business hours.  After all, nobody
really uses this technology so why work weekends and evenings to support it.

4. Given #3, I can't register when I arrive on a weekend.  You get off the
plane and discover that you can't get service.  But why would anyone use a
telephone on a weekend?

5. Even in the Northeast, primar roaming territory for me, the cellular
companies are too dumb to list their roaming numbers in the phone directories.
See #3.

6. Charges.  See #3.  After all, telephones (and by extension cellular phones)
are only play things for the idle rich.  Real people don't travel.

7. An aside, for airplane phones, see #6 compounded by the worst quality
imaginable.  Why aren't planes simply local cells?  Maybe there are technical
problems with the current generation (can someone explain them to me) but one
can take it into account for the digital network.

There is a danger in being sarcastic in email.  I should clarify by pointing
out that I think that cellular should be the normal mode for communications
with wired phones being oddities.  TV, on the other hand, should be confined to
cable because it wastes gobs of spectrum that can be used for more useful
communications.

Now that I've expressed my considerable annoyance, is there any hope for the
FCC viewing cellular phones as normal communications and working to establish
guidelines for roaming and, followme roaming?  Followme implemented with proper
protocols should cause double charging.  In fact, #8 would be the idea of
charging for all services including answering services at full rate air time
when not air time is being used.  Well, if you're a monopoly you can do
anything.

There are some additional practical problems with a portable phone.  One is
that callers are used to giving three or four rings while with a cellular
twenty would be more reasonable to accommodate figuring out what that sound
is and where it is coming from and how to dig the phone out from the bottom of
a pile of junk (common scene in comedies).  What I really want is a combination
of phone with beeper so that it would retain a list of messages and callers.
Yes, one can get cellular answering service but I detest voice mail and all I
really want is a list of caller phone numbers.  This list can be provided
automatically with ANI or by allowing a user to key in a phone number instead
of voice mail. Since information is being passed, a (modest) charge would be
appropriate.

Perhaps in an ISDN/X.400 world some of this might start to work.  I should live
that long.  (Yiddish sarcasm, not a statement of probability).


Full name: Bob Frankston

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 14:21:47 EDT
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Taconic Tel

Taconic Tel not only has the last nickel payphone, they also have post-payment
phones (at least in certain areas).  I was up in Copake, NY about a year ago
and I had a good look at their payphones.

They were certainly telco provided.  They looked a little like "Charge-A-Call"
phones, but they were brown, and were rotary.  There was a large sign saying
"Do not deposit nickel until party answers -- No money will be returned."
The transmitter was, of course, kept muted until you deposited your coins.

Speaking of Taconic....I remember one fact distinctly.  They're using some
remarkably old equipment.  I visited a friend in Hillsdale, NY and made a
long-distance call.  I dialed 1+NPA+#, and nothing happened.  Okay, I figured,
maybe I didn't need the 1.  So I tried NPA+# and sure enough, the thing just
sat there.  It turned out that you had to dial 11+NPA+#.  I checked it in
the Taconic phone book, and it described it as "1 + DDD Code + Area Code + #"

I always thought that the initial "1" was the DDD code in itself.  Why on
earth would the exchange want TWO of them?

Another interesting fact about that exchange is that it took FOREVER for calls
to process...even local ones.  The phone was true DTMF, so I suspect that
the switch was SxS with a Touchtone front-end.

Any comments, folks?

-G

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Compuserve and the Internet
Date: Wed, 16-Aug-89 17:35:42 PDT

For those that use or know someone on Compuserve, it is now
possible to mail to or from the Internet and CIS. The procedure
is pretty straight forward, but I don't have it handy now. If
anyone is interested, let me know and I will mail a copy.

There is no additional charge on the CIS end.

[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: In fact, the addressing scheme is '[e-mail]'
and it is quite reliable. The first part is simply the CI$ user ID number
separated with a dot in the middle. I send copies of the Digest to a couple
people on CI$ now who prefer to receive it in their mailbox there, although
no re-distribution of the Digest is permitted at that site.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 13:06:14 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: PBX Dialing Tones (Was Re: Bay of Eagle Fiasco)
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science

In article <[e-mail]> kent wrote:
>The phone on my desk says Ameritech on it.  The designers knew that
>people expect to hear tones when they dial a push button phone, but
>they are not using tones to communicate with the PBX, so they have two
>single tones which alternate with each keystroke.

ROLM PBXen (this one at least) have one uniform tone that is sounded when any
key is pressed.  Real DTMF of fixed length and fixed intervals is sent out the
other end, though, even on a call to another phone on the PBX.

(If one dials very fast, it can take quite a while for the PBX to finish
pulsing out the tones.  It is possible to tie up a ROLM extension by calling
it and, when the other party ansers, dialing very very fast, such that the
PBX has to spend quite a while pulsing out the appropriate tones.  Even after
one hangs up, the other party *can't* until the PBX is done playing it's
measured frequencies.  (Unplugging the phone or hanging up won't work;
when the phone is plugged back in, the call-in-progress light will still be
lit, and when the phone is taken off-"hook", you will still hear that
beep-beep-beep.))

 Andrew Boardman             [e-mail]     ROLM is a four letter
(and if you really have to, ab4@cunixc on bitnet)           word.

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Automatic Collect Calls
Date: 17 Aug 89 01:52:32 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


Got a chance to play with one of those automatic collect-call machines.
I was surprised to discover that it is all done within the COCOT
itself, and the machine allows you to hear all the action with a muted
mouthpiece.

When you dial "0+NXX+NXX-XXXX", the synthesized voice says to push 1
for a collect call and 3 for any other operator assisted call. After
pushing 1, the voice prompt you for your name. The unit then dials the
call (direct) and when it thinks the other end has answered it asks the
called party, "Will you accept a collect call from [your recorded
name]? If yes, press 1, otherwise press 0 now." It will repeat one time
if there is no response and then disconnect.

This raises some interesting questions. Where is the billing
information stored for charging the called party? In the phone? By some
special arrangement with whatever carrier they use for the call? What
if the called party refuses the call? Does the COCOT owner pay for the
one-minute refusal?

It was a lot of fun playing with that phone. You would be surprised how
many hotel and motel operators will refuse a call from Donald Duck.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 89 21:34:07 -0400
From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Buffalo, Texas

In article <[e-mail]>, moxie![e-mail]
 (Greg Hackney) writes:
> If memory serves, the 497 exchange in Houston was formerly called
> Buffalo, and is now called Gypsy 7. And the 498 exchange, Alief, Texas,
> is called Gypsy 8.

I'm in the 497 exchange, and as far as I know it's still called "Buffalo".
At least that's what I see listed as the originating area on the LD section
of my bill. I'll ask my in-laws in the 498 exchange what they get.

Let's see... according to my 89/90 phone book, Buffalo consists of the
following prefixes: 293, 493, 496, 497, 531, 556, 558, 584, 596, 870.
THe 498 prefix is in the Alief exchange, along with: 495, 530, 561, 568,
575, 879, 933.

Just for reference, the 666 prefix is in the Mohawk exchange. Amusing.
---
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Business: [e-mail], [phone]. | "The sentence I am now
Personal: [e-mail].   `-_-' |  writing is the sentence
Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  |  you are now reading"


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

Date:     Wed, 16 Aug 89 20:50:47 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Split Communities

Recently, this digest has had an item about modifications to billing
algorithm in NJ to make within-community calls local if they are other-
wise long-distance.  I recall hearing in this digest back in 1983-84
that some California communities wound up split by the proposed 213/818
border, which got moved for that reason (necessitating some new phone
numbers); I never heard which communities were involved.

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

From: Harry Broomhall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London (UK) New Area Codes.
Date: 17 Aug 89 01:14:49 GMT
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Chris Johnston) writes:

>When dialing into a country from outside, the leading zero must be
>stripped off the area code.  For example dialing from Switzerland to

Unfortunatly this is *NOT* true for all countries, so beware!

(Standards?  I love standards.  There are so many of them!)

     Regards,
         Harry.
--
Automatic Disclaimer:
The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not
represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.

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

Date:     Thu, 17 Aug 89 17:06:46 EDT
From:     Ken Rossen <[e-mail]>
Subject:  1-234-5678

For those who care, Michigan Bell found those people (children especially)
curious enough to dial 1-234-5678 annoying enough to install it as a
valid number in Flint (where 234 is a valid prefix -- the original
CEdar exchange) , but with a recording to discourage such calls.  It's
been in place for at least 15 years.

When you call, the recording says:

    "You have reached 234-5678, a special test circuit.
     This call will appear on your bill if you are calling long
     distance.  This is a recording."

--
[e-mail]


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

Date: 16-AUG-1989 20:47:47.56
From: Kenneth Selling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling 800's From Outside USA

Question:  Is it possible to reach a U.S. 800 number from outside N. America
           (granted that it will no longer be toll-free)?  Could this work with
           AT&T's USA Direct service?


Ken Selling

Organization:   Wesleyan University
Internet:       [e-mail]
BITNET:         [e-mail]

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

Date:     Thu, 17 Aug 89 16:44:25 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Default Carrier On a Pay Phone

Recently, I have noticed that some Diamond State Telephone pay
phones have their default carrier noted on the instruction cards.
Apparently, some phones (not necessarily in Delaware) don't have
this feature yet, and as a result last night, I dialed 00 from
a C&P phone in Maryland and got the Sprint operator instead of
AT&T.

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

Date: 16-AUG-1989 20:45:49.50
From: Kenneth Selling <[e-mail]>
Subject: One Operator Does All

In v.9, issue 292, Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]> asks:

>  In New York City, I can dial 0 for a New York Tel operator, or 00 for a
>  long distance operator... However, up at my weekend house in NW Connecticut,
>  dialing 0 or 00 brings up the SNET operator...  Shouldn't 00 bring up the
>  AT&T operator directly?  ... Have they not completely separated from AT&T?

After the AT&T break-up, BOC's had the option of continuing to have their
operator service provided by AT&T, or setting up their own.  Many (such as
Pacific NW Bell, NY Tel) set up their own service.  To differentiate, many used
the system of:  0 (zero) = local operator : 00 (zero) (zero) = AT&T operator.
Readers have pointed out that this scheme is not universal amongst all BOC's.
Further, in recent years, other inter-LATA carriers have begun offering
operator service too, where 00 gets you your primary carrier's operator.

SNET in Connecticut was not affected by the Judge's order; it wasn't in the
Bell System, although AT&T owned a small portion of it.  It has continued with
the policy of having it's operators handle (what a novel concept!) all customer
calls, whether they are related to local or long-distance (AT&T) calls.  Accor-
ding to an SNET supervisor I spoke with, this will remain true at least through
the end of 1989, with no officially announced plans to change it in the future.

As for your weekend house in CT, think of it as a step back in time to a
simpler era when one operator (who you get by dialing 0) did it all.  Further,
if you stop at a payphone on your way up there, you will find that there is no
AOS in CT -- per state law.  Dialing 0 at any payphone will get you an SNET
operator.

Ken Selling

Organization:   Wesleyan University
Internet:       [e-mail]
BITNET:         [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #305
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 18 Aug 89 1:55:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #306
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Aug 89 01:50:08 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 306

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail  (John McCarthy)
    Re: US Sprint Rep Comments (Paul V. Flynn)
    Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop!  (Ben Ullrich)
    Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Peter da Silva)
    Last Laugh! Strikers List Demands (Letterman, via Peter Fleszar)

[Moderator's Note: This issue of the Digest is primarily devoted to
an essay by John McCarthy on the topic of FAX versus email. It is quite
lengthy, but I thought it worthy of presentation in full.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 89  1619 PDT
From: John McCarthy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail

    Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has
been in use for almost 20 years.  The widespread use of telefax is more recent.
However, unless email is freed from dependence on the networks, I predict it
will be supplanted by telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages
over telefax.  These advantages include the fact that information is
transmitted more cheaply as character streams than as images.  Multiple
addressees are readily accommodated. Moreover, messages transmitted as
character streams can be readily filed, searched, edited and used by computer
programs.

    The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email is separated
from special networks is that telefax works by using the existing telephone
network directly.  To become a telefax user, it is only necessary to buy a
telefax machine for a price between $1,000 and $5,000 (depending on features)
and to publicize one's fax number on stationery, on business cards and in
telephone directories.  Once this is done anyone in the world can communicate
with you.  No complicated network addresses and no politics to determine who is
eligible to be on what network. Telefax is already much more widely used than
email, and a Japanese industry estimate is that 5 percent of homes will have
telefax by 1995 and 50 percent by 2010.  This is with a $200 target price.

    Email could work the same way at similar costs, but because of a
mistake by DARPA about 1970, i.e. making a special-purpose, special-politics
network the main vehicle for electronic mail, it was combined with other
network uses that require higher bandwith and packet switching.

    Another mistake was UUCP.  It uses the telephone network, but three
features inherited from its use within Bell Telephone Laboratories made its
widespread adoption a blunder.

    1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX operating system
rather than using a general mail protocol.  This is only moderately serious,
because some other systems have been able to pretend to be UNIX sufficiently
well to implement the protocols.

    2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have login
privileges on the receiver.  This has resulted in a system of relaying messages
that involves gateways, polling and complicated addresses.  This results in
politics in getting connected to the gateways and causes addresses often to
fail.

    3. Today forwarding is often a service provided free and therefore of
limited expandibility.

    There has been a proliferation of networks and message services on a
variety of time-sharing utilities.  Some of them are commercial and some of
them serve various scientific disciplines and commercial activities.  The
connections between these networks require politics and often fail.  When both
commercial and noncommercial networks must interact there are complications
with charging.  A whole industry is founded on the technologically unsound
ideas of competitive special purpose networks and storage of mail on mail
computers.  It is as though there were dozens of special purpose telephone
networks and no general network.

    The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that the ``net
addresses'' are just telephone numbers.  The simple form of the command is just

                    MAIL <use>@$<telephone number>,

after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.

    The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is done with
fax.  When the receiving machine answers, the sender announces that it has a
message for <user>.  Implementing this can involve either implementation of
protocols in a user machine or a special machine that pretends to be a user of
the receiving machine or local area network.  The former involves less
hardwarebut the latter involves less modification to the operating system of
the receiving machine.

    I have heard various arguments as to why integrating electronic mail
with other network services is the right idea.  I could argue the point
theoretically, but it seems better to simply point out that telefax, which
originated more recently than electronic mail is already far more widespread
outside the computer science community.  Indeed it is often used for
communicating with someone who is thought to have an email address when
getting the forwarding connections right seems too complicated.

The World of the Future

    Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or office
supplied by the telephone companies.  The same transmission facilities will
serve telephone, picturephone, telefax, electronic mail, telnet, file transfer,
computer utilities, access to the Library of Congress, the ``National Jukebox''
and maybe even a national video jukebox.  In the meantime, different services
require different communication rates and can afford different costs to get
them.  However, current telephone rates transmit substantial messages coast-to-
coast for less than the price of a stamp.  Indeed the success of telefax, not
to speak of Federal Express, shows that people are willing to pay even higher
costs.

What about the next 20 years of email?

    There are two kinds of problems, technical and political. Guess which
is easier.

    The main technical requirement is the development of a set of point-to-
point telephone mail protocols.  Any of several existing network mail protocols
could be adapted for the purpose. Presumably the same kinds of modems and
dialers that are used for fax would be appropriate but would give better
transmission speeds.

    Perhaps the organizationally simplest solution would be to get one or
more of the various UNIX consortia to add a direct mail telephone protocol to
UUCP.  Such a protocol would allow mail to be addressed to a user-id at a
telephone number.  The computer would require a dialer and a modem with
whatever characteristics were taken as standard and it would be well to use the
same standards as have been adopted for telefax.  It mustn't require pre-
arrangement between the sending and receiving computers, and therefore cannot
involve any kind of login. Non-UNIX systems would then imitate the protocol.

    Fax has another advantage that needs to be matched and can be
overmatched.  Since fax transmits images, fully formatted documents can be
transmitted.  However, this loses the ability to edit the document.  This can
be beaten by email, provided there arises a widely used standard for
representing documents that preserves editability.

    The political problem is more difficult, because there are enormous
vested interests in the present lack of system. There are the rival electronic
mail companies.  There are the organizers of the various non-profit networks.
There are the engineers developing protocols for the various networks. I've
talked to a few of them, and intellectual arguments have remarkably little
effect.  The usual reply is, ``Don't bother me, kid, I'm busy.''

    It would be good if the ACM were to set up a committee to adopt a
telephone electronic mail standard.  However, I fear the vested interests would
be too strong, and the idea would die from being loaded with requirements for
features that could be too expensive to realize in the near future.

    Fortunately, there is free enterprise. Therefore, the most likely way
of getting direct electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of
hardware as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for connecting
to the current variety of local area networks (LANs). The most likely way for
this to be accomplished is for the makers of fax machines to offer ASCII
service as well.  This will obviate the growing practice of some users of fax
of printing out their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them back into
computer form.

    This is probably how the world will have to get rid of the
substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry.

    More generally, suppose the same need can be met either by buying a
product or subscribing to a service.  If the costs are at all close, the people
who sell the product win out over those selling the service.  Why this is so I
leave to psychologists, and experts in marketing, but I suppose it has to do
with the fact that selling services requires continual selling to keep the
customers, and this keeps the prices high.

    I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted, but I remember
a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect like expecting institutions
to behave rationally is like expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a hot
place.

    I must confess that I don't understand the relation between this
proposal and the various electronic communication standards that have been
adopted like X25 and X400.  I only note that the enormous effort put into these
standards has not resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or anything else
as widely usable as telefax.

    I am grateful for comments from many people on a version distributed
by electronic mail to various BBOARDS.

John McCarthy

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 14:48:32 EDT
From: Paul V Flynn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Rep Comments on "Billing On No Answer" and More
Reply-To: [e-mail] (paul.v.flynn)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>ATT calls are terminated on the trunk side of the telco instead of the
>line side of the telco, and in this case, ATT uses feature group C,
>which is not available to "alternative" long distance carriers due to
>the vagaries of how ATT built their network before equal access.
>Group C bypasses a few switch steps, which was one of the reasons why
>ATT calls used to get completed faster than Sprint's.  (This part of
>the explanation went over my head a bit; clearly my buddy limited his
>comments here so he could get back to work without spending too much time
>explaining this "feature group C" setup.)

I've never heard this one before.  Feature Group C access (used by AT&T)
and Feature Group D access (used by the others) are both trunk-side
connections.

What difference between Feature Group C and Feature Group D allows AT&T to have
a shorter call setup time than the other common carriers?  US Sprint makes
heavy use of access tandems, while we tend to connect directly to a local
exchange carrier's end office, but that is a business decision on US Sprint's
part, not something they are forced to do because of Feature Group D.  Can your
buddy at US Sprint explain to us what Feature Group C vs. Feature Group D has
to do with call setup time?

Paul Flynn
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop!
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:05:00 -0700
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>

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

> > Chances are your Sprint rep friend will tell you they do not have 'call
> > supervision equipment' and cannot tell when the call actually starts.  PT]

> Sprint claims that they have call supervision equipment in all areas that
> offer equal access.

> Why the continuing Sprint bashing? They aren't nearly as half-assed as
> you seem determined to present them.

How are they not half-assed??  Unless you give good reasons for the
``bashing'' to stop, there will be no motivation to do so.  And
``Claims'' by Sprint are no better than any ``bashing.''  Let's see
some real answers.


 ...ben
----
ben ullrich           consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all
sybase, inc., emeryville, ca    "When you deal with human beings, a certain
+1 (415) 596 - 3500           amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout
[e-mail]                   {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 22:05:31 -0400
From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop!

I have AT&T set up as my primary home service, with SPRINT set up as
my secondary service. That way bills for my calls on 10333 don't get
sent through the wringer. I'm pleased with Sprint and have had no problems
with them.

I used to use MCI, but after getting the runaround, and having them
charge me business rates for residential service (at that time residential
service was limited to off-peak hours, so I got a business account. The
first time I tried to use them during the day I couldn't. They refused
to credit me for the extra charges!), I'll never use them again. MCI
Mail is a different matter, though.
---
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: [e-mail], [phone]. Fun: [e-mail]. `-_-'
"Optimization is not some mystical state of grace, it is an intricate act   U
   of human labor which carries real costs and real risks." -- Tom Neff

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

Date:     Fri, 18 Aug 89 0:50:21 CDT
From: Peter Fleszar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strikers List Demands To End Walkout

[Moderator's Note: Mr. Fleszar kindly sent along this item which originally
appeared on David Letterman's 'Top Ten', and more recently in rec.arts.tv.
Thanks for a great laugh to close this issue of the Digest!   PT]

    08/08/89 Top Ten Demands of Striking Telephone Workers.

    10. Sick of getting paid in quarters.
    9. Make it illegal to answer phone "YEL-LO"
    8. Full protective clothing and breathing apparatus for guys who
        clean New York City public phones.
    7. Can refuse to repair phones shaped like cartoon cats.
    6. Right to listen in on Rob Lowe's phone conversations.
    5. Operators no longer have to make dial tone sound with their mouths.
    4. Power to send National Guard to flatten houses of people with
        funny answering machine messages.
    3. Authorization to say "Look it up yourself, you lazy sack of krud."
    2. Right to call everybody Larry, as in "Thank you for using AT&T
        Larry."
    1. Stop all the damn ringing, ringing, ringing.

[Moderator's Note: It sorta reminds me of the Lillie Tomlin routine. Say
goodnight, Larry. Wave bye-bye to little Patrick. **Just two issues of the
Digest today** so see y'uns tomorrow morning.    PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #306
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 19 Aug 89 0:38:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #307
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Aug 89 00:36:07 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 307

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Andrew Boardman)
    Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Dave Fiske)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Touring the Central Office (Dave Fiske)
    Re: Montgomery Ward Selects MCI (Eric Schnoebelen)
    Re: Reuben and Cuteness (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: Reuben and Cuteness (David Kuder)
    Re: Buffalo, Texas (Hector Myerston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 11:28:26 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science

In article <[e-mail]> it was quoth:
>N.B. The ConTel payphones around here were all tone 3 years before NY Tel
>started installing tone payphones hereabouts. NY Tel *still* has some
>dial payphones in this area!

NYT has lots of them all over New York City today!  It is my impression that
they would rather just install a new payphone rather than convert an old one.
Although I would be *extremely* suprised if there was anyplace else with a
higher density of public phones, it's still hard to find one during peak hours.

[Digression, for those that keep track of these things: repairs on my CO
were just completed this morning after the chainsaw job someone did on it
in the middle of last week.]

 Andrew Boardman             [e-mail]     ROLM is a four letter
(and if you really have to, ab4@cunixc on bitnet)           word.

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone
Date: 18 Aug 89 18:43:49 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> Sunday, August 13 marked the 100th anniversary of the invention of the pay
> phone. In 1889, William Gray obtained United States Patent # 408,709 for

Thanks, Patrick, for an interesting item.

We have a local DJ who, every summer, has people call in with the
numbers of pay phones in unusual spots which they noticed while on
vacation.  Then he calls the numbers, and, if anyone picks up, talks to
them about the weather where they are, etc.  It's kind of comical
sometimes.  I remember one time, the pay phone was out on a dock at
Cape Cod.

Anyway, what unusual spots have people seen pay phones in?

Although, it wasn't a pay phone, the most unusual spot I've seen a
working phone in was...a submarine!  At Portsmouth, NH, they have a
retired experimental submarine, the AGS Albacore, on display in a
little lagoon near Route 1.  We went on one of their little tours once,
and at some point, the guide left our group alone for a few minutes.
There was this phone in there, and it started ringing.  We didn't know
whether to answer or not, but finally one brave soul picked it up and
said "Hello".  No, it wasn't a call from CINCLANT, but someone who
wanted to know if they were open that day.

Apparently they had an extension strung out from the office to the sub.
We couldn't help but speculate on how neat it would be to call somebody
up and say "Hi, I'm calling from a submarine."

--
"ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN   Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Date: 19 Aug 89 01:46:28 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
mil (Will Martin) writes:
> This was on Risks -- thought it was worth getting into Telecom:
>
> >Date: Tue, 15 Aug 89 08:17:31 -0400
> >From: dave davis <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: Cellular Telephone Causes Airliner Fire Alarm
>
> A morning radio news report here in Washington, DC reported that a commercial
> airline crew noted a fire alarm signal from a cargo hold in mid-flight.  Upon
> returning to their originating airport, the cargo hold was examined carefully
> and no evidence of fire was found.  Apparently, a cellular telephone in a
> passenger's luggage had received an incoming call, that activated the smoke
> (I assume) detector via RF interference.

> ...As a result of this
> event, the aircraft companies may have to redesign a lot of sensors.


No. The only sensor that has to be implemented is the one that scans
the passenger baggage.

It is ILLEGAL to use electronic devices such as cellular telephones
or even Walkman-sized portable receivers on board commercial
aircraft.  It is also ILLEGAL to operate such devices on other
aircraft unless the pilot of the aircraft has determined that the
device in question does not interfere with the aircraft systems.

This part of the federal aviation regulations is chiefly aimed at
reducing the risk of interference with the navigation or
communications systems, in the interest of flight safety.  While
interference with the file alarm system may have been unexpected,
the passenger who carried a powered-up portable electronic device
aboard that aircraft is in violation of the law.  What will probably
result from this incident is not a major re-design of aircraft
systems, but better enforcement of the existing regulations.

--
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


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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touring the Central Office
Date: 18 Aug 89 18:15:55 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> > Something that every reader of this group should do is take a tour of a
> > local central office. I would kill for that opportunity now with all

When I was in college in Ithaca, NY (in the 70s), they had an open
house at the CO.  It was definitely a good time.  Strangely enough,
the staff were extremely open with us.

First, we were walked through the racks, and a technician asked one
person in the group what her phone number was.  He traced over and down
and showed her where her line was connected.  "That's your phone
number, right there."  I remember being impressed with the amount of
time they spent just checking their equipment and cabling--according to
the technician, 75% of their efforts were just spent testing.  While we
were there, a bell started ringing, and a bare light bulb mounted over
a door started flashing.  "Oh, don't worry, just a minor alarm", he
said, and ignored it.

(Of course, I also remember thinking about how little work they
performed in turning on your service--being a student, I was acutely
aware of how much it cost!)

Next, we were bussed over to a separate location, where the operators
and other staff were located.  They showed us their latest equipment
acquisition--which they seemed particularly proud of--a PPCS board
(Person-to-Person/Collect/Special, or so they told us).  This was
great, they said, because if someone were making a collect call, they
could dial the number right in, and it was displayed on the board for
the operator to see.

I remember they also told us how operators had to listen for the beeps
made when someone was inserting coins in a pay phone, and even admitted
that sometimes people put the coins in too fast for the operator to
keep track of.  I was surprised to hear them say this, since it's
almost inviting people to rip them off, but it shows how honest they
were being.  I asked how long they waited before re-assigning phone
numbers, since I had been getting a lot of calls for the previous
assignee.  They said they waited a year, but when I mentioned my
problem, they admitted that, in neighborhoods where there was high
concentration of students (obviously with a high turnover rate) they
would sometimes re-assign them in only 9 months.  Well, at least they
didn't cop out.

I wish I could remember more of what I saw, and that I had had more
knowledge then about what I did see.  But I agree, it definitely is
worth doing if the opportunity ever comes up.
--
"ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN   Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

Subject: Re: Montgomery Ward Selects MCI
Organization: JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx.
Date: 18 Aug 89 16:20:19 CDT (Fri)
From: Eric Schnoebelen <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
- On Tuesday, Montgomery Ward and Company announced that MCI had been selected
- to provide private network service to its 420 locations.
-
- Terms of the 3-year, multimillion dollar agreement were not disclosed. Wards
- said the selection followed a six month comparative test of MCI, Sprint,
- AT&T and other carriers.
-
- Montgomery Ward's corporate phone bill is approximatly *one million dollars
- per month*.
-
- I'd say MCI landed a juicy one this time.

    MCI has landed several juicy contracts recently.  Another that
they landed was the House of Representative network.  The House has
opted out of FTS 2000 ( or at least that is the word around here. )

        Now for a little bragging...  MCI has been using our (JBA
Incorporated's) Hybrid Network Design System to design voice networks
for their customers for the last three years, including the House of
Representatives, and probably Montgomery Ward's.

    The eastern regions have been most successful in using our
design system to make sales, with both of the eastern regions running
full time, and still not being able to get everything they need done
done.  ( I won't say anything about the western regions... :-)

( We also have three RBOCs, one switch manufacturer, and a network
integrator as customers.. )

    Publish this or not, as you see fit, but I felt a small need to
brag about how MCI is winning these contracts. :-)

    Eric
---
Eric Schnoebelen,            JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx.
work: [e-mail]            home: [e-mail]
        MS-DOS: The Cockroach of Operating Systems

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 01:27:16 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Supervision of Operators

[e-mail] writes in #288 about the "big brother" breathing down the
supposed necks of operators.  It's no secret that phone companies (and most
other places with similar service positions) time their operators'
performance.  But they don't, as you all but insist, get "fired" for
taking a little longer on a call.

If you're pleasant/talkative with an operator, he/she'll often take the
time to answer your question or whatever.  It's only if everyone who
called started asking for ringdowns in Rangoon that they'd get in trouble.
There's a such thing as leeway (it comes in the same package as common
sense), and operators know how much of it they have and they decide when
to use it.  They're people, understand?

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 15:38 PDT
From: David Kuder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supervision of Operators
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Kuder)
Organization: Independence Technologies, Inc. Fremont, CA

In TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 288, message 11 of 11 our moderator
writes:
>But, it is *overall* performance which counts, and not the call count being
>up or down in any specific time period. Telco management understands that
>different types of calls take varying amounts of time to handle.
>I wish some of the operators were not robotrons; but then some of
>the Business Office people are just as inflexible. The system does need
>repair, or at least some tweaking.

    Recently while riding the BART here I overheard some of the
management types discussing their day on the information switchboards.
One was apparently a supervisor of information operators, the rest were
drawn from jobs apparently not requiring interaction with customers.*
The non-operator types complained about the performance montinoring
display on their station.  It apparently showed how many calls had been
handled in a given time.  The supervisor quickly explained the key
sequence to clear the number saying that he disliked how poorly he did
these days.

   On the evening news the other day they interviewed a PacBell speech
writer filling in as an operator.  He wasn't too happy about it, but I
bet if they paid their operators as well as their speech writers there
wouldn't be a strike.
--
____*_  David A. Kuder              {sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david
\  / /  Independence Technologies
 \/ /   42705 Lawrence Place        FAX: [phone]
  \/    Fremont, CA 94538           Voice: 415 438-2003


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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 18 Aug 89  09:08 PST
Subject: Re:  Buffalo, Texas
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]

Maybe EVERYBODY is right.  What is Central Office is called depends
largely on who you talk to and what you are talking about.  Some
(maybe not all) variations:

     o  Base/Control Group.  What the engineers call it.  Used to be
        assigned by Western Electric.  Base unique to location,
        control group to switching entity.  Form XXXX-CX as in
        6A97-C4 equals a 1AESS in LA Grand (see below)
     o  Common Language ID.  A combination of the place name
        contracted (they spell out how) and, if necessary, a number.
        PLALCA02 equals Palo Alto, California 02.  I >think< that
        this is where the billing location comes from.
     o  Street Address.  Used mostly by sales and support people and
        those who work there.  666 Howard is an example.
     o  The old exchange name like CEDAR 2 or whatever. Popularly
        used by oldtimers for oldtime offices.  The modern equivalent
        of just the NXX is seldom used since modern machines can
        support multiple 10K groups with unrelated NXX codes.

Maybe there are still more variations out there.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #307
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 19 Aug 89 1:36:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #308
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Aug 89 01:25:38 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 308

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: International Access Codes Around the World (Dan Sahlin)
    Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Mike Trout)
    Re: Automatic Collect Calls (Dave Fiske)
    Re: Dial-A Services in Rochester, NY (Dave Esan)
    Re: Taconic Tel (John R. Levine)
    Re: Types of Service (Dave Fiske)
    Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa (Marvin Jones)
    Re: Discerning Your LD Carrier (Mike Morris)
    Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Richard R. Grady, Jr)
    Re: Calling 800's From Outside USA (Henry Mensch)
    Payphones/Earthquakes (Kathleen Creighton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Access Codes Around the World
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 11:04:15 GMT

Sweden will before the year 2000 change the international direct dial code
from 009 to 00. So will probably most other countries in Europe, thereby
following international recommendations.
Sweden will also prepare to use the 11x number for emergency calls etc.
We now use 90000 for emergency call. This also follows international
recommendations. This change may take much longer time as it effects
houndreds of thousands of subscribers whose numbers start with 1.

    /Dan Sahlin, email: [e-mail]

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public
Date: 18 Aug 89 18:41:47 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


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

> >Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are
> >lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take
> >Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)).

> You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect
> on safety.  In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_,
> the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has
> continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation.
> The truth is not that airline deregulation has led to "enormously
> higher risks"; rather, deregulation has had little effect on the
> historically increasing airline safety level.

Examining one set of statistics reported by one news organization proves
little.  Airline safety statistics can be used to prove that safety has never
been better, that it has never been worse, and everything in between.  Serious,
scholarly questions, with substantiation in fact, HAVE been raised regarding
the effect of deregulation upon airline safety.  Note the recent FAA special
safety exam of Eastern, in which it was stated that although there were no
specific safety problems worth citation now, it was inevitable that such
problems would develop in the future.  Let's keep this forum for the
discussion of telecommunications, and leave airline safety to the experts in
that field.

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

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automatic Collect Calls
Date: 18 Aug 89 19:22:42 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY

In article <[e-mail]>, zygot![e-mail]
(John Higdon) writes:
> It was a lot of fun playing with that phone. You would be surprised how
> many hotel and motel operators will refuse a call from Donald Duck.

Hmmm.  How about Person-to-Person calls TO Donald Duck?
--
"ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN   Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial-A Services in Rochester, NY
Date: 18 Aug 89 14:47:03 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY

%X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 259, message 6 of 10
%According to the White Pages in Rochester, New York (area code 716):
%        Dial A Yuk              546-5233
%[Moderator's Note: I refuse to ask what a Yuk is. I refuse to ask! What
%do I care? So don't tell me. When I guess at these things I wind up either
%offending the Orthodox Jews or the gay athiests. I won't guess at it. PT]

There is a chain of comedy clubs called "Yuk-Yuks", in Rochester. The address
for Yuk-Yuk's and Dial-A-Yuk is the same.

 -->        David Esan                rochester!moscom!de

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

From: "John R. Levine" <esegue![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Taconic Tel
Reply-To: John Levine <esegue![e-mail]>
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 22:35:11 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>It turned out that you had to dial 11+NPA+#.  I checked it in
>the Taconic phone book, and it described it as "1 + DDD Code + Area Code + #"
>I always thought that the initial "1" was the DDD code in itself.  Why on
>earth would the exchange want TWO of them?

The second "1" is what in some parts is called a circle digit.  Different
parties on the same part line have different circle digits to identify who
is making the call.  I guess it's too hard to tell the exchange that party
lines dial differently from private lines, so all private lines have a
circle digit of 1.  AT&T never seemed to take to circle digits, they always
had an operator cut in and ask for the number you were calling from.
--
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
{ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, [e-mail], [e-mail]
Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old.  -The Globe

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Types of Service
Date: 18 Aug 89 19:00:12 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Roy Smith) writes:
>     I used to think it was outrageous what TPC charged for service
> changes when all it involved was throwing a few switches (or, more likely,

Or better yet, the infamous "Record Order Change".  In what other
industry is the customer required to pay for the paperwork required to
fulfill his or her request?

Or how about the old "once-in-a-lifetime" charge for a color phone?
I've read there was no cost justification for that (other than greed).

I do think the phone companies did a remarkable job in developing a
reliable phone system over the years, but I also believe that to some
degree they accomplished this with money that came from "padded" bills
paid by customers.

There's a fascinating book called The Phone Book, written by a
disgruntled phone executive.  I don't buy everything he wrote,
considering his bias, but he does discuss some of these "scams".
Of course, divestiture has changed the picture so much that the book is
mainly of historical interest now.
--
"ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN   Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

From: Marvin Jones <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa
Date: 18 Aug 89 16:56:23 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu writes:
> Speaking of US West (somebody was...), I was just in their area this past
> week.  I noticed that payphones cost $.35 for a local call. Is that something
> just peculiar to Iowa or is it a sweeping trend I'll have to deal with all
> the time soon?

What's wrong with this picture?

Iowa is served by SouthWestern Bell.  I grew up there;  my uncle worked for SW
Bell.  I'm quite sure this hasn't changed in the past 10 yrs.  :-)

Must have been a private pay phone ... which may account for the price, also.

--
    Marvin Jones         {pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!jones
    Optilink Corp.          ATT-net:  707-795-9444 X 206
    1310 C Redwood Way      CI$:        71320,3637
    Petaluma, CA  94952

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 10:27:20 PDT
From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Discerning Your LD Carrier

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 300, message 5 of 8
>X-Originally-From: Ed Jones, National Public Radio (via John R. Covert)

>[Moderator's Note: John Covert kindly passed along this note he received,
>and the one following. PT]
>Please, PT, don't encourage readers to dial 700-555-1212 to find out which
>Default Carrier is in use on a line.  I made that mistake once, and good
>old Ches. & Pot. billed me $.50 for a Directory Assistance call (yes, I
>know it doesn't exist, but tell that to their software).
>
>The correct number is 700-555- 4 1 4 1.

I did the same thing a while back, not knowing any better.
I received a 50 cent charge on my bill and called the business office.
The conversation went something like:

me: <I protested 50 cent charge>
her: Well, you called 700-information...
me: Please put me on hold, and try that number.
her: OK
<wait><scratchy, off frequency music on hold>
her: thats not information!
me: then why was I charged?
her: it's a computer error.
me: sounds like a programming error to me.
her: same thing.  You got charged.  I'm going to take it off the bill.
me: Thanks.
her: bye <click>

I've not tried it recently to see if the data base has been fixed.
I still feel that long distance information should be free to residential
customers, and local should be charged _only if it is in the book_.
WHy should I have to keep 4 feet of shelf space reserved for the LA phone
books?  ANd have to pay for the books out of my area as well?

--
Mike Morris
UUCP: [e-mail]
#Include quote.cute.standard   | The opinions above probably do not even come
cat flames.all > /dev/null     | close to those of my employer(s), if any.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 09:43:48 EDT
From: "Richard R Grady, Jr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (richard.r.grady..jr)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> [...]   In the late sixties, most payphones were
>charging fifteen or twenty cents per call. The price has been twenty-five
>cents in most places now for several years.


Payphones still cost a dime in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Dick Grady              [e-mail]             ...!att!mvuxd!r4
The above opinions are mine, and not necessarily those of my employer.

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

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 16:37:04 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 800's From Outside USA
Reply-To: [e-mail]

It's not possible  with USA Direct (I've tried this while I was living
in Australia ...)

# Henry Mensch   /   <[e-mail]>   /   E40-379 MIT,  Cambridge, MA
# <[e-mail]-relay> / <[e-mail]> / <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 05:48:21 pdt
From: Kathleen Creighton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay Phones/Earthquakes

I saw "Surviving the Big One" produced by KCET (PBS) in Los Angeles and
narrated by an LA fireman.  One of the statements he made was that in the
event of a major earthquake which disrupts local phone service, we would
still be able to call *out of state* via pay phones.  He recommended,
therefore, that California residents make use of (and let other people in
the family know about) an out-of-state contact who would then relay
information to others calling in.

As a San Francisco resident, this whole problem of communication in the
event of a major earthquake concerns me but I have *never* heard of the
supposed availability of pay phone communication in such event.  Can
someone clear this up for me?

(As an aside, he also said that the telco can only tolerate 10% of its
pay phones being offhook at the same time so when you see a pay phone
offhook after an earthquake, hang it up.)
             ======================================

[Moderator's Note: I am not sure why the *in-state/out-of-state* distinction
was made. Did the commentator somehow feel that central offices handling
long distance calls were somehow more immune to earthquakes or other problems?

And likewise, why did he think payphones were more reliable? A payphone
inside a building which has collapsed is just as damaged as a private phone
therein. The wires leading to/from them are as easily damaged; by an earthquake
at least if not necessarily human vandals.

Regards hanging up phones left off hook, that is a gracious thing to do.
All telcos are able to provide simulataneous service to only about ten or
fifteen percent of their customers at one time; and an even smaller number
can be offered dial tone at the same time. This is not a condition attributable
just to coin phones. When all circuits/switching equipment/dial tone generators
are busy, other customers sit with a 'dead' phone at their ear waiting.

Actually, the worst thing anyone can do in a time of national emergency
is jump on the phone. Stay off if possible. The night Martin King was
asassinated in April, 1968, nearly everyone in the Chicago-Monroe CO went
off hook at the same time. It damn near ruined the switch, which never did
work right after that. Remember, stay off the phone so that people who must
use it for emergency duties can do so without delay. If necessary, the CO
*can* shut off service to all but emergency numbers if desired. On Pearl
Harbor Day, Sunday, December 7, 1941, the (then mostly manual) phone system
in Chicago was so overtaxed that beginning at 1:00 PM that day the
operators answered everyone who went off hook by saying "Emergency calls
only! No other calls are being handled now..."  And until about 10 PM that
night, *no one* could use the phone except as emergencies dictated.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #308
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 19 Aug 89 2:21:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #309
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Aug 89 02:15:08 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 309

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Charles Daffinger)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Mike Trout)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Lawrence M. Geary)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Bob Frankston)
    Is Calling Party ID in Northern Virginia? (John Kennedy)
    Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Dave Fiske)
    National Views of Access Codes (Mark Brader)
    Area Code 908 (Kenneth R. Jongsma)

[Moderator's Note: As to be expected, the message on Calling Party ID a
few issues ago got many people stirred up on this controversial topic
once again. This issue of the Digest is devoted mostly to responses
received on this topic in the past two days.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Charles Daffinger <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Aug 89 02:45:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Charles Daffinger)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <[e-mail]> bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw.
cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) writes:
> [...]
>And if we can stop these obscene phone calls without getting Big Brother
>involved, more power to Caller ID.  Since it's now technically feasible,
>let's do it.  In 10 years people will wonder how they ever got along without
>it.  Secretaries can get written or digital record of who calls, without
>getting numbers mixed up.  All kinds of other benefits present themselves.

>Just because something is new doesn't mean it's bad.

My second line is unpublished and unlisted for a reason.  I don't want
other people to have it.  Not secretaries, not friends... nobody.
According to a posting in the Digest a while ago, ATT goes to great lengths
to protect the privacy of such a number.  If it were to show up on the
screen of whomever I'm calling, that would be silly, would it not?

Something which *could* be acceptable to some may be the option of
using some kind of an alternate code for those who so desire.  Thus,
instead of your unlisted/unpublished number appearing on the screen of
the receiver of the call, an alternative code (certainly a
non-telephone number) would appear.  This identification number would
be unique and associated with your particular number.  If somebody has an
unlisted/unpublished phone number then this associated number is
treated in the same way as the phone number:  with the same level of
confidentiality.

This way, when you make a call people can identify *who* is making the call
once they know that number comes up when you call, while preserving the
privacy of your telephone number.

In the case of harrassing phone calls from unlisted/unpublished numbers
using such a feature, the telephone company could cross-reference the
code for the harrassing calls with its telephone logs.  If indeed these
match, the telephone company alone can easily find the phone from which
these calls originated.

But then, the harrasser could be from a pay phone...

-charles

--
Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]              {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 18 Aug 89 17:09:25 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw.
cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) writes:

> If Abner Doubleday had decided on a pentagon shape instead of a diamond shape
> (and it had caught on!) do you think major league baseball would reshape
> their playing fields because someone thought it was better to have three
> bases and a home plate?  No.  It would require adjustments in expectations
> from coaches, players, talent coaches, and everyone.

This is a minor quibble, but Abner Doubleday did not decide on a diamond shape,
nor did he have very much to do with the design and development of baseball.
Baseball as we know it evolved from cricket, rounders, and the New York Game,
and took its basic present form before Doubleday began publicizing it.  A
pentagon shape (or any other major difference) would result in such a
drastically different game that it's hard to imagine its survival.

> In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that
> when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of
> where the call is originating.  Simple solution: have a public agency such
> as the police place the call.  No invasion of privacy, no danger to the
> bettered women.  Just a *different* way of looking at things.

Sounds good, but you're asking a battered woman--who has been through an event
of unimaginable trauma--to behave rationally and with logic.  This requires her
to ASK the police or ASK the shelter to ask the police to make the call for
her.  It's just as likely that in her emotional turmoil, she'll just go and
make the call without thinking about potential consequences.  She HAS been
married to (or living with) this jerk for some time, and regardless of how much
she may fear or loathe him, she also has deep within her some positive feelings
for him.  If there are children involved, the psychological entanglements get
even messier.  Remember--"when dealing with human beings, a certain amount of
nonsense is inevitable."

--
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

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

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 14:39:45 EDT
From: Lawrence M Geary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary)

When I first heard of Caller ID, and realized that the phone company
would be sending my phone number to callers without my permission,
and without giving me the opportunity to stop it, I was outraged.

Now I've been on the receiving end of enough annoying phone calls to
change my mind. I want Caller ID.

Just the other day, I was involved in some matters of personal hygiene
when the phone rang. I didn't want the answering machine to get it
because I was expecting a call and had been playing telephone tag for
days. I rushed to the phone and caught it in time. It was the obscene
caller; the one who dials number after number in the night; if a male
answers, he hangs up instantly; but if a female answers he goes into
his routine. I want to stop this creep from ever invading my home again.
I want Caller ID.

Then there are the charitable organizations I once supported until they
hired phone banks and started asking me for "an extra special contribution".
And calling me at dinner time, or late at night. And they won't take "No"
for an answer. $6.50/month is a small price to get them off my back.

There are also new features possible with Caller ID. How about a telephone
that can be programmed to give certain numbers a distinctive ring? How
about a call forwarding or voice mail service that lets you single out
particular numbers for different treatment? Or an answering machine that
records calls from thosse people who never leave messages? How about
blocking calls on your FAX line from junk FAXers? The central office can
do some of these things now. With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box
from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee.

The privacy issue is real, and there could be abuses. But I've changed
my mind and feel Caller ID is a good thing, and I will get it when I can.
--

     [e-mail]    Think globally ... Post locally    att!hoqax!lmg

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

From: Bob Frankston (BFrankston) <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 89 11:11:35 EDT

I presume I will be one of many respondants pointing out that just because
something is old it is good.  Remember that rights themselves were not part of
the constitution -- the bill of rights was a last minute patch.

The right to privacy is controversial in that many see it as implied by the
Bill of Rights and others say that any new (since 1800 or so) technique for
invading privacy is good.  When I was in junior high school I was told that
writing to a Socialist (ok, Communist) embassy caused the FBI to start a file
on you (the Joe McCarthy way of doing things for those old enough).

What good is privacy if the mere act of placing a phone call, writing a letter,
or using a credit card is equivalent to publishing your thoughts.  There is no
right of free association if it is closely monitored.

I very much want the caller ID feature, but the caller must be provided with
safeguards.  It is not sufficient to say that prefixing a call with *999
provides privacy -- it must be possible to make that a default on a line and to
provide legal responsibility if the number gets disclosed through the phone
company's negligence.  In the battered shelter case, there can be a cost
associated with disclosing the number.

Bob Frankston

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

Date: 18 Aug 89 12:17:24 GMT
From: John Kennedy <opel![e-mail]>
Subject: Is Calling Party ID in Northern Virginia?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Kennedy)
Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD

The Arlington County, Va. cable company has just announced a new feature for
pay-per-view.  You dial 810-00xx, where xx is the premium channel you want to
watch. It then responds with "verify your channel now" or "this phone number
is not authorized for this service."

It sure seems that they know who's calling.  Does this mean that C&P has
implemented Calling Party ID there, or do they have some other arrangement?


John Kennedy                     [e-mail]
Second Source, Inc.
Annapolis, MD

[Moderator's Note: Actually John, *all telcos* have Calling Party ID for
their own internal use; at least most of them do. They just don't *tell
you* the operator sees your number on the CRT when handling your call, etc.
Emergency 911 service is another example of Caller ID in action. And the
telcos are required to pass your number (as well as your name and address)
to any long distance carrier which handles a call for you. When dialing
an 800 number (or some variant thereof, such as '950-xxxx', your number
is passed to the organization paying for the call. It might well be that
in your town, '810-xxxx' is an automatic reverse billing prefix and the
cable company pays for all calls to those numbers, in which case they would
indeed get your number. But services like that are not really what the
Caller ID stink is all about.  PT]

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls
Date: 18 Aug 89 18:32:35 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes:
> The following article appeared on page 1 of the New York Times,
> Saturday, 8/5/89. (copyright 1989 New York Times)
>
> Harrassing Calls Show Decline When Phones Identify Callers
>   by Calvin Sims
>
>    The number of obscene or harassing telephone calls has fallen sharply
> in the first test of a system that allows people to see the number of the
> phone the call was dialed on before they answer.

I have no doubt that this is true, but this is not the only way the
phone company can deal with problem calls.  They've had those "black
boxes" for years, enabling them to keep a line open in order to trace
a call.  Over ten years ago, a friend of my mother's was getting
nuisance calls in the middle of the night.  After a  number of
occurrences, the phone company gave her one of these devices, and the
next time there was a call, they traced it, and the police ended up
knocking on the guy's door not too much later.  I guess he was pretty
surprised.  However, of course it turned out to be an ex-lover, so my
guess is that in most cases, an educated guess would lead you to the
culprit.

Also, someone once told me that the phone company had given them the
following strategy for nuisance calls.  Tap the receiver so it sounds
like a couple of clicks, then say "Operator, this is the call I want
you to trace."  I think this would probably be enough to scare off the
"casual" prankster.

There was a neat story here maybe five or six years ago.  Apparently
the phones at the White House are (or at least were) constantly
equipped with tracing devices, so that any threatening calls can be
traced immediately.  Seems this local high school student was showing
off or something, called the White House from a pay phone at the Cohoes
High School, and made some kind of vague threat.  Well, the call was
traced immediately to that pay phone, the Secret Service called their
office in Albany, who contacted the Sheriff's Office.  They dashed
over to the school, asked a few people if they'd seen anybody using
the pay phone, and confronted the offending student--all within 45
minutes!   You can imagine, that student was pretty impressed with
the response.
--
"ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN   Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Views of Access Codes
Date:     Fri, 18 Aug 89 01:14:16 EDT

A few weeks ago I asked four questions.  There were some posted articles
and I also received some email.  I summarize:

1. France seems to be the only country outside North America where what
   we call the access code is not considered part of the phone number.
2. There seems to be no country outside North America that allows customer-
   dialed, operator-assisted long distance calls.
3. There seems to be no country outside North America that uses 1 as an
   access code; France uses 16.
4. There's no correlation between unusual dials and unusual access codes.

Thanks to those who responded.

--
Mark Brader            "...out of the dark coffee-stained mugs of
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto             insane programmers throughout the world..."
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                -- Lee R. Quin


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Area Code 908
Date: Fri, 18-Aug-89 08:01:17 PDT

I can't remember if this was mentioned yet, so please induldge me if
it was! The following came from a recent issue of Communications Week:

  New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. plans to create a new area code in New Jersey
come June 8, 1991. Under the plan, the area code 908 will be established
for Huntertown, middlesex, Monmouth, Somerset, Union and Warren counties
and part of Ocean county.

  The counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Passaic, Sussex and most of Morris
will remain in the 201 area code, according to Bell Atlantic. No changes are
planned for the 609 area code.

  Beginning January 1, 1990, calls into the 201 area code will be completed
with either the 201 or 908 area code.

[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #309
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 20 Aug 89 1:31:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #310
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Aug 89 01:30:07 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 310

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Call*Trace, Call*Block, Caller*ID (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    10288 From a Payphone (Lawrence M. Geary)
    Suncom Network in Florida? (Carl Moore)
    What Is Involved In Getting a 900 or 976 Number? (Mike Morris)
    Re: Pay Phones/Earthquakes (David Lesher)
    Bellcore Publications Phone Number (Wayne Hamilton)
    Re: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism (Wolf Paul)
    Re: Help Needed With Voicemail System (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (Bob Frankston)
    Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (Roy Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 17:47:44 EDT
From: Michael Scott Baldwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call*Trace, Call*Block, Caller*ID
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

You can deal with nuisance calls effectively without revealing phone #'s.
I have Caller*ID (NJ Bell puts the cute asterisk in the name) here in
Morristown, but I can also get Call*Block, which prevents the last caller
from calling me again, and Call*Trace, which sends the last caller's phone
number to the local office.  Neither lets me know the phone number myself.
You don't need black boxes or prior arrangement, of course.

Call*Repeat and Call*Return are amusing: they retry either the last number
I dialed (repeat) or that dialed me (return).  With Caller*ID and a redial
button on the phone, neither of these seem to be any use.  But -- if the
other party is busy, it will keep trying the number for 1/2 hour until it
gets through (my phone's not tied up by this).  I get a distinctive ring
and if I answer it, it will ring the other number.

Because the service coverage is small (some exchanges in NJ, none inter-lata)
and uneven (even some exchanges in Morristown don't work), it's not as useful
as it could be, but I like it anyway.  Now I want to get a computer interface
for my unit and a voice synthesizer so that it will announce who's calling
instead of ringing.

I'm not sure, but I think that NJ Bell will be putting a funny mark in the
White Pages beside any phone number that has Caller*ID.

--
[e-mail] (bell laboratories)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 14:54:11 EDT
From: Lawrence M Geary <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10288 From a Payphone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary)

I recently tried to make a call using 10288 from the Dunes hotel in
Las Vegas. The hotel blocked 10288 access from the room phones. (And
the hotel operator lied about how to reach AT&T, giving me a sequence
that connected me to an AOS called "OSW".) They also denied access to
10288 from PAY telephones located on the premises. I had to leave the
complex and walk down the street to make my call.

Question: Is this legal?
--

     [e-mail]    Think globally ... Post locally    att!hoqax!lmg

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

Date:     Fri, 18 Aug 89 17:18:57 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Suncom Network in Florida?

I often scan through addresses & phone numbers to learn the system,
not necessarily to call, write, or visit.  Thus, I came across an
ad recently indicating the A. G. Holley State Hospital in Lantana,
Florida 33465 (apparently near West Palm Beach), and it gave a number
to call:  (407)582-xxxx Suncom, 228-xxxx (keeping the last 4 digits
the same).  How many such networks are there?  (I have heard of, but
not made a formal list of: Autovon, FTS, Cornet, DTN, and there's some-
thing in California whose name I can't put my finger on right now.)

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Is Involved In Getting a 900 or 976 Number?
Date: 19 Aug 89 07:00:34 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


A friend of mine is currently providing a dial-up service using regular
phone lines and a couple cheap answering machines.  I'm curious -
what is involved in getting a couple 900- or <ac>-976- lines?

Mike Morris
UUCP: [e-mail]
#Include quote.cute.standard   | The opinions above probably do not even come
cat flames.all > /dev/null     | close to those of my employer(s), if any.

[Moderator's Note: To get a 976 number from Illinois Bell, for starters
you drop off an application for same at their office accompanied by a
Cashier's Check for $2000. You must have another phone line in addition
to the 976 number. 976 is a prefix in the downtown area only. You must have
an office downtown where it can be installed. Recordings are limited to
57 seconds. You set the rate to be charged; telco gets half of it. There
is a minimum number of calls per day required -- at least a thousand --
and you agree to pay Bell for any shortfall under that number. For example,
you charge 50 cents per call. Bell gets 25 cents. If you miss the minimum
number of calls required by 100, then you owe Bell (100 x .25 = $25.00).
No adult subject matter and no interactive conversation is permitted on
976 in Chicago. Illinois Bell does not operate 900 service here; it is
all outside vendors, and mostly monopolized by the Nine Hundred Service
Corporation. After your application for a 976 number is approved, allow
about six weeks for connection. And one more thing: you agree to accept
chargebacks -- as approved by Bell -- for any uncollectibles. Uncollectibles
are people who move without paying their phone bill; establish connection
via fraudulent schemes so that an innocent third party is billed and then
protests; and 'one time goodwill writeoffs' for people whose bratty children
ran the phone bill up without the parent's knowledge. What a deal!  Of
course you do get the benefit of easy collection from your listeners who
get charged on their phone bill, and most of the time they pay.  PT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phones/Earthquakes
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 11:09:25 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>

> Actually, the worst thing anyone can do in a time of national emergency
> is jump on the phone.

FTS was created for this very reason. Seems during the height of the Cuban
Missile Crisis, JFK couldn't get a dial tone, so FTS used excess capacity at
four (I think) rural CO's, one of which was in northern MD. With it, of course,
you CAN get a dial tone. You just can't get a call to connect, or if it does,
you can't hear.

--
Flash! Murphy gets look and feel copyright on sendmail.cf
  {gatech!} [e-mail] (305) 255-RTFM

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

Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 04:25:44 -0500
From: Wayne Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore Publications Phone Number

>[Moderator's Note: I know. It was only after I put the Digest in the
>mail yesterday morning and had gone to bed that I lay there and realized
>it was the *Bellcore* phone number which was wrong -- not the AT&T Customer
>Information number. We are still looking for the Bellcore number, I assume.
>Sorry about that.   PT]

Back in June I talked to the Bellcore Publications "Hotline" at
[phone].  Is that the number in question?

    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: Wolf Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mich Bell Strike Brings Vandalism
Date: 18 Aug 89 11:59:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx

In article <[e-mail] [e-mail]
writes:
>[e-mail] (Bob Leffler) writes:
>>The union denies that any of their members has anything to do with this
>>incident.  My personal opinion is that the timing is too close to
>>the strike to not be a disgrutled employee.
>
>It is very rare for unions to encourage or know of any activities like this
>by individual members. Unfortunately, people who already have strong
>anti-union sentiments use incidents like this to cast shadows on unions and
>union activity
>in general.  Management has done these type of things far more often than
>unions, just to try to make unions look bad, which helps management to break
>unions and further exploit workers.

>Followups via email please.

There was a time in labor relations when both unions and management engaged
in these kinds of tactics; if you maintain that management still uses these
as widely as you seem to imply, you ought to back it up with some statistics,
not just make a statement like this.

It could well have been a disgruntled employee, without the union being
aware of it or having encouraged it.

As someone else pointed out, the Baby Bells really have nothing to lose:
People are still using the phones, while they are paying fewer employees,
and if the service deteriorates, that's all right, people have nowhere else
to turn anyway. Therefore I do not see the Baby Bells using such drastic and
potentially backfiring tactics. We're talking federal offense here.

And b.t.w: having made a controversial statement, don't try to discourage
public discussion of it by redirecting to email. That's a cop-out.

--
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * [phone]
UUCP:   {texbell, attctc, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp
DOMAIN: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
        NOTICE: As of July 3, 1989, "killer" has become "attctc".

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With Voicemail System
Date: 18 Aug 89 01:46:37 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(L. J. Judice (DTN: 323-4103 FAX: [phone])) writes:
> Our office has recently installed an ASPEN (Octel Communications) Voicemail
> system. The mode of operation is for users to BUSY/DA FORWARD their phones
> (on an AT&T DIMENSION) to the ASPEN's incoming hunt group.
>
>         o When you call from an outside telephone, you are connected
>                    to ASPEN, and to the voicemail-box associated with the
>                 extension you were dialing. So, for example if you call me
>                 at 201-xxx-xxxx, you will get "hello this is lou...."
>
>         o But, when you call from an extention inside the facility,
>           you get the ASPEN main menu. This makes life a bit
>           annoying since you have to dial someone, wait for them
>           not to answer, wait for ASPEN to pick up and then
>           dial the extension AGAIN!

> I am confused. I assume DIMENSION has no Calling Extension ID, so that
> explains why it can't transfer to the right voicemailbox. But when
> dialing from outside, is it safe to assume the CO has CLID, and that
> THIS is what is used to make the association?

What your Dimension(tm) PBX has are DID (Direct Inward Dialing)
trunks.  That's what makes it possible for me to call you by dialing
your 201-xxx-xxxx number and directly reaching your own extension.
The central office is transmitting the last four digits of the
dialed number toward the PBX.

When the ASPEN system was added, they also added a device that sits
between the DID trunk and the Dimension PBX.  This device (most
probably a DigiTrap(tm) made by a company whose name I've forgotten
in Minnesota) records the digits sent by the CO toward the PBX.  It
stores them for the duration of the call.  (It also passes them
through to the PBX).

When the ASPEN system answers a call, it transmits a special in-band
signal toward the trunk.  This signal activates the DigiTrap, which
temporarily splits the trunk from the PBX, transmits the digits it
stored toward the PBX (and toward the ASPEN box), and then
reconnects the trunk to the PBX.  The ASPEN thereby obtains the
DID code of the dialed call.  This doesn't work on internal calls
because no DID trunk is involved.  The internal caller may, instead,
hear a brief spurt of touch-tone-like signaling before the ASPEN
device answers, as it tries to query the DigiTrap that isn't there.

To see if this is really what's happening, answer an incoming call.
Transfer the call to another extension (or forward your phone to
another extension) and let that extension go un-answered or be busy.
The ASPEN should get the original dialed number from the DigiTrap,
and take a message for the originally-dialed extension -- not the
one to whom the call was actually routed!

Despite these limitations of the technology, the DigiTrap makes
reasonably feature-rich automated call coverage available to older
PBX's that weren't designed with such capabilities in mind.

--
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


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

From: Bob Frankston (BFrankston) <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 14:11:59 EDT

Though I too am frustrated by the slow adoption of electronic mail,
the reason that FAX is winning at the moment is that it is simply
much much easier to use.  You plunk down $1k or less, plug it into
the wall, and stick a piece of paper in.  That is about the same as
pressing play on a VCR.  (I know that the VCR has all those other
buttons, but I'm pleased that people have learned they can ignore
them instead of having to learn them).  The situation is the same for
voice mail -- you just leave a message.  Never mind that it is a pain
for the listener; most people don't know how much better it should be
in terms of message management.

Electronic mail needs similar ease of use.  That is why I implemented
Lotus Express so that email would be part of my PC in the background
always available.

A second requirement is ubiquity.  Creating a transport and the
subsequent development of SMTP, primitive though it is, was a
necessary step in this direction.  It used existing equipment --
requiring new equipment in 1970 just wasn't feasible.  Even now, the
current phone network is barely up to the task of supporting FAX.
Many machines do not have their own addresses (nee phone number).

The good news is that the telcos are becoming more aware of this.
X.400 provides an email transport and ISDN is a step towards a next
generation phone network that treats voice as one form of data with
X.400 providing a multimedia store and forward capability and X.500
automating directory assistance.

The process will be instantaneous by telco standards (less than 40
years).  Fax can be coopted by treating the FAX machine as an X.400
user agent and treating a FAX phone number as someone's email
address.  The FAX message would arrive as an X.400 body part.  There
is already a service that will take faxes sent to you, OCR them and
deliver them as MCI mail.

In summary, it is taking a lot longer than I'd like but there is an
inevitability of email.  Remember CB?  It still exists but cellular
phones are much more effective for messaging.


Bob Frankston

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

From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone
Date: 19 Aug 89 00:47:40 GMT
Reply-To: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)


    My recollection is that pay phones in Mexico City are free!
Partly, I guess, because they can't keep up with the constantly changing
coinage as inflation takes its toll (if this were RISKS instead of TELECOM,
I'm sure the moderator would find some pun to make of that).

--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- [e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #310
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 20 Aug 89 2:16:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #311
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Aug 89 02:15:51 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 311

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: International Access Codes Around the World (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Mike Morris)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Ken Dykes)
    Re: Gas Cylinders (John DeBert)
    Re: Gas Cylinders (Roy Smith)
    Re: Error In Earlier Message (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Touring the Central Office (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: AT&T Mail and the Internet (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Automated Collect Calls From COCOTs (David Tamkin)
    Re: Pay Phones/Earthquakes (Chris Schmandt)

Moderator's Note: I am sorry to report a message was lost and the sender
will need to retransmit it. The message, entitled "The First Advertisement"
discussed the original ad placed by Alex Bell describing the use of the
telephone. Sorry, I don't have the senders name. Please retransmit!  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 17:31:12 EDT
From: Michael Scott Baldwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Access Codes Around the World
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


* Why is 00 more logical than 009 (or 011 in Canada and the US), or 0011
* (in Australia)?
> 00, whether more logical or not is certainly the most widespread, at
> least in Europe and the Med.

It's because 00 is recommended by CCITT as the international prefix.

| When dialing into a country from outside, the leading zero must be
| stripped off the area code.

Strictly speaking, that 0 isn't part of the area code (called `trunk code'
by CCITT); it's the trunk prefix code.  Again, CCITT recommends using 0.
Some confusion might be caused by the CCITT national number format, which is

    (trunk code) subscriber number
or    (trunk prefix + code) subscriber number

In the USA, we never put the trunk prefix in the parens, but other countries
often do; thus, (020) 22 88 28 in Amsterdam is really trunk code 20.  The trunk
prefix is never dialed in international dialing.

The E.100 series of CCITT recommendations talks about this stuff.
--
[e-mail] (bell laboratories)

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 19 Aug 89 22:46:20 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>

(Charles Daffinger) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 309, message 1 of 8
>(Bill Nickless) writes:
>> [...]
>> ... lists some of the benefits of caller ID feature...
>
> ... talks about his desire to keep his second line number private...
>...  If it were to show up on the
>screen of whomever I'm calling, that would be silly, would it not?

>Something which *could* be acceptable to some may be the option of
>using some kind of an alternate code for those who so desire.  Thus,
>instead of your unlisted/unpublished number appearing on the screen of
>the receiver of the call, an alternative code (certainly a
>non-telephone number) would appear.  This identification number would
>be unique and associated with your particular number.  If somebody has an
>unlisted/unpublished phone number then this associated number is
>treated in the same way as the phone number:  with the same level of
>confidentiality.

I think this is going to be a necessity.  I have 2 lines here in the house,
soon to be 3.  Only one is listed - and I've had that number since 1965.
I've given out the modem line number to maybe 4 people in the time I've had
it, and that was when somebody wanted to download something.  The _only_
calls I get on teh modem line are solicitors.

However, the modem line is on the key system, and the light goes on when
the modem is off hook.  When it isn't, the modem line is used just like
any other outgoing line.

I can picture several scenarios:  My wife is on the main line calling her
aunt, and I make a call on the modem line.  The receiving party doesn't
recognize the number so refuses the call.  Or somebody has a "smart" phone
that looks the number up and displays the name of the person.  Now, let's
say that I call from work - and work has a PBX with 20-or-so outgoing trunks.
Does the owner of the phone have to program in every trunk number?

No, I think that the telco will  have to offer a no-cost option where you can
have an _alternate phone number_ that you also are the "owner" of be your
"alternate code", Mr. Daffinger.  This way, my main number, that everyone
knows is "me" will show up no matter if I use my main number or my modem line.
As long as this cannot be changed by the user, I think it will work.  Or maybe
I haven't thought it out far enough.  Comments?

Comment aside:  When will Ma Bell offer combined billing?  Sprint lists
                the toll calls from both lines on one bill (saving postage,
                paper (a.k.a. trees), etc. Why can't Ma Bell? (In my case,
                Pacific Bell)

Mike Morris
UUCP: [e-mail]
#Include quote.cute.standard   | The opinions above probably do not even come
cat flames.all > /dev/null     | close to those of my employer(s), if any.

[Moderator's Note: AT&T <does> list all lines associated with one subscriber
on one bill if you ask. My Reach Out America plan is associated with both
my numbers. I can use either line during the applicable time period and
have the calls charged against my *single* Reach Out Plan. Likewise, billings
from Illinois Bell (and AT&T, as the second part of the bill) are combined
with all lines on one bill, provided the lines are on the same prefix. My
itemized long distance statement from AT&T, via IBT, lists my main number,
then references 'calls from xxx-xxxx' as part.  PT]

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

From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 20 Aug 89 00:57:49 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo

Someone suggested that unlisted lines show up on Caller-ID as some
unique number that may be cross referenced by the phone company.
Well, why just the unlisted ones? Why not ALL numbers mapped into a different
unique value. Users will soon learn to recognize the ones they want to answer
or want to avoid, phone numbers are protected, and when necessary they can be
looked up by The Company.

 -ken
--
   - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W]
          [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]
          [e-mail]      [e-mail]     watmath!kgdykes

[Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on
first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call
will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this
because you are too itsy-poo to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors
and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...."  Much too complicated.
Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our
behavior and actions on the phone, okay?    PT]

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

From: John DeBert <claris!apple!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gas Cylinders
Date: 19 Aug 89 20:42:33 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175
guest}

Airco is not the only producer of compressed gases. There are quite
a few who provide industrial and medical gases:

Matheson, SPecialty Gas Products and Liquid Air Products are three
that come to mind.

Cylinders from Matheson and SGP differ in the color coding as described
in the referenced article (not included because of it's size) quoting
Airco's technical manual.

As for Liquid Air, aside from the giant dewars used for liquified gases,
I haven't seen their cylinders in some time and don't recall what colors
they use.

There would seem to be no way to be really sure about the contents of a
cylinder without knowing who produced it and knowing the color scheme used.
That's from a distance - up close, one can look for the DOT mandated labeling
on the cylinder.

JJD
[e-mail]


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

From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gas Cylinders
Date: 19 Aug 89 00:41:52 GMT
Reply-To: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)


    For what it's worth, the only nitrogen tanks I've seen on the street
(marked "property of NYTel") are LN2 (liquid) tanks.  You can get either
liquid nitrogen or gas out of them, depending on which valve you open.  The
newer tanks are stainless steel (or at least they look that way).  At the
lab, we get LN2 in either the stainless tanks, or similar sized older tanks
painted white.  I've never seen the old white ones on the street.

    It always struck me as odd that they left LN2 tanks laying around
where anybody could wander along and have a fast lesson in cryogenics.
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- [e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Error In Earlier Message
Date: 20 Aug 89 04:41:02 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Scott D. Green) writes:
>
>Re:  Where can I find. . . (Jim Gottlieb)

Here I am!  Over here.


>The number given for BellCore Publications catalog (201-669-5800) is either
>incorrect or is a victim of the strike :-).  ("The number you have reached
>is not in service..")  Can anyone correct it?

Oops.  I goofed (I hold my head down in shame).  The correct number to
Bellcore's publications department is [phone].
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touring the Central Office
Date: 20 Aug 89 04:47:11 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <telecom-v09i0298m07> bovine![e-mail] (Higgy Baby) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, kitty!larry
>@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes:
>>     It is becoming extremely difficult for even an organized group
>> to tour a central office in any BOC area.  BOC's are particularly paranoid
>> (perhaps rightfully so) about outside people being in any central office.
>
>Things must have been different in years gone by.

I believe they were.  In the late 1970s, I got tours of several COs
just by picking up the phone in front of the building and asking if I
could come in and look around.  I can't imagine them letting someone in
like that today.

My first tour, in fact, was on a Saturday.  The lone switchman on duty
let my friend and I in, and we must have been there 4 hours, just
chatting and touring.  He did make us promise that we would not tell
anyone that he let us in, but I just can't imagine someone risking his
job like that in this current age of hackers and outright criminals.
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail and the internet
Date: 20 Aug 89 04:38:31 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles

In article <[e-mail]> crum%lipari.usc.edu@usc.
edu (Gary L. Crum) writes:
>
>What is the relationship between AT&T Mail and the internet?
>
>If there exists a two-way gateway service between the AT&T Mail
>Network and the world UUCP network, then I would consider AT&T Mail
>part of the internet (not Internet
>
>Perhaps AT&T Mail is closer to MCI Mail.

Well, that's how they seem to push it to the public.  When I originally
called to order the service (wanting to hook up to it via a UUCP
connection), the representative told me that I must have an
IBM-compatible to use the service.  I told her she was wrong, but she
insisted.

The literature states something like "You may connect to UNIX sites
(only registered sites)..."  meaning only Unix sites that subscribe to
AT&T Mail.

There is a gateway between the Internet and att, and by extension
attmail, but I don't think they advertise that.  They would rather that
every Unix site be a registered (read "paying") user.

In any case, I am now a happy subscriber.  I love being able to send
faxum by e-mail.  I do have an on-site fax machine, but I'm often
willing to pay the fee to avoid the hassles of printing it out, taking
the paper over to the fax machine...  Especially nice is being able to
send an e-mail message to friends with e-mail and those with a fax, all
at the same time.
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calls From COCOTs
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 12:03:05 CDT

In TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 305, John Higdon wrote:

| When you dial "0+NXX+NXX-XXXX", the synthesized voice says to push 1
| for a collect call and 3 for any other operator assisted call.  After
| pushing 1, the voice prompt you for your name.  The unit then dials the
| call (direct) and when it thinks the other end has answered it asks the
| called party, "Will you accept a collect call from [your recorded
| name]?  If yes, press 1, otherwise press 0 now."  It will repeat one time
| if there is no response and then disconnect.

| This raises some interesting questions.  Where is the billing
| information stored for charging the called party?  In the phone?  By some
| special arrangement with whatever carrier they use for the call?  What
| if the called party refuses the call?  Does the COCOT owner pay for the
| one-minute refusal?

And what if the called party picked up on a telephone that doesn't generate
tones and cannot answer the automated question?

David Tamkin   [e-mail]  {attctc|netsys|ddsw1}!jolnet!dattier
P. O. Box 813        GEnie:  D.W.TAMKIN     BIX:  dattier     CIS:  73720,1570
Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813    Voice Mail: [phone], [phone]
These views are nobody's but mine because I will not let anyone else have them.

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

From: Chris Schmandt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phones/Earthquakes
Date: 20 Aug 89 03:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA


At least for AT&T, it seems to be policy to provide greater access
for *outgoing* long distance calls from an emergency area (specifically,
recent CA earthquake) than incoming.  The logic is that if a family
gets news out then relatives in other areas can pass it on to each
other without straining the network node in the emergency area.
Traffic quotas can be set, according to destination, for example,
at each of the 100-odd 4 ESS's.  In other words, your local node
(Bent Street, Cambridge) knows to let only some fraction of the calls
towards the node in question (say, LA) through, and signals busy locally
without bothering the distant node.

Such decisions are made by humans at the NOC (Network Operations Center),
and implemented in the routing tables in each of the 4ESS's.  I guess
this is somewhat easier now that the network is no longer heirarchical.
I was told the above{during a recent visit to the NOC.  (amazing place,
never turn down a chance to visit it!)

chris

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #311
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 20 Aug 89 21:54:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #312
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Aug 89 21:50:06 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 312

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Consolidated Billing For All Lines (David E. Bernholdt)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Ken Dykes)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Michael H. Warfield)
    Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa (Eric Schnoebelen)
    Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop! (Ben Ullrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Consolidated Billing For All Lines
Date: 20 Aug 89 18:35:53 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


In article <[e-mail]> Mike Morris <morris@jade.
jpl.nasa.gov> writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 311, message 2 of 10

>Comment aside:  When will Ma Bell offer combined billing?  Sprint lists
>                the toll calls from both lines on one bill (saving postage,
>                paper (a.k.a. trees), etc. Why can't Ma Bell? (In my case,
>                Pacific Bell)

In the Chicago 'burbs about 9-10 years ago, I convinced my parents to
put in a second line  for me to use.  We checked out the options and
found that the best thing for us was to add a second line, but have
both lines charge against a single "CallPack 60" service.

CallPack 60  mean that we could make up to 60 units of calls and would
be charged beyond that.  Local calls were free, calls to the rest of
the Chicago area (AC 312) were charged a x units/min. based on
distance.

So we had both lines charging against the CallPack without distinction
as to which line they originated on.  Same for LD calls.  For this we
had to pay the one-time installation charge and a few dollars a month
for the second line, in addition to the CallPack 60, which they
already had.

Although I'm not there anymore, they still have the second line and as
far as I know, the billing arrangement has survived to the present.  I
have no idea if this service had a special name, or if you can still
get it, but it may the same as PT referred to in his addendum to the
note I quoted.  It was great for us, since almost all of my calls were
local.

--
David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

[Moderator's Note: Call-paks and modem-all-night-for-a-nickle in northern
Illinois went the way of the California Condor, I am afraid. Everyone in
312 except Central Telephone Company subscribers, i.e. all Illinois Bell
residence subscribers now get an approximate eight mile radius of 'local
calling' billed at one unit, untimed. Everything else is pay as you use
it, even in the Chicago metro area. But we still get consolidated billing.
All phone lines on the same prefix under your control can be billed on one
invoice, and all usage requirements relating to discounts or savings (i.e.
Reach Out America) can be spread over the same lines.   PT]

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

From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 20 Aug 89 23:47:18 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo


In article <[e-mail]> Ken Dykes <kgdykes@
watmath.waterloo.edu> writes:
>Well, why just the unlisted ones? Why not ALL numbers mapped into a different
>unique value. Users will soon learn to recognize the ones they want to answer

>[Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on
>first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call
>will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this
>because you are too itsy-poo to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors
>and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...."  Much too complicated.
>Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our
>behavior and actions on the phone, okay?    PT]

1) If everyone started being responsible for phone usage, you wouldn't
   need Caller*ID at all!
2) I can be responsible for *my* usage, but want to keep my number guarded
   because I can't guarantee the recipient will be responsible with the info.
3) Extend my idea to include ACCOUNTS not numbers, ie: I have 3 phone lines
   so, only ONE ID for any of the 3 show up (now you only need to remember
   one number, not 3!)
   Extend this further to calling-cards, any call I place with my card
   (from a booth, work, vacation) will show with MY ID, see: more useful
4) Besides, I would expect people in general would answer the phone to
   "strange" IDs, it's just the "repeat offenders" you would ignore. Thus
   it really shouldn't be necessary to give you my ID in advance, you will
   learn the ones you DON'T like.
5) Heck, if its associated with my account, it could follow me when I change
   phone numbers, see: less complicated -- I don't have to inform you in
   advance when I change my configuration.

--
   - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W]
          [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]
          [e-mail]      [e-mail]     watmath!kgdykes

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

Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 21:33:10 -0400
From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question

It's pretty obvious that there need to be rules for this sort of thing. They
don't even have to be very complex:

    (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call
        Waiting prefix.

    (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'.

Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted. End
of problem.

---
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: [e-mail], [phone]. Fun: [e-mail]. `-_-'
"Optimization is not some mystical state of grace, it is an intricate act   U
   of human labor which carries real costs and real risks." -- Tom Neff


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

From: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls
Date: 20 Aug 89 21:21:34 GMT
Reply-To: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike" <wittsend![e-mail]>
Organization: Harris/Lanier Network Knitting Circle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dave Fiske) writes:
>I have no doubt that this is true, but this is not the only way the
>phone company can deal with problem calls.  They've had those "black
>boxes" for years, enabling them to keep a line open in order to trace
>a call.

    Yeah well I've been this route and it generally requires complaints
stretched out over weeks, if not months; multiple call to the telco
security people (you don't get it if you don't become a nuisance to them);
and getting past the clerks who insist nothing of that sort exists.  Then, if
you have your dispensation from God in order, you might just get it, along
with the remark that it doesn't always work.

>.....  However, of course it turned out to be an ex-lover, so my
>guess is that in most cases, an educated guess would lead you to the
>culprit.

    Trouble is, educated guesses don't prove a thing and can't be taken
to court or the telco to get relief if the bum doesn't quit or admit to it.
In fact it might just convince him that he's getting under your skin and to
turn up the heat!  After all, you're just guessing.

>Also, someone once told me that the phone company had given them the
>following strategy for nuisance calls.  Tap the receiver so it sounds
>like a couple of clicks, then say "Operator, this is the call I want
>you to trace."  I think this would probably be enough to scare off the
>"casual" prankster.

    Oh boy, I though this had died a quiet death ages ago.  I tried
this once.  Pranksters turned out to be a bunch of kids having fun when
their parents were out.  They though that was funny as all get out.  Had
to call me back several more times to listen to the routine!!!!!!!
My wife and I had to put up with their nonsense for weeks afterwards.  Note
that this is where I got my first experience with the telco security people
and the illusive black box.  Never did get the box that time, the kids gave up
before the telco security people did.  Biggest problem with this is that
anyone with the inteligence of a rock is going to recognize it for the
bullsh*t that it is.  It just feeds their fun. After all they're getting
to you!  That's exactly what they wanted to do.

    The best thing I found for dealing with late night crank calls is
a modem.  After the first crank call in the middle of the night, I turn
the modem on with auto answer.  <<<PAINFULL SECOND CALL>>>  It rarely
takes more than a call or two for the callers to realize that they can't
frustrate a machine and their ears aren't worth it.  I recommended this to
a college student friend a few years back and she also dealt with a serious
crank call problem very effectively!  Problem with it is that you can
only use it when you don't want or expect any calls.  I've never gotten
any innocent victims yet but there is that catch.

    Calling Party ID is definitly an idea whose time has come.  Southern
Bell here in the Atlanta area has already announced all of the other
related features (Call Block, Call Trace, etc.) but I can wait for the furor
to settle and I can get the real thing.  I haven't had crank calls for
years so Call Block and Call Trace aren't really very useful to me.  I
would love to turn the tables on some of these *sshole phone solicitors,
though.  I would also love to see the day when it can be hooked-up up to
my answering system (already computer controled) and I can customize my
greetings based on who called me (read that last remark anyway you like).

---
Michael H. Warfield  (The Mad Wizard)    | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw
  (404)  270-2123 / 270-2098        | [e-mail]
An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.
A pessimist is sure of it!

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

From: Eric Schnoebelen <texbell!egsner![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa
Date: 19 Aug 89 14:22:42 GMT
Reply-To: Eric Schnoebelen <texbell!egsner![e-mail]>
Organization: Central Iowa (Model) Railroad, Lewisville, Tx.

In article <[e-mail]>
 optilink![e-mail] (Marvin Jones) writes:
-
-In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
-edu writes:
-> Speaking of US West (somebody was...), I was just in their area this past
-> week. I noticed that payphones cost $.35 for a local call. Is that something
-> just peculiar to Iowa or is it a sweeping trend I'll have to deal with all
-> the time soon?
-
-What's wrong with this picture?
-
-Iowa is served by SouthWestern Bell.  I grew up there;  my uncle worked for SW
-Bell.  I'm quite sure this hasn't changed in the past 10 yrs.  :-)
-
-Must have been a private pay phone ... which may account for the price, also.

What is still wrong with this picture??

That Iowa is claimed to be served by Southwestern Bell.  All of the Iowa
I grew up in was served by Northwestern Bell, or independents ( like
the Sharon Center Telephone Cooperative.. )

When I was in Iowa just weeks ago most of the phones in Ames were still
marked Northwestern Bell, although I noticed the phone books were put
out by US West.

The only potential Southwestern Bell service area in Iowa might be along
the southern border ( with Missouri, which is SWBT territory ) although
I remember that area being served predominately by independents (GTE/Contel/
various little cooperatives )

Oh, and the payphones were still a quarter.. ( at least the GTE payphone
I attempted to use.. )

--
Eric Schnoebelen                [e-mail]
egsner![e-mail]    coming soon:    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing Should Stop!
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 20:18:30 -0700
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>

> My Sprint bill is $30,000 - $40,000 per month. My phone bill comes in a big
> box with detail of every call. I have NEVER found one of those details
> to be a call that was not answered.

How often did you check every record?  How can you be so sure about so many
calls?

> I consider the offhanded and uninformed response of the moderator that
> "Sprint doesn't have answer supervision" to be uncalled for bashing.
> It is not factual and it as uncalled for.

Not really.  Where is your counter-evidence?

> Just because they offer lousy residential service, you can't damn the entire
> company for it. If they happen to make a business decision to care
> less about residential services, than business services, fine. Don't
> use them from your home. However, you would be a fool to refuse to
> consider them for business use based on their residential services.

This is inane.  A good deal of business service provided by them is over the
same type of lines, and of course the network is all the same.  Besides, a
``business decision'' doesn't give them the right to rip people off and do
nothing about it.  That type of ``business decision'' is a fairly cowardly
one: businesses are much less likely to complain about (let alone EXAMINE)
their bills than residential folks are.  With business service, Sprint can
make tons of money and not have to be accountable for their billing.

And believe me, they do this.  Sybase used to be a $14 K per month customer of
Sprint's.  After a year of ignoring us (no representative contact), and six
months of DISMAL international service (many calls to the UK not completing or
being cut off for weeks at a time, as well as nearly non-functional
international FAX service), I moved us to a T-based service with MCI, saving
34% and getting better customer service, international, and FAX quality than
we have ever experienced.  I remember all the mornings I came in at 6 to be
with the international marketing folks to listen in on their calls and make
records of calls to the UK so Sprint could tell me there was nothing wrong with
anything at that time.  ``I'll fill out a trouble ticket,'' they said.  ... and
toss it in the garbage, I thought.  I'll never forget the nerve of my customer
service rep when she told me that anyone could bill calls to our numbers with
no verification.  ``Everyone [ATT, MCI, etc.] does it,'' she said.  She also
said she'd take the charge off.  That was in March; the amount is still being
billed to us to this day.

> My basic complaint is that too much information on this list is either
> hearsay or outdated or just plain wrong. I have nothing against
> savaging a vendor who's screwing up (readers of comp.sys.sequent will
> attest to that). However, I do feel that we should be dealing in facts
> rather than inuendo. The amount of pro-ATT bigotry is astounding.
> For some reason, very little of the Sprint "information" is factual or
> current. This is what I object to.

It sounds more like you just don't like the fact that your company isn't
thrilling the majority of readers here.  Your ``information'' on the subject
is no more credible than anyone else's.  You relate your experiences with
hearsay, everyone else does too.  Why is everyone else wrong just because you
don't like their conclusions?  Don't you sort of wonder why there aren't
more people saying praises of Sprint?


ben ullrich           consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all
sybase, inc., emeryville, ca    "When you deal with human beings, a certain
+1 (415) 596 - 3500           amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout
[e-mail]                   {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #312
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 20 Aug 89 22:41:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #313
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Aug 89 22:40:31 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 313

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (Wolf N. Paul)
    Re: 100th Anniversary of the Pay Phone (David Lesher)
    Re: 10288 From a Payphone (Mike Bryan)
    Re: 10288 From a Payphone (Mark Robert Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 8:47:20 CDT
From: "Wolf N. Paul" <[e-mail]>

In TELECOM Digest 9/306, [e-mail] (John McCarthy) writes:

> However, unless email is freed from dependence on the networks, I predict it
> will be supplanted by telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages
> over telefax.
> ...
>     The reason why telefax will supplant email unless email is separated
> from special networks is that telefax works by using the existing telephone
> network directly.
> ... No complicated network addresses and no politics to determine who is
> eligible to be on what network. Telefax is already much more widely used than
> email, and a Japanese industry estimate is that 5 percent of homes will have
> telefax by 1995 and 50 percent by 2010.  This is with a $200 target price.

Frankly, I believe that E-Mail and Fax will co-exist for quite a while,
because both methods of communications have unique advantages which are
appropriate in different circumstances.

>     Another mistake was UUCP.  ...
>
>     1. It assumes that both parties are using the UNIX operating system
> rather than using a general mail protocol.  This is only moderately serious,
> because some other systems have been able to pretend to be UNIX sufficiently
> well to implement the protocols.

You don't need to pretend to be UNIX. There are uucp-compatible programs
available for MS-DOS, VMS, AOS, MacIntosh, etc.

>     2. It requires that the message forwarding computer have login
> privileges on the receiver. This has resulted in a system of relaying
> messages that involves gateways, polling and complicated addresses.  This
> results in politics in getting connected to the gateways and causes addresses
> often to fail.

Relaying messages via multiple hops and gateways is based on economics, not
necessarily on questions of login access. There is such a thing as anonymous
UUCP, which does not require machines to have any specially privileged access.
But most sites do not wish to make long distance calls, therefore the
message-passing system.

>     3. Today forwarding is often a service provided free and therefore of
> limited expandibility.

But there are situations like UUNET here in North America, and a practically
commercial UUCP network operating in Europe, both of which offer an avenue
of expansion.

> ...

>     The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that the ``net
> addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form of the command is just
>
>                     MAIL <use>@$<telephone number>,
>
> after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.

No doubt there would be some uses for a system such as you describe, but
it has major drawbacks over E-Mail as currently implemented in a variety
of systems.

>     Eventually, there will be optical fiber to every home or office
> supplied by the telephone companies.  The same transmission facilities will
> serve telephone, picturephone, fax, electronic mail, telnet, file transfer,
> computer utilities, access to the Library of Congress, the "National Jukebox"
> and maybe even a national video jukebox.  In the meantime, different services
> require different communication rates and can afford different costs to get
> them. However, current telephone rates transmit substantial messages coast-
> to-coast for less than the price of a stamp.  Indeed the success of telefax,
> not to speak of Federal Express, shows that people are willing to pay even
> higher costs.

This is the issue around which things revolve. At this point, using Internet,
UUCP, or commercial E-mail simply is still cheaper than sending a message
via FAX or via a system such as you propose. It is also cheaper than voice
telephone, and provides a hard copy of the message to both parties. For those
who use computers in the normal course of their work, it integrates flawlessly
with their work environment.

A system such as you propose, for security purposes (since you advocate
password-free access) would almost have to use dedicated hardware, and would
thus integrate less flawlessly, in addition to incurring long distance costs
and giving up the advantages of batching transmissions.

As for the FAX-vs-EMAIL issue: In my experience people who have access to
electronic mail use FAX for a number of issues which are hard to resolve:

1. FAX provides a legally acceptable facsimile of a document in a way that
   E-Mail cannot. I can edit an e-mail message prior to printing it out,
   and claim that it arrived that way. FAX is harder to falsify. This may
   well be the main reason for the success of FAX, in conjunction with the
   almost instantaneous delivery of the copy.

2. FAX requires no retyping of the handwritten notes and other
   communications still very common in our office requirements. If I have
   a manually annotated document, I can fax it and thus transmit both the
   original document and the handwritten notes at the same time.

3. Because FAX can transmit an image of a hardcopy communication generated
   in any number of ways, it is easier to use for those who still are somewhat
   computer-phobic. Yes, those folks are still around, sometimes in the
   highest echelons of management, and they will still be with us for a
   while. If all you have is E-mail, you need someone to re-type messages
   generated by those who prefer other methods of producing hard copy.


Another issue related to pricing is the postal monopoly situation in many
countries outside the US. The only reason the postal services tolerate FAX
is because it is substantially more expensive than a first class letter.
The only reason they tolerate E-Mail is because they control the PSS networks.
For political reasons, they will not allow a CHEAP direct e-mail service, for
fear that it will compete with the Postal Service.

>      Fortunately, there is free enterprise. Therefore, the most likely way of
> getting direct electronic mail is for some company to offer a piece of hard-
> ware as an electronic mail terminal including the facilities for connecting
> to the current variety of local area networks (LANs). The most likely way for
> this to be accomplished is for the makers of fax machines to offer ASCII
> service as well.  This will obviate the growing practice of some users of fax
> of printing out their messages in an OCR font, transmitting them by fax,
> whereupon the receiver scans them with an OCR scanner to get them back into
> computer form.

That would be a useful thing, but your next sentence does not follow:

>     This is probably how the world will have to get rid of the
> substantially useless and actually harmful mail network industry.

Look at FAX and the type of service you propose as the Federal Express of
electronic communications. Then look at commercial networks as the
First Class Mail service -- short delivery times for a lot less money.
And finally the various "free" or volunteer networks are similar to
Fourth Class Mail.

They can co-exist quite happily. The only way that current e-mail schemes
are "harmful" to what you propose is in the way that the existence of the
US Postal Service is harmful to FedEx, UPS, etc. -- but that is life!

>     More generally, suppose the same need can be met either by buying a
> product or subscribing to a service. If the costs are at all close, the
> people who sell the product win out over those selling the service.  Why this
> is so I leave to psychologists, and experts in marketing, but I suppose it
> has to do with the fact that selling services requires continual selling to
> keep the customers, and this keeps the prices high.

That is not necessarily true. Despite the fact that Office Copiers have
proliferated over the past couple of decades, Copy Shops offering the
same service have also proliferated. For some people it makes sense to
purchase the product and provide their own service. For others it makes
more sense to purchase the service when they need it and not make the
capital investment in the product. Don't try to press everyone into the
same mold.

>     I hope my pessimism about institutions is unwarranted, but I remember
> a quotation from John von Neumann to some effect like expecting institutions
> to behave rationally is like expecting heat to flow from a cold place to a
> hot place.

That is because institutions are made up of people.

>     I must confess that I don't understand the relation between this
> proposal and the various electronic communication standards that have been
> adopted like X25 and X400. I only note that the enormous effort put into
> these standards has not resulted in direct telephone electronic mail or
> anything else as widely usable as telefax.

These are related to interconnecting the different commercial networks, and
that is definitely coming.


Well, these are my comments. It seems to me that you are unnecessarily
setting this up as an either-or situation, which it is not. All of these
communications have their place: FAX, direct e-mail, and networked e-mail.

Wolf Paul
--
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * [phone]
UUCP:     attctc!dcs!wnp                        Western Union ESL: 62864642
DOMAIN:   dcs![e-mail]              TLX: 910-380-8748 WNP UD

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 100th Anniversary of Pay Phones
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 10:58:08 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>

One of the more frustrating aspects of international travel is trying to use
the pay phones. While leaving Bogota Friday, I tried, from the airport, to call
a coworker about a last minute problem. First, the thing would not take any of
my Pesos. It just dumped them back in the return slot.

But WAIT! I noticed that the pulse-pad worked anyhow (no surprise) so I called
up and got through. But, alas, they time local coin slot calls, and it soon
wanted more money. I dropped it in, it came back, and the blasted box hung up
on me.

I tried 3 phones and they ALL did it. So I kept calling back (for free),
talking two minutes, etc.....

{before you ask, the slot did NOT have a number on it, so she couldn't call me}

--
Flash! Murphy gets look and feel copyright on sendmail.cf
  {gatech!} [e-mail] (305) 255-RTFM

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

From:  Mike Bryan           <acd4![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10288 From a Payphone
Reply-To:  Mike Bryan  <acd4![e-mail]>
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute, IN
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 16:39:56 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(lawrence.m.geary) writes:
>I recently tried to make a call using 10288 from the Dunes hotel in
>Las Vegas. The hotel blocked 10288 access from the room phones. (And
>the hotel operator lied about how to reach AT&T, giving me a sequence
>that connected me to an AOS called "OSW".) They also denied access to
>10288 from PAY telephones located on the premises.
>
>Question: Is this legal?

I have a couple of articles which were circulated around our company
regarding the problems with AOS providers.  Both appear to be from a
local newspaper, but I can't say for sure.

The first article lists in detail the types of problems that are often
experienced by users (sometimes unwittingly) of AOS, including high
prices and blocked access to major carriers.  Regarding blocking of
calls, the article says:

    [reprinted without permission]

    The AOS may block all access numbers starting with 10, making
    it impossible to reach AT&T.  The FCC has ordered an end to
    this practice, but four AOS carriers are asking to be
    excepted.  Even on a blocked phone, you can sometimes reach
    Sprint or MCI by using their 800 or 950 numbers.

The second article deals with a pending investigation of AOS by
Indiana utility regulators, due to complaints of price gouging and
fraud.  Relevant quotes from this article:

    [reprinted without permission]

    "We are seeking a total ban of AOS providers because what they
    provide is not in the public interest," Timothy M. Seat of the
    office of the utility consumer conselor said Wednesday.

    The consumer office, which represents the public in utility
    hearings, requested the investigation after hearing that some
    companies charge extremely high rates, block callers from
    using cheaper long-distance companies and bill for local calls
    from pay phones based on the length of a call, which is banned
    in Indiana.
--
Mike Bryan, Applied Computing Devices, 100 N Campus Dr, Terre Haute IN 47802
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Home: 812/232-0815
UUCP: uunet!acd4!mjb  ARPA: acd4![e-mail]
"Did you make mankind after we made you?" --- XTC, "Dear God"

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10288 From a Payphone
Date: 20 Aug 89 23:37:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey

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

> I recently tried to make a call using 10288 from the Dunes hotel in
> Las Vegas. The hotel blocked 10288 access from the room phones. (And
> the hotel operator lied about how to reach AT&T, giving me a sequence
> that connected me to an AOS called "OSW".) They also denied access to
> 10288 from PAY telephones located on the premises. I had to leave the
> complex and walk down the street to make my call.

> Question: Is this legal?

>      [e-mail]    Think globally ... Post locally    att!hoqax!lmg

As I understand the recent FCC ruling, NO.  The way I read the ruling,
any pay or hotel phone served by an AOS MUST provide a charge-free
method of reaching all long-distance carriers that serve that area.
Thus, it strikes me as illegal.  If you want to do something about,
contact the Public Utilities Commission (or equivalent) in Nevada, and
remind them of the FCC decision.


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.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #313
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 21 Aug 89 1:31:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #314
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Aug 89 01:30:04 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 314

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Catastrophes and Line Load Control (A Forbidden Topic :-) ) (Larry Lippman)
    Interactions Between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy" (Anthony Lee)
    More on 234-5678 (Laura Halliday)
    Answering Machine(s) On Multiple Lines (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Caller ID - 800 numbers (Bill Huttig)
    My New Phone Service (John Wheeler)
    Pac*Bell Combined Billing (Epsilon)
    Where to Find 'The Phone Book'? (Miguel Cruz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Catastrophes and Line Load Control (A Forbidden Topic :-) )
Date: 20 Aug 89 22:03:25 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kathleen Creighton) writes:
> I saw "Surviving the Big One" produced by KCET (PBS) in Los Angeles and
> narrated by an LA fireman.  One of the statements he made was that in the
> event of a major earthquake which disrupts local phone service, we would
> still be able to call *out of state* via pay phones.

    Sounds like the fireman may be misinformed.  While coin telephones
would be given preference under conditions of Line Load Control (which
I will shortly discuss in more detail), anyone getting dial tone should
be able to call anywhere the cable plant and central office is intact.
This means that local calls would most assuredly be available.

    Cable plant restoral preference would no doubt be given to coin
telephones and subscribers deemed to be essential to the "public welfare"
(like police, fire, hospitals, etc.).

> (As an aside, he also said that the telco can only tolerate 10% of its
> pay phones being offhook at the same time so when you see a pay phone
> offhook after an earthquake, hang it up.)

    The above is no longer a particular problem with ESS CO's in
which software can simply ignore the scanning of a line in a permanent
signal condition.  In the case of SxS or crossbar CO's this was a
problem in that a linefinder-first selector was tied up in the case of
the former, and that junctors and permanent signal holding trunks would
be tied up in the case of the latter.

> [Moderator's Note: I am not sure why the *in-state/out-of-state* distinction
> was made. Did the commentator somehow feel that central offices handling
> long distance calls were somehow more immune to earthquakes or other problems

    It sounds to me like the commentator, who was obviously a fireman
and not a knowledgeable telephone company employee, was simply misinformed.

> And likewise, why did he think payphones were more reliable? A payphone
> inside a building which has collapsed is just as damaged as a private phone
> therein.

    Most BOC's have coin telephone vans available that are given priority
during restoral procedures following a catastrophe.  These telephone vans may
use wirelines for service, or may use IMTS or cellular radio for service.

> All telcos are able to provide simultaneous service to only about ten or
> fifteen percent of their customers at one time; and an even smaller number
> can be offered dial tone at one time. This is not a condition attributable
> just to coin phones. When all circuits/switching equipment/dial tone
> generators are busy, other customers sit with a 'dead' phone waiting.
>
> Actually, the worst thing anyone can do in a time of national emergency
> is jump on the phone. Stay off if possible.

    The problem in a central office is that when it is overloaded with
call processing requests resulting from "real" callers or permanent signals
from damaged cable plant, NO ONE gets adequate service - not even essential
subscribers like police, fire, etc.

    To assure telephone service to essential subscribers, a special
procedure known as Line Load Control is often implemented in time of
local catastrophe or national emergency.  The existence and implementation
procedures for Line Load Control, believe it or not, is one of the most
closely guarded secrets of any telephone company.  In the case of BOC's,
Load Load Control procedures are covered in a "Plant Emergency Instruction"
binder with the pertinent section containing a large warning: "NOT TO BE
MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC".

    Line Load Control is implemented as a hardware function in SxS and
crossbar offices, and is implemented as a software function through the
maintenance tty in ESS offices.  Virtually all BOC CO's are equipped for
Line Load Control, except for perhaps small CDO's.

    In a CO equipped for Line Load Control subscriber lines are divided
into three classes: Class A, which comprises 20% of all CO lines, and which
provides service "essential to national defense and public welfare"; Class B,
which consists of 40% of the other CO lines; and Class C which contains the
remaining 40% of the CO lines.  In the case of a BOC, traffic engineering
personnel somewhat arbitrarily assign what lines go into Class A, with
Class B and Class C being randomly assigned to the remaining 80% of the
CO lines.

    When Line Load Control is enabled, only Class A CO lines are able
to obtain dial tone and originate calls, but such originated calls may be
completed to ANY line in the CO, including those in Class B and Class C.
When the Class A calling activity has stabilized, and if traffic capacity
permits, originating service will be ALTERNATED between Class B and Class C,
so that theoretically every working subscriber line has some chance to
originate a call.

    Implementation of Line Load Control requires an upper management
decision, and such implementation is not usually made unless a serious
local or national catastrophe has occurred.

    In a SxS or crossbar CO, Line Load Control is implemented by cutting
off battery to the subscriber line relays so that requests for dial tone
are ignored.  Such an action does not impair calls TO the affected lines.
In ESS offices Line Load Control is purely a software function such that
lines denied service are simply not scanned for off-hook condition.

    Perhaps the ultimate Telephone Status Symbol is having a Class A
line.  Why not call your local telephone business office and ask for one? :-)

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<>  UUCP   {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  TEL  [phone] | 716/773-1700  {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/     \uniquex!larry
<>  FAX  [phone] | 716/773-2488     "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Interactions between "retry on busy" and "return call if busy" service
Date: 18 Aug 89 14:34:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In the proceedings to the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering
for Telecommunications Switching Systems, there is an article by
T.F. Bowen et al from Bellcore.

The article was called "The Feature Interaction Problem in Telecommunications
Systems"  The following is a paragraph from the article:

>"Automatic verification that specifications are consistent is a promising
>approach.  But detecting certain kinds of inconsistency may be intractable or
>undecidable.  There are interactions whose detection appears to require
>examination of all possible executions of the system.  We call these
>"dynamic interactions".  To make this idea concrete, suppose that customer
>A has automatic "retry on busy", which continues calling a busy line until
>it is free, and customer B has automatic "return call if busy", which
>remembers a call that arrives when the line is busy and returns it as soon
>as the line is free.  If A calls B, an infinite cycle of calls could be
>initiated, in which B tries to return A's call but A is retrying B, who
>remains busy trying to call A.

 .....

My question is why is it not possible to have the exchange watch for
such a situation and cancel either the "retry on busy" or "return call
if busy".   Is it possible to view the above problem as a deadlock
situation ?

cheers Anthony
Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (alias Doctor(Time Lord))
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:[phone]
Internet: [e-mail]        ([phone] (w)
SNAIL: 243 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, 4067 Australia

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

Date: 20 Aug 89 18:22 -0700
From: laura halliday <[e-mail]>
Subject: More On 234-5678

I thought I'd try and see what happened with some west coast area codes
and 234-5678, and the results are:

    [phone]    is blocked at the tandem, never getting to the
            234 exchange
    [phone]    is a non-working number at Boeing Aircraft
    [phone]    rang, but nobody answered
    [phone]    has been changed to another number
    [phone]    clicked and told me the person I wanted was out of
            the service area, after saying something about GTE
            MobileNet in San Francisco
    [phone]    said my call couldn't be completed, and referred me
            to an 800 number for assistance
    [phone]    rang, with no answer
    [phone]    is a law firm in San Diego

Apologies for those whose area codes I missed.

 ...laura

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

Date: Sun 20 Aug 89 07:07:25-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine(s) on Multiple Lines


At the office we have 16 incoming lines (in hunt). We have an answering
machine connected to the main number, and that's it. If the main line is
in use (for an outgoing call, say) the answring machine won't kick in.
I know radio shack has a device that will "watch" two lines and patch
the ringing one through to the answering machine, I have such as gizmo
at home and it works well. In theory I should be able to buy a number of
them and connect them in cascade to have the answering machine pick up
any ringing line. This would be a giant kludge, but would probably work.

The question though is:  Can I purchase some sort of device that will
answer multiple lines, or are we talking "voice mail" which I've avoided
so far since it seems very expensive?  I guess 8 x 2-line answering
machines would work too, but I'd prefer a more elegant solution. Any pointers
would be much appreciated.

Ole

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID - 800 numbers
Date: 21 Aug 89 02:45:42 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


After reading the articles on caller ID I thought I would remind
everyone that when the call an 800 the company receiveing the call
will get your phone number on their bill.


[Moderator's Note: Except, not really. You do get the city and state, and
*sometimes* the calling number as well. If it is strictly local 800 service
then you almost always get the numbers. AT&T can provide the number of the
caller the 800 service; the other carriers struggle with the problem.  PT]

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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: My New Phone Service
Date: 21 Aug 89 03:03:09 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


I am moving as of September 1 into the heart of Atlanta, which means
that my phone service will be moving from 404-496 (Tucker, GA co)
to 404-875 (midtown [10th street] co). I was first assigned the
new number, then the representative from Southern Bell checked to
see if that exchange qualified for their new (apparently pre-caller-id)
package of services, which they call (here we go again with these
blasted stars) Touch*Star. The services she offered were:

1)      selective call forwarding...forwarding only specified numbers
2)      automatic callback of last calling party
3)      distinctive ring based on calling party
4)      call trace (I didn't get all the details)

Does this mean that this switch is caller-id ready - just waiting
for the politics to come around? Is this an all-digital or digital/analog
switch?

--
          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: claris!wet![e-mail]
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 21:02:43 PDT
Subject: Pac*Bell combined billing
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
>Comment aside:  When will Ma Bell offer combined billing?  Sprint lists
>                the toll calls from both lines on one bill (saving postage,
>                paper (a.k.a. trees), etc. Why can't Ma Bell? (In my case,
>                Pacific Bell)

When I had two lines installed last year, Pac*Bell asked if I wanted combined
or separate billing--the only restriction being that both lines had to have the
same basic service (i.e. both flat rate or both measured) for combined billing.

                    -=EPS=-


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

Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 18:10:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Where To Find the 'Phone Book'?

David Fisk wrote in digest #308 about a book called "The Phone Book".

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of it?  I've been looking for quite
some time.  The University of Michigan has it listed in the card catalog, but
nobody can find it.  Likewise at 3 other state schools.  Did someone go
through and remove all the copies?  Anyone know the publisher; maybe I can
contact them..

Oh, and re the payphones in Iowa... I was in Dubuque, where every payphone,
including the one glued to the phone company building, cost $.35. Incidentally,
the only phone books I saw there were published by Teleconnect... Isn't that
the company which earned notoriety by presuming to decide which numbers to
allow calls to be placed to?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #314
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 22 Aug 89 0:16:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #315
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Aug 89 00:00:13 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 315

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Suncom Network in Florida? (David E. Bernholdt)
    Re: Discerning Your LD Carrier (John Higdon)
    Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (John DeArmond)
    Re: Types of Service (Barry Shein)
    Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa (Tim Russell)
    Re: 10288 From a Payphone (John Wheeler)
    Re: Call Forwarding Fun (Dell Ellison)
    Re: Automatic Collect Calls (Paul Guthrie)
    Re: More On 234-5678 (Bob Clements)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Mike Gardner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Suncom Network in Florida?
Date: 20 Aug 89 16:36:48 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project

Suncom is a state-wide service connecting a majority (perhaps all??)
state institutions.  It also provides reduced-rate LD service to those
who are connected to it.  Here at University of Florida, we use it for
all outgoing LD calls except those to foreign countries (I don't think
it reaches outside the US).  I personally have never used it to call
other state institutions, but there is an entire phone book for state
Suncom numbers.

On the subject of "private" networks, University of Illinois was also
hooked into a state network.  Once again, I never had occasion to use
it, so I can't say too many details, but I remember that it connected
the two UI campuses (Urbana and Chicago), and also went to the state
offices in Springfield.  I don't know where else it might has gone.

Also, many private companies have private networks:  I know Amoco does
from when I worked there; and GE does too based on phone numbers they
put in a paper I have from them.
--
David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

[Moderator's Note: Indeed, Amoco has a huge national phone network for internal
use. Networks on top of networks, actually; they have a much smaller one
called 'Stanotel' (for Standard Oil Telecom) which handles just communications
for inter/intra-refinery operations. Another big one is 'Unitel' which is
the United Airlines network. PT]

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Discerning Your LD Carrier
Date: 20 Aug 89 20:02:18 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Mike Morris) writes:
> I still feel that long distance information should be free to residential
> customers, and local should be charged _only if it is in the book_.
> Why should I have to keep 4 feet of shelf space reserved for the LA phone
> books?  And have to pay for the books out of my area as well?

I am the last person to stick up for "the Phone Company". But I'm sure
you will agree that providing you with phone numbers via information
(or even via directories) costs the provider money, right? There are
some, myself included, who seldom require any directory assistance. We
return calls from numbers provided by our callers. We remember our
friends numbers (or write them down). We use private publications and
directories (for marketing purposes). Only on rare occasions do I find
it necessary to consult an out of town directory (or directory
assistance) to get the number I wish to call. For those occasional
events, I am more than willing to pay the fifty cents.

Why is it fair for the costs of DA to be shared by everyone (which is
what happens when it's "free") when not everyone prefaces every other
call with a call to Directory Assistance?
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public
Date: 20 Aug 89 19:56:58 GMT
Reply-To: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bob Goudreau) writes:
>>Digression: airline deregulation is similarly bad. The benefits are
>>lost in the enormously higher risks as airlines ignore safety (take
>>Eastern Airlines, for example, (please?)).
>
>You picked a poor analogy by criticizing airline deregulation's effect
>on safety.  In fact, according to a recent article in the _Economist_,
>the decline in accidents & deaths per US aviation passenger mile has
>continued unabated, even throughout the past decade of deregulation.

And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows,
"deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which
does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel.  As
a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity
jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up.

A much truer representation is "deaths per VEHICLE mile".  Even more
representative than that would be "crash rate" in units of "crashes per
vehicle mile".  Rearrange the figures to fit into either of these models
and the figures don't look so hot.  Makes pedaling a bicycle on I-75 at
rush hour look safe.

As some immortal soul once said, "figures lie and liars figure".  And you
certainly don't expect the airline industry or FAA to arrange the lying so
THEY look bad do you?

Now back to your regularly scheduled telephone show :-)

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
 ...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

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

Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 14:48:47 EDT
From: Barry Shein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Types of Service

Re: Roy Smith's service anecdote

I had a similar experience, no line to the house so they needed to
install one.

There's a steep hill behind my house, I watched the guy climbing
trees, the hill and all sorts of rather interesting gyrations like
several attempts to throw a large wire spool over the garage in the
back to get that line in from the street below. Again, all for $60.

    -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade
1330 Beacon Street, Brookline, MA 02146, [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP:     encore!xylogics!skuld!bzs or uunet!skuld!bzs

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

From: Tim Russell <unocss![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa
Date: 21 Aug 89 01:23:10 GMT
Organization: U. of Nebraska at Omaha

optilink![e-mail] (Marvin Jones) writes:

|In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
|edu writes:
|> Speaking of US West (somebody was...), I was just in their area this past
|> week. I noticed that payphones cost $.35 for a local call. Is that something
|> just peculiar to Iowa or is it a sweeping trend I'll have to deal with all
|> the time soon?

|What's wrong with this picture?

|Iowa is served by SouthWestern Bell.  I grew up there;  my uncle worked for SW
|Bell.  I'm quite sure this hasn't changed in the past 10 yrs.  :-)

|Must have been a private pay phone ... which may account for the price, also.

Well, sorry to say this, but I was just in Spirit Lake Iowa yesterday, and
called back to work on a pay phone that wanted 35 cents and also had a VERY
large logo marked "US West Telecommunications" on it.  I used my calling card
and got "Thank you for using MCI" after I entered my number, which surprised
me - I had thought you ALWAYS got AT&T when using one of their calling cards,
but this is evidently not the case.

     Regardless, the original claim is validated, and things have changed in
the past 10 years (can you say "divestiture"? :-)

     As far as the 35 cents goes, pay phones in Omaha still only want a
quarter, thankfully.  It's probable that this trend is still confined to
small towns.

 Tim Russell, Computer Operator  | Internet: [e-mail]
 Campus Computing                | Bitnet:   russell@unoma1
 University of Nebraska at Omaha | UUCP:     uunet!zeus.unl.edu!russell

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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10288 From a Payphone
Date: 21 Aug 89 03:10:54 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta



I was early for a movie this weekend, and at a Southern Bell payphone
in the theatre with time on my hands, tried several 10XXX-1-700-555-4141
combinations, all of which led me to "This is the AT&T Telephone Network...
Thank you for..."(you know the rest). I thought the sign on the phone
was supposed to show the default carrier...not the only accessible one!
--
          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: Dell Ellison <asuvax!gtephx!who![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Fun
Date: 18 Aug 89 00:14:54 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, sje![e-mail] (Tom Ace) writes:

-> ....  Three subscribers with call forwarding would create
-> a forwarding loop, e.g. A forwards his calls to B, B to C, and C back
-> to A; once that was set up, calling any of the three numbers from
-> another location would, after a short pause, cause the entire switch
-> to go down (completely go out of service).  There was evidently code
-> in the switch to recognize two-subscriber forwarding loops, but with
-> three or more, it would hang.  The only fix they had at the time was
-> to disable call forwarding for customers served by that switch.

-> [Moderator's Note: We covered this topic rather extensively some time back
-> in the Digest. There are now absolute limits on the number of loops which
-> can be made. Maybe someone will respond who knows the specifics.   PT]

With a GTE switch, the 'absolute limit' is now seven.  After the call
has been forwarded (or diverted) seven times (even if it's in a loop),
the originating party will get Reorder tone (fast busy).


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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automatic Collect Calls
Date: 19 Aug 89 17:26:53 GMT
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers

In article <[e-mail]> zygot![e-mail]
(John Higdon) writes:
>This raises some interesting questions. Where is the billing
>information stored for charging the called party? In the phone? By some
>special arrangement with whatever carrier they use for the call? What
>if the called party refuses the call? Does the COCOT owner pay for the
>one-minute refusal?

The billing info is indeed stored inside the COCOT phone itself.
This has actually been going on for a while with this sort of phone,
at least with calling card (0+) types of calls.  This sort of phone
is the salvation of COCOTS, since now they don't have to give
up a large percentage of operator assisted calls to AOSs, but
can do all of the processing themselves.  If indeed the COCOTs and
the AOSs are the same company, then they still save manpower and backhauling
costs, and naturally, switch capacity.

As far as the carrier, most likely the phone will casual call (10XXX)
some IXC (Sprint is a usual choice).  There is no special arrangement
(other than a Business bulk billing arrangement), since this is in essence
a normal call (except to the phone itself :-)  .

Due to this, the COCOT owners do eat the costs of refused calls, but this
is reflected back to customers in their higher costs.
--
Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

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

From: Bob Clements <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More On 234-5678
Date: 21 Aug 89 17:31:08 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Clements <[e-mail]>

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

|I thought I'd try and see what happened with some west coast area codes
|and 234-5678, and the results are:

|[list of victims deleted]

|Apologies for those whose area codes I missed.

No apologies to the people you bothered with these annoyance calls for your
own amusement?

/Rcc

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Date: 21 Aug 89 21:41:44 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I'm skeptical about this article.  The plane must have
been on the ground or else it wouldn't be answering the
phone call.   Second, airplane control systems are already
required to have RF immunity especially with the new
all electronic control systems the FAA is increasing
the protection that is required.

-Ron

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 09:36:08 -0500
From: Mike Gardner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline F

>> ...As a result of this
>> event, the aircraft companies may have to redesign a lot of sensors.

>No. The only sensor that has to be implemented is the one that scans
>the passenger baggage.

>It is ILLEGAL to use electronic devices such as cellular telephones
>or even Walkman-sized portable receivers on board commercial
>aircraft.  It is also ILLEGAL to operate such devices on other
>aircraft unless the pilot of the aircraft has determined that the
>device in question does not interfere with the aircraft systems.
>
>This part of the federal aviation regulations is chiefly aimed at
>reducing the risk of interference with the navigation or
>communications systems, in the interest of flight safety.  While
>interference with the file alarm system may have been unexpected,
>the passenger who carried a powered-up portable electronic device
>aboard that aircraft is in violation of the law.  What will probably

    So, after the pilot makes a mistake trying to get his airplane
    back to a runway before it explodes, you can drag this guy's
    body out of the reckage and throw the book at him.8^}  You don't
    design something as complicated as an airliner, which depends
    on a remote system over which you have NO CONTROL to keep the
    airliner safe.  Yes, fix the baggage checking system AND
    realize that compact electronic devices are becomming very
    common.  All the planes systems should be able to either function
    properly despite interference or identify that they are being
    interferred with rather than giving a faulty indication.

    What if there had been a fire and the telephone, radio, etc
    kept the fire alarm from working?
mgg

>result from this incident is not a major re-design of aircraft
>systems, but better enforcement of the existing regulations.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #315
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 22 Aug 89 1:04:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #316
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Aug 89 01:00:44 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 316

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some Questions About International Country Codes (Dolf Grunbauer)
    Re: Types of Service (ficc![e-mail])
    Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (Steve Elias)
    Re: What Is Involved In Getting a 900 or 976 Number? (John Higdon)
    Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (John Higdon)
    Re: Interactions between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy" (Levenson)
    Re: Answering Machine(s) on Multiple Lines (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Ron Natalie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems,
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 14:53:01 GMT
From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Questions About International Country Codes

Once I heard someone say that the country code for the Soviets happens
to be 7 because of James Bond (yes, the famous British spy, also known
as 007). Can someone tell me whether this true, or is it the other way
around (i.e. Ian Flemming chose 007 as 7 was already the country code
for the Soviets)?

In fact, this leads to some more trivia questions, like:
1. When were the country codes established ?
2. Who did this and based on what rules ?
3. Why do America and Canada share the same number, and why is it 1 ?
4. How come some countries have a single digit country code, some have
   a two digits sequence (like PR China, which is probably big enough to
   have a 1 digit number), and some countries have a 3 digits prefix.
5. Are there any countries with a 4 digit country code ?
6. What happens when a new country is created (:-) like a "thuisland"
   or home-land in South Africa (you known, the countries South Africa
   makes and states that they are independant countries, but the rest
   of the world thinks differently) ? Do they all get new numbers ?
7. What happens when two countries join to one bigger country ?
   Like what happend when North & South Vietnam joined ? Do they use
   the North Vietnam country code number, or do they use two different
   numbers ? (The same might happen when the North & South Korea and
   East & West German get united, or maybe this will prevent them :-),
   or when Hong-Kong and Macao become part of the PR of China).

Please note that I am only curious about telephone country numbers thus
*NOT* about any involved political item (especially 6 & 7).
--
Dolf Grunbauer          Tel: [phone]  Internet [e-mail]
Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems  UUCP ....!mcvax!philapd!dolf
Dept. SSP, P.O. Box 245, 7300 AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands

[Moderator's Note: I think the longest country code has to the one for the
Vatican; it is six or eight digits, of which the final digits simply appear
to be appended to the code for Italy.  PT]

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

From: ficc![e-mail]
Date: Mon Aug 21 06:59:10 1989
Subject: Re: Types of Service

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
ti.com (Paul Fuqua) writes:

< The amusing thing was that the representative offered me my
< choice of three basic services:  unlimited, "economy" (charge-per-call
< over 25 calls), or two-party (!).
<      This is within the Dallas city limits (although only by 100 yards),
< and I was and am surprised that two-party service is still offered, much
< less in an apartment built only three years ago.  Are there other major
< cities still offering party-line service?

Two-party service is still available in Houston.  I seem to remember that
party lines are only available with pulse service.


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 07:38:22 -0400


A few points.

1 -- There capability to integrate uucp mail and fax is already with us
     a number of demonstrations have been made, such that users can send
     mail to address!phone_num, and have the node at "address" convert their
     email message to group 3 fax and fax it to any fax machine.

2 -- Fax does not necessarily lose the ability to edit documents.  PC-fax
     cards allow one to modify received faxes as well as generate them from
     scratch (or printer output).

3 -- The only thing stopping me from setting up a permanent email->fax
     gateway is problems running UUPC with a Hayes clone modem.  Also,
     with DID inbound fax, the reverse gateway could be provided for $1
     per month per user.  Each user would have his own DID fax number..


-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail], [e-mail]
-- voice mail: 617 239 9406
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Is Involved In Getting a 900 or 976 Number?
Date: 21 Aug 89 18:36:35 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


> [Moderator's Note: To get a 976 number from Illinois Bell, for starters
> you drop off an application for same at their office accompanied by a
> Cashier's Check for $2000.

Ditto for California. Your equipment must be located in the area served
by the 976 prefix. Downtown LA, downtown San Diego, financial district,
San Francisco, Santa Clara (Space Park), and downtown Santa Rosa are
the locations that I know about for their respective area codes. You
must have a minimum of 6 lines and you are charged standard rate for
these lines. Pac*Bell gets a "transport charge" that is based on the
length of your program, not on your rate. For a three-minute program
(the maximum) the per-call transport is seventy cents. There is no
minimum amount of calls you have to receive.

Currently, interactive is allowed on 976, but Pac*Bell is encouraging
migration to their 900 services. You are subject to "charge backs",
just like Illinois. "Harmful matter" is no longer permitted on 976, and
Pac*Bell is aggressively reviewing programs to make sure no one is
cheating. Now that the strike is over, you can probably get connected
within 2-3 weeks.

That minimum on Illinois Bell sounds scary. If you get no calls at all
on Pac*Bell 976, all you owe is the cost of those 6 (or however many)
trunks that you have, which amounts to about $130 total. You get (on a
three minute program that costs the caller $2.00) $1.30 per call, so it
doesn't take much to break even. If your service allows, you can
declare a shorter program and get more of your $2.00.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Date: 21 Aug 89 18:53:33 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, lotus![e-mail]
(BFrankston) writes:
> Though I too am frustrated by the slow adoption of electronic mail,
> the reason that FAX is winning at the moment is that it is simply
> much much easier to use.  You plunk down $1k or less, plug it into
> the wall, and stick a piece of paper in.
>
> Electronic mail needs similar ease of use.  That is why I implemented
> Lotus Express so that email would be part of my PC in the background
> always available.

When I send email, I sit down at my computer, type "mail [user@uucp or
internet address]". An editor is automatically invoked and I type the
message. When satisfied that the message is correct, I exit the editor,
list any "Cc's" to be sent, strike a lone "." and then a return and
walk away. Within a few minutes to a few hours, my message is delivered
to the recipient anywhere in the world. If, for some reason, it is
undeliverable, the message is returned to my email box with an
explanation.

If the recipient doesn't have a uucp or internet address, a couple of
extra key strokes routes the message through AT&T Mail and it is
delivered via FAX or standard US Mail.

You can't have it much easier or simpler than that! BTW, this *is* from
my home.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interactions between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy"
Date: 22 Aug 89 02:13:01 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA

In article <[e-mail]>, munnari!batserver.cs.uq.
oz.au![e-mail] (Anthony Lee) writes:

 ...description of deadlock resulting from two parties auto-retrying
each other...

> My question is why is it not possible to have the exchange watch for
> such a situation and cancel either the "retry on busy" or "return call
> if busy".   Is it possible to view the above problem as a deadlock
> situation ?


It is possible if 'the exchange' serves both parties.  But consider
that one party may be in New York and the other in Los Angeles.
What if there are three parties involved (A trying to reach B who is
trying to reach C who is trying A) in three different cities?

A similar deadlock may occur with call-forwarding.  If two subscribers happen
to simultaneously forward to each other, and someone else happens to call
either of them, it could create a loop that eventually occupies all of the
trunks available between the two exchanges involved.  But this doesn't really
happen.  Here in NJ, if I have call-forwarding, and a call comes in and gets
forwarded, no other calls get forwarded until the original call disconnects.
Subsequent calls receive a busy signal, just as they would if my calls were
not forwarded, and I had answered the origianl call myself.  This makes the
potential loop situation harmless.

--
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


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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine(s) on Multiple Lines
Date: 22 Aug 89 02:18:52 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ole J. Jacobsen) writes:
> At the office we have 16 incoming lines (in hunt). We have an answering
> machine connected to the main number, and that's it. If the main line is
> in use (for an outgoing call, say) the answring machine won't kick in.
> I know radio shack has a device that will "watch" two lines and patch
> the ringing one through to the answering machine, I have such as gizmo
> at home and it works well. In theory I should be able to buy a number of
> them and connect them in cascade to have the answering machine pick up
> any ringing line. This would be a giant kludge, but would probably work.

Yes, it will work.  I use a cascade of these devices to share a
Caller*Id display unit between several lines.  The trouble is that
the holding time for calls to answering machines is long enough that
a single machine may be unable to handle the traffic on 16 lines.
The probability that it will be in use when any given call arrives
may be too high to be helpful.

I suggest a compromise:  use a cascade of three devices to share the
answering machine over the first four trunks.  If you need more,
consider a second answering machine for the next six, and so on.

There are two-line answering machines, but they combine the two-line
switch with the machine.  This means that you can't cascade them for
larger concentrations of lines per machine...

--
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


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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls
Date: 22 Aug 89 03:34:59 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) writes:
>     The best thing I found for dealing with late night crank calls is
> a modem.  After the first crank call in the middle of the night, I turn
> the modem on with auto answer.  <<<PAINFULL SECOND CALL>>>  It rarely
> takes more than a call or two for the callers to realize that they can't
> frustrate a machine and their ears aren't worth it.  I recommended this to
> a college student friend a few years back and she also dealt with a serious
> crank call problem very effectively!  Problem with it is that you can
> only use it when you don't want or expect any calls.  I've never gotten
> any innocent victims yet but there is that catch.

This brings up a heretofore unmentioned type of harrassment call: the
idiot with the wrong number. These may have been pranks, but they sounded
legitimate. On the first instance someone called on my private line
and asked for a Tom [Somebody]. I simply said, "you must have
the wrong number", and hung up. Minutes later, he calls back and upon
realizing that he had reached the same party asked if he had reached
723-XXXX. I told him that he had and that he must have obtained the
wrong number somewhere.

A few minutes after that, a woman called asking for the same person.
Once again, I explained that she had a wrong number--at which point the
previous gentleman, who was on the line, spoke up and said, "See, I
told you, honey." I thought that was that.

Ten minutes later, an operator called and said, "This is the Pacific
Bell operator. Have I reached 723-XXXX?" "Yes" "Is there a Tom
[Somebody] there?" "No, and there never has been". "Thank-you."

That was scenario #1. The second scenario begins simply with a telco
repairman showing up at the door. He says, "Pacific Bell repair. You
have a line...723-yyyy out of order?"

"Not that I'm aware of."

"A Mister [Neverheardoftheperson] reported your line out of order."

Well, it turns out that 723-yyyy in this case has a Telebit Trailblazer
connected to it. For those of you who don't know, it answers with the
most gawdawful "bleep-blop-whoosh", repeated once then followed by
standard modem tones. Some idiot was so sure he had a right number that
he actually called repair service and "turned it in". Even more
surprising was that they dispatched without calling on one of my voice
lines first.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

[Moderator's Note: Don't you love the people who pull those stunts? I once
had a lady do that to my modem line, but the repair foreman called me from
his office on my other line to inquire, "Pat, don't you have a modem on
the second line?"  I told him I did, and he related that some lady had put
*seven quarters in a row* in a payphone someplace; kept calling my number
and getting the modem; got two different operators to assist her because
she did not believe the first operator, and finally -- bless her soul --
when she got home she called Repair Service to turn me in for having "...some
kind of terrible, loud noise on the line...". And she even asked Repair
if they would *refund the buck seventy five she lost* trying to get through.
Talk about Dumb! Although I am sure she meant well by calling it in.  PT]

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 21 Aug 89 21:54:29 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

By the way, It's obvious that the people who designed ICLID had some of this
stuff in mind.  The possible things you get in the data burst are the phone
number, a P indicating the caller won't tell you, and an O meaning the phone
system doesn't know.  Of course, whether the phone company will allow you to
cause your phone to send a P or not is another story.

-Ron

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #316
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 22 Aug 89 2:17:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #317
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Aug 89 02:15:06 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 317

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    ISDN, Caller ID and More (Torsten Dahlkvist)
    Watson / Natural Microsystems (David Stodolsky)
    International Access Codes Around the World (Chris Hayward)
    What California Network? (Carl Moore)

[Moderator's Note: This issue of the Digest is mainly devoted to an
essay by Torsten Dahlkvist which I am sure you will enjoy. In case you don't
notice it, every contributor in this issue of the Digest comes from a different
*country* in the world. Only one of the four articles is from an American.

As we near the conclusion of eight years of continuous publication of the
Digest this week, I must say I really believe the Digest has become an
international telecommunications journal, and a unique one at that, being
entirely reader-written. This weekend approaching, watch for another special
edition of the Digest devoted to ISDN.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN, Caller ID and More
Date: 21 Aug 89 14:23:34 GMT
Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden


Since the discussion about Calling Number Identification seems to have started
again, I feel a need to say my word on the subject even though I've posted
some of this before. Apologies to those who feel annoyed about this.

The Calling Number Identification facility (CNI) of ISDN is a nice example of
the new features the all-digital communication technology offers us. Some feel
this to be an intrusion on their privacy, but as the moderator pointed out
in his footnote to <[e-mail]>, CNI has long been
available to the telcos, the Police and other "worthy" institutions. In the
U.S. they are even, apparently, forced by law to hand this on in full (address
and all) to other telcos for billing.

Now that it's being offered to the general public the only main difference
lies in that more people are getting it.

Several readers have pointed out the need for a way for users to cancel CNI
transfer in certain cases, like the battered woman calling to tell her kids
she's all right. In <[e-mail]> Bob Frankston
states that:
> the caller must be provided with safeguards.  It is not sufficient
> to say that prefixing a call with *999 provides privacy -- it must be
> possible to make that a default on a line."

To clarify things a bit I'd like to point out a few fundamentals about CNI in
ISDN as proposed by CCITT and implemented by several manufacturers. If ATT has
chosen to go for a full implementation I do not know. If they haven't, I'll
leave it up to them to defend their decisions.

1) CNI is always sent from the originating caller's exchange to the exchange
   of the destination.

2) With the CNI is included an indication telling if the caller wants this
   info to be sent on to the callee or to stop at the telco.

3) The "no CNI" indicator is controlled by:
   a) what is explicitly ordered for this call,
   b) the default for this line,
   c) the default for this telco,

   If the caller dials a special code when setting up his call, or if he's
   using a feature-phone which can be pre-programmed to do it automatically,
   he can  select to - on a call-at-a-time basis - override the default for
   the line.

   If no special code is given, the default for the line is used. This would
   enable customers with un-listed numbers to guard their privacy. Using a)
   above, they can still send CNI to trusted people.

   If no default is specified for the line, the default set by the telco is
   used as a last resort.

4) The called subscriber in his turn must subscribe to CNI in order for his
   exchange to send it on to him.

5) For "special" subscribers (Police, Fire, telco offices) the exchange can
   be programmed to give CNI at all times regardless of what the caller may
   have specified. This allows continuation of emergency services as provided
   today.

As you can see, there is no guarantee in this that the FBI or CIA will not tap
into the data stream between the exchanges to see exactly who is calling the
Russian Embassy. The situation is exactly the same in this aspect as it has
been for many years.

Also, there is no way to stop a salesperson (or obscene caller) from using the
suppression facility to avoid beeing identified. In the end you may find
yourself where you only answer calls identified as beeing from your friends, or
at least beeing identified so that you can get back at them if you dislike
their message.

In <[e-mail]> Charles Daffinger requests some
means of identification that would not hazard the privacy of un-listed
subscribers. Bearing in mind what I've said above about the suppression
facility, the non-listed subscriber who wants to identify himself without
revealing his number (or the regular user who wants to add more personality
to his calls) can use the User-User-Info facility, UUI. This comes in a number
of varieties in ISDN, but what I was thinking of right now is the Call Setup
version where a text of up to 32 characters (bytes, really) can be programmed
into the callers feature-phone and is transferred on each outgoing call. This
can be displayed along with or instead of the CNI, as the case may be, and
allows you to send your name, company name or just a funny note of your
choice to the other party. The telco charges for this transfer, of course,
since the info goes there and can be read even if he doesn't answer. Still,
this, along with CNI, may provide the cheapest means by far for
students-in-distress to call their parents and say "call me back at this
number".

There seems to be some misunderstanding on the net of the full implications
of ISDN on phoning and datacomm. For example, in
<[e-mail]> Mike Morris worried that if he used
his second line to make an outgoing call the number normally leading to his
modem line would be sent to the other party and either not be recognized or
later incorectly used to call back to him. But in ISDN you will not be using
your old modem - it will not fit. Instead you will need to buy a new
"ISDN-modem" which will - at first - be rather costly but which will give you
a number of nice features like high-quality data transfer at 64 kb/s. And
built-into the ISDN concept is the call-type identifier which ensures that the
modem will only answer datacomm-calls and the phone will only answer speech
connections. They may share the same line and the same number, they will still
not interfere with each other. If you get a computer with a built-in ISDN
card you may find that it gives you both speech and data capability so that
you may use the computer both as a BBS and a feature-phone. Incoming
calls identified as "phone" will start it ringing and urge you to pick up
the receiver while calls identified as "data" will silently start the logon
routine. Of course, trivialities like baud rates, parity and such are handled
automatically in the call-setup so that the connection takes place only if
both ends manage to agree on how to communicate. No need to scan carrier
frequencies up and down at different speeds to try to find a match.

Since the customer access to ISDN is 2B+D, every subscriber in reality gets
a two-line system. This is one of the reasons why telcos are pushing ISDN
in spite of the cost. They can meet the increasing demand for second phone
lines to homes and businesses without digging up the street. You just go ISDN,
they install some hardware at your premises and change your phones (and modems)
(you pay through the nose for all the new features, of course) and then it's
done. This means you can have two different phone calls going on at the same
time. Or two datacomm connections. Or one of each. Your line will not be busy
until both B-channels are in use.

Since the exchange is necessarily all-digital, call forwarding and such
facilities are trivial to include. In ISDN this is used to tie several
numbers to the same line. In the incoming call-setup info a field called
"Called Party Number" tells which number the caller dialled and you can
program your phones (and modems) to accept calls to certain numbers only.
This way, you can give the kids their own phone and their own number by
simply having another number tied to your line. You then decide for each
phone which number(s) to enable in it.

Another entry in the feature-phone is the "Given Calling Patry Number" field.
Since you have several numbers tied to one physical line, you need to specify
which of these numbers is to be used for CNI when you make an outgoing call.
This means that if you have four phones in your house - one in the kitchen,
one in the kids' room, one in your den and one in the living-room - you could
tie a set of three numbers to this installation, say 101, 102 and 103. You
then program the phone in the kitchen to use 101 for both outgoing and
incoming calls. The phone in your den uses 102 and the kids get 103. The phone
in the living-room, however, is not obviously the "property" of either of you
so maybe you program it to answer to both 101 and 102 while giving it's own
identity as 101 when calling out. That way, when you make a call from the den,
your wife calls from the kitchen or the kids call from their room, the party
at the other end always gets the correct number to use when returning the call.
In the living-room the phone will ring for either you or your wife, while
outgoing calls will look as if they are made by her. (Ladies: please forgive
me for this very blatantly sexist family set-up. It's just an example to
illustrate the facilities of ISDN, o.k? :-)

Maybe you want to keep one of the numbers un-listed and have the others listed.
No problem. Just remember not to program any of the phones to send the
non-listed number as CNI. You could still let all phones answer to that number
if you want to. Or just some. Your choice.

Maybe you are in the living-room about to make a call when the phone rings.
You see from the CNI and UUI that it is for your wife, so you press the "kill"
button and your phone stops ringing. You then lift the receiver and the phone
automatically grabs the other B-channel to make an outgoing call (if the kids
aren't already using it in which case you will get a "No B-channel available"
text message and you'll just have to wait :-) The phone in the kitchen still
rings and will do so until your wife answers (or presses "kill" as well :-)
or the calling party hangs up.

All questions on the practical aspects of ISDN use are welcome by E-mail.
Any interesting points will be summarised and posted.

/Torsten

Additional disclaimer: What I've said here is merely my personal
interpretation of what I consider to be "common knowledge" in the field
of ISDN. I do not in any way represent ERICSSON in these matters. If
anyone has questions regarding ERICSSON's ISDN programme I will
immediately refer them to some suitable sales-creature over at the main
offices.

 Torsten Dahlkvist                        ! "I am not now, nor have I ever
 ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories  !  been, intimately related to
 P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25  ALVSJO, SWEDEN  !  Dweezil Zappa!"
 Tel: [phone]                      !        - "Wierd" Al Yankowitz

[Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks for an excellent presentation to the
Digest readers!   PT]
------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Aug 89 23:03:25 +0200
From: David Stodolsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watson / Natural Microsystems

[e-mail] (a.e.mossberg) in
Message-ID: <[e-mail]> said:

>A month after we had bought the system, they upgraded the software and ROMs
>on the board. They charged us two hundred dollars to upgrade, though the
>upgrade was merely bug fixes, serious enough to delay the project.

>I liked the idea of Watson.  Unfortunately, we found it to be poorly designed
>and extremely overpriced. ("Well, we only make a small number"-- Less than a
>month after putting it in a closet, we saw Watson from mail-order houses for
>less than our "dealer-incentive price")

I purchased a Watson board at a "special introductory price" and was in the
process of putting it through type approval in Sweden when there was an
upgrade (I think this same one). After first being told that they did not
exchange boards, they agreed to do so since we were trying to establish their
product in a new market. We also purchased an additional board at the same
time. Because of a shipping problem, where they thought they might have to pay
for customs clearance or something on the returned board, they refused to ship
the new boards, until we agreed to cover the expected costs (it turned out
there were none, to either them or us), even though authorization had been
given to charge the new boards in full.

After many long distance calls, the upgraded boards were finally shipped.
However, the credit for the old board was not given. When I called the VP for
sales he checked his records and found that the return had been recorded.
After still not receiving the credit a month later, I inquired again and was
told that the return had not been received. I finally issued a stop payment on
my American Express Card.

After having to deal with their billing department, I finally was credited
with the then current price of the board, which they claimed had not been
received (you guessed it, less than the special introductory price), but was
billed for some additional software, the order for which had been cancelled.
Quoting from my letter to American Express:

"However, a second shipment was never authorized and receipt of my
telex cancelling any back orders was confirmed to me by Eric
Binder, VP Sales by phone.  However, he took no action.  Thus I
am due $234."

Finally, I had to sign a form saying I would discard the development software
in question (for a product we didn't want and could not legally use or sell in
Sweden).

This is not the whole story, but you get the idea of what it was like to deal
with them.

I again could use a good voice-mail system, but from a *good* company, please.

David S. Stodolsky, PhD      Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:[e-mail]>
Department of Psychology                  Internet: <[e-mail]>
Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88                  Voice + 45 31 58 48 86
DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark                  Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11

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

From: Chris Hayward <praxis![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 16:10:34 BST
Subject: International Access Codes Around the World

The UK code for international direct dialling (IDD) is 010, as opposed to
00 as adopted by many European countries. The reason for this, I believe, is
as follows:

In the days before IDD, <00> was used as a "special" STD code for calls from
 the UK (including Northern Ireland) to the Republic of Ireland. When IDD came
along, it would have been politically insensitive (suicidal?) to make Eire
calls "international", and rather than mess about changing existing codes and
routings, the 010 had to be adopted for the IDD prefix.

Is this history correct? I wouldn't be surprised if the cause of a common
European IDD prefix is yet another victim of the mess that is Anglo-Irish
politics :-(

Chris Hayward

Praxis Systems Bath
(UK, I suppose I should say)

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

Date:     Mon, 21 Aug 89 10:10:17 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  What California network?

Yes, the California network I was thinking of was ATSS.  I came across
it in my notes after sending the question.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #317
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 23 Aug 89 0:04:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #318
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Aug 89 00:00:34 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 318

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Calling 800 Numbers From Outside the USA (Vance Shipley)
    Hotel Long Distance (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Difference In Rates Calling USA <==> Overseas (Sten Peeters)
    Followup re Answering Machine On 16 Lines (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? (Tom Ace)
    What is 'True' ISDN, Anyway? (Dell Ellison)
    Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John DeArmond)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (James J. Sowa)
    Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Jim Olsen)
    Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Tom Ace)
    Re: Error In Earlier Message (P. W. Stumpf)
    Hey! That's Me! (Carl Moore)

[Moderator's Note: Whatever else you do, from now through the weekend, do
*watch Neptune* !! Its the biggest show in town. Have you seen any of the
photos yet? In particular, from Friday afternoon through Saturday morning,
spend what time you can watching the transmissions. Thus far, it is pretty
incredible, but more incredible than the planet itself is the technology
which brings us this spectacle. I'm loving every minute of it!   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue Aug 22 12:58:35 1989
From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling 800's From Outside USA (translation numbers)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: Linton Technology - SwitchView

I have quite often wished to reach an 800 in the US from here in Canada but
found that it was not dialable from here.  Sometimes the 800 listing is all
I have!  In these cases I would wish I knew the 'conversion' number.  I first
found out about this while testing 800 lines.

In order to test an 800 number with US coverage you must dial from the states.
Calling from here in Canada wouldn't complete.  So to test one of these
circuits we would have to know the 'conversion' number.  To use this number
you had to be coming from a foreign exchange (it had to be a toll call).
The conversion number often had the same last four digits and the NXX was
always a valid office code.

I don't know if this would work internationally or not.  Also I'm not sure
how it would be billed.  Anyone care to comment?

Vance Shipley                          uucp:  ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances
Linton Technology - SwitchView         INTERNET:            [e-mail]
180 Columbia Street West                            (soon)  [e-mail]
Waterloo, Ontario
CANADA                                                      tel:  [phone]
N2L 3L3                                                     fax:  [phone]
# if it ain't got an interface it ain't much use!#

[Moderator's Note: How could I pass up a chance to comment? :) If you found
such a number and it worked in Canada, then I'm sure it would work calling
from Europe, etc. And in all probability it would generate a charge to your
account. PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hotel Long Distance
Date: Mon, 21-Aug-89 07:40:02 PDT

I had an interesting experience in trying to get an AT&T operator from
a Hilton hotel room in Biloxi, MS.

Dialing 8-0-xxx-xxx-xxxx got me some AOS, so I hung up.

Remembering a trick from another hotel, I tried 8-00-xxx-xxx-xxx.

"Operator, May I help you?"

A little suspicious, I ask "What company do you work for?"

A slight pause, followed by laughter. "The best, of course! AT&T."

I explained why I was a bit concerned, and she was very understanding. Then she
did something that really surprised me. She stated that she thought the line
was a little weak and wondered if *she could call me back* in 20 seconds!

I explained I was in a hotel room and she said that was no problem, so I gave
her the number. 30 seconds later, she calls apologizing for the delay. She
said the hotel was slow in answering the phone!

To say I was impressed would be an understatement...

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 15:55:44 EST
From: Sten Peeters <[e-mail]>
Subject: Difference In Rates Calling USA <==> Overseas

Calling from Europe to the US has always been ridiculously more expensive than
the other way around. I have an AT&T Card and I was wondering if it would cost
less if I used the AT&T card instead of calling on a European bill. In other
words would AT&T charge me the US rates or European rates if calling from
Europe by means of the AT&T card?
                                                Sten
        Sten Peeters            |      UUCP: sp@pro-palace
        2005 Buckman Avenue     |      TEL : [phone]
        Wyomissing, PA 19610    |      Orig: Belgium


[Moderator's Note: AT&T would charge you whatever the local PTT charged-back
to them for the call. Its the local PTT which is selling you the service,
and they cooperate with other telcos (and LD carriers) as a courtesy and
convenience in billing matters. In other words, having an AT&T/Sprint/MCI
Calling Card would save you nothing. Now if you use the 'USA Direct' service
available in many countries, that *is* less expensive because you are dealing
with the local PTT only for a 'local call' to the nearest AT&T point of
presence.  And AT&T picks up the charges for your call to them from whatever
country you are in.   PT]

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

Date: Tue 22 Aug 89 10:34:28-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Followup re Answering Machine On 16 Lines


Thanks to all who responded to my enquiry. It would appear that the
"best solution" is an expensive one, involving a voice mail hookup,
while a couple of extra answering machines on the first 3 or so
lines will probably solve the problem for most after hours situations.

I should point out that the system in question, a Merlin II, has all
16 lines in a "pool" which means that outgoing lines are selected
*at random*, thus teaching people to "only use lines from the top of
the hunt group" will not work, and busying out other trunks is also
not a good solution. Some kind of delayed-call-forwarding (no-answer
transfer) would also work, but is probably best done within the
system, I will have to "call the PBX vendor" as some of you suggested.
(...and be prepared to spend a fortune...you know, sometimes I feel
like that guy in the AT&T commercial who is about to be fired for
having selected the wrong phone system, trouble is our system is made
by AT&T, ok, ok, no more vendor bashing, I promise   :-)

Ole

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 11:15:12 PDT
From: Tom Ace <sje![e-mail]>
Subject: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway?


I've seen "2600 Magazine" discussed here recently, but I imagine there
are plenty of readers who (like me) don't know what it is.  Could someone
please briefly tell us what the magazine is about?

Thanks in advance,

Tom Ace
[e-mail]
 ...!mntgfx!sje!tom

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

From: Dell Ellison <asuvax!gtephx!loki![e-mail]>
Subject: What Is 'True' ISDN, Anyway?
Date: 22 Aug 89 16:15:15 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <[e-mail]>, toto![e-mail]
(Bill Cerny) writes:
> AT&T has been providing true ISDN via its Primary Rate Interface for
> over a year now.  AT&T is providing new calling services made possible
> with ISDN, including call-by-call service selection and calling number
> delivery.  A recently announced service will allow enhanced routing
> ...

What IS 'true ISDN'?  The definitions vary so widely that people are
very confused as to what one is talking about.

            **   What is YOUR definition of ISDN?   **


[Moderator's Note: Watch for a special edition of TELECOM Digest this next
weekend devoted entirely to a special report on ISDN, *then* answer his
question. It will be distributed sometime Saturday.   PT]

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 22 Aug 89 15:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"

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

>I am the last person to stick up for "the Phone Company". But I'm sure
>you will agree that providing you with phone numbers via information
>(or even via directories) costs the provider money, right?

>For those occasional events, I am more than willing to pay the fifty cents.
>
>Why is it fair for the costs of DA to be shared by everyone (which is
>what happens when it's "free") when not everyone prefaces every other
>call with a call to Directory Assistance?

It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's
fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable,
right-of-ways, telephone poles and so on.  IF we wanted to be very strict
with this concept of only those who use a service pay, then you would
get charged extra if a cable right-of-way was extra expensive or if your
trunk was damaged by storms or routing to your house took a few extra taps
or the road to your drop box is rough, accelerating the wear on the phone
company truck, or the fact that all your extra extensions use extra power
from the ring and battery supply and so on ad infinum.

No, the concept of universal service is that the costs, sometimes individually
extraordinary, are spread across the rate-base so that everybody pays just
a little bit.  Sure, you may not use DA often but for some others it may
be vital.  I'll bet you use other free value-added services of the
phone company more than the average user.  I know that I'm on them frequently
to fix problems with my lines that only affect data transmission.  Sure I
could buy a data-grade line and in fact, they try to push that from time to
time.  My residential service is surely more expensive than the subscriber
who only calls his/her mother once a week.  But I don't think any of use
REALLY want pay-as-you-go.  That some PUCs have allowed the phone company to
deviate from the concept of universal service is sad indeed.

John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
 ...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 16:29:36 EDT
From: James J Sowa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Reply-To: [e-mail] (james.j.sowa,ih,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ron Natalie) writes:
>I'm skeptical about this article.  The plane must have been on the ground or
>else it wouldn't be answering the phone call.
>-Ron

Cellular phones don't have to be on the ground to answer a page message and
start alerting. RF is able to travel vertical and horizonal. That is one of the
reasons people were able to use cellular phones on commercial airline flights
until they were banned by the FAA.

"JUST DO IT!"
                        Jim Sowa
                        att!cbnewsc!jjjs
Yep this is my on opinion and all that stuff must people add here.

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

From: Jim Olsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public
Date: 22 Aug 89 20:13:33 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Olsen <[e-mail]>
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA


John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]> writes:
>..."deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which
>does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel.

Mr. DeArmond is sadly mistaken.  If one must use a single statistic to
measure safety, deaths/passenger-mile is as good as any, and superior to
deaths/vehicle-mile precisely because it does account for passenger load.
Judged by the chance of death on a journey, airline safety *is* improving.

However, other aspects of airline deregulation suggest interesting
parallels to telecom deregulation.  Although the overall safety of air
travel is improving, many airlines are relaxing some safety standards:
those standards which exceed the legal minimum requirements.  There is
actually nothing wrong with this, as long as the legal requirements are
adequate and are properly enforced.  If one believes that the relaxed
standards are too lenient, the answer is not airline re-regulation, but
simply to require higher minimum safety standards.

As with the airline industry, the deregulated telecom industry is pushing
the legal limits.  Unfortunately, in many cases (such as AOS and COCOT's)
these limits were almost nonexistent, leading to abuses.  As with the
airlines, the best solution is not to return to the "good old days" of
non-competition, but to make and enforce strong regulations to curb the
abuses.  Since the laissez-faire FCC is reluctant to do this, it's up to
Congress and the individual states to do the job.


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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 11:40:14 PDT
From: Tom Ace <sje![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public

John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>, discussing air travel, said:

>And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows,
>"deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which
>does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel.  As
>a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity
>jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up.

Let me see if I get your reasoning right.  They pack the same number
of people on fewer planes, so fewer crashes happen (fewer planes to crash),
and voila--the DPPM goes down.  Isn't it essentially a wash, though, because
if there are now more people per plane on the average, each crash is likely to
result in more fatalities?

DPPM may not measure what _you_ want to know, but it is hardly a "completely
bogus measurement".  If I want to know the odds of my dying when I fly
1900 miles, I can calculate that from a DPPM figure.  I cannot calculate
that from the "deaths per vehicle mile" figure which you say is more useful.
Each metric has its particular applications.

(This IS the Telecom digest, isn't it?)

Tom Ace
[e-mail]
 ...!mntgfx!sje!tom

[Moderator's Note: Yes, its TELECOM, and we have probably exhausted this
topic for now, at least in this forum.  PT]

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

From: P W Stumpf <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Error In Earlier Message
Date: 22 Aug 89 16:41:35 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott D. Green) writes:
> Re:  Where can I find. . . (Jim Gottlieb)

> The number given for BellCore Publications catalog (201-669-5800) is either
> incorrect or is a victim of the strike :-).  ("The number you have reached
> is not in service..")  Can anyone correct it?

201-699-5800


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

Date:     Tue, 22 Aug 89 10:46:57 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Hey! That's me!

I chuckled just now.  I saw the Digest which had the short note from me about
ATSS, and at the head of the Digest it said only one of the four articles is
from an American (that's me!).

[Moderator's Note: Yes Carl, that was you I was talking about. We have a
sizeable number of international readers these days.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #318
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 23 Aug 89 1:30:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #319
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Aug 89 01:20:40 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 319

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (TELECOM Moderator)
    Common Language Codes: Everything You Never Wanted to Know (Larry Lippman)
    Combined Billing Offered by Southern Bell in Florida (Dr. T. Andrews)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Mike Trout)

[Moderator's Note: Just *two* issues of the Digest this morning!  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 23 Aug 89 1:05:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money?

[Condensed from an article in the Chicago Tribune, August 22, 1989]

Consider just a few of the lines operating now --

Freddy Pumpkin        900-909-1234        Slime Line     900-909-2233
Paula Abdul           900-909-1800        The Hulk       900-909-5855
Club Teen             900-909-0100        World Weather  900-321-1212
Samantha Fox          900-909-FOXX        NBC Soap Line  900-650-4622
Romantic Confessions  900-909-4500        Ken Patera     900-646-SLAM
Stock Market Forecast 900-234-1100        Womens Secrets 900-909-1133

Did you ever wonder who would be on the other end if you dialed one of those
phone numbers so luridly advertised on cable TV? But have you been too shy
or put off by the price -- often $2 for the first minute and 45 cents per
minute thereafter to call?

On 900-909-1133 "Women's Secret Confessions" you get a scratchy recording
of several women who earlier consented to have their phone calls taped for
later listening by strangers. These women sound more like Roseanne Barr
than Joan Collins.

One says, "My confession is for the last six years I've been in love with
my husband's brother. I have been married for seven years. Both marriages
involve two children.....I know he cares for me and I care for him.
But by us both being married, and both of them being brothers....I don't
know what to do. I have feelings for both of them. Could someone help me?
Please call in and let me know."

Then there is 900-909-4500, known as "True Romantic Confessions". Another
tape, another voice, this time it is Joe Sixpack speaking: "Hello, my
name is Jerry and I play for a highly competitive softball team in central
Illinois. And I'm having a hard time finding young ladies and [sic] everything
that like softball and everything [sic] and the outdoors. And I am into
snowmobiling because I have two of them. And I am into boating because I
have one. And its really hard because I'm from a small community and
everything and its just hard to find anybody. So could anybody please call?"

"The Samantha Fox Line" at 900-909-FOXX features the pop singer in her
streetwise Cockney. The tape is already halfway through but she assures
us, "....if you've not 'eard all the message, stay on the line, it will
repeat from the beginning.... "  All these tapes are mobius loops which
go 'round and 'round repeatedly, so you can listen as long as desired, and
not coincidentally run up your phone bill even more in the process.

"....'ere I am now. Jive [Records] signed me up about three years ago and
my first big 'it single was 'Touch Me'. It was number three in America and
number one in 17 other European countries,"  she says, proving that if she
is anything at all, she is ignorant of geography.

And this is where dialing 900 can land you. If there were a box office,
you'd ask for your money back. But it is around such messages that a fast-
growing, complex and controversial segment in the phone industry has sprung
up. It did not exist until 1980, when AT&T invented it to allow NBC News
to poll viewers on who won the Reagan-Carter presidential debate. They
picked the Californian, and both a new presidency and a new phone concept
were launched.

According to Bruce Kushnick, a New York consultant who tracks 900 numbers,
telcos and the people who provide the programming will rake in about $500
million this year. By 1992, he estimates the take will be more than $2 billion
per year.

900 numbers have something of a seamy reputation in the public's mind. There
are a large number of 'adult programming' numbers, featuring both taped
messages appealing to every sexual fantasy imaginable, as well as live,
interactive 'chat' lines, where persons of similar pursuasion can meet and
exchange phone numbers for late night direct contact purposes. The sexually-
oriented 'chats' seem to mostly be located on the 999 exchange, at rates that
typically begin at $1.95 - $2.95 for the first minute, and about a dollar
a minute thereafter.  Many of these services offer a guarenteed connection
by proclaiming, "...try our free number first! 312-606-xxxx. If the line
is busy, we guarentee someone is waiting when you dial 900-999-xxxx."  In
other words, someone gets a free connection in exchange for functioning
like a shill to bring others to the pay-to-play conference line.

There are many, many users of 900 numbers. Last year, Fox TV used a 900
poll to allow viewers to choose the ending of a special "Married....With
Children" episode. In a "Saturday Night Live" skit, Eddie Murphy had viewers
voice their opinion over whether to execute Larry the Lobster by throwing
him in a pot of boiling water or let him live. Calls from around the
country via the 900 lines voted for mercy, and the financial take for both
AT&T and the Saturday Night Live people was quite substantial.

Steve Cowthon of Cable News Network points out that hardly a night goes
by when CNN doesn't run one of its non-scientific polls on subjects such
as the hostages in Iran or what to do with General Noriega.

MTV first used 900 service during Bruce Srpingsteen weekend in 1987, and
they received 886,000 calls in two days. Flushed with that kind of success,
MTV ran a contest in March, 1989 to give away Bon Jovi's childhood home
in Sayerville, NY. Within *15 minutes*, 300,000 calls had been received.
Within *35 minutes* the tally was above 600,000 calls.

Many 900 lines are just blatant advertising designed to sell something and
get the caller to pay for listening to the advertisement. For instance,
a 1969 nostalgia line has Wolfman Jack urging callers to "check out the
1969 video at your local video store..."

Many of these messages are deliberatly designed to attract children, and
encourage them to call without their parent's knowledge or consent. Some
phone companies, including Illinois Bell, have dropped the chat lines they
were running because of trouble which ensued when children and others gave
out their home address or phone number to the stranger on the other end.
Most of the telcos have discontinued offering billing service to the sexually
oriented lines, effectively deep-sixing many of them; however those services
have begun to recover, and now frequently use 800 service; requiring the
caller to punch in his credit card number at the start of the call,
and wait a couple seconds for verification before being connected to the
conversations and/or taped message in progress.

Most telcos now also offer blocking and will implement it free of charge
on request. They will also write off (and charge back to the vendor) any
charges on the phone bill the *first time* someone complains that they did
not know what they were reaching, or the cost involved.

One prominent 900 service provider, headquartered in the Chicago area is
Telesphere International. According to Denny Houlihan, manager of 900 services
for the company, they don't carry lines that naturally appeal to children.
He said they avoid them due to the difficulty in collecting from parents
who found out after the fact what their (unsupervised) children had been
doing in their spare time.


[Condensed from an article in the Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, August 22, 1988
by John Barrat.]

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

Subject: Common Language Codes: Everything You Never Wanted to Know :-)
Date: 23 Aug 89 00:20:33 EDT (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
> Maybe EVERYBODY is right.  What is Central Office is called depends
> largely on who you talk to and what you are talking about.  Some
> (maybe not all) variations:
>      o  Base/Control Group.  What the engineers call it.  Used to be
>         assigned by Western Electric.  Base unique to location,
>         control group to switching entity.  Form XXXX-CX as in
>         6A97-C4 equals a 1AESS in LA Grand (see below)
>      o  Common Language ID.  A combination of the place name
>         contracted (they spell out how) and, if necessary, a number.
>         PLALCA02 equals Palo Alto, California 02.  I >think< that
>         this is where the billing location comes from.
> ...

    The writer of the above articles mentions Common Language, which
is a somewhat arcane [to the uninitiated, at least] method of standardizing
designations for central office, outside plant and customer locations, along
with standardizing designations and options for transmission and certain
types of switching apparatus.  The Common Language Identification Code
system was developed by AT&T as a standard means of describing customer
and telephone company facilities and circuits on a world-wide basis.

    However, the particular usage of the Common Language codes as
mentioned in the referenced article is not correct, unless it is someone
else's Common Language. :-)

    There are two types of Common Language coding, one for locations and
one for transmission/switching equipment, but I will confine myself to the
particular case of locations, which are referred to as CLLI (Common Language
Location Identification), and are an 11-character mnemonic code in the form
of AAAA-AA-NN-XXX or AAAA-AA-XXXXX, which further breaks down as follows:

    Character Positions 1-4     = Place Abbreviation
    Character Positions 5-6     = State, Province or Territory of Canada,
                                   or country
    Character Positions 7-11 = Location within the place

In the case of telephone company buildings, character positions 7 and 8
form a building code, and 9 to 11 form a building subdivision, Traffic
Unit, Plant Unit or Administrative Unit.

    Place codes used to be assigned solely by the Bell System Common
Language Bureau which was part of Bell Telephone Labs; this function is
now some part of AT&T, but I don't know the exact department or location.

    An example of the CLLI data listing for the CO where I live is:
CLCT-NY-CC-CG0, where CLCT refers to Clarence Center, CC refers to a central
office building location, and CG0 refers to an ESS end office, "unit" 0.  An
alternative method of encoding the above (which was NOT implemented) would
be CLCT-NY-CC-741, where the 741 is the ANC (All Number Code).

    Note that there is no area code imbedded in the CLLI data.

    The rules for CLLI encoding are complex and arcane beyond belief,
and in many instances character positions 7 to 11 are hardly mnemonic in
nature.  When my CO was a 35E97 SxS and was located in a different building
(a new building was built for the 3ESS), the CLLI was: CLCT-NY-MA-SG1.
There is a slight significance to the building codes CC and MA: CC no
doubt refers to Clarence Center Rd. where the new CO is located, and
MA referred to Maple St. where the old CO was located.  Intuitive, huh?

    I'll give a few more CLLI examples just to show how this works:

BFLO-NY-BA-891    Buffalo, NY Bailey Ave. CO, 891 1ESS apparatus
BFLO-NY-BA-F10    Buffalo, NY Bailey Ave. CO, MDF location
BFLO-NY-BA-AT4    Buffalo, NY Bailey Ave. CO, Traffic Assignment Office
BFLO-NY-BA-01T    Buffalo, NY Bailey Ave. CO, EAS tandem apparatus
BFLO-NY-CH-001    Buffalo, NY Children's Hospital centrex apparatus located
        on customer premises
BFLO-NY-SP-822    Buffalo, NY South Park CO, 822 1ESS apparatus
BFLO-NY-SP-AT3    Buffalo, NY South Park CO, Traffic Assignment Office
BFLO-NY-SP-A10    Buffalo, NY South Park CO, COSMOS computer

    There will be a surprise quiz on CLLI codes next week. :-)

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<>  UUCP   {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  TEL  [phone] | 716/773-1700  {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<>  FAX  [phone] | 716/773-2488     "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

Subject: Combined Billing Offered by Southern Bell in Florida
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 7:01:23 EDT
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Society to Save the Sand Gnat

In [9,11,2] [e-mail] (Mike Morris) writes...
) Comment aside:  When will Ma Bell offer combined billing?  Sprint
) lists the toll calls from both lines on one bill ...

Southern Bell and AT&T combine their bills here.  My three lines on two
prefixes get listed on a single, unfortunately large bill each month.

--
 ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner


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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 22 Aug 89 18:35:21 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


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

> Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted. End
> of problem.

Good idea, but I would imagine that such "unlistedness" would require extra
fees, just as not being listed in the directory does.  It's unfair to expect
shelters--who operate on shoestring budgets--to pay extra for something that's
rather critical to their safe operation (in this area, yearly salaries for
experienced shelter staffers average a whopping $13,000).  Of course, it could
be argued that free unlistedness for shelters should be mandated by law, but we
all know the likelihood of that idea getting by PAC-driven politicians.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #319
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 24 Aug 89 0:01:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #320
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Aug 89 00:00:22 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 320

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller ID -- A Bad Idea (John R. Covert)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Allen Nogee)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Uri Blumenthal)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (John R. Covert)
    Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (Robert S. Sklar)
    Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public (Spencer Garrett)
    RE: 10xxx From Payphones (John R. Covert)
    Re: More On 234-5678 (Boot Trax)
    Re: Supplementary and Intelligent Network Services (Anthony Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 17:59:47 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  21-Aug-1989 1735" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea

I'm going to be as brief as possible, since this has been argued before.

These are the two most often stated benefits:

    1. Gathering numbers for voicemail systems.
    2. Stopping harrassing phone calls.

The first is not real.  The number I'm calling from is not necessarily the
number I want the call returned to.  It may not even support incoming calls.

The second does not require caller ID to the end-user. As currently implemented
a subscriber who doesn't have a display can still trap harrassing callers by
dialling a special code after the call, causing the number to be given to the
phone company or police harrassment center.

/john

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

From: Allen Nogee <asuvax!gtephx!hw-4h62![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 22 Aug 89 16:00:44 GMT
Organization: gte


I'd like to dispel some of the myths that have been going around about
Calling Line Identification.  I have been involved in the hardware design
of this feature for GTE.

The following info is transmitted from the CO to your home about 1/2
second after the first ring is completed:

1) Month and Day (01 - 12, and 01 - 31)
2) Military Local Hour and Minute (01 - 23, and 00 - 59)
3) One of the following:
   a) Directory number, 2 - 10 digits
   b) ascii 'P' for Private Number
or c) ascii 'O' for Out of Area

With the present standard, nothing more or nothing less can be transmitted.
Sorry, but words and letters are not possible. In the future, if the
display boxes and standard are changed, we could transmit up to
256 ascii characters with many more interesting possibilities.

The latest I've is that if your number is unlisted, you will get the Private
Number code. (Displayed as 'PRIVATE #' on most boxes.)  I also hear that
the phone company allows callers to type a code (* 7, for example) to
cancel the output of their numbers.  They do, however, have to do this
for every call.

> With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box
> from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee.

Not quite true.  This feature, like touch-tone, requires the CO to install
special equipment in the switch.  You can have all the boxes you want, but
without the feature you don't get the number. I've heard you can buy boxes
for about $50 - $100.  AT&T does supply the box in NJ when you subscribe,
but in the future, I can guess there will be a rental charge. (Like a cable
box.)

I hope the above is helpful, as this is a very new and controversial
feature.

Allen Nogee


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

From: Uri Blumenthal <arnor![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 22 Aug 89 15:59:28 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp., Yorktown NY

 From article <telecom-v09i0312m02 [e-mail] (Ken Dykes):

>>[Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on
>>first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call
>>will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this
>>because you are too ... to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors
>>and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...."  Much too complicated.
>>Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our
>>behavior and actions on the phone, okay?    PT]
>
> 1) If everyone started being responsible for phone usage, you wouldn't
>    need Caller*ID at all!
> 2) I can be responsible for *my* usage, but want to keep my number guarded
>    because I can't guarantee the recipient will be responsible with the inf

Wrong. If you want to keep your number guarded - make it unlisted (see
previous discussion). If you don't - let's keep all the thing simple.
It IS a lot more convenient, when you have either REAL person's name or
his/her phone number the call's made from. At least ONE of those IS
necessary. You don't want to give up the number - let it be another
ID. But why make all the matter so complicated for nothing?

 From article by ficc![e-mail]:
> It's pretty obvious that there need to be rules for this sort of thing. They
> don't even have to be very complex:
>
>     (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call
>         Waiting prefix.
>
>     (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'.
>
> Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted.

Sorry, both points are wrong (:-).

    a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually,
        somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-).

    b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all
       the system. The only way is to make some codes/names show up
       instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE
       IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK.

Regards,
Uri.
--------------
<Disclaimer>


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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 23 Aug 89 02:03:31 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(lawrence.m.geary) writes:
>
>With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box
>from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee.

I agree; it will probably be Panasonic (Matsushita) and not AT&T
that will first come out with a device for the consumer to manipulate
the Caller ID info.  If only AT&T could produce products like
Panasonic...

Speaking of Panasonic, I am told that due to the 178% tariff slapped on
their communications products, they have ceased shipping of same from
Japan.  They said they currently have a 6 month supply, and shipments
will resume when manufacture is started at a new factory in the UK.
--
                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 13:57:49 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  22-Aug-1989 1357" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones

>While moving offices recently, we noticed the following odd label on the
>bottom of AT&T straight sets (normal single line phones):
>
>        WARNING
>
>        USE FOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONLY OR YOU
>        RISK AN ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT.

They're not _quite_ normal single line phones.  If you look at the number on
the bottom, you'll see that it is 2500 DM rather than 2500 D.

The "M" means that the yellow-black pair is connected to a switch inside the
phone which closes when you pick up the phone.  This would be connected to
the "A" and "A1" leads of a key system to make the lights on a key telephone
light and to make your phone interact properly with your secretary's hold
circuit, if necessary.

The reason for the warning is that in older residential installations, Y-BK
carries power for dial lights.  And, to make matters worse, one series of
transformers used to power those lights could create a fire hazard when
shorted.

/john

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 15:07:42 EDT
From: Robert S Sklar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lou Judice 15-Aug-1989 0916) writes:
> While moving offices recently, we noticed the following odd label on the
> bottom of AT&T straight sets (normal single line phones):
>
>         WARNING
>
>         USE FOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONLY OR YOU
>         RISK AN ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT.
>
>
> The phones are on a Dimension PBX. I'm sure I've put consumer phone stuff
> on a Dimension without frying it, so I'm curious about this. (Note, I
> could understand if this was a digital phone or a MET-set type phone).
>
> /ljj

The reason for the warning is probably for the sub-case where someone
attempts to plug this phone into an RJ14 *TWO-LINE* jack.  A business
analog phone, probably a 2500M, is wired differently than its residential
equivalent, a 2500D.  The business phone uses the yellow-black pair
for A-A1 supervision (the hook-switch short-circuits the pair so that
the PBX|KSU knows that the line was picked-up and can light the appropriate
lights on multi-line phones).  On a 2500D this hookswitch pole is used
for other purposes.

Therefore, if you install a 2500M or equivalent in a two-line residential
installation without opening the yellow-black connection to the hookswitch,
you will short-out the second line every time you pick up this phone.

                    Robert Sklar
                    (Lachman Associates, Inc @)
                    AT&T Bell Laboratories
                    Naperville, IL



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

From: Spencer Garrett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture, Business and the General Public
Date: 23 Aug 89 03:59:30 GMT
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle

In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
(John DeArmond) writes:
> And as anyone who has looked below the surface of this subject knows,
> "deaths per passenger mile" is a completely bogus measurment which
> does not represent the true safety condition of modern air travel.  As
> a larger and larger proportion of a carrier's fleet becomes high capacity
> jumbo-jets, the DPPM magically goes down even while the crash rate is up.
>
> A much truer representation is "deaths per VEHICLE mile".  Even more
> representative than that would be "crash rate" in units of "crashes per
> vehicle mile".  Rearrange the figures to fit into either of these models
> and the figures don't look so hot.  Makes pedaling a bicycle on I-75 at
> rush hour look safe.

Just a minute, guy.  Deaths per passenger mile is exactly the figure
you need to calculate your own chance of dying.  How many others meet
their end at the same time isn't very relevant.  Deaths per vehicle mile
just makes bigger planes look less safe, ignoring the fact that fewer
trips need to be made to accomplish the same end.  DPPM does NOT go
down "magically" as planes get bigger, we just don't have to send the
coroners to as many places to pick up the same number of bodies.
Crashes per vehicle mile is a useful figure for gauging the effectiveness
of traffic control procedures, since the size of the plane doesn't
affect the way it's handled, but for overall air safety concerns I
want to know how many *people* bought the farm, not just how many
*pilots*.  (And I'm not down on pilots, mind you; everyone in my
family *is* one!)

(And what is this doing in comp.dcom.telecom?  I've redirected followups.)

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 14:52:55 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  22-Aug-1989 1450" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: 10xxx from payphones

>I was early for a movie this weekend, and at a Southern Bell payphone
>in the theatre with time on my hands, tried several 10XXX-1-700-555-4141
>combinations, all of which led me to "This is the AT&T Telephone Network...
>Thank you for..."(you know the rest). I thought the sign on the phone
>was supposed to show the default carrier...not the only accessible one!

This is part of making all carriers accessible from payphones.

If you had called 10xxx-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX you would have reached your carrier of
choice, if it is willing to provide operator payphone services.

But for now, ONLY AT&T has the necessary hardware to handle coin-paid (1+)
calls.  The new code in most central offices to handle payphone default
carrier selection simply ignores 10xxx on 1+ calls.  Eventually the code
will have to support two defaults -- a default for 0+ and a separate default
for 1+.

/john

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

From: Boot Trax <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More On 234-5678
Date: 23 Aug 89 19:30:55 GMT
Reply-To: Boot Trax <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee


In article <[e-mail]> Bob Clements <clements@
bbn.com> writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 315, message 9 of 11

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

>|I thought I'd try and see what happened with some west coast area codes
>|and 234-5678, and the results are:

>|[list of victims deleted]

>|Apologies for those whose area codes I missed.

>No apologies to the people you bothered with these annoyance calls for your
>own amusement?

>/Rcc


    I don't think apologies are in order. I receive hundreds of calls
a year with promotional computer survey devices and telemarketing firms
calling me and wasting my time.

    Telephones are a public service and should be used as such.

(( [e-mail] )) My opinions are my own, but blame anyone else))
 )) "Undermine their pompous authority, reject their moral standards, make  ((
(( anarchy and disruption you trademarks, cause as much chaos & disruption   ))
 )) as possible, but don't le tthem take you alive"       - Sid Vicious     ((

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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re:Supplementary and Intelligent Network Services
Date: 24 Aug 89 00:16:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]

I posted a question about Supplementary and Intelligent Network Services
about two months ago and since then I received a reply from a Richard W.
Desaulniers with the following InterNet address:

[e-mail]

I have twice tried to reply but only to have my mail bounced. Richard if you
are reading this, then I've received your mail but I cannot reply to them.
Please send me your SNAIL (mail) address and your telephone number so that we
can discuss the topic further.

You might also like to ring me (if you can afford the international phone
call).

Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (alias Doctor(Time Lord))
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:[phone]
Internet: [e-mail]        ([phone] (w)
SNAIL: 243 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #320
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 24 Aug 89 0:55:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #321
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Aug 89 00:45:57 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 321

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    BOC's and Regionals (Roger Crew)
    AT&T Mail and the Internet (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
    How Public Utility Commissions Operate (Charles Buckley)
    Modems and Call Waiting Question (Gary Cattley)
    Help - How to Reach the ECSA? (Chip Rosenthal)
    Book Review: "The Phone Book" (Dave Fiske)
    Satanic LD Carriers Revisited (Andrew Boardman)
    313 234-5678 (John R. Covert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 89 18:36:57 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Roger Crew)
Subject: BOCs and Regionals
Organization: Stanford University Computer Science Dept.

>> What's wrong with this picture?
>> Iowa is served by SouthWestern Bell.  I grew up there; my uncle
>> worked for SW Bell.  I'm quite sure this hasn't changed in the past
>> 10 yrs.  :-)
>
> Well, sorry to say this, but I was just in Spirit Lake Iowa yesterday, and
> called back to work on a pay phone that wanted 35 cents and also had a VERY
> large logo marked "US West Telecommunications" on it.

Doubtless, my memory is at least as faulty as anyone else's, but my
recollection has Minnesota, Iowa, North & South Dakota all being served by
NorthWestern Bell, which upon divestiture became a subsidiary of US West.

While we're at it, maybe we should settle all of these questions in one swell
foop.  Here's my attempt:

NYNEX
  New England Telephone  (Maine, NH, VT, Mass, RI)
  New York Telephone

Bell Atlantic
  New Jersey Bell
  Bell of Pennsylvania
  Chesapeake & Patomic   (Maryland, DC, VA?)

Bell South
  Southern Bell         (NC, SC, GA, FL)
  South Central Bell     (KE, TN, Mississippi, AL)

Ameritech
  Ohio Bell
  Indiana Bell
  Illinois Bell
  Michigan Bell
  Wisconsin Bell

Southwestern Bell
  Southwestern Bell     (LA, Arkansas, TX, OK, KA)

US West
  Northwestern Bell     (Minnesota, ND, SD, Iowa, Missouri?, Nebraska?)
  Mountain Bell         (Montana, ID?, WY, CO, UT, Arizona, NM, Nevada)
  Pacific Northwest Bell  (WA, OR, Alaska?, Hawaii?)

Pacific Telesis
  Pacific Bell          (CA)

And then there are the oddball at-most-partially-owned-by-AT&T non-Bell
companies that somehow managed to take over entire states:

Southern New England Telephone  (Connecticut)
Diamond State Telephone         (Delaware)

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

From: pegasus![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 00:27:44 GMT
Subject: AT&T Mail and the Internet (one more time)

In an earlier issue of the digest, Gary Crum asks:
> What is the relationship between AT&T Mail and the internet?

I'm not going to get involved in the discussion of "internet" vs.
"Internet" vs. "USENET" vs. "world-wide UUCP network"; I'll just handle
the AT&T Mail question.

AT&T Mail is a commercial electronic messaging service.  Since day one,
we've accepted messages from registered systems using UUCP.  We also
have gateways to X.400, Telex, remote local area networks, and PROFS;
XMODEM support for personal computers (and good front-end software for
MS-DOS systems and Macintoshes); and delivery to FAX machines, remote
printers, paper addresses, and telephones.  We charge for message
delivery and on-line message creation; receiving and reading messages
is free.

If you want to send e-mail to someone on AT&T Mail (or through AT&T
Mail), you have to find someone to foot the bill.  (I can get the
current price schedule to the Digest, if there's enough interest.)
The easiest way is to register your own system.  The second easiest way
is to find someone who's already registered, and who's willing to pass
your traffic along (and settle the costs with you in some manner).
Note that if you're sending lots of international FAX messages, these
bills can be steep!

If someone already on (or connected to) AT&T Mail wants to send e-mail
to someone on the Internet, the situation is a little easier (since the
billing's already been taken care of).  Any gateway will work, so it
should be easier to find someone to pass messages along.

In practice, most commercial AT&T Mail users are only interested in
exchanging messages with other commercial mail service users (and paper
and FAX delivery).  People who want to connect with the Internet
(especially AT&T employees) usually have logins on UNIX systems that
can connect to the rest of the network.

If you're trying to reach someone, and the only contact information you
have is an AT&T Mail address, let me know; I'll try to get the two of
you in touch.  (But please don't, as someone already has, tell me,
"Such-and-so in on AT&T Mail, and his telephone number is this, how do
I reach him?")  The AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center doesn't know
what the word "Internet" means, let alone how to reach it, so calling
them may not be much help.

Yes, two of the other commercial e-mail services have just announced
gateways to the Internet which are free (or where someone's picking up
the bill).  I've told my management about it.

To register your system with AT&T Mail, or for other AT&T Mail
questions, please call the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center,
1-800-MAIL-672 (1-800-624-5672).

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 01:04:06 PDT
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject:  How Public Utility Commissions Operate

Pay phone rates and other operating company charges (like monthly
subscriber rates) are subject to review by state organizations, called
various things: Public Utilities Commision, State Utilities
Commission, etc.

These bodies are largely appointive, but can some times be elective.

In the former case, an effort is made to get people with experience,
in order to fairly review utilities applications for rate increases.
While this sometimes leads to getting consumer advocates on the
committee, more often than not it means former utility executives, who
still have close ties to the industry.

In the latter case, the office is not one of great interest to the
voters, and extreme things can happen.  When I want to size up how
politics are played in any given state, I look at the UC as a good
indicator.

The results of utilities regulation varies widely from state to state
- some states have been able to keep utilities costs under control
through strong advocacy on the part of utilities commission members
(e. g. California), while some states have rubber stamp utilities
commissions which are at risk of being snowed by high flash
presentations on the part of utilities.  My home state fell into this
category when I last lived there.

If you want to do something about apparently outrageous utilities
charges, such as $.35 payphones, forced business-line rates for BBS
operators, lack of small-count multi-line discounts, etc., your state
utility commission are the people to turn to.  Bashing the phone
company won't help - they're essentially businessmen, and thrive on
the adversarial pressure.

I never see anyone holding the latest dealings of the various utilities
commissions up to public scrutiny on this newsgroup.

I find that somewhat strange.


[Moderator's Note: This newsgroup began as a *technical* forum relating
to telecommunications. It has only been in the past year or so that the
incoming mail has gotten away from strictly technical issues and become
much more political in nature. The way it has gotten is due in large part
to divestiture and the competition available. The activities of the PUC's
are very important and newsworthy and should receive regular coverage and
conversation. It is just something I don't have time to cover or type in.
If you, and other users with interest in this area will supply factual
messages relating to the PUC's, I will be glad to print them; and this
is a good forum for such discussions.  PT]

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

Date:     Tue, 22 Aug 89 15:06:34 CDT
From:     Gary Cattley - CEMI <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Modems and Call Waiting Question

    I would like to know what effect a call waiting tone might have on
my terminal when I am communicating via modem.  Should I expect to see garbage
on my screen, or maybe even lose the connection?  I'm spending quite a lot
of time on the phone/modem, and would really like to know if someone's trying
to call me, even if call waiting trashed my session (I can always recover
and "lost" data).  Thanks for your time...

                        gary

Gary T. Cattley                | "Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre
email:[e-mail]| and gimble in the wabe.  All mimsy were the"
bitnet: [e-mail]  | borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe." L.C.

[Moderator's Note: A call-waiting signal will at best cause garbage on your
screen and at worst will cause a dropped carrier and disconnection. Or is
it the other way around regards best case/worst case? The solution is to
use *cancel call waiting* on the line when placing calls. In most communities
this is *70 or 70# or similar. If it is operative in your phone office,
then begin using it on the front of each number dialed by the modem. The
best solution of course is to get a second actual line -- without call waiting
installed on it -- and use that line for all modem calls and voice overflow
calls. Cancel call waiting causes incoming calls to get a busy signal. PT]

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help - How to Reach the ECSA?
Date: 23 Aug 89 09:16:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


Could somebody kindly send me the snail mail address for the ECSA?  I
wrote to them requesting information on the T1 Standards Subcommittees,
but unfortunately my address is really old, and the post office bounced
it as unforwardable.  Thanks.
--
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: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "The Phone Book"
Date: 23 Aug 89 19:16:49 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu writes:
> David Fisk wrote in digest #308 about a book called "The Phone Book".
>
> Does anyone know where I can find a copy of it?  I've been looking for quite
> some time.  The University of Michigan has it listed in the card catalog, but
> nobody can find it.  Likewise at 3 other state schools.  Did someone go

Sorry, I should have provided some more information on this book.
Turns out there are a number of books called "The Phone Book."
The one I was referring to is by a "J. Edward Hyde"--the book flap says
this is the "nom de plume of a former middle-management employee of the
phone company who is now a magazine editor, teacher, and free-lance
writer."

I checked the Books in Print Database, and apparently the book is not
in print.  If it's any help, here is the imprint:

J. Edward Hyde, The Phone Book:  What the telephone company would
rather you not know, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1976.

It's been a while since I read the book, so I'm going to re-read it.
I'll post telecom-relevant snippets as I come across them.

As a teaser, here is the text from the dust cover.  I should point out
that it contains a bit of hype.  The book is not quite as anti-AT&T as
this makes it sound.

"On the hundredth anniversary of the corporation known as AT&T--or,
more familiarly, Ma Bell--here's something that actually gives the
country a reason to celebrate; a book written by a former telephone
company insider that tells you what the phone company would rather you
didn't know.

"The Phone Book reveals for the first time precisely how the
60-billion-dollar company manages to thrive in spite of its almost
incredible foul-ups in service; a discriminatory, army-style personnel
system; a monolithic red-tape bureaucracy; and a 'public be damned'
style of operating at the expense of both users and would-be
competitors.  It furthermore tells how the scads of rules (many of them
contradicting each other), idiosyncrasies, and quirks in the system can
sometimes be exploited by the customer on his behalf, for a change.

"Here are just a few of the items discussed in the book that the phone
company would rather you not know about:

" - why your phone may be tapped or your service cut off at the will of
a company employee, without any right to appeal by you.

" - what extraordinary reprisals have been taken against such
'unfriendlies' as customers bewildered by erroneous billings;
well-intentioned employees--including the author--who take the side of
the customer (how, in fact, one high-level executive committed suicide,
leaving a note that stated: 'Watergate is a gnat compared to the Bell
system'); Ramparts magazine (which was forced to withdraw an entire
issue); as well as coin-box thieves and phone phreaks.

" - why Bell bills a month in advance, and why it often demands
deposits from certain types of customers, among them single women and
people with accents.

" - why calls often don't go through, and how the New York City phone
fiasco of 1969-1970 could happen anywhere.

" - why you should ask for detailed billing explanations, especially if
you get a charge marked 'O.C.C.'

" - how to deal with service reps to get the most for your money, plus
dos and don'ts for getting action from operators, installation people,
or their supervisors.

" - how the company made $15 million by introducing colored phones.

" - why the company's dictatorial attitude has enabled competitors to
be first with equipment improvements, delayed the Picture Phone for
three-quarters of a century, and slowed the development of the Computer
Age.

" - why WATS lines are not the budget slicers they might seem, and how
to cut that first WATS bill in half.

" - how Bell System employees have been able to sell nonpublished
numbers lists, customer long distance usage sheets, and customer
preplanning data to outside businesses.

" - why special billing numbers are better than phone credit cards.

" - why businesses must routinely overlease to get the equipment they
need.

" - how curious employees have been encouraged to develop the habit of
listening in on private calls and trading 'hotpants' numbers.

" - why Bell would be doing itself--and everybody else--a favor by
getting out of the phone business.

" - but not why you must pay for the right to have an unlisted number
(there is no good answer)."

--
"ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN   Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 18:51:42 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satanic LD Carriers Revisited


I recall a quote from Patrick somewhat to the tune of "666 has never been
and probably never will be assigned as part of a long distance access code.
Well....  (from a list of 10xxx codes)

654     Cincinnati Bell Long Distance
655     Ken-Tel Service
660     Tex-Net
666     Southwest Communications    <<<*****
675     Network Services
680     Midwest Telephone Service
682     Ashland Call America

/a
(If you want a complete list bother [e-mail].)

[Moderator's Note: Southwest Communications has only recently -- last several
months or so -- been assigned that code. I was unaware of that at the time.
My source at Illinois Bell tells me the company asked for that code.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 17:00:57 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  21-Aug-1989 1701" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 313 234-5678

>[In Flint] When you call, the recording says:
>
>    "You have reached 234-5678, a special test circuit.
>     This call will appear on your bill if you are calling long
>     distance.  This is a recording."

But they lie.  The recording is free.

/john

[Moderator's Note: What? Ma Bell would lie to us? Blasphemy!  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #321
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 24 Aug 89 1:59:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #322
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Aug 89 01:40:33 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 322

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Rates For US Calling Card Calls To US From Overseas (John R. Covert)
    Re: International Calls From/To the USA (John R. Covert)
    LD Carriers (Mark A. Holtz)
    Paying for Long Distance Info (John R. Covert)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John Higdon)
    Re: Calling 800's From Outside USA (translation numbers) (John Higdon)
    Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (Paul Fuqua)
    Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Lord Snooty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 00:20:18 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  24-Aug-1989 0002" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rates For US Calling Card Calls To US From Overseas

>Calling from Europe to the US has always been ridiculously more expensive than
>the other way around. I have an AT&T Card and I was wondering if it would cost
>less if I used the AT&T card instead of calling on a European bill. In other
>words would AT&T charge me the US rates or European rates if calling from
>Europe by means of the AT&T card?
>
>Moderator's Note: AT&T would charge you whatever the local PTT charged-back
>to them for the call. Its the local PTT which is selling you the service,
>and they cooperate with other telcos (and LD carriers) as a courtesy and
>convenience in billing matters. In other words, having an AT&T/Sprint/MCI
>Calling Card would save you nothing. Now if you use the 'USA Direct' service
>available in many countries, that *is* less expensive because you are dealing
>with the local PTT only for a 'local call' to the nearest AT&T point of
>presence.  And AT&T picks up the charges for your call to them from whatever
>country you are in.   PT

Sorry, Patrick, but you're wrong.  Is this "make up a fact" day?

When calling back to the U.S. using an AT&T calling card (except from Canada),
you pay the U.S. rate, not the other country's rate.  In fact, you pay the same
rate whether you use USA-Direct or the local PTT operator.  The advantages of
USA-Direct are only:

    1. It's usually much faster than operators in other countries.
    2. It often fakes hotels out on ridiculous surcharges.
    3. No language problem.
    4. Some countries don't allow credit card calls to the U.S. (Germany
       is one example) but do have USA-Direct.

When you call the U.S. you will pay the operator assisted overseas rate.  You
will pay either the standard or the discount rate, never the economy rate.  The
time and days during which the discount rate applies are usually different than
the times from the U.S. to the overseas country, and are determined by the time
at the location you're calling from.

This is true for ALL countries except Canada.  (I have the bills to prove it,
but if you don't believe me, call AT&T's International Information Service at
800 874-4000.)

Unlike domestic rates, the AT&T overseas operator assisted rate is always a
three minute minimum at the standard rate with a hefty surcharge, so it's
usually best to make a short call paying locally (since most other countries
bill in message units) to make sure the person you want to talk to is there,
and then, if you can't get the person to call you back, make your credit card
or USA-Direct call.

I know MCI now has MCI-Direct, but other than that, does anyone have any
evidence that it's possible to use any carrier other than AT&T for collect
or credit card calls to the U.S. from overseas?

/john

[Moderator's Note: You are in error in saying that the rate for calls from
other countries to the United States is detirmined by AT&T. Apparently what
you are claiming is that AT&T sets the rates for all the telcos everywhere
in the world when the calls are made on AT&T cards. Now it so happens that
in some cases the rates are the same in both directions, allowing for money
conversion; but this has *nothing* to do with the fact that the call is
billed to an AT&T card. You say your phone bills 'will prove it', however
I sincerely doubt you can produce a phone bills showing a call from every
country in the world to the same phone in the United States and a bill
showing a call in the opposite direction where the price, considering
conversion from local currency, is the same.

The various PTT's set their rates and terms. AT&T does not dictate to them
and tell them what they can or cannot charge. In some countries, AT&T
cards are not even accepted! And on a call to the Customer Information
Center, I was told it was precisely because of this lack of control by
AT&T over how foreign PTT's operate (and charge) that USA Direct was
started. It is *only* on USA Direct calls that the calling card rate is
the same coming here as it is in calls going there.  PT]


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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 18:14:48 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  21-Aug-1989 1807" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Calls From/To the U.S.A.

>From: mcvax!cgch![e-mail] (Tom Hofmann)
>Date: 16 Aug 89 09:02:36 GMT
>Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
>
>In consideration of several of long-distance carriers (LDC) in the
>U.S.A., I have two questions concerning international calls.
>
>1. International calls TO the U.S.A.
>   Who handles these calls?  Always AT&T?  If not: Can it be influenced
>   by the calling/called party?

This is up to the other country to decide.  A similar situation has always
existed with Telex, since there have always been multiple carriers for record
traffic to and from the U.S.A.  Some countries would pick a carrier (such as
I.T.T.) for all traffic, other countries would send traffic based on available
trunks or would return the same percentage volume of traffic to each carrier
that originated from each carrier.

>2. International calls FROM the U.S.A.
>   Have each LDC their own international access, or are all international
>   calls forwarded to one single LDC (AT&T)?  In the first case: Are the
>   direct dialable countries the same for each LDC?

It works just like for domestic calls.  Your calls are carried by your default
long distance carrier unless you prefix the call with a 10XXX code for another
carrier.  Resale of international calls was authorized about a year or so ago,
at which point some carriers started sending calls to countries which they
could not handle via AT&T.  Before that, if your carrier didn't serve the
country you were calling, you had to dial 10288 (or another carrier) and then
the number.

>Another question arises, not restricted to the U.S.A.:  What is the
>reason that some countries cannot be dialed directly from one country
>while they can be dialed directly from other countries?  The USSR e.g.
>cannot be dialed directly from the U.S.A. but from Western Europe.
>I think it cannot be a technical problem.  Must there be an agreement
>between the two governments?

Yes, there does have to be an agreement.  In the case of the USSR, the
U.S.A. had direct dial service to the USSR until it was cut off by the
Soviets (for all of the West) right after the Moscow olympics were over.
Service has only recently been restored for Western Europe, and is due
to be restored for the U.S. some time this fall.

In addition to the requirement for an agreement to exist, AT&T tends to
prefer to keep calls handled on a manual basis for countries where there
are an inadequate number of circuits (this is the problem with the USSR
at the moment) or where calls do not complete reliably or incorrectly
return answer supervision on wrong numbers.

/john

[Moderator's Note: In answering this correspondent, you correctly note ("Who
handles the calls?") that it is up to the foreign PTT to decide what they
want to do. Yet you somehow think they do not have the same right to decide
what charge shall be levied for the call, and that AT&T makes that decision
for them?  What about the use of MCI and Sprint cards in other lands for
calls to the USA? Do you think Sprint and MCI dictate to the PTT also? PT]

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

From: "Mark A. Holtz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: LD Carriers
Date: 23 Aug 89 22:32:45 GMT
Organization: Sacramento Public Access, Ca. USA


My "modern" telephone company has finally offered equal access for
LD carriers. However, I am not sure on the different rates. Does
anyone know which company is best for my needs?

LD Calling Pattern:
* Rarely call before 5p
* Sometimes call between 5p and 10p weekdays
* Usually call on weekends

6-7 LD calls per month.

--
*->           Mark A. Holtz           <=>  AppleLink PE: Mark Holtz  <-*
*->       7943 Sungarden Drive        <=>       GEnie: M.HOLTZ       <-*
*->  Citrus Heights, CA  95610-3133   <=> Home Phone: [phone] <-*
*-> UUCP: ames!pacbell!sactoh0!mholtz <=> [For FAST reply, use UUCP] <-*

[Moderator's Made Up Fact: I would suggest AT&T's Reach Out America would
suffice; with the additional evening discount added in.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 17:04:17 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  21-Aug-1989 1702" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Paying for Long Distance info

Long Distance info used to be free.  Then we got competition.  (Competition,
**NOT** divestiture.)

Suddenly, AT&T started carrying all sorts of non-revenue traffic that it
never was able to recover the cost of from offsetting revenue traffic.

People would dial 1-NPA-555-1212, costing AT&T money for the long distance
call, and would then dial their favorite other long distance carrier to
complete the call.

Not fair to AT&T.

As an AT&T residential customer, I get some number of free D.A. calls each
month, as long as I place an offsetting revenue call to that area code.

/john

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 24 Aug 89 04:48:42 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
(John DeArmond) writes:
> No, the concept of universal service is that the costs, sometimes
> individually
> extraordinary, are spread across the rate-base so that everybody pays just
> a little bit.  Sure, you may not use DA often but for some others it may
> be vital.  I'll bet you use other free value-added services of the

I'm afraid I have to disagree. While I concur with your comments about
inside plant and the other incidentals to provide dial tone to
different subscribers and equalizing those costs in the spirit of
"universal service", DA just isn't one of those things. I have ten
residential lines. I get no volume discount; it's $oneline X ten. I
have CommstarII (home centrex) at $8.00/line. (Do you suppose it costs
them $8.00/month/line to have typed the features in once a long time
ago?) Granted, these are "value added services" and I am happily (?)
paying for them.

My long distance bill is approx. $400/month. By your reasoning, that
cost should just be spread over the rate base and let everyone share in
the cost. No matter how you look at it DA is an *optional* service. You
CAN avoid using it. And let's face it: DA abuse was rampant before
charging began. I know people who literally prefaced *every* call with
411 because they couldn't remember numbers and felt that looking them
up or writing them down was too much trouble. And remember, those who
are disabled can get a waiver on charges.

> I know that I'm on them frequently
> to fix problems with my lines that only affect data transmission.  Sure I
> could buy a data-grade line and in fact, they try to push that from time to
> time.  My residential service is surely more expensive than the subscriber
> who only calls his/her mother once a week.  But I don't think any of use
> REALLY want pay-as-you-go.  That some PUCs have allowed the phone company to
> deviate from the concept of universal service is sad indeed.

Ah, but the concept of universal service only applies to the most
"basic" (whatever that means) telephone service. It is quite right and
proper for telephone companies to charge for anything more. Quite
honestly, if your non-data-grade lines are unsatisfactory for your use
and data-grade lines are, then, my friend you are looking for more than
basic telephone service and you will have to pay more to get more.

I'm not insensitive about this. Five of my lines carry data. But I
fortuately live virtually next door to the CO and have never had any
problems. If this wasn't the case, I would pay for data-grade if
necessary. BTW, I've never thought that Pac*Bell should give me a
discount because they don't use much cable to provide my service.:-)
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 800's From Outside USA (translation numbers)
Date: 24 Aug 89 04:17:34 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Vance Shipley) writes:
> In order to test an 800 number with US coverage you must dial from the states
> since calling from here in Canada wouldn't complete.  So to test one of these
> circuits we would have to know the 'conversion' number.  To use this number

This is actually known as the "POTS" number. An 800 number is nothing
more than an ordinary line with an ordinary or POTS number that has
special treatment by the long distance carrier. When a caller dials an
800 number, it is translated by the long distance carrier into the area
code and phone number of the POTS line and then billed to the 800
subscriber. Back when it was just "the phone company", 800 POTS lines
were restricted from out calling (some still are) but now various
companies are offering 800 translations to customers' standard business
lines and even some residential.

POTS=Plain Old Telephone Service.

> I don't know if this would work internationally or not.  Also I'm not sure
> how it would be billed.  Anyone care to comment?

Since you are calling an ordinary number, it would be billed at
prevailing rates.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 12:58:24 CDT
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money?

In recent weeks I've seen a couple of new variations on the 900-number theme:

1.  On one of the local Spanish-language TV stations, a new magazine is
    advertising "free" subscriptions if you call their 900 number (which is
    $2 or $3 per minute, I forget).  In typical misleading style, the
    commercial closes with a five-second shot of the word "Gratis" positioned
    right above the 900 number.

2.  Some group is using a 900 number to raise money to help clean up the
    Alaska oil spill (or so they claim).  The number doesn't do anything, but
    the $10 collected per call "is a charitable contribution made through
    your phone bill" or something like that.

By the way, about that "Women's Secret Confessions" line:  some months back,
there was *another* 900 number which one could call to *make* those
confessions.

Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail]
                               {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center
PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265


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

From: "Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head " <nsc!berlioz.nsc.com!
[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls
Date: 19 Aug 89 12:44:29 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes:
> Consumers phoning businesses might find their numbers
> being passed on to telephone marketing concerns without permission.

This is serious. This is hard to combat.

>    "A caller-identification system that does not have a blocking function
> endangers the lives of battered women," said Gail Jones, director of
> Women Escaping a Violent Environment, a counseling center based in
> Sacramento, Calif. "The woman or her counselor will often contact the
> batterer to let him know that she is all right."

This is ridiculous. If that's all they want to say, let them use a
phone-booth. "I'm all right, dear. I have escaped our violent environment.
Bye."
 ...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman    There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away,
[e-mail]    That's what I says to myself, says I,
time sucks                       jolly good luck, hooray!


[Moderator's Note: With this Digest, we conclude our eighth year of electronic
publication. The Digest has grown and expanded tremendously in the past
year; and I take this opportunity to thank all of you who have made it
possible with your informative and interesting messages.   Patrick Townson]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #322
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 25 Aug 89 1:31:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #323
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Aug 89 01:25:06 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 323

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Telecom's Ninth (TELECOM Moderator)
    Tariff Question (Tom Neiss)
    Is CNI Necessarily ISDN? (Torsten Dahlkvist)
    Subscriber Line Charge (Steve Keifling)
    Telco Service Anecdote (Steve Elias)
    Sprint Rep Responds to Paul Flynn's Question (Steve Elias)
    Comments About Issue #322 (David Gast)
    Re: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? (Ron Natalie)
    Re: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway? (Tim Nelson)
    Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (Lawrence M. Geary)
    Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (John Arisco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 24 Aug 89 21:00:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Telecom's Ninth

TELECOM Digest begins its ninth year of continuous publication today. It
began publishing August 25, 1981. The Digest has grown substantially since
the early days, and is now read by telecom professionals and enthusiasts
around the world.

The Digest is distributed to Usenet, where it is read by an estimated 13,000
netters each day. It is distributed to several telecom interest groups
resident on local machines at various sites. It goes by electronic mail
to individual mailboxes on the Internet, Bitnet, Telenet, Fidonet, MCI Mail,
AT&T Mail, Compuserve and Telebox (West Germany) networks.

To those of you who actually write each issue of the Digest, my thanks!


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 07:53:42 EST
From: Tom Neiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tariff Question
Organization: State University of New York - Central Administration

1. Is there a discussion list on tariffs?  Both proposed and current?

2. If there is none then I would like information on a proposed tariff by
New York Telephone which I noticed in the newspaper last evening.  These
notices are most times obscure and would like help in deciphering exactly what
it is they are proposing.
   a.  Simplified Message Desk Interface(SMDI)II
   b.  Introduction of Netowrk Reconfiguration Service

Could someone offer a better description?

Thanks,
Tom Neiss
Telecommunications Coordinator
The Research Foundation of The State University of New York
[e-mail]
518-434-7200

[Moderator's Note: There is no specific discussion group on tariffs of
which I am aware. This Digest is the 'discussion list' by default. Perhaps
a reader(s) with a background in tariffs will assist you.  PT]

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

From: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is CNI Necessarily ISDN?
Date: 24 Aug 89 12:31:36 GMT
Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden

Hmm.

An interesting thought just struck me. There's been some talk about Calling
Number Information on this meeting and some about ISDN. Because I used to
work with ISDN and the first time I heard of CNI was there, I just naturally
assumed they were linked. That is, I thought the subscribers beeing offered
CNI were field-trial ISDN customers. But when I look at the numbers of
subscribers quoted as potential CNI customers it certainly doesn't look
like any field trial any more. Or somebody is manufacturing one HELL of
a lot of stuff which I haven't heard about.

So I started thinking about other solutions and something soembody said about
signal bursts made me realize that it should be possible to send some sort
of digitally encoded data on the phone line between the ring pulses to convey
the necessary information.

Is this what's being done? If so, how much do they send out? Is it just a
field of "display data" that is shown on the user's display or does the
receiving unit contain additional "intelligence" so that it can select
specific fields of information from the burst?

Could this kind of encoding be used to convey additional information to
the receiving party? Like if a certain sequence of *'s and #'s was dialled
with the subscriber number they'd get carried along and sent to the receiving
party along with the CNI. That way you'd give the users a whole bunch of
ISDN-like features at a much lower cost.

Is this another example of the evolution of an older product continuing
during the development of a newer one so that the advantages of the newer
one aren't all that great when it finally hits the market? Will the struggle
between ISDN and analog lines with digital add-ons be as fierce as that
between MicroChannel and the extended AT-bus?

It seems to me that the technical aspects of this issue must have been covered
before the political problems were brought into the discussion so I probably
just missed the beginning of it when I first started following News. If the
topic has been covered and somebody can summarize it in a mailing to me then
I'd be very grateful.

/Torsten

 Torsten Dahlkvist
 ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories
 P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25  ALVSJO, SWEDEN
 Tel: [phone]

[Moderator's Note: Watch your mailboxes for a special edition of the Digest
to be issued Saturday devoted to a lengthy article on ISDN.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 23:48:10 PDT
From: Steve Keifling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subscriber Line Charge

My roommates and I want to put in a second line into our house for modem use.
Somewhere I recall hearing that the phone company could install a "bare-bones"
line that could only make local calls and hence be exempted from the FCC
"Interstate subscriber line charge."  However, when I called GTE I was
informed that all phone numbers have this charge whether they make long
distance calls or not.  Furthermore, she offered me the "service" of blocking
long-distance calling for a mere $2.50 per month!  Feh.

Is GTE giving us the runaround, or is this FCC charge in fact inescapable?

-----
Steve

Moderator's Note: The charge is assessed to compensate local telephone
companies for lost revenue as a result of their no longer being partially
subsidized by long distance revenue. It has nothing to do with whether or
not you make long distance calls; but rather that the long distance companies
do not contribute (by the historic formulas, at least) to the cost of local
phone service. It is inescapable. Send a note to The Great Architect of
modern phone service in the USA and thank Him for his wisdom.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telco Service Anecdote
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 08:42:39 -0400

I had a second phone line installed two winters ago, during a VERY
cold spell.  Every pair of the 50 pair terminator for my block was
used.  The phone company had to install a new 50 pair 'trunk' connection
back to the somewhere, all to install my one extra line.  There were *many*
hours of pole time involved here.  The NYNEX engineers were involved
somehow, not just the typical service cats.  It must have taken them
quite a while to string that 50 pair cable -- there were phone trucks
in my neighborhood for many days!

Finally, a regular NYNEX service guy showed up and hooked up the new line
in the house.  It was a windy 5 degrees out and he was sitting on a
telephone pole.  He came in every few minutes to warm up and play with
our cat.  Total cost for all the work was only $60.

-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail], [e-mail]
-- voice mail: 617 859 1389
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Rep Responds to Paul Flynn's Question
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 16:19:06 -0400

 [e-mail] writes:

>Group C bypasses a few switch steps, which was one of the reasons why
>ATT calls used to get completed faster than Sprint's.

Paul Flynn responds:

I've never heard this one before.  Feature Group C access (used by AT&T)
and Feature Group D access (used by the others) are both trunk-side
connections.

    Sprint pal says you are correct.  My transcription of his
    original comments about these 'feature groups' was lacking.

What difference between Feature Group C and Feature Group D allows AT&T to have
a shorter call setup time than the other common carriers?  US Sprint makes
heavy use of access tandems, while we tend to connect directly to a local
exchange carrier's end office, but that is a business decision on US Sprint's
part, not something they are forced to do because of Feature Group D.

    Again, you are correct...  Reasons for that business decision follow:

    Because of the fact that Sprint was building a new network, they
        started by getting access to hubs (tandems). This provides more access
        per unit $ and per unit setup work.  Analogy: first drill a well in the
        middle of a town, and then go out to different neighborhoods and drill
        more wells.

    Sprint does build circuits with CO access as time progresses, but
    they started by accessing the tandems.

Can your buddy at US Sprint explain to us what Feature Group C vs. Feature
Group D has to do with call setup time?

    There's no difference with the circuit itself.  Group D and
    Group C are basically the same thing.  No non-ATT carrier can buy
    a feature group C.  Sprint's original Group D circuits came out
    of tandems, but those were their first routes.  As they fine tuned
    their network, their new routes terminated at COs instead of tandems.

    One reason that ATT often has quicker call setup time is that they
    have had more time to build their network, and they probably have
    far more CO-terminated routes than tandem-terminated routes,
    compared to the alternative carriers.


On the subject of Sprint bashing.....

    Ben Ullrich at Sybase wrote:

How are they not half-assed??  Unless you give good reasons for the
``bashing'' to stop, there will be no motivation to do so.  And

    Ben -- unless you give good reasons for the "bashing" to
    occur, there is no motivation to "bash".  in fact, it's
    just annoying to those of us interested in facts rather
    than bullshit.

``Claims'' by Sprint are no better than any ``bashing.''  Let's see
some real answers.

    point out what is wrong with Sprint's "claims", Ben,
    instead of giving trite responses like "let's see real answers".
    my friend at Sprint is giving "real answers".  why don't
    you give us "real questions or comments" ?

-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail], [e-mail]
-- voice mail: 617 859 1389
-- work phone: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 15:42:31 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comments about Issue #322

Regarding Digest Issue 322

> [Moderator's Note: ...

> It is *only* on USA Direct calls that the calling card rate is
> the same coming here as it is in calls going there.  PT]

Not true.  The charge for USA Direct from Japan does not vary with
the time of day.  It costs somewhere in between night rate and evening
rate from the U.S.  My statements are based upon information which is
a couple months old; the charges may have changed in the meantime.

[Moderator's Note: Best tell Mr. Covert about this. He claims calls to or
from the USA and other countries are *always* the same rate when the
AT&T Calling Card is used. As you note, Japan has no time-of-day pricing
to call here. We do have when calling there. Ergo, different rates, even
on the card.  PT]

=================

> Does anyone know which company is best for my needs?

> LD Calling Pattern:
> * Rarely call before 5p
> * Sometimes call between 5p and 10p weekdays
> * Usually call on weekends

> 6-7 LD calls per month.

> [Moderator's Made Up Fact: I would suggest AT&T's Reach Out America would
> suffice; with the additional evening discount added in.  PT]

You really do not provide enough information, specifically how long do your
calls last?  MCI has some alternatives to ROA which may work better for
you.  In particular, they have a Saturday only plan.  If you live in a
state/locality which taxes interstate telephone calls, you may want to
consider going with a company that sends ther bill to you rather than having
the BOC bill you.

The moderator or anyone else really has no way of knowing what the best
solution for your needs is.  The best idea is for you to call the
various major carriers and ask them for their rates given your specific
usage patterns.  There do not appear to be any great deals anymore.

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

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway?
Date: 24 Aug 89 18:43:39 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

It's really more of a newsletter than a magazine (at least it was several years
ago when I was getting them sent to me via the Army security office).

It's a magazine for "Telecommunications Hobbyists." Generally, just articles
on how phones and phone systems work.  Not nearly as break in oriented as TAP,
but they discussed things like hunting around on ARPANET, TELENET, several
private telephone networks, things on how Pay phones worked, etc...

The name comes from the frequency of the tone used to signal on a long distance
trunk or something like that (not much into that stuff).

-Ron

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

Date:     Thu, 24 Aug 89 16:51:10 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Tim Nelson)
Subject: Re: What is 2600 Magazine, Anyway?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Tim Nelson)
Organization: NCR Canada Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario

In article <[e-mail]> sje![e-mail]
(Tom Ace) writes:

>I've seen "2600 Magazine" discussed here recently, but I imagine there
>are plenty of readers who (like me) don't know what it is.  Could someone
>please briefly tell us what the magazine is about?
>

2600 is a hackers magazine.  Look for it in your local bookstore, if you are
lucky you may just get a hold of one.

==========
tim (nelson)         | uucp        ...!uunet!attcan!ncrcan!tim
ncr canada           | internet     [e-mail]
[phone] x442  | 6865 Century Ave, Mississauga, Ontario
==========

[Moderator's Note: Actually it is more for phreaks than hackers.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:21:36 EDT
From: Lawrence M Geary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary,ho,)

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

>MTV first used 900 service during Bruce Springsteen weekend in 1987, and
>they received 886,000 calls in two days. Flushed with that kind of success,
>MTV ran a contest in March, 1989 to give away Bon Jovi's childhood home
>in Sayerville, NY. Within *15 minutes*, 300,000 calls had been received.
                ^^
I wonder how many calls they would have received if the callers had been
told the truth: Sayreville is in New Jersey.

I know. I live there.

--Larry
--

     [e-mail]    Think globally ... Post locally    att!hoqax!lmg

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 18:19:14 CDT
From: John Arisco <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money?

    Last night, I was watching Nickolodeon and I observed what has to be
the sleaziest 900 number scheme I've seen so far. The service was called
something like "Kid's Talk Line", and it encouraged kids to call this number
to speak with other kids (or maybe to hear recordings) about problems faced in
growing up.

    It implied that counselors would be online occasionally to give advice
about things like divorce, family violence, substance abuse and sex.  From what
I saw, it looks very similar to the "Women's Private Confessions", since most
of the examples shown were kids (mostly confused, upset, tearful kids) pouring
out their hearts on the telephone.

    I would be the first to say that every city in the US needs to have
telephone counselling available for kids (and anybody else who needs help),
but to take advantage of this situation is the ultimate in scummy tactics.  Of
course, the commercial ended with "Kids, get your parent's permission before
calling."

--
 John Arisco, MCC CAD Program | ARPA: [e-mail] | Phone: [512] 338-3576
 Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!arisco

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #323
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 25 Aug 89 2:23:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #324
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Aug 89 02:20:11 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 324

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Some Questions About International Country Codes (Tom Hofmann)
    Re: Some Questions About International Country Codes (Wolf Paul)
    Re: My New Phone Service (John R. Covert)
    Re: My New Phone Service (David Lewis)
    Re: National Views of Access Codes (Tom Hofmann)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Leonard Erickson)
    Re: Interactions between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy" (D. Lewis)
    Re: Compuserve and the Internet (Joe Bradley)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Dell Ellison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Questions About International Country Codes
Date: 24 Aug 89 11:39:37 GMT
Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland

 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
philips.nl (Dolf Grunbauer):
> 5. Are there any countries with a 4 digit country code ?
>
> [Moderator's Note: I think the longest country code has to the one for the
> Vatican; it is six or eight digits, of which the final digits simply appear
> to be appended to the code for Italy.  PT]

The seven digits for the Vatican (3966982) are composed as follows:

    a) 39   (the country code for Italy)
    b) 6    (the area code for Rome)
    c) 6982 (an exchange within the Rome area code)

A problem that arises here is that we use the notion "country code" in
two different manners:

    a) telephone-system code
           (all calls within one telephone system can be dialed
       without international access code)
    b) proper country code
       (all international calls starting with this code end
       in one and the same country)

One telephone system can provide several countries (e.g. U.S.A. and Canada);
the involved countries have no proper country code.  In some cases, however,
a small country covers exactly one area code of a telephone system.

Liechtenstein e.g. has area code 75 within telephone system +41 (Switzerland).
The Vatican covers only an exchange within an area code. For these countries a
proper country code can be determined: telephone-system code + area code
(+ exchange). For Italy, however, there is no proper country code (+39 covers
Italy, the Vatican, and San Marino).

When we say country code we usually mean telephone-system code (+1 e.g.---USA
and Canada have no proper country codes), and these codes are in fact limited
to three digits.

Tom Hofmann    [e-mail]

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

From: Wolf Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Questions About International Country Codes
Date: 23 Aug 89 19:31:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx


 >[Moderator's Note: I think the longest country code has to the one for the
 >Vatican; it is six or eight digits, of which the final digits simply appear
 >to be appended to the code for Italy.  PT]

Right, and if you are in Italy, all you dial is these final digits: It is
in fact simply a separate area code within Italy, technically speaking,
although for political reasons it may be identified as a country code.

The same scenario holds for some other small countries and their so-called
country codes.

Wolf Paul
--
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * [phone]
UUCP:   {texbell, attctc, dalsqnt}!dcs!wnp
DOMAIN: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
        NOTICE: As of July 3, 1989, "killer" has become "attctc".

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

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 18:45:07 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  21-Aug-1989 1842" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New Phone Service

>From: techwood![e-mail] (John Wheeler)
>Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta

>I am moving as of September 1 into the heart of Atlanta, which means
>that my phone service will be moving from 404-496 (Tucker, GA co)
>to 404-875 (midtown [10th street] co).

>Does this mean that this switch is caller-id ready - just waiting
>for the politics to come around?

Yes.

>Is this an all-digital or digital/analog switch?

It's a 1AESS, fully analog, but with a digital computer controlling the
operation of the machine.

/john

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New Phone Service
Date: 24 Aug 89 18:58:55 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <[e-mail]>, techwood!johnw@gatech.
edu (John Wheeler) writes:
> ... the representative from Southern Bell checked to
> see if that exchange qualified for their new (apparently pre-caller-id)
> package of services, which they call (here we go again with these
> blasted stars) Touch*Star. The services she offered were:
>
> 1)      selective call forwarding...forwarding only specified numbers
> 2)      automatic callback of last calling party
> 3)      distinctive ring based on calling party
> 4)      call trace (I didn't get all the details)
>
> Does this mean that this switch is caller-id ready - just waiting
> for the politics to come around? Is this an all-digital or digital/analog
> switch?

These services are all part of the CLASS (SM) package of services.  If
you look at them, you see that they all need calling party number to
work.

WRT Calling Party Number Delivery (aka Caller*ID aka who knows how many
other cute names), what it means is that the software is in place, but
Southern Bell has been either unwilling or unable to tariff it to date
-- either politics, or an unwillingness to try out the politics yet.

WRT the switch, it means it's an SPC (Stored Program Control) switch --
most likely a 1AESS, which is an analog switch with a digital computer
control (most likely because something like 80% of the lines served by
the Baby Bells are served off of 1As); possibly a 5ESS or a DMS-100,
both of which are digital switches.

CLASS is a Service Mark of Bellcore, but no one really cares about
Service Marks, so I don't know why we bother...
--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: National Views of Access Codes
Date: 24 Aug 89 12:36:14 GMT
Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland

 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Mark Brader):
> 1. France seems to be the only country outside North America where what
>    we call the access code is not considered part of the phone number.
> 3. There seems to be no country outside North America that uses 1 as an
>    access code; France uses 16.

The fact that the access code is not part of the phone number is a rather
new feature in the U.S.A.  It became established when 1+ dialling was
introduced.  One reason why the leading 1 is not considered part of
the phone number might be that 1+ dialling was introduced gradually.

But direct distance dialling was already available before 1+ dialling,
and there was (and still is) an access code (strictly speaking two access
codes) for long distance calls: the second digit of the area code (this
digit is either 1 or 0).  And this access code was and is considered part
of the phone number.  The only difference to other countries' system is
that the access code is/are not the first digits of the number.

Tom Hofmann    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 21:01:40 PDT
From: Leonard Erickson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question

In comp.dcom.telecom you write:

>> In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that
>> when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of
>> where the call is originating.  Simple solution: have a public agency such
>> as the police place the call.  No invasion of privacy, no danger to the
>> bettered women.  Just a *different* way of looking at things.

>Sounds good, but you're asking a battered woman--who has been through an event
>of unimaginable trauma--to behave rationally and with logic. This requires her
>to ASK the police or ASK the shelter to ask the police to make the call for
>her.  It's just as likely that in her emotional turmoil, she'll just go and
>make the call without thinking about potential consequences.  She HAS been
>married to (or living with) this jerk for some time, and regardless of how
>much she may fear or loathe him, she also has deep within her some positive
>feelings for him.  If there are children involved, the psychological
>entanglements get even messier.  Remember-- "when dealing with human beings,
>a certain amount of nonsense is inevitable."

It just occured to me that this argument about the women's shelter is
bogus.  For the number to show up, the *shelter* has to be on an office
that has the special features available. Just make sure that the
"business" phone for the shelter isn't available to the battered wife,
and that the other phones don't have an address in the phone book (to
insure against the slight chance that the husband has access to a
reverse directory).

Result? Now the husband has a number *but no address to go with it*!
So he can call the number. Big deal... If he gets obnoxius, Call*trace
will handle it. So the only danger is that he could convince someone
on the *non-business* line to give him the address. I rate that as about
as likelty as the wife giving him the address.

I keep saying "non-business" to emphasize that this line would be one
listed as something innocous. (J. Random User? ) It wouldn't be the
line that the shelter gets it's calls on. So it wouldn't be answered
"XYZ Women's Shelter, may I help you?" Heck, it could even be an
outgoing only line! (They do exist)

With a minimal amount of forethought on the part of the people
running the shelter, the problem disappears. It's a lot more likely
that the wife will *tell* him where she is! After all, I can easily
see someone as distraught as everyone is making the wife out to be
giving him the phone number if he asks her for it!

--
Leonard Erickson        ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interactions between "retry on busy" & "return call if busy"
service
Date: 24 Aug 89 17:13:05 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <[e-mail]>, munnari!batserver.cs.uq.
oz.au!anthony (Anthony Lee) writes:
>In the proceedings to the 7th International Conference on Software Engineering
>for Telecommunications Switching Systems, there is an article by T.F. Bowen
>et al from Bellcore.

>The article was called "The Feature Interaction Problem in Telecommunications
>Systems"  The following is a paragraph from the article:

[text deleted]

>> To make this idea concrete, suppose that customer
>>A has automatic "retry on busy", which continues calling a busy line until
>>it is free, and customer B has automatic "return call if busy", which
>>remembers a call that arrives when the line is busy and returns it as soon
>>as the line is free.  If A calls B, an infinite cycle of calls could be
>>initiated, in which B tries to return A's call but A is retrying B, who
>>remains busy trying to call A.
>
> .....
>
>My question is why is it not possible to have the exchange watch for
>such a situation and cancel either the "retry on busy" or "return call
>if busy".   Is it possible to view the above problem as a deadlock
>situation ?

Part of the problem is that you don't have just *one* situation to watch
out for.  True, you could have your switches or your service logic (I'm
using some perhaps unfamiliar terminology here; sorry -- consider it a
peek at Bellcore documents...) (of course, they're not *proprietary*
documents, so I won't get fired...) watch for a certain situation.  But
in an environment where you have a potentially large number of services
being introduced fairly rapidly (where "rapid" is in comparison to
today's pace -- e.g. two years or less to introduce a new service),
you've got an exponentially growing set of pairwise interactions; if you
also factor in the multiple states in which any two services can
interact... determining the proper pairwise interactions for each new
service can become a Very Big Deal.  (Which, to my understanding, is the
way that it's done in developing a new switch generic today -- and guess
how many staff-years it takes to create a new generic?  Lots.)

--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 15:38:20 edt
From: Joe Bradley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Compuserve and the Internet

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

>For those that use or know someone on Compuserve, it is now
>possible to mail to or from the Internet and CIS. The procedure
>is pretty straight forward, but I don't have it handy now. If
>anyone is interested, let me know and I will mail a copy.

>[Moderator's Note: ... the addressing scheme is '[e-mail]'
>and it is quite reliable. The first part is simply the CI$ user ID number
>separated with a dot in the middle. I send copies of the Digest to a couple
>people on CI$ now who prefer to receive it in their mailbox there, although
>no re-distribution of the Digest is permitted at that site.  PT]

Does anyone know if there is a direct connection to Compuserve from the
Internet? It would save a lot of money and time if you could telnet directly
in. At least 50% of my time on-line is spent waiting for stuff to print to the
screen at 2400 baud.

G.J. (Joe) Bradley, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332

UUCP:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gb7
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Dell Ellison <asuvax!gtephx!who![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Dell)
Date: 24 Aug 89 19:22:58 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
(John DeArmond) writes:
-> It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's
-> fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable,
-> right-of-ways, telephone poles and so on.  IF we wanted to be very strict
-> with this concept of only those who use a service pay, then you would
-> get charged extra if a cable right-of-way was extra expensive or if your
-> trunk was damaged by storms or routing to your house took a few extra taps
-> or the road to your drop box is rough, accelerating the wear on the phone
-> company truck, or the fact that all your extra extensions use extra power
-> from the ring and battery supply and so on ad infinum.

With this kind of attitude, you might as well include LD (Long Distance)
charges as well!  Then those of us who call our mother on the other side
of the world can do so every five minutes and not have to worry about
the great cost.  (Heavy Sarcasm)

Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using
directory assistance.  We don't all need to pay for them.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #324
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 26 Aug 89 0:08:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #325
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Aug 89 00:02:45 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 325

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Bell Canada Billing Insert (Richard Sargent)
    An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number (Roy Smith)
    Forced to Use TRON (Boyd Harnell via Chip Rosenthal)
    Origin of "Generic" (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    LD DA, Access Fee, and the Strike (David Gast)
    Call Forwarding Fluke in My Office? (Miguel Cruz)
    Can an AOS masquerade as MCI? (David Singer)
    Re: Hotel Long Distance (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Compuserve and the Internet (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (Alexander Dupuy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:10:34 est
From: Richard Sargent <pantor![e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Billing Insert

The following is extracted, without permission, from an insert found
in my latest bill from Bell Canada (still regulated, thank goodness!).

* THE LONG DISTANCE BARGAIN

At a time when the prices of almost everything you buy have gone up,
it's always a surprise to find that some prices have actually gone down.

Yes that is the case with the price you pay for Bell Canada long
distance service.

Since 1986, long distance prices have dropped:
- 26%, on average, for calls within Bell territory (Ontario, Quebec,
  and parts of the Northwest Territories);
- 31%, on average, for calls from Bell territory to other provinces; and
- 11.6% for calls to the United States and 27.7% for calls overseas.

These rate reductions apply to discount periods (evenings and weekends)
as well as the normal business day.


* LOW RATES FOR LOCAL SERVICE

While Bell's long distance prices have dropped, rates for local service
have remained stable for five years running. Since 1984, local rates for
Bell customers have gone up by less than four per cent, on average.
Meanwhile, the Canadian Consumer Price Index has gone up by 20 per cent.

This means that the amount of time you have to work to pay for basic
service is shorter. For the typical Bell residential customer, it's now
45 minutes a month, down from 50 minutes five years ago.

In comparison, since 1983, according to the Unuted States Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), local service rates in the U.S. have
gone up an average of 48 per cent. And local service in the U.S. is
far more expensive than in Canada. Examples of monthly rates for local
service, not including installation charges (in Canadian dollars):

          U.S.A.                         CANADA
Buffalo          $32.10            Quebec(city)    $ 9.60
Cleveland         23.66            Montreal         11.60
Milwaukee         25.96            Toronto          12.60


* One Reason For Low Rates

A key reason local rates are so low in Canada is the subsidy from
long distance revenues.

With the subsidy, local rates are priced below cost, with long
distance above cost.

At the same time, more than 98.5 per cent of households in Bell
Canada territory have telephone service (Even the U.S. can't match
this: 93 per cent of American households have service).

For 1989, we expect that about $1.8 billion of our long distance
revenues will be needed to help cover the cost of local service.
That's a subsidy of about $20 a month for a typical residential
customer.


====================== End of Verbatim Excerpt ======================

I note phrases like "American households" versus "households in Bell
Canada territory". Also, I have no idea of the validity of comparing
the various cities as Bell did. I wonder how the rates are in cities
like Miami, Washington, and New York.

Unfortunately, I neglected to bring the itemized portion of my bill
to work, so I can't break down the costs. My average monthly bill
is in the neighbourhood of $30-35. This includes a number of long
distance calls to my in-laws (during evening hours), and such nasties
as a "touch tone" surcharge. As an aside, Bell in the past has
tried to convince customers to get touch tone service, since it is
cheaper and better for Bell, however, the want you to pay for that
privilege! I understand it is (was?) the same in the U.S.


Richard Sargent                   Internet: [e-mail]
Systems Analyst                   UUCP:     uunet!pantor!richard


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

From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number
Date: 25 Aug 89 13:24:10 GMT
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC, NY


    I just spoke to an operator and asked him for information on how to
place a shore-to-ship call via the marine operator.  He wasn't sure (I
suspect it wasn't an AT&T operator) but suggested that I call 102880411.
What's interesting is that he said "one-oh-two, pause, eight-eight-zero,
pause, four-one-one".  As he was saying it, I was writing down digits,
putting a space everytime he paused.  I looked at it and asked him if he
was sure it was right; it didn't have the right number of digits for any
phone number I knew, and 102 sure is a funny looking area code anyway.

    It wasn't until a bit later that I realized it should be parsed
10-288-0-411.  It's amazing how much you depend on the cadence to be able
to remember phone numbers.  Speak those 9 digits 3-3-3, and they make no
sense, speak them 2-3-1-3 (or 5-1-3) and it's obvious.  I once got a
directory assistance recording which spoke a 7 digit number in some funny
way (something like 2-2-2-1).  I had to listen to it about three times
before I could manage to copy the digits down.

--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- [e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Forced to use TRON
Date: 25 Aug 89 03:42:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor

The following message appeared in comp.arch and comp.os.misc.  Malcolm
said he didn't mind if I passed it along to the TELECOM readers.

For those unfamiliar with TRON, it is a project spearheaded by Ken Sakamura
(sp?) and embodies a set of specifications for a range of processors and
operating systems.  Here in the states, TRON is quite controversial.  The
arguments I've heard tend to fall into two catagories:  (1) it is
architecturally ugly, and (2) it is being conducted in such a way which
excludes US involvement.  Number 1 is a religious argument which always
happens when you get computer types together.  I believe it is really the
second argument which makes TRON controversial.

--- start of forwarded message -----------------------------------------------

>From: [e-mail] (Malcolm Slaney)
>Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.os.misc
>Subject: Forced to use TRON
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

 From the Monday August 7 issue of Electronic News

NTT: Suppliers Must Use Tron Operating System
By Boyd Harnell

Tokyo - Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (NTT) last week said that
its ISDN and digital switching network suppliers will be required to use
the Japanese-developed Tron operating system - a move opposed by U.S. Trade
Representative Carla Hills as a potential trade barrier against American
equipment.

Ms. Hills' agency, in a report to Congress last May on major trade barriers,
had said any Japanese attempt to make the Tron operating system mandatory
in procurements would bar U.S. firms in the market.  The report said Japanese
telecommunications firms had a long lead in developing equipment using
the Tron software to be ready for mandatory Tron requirements.

In what was perceived to be an attempt to show the Tron requirement does not
discriminate against foreign suppliers, NTT officials described Tron as an
open architecture system that allows for all equipment firms to interface
their products into the new ISDN and digital networks.

As evidence they said a foreign firm, Northern Telecom, is participating in
the NTT joint development program of equipment using the new Tron operating
system.  Others are Fujitsu, Hitachi, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, NEC, Oki and
Toshiba.

[The article continues with a description of NTT ISDN switches and some other
similar stuff.]

--
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: [e-mail]
Subject: Origin of "Generic"
Date: Fri, 25-Aug-89 07:32:28 PDT

Could someone fill me in on the practice of using the term "generic"
instead of "release", "version" or any number of other terms, when
talking about new central office switch software?

There must be a historical reason for it, but it seems like a strange
term to use...

[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 18:34:06 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: LD DA, Access Fee, and the Strike


It's interesting to note that the FCC has implicitly or explicitly agreed
that if we want Interstate Directory Assistance we must pay for it,
but the Access Fee will be accessed on all residential (and most
business) accounts whether long distance calls are made or not.

I have no objection to paying for long distance information calls.  I
do object to the present system.  1) The Long Distance Companies spend
lots of money advertising.  Presumably they consider this a necessary
cost of business.  2) Getting a number from DA is in many ways like
advertising.  In this case they would be advertising a specific number,
not some catchy song that is devoid of content.  3) Because the specific
number has some value to the customer, they believe they should sell it.
4) I would not mind having to pay for DA if it cost a reasonable amount.
I get something like 5 free phone calls to local DA per month (and I use
about 1), after that they charge, perhaps 10 cents a piece.  So, if I
pay 14 cents per minute for the LD call and 10 cents for the information
call, then it should cost 24 cents, not the sixty cents or whatever that
is charged.

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that one LDC, AT&T, does provide
a way to get a few LD information numbers each month if a call is made
to the same area code.  I believe that this system is reasonably fair.

Finally, speaking of advertising, I have to comment on the fact that
PacBell had been advertising their Centrex System very heavily with
lines like It's in their office, nothing can go wrong.  As soon as
the strike started (actually perhaps a little earlier I don't know exactly),
these commercials stopped.  Perhaps the strike can cause things to go
wrong.  Not to mention major fires a la Hinsdale, etc.


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


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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 20:58:34 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Call Forwarding Fluke in My Office?

I recently got call forwarding on one of my home lines.  Naturally, I've
been playing with it incessantly.

One day, I forwarded calls from my office phone to my home phone, as I
often do.  Now having forwarding at home, I decided to see what would happen
if I then forwarded my home calls back to my office.  A busy signal, I
predicted.

But when I went to another phone and called my number, I heard a loud
click.  Then 2 seconds later, another click.  2 second later, another.
Each time, a little quieter.  Finally, after about 10 or 12 of them,
they were too quiet to hear anymore.  I listened for a couple minutes,
but nothing much else happened.

Should I assume that some piece of equipment was actually dumb enough to
keep bouncing the calls back and forth, ad infinitum?  If I could tie
up two lines every two seconds that way, it seems like some idiot could
clog up an entire CO in a couple of hours.
--
Another thing.. recently, the phone (I'm in 313) has started to allow
me to prefix local calls with 1+.  What am I to assume from this?
--
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 11:12:27 PDT
From: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI?

I know that some AOS companies have access to the AT&T/BOC PIN
database so they can verify my card and charge me through my local phone
company.  Am I safe from AOSes when I call the MCI 950 (or 800) number
and use my MCI Card?

David Singer ([e-mail], [e-mail])

Disclaimer:  Yes.


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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel Long Distance
Date: 24 Aug 89 18:35:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I don't know how long ago you did this, but for a while the way AT&T operators
answer the phone is "AT&T"

-Ron

[Moderator's Note: But many tend to slur it, so it comes out 'Aytee Optur'.
Maybe that comes from the volume of calls they handle each day.  PT]

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Compuserve and the Internet
Date: 25 Aug 89 17:59:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

It would save you a lot of money, but it would still cost someone. Actually,
it wouldn't be hard to do.  Rutgers already has the stuff in place to do it,
but it obviously isn't enabled.  CompuServe is accessible via the X.25
networks.  We have an X.25 -> telnet gateway (we only have the into the
internet side turned on right now).

-Ron

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 13:24:38 EDT
From: Alexander Dupuy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Does anyone know what the meaning of the letter codes after the model # on
phones is?  I have an old 500DM(?) black rotary standard which I like because
it works even when the AC power is out, and because it rings loud enough to
hear it across the apartment.  Is there any possibility it will short out my
second line when I hook that up?

@alex

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #325
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 26 Aug 89 1:03:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #326
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Aug 89 01:00:59 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 326

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Another AT&T Rate Reduction Coming (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea (Bob Clements)
    Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea (Dan Howell)
    Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Mike Trout)
    Re: BOCs and Regionals (Daniel Faigin)
    Re: BOCs and Regionals (Eric Schnoebelen)
    Re: Compuserve and the Internet (Amanda Walker)
    Re: 313 234-5678 (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones (Macy Hallock)

[Moderator's Note: Watch in your mail over the weekend for a special
edition of the Digest, with a feature-length essay on ISDN, written
by Dory Leifer of the Merit Computer Network.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 26 Aug 89 0:31:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Another AT&T Rate Reduction Coming

American Telephone and Telegraph Company has still another five percent
reduction in long distance rates planned, scheduled to take effect on
January 1, 1990.

This new reduction is part of the Reach Out plans offered by AT&T. Here
are the basics:

   Customers Who Subscribe to Reach Out America
   ============================================

   A five percent discount will be given on all international dial calls
   to all points, regardless of the time of day. The discount will apply
   during the standard, discount and economy rate periods.

   A five percent discount will be given on all direct dial calls to
   Canada in the same way. It will also apply 24 hours per day, every day
   of the week.

   These new discounts will replace the discounts that were given on
   international calls during the standard and discount periods and on
   Canadian calls during the day and evening rate periods.


   ===================================================================
   Customers Who Subscribe to Reach Out Overseas <or> Reach Out Canada
   ===================================================================

   A five percent discount will be given at all times of the day on
   interstate calls. This replaces the discount which was formerly
   given during the day and evening rate periods.


   ====================================================================
   Customers Who Subscribe to Reach Out America AND (Reach Out Overseas
   -or- Reach Out Canada)
   ====================================================================

   A five percent discount will be given on all interstate dial station,
   Canadian dial station and international dial calls except those which
   are already discounted in their respective Reach Out plans.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Bob Clements <BBN.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea
Date: 25 Aug 89 15:40:42 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Clements <BBN.COM![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
com (John R. Covert) writes:
>I'm going to be as brief as possible, since this has been argued before.
OK, me too.

>These are the two most often stated benefits:
[Skipping the first one, not a benefit to us consumers.]
>    2. Stopping harrassing phone calls.
>The second does not require caller ID to the end-user. As currently
>implemented a subscriber who doesn't have a display can still trap harrassing
>callers by dialling a special code after the call, causing the number to be
>given to the phone company or police harrassment center.

Here I disagree.  Trapping the number to the CO may not help you at all.  The
problem is that the definition of "harassment" that the telco and the police
use may not match yours.  You may want to take legitimate consumer/economic
action against an obnoxious "telemarketer", for example.  Or in a case that
happened to me, the harassment went on for a short enough period of time that
I'm confident no police department would have acted.  But I wanted to know the
source and couldn't get it.

My short-form conclusion on Caller-ID:

  1)    The caller should have the right to suppress the ID.
  2)    The callee should have the right to have unidentified
        calls suppressed, without even ringing the called phone.
    (Maybe the caller hears "Unidentified calls are not being
    accepted at that number" and gets billed for the call,
    of course.)

I think that is fair to the caller, the callee and the telco.

/Rcc

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

Date: 24 Aug 89 17:56:31 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea
From: [e-mail]


The pro-Caller-ID people want caller ID because they want to block out the
harassing telemarketers.

The anti-Caller-ID people don't want caller ID because they don't want the
harassing telemarketers to have their number.

Why don't we just outlaw telemarketing and get rid of this problem once and
for all?

Dan Howell  <[e-mail]>

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls
Date: 25 Aug 89 17:31:16 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, nsc!berlioz.nsc.com!
(Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) writes:

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

> >    "A caller-identification system that does not have a blocking function
> > endangers the lives of battered women," said Gail Jones, director of
> > Women Escaping a Violent Environment, a counseling center based in
> > Sacramento, Calif. "The woman or her counselor will often contact the
> > batterer to let him know that she is all right."

> This is ridiculous. If that's all they want to say, let them use a
> phone-booth. "I'm all right, dear. I have escaped our violent environment.
> Bye."

I hate to keep beating on this subject, but "there you go again..."  No woman
who has just escaped a violent domestic environment is going to make a
rational, logical phone call like that.  The counselor can be relied upon to
behave rationally, but not the victim.  We all make the mistake of assuming
that people will always do what they should do, but this is like saying that
drunk driving should go away simply because drunk driving is wrong.  I daresay
that Gail Jones knows a lot more about the behavior of battered women than you
do.

--
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

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 08:02:32 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA

>Pacific Telesis
>  Pacific Bell          (CA)

Pacific Bell most certainly does not provide service for all of California.
The two other *large* companies that provide service in California are
Continential Telephone (CONTEL) and Generally Terrible Equipment (oops)
Grouchy Turtle Enterprises (oops) General Telephone (GTE). I should know. I've
lived in CA all my life, and have never had service under PacBell. I have been
*blessed*? with GTE. (Which reminds me of a story of a PacBell customer who
moved to a GTE area, and then received a sympathy card from PacBell :-) )

It would be interesting to see a summary of where these companies provide
service. I know that GTE provides service in Hawaii and California, and that
Contel provides service in parts of CA, NV, and CO.

I have another question. Telephone books provide lots of information on what
it costs to call whereever. However, they do not provide information on what
regional company you would need to call to provide local service. The only way
I have found to do this is to see what prefixes are omitted from one book
(they belong to the "other" guy). This is critial in Los Angeles, where
service is divided between GTE and PacBell.

Daniel

--
Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149
Home :=> 9758 Natick Avenue * Sepulveda CA 91343 <= NEW ADDRESS * 818/892-8555
Email:[e-mail] (or) [e-mail]
Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest"

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

From: Eric Schnoebelen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
Date: 25 Aug 89 16:19:04 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Central Iowa (Model) Railroad, Lewisville, Tx.


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

- While we're at it, maybe we should settle all of these questions in one swell
- foop.  Here's my attempt:
-

    Some corrections to the list.. Not too bad of an original start
though..

- Bell South
-   Southern Bell         (NC, SC, GA, FL)
-   South Central Bell     (KE, TN, Mississippi, AL)

    Add Louisiana to South Central Bell ( at least if my memories
of living in Shreveport are accurate.. )

- Southwestern Bell
-   Southwestern Bell     (LA, Arkansas, TX, OK, KA)

    Remove Louisiana, add Missouri..  ( SWBT is based in St. Louis,
Mo. )

- US West
-   Pacific Northwest Bell  (WA, OR, Alaska?, Hawaii?)
-   Northwestern Bell     (Minnesota, ND, SD, Iowa, Missouri?, Nebraska?)

    Remove Missouri ( see above )

-   Mountain Bell         (Montana, ID?, WY, CO, UT, Arizona, NM, Nevada)

    Nevada is served by Pacific Bell/Pacific Telesis.


    All of the above is from memory, checked by a CCMI/McGraw Hill
National Lata Map.


--
Eric Schnoebelen,            JBA Incorporated, Lewisville, Tx.
work: [e-mail]            home: [e-mail]
        MS-DOS: The Cockroach of Operating Systems

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

From: Amanda Walker <intercon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Compuserve and the Internet
Date: 25 Aug 89 19:12:29 GMT
Reply-To: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe
Bradley) writes:
> Does anyone know if there is a direct connection to Compuserve from the
> Internet? It would save a lot of money and time if you could telnet directly
> in. At least 50% of my time on-line is spent waiting for stuff to print to
> the screen at 2400 baud.

Well the mail gateway is a little daemon that runs on one of Ohio State's
Pyramids--the actual connection is a normal dialup, as far as I know...
I don't think CompuServe is connected to any real networks (aside from
their own packet-switched service).

--
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation

[e-mail]    |    ...!uunet!intercon!amanda

[Moderator's Note: Compuserve has an NUIC which is reachable via Telenet
and most foreign PTT data networks.  PT]

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 313 234-5678
Date: 25 Aug 89 17:32:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

>>[In Flint] When you call, the recording says:
>>
>>    "You have reached 234-5678, a special test circuit.
>>     This call will appear on your bill if you are calling long
>>     distance.  This is a recording."
>
> But they lie.  The recording is free.

Perhaps it is true.  They never said it was going to be charged,
perhaps it is a special test number that shows up as a zero dollar
charge on your bill.

-Ron

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

From: nc386!fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Unusual Warning Notice on Phones
Date: Fri Aug 18 14:57:49 1989
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Organization: F M Systems  Medina, Ohio USA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Lou Judice 15-Aug-1989 0916) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 300, message 8 of 8

>While moving offices recently, we noticed the following odd label on the
>bottom of AT&T straight sets (normal single line phones):
>
>        WARNING
>
>        USE FOR BUSINESS SYSTEMS ONLY OR YOU
>        RISK AN ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT.


Generally speaking, this indicates the sets are modified for use behind
1A2 key telephone equipment.  This older style electromechanical key equipment
tequired a single line set to put out a dry contact closure when off hook,
on the yellow+black base cord wires.  These same wires were used in residential
applications to provide dial light power for Trimline sets, from a 2012A
transformer.

Unless the 500/2500 sets were field modified, the suffix on the designation
was different form the usual 500D  (Its been too long, I can't remember all
the old Western Electric numbers!)  I've got my old Key Syetems Manual around
her somewhere....

Plug in a A-lead control set in a residence and during the next long phone
call using that set, the subscriber would notice a distict smell of charred
copper+enamel insulation.  Rumor had it that more than one residence burned
to the ground due to shorted dial light transformers !

       Macy Hallock               fmsystm![e-mail]
       F M Systems, Inc.          hal!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
       Medina, OH 44256           Voice: 216-723-3000 X251
       Disclaimer:                My advice is worth what you paid for it.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #326
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 26 Aug 89 2:01:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Introduction to ISDN
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Aug 89 02:00:00 CDT    Introduction to ISDN

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Introduction to ISDN  (Dory Leifer via Ray Guydosh)

[Moderator's Note: I am pleased to present this special essay by Dory
Liefer, and I thank Ray Guydosh, a long-time Digest reader and
contributor for sending it along.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Aug 89 09:13 EDT
From: Ray Guydosh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Article on ISDN

Patrick,
I stumbled upon the article below and thought that you might be interested
in seeing it if you hadn't seen it already.

Regards,

Ray
==========================================================================
An Introduction to ISDN

Author: Dory Leifer
Filename Filetype: ISDN LEIFER_D

(Dory Leifer is a programmer for the Merit Computer Network, located in
Michigan. This article was originally published in the Merit Network News,
Vol 3 # 3, October, 1988. Permission to use this article is granted
provided the original source is cited and a hardcopy of the article is sent
to the editor at Merit, 5115 I.S.T. Bldg, 2200 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor,
MI 48109-2099. Further information about Merit, the Merit Network News, or
this article may be obtained by sending electronic mail to [e-mail].)
===========================================================================
                    - Introduction to ISDN -

Motivated by the ever increasing public need to send digital information in
the form of voice, data or image, national governments along with private
corporations have developed a scheme called Integrated Services Digital
Network (ISDN). Although this concept dates back to the early 1970s, only
recently have standards been developed. The standardization of ISDN has
resulted in an emerging market of ISDN equipment and service plans. This
technology will have widespread impact on both suppliers and users of
network equipment and services.

In the United States, all seven regional Bell operating companies have
initiated limited testing and deployment of ISDN. General deployment is
expected during the mid to late 1990s. Our European and Japanese
counterparts are committed to the nationwide implementation of ISDN.

ISDN will spur technological development of new and innovative products and
services for both research and business. This article introduces the basic
concepts of telephone networks and ISDN and explores possible applications
of ISDN technology.


The Telephone Network

In order to understand why ISDN evolved, let's look at the current
telephone network. The basic telephone is an analog instrument connected to
a pair of wires. Analog means that signals are transmitted by varying the
frequency and intensity of the electric current in response, in this case,
to changes in the speaker's voice. Digital signals, in contrast, consist of
only two discrete voltage levels corresponding to binary 0 and 1. The pair
of wires from a subscriber's premises, a private home for example, is
connected over approximately a mile of cable to a local telephone company's
central office. This pair of wires is commonly called the "last mile" or
local loop.

Inside the central office, the pair is attached to a device called a
switch. The switch converts the analog signal to digital by sampling it
thousands of times a second. The switch also routes the call by examining
the telephone number called. If the call is long-distance, it is routed by
the local telephone company, Michigan Bell, for example, to an
Interexchange Carrier (IEC) such as AT&T, MCI, or US Sprint. The IEC routes
the call to the local telephone company at the destination, still
preserving the digital nature of the signal.

Digital signals can be carried easily over long distance lines because they
can be combined or multiplexed for transmission on high capacity links.
Digital signals also are not very susceptible to noise during
amplification. When the destination switch receives the digital signal, it
converts the digital signal back into analog and sends it out over the
local loop at that end.

This conversion between digital and analog seems reasonable for voice since
humans (even programmers) cannot hear or speak digitally. But what if we
intend to exchange digital information by connecting two computers
together? In that case, we must convert digital information from our
computers into analog signals using a modem.

When these signals reach the central office, they are converted back to
digital. The digital signal can only be a sampling of the "noise" coming
out of the modem, not a regeneration of the original bit stream from the
computer. The reverse process is used at the destination switch to convert
the digital signal back to analog and pass it to the destination modem
which finally turns it back for the last time to a computer bit stream.

This process is not only redundant, it is inefficient. When voice is
converted from analog to digital, a bit rate of 56,000 bits per second
(bps) is typically dedicated to carrying it. This rate is required to make
sure that the voice will sound natural when it is converted back to analog.
Since the telephone network treats modems the same way, a rate of 56,000
bps is also required to convey modem signals. However, most modems send and
receive at or under 2400 bps. The rest of the capacity is wasted.

Modems serve another purpose apart from digital transmission. Most modern
modems incorporate automatic dialing and answer functions. We say that a
autodial modem exchanges signalling information with the telephone network.
The modem can be instructed to place a call and report its progress:
examples of what it can report back are "ringing", "busy", and "no
circuits available".

Again in this case, because the telephone network is designed for voice,
computer equipment is disadvantaged. The modem requires special hardware to
detect (actually to listen and guess) the sound of a busy signal, ring, or
call incomplete message (usually preceded by three tones.) This type of
signalling is not only analog but it is in band: that is, signals and real
transmitted information use the same channel.

On a phone line, you cannot start dialing unless you hear a dial tone. A
dial tone means that your phone is connected to a device at the telephone
company ready to accept call initiation. If a call is in progress and you
try to dial, the person at the other end hears an unpleasant tone. Sharing
a single circuit to convey both transmission and signalling information
imposes serious limitations.

ISDN relieves the limitations of both in-band signalling and analog
transmission. The next section describes a standard ISDN interface which
provides end-to-end digital transmission and separates the signalling
functions from the transmission functions.

ISDN Basic Rate Interface

The ISDN basic rate interface is the standard interface to connect
subscribers to the ISDN. This interface uses the existing telephone wire
pair. Instead of using this pair for analog signalling and transmission,
only digital information is conveyed. On this wire, three channels or
digital paths exist. The channels are multiplexed by giving each a time
slice on the wire. Since ISDN channels are half duplex or uni-directional,
a "ping-pong" method is used so that when one end transmits, the other
listens. The ping pong happens with every tick of some central clock so the
link appears to be bidirectional.

Each ISDN circuit includes three channels:

  2 B or Bearer channels for data or voice (each 64,000 bps)
  1 D or Data channel for signalling or packet data (16,000 bps)

These channels provide both signalling and transmission.

Notice that there is no distinction between voice and data on the
B-channel. The ISDN treats both as a stream of bits. The bits have
significance only to the terminating equipment such as a telephone for
voice or a computer for data. When a subscriber wishes to place a call, the
terminating equipment sends a packet on the D-channel containing the
information needed by the network in order to establish the call. Assuming
that the call succeeds, the subscriber may then send either voice or data
on a B-channel. To end the call, a take-down packet is sent. This is
analogous to hanging up.

Bearer Channel Transmission

The B-channel is referred to as a clear channel because of its ability to
pass an arbitrary bit stream transparently. In reality, arbitrary bit
patterns have limited uses since the B-channel must adhere to the
disciplines of existing voice and data networks. Sending voice using some
non-standard encoding would preclude placing calls between the ISDN and the
existing telephone network. A standard Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) scheme
has been standardized for digitized voice because it is compatible with the
existing voice network.

Correspondingly, a data protocol must be employed on the B-channel if the
subscriber is to reach hosts on the existing packet services which are not
yet on the ISDN. Even if the host is on the ISDN, the network provides no
guarantee that the data will be transmitted without errors. This is not a
serious problem with terminal sessions (we live with error-prone modems),
but for computer to computer connections (for example, performing a file
transfer) an error-correction protocol may be required.

The B-channel itself provides services that comply with layer one of the
Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Reference model (the physical layer).
That is, it offers a medium through which bits may pass. (For information
on OSI protocols, refer to the Dec. 1988--Jan. 1989 "Merit Network News",
which may be obtained by sending a message to [e-mail] )

If a subscriber uses the ISDN to call another computer directly, a minimum
of a layer-two protocol is involved for error correction and flow control.
In many cases, the subscriber will wish to access a host on a packet
network like Telenet. In this case, both a link layer (OSI layer two) and
network layer (layer three) are required. The subscriber then uses the X.25
protocol between the ISDN and his or her machine. An interworking unit acts
as a gateway between the ISDN and the packet network, using the X.75
protocol.

A somewhat similar service could be deployed by Merit in the future to
provide Internet access for ISDN subscribers. Off-campus users could place
an ISDN call to an Internet gateway. They could then access TCP/IP
applications like file transfer, remote terminal, and mail. ISDN provides
added support in this case: since the ISDN would report the caller's
address, a unique Internet address could be associated with a particular
calling address. Other services which require authentication of the caller
would also be facilitated by this feature.

The Data Channel

The Data or D-Channel was originally specified by the CCITT for signalling
but later was re-specified to include both signalling and transmission of
packet data. Unlike its sister B-channel, the D-channel is not designed to
carry an arbitrary bit stream. The D-channel uses both a link layer, Link
Access Protocol-D (LAPD), similar to HDLC, and a network layer, Q.931,
similar to X.25.

The D-channel may be used for packet data when data throughput is not of
high priority. No call set-up or take-down is required when using the
D-channel to interface in packet mode.

The signalling protocol on the D-channel is based on the set of signalling
messages needed to establish and release a simple 64,000 bps B-channel
voice or data connection. Included in call set-up are:

  * Flexible addressing compatible with many standard networks
  * Required data rate
  * IEC (long distance carrier) selection if applicable
  * Notification if line forwarded to another address
  * User information text

Signalling information is exchanged between a subscriber and the ISDN. But
this information must also be passed within the ISDN to assure timely
circuit establishment, efficient allocation of resources, and accurate
billing and accounting between various service providers. A protocol called
Common Channel Signalling Number Seven (CCS7) performs these functions.
CCS7 was designed by AT&T and is based on the international standard CCITT
Signalling System Seven (SS7). CCS7 is already used on a wide scale for
signalling in the non-ISDN world but will be essential to support ISDN.


Equipment

Compatibility with existing equipment is extremely important to most of the
users who will migrate from switched and private networks to ISDN.
Therefore, most of the early ISDN equipment which users will purchase will
be adapters for non-ISDN devices such as asynchronous terminals with RS-232
interfaces, 3270 style terminals with IBM SDLC and coax interfaces, and
various LANs. An interface to connect common analog telephones will surely
be a hot seller.


Many of these devices are quite complex because they have to support both
signalling and transmission. For example, an adapter which allows RS-232
attachment for terminals needs to interface with both the B- and
D-channels.

Under development by several manufacturers are integrated terminals that
combine voice, data, and signalling into a compact desktop package.
Initially, these terminals will function as expensive desktop space savers,
replacing a separate phone and terminal, but later they will provide access
to truly integrated services.

What is an Integrated Service?

The concept of an integrated service is an abstraction rather than a set of
particular CCITT recommendations. An integrated service is one that is
capable of providing a wide assortment of information well organized into a
single package. This information may be, for example, in the form of voice,
computer data, video, or facsimile.

Initially, services available on ISDN will not be integrated. Voice and
data, although they may be accessed together on an integrated terminal,
have little to do with one another. Voice calls will involve only voice and
data calls only data. We speak of this relationship as Service
Co-existence.

The second generation of ISDN services will be integrated. For example,
consider a future bank credit card service. A card holder who disputes an
entry in the credit card bill places an ISDN call to the bank. At the bank,
a customer representative equipped with an ISDN terminal answers the call.
The bank representative immediately has access to the caller's name and
records since the ISDN passes the customer's originating address. The bank
uses this address as a key into its customer database. The representative
can address the customer by name when answering the phone. When the
customer explains the nature of the problem, the bank representative
retrieves the previous month's bill, which appears simultaneously on both
screens. If the statement is in error, the balance can be recomputed before
the customer's eyes. Integrated services can also facilitate research
collaboration via multi-media voice, image, and control functions between
scientists.

Applications which require exchange of only short, infrequent messages can
use services offered by the D-channel. Applications such as burglary
alerting, energy control, credit card verification, cable TV requests for
service, and home shopping can be accomplished using the D-channel packet
facilities.

Advantages of Circuit Switching

Although the data rate of 64,000 bps may be too slow for
bandwidth-intensive applications like real-time high definition imaging,
ISDN's circuit-switched capabilities do offer several advantages to the
research community over packet-switched networks like Merit, NSFNET or
ARPANET. Certain real-time applications which require cross-country
connectivity can be run over ISDN. Although the individual circuits which
comprise modern packet networks may be much faster than 64,000 bps, the
overhead involved in packet switching and queueing is far in excess of
similar circuit switching functions on an established call.

Packet networks try to optimize aggregate performance across the entire
network. Real-time applications are usually interested not in averages but
rather in worst cases. If you get a 64,000 bps ISDN circuit, you will be
guaranteed 64,000 bps service for the duration of the connection.
Throughput on a packet network might average 150,000 bps, for example, but
might fall below 64,000 bps 10\% of the time, causing serious problems for
a real-time system.

Another advantage ISDN has over packet networks is its potential ability to
interface to a wide variety of digital laboratory equipment. The ISDN
B-channel offers clear channel transmission. There is no protocol overhead
involved in order to exchange information. This bit pipe can be used, for
example, between detector/collector paired devices without the complication
and expense of packet protocol gateway machines at each end of the
connection. ISDN interfaces will eventually be readily available in VLSI,
which will allow them to work with a wide variety of equipment at minimal
additional cost.

High Speed (Broadband) ISDN

Many argue that 64,000 bps, based on the transmission capacity of the
existing telephone system, is too slow to provide a wide assortment of
integrated services. High-definition television, computer-aided design,
medical imaging, and high-quality audio all require far more bandwidth than
available in the current ISDN.

An evolving standard for broadband ISDN (B-ISDN) may include 150 megabit
per second subscriber lines over fiber optic local loops. A switch that can
handle thousands of such lines requires technology far beyond conventional
VLSI design. The power to be exploited by future designs of this type of
switch will be mind-boggling.

Conclusion

ISDN will extend the capabilities of today's telephone networks, thus
providing a market for new services. Most introductory services will apply
service co-existence; services will be described as "running over" ISDN.
ISDN will do for data networks what the Communications Act of 1934 did for
voice -- provide a ubiquitous method for public transmission. Pioneer users
of this technology will have both the opportunity and the challenge of
helping to shape the future of telecommunications.

References

      Armbruester, H. "Universal Broadband ISDN: Greater
 Bandwidth, Intelligence and Flexibility." Proceedings from the
 IEEE ICC, June 1988.

      Dorros, I., "A Systems Approach for National
 Telecommunications Policy." IEEE Communications, Jan 1989, Vol 27,
 Num 1.

      Habara, K. "ISDN: A Look at the Future Through the
 Past." IEEE Communications, Nov 1988, Vol 26, Numb 11. pp 25-32.

      Roehr, W., "Signalling System Number 7."   Open
Systems Data Transfer,  February 1985. pp 1-16.

      Smith, E.A., et al "Impact of Non-Voice Services on
 Network Evolution." Electrical Communications, number 1, 1981. pp
 17-30.

      Stallings, William.   Tutorial - Integrated
 Services Digital Networks (ISDN). IEEE Computer Society, 1985.

     "Standard Makers Cementing ISDN Subnetwork Layers."
  Data Communications,  Oct 1987, Vol 16, Num 11.

      Williams, R., and R. Gillman "ISDN Access Protocols -
 Status and Applications." National Communications Forum, 1984. pp
 181-190.


***************************************************************************
CCNEWS Copyright Notice

If you use this article, in whole or in part, in printed or electronic
form, you are legally and morally obligated to credit the author and the
original publication name, date, and page(s). We suggest that you also
inform the author of your intention to use this article, in case there are
updates or corrections that he or she might wish to suggest.

If space and format permit, we would appreciate your crediting the "Articles
database of CCNEWS, the Electronic Forum for Campus Computing Newsletter
Editors, a BITNET-based service of EDUCOM." We would also appreciate your
informing us (via e-mail to CCNEWS@EDUCOM) when you use an article, so we
will know which articles have proven most useful.

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

[Moderator's Note: Again, my thanks to Ray Guydosh for sending this along
to share with you. In Sunday's Digest (327) more messages from John Covert
explaining how AT&T sets the rates foreign PTT's must charge for calls to
the United States when the call is placed on an AT&T card.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest : Introduction to ISDN
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 27 Aug 89 0:56:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #327
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Aug 89 00:50:33 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 327

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Overseas Calling Card Rates (John R. Covert)
    British Telecom Int'l and AT&T Rate Comparison (John R. Covert)
    Europe <=> USA calls (Paolo Bellutta)
    A Fix For USENET Reply Problem (Chip Rosenthal)
    UK System X, etc (Clive Carmock)
    Question About ROA (David Gast)
    Seminars Scheduled for Fall/Winter (TELECOM Moderator)

[Moderator's Note: Due to scheduled maintainence on the Delta machine
at Northwestern University, the system will be down Sunday night from
about 11 PM until Monday morning at 8 AM. Therefore, the Digest will
not be published on Monday, August 28. If there is enough stuff in the
queue, I may put out another edition late Sunday evening, but otherwise
the next Digest you receive will be Tuesday morning, August 29.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 11:12:42 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  25-Aug-1989 0931" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overseas Calling Card Rates

>Moderator's Note: You are in error in saying that the rate for calls from
>other countries to the United States is detirmined by AT&T. Apparently what
>you are claiming is that AT&T sets the rates for all the telcos everywhere
>in the world when the calls are made on AT&T cards.

AT&T sets the rates it charges AT&T customers for calls to the U.S. from
overseas.  This is the agreed upon practice for the handling of international
calls.  When a person from the U.K. calls home to the U.K. from the U.S. with
a British Telecom card, the U.K., not the U.S., rate applies.  When an AT&T
customer calls the U.S. from the U.K., or Chile, or any other country which
allows the use of AT&T cards or which allows AT&T to provide USA-Direct
service, the U.S. dertermined rate, which AT&T has filed with the FCC, applies.

>Now it so happens that in some cases the rates are the same in both
>directions, allowing for money conversion; but this has *nothing* to do with
>the fact that the call is billed to an AT&T card.

The above three lines have no basis in fact.  By charging the U.S. rate for
calls to the U.S. from overseas AT&T avoids worrying about currency conversion.

>You say your phone bills 'will prove it', however I sincerely doubt you can
>produce a phone bills showing a call from every country in the world to the
>same phone in the United States and a bill showing a call in the opposite
>direction where the price, considering conversion from local currency, is
>the same.

I travel extensively internationally, and can produce phone bills for calls
to the U.S. from many countries.  The rate is invariably the AT&T U.S. rate.

>The various PTT's set their rates and terms. AT&T does not dictate to them
>and tell them what they can or cannot charge.

The PTTs set the rates they bill their customers.  They do not set the rates
AT&T bills AT&T customers; those rates are set by AT&T.  Face it, Patrick,
you are simply mistaken.  Admit that you are wrong.

>In some countries, AT&T cards are not even accepted!

This is correct.  Germany is one example.  But collect calls can be placed
from Germany through PTT operators, and will be billed at the U.S. rate.
Germany doesn't have a rate for collect or credit card calls, because neither
concept even exists for calls within Germany or for Germans travelling outside
Germany.  The same rate will be charged for the collect call to the U.S.
whether the call is placed through a Deutsche Bundespost operator or through a
USA-Direct operator.

And while we're discussing Germany, here are the applicable rates.  I travel to
Germany at least once or twice a year.

Calling the U.S. from Germany, a station-to-station calling card call placed
via USA-Direct will cost  6.62 for the first three minutes, 1.09 for each
additional minute.  No discount periods apply.  [Source:  AT&T International
Rate and Dialing Information Service, 800 874-4000.  Confirmed by calls
appearing on my phone bill on 2 April 1989.]

Calling to Germany from the U.S:

Dial Initial Minute    Op Assisted 3 Mins    Each additional minute
Econ  Disc  Standard    Station     Person    Econ   Disc   Standard
1.16  1.46    1.94     6.62         8.82     .65    .82     1.09

[Source: AT&T Pub 1WB311 dated 11/88]

Calling to the U.S. from Germany, paid in Germany:

One message unit (DM 0.23) every 1.882 seconds M-F noon-midnight, every 2.28
seconds at other times.  This works out, at the exchange rate of 1.9555 quoted
in today's paper, to be DM 7.33 or $3.75 per minute during the higher rate
period or DM 6.05 or $3.10 per minute during the cheap rate period.  Since
hotels charge between DM.50 and DM.70 per message unit, a person calling the
U.S. from a hotel could be shocked with a charge of $114.13 for a ten minute
call to the U.S. instead of the $37.50 the call would have cost if directly
dialled from a private phone or $14.75 if placed through USA-Direct.

[Source for German rates:  Postbuch der Deutschen Bundespost]

>It is *only* on USA Direct calls that the calling card rate is the same coming
>here as it is in calls going there.

No, Patrick, this is *not* the way it works.  When billing a call placed to the
U.S. from overseas to an AT&T card, "you pay the same rate whether you use
USA-Direct or the local PTT operator."

>The charge for USA Direct from Japan does not vary with the time of day.

Correct.  As I said, the times for discount periods may differ, and there may,
in fact, be no discount period for calls back to the U.S.  It appears that the
discount periods were eliminated for several countries some time within the
past few months.

>It costs somewhere in between night rate and evening rate from the U.S.  My
>statements are based upon information which is a couple months old; the
>charges may have changed in the meantime.

The charges haven't changed in the last few years.  You will find that you were
charged $8.87 for the first three minutes and $1.35 each additional minute.
This rate applies for station-to-station calls from Japan to the U.S. billed
in the U.S. regardless of whether they were placed through an operator in Japan
or through USA-Direct and regardless of the time of day.  It is the same as the
day rate for operator assisted calls from the U.S. to Japan.

>Moderator's Note: Best tell Mr. Covert about this. He claims calls to or
>from the USA and other countries are *always* the same rate when the
>AT&T Calling Card is used. As you note, Japan has no time-of-day pricing
>to call here. We do have when calling there. Ergo, different rates, even
>on the card.

I never claimed "calls to or from the USA and other countries are *always* the
same rate when the AT&T calling card is used."  I said that the rate billed to
the AT&T calling card for calls to the U.S. is always the same for USA-Direct
and for PTT operator-placed calls.

I stated that the U.S. rate applies, but I also stated that discount periods
may be different.  They may be so different as to be non-existant, or the
discount rate may apply, but never the economy rate.

Patrick, please don't put words into my mouth, and please check your
information before you post answers to people's questions or rebuttals to
statements made by readers.  You are doing a disservice to the readers of
Telecom Digest by posting incorrect information and standing firm on that
incorrect information.  If you don't have documentation that something is
correct, at least indicate that what you are saying is opinion, not fact.

/john

[Moderator's Note: Okay, it is my 'opinion' that AT&T does not tell the
PTT's of the world what they can or cannot charge Americans who use the
phones in those countries to call the United States. It is my 'opinion'
that AT&T has no authority whatsoever in setting the phone rates in other
countries merely because the caller happens to be an American calling to
the United States. It may be true that AT&T has that agreement in some
places -- but *everywhere* in the world? And if AT&T can and does in fact
dictate to the PTT's regarding their (the PTT's) acceptance of AT&T calling
cards and rates, then why not calling periods also? Why does AT&T 'permit'
even that much latitude in the rate setting?

Why don't the PTT's tell AT&T to get lost? An American without a calling
card is one who will simply shove a fistful of coins in the phone. Doesn't
that make better sense financially to the foreign telco? Does MCI also
dictate to the PTT's who connect with MCI-Direct (or whatever it is called)?
If not, why not? I don't care what AT&T International Information Service
says, I would like someone from British Telecom or someone from Australia
or Japan to post a message saying "AT&T sets the rates we are allowed on
calls to the USA using the AT&T Card."   Just my 'opinion' of course!  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 14:46:13 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  25-Aug-1989 1446" <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Telecom Int'l and AT&T Rate Comparison

To further illustrate the way international rates work, the rates to and from
the United Kingdom follow:

British Telecom International charges the following rates (converted to US$ at
today's rate in the paper, .6353, and including Value Added Tax):

Direct dial:

8-3 5-8    Standard 71p or $1.12        BT Card rates from the U.K. to the
3-5    Peak     81p or $1.27        U.S. are the same as shown to the left,
8-8, W    Cheap     61p or $0.96        plus a 25p ($0.39) per call surcharge.

The cheap rate applies all weekend.

A BT card holder calling back to the U.K. from the U.S. will be charged 4-08
($6.42) for the first three minutes and 1-27 ($2.00) for each additional
minute.

[Source: British Telecom International operator (155)]

AT&Ts rates, on the other hand, are:

Direct Dial    First    Each Additional
        Minute    Minute

6p-7a Economy     .98    .60        AT&T Card calls from the U.S. to the
1p-6p Discount    1.21    .75        U.K. will be $5.35 for the first three
7a-1p Standard    1.51    .99        minutes, and then the applicable add'l
                    minute rate (.60/.75/.99)
These rate periods apply seven days a week.

Calls placed to the U.S. from the U.K. using an AT&T calling card will cost
$5.35 for the first three minutes, and then .99 each additional minute at all
times.

[Source: AT&T International Information Service (800 874-4000)]

/john

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <mcvax!irst.it![e-mail]>
Subject: Europe <=> USA calls
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 89 9:48:35 MET DST

Some questions about calls between USA and Europe:

- What is the cheapest way to call Eurpoe from the US?  The call from a
pay-phone need $6.80 in quarters and dimes, and it is always hard to find
them.  The call from a m/hotel room is more expensive (> $9).  I recently
read on the news that MCI accepts Visa Cards.  Does it even for foreign
people?  If so what is the procedure to use MCI + Visa, what is the minumum
length of the call I will be billed ?  Are there othe phone companies that
allow the use of a credit card?

- What is USA Direct service?  In which direction you use USA -> Overseas or
vice versa?

- Is there a way to call 800 numbers (in the US) from Europe (being charged
for the call, of course!)?

- How could I reach a US directory assistance service from Europe?


Any help appreciated.

Paolo Bellutta
I.R.S.T.                vox: [phone]
loc. Pante' di Povo     fax: [phone]
38050 POVO (TN)         e-mail: [e-mail]
ITALY                           [e-mail]

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fix For USENET Reply Problem
Date: 26 Aug 89 03:19:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


It has been brought to my attention that some USENET readers of
comp.dcom.telecom might be having problems replying to messages here.
This problem effects only those people using the "readnews" or "vnews"
news reading programs, and only occurs on messages which look something
like:

    Reply-To: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>

The problem is that these programs aren't handling the "<address>"
correctly, even though this is legal syntax.  I have posted a fix to this
problem to the USENET news.software.b group, see article
<[e-mail]>.  If you use either "readnews" or "vnews", you
might want to ask your local news administrator to install this fix.

--
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: Clive Carmock <[e-mail]>
Subject: UK System X etc
Date: 26 Aug 89 17:58:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK

Does anyone know what ring back numbers are in use on the new digital
system X exchanges in the UK - in the past 1267, 174 and 175 have the desired
effect, with 175 also doing an auto test of the line.

Some new digital units do not respond to any of these.  Can anyone help?

Beware of dialling 11 after the exchange calls you back on units accepting
175 - I saw this on a line with a call logger and 50p worth of units are
charged almost immediately!

Again does anyone know of the meanings of the codes that can be dialled after
175???

I'd be grateful to receive any replieds via mail to [e-mail]  OR
[e-mail].  I will summarize to the net.

Thanks
Clive Carmock
([e-mail])


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

Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 00:50:25 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About ROA


Does the additonal 5% discount apply to full price or the current
discounted price?  That is, suppose that it now costs 3.00 per minute
to call Japan during peak times and $1.00 to call at night.  (the
peak time rate is not expensive and the actual discount is not so
steep, but these assumptions make the math easier).

Will the new night rate be $0.95 (5% off $1.00) or $0.85 (5% off
$3.00)?  I suspect the former.

If AT&T had the best price, I would not hesitate to use them.o

David

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

Date:     Sun, 27 Aug 89 0:15:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Seminars Scheduled for Fall/Winter

The Corporation for Open Systems in cooperation with the American Institute
has announced its fall/winter schedule of seminars. One series deals with
X.25 packet switching; the other series deals with ISDN.

Here is the timetable for each --

ISDN
====

Washington, DC     October 11-13, 1989
Chicago, IL        October 18-20, 1989
New York, NY       November 29 - December 1, 1989
Los Angeles, CA    December 11-13, 1989
San Jose, CA       January 8-10, 1990

X.25 Packet Switching
=====================

New Brunswick, NJ  September 11-13, 1989
Kansas City, MO    September 25-27, 1989
Morristown, NJ     October 2-4, 1989
Warren, MI         October 23-25, 1989
Chicago, IL        October 30 - November 1, 1989
Washington, DC     November 8-10, 1989
Los Angeles, CA    November 13-15, 1989
San Jose, CA       December 4-6, 1989


In both series of seminars, the sessions last from 9 AM to 5 PM on
each of the three days. The registration fee is $995 per person; with a
ten percent discount given on the enrollment of the third and subsequent
persons in a group enrolling together.

Credit given:  2.1 CEU's are awarded on successful completion of either
seminar. Participants will also be awarded 5 DCU credits toward certification.
In the case of the X.25 seminar, these 5 DCU credits will apply toward Level
3 Advanced Certification.

For more information and/or to register for either seminar, contact --

                         American Institute
                         331 Madison Avenue
                         6th Floor
                         New York, NY 10017

Phone: [phone]    In New York City: 212-883-1770   FAX: [phone]

Course Director: Charles Incremona. His work experience includes a
stint with ITT and MICOM Systems. He is currently an independent consultant
specializing in X.25, packet switching and data communications networks.



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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #327
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 27 Aug 89 20:39:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #328
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Aug 89 20:35:06 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 328

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Strike Slows Down New Installation (Venkatesh K. Chittur)
    Telephone/audio Interfaces (Joe Stong)
    Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? (John DeArmond)
    Re: 10288 From a Payphone (Paul Guthrie)
    Re: Origin of "Generic" (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Jonathan M. Prigot)
    Re: BOCs and Regionals (John Higdon)
    Re: An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number (Ron Natalie)

[Moderator's Note: Due to maintainence work on the Delta machine at
Northwestern, the system will be down Sunday overnight/Monday morning.
Therefore, there will be no Digest on Monday, August 28. We will resume
publication on Tuesday morning, August 29.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 13:12:13 -0500
From: Venkatesh K Chittur <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strike Slows Down New Installation

I recently moved to southern New Jersey, and applied for a phone connection on
August 7. At first they told me that they may be able to have someone over to
do the connecting (or whatever); then later someone called and said it would
be delayed indefinitely because of the strike. They did give me a phone number,
though. Apparently, as the apartment complex I am living in is a new
development, someone has to come and physically do "something" at the phone
box outside the apartment. The apartment has telephone wiring and jacks inside
also. I plugged a phone into the Network Interface Jack, just to check, and
heard only silence.

So what the heck do they have to do? Seems to me, one just has to open up the
other side of the box (a simple socket driver is enough) and connect whatever
wires are needed, right? Isn't it simple? Why won't the telephone company let
*me* do it? Then they would only have to set up the "stuff" in their office to
make my number work, right? I can understand them not permitting me to do
something like this if I can get this necessary service from elsewhere, but
since I *have* to get service only from them, and since they are unable to
provide me with it, shouldn't I be able to find an alternative?

I would appreciate any information on this subject. Please email if
possible, as I may not be able to read the net; I will forward
copies of responses to anyone interested, or post a summary if there
is enough interest. Thanks in advance.

(P.S. I am not expressing any opinions about the strike. I don't know
anything about it, so no flames on that, please!)
--
Venkatesh K. Chittur ([e-mail], pur-ee!chittur)

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

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 03:12:40 PDT
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone/audio Interfaces


The interface boards that I know of are "The Complete Answering Machine",
"Big Mouth" and Watson, for PC busses.  Oh yes, and DECtalks, if you're
willing to spend many thousands of dollars.  There's a board for a 3B1.
Any others that anyone knows of?

I heard a story out of a fellow at Talking Technology, the producers
of "Big Mouth", and I'd like to verify it.  I was curious as to why
there was always a large cost associated with the programmer's
software package (subroutine library) for these boards.  He said that
there's a company named "VBX Corporation" who own the patent on
"Voice Store and Forward".  ( As a techie, I would have assumed that
"Voice Store and Forward" was a "concept" and thus not patentable.)
The fellow described that this company demands significant royalties
for the use of their idea, implying that this was the cause of the
high cost:  You were paying for the incorporation of "voice store and
forward" in your own application.  He also described that ROLM had paid
a large royalty to this company, so they had plenty of money to pursue
protection of their patent.

Does anyone know about the validity of this  story, or was this just
an attempt to discourage me from doing a Unix driver for their board
on my own?

I tried out a Watson once and discovered that it could not recognize
the short pulses of touch tone out of the NEC PBX that we had at work,
nor would it recognize touch tones transmitted from further than the
local CO.  My Panasonic answering machine could hear them fine.
I returned it.  I'd love to hear anyone else's experiences  with
similar devices and boards.

Please copy responses to me via mail, as I  don't manage to read this section
frequently enough.

    Joe Stong     [e-mail]
            [e-mail]
            pacbell!dorothy!jst

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI?
Date: 27 Aug 89 06:11:10 GMT
Reply-To: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"

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

>I know that some AOS companies have access to the AT&T/BOC PIN database so
>they can verify my card and charge me through my local phone company.  Am I
>safe from AOSes when I call the MCI 950 (or 800) number and use my MCI Card?

NO!! you are not.  If you place a call through a COCOT or a phone in
a captive envronment (hotel, hospital, etc), the AOS has the technical
ability to trap ALL routing requests and charge through their systems.
And if the AOS is sleezy (as most are), they will even imitate other
carriers.

A few  years ago, I worked on a team that designed a central office
system for an AOS.  This system trapped all calls and  handled them
through the AOS facilities.  The display on the operator's console
told her what carrier the caller had requested so she could act like
an AT&T operator or whatever.

The FCC has ruled that this practice is illegal but it continues.
I tested a phone known to be on this AOS a couple of weeks ago and
found them doing the same old stuff.

Best advice I can give is to totally avoid pay phones that don't
have the name of the local BOC on them and when in captive environments,
ASK who the LD carrier is.  I personally refuse to patronize any
facility such as hotels that uses an AOS.  And I vocally tell them why.
Remember that one of the major reasons AOS systems have grown like
they have is the greed of the facility owners.  The kickbacks are
sometimes irrestible.

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
 ...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10288 From a Payphone
Date: 27 Aug 89 19:18:01 GMT
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers


>>I recently tried to make a call using 10288 from the Dunes hotel in
>>Las Vegas. The hotel blocked 10288 access from the room phones. (And
>>the hotel operator lied about how to reach AT&T, giving me a sequence
>>that connected me to an AOS called "OSW".) They also denied access to
>>10288 from PAY telephones located on the premises.

OSW is  owned by Centel, the local operating company.  So naturally, they have
the ability to route all assisted calls to OSW.  OSW used (before the buyout -
I don't know about now) to operate in a strange (and possibly illegal manner).
They did not own a switch. Calls were routed to them via dialers dialing up a
hunt group.  A board in a PC would detect ringing and answer, and provide dial
tone.  The dialer at the hotel would them outpulse a 5 digit identification
code.  If it checked out, the PC would then provide dial tone again, and the
dialer (generally Mitel Smart-1s) would then outpulse the dialed digits.  The
PC could make 0+ calls on its own, or bring up the call on the display for the
operator to handle.  The sneaky part is how they handle the outgoing part of
the call.  The PC flashes (invoking three way calling), gets dial tone and
completes the call.  The PC then hangs up, leaving the other two parties still
connected and the PC available for another call, i.e. true operator service
without a switch, and running on about $3k of hardware per station.  The legal
problem is that they do not pay access charges for these calls.

As far as the legality of them intercepting all 10XXX calls, it is currently
legal, but the Nevada PUC is looking into it.

--
Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Origin of "Generic"
Date: 27 Aug 89 13:17:30 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The Berkeley UNIX Kernels autoconfigure themselves when you boot them up.  The
binary that comes with the tape (and the sample system in the kernel build
directories) has a collection of the more common drivers so that people could
get up and running on that kernel while setting up a system to generate
the customize their own (dropping drivers they don't need, etc...). Berkeley
called this non-customized kernel the "GENERIC" kernel in all the config files
and docs.

-Ron

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

From: "Jonathan M. Prigot" <wrgrac1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Date: 25 Aug 89 08:49:50 EDT
Organization: W.R. Grace & Company

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(James J Sowa) writes:

> Cellular phones don't have to be on the ground to answer a page message and
> start alerting. RF is able to travel vertical and horizonal. That is one of
> the reasons people were able to use cellular phones on commercial airline
> flights until they were banned by the FAA.

Does anyone know the differences that make use of private cellular phones
"dangerous" and the use of public cellular phones on planes "safe"?

--
Jonathan M. Prigot              Telephone: [phone] x2148
W. R. Grace & Co.               UUCP: [e-mail]
55 Hayden Avenue                      (...!wang!wrgrac1!j_prigot)
Lexington, MA 02173             1989 Poster child

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
Date: 27 Aug 89 20:15:32 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
org writes:
> (Which reminds me of a story of a PacBell customer who
> moved to a GTE area, and then received a sympathy card from PacBell :-) )

Which reminds me of a story that happened to myself. Here in the Silly
Con Vallee we are served exclusively by Pac*Bell except for the *town*
of Los Gatos, which has six prefixes of the Great Telephone Experiment.
(For those who are jumping to their keyboards to correct me, Morgan
Hill (GTE) and Gilroy (Contel) are not really in the metro area.)
Anyway, a radio station that I contract with does periodic remote
broadcasts from various businesses, usually on Saturdays.

For these broadcasts they like to have a phone line installed to
provide contact with the studio and to handle last-minute details that
may come up. (They haven't been bitten by the Cellular Bug yet.) This
is usually a piece of cake. You pick up the phone, dial 811-0997, tell
the person you want a temporary telephone line installed at [address]
on [Friday the whatever], disconnected on [Monday the whatever], billed
to the station, touch tone, no carrier, RJ11C jack. Done. The person at
the other end gives you the order #, the disconnect order #, the phone
number and that's that. Without fail, these lines have been there
waiting for every broadcast.

But then they wanted to broadcast from a car dealership in Los Gatos.
So I call this 800 number that sends me to someone in Thousand Oaks
(Thousand Jokes). I tell them that I want a phone line installed. "What
is the address of your business?" I give them the dealers address.
"Will this be addtional service?" No it will be new service. "What is
your social security number?" That's a little personal.

This sort of exchange went on for over thirty minutes. This person at
the other end had no concept of a "temporary" exchange telephone line.
I got stuff like "We'll have to bill you for a full month". Well, of
course. I had to pry the phone number and the order numbers out of him.
Throughout the transaction, I kept asking if there was a special
department that handled this type of transaction. No, there wasn't.

The day of the broadcast, Saturday, we arrived to find a jack labeled
with the station's call letters, but it was dead. We called repair and
they sent a burly phone man out who complained bitterly about being
called out on his day off. He went into the back room and fooned around
for about an hour, then came out and said there was nothing wrong with
the line. When I plugged a 2500D set into the jack and showed him it
was dead, he said that of course it was dead--that wire wasn't
connected in the phone room. Could he connect it? Well, he could, but
it would cost us $95 extra. What? $95 extra to have what I ordered
actually work? When I became visibly agitated, he pointed across the
street (where the CO was) and told me that building has the most
advanced switching equipment in the world (a GTD5, but he probably
didn't know that) and that he was sick of people putting down his great
company.

I told him it didn't matter what was in that building, if there was no
dial tone on the jack it was useless to me. He finally connected it in
the phone room, and later I found out that the station had a go-round
with GTE over an extra $95 charge.

Is it any wonder that there are people who literally red-line areas of
the state and refuse to consider living in any area served by GTE?
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number
Date: 27 Aug 89 13:14:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Yes, used to be a party line that advertised it's number as
    100 411 7777777 (actually they said seven sevens).
It took me a minute to realize what the number actually was.

The other fun one is that the Rutgers library ID numbers that
are displayed on the checkout terminals are social security
numbers.  I looked at my number a couple of times before I
realized it because they had the spaces in non obvious locations.

-Ron

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #328
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 27 Aug 89 22:23:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #329
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Aug 89 22:15:37 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 329

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    GWU Telecommunications Courses (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John DeArmond)
    Re: 35 Cent Payphones in Iowa (Mark L. Milliman)
    Re: Europe <=> USA calls (John R. Covert)
    Re: International Access Codes Around the World (Charles Bryant)
    Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates (Gihan Dias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 27 Aug 89 22:04:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  GWU Telecommunications Courses

The George Washington University Continuing Engineering Education Program
is offering a number of short courses in telecommunications during the fall.
While most courses are given in Washington, DC, there are opportunities
to participate in other communities also.

Here are the courses and the dates --

In-house Maintainence of Communications and Information Systems: What
Happens After the Warranty Expires?   (October 9-10  Washington, DC  $725)

Telecommunications Regulations: Pending Developments Affecting Local,
National and Global Applications      (October 16-18 Washington, DC  $840)

Electro-Optics, Fiber Optics and Lasers for Non-Electrical Engineers
                                      (October 16-18 Washington, DC  $840)

New HF Communications Technology      (October 16-20 San Diego, CA  $1070)
                                      (December 11-15 Washington, DC also)

Introduction to Telecommunications Systems with Signal Processing
Applications                          (October 16-20 Washington, DC $1070)

Digital Cellular Telecommunications   (October 18-20 Washington, DC  $840)

Foundations of Modern Telecommunications Systems
                                      (October 23-27 Washington, DC $1070)

Trends in Communications Networks: Design Considerations and Economics
                                      (October 23-27 Washington, DC $1070)

Grounding, Bonding, Shielding and Transient Protection
                                      (October 30 - November 2  Orlando, FL)
                                      (December 4-7 San Diego, CA    $960)

Microwave Systems Engineering         (Oct. 30 - Nov. 3  Orlando, FL  $1070)

Fiber-Optic Technology for Communications
                                      (December 5-7  Washington, DC  $840)

Introduction to Communications Systems for Non-Engineers
                                      (December 5-7  Washington, DC  $840)

         ===================================================

Classes will meet from 8:30 AM until 4:15 PM on each day of the two, three
or four day session indicated above. On the first day of class, plan to
arrive by 8:15 AM for registration and other matters.

Washington, DC classes are held on the GWU campus, Academic Center, 3rd
Floor, 801 22nd Street, NW  (between 'H' and 'I' Streets).

Payment can be made by check, corporate purchase order, or VISA/MC. For
more specific information, to register or receive a complete copy of the
catalog of the telecom offerings, with detailed descriptions of each class,
telephone --

In Washington, DC  202-994-CEEP      Telex:  4992135
Elsewhere in USA   800-932-CEEP      FAX:  [phone]
Canadian Callers   800-535-4567

Credit hours given:  1 CEU is awarded for each ten hours of classroom
instruction. The course shown above would typically award 1.5 ===> 3 CEU's.

The catalog I received was rather extensive, and there is not nearly enough
room to enter it all online. But if you obtain a copy, you'll note it is
a twenty page publication, listing full details about each course.


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

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 21:40:47 -0400
From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question

This is a response to <[e-mail]>, posted by
arnor!uri (Uri Blumenthal)

I said:
> >     (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call
> >         Waiting prefix.
Uri said:
>     a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually,
>         somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-).

You're picking nits. The point is to have a privacy prefix. Not what the
particular prefix is.

I said:
> >     (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'.
Uri replied:
>     b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all
>        the system.

Why? This statement is so outlandish I can't conceive what line of reasoning
can lead to it. Could you be so kind as to explain just what you're getting
at here?

Finally, he argues:
>        The only way is to make some codes/names show up
>        instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE
>        IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK.

I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to
have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling
you. What would be the point?

The service is desirable (I want it, anyway). The only question is how to
preserve the privacy of people who, for whatever reason, don't want their
phone numbers to be public knowledge. The two conditions I described provide
this protection. I have absolutely no idea why you would want ANI under the
sorts of circumstances you're advocating. The service you really seem to want
is some sort of automatic call tracing, for your own protection. If you want
that, that's fine... but you shouldn't confuse it with ANI.

---
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: [e-mail], [phone]. Fun: [e-mail]. `-_-'
"Just once I'd like to meet an alien menace that isn't immune to bullets"  'U`
   -- The Brigadier, Dr Who.

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 27 Aug 89 05:57:42 GMT
Reply-To: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"

In article <[e-mail]> asuvax!gtephx!who!
[e-mail] (Dell Ellison) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
>(John DeArmond) writes:
>-> It's fair for everyone to share the cost for DA for the same reason it's
>-> fair for all to share the cost of things like the inside plant, cable,

>With this kind of attitude, you might as well include LD (Long Distance)
>charges as well!  Then those of us who call our mother on the other side
>of the world can do so every five minutes and not have to worry about
>the great cost.  (Heavy Sarcasm)

Actually, a good case could be made for this.  Inter-LATA "long distance"
is de-facto wrapped into our bills here in the Atlanta area.  This
is supposedly the largest toll-free lata in the nation.  Our phone
bills for basic service are a bit higher than some other areas but
I don't have to worry about paying long distance to call 20 miles to
an adjacent city as I did in the last town I lived in.  Pretty nice
really.

>Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using
>directory assistance.  We don't all need to pay for them.

Hmmm.  I always got a kick out of that line.  Yep, everybody that
uses DA is a lazy slob including those that:

*    are blind.
*    are in a phone booth without a book.
*    are in an office without a book.
*    are looking for a new number.
*    are trying to find a number correction.

Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA.  That's
the ticket.  Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone
company up.

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
 ...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

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

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 20:59:03 EDT
From: Mark L Milliman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 35 Cent Payphones In Iowa
Organization: AT&T-Bell Laboratories

I am not sure what you mean by this article.  SouthWestern Bell does not
provide local telephone service in Iowa;  US West Communications does
(formerly Northwestern Bell).  The US West pay phones were still 25
cents the last time I was in Iowa.  There are several vendors of private
pay phones that can charge anything they want (I suppose this is
regulated).  The property owner gets a commission from use of the pay
phone.  I suppose that this person stumbled across one of these phones.
I have seen phones that charge 35 cents for a three minute call.  This
situation is no different in any other state.

Was this person joking?  How could you live in a state for ten years
and not know who your local phone company was?  It is even harder to
believe that he thought his uncle worked for them.

Am I confused,
Mark Milliman        E-mail:  [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Holmdel, NJ

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

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 10:33:31 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  27-Aug-1989 0943" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Europe <=> USA calls

Paolo Bellutta <mcvax!irst.it![e-mail]> asks:
>
>- What is the cheapest way to call Eurpoe from the US?  The call from a
>pay-phone need $6.80 in quarters and dimes, and it is always hard to find
>them.  The call from a m/hotel room is more expensive (> $9).  I recently
>read on the news that MCI accepts Visa Cards.  Does it even for foreign
>people?

MCI now has a service similar to AT&T's USA-Direct service.  They call the
service "Call USA."  With it, you may call someone in the U.S. collect or
with an MCI Calling Card, but not with any other credit card.

>What is USA Direct service?  In which direction you use USA -> Overseas or
>vice versa?

USA-Direct is a service provided by AT&T to allow calls from overseas to the
U.S. to be placed with AT&T operators rather than with PTT operators.  As with
Call USA, only collect or AT&T calling card calls may be made.  As I have
mentioned in earlier replies, USA-Direct does not change the rate charged for
AT&T Calling Card calls from overseas to the U.S. What it does provide is added
convenience, some freedom from hotel surcharges (but of course hotels could, in
some cases, program their billing systems to recognize USA-Direct numbers and
put a surcharge on your bill anyway), and occasionally provides AT&T Calling
Card service from countries where the PTT operator won't place AT&T Calling
Card calls or where operators can't be reached from coin phones (e.g. Germany).

>- Is there a way to call 800 numbers (in the US) from Europe (being charged
>for the call, of course!)?

No.  In an earlier reply it was suggested that you could call the Plant Test
Numbers associated with the 800 Service number.  While that would work in some
cases, not all 800 numbers have Plant Test Numbers that can be dialled from a
regular phone.  It's possible to have 800 Service delivered directly from AT&T
on Megacom trunks (and other carriers can provide similar direct arrangements),
and even where the 800 Service is delivered from local exchanges, in many areas
it is common practice to use special 800 Service prefixes that are not
diallable from the regular telephone network.

>- How could I reach a US directory assistance service from Europe?

USA-Direct will currently connect you to US directory assistance at no charge.
Just ask for directory assistance for the area code you're interested in.  If
you don't know the area code, the USA-Direct operator can tell you the area
code for any city in the country.

/john

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

Date: 26 Aug 89 16:25:52 GMT
From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Access Codes Around the World
Reply-To: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Organization: Maths Dept., Trinity College, Dublin

In article <[e-mail]> praxis![e-mail]
(Chris Hayward) writes:

>The UK code for international direct dialling (IDD) is 010, as opposed to
>00 as adopted by many European countries. The reason for this, I believe, is
>as follows:

>In the days before IDD, <00> was used as a "special" STD code for calls from
> the UK (including Northern Ireland) to the Republic of Ireland.

That is still the case.  For example, the Dublin number [phone] is dialled
as 0001 234567 from the U.K. However this is not the case for all area codes.
The Irish phone book has a table which translates an Irish area code into a
code that is dialled from Northern Ireland (it dosen't mention the rest of the
U.K. but I have experience with 01 -> 0001 so I assume its the same). Most are
really strange. e.g.

        01      0001
        021     0002
        022     010 353 22      (note 353 is international code for Ireland)
        041     0011
        042     0004
        071     0015
        078     0010

To dial a U.K. number from Ireland it is much simpler, e.g. the London number
01-234 5678 is dialled as 031 234 5678. The rule is that the U.K. area code is
prefixed with 03 except when it is is 0N (n=1,2,3,4,5,6) in which case it
becomes 03N. The cellular access codes are given as Cellnet=030860,
Vodaphone=030836 (I assume they already include the 03).

--

                Charles Bryant. ([e-mail])
Working at Datacode Electronics Ltd. (Modem manufacturers)

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

From: Gihan Dias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates
Date: 27 Aug 89 20:47:03 GMT
Reply-To: Gihan Dias <[e-mail]>
Organization: E.E.C.S. Dept. -  U.C. Davis.

My opinion is that John is right. I have no idea whether calls using "USA
Direct" and AT&T cards are billed at the same rate or not, but the fundamental
priciple in billing is, as John said,

  Any carrier can charge *its* customers whatever it wants, and the carrier
in the originating country couldn't care less.

For instance, if I make a collect call home (to Sri Lanka), Sri Lanka Telecom
makes a charge according to their rates, and if I get a collect call from home,
AT&T charges me AT&T's rates for this, not S.L. Telcom's rates. Neither of
these rates has much of a relation to (though they are likeley to be higher
than) the rates the carriers charger each other for the call.

Gihan

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #329
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 29 Aug 89 0:17:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #330
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Aug 89 00:00:34 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 330

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (John Higdon)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (John R. Covert)
    Re: BOCs and Regionals (Paul Fuqua)
    Re: Advertising and the Strikes (David W. Tamkin)
    Re: Help - How to Reach the ECSA? (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Canada - U.S. Communications (Ilya Goldberg)
    Re: Telephone/audio Interfaces ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Date: Mon, 28-Aug-89 07:25:59 PDT

With regard to the question about why it is ok to use the public phones on an
airplane and not your own cellular phone:

The reason is that the public phones on airplanes are not cellular. There
are multiple receiving stations on the ground, but I don't believe they
do handoffs.

In any case, that is beside the point. Whenever an electronic device is
installed in an aircraft, extensive testing is done to make sure it does
not interfere with any other device on the plane. Antenna location is
critical, as is shielding.

By using an unshielded transmitter in a "random" location, you open yourself
up to interfering with all sorts of equipment critical to the safe operation
of an aircraft.

Even the thought of some guy whipping out his phone on the taxi in to the gate
bothers me to no end. With traffic on the taxiways as busy as an expressway
rush hour, I don't want anything to interfere with the flight crews
communication with ground control or attention to detail.

[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon 28 Aug 89 07:31:14-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm

There are two reasons why you shouldn't use your cellular phone in an airplane.

First, the airlines are parnanoid about any electrical device which "can cause
interference to avionic systems" and while their fear may be largely unfounded,
they have little or no sense of humor about it. I even know of an airline in
the UK which forbids the use of Walkmans for the same reason. (Yes, it is
pretty bogus).

Secondly, the FCC does not allow the use of cellular phones in a *flying*
airplane, because it may cause massive interference to the cellular system.
Remember that the premise of cellular is the control of intereference through
many low-powered cells and high frequency re-use. Imagine what happens when
you are up in a plane above a densely populated area: all of a sudden your
phone "sees" many cell sites at the same time (and the cell cites "see" it).
This can result in all sorts of crosstalk and interference. Don't do it.

Ole

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Date: 28 Aug 89 18:30:58 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, wrgrac1!j_prigot@
uunet.uu.net (Jonathan M. Prigot) writes:
> Does anyone know the differences that make use of private cellular phones
> "dangerous" and the use of public cellular phones on planes "safe"?

The use of cellular phones is not permitted from *any* aircraft. Not
only for aviation safety reasons, but because of the havoc it wreaks
with the cellular systems themselves. If a mobile comes up on multiple
sites, the system will probably lock it out permanently to protect
itself.

The phone you are probably refering to is called "Airphone". It uses
special equipment on a special frequency (950MHz band) and has special
approval by the FAA and FCC for aircraft to ground communication. The
phone in your hand is an ordinary *cordless* phone. The actual air to
ground communications is performed by a transceiver mounted elsewhere
on the aircraft.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 21:16:52 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  28-Aug-1989 2106" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm

>Does anyone know the differences that make use of private cellular phones
>"dangerous" and the use of public cellular phones on planes "safe"?

FAA regulations prohibit the use of all electronic devices not explicitly
certified to be safe.  Radio receivers and transmitters emit electromagnetic
waves at frequencies that may interfere with an aircraft's communications or
navigation equipment.  The "Airphone" public phones aboard aircraft are
specifically designed and tested to ensure that they will not interfere with
the aircraft.

FCC regulations prohibit the use of cellular phones aboard aircraft for a
totally different reason:  There are only 832 channels allocated for cellular
service.  In order to allow more than 832 calls to be active in a system, the
channels will be reused only a few miles apart.  The more customers a system
has, the more cell sites it will have (and cell sites will be found in low,
rather than high, places), the smaller the coverage area will be for each
cell, and the lower the power your cellular phone will be told to use (by the
cell site).  This allows frequency reuse.

If you are at 10,000 feet, your signal is going to reach not only the nearest
cell site, but also several other cell sites using the same frequency.  You
will interfere with other calls.

"Airphone" uses a separate group of frequencies.

/john

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

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 00:20:01 CDT
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals

  >  Date: Sunday, August 27, 1989  3:15pm (CDT)
  >  From: John Higdon <zygot!john at apple.com>
  >  Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
  >  Organization: Green Hills and Cows

  >  Is it any wonder that there are people who literally red-line areas of
  >  the state and refuse to consider living in any area served by GTE?

I feel the same way.  Many of the Dallas suburbs are "served" by GTE.  I can
always tell whether my sister is calling from her home in Grapevine (GTE) or
work in Arlington (SWB) -- I can barely hear her when she calls from home.

Funny thing is, GTE seems to work really hard at satisfying its business
customers.  They've won a number of accounts here, including the new system
for Texas Instruments, replacing a Centrex-based setup.  I suppose favoring
one group over the other is a business decision, but I think it's a pretty
stupid one.

Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail]
                               {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center
PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265


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

Subject: Re: Advertising and the Strikes
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 14:53:04 CDT
From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>

 From David Gast in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 325:

| Finally, speaking of advertising, I have to comment on the fact that
| PacBell had been advertising their Centrex System very heavily with
| lines like It's in their office, nothing can go wrong.  As soon as
| the strike started (actually perhaps a little earlier I don't know exactly),
| these commercials stopped.  Perhaps the strike can cause things to go
| wrong.  Not to mention major fires a la Hinsdale, etc.

The strike still in effect against Ameritech's subsidiaries hasn't slowed
Illinois Bell down from continuing their Centrex advertising campaign.  They
still tell us how we don't have to worry about maintenance or upgrades
because they keep everything tip-top and state-of-the-art.

David Tamkin   [e-mail]  {attctc,netsys,ddsw1}!jolnet!dattier
P. O. Box 813        GEnie:  D.W.TAMKIN     BIX:  dattier     CIS:  73720,1570
Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813    voice mail: [phone], [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Help - How to Reach the ECSA?
Date: 28 Aug 89 16:21:02 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Chip Rosenthal) writes...
>Could somebody kindly send me the snail mail address for the ECSA?  I
>wrote to them requesting information on the T1 Standards Subcommittees,
>but unfortunately my address is really old, and the post office bounced
>it as unforwardable.  Thanks.

They've moved to the Washington area.  Try:
    Exchange Carriers' Standards Association
    5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200
    Bethesda MD  20814

    [phone] is the phone.
            fred (T1S1 member)

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

From: Ilya Goldberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Canada - U.S. Communications
Date: 13 Aug 89 00:59:11 GMT
Reply-To: Ilya Goldberg <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University

In article <[e-mail]> telecom-gateway@vector.
UUCP writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>(Wolf Paul) writes:
> ...
>> (a) from certain nationalistic perspectives it rankles that Canada
>>     is the only major country which does not have its own country code

>No, Canada is not the only major country which does not have its own
>country code!  The USA does not have its own country-code, either, as it must
share with Canada!

>But Paul's other point is well taken.  If two country codes were
>used for these two telephone-intensive countries, it would provide
>some near-term relief from the rapidly-approaching exhaustion of
>available area codes.

Actually, no, unless you want to go to 12-digit international numbering.
The reason is that there is only one single digit code (namely '1')
and this would go to the US.  But then no other country can get a
two-digit code which starts with a '1' (there is a rule that says
country codes must be distinct in this way).  Therefore, if Canada and US
had country codes, they would have to be two-digit codes, both starting
with a '1'.  Well, with 11-digit international numbers, that
would leave only 9 digits for the national number, which is not enough.

The long term plan has always been to go to NXX style area codes.  The
biggest problem with that is parsing a phone number to distinguish
a 7-digit local call from a 10-digit long-distance call.  Since
many places already have N0/1X exchanges and 1+ dialing, implementing
NXX area codes should not be as big a problem now.

-Ilya

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telephone/audio Interfaces
Date: 28 Aug 1989

Joe Strong writes:
>The interface boards that I know of are "The Complete Answering Machine",
>"Big Mouth" and Watson, for PC busses.  Oh yes, and DECtalks, if you're
>willing to spend many thousands of dollars.  There's a board for a 3B1.
>Any others that anyone knows of?

    There are at least 20 voice mail vendors out there.
    for PC-bus products, try Brooktrout, Dialogic, Applied
    Voice Technology, Centigram.

>I heard a story out of a fellow at Talking Technology, the producers
>of "Big Mouth", and I'd like to verify it.  I was curious as to why
>there was always a large cost associated with the programmer's
>software package (subroutine library) for these boards.  He said that
>there's a company named "VBX Corporation" who own the patent on
>"Voice Store and Forward".

    VMX Corporation of Richardson, Texas owns the patent on
    voice store and forward.  I'm unsure of whether the licensing
    agreements with VMX require that royalties be paid to them
    even when software toolkits are sold.

>( As a techie, I would have assumed that "Voice Store and Forward" was a
>"concept" and thus not patentable.)

    I would agree.  apparently nobody wants to fight VMX in court.
    even ROLM/IBM buckled under to VMX, as Joe mentions.

>He also described that ROLM had paid
>a large royalty to this company, so they had plenty of money to pursue
>protection of their patent.

    Ihey rake in BIG MONEY from this patent.  no doubt.

>Does anyone know about the validity of this  story, or was this just
>an attempt to discourage me from doing a Unix driver for their board
>on my own?

    The story is true.  But i can't divulge the details of any of
    the license agreements that the smaller vendors have with VMX.
    At least one of the vendors i listed above is working on porting
    their VSF software and toolkits to UNIX.

>I tried out a Watson once and discovered that it could not recognize
>the short pulses of touch tone out of the NEC PBX that we had at work,
>nor would it recognize touch tones transmitted from further than the
>local CO.  My Panasonic answering machine could hear them fine.
>I returned it.  I'd love to hear anyone else's experiences  with
>?similar devices and boards.

    Watson is a low end product.
    Sometimes you get what you pay for.

>Please copy responses to me via mail, as I  don't manage to read this section
>frequently enough.

    C'mon!  TELECOM Digest is one of the more fabulous mailing
    lists on internet!  Keep on reading!

[Moderator's Opinion: Thanks for the kind words in your final paragraph.
Just my opinion, of course!  (wink!)   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #330
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 29 Aug 89 1:09:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #331
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Aug 89 01:00:22 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 331

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Central Office Tour (Malcolm)
    To Europe From the U.S. (John R. Covert)
    First Radio Commercial (U.K. Tony)
    Modems in France (Doug Faunt)
    A New Line; It's So Simple (Andrew Palfreyman)
    Re: Tariff Question (Vance Shipley)
    There's No Need to Talk to Stangers (Democrat & Chronicle via C.E. Reid)
    Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea (Paul D. Anderson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Central Office Tour
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 16:46:26 -0700
From: [e-mail]

I was in LA over the weekend and I got a tour of a Pac Bell central office.

Mind you this was not a normal office.  Hookup charges were $1300 per line!
(I didn't ask whether they charged for directory assistence :-).  All calls
were made by a craftsperson who made the appropriate connections on a little
plug board.

These were hardly your normal voice quality circuits.  We were wondering around
the top of Mt. Wilson (5500 feet or so) and found the Pac Bell microwave
station.  It was a rather warm night and behind a screen door there was a
big black 30-40 year dude chomping on a cigar.  We said hello and he invited
us in to chat and see his toys.  He had what looked like a couple of dozen
microwave dishes (at 6 and 11Ghz) that were pointed around the valley.

He seemed rather bored with the TV link he was monitoring.  It was a live
feed from the Laugh House up to Mt. Wilson and then back to some other company
in Hollywood for a satellite up-link to a customer in NY.  I guess they had
rolled a truck up to the site of the video feed and just pointed the antenna
in the right direction.  We asked him how hard it was to get it pointed the
right direction and he proudly said that he'd been doing this long enough (9
years) that he could get it pretty close just from the address.  He said that
there was about 5 degrees latitude in the pointing before the signal would
be unusable.

I got the impression that there were just transmitting raw video.  He had the
signal fed into a TV and it didn't look like they were even bothering to
convert it into digital or any of the normal T-type transmission standards.

The transmitters and receivers looked small (8" x 12") and homemade (maybe
10-20 years old.)   I remember being surprised by the size of the transmitters.
We had been looking at the TV antennas and seeing 8" feeds up the tower.  We
were expecting the same thing here.  He was only using 1w to get anywhere in
the basin!  In retrospect it seems obvious since it is line of sight and he
had fairly large antennas (2m?)

The cost was pretty much dominated by the set up charges.  The charges were
per hop so even though JPL was less than 5 miles away they got charged twice
the normal rate since it had to go to another mountain before making it up to
the top of Mt. Wilson.

It was pretty interesting.  He was one of those really good I-know-how-to-
make-this-equipment-work type of craftsperson that are such a joy to meet.
He was all to happy to show us the raccoon that was always getting into
his garbage and tell us about the Mt. Wilson astronomers.

Definitely worth the trip.

                                Malcolm

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

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 01:12:29 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  28-Aug-1989 0026" <[e-mail]>
Subject: To Europe From the U.S.

>What is the cheapest way to call Eurpoe from the US?  The call from a
>pay-phone need $6.80 in quarters and dimes, and it is always hard to find
>them.  The call from a m/hotel room is more expensive (> $9).  I recently
>read on the news that MCI accepts Visa Cards.  Does it even for foreign
>people?  If so what is the procedure to use MCI + Visa, what is the minumum
>length of the call I will be billed ?  Are there othe phone companies that
>allow the use of a credit card?

In an earlier reply to this I read your question backwards.  You're asking
about calling Europe from the U.S., but I answered the opposite question.

MCI has not yet started accepting VISA cards for operator assisted calls,
although I, too, have heard reports that they would.  A call to an MCI operator
results in the answer, for now, that they do not accept bank or T&E cards.

There are local operating company multi-carrier phones in strategic locations
which have card readers and accept various cards, but these, in my experience,
invariably will not allow international calls when a bank or T&E card is used.
Only telephone company cards work in these phones for international calls.

There are AT&T phones (with a small CRT providing instructions) located in
strategic places (airports, hotel lobbies, etc.).  Some but not all of these
will accept American Express and other cards.  The initial three minutes will
be expensive (6.62 for Italy and several other countries) but the additional
minutes will be at the same rate as for direct dialled calls, 1.09/.82/.65,
depending on time of day.  These are, of course, the same rates you pay when
you shove cash into the phone.

International Telecharge, Inc. (ITI), whose operators are reached by dialling
ITT's code (10488-0), will supposedly place calls to Italy charged to VISA
cards, but as is typical with AOS companies, cannot currently quote their
rates, so you may just be opening your wallet to them if you place a call
through them.

/john

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

Date: 08/28/89 17:22:21 (New York time)
From: "U.K. Tony" (U.K. Tony) <[e-mail]>
Subject: First Radio Commercial

Part of.................


              Associated Press Broadcast Report

                             for

                  Monday, August 28, 1989

   Today is Monday, August 28th, the 240th day of 1989. There are 125
days left in the year.

   Today's Highlight in History:
   On August 28th, 1963, some 200-thousand people participated in a
peaceful civil rights rally in Washington D-C, where they heard Dr.
Martin Luther King Junior deliver his now-famous ``I Have a Dream''
speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

   On this date:
   In 1922, radio station W-E-A-F in New York City aired the first
radio commercial. (The Queensboro Realty Company of Jackson Heights
paid one hundred dollars for ten minutes of air time.)

[Moderator's Note: WEAF was the first AM broadcast station in the United
States. It was operated as an experimental station by AT&T.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 13:15:27 PDT
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modems in France


I may want to take a modem over to France for temporary usage to the
US. I know you're supposed to get modems from the PTT there, but has
anyone any practical experience in using a modem imported from the US
on the French 'phone system?  Trailblazers, V.32, anything else?
        Thanks, doug


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

From: "Lord Snooty" <nsc!berlioz.nsc.com![e-mail]>
Subject: A New Line; It's So Simple
Date: 26 Aug 89 09:53:20 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

I've never tried this before, but I want a new line to my apartment.
I live in a complex of apartments. The management says "leave it to the
phone company". They have apparently ca. 100 lines per block allocated,
and so PacBell's $35 fee for connection is one of these wires.
PacBell "quotes" $45 for the first 15 mins of installation, and $15 per
extra 15 min thereafter. When I asked them how long it would take, they
could not say. Not even guesstimate. When I suggested that this was less
of a "quote" and more of a "licence to print money", they reluctantly agreed.

    Since deregulation, even a private contractor is allowed to
somehow get that wire into my apartment and with the appropriate hole
in the wall for the jack.

    The management here says that I am not allowed to make the final
hookup myself.

        These are the facts as I know them. Please - can anybody help out of
this maze? and how much SHOULD it cost?

 ...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman    There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away,
[e-mail]    That's what I says to myself, says I,
time sucks                       jolly good luck, hooray!

[Moderator's Note: The telco allows the *owner* of the inside wiring to
maintain it as he pleases, provided it works, of course. Your problem is,
the landlord is the *owner* -- not you -- and the landlord has opted to
have telco do the wiring and pass the costs along to the tenants. There
is probably very little you can do, since the telco can't give you the
authority to touch someone else's wires -- in this case, the landlord's.
But don't be too alarmed by the open-ended fee. I'd be very suprised if
the installation took more than fifteen minutes unless it is very complicated.
A half hour would be very ample. Of course, you could raise the point that
telco can only charge *you* for wiring that is within your premises and
under your control, namely, the wires in your apartment. You can't be
responsible for wires in areas of the building not in your control, such
as a locked basement area. Of course, the landlord *is* responsible for
that, and he says you as the tenant pay it! You can't win!   PT]

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

Date: Sun Aug 27 20:05:16 1989
From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tariff Question
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Tom Neiss) writes:
>notices are most times obscure and would like help in deciphering exactly what
>it is they are proposing.
>   a.  Simplified Message Desk Interface(SMDI)II
>   b.  Introduction of Netowrk Reconfiguration Service

>Could someone offer a better description?

These are both centrex features.  SMDI is an interface for a message center,
usually voice mail.  network reconfiguration service allows the customer to
dynamically assign facilities.

Vance Shipley                          uucp:  ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances
Linton Technology - SwitchView         INTERNET:            [e-mail]
180 Columbia Street West                            (soon)  [e-mail]
Waterloo, Ontario
CANADA                                                      tel:  [phone]
N2L 3L3                                                     fax:  [phone]
# if it ain't got an interface it ain't much use!                             #
------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 89 11:55 EDT
From: "C. E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: There's No Need to Talk to Strangers


[Reproduced without permission from SUNDAY DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE, Rochester,
New York, August 27, 1989, Page 15A]

                     There's no need to talk to strangers

                New device shows phone number of incoming call

The Associated Press
        POUGHKEEPSIE -- The telephone rings and there's nothing on the line but
heaving breathing, a tireless salesman or some other nameless voice.
        Picking up the phone can be like opening the door to any knock, the
telephone company says.
        That's why NYNEX Corp. in New York and other phone companies have
started offering customers a device known as caller identification.
        With a small video panel located beside the phone, caller
identification displays the number from which an incoming call is originating
before the call is answered.
        "People want more control over their telephones.  They want more
flexibility in using them," said NYNEX spokesman Joe Gagen.
        Not everyone thinks caller identification is a good idea.  Some
consumer advocates say the device could cause problems for people who want to
keep their phone numbers secret.  Other say it could hurt the telemarketing
industry.
        Caller identification and several other services will be offered in New
York this fall through NYNEX subsidiaries -- New York Telephone and New England
Telephone.
        Karen Johnson, a spokeswoman for New Jersey Bell, says four out of five
people who tried the service in a test in that state liked it.  They cited an
added sense of security as the reason, she said.
        Ninety percent of those also said it was a good solution to harassing
calls, Johnson said.
        Along with caller identification, NYNEX will offer three other
services: call return, which calls back the last person who called, whether the
call was answered or not; call trace, which records the telephone number of an
obscene or unwanted call; and automatic redial, which keeps dialing a number
that rings busy for up to half an hour.
        NYNEX predicts at least 20 percent of its residential customers will
subscribe to the new calling services.
        Caller identification is the most expensive of the services offered.
Gagen says NYNEX's caller identification will cost about $6.50 a month.
        Subscribers also must buy an electronic recording device that displays
the caller's phone number on a screen.  The device, about the size of a desk
radio, costs between $40 and $90, depending on the model.  It plugs into a
phone jack and flashes the caller's number for 30 seconds after the first ring.
        The device also records the caller's number and the date and time of
the call.  It can store 20 to 50 calls a day.
        Caller identification also would enhance the ability of emergency
services to respond to crises.  If a caller couldn't provide the location of a
problem, caller identification would at least get the phone number.
        To address privacy concerns, Pacific Telesis Group, which serves much
of the West Coast, plans to offer a feature that will allow callers to block
their telephone numbers by dialing a special code before they place the call.
At the receiving end, a message that says "private call" will appear on the
caller identification video panel.

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

[Moderator's Note: Thanks for passing this article along, Curtis. Hopefully,
Caller ID will be a standard option for everyone soon, and anonymous phone
calls will be a thing of the past. I know I'll sign up the day it becomes
available here. PT]

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

From: "Paul D. Anderson" <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID -- A Bad Idea
Date: 28 Aug 89 03:34:09 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"


[e-mail] writes:
>Why don't we just outlaw telemarketing and get rid of this problem once and
>for all? Dan Howell  <[e-mail]>

Great idea!  What about this angle?

How about using caller-id to ignore calls from people you don't know?

I installed a phone for my convenience- not the callers.  Before too many
people jump on me for this- I suspect that there are many of folks that use
their answering machine to perform this screening function for them now
(as I do).  Most of the time, I pick up the phone, no matter who calls.
But it sure does stop telemarketers and similar ilk who have no patience
for the machine.  It would be nice to know who's calling before answering.
As it is now, when I need *real* quiet, I turn the machine on, put it under a
pillow and turn off all the other phones...

Just another thought on the subject....

paul

--
Paul Anderson                                            (w) [phone]
gatech!stiatl!pda                                        (h) [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #331
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 30 Aug 89 0:14:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #332
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Aug 89 00:00:17 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 332

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    A Sprint Non-Bash (John Higdon)
    Re: Sprint Bashing (Ben Ullrich)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John Higdon)
    Yet Another AOS Question (Patty Winter)
    Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? (Mike Van Pelt)
    Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? (Mike Trout)
    Re: Is CNI Necessarily ISDN? (David Lewis)
    Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (Mike Peltier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: A Sprint Non-Bash
Date: 30 Aug 89 03:06:09 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


With all of my snorting about Sprint, I do maintain a secondary account
on most of my lines. This evening, it suddenly occurred to me that my
latest line had not been added to the account. So I settled back in the
chair with a good book and dialed 800 877-4646, expecting the usual 30+
minute wait for a person.

I dialed the number, ka-klunk, "Thank you for calling Sprint, may I
help you?" Oh. Huh. You're a person?

She was. I gave her my account number, told her the number of the added
line, and that I was a secondary subscriber. She updated my account and
wished me a good evening. Total transaction time: approx 60 seconds.

One of my major contentions with Sprint has been the difficulty in
reaching service people. We may be rethinking our position. Then again
this may have been a fluke!
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
        john@zygot          | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Bashing
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca.
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 89 22:49:33 -0700
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>

I have given all the ``real'' things both of us have asked for, in the very
same article you quote.  It is clear that both of us are irritated by
the things the others are saying, and that is all.  Oh well, so much
for ``real'' discussion.


 ...ben
----
ben ullrich           consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all
sybase, inc., emeryville, ca    "When you deal with human beings, a certain
+1 (415) 596 - 3500           amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout
[e-mail]                   {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 29 Aug 89 16:15:27 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA

In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
(John DeArmond) writes...
>...Yep, everybody that
>uses DA is a lazy slob including those that:
>
>*    are blind.
>*    are in a phone booth without a book.
>*    are in an office without a book.
>*    are looking for a new number.
>*    are trying to find a number correction.
>
>Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA.  That's
>the ticket.  Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone
>company up.

I don't usually disagree with John, but I think he misses the point.

Some folks abuse Directory Assistance.  Badly.  Some businesses used to
use it (and still might, where it's free) as a means to verify credit
cards on the cheap.  Is the person listed at that address?  Such
companies ran hundreds of DA calls a month without making the corresponding
phone calls.

Since it costs telco about half a dollar a call (the FCC required
cost-justification for the interstate $.60 which the telcos charge and
LD carriers pass along), the telcos were being ripped off.

I do support monthly DA allowances.  But when something is totally
"free", it has a way of being abused.
     fred (k1io)

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 29 Aug 89 22:21:31 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
(John DeArmond) writes:
> >Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using
> >directory assistance.  We don't all need to pay for them.

> Hmmm.  I always got a kick out of that line.  Yep, everybody that
> uses DA is a lazy slob including those that:
>
> *    are blind.

In most areas, handicapped subscribers can be exempted from DA charges,
so this argument is moot.

> *    are in a phone booth without a book.

Pac*Bell does not charge for DA from a public telephone; in fact the
PUC does not allow COCOTs to charge for local information, either.
Argument is again, moot.

> *    are in an office without a book.

If the proprietor of the office does not feel the need to keep phone
books available to employees or visitors then he jolly well should pay
for calls to DA.

> *    are looking for a new number.

Look at it as a one-time charge. Be sure to write it down.

> *    are trying to find a number correction.

I don't know what this means.

> Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA.  That's
> the ticket.  Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone
> company up.

A nice little zinger, but irrelavent. Even if the "phone company" had
been left intact, I would be a supporter of DA charging. BTW, you are
the one referring to people as "slobs"; I simply feel that one who uses
a service should pay for it.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
      [e-mail]       | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 23:47:56 PDT
From: Patty Winter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yet Another AOS question


With all of this discussion about AOSs (and while I'm writing nasty
letters to the three Arizona hotels I stayed in recently :-) ), could
someone please explain to me exactly where AOSs are in the sequence
of a telephone call?

I presume that when I make a long-distance call from a hotel, the
call goes straight through the hotel switchboard and out to the AOS.
How am I doing so far? Are the AOSs necessarily local, or might the
call go a ways even before it heads for the recipient?

Then, how does it get from the AOS to the callee? I presume that
the AOS somehow routes it to one of the standard LD carriers. Does
each AOS use one particular carrier, or might they choose from
all of them depending on the distance the call needs to go, time
of day, etc.?

Thanks!

Patty Winter N6BIS                        INTERNET: [e-mail]
AMPR.ORG: [44.4.0.44]                     UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun}!apple!winter

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

Subject: Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI?
From: Mike Van Pelt <v7fs1![e-mail]>
Date: 29 Aug 89 00:57:18 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Van Pelt <v7fs1![e-mail]>
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology

In article <[e-mail]> John DeArmond <stiatl!
[e-mail]> writes:
> ... the AOS has the technical ability to trap ALL routing requests
>and charge through their systems.  And if the AOS is sleezy (as most
>are), they will even imitate other carriers.
 ...
> ... This [AOS] system trapped all calls and  handled them through the
>AOS facilities.  The display on the operator's console told her what
>carrier the caller had requested so she could act like an AT&T operator
>or whatever.

>The FCC has ruled that this practice is illegal but it continues.

Suppose you just flatly refuse to pay any charges that come from an
AOS?  Make sure that you place no calls unless the operator says
"BOINGGGGGgggg AT&T." Then when the AOS bills you, you can confidently
tell them "I did not place any such call through your company.  I never
place calls from (hotels, pay phones, etc.) through anyone but AT&T,
and I ALWAYS make sure the operator SAYS AT&T.  (Or MCI, Sprint, or
whatever.)  This charge is, therefore, obviously fraudulent.  Carbon
copy the FCC or whoever else would be interested in this kind of
criminal activity.

Since they have illegally placed this charge on your bill, I don't
think they're quite stupid enough to attempt to take you to court.
If they attack your credit rating, you could probably sue them for
really big bucks.

--
Mike Van Pelt                     Will your long-winded speeches never
Headland Technology/Video 7       end?  What ails you that you keep on
 ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp            arguing?    --    Job 16:3

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI?
Date: 29 Aug 89 19:33:45 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY

In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
(John DeArmond) writes:

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

> >I know that some AOS companies have access to the AT&T/BOC PIN database so
> >they can verify my card and charge me through my local phone company.  Am I
> >safe from AOSes when I call the MCI 950 (or 800) number and use my MCI Card?

> NO!! you are not.  If you place a call through a COCOT or a phone in
> a captive envronment (hotel, hospital, etc), the AOS has the technical
> ability to trap ALL routing requests and charge through their systems.
> And if the AOS is sleezy (as most are), they will even imitate other
> carriers.

I just received my new MCI card (actually, just the same as the old one; this
one gives five miles on Northwest Airlines per dollar spent on MCI), and there
was some interesting accompanying literature.

In "The MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS Card Wallet Guide to long distance calling":

"Use your MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS Card Around Town...Make long distance or
international calls from a touch-tone phone in your local calling area.  Your
calls will be free of the normal surcharge imposed by long distance carriers.
Or from your hotel...First dial 9, or the appropriate number to get an outside
local line.  Then dial 950-1022.  This way you will not be charged by the hotel
for your long distance calls."

But in "A Guide to Long Distance Calling with your MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS
Card:"

"Calling long distance from around town.  You can use your MCI/Northwest
WORLDPERKS Card to make long distance calls while around town at the same low
MCI rates you enjoy at home or the office.  When making long distance or
international calls from a touch-tone phone in your local area, your calls are
free of the normal surcharge imposed by long distance carriers.  This includes
calls from any corner pay phone, restaurant or store phone, a business
associate's office or private phone.  With MCI's Around Town feature, you can
save up to 80 cents on every call."

"Using a hotel phone.  First dial 9, or the appropriate number to get an
outside local line.  Then dial 950-1022 and follow the normal steps to make a
call."

Of course, whether any of this actually works as advertised is open to
discussion.  Actually, I've used my MCI card for years happily, but then I
tend to use it only for non-complex domestic calls from Baby Bell pay phones.

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

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is CNI Necessarily ISDN?
Date: 29 Aug 89 17:19:13 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
se (Torsten Dahlkvist) writes:
> An interesting thought just struck me. There's been some talk about Calling
> Number Information on this meeting and some about ISDN. Because I used to
> work with ISDN and the first time I heard of CNI was there, I just naturally
> assumed they were linked. That is, I thought the subscribers beeing offered
> CNI were field-trial ISDN customers. But when I look at the numbers of
> subscribers quoted as potential CNI customers it certainly doesn't look
> like any field trial any more. Or somebody is manufacturing one HELL of
> a lot of stuff which I haven't heard about.

What most people are talking about is CLASS (SM), Custom Local Area
Signaling Services.  The CLASS package of services makes use of
Signaling System 7 common channel signaling to transmit Calling Party
Number from the originating end office to the terminating end office.
The terminating end office extracts the CPN from the SS7 Initial Address
Message (IAM) and does whatever actions are necessary, based on that
calling party number and called party number, to provide the particular
service.  In the case of CPN Delivery, aka Caller*ID or whatever
(Calling Number Identification, in ISDN terms), it sends the calling
party number to the user in the gap between the first and second rings,
using a special signaling protocol which I'm not that familiar with.
(and can't find offhand.)

> ...how much (information) do they send out? Is it just a
> field of "display data" that is shown on the user's display or does the
> receiving unit contain additional "intelligence" so that it can select
> specific fields of information from the burst?

It's just Calling Party Number -- there's no "user-to-user signaling",
just "network to user" signaling.

Of course, there's nothing to say you couldn't develop CPE to take the
calling party number and do all sorts of things with it -- call
screening, database lookup (sometimes called "account match"), etc.,
etc...

--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Mike Peltier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money?
Date: 29 Aug 89 20:02 GMT
Organization: U of M Engineering, Ann Arbor, Mich.


[e-mail] (John Arisco) writes:

>    Last night, I was watching Nickolodeon and I observed what has to be
>the sleaziest 900 number scheme I've seen so far. The service was called
>something like "Kid's Talk Line", and it encouraged kids to call this number
>to speak with other kids (or maybe to hear recordings) about problems faced in
>growing up.

Nickelodeon is the scourge of the earth.  It has so much power to shape
the minds of the youth of America, and yet it presents so much materialistic,
trendy, consumerist garbage that it's hardly tolerable...  To think, it
used to be a good channel.  If I had the power to either severly limit
or prevent my little sister from watching it, I would.  As it is, she
spends a good five hours a day plugged into it.

Michael V. Peltier         | Computer Aided Engineering Network
1420 King George Blvd.     | University of Michigan,  Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor, MI  48104-6924  |    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #332
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 30 Aug 89 1:25:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #333
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Aug 89 01:15:44 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 333

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller-ID Display Not Needed to Stop Harrasing Calls (John R. Covert)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Buster Irby)
    Question Regarding UK Telephone Network (Jeff Wasilko)
    Putting A Call On Hold (Bob Howell)
    Any Interest In a Group For Discussion of Intelligent Network (Anthony Lee)
    Plantronics LiteSet (Sam Cramer)
    What Number is This, Anyway?  (Oliver "Vetti" Muoto)
    Place Name on Phone Bill (Carl Moore)
    Fascination With Numbers (Scott D. Green)
    More Old Radio Station History (Robert E. Seastrom)
    Re: BOC's and Regionals (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 21:52:25 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  28-Aug-1989 2148" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Display Not Needed to Stop Harrasing Calls

I've just received mail from someone who disputes my claim that Caller-ID isn't
needed to stop harrassing calls.  He feels that, for personal reasons, he can't
go to the phone company or the police with the Call-Trace data.  He'd like to
just ignore calls from that number or send them to an answering machine.  My
reply to him follows:

You don't need a display of the number to prevent the calls from reaching
you.  With the services offered in conjunction with Caller-ID (the ones that
don't actually deliver the number to you, the ones I approve of) you can do
just what you want.

You can use Call-Block to cause the caller to get a recorded message saying
that you are not available.  You provide a list of numbers (and you can add
the last number which called you to that list without knowing the number).

You can use Selective Call-Forwarding to forward that caller to some other
number.  As with Call-Block, you provide a list of numbers or indicate that
you want the last number added to the list.

You can use this to do just what you want:  send the call to a second line with
an answering machine, a voice mail system, a conventional answering service, or
even the police -- I once forwarded _all_ my calls to the local police for
about two hours [with their permission!  I told them I didn't expect them to
take messages for me!], stopping my set of teenager-originated nuisance calls
for months.

No, you don't need the number of the person calling to be displayed to you.

/john

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

From: Buster Irby <buster![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 30 Aug 89 02:51:10 GMT
Organization: Public Access Unix, Stafford, Tx

ficc![e-mail] writes:

>I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to
>have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling
>you. What would be the point?

The point here is that *you* are not entitled to my unlisted phone number just
because I placed a call to an identifying device which you happened to be
standing next to.  However, if I am making harrassing calls, the receipient of
the call should be able to identify me to the phone company, ala the code
names/numbers.  I do not see any reason why the Caller ID device cannot
provide the required calling party id without finding it necessary to divulge
an unlisted phone number.

Buster Irby  rli@buster

[Moderator's Note: However, some of us feel that we have the right to know
the identity of the caller -- not necessarily recognize the caller -- just
know the identity of the person ringing our bell. We feel you don't have
the right to know our number and  be able to ring it at will while at the
same time witholding your own, preventing us from calling you.  PT]

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Question Regarding UK Telephone Network
Date: 27 Aug 89 03:47:18 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Wasilko <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}

I am looking for some information on the telephone system in England.

We are making a proposal to a newspaper in southern England for the
installation of our newspaper editing system (which is PC-based and
uses the Proteon Pronet-10 token ring network). The problem we are
facing involves the quality and reliability of the telephone
network in the UK.

The installation will be spread out over three buildings in a city.
Our normal method of connecting sites is via a Microcom AX9624 modem using
proprietary protocols, but the client has expressed concern about using the
dial-up network. I'd appreciate any experiences people have had with the
telephone network in the UK.

Another alternative we have available to us is a Proteon microwave link,
but we are not sure we we can get a line-of-sight from location to
location. I understand that the Proteon microwave link utilizes 4 T1 channels
out of the 25 that exist on the microwave link. We are considering the
possibility of using four T1 landlines between the sites. Does anyone
know if T1 lines are available in the UK?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Jeff Wasilko
Information International
Los Angeles, CA
213-390-8611 x322

[e-mail] (preferred)
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: @soleast.samsung.com:[e-mail]
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 89 13:17:44 EDT
From: Bob Howell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Putting A Call On Hold


This has probably been discussed before, but I am new to reading news and I
need some information.

I have quite a few phones in my large house.  I need to be able to answer a
call, put it on hold, hang up, walk to another part of the house, pick up a
different phone and resume the conversation.  A couple years ago I had a
device from AT&T that plugged into the 110 line voltage and into a phone jack
and allowed a call to be put on hold using the flash-hook.  It did the job
just fine, but eventually stopped working.  My local AT&T phone store said
they used to sell these devices but they do not have them as a product anymore,
so I could not to get another one.  I also had a similar device from DAK which
only plugged into the phone line, but it would not work with Call Waiting so
I returned it.  The AT&T device worked fine with Call Waiting, and, if I
remember right, even sounded a distinct tone when the call was put on hold.

Does anyone know where I can get a device like this from either AT&T or
otherwise?  I know you can buy phones that have hold buttons, but I don't
really want to replace all the phones in my house with new ones.  Thanks.

Bob Howell             [e-mail]
Solbourne Computer, Inc.      ...!{boulder,sun}!stan!howell
[phone]             [e-mail]

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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Any Interest In a Newsgroup For Discussion on Intelligent Network
Date: 29 Aug 89 23:31:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am new to this newsgroup and I was wondering if anyone out there would
be interested in creating a newsgroup for discussion on Intelligent Networks
and Supplementary Services.  I previously posted articles on the subject
and I have response from about three people.  There might be others
who are interested but didn't get around to answering my questions.

[Note to the moderator:  I don't know anything about setting up a newsgroup
or what it might cost.  I don't even know if a newsgroup were to be setup
whether my department (at the University of Queensland) will import it.

Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (alias Doctor(Time Lord))
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:[phone]
Internet: [e-mail]        ([phone] (w)
SNAIL: 243 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia


[Moderator's Note: Normally, a new newsgroup is started by first placing
an announcement in 'news.groups' giving a 'Call for Discussion' with the
stated topic being your desire to begin a new news group. Typically there
will be a month or so of discussion, and in the past, this was followed
by a period of voting. I understand the procedure may be changing somewhat.
The assumption would be that the person who called for the new group would
have already made arrangements with his site, at least, to carry it.

But you may find that attempts to establish new groups relating to discussion
of telecom related -- even in a peripheral way -- material meet with some
resistance from users here who prefer to see all such postings kept in this
group, since they subscribe to the list, but cannot read Usenet. And, honestly
Anthony, you are quite welcome to stick around. There are many on Usenet
who feel 'there are already too many groups' who would also resist. Stick
around and present your comments here for awhile, okay?   PT]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 89 16:04:33 PDT
From: Sam Cramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plantronics LiteSet

The latest DAK catalog has this cordless, hands-free phone for $69.  It
looks pretty neat - does anyone have any comments on this particular set?

Sam

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

From: "Olivetti" <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Aug 89 18:54:28 GMT
Subject:  What Number Is This Anyway?
Reply-To: [e-mail] ("Olivetti")
Organization: CLS, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

Recently I was using a payphone and wanted a friend to call me back.
Unfortunately, as is sometimes the case, the payphones number was no
where to be found.  I tried to get it from the operator but it seems
phone companies will not tell you (under pain of death) what phone
number you are calling from.  Later on I found that dialing 311 usually
spits it out at you but it doesn't seem to work on all phones.

I wonder if anyone knows a sure fast way of getting the phone to give
you this privilaged information why they are so set on keepingcompany
to give you this "privilaged information" and why they are so intent
on keeping it from you.

Oliver "Vetti" Muoto                  |  Phone: [phone]
Center for Laser Studies, DRB 17      |  FAX  : [phone]
University of Southern California     |  Mail : [e-mail]
Los Angeles, CA  90089-1112           |

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

Date:     Tue, 29 Aug 89 12:58:09 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Place Name on Phone Bill

A reader writes of "originating area" in a phone bill that was issued in the
Houston, Texas area.  This is the first time that I have heard of this.  He
refers to 713-497 Buffalo, and I have thus assumed that 713-497 would appear
as Buffalo if a long distance call to it appeared on my phone bill (such
information for other areas is welcome and may be sent to me directly).

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

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 89 15:05 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fascination With Numbers

I can't help but wonder about the fascination with the number 234-5678.
What's the big deal?  The discussion started out as someone's childhood
recollection of getting an intercept recording after dialling the digits
on the telephone in order.  Now, it seems like someone has chimed in from
almost every area code with a report on what happens when that number is
dialled today.  How 'bout international, folks?

The "234" exchange is not a test exchange, and "5678" is no big deal.  What
about 987-6543?  or 876-5432?  or even 765-4321?

Let's take it further, shall we?  Did you know that, at one time about 10
years ago, it seemed that 382-5968 was not assigned *anywhere*?  Perhaps
the reason it wasn't assigned is that it is possible to spell F*** Y**
with that number.  They did not, however, restrict the whole series of
382-5xxx, so that my number was F***-222.

Do we find that more, or less, interesting than 234-5678?  Do most of us
care?  (At the risk of being challenged to come up with something else) don't
we have anything better to discuss?

-Scott

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

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 89 09:43:45 EDT
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  More Old Radio Station History


> [Moderator's Note: WEAF was the first AM broadcast station in the United
> States. It was operated as an experimental station by AT&T.   PT]

I thought it was generally agreed that the first AM broadcast station
was KDKA in Pittsburg (known as 8XK, as in W8XK at the time).  Now,
some people suggest that WGY was actually the first.  Now you mention
WEAF, which, if I remember correctly, was more notable for its
pioneering work in FM broadcast than it was for AM.  What's the
story here?

                 ---Rob

[Moderator's Note: I think the first FM station in the United States was
here in Chicago. WEFM went on the air in 1940. It was named for Edward
F. McCormick, who at the time was the President of the Zenith Radio Corporation
and active in research work at that firm regards FM broadcasting. I think
Zenith started the station (they owned and operated it until 1970) mainly
so that people who purchased their 'new type of radio' (FM) would have
a station to listen to. I do not know about WEAF being involved in any
FM experiments. Comments, anyone?   PT]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
Date: 29 Aug 89 16:59:04 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Roger Crew) writes:
> While we're at it, maybe we should settle all of these questions in one swell
> foop.  Here's my attempt:

> NYNEX
>   New England Telephone  (Maine, NH, VT, Mass, RI)
>   New York Telephone

Note also that part of Conneticut is service by New England Tel.

> Bell Atlantic
>   New Jersey Bell
>   Bell of Pennsylvania
>   Chesapeake & Patomic   (Maryland, DC, VA?)

The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Companies include Maryland,
District of Columbia, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Add Diamond State Telephone, covering Delaware.

> Bell South
>   Southern Bell         (NC, SC, GA, FL)
>   South Central Bell     (KE, TN, Mississippi, AL)

As someone else said, add Louisana.

> Ameritech
>   Ohio Bell
>   Indiana Bell
>   Illinois Bell
>   Michigan Bell
>   Wisconsin Bell

> Southwestern Bell
>   Southwestern Bell     (LA, Arkansas, TX, OK, KA)

Actually, it's "Southwestern Bell Telephone Company"...  and as someone
else said, delete LA, add Missouri.

> US West
>   Northwestern Bell     (Minnesota, ND, SD, Iowa, Missouri?, Nebraska?)
>   Mountain Bell         (Montana, ID?, WY, CO, UT, Arizona, NM, Nevada)
>   Pacific Northwest Bell  (WA, OR, Alaska?, Hawaii?)

The three U S WEST "Information Distribution Companies" (IDCs, aka BOCs)
have since been reorganized into a single company, U S WEST
Communications.

As has been said... delete Missouri and Nevada from U S WEST.  According
to my LATA maps, neither Alaska nor Hawaii are covered by a BOC.
(Hawaii is GTE, at least for the most part; I don't know about Hawaii.)

> Pacific Telesis
>   Pacific Bell          (CA)

Add Nevada Bell, which covers those parts of Nevada not served by GTE
et.al.

> And then there are the oddball at-most-partially-owned-by-AT&T non-Bell
> companies that somehow managed to take over entire states:
>
> Southern New England Telephone  (Connecticut)
> Diamond State Telephone         (Delaware)

Actually, no; Diamond State Tel is part of Bell Atlantic, and New
England Tel serves at least a small part of CT.  In terms of part-sort-
of-Bell companies, tho, add Cincinnati Bell Inc.

There are also, as someone pointed out, numerous other telephone
companies serving parts of the US.  GTE is the largest as far as
revenues go, and I believe also the largest in terms of number of lines.
I don't have figures in front of me, but I seem to recall reading that
there are over 300 local exchange carriers operating in the US; and that
the BOCs serve on the order of 50% of the geographic area with on the
order of 80% of the lines.  If anyone else has more accurate numbers,
feel free to correct me.

--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

[Moderator's Note: Does anyone remember seeing that issue of Teleconnect
Magazine (Harry Newton and Company's nice publication) several years ago
at the time of divestiture when as an April Fool's joke they published
a bogus map of the 'Bell Operating Companies' and had the entity in the
southern part of Texas marked off as 'Taco Bell'?  :) :)    Ciao!   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #333
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 30 Aug 89 2:23:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #334
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Aug 89 02:20:13 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 334

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    FCC Orders Radio Station to Stop Phone Pranks (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number (John Higdon)
    Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (Daniel O'Callaghan)
    Re: Questions about Country Codes (Daniel O'Callaghan)

[Moderator's Note: In the mail this weekend, another special edition of
the Digest. I have another list of the 10xxx codes; sent along by a reader,
and too long for inclusion in a regular Digest, since we not long ago had
a similar list. I will transmit it sometime Saturday.    PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 30 Aug 89 2:02:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  FCC Orders Radio Station to Stop Phone Pranks

The Federal Communications Commission has slapped Chicago radio station
WLUP-AM (1000) and WLUP-FM (97.9) with a $5000 fine and threatened to pull
their license for illegally broadcasting phone calls to 'unsuspecting
individuals'.

The FCC specifically cited 'willful behavior and repeated violations of
its policy that recipients of phone calls from radio stations must be
informed in advance -- and on the air at the start of the call -- that they
are being broadcast.

In particular, the FCC noted that morning host Jonathon Brandmeier and
mid-day host Kevin Matthews were in frequent violation of this rule.

Scott G. Ginsberg, president and chief executive officer of Evergreen
Media Corporation, parent company and license holder for WLUP confirmed
that his company had paid the $5000 fine without protest for illegally
broadcasting phone calls. He compared this punishment to receiving a
traffic ticket.

Both Brandmeier and Matthews enjoy harrassing people on the phone, and
broadcasting the reaction of their victims over the air.  One of the
calls placed by Matthews involved him posing as a police officer. He called
a funeral home and spoke to the widow of a man who died the day before.
He told her that her neice and nephew, who were scheduled to come to the
funeral home later that day to help with burial arrangements had been
arrested. The widow was not amused. She filed suit against WLUP and
Matthews.

Brandmeier likes to harrass celebreties by managing to find their unlisted
home phone numbers and call them at 6:30 or 7:00 AM when his show goes
on the air. He also pulls phone scams including sending unwanted food
orders; calling employers to provide excuses for employees who won't be
at work that day, and similar. Always broadcasting the calls on the
air, of course.

But it was the call to the grieving widow at the funeral home which got
the FCC livid. The Commission contacted the station that day, and an
Enforcement Officer threatened to put the station off the air that day --
in a matter of minutes when he could get the order signed.

After some discussion, WLUP was permitted to continue broadcasting, but
a memo was circulated to all employees warning that effective immediatly,
any violation of the phone rules would lead to immediate termination.

But despite this, less than three months later, Brandmeier pulled another
of his obnoxious phone pranks. This time, the FCC gave him personally a
$5000 fine, and told WLUP 'either keep those two under control on the
air or you'll get your license yanked.'

Now WLUP faces more sanctions, and the probable non-renewal of its license
when it expires December 1, 1989. Afternoon disk jockey Steve Dahl routinely
broadcasts indecent material on his show. Daily topics of conversation
include sadism and masochism, child molestation, sexual behavior of all
sorts, and frequent slurs of the most vicious kind against gay people.
He uses 'street language' to express himself, of course, and has used
the famous 'seven words you never say on the radio' more times than anyone
remembers.

The victims of the phone pranks have consulted with their own attorney as
a group, and he in turn is pressing the FCC to shut down WLUP
completely.

Ginsberg says he does not understand why the FCC is picking on them. He
says it must be competing radio stations that would like to see them off
the air, since they are rated number three in the Chicago area, which
certainly says a lot about Chicagoan's taste in radio entertainment.

Patrick Townson


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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Example of Mis-parsing a Phone Number
Date: 30 Aug 89 04:01:24 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ron Natalie) writes:
> Yes, used to be a party line that advertised it's number as
>     100 411 7777777 (actually they said seven sevens).
> It took me a minute to realize what the number actually was.

I think I saw that ad. Didn't it go something like:

100 411 700 777-7777 ?

Which opens the huge 700 can of worms. This is sort of a free-for-all
area code. LD carriers can use it for almost any purpose and charge
almost any amount for the call. Remember Alliance Teleconferencing by
AT&T? And we all know 700 555-4141 which tells you your carrier (or the
name of any carrier you wish by prefixing it with the appropriate 10XXX
code).

In the above mention, someone is using a "700" for a party line. Since
it requires the caller to dial the carrier prefix (10041), there is no
need to set up prior arrangements with anyone. With 900 service, the
carrier must set up specific prefixes to be automatically routed to his
point of presense by the operating company, regardless of the
subscribers pre-subscribed carrier selection.

BTW, I've got a little AOS horror story in the works. The final event
should occur tomorrow. If the information I've received checks out, it
could all be a little worse than we imagined.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
        john@zygot          | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 15:12 +1000
Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Organization: The University of Melbourne

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

>     Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has
> been in use for almost 20 years.  The widespread use of telefax is more
> recent.

> However, unless email is freed from dependence on the networks, I predict it
> will be supplanted by telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages
> over telefax.  These advantages include the fact that information is
> transmitted more cheaply as character streams than as images.  Multiple
> addressees are readily accommodated. Moreover, messages transmitted as
> character streams can be readily filed, searched, edited and used by computer
> programs.

>     The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that the ``net
> addresses'' are just telephone numbers.  The simple form of the command is
> just

>                     MAIL <use>@$<telephone number>,

> after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system.

>     The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is done with
> fax.  When the receiving machine answers, the sender announces that it has a
> message for <user>.  Implementing this can involve either implementation of
> protocols in a user machine or a special machine that pretends to be a user
> of the receiving machine or local area network.  The former involves less

As you are probably aware, the amateur Bulletin Board networks already have a
protocol developed which allows the transmission of mail, compressed files and
message bases using the PSTN.  Simple routing is handled in a "send all mail
for A to system B for forwarding" fashion.
Presently the address of a system has four fields, each with possible range
0-32766 which would allow many many systems.

It would be fairly easy to adapt this to a telephone-area type situation.
If the system were adopted by telcos or private enterprise, anyone with a PC
and modem could register and receive e-mail
suppose I, 61-3-899-6263 wanted to send mail to someone.  I type the message,
then my computer dials the email exchange in Melbourne, which forwards it to
the international gateway if necessary; the message is then sent to the
appropriate city and to the destination system if it is marked 'Continuous
Mail', or held for pickup.

Usually only mail messages are routed, but files can be routed too.  Users
could, at present, share their direct contact telephone numbers and avoid
routing, but the companies offering this VAS might want to prevent this.

Also, it would be better to integrate data compression and password protection
to reduce transmission time and ensure privacy.

All that is necessary is for a company to realise the potential of this system.
The technology is already with us.  Who needs a dedicated phone line?  It could
be done by users polling the e-mail exchange in the small hours, and checking
for mail; it only takes 30 seconds.  Businesses, wanting to be in constant
touch could have dedicated lines, or use the same line as a fax machine.

But it is ridiculous that at present a letter is typed on a WP, printed and
then faxed, instead of the file being transmitted.

How did they convince the first business to buy a fax machine, anyway???

Daniel

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

From: munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 15:55 +1000
Subject: Re: Questions about Country Codes
Organization: The University of Melbourne

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dolf Grunbauer) writes:
> 4. How come some countries have a single digit country code, some have
>    a two digits sequence (like PR China, which is probably big enough to
>    have a 1 digit number), and some countries have a 3 digits prefix.

I think it is based on region splitting.  Codes beginning with 6 are in
Australasia.

60 - Malaysia
61 - Australia
62 - Indonesia
63 - Philippines
64 - New Zealand
65 - Singapore
66 - Thailand

670 - Mariana Is
671 - Guam
672 - Christmas Is, Cocos Is, Norfolk Is
674 - Nauru
675 - Papua New Guinea
676 - Tonga
677 - Solomon Is

680 - Palau
682 - Cook Is
684 - American Samoa
685 - Western Samoa
687 - New Caledonia

etc, etc, etc

Note that Christmas and Cocos Is, which are in the Indian Ocean, and Norfolk
Is, which is in the Pacific, share a country code.  They each have area codes
4,2,3 respectively.
All three are Australian dependent teritories.

>
> [Moderator's Note: I think the longest country code has to the one for the
> Vatican; it is six or eight digits, of which the final digits simply appear
> to be appended to the code for Italy.  PT]

The Vatican appears simply to occupy 1 exchange in Rome. Entry for Vatican is
39-6-698+ 4 digits Italy is CC 39, Rome is area code 6.

Note the Carribean Islands:

Jamaica        +1-809 +local number
Virgin Is (US) +1-809 + local number
Virgin Is (Br) +1-80949 + local number
Montserrat     +1-809491 + local number
St Kitts       +1-809465 + local number
Nevis          +1-809469 + local number

The Falkland Is must have the smallest full international telephone numbers:
+500 + local number.  I don't know how many digits they have, but it can't be
many.

Daniel O'Callaghan
University of Melbourne
ACSnet [e-mail]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #334
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 31 Aug 89 2:26:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #335
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Aug 89 02:10:16 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 335

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Disruptive Direct Posting (TELECOM Moderator)
    GTE Bashing! (Eric Schnoebelen)
    Phonebook Distribution (William G. Martin)
    C Sources For NetBIOS Emulator Wanted (Alejandro Jose Formichelli)
    New Services Offered by Southern Bell (Paul D. Anderson)
    Article: Simple Solution to ANI Controversy (C. E. Reid)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 31 Aug 89 2:01:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Disruptive Direct Posting

Readers of the Digest via 'comp.dcom.telecom' on Usenet may have seen a
bogus, disruptive posting made direct to the group yesterday (or today)
by Rick Adams of UUNET. I've received some complaints from readers who
read it, and were annoyed by its appearance.

He had sent a message to the Digest, and it was one of the tiny, tiny number
of messages which cannot be used. In this case, the message included a flame
which was calculated to create discontent and arguing. The message was
returned to him with a suggestion that if he would remove the single line
which constituted the flame, the remainder would be published promptly,
since it contained information about the provision of calling numbers to
800 service subscribers of Sprint.

Instead, he chose to continue the attack by unethically posting direct to
comp.dcom.telecom.

Please accept my apologies for the disruption. I have sent correspondence
to the site administrator at UUNET and also to Chip Rosenthal, manager of
the TELECOM Digest/Usenet gateway, asking them to discuss the matter with
Rick Adams and request that he not do this again.

Patrick Townson

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

From: Eric Schnoebelen <texbell!egsner![e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals )
Date: 30 Aug 89 23:47:09 GMT
Reply-To: Eric Schnoebelen <texbell!egsner![e-mail]>
Organization: Central Iowa (Model) Railroad, Lewisville, Tx.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
 (Paul Fuqua) writes:
->  From: John Higdon <zygot!john at apple.com>
->  Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
-
->  Is it any wonder that there are people who literally red-line areas of
->  the state and refuse to consider living in any area served by GTE?
-
-I feel the same way.  Many of the Dallas suburbs are "served" by GTE.  I can
-always tell whether my sister is calling from her home in Grapevine (GTE) or
-work in Arlington (SWB) -- I can barely hear her when she calls from home.

        I live in one of the Dallas suburbs ( Lewisville ) served by
GTE..  I have never had any problem with them, and certainly not
recently..

        Case in point, one afternoon, my modem decided it would be a
grand time to take its line off hook, and then die in that state..  I
called GTE about my line being busied out, assuming that it was a CO
problem ( since I *never* have problems with my equipment..  :-) at
about 5:30p, and by the time I discovered the problem *was* my
equipment, I had been called back by a tech at GTE saying that they
could find no problem at the CO, and if I would carefully check all of
my equipment..  I ( somewhat sheepishly ) told her that I had just
discovered the problem, and that it had been corrected..

        Needless to say, I was very satisfied with the service, and said
so on the little card that GTE sends out after any service call..  (
nice touch, GTE )

        GTE has seemed far more responsive to my requests here in
Lewisville, than Northwestern Bell ever did in Ames, Iowa..  For that
matter, GTE in Nevada, Iowa was more responsive than Northwestern Bell..

        I can't make any comparisons with Southwestern Bell, having
never been served by them in Dallas..

        I guess I don't understand all the GTE bashing, just like I
don't understand all the Sprint bashing..  ( Sprint is my long distance
carrier..  No problems in recent memory..  )

    Just my two cents worth..
--
Eric Schnoebelen
egsner![e-mail]    now playing:    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 14:02:46 MDT
From: "William G. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phonebook Distribution

The recent mention (in the charging-for-DA-calls discussion) of phone
books in offices, or the lack thereof, leads me to post a query about
the issuing of telephone books. I have written Southwestern Bell about
this (twice -- they didn't reply until I sent a followup), but the
answer I received was not very specific and didn't tell me just what I
was trying to find out.

This was originally prompted by the fact that we here, in a government
office, never seem to get enough telephone books when the new ones are
issued. Pallet-loads of phone books come into the building, but, when
the distribution is finally completed, every office I've worked in seems
to end up with fewer copies than they really need, meaning that people who
have to use a phone book must get up from their desk and retrieve one from
some central point, or make do with last year's.

I always supposed that the reason we got too few copies was that the
telco was charging for them, and the powers-that-be were being frugal
(or stingy, depending on your point of view). However, since I didn't
pay for my telephone books (seperately and distinctly, that is! :-) as a
residential customer, I didn't know that for sure -- it was a guess.
Now, even after writing the telco, I still don't know for sure. :-)

For all I have been able to determine, it might be that we could have
just asked for more books and gotten them at no extra cost, and the
people responsible just never accurately determined how many books we
really needed. They skimmed off all they wanted, and, by the time the
distribution got down to us working stiffs, there wern't enough left to
go around. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case...

Anyway, this leads to several questions; I'm also curious as to
how this whole situation was before divestiture, and how it changed --
I figure if I care enough to find out about exactly how it is now, I'd
also like to know the historical background! :-)

Is a residential telephone customer entitled to one set of books per
household, one set per instrument, or one set per line into that residence?
Is a business customer entitled to one set per line, one per instrument, to
as many as they ask for without limit, or to what they ask for up to some
cutoff based on their usage? Or are they charged for each set of books
separately? How does the business customer situation change when they have
their own equipment versus leasing it? Since the BOC doesn't provide the
equipment any longer, if the book allocation is based on number of
instruments, how do they know what that is?

In this distribution scheme, are Yellow Pages treated differently from
White Pages? (I recall that there was some negotiation and back-and-forthing
about Yellow Page revenue in the divestiture struggle, so that's why I
ask that.)

Locally, in St. Louis city (SW Bell territory), we just have a single White
Pages and a single Yellow Pages book. (Though there was another sort of
competing Yellow Pages one year a year or so back; haven't seen that
again.) But I know some metropolitan areas have multi-volume sets, and
books tailored differently for residential and business use. How is a
"set" of books defined there? If you have some sort of higher-cost,
wider-area calling area, is your "set" of books different from somebody
with minimal service? Or does everyone get the same books regardless?

(I'm sure this will vary with the individual BOC, so if you post a
response, identify the BOC involved.)

Regards, Will Martin

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

From: Alejandro_Jose_Formichelli <[e-mail]>
Subject: C sources for NetBIOS emulator WANTED
Date: 30 Aug 89 17:06:06 GMT
Organization: I.N.T.I.-SMA , Buenos Aires , ARGENTINA

Hello, everybody:

        We are working on the development of a NetBIOS emulator
running over layer 4 (transport) of ISO/OSI model. The only information
we have got is the IBM PC Network Technical Reference which pseudo code
is in a too much high level.

        Unfortunely, this kind of design is already new in
Argentina and we can't obtain more information or references, so we
are posting our need to the UUNET community.

        We are looking for pointers to more clear information
and/or sources that help us on moving from pseudo code to C language;
any help will be useful, although public domain C sources will be
exactly what we need.

        Thanks to everybody,

                    Alejandro J. Formichelli

            INTI - National Institute of Industrial Technology

Alejandro J. Formichelli
INTI - SMA                          uucp:     ..!uunet!atina!intiar!ajf
C.C. 157 (1650) San Martin          BITNET:   UUNET!ATINA!INTIAR!AJF@PSUVAX1
Argentina                           internet: [e-mail]

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

From: "Pa3ul D. Anderson" <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: New Services Offered by Southern Bell
Date: 30 Aug 89 05:42:28 GMT
Reply-To: "Pa3ul D. Anderson" <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"


This excerpt is a from a little flyer that was enclosed in my last
telephone bill.  I have reproduced it in entirity, since there was NO
copyright notice on it.

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

"TouchStar services from Southern Bell-- six remarkable telephone services
that give you more from your phone-- more control, more security and
more convenience.

"TouchStar services work for local calls made to or from phone lines within
the same TouchStar service area.  Excluded are long-distance calls, call to
and from party lines, coin telephones, PBXs and multi-line hunt groups.

"The star on your phone will star in your home with these six special
services for one- and two-line customers:

"REPEAT DIALING.  Dial a number and if you get a busy signal, press
'*66' and the called number is checked every minute for the next half
hour.  You hear a special ring when the line's available, and you can
make or recieve other calls while the service in in operation.

"CALL RETURN.  Miss a call?  Press '*69' and the last number that called
you is called.

"CALL TRACING.  Now you can take action against obscene or annoying calls.
If you receive a harassing call, hang up, immediately press '*57' and that
person's number -- plus the time and date -- will be sent to a Southern
Bell office.  Give us a follow-up call and we'll investigate further.

"CALL BLOCK.  Now you can stop calls from up to six numbers.  Either
program telephone numbers ahead of time or block annoying repeat calls(1).

"CALL SELECTOR.  Calls from important telephone numbers will produce a
special ring on your phone.  That way, you can tell who a call is, or
isn't, from(1).

"PREFERRED CALL FORWARDING.  Lets you forward only important calls from
numbers you choose(1).

"Call now to order one or more of these services.  Toll free, 1-800-522-BELL
(2355), extension 997.

        "TouchStar service rates

Services        Homes        Businesses

Repeat Dialing        $4.00/mo each        $4.50/mo. each
Call Return        $3.00/mo each        $3.50/mo. each
Call Block        $3.00/mo each        $3.50/mo. each
Call Selector        $3.00/mo each        $3.50/mo. each
Preferred Call         $3.00/mo each        $3.50/mo. each
    Forwarding
Call Tracing        $4.00/mo.        $5.00/mo.


"(1)  Not available in some areas.

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

It seems to me that these services give me the features that I want
from Caller-ID, without invading the callers privacy to a large
degree.  Yes, Call Return could cause a problem, but since it doesn't
reveal the original caller's telephone number, the possibility for abuse
is severly restricted.  It appears to only work on a one-shot basis-  it
doesn't store the number away for later re-use.

All in all, with a significant reduction in rates, this might be a
pretty good package.

Comments?

Paul Anderson                                            (w) [phone]
gatech!stiatl!pda                                        (h) [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 14:24 EDT
From: "C. E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Article: Simple Solution to ANI Controversy

Greetings, Fellow Telecom Readers!

I can't pass this one off!  So here goes:

[ Reprinted without permission from INFORMATION WEEK, August 28, 1989,
issue #234, page 4. ]

                      SIMPLE SOLUTION TO ANI CONTROVERSY

   There is a simple solution to the controversy over Automatic Number
Identification ("Caller ID Sparks Privacy debate," July 31).

   Instead of directly displaying the caller's phone number, the ANI device
should show a code associated with each caller.  Usually this code would be the
same as the actual phone number, but for those with unlisted numbers it would
be recognizably different.  Anyone (not just ANI subscribers) should be able to
call a standard number (555-1313, perhaps) to obtain the name associated with
the code or number.  In most cases, the address should also be available.

                                        James D. Gawn
                                        Application Development Manager
                                        Millersville University
                                        Millersville, Pa.

Here goes my comments:

        What??  Doesn't this defeat the purpose of an unlisted number!?!  And,
who is going to maintain the database to call for those unlisted number?  I
find Mr. Gawn's suggestion to be a bit ludicrous.  I, for myself, have an
unlisted number.  I would like an ANI to screen my calls but if it shows up as
"unlisted" (or whatever the word would be), I'll accept it and if it's a prank,
then press Call Trace button to the telephone company to report.

        Also, do you or others want their address be known?  I don't.  I'd be
interested to hear from you.  Patrick, what do you have to say on this matter?
(I know you do!  <grin> )

        Cheers!
                        Curtis Reid
                        [e-mail]
                        [e-mail] (Internet)

[Moderator's Note: I keep my phones unlisted simply because I know all about
how the Customer Name and Address Bureau (312-796-9600) operates for area
312; and because I am familiar with cross reference directories.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #335
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 31 Aug 89 3:00:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #336
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Aug 89 02:55:01 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 336

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AOS Is Not Like 976! (John Higdon)
    Nokia Mobira vs. Motorola (Otto J. Makela)
    How Do You Detect BREAK? (Scott Neugroschl)
    SXS Switches (Bernard McKeever)
    Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI? (John DeArmond)
    Last Laugh! What ISDN Means To Me  (A. Nonee Mouse)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: AOS is not like 976!
Date: 30 Aug 89 23:11:44 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(John Higdon) writes:
> BTW, I've got a little AOS horror story in the works. The final event
> should occur tomorrow. If the information I've received checks out, it
> could all be a little worse than we imagined.

Well, here it is. On my last phone bill there were some AOS charges
from Honolulu to San Jose that were bogus from a company called "Long
Distance America". A quick call to the business office to have them
removed followed, of course. The Pac*Bell person said, "Just a moment
while I see what the agreement is with them. Oh, OK, I can remove those
calls for you and give you a credit."

So what, you say? It suddenly hit me: could there be something in the
agreement that would prevent them giving me a credit? What? How would
it work? A little investigation turned up the following.

Every single carrier that does business with Pac*Bell (and by
extension, its customers) has an individual contract on file. This
contract specifies type of billing, amounts, and *how much, if any,
latitude Pac*Bell has in adjusting billed amounts*. If you make a lot
of 976 calls and you convince Pac*Bell that you shouldn't be
responsible for them, PB can simply remove them from your bill and
charge back the information provider, no questions asked. Not
necessarily so with LD carriers.

For instance, the following is a real possibility. You open your
Pac*Bell bill and discover over $1,000 in long distance billed by
Fly-By-Night Telecom. None of those numbers look familier and you know
that you never spent any time in Thistle, Utah. So you call PB. The
lady is very sympathetic, but informs you that there is nothing she can
do about the charges; that you must take it up with FBN directly. She
gives you FBN's number and its a standard number in New York. You call
them collect, but they refuse the charges. So you pay AT&T for the
call. After they put you on hold and transfer you to several different
people, someone finally tells you that their equipment couldn't be
wrong and that you owe the money.

The controlling governmental body, the FCC, doesn't want to hear about
it. The state PUC is powerless because it is interstate traffic.
Pacific Bell will not disconnect your service if you don't pay that
portion, they are not going to want to get involved in your fight with
FBN. Meanwhile, there are those LD calls to the FBN headquarters.

My friend at PB said that the above story happens constantly, in some
form or another. Just when you thought it might be safe....
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
        john@zygot          | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: "Otto J. Makela" <mcvax!jyu.fi![e-mail]>
Subject: Nokia Mobira vs. Motorola
Date: 30 Aug 89 18:08:37 GMT
Reply-To: "Otto J. Makela" <mcvax!jyu.fi![e-mail]>
Organization: Grand Hall of Justice, Mega-City One


Item heard on the evening news: Nokia Mobira cellular phones (some models ?)
have been blocked from import by the US Customs Office into the US, because
Motorola has claimed that Nokia has copied proprietary/patented chips used on
the phones.

Can anyone at Nokia Mobira/US, Motorola, US Customs, or anywhere else give
more information on this, since this was all got from a two-minute spot on
the news ?


* * * Otto J. Makela ([e-mail], [e-mail]) * * * * * * *
* Phone: [phone], BBS: [phone] (CCITT, Bell 2400/1200/300) *
* Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE             *
* * * freopen("/dev/null","r",stdflame); * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

From: Scott "Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl <sdsu!csuna.csun.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: How Do You Detect BREAK?
Date: 24 Aug 89 02:25:05 GMT
Reply-To: Scott Neugroschl <sdsu!csuna.csun.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: California State University, Northridge


I realize these are probably the wrong newsgroups, but I couldn't
really find anything appropriate.  Please don't flame.

I am working on an embedded system using MIL-STD-188C (RS-232C) with
RCA 1854 UARTs.  I need to figure out how to detect INCOMING BREAK.
The 1854 has a bit to send a break, I just need to find out how I can
detect the break.

If anyone knows about how to do it (on ANY chip, but the 1854 would
be best), could you tell me how?

Please respond via Email, as I don't read these newsgroups.

Thanks

Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl        [e-mail]
-- Beat me, Whip me, make me code in Ada
-- Disclaimers?  We don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 11:21:49 EDT
From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: SXS Switches
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Patrick: This is my first attempt to post to any of the news groups
so I hope this gets to you in one piece. I have enjoyed this group
for the last 3 months but decided to hold back before posting. I
am sometimes amazed that so many people take the telephone network
for granted, but unless you are directly involved in telephony
factual information is hard to come by. For the last 20 years I
have been involved in many aspects of the telephone business and
would be happy to share  experences and also pass on technical
information to clear up several mistakes I have noticed from time
to time. The overall quality and knowledge of this group is remarkable
considering most of the readers are in computer software related fields.
Of course we have been saying for years the the phone network is
the largest computer in the world. Keep up the Good Work.

A SHORT ARTICLE FOLLOWS

          I  have  to  second,  or  maybe  third  or  forth  by  now,   the
          recommendation  to  visit  a Step By Step [SXS] office while they
          are still around.  The stepper is a wonderful  machine  that  was
          actually  fun  to work on and the descriptions that were provided
          bring back fond memories.  I can't  provide  details  of  how  to
          arrange  a visit, but, if you know someone at the local Telco ask
          them to take you around the office, this always works for me.  If
          your  lucky  enough  to  go  through at night when the traffic is
          light, you can hear calls as they proceed  from  line  finder  to
          selectors  to  connectors. One of the best trouble shooting tools
          of the stepper switchman is a good ear.  It also  helps  to  have
          good eye sight, SXS offices tend to be very dark.

          Today most remaining SXS  offices  have  evolved  far  enough  to
          provide  Touchtone  service, and use digital transmission systems
          for interoffice communications. Way back when,  the  only  modern
          features  you  could  get  with  a  stepper  were number hunting,
          [rotary or level] and  toll  diversion  if  you  were  in  a  PBX
          selector  group.  Of  course  you  could always have a 1, 2, or 4
          party line and in some  cases  8  party  rural  service,  not  to
          mention  message rate service. Yes indeed, bending relays, oiling
          switches, and adjusting wipers, what  fun.  And  who  could  ever
          forget  digit  absorbing  selectors,  rotary  out trunk selectors
          [ROTS], E-2 repeaters,  level  hunt  connectors,  and  the  brush
          replacement   routines   for   the  ringing  machines  and  motor
          generators. No rectifiers for that tough switch.

          And what a marvel the power room is. For the life of me  I  don't
          know why some people were afraid to work in one. Just remember to
          use only brass tools around the counter cells, we  wouldn't  want
          one  of  those  things  blowing up and sending glass all over the
          place. And please be careful when adjusting the  load  contactors
          and  the  gear  driven  EM  switch, no use losing a finger over a
          simple task. If you want to wear a tie please  tuck  it  in  your
          shirt  when  working on any equipment with moving parts. And last
          of all, don't forget the  rubber  gloves  aprons  and  your  face
          shield  when  measuring the specific gravity of the batteries. As
          for all them copper bars and 600 amp fuses, don't worry it's only
          48 volts.

          For anybody that does not understand what I'm talking  about,  or
          who  remembers  parts  of  SXS  switching  but not the rest, take
          heart. If desired I will provide all the detail you  ever  needed
          in 10 or 15 short easy lessons, about one every few weeks.

                              REMEMBER ESS MEANS EVENTUALLY STEP X STEP

                              Bernie McKeever

                              508-960-6289

[Moderator's Note: Well Bernie, some people say factual information is hard
to come by here in the Digest also! :) In any event, welcome to TELECOM
Digest; Usenet et al...and do contribute on a regular basis.  PT]

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can an AOS Masquerade as MCI?
Date: 30 Aug 89 13:51:01 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"

v7fs1![e-mail] (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>Suppose you just flatly refuse to pay any charges that come from an
>AOS?

Important point I forgot to mention.  The customer service area was right
out side our development area.  I frequently observed them in action.
The policy was to refund almost any charge unless it was a blantant
attempt at cheating.  Their philosophy was that the business was so
profitable that they could afford to give a few bogus refunds rather
than risk having someone complain to authorities.  You should keep this
in mind if you ever get an AOS bill.

>Make sure that you place no calls unless the operator says
>"BOINGGGGGgggg AT&T." Then when the AOS bills you, you can confidently
>tell them "I did not place any such call through your company.  I never
>place calls from (hotels, pay phones, etc.) through anyone but AT&T,
>and I ALWAYS make sure the operator SAYS AT&T.  (Or MCI, Sprint, or
>whatever.)  This charge is, therefore, obviously fraudulent.  Carbon
>copy the FCC or whoever else would be interested in this kind of
>criminal activity.

NO, you cannot make that claim.  We synthesized the bong and other
AT&T call progress sounds exactly (Easy to do with a dsp board in
a PC.  In case any of you are wondering about my ethics, I was told
that they had an agreement with AT&T on this subject.)  The operators
were trained to use the data we presented them and analyze the call
as to profit potential.  If the call could not be easily billed or
did not appear to be profitable, it was handed off to AT&T - after
trapping out the AT&T operator's greeting, of course.

Your best defense, after boycotting all AOS facilities of course, is
to ask the operator explicitly who they work for.  Even this AOS would not
direct the operators to lie to such a direct question.  And of course,
complain like hell if you get a bill from any of these sharks.

Yes, this stuff is illegal now, but then, so is odometer rollback.  Both
both still happen.  Until AOSs are outlawed alltogether, these problems
will continue to exist.  The problem is that since AOS operations are
akin to printing money, it attracted the same class of people one might
find in a counterfeiting operation.

(Then, in response to another correspondent)

[e-mail] (Mike Trout) writes:

>I just received my new MCI card (actually, just the same as the old one; this
>one gives five miles on Northwest Airlines per dollar spent on MCI), and there
>was some interesting accompanying literature.

>In "The MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS Card Wallet Guide to long distance calling":

>"Use your MCI/Northwest WORLDPERKS Card Around Town...Make long distance or
>international calls from a touch-tone phone in your local calling area.  Your
>calls will be free of the normal surcharge imposed by long distance carriers.
>Or from your hotel...First dial 9, or the appropriate number to get an outside
>local line.  Then dial 950-1022.  This way you will not be charged by the hotel
>for your long distance calls."

NO, NO, NO, NO, a thousand times, NO.  This WILL NOT work in facilities that
are signed up with an AOS that cheats - which is what we're worried about.
The AOS has total control over your environment.  How much control they
choose to exercise is up to them.

Let's review how this works.  Consider a motel environment.  The motel has
a PBX that handles room calls.  The PBX also connects to a few POTS lines
for placing 9+ and 8+ numbers.  The PBX handles routing your call to the
line and in some cases, charging your room for the call.

When an AOS comes in, they break the POTS lines and insert smart dialers.
These devices look a lot like modems and are designed to redirect
calls placed through them.  The smart dialer traps the numbers the PBX
outputs and disposes of them according to how they were programmed.
In the system I worked with, the smartdialer trapped the subscriber's numbers
and then dialed an 800 number connected to our switch.  The smartdialer then
outputs the trapped numbers.  The call is processed by the AOS switch.
In our case, even local calls were routed to the switch and redialed LONG
DISTANCE (That they could get away with this shows how profitable this is).
This was specifically designed to prevent users from dialing the 950- or
800- access numbers and bypassing the AOS.

Yes, this practice is illegal and yes it still exists.

Caller beware!

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
 ...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

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

Subject: What Does ISDN Mean to Me?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 89 16:10:45 PDT
From: secret.writer <somplace.somewhere.com>

Patrick,

What does ISDN mean to me:

ISDN = Integration Subscribers Don't Need

            or

ISDN = It Sends Data?  Naw.

Feel free to use these.  I didn't want to just post them 'cause
they're pretty silly.

[Moderator's Note: Your secret is safe with me, you silly person, you!
We'll pretend they just showed up in the queue today with no name
attached. Seriously folks, he writes in the Digest frequently...but I
promised to remove his name.  Regretfully, eecs.nwu.edu went down, down
down! on me tonight right in the middle of setting up the first issue.
I lost two hour's production time. There is a *backlog* of messages 'cause
I 'aint staying up past three a.m. tonight. We'll catch up by the
weekend. PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #336
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 0:13:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #337
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Sep 89 00:00:00 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 337

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Canada - U.S. Communications (Tom Hofmann)
    Re: Canada - U.S. Communications (John Cowan)
    Re: More Old Radio Station History (Eric Thayer)
    Re: More Old Radio Station History (Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John DeArmond)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John Cowan)
    Re: BOCs and Regionals (John R. Levine)
    Re: BOCs and Regionals (A Nit To Pick) (Jon Solomon)
    Re: Fascination With Numbers (Kubla Khan)
    Re: Fascination With Numbers  (Ben Ullrich)
    Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money? (Dave Fiske)
    German Enclave Wants Full Swiss Status (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Canada - U.S. Communications
Date: 30 Aug 89 06:44:58 GMT
Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland


 From article <[e-mail]>, by ilya@polya.
stanford.edu (Ilya Goldberg):
> Actually, no, unless you want to go to 12-digit international numbering.
> The reason is that there is only one single digit code (namely '1')
> and this would go to the US.  But then no other country can get a
> two-digit code which starts with a '1' (there is a rule that says
> country codes must be distinct in this way).  Therefore, if Canada and US
> had country codes, they would have to be two-digit codes, both starting
> with a '1'.  Well, with 11-digit international numbers, that
> would leave only 9 digits for the national number, which is not enough.

Does that mean there is a limit of digits for international numbers?
I know 8-digit numbers in West Germany within a 3-digit area code
(the leading 0 not included).  Adding the country code (2 digits)
yields to a 13-digit international number.  Is such a number not
dialable from abroad?

Tom Hofmann        [e-mail]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Canada - U.S. Communications
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 16:08:39 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, Ilya Goldberg <ilya@
polya.stanford.edu> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, telecom-gateway@vector.
UUCP writes:
>>...If two country codes were
>>used for these two telephone-intensive countries, it would provide
>>some near-term relief from the rapidly-approaching exhaustion of
>>available area codes.

>Actually, no, unless you want to go to 12-digit international numbering.
>The reason is that there is only one single digit code (namely '1')
>and this would go to the US.  But then no other country can get a
>two-digit code which starts with a '1' (there is a rule that says
>country codes must be distinct in this way).  Therefore, if Canada and US
>had country codes, they would have to be two-digit codes, both starting
>with a '1'.  Well, with 11-digit international numbers, that
>would leave only 9 digits for the national number, which is not enough.

a) I believe that the USSR is assigned country code 7, so there is another
dialing system with a 1-digit country code.

b) The above implies that 11 digits is a hard limit for all phone numbers
anywhere in the world.  Is this true?  I had thought that after the country
code was recognized by the local system, any number of digits could be passed,
and the local system either has to hear end-of-number (the # key) or else
just wait until the caller seems to have stopped dialing.  Not so?

Does anyone have hard information on this?  (Bellcore?)

Internet/Smail: [e-mail]    Dumb: uunet!hombre!marob!cowan
Fidonet:  JOHN COWAN of 1:107/711    Magpie: JOHN COWAN, [phone]
        Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes
        Set anz toz pleins at estet in Espagne.

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1989 08:24-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: More Old Radio Station History

> I thought it was generally agreed that the first AM broadcast station
> was KDKA in   Pittsburg (known as 8XK, as in W8XK at the time).
Eek, there it isn't again^  Pittsburg => Pittsburgh.  KDKA is in PA, not CA

--
Eric H. Thayer      School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
[phone]      5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

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

From: Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 17:27:02 EDT
Subject: Re: More Old Radio Station History

>I thought it was generally agreed that the first AM broadcast station
>was KDKA in Pittsburg (known as 8XK, as in W8XK at the time).  Now,
>some people suggest that WGY was actually the first.  Now you mention
>WEAF, which, if I remember correctly, was more notable for its
>pioneering work in FM broadcast than it was for AM.  What's the
>story here?


KDKA was not the first AM radio station, but it was the first
*commercial* AM radio station.  I am not sure what non-commercial AM
stations were around before KDKA, but WEAF may have been one of them.

    jeff

----------
Jeffrey J. B. Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computer Center
USMAIL: 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238
[phone], FAX [phone] | [e-mail] | [e-mail]
[e-mail] or [e-mail]


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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 30 Aug 89 17:25:47 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Procedure IS the product"

[e-mail] writes:
>I don't usually disagree with John, but I think he misses the point.

>Some folks abuse Directory Assistance.  Badly.  Some businesses used to
>use it (and still might, where it's free) as a means to verify credit
>cards on the cheap.

Fred, you and I are in agreement on this point.  I simply disagree with
the concept that just because there are a few scumbags, we should punish
the whole population.  That's as bad as the current media campaign to
ban a class of weapons because an insignificant number of scumbags abuse
the right.  The phone company is more than capable of matching DA accesses
against calls made from a business.  If the number of DA accesses is
disappropriate  to the call loading, then charge them heavily for the
service, heavily enough to discourage further abuse.

John

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
 ...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 15:58:08 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, John DeArmond <stiatl!
[e-mail]> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>    asuvax!gtephx!who![e-mail] (Dell Ellison) writes:
>>Those that are too lazy or for whatever reason, should pay for their using
>>directory assistance.  We don't all need to pay for them.

>Hmmm.  I always got a kick out of that line.  Yep, everybody that
>uses DA is a lazy slob including those that:
>
>*    are blind.
>*    are in a phone booth without a book.
>*    are in an office without a book.
>*    are looking for a new number.
>*    are trying to find a number correction.
>
>Yep, let's just call them slobs and nail them for each use of DA.  That's
>the ticket.  Makes about as much sense as did the idea of tearing the phone
>company up.

Phonus balonus.  Here in New York, local (NYNEX) directory assistance calls
are $.50 each, same as AT&T.  However, blind and other disabled users are
exempt, all calls from phone booths are exempt (New York Tel knows better
than to bother putting directories in NYC booths!), and there is an allowance
of two free calls per month per line.  That covers cases #1, #2, #4, and #5
above.  Offices without phone books:  Every business subscriber gets a
telephone book, just like residential subscribers.  If the boss can't bother
to make the book available, let him pay for the calls.

Internet/Smail: [e-mail]    Dumb: uunet!hombre!marob!cowan
Fidonet:  JOHN COWAN of 1:107/711    Magpie: JOHN COWAN, [phone]
        Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes
        Set anz toz pleins at estet in Espagne.

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

From: "John R. Levine" <esegue![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
Reply-To: John Levine <esegue![e-mail]>
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 15:43:48 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> nvuxr!deej@bellcore.
bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes:
>> NYNEX
>>   New England Telephone  (Maine, NH, VT, Mass, RI)
>>   New York Telephone
>
>Note also that part of Conneticut is service by New England Tel.

New York Tel provides service in Greenwich CT, which is next to the New York
state line.  New England Tel, as far as I can tell, serves the other four
New England states but not Connecticut.

On a somewhat related topic, is there any state that is entirely served by
BOCs with no area given to independents?  The only possibility I can think
of is Delaware.  Washington DC doesn't count, it's not a state.
--
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
{ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, [e-mail], [e-mail]
Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old.  -The Globe


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

Date:  Wed, 30 Aug 89 12:40:30 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals (A Nit To Pick)

New York Telephone serves Greenwich and Byram in CT. New England Tel doesn't
serve in CT.

--jsol

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

From: Kubla Khan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fascination With Numbers
Date: 30 Aug 89 14:14:26 GMT
Reply-To: Kubla Khan <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Scott D. Green) writes:
>Let's take it further, shall we?  Did you know that, at one time about 10
>years ago, it seemed that 382-5968 was not assigned *anywhere*?  Perhaps
>the reason it wasn't assigned is that it is possible to spell F*** Y**
>with that number.

I doubt that was the real reason, as a couple years back I was assigned
328-7448 (EAT-SH*T).
I seriously doubt that the telcos give a 7448 what your number spells. :-)

>-Scott

Scott
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Fascination With Numbers
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca.
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 14:02:23 -0700
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>

> I can't help but wonder about the fascination with the number 234-5678.
> What's the big deal?  The discussion started out as someone's childhood
> recollection of getting an intercept recording after dialling the digits
> on the telephone in order.  Now, it seems like someone has chimed in from
> almost every area code with a report on what happens when that number is
> dialled today.  How 'bout international, folks?

> Let's take it further, shall we?  Did you know that, at one time about 10
> years ago, it seemed that 382-5968 was not assigned *anywhere*?  Perhaps
> the reason it wasn't assigned is that it is possible to spell F*** Y**
> with that number.  They did not, however, restrict the whole series of
> 382-5xxx, so that my number was F***-222.

I find it comical that you complain about what you think is a needless
discussion of a silly phone number, and in the same breath bring up yet another
number that follows right along with the discussion.  It was *your* number
that you pointed out; could THAT have something to do with it?

> Do we find that more, or less, interesting than 234-5678?  Do most of us
> care?  (At the risk of being challenged to come up with something else) don't
> we have anything better to discuss?

You risked it, now do it.  If you want to discuss something else, then do so.
Don't bitch at all of telecom for doing something and then go do it yourself.
Better examples are what's needed, not complaining from hypocrites.


ben ullrich           consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all
sybase, inc., emeryville, ca    "When you deal with human beings, a certain
+1 (415) 596 - 3500           amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout
[e-mail]                   {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busy Signals: Are 900 Numbers a Waste of Money?
Date: 30 Aug 89 15:30:55 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> [Condensed from an article in the Chicago Tribune, August 22, 1989]
>
> On 900-909-1133 "Women's Secret Confessions" you get a scratchy recording
> of several women who earlier consented to have their phone calls taped for
> later listening by strangers. These women sound more like Roseanne Barr
> than Joan Collins.
>

We received a stray issue of some Freebie magazine called "InfoText:
The Information by Telephone Magazine".  Apparently they made a real
boner in a previous issue.  Here's the correction from the April 1989
issue:

     WE CONFESS...WE MADE A MISTAKE!

     InfoText regrets a typographical error made in our February issue
     that caused an annoyed but understanding citizen considerable
     inconvenience.

     In our news item, "CONFESSION IS GOOD FOR THE SOUL", we covered a
     service called the "Apology Sound-Off Line" provided by United
     Telecommunications in Los Angeles.  We printed the number and it was
     incorrect.  The number to call if you want to confess is:
     [phone].

How would you like to have been the unlucky slob whose number was incorrectly
printed?  Your phone rings day and night, and when you answer, people start
emotionally reciting their sins involving brothers-in-law, babysitters, and
embezzlement--probably before you even get a chance to say "Hey,
you got the wrong number."

(By the way, I triple-checked my own typing of that number before sending
this article!)

--
"ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN   Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

Date:     Wed, 30 Aug 89 12:33:51 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  German Enclave Wants Full Swiss Status

Aug. 20, 1989 Baltimore (Maryland, U.S.A.) Sun, page 2A has an article with
the above subject as the title.

Buesingen is the enclave, just outside the Swiss canton of Schaffhausen, and
about a mile from the main part of West Germany.  In PRACTICE (except for such
things as phones and license plates), the enclave is Swiss.  But the pay phones
take German coins only, and calls to Schaffhausen are 9 digits and cost 8 times
as much as "domestic" calls.

(A non-phone matter is that the people of Buesingen pay the higher Swiss prices
for groceries, etc.--bringing such in from W. Germany would mean going thru
Swiss customs--and also have to pay the higher German taxes!)


[Moderator's Note: This story very much reminds me of the folks in Point
Roberts, WA. They are geographically in British Columbia, Canada; politically
in the United States; and can be reached by directory assistance through
either 604 or 206...take your pick. The only way to travel to the rest of
the United States is by a short trip of a few miles across the southern
border of Canada; the kids go to school in Blaine, WA, and ride a
school bus from the USA through a short bit of Canada and back into the
US. In both Blaine and Point Roberts, Canadian and United States money are
both common; people carry both kinds, and both are equally acceptable at
most establishments.  Sort of a curious place, geographically.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #337
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 1:02:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #338
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Sep 89 01:00:28 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 338

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Joe Stong)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Brian Jay Gould)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (John DeBert)
    Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates (Tom Hofmann)
    Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution (Richard Edell)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution (John Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 89 03:04:36 PDT
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet


The Plantronics LiteSet at the downtown office worked fine for a
hundred feet in a building with lots of metal.  I found it to be joy,
except for the ribbing from the folks about talking to myself.  Sound
quality seemed to be good for both ends, for the most part.

I faintly remember something odd, like a peculiar circumstance that
happened on certain medium-distance calls, that made reception faint; I
don't remember the exact details.  Its AGC may have been swamped by the
chopper frequency of the bi-directional amp on an analog line.

Trying to use it under the massive RF spew from Spewtro Tower (that
great ugly thing on top of San Francisco) about a mile away resulted in
it's having a range of about 3 feet.  It would maintain the connection
but you couldn't hear anything but a great sizzling noise, further away
than 3 feet from the base station.

Just a rant about Spewtro (Sutro) Tower:  I can't use an inexpensive
oscilliscope at UCSF for the RF "hair" on the traces. Local residents
complain about the interference that gets IN to the local CATV system,
which shows up as hash in their TV pictures.  Someone claimed that they
could get KPIX on their bathroom mirror. :-)  Goddess only knows how
mutagenic the silly thing is.

    Joe Stong     [e-mail]
            [e-mail]
            pacbell!dorothy!jst

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Date: 31 Aug 89 13:57:18 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


Yes, I bought one for about $100 from DAK.  Its pretty much garbage.

Reception is awful and if finally broke completely after two months
of light use.  I sent it in for warranty repairs over two months ago
and haven't gotten anything back.


***********************************************
*  Brian Jay Gould - Manager, Systems Support *
*  General Logistics International            *
*                                             *
* internet:  [e-mail]             *
* Bitnet:    [e-mail]              *
* UUCP:      rutgers!pilot!gould              *
* phone:     [phone]                   *
* fax        [phone]                   *
*                                             *
* 103 Eisenhower Pkwy, Roseland, NJ  07068    *
***********************************************

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

From: John DeBert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Date: 31 Aug 89 08:31:57 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sam
Cramer) says:

> The latest DAK catalog has this cordless, hands-free phone for $69.  It
> looks pretty neat - does anyone have any comments on this particular set?
>
> Sam

I have one which I find to be extremely handy. I can put the set in my ear
and leave it there, going about the house to do whatever. To answer a call,
I need only press one button but I usually hold the mute button down as
well because the mike on it is very sensitive and will pick up background
noise. Though it does pick up background noise, you can be heard very well
on the other end. THe mike is a directional electret that is normally aimed
toward the mouth.

The reception is fair but it is a little noisier that other cordless phones
and the 60Hz hum is louder than even the noise. Even so, the caller can be
heard over all that.

Plantronics claims that the range is 200 feet. In practice, I find that the
reception range is actually less than fifty feet. I increased the range by
taking a meter of wire wrap wire and clipping it about one fourth ofthe way
up the fully extended antenna from the base. By doing that I increased
the range about tenfold, to at least 500 feet: I can go down the street about
seven houses or nearly half a block and still get a good signal from the
base which is inside a frame house with stucco (and wire mesh).

I would like to see some improvements on the set such as a boom extension
similar to those on the Starset to bring the mike "closer" to the mouth
and an external antenna but Plantronics will no longer make the Liteset.

I suspect that the hum is coming from the "el cheapo" power supply which
is a small 500mW or less wall transformer. I haven't yet tried a battery
on the base but I just got a "round tuit" so that will be done soon.

The Liteset portable is made using surface-mount technology throughout.
That's why it is so small. There are two small PC boards measuring
approximately 1.25x3 inches with components on both sides within the case
as well as the keyboard and another tiny PC board for the top buttons, all
solidly soldered together. Do-it-yourself repairs would be extremely
difficult for experts and impossible for amateurs even with the right tools.

For $69.00 the LiteSet is a good buy for those who don't want to be tied to
their phone and are tired of the trips to answer a ringing phone.

I bought mine from DAK when they were $99.00 and I don't regret it, though
the price has dropped. It's worth the money just for the convenience.
In other words, the advantages far outweigh the price.

Ordering from DAK, though is a bit of a problem: If you pay by check, expect
your order to arrive in 4 to 6 weeks. They hold merchandise until your check
clears through their tiny bank which does not seem to be a clearinghouse
member. It took two weeks for my check to get to my bank (they say that they
deposit checks the nest day) then another two weeks or so for their bank to
tell DAK that it was OK. I would suspect that interstate transactions take
much longer.

JJD
[e-mail]
(not associated with Plantronics or DAK - just satified with the Liteset
 [but NOT with DAK service])


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

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates
Date: 30 Aug 89 12:07:34 GMT
Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland

 From article <[e-mail]>, by covert@covert.
enet.dec.com (John R. Covert  25-Aug-1989 0931):

> Calling to the U.S. from Germany, paid in Germany:

> One message unit (DM 0.23) every 1.882 seconds M-F noon-midnight, every 2.28
> seconds at other times. This works out, at the exchange rate of 1.9555 quoted
> in today's paper, to be DM 7.33 or $3.75 per minute during the higher rate
> period or DM 6.05 or $3.10 per minute during the cheap rate period.  Since
> hotels charge between DM.50 and DM.70 per message unit, a person calling the
> U.S. from a hotel could be shocked with a charge of $114.13 for a ten minute
> call to the U.S. instead of the $37.50 the call would have cost if directly
> dialled from a private phone or $14.75 if placed through USA-Direct.

> [Source for German rates:  Postbuch der Deutschen Bundespost]

Your information is out of date.  The price for one message unit is still
DM 0.23 but the time for one unit on calls to the U.S. has increased to
almost 4 seconds (I have no exact information at hand).  The rate for one
minute is therefore about DM 3.50 or $1.80 (all day---there is no longer
a cheap rate period for overseas calls).

It is still correct, however, that hotels charge up to DM .70 for a
DM .23 unit.

Tom Hofmann         [e-mail]

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

Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 0:40:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates

In recent messages, some readers have commented that on calls from foreign
countries to the United States, the call is billed at the same rate as it
is from the USA to there; provided the call is billed to the AT&T Calling
Card.

Mr. Covert and others have suggested that AT&T bills the calls at rates
it has established. There is some authority for this belief, since on page
10 of the AT&T <International Telecommunications Guide> we note that
".....*with the exception of collect and AT&T Card Calls*, billing rates
are detirmined by each international telephone administration...."

In other words, says AT&T, collect calls and AT&T Card Call rates are NOT
set by the PTT's. Is this true in every case? With an associate, several
calls were made this week to the AT&T International Rate and Dialing
Information Center (1-800-874-4000).

We asked for the rate in both directions, when using the AT&T card, and
found that generally, the rates are the same. But a curious exception to
the rule was right under our nose: our neighbor to the south, Mexico.

Calls from most places in the United States <to> Mexico:
(Station calls, dialed using the AT&T card)

7 AM to 7 PM   $2.69 for the first minute; $1.53 each additional minute.
An 80 cent surcharge is added for the use of the card. However in fairness,
two reps said it was not added, and one said it was.

 From 7 PM to 7 AM  it was $2.06 for the first minute, and $1.02 each
additional minute.

For three minutes then, the day charge is $2.69 times 3 = $8.07
At night, this would be $2.06 times 3 = $6.18

 From Mexico to the United States:

At all hours, $8.99 for the first three minutes; $2.45 each additional.
In addition, two reps warned that "....the Mexico Telephone Company sets
the rates on this, *we don't*, and that the caller should expect a surcharge
of $2 added to each international station call made with the AT&T card,
or a $4 surcharge added to each person call.....'.....and many times the
Mexican operators insist on making it a person-to-person call....' said
one rep at AT&T.

So we have $8.07 to call there (or $8.87 if Card surcharge is added) and
$8.89 basic plus $2.00 to call here.

As part of the same group of messages, a couple readers, including Mr. Covert,
stated that when using USA DIRECT, one could be connected *anyplace* in
the USA. This is almost correct: On page 13 in the <International
Telecommunications Guide> we note that USA DIRECT does not accept or
handle calls to area 907. I do not know if USA DIRECT handles calls to 809
or not, or if so, just to the 'American' parts of the area code, all of
it or none of it.

Patrick Townson


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

From: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution
Reply-To: Richard Edell <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 89 18:59:59 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> WMartin@wsmr-simtel20.
army.mil (William G. Martin) writes:
>The recent mention (in the charging-for-DA-calls discussion) of phone
>books in offices, or the lack thereof, leads me to post a query about
>the issuing of telephone books. I have written Southwestern Bell about
>this (twice -- they didn't reply until I sent a followup), but the
>answer I received was not very specific and didn't tell me just what I
>was trying to find out.

[lots of stuff deleted]

>Is a business customer entitled to one set per line, one per instrument, to
>as many as they ask for without limit, or to what they ask for up to some
>cutoff based on their usage? Or are they charged for each set of books
>separately? How does the business customer situation change when they have
>their own equipment versus leasing it? Since the BOC doesn't provide the
>equipment any longer, if the book allocation is based on number of
>instruments, how do they know what that is?

A few years back (prior employer) I handled telephone equipment/services.
One day Pacific Bell calls and asked my how many phone books do we need (for
each of our buildings).  I asked them how much does each cost (always
watching costs) and was told that there was no cost (at least in the 50-100
book range we were talking about).  I figured one per telephone station and
ordered about 75 books.  When the books arrived we had more than enough.
I speculate that Pacific Bell doesn't care how many books they print because
yellow page advertising rates are justified by the number of books -- more
books more gross advertising revenue more profit?

-Richard Edell
 [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 31 Aug 89 18:16:43 EDT (Thu)
From: John Levine <esegue![e-mail]>

I have phone service at home in Cambridge MA (Nynex) and at my beach house
near Atlantic City NJ (Bell Atlantic.)  In both places, the local companies
send any in-state phone books just for the asking.  In MA you can ask for a
full state set which is about four feet thick.

For the Boston area there are six separate phone books for my local calling
area, the central white pages, three separate suburban white pages, the
regular yellow pages, and the business yellow pages.  There is also a
useless digest-sized "community" phone book consisting of white pages
listings for Cambridge and Somerville and a set of yellow pages; it is just
an attempt to make businesses buy ads in yet another volume of yellow pages.

In Cambridge, phone book distribution has become terrible in recent years.
I don't think that I've gotten any phone books delivered to my door since
divestiture.  I happen to live across the street from some Harvard
dormitories where they dump pallets phone books in the lobby, so I can pick
up most of what I need there but I always end up having to call and ask for
the rest.  In NJ, they deliver the local Ocean County book reliably, but I
have to call and ask for the Atlantic County book even though about 1/3 of
my local calling area is in Atlantic County.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail] or uunet!lotus!esegue!johnl

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #338
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 1:52:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #339
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Sep 89 01:50:24 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 339

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller ID & Privacy (David Lewis)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Uri Blumenthal)
    Re: Caller ID Unnecessary (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (John Deters)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Michael L. Robins)
    Re: New Services Offered by Southern Bell (Mark Robert Smith)
    Unlisted Numbers, etc. (Robert Willis)
    Commotion Brings Responses (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID & Privacy
Date: 31 Aug 89 13:30:47 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

It seems to me that there is a very simple, straightforward, non-technical
solution to the question of calling number delivery, privacy, blocking, and
so on.

Currently, telcos offer a service to customers who do not want their phone
number to be public knowledge.  It's called "Unpublished Number", and they
charge something like $3 a month for it -- not because it costs them $3 a
month to provide it, but because they estimate that the value of this service
to customers is on the order of $3 a month.  If it were too much more
expensive, few customers would want it; if it were too much cheaper, too many
customers would subscribe to it, thereby reducing the utility of having
directories.

It seems to me that Calling Number Delivery Blocking is "simply" -- in
user terms -- an extension of unpublished numbers.  It is a service
which prevents others from knowing your phone number.

What I can't figure is why no telco has figured out to offer two service
packages:  "Privacy Level A" -- your number is unpublished -- and
"Privacy Level B" -- your number is unpublished, and you have the
capability to block delivery of your calling number.  You charge $3 for
Privacy Level A; figure out what the economic value to consumers is for
Privacy Level B and set the rate appropriately.  The same logic of
pricing applies -- you don't want it to be too cheap, or everyone will
have it and thereby reduce the public value of CND; you don't want it
too expensive, or no one will subscribe.  Maybe $6 a month.

So if people don't care who knows their phone number, fine.  No charge.

If people want their number unpublished, but don't care if people they
call receive it, they pay $3.

If people really want the ability to keep their number from everyone,
they pay more.

Yeah, yeah, you still have to get it through the PUCs.  But the analogy
with unpublished numbers, I suspect, would carry a fair amount of
weight.

[This idea may be reproduced freely, but if anyone makes money off of
it, I wanna know about it... :-)]
--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Uri Blumenthal <arnor![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 31 Aug 89 17:41:46 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp., Yorktown NY

 From article <[e-mail]>, by ficc!peter@uunet.
uu.net:
> This is a response to <[e-mail]>, posted by
> arnor!uri (Uri Blumenthal)
>
> I said:
>> >     (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call
>> >         Waiting prefix.
> Uri said:
>>     a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually,
>>         somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-).
>
> You're picking nits. The point is to have a privacy prefix. Not what the
> particular prefix is.

Well, that's me, guy. Sorry (:-)

> I said:
>> >     (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'.
> Uri replied:
>>     b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all
>>        the system.
>
> Why? This statement is so outlandish I can't conceive what line of reasoning
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> can lead to it. Could you be so kind as to explain just what you're getting
> at here?

Yup, I'll be so kind and explain it.

What is the purpose of this system? My answer is: to identify the
caller. Other reasons may apply, but I'm interested explicitely in
this one.

Now, if just one number shows up as 'unlisted' - guess what happens
to all your identification?   You see, when my friend Bob calls me
and says: "Hi Uri, I'm Bob" - don't know about you, but I don't need
Caller ID service for such cases. And if somebody anonymous calls
and his number shows up as 'anonymous' (or 'unlisted') - again, why
do I need such a system?  How does your version help in this case?

If I do have the right to know who calls me - why should there be any
exemptions?  "All the animals are equal, but some are more equal than
others"? And when your right to keep YOUR number private clashes with
MY right to know who bothers me at 1:00 AM  - for a solution possible
see below.

> Finally, he argues:
>>        The only way is to make some codes/names show up
>>        instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE
>>        IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK.
>
> I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to
> have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling
> you. What would be the point?

First - you missed the point. This was a PART of a scheme and should
answer on the question "What to do if the caller doesn't want his
number listed?".

The aim of the Caller ID service is NOT to let you to call the caller
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
back immediately - it has only to GIVE YOU THE CALLER ID. No less, no
more.

What kind of ID - it depends. If THE CALLER DOESN'T OBJECT - it
can be his REAL PHONE NUMBER, so in this case you'll be able to call
him back as soon as he hangs up (or even sooner :-). But if the caller
DOESN'T WANT HIS NUMBER TO BE LISTED - the ID shown will be in another
form (I don't care which form exactly,  the only thing I need - that
ID should explicitely identify the caller. Period.)  So in second case
the number, which is to be private is not shown up on your screen, so
the right of your caller is preserved. Also, since his ID does show up -
you YOURSELF can trace him down (if you need, of course). Down to either
his real name/address  and/or to his real (non-private) phone number.

IMHO, it's absolutely unnecessary to have a call-back feature (though
helpful SOMETIMES). But it IS necessary to have Caller ID service.


> The service is desirable (I want it, anyway). The only question is how to
> preserve the privacy of people who, for whatever reason, don't want their
> phone numbers to be public knowledge.

For the solution - see above.

> The two conditions I described provide this protection.

Yes, your scheme provides that protection, but it doesn't serve the
original goal - to identify the caller. In your case you're getting
either phone number - or nothing (well, for me 'unlisted' is even
worse than nothing :-). My scheme gives you either phone number or
ID, traceble ID. So I love my scheme better (:-), as providing more
consistent service.

> I have absolutely no idea why you would want ANI under the
> sorts of circumstances you're advocating. The service you really seem to want
> is some sort of automatic call tracing, for your own protection. If you want
> that, that's fine... but you shouldn't confuse it with ANI.

Sorry, since I don't know what the ANI is AT ALL - I can't dicsuss it,
unless you be so kind as to explain it (:-).

Regards,
Uri.

<Disclaimer>

[Moderator's Note: ANI is Automatic Number Identification, in any form;
whether only to the operator for billing, or to other customers, etc.  PT]

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

From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID Unnecessary
Date: Thu Aug 31 12:05:14 1989

John R. Covert says:
> I've just received mail from someone who disputes my claim that Caller-ID
> isn't needed to stop harrassing calls.  He feels that, for personal reasons,
> he can't go to the phone company or the police with the Call-Trace data.
> He'd like to just ignore calls from that number or send them to an answering
> machine.

Hi. I'm the person referenced in this article. I'd just like to note that
none of the options described in it are open to me.

In any case the whole argument is irrelevant.

Caller*Id, ANI, or whatever stupid TLA or marketing term you want to use
for the service, is desirable. It is a facility that I would pay money to
have available. I see no need for more justification than that... it's a
capability which adds to the value of telephone service.

If you want to argue for certain limitations on it to protect privacy,
that's fine. I think that's perfectly reasonable, and I've even argued on
that side myself. If you want to claim that because it's not necessary it
should not be allowed, that's ludicrous. You could make the same claim
about anything over POTS. Surely I don't *need* Call Waiting, Call Forwarding,
and so on.

No, John Covert needs to establish that ANI is fatally flawed and an
unreasonable invasion of privacy. Not just that there are individual
workarounds for any particular use of it. And I don't think he can do
that.

---
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: [e-mail], [phone]. Fun: [e-mail]. `-_-'
                                                                           'U`
"How many humans does it take to change a light bulb?"

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

Date: 31 Aug 89 10:05:19 CDT (Thu)
From: "J. Deters" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Reply-To: [e-mail] (J. Deters)
Organization: Terrapin Transit Authority

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ole J. Jacobsen) writes:

>First, the airlines are parnanoid about any electrical device which "can cause
>interference to avionic systems" and while their fear may be largely
>unfounded, they have little or no sense of humor about it. I even know of an
>airline in the UK which forbids the use of Walkmans for the same reason.
>(Yes, it is pretty bogus).

I remember reading the sheet that came with my Sony Discman that came with
the standard FCC disclaimer of "WARNING:  This equipment radiates and uses
RF energy..."  It's just a CPU that's grinding out the tunes in there, and
it's capable of emitting RF just like any other digital device.

Taking off over a freeway with someone's poorly maintained automobile ignition
is like flying over a spark-gap transmitter.  Many frequencies with multiple
harmonics, and more powerful than most C.B.'s.  If they are as overly
sensitive to stray RF as their paranoia indicates, I sure don't want to fly
their airline!

-j

J. Deters - [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 89 14:39:36 EDT
From: Michael L Robins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Although there has been much discussion about cellular and Airphone radio
services aboard airplanes, early propagation work in Chicago revelaed that the
radio pattern for cellular is kind of a mushroom shape, and at the height of
airplanes >10,000 feet, I suspect that you would never be able to receive a
signal from a cell site. This was even true on top of the Sears Tower in
Chicago, and although a cell cite was easily in view, and about 3 blocks away,
it was about 4 hundred feet below, and we found that we were never even able
to talk to that cell site because of the shape of the radio signal.  We found
that we were always talking to a cell site much further away. An example is
below:
                                          /    airplane
                                     o--/----/
                       ant               \
      ________          |        ________  \
    /          \        |      /          \
  /      |       \      |    /              \
 /    car|         \    |   /                 \
/    O---O           \  |  /                    \

Notice that when the plane is in the air that it is above the node of the
signal while the car on the ground works just fine.

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Services Offered by Southern Bell
Date: 1 Sep 89 00:28:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


These services are the same as those offered by NJ Bell as Bell
Atlantic I.Q. services.  The prices are about the same as well.  The
only thing different is that NJ Bell offers Caller ID.  In fact, the
*NN codes are the same.

NJ Bell automatically allows a line to use Call Trace - you don't
have to have it turned on in order to use it.

--
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.

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

Date:     Thu, 31 Aug 89 12:20:02 EDT
From:     Robert Willis <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Unlisted Numbers, etc.

Patrick,
you wrote:

[Moderator's Note: I keep my phones unlisted simply because I know all about
how the Customer Name and Address Bureau (312-796-9600) operates for area
312; and because I am familiar with cross reference directories.  PT]

Would you elaborate on this in a forthcoming issue of the Digest?
What is the CN&A Bureau, how does it operate?

Bob

[Moderator's Note: All telcos have Customer Name and Address Bureaus, and
they are generally just an internal function at the telco, with little or
no public contact. The purpose of CNA is to compile and maintain the records
used by Directory Assistance; to make sure the entries in the telephone
book are correct, and related matters. They also service inquiries from
other telcos needing information regards subscriber names, etc for resolution
of billing disputes (customer says, "I never made that long distance call,
etc...").

Illinois Bell is the only telephone company I know of -- but there may be
others -- which gladly publishes the number of the CNA Bureau, and invites
the public to use it, at a special surcharge, of course. Illinois Bell CNA
maintains a 'reverse directory lookup service' at 312-796-9600. We within
the Illinois Bell LATA pay fifty cents *plus tolls if any* to use this
handy service. You dial the number, anytime 24 hours per day, and in due
course an operator will answer. You merely state the desired number; no
other conversation is required. The operator will punch it in and read back
the reply, which will be the name assigned to the phone, and the address
where it is located. In the case of non-pubs, the operator's response will
be the number is non-published. If there is no such number, the response
will be 'no record'. You can have two lookups for one fee, then you must
disconnect and dial back again if you wish more. They won't search by
address alone; but that service is also available by calling the Cross
Reference Directory desk at the Chicago Public Library. There, giving just
the address produces the names and phone numbers located there. This service
is free, for the price of the phone call.

Of course, you can go to the library and read the Criss Cross books yourself
if you wish; they have them for the entire northern Illinois/Indiana area;
but they are only published annually, and always somewhat out of date. IBT/CNA
on the other hand, is accurate to within hours of whatever record maintainence
has been done.

Trivia: Years ago, every exchange in Chicago reserved the number '2080'
for this function. In other words, call EStebrook 9-2080 to get cross reference
on subscribers on that exchange, etc. The call terminated on the desk of
the Group Chief Operator's secretary, who referred to a rolodex for the
desired information. All the Two Oh Eight Oh's, as we called them, were
merged into 312-796-9600 about twenty years ago.   Enough info for now?  PT]

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

Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 0:43:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Commotion Brings Responses

To the several of you who replied to me regards the commotion day before
yesterday in 'comp.dcom.telecom' I want to say thanks.

I am not going to run any of those messages. Quite a few of you said you
were writing to me privately; and others were generally strongly opposed
to the action I took originally or strongly in favor of it....

Either way, publishing the replies would lead only to a waste of precious
space here. But thanks to all who replied. All of your comments are saved
in my files here and are being considered.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #339
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 2:38:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #340
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Sep 89 02:30:39 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 340

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some OCC's Do Get ANI Reports (TELECOM Moderator)
    Strike Ends at Ameritech Companies (TELECOM Moderator)
    SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal? (arnor![e-mail])
    How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Doug Martin)
    "House Sitter" Unit Wanted (Robert Wier)
    Challange To Phreaks! (Doug Davis)
    Thoughts About "Pay For What You Use" (Jon Solomon)
    Re: Yet Another AOS question (Paul Guthrie)
    Re: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals ) (Doug Davis)
    Re: FCC Orders Radio Station to Stop Phone Pranks (Dr. T. Andrews)

[Moderator's Note: Over the weekend, I will transmit one of those lists
with all the OCC codes (10xxx codes) listed. This is another one I got
early in the week, and it will come as a special edition for your own
collection of reference materials.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 2:03:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Some OCC's Do Get ANI Reports

In a message submitted a couple days ago, Rick Adams of UUNET pointed out
that his billings from Sprint do generally include the calling phone number
when the calls came in on the 800 lines at his office.

My original message had said that AT&T got that information, but the OCC's
had to 'struggle' to get it at times. He took exception to the use of the
word 'struggle', saying the OCC's depended on the local telcos to provide
it. Apparently Sprint has good luck obtaining this information from what
he said in his message.

On the other hand, TELECOM USA (provider of my residential 800 service)
says they have a very hard time obtaining it. Of course, I only pay a $2.45
per month service fee plus call charges. Maybe if I paid more they could
somehow 'find a way' to get it as Mr. Adams says Sprint is able to do.

Patrick Townson

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

Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 1:56:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Strike Ends at Ameritech Companies

The strike ended Wednesday at the various Ameritech companies. Although
Illinois Bell got their part settled a few days ago, part of the strike
strategy was to hold out until all the companies in the group settled.

Operators and craftsmen began going back to work Wednesday evening and things
were pretty much back to normal by mid-day Thursday.

How many companies are still out on strike? I think a lot of the east coast
people are still out. Does anyone have any updates?


Patrick Townson


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

From: arnor![e-mail]
Subject: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal?
Date: 31 Aug 89 18:01:00 GMT
Reply-To:  <arnor![e-mail]>



Hello, netlanders!

    Sorry if I hit the wrong group - no evil intention!

    The question is: can I use SW radio in my car? The
    frequency diapasone  1 - 30 MHz. Is it OK with FCC,
    and if not - what should I do to make it OK (if
    anything)? If the transmitter power is 25 - 100 Watts,
    what distance can it cover reliably?

    CB radio - does it need any license? What's the maximum
    distance it covers? What power is available?

    ANY info will be appreciated. You may either post it, or
    (which is probably better) e-mail it to me to:

        uunet!bywater!arnor!uri

    Please, e-mail (or post) just the info useful. Flames you
    may as well leave to yourself. Thank you.


    Uri.


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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 89 16:39:57 PDT
From: unicorn![e-mail]
Subject: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen?


     I am interested in finding literature references on how the various
telephone sounds, e.g. dial tone, busy signal, and the decaying tone
associated with credit card calls, were chosen.

What kinds of psychoacoustic research were done to determine that these sounds
are easily remembered, easily discriminated in noise, or less annoying than
other sounds which could have been selected.  I am looking for references on
how these sounds were selected.

Thanks,
Doug Martin
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 89 00:11:33 mst
From: Robert Wier <naucse![e-mail]>
Subject: "House Sitter" Unit Wanted


Heathkit sells a unit they call a "house sitter" which is basically
a self-contained security unit that checks the temperature, listens
for loud noises (like a smoke alarm going off), and some other things.
If an unusual situation arises, it will dial up to 3 numbers to
alert someone of the condition.

I'd like to purchase one of these units, but there are NONE available
from Heathkit.  One of my colleagues said he saw a similar unit
in a different catalog, but can't remember where.  I wonder if
anyone has any suggestions on whom I might contact?

THANKS!

                     *usual disclaimers*

   - Bob Wier                                College of Engineering
  Flagstaff, Arizona                      Northern Arizona University
  ...arizona!naucse!rrw |  BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX |      WB5KXH

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Challange To Phreaks!
Date: 31 Aug 89 19:30:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.

 From Thursday 8/31/89 Wall Street Journal:
+----------
Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. (Tokyo) is offering $7,000 reward
to any person or organization that can invade its FEAL-8 private
communication and data system, according to Associated Press report
that NTT America Inc. officials couldn't confirm. The reward offer
supposedly expires 8/31/91.
+----------

No telephone number or other information was included. :-(

--
Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740
{sys1.tandy.com, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug

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

Date:  Wed, 30 Aug 89 12:11:36 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Thoughts About "Pay For What You Use"

That scheme is being abused, as we all know. Just where do you draw the
line between paying for what you use and charging making a steep profit
on what others use (i.e. COCOT and Hotel calls). I'll be willing to bet
that the people who favored the breakup of ATT were those who are now
running COCOT and AOS services and making a bundle.

SO much for free enterprise.

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yet Another AOS question
Date: 31 Aug 89 22:56:03 GMT
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers


>With all of this discussion about AOSs (and while I'm writing nasty
>letters to the three Arizona hotels I stayed in recently :-) ), could
>someone please explain to me exactly where AOSs are in the sequence
>of a telephone call?

AOSs are (as you supposed) somewhere afterr the hotels PBX.  There are many
different methods of accessing AOSs, so I will only list the main ones.
1) Presubscribed lines.  The AOS has to have a CIC, and have the BOC
presubscribe the lines for the PBX to that CIC. This requires that the AOS
have FGD trunks, and that either the AOS also carry 1+ traffic, or the PBX
sends 1+ and 0-,0+ out on different trunks.  2) Speed dial.  Some PBXs can do
speed dialing and therefor insert a casual call code (10 + CIC) before the
0- or 0+ number, or some can even insert a FGB (950-{0,1} + CIC) code, + auth
code before the dialed number. 3) Dialers.  For AOSs without FGDs or on hotels
with dumb PBXs, smart "dialers" must be inserted on the outgoing operator
lines from the PBX.

These beasts are normally manufactured by companies such as Mitel, CTI ,
Micro Devices, etc.  They can trap incoming digits, outdial the necessary
codes to access the AOS, and then outdial the original dialed digits.  They
are usually smart enough to even change around casual call codes (such as
10288 or whatever) and still dial the AOS.  Some can even provide the "bong"
tone, accept credit card numbers, and dial out 1+, all without AOS
intervention.  These things have zillions of features, including Time of Day
routing to a least cost carrier, full tone sense (including energy detect for
voice, SIT tones, etc), screening tables for NPA+COC, so the AOS can instanly
dump to AT&T traffic that would be unbillable (due to not having billing
arrangements with] independants), etc.  Because of the sophistication of
these devices, often the AOS is reached via calling a 1-800 number which acts
like a feature group B, so that the AOS need not be local (most AOSs just have
one or two operator centres).  These are generally programmable either via
modem or DTMF tones, and the ones that store CC info must be able to offload
the SMDR information.

The dialers also have the ability to "splash" back calls on receipt of a
particular tone, giving a remote AOS the ability to make sure that the caller
gets a *local* operator if required, or *local* 911.  The dialer simply hangs
up and dials out directly a code sequence (e.g.911,0,00,etc) depending on
splash sequence.

The AOSs generally do not have the LD network to be able to route their
own calls, so they use other LD carriers, often using least cost routing
depending on time of day and destination.  Because they buy in bulk,
their LD costs are lower than an average subscribers on a per second
basis, giving them some profit margin even before their higher prices.

--
Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals )
Date: 31 Aug 89 22:55:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


In article <[e-mail]> Eric Schnoebelen
<texbell!egsner![e-mail]> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Paul Fuqua) writes:
>>  From: John Higdon <zygot!john at apple.com>
>>  Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
>->  Is it any wonder that there are people who literally red-line areas of
>->  the state and refuse to consider living in any area served by GTE?
>-I feel the same way.  Many of the Dallas suburbs are "served" by GTE.  I can
>-always tell whether my sister is calling from her home in Grapevine (GTE) or
>-work in Arlington (SWB) -- I can barely hear her when she calls from home.
>        I live in one of the Dallas suburbs ( Lewisville ) served by
>GTE..  I have never had any problem with them, and certainly not
>recently..

You are one extremely lucky person.  Don't let them know you have a working
telephone line from them, that cost extra ;-)

My site 'letni' feeds news to two sites serviced by G.T.E. (Generally Too
Emptyheaded).  The telebit feed (Plano) on a good day will make 400 characters
per second, and the normal 2400 baud connection (Lewisville)  gets 140 cps
after about 10-15 attempts that didn't connect due to random line noise or
just generally very attuated line volume.

Also a company that I consulted for who runs voice paging systems for that
area ended up installing a microwave link between a site in Arlington and
Lewisville just becase GTE couldn't keep the noise off the trunks... Now to
page in Lewisville you call a number in Arlington and it beams your page back
to your city.  Too bad this isn't an option for most people.

Just for the record I had a really interesting conversation with the
so-called head of network engineering for GTE in the north texas area. The
topic was why I never could get a good modem connection at 2400 baud.  He
informed me unequivocally that 300 baud half duplex was all their telephone
system will handle and all that they would talk to me about.

Btw, I'm looking for a house in North-Dallas right now, and the primiary
requirement is the telephone company NOT be GTE, schools, shopping
other-things come secondary.

--
Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740
{sys1.tandy.com, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug
 "GTE sucks... Then they charge you for the privledge."

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

Subject: Re: FCC Orders Radio Station to Stop Phone Pranks
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 89 7:53:20 EDT
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Organization: CompuData, Inc. (DeLand)

Incredible, isn't it?  Three complaints and a lawsuit later, the FCC
are piddling around with $5000 fines in Chicago.  In New York, they send
boats out to international water to destroy transmitters and sieze
persons and property.  (Technically this is termed "piracy".  See a
lawyer before you try it yourself.)
--
 ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #340
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 2 Sep 89 0:01:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #341
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Sep 89 00:00:06 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 341

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Phonebook Distribution (John Higdon)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution (Ed Morin)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution (Mike Trout)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Paul E. Robichaux)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Brian Kantor)
    Re: GTE Bashing?! (was: BOCs and Regionals ) (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls (Gary Delong)
    Re: BOCs and Regionals (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution
Date: 1 Sep 89 04:56:28 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, WMartin@wsmr-simtel20.
army.mil (William G. Martin) writes:
> Is a residential telephone customer entitled to one set of books per
> household, one set per instrument, or one set per line into that residence?
> Is a business customer entitled to one set per line, one per instrument, to
> as many as they ask for without limit, or to what they ask for up to some
> cutoff based on their usage? Or are they charged for each set of books
> separately?
> [...]
> (I'm sure this will vary with the individual BOC, so if you post a
> response, identify the BOC involved.)

To cover the Bay Area requires something like twelve "sets" of
directories. On a map, the local calling areas look like a bunch of
overlapping circles. To call one number in a directory from another
number in that same directory could be a toll call, while calling a
number in another directory could be local. Picture a triangle
consisting of San Francisco to the northwest, Oakland to the north, and
San Jose to the south. Each of these major cities has a "directory"
consisting of a white pages and two yellow pages (A-M, N-Z). Between
these cities is wall to wall suburbia, with areas that have
single-volume directories.

You are entitled (business or residence) to as many directories as you
need, and they will deliver them to you, for your "local" area.
However, you must order them. When the new directories are issued, they
automatically deliver one set to each residence or business. I have ten
residence lines, and every year one lone set shows up on my doorstep.

For directories in the greater area, you pay a nominal charge. Interestingly,
DA out of the area code but within the LATA is free!

Remember, telco is charging businesses big bucks for yellow pages advertising,
so if it is to be effective, those books have to be delivered to users!

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Ed Morin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution
Date: 1 Sep 89 17:53:44 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.; Seattle, WA

It could be that the phone system you have doesn't provide a trunk line
per employee and the phone company will only provide books for each actual
trunk coming in to the building plus some limited number of "extras"...

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

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution
Date: 1 Sep 89 19:35:39 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY

In article <[e-mail]>, WMartin@wsmr-simtel20.
army.mil (William G. Martin) writes:

> [Pertinent questions about distribution of phone books deleted]

This probably depends upon your local telco, but I suspect that in most cases,
the number of phone books and how they are distributed is a rather anarchic
process about which the telco cares little.  In 1986, NYNEX dumped multiple
pallets of phone books in the hallways at a company I worked for.  As these
were special phone books celebrating Albany's tricentennial and including a
frameable color print of old-time Albany, they were in considerable demand.
Not to mention that we had about 500 full-service phones in the building.
Everyone grabbed one book for their desk phone and a couple extra for home and
the car.  There were still zillions left.  I eventually ended up taking six,
including a couple I used as oil mops in the garage.  By the time the 1987
books came out, there were still at least a hundred 1986 books left on the
pallets, which all ended up in the dumpster.  In addition to the 3-inch-thick
Albany book, there were a couple pallets of the 3/4-inch-thick Colonie book,
which were appropriated in the same way (Colonie, where the company was
located, is a major suburb of Albany).

Here at BRS (also technically in Colonie) we always had a severe shortage of
books until this year.  This was supposedly due to the fact that we have a
central switchboard and office phones can dial out but can't directly receive.
But this year, I was in the lobby when a couple of NYNEX guys came in.  They
asked our receptionist how many 1989 Albany and Colonie books BRS would like.
She (undoubtedly thinking about our phone system) replied that the couple they
had with them would be enough.  I wasn't about to let that pass, so I blurted
out "We need more than that!"  One of the NYNEX guys asked "So how many?"  I
replied, "How many can we have?" He said, "As many as you want."  I said,
"Literally?"  He said yes; "You can have hundreds, even thousands if you want
them.  No extra charge."  They had a truckload of pallets, and would drop off
as many as we wanted on our loading dock and go on their merry way.  We
arrived at a figure of 75 books of each type; at the time we had perhaps
double that number of phones in the building.  But they were perfectly willing
to leave 10 books per phone if we'd asked for them; it was merely a factor of
how obnoxious I wanted to be.  I've since wondered if this willingness to drop
off unlimited phone books may have been prompted by the fact that there is now
a competitor phone book (Western Information Systems or something like that).
So far the competing book seems to have been dropped off at residences but not
businesses.

I once wanted a phone book for Saratoga Springs (long distance from Albany,
with a phone book a little over an inch thick).  I called NYNEX to ask if I
could get one; it was on my front porch the next day--no charge.  I also asked
about getting phone books for areas outside NYNEX, like Tulsa (where I grew
up).  They said no problem, although there would be a charge (about 8 bucks).
I passed, and the next time I was in Tulsa I tried walking into a Southwestern
Bell office and asking for one.  I didn't identify who I was, that I lived in
New York, or that I wanted one just for the heck of it.  Without a word they
handed me both white and yellow pages (both about two inches thick).  No
charge, no questions asked.

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

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

From: "Paul E. Robichaux" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Date: 1 Sep 89 11:03:38 GMT
Reply-To: "Paul E. Robichaux" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I bought one from DAK and was super pleased with it..except that none of
the supplied earpieces was comfortable! Wearing it for <10 min gave me
a killer headache. Since Plantronics can't/won't make custom earpieces,
back it went.

-Paul

--
Paul E. Robichaux                  |"Collateral damage is the number of women
Georgia Institute of Technology    | and children you kill when attempting to do
GT PO Box 30818; Atlanta, GA 30332 | something else."- Cap Weinberger.
Internet: [e-mail] |   All opinions in this message are mine.

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Date: 2 Sep 89 00:43:29 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I have one.  The portable transmits on 46.6 megs, receives on 49.6.
Clearly the base is the other way 'round.  It is FM, and uses a digital
pulse train to control the hookswitch and dialing.

Mine worked well at home, poorly at work near all the old unshielded
computers.  I found that the receiver was grossly out of alignment and
more than tripled the range by retuning it - my conjecture is that the
coils had vibrated out of adjustment during shipping, plus the usual
cheap parts aging.

It's really made by Uniden, BTW.  At least, it says UNIDEN all over the
inside, and it is of typical Taiwan/Japan low-end consumer construction.

Note that the FCC regs prohibit extending the range by making the
transmit antenna longer.  If you want to go to the trouble, you could
legally separate the receiver from the transmit antenna connections in
the base unit and put a big receive antenna on it.

BTW, if you use the remote to tell the base to go off-hook and then
pull the power cord off the base, you can listen to all the other
cordless phones and baby monitors in the neighbor's houses.

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals )
Date: 1 Sep 89 05:23:05 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, texbell!egsner!eric@cs.
utexas.edu (Eric Schnoebelen) writes:
>         I live in one of the Dallas suburbs ( Lewisville ) served by
> GTE..  I have never had any problem with them, and certainly not
> recently..
> [...]
> I had been called back by a tech at GTE saying that they
> could find no problem at the CO, and if I would carefully check all of
> my equipment..  I ( somewhat sheepishly ) told her that I had just
> discovered the problem, and that it had been corrected..

Well, you did get their standard line, "We can't find anything wrong. It must
be in your equipment." In your case it happened to be true. In most cases, not
so.

Seriously, I reflected for some time, and then conferred with a number of my
associates. We concluded that to list all of the screwups performed by GTE
(that other companies seem to avoid) would require more space than could ever
be afforded by this forum. General categories include:

1. Arbitrary leased line disconnections

2. Outdated routing in local COs

3. Excessive time to repair simple outages (weeks)

4. Total local switch failure (one lasted two days in Los Gatos)

5. Feature offerings far behind other operating companies

6. Service reps not trained properly

I have dealt with Pac*Bell and independents all over the state. From
this experience it has been possible to formulate minimum standards of
performance. GTE falls so short of these standards in every area that
they have become known as the longest running telephone practical joke
in history. GTE is America's answer to third-world telephony.

I do have an open mind, but from the last twenty-five years of
experience, it will take more than one customer satisfied with one
repair call to convince me that GTE has become worthy of even the
slightest amount of respect.

>         I guess I don't understand all the GTE bashing, just like I
> don't understand all the Sprint bashing..  ( Sprint is my long distance
> carrier..  No problems in recent memory..  )

Perhaps I can offer enlightenment. Many of the readers of this group have
needs that are more sophisticated and complex than the average single-line
residential customer. The real measure of a service provider is how well they
can respond to diverse needs and situations. In my previous GTE story, I simply
wanted a single telephone line for three days. This was so strange to them
(apparently) that they stumbled and fell. Sure, I have friend in Los Gatos
that has had service with GTE for many years. We talk on the phone and can
hear each other just fine. And (except when his CO crashes!) the calls always
go through. But this doesn't tell us much about how the company *really*
performs.

Glossary term for the day:

_reorder_ ; GTE end-of-dialing signal
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date:  Fri, 1 Sep 89 13:00:33 EDT
From: Gary Delong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls

As I see it, there seem to be four main objections to the Caller-ID features:

1) Businesses building lists of casual callers to use in future phone
   solicitation campaigns. (and maybe even selling those lists)

2) Callers to various public agencies and hot-lines might wish to remain
   anonymous.

3) Certain calls from parties to domestic abuse may wish to contact other
   parties without revealing their whereabouts.

4) Those who have an un-listed/published number wish to keep it private.

Now maybe I'm taking a too simple approach to the issue, but it would seem
that a few simple step could leave the feature fully functional while
addressing these concerns.

1) Make the Caller-ID feature apply only to residential service.  If that
   restriction is placed in the tariff, the only "business" that could get
   your number via Caller-ID is the person working out of their home.
   (as has been noted, ATT 800 service already provides businesses with a
    list of callers phone numbers)

2) Make the above restriction apply to these agencies (with the exception of
   emergency dispatch services).

3) Route these calls either through the operator or some third party agency
   who would forward the call.

4) Is the only one I see that might require some work.

   There would seem to be two differnt situations here.  Those with more than
   one line and want to use one or more for outgoing calls only.  I think this
   might be handled in the same way billing is handled.  When I had tow lines,
   both were billed to one account/phone number.  Why not have the feature
   report the billing number?  This would provide the called party with a way
   to re-contact the caller and protect the caller's un-published number(s).

   As to those of you who only have one un-listed/published line, I don't have
   any sympathy at all.  If you think you have a valid reason to phone me, I'll
   probably have a vaild reason to want to call you back sometime.

Is this all too simple, or have I missed some other objection? (other than
from the "I want to harrass them anonymously group")

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

Date:     Fri, 1 Sep 89 9:59:21 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  BOCs and Regionals

There are FIVE other New England states besides Connecticut.

Delaware, Maryland, and DC come under BOCs except for 301-658 in Rising Sun,
Md. (Cecil County)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #341
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 2 Sep 89 1:20:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #342
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Sep 89 01:15:19 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 342

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Reasons For Keeping Phone Numbers Unlisted (Jeff E. Nelson)
    Length of International Numbers (John R. Covert)
    NYNEX strike (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
    Compuserve with INTERNET (G. Wang)
    Starting a BOC??? (David Brightbill)
    Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal? (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail (David Lewis)
    Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm (Rusty H. Hodge)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Dell Ellison)
    Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates (Wayne Hamilton)

[Moderator's Note: A special issue of the Digest will be coming to you
today. It is a list of 10xxx codes submitted recently. It will be
un-numbered, for use in your own reference archives.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 08:47:51 -0700
From: Toro and Tweety's Taco and Psychiactric Emporium <[e-mail].
com>
Subject: Reasons For Keeping Phone Numbers Unlisted

In Telecom Digest V9 #355, the Moderator writes:

>[Moderator's Note: I keep my phones unlisted simply because I know all about
>how the Customer Name and Address Bureau (312-796-9600) operates for area
>312; and because I am familiar with cross reference directories.  PT]

You obviously know something I don't.  How does the operation of the Customer
Name and Address Bureau affect your decision to keep your phone numbers
unlisted?  Also, explain how cross-reference directories affect your decision.

I'm sure there are other readers of the Telecom Digest who are curious, too.

-Jeff E. Nelson                            |
-Digital Equipment Corporation             | Affiliation given for
-Internet:  [e-mail]       | identification purposes only.
-  -or-     [e-mail] |

[Moderator's Note: I discussed the Illinois Bell public CNA facility in
the Digest yesterday. Criss-cross, or Cross Reference Directories are another
problem altogether. In theory, the Haines Company -- a major publisher of
such books, along with Donnelly Directory, Dresslers and City Publishing
Company, to name just three others -- are to distribute their directories
only to business places with reasonable business needs for same. A delivery
service needing a phone number to effect proper delivery is one example;
a taxi service or food delivery service is another. I can't even really
complain about the collection agencies/skip tracing services which use them
to sneak through an interview with a 'nearby', who as your neighbor might
know where you have moved, or worked, etc.

But burglars also use the criss-cross, and cellular phones to see who is
home and who isn't before breaking into someone's house. One fellow was
arrested here about a year ago with the local criss-cross in his car, open
to the page listing the street where his car was parked, and a cellular
phone to his ear. His bag of burglar tools and the stolen goods in the
trunk of his car were noticed by the police who arrested him.

Criss-cross books are also widely used by telemarketers who make cold sales
calls; that is, just start calling up one side of the street and down the
other to sell their home-improvements or whatever. They love to refer to
the book, then call you by name when you answer the phone, pretending that
they knew you all along.

I've had my phones non-pub for many years because I value my privacy and
security. Even being non-pub, I get plenty of crank calls, which will be
stopping once my Caller ID is installed. Other than a few friends, I
really don't like talking on the phone at home, since I do it in my office
all day; so much at the office that I usually wear a headset there.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 08:24:48 -0700
From: "John R. Covert  01-Sep-1989 0944" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Length of International Numbers

>Does that mean there is a limit of digits for international numbers?
>I know 8-digit numbers in West Germany within a 3-digit area code
>(the leading 0 not included).  Adding the country code (2 digits)
>yields to a 13-digit international number.  Is such a number not
>dialable from abroad?

CCITT recommendation E.163 calls for a maximum of 12 digits on international
numbers.

Back when the city code for Vienna was 222 (it's now either 222 or 1 from
outside the country), several of our offices there had 13 and 14 digit
numbers, and extensions could not be dialled from abroad.  The problem was
somewhat mitigated by the requirement in Austria that if not enough digits
arrive at a PBX, the call simply goes to the attendant.

No. 1 and 1A ESS, No. 2 ESS, and No. 5 ESS have a limit of 12 digits.
I have also tested from exchanges in the U.K. and found the same 12 digit
limit.  Calls to those 13-digit international numbers have to be placed
via an operator (but since they're not diallable, you get the direct dialled
rate).

/john

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

Subject: NYNEX Strike
From: "Wm. Randolph Franklin" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 89 14:46:13 EDT

As  of  this morning's  newspaper, the NYNEX   strike was still on.  The
oickets were beating up strikebreakers  who tried to  cross the lines in
Albany, NYNEX got an injunction limiting pickets,  the union lawyer said
that he would not inform affiliated unions of the  injunction, ...  Stay
tuned.

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

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 11:52:12 -0500
From: "G. Wang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Compuserve with INTERNET

Recently, I think you said that you can actually "ftp" Compuserve with
INTERNET .. I attend the University of Illinois which has internet access....
I am aware of how to communicate email with Compuserve but I am now interested
in finding out how I can actually call up Compuserve with internet if that's
possible... Didn't you say there was some method... Also would this save
charges as opposed to dialing direct??

Thanks
George

[Moderator's Note: What I think I said was that *Telenet* interconnects
with Compuserve. Compuserve has a four digit network address on Telenet;
it works like an off-net connection to any other network would work on
Telenet. On Telenet, addresses are usually of the form accxxyy where the
area code is followed by three, four or five digits for the network address
within that area. A typical Chicago network address would look like this:
31200456. The Telenet 'area codes' match the voice network area codes. 'Area
code' 909 is Telenet's headquarters and associated addresses in Reston,
VA.

To make an off-net (in most instances, international) data call, a zero
is first entered, to flag down the switch as to routing. Then the Network
ID comes next, then the address on the network. So, an international (or
otherwise non-Telenet network) data address would look something like this:
0510200031200456. The fully qualified address is required when going off
your home, or default network. A lot of shorthand is permitted when staying
on your own network.

All the networks in the United States of this sort can interconnect off
of Telenet, but exact protocol escapes me at the moment. This includes not
only Compuserve, but Tymnet, Western Union and others. In fact, Telenet
service in Alaska comes from Alaska Telecom, which in turn is brokered
from Tymnet! Use of these interconnections requires a password and prior
billing arrangements with Telenet. They are not for PC Pursuiters! My paper
a couple years ago, 'Let Your Fingers Walk You on a Tour of the International
Data Networks' did NOT win me any friends at Telenet!

But I digress: It would probably be cheaper than dialup to Columbus, OH,
but not very effecient. Compuserve has many, many local dialups of their
own in communities all over the United States for the purpose you wish;
and those are the least expensive way to go. I think the only group of
Compuserve subscribers using Telenet are the folks in Canada. They were
(still are?) calling their local Canada Datapak indial, getting passed to
Telenet, then off to Compuserve somehow. But Internet? I do not know of
any *interactive, real time* way to do it.   PT]

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

Date: Sat, 2 Sep 89 00:06:04 edt
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Starting a BOC???

I spend several days each month at a beach house on a small island off the
Florida gulf coast.  There are about 100 houses and an 8 room hotel on the
island but no landline based phone service.  The hotel and a couple of the
residences have celluar or old style mobile phones with directional
antennas pointed toward the nearest provider (about 80 miles away).  Power
to the island comes from the mainland via a submarine cable...we call it
the island extension cord.  There is no submarine telco cable.  I got to
thinking about what it would take to make telco service available.  Is the
local BOC (a real real small rural company) in any way required to provide
service to our island?  If they didn't want to, could anyone petition the
PSC to start an exchange?

This is all in the range of fantasy as neither I, nor I expect, most of my
island neighbors would want a phone at the beach.  On those very rare
occasions when I need to place a call, I do it over the VHF radio on the
boat.  If someone needs to reach me by phone at the island, they are out of
luck.  (really boss, I would have come in to fix the system but there is just
no way of reaching me at the beach...tee hee)

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

From: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal?
Date: 1 Sep 89 18:31:43 GMT
Reply-To: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}

In article <[e-mail]> <arnor![e-mail]>
writes:
>
>    The question is: can I use SW radio in my car? The
>    frequency diapasone  1 - 30 MHz. Is it OK with FCC,
>    and if not - what should I do to make it OK (if
>    anything)? If the transmitter power is 25 - 100 Watts,
>    what distance can it cover reliably?

There are no frequencies between 1 and 30 MHz in which you can
transmit without a license.  If you want to get an Amateur Radio
License, you can transmit on certain bands of this range, within the
limits set forth by part 97 of the FCC Regulations.  More info can be
found on rec.ham-radio.

>
>    CB radio - does it need any license? What's the maximum
>    distance it covers? What power is available?
>
CB Radio doesn't need a license these days.  Coverage is several
miles, depending on the traffic density in your area.  CB is covered
by part 95 of the FCC regs.  More info is packed inside the manual of
any CB Radio for sale (new.)  I don't think there's a newsgroup
devoted to CB Radio.
>    ANY info will be appreciated. You may either post it, or
>    (which is probably better) e-mail it to me to:
>
>        uunet!bywater!arnor!uri
>
Tell us more about what you want to accomplish.  Who do you want to
talk to, for what purpose.  Perhaps we can come up with a suitable
solution to your application.

                -edg

--
Ed Greenberg
uunet!apple!netcom!edg

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail
Date: 1 Sep 89 18:16:08 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

In article <[e-mail]>, munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.
edu.au![e-mail] writes:

> How did they convince the first business to buy a fax machine, anyway???

Fax has, since its introduction, been very popular in Japan.  When you
consider the Japanese alphabetS -- three alphabets, thousands of
characters, itermingled in almost all writing, plus the occasional
"western" characters -- fax makes a lot more sense than email...

--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: "Rusty H. Hodge" <hodge![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephone Causes Airline Fire Alarm
Date: 31 Aug 89 23:25:15 GMT
Organization: Hodge Computer Research Corporation

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron
Natalie) writes:
> I'm skeptical about this article.  The plane must have
> been on the ground or else it wouldn't be answering the
> phone call.

Oh really?  Radio waves don't travel up? :->

Although Cell Site antennas put the majority of their energy out in a
pancake fashion, there is plenty of reflected signal.

Have you ever listened to an FM radio while flying at 30,000 feet?
You can hear stations from all over.
--

Rusty "No Bugs" Hodge, 1588 N. Batavia St. Orange, CA 92667 Tel [phone]
[e-mail] [uunet zardoz crash]!hodge!rusty        FAX [phone]

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

From: Dell Ellison <asuvax!gtephx!loki![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 1 Sep 89 14:17:06 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <[e-mail]>, buster![e-mail]
(Buster Irby) writes:
> The point here is that *you* are not entitled to my unlisted phone number
> just because I placed a call to an identifying device which you happened to
> be standing next to.  However, if I am making harrassing calls, the
> receipient of the call should be able to identify me to the phone company,
> ala the code names/numbers.  I do not see any reason why the Caller ID device
> cannot provide the required calling party id without finding it necessary to
> divulge an unlisted phone number.

> Buster Irby  rli@buster

> [Moderator's Note: However, some of us feel that we have the right to know
> the identity of the caller -- not necessarily recognize the caller -- just
> know the identity of the person ringing our bell. We feel you don't have
> the right to know our number and  be able to ring it at will while at the
> same time witholding your own, preventing us from calling you.  PT]

We all have the right to Freedom...

   As long as our freedom does not take away the Freedom of someone else!

In other words, I have the Freedom to swing my arm, but my Freedom stops

   BEFORE my fist hits the end of your nose.

You should have the right to not get hit in the nose.

I hope my analogy is fairly obvious.

But just in case it isn't ...

   I have the right to call you, but you have the right to know who is calling.

   The closest thing we have to that is our phone number.  (telephone medium)

I agree with the moderator.



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

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 89 11:23:32 -0500
From: Wayne Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overseas Calling Card Rates

> 7 AM to 7 PM   $2.69 for the first minute; $1.53 each additional minute.
> An 80 cent surcharge is added for the use of the card. However in fairness,
> two reps said it was not added, and one said it was.  From 7 PM to 7 AM
> it was $2.06 for the first minute, and $1.02 each additional minute.
>
> For three minutes then, the day charge is $2.69 times 3 = $8.07
> At night, this would be $2.06 times 3 = $6.18

Shouldn't that be 2.69+(2*1.53)=$5.75 and 2.06+(2*1.02)=$4.10?


    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]

[Moderator's Note: Yes and no, depending. Here in the USA we pay more for
the first minute only, because surcharges, the operator's costs, etc are
factored into it. Additional minutes incur none of these extra charges.
But my comparison was intended to match the three minutes from Mexico. I
guess your way of stating it is better, but it leaves the discrepancy even
larger between calls to/from USA  <==> Mexico on the Card, doesn't it. PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #342
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 2 Sep 89 10:47:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: OCC Access Codes
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Sep 89 10:38:10 CDT    Special: OCC Access Codes

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Where Can I Find a Complete List of Access Codes? (Dave Esan)

[Moderator's Note: I get periodic requests for this list, so I want to
thank Dave Esan for digging it out of the back issues file and re-submitting
it. One hundred percent accuracy is not guarenteed. Many small long distance
companies operate for a few months or a year, then merge with others or
go out of business, etc. And not all of the places listed below work in
every location. About the only ones you can assume work *almost* everywhere
are MCI, Sprint, AT&T, Western Union and Telecom USA. Most of the others
are strictly local, appearing in just a few states or cities.  PT]

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Can I Find a Complete List of Access Codes?
Date: 28 Aug 89 16:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(R.A. Anonymous, Jr.) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 276, message 2 of 11

>I was wondering if anyone could help me out with locating the companies that
>own a few access codes.  From my area, I can use 10222 (MCI), 10288 (AT&T),
>10333 (US Sprint), and 10444 (AllNet).  The codes in question are 10555
>and 10999.  These both work, but I don't know who I'm going to get a bill
>from...

Well, I got this from comp.telecom along time ago.  I hope it helps.

001    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
002    AmeriCall LDC
003    RCI Corporation
007    Tel America
011    Metromedia Long Distance
012    Charter Corporation (Tri-J)
013    Access Services
021    Mercury
022    MCI Telecommunications
023    Texnet
024    Petricca Communications Systems
028    Texnet
030    Valu-Line of Wichita Falls
031    Teltec Saving Communications
033    US Sprint
036    Long Distance Savers
039    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
042    First Phone
044    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
053    American Network (Starnet)
056    American Satellite
057    Long Distance Satellite
059    COMNET
060    Valu-Line of West Texas
063    COMNET
069    V/COM
070    National Telephone Exchange
080    AMTEL Systems
084    Long Distance Service (LDS)
085    WesTel
088    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
089    Telephone Systems
090    WesTel
093    Rainbow Communications
095    Southwest Communications
099    AmeriCall
122    RCA Global Communications
137    All America Cables and Radio (ITT)
142    First Phone
146    ARGO Communications
188    Satellite Business Systems
201    PhoneNet
202    ExecuLines
203    Cypress Telecommunications (Cytel)
204    United Telephone Long Distance
206    United Telephone Long Distance
211    RCI
212    Call US
213    Long Distance Telephone Savers
214    Tyler Telecom
215    Star Tel of Abilene
217    Call US
219    Call USA
220    Western Union Telegraph
222    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
223    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
224    American Communications
227    ATH Communications (Call America)
229    Bay Communications
232    Superior Telecom
233    Delta Communications
234    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
237    Inter-Comm Telephone
239    Woof Communications (ACT)
241    American Long Lines
242    Choice Information Systems
244    Automated Communications
245    Taconic Long Distance Service
250    Dial-Net
252    Long Distance/USA
253    Litel Telecommunications
255    All-State Communications
256    American Sharecom
260    Advanced Communications Systems
263    Com Systems (Sun Dial Communications)
268    Compute-A-Call
276    CP National (American Network, Starnet)
284    American Telenet
286    Clark Telecommunications
287    ATS Communications
288    AT&T Communications
298    Thriftline
302    Austin Bestline
303    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
311    SaveNet (American Network, Starnet)
318    Long Distance Savers
321    Southland Systems
322    American Sharecom
324    First Communication
331    Texustel
333    US Sprint
336    Florida Digital Network
338    Midco Communications
339    Communication Cable Laying
343    Communication Cable Laying
345    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
350    Dial-Net
355    US Link
357    Manitowoc Long Distance Service
362    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
363    Tel-Toll (Econ-O-Dial of Bishop)
369    American Satellite
373    Econo-Line Waco
375    Wertern Union Telegraph
385    The Switchboard
393    Execulines of Florida
400    American Sharecom
404    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
412    Penn Telecom
428    Inter-Comm Telephone
432    Lightcall
435    Call-USA
436    Indiana Switch
440    Tex-Net
441    Escondido Telephone
442    First Phone
444    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
455    Telecom Long Distance
456    ARGO Communications
462    American Network Services
464    Houston Network
465    Intelco
466    International Office Networks
469    GMW
472    Hal-Rad Communications
480    Chico Telecom (Call America)
488    United States Transmission Systems (ITT)
505    San Marcos Long Distance
515    Burlington Telephone
529    Southern Oregon Long Distance
532    Long Distance America
533    Long Distance Discount
536    Long Distance Management
550    Valu-Line of Alexandria
551    Pittsburg Communication Systems
552    First Phone
555    TeleSphere Networks
566    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
567    Advanced Marketing Services (Dial Anywhere)
579    Lintel System (Lincoln Telephone LD)
590    Wisconsin Telecommunications Tech
599    Texas Long Distance Conroe
601    Discount Communications Services
606    Biz Tel Long Distance Telephone
622    Metro America Communications
634    Econo-Line Midland
646    Contact America
654    Cincinnati Bell Long Distance
655    Ken-Tel Service
660    Tex-Net
666    Southwest Communications
675    Network Services
680    Midwest Telephone Service
682    Ashland Call America
684    Nacogdoches Telecommunications
687    NTS Communications
700    Tel-America
704    Inter-Exchange Communications
707    Telvue
709    Tel-America
717    Pass Word
726    Procom
727    Conroe-Comtel
735    Marinette-Menominee Lds
737    National Telecommunications
741    ClayDesta
742    Phone America of Carolina
743    Peninsula Long Distance Service
747    Standard Informations Services
755    Sears Communication
757    Pace Long Distance Service
759    Telenet Communication (US Sprint)
760    American Satellite
766    Yavapai Telephone Exchange
771    Telesystems
777    US Sprint
785    Olympia Telecom
786    Shared Use Network Service
787    Star Tel of Abilene
788    ASCI's Telepone Express Network
789    Microtel
792    Southwest Communications
800    Satelco
801    MidAmerican LD (Republic)
827    TCS Network Services
833    Business Telecom
839    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
847    VIP Connections
850    TK Communications
852    Telecommunicatons Systems
859    Valu-Line of Longview
866    Alascom
872    Telecommunications Services
874    Tri-Tel Communications
879    Thriftycall (Lintel Systems)
881    Coastal Telephone
882    Tuck Data Communications
883    TTI Midland-Odessa
884    TTI Midland-Odessa
885    The CommuniGroup
888    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
895    Texas on Line
897    Leslie Hammond (Phone America)
898    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
910    Montgomery Telamarketing Communication
915    Tele Tech
933    North American Communications
936    Rainbow Commuinications
937    Access Long Distance
938    Access Long Distance
951    Transamerica Telecommunications
955    United Communications
960    Access Plus
963    Tenex Communications
969    Dial-Net
985    America Calling
986    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
987    ClayDesta Communications
988    Western Union Telegraph
991    Access Long Distance
--
 -->        David Esan                rochester!moscom!de


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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: OCC Access Codes
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 3 Sep 89 0:48:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #343
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Sep 89 00:37:09 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 343

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Celebrating Labor Day (TELECOM Moderator)
    Unusual Problem With Party-Line Ringing (Mark Anacker)
    Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Paolo Bellutta)
    Re: Plantronics Liteset (Jay Skeer)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Dan Griffin)
    Re: New Services Offered by Southern Bell (Anthony Lee)
    Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal? (Mark Robert Smith)

[Moderator's Note: Just one issue of the Digest today.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 3 Sep 89 0:03:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Celebrating Labor Day

Labor Day is a good time to reflect on the men and women whose labor made
the public telephone network in America what it is today. Over a century
of dedicated craftspeople -- each in their own area of expertise -- have
created the finest phone system in the world.

All of them have their own stories to tell. All of them had a part in
building the Bell SYSTEM -- a totally integrated phone network which served
us very well for many decades.

Consider Myrtle Murphy, a former neighbor here in Chicago, retired from
Bell for almost *thirty years*, now in her nineties: She was the first
union steward at Illinois Bell in Chicago, many years ago. She endured
hostility and suspicion from co-workers who 'had been warned about her'
by their supervisors. "...stay away from her....she wants to make trouble..."
was the word from the higher-ups.

But she would go around the office, urging people to sign up with the new
union anyway, and once in a while a new member would sign up. But most of
her co-workers would just laugh and say, ".....you'll never organize Bell...
it just can't be done....too large....supervisors are too strict....better
that we have a job, than to get in the union and get fired..."

But Myrtle just kept working at it, and finally had enough people interested
in joining that the old A.F. of L. responded, and approached Bell with the
group's demands. The rest, as they say, is history.

Myrtle worked the Franklin Coin Board; a central office downtown which handled
all the coin phones in the downtown area. She recalled a humorous incident
from the late 1930's: She worked nights at the time, and one fellow managed
to cheat on a long distance call every night.

This fellow was always in a certain tavern, and would make a long distance
call to his girl friend. He would talk fifteen or twenty minutes, then when
finished, just walk away from the ringing phone and the operator demanding
money for the overtime. Finally, the guy got wise and when finished, would
just set the reciever down, without hanging it up; consequently the bell
in the pay phone could not be rung to get <someone's> attention when this
guy abandoned the call. Five or ten minutes later the operator would come
on the line to see what was going on, and find no one there at all!

Myrtle said finally one night, after this had happened several nights in
a row, always by the same customer from the same tavern, her supervisor
said let's tell the security inspector, and have him take care of this
joker. When the customer started his call that night, they notified the
security man on duty, who got in his car and drove over to the tavern, and
waited just outside the door of the payphone booth.

Sure enough, a few minutes later, the door of the booth opens, and this
slightly inebriated customer walks right out. The security man tapped him
on the shoulder and said, "say, would you like to pay for that phone call
now?"

Well, the guy was amazed that they had gotten onto him, but he paid, and
Myrtle said they never had another problem with that fellow again, but
she said they were always having trouble with people brazenly  walking off
from pay phones owing money. Their other problem was people who would cheat
the phone by using a thin piece of bent wire which they inserted up the
coin return slot (this was L-O-N-G before payphones which had trapdoors
on the coin return slot, folks) to trip the coin collection table and cause
the coins to fall out.

The old payphones had three slots on the top, and a little flat ledge in
the phone on which the coins fell. The operators had two special buttons
on their switchboard marked 'return' and 'collect'. Depending on the button
pushed, the ledge in the phone would tip one way and collect the money or
tip the other way and return it. Myrtle pointed out that smart-alecks
would shove that little wire up there, and tap the flat ledge, causing the
coins to return, then use *the very same coins over again* to deposit
'more money for overtime'.

Around 1945 or so, Myrtle left Franklin Coin and went to work in an office
called 'Avenue' on the northwest side of the city near her home. It was
the last office to be converted to dial, as of 1951. Myrtle pointed out
rather proudly, "It was the union I helped bring in which saw to it none
of the girls lost their job as a result of the conversion to dial."

Rumors were rampant among the operators in the late forties that once the
automation was complete, most of them would lose their jobs. Bell kept
saying no one would be let go, but few of the operators believed it. About
six or eight months after 'Avenue' cut to dial in 1951, the City of Chicago
remodeled and greatly expanded Orchard Field, a small airport on the
northwest side of town....and renamed it 'Ohare International Airport'.
Myrtle noted that once Ohare opened, the Avenue central office had more
operators working the automated system than they ever had when the office
was manual!

By the time Myrtle retired in the late fifties, and went on a pension,
the union was was taken for granted.  And now, thirty years later, the
crew just starting work in those days is getting ready to retire, after
spending a lifetime with a company that for all they knew, *always* had
a union shop.

But Bell did not organize easily, as any of the very early union stewards
and members would tell you. It was probably one of the most difficult
organizing efforts ever completed successfully.

So on Labor Day, think about the years of hard labor which went into making
the phone you take for granted work so well. Union people made it happen.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: 1 Sep 89 15:20:15 PDT (Fri)
From: Mark Anacker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unusual Problem With Party-Line Ringing

Hi out there in telecom land...

I have a situation here, and I was wondering if anyone out there in this group
has any advice.  Some friends live in a rural (*really rural*)  area of
the state (WA).  Their phone service is party line, with 3 or 4  others on
the line.  Instead of the old system of "1 long, 2 short" rings or whatever,
the telco sends the rings signal at different frequencies for each party.  Thus
my friends' ring is 50Hz, instead of the usual 20Hz.  They then had to buy
a small box that goes inline with their incoming line and beeps when a
ring signal of the appropriate frequency comes along.    A side effect of this
is that the ring signal is not passed through the box at all, making it
kind of hard to hook up an answering machine or modem (or anything).  Also,
since the only audible indicator is in the filter box, you can't hear the
phone ring outside that room.

What I had in mind was to modify one of these filter boxes so that instead
of beeping on a 50Hz ring, it would close a relay and bridge the house
side of the line onto the incoming side.  This would then allow the ring
signal to get to the rest of the house.  We've verified that their phones
and stuff will recognize a 50Hz ring (also all other rings)., so they
should work.  I'd like to know if anybody out there has done anything
like this already.  I know this look like a sci.electronics posting,
but it's really telcomm specific.  Besides, Patrick seems to know
everything about the system anyway :-)

Sorry for the length.    Thanks for any help.


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

From: Paolo Bellutta <mcvax!irst.it![e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 89 10:01:48 MET DST

I noticed that American radio stations names starts with W or K.  Someone
told me that if the station started in AM it has a name starting with W
otherwise (FM only stations) it starts with K.  Is it true?  Is there a
(historical?) reason for that?  I'm just curious.


Paolo Bellutta
I.R.S.T.                vox: [phone]
loc. Pante' di Povo     fax: [phone]
38050 POVO (TN)         e-mail: [e-mail]
ITALY                           [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the dividng line between W/K is the Mississippi
River, with those to the east taking 'W' (some exceptions) and those to
the west taking 'K'. I am referring now just to broadcast stations in our
AM (530-1610 kcs) or FM (88.1 - 107.9 mcs) bands. The Mississippi is a very
large river which runs the length of the USA, separating the states of Iowa
and Illinois; Arkansas and Mississippi/Tennessee; and others. Other types
of radio services use both W and K, depending. Canada, our neighbor to the
north prefixes all radio stations with 'C'; and Mexico to the south uses
'X'. What prefix is used in Italy?  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Skeer)
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Date: 2 Sep 89 06:02:00 GMT
Organization: Mark V Systems, Ltd., Encino, Ca.


In-reply-to: claris!netcom![e-mail]'s message of 31 Aug 89
08:31:57 GMT
John said:
>... [about a cordless telephone j'] ... I increased the range by
>taking a meter of wire wrap wire and clipping it about one fourth ofthe way
>up the fully extended antenna from the base.

John, your antenna extension is a (technically) good idea (and you may
want to check the actual circuit used in the base to determine ideal
lengths of wire).  However your improved antenna may be illegal.  The
FCC allows unlicensed use of certain low power radio frequency devices
on certain frequencies.  However the FCC often places restrictions on
the antenna length and or height (usually they want your antenna to be
shorter than some reference length, and lower than a certain reference
height).

Your antenna may also allow your neighbors to listen in, or even dial
out.

Thanks for the product review.

j'

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

From: Dan Griffin <hp-sdd!hpfcdj.HP.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Date: 1 Sep 89 19:48:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard -- Fort Collins, CO

 I purchased one the first time they offered the unit at $99. At $69 it is
a very good value. The microphone is very sensitive, so if you are moving
around very much the person on the other end of the conversation will hear
the rustling. As originally received, it had good sound quality and was
quite free of electronic noise. However after my wife dropped the earphone/
microphone module and broke it open, things haven't been quite the same. I
put everything back together, but it does now have a noticable background
hiss. Range is moderate, but around the house if is fairly handy for
"hands free" communication. As always, a person's expectations and usage
affect their perception of any product.

    Dan Griffin  (Hewlett Packard Co.       [e-mail] )

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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Services Offered by Southern Bell
Date: 2 Sep 89 06:50:01 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science Department, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia

In article <[e-mail]> "Pa3ul D. Anderson"
<stiatl![e-mail]> writes:
>"TouchStar services from Southern Bell-- six remarkable telephone services
>that give you more from your phone-- more control, more security and
>more convenience.

Besides the question of privacy does the flyer say anything about how many
services you can have together on the same phone (disregarding cost ?).
Does it say whether certain services are incompatible ?

Any other people out there had experience with using those services ?
Does any one know on average how many services the average customers
subscribed ?

It is nice to see people posting articles about supplementary services instead
of the usual complaints about quality of service.

cheers Anthony

Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (alias Doctor(Time Lord))
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:[phone]
Internet: [e-mail]        ([phone] (w)
SNAIL: 243 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia

[Moderator's Note: I use those extra services here. In Chicago, they are
called 'Starline Service'. They pretty well all work in harmony, but where
there is a conflict, then an established order prevails. For example, 'call
forwarding' takes precedence over 'transfer on busy or no answer' when the
transfer is made. Incoming calls direct to the number being forwarded will
forward. Calls routed to that line due to busy or no answer elsewhere are
NOT forwarded, but ring through despite forwarding being turned on. I have
not done a detailed explanation of Starline in quite awhile; if there is
interest, I will post it again.  PT]

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal?
Date: 2 Sep 89 23:40:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


In article <[e-mail]> claris!netcom!edg@ames.
arc.nasa.gov (Edward Greenberg) writes:


> There are no frequencies between 1 and 30 MHz in which you can
> transmit without a license.  If you want to get an Amateur Radio
> License, you can transmit on certain bands of this range, within the
> limits set forth by part 97 of the FCC Regulations.  More info can be
> found on rec.ham-radio.

> CB Radio doesn't need a license these days.  Coverage is several
> miles, depending on the traffic density in your area.  CB is covered
> by part 95 of the FCC regs.  More info is packed inside the manual of
> any CB Radio for sale (new.)  I don't think there's a newsgroup
> devoted to CB Radio.

> Ed Greenberg
> uunet!apple!netcom!edg

Actually, CB Radio, which doesn't require a license, is located
between 27 and 28 MHz.  I don't know what the channels are exactly in
that range, but I do remember that they are not in a purely sequential
order, due to the expansion from 23 to 40 channels.  Also, many CB
DXers (people who go for distant contacts) use either the Upper
SideBand or the Lower SideBand (USB and LSB, collectively know as
SSB), which allows separate communications to use the same base
frequency as a normal AM channel.

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.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #343
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 4 Sep 89 0:35:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #344
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Sep 89 00:00:05 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 344

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    CompuServe via Telenet (David W. Tamkin)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Dan Griffin)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (John DeBert)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Buster Irby)
    Re: Caller ID - 800 numbers (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Some OCC's Do Get ANI Reports (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution (Mark Robert Smith)
    Re: Celebrating Labor Day (Henry Mensch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: CompuServe via Telenet
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 14:11:29 CDT
From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>

In response to explanations of reaching CompuServe via Telenet in
volume 9, issue 342, which I am too tired to yank in and cite:

CIS's Telenet addresses are 614227 and 202202.  Internationally, these
would translate to 0311061400227 and 0311020200202.  The leading zero
might not be needed.  (3110 is the DNIC [data network identification
code?] for Telenet.)

CIS is also reachable via Tymnet (the host name is "compuserve") but
most efficiently and least expensively via CIS's own network, of course.

CIS now has its own nodes in Canada; I don't have a list of specific
cities handy.  The communications surcharge, last I heard, was the same
$US 0.30 per hour that is charged on calls from nodes in the United States.

CIS does NOT differentiate between prepaid and collect calls on Telenet
or Tymnet, at least on those that originate in the United States: you
pay the same $10 (prime) or $2 (nonprime) per hour for the
communications surcharge via Telenet or Tymnet regardless of whether
your connection is coming in prepaid or collect.

David Tamkin   [e-mail]  {attctc,netsys,ddsw1}!jolnet!dattier
P. O. Box 813        GEnie:  D.W.TAMKIN     BIX:  dattier     CIS:  73720,1570
Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813      voice mail: [phone], [phone]

[Moderator's Note: Compuserve also has a DNIC reachable through Telenet.
Compuserve's DNIC is recognized by all the international data networks.
I am not sure what the purpose of this is (as opposed to simply having them
as a customer of Telenet), but I first noticed it when I was reading the
'help files' for the Hong Kong Telephone Company's data network on line
one day. The file listed DNIC's around the world (Telenet has the same kind
of reference list) and one there was Compuserve. Maybe it has to do with
international customers of Compuserve.  I really don't know about it.  PT]

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

From: hplabs!motsj1![e-mail]
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 01:55:07 PST
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Organization: Hewlett Packard -- Fort Collins, CO

I purchased one the first time they offered the unit at $99. At $69 it is
a very good value. The microphone is very sensitive, so if you are moving
around very much the person on the other end of the conversation will hear
the rustling. As originally received, it had good sound quality and was
quite free of electronic noise. However after my wife dropped the earphone/
microphone module and broke it open, things haven't been quite the same. I
put everything back together, but it does now have a noticable background
hiss. Range is moderate, but around the house if is fairly handy for
"hands free" communication. As always, a person's expectations and usage
affect their perception of any product.

    Dan Griffin  (Hewlett Packard Co.       [e-mail] )


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

From: John DeBert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Date: 3 Sep 89 18:29:22 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay
Skeer) says:
> In-reply-to: claris!netcom![e-mail]'s message of 31 Aug
89> 08:31:57 GMT
>> [...]

> However your improved antenna may be illegal.
> FCC allows unlicensed use of certain low power radio frequency devices
> on certain frequencies.  However the FCC often places restrictions on
> the antenna length and or height (usually they want your antenna to be
> shorter than some reference length, and lower than a certain reference
> height).

As I recall, part 15 requires an antenna length for this band of one meter
or less. I don't recall any prohibition to attaching an extension - subject
to the length limitation, of course! Does part 68 have an exception that I
have missed?

> Your antenna may also allow your neighbors to listen in, or even dial out.

With or without the extension, the signal may be heard by others. There is
another cordless phone on the same channel nearby that can be heard but it has
a similar access coding scheme, though different enough that my phone won't
ring when their line does and vice-versa. As for dialing out, without another
LiteSet, phone with the same coding signals or other device capable of
producing such codes, my phone cannot be used by anyone else. No unauthorized
use of my phones have occurred so far.

I have not increased the range beyond that which would normally be expected
for equipment of this type nor have I increased it much beyond the
manufacturers alleged maximum range. With or without the extension my set is
still subject to interference from nearby stations and it seems to make no
difference to the other users on the channel whether I am using my phone at
the same time or not.

I have no nearby neighbours with receivers capable of receiving my signals
and even if there were, my use of the set is so infrequent and the subjects
of the calls so ordinary that they would quickly lose interest. I never use
radio for confidential or sensitive calls, so there's nothing to get anyone
excited about.

JJD
[e-mail]

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

From: Buster Irby <buster![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 3 Sep 89 01:45:33 GMT
Organization: Public Access Unix, Stafford, Tx

Several people including the moderator seem to disagree with my earlier posting
on this subject, I even got some personal mail from Peter at ficc on it.  The
problem is that they all have missed the point of my statement, so let me
explain it further.

First of all, a device which displays an incoming phone number can be visible
to anyone who walks by or happens to be in the vicinity.  This may not
necessarily be the person to whom I placed the phone call, and could possibly
be a person whom I would not want to have my phone number.  Access to *my*
unlisted phone number is something which *I* pay for and which *I* control,
not anyone else.  I see no problem in displaying a unique code number which
can be used to identify the calling party if the call is of an undesirable
nature.  Remember, the purpose of the device we are discussing is to identify
the calling party, not to enable you to return the call!

One of the features of the calling party id device is the ability for *you* to
screen your incoming calls and stop people from harassing you.  This can be
done by simply blocking their code/phone number.  Must I give up my right to
have an unlisted phone number just because someone wants to be able to return
an harassing phone call?  I think that a much more adult approach to solving
the problem is to block any future calls from that party, not to return them.
Returning an obscene or harassing phone call can only escalate the problem
further.

After all, does anyone really believe that they have the right to know my
salary, how old I am, what religion I practice, what color I am, or what my
phone number is just because I called them on the phone.  I think not.

--
Buster Irby  rli@buster

[Moderator's Note: I wonder why no one has yet suggested simply having the
device transmit the *name* of the caller, rather than the phone number,
since this would (a) identify the caller by the name under which the telco
carried him in its records; (b) probably be the same name under which I
had made your aquaintence; and (c) protect the private phone number of the
caller. In other words, the little box would read out, "Dr. Brown at home"
or "Smith Telemarketing Co." etc...the same purpose would be served.  PT]

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

From:  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID - 800 numbers
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 20:53:23 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Bill Huttig <la063249@
zach.fit.edu> writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 314, message 5 of 8

>After reading the articles on caller ID I thought I would remind
>everyone that when the call an 800 the company receiveing the call
>will get your phone number on their bill.

>[Moderator's Note: Except, not really. You do get the city and state, and
>*sometimes* the calling number as well. If it is strictly local 800 service
>then you almost always get the numbers. AT&T can provide the number of the
>caller the 800 service; the other carriers struggle with the problem.  PT]

This needs a little clearing up.... (sorry if this is old, but...)

If you call an 800 number, and the customer has the appropriate service,
like AT&T's ISDN-like srvice, then they will get the 800 number on the
data channel of their incoming ISDN/T-1 line, but from converted end-
offices only. If the call comes in from an old C/O (old X-bar/SXS/etc),
then they would get only the NPA/NXX of the number, since the serving
tandem knows which FGC trunk it came from. MCI has updated their VAX's
for the same type of service, which will forward the number as part
of the signalling on T-1's. They are supposed to offer the service soon
(3-6 mos???)

Now, 800 customers can also get your number on their bills, if they have
the option for it (at additional cost). That is also a form of Caller I.D.,
and all the L.D. carriers have this available to their customers. This type
of information can also be used against you also (maybe "against" is the
wrong word???).  Scenaro: You call a telemarketing company ("Even You Can
Get The 10 Volume Set Of All The Bee Gee's Worst Hit's Of All Time. Call
this 800 # NOW!!!"), and want to order the set. The telemarketing company
has the call-detail option from MCI, which comes in on mag-tape (and that
option is available). The telemarketing company now has you phone number,
and now sells it to other telemarketing comapnies to use for themselves (say
to push a 20 volume set of Olivia Newton-John records), and and so on and so
forth. They could even also try to x-ref the number against the CD-ROM
telephone book databases that the BOC's sell, if you didn't buy anything,
but called to inquire about the products. (If you ordered something, they
would have your address anyway, and that's a whole 'nother argument....)

Get the picture?

     Robert Gutierrez
     <[e-mail]> from a borrowed account.
     ****IF YOU REPLY TO THIS ACCOUNT, make the Subject: "C/O Ranma"****

Na Choon Piaw            P.O Box, 4067, Berkeley, CA 94704-0067
[e-mail]    Disclaimer: I'm speaking only for myself!

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Gutierrez)
Subject: Re: Some OCC's Do Get ANI Reports
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 21:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: laba-2ac@e260-2e ()
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 340, message 1 of 10

>In a message submitted a couple days ago, Rick Adams of UUNET pointed out
>that his billings from Sprint do generally include the calling phone number
>when the calls came in on the 800 lines at his office.

>My original message had said that AT&T got that information, but the OCC's
>had to 'struggle' to get it at times. He took exception to the use of the
>word 'struggle', saying the OCC's depended on the local telcos to provide
>it. Apparently Sprint has good luck obtaining this information from what
>he said in his message.

All the major L.D. carriers who provide 800 service get the number on their
FGD (directs) or FGB (tandem) lines. Like I said in a previous posting, the
only time the carrier doesn't get the ANI is on FGC trunks (non-converted
end-offices) or ANI failures from converted end-offices (very rare). ANI
failed calls, though blocked for normal L.D. calls, are accepted by the
carrier since it's the customer who is paying for the call anyway.

>On the other hand, TELECOM USA (provider of my residential 800 service)
>says they have a very hard time obtaining it. Of course, I only pay a $2.45
>per month service fee plus call charges. Maybe if I paid more they could
>somehow 'find a way' to get it as Mr. Adams says Sprint is able to do.

Resellers, like TELECOM-USA, won't because it would cost them money to
process the bills they get from MCI/Sprint/et al, and also wouldn't be
able to bill you timely (I.E.: Get their money ASAP from you). Since
the reseller's business is to make a profit to the small-market customer, I
doubt they will be providing ANI to customers soon, since it would cost THEM
money.

     Robert Gutierrez
     <[e-mail];.com> from a borrowed account.
     ****IF YOU REPLY TO THIS ACCOUNT make the Subject: "c/o Ranma"****

Na Choon Piaw            P.O Box, 4067, Berkeley, CA 94704-0067
[e-mail]    Disclaimer: I'm speaking only for myself!

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

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 12:01:42 EDT
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Phonebook Distribution

Here in New Jersey, the phone books contain a reply card, so that you
can send in suggestions for improvement of the book.  One of the
spaces on the card says:
I need _____ more Bergen County phonebooks.

I've sent the card in, but I have never received an extra book.  I
really could use a book from my home county when I go to school, and
have to call information to set up anything for coming home at the end
of the semester.

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.

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

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 18:29:17 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Celebrating Labor Day
Reply-To: [e-mail]

   Date:     Sun, 3 Sep 89 0:49:01 CDT
   From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
   Subject:  Celebrating Labor Day

   So on Labor Day, think about the years of hard labor which went into making
   the phone you take for granted work so well. Union people made it happen.

And, as we all know, they made it stop happening, too.  While I find
these reminiscences (sp?) generally enjoyable, I find the touting of
trade unions in this particular piece particularly offensive.  Please
remember that we are here to discuss telecommunications, and not trade
unions.

Non-union people could have made all this happen, too.

# Henry Mensch    /   <[e-mail]>   /   E40-379 MIT,  Cambridge, MA
# <[e-mail]-relay> / <[e-mail]> / <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #344
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 4 Sep 89 2:06:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #345
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Sep 89 02:00:00 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 345

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Previous Experiences of Cellular & Trunk Radio in the Air (George Goble)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Mark Robert Smith)
    Re: Unusual Problem With Party-Line Ringing (Bob Frankston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 18:05:45 -0500
From: George Goble <[e-mail]>
Subject: Previous Experiences of Cellular & Trunk Radio in the Air

Up to a year or so ago, it was legal (FAA rules) to operate a cellular
phone (or trunk radio) onboard a private aircraft provided the "pilot
in command" determined no harmful interference occured.  When I was the
pilot in command this was no problem. In the last year or so, I believe,
the FCC has made it illegal to use cellular phones in flight, even
on private aircraft, for reasons which will follow.

FCC rules (3 or 4 years ago) for 800 Mhz "trunk" radio systems allowed
the use on aircraft "commonly flown below 5000 feet", but didn't mention an
altitude restriction.  The "trunk" system is a predecessor to the
cellular system (operates 855-870 Mhz base xmit, mobile xmit is 45 MHZ
lower, cellular is 870-890 Mhz base xmit, mobile 45 Mhz lower). Trunk
systems are widely used for police, emergency, and general business
"dispatching".  They use computer control which picks a "private"
(not from scanner listeners, but other users of the trunk system) channel
from a pool of channels and the user appears to have his own dedicated
channel for the duration of the conversation. Some systems even allocate
the channel everytime you key the mike. Portable trunk radios may not
be taken from city to city, and merely "turned on and used" as with a
portable cellular phone.  They are also push-to-talk (half duplex) and
are generally 3W of power vs 800 MW for portable cellular.  Trunk radios
can initiate/receive phone calls via a "telephone interconnect" in the
base end.  There are no "handoffs" possible, you have to stay in range
of your home system (20-35 mile radius)

5 or 6 years ago (before cellular days in Lafayette, IN), I tested
my GE MARC V  3W portable trunk radio in the air.  The ground range
was only 15-20 miles. I had no trouble keying up the repeater in Lafayette
from 6000 feet AGL (above ground level) over Richmond, IN (100 mi away).
Trunk systems are (or were) too sparse to have problems with adjacent
station interference like cellular.  Radio signal was fine, except for
a little "flutter", since I was talking through the prop. The worst
problem was cockpit noise, which made the other party have a hard time
hearing me (this happened on local flights also).

This trunk radio contributed to flight safety once.  A flight instructor
and I had to ferry a set of clothes of a co-worker of ours who had
passed away, from Lafayette to Muncie, IN (60 MI east) for his funeral.
A massive cold front was rapidly approaching from the NW, with a towering
line of heavy thunderstorms, tops above 45,000 feet.  We took off
and made it to Muncie with no problems.  The return flight was more trouble.
As expected, the line of storms was now over Lafayette, and closing in on
Muncie.  A call to Flight Service on the ground (in Terre Haute, IN)
returned constant "All circuits busy" when we tried to get weather and
file a return IFR flight plan.  LD calls to anywhere from Muncie ended
up with "All circuits busy" or "equipment failure" recordings.  Hoping to
get the weather by radio, we took off VFR (visual flight rules) and
headed SE, the only clear area left.  We tried to contact FSS (flight service
on radio), no response. We finally raised Indianapolis approach who said
there had been a massive lightning strike on the telephone system, and
all long distance, and many air traffic control landline ciruits were down.
Indy approach could not get any "weather" radar reports from anyplace.
They made a guess using their approach radar (which is not very good
at seeing "weather"), and gave us vectors back to Lafayette.  After
rolling out on the new heading it was very evident that we were
headed (at night) for a 45000 foot high wall of storms, lit up from
top to bottom with constant lightning.  Next plan was to set down
at Indy for the night (they were still in the clear).  I whipped out
the portable trunk radio, about 80 Mi SE of LAF, called a friend,
and had him tune his TV to the "weather channel" and give us the live
radar report.  This indicated a "hole" in the storms about 20 Mi
to the west, so we took that route and returned safely and even had
no turbulence!

When cellular arrived, I bought a Motorola 8000 ("F" series) portable
phone. Even though only .8W power, it far outperformed the GE trunk
system (3W), due to superior Motorola RF design.  The noisy cockpit
sounded no worse than a computer room and conversations were no problem.
(the cell phone has an excellent noise cancelling mike)

I never saw any instrument glitches caused by either radio (but this does
still does not make it legal for Airline use).  Transmitting with the aircraft
radios, would make all the navaids peg-out while the mike was keyed though.
Not sure what power Aircraft radios use, but it must be 10-30W.  For example,
VOR receiver was tuned to 115.6 Mhz and we were transmitting on 119.6 Mhz, and
the VOR wiped out when we keyed, this is to be expected with close freqs. To
be safe, we didn't use portable radios during instrument critical phases of
flight (ILS approach).

Portable FM receivers, have a "local oscillator", usually 10.7 Mhz above the
station being tuned.  Tuning a portable FM RECEIVER from 97.3 thru 107.3
causes the local oscillator to sweep the entire 108-118 Mhz "VOR" navaid band!
Local oscillators many times "leak" out and can be heard for tens of feet.
Now imagine what happens when you are seated next to the VOR antenna, with
your FM radio on, and the LO over powers the signal of a VOR which is 80 miles
away.  You know where the rules came from.

Somebody once called me on the cell phone while on final approach:
       "Hello, hang on for 30 sec... I have to land this plane first."

They thought it was a joke at first.

I once had radio problems while flying, and I called the control tower on the
cell phone while airborne to report our position and get the next clearance.
At first, they freaked, nobody had ever called them on the phone from an
aircraft before!

The local air traffic controllers really thought this cell phone was neat
after that, and were always ribbing me about "which shoe do you wear the phone
on?", when we would go up flying.  They even found out my number, and would
call it and crack jokes while we were in the air in the local area.

We have no radar here, so the tower has to call out everybody's
position for collision avoidance. I once heard something like:
"Centurion two-four-eight-five-uniform, traffic will be a Warrior
departing westbound off runway two eight", "Purdue 3, traffic is a
Cellular equipped Centurion northwest of the field, on the VOR alpha
approach and just reported Boiler inbound. Cleared for takeoff."

A couple of years back, while climbing out of 4000' SE of Lafayette, one
of the passengers noticed an overturned Semi on I-65.. Weather was
severe clear, and I could see cars backed up for 15-20 miles or so.
The previous night I received a brochure from GTE mobilnet, in
cooperation with Indy radio station WIBC (1070) for car phone users
whom notice traffic problems to dial "1070" on their car phone
(free call) and report it to WIBC to suplement their chopper in
the sky traffic reporter ("Big John Gillis"?).  Perfect "traffic
report" time.  Dialed in 1070-SEND, WIBC answered, we gave them the
traffic report of the wreck, they almost freaked, and the 20 mile
backlog. They said they knew of a problem there but had no idea
of the backlog. Hung up, dialed in "1070" on the ADF receiver
and listened to WIBC. About 30 seconds later they had "a special report
from a Cessna leaving Lafayette.." gave the report, then noted that
their helicopter traffic reporter "Big John Gillis", was stuck in
that traffic jam and could not get to his copter to go to work.

My cell phone can be put into "maint mode", where it shows the
channel in use and the received signal strength. When the phone
is not inuse, it listens to the strongest "paging" channel, and this
can be used to determine which cell site you are talking to.
Signal strength reads from 13 (nothin') to 50 (at the cell site).
Previous postings to the group about "mushroom" cell coverage
areas seem pretty accurate.  It seems more like a "donut".  They
do not want to waste power transmitting "up", but put most of it
out in a "disc" toward the horizon.  When flying, it is important
to "lock down" the cell phone to a single system. You can force it
to only work with one system, by entering the system ID.  If you
don't lock it down, it would sometimes lock up to Chicago while
far south as Indy!  Cells that you are close to are weaker then
those 60-80 mi away!  It seemed that no matter where in the
midwest I was, I was always seeing SOME cell site with a signal
strength of 40-45! This seems be similar to the "silent pileups"
reported by the Astronauts working 2 meter Ham radio, when
the whole country tried to contact them at once.

The problem doesn't seem to be going "out of range" of a cell site
but the FM capture of a stronger site overpowering it. A couple
of years ago, I was "roaming" over southern Ohio, at 10,000',
and punched off 5 or 6 outgoing calls in rapid succession, and kept
careful records.  The roaming charges came in from "Columbus,
Cincy, Lexington KY, Philadelphia, and Louisville KY in a period
of 4 mins.  It would be a real pain to receive incoming calls
in this manner, "follow me roaming" would get real confused I bet!

When flying over Indy once, one could see the channel number
(during a live call) flip every 14 sec, indicating constant
handoffs were taking place, bet the techs had a fit when they
saw somebody handoff from the NW corner to the SE corner of the
city!

When one takes the time and thinks about things, it is clear
why the FCC recently (outlawed?)  cellphones in private
aircraft recently. The last I heard was this was in a "proposed"
rulemaking about a year ago.

In normal ground use, a cellular mobile is talking to his strongest
cellsite (cell A) .  Surrounding cellsites are constantly monitoring
the mobile's signal strength, and the switch decides to hand
off to another cellsite (cell B) based on this information. At
some still farther distance past the neighboring cell (cell B)
sites, the original cellsite's (cell A) frequencies (and paging channels)
be reused at still other cellsites (cell C).  In the rural midwest,
GTE's cellsites have approx 30 mi radius. In 100-120 miles
a frequency may be reused (in cities this shrinks down somewhat, and
the power and tower height is reduced)

CELL                      CELL                     CELL
A--- 30 mi ---><--- 30 mi --B--- 30 mi--><--- 30 mi--C ...
LAFAYETTE              LEBANON            GREENFIELD
CH 339                 CH 352              CH 339

The cellular system is based on the premise that CELL "C" (which is
using the same freq set as CELL A) CANNOT hear anybody who is using
CELL A.  If you are flying, CELLs A, B, C are illuminated at approximately
equal strength.  If your call setup and is on CELL A, CELL C may be
used for another conversation (to a ground mobile).  Suddenly, you
tilt your radio a little, and CELL C starts hearing you stronger
(100 mi away), than the poor guy on his car phone. The FM capture
effect means you just "took over" his conversation.  However, FM capture
will probably prevent you from hearing his conversation on cell C,
since you are closer to CELL A.  With movement and turbulance, you
may briefly hear CELL C stronger than A for a short time and possibly
"butt in" on this call.  A "butt in" is pretty unlikely since the system
uses a small number of different "SAT" or "pilot" tones (around 6Khz)
on the audio.  What probably will happen, will be that you are heard
on CELL C stronger than the car phone, but your SAT tones will not match,
and the cellular switch will detect a "fatal error" and drop the connection
and log a trouble on the poor guys car phone.  All this takes a few seconds
to happen, so you may get bits and pieces of other conversations.

As you approach a larger city, such as Chicago, you now illuminate, say
120 or more cellsites, with almost equal intensity.  One phone in the
air may cause hundreds of calls to drop on the ground for the above
reasons.  Also when you hit "SEND" and initiate a call, you have
a bunch of cellsites all hearing you on the same control channel (impossible
on the ground), and all feeding into the same cellular switch, causing
confusion or maybe even crashing the switch. I never used a cell phone in the
air even close to Chicago for the above reason.  My "testing" over Indianapolis
was done before they were big enough to reuse frequencies (I checked first).

No wonder the FCC wants cell phones to stay out of the air, especially near
big cities.

Anyway, this is all probably illegal now, as it should be, but it was fun
while it lasted.

--ghg
Geo. Goble

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 3 Sep 89 16:10:22 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


The United States is also assigned all callsigns beginning with N
("Navy" used to own them), and all callsigns beginning with AA thru
AL.  However, these are mostly assigned to utility stations like the
Navy and ships, and amateur radio operators, so you won't find any
broadcasters with these calls.

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: Bob Frankston (BFrankston) <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual Problem With Party-Line Ringing
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 89 9:38:42 EDT

Modem on a party line?  Check the laws.  I think it is illegal to have a modem
on a party line since the other parties must be allowed to break in for
emergency calls.


Full name: Bob Frankston


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #345
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 5 Sep 89 0:04:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #346
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Sep 89 00:00:33 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 346

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Fire Hazards of Dial Light Transformers (Larry Lippman)
    Customer Name and Address Records at New York Telephone (Larry Lippman)
    Telephone Problems With Modem (Darren Wyatt Williams)
    Marine Operator and De-reg (David Brightbill)
    Re: Unusual Problem With Party-Line Ringing (John Higdon)
    Re: Unusual Problem With Party-Line Ringing ([e-mail])
    Re: There's No Need to Talk to Strangers (Alain Fontaine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Fire Hazards of Dial Light Transformers
Date: 3 Sep 89 20:40:03 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Macy
Hallock) writes:
> Rumor had it that more than one residence burned
> to the ground due to shorted dial light transformers !

    This is more than a rumor - it's true!

    Several years ago there was a "recall" notice about dial light
transformers which appeared in major newspapers.  The notice advised
subscribers how to identify the transformer, and even had a full-size
outline diagram to compare against the transformer.  As far as I can
recall, the offending transformer was NOT the familiar 2012A, but was
a KS-spec equivalent which had a somewhat larger "footprint" - closer
to the 85-type transformer in size.

    The 2012A and 2012B (18-volt version for speakerphones, repertory
dialers and other accessories) were rather carefully engineered to undergo
magnetic saturation upon short circuit, thereby limiting current to a safe
level (not much more than 1 amp RMS), while limiting copper heat loss in
the transformer to "safe" temperature levels.  In addition, there is enough
current-carrying capacity in station wiring (including the tinsel conductors
of a station or handset cord) so that at least 1 ampere of current can be
carried without any significant heating effect.

    So, the point is, I don't believe that the 2012A was the "offender'.
Newer transformers become "cheaper", and therein lies the problem.  As an
example, the 2012D (an 18 volt transformer) is a real piece of crap; not
only does it not have the protective potting of its 2012B predecessor, but
even the AC power plug prongs are loose.

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<>  UUCP   {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  TEL  [phone] | 716/773-1700  {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/     \uniquex!larry
<>  FAX  [phone] | 716/773-2488     "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

Subject: Customer Name and Address Records at New York Telephone
Date: 3 Sep 89 21:47:00 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

> In article <[e-mail]> the Moderator writes:
> > What is the CN&A Bureau, how does it operate?
>
> [Moderator's Note: All telcos have Customer Name and Address Bureaus, and
> they are generally just an internal function at the telco, with little or
> no public contact. The purpose of CNA is to compile and maintain the records
> used by Directory Assistance; to make sure the entries in the telephone
> book are correct, and related matters. They also service inquiries from
> other telcos needing information regards subscriber names, etc for resolution
> of billing disputes (customer says, "I never made that long distance call,
> etc...").
> ...
> Illinois Bell is the only telephone company I know of -- but there may be
> others -- which gladly publishes the number of the CNA Bureau, and invites
> the public to use it, at a special surcharge, of course.

    New York Telephone (a NYNEX BOC) does not have a "CNA Bureau" - for
the use of the public, or otherwise.

    New York Telephone maintains ALL customer records on a centralized
computer system located downstate known as CRIS (Customer Record Information
System).  CRIS contains ALL records pertaining to a given customer, except
for some technical details involving Special Services (data circuits,
inter-PABX tie line circuits, alarm circuits, etc.).  Throughout New York
Telephone facilities are various data terminals which connect to CRIS and
access its data base.

    In most instances, a given CRIS terminal may access only pre-defined
subsets of the CRIS data.  For example, a business office will access no
technical data beyond that necessary for billing inquiries and service order
processing (i.e., USOC codes, mileage components, termination charges, etc.).
On the other hand, a repair service bureau will access only technical details
and will not have any billing details (EXCEPT if the service has been, ahem,
"interrupted" for non-payment :-) ).

    In the case of directory assistance, local computers in a DAB
(Directory Assistance Bureau) obtain a daily update from CRIS.  The local
DAB computer database contains NO MORE information with respect to the
customer name and address than appears in a published directory listing.
A regular operator in a DAB has NO access to non-published telephone
numbers - it simply ain't in the local database.  Calls of an emergency
nature which require access to non-published telephone numbers are handled
by a supervisory operator (usually at a TSPS position) having an adjacent
CRIS terminal.

    CRIS is updated and maintained by the CRSAB (Customer Record System
Administration Bureau).  However, the philosphy of New York Telephone is
that NO ONE has the "need to know" JUST customer name and address, and there
is not even an internal number within its organization to handle such
inquiries.  If for some reason an employee needs to know such information,
they will have to use a CRIS terminal or contact someone with access to
same.  Since New York Telephone conducts periodic audits of CRIS activity,
employees are, ahem, "discouraged" from unauthorized CRIS access.

    In the case of communication common carriers requiring customer
name and address to resolve billing disputes, New York Telephone has a
division known as Industry Relations having CRIS terminals set up just
for this purpose.  However - officially, at least - no one contacts
anyone in Industry Relations other than "authorized" representatives
of communication common carriers.

    The only other need for customer name and address information is
that of law enforcement agencies, and in the case of New York Telephone,
all such requests are handled through their Security Department.  In the
case of Enhanced 911 service, a subset of the CRIS database is maintained
in certain E911 service bureaus - which may be some distance from the local
serving area (Buffalo, NY, for example, is handled out of Syracuse - some
120 miles away).  As far as I know, E911 systems have NO ACCESS to their
data base except for identification of a specific incoming call at the
time that the call was received.

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<>  UUCP   {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  TEL  [phone] | 716/773-1700  {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<>  FAX  [phone] | 716/773-2488     "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 89 15:56:22 EST
From: Darren Wyatt Williams <munnari!murdu.ucs.unimelb.EDU.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Problems With Modem


Fellow hackers,

          I have just purchased a netcomm 1234 automodem and have had
the appropriate telephone line installed. The modem is connected to a
standard IBM-compatible PC running Mirror II communications software.
The problem I have arises when communicating via the modem while the
phone is attached in the handset socket. No problems occur for about
10 to 15 minutes, after which the screen begins to fill with garbage.
I tried out older telephones and found no problems, so the problem
seems to be a fallacy of the new telecom telephones.
          Can anyone suggest a reason for this problem and a possible
solution. Any suggestions are welcome.

       Thanks in advance,

         [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 89 18:23:44 edt
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Marine Operator and De-reg

An interesting artifact of what I suppose to be deregulation . . .

I occasionally use the marine VHF to make phone calls from my boat.  In the
last few months, things have changed in a big way.  Before, I would contact the
marine operator at Apalachacola and s/he would place my call.  I would get
billed for the call and a few bucks for marine access.  Most of my calls are
placed to locations within 100 miles of Apalachacola.  Today, I tried to place
a call to Crawfordville, about 20 miles from Apalachacola and in the same
area code but within the territory of a different BOC.  This time, the
Apalachacola operator said she had to transfer me to the New Orleans marine
operator.  I can't wait to get my bill.  What's the guess....will I get billed
from NOLA-Crawfordville or Apalachacola-Crawfordville?  The marine operator
in NOLA never said what LD carrier she was with but took my AT&T card number
with no problem.  I also noticed that the quality of the connection to the
other party was a lot worse than usual.  In fact, when the NOLA marine oper.
came on the line, the signal quality dropped quite noticeably.

                  =========================
[Moderator's Note: Do you think this was a *temporary* re-routing, possibly
due to some trouble at the usual site (circuit or equipment malfunction,
etc) or a *permanent* change in procedure? The reason I ask is, IBT has
a Marine Operator at Lake Bluff, IL, and another one at Kenosha, WI, a small
community which sits right on the IL/WI border, along the lake. I tune it
on the scanner occassionally, and generally Lake Bluff handles the southern
end of Lake Michigan. But now and again, the operator will go on and make
a general announcement of the form, "okay, we're going to move to channel 3
for awhile," or she may say something about Kenosha is going to take her
calls for about ten minutes. If you stay tuned where you were, likely you'll
then note someone throwing carrier, getting a radio check or etc, and
presently Lake Bluff will sign back on the air, and start handling traffic
again. PT]

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual Problem With Party-Line Ringing
Date: 3 Sep 89 19:40:18 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark
Anacker) writes:
> I have a situation here, and I was wondering if anyone out there in this
> group has any advice.  Some friends live in a rural (*really rural*)  area of
> the state (WA).  Their phone service is party line, with 3 or 4  others on
> the line.  Instead of the old system of "1 long, 2 short" rings or whatever,
> the telco sends the rings signal at different frequencies for each party.
> Thus my friends' ring is 50Hz, instead of the usual 20Hz.  They then had to
> buy a small box that goes inline with their incoming line and beeps when a
> ring signal of the appropriate frequency comes along.   A side effect of this
> is that the ring signal is not passed through the box at all, making it
> kind of hard to hook up an answering machine or modem (or anything).

Most of your IC cookbooks have filter circuits that would be suitable
for bandpassing the fifty hertz ring signal that you could then use to
drive a simple detector circuit. But, there is a major caveat here. It
is not legal for you to do this. With all of the hoopla about CPE and
divestature, and "doing your own thing", some people were left out in
the cold.

FCC registration ONLY applies to equipment to be installed on non-coin,
one-party lines. For obvious reasons, party lines are exempt from all
of the deregulation. For instance, even though your proposal would
prevent the answering machine from picking up your party line
neighbor's calls, on most party lines this would not be the case. I
know of no answering maching that can be taught to pick up "one long
and two short". The other problem would occur when you had some type of
automatic dialer that would not know if the line was already in use (or
be able to relinquish it in case of an emergency.)

And remember, failure of your CPE not only puts your service out of
order, but all those on the party line as well. (This is the main
reason for the regulation.)

Being a hacker myself, I know that a simple matter like regulations
isn't going to stop your scientific endeavors, but you should be
extremely careful about what you put on that party line. If someone
dies because help couldn't be summoned due to some gadget of yours, you
might find yourself in deep doo-doo.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Unusual Problem With Party-Line Ringing
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 89 05:03:08 EDT

What you propose is almost certainly against FCC regs.  The general
rule these days that you can hook any legal phone up yourself does
not apply to party lines.

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

Date: Fri, 01 Sep 89 10:06:06 +0200
From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: There's No Need to Talk to Strangers

On Sun, 27 Aug 89 11:55 EDT C.E. Reid said :

>[Reproduced without permission from SUNDAY DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE, Rochester,
>New York, August 27, 1989, Page 15A]

>...the call.  It can store 20 to 50 calls a day.

'a day', really ????? Does it mean that if to try to to force the device
to remember more than 20 to 50 numbers *each day*, it will become tired
and then complain, drop digits, or whatever? And conversely, that if you
stay under that limit it will faithfully learn a phone book worth of
numbers????? I love journalists  :-):-):-)

Alain FONTAINE                       +--------------------------------+
Universite Catholique de Louvain     | If your mail software barks at |
Service d'Etudes Informatiques       | my address, you may try :      |
Batiment Pythagore                   |                                |
Place des Sciences, 4                |     [e-mail]     |
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, BELGIUM     +--------------------------------+
phone [phone]

[Moderator's Note: And they love you, too, Alain! Don't be a stranger here
though...send us more postings about the phone network in Belgium.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #346
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 5 Sep 89 1:03:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #347
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Sep 89 01:01:00 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 347

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Fighting Back Against Junk Calls (TELECOM Moderator)
    Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks (Lang Zerner)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Chuck Forsberg)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Lang Zerner)
    Re: Some OCC's Do Get ANI Reports (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: FCC Orders Radio Station to Stop Phone Pranks (Pete French)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Al Donaldson)
    Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal? (Michael H. Warfield)
    Re: Celebrating Labor Day (Gordy Perkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 4 Sep 89 21:50:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Fighting Back Against Junk Calls

"We are not Pavlov's dogs," barks Bob Bulmash.  "We should not have to jump
everytime a bell rings."

And if we do hop to the phone on demand, we ought to be paid for it, says
Bulmash, president of Private Citizen, Inc., a Warrenville, IL organization
designed to prevent what Bulmash describes as 'junk calls' from telemarketers.

We deserve at least a C-note -- $100, he says.

Twice a year, Bulmash, 43, a paralegal by trade, mails a directory of people
who don't wish to have telephone solicitors call them to 600 telemarketing
firms. Along with the directories, he sends a contract which states that
the people listed will lend an ear to the spiel only in exchange for $100.

If the solicitors call, the contract says, the telemarketing company owes
the listener $100. It's for "use of private property -- the phone, your
ear, your time," says Bulmash.

Subscribers, now numbering about 1000, pay $15 per year to be listed in
the Private Citizen directory.

While Bulmash doesn't guarentee you won't be called, he does offer some
success stories. He says subscribers have collected anywhere from $5 - $92
from telemarketing companies. He offers a money-back deal for those
subscribers not completely satisfied. He says only one person has taken
him up on it.

"You can tell those companies 500 times over the phone not to call and
they won't listen," Bulmash says. "But when you threaten them with charging
them for your time, that gets their attention."

Bulmash, who began Private Citizen in May, 1988, says telemarketers have
the attitude of "we're big business, so you just hang up the phone if
you don't like us. I say we have a right to be left alone in the first
place, at least in our homes." Typically, a telemarketing call to a home
has less than a 3 percent success rate, he said, with the other 97 percent
of us -- and we know who we are -- being unnecessarily inconvenienced.

Bulmash says he has testified before Illinois and California state legislative
committees and has lobbied state and federal lawmakers for relief from
telemarketers. He teaches the members of his organization how to bill for
their time, and in many cases, make the charges stick and get payment for
'the use of their time, ear and phone'.

For more information on Private Citizen, contact Bulmash at 312-393-1555.

Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon Sep  4 16:48:08 1989
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks
Date: 4 Sep 89 23:48:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc


In past postings to the Digest, I recall there has been mention of addressing
syntax for sending mail to users of various commercial info services such as
Compuserve.  Naturally, I didn't bother jotting them down, holding the anive
belief, I suppose, that I wouldn't need them.  Of course, it turns out I now
*do* have a use for them, so I wonder if Patrick or some other kind soul would
be willing to post a summary.  To satisfy an utterly idle curiosity, I would be
interested to know what gateway software and hardware is behind the addressing
syntaxes (syntaces?) as well.

--
Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
[e-mail]   UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz   ARPA:[e-mail]
"...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"


[Moderator's Note: They are getting easier to use all the time. In years
past, the addressing schemes were pretty convoluted, but now, it is quite
simple, at least to get from *here* to *them*, if not necessarily the other
way around.

A few examples I use frequently:  attmail![e-mail]
                                  [e-mail]
                                  [e-mail]
                                  [e-mail]

Going to Fido, 'fidonet.org' causes the mail to route to the assigned gateway
or the default gateway, based on the node and net. To write us, Fido people
address their mail to username: uucp; at one of the gateway addresses. The
first line of text MUST say: "To: [e-mail]" and the second line
of text MUST be blank. As for AT&T, MCI and Compuserve, maybe someone from
those places reading the Digest can send along the methodology involved
in getting mail to the Internet.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 89 13:01:58 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Chuck Forsberg)
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Chuck Forsberg)
Organization: Omen Technology Inc, Portland Oregon

If one needs absolute privacy, why not mail a letter?  Unlike the imperious
insistient jangle of the phone's bell, a letter arriving in the post does not
rouse the receiving party from the middle of sleep, ruin his leisure, or break
his concentration.

As I see it, the critics of caller ID would arrogate to themselves the right
to blast in and interrupt the privacy and serenity of the called party.  I on
the other hand would like to reclaim some of my privacy and serenity, and
caller ID could be used to this end.

One useful adjunct to caller ID would be some identification indicating a mass
marketing cold call (soliciting, etc.). Originators of "junk calls" could be
required to use this ID *without* compromising their rights of free speech.

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

Date: Mon Sep  4 17:03:36 1989
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc

The main reason proponents of caller ID state in support of their view is that
they should be able to prevent harassment.  Just knowing the number at which
the call originates doesn't stop the caller from continuing to call, so the
only way really to stop the harrassment is to report the number to the telco
and request that they take action (unless you view counter-harrassment as a
valid response, which idea has its own attractive mercenary attraction :-).

One solution implemented by some BOCs is to provide a "Call Trace" *-sequence
which logs the number of the most recent caller with the BOC.  The call
recipient can then call the telco to request action be taken against the caller
(as, presumably, she would have done even if she had received the number via a
caller ID display).  This way, legitimate callers can retain the privilege of
keeping their numbers private, while harrassing callers could not make use of
this privilege to escape detection.  Why is this solution not sufficient?

--
Be seeing you...
--Lang Zerner
[e-mail]   UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz   ARPA:[e-mail]
"...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"


[Moderator's Note: Part of the objection to call-tracing as the *only* option
available is our knowledge of telco bureaucracy. A trace request on Friday
at 5 PM might well sit in someone's in-basket until Monday morning. Then,
there will be some paperwork. By comparison, most of those calls would cease
instantly if the called party had the ability to simply return one of them,
and advise the caller his number had been identified.  Most phreaks and
other types of telephone nuisances work best in anonymity. Take that away,
and the problem nearly always ends immediatly.   PT]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some OCC's Do Get ANI Reports
Date: 4 Sep 89 06:13:48 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections/VMJ, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
>Apparently Sprint has good luck obtaining this information from what
>he said in his message.

>On the other hand, TELECOM USA (provider of my residential 800 service)
>says they have a very hard time obtaining it.

Every carrier gets the calling number (at least from equal-access
offices) through Feature Group D access.  I would say that it is just
what they decide to print on their (800) bills that is different.

--
                         Jim Gottlieb (remote from Tokyo)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
       <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: [phone]               Voice Mail: 011-81-3-944-6221 ID#82-42-424

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

From: Pete French <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 89 14:40:17 -0100
Subject: Re: FCC Orders Radio Station to Stop Phone Pranks

In a recent article [e-mail] (Dr. T. Andrews) writes...

>Incredible, isn't it?  Three complaints and a lawsuit later, the FCC
>are piddling around with $5000 fines in Chicago.  In New York, they send
>boats out to international water to destroy transmitters and sieze
>persons and property.  (Technically this is termed "piracy".  See a
>lawyer before you try it yourself.)

Interesting you should mention this...about 3 weeks ago a joint Dutch/English
force attacked a "Pirate" radio station in international waters, smashed up
the transmitters, seized albums, injured some of the crew and staff in the
process and the forcibly towed away the ship. (This info is extracted from
newspaper articles + "earwitnesses" who were listening to it at the time.

The reason for this - the station was causing "Interference". This is a bit
implausible since it has been there over 25 years - you would have thought
that they would have got around to raiding them before now if they had really
been worried about the emissions.

The ships owners (who are Canadian) are aparrently sueing the Dutch/british
governments for piracy and have promised to have the station back on air
by the autumn. I have not heard about the New York incedent - what was this ?

                            -Pete.

       -Pete French.               |
  British Telecom Research Labs.   | "The carefree days are distant now,
 Martlesham Heath, East Anglia.    |  I wear my memories like a shroud..."
All my own thoughts (of course)    |                               -SIOUXSIE

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

From: Al Donaldson <vrdxhq!escom.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 3 Sep 89 19:10:18 GMT
Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA


In article <[e-mail]>, (Paolo Bellutta)
writes:
> I noticed that American radio stations names starts with W or K.

Fifteen years ago when I used to work in the radio and TV business,
stations actually USED their call letters when doing the station ID.
The minimum form included the call letters and the location, e.g.,
"W-K-R-P, Cincinnati", usually on the hour and half-hour.  For TV,
this information could be given either on audio or video.

But over the past several years there seems to be a trend of replacing
the legal call letters with catch-phrases and names that will appeal
to the audience, e.g., "COOL", "ROCK", "EASY".  Now this has always
been done to some extent or other.  For example, KLIK, a station I worked
at in Jefferson City, Mo, used to pronounce the call letters "CLICK",
sort of nerdish in retrospect, but it was certainly unique.  There was
obviously some competition for call letters that were easy to remember
and compatible with your market image, e.g., KOOL, WROK, KEZY, etc.

But now it seems that every major market in the country has an EASY
or a COOL radio, and there's a whole generation of people who probably
think that is the real name of their favorite station.  Part of this is
probably due to saturation of the name-space -- as with site names, all
the good ones are taken, so stations with largely unpronounceable call
letters like KZQE or WHCJ (to pick a couple at random) might become
"EASY" or "COOL" respectively.  But the biggest reason is probably the
franchising of the radio industry that took place several years ago,
with canned sounds, playlists, jingles, and so forth -- just like the
fast food industry, you can get a Big Mac, fries and EASY almost anywhere
you go.

It seems that call letters are rarely used anymore, except perhaps
when filing to the FCC for a license renewal :-).

Al Donaldson
[e-mail]
[phone]


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

From: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal?
Date: 4 Sep 89 23:05:36 GMT
Reply-To: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike)" <wittsend![e-mail]>
Organization: Harris/Lanier Network Knitting Circle


In article <[e-mail]> Edward Greenberg <claris!
netcom![e-mail]> writes:
>There are no frequencies between 1 and 30 MHz in which you can
>transmit without a license.  .....

>CB Radio doesn't need a license these days.  .....

    I hate to pick nits but .....

    CB is in the 27MHz band, which is (last I looked) somewhere between
1 and 30MHz.  Therefore, I would guess, you contradicted yourself.  However,
this would be more appropriate in rec.ham-radio.

---
Michael H. Warfield  (The Mad Wizard)    | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw
  (404)  270-2123 / 270-2098        | [e-mail]
An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.
A pessimist is sure of it!

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 89 19:15:41 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Celebrating Labor Day

Thanks for a good union story on Labor Day. I'm not in a unionized place,
but - I am covered by many laws and standards that only unions could
deliver!

Gordy Perkins

Moderator's Note: In next weekend's special edition of the Digest, Larry
Lippman gives us a very detailed, very interesting tour of an SxS office.
It is a lengthy account, and one I think you will enjoy.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #347
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 0:41:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #348
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Sep 89 00:37:53 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 348

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Clayton Cramer)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (David Lewis)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (U.K. Tony)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Roy Smith)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Suu Quan)
    Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal? (Uri Blumenthal)
    Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal? (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Sandy Fifer)
    Re: Fighting Back Against Junk Calls (Benson I. Margulies)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 5 Sep 89 18:29:45 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
(John DeArmond) writes:
> [e-mail] writes:
# #I don't usually disagree with John, but I think he misses the point.

# #Some folks abuse Directory Assistance.  Badly.  Some businesses used to
# #use it (and still might, where it's free) as a means to verify credit
# #cards on the cheap.

# Fred, you and I are in agreement on this point.  I simply disagree with
# the concept that just because there are a few scumbags, we should punish
# the whole population.  That's as bad as the current media campaign to
# ban a class of weapons because an insignificant number of scumbags abuse
# the right.  The phone company is more than capable of matching DA accesses
# against calls made from a business.  If the number of DA accesses is
# disappropriate  to the call loading, then charge them heavily for the
# service, heavily enough to discourage further abuse.

# John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?

This reminds of when the charge for directory assistance started
in Los Angeles.  A group calling itself "Campaign Against Utility
Service Exploitation (CAUSE)" suddenly appeared, making the same
claim -- that credit bureaus used DA a great deal, and that it
was therefore more "fair" to charge for DA as a percent surcharge
on the total phone bill -- even though per call DA charges would
have hurt such DA abusers MORE than the surcharge on total calls.

It was pretty obvious that the people running CAUSE were principally
interested in creating a political base for populist/socialist
rhetoric -- no one could be so stupid as to think that the
total bill surcharge would be fairer than per call charges for
DA (except the TV reporters, who are as intelligent as electric
toasters).

Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
"No man is an island" is the beginning of the end of personal freedom.

Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 5 Sep 89 13:04:37 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, stiatl![e-mail]
(John DeArmond) writes:
>  The phone company is more than capable of matching DA accesses
> against calls made from a business.  If the number of DA accesses is
> disappropriate  to the call loading, then charge them heavily for the
> service, heavily enough to discourage further abuse.

Unfortunately, if a phone company says "Well, XYZ Corp is abusing DA, so
I'm going to charge XYZ Corp $5 a pop for DA," the next thing that
happens is XYZ Corp goes to the PUC, the FCC, court, and anywhere else
their lawyers can think of, and blasts the phone company for
discriminatory pricing.  And most likely wins, too -- phone companies,
being common carriers, aren't really allowed to charge customer A a
certain rate and customer B another rate for the *exact* same service.

(This, of course, gives everyone a segue into discussion of AT&T's
Tariff 77, or whatever their "customized tariff" filing which the FCC
approved was, and various issues surrounding tariffing and pricing...
have a blast, people!)

--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

Date: 09/04/89 15:37:08 (New York time)
From: "U.K. Tony" (U.K. Tony) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)

USA commercal radio stations have call letters begining with a K or W.

In general the K stations are west of the Mississippi River. W stations are
east of the Mississippi.

There are some that do not comform. WFAA is in Dallas, TX. KVA & KDKA are in
Pittsburgh, PA, and there are others.

They all have call letters. Just do not be confused by on-air idents of
"Q-102". This is just marketing hype.

Tony

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

From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 3 Sep 89 18:28:03 GMT
Reply-To: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)

> Other types of radio services use both W and K, depending.

Don't airplanes use N prefixes for their call signs?

--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- [e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

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

From: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 5 Sep 89 21:47:06 GMT
Reply-To: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}

In article <[e-mail]> vrdxhq!escom.com!al@
uunet.uu.net (Al Donaldson) writes:
>But over the past several years there seems to be a trend of replacing
>the legal call letters with catch-phrases and names that will appeal
>to the audience, e.g., "COOL", "ROCK", "EASY".  Now this has always

They're still required to ID once an hour with their call letters and
city or service area.  Any use of other non-call letters is just advertising.

KLOK was always Clock-FM, but once per hour, approximately on the hour, it was
K-L-O-K San Francisco.

--
Ed Greenberg
uunet!apple!netcom!edg

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

From: Suu Quan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 5 Sep 89 23:03:48 GMT
Organization: HP Labs, Manufacturing & Measurement Systems Lab, Palo Alto, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, mcvax!irst.it!bellutta@
uunet.uu.net (Paolo Bellutta) writes:
> I noticed that American radio stations names starts with W or K.  Someone
> told me that if the station started in AM it has a name starting with W
> otherwise (FM only stations) it starts with K.  Is it true?  Is there a
> (historical?) reason for that?  I'm just curious.

Trying to remember some pieces of when I was in the Navy some 20 years
ago. I believe any station using the radio waves must take their call sign
from an internationally allocated name space. For large countries like the US
and USSR, the name space is generous. I think the US alone uses W*, K* and some
other combinations. Little countries use a more restricted name space :
ie Vietnam use XVV* (I recall someone saying that Mexico's name space is X*,
its probably a subset of X*).

When ever talking to (or receiving Morse-code messages from) an unknown
station, we usually go to a book that will tell us who the other guy is. For
the most part, the data carries no intelligence information: "HMS Elizabeth
the 4th, UK"

And also, the names are note restricted to 4 characters, nor are they
restricted to alphabetic characters alone (numbers are used too).

--
<standard apologies for asking standard dumb questions above >
Suu Quan  (TELNET/415) 857-3594            [e-mail]
HEWLETT-PACKARD, Corp Manuf Factory Systems    quan@hpcmfs
Palo Alto, CA 94304                suu quan /HP0080/04

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

From: Uri Blumenthal <arnor![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal?
Date: 5 Sep 89 14:46:45 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp., Yorktown NY


 From article <[e-mail]>, (Edward Greenberg):

> Tell us more about what you want to accomplish.  Who do you want to
> talk to, for what purpose.  Perhaps we can come up with a suitable
> solution to your application.

Well, maybe I'm too bold, but I consider it as a sort of permission to
post some more stuff on this topic.

    I need to have a reliable link between:

        1) My car and home. Radio is more convenient than
           cellular phone for me. The distance could be
           50 - 75 miles (up to 100, I'd say), the area
           has a lot of hills.

        2) The common CB connection. I'd like to be able to
           receive usual CB reports on the road (well, like
           those renown "smokey reports" :-). As well as to
           broadcast the info I have.

        3) Access to the "road SOS channel" - I think it's
           channel 9, which is constantly monitored by police,
           so in case of real trouble you can call for help
           (if you still can call, of course :-).

    Mostly, that's it. Somewhen ten years ago I played for a while
    with DX stuff, but it was in other country, and everything (well,
    except the ether :-) was different. So my "old" knowledge doesn't
    help a lot.

    Thanks to everybody who replied to me already with good advices,
    and to all those who will do that. Thanks for no-flaming.

    Regards,
    Uri.        (uunet!bywater!arnor!uri)


<Disclaimer>

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

From: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal?
Date: 5 Sep 89 21:37:58 GMT
Reply-To: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}


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

>Actually, CB Radio, which doesn't require a license, is located
>between 27 and 28 MHz.  I don't know what the channels are exactly in
>that range, but I do remember that they are not in a purely sequential
>order, due to the expansion from 23 to 40 channels.  Also, many CB
>DXers (people who go for distant contacts) use either the Upper
>SideBand or the Lower SideBand (USB and LSB, collectively know as
>SSB), which allows separate communications to use the same base
>frequency as a normal AM channel.
>Mark Smith     |  "Be careful when looking into the distance,      |All Rights

You've got me.  You're right.  With the exception of CB, there's noplace to
use a "Short Wave" transceiver without proper licensing, and CB really doesn't
qualify as short wave. They still have power and antenna limitations, don't
they?

                -edg
--
Ed Greenberg
uunet!apple!netcom!edg

[Moderator's Note: Power and antenna limitions in CB? You've gotta be kidding!
I *know* what the rules say, but gawd a'mighty! At least here in Chicago
some of those boogers are running a thousand watts if they're running a
hundred milliwatts! And they get on the so-called 'high channels', meaning
illegally squatting on the upper (usually, sometimes lower) side of 27.415
all the way to 27.805. Some of them even get all the way up in ten meters
running power talking skip all day. The worst offenders are now starting
to pollute the rest of the spectrum. They go to 'swap meets' and come home
with some piece of junk then sit on forty meters tuning up and fooling
around. Their idea of humor is to feed their power mike into a reverb unit
and then b-rr-eak break break break break for a radio check check check.
If it is true what 'they' say, that a real man ought to be able to tune
and peak his radio, then we have a bunch of little infants here.   PT]

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

From: Sandy Fifer <cedar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Date: 5 Sep 89 05:06:01 GMT
Organization: Cedar River Software, Inc., Seattle


I have the Plantronics LiteSet and I like it a lot.  It does what I
want -- it leaves my hands free to work while I'm on the phone.  It
works pretty well all over my house, with occasional noise, probably
caused by the fact that the headphone cord doubles as an antenna.  I
don't use other cordless phones so I can't say how it compares.

I've been told by someone with Call Waiting (my sister) that she can't
answer a new call without losing the old one -- maybe it doesn't flash
the hook switch fast enough.  Plantronics told her that this is a known
flaw in the design.

Also, for the person who got headaches from the earpice not fitting:
If you get replacement pads for the stereo headphones known as "ear
buds" that fit right in your ear, the earpiece might be more
comfortable and won't fall out.

Sandy Fifer


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

Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V9 #347
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 89 08:57:59 EDT
From: "Benson I. Margulies" <[e-mail]>

Does Mr. Bulmash really want 100 phone calls from TELECOM readers? Isn't that
somewhat inconsistent with his philosophy? How about posting an Postal
Address?

[Moderator's Note: Good point. But apparently he does not mind getting the
calls. Not having any of his literature at hand, I tried the CNA for his
number:

(optr) "Name and address, may I help you?"
(me)   "393-1555"
(optr) "That's listed to 'Private Citizen, Inc', Warrenville, IL. At the
       customer's request, the address is not in our records."

I must presume he prefers phone calls of inquiry. He does not have an
answering machine on the line; at least not when I tried it just now. Anyway,
you're not trying to sell him anything -- he wants to sell you!! PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #348
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 1:22:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #349
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Sep 89 01:20:43 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 349

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Lars J. Poulsen)
    UK <-> Ireland Access Codes (Kevin Hopkins)
    British Telecom May Charge For Directory Enquiries (Kevin Hopkins)
    Two-Line Phones with "Conference" Feature (David Singer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 11:54:39 -0700
From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?

Readers of TELECOM are familiar with discussions about how much some of
us would like to get Caller*ID so that we can fight back at
telemarketers. Well, the other day, I lost my cool, and decided to "do
something" about these calls; so I sent the attached letter to the
business that was bothering me, with copies to a number of others that
may help change the situation. I will keep you posted on any replies
that I may get.

/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>   (800) 2227308  or (805) 9639431 ext 358
  ACC Customer Service              Affiliation stated for identification only
                My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!


                                        Santa Barbara, 31 Aug 1989
To:   Santa Barbara NewsPress
Attn: Circulation Department

Cc: NewsPress "Letters" editor
Cc: Jack O'Connell, California State Assembly
Cc: General Telephone
Cc: California Public Utilities Commission
Cc: USENET comp.dcom.telecom (an electronic newsletter)
Cc: Consumer's Union

Re: Telephone Solicitations


I consider myself a reasonably calm individual, but there are a few hot
buttons that make me want to SCREAM. One of these is the ever
increasing privacy invasion caused by the ugly industry that calls
itself "Telemarketing". I get at least 5 calls every week from
political and charitable fundraisers as well as businesses, such as my
local newspaper with whom I already have a subscription.

Besides being a nuisance to consumer victims like me, I have been told
that "telemarketing" is a sweatshop industry pervaded by poor wages and
working conditions, often with no health insurance for its workers and
other unfair labor practices.

I feel uncertain as to what my best response should be to this menace.
I have tried unceremoniously hanging up on these calls, but that just
seems to make them call back. I have tried being systematically abusive
to the callers, hoping in the long run to make it hard for these
operators to find employees, but so far it does not work. I have tried
to "blacklist" and refuse to do business with companies and refuse to
support allegedly charitable organizations that engage in this
practice, but I find that I cannot give up my daily newspaper even
though they keep calling my unlisted number to sell subscriptions. I
have come to the conclusion that this practice should simply be
outlawed. A properly drawn bill might even take care of the "junk fax"
problem at the same time.


I would suggest the following initiatives might be useful:

1. A bill making it illegal to place or to order a subordinate to place
   more than 10 unsolicited calls in a day to people who do not want them
   or with whom you have had no prior business relationship. Such
   misdemeanor to be punishable by up to 30 days in jail and or a fine of
   up to $10,000 and forfeiture of equipment used to make such calls.

2. An order by the PUC to require all local exchange carriers to
   install on their telephone switching systems the feature package
   required to implement customerinitiated call tracing whenever such
   software is available for the equipment installed. This feature causes
   the switch note note the originating number of the last incoming call
   for each subscriber line, and allows a customer dialed 3digit code
   (such as #32) to cause this information to be written to a maintenance
   log, from where it can be retrieved and released to law enforcement
   authorities. This software is already available for the 5ESS switches
   used in most areas, and this feature has been offered to the public in
   several eastern states as part of the CLASS feature package (whose main
   feature is the optional "Caller*ID" display.

3. A ruling by the PUC (may need support by federal legislation) that
   calls into California are governed by California regulations. This
   would put an end to the way California companies have been
   circumventing the regulations governing telemarketing by contracting to
   outofstate telemarketing organizations.

While the Caller*ID package has been regarded as controversial, and
even been opposed by the ACLU, I believe that implementing "Call Trace"
by itself would be an uncontroversial benefit.  The privacy issues that
have been so divisive about the Caller*ID feature do not arise in this
context.

This would allow us to quickly put an end to obscene callers who
currently can harass women with relative impunity so long as they go
after a new woman each night.

Ending telemarketing solicitations would be a worthwhile thing.
Allowing for a small number of calls per day would allow reasonable
business use of the telephone to call customers for purposes of
verifying their address, follow up on orders etc. I believe that the
majority of businesses would support such an initiative, since they are
getting to be as annoyed with the telemarketing nuisance as I am.

Yours respectfully,

Lars Poulsen
125 South Ontare Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>   (800) 2227308  or (805) 9639431 ext 358
  ACC Customer Service              Affiliation stated for identification only
                My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!


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

Subject: UK <-> Ireland Access Codes.
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 89 15:38:30 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>

( Originally sent on Tue, 22 Aug 89 13:32:05 +0100 but the UK gateway also
held this one up for another unknown reason - pkh.)

In reply to Chris Hayward's message the Republic of Ireland (Eire) has only
moved to a fully STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialling, is this term used anywhere
else other than UK and Ireland?)  system within the  last ten years.  Until
then you could not IDD to Ireland  from the UK, you always  had to dial the
UK Operator  (no, not  the  International  Operator) and ask  for  an Irish
number.  Initially Ireland only made their  capital Dublin  STD, then their
major  cities.  Like  the UK  the STD codes for these  cities were 01, 021,
031, ...   These were  made available  from  the  UK  after a few years  by
dialing 0001 + subscriber's number, 0002 + SN, ...  Two or  three years ago
British Telecom (BT) decided to free all these  000x codes  and  allow full
IDD dialling to Ireland using 010 + 353 + Area Code  (minus leading zero) +
subsciber's number.  0001 + subscriber's number has still been kept on as a
quick form of accessing Dublin numbers from the UK.

As the  000x codes were only introduced  in the UK about  10 years ago they
could not have influenced the  choice of 010 as  the  International  Access
Code, as I am sure IDD to major countries (US, Europe, Australia, etc.) was
available long before that. BT is now assigning 00xx codes in  mainland UK,
and  maybe in Northern  Ireland  as well if  they   don't  clash with those
described  below,  to  Value Added  Services   (i.e. the mucky  phone  call
brigade) along with 0898, and charging a bomb for the calls.  Already 0055,
0066 and 0077 have been used.  It looks as though BT  are not going to move
to 00 as the International Access Code.

Northern Ireland is a different case. It is part of the UK but the 000x and
some 00xx codes are used to access all the Republic of Ireland's STD codes.
I was over visiting my grandmother in  Ireland  this earlier this month and
the  access codes FROM  Northern  Ireland  to the Republic  of  Ireland are
listed in the Republic's phone book.

Also, from the Republic of Ireland 03  + Area Code  (including  the leading
zero) is used  to access numbers  in mainland UK,  not 16 +  44 + Area Code
(without leading zero) + subscriber's number. 08 + Area Code (including the
leading zero) is used to access numbers in  Northern Ireland. Exceptions to
these are the following quick dial codes:
        031 (instead of 03 + 01)    London
        032 (instead of 03 + 021)    Birmingham
        033 (instead of 03 + 031)    Edinburgh
        034 (instead of 03 + 041)    Glasgow
        035 (instead of 03 + 051)    Liverpool
        036 (instead of 03 + 061)    Manchester
        084 (instead of 08 + 0232)    Belfast
There  is no  short code for Tynside  as  yet  (UK code  091, 039?)  and  I
presume 037 and 038 will be used for London instead of 031 when the UK area
code 01 is scrapped next May.

One of the  advantages  of a   lately developed  telephone system    in the
Republic of Ireland is that it is now largely a digitally system. Calls are
completed once  the last digit is dialled  and the lines are crystal clear.
Also, from a  private  phone   local calls  are charged  as just one  unit,
irrespective   of duration  (one  unit is   approximately 11  pence  at the
moment). Now if British Telecom moved to this system  for local dialling in
the UK it would be worth getting a modem :-)

All of this information is correct as of mid-August when  I was in Ireland.
I  have had   great experience of  UK-Eire  calls having  many relatives in
Ireland.

> When IDD came along, it would have been politically insensitive
> (suicidal?) to make Eire calls "international",

As  described above  IDD came along   and BT did  in  fact make Irish calls
international calls, though at a cheaper rate than for the rest of Europe.

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [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   |
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

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

Subject: British Telecom May Charge For Directory Enquiries
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 89 15:40:56 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


(Originally sent on Wed, 30 Aug 89 17:17:28 +0100 but the UK gateway held
it up for some reason - pkh)

Cribbed  from the Guardian,  a  UK quality  paper know  for  its ability to
incorrectly spell words like teh, of Tuesday 29th  August.  Of course it is
taken without permission but I don't think they'd mind anyway.

My comments are inside braces ().

"BT EXPERIMENTS WITH INQUIRY LINKS by Daniel John

British  Telecom  (BT)  is  experimenting with  a  plan which   would allow
companies and the telephone  network's biggest users  direct links into its
computerised directory inquiry service.

The   intention  is  to cut the  delays for  both  corporate and individual
callers as  well   as earn extra revenue   from  the service. According  to
Computing magazine (UK trade mag), 237 companies are taking part in a trial
which  gives them access to the  directory inquiry database through Telecom
Gold (BT's email service),  Prestel  (an  old Viewdata system)   and direct
dialling.

Corporate cusomers are the largest users of the service and getting them to
relieve part of the  200 million pounds annual   cost of the service  would
help BT's case to introduce charges for all users.

It has been  part of BT's  long term planning to target  the  full costs at
users  rather than spread  the bill to  all of  its   24 million customers.
Exemptions for call boxes and diabled people have  already been agreed with
the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel - the UK telecom  version of PUC's)
which also accepted the idea of payment in principle. ***

But as yet there  is no firm date for  the introduction of  charges for the
service which currently answers 720 million calls a year. BT estimates that
each customer contributes 2 pounds a quarter to its operation. +++

The service to corporate users goes by the name of Phonebase  in which they
will be able to buy direct access into  the system.  Users  will be able to
call up numbers on their  own screens so clearing  the existing 142 (London
enquiries from within London) and 192 (all other directory enqiries) lines.

Computing says BT,  Oftel and the  British Direct  Marketing are looking at
ways of preventing the system being  abused with unsolicted sales calls and
junk  faxes.  BT said earlier this  month  that it had  yet to  lay  down a
pricing regime with Oftel for calls to  directory inquires.  However, under
the deal with Oftel, BT  will not gain  form any extra income from charges.
###"

NOTES:
***    The previous article I sent gives the reason for this point causing
    me to write to BT, my Member of Parliament and Oftel. If I am not
    given the information at hand I think it is immoral to charge for
    it. Give me free access to the database, as in France, and then I
    don't mind being charged for DA.
+++    Normal quarterly line rental is 15 pounds including taxes, will BT
    reduce this to 13 pounds? Some chance.
###    This has got to be a joke. BT make exorbitant profits, around 2
    billion pounds a year. Don't tell me they will turn up a chance to
    earn a few more pounds.

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [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   |
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+



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

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 89 13:14:59 PDT
From: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two-Line Phones with "Conference" Feature

Once in a very great while, I would like to have a three-way call at
home; I have two phone lines, so, rather than paying $3.50/month for
GTE's three-way calling service, I'm thinking of getting a two-line
phone with a "conference" button, probably one of the Panasonic
two-line speakerphones.  I'm interested in comments from users of
such phones, either in the digest or directly to me.  If there are
enough direct comments, I'll summarize the results.

Thanks!

--

David Singer, N6TFX

Internet:  [e-mail]
Amprnet:   [e-mail]  or  n6tfx@n6ldl
Bitnet:    SINGER at ALMVMA

Disclaimer:  Yes, we have no disclaimers!


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #349
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 2:31:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #350
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Sep 89 02:30:23 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 350

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Accessories on Multi-Party Lines - Not a Good Idea (Larry Lippman)
    Labor Day ([e-mail])
    Reach Out (AT&T) vs. MCI Calling Plan (Joe Konstan)
    East Coast Strikes (Rusty Haddock)
    RTD TLAs (Request To Decode Three Letter Acronyms) (Roy Smith)
    A "Forgotten" CB Band (John DeBert)
    Residential 800 Service? (Bob Clements)
    CIS via Telenet (U.K. Tony)
    Nuisance Calls (was Re: Calling Party ID) (Kevin Hopkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Accessories on Multi-Party Lines - Not a Good Idea
Date: 5 Sep 89 22:58:51 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark
Anacker) writes:
> Their phone service is party line, with 3 or 4  others on
> the line.  Instead of the old system of "1 long, 2 short" rings or whatever,
> telco sends the rings signal at different frequencies for each party.  Thus
> my friends' ring is 50Hz, instead of the usual 20Hz.  They then had to buy
> a small box that goes inline with their incoming line and beeps when a
> ring signal of the appropriate frequency comes along.   A side effect of this
> is that the ring signal is not passed through the box at all, making it
> kind of hard to hook up an answering machine or modem (or anything).

    I think the *intention* was to make it "kind of hard"; read on...

> Also, since the only audible indicator is in the filter box, you can't hear
> the phone ring outside that room.

> What I had in mind was to modify one of these filter boxes so that instead
> of beeping on a 50Hz ring, it would close a relay and bridge the house
> side of the line onto the incoming side.  This would then allow the ring
> signal to get to the rest of the house.  We've verified that their phones
> and stuff will recognize a 50Hz ring (also all other rings), so they
> should work.  I'd like to know if anybody out there has done anything
> like this already.

    Most telephone companies frown upon the use of ANY telephone
accessory on multi-party lines.  In addition, FCC Part 68 certifications
generally do NOT apply to party line use.  There are many reasons for such
a restriction, not the least of which is that if you cause trouble on
your line, you cause trouble on everyone else's line.  Since people
depend upon a telephone in a rural area to summon emergency assistance,
there is much more than "inconvenience" involved.  Most states have
laws which REQUIRE that use of a party line be IMMEDIATELY relinquished
if an emergency is announced.  The use of a modem or fax machine obviously
makes it difficult for the subscriber using the line at a given moment
to hear such a request to free the line for an emergency call.  However,
from a practical standpoint, it is most likely that a modem or fax call
would lose carrier or sync and disconnect if someone picked up on the
line and began talking.  However, I would not like to test this issue
in any court.

    Other reasons for controlling station apparatus on a party line
is that such apparatus may interfere with billing if message rate
and/or ANI toll service is provided.  Two-party lines are commonly
arranged for "tip party identification" (a balanced ground using the
ringer windings or a terminal on the network) to facilitate message
rate and ANI.  Four-party lines generally have no message rate service,
and usually rely upon ONI for toll calls.  And if you are in GTE territory,
you may have a "SATT" dial (don't ask...) instead of the more common
tip party identification.

    As far as answering machines are concerned, they may also be
prohibited.  I have never seen any answering machine which could handle
any type of selective ringing except for two-party grounded ringing.
And those were OLD answering machines from the 1970's in which one side
of the ring detection circuit was brought out on the yellow wire.  All
newer answering machines seem to rely solely upon bridged ringing.

    Getting back to your question, regulatory issues notwithstanding,
to PROPERLY build what you describe may not be trivial.  From your
description, this "black box" appears to block any ringing signal -
which appears to complicate the situation.  Under these circumstances,
while "decimonic" (the use of four frequencies, 20 Hz, 30 Hz, 40 Hz and
50 Hz) frequency-selective ringing may be used, it may in fact be
_grounded_ ringing, with or without superimposed DC.  Should this be
grounded ringing, then there is NO simple way to create a bridged
ringing signal for use with a conventional modem or telephone answering
machine.

    My best advice is to leave this situation alone and advise your
friends to see if their telephone company will furnish a single-party line.
Then there won't be a problem, and there won't be any risk of interference
to the other subscribers on the party line.

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<>  UUCP   {allegra|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  TEL  [phone] | 716/773-1700  {hplabs|utzoo|uunet}!/     \uniquex!larry
<>  FAX  [phone] | 716/773-2488     "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 09:07:41 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Labor Day

Well, here I am in the heart on Nynex, in the middle of a strike,
and my phone sounds like the line runs through the middle of a stadium
of rice crispies.

For the first week or two, I figured, "why call it in, they're on strike?"

Then I thought better of it. I'm still paying, so they owe me service.
And the busier we keep the management, the more incentive they will have
to settle.

So, last week, I called it in. Got the usual rigamarole. "Well, we checked it,
and the line checks fine." (me) "Then what's all that static?" (them)
"Gee, that's awful, I'll put in a call so send someone out."

The appointed day passes. No visit. No improvement. Call again. "We show that
someone went out and cleared the problem." (me) "Then what's all this static?"
(them) "Gee, that's awful, I'll put in another call."

Labor Day morning arrives, and what drives up at my door but a
telco person to fix the telephone! I sure wouldn't want to be him.
As a professional member of the management, he feels a duty to get
out there and take care of people like me, whether or not he sympathises
with the union. He gets harrassed. I found it impossible to think of `
him as a scab. Its not like he's some bum off the street hired to
take the union's place. It not like striking the Ace Widgit plant,
where a failure to manufacture widgits for a few weeks hurts no one but
the management. A nonworking telephone is a real pain.

Personally, I think that the governments that give Nynex a monopoly
should pressure them on my behalf. I can't move to another telco
in disgust at the poor service during the strike.

And by the way, the man fixed my phone in a jiffy (a bad pair problem),
and installed a network interface for me while he was at it. As I'm sure
the usual unionized person would have.


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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 08:24:10 -0700
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reach Out (AT&T) vs. MCI Calling Plan


Both of these services are being offered to students (and everyone else)
here at the UCB campus.  I spoke with reps of both companies, and later called
AT&T's 800 number, but there are some things I find very surprising:

MCI has a per-hour calling plan with rates about a dime below ROA but which
starts at 7pm and includes other time discounts, calling card, around-town,
etc, at no extra fee.  What is more important, MCI include both intra and
interstate calls in the same package.

AT&T doesn't have RO-California (Where 80% of my LD calls are).  When I
called the 800-number, I was told that the California PUC hadn't approved it.

1.  Is it possible that MCI is allowed to do this and AT&T is not?

2.  If so, why?

3.  Has anyone heard about plans for AT&T to expand (or cut the price of)
basic ROA services to be more competative with MCI?

Obviously, I'm going with the MCI plan (plus first hour free for one month)
for now, but I have no qualms about changing back to AT&T later if they offer
a reasonable deal.

Joe Konstan
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 12:47:48 -0400
From: Rusty Haddock <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Subject: East Coast Strikes
Reply-To: Rusty Haddock <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Organization: sort +3nr


All of Bell Atlantic settled back on Aug 28 and most workers were back on
the 29th.   Most of the Bell Atlantic companies had settled the week previous
while PA Bell was still trying to work things out.   This ``kept'' C&P, et al,
on (sympathy) strike until PA Bell got something worked out.

            -Rusty-
--
Rusty Haddock        o  {uunet,att,rutgers}!mimsy.umd.edu!fe2o3!rusty
Laurel, Maryland    o  "IBM sucks silicon!" -- PC Banana Jr, "Bloom County"

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

From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: RTD TLAs (Request To Decode Three Letter Acronyms)
Date: 5 Sep 89 00:54:27 GMT
Reply-To: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)


> All the major L.D. carriers who provide 800 service get the number on their
> FGD (directs) or FGB (tandem) lines. Like I said in a previous posting, the
> only time the carrier doesn't get the ANI is on FGC trunks

    Time out!  I'm usually able to follow the jargonspeak on telecom,
but I think I gotta call for help on this one.  I've figured out that FGX
is, I'm pretty sure, Feature Group X, but can somebody tell me what those
feature groups mean?  For example, we've got an AT&T System 25 PBX (or is
PBX an outdated term?).  Presumably the switching machinery at NYTel talks
to our PBX over the trunk lines to tell it which extension to ring, and our
PBX tells the NYTel gear that the call went through, or it's busy, etc.
Does that mean our trunks have feature group something-or-other?

    And, what about ANI?  Automatic Number Information?  Just a guess.
What does it really mean (i.e. what do the letter stand for, and what does
it mean in terms of information transmitted)?

--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- [e-mail]
"The connector is the network"

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

From: John DeBert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: A "Forgotten" CB Band...
Date: 6 Sep 89 05:58:27 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) says:
> In article <[e-mail]> Edward Greenberg
> <claris! netcom![e-mail]> writes:
>>There are no frequencies between 1 and 30 MHz in which you can
>>transmit without a license.  .....
>
>>CB Radio doesn't need a license these days.  .....

>     I hate to pick nits but .....

>     CB is in the 27MHz band, which is (last I looked) somewhere between
> 1 and 30MHz.  Therefore, I would guess, you contradicted yourself.  However,
> this would be more appropriate in rec.ham-radio.


CB is not limited only to 11 meters, aka 27 MHz. Don't forget the other bands,
particularly the GMRS, aka class A band in the UHF Land Mobile Service band.

----------
J. DeBert
[e-mail] ...!apple!netcom!onymouse

[Moderator's Note: Yes, there is a CB allocation up around 430-440 megs
somewhere. It has been *years*  since I heard anything about it or bothered
to monitor it. (Never had equipment to actually use it.)    PT]

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

Subject: Residential 800 service?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 89 23:35:44 -0400
From: [e-mail]


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

>On the other hand, TELECOM USA (provider of my residential 800 service)
> ...

This has been bothering me for a few days now.  Could someone please explain
why in the world one would want an 800 number in one's home?  To me, 800
service seems very much a business service.  I can't see why one would want to
accept charges from just anyone anywhere on a residential phone.  (Unless, of
course, it is really business use of a residential phone - theoretically
a no-no.)  Maybe the 800 number is unlisted, but even then why are collect
calls, call-home service or credit card calls not adequate?  I'm sure there
must be a reason, I just don't see it.

Bob Clements, [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Depending on the time of day and othe circumstances,
an 800 number is less expensive than an incoming call on a Calling Card.
The 800 number I have from Telecom USA costs $2.45 per month plus the
cost of the calls (29 cents daytime, 21 cents off peak). Therefore a
local metro Chicago area call of one or two minutes is much cheaper than
the Calling Card, with its surcharge for local use. Naturally, I keep the
800 number non-pub, although it could be listed in the 800-555-1212 data
base for a few dollars per month if I was running a company.

If a call sent not-paid from elsewhere is going to last more than a minute
or two, then the Calling Card rates turn out to be a better deal. I also
have my Calling Card (both restricted and unrestricted PINs) tied into
my Reach Out America service, meaning in the middle of the night, or weekends
the use of the card is almost always a better deal than 800.

But there is another catch: These days, the rotten AOS people are likely
to seize your call, *AT&T card or not* and divert it, charging whatever
they can get away with. So if my sister uses my restricted PIN to call me
late at night from a payphone in Florida where she lives, I am at the
mercy of whoever controls the payphone, am I not? Maybe she gets AT&T, and
maybe not. If billed by AT&T, great; if billed by Telesphere or such, who
knows how much I will pay? At least with the 800 number, most AOS outfits
just pass them along; and my rate has been fixed at 21 cents by the carrier.
So I answer, and if the party is calling on the 800 number, I take their
number, hang up and call them right back on my Reach Out account. In
summary, there is no rule that 800 has to be for businesses only, and it
actually gives me more flexibility in accepting incoming 'collect' calls
without worrying about the cost. I think its a great deal.   PT]

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

Date: 09/04/89 15:29:31 (New York time)
From: "U.K. Tony" (U.K. Tony) <[e-mail]>
Subject: CIS via Telenet

The TYMNET code for Compuserve is not "compuserve" but CIS02

The CIS DNIC is 3132.

Compuserve provide a FREE login service under the ID 74.74 password  NETWORK.
This lists phone numbers and access methods. You can also try ID  77770.101
Password  FREE-DEMO. This gives a guided tour of the service and the same
phone list.

BTW Patrick, just what is the NUA of the Hong Kong info database? Is it open
access like Telenet/Tymnet/IPSS?

Tony

[Moderator's Note: Off hand, I don't remember. The place to get all these
NUA's is from Telenet. Access Telemail (@mail on your Telenet switch) and
log into a public mailbox named "Intl. Associates" with the password INTL.
Follow the menus given and locate Hong Kong Telephone Company.

Caution!!! Persons with PC Pursuit accounts may NOT make international
connections under threat of severe penalty including loss of account. And
Hong Kong Telephone's Help/Info address does not accept collect calls, so
you have to give some ID, of the form @C 0????etc,id,pw. Well! A couple
years ago I discovered that in fact PCP ID's would in fact be accepted by
the network, and I visited the help files of many different international
networks. In my paper on the same topic, I listed the network addresses
for the help files, as well as other fun places to visit, such as the
British Telecom 'packet switch stream' test line; the British Telecom
Master Clock; the network 'drops'; the addresses for the online customer
service positions; and more. The Japanese data network has a master clock
and an address for testing purposes.

Telenet was furious with me! I got a call from someone there who bawled
me out good, and said any PCP'ers who accepted my counsel would be banned
forever. Shortly thereafter they made a change in the software so that
any PCP account which make an international connection is immediatly
referred to network security. When I told them it was all listed in their
own international help files on Telemail, they got madder still!  We
kissed and made up, but I don't post network addresses any longer.  PT]

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

Subject: Nuisance Calls (was Re: Calling Party ID)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 89 15:36:46 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>

( Originally sent on Tue, 22 Aug 89 10:52:06 +0100, but the UK gateway held
it up for some unknown reason - pkh. )

In v9i312  Michael Warfield talked of connecting  his  modem to  his 'phone
line to infuriate nuisance calls. My Mum, being  a Catering Supervisor at a
local  school,   was equipped  with  a whistle  to attract   the children's
attention.  When she was getting a large number of  nuisance 'phone calls a
few years back she blew the whistle next to the microphone of the telephone
when one of these calls was in progress.  For some  inexplicable reason the
caller never tried our number again :-) (Could be due to him having his ear
drums blown to bits.)

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [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: I think your Mum had the right idea. And to all concerned,
the mailbox here is stuffed again. Many messages still waiting processing.
If yours wasn't printed today, check again tomorrow. I've got about *fifty*
still waiting to go....and several on Caller ID, what else... sheesh! PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #350
*****************************