Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1989.volume.9/vol9.iss351-400

Text File | 1990-01-14 | 780KB | 17,006 lines

Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 18:59:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #351
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Sep 89 18:55:36 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 351

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller ID in Finland (Otto J. Makela)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Uri Blumenthal)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Michael H. Warfield)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Gordon Burditt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Otto J. Makela" <mcvax!jyu.fi![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID in Finland
Date: 6 Sep 89 08:14:39 GMT
Reply-To: "Otto J. Makela" <mcvax!jyu.fi![e-mail]>
Organization: Grand Hall of Justice, Mega-City One


On Monday, I paid a visit to the local telco people.  First I talked to the
data communications guy I knew from previous visits, but after a few tricky
questions on availability of Caller ID, Call Return etc, he forwarded me to
the exchange hardware supervisor.   I talked with him for quite a while and
the following came up:  the city digital exchange is quite ready for Caller
ID (he actually had a phone with the display on his desk),  but the private
telcos are afraid to implement  stuff like this for fear of legal problems.
Also, seems that the telcos follow the lead of the Helsinki area telco, and
in that area there are lots of people who are stickier  about their privacy
than "normal" subscribers. Then there's the fact that special services like
this have here traditionally been billed for activation, not pay-as-you-use
which of course limits the amount of consumers who are interested enough to
get these services.  While I was there,  I got the date for the next stock-
holders meeting.  I'm going be there, let's see if I can't raise some dust!

--
* * * 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: Uri Blumenthal <arnor![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 5 Sep 89 14:35:39 GMT
Organization: IBM Corp., Yorktown NY


> 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]

You see, to have the name shown would be very nice, except for one little
thing. Just how many 'John Smith's may live in your neighborhood? Should
I check each one in case of problem? Or the next step in that direction
would be to show the caller address also (:-)?

<Disclaimer>

[Moderator's Note: It does not really matter how many John Smiths live in
Chicago. Acceptance or rejection of the call would frequently be based on
my personal aquaintence with *some person* named John Smith. If I know of
some person by that name, we might assume my aquaintence is calling.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 15:03:02 -0400
From: ficc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question

[ Buster explains (I think) that he intended that a code be given out for
  unlisted numbers, rather than having a code given out for everyone ]

I see, we had a bit of communication mixup then. What I (and apparently
everyone else) heard was that you wanted a code for *all* numbers. This is
just an enhancement of what seems to be the consensus among pro-Caller*Id
folks.

> [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,

Well, this would be quite a bit more expensive to implement, and it would
nuke the folks who use chintzy unlisted service (listing their phone under
another name), so you'd still have to enact all the same safeguards.

---
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: [e-mail], [phone]. Fun: [e-mail]. `-_-'
"Your mother applies makeup with a hot-glue gun. Your sister bites mailmen.'U`
 Your face looks like it's been washed in acid and dried with a cheese-grater."

[Moderator's Note: True, the people who list under bogus names would have
to deal with this, but I should think the ordinary non-pubs would be very
pleased with the solution. Unless, of course, there are some who say I am
not only to be denied their number, but their name as well!   PT]

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

From: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 6 Sep 89 04:27:24 GMT
Reply-To: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike" <wittsend![e-mail]>
Organization: Lanier Network Knitting Circle - Thaumaturgy & Speculum Division


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

>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 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?

    On major point that seems to be CONSTANTLY overlooked here is a
psychological one.  I for one wsould not purchase a feature such as Call Trace
or Call Block until I need it.  At the present time I haven't needed such an
animal for several years.  Now paying several bucks a month for a feature I
might possibly need once every four or five years does not sound too cost
effective.  As a consequence the probabilty of any significant fraction of
the telephone customer base having this feature is insignificant in the
extreme.  A harrasing caller would be well assure that his chances of hitting
someone, first shot, who already has this feature is somewhat less likely than
being hit by a meteor.  Now the telco could offer these features for free and
install it on everyone's phone ready to use when the need arises, but I fear
we have just left the realm of the unlikely and entered the realm of the
unreal.

    Many people (I for one) will purchase Calling Line ID in a heart beat!
Now the probablity of stumbling upon someone with this feature suddenly becomes
much more significant.  Now there exists a distinct possiblity of getting
caught in the act ON THE FIRST CALL!

    Recently, in the metro Atlanta area, an obsence phone caller harrased
over 100 women.  He called them up on the phone, claiming to have kidnaped
their husband or other member of their family, coerced personal information
from them, and then proceeded to try to get them to perform various sexual
acts that may be best left unsaid.  While many did not comply, some did follow
some of his instructions, and most were terrorized in the extreme.  Now picture
this situation.  Say 10% of the customers in this area had this feature (high
yes, but maybe not, if it becomes real popular).  He would have had ten or more
women with his phone number reporting him to the police!  Now, you say, what if
he was calling from a pay phone?  Well, now you have some track of his where-
abouts and his activities.  The police might even scare up a witness or two.

        With this possiblity, is the risk worth the thrill?  The damage he did
was considerable and both physical as well as psychological.  These women were
literally raped over the phone!!  Are the people opposed to this feature
recommending we all get these protective features and feed the telco coffers
just in case of something like this or do they prefer to let someone like this
get away with his obsence perversion and let these women fend for themselves??
This guy was not some off-the-street creep.  His methods were well thought out,
involved superficially personal information, and was extermely convincing.  He
played on many peoples darkest fears and convinced many extermely intelligent
women that their husband or children really were in danger if they did not act
out his fantasies! All of this was reported in the Atlanta Constitution that
reported most of the victims were in the Gwinnett County area, a generally
affluent suburban county where a significant number of individuals could be
expected to purchase a fancy new toy like CLID.

    The reason the harrassing phone calls have gone down in New Jersey is
the active risk of somebody having this feature just because they like it, not
because they got it for protection!  This guy never called anyone back twice.
A feature which you don't have and takes a month to get is totally useless
against a random caller like this.  The key here is not that you can report
his number to the telco or the police.  The key here is that the risk of
getting caught is high enough to discourage this kind of crime in the first
place.  It's true that even if you have CLID and you have a harrasing caller,
you still have to storm the barracades down at the telco bureacracy.  It hasn't
bought you anything over the other features, if you have them.  It's the RISK!
It's the PREVENTION!  It's raising the probability that a given "mark" already
has the feature installed!

Are you, in your thin defense of your precious privacy while invading
mine, condoning the activities of these perverted individuals.  Condoning
it or not, you seem to be supporting their cause quite well!

---
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 Sep  4, 1989 at 18:03:25 cdt
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>

> [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]

I have numerous objections to this:

- I suspect at least 10% of the households will have a member highly
  insulted to be identified as *Mr.* when they are *Mrs.* or vice versa,
  or to be identified as their child or parent.  This alone will generate
  enough bad feeling and charges of sexism to make it a bad idea.
  The phone company needs to promote separate lines for husbands and wives
  and have the idea well-accepted before trying this.

- It greatly confuses the distinction between telephone numbers and names.
  Many people will think that the phone company is doing something it
  can't do - identify which person is using the phone (by fingerprints?).
  The technically uninformed may be even more unwilling to call "hot lines"
  even if the hot lines don't have Caller-ID and say so.

  We have a voice mail system at work which does identify the caller or
  callee by name or both to the receptionist (inside lines only - outside
  lines are identified by some code meaning "outside line" and maybe
  identifying which outside line) when the call gets forwarded or
  busy/na-forwarded.  Somehow, the line/name association is programmed
  into the system.  Voice mail users and the receptionist can get
  confused with the two-people-sharing-one-line problem.  I'm not sure how
  this can be handled other than one person doesn't get call-answering
  messages taken, and the other gets messages for both.  The person who
  doesn't get call-answering messages taken probably never bothers to
  check voice mail.

- Use of this information by a customer service department is likely to
  screw up the already blurred distinction between the Visa cards of
  Mr. Smith, his father, and his adult son, all at the same address.

- Names are not unique.  I don't want my calls blocked just because
  some jerk with my name sells swampland out of his home.

- I don't want to block calls from Charles M. Sanchez's medical office
  just because Charles M. Sanchez's kids make nuisance calls from his home.

- A company name alone isn't enough.  For example, "Radio Shack"
  identifies at least dozens of entirely separate locations with thousands
  of phones in my area code, plus the warehouses, factories, and corporate
  headquarters.  (some of these have PBX's, but they do not share them
  between locations.)

- I wouldn't want to block all calls from a company I do business with
  just because their fax machine keeps calling my voice number.  The phone
  company will not know which lines are fax lines.  But it would still be
  nice to block the fax calls until I can get the correct fax number onto
  lists in each of too many departments.

- When I was at RPI, I had to have a call traced.  Phone company records
  identified the caller as a pay phone at 110 Eighth Street, and they
  couldn't give any more specific information.  Further examination of phone
  company records would have revealed enough pay phones at 110 Eighth Street
  to make a mile-high tower of them on top of the administration building, to
  say nothing of the non-pay phones.  A large area around that had no phones
  at all (according to the records, which obviously had the billing address).
  (They finally gave me the NUMBER.  It took about 5 minutes to identify it
  with a campus directory.)  Does this mean I would have a choice of blocking
  both the alumni association and pay phones in the dorms, or neither
  (assuming I was still in the same area code)?

- Caller-ID should provide a "handle" that can be used to identify a line to
  services like Call Block, Distinctive Ring, etc., so suggestions that
  Caller-ID display names but Call Block accept numbers only destroy much
  of the usefulness of having both.

                        Gordon L. Burditt
                        ...!texbell!sneaky!gordon

PS:

It would be really nice, though, to have something in the caller-ID
that identifies:

    business vs. residential vs. government
    telemarketing call vs. anything else
    No. of unresolved complaints to Better Business Bureau
        against this organization


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #351
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 19:54:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #352
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Sep 89 19:50:34 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 352

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks (David W. Tamkin)
    Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks (Eric Swenson)
    Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks (John R. Levine)
    Re: Any Interest in Newsgroup on Intelligent Network? (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Customer Name and Address Records at New York Telephone (R. Gutierrez)
    Re: BOCs and Regionals (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 2:34:43 CDT
From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>

In Digest volume 9, issue 347, Patrick Townson responds to Lang Zerner's
request for the syntax of writing between commercial nets and the UUCP
universe:

| 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

 From CompuServe, the form is >INTERNET:[e-mail] or
>INTERNET:bang!path!sequence!user.  The greater-than sign and the colon are
required; I don't know whether capitalizing the word "INTERNET" is vital.
The word INTERNET is used even for sites that are not actually on the
Internet: for example, I regularly exchange mail between CompuServe and
pubnet sites with this syntax.

At present CIS is not yet surcharging for such mail.

David Tamkin   [e-mail]  {attctc,netsys,ddsw1}!jolnet!dattier
Post Office Box 813           GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  BIX: dattier  CIS: 73720,1570
Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813      voice mail: [phone], [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 15:40 EDT
From: Eric Swenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks

Patrick Townson asked that people familiar with sending mail from
various commercial networks to the Internet relate the process to the
telecom community.  I am on MCI Mail.  The procedure for sending to
the internet is as follows:

    1) Use the "CREATE" command as usual.
    2) At the "TO:" prompt, type in the person's name followed by
           "(ems)".  In other words, follow the person's name with the
       letters "ems" in parentheses.  The person's name is really
       not used, but is useful for user-friendly purposes.
    3) MCI Mail will notice the "(ems)" and prompt you for an
       External Mail System (EMS).  At the "EMS:" prompt, type
       "internet".  There are other networks you can use here,
       by the way -- type "HELP EMS" to find out what they are.
    4) Next, MCI Mail will prompt you for the mailbox.  At the
       "MBX:" prompt, type in the Internet address.  I.e.
       "[e-mail]".
        5) MCI Mail will then ask you to verify the address name and
       then will continue with further "TO:" prompts.
    6) You can use the same process for the "CC:" prompts.
    7) Everything else is as usual.

-- Eric ([e-mail]) [ugh!]


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

From:  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 89 00:17:12 GMT

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


MCI Mail boxes are arranged as phone numbers, like 367-9829 (my old box).
To address a MCI mail box, you can use that number exactly, with the dash,
or without the dash (3679829). MCI Mail sends to Internet the mailbox
number without the dash, and 2 zero's prefixed ("[e-mail]" is
what it would look like from MCI Mail).

>................... 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]

In MCI Mail, at the "Command:" prompt, type "CR" (for create letter).
At the "To:" prompt, type the name of the person you are sending to, followed
by "(EMS)" (with the paretheses (sp?)), like so:
     To: Joe Blow (ems)
Then, it will ask for the EMS system, type "Internet", like so:
     EMS: Internet
Then, it will ask for the MBX (mailbox) of the person, you type the internet
address at this point:
     MBX: [e-mail]
MCI Mail does NOT have a smart mailer. So, if you mail to UUCP, Bitnet, etc,
you have to use the gateways to get there, like so:
     MBX: bougus!address![e-mail]
                  <or>
     MBX: [e-mail]
          (this assumes the machine "address" is in the published UUCP maps).

MCI Mail polls NRI (their mail gateway) every 30 minutes.

In MCI Mail, you can send to a person by their name, but that is an
interactive session where if there was more than one match, you get to
pick the right person on MCI Mail. Mail from the Internet, you can't do
that, so you must know the MCI Mailbox number of that person.

The MCI Mail recepient does not see the Internet routing headers when they
recieve mail. The Internet mail can be directly "REplied" to in MCI Mail.
Your Internet address can be part of a "list" on someones MCI Mail acct
(alaiases).

MCI Mail will send a message to the originator (on MCI Mail) if the message
has not been delivered (because of TCP foul-ups, host down, etc.) It will
keep trying for 3 days, the it will return the message as undeliverable.

On Lotus Express, when you create a letter, at the To: prompt, hit "F9" to
expand the address, the fill the "EMS" and "MBX" prompts like usual.

Hope this helps.

     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: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 20:17:12 GMT

>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.

Sending mail from MCI Mail to the Internet works the same way as from MCI
mail to any other network to which they have a gateway.  You give the "EMS"
option after the recipient's address, then the network name "Internet" and
for the mailbox address, the Internet address of the recipient.  The gateway
is very well implemented and does a good job of preserving mail addresses so
you can respond to them smoothly.  When sending into MCI Mail, the mailbox
number is written with no punctuation, so my address there is
[e-mail].  I have seen no documentation for this gateway, but
since at the moment messages pass both ways for free (not even the usual MCI
Mail message charge) I can hardly complain.

>From Compuserve, you give an address like ">INTERNET: [e-mail]" on
the address line.  HELP INTERNET gives more info.  Inbound, the two parts of
the Compuserve user number are separated by a dot, rather than the usual
comma.

I don't use AT&T Mail, but my understanding is that it acts somewhat like a
very large uucp site, and regular uucp bang syntax should work.

--
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
[e-mail], {ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, [e-mail]
Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old.  -The Globe


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

Date: Mon Sep  4 18:14:32 1989
From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Interest In a Newsgroup For Discussion on Intelligent Network
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: Linton Technology - SwitchView

In article <[e-mail]> anthony%batserver.cs.uq.
[e-mail] writes:

>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.

I would be happy to discuss IN with you.  We manufacture a telephony based
network management system here at Linton Technology.  I try to keep up on what
is happening in the areas you mentioned.  I would be all for a new group on
this but doubt you'll get anywhere.  So if you're looking for people who are
interested in discussing these things put my name on the list.

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:  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Name and Address Records at New York Telephone
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 23:32:21 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 346, message 2 of 7

>> In article <[e-mail]> the Moderator writes:
>> > What is the CN&A Bureau, how does it operate?

>    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 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.

When I use to work at MCI, we had a list of the so-called CNA bureaus
that we would call when we needed to look up the name of a disputed
number, and NYNEX was right in there. We would call them up, and after
giving them a number (I.D. number, no doubt), we would give them the
telephone number in question. Pac Bell is the same way.

In the area of security, in MCI, their customer system was called OCIS
(pronounced "oh-sis"), for On-line Customer Information System. It ran
(runs) on multiple IBM 3070's running VMS, in a CICS appication (it
uses DB-2 for the database). The thing I seem to remember is that they
were lax as far as what you can get from OCIS. Almost everybody could
get the full billing information on you (from anywhere in the country, the
country is divided up into 7 divisions, and you'd have to "access" each
division to find somebody, but that just takes a few more keystrokes).
The only thing they placed restrictions on was who could view Calling
Card codes and who could do changes to that account. They just now got
on-line call-detail, and the call detail is held on-line for 3 months
before it is archived. That is how I found an ex-girlfriend (and saw who
she was calling to boot). We had fun looking up celebrities and other
people we knew to see who they were calling (get the numbers, call the
appropriate CNA, then volia, "We Got Your Number!") It was a great way
to kill time, needless to say.

Needless to say also, I don't work at MCI anymore, that's why I'm telling
you all this.

     Robert Gutierrez
     <[e-mail]> from a borrowed acount.
     ****ALL VIEWS STATED ARE NOT THE SAME SHARED BY THE UNIV. OF CALIF****
     >>>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: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BOCs and Regionals
Date: 5 Sep 89 13:11:58 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, esegue![e-mail].
net (John R. Levine) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> nvuxr!deej@bellcore.
> bellcore.com (David Lewis) writes:
> >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.

Oh, well, my diagram is wrong.  Shoulda trusted the LATA maps, not the
stupid PR stuff.

While we're picking nits, there are five other New England states...

> 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.

Give that man a half a cigar.  Delaware is entirely served by Diamond
State Tel.  Rhode Island (must be the other New England state he forgot
about ;-)) is entirely served by New England Tel.  Both of these
according to the LATA maps in Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks,
which are three years old.

--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #352
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 20:36:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #353
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Sep 89 20:35:25 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 353

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Phil Stanhope)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John DeArmond)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Scott D. Green)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
    Radio Call-signs In Airplanes (Robert M. Hamer)
    Re: GTE Bashing?! (was: BOCs and Regionals) (Kevin Blatter)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution (Steven Gutfreund)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution (Jim Gonzalez)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution / Fascination with Numbers (Dave Madsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 89 09:42:21 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers


> 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.

Is there a distinction between "common carriers" and "utilities" like
the electric and gas companies? I was under the belief that electric
companies charge differing rates depending upon consumption, when the
consumption occured, etc...

If this is the case that there are tiered cost scales for other utilities
then I see no reason why a business couldn't be charged less/more for
a particular telecommunications service.

Phil Stanhope
Gold Hill Computers, Inc.
Cambridge, MA.
[e-mail]

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

From: John DeArmond <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 6 Sep 89 17:48:56 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "Where Time Stands Still"


nvuxr![e-mail] (David Lewis) writes:

^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 --

But you missed my point.  Sure they can't do this under the current rules.
I'm advocating CHANGING THE RULES just as they did to allow for billed DA in
the first place.  I repeat, you don't punish the whole population for the
misdeeds of a few.  At least that used to be the American way.

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: Tue, 5 Sep 89 12:21 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)

It used to be that the FCC was Very Particular about how a station identified
itself:  the "official" ID had to run within 2 or 3 (I can't remember) minutes
of the top of the hour.  An official ID consisted of the Call Letters followed
immediately by the city of license.  And they meant "immediately":

"WABC, New York" was legal; "WABC in New York" was not.  If an AM and FM
station shared the same call sign, that needed to be included as well:

"WCBS-FM, New York".

The FCC is a *little* more lax now - the hourly ID only needs to run once
per hour; it doesn't matter when.

Another factor in how the stations ID themselves is how the ratings service
credit the stations for listeners.  Used to be that the station only got
credit for a listener if the listener listed the FCC call sign in the
listener log.  Now, I believe that the stations get credit for Easy-101,
Hot Hits 98, TalkRadio 77, etc. etc.  Stations would much rather build
their identity thru a logo-trademark kind of thing (even if it is
franchised or purchased from a Format Company), than a sterile set of
4 letters, so you will often find, on these heavily formatted stations, that
the "legal" ID is buried in the middle of a jingle touting their logo.

-scott

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 13:17:33 PDT
From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.

vrdxhq!escom.com![e-mail] (Al Donaldson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, (Paolo Bellutta)
>writes:
>...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

>It seems that call letters are rarely used anymore, except perhaps
>when filing to the FCC for a license renewal :-).

I'm pretty sure that stations can call themselves anything they
want most of the time, except for their top-of-the-hour legal ID.
Every station *has* to give a legal ID at the top of the hour,
and that is (invariably, I think) the call letters and transmitter
location.

For instance, K-ROCK in New York (an offshoot of Infinity Broadcasting's
KROQ in Los Angeles, I believe) calls itself K-ROCK over and over again.
"92.3 K-ROCK," "K-ROCK New York." But, at the top of the hour (+/- 5
minutes) they always say, somewhat sheepishly, "This is W-X-R-K, New York."

At our radio station, I can -- and frequently do -- call it anything
I want for station ID's. "This is Postmodern 90.1" or "You're attuned
to FM 90.1, Stanford University." But at the top of the hour, I *have*
to say, "KZSU, Stanford."

Dan


--
# Daniel M. Rosenberg    //  Stanford CSLI  // Eat my opinions, not Stanford's.
# [e-mail] // decwrl!csli!dmr // [e-mail]


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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 89 09:04 EDT
From: "ROBERT M. HAMER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Call-signs In Airplanes

Roy Smith <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Other types of radio services use both W and K, depending.
>
>Don't airplanes use N prefixes for their call signs?

Aircraft radios are licensed by the FCC, and pilots have to get a
"Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit" (at least that's what
mine says) in order to operate it.  As a call sign, one uses the
FAA-registered aircraft identification number.

All US-registered civilian aircraft have aircraft identification
numbers that start with "N."

(Oh, I just lied a bit; Airlines get to identify themselves to
ATC via radio using their flight numbers, regardless of their
aircraft ID number, e.g., "Richmond Approach, this is US Air 1462,
32 miles southwest, ...."  The rest of us would say, "Richmond
Approach, this is November 1 5 4 9-er Quebec, 32 miles southwest..."

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

From: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals )
Date: 5 Sep 89 13:12:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA


> 4. Total local switch failure (one lasted two days in Los Gatos)

My brother used to live in Honolulu on Bishop Street, which is the heart
of the business district in Hawaii.  A couple of years ago, the CO which
handles the entire business district crashed for two days!

Imagine what would happen if NYNEX announced that one of the CO's in
Manhattan was going to be down for two days!

*Turn on rumor mode*

I had heard that GTE was abandoning their Central Office Switch
manufacturing and would be replacing their CO equipment with AT&T
5ESS's.  I can't find the source, so I guess that's what makes it a
rumor.

*Turn off rumor mode*

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs

Disclaimer - I speak for myself, not AT&T

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

From: Steven Gutfreund <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution
Date: 6 Sep 89 16:56:12 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


While we are on the topic of phonebooks: Has anyone found the 800-directory
phonebook from AT&T useful? I ordered it, paid for it, and I can't say
that I have really gotten any good use out of it. Furthermore, I am familiar
with many 800 numbers (e.g. credit card companies) who are not listed in
it, but who freely advertise their number.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund                   [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA                harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 89 15:05:38 -0400
From: [e-mail]

In a recent Telecom Digest, Mike Trout writes:

> 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

I don't know about this. It seems to me that when advertising money gets
tight, businesses are going to fall back to the book issued by the local
telco.  Distribution is bound to be more extensive, and customers who
really want the yellow pages call the telco, not "Sorta Yellow Publishing".
Come to think of it, I haven't received any unsolicited "alternate yellow
pages" lately.

In Boston, at least until recently, individual orders for phone books were
filled through contractors.  A guy in an unmarked white van drove around
dropping sets in accordance with a worksheet.  An order I placed last month,
however, was delivered by the mailman.  If the contractor arrangement is
used for general distribution, I could easily imagine crews trying to unload
as many books at a given place as they can.  After all, five stops is easier
than twenty in emptying a truck.

                -Jim.

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

Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution / Fascination with Numbers
Date: Wed Sep  6 08:59:43 1989
From: Dave Madsen <vijit![e-mail]>

This message is really for two topics I saw in the digest.

1)  Telephone books.  I'm in a Chicago suburb.  When I recently added another
    phone line, I was asked what directories I wanted.  I said I had a set
    and didn't need any more.  Brrrt-  Sorry, that's not an option!  So I
    got a regional (this 'burb and surrounding communities) directory and
    yellow pages combined.

    Also I asked for a Chicago directory (those are not normally distributed
    outside the city) and a 'B' and 'C' Chicago yellow pages.  One is
    "Business-to-Business" and the other one is for "normal" use.  Again, we
    normally don't get those.  Inside the city, I believe that residential
    subscribers normally get only the "regular" one and business customers
    get both yellow pages.

    Since I was curious, too, I asked the phone company about other areas'
    phone books.  You can get any phone book you want for free, but if it's
    for some weird place, I get the idea that they'd kinda like an
    explanation.  (Heh Heh Heh, put him on the racks!).  When I moved in my
    old condo, there was a phone book left there from the North Pole and
    surrounding areas.  Wasn't too big...  Anyway, before I chucked it,
    I did verify that Santa Claus was listed.  And no, I didn't call and also
    forgot to write down the number.

2)  Fascination with numbers.  When I was a lot younger, I used to be
    very interested in the "special" numbers used by the phone co. for
    whatever reason.  Most have changed, I suppose.  Here's a list of what
    I still have (remember this is in the Chicago area).

    xxx-9996:  1000 Hz Tone (most exchanges).  My notes also say
               "try -9949 and 9940".

    796-9600:  Name/Address Locator Service.  I suppose that most people
               know about this one.  They answer the phone "what number?",
               you say a phone number, and they give the subscriber's
               name and address unless, of course, it's unpublished.
               I needed this service once in another city, and was told here
               to ask Directory Assistance there for the "Name/Address Locator
               Service", but the remote DA never heard of such a service, so
               maybe it's only local.

    There used to be a phone number that you could call to get the phone number
    you're calling from, but that's long since changed, and I don't have the
    new one.  I'm told that they change it every few months.  If anyone has
    more info on that, I'd like to know.  It used to be VERY handy to find out
    the phone number for your company modems when the DYMO label fell off and
    you needed to call the thing.  So now, instead, we have rack-mounts in the
    computer room, and while there's numbers on the jacks, going from the rack
    to the jack you have to pass through this massive throbbing pile of wire
    ("Yep, Harry went near there last week and fell in.  Haven't seen him
    since.")

Dave Madsen   ---dcm

gargoyle.uchicago.edu!vijit!madsen (uucp)  or  [e-mail] (domain)

This message claims to state the personal opinion of ONLY myself, and no other
person or organization.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #353
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 21:47:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #354
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Sep 89 21:45:25 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 354

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: German Enclave Wants Full Swiss Status (Tom Hofmann)
    Re: New Services Offered by Southern Bell (Anthony Lee)
    Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal? (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: "House Sitter" Unit Wanted (Dan Becker)
    Re: Telephone Problems With Modem (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Dan Griffin)
    Custom Calling Options in Some Virginia Communities (Carl Moore)
    Where Are We Going From Here? (Bernard Mckeever)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Hofmann <mcvax!cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: German Enclave Wants Full Swiss Status
Date: 6 Sep 89 12:33:44 GMT
Organization: WRZ, CIBA-GEIGY Ltd, Basel, Switzerland


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(VLD/VMB):
> 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.

9 digits are not unusual within Switzerland, neither Germany.  In both
countries it is about the mean number of digits of a phone number including
area code.  And along the borders of area codes 9 digit numbers can be required
for distances of less than one mile.

Buesingen is not the only place like this, anyway. Campione d'Italia is an
Italian enclave in southern Switzerland. To the contrary of Buesingen they are
fully integrated in the Swiss telephone system.

Furthermore there are several Austrian localities which belong to the German
customs area. They have both, an Austrian and a German area code (which are not
the same), and they even have two different ZIP codes. One of the funny things
around there is that you buy Austrian stamps and pay them in Deutsch Marks.

Tom Hofmann        [e-mail]

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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Services Offered by Southern Bell
Date: 6 Sep 89 14:40:04 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science Department, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia

In article <[e-mail]> anthony%batserver.cs.uq.
[e-mail] writes:
>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

If "call forwarding" takes precedence over 'transfer on busy or no answer'
that means if  call forwarding and transfer on busy are turned on
at the same time.  A incoming call would be forwarded regardless of the
fact that the phone might not even be busy.

>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
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Patrick that doesn't sound right ?  If forwarding is turned on then all
calls should be forwarded no matter whether it's been forwarded before or
not.  Suppose the incoming call was from another switch then how does the
switch I am on know that it's been "transfer on busy" in the previous
switch ?

>not done a detailed explanation of Starline in quite awhile; if there is
>interest, I will post it again.  PT]

Yes, please could you ?  Does the manual you get with Starline tells you
in advance what features cannot be used together etc.  ?

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: Okay, in a day or so, I'll recap all the Starline features.
Jon Solomon tells me he recently got Intelli-Dial turned on at his place,
so maybe he will send a summary of that also, to compare the differences.  PT]

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

From: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal?
Date: 6 Sep 89 18:16:56 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]
(Uri Blumenthal) writes:
>Well, maybe I'm too bold, but I consider it as a sort of permission to
>post some more stuff on this topic.

Don't be shy.  You're welcome here.


>    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.

The key here is reliable link.  If you're doing business, you can apply for a
business radio license and find some frequencies to use in the 30-50 range as
well as 150-174, 450-470 and up.  (All these numbers are megahertz.)  You can
also contact a communications reseller and rent both radios and space on a
"community repeater" which will provide more reliable communications.  If
you're not a skilled radio hacker, this is a good bet since you'll have a
communications solution tailored by professionals to your needs.  Make sure you
shop around as both quality of service and price will vary greatly.  If you
just want to talk to your wife, cellular or old style mobile telephone will do
the trick and will be cheaper.

Amateur radio is a complex means to an end.  If you're not interested in the
code and tech stuff, it's lots of work to gain access to a very limited subset
of the spectrum.  And both you and the party you're communicating with need to
be licensed.  Also, you're not allowed to do "business".

>        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.

Just get a CB Radio and have at it.  They can be had for under $100 these days,
and can be instaslled with cigarette lighter cords and magnet mount antenna.
As I was corrected earlier, you don't need a license, although you do need to
follow the rules, which many individuals don't do.

>        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 :-).

Some police monitor 9 and some monitor 19, the trucker channel. Usually they
post signs.  Again, the CB mentioned above will do the trick cheaply.

If I've made any more mistakes, I'm sure the net will point them out :-) :-).

--
Ed Greenberg
uunet!apple!netcom!edg

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 15:06 EDT
From: DC Becker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "House Sitter" Unit Wanted

A very nice unit is sold by MISCO [phone] and other similiar outfits.
It does precisely what you are looking for. It monitors temperature, ac power,
internal battery, remote contact closures and sound level. You can either call
in yourself to see how things are going, or it will call you (sequences thru 4
phone numbers until someone calls back to acknowledge the problem) if something
triggers it.

We are using the unit called the Sensaphone 1000 Desktop Environmental Monitor-
ing system made by Phonetics, Inc. When a problem comes up, it calls you and
tells you in a synthesized voice what's happening, and lets you listen to the
room sound levels.

Also available from Phonetics (not Misco) are a number of accessories which
allow monitoring of humidity and other types of sensors that plug in. It works
for us.

Dan Becker
AT&T Bell Labs
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed Sep  6 02:16:28 1989
From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Problems With Modem
Organization: Linton Technology - SwitchView

In article <[e-mail]> munnari!murdu.ucs.unimelb.
EDU.au![e-mail] (Darren Wyatt Williams) writes:

>The problem I have arises when communicating via the modem while the
>phone is attached in the handset socket. No problems occur for about

Do you mean that you have plugged your telephone itself into the modem, in
it's jack labeled 'phone'?  I assume you do.

>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.

By 'new telecom' I assume you mean an electronic key telephone attached to
a business type telephone switching system (a PBX or Key System).

>          Can anyone suggest a reason for this problem and a possible
>solution. Any suggestions are welcome.

If my assumptions are correct the problem could be power related.  Electronic
telephones generally derive their power (for their basic functions anyway)
from the lines.  Usually the phone has two pairs of wires feeding it; one
pair that carries the audio and one which carries the 'data' signalling to
run the set.  The power (probably -24 volts) is across the pairs.  There is no
potential between wires in a pair, but between a wire from the voice pair and
a wire from the data pair you should be able to measure a voltage (24V).

You may have a problem in the modem that is affecting this power transmission.
One thing that comes to mind is 'A & A1 control'.  This is something that most
Hayes compatibles do if you turn it on, and it simply provides a short on the
second pair to signal a key telephone system whenever the modem is off hook.
Another thing that would cause a problem is the disconnection of the set (the
one plugged into the modem) when the modem is in use.  This happens on some
modems.

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, 3 Sep 89 02:21:32 pdt
From: [e-mail] (Dan Griffin)
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] )

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

Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 12:26:40 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Custom Calling Options In Some Virginia Communities

 From the Roanoke and Botetourt Tel. Co. directory (serving Troutville, etc.,
just north of Roanoke, Va.; phone [phone]):

Custom Calling Features:
Call Waiting
Call Forwarding
3-Way Calling
Speed Calling
Do Not Disturb
Automatic Wake-Up
Eldercare
Package Rate (All Of The Above Features)

I continued north on U.S. 220 and came to the CFW Tel. Co. directory
for Clifton Forge-Covington, Va. (also Potts Creek, which is apparently
nearby but which I can't yet find on a map).  It includes:

Toll Control
Toll Denial

Both of these prevent 0+ and 1+ calls, except that the former will permit
such calls with the proper user-defined access code.  For the latter, it
is necessary to warn the customer that among the prohibited calls will be
0 for the operator in an emergency or when in need of help in calling.

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

Date: Wed,  6 Sep 89 15:05:56 EDT
From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where Are We Going From Here?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Well it looks like someone beat me the SXS story so here's just a few quick
thoughts to get your minds off the calling number identification issue.

25 years ago, who would have thought that the network would evolve to what it
is today. At that time digital transmission facilities were just being
introduced. They could connect two central offices, up to 25 miles apart, over
existing exchange cables. Today we have fiber to the home and the beginnings of
a true broadband interoffice network. What might tomorrow bring? If, for the
moment, we leave the *all import issue* of network management aside, imagine
what the home of the near future might be like.

Think of communications and information services as a commodity that draws a
close parallel to the present electrical distribution plant. No one tells a
toaster what to do, the function is built into the appliance. Will we have
1.5, 45, and 500 megabit service runing to our homes and business to match our
requirements? Several outlets in each room for connection?

One bill per month for cable TV, phone, FAX, security,... the list goes on.
Pay for the bandwidth you use and decide for yourself what appliances to buy.
Of course many large users approach this capability today, but it will soon
spread to us little people. Telecommuting may yet become common, and other
opportunities appear endless. Find a vendor with a service you want and
arrange for access.

If this seems like a pipe dream, check out some of the field trials that are
going on today. It never ceases to amaze me what we take for granted today,
that was considered impossible yesterday.

Enjoy the discussion :-} and turn the "gee wizz kids" loose on the
applications.

Bernie McKeever
508-960-6289


[Moderator's Note: Bernie, thanks very much for a very fitting close to
this issue of the Digest. Indeed, the changes going on in just the past
decade -- let alone the past quarter century of telephony are astounding.
To the younger folks, it probably does not seem all that mind-boggling,
but some of us have been three or four major changes: from manual service
to the very early stepper switches; then to crossbar and more sophisticated
applications such as E-911 (we had this in Chicago on crossbar!); then to
ESS; now various enhancements to that. Where does it end? You tell me what
to expect in the year 2014, a quarter-century from now.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #354
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 7 Sep 89 0:01:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #355
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Sep 89 00:00:07 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 355

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Country Direct Numbers (John Keator, NPR, via John R. Covert
    DC Area Dialing Procedure Changes (Greg Monti, NPR, via John R. Covert)
    Directory Enquiries (UK) (Kevin Hopkins)
    Help, Weird Equipment Required! (Dave Madsen)
    New Jersey Bell Strike Settled! (Mark Robert Smith)

[Moderator's Note: You should have received several Digests Wednesday
evening/Thursday AM to catch up on the huge backlog of messages here. In
a special edition of the Digest this weekend, Larry Lippman discusses
a central office in great detail. To be distributed Saturday.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 18:57:40 -0700
From: "John R. Covert  05-Sep-1989 2128" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Country Direct Numbers

 [This message, and the one that follows, were forwarded to the Digest
  by John Covert, who received them from the parties named at NPR.  PT]

 From:   John Keator, National Public Radio
 Date:   5 Sept 89
 To:     Telecom Digest
 Re:     Country Direct Numbers

In researching the availability of the reverse of USA Direct numbers for
an upcoming international conference we are co-hosting I received the
following list from AT&T.  Most of these numbers are for collect calls
only as many do not have calling cards.  Denmark has the additional
restriction of only being available from 3PM to 10 PM, (the time zone is
not indicated,); apparently they feel the service only warrants one shift.

ALL NUMBERS ARE 800-

Australia       682-2878
Austria         624-0043
Belgium         N/A
Denmark         762-0045
Finland         232-0358
France          537-2623
FR Germany      292-0049
Hong Kong       992-2323
Italy           543-7662
Japan           543-0051
Korea           882-8256
Netherlands     432-0031
New Zealand     248-0064
Norway          292-0047
Sweden          345-0046
Switzerland     N/A
UK              445-5667

I'm sure there are others, but these are the countries I requested.
There is apparently no single book with all numbers included.  Now, I
wonder what rate is charged for these calls?

John Keator
NPR Washington
202 822 2800

[Note from John Covert:  I called Italy and Germany, both of which accept
collect calls only (no credit cards) and charge as follows:

Italy:         4721 L ($3.34)/min 6p-7a otherwise 6000 L ($4.25)/min
Germany:     DM 24 ($12.13) first minute, DM 3.22 ($1.63) ea addl minute]

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

From: John Covert <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 00:00:00
Subject: DC Area Dialing Procedure Changes

  From:  Greg Monti, NPR, Washington, DC

Carl Moore <[e-mail]> writes:

>Greg  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.

I think that's logical.  There will probably have to be a "waiting period"
before these details can work themselves out.  Much like there is after an
Area Code split.

>That's the only DC-area case I know of where more than 7 digits are
>currently needed on a local call.

Not any more.  Some of my postings may have gotten waylaid on their way to
Telecom Digest (I'm not on this net) so you may not have seen this:

Beginning on 9 July 1988, calls between *most* Northern Virginia exchanges and
*most* Prince William County exchanges were changed from being Toll Calls to
being "Extended Area Calls."   [If you want the list of affected Rate Areas, I
can probably provide it.]  To explain in detail:

I believe that "Northern Virginia" means "any exchange in Virginia, whether
controlled by Contel or by C&P, which is a local call from Washington, DC."

"Prince William County" means "any exchange in Virginia, controlled by Contel,
which is inside ('associated with') the Washington LATA and which is not
already included in the definition of 'Northern Virginia' above."  This
includes all of Prince William County plus a small part of Loudoun County
(Arcola exchange) and maybe a small part of Stafford County (Stafford
exchange).

In Virginia, you have the option of ordering six different levels of local
phone service, some of which charge for local calls by time of day, distance
and time spent talking.  Charging this way for Local Calls is called Local
Measured Service.

"Extended Area" means a special type of Local Call which is ALWAYS billed at
Local Measured Service Rates regardless of the type of local calling plan your
phone has.  From C&P PAY PHONES, Extended Area calls are a flat 25 cents no
matter how long you talk, just like all Local Calls are.

In most of Virginia, Extended Area Calls are dialed with just seven digits,
even if they cross an Area Code boundary.  Presumably, this is done to fix
the thought in the minds of subscribers that "this is not going to be charged
at Long Distance Rates."  Indeed, Extended Area Rates are about 80% lower
than Intrastate, Intra-LATA Toll Rates for the same distance.  This dialing
rule cannot apply in the Northern Virginia/Prince William case.  Here's why:

As Central Office Codes were given out over the years, it was assumed that
Prince William would always be a Toll Call from Northern Virginia.  So,
prefixes which duplicated those used in the Washington Metropolitan portion of
Suburban Maryland were allowed to be used in Prince William (and vice versa)
since different dialing procedures would apply when calling those two places
(Prince William and Maryland) from Northern Virginia.  Calling Metro Maryland
would be 7 digits.  Calling Prince William would be 10 digits (now 11 digits
since 1987).

Once Extended Area Calling arrived, it was logical to reduce the dialing in
both directions between Northern Virginia and Prince William from 11 to 7
digits.  This was done in the Prince William to Northern Virginia direction.
But it could not be done in the opposite direction due to the code
duplications that had been implemented over the years.  The then- (and now-)
in-effect Washington Metro dialing rule that "all calls between Met exchanges
are 7 digits" required that 7 digit dialing to Maryland remain.  Therefore,
Extended Area Calls from Northern Virginia to Prince William had to remain at
11 digits, even though they were now a form of Local Call.

Therefore, there *are* cases besides the Bowie-Glenn Dale foreign exchanges you
mention where Local Calls within the same Area Code are now 11 digits.  It was
done for the same reason in both cases.  These, too, should logically be
reduced to 7 digits after a suitable waiting period after 7-digit interstate
dialing ends.

>Your announcement of 1 Oct. 1990 is the first time I have heard a date for
>that change.

I got that from two sources, the front page of the Washington Post (sometime
in May 89) and also from the Arlington (Virginia) Journal.  The Journal's
version of the story also noted that 10 digit dialing for Local Calls across
the Area Code boundaries would become *optional* on 1 January 1990 and
*mandatory* on 1 October 1990.  Currently, dialing these at 10 digits is
*impossible* (blocked by "cannot complete as dialed" recording).

>I previously asked in this Digest:  Does that mean that Md. & Va. suburbs are
>being removed from area code 202?

Yes.  I cannot think of any way in which prefixes could be duplicated in two
Area Codes where those calling from outside the region could dial either Area
Code and still get routed correctly.  The 202 mapping will have to end.

Example:  My home phone is in 703-979, also reachable as 202-979.  Once a REAL
202-979 prefix is assigned - the whole purpose of this exercise is to allow
that - then one would be connected to the new 202-979 when dialing 202-979 and
could no longer reach me that way.  You could, of course, still reach me by
dialing 703-979.  Businesses that have cheated for years by painting Area Code
202 on the sides of their trucks when they're really served by 301 or 703
prefixes are going to have to re-paint.  Ditto for those who have *no* Area
Code in their advertising.  That's their problem.

By the way, only the Washington Metropolitan portions of 301 and 703 are
mapped into Area Code 202.  Exchanges slightly further out which are still
local to DC but Toll to the far side of 202, were apparently never mapped into
202 and are not reachable that way.  There's an element of logic in that since
it distinguishes "Washington Metropolitan" from "all other."

>(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.)

I think there are several areas, also well outside Washington, but in 703,
where local calls to another Area Code are 7 digits.  There are a few near
Winchester that are local to an exchange in Area 304 in West Virginia.

ADDENDUM:  By the way, for purposes of determining Local and Extended Calling
Areas, Area Code 202 is divided into two Rate Areas:  The smaller one is
called "Pentagon, Department of Defense."  Everything else in 202 is called
"Washington."  The reason for the splitup:  Pentagon prefixes, although in
202, are physically located in Virginia.  Pentagon numbers are NOT also mapped
into Area Code 703.  (In fact, one of the Pentagon prefixes, 202-694, is
duplicated as 703-694 in Stuart, a small town in outstate Virginia.)

Calls from Washington to Prince William County are Toll.

Calls from Pentagon to Prince William County are Extended Area, and are
currently dialed with 11 digits.  They may change to 10 digits when the dust
settles.

Calls from Prince William to Pentagon are also Extended Area.  I have seen no
definitive literature on how those calls are dialed.  The general Contel
brochure which accompanied the 1988 change said that one would no longer
have to dial 1 + 703 for these calls, ignoring the fact that the Pentagon is
in 202.  I *think* that these calls are now 7 digits, but will change to 10
(not 11) digits after 1 October 1990.

Sorry for the delay in replying.  I received your 16 August posting on 5
September.

Greg Monti, National Public Radio, Washington, DC  [phone]

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

Subject: Directory Enquiries (UK)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 89 15:39:34 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>

(Originally sent on Thu, 24 Aug 89 10:36:37 +0100, but - you guessed it -
the UK once again held it up - pkh.)

Here's a UK view of charging for DA calls.

Over  here in  the  UK  British Telecom  (BT)  has  unsuccessfully tried to
introduce charges for directory enquiry calls  a few times  over the last 5
or so years.  The main reason that the attempts have failed is that BT only
provide a phone directory book for your local area.  If I have the name and
address of a company in  London  but no phone number  I will  phone 192 and
expect to be given the number without charge. This is the  attitude of most
of the people in the UK, that is why BT have been defeat on the charges for
192. Now if people were to be given a terminal linked into the whole of the
UK directory enquiries database (as the French have for  their database) or
we were given all the UK phone books by default ( :-) then people would not
mind paying  for 192. The fact  is that as  we do not  have the information
provided for us by default so we expect to be given it without charge. Most
people over here usually complain that BT is being immoral (yep, that's the
word they use) when they try charging for 192 as  there is no  other source
for the information 192 provides.

Now, I think there is a case  for charging for local  directory enquires as
it usually means that I am too  lazy to get off my  ar*e and find the phone
book, though there should be a method for the operator to cancel the charge
if the number   I am looking  for  has  changed/been added since  the  last
printing  of  the phone directory  book.  192  calls from coin boxes should
still be free as the yobs  have normally torn up the  phone directory books
to use as bog roll. We can but dream.

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [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: Help, Weird Equipment Required!
Date: Wed Sep  6 09:16:06 1989
From: Dave Madsen <vijit![e-mail]>

I need to get a device that'll hook into an IBM type (preferably) PC, that'll
do the following:

1)  Call a specified phone number.
2)  Return a status to me of BUSY, NO ANSWER, or ANSWER.
3)  Repeat all these steps under computer control.

Nope, this is not for illegal purposes, nor is it for telemarketing, an
activity that *ought* to be illegal...

At night, certain phone lines are supposed to be forwarded to *recordings*.
This device would be used to check these lines to see if the lines are properly
forwarded (ANSWER) or if someone forgot (NO ANSWER) or if we need to try again
later (BUSY).  Since this would happen at night, there's going to be nobody
around to do the test, just a lonely computer.

I'm not a telephone person, and have no idea of what kind of gear is out there.
Do you know who has such stuff, so I could call them, or of any way I could
find out who has equipment like this?  Would a telemarketing equipment supplier
have stuff like this?  Do you know any dealers?  (Although I hate supporting
that industry).

"Signed, Desperate"     :-)

Thanks very much!

Dave Madsen   ---dcm

gargoyle.uchicago.edu!vijit!madsen (uucp)  or  [e-mail] (domain)

This message claims to state the personal opinion of ONLY myself,
and no other person or organization.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 89 12:09:52 EDT
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Jersey Bell Strike Settled!

According to the Associated Press (as quoted in the Rutgers _Daily Targum_),
the CWA and IBEW have settled with NJ Bell.  This means that the CWA has
gone back to work today (9/6/89), and that the IBEW will be voting on the
contract today.

The CWA had signed an agreement on August 28, but they stayed out in support
of the IBEW until now.  The IBEW could be back on the job Friday.

The terms of the settlement includes a 3% wage increase for the first year,
and 2.25% the second.  Pensions for those retiring after August 6, 1989 will
be increased by 15%.  There will also be a health care network set up
to hold down costs for Bell Atlantic workers.

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 #355
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 7 Sep 89 1:09:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #356
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Sep 89 01:00:15 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 356

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Centel Issues Refund, Sets Lower Rate (TELECOM Moderator)
    Japanese Power and Phone Connections (Doug Corey)
    Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks (Scott Loftesness)
    Benign Use of Caller ID (Henning Schulzrinne)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question  (Ben Ullrich)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 6 Sep 89 19:52:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Centel Issues Refund, Sets Lower Rate

Centel Telephone customers will receive a $1 million refund and a $1 million
rate decrease under a plan announced several days ago by Cook County, IL
State's Attorney Cecil A. Partee.

The agreement, filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission, calls for Centel's
134,000 Illinois customers to receive a $4 - $6 credit as a refund.

Customers will save an estimated 40 cents per month from the permanent rate
reduction. Partee had threatened to file suit against Centel because the
telco had failed to pass along savings they realized under the Tax Reform
Act of 1986, which reduced the corporate income tax from 46 percent to 34
percent.

Centel serves customers in Park Ridge and Des Plaines, IL, two northwest
suburbs of Chicago. In addition, they serve a small number of customers
in a little section of the northwest side of Chicago.

The refund and lower rate will commence upon being programmed into the
computer, and will be retroactive to September 1, 1989.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 89 17:26:12 MDT
From: Doug Corey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japanese Power and Phone Connections

In a couple of weeks several people from Japan will be demonstrating
some things they have been working on at a workshop here in Denver.
They are bringing their own equipment (PCs, modems, a CAPTAIN terminal,
etc.)  One of them is concerned (justifiably) whether his equipment
will work.  He has asked for 100 (not 110 or 120) volt power, a "Japanese"
style receptacle, and "Japanese" style phone receptacles for the modems.
He sent a picture of the telephone receptacle and plug, it looks just like an
RJ11 plug and receptacle to me.  Does anyone know whether the Japanese
commonly use RJ11?  Does anyone know what kind of power is typically
provided at "wall outlets", i.e. what voltage and frequency, and what
a "Japanese" style power plug looks like?.  If it matters, most of these
people are from the Tokyo area.  (Someone told me they use 50 hertz power
in the "North", 60 hertz in the "South"!

I appreciate your help.

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

Date: 05 Sep 89 10:49:43 EDT
From: Scott Loftesness W3VS (HamNet) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks

Using the new EasyPlex -> Internet bridge is very easy requiring that the
addressee be supplied as follows:

>internet:user@domain

That's all there is to it.  From MCI Mail to Internet, the procedure involves
specifying:

TO: Username (EMS)
EMS: Internet
MBX: user@domain

Scott Loftesness
[e-mail] (SysOp of the HamNet Amateur Radio/SWL Forum)


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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 12:02 EST
From: Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Benign Use of Caller ID

While most correspondence (enough to fill a CD-ROM or two) seems to have
dealt with the privacy aspects of caller ID, there is, in my opinion, a
rather legitimate use of caller ID in the business setting. For the
purposes I will discuss below, showing the caller name would be preferable
(and also solve the unlisted number issue, but not the necessarily the crank
call problem.)

My last name is not particularly suited for voice telephone transmission and
human speech recognition. (My German way of pronouncing my German name does not
help, I admit.) In other words, each time I ask for info, place an order or
whatever, I end up spelling my name at least twice and still get amazing
permutations on the mail that follows. People from India, Greece, and Poland
(among others) share that problem. I would be willing to pay a small monthly
fee if the receiving end could see my name and, if I choose to release it by
pressing a button, say, my address.

Henning Schulzrinne  ([e-mail])
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003 - USA

phone: [phone] (EST)       FAX:   [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 89 00:22:37 -0700
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>

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

> Remember, the purpose of the device we are discussing is to identify
> the calling party, not to enable you to return the call!

This has not been established; I wouldn't put this in such rhetorical terms!
I personally don't mind the idea of a code, but if the telephone number of the
initiator of a harassing caller ever flashed on my box, you can bet I'd call
them back pronto and return the favor.  I think having the full phone number of
the caller, even though it is unlisted, would be preferable to just a code, but
either way, there are ways around whatever comes to pass, and your reasons for
wanting a code are not really effective, nor completely fair --   read on.

> 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.

This can also be done by giving *them* a few calls back.  How many folks do
you think would harass you if you harassed them right back?  Not that I would
play telephone tag with some jerk I don't know, but it seems reasonable that
being able to call people back after they harass you on the phone is a fairly
effective method for dealing with the situation.  There have been testimonials
from people in this forum who have this service and have already used it to
put a quick stop to harassing calls simply by calling harassers back.  And
what if you run out of storage in your blocked number list?  All the
descriptions of the number blocking service have included limits to the list
of numbers that can be blocked.  If you are ever so fortunate to be on just
one telemarketing list, or to have a credit card, you can be sure that your
blocked list will grow right quick.  ``So call the telemarketers back and ask
them to stop calling you,'' you might say. RIGHT.  Ever try to tell a computer
you don't have dialup access to to forget about your record in their database?
I wouldn't believe any telephone marketing organization would remove my record
 from their files when I asked unless I could be allowed to remove it myself.

> Must I give up my right to have an unlisted phone number just because
> someone wants to be able to return a harassing phone call?

Read ``must I give up my rights so someone else can have theirs?''  Well, as
someone else was mentioning last week, yes and no.  Rights are only just if
they don't infringe upon those of others.  It seems we have that case here,
and it's a hard problem to solve.  I tend to think that if those with unlisted
numbers truly want to have privacy, they should not call anyone.  After all, if
they don't want anyone to bother them, why should they be able to bother
others?

Right now, if someone calls you and wakes you up at 4 am, you have no
recourse, and cannot return the favor.  With CID/non-pub, you remain anonymous
inasmuch as you cannot be called back if you should harass anyone else.  Why
should you have that privilege while the vast majority of callers are held
directly and immediately accountable for their calls since their numbers are
listed?  I think that the rights of those with unlisted numbers are being
carried out such that they will be conceptually immune from any identification
system, and everyone *else*'s rights to immediately know who is *invading
THEIR privacy* are sacrificed.  Unless every participant in the telephone
network is treated the same, the CID system cannot be truly fair to all,
listed and unlisted ALIKE, as it should be.

If someone with an unlisted number wanted to remain anonymous (or at least not
directly reachable) in the midst of CID, with codes or no codes, one
could certainly do so with other methods.  One could establish a line
for making calls, one that is listed, but is perhaps never answered,
or put your modem on this line.  Modem carriers are never very exciting.
Another separate line could be unlisted, and used only for receiving calls from
those to whom I give the number, or for making calls to the same.  I realize
that adding an extra line may seem a bit excessive of a step to achieve the
privacy that CID seems to be reworking, but if you really value your privacy,
you sometimes need to take steps to insure it.  Being the exception to the
rule often involves a price, which is not unreasonable, in my mind, at all.
Inconvenience in the interest of fairness for ALL is sometimes the price you
have to pay for your own liberty.

> Returning an obscene or harassing phone call can only escalate the problem
> further.

Not according to the testimonials here.  As I mentioned above, those who have
this service have demonstrated that they can put a quick stop to the harassment
by calling the person back and giving them some harassment they can understand.
If you have evidence that calling the person back only escalates the problem
further, let's see it!

> 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.

This is just sensationalism, scare tactics to make this seem like some big
brother is going to divulge everything about everyone unless those with
unlisted numbers are allowed to have their exception infringing on others
rights.  Let's stick to the issues, huh?

 ...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: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 5 Sep 89 13:52:10 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, buster![e-mail]
(Buster Irby) writes:
> Access to *my*
> unlisted phone number is something which *I* pay for and which *I* control,
> not anyone else.

Actually, no.  Access to "your" unlisted (unpublished) phone number is
something which the telco agrees to not provide in certain circumstances
-- published paper directories (with a reasonable likelihood to also
include "Electronic White Pages" -- machine-readable or online
directories -- if and when telcos get around to providing them) and
Directory Assistance.  "Your" unlisted phone number is provided by the
telco to Interexchange Carriers every time you make an inter-LATA call,
beyond your control; provided to information providers every time you
access an information (audiotext) service; there may be other cases
which don't come to mind immediately.

> [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]

Actually, people have.  Here at Bellcore we have some experimental
service trials, one of which is Caller Name Delivery.  (Don't have the
CPE for it, so we've got a bit of a hack with a DecTalk board -- you
pick up the phone, and it says "Call from so-and-so", then you press *
to accept the call or hang up to reject it.)

The problem is administering the database.  You'd like to meet the
emerging performance expectations from Calling Number Delivery --
deliver the name between the first and second rings.  That means you
have to have accessed the appropriate database and found the name before
the first ring is finished.  If you try to do it from the terminating
end, you've got to find a database on the originating end, send back a
query, and get a response, all in (probably) under 1-2 seconds.  Not
easy.  If you do the database lookup on the originating end -- makes
more sense, because that's where the information is -- you've got to
send the information along with the call setup information.  There's no
place to put it in SS7 basic call setup, so you've got to either hack it
in somewhere in SCCP (Signaling Connection Control Part) or go back to
standards and modify the protocol.  Also not fun.

(In the experiment at Bellcore, it's simple -- if the call isn't from
a station subtending the Red Bank CO, we don't get the caller name...)

In other words, a very good idea, and probably one which is a desirable
solution, but a bear to make work.

--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #356
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 7 Sep 89 1:14:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Duplicate Mailing
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

Issue 355 got mailed twice by accident....numbered the second time as
356 in the header, but in fact 355 in the text.

The *true* 356 followed immediatly. Please disgard the additional copy
of 355 (disguised as 356).


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator  {Usenet: comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup}
[e-mail]    [e-mail]     [e-mail]










Date:     Fri, 8 Sep 89 0:32:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #357
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Sep 89 00:30:28 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 357

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Bernie Cosell)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Ben Ullrich)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (John R. Levine)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (David A Smallberg)
    Re: Cost of Caller ID (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Re: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals ) (John Higdon)
    Re: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals ) (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution / Fascination with Numbers (Ron Natalie)
    Re: Source For Telecom Tools (Macy Hallock)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Bo Newman)
    Re: OCC Access Codes (Doug Davis)
    Re: DC Area Dialing Procedure Changes (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 7 Sep 89 14:18:25 GMT
Reply-To: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> arnor![e-mail]
(Uri Blumenthal) writes:

}X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 351, message 2 of 5

}> 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]

}You see, to have the name shown would be very nice, except for one little
}thing. Just how many 'John Smith's may live in your neighborhood? Should
}I check each one in case of problem? Or the next step in that direction
}would be to show the caller address also (:-)?

This is easy enough:  All we need is a national "phone ID card", and in
order to use *any* phone you should have to key in your magic-number.
Then the little box can *absolutely* tell you who was calling.   Not
only that, but it'll also nail the miscreants even if they try to use
pay phones!  It also leaves the question of "unlisted phone numbers"
out of the equation: they can just stay 'secret' since there is no real
need to display the number.

Remember: anonymity is just a cloak to hide evil doings!  The more light we
shed on our doings, to allow them to be more easily electronically tracked, to
allow us to do our OWN 'enforcement', the better off we'll be.

  /Bernie\

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

Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca.
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 89 11:15:49 -0700
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>

> 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]

Right on!  Thanks!

 ...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: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 89 12:58:23 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> "Michael H. Warfield
(Mike) <wittsend![e-mail]> writes:
>    On major point that seems to be CONSTANTLY overlooked here is a
>psychological one.  I for one would not purchase a feature such as Call Trace
>or Call Block until I need it. ...

In the places where I have seen CLASS features offered, Call Trace unlike all
the other features is priced per use rather than per month, which means that
everybody has Call Trace available, and it costs a dollar each time you use
it.  Unless you get an awful lot of heavy breathers, that's cheaper than a
monthly fee, anyway.

--
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
[e-mail], {ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, [e-mail]
Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old.  -The Globe


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

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 89 17:29:23 PDT
From: David A Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question

Maybe I missed something between the previous go-round on this issue and now,
but I thought there was a general feeling that the problem could be resolved
this way:
    * The caller chooses whether or not to have his/her number transmitted.
    * The receiver's equipment decides whether or not to accept certain calls.
Most people would probably choose to have suppressed-origin calls ignored by
their phone (with a recording back to the caller that suppressed-number calls
are not accepted), and most businesses and government agencies would still
accept them (maybe government agencies should be required to accept them,
since callers are not potential profit-generating customers).  People might
have their equipment reject certain recognized numbers, but would be wise
accept any other identified call, since it could be an urgent call from a
friend on a strange phone.

Didn't this resolve the major concerns?  the obscene caller, the hard-to-trace
telemarketer, the battered wife, calls to the IRS, I-locked-my-keys-in-the-car-
so-I'm-calling-from-this-payphone.

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cost of Caller ID
Date: Thu,  7-Sep-89 05:44:58 PDT

Regarding the comment that people won't pay for a feature they may not
need: I believe I heard that the way this feature was billed by some telcos
was on a per use basis. That is, if you entered the trace code a record was
generated at the office _and_ a $3 charge was made to your bill. There was
no recurring charge.

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals )
Date: 7 Sep 89 19:04:41 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(K.BLATTER) writes:
> I had heard that GTE was abandoning their Central Office Switch
> manufacturing and would be replacing their CO equipment with AT&T
> 5ESS's.  I can't find the source, so I guess that's what makes it a
> rumor.

I have heard that rumor, also. Specifically, they are supposedly dumping
the GTD5 (you know, the world's most modern switching equipment). In
October, GTE Los Gatos is retiring the last of their EAX. Let's see
what they put in.

Speaking of rumors, a few years ago there was a major rumor (even saw
light of day in the newspaper) that Pac*Bell was buying out GTE's Los
Gatos operations. You should have seen the smiling faces in Los Gatos,
not the least of which belonged to members of the Town Council. To my
knowledge, the Los Gatos Town Council is the only governing body to
have passed a resolution declaring that they wished they had a
different telephone company serving their town! Now that's not a rumor;
that really happened!

You see, when the EAX crashed for two days, it put their fire and
police out of business, since both are "served" out of that office.

Glossary term for the day:

preventative maintenance (GTE); work performed on a functioning system
                to prevent it from functioning
                further.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing?! ( was: BOCs and Regionals )
Date: 7 Sep 89 18:46:01 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(K.BLATTER) writes...
>Imagine what would happen if NYNEX announced that one of the CO's in
>Manhattan was going to be down for two days!

Where were you in 1969?  It practically happened!  Actually, something
worse happened that year.  The whole Manhattan business district network
went into congestion collapse.  I forget which book it was written up
in, but briefly, NYTel was trying to milk every last ounce out of its
COs, and was installing 1ESSs.  Nobody had really seen how a 1ESS works
in severe real-world overload conditions.  A crossbar goes down more
gently, they found out!  Also, the stock market was booming (lots of
calls) and the state had just allowed welfare recipients to have phones
(instant demand) and you can guess what happened.  It took weeks to get
unglued.  And a lesson was learned by all.  (Well, almost all.)

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

From: Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution / Fascination with Numbers
Date: 7 Sep 89 18:01:30 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


In the old days, you used to be able to get phone books for distant places for
free, not so anymore.  It used to be that you could call up the phone company
in a given area and order a "state set."  A large box would show up in a week
or so full of all the phone books for that state.  Unfortunately post-divesti-
ture phone companies aren't so generous.  Last time I asked for a DC phone
book, they wanted me to pay.

-Ron

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

From: ncoast!fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Source For Telecom Tools
Date: Thu Sep  7 12:08:27 1989

Patrick:  Another follow up article dealyed by problems at hal:

In article <[e-mail]> Amanda Walker <amanda%
[e-mail]> writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 286, message 4 of 8

>basically a pair of needle nose pliers with a little place near the
>tip that acts as a wire stripper for 22 (or so) AWG wire.  Perfect

These are made by Klein and Utica.  Both brands are widely available,
but you gotta get the *Telephone* tools catalog, not the general
catalog they publish.  Try Graybar or Anixter.  Many electrical
supply houses carry these brands, but don't have the telephone
catalog.  (Ask for it!)

Other telephone sources: Techni-tool, Jensen, Contact East, or try one of those
tool catlogs that everyone in the phone, computer or service business
seems to get mailed to him/her at one time or another.

Someone earlier asked about punch on tools... try the 714 made by either
Dracon or Siemon or Suttle.  All are good and readily available from the
above sources.... and please, please learn color code, work neatly and
label your work.  I've had to clean up after an awful lot of amateurs
lately (e.g. never give a maintenance electrician a punch on tool)

Now, If all else fails, contact me by e-mail and I'll try to help.

       Macy Hallock               fmsystm![e-mail]
       F M Systems, Inc.          hal!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
       150 Highland Dr.           uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
       Medina, OH 44256           Voice: 216-723-3000 X251
       Disclaimer:                My advice is worth what you paid for it.
       Alt.disclaimer:            Your milage may vary.
       Biz.disclaimer:            My opinions are my own. What do I know?


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

From: Bo Newman <inco![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Date: 7 Sep 89 16:16:59 GMT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Electronic Systems, McLean, VA


My regrets to the regular sane readers of and posters to this news.group.

To the poster who wants to legislate the use of the telephone (10 calls
per day e.t.c):

My suggestion, and it is a sure fire -) one, is to buy two items.
First a celluar phone, one of the portable ones you can take anywhere.
The second is a small inflatable raft.

Now the procedure for eliminating all ^JUNK CALLS^ to you.

Inflate the raft, place the celluar phone in it, get in a paddle FAR OUT
TO SEA (at least 100 Miles).  Turn off the phone, and PULL THE CORK ON THE
RAFT.   That would accomplish two things, it would totally eliminate any chance
of you being bothered by ^JUNK CALLS^ and second (and of far greater value
to the free world) it would eliminate another irrational, isolationist,
closed minded voice trying to freeze progress (and far trade) because it is
i n c o n v e n i e n t !   (But then that could apply to just about any
form of human contact if you really work at it.)

***** Disclaimer ? you bet, all of them.  I got hot, I'll cool off, no one
else need apply.


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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OCC Access Codes
Date: 5 Sep 89 14:48:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


In article <[e-mail]> moscom![e-mail] (Dave Esan)
writes:

>[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]
[...]

One addition:  10282 is Action Telcom.  I don't know anything
about them other than someone I once worked for used 'em.

BTW, I have used them all over Texas, Colorado, and Ca, Otherwise your
milage may very.

--
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:     Thu, 7 Sep 89 11:03:53 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  DC Area Dialing Procedure Changes


In Maryland, some prefixes out on the DC-metro-area fringe which have metro-
wide local service are nevertheless outside area code 202 as of now.  These
include 621,261,858 (prefixes which use 1-301-569-xxxx for local call to
301-569). I believe 621,261,858 had 1+7D (now 1+301+7D) instead of 301+7D
dialing to long-distance points within Md.

Arcola, Va. (Loudoun County) is 703-327.  As of now, Herndon (Va.) has 7D local
calls to there AND to DC, and 301-327 is in Baltimore city, so there is no 327
in DC or Md. suburbs (the 10D local calls across NPA boundaries will make 327
available in DC).

Stafford, Va. is 703-659.  I know of 301-659 in Baltimore city.  659 COULD
occur in DC (I don't have prefix list with me as I write this).

So when Md. and Va. suburbs are removed from area code 202, you will (as is
the case with an area code split) be shrinking an existing area code.  However,
you are not creating a new area code.

I believe a way to summarize these changes is that the new 10-digit local
calling scheme affects those points within the DC calling area. (Note that I
did not have the info about Pentagon <--> Prince William being extended-area
local when I came up with that idea.)  As far as I know, if you are in Md.
and local to Va. (or vice versa), you are also local to DC.  (Speaking of the
Pentagon:  it was written a while back in this Digest that pay phones in it
are in the Arlington, Va. exchange; however, I don't know if they are in the
Rosslyn-area exchanges or in the Crystal City & National Airport area
exchanges.)

By the way, time of day is set up as a local call throughout Maryland. Prior
to these DC-area changes (i.e. now) you dial 844-1212 to get Baltimore time of
day, unless you are in the DC calling area, in which case you dial 844-2525 to
get Washington time of day.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #357
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 8 Sep 89 1:21:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #358
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Sep 89 01:20:14 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 358

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    NTIS Telecommunications  (Thomas Lapp)
    Charge Tables for British Telecom (John Pettitt)
    Voice Mail or 2nd Phone Line? (Steve Elias)
    MEGACOM anyone? (Jeffrey Silber)
    Re: Radio Call-signs In Airplanes (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Radio Call-signs In Airplanes (Ernest H. Robl)
    Re: Radio Call-signs In Airplanes (Jay Maynard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 89 16:20:22 edt
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: NTIS Telecommunications
Reply-To: mvac23![e-mail]

I received a flyer the other day which came from the Center for Advanced
Telecommunications (CAT) announcing a joint venture between them and the
NTIS (National Technical Information Service).

In many cases, various government groups contract out a report on this or
that topic.  Once they get the report, it is done with and kept in a
repository.  What CAT will do is read through all the NTIS reports and
select the ones that look interesting.  Then they publish a flyer with
descriptions of these reports including ordering info.  Thus, they screen
the 60 000/year technical reports and "inform us of the best of this work
in this area of specialization" [from the flyer itself-tll].

If others are interested in receiving this flyer or to be put on the list,
there is information at the end of this article.

In the August issue (Number 1), some of the topics include:

USER-ORIENTED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF DATA COMMUNICATION SERVICES:
  MEASUREMENT, DESIGN, CONDUCT, AND RESULTS, 1988.

IMPACT OF TELEPHONE DEREGULATION ON SMALL BUSINESS, Cornell Consulting
  Group, Falls Church, VA, 1988.  Sponsor: Small Business Administration.

NETWORKS, SIGNALLING AND SWITCHING FOR POST-DIVESTITURE ENVIRONMENT,
  National Telecommunications and Information Administration, (NTIA), 1986.

VOICEBAND QUALITY-OF-SERVICE ISSUES IN THE POST DIVESTITURE ENVIRONMENT,
  National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1985.

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DESIGN OF CCS NETWORKS FOR CCITT SIGNALLING SYSTEM
#7, University of Colorado Master's Thesis, 1986.

DIVESTITURE OF AT&T AND THE SEPERATE SUBSIDIARY REQUIREMENT, Federal
Communications Commission, 1984.

TELEPHONE COMPETITION AND REGULATION: A SURVEY OF THE STATES, NTIA, 1986

There were about 12 topics listed in all.  All documents described in the
issue can be purchased from NTIS, 8:30-17:30 Eastern time at (703) 487-
4648.  According to the order form, credit cards are accepted.
Also, you may request addition to the mailing list by sending same to:

                         Janet Geffner
                             NTIS
                          207 Forbes
                     Springfield, VA 22161

If you want more info on the titles in this flyer, and ordering prices and
numbers, you may send mail to me.

(Permission to copy this info inferred from the sentence: Feel free to make
 your colleagues aware of this service and how they can obtain their own
 copies of the [flyer].)
                         - tom

internet: mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp    : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location: Newark, DE, USA
Quote   : NOTICE: System will have a scheduled disk crash at 4:45pm today.


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

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 89 07:49:16 BST
Subject: Charge Tables for British Telecom
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Specialix International
From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>

Here is some info that may be of interest to Telecom readers. The tables below
contain the current (effective september 1989) charge tables for British
Telecom.

Charges is the UK are based on `units'. A unit costs 4.4 pence (5.06 including
15% tax).  That's 7 and 8.09 cents respectivly at USD 1.60 to the Pound
Sterling.

All UK calls have supervision and one unit is billed for each unit of time or
partial unit of time between answer and hangup. No credit for partial units.

Time allowed in seconds for each dialled call unit fee of 4.4p (5.06p inc VAT).

Type of call        Charge Rate Period
        Cheap        Standard    Peak
        Mon-Fri 6pm    Mon-Fri 8-9am    Mon-Fri
        Sat & sun     1pm-6pm        9am-1pm

Local        330        85        60

National (a)    96        34.3        25.7

National (b1)    60        30        22.5

National (b)    45        24        18
Channel Islands
Isle of Man

Calls to
mobile phones    12        8        8

Irish Republic    12        8        8


(a) is up to 56.4 km (exchange to exchange)

(b1) over 56.4 km connected over low cost routes.  [ direct quote ]

(b) over 56 km plus islands as listed above.

The above was taken from "Your Guide to Telphone Charges" BT publication
PH3827 (8/89).   There is also a sister publication (PH3826) "Your
Guide to Apparatus Rental Charges".

The book also goes on to detail example calls of 1 thru 5 mins
at each rate and gives the international charge bands


Having at last got a list of BT charges I would be very interested to
compare this to the post-deregulation US.   I suspect that we are being
charged rather more.

On another subject, does anybody know how the choice of LD carrier for
the US domestic part of international call is made ?   BT have been
known to use both MCI and AT&T (I have had error recordings from both).
Do they use an others ?  Is it some clever least cost system or is it
just a % split.  I suspect that it's not least cost as I have had both
carriers on calls from London to Mountain View CA.


--
John Pettitt,
Specialix International
UUCP: {backbone}!ukc!slxsys!jpp
Internet: [e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Voice Mail or 2nd Phone Line?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 89 08:28:23 -0400

Hi folks...  I'd like your opinions regarding my future telecom needs
for my home (apartment).  Right now, I have one residence line and a
DID voice mail number.  The voice mail service i am using now is cheap,
but has been losing important messages for me due to busy signals.

I'm trying to decide whether to go with a commercial voice mail/pager service
or a second phone line with answering machine.  The commercial service
allows me 150 calls per month (.20 each beyond 150), and a pager to indicate
when i receive a voice message.  I would forward to voice mail when I am
on a modem or other long phone call.  (I HATE CALL WAITING!).  This service
would cost me about $25 per month.

My other option is to get a second phone line with minimal outdial service,
and an answering machine.  The phone line would be $60 to install, $10 a
month for service.  I'm wondering about answering machine cost -- and
whether there are answering machines which provide full access from a
remote touchtone phone.  Any recommendations re machines like this would
be appreciated, as well.

The cost of my two options seems to be similar -- if I amortize all the
costs over a year or two (as long as I'm likely to live there)...  the
second phone line can come in very handy sometimes...  but the voicemail/pager
also comes in very handy as well...  which should I go for?

-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail]  (for Chipcom / networking related mail)
-- [e-mail]    (for metroboston email2fax and personal mail)
-- voice mail: 617 859 1389   (send email to both addresses if you like)
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Subject: MEGACOM Anyone?
Date: 7 Sep 89 18:49:35 GMT
Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


If you are interested in running MEGACOM, we have a Wescom 360 D4
channel bank with all of the cards to have 24 incoming MEGACOM
800 lines.  We used this for 800 dial-ups that eventually became
too successful and cost too much.  We also have the CSU and some other
stuff.  Contact via e-mail or phone if you are interested.

--
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
                                                         --Sen. Everett Dirksen

Jeffrey A. Silber/[e-mail]
Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science &
Engineering

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

From: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Call-signs In Airplanes
Date: 7 Sep 89 17:03:27 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]
(ROBERT M. HAMER) writes:
>>Don't airplanes use N prefixes for their call signs?

>Aircraft radios are licensed by the FCC, and pilots have to get a
>"Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit" (at least that's what
>mine says) in order to operate it.  As a call sign, one uses the
>FAA-registered aircraft identification number.

A bit of clarification.  Pilots no longer need Restricted
Radiotelephone Permits when operating in the US.  They DO need them to
operate outside the US.

Aircraft ID's are assigned by the FAA, and the FCC (conveniently)
issues a radio STATION license for the aircraft with the same
callsign.  (Two govt agencies working together, how about that? :-)

When operating in the US, most general aviation acft id as <aircraft
type> followed by the ID, shy the N.  So a Piper Warrior N1234A
identifies himself as Cherokee-1234Alpha.  The controller has the option
of calling the aircraft Cherokee-34-Alpha, after which the pilot
may shorten the call to the same abbreviation. Most helicopters are
called Helicopter 1234A, no matter the brand.  Special function
aircraft are sometimes referred to by that function.  I.e.
Traffic-watch-1234-Alpha.  This makes sense, since it allows all and
sundry to know what's going on.  (Traffic watch aircraft fly low and
slow and do lots of turns over the freeway on final approach to the
airport yesterday at 5 O'clock in hazy condition, where the heck is
he??? But I digress. :-)   Helicopters do the damnedest things.

If you have a bunch of aircraft, you can apply (to the FAA, I think)
to use a special callsign, like Academy 21.  When you go outside the
local area though, you revert to normal aircraft ID's like Cessna
5678Alpha.

Note that outside the USA, you are careful to call up in the form of
Calgary Tower, Cessna, NOVEMBER 1234-Alpha.

This is way beyond the scope of Telecom.  One might ask for further info on
rec.aviation.
                -edg
--
Ed Greenberg
uunet!apple!netcom!edg

[Moderator's Note: You are probably correct that the discussion would best
be continued in rec.aviation or the radio group.   PT]

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

From: "Ernest H. Robl" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Call-signs In Airplanes
Date: 7 Sep 89 20:56:57 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(ROBERT M. HAMER) writes:

[ ... part of previous discussion on call signs deleted ...]

> (Oh, I just lied a bit; Airlines get to identify themselves to
> ATC via radio using their flight numbers, regardless of their
> aircraft ID number, e.g., "Richmond Approach, this is US Air 1462,
> 32 miles southwest, ...."  The rest of us would say, "Richmond
> Approach, this is November 1 5 4 9-er Quebec, 32 miles southwest..."


Somewhat the same applies for railroads, too.  They are allowed to
select their own means of identifying transmitting units.  This can
include train numbers, engine numbers, base station location, etc.

The identification can be something like this:  "CSX operator
Apex, N.C., calling engineer on train 420 for location.  Over."

Most railroads in North America use frequencies around 160-161 --
VHF high band, and can be picked up on scanner receivers, if you
know the right frequencies.  Out west some railroads also use UHF
frequencies.

The business class radio regs specifically mention that railroads
are allowed to use their own method of identifying transmitting
units.

  -- Ernest

--
My opinions are my own and probably not IBM-compatible.--ehr
Ernest H. Robl  (ehr@ecsvax)  [phone] w; [phone] h
Systems Specialist (Tandem System Manager), Library Systems,
027 Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, NC  27706  U.S.A.

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

From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Call-signs In Airplanes
Date: 7 Sep 89 22:24:49 GMT
Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX


Just to pick a couple of nits:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(ROBERT M. HAMER) writes:
>>Don't airplanes use N prefixes for their call signs?
>Aircraft radios are licensed by the FCC, and pilots have to get a
>"Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit" (at least that's what
>mine says) in order to operate it.  As a call sign, one uses the
>FAA-registered aircraft identification number.

Actually, you don't have to have the permit any more, if you're only
going to operate VHF aircraft radios inside the US.

The call sign used (if no special call sign is assigned) is the model
name of the aircraft, or the name of its manufacturer, followed by the
registration number, with the leading N deleted, hence: Skyhawk
6309Delta, Warrior 80765, Cessna 711KiloSierra, Beechcraft 6703Sierra.

>All US-registered civilian aircraft have aircraft identification
>numbers that start with "N."

These are assigned in blocks by the International Civil Aviation
Organization, in much the same way that the ITU assigns blocks of radio
call signs. By no coincidence, these are often the same; the radio block
NAA-NZZ is assigned to the US, as are the aircraft registrations
starting with N. Mexican aircraft are registered with "numbers" starting
with XA-XC, which corresponds with their radio block of XAA-XIZ...and so
on. This is not universally true, though: the most notable exception is
Soviet aircraft, which are identified as CCCP-xxxxx; the corresponding
radio block is assigned to Chile (CAA-CEZ).

(Side note: the first two letters are not always sufficient to identify
the country a radio station belongs to: the block SSA-SSM is assigned to
Egypt, while SSN-STZ is assigned to Sudan. Egypt also has SUA-SUZ.)

>(Oh, I just lied a bit; Airlines get to identify themselves to
>ATC via radio using their flight numbers, regardless of their
>aircraft ID number, e.g., "Richmond Approach, this is US Air 1462,
>32 miles southwest, ...."  The rest of us would say, "Richmond
>Approach, this is November 1 5 4 9-er Quebec, 32 miles southwest..."

As indicated above, the November in the above example is normally
replaced by the aircraft type. Others can be assigned special radio
callsigns, with the permission of the FAA. (The FCC merely says that the
transmissions shall be identified by the FAA-assigned callsign.)

--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"The unkindest thing you can do for a hungry man is to give him food." - RAH

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #358
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 8 Sep 89 2:06:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #359
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Sep 89 02:00:30 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 359

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Lightning Damage: How to Minimize/Eliminate It (Macy Hallock)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Fred Goldstein via Paolo Balutta)
    Re: Help! Weird Equipment Required (Vance Shipley)
    Internet Gateway to Easy Link (Western Union) (Paul Anderson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ncoast!fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Lightning Damage: How to Minimize/Eliminate It
Date: Thu Sep  7 13:14:53 1989

Patrick: This is the last one of the delayed article submissions
help up by hal's failure.  (Remind me to write an article about
what happens when somone accidently connects main 120VAC to an
ethernet cable.)

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

>Symptom: Lightning Storm nearby causes damage to one or both ends of the
>data line.  Usually affects (destroys) 1488 / 1489 devices. (RS-232
>line driver / receiver chips.  Also known by other numbers.)

Ah! One of my favorite subjects: Lightning Damage.  Strange and
awesome stuff, lightning.

I am a telephone engineer with about 20 years of experience with
telecommunications and datacom equipment.  I will share a few
practical suggestions with you.  If you want the textbook and/or
technical explainations, go read the many books on the subject...
then learn the hard way anyway! :-)

>Plugging devices into orange outlets helps. :-)
>It helps even more if the ground (green) from these outlets is tied back
>to a central point and earth grounded there. (No connect to box/conduit)
>
>It would seem to me that this would only provide a superior return path
>for the induced charge in the data line to return to ground.

Although it is an unsafe practice (not to mention contrary to UL and
Nation Electrical Code) I have found situations where the only cure was
no grounding at all!  Not recommended, though.  Yes, isolated (orange)
outlets are a little helpful.  Mostly they help with line noise, not
lightning induced transients.

Use a good surge supressor on your power, too.  My personal favorites:
Transtector for best at any price.  Trippe-lite for cost effective use.
We put Trippe-Lite IB-20's on every telephone system we install.

Note: Do not be decieved into thinking a UPS solves powerline transient
problems.  Get info from Oneac or Best (UPS mfr's) on this if you
need more info.  We use Tripp-Lite OMNI 450 or 1200's for cost effective
UPS w/regulation & surge suppression.  They are perhaps not the best on the
market, but they work quite well for us.

>Question: Are we dealing with a magnetically induced current, or a capacitive,
>static pickup of some kind.

All of the above, plus more.  Most damage is from EMF induced transient
voltage spikes, but a nearby strike can do unbelievable damage.  A direct
strike... What do you think 200,000 volts can do?
The idea is to make a more attractive path to ground for the induced
transients than through the equipment.  There's more, but I only have
20 minutes for this discussion...

>Using shielded data cables will ward off evil charges/inducements.
>Well, charges maby, but inducements, I don't think so.  If so, what
>do you do with the shield, besides connecting to pin 1 at each end
>and probably just generating a ground loop current, and about half
>the equip. I work with doesn't even have pin 1 connected.

First, do not connect pin one at each end.  Since pin one is your frame
ground, connecting the equipment together makes the cable a path for
transients.  We usually ground the main cpu/hub very carefully
(an 8 AWG solid wire, run directly to the entrance water pipe, no
bends or corners, as short and straight as possible and connected
to a bus where all the shields connect.)  All equipment located
at the main cpu is directly grounded to this bus.  Orange outlets
are used and the feeding electric panel is confirmed to be double
grounded: to the water pipe and a ground stake (at least 5' from
the foundation and 10' long) per National Electrical Code.
This is as close to ideal as possible without violating code.

What about pin seven?  Well... we have been known -not- to carry
though pin seven either.  I know this is not receommended, but
the isolation and removal of ground loops often justifies this -
if the data will still pass.  (I said practical, not textbook)

I still prefer braided shield (and not the 70% stuff, either)
but foil shield is often a necessary evil.  Twisted pairs
are advantageous if used properly.

>Placing expensive ($50 each end) protection devices at each end will
>neutralize evil.  DO THESE WORK?  What are they? Ferite Beads, cap, diac, MOV?
>If they are necessary why not put the magic circuit on the Terminal or
>the CPU (Computone?) driver/receiver circuits.

Here's a useful circuit: put 50 ohm resistors (1/2 or 1/4 watt) in series
with each RS-232 lead as it comes out of the system/terminal.  Put a
24 volt MOV (or, butter yet, a Tranzorb) on the lead with the other side
to ground on the opposite side of the resistor form the system/terminal
you are trying to protect.

The resistor isolates the equipment and helps make the MOV appear to be
a more attractive path to ground.  This method solves most problems for
us.

This can also be used for phone line protection, but use 150 volt MOV
at the highest wattage you can find and use 1 watt resistors and have
the phone company install a Three Element Gas Tube Protector on the
incoming cable (Bell often uses two Two Element units - not the same)
Be sure the phone company grounds the daylights out of the protector
AND DOES NOT USE YOUR GROUND WIRE!

>Socket all the '88 & '89 devices, like WYSE does on their WY-60 terminal,
>but not yet the WY-995 mux board.  If in doubt, pop 'em out.  At about
>a dollar a piece they are cheaper than some fuses, and ignore the whole
>issue.

Agreed.  I bought a bunch of 1488 and 1489's at the Dayton Hamvention
this year for .25 ea.  I'll use every one of them, too.

>Turning off the system durring potential for lightning will help.  At
>least it is more humane, the system will never see it coming. :-)
>OR- Potential for latch up and thermal distruction of chip will be
>reduced?

This seems to help...but its no excuse not to do the items mentioned
above.

>I really like the new modular telephone connector system for snapping together
>a system, but am I just stretching out antenna waiting for disaster?  Does
>anyone know where to get SHIELDED MODULAR CABLE?

Yes, it is nice, until some plugs a terminal into a real phone jack and
ringing blows it out.  This is why DEC went to those "weird" modular
plugs that look like standard modular phone jacks but aren't.

Belden makes a flat shielded cable suitable for eight pin plugs. Its
expensive and hard to get.  I use standard cord and be sure the outside
two conductors are ground. (this will never pass FCC emission tests!)
You do know about the polarity reversal on each pair in these cords,
don't you?

ORA Electronics and MOD-TAP and Neveda-Western and Leviton have all
this stuff, as do several others.  I prefer ORA's prices, though.

Well, hope this helps.  I will try to personally reply to queries
as time permits (be specific!).  If I get enough requests, I will
write and post a more detailed article to comp.dcom.modems and
comp.dcom.telecom .  I did try to keep this short...and it shows.

       Macy Hallock               fmsystm![e-mail]
       F M Systems, Inc.          hal!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
       150 Highland Dr.           uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
       Medina, OH 44256           Voice: 216-723-3000 X251
       Disclaimer:                My advice is worth what you paid for it.
       Alt.disclaimer:            Your milage may vary.
       Biz.disclaimer:            My opinions are my own. What do I know?


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

From: Paolo Bellutta <mcvax!irst.it![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 89 9:24:23 MET DST

Fred R. Goldstein sent a very complete answer to my question.  Since he lost
the copy of his message he asked me to forward it to the net:

I have to thank him and all of you for the resposnses.

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: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
     Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)

> In article <[e-mail]>, you write...
> >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.

 The International Telecommunications Union allocates prefix codes for
 radio transmitters.  The United States is pretty fastidious about
 assigning such "call letters" to every sort of service, including
 broadcasters.  In other parts of the world, broadcasters may simply use
 names (i.e., "Orwell Radio" in Ipswich, UK) or non-ITU call signs (the
 ones beginning with "2" in Oz; "2" is assigned to the UK.)  But some
 services, such as Amateur Radio and aviation (the same prefix codes are
 used for airplane registration), strictly follow ITU allocations.

 You can find a complete list in a number of Amateur Radio publications,
 such as the ARRL Logbook and the Callbooks.  ITU prefices are allocated
 in three-character blocks, although usually only the first one or two
 characters is significant.  For example, W, K, and N are entirely USA,
 so N-anything is USA, but AA-AL are USA while AMA-AZZ are shared among
 various countries (such as Pakistan AP and Argentina AZ).  Italy owns
 the entire "I" range.  France owns all of F, the UK owns "G", "M", "2"
 (2AA-2ZZ) and much of "V" (for overseas posessions).  The USSR owns "U",
 "R" and a bunch of smaller blocks.

 There are three patterns for the first two digits.  The oldest are
 letter-letter (AA-ZZ).  After WWII they added number-letter (i.e., 4X
 and 4Z for Israel, 9Y for Trinidad, 3DA-3DM for Swaziland and 3DN-3DZ
 for Fiji -- that's the only case where the third character counts!).
 Eventually those ran out so they use letter-number (i.e., J3 for
 Grenada, Y2-Y9 for East Germany, Z2 for Zimbabwe).  Note that
 letter-number is only possible when the first letter is not entirely
 owned by one country.  Thus W, K, R, G, I, etc. can't be the first of a
 letter-number, but A, C, and D can.

 How countries make use of these is up to them.  Canada uses Cxxx for
 broadcast, but VE for most Amateur.  Sometimes amateurs use special
 event prefixes, just for fun, so we have to look on the master list to
 see what country it is.
    fred


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

Date: Thu Sep  7 23:25:09 1989
From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help, Weird Equipment Required!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: Linton Technology - SwitchView


In article <[e-mail]> vijit!root@gargoyle.
uchicago.edu (Dave Madsen) writes:

>At night, certain phone lines are supposed to be forwarded to *recordings*.
>This device would be used to check these lines to see if the lines are
>properly forwarded (ANSWER) or if someone forgot (NO ANSWER) or if we need to
>try again >later (BUSY).  Since this would happen at night, there's going to
>be nobody around to do the test, just a lonely computer.

It seems to me that what you really need is to ensure that the forwarding gets
done to begin with.  If you cannot ensure that someone will do it what you need
is either a flexible 'night service' feature from your pbx or a 'network
management' system for same.  The night sevice feature would be the best way to
go, as long as the time of day is correct (in the switch) it would be done
without fail.  If this isn't possible then a network management system that was
compatible with your pbx (or centrex) could be used to alter the configuration
on a schedule.

To blow my own horn a minute we manufacture a network management system that
(among other things) is capable of this sort of thing with northern telecom
SL-1 pbx's.  the product is called SwitchView.

Now if i'm totally out to lunch on what you need then the pc board you descibe
is manufactured by (among others) Dial-logic corp.


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: 8 Sep 89 00:53:32 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Paul Anderson)
Subject: Internet Gateway to  EasyLink (Western Union)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Is there a way to get mail from Internet to Western Union's Easylink?

If you have any relevent info. please E-mail it to me.


If address in header doesn't work try [e-mail].


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #359
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 9 Sep 89 0:01:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #360
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Sep 89 00:00:39 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 360

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: RTD TLAs (Request To Decode Three Letter Acronyms) (David Lewis)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Rich Wales)
    Re: Putting A Call On Hold (Roger Clark Swann)
    UK->USA, Which Carrier? (was: Charge Tables for BT) (John R. Covert)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (David Harpe)
    Re: Plantronics LiteSet (Victor Schwartz)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Barry Shein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RTD TLAs (Request To Decode Three Letter Acronyms)
Date: 8 Sep 89 17:16:32 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Roy Smith) writes:
> > 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?

Feature Group (whatever) are various kinds of Interexchange Carrier
access arrangements.  To quote from my favorite source, "Notes on the
BOC Intra-LATA Networks"... (from this day forward to be referred to as
"Notes"):

Feature Group A:

Line-side originating and terminating LATA access for which an
originating subscriber dials an assigned telephone number that connects
to a specific IC.  The IC returns a tone to signal the caller to input
additional tone-generated digits of the dialed number.  [In English:
The IC has a box with a bunch of subscriber lines at each Point of
Termination.  You call this box to get access to the IC network.]

Feature Group B:

Trunk-side originating and terminating LATA access for which an
originating subscriber dials 950-WXXX, (where W = 0,1 and XXX is the
Carrier Access Code), which is translated to a specified XXX carrier
trunk group.  Optional rotary dial service and ANI may be available.
[In English:  The IC has a box with a dedicated trunk group at each PoT.
You dial 950-WXXX and the switch translates this to the appropriate
trunk group, giving you access to the IC network.  Used where/when the
switch hardware/software is/was unable to provide 10XXX translation.]

Feature Group C:

Trunk side LATA access for AT&T Communications, generally, on a direct
basis between each EO and an AT&T switching system.  [Replaced by FGD in
most places; I honestly don't know how it worked or what the details of
it were.]

Feature Group D:

Also referred to as "Equal Access", Feature Group D is trunk-side LATA
access affording call supervision to an IC, a uniform access code
(10XXX), optional calling-party identification, recording of
access-charge billing details, and presubscription to a
customer-specified IC.  [In English: Presubscription or 10XXX dialing.]

>  For example, we've got an AT&T System 25 PBX (or is
> PBX an outdated term?).

Nope, it's still correct.

> 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?

No, Feature Groups are solely for exchange access -- generally by ICs,
but also potentially usable by information providers or other parties.

>     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)?

Yep, ANI = Automatic Number Identification.  Sent by the originating end
office to the IC, used for billing purposes as well as other features.
NPA-NXX-XXXX.
--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Rich Wales <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 8 Sep 89 23:34:12 GMT
Reply-To: Rich Wales <[e-mail]>
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]>
mcvax!irst.it![e-mail] (Paolo Bellutta) writes:

     You can find a complete list in a number of Amateur Radio
     publications, such as the ARRL Logbook and the Callbooks.
     ITU prefixes are allocated in three-character blocks,
     although usually only the first one or two characters is
     significant. . . .  How countries make use of these is up
     to them.  Canada uses Cxxx for broadcast, but VE for most
     Amateur.

Canada has been allocated the following prefixes:  CFA-CKZ; CYA-CZZ;
VAA-VGZ; VOA-VOZ; VXA-VYZ; and XJA-XOZ.

Interestingly, radio and TV stations of the Canadian Broadcasting Cor-
poration (CBC) have call letters starting with CB -- even though the
prefixes CBA-CBZ belong not to Canada, but to Chile.  (Other Canadian
radio and TV stations have call letters starting with CF through CK.)

-- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // [phone]
   3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA
   [e-mail]      ...!(uunet,ucbvax,rutgers)!cs.ucla.edu!wales
"Work _for_?!?  I don't work _for_ anybody!  I'm just having fun."

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Putting A Call On Hold
Date: 8 Sep 89 15:58:42 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle WA


In article <[e-mail]>, howell@soleast.
solbourne.com (Bob Howell) writes:

>                               ....  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.
    I have one of these devices in my junk box. It has a Sears
    label, but sounds like the same device. I could never make
    the thing work that well. It would put the line on hold even
    when I didn't want it held... And I think it didn't always
    release the line right away.
> .................................  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.

    Same story here.

> 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]

    I had my service changed to _single line_ CENTREX with hold
    and three way calling for $5 extra per month. US West said
    that the CENTREX service was the ONLY was to get _hard hold_
    ( to engage hold: flash and hit *9, hang-up. The phone will
    start ringing after a few seconds, so one can walk to
    another phone and resume the conversation by just going off
    hook again ). This feature is NOT available is part of the
    the regular residential feature group that US West markets as
    TeleChoice. ( like features are cheaper when purchased under
    the TeleChoice plan than under the CENTREX ). I am sure
    there is no difference at the CO, just the marketing and
    tariffs, etc. I really enjoy having both the three-way
    calling and the hold, but the charges are a little steep, I
    think. After all, my service is measured and if I originate
    both sides of a three-way call, I get charged double the
    rate for the duration of the call. In reply to Patrick's
    comments a few weeks back on whether it was better to have
    special equipment on site or pay the local OC for various
    services, for the long term it sure seems better from my
    point of view to go the buy route.  My one Panasonic phone
    with built in hold works great.  However, it would take
    awhile to pay back the purchase of several new phones with
    hold at the rate of $30 per year, ($2.50 for hold, for 12
    months). One further comment, it seems that US West is
    behind most of the other LOC's in providing the newer
    features of CLASS and Touch*Star ( or whatever it is that
    Patrick keep talking about :-). US West just keeps pushing
    the old standard speed calling, call waiting, 3-way calling
    under a new marketing package. There was a news story I saw
    over a year ago where a US West spokes person was asked
    about the newer features such as caller ID, call block, call
    trace, selective forward and so on. The person replied that
    US West was looking into the features but that they didn't
    think they were viable in today's market place....
    > OoooK... <


    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |
The Boeing Company            |


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

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 89 18:26:50 -0700
From: "John R. Covert  08-Sep-1989 2121" <[e-mail]>
Subject: UK->USA, which carrier?

John Pettitt <[e-mail]> asks:

>On another subject, does anybody know how the choice of LD carrier for
>the US domestic part of international call is made ?   BT have been
>known to use both MCI and AT&T (I have had error recordings from both).
>Do they use an others ?  Is it some clever least cost system or is it
>just a % split.  I suspect that it's not least cost as I have had both
>carriers on calls from London to Mountain View CA.

The carrier for the US domestic part of the international call will be the
same carrier that brings the call across the Atlantic.

In order for each carrier to provide international service (AT&T, MCI, etc.)
that carrier has to reach an agreement with a carrier at the other end.  AT&T,
MCI, etc. have each reached agreements with BTI for bringing traffic into and
out of the U.K.

If BT chooses an MCI circuit for the transatlantic portion of the call, it
will remain on MCI for the domestic portion.

I suspect, but am not sure, that BT just uses a percentage split, where the
percentage of outgoing traffic offered to each carrier is the same as the
percentage of incoming traffic received from that carrier.

/john

[Moderator's Note: Do you know whether or not the British Telecom subscriber
gets any choice in the matter? That is, can they indicate by any routing
code, or by going through an operator that they wish the call to be routed
over AT&T or over MCI? If a subscriber makes a collect call to the USA for
example, does whoever pays for the call get to select the international
carrier? Or are they stuck with whoever BT routes them on?   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Sep 89 23:24 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
Organization:  University of Louisville


        I received one of these for a birthday a few weeks back.  Initally, I
didn't like it, but with a few modifications described below, I find it to be
an indespensible tool.

        The first thing I noticed about the Liteset was the fact that I
couldn't get the thing to stay in my ear comfortably.  I went through all nine
earpieces with marginal success.  The cone type seemed to work ok, although it
was a little uncomfortable.

        When using the Liteset, I was annoyed by the amount of background noise
that the microphone picked up.  Since the actual mike element is several inches
from your mouth, they boost the gain to compensate.  This also boosts the
volume of any noise in the room.  I haven't tried it, but I would imagine using
one of these things in a computer room would be very annoying to the person on
the other end.

        To compensate for the background noise problem, I took a 2" piece of
insulation from a 50-pair phone cable and slipped it over the end of the
microphone.  This made the voice a little tinny, but cut down on the noise a
great deal.

        I used it this way for a few more hours and still couldn't get used to
something hanging free in my ear like that.  So, I took the Liteset ear/mike
assembly apart, desoldered the leads from the little circuit board inside,
disassembled an old Plantronics Starset ear/mike assembly and soldered the
wires to it.  The various impedances matched pretty well.  In fact, the Starset
volume is actually higher than the Liteset.  The microphone is crystal-clear
and loud on the other end...plenty of gain to punch through a noisy
long-distance phone call.

        Aside from the lousy ear/mike assembly that originally comes with the
unit, it's a great cordless phone.  The keypad dialing is nice, along with the
mute button.  An earlier posting mentioned the ability to listen to other
cordless phones by disconnecting the power on the base unit while off-hook.  A
much more elegant way to do the same thing is to press and hold the mute button
while powering up the cordless unit with the on/off switch.  The base unit does
not go off-hook, but the receiver in the cordless unit turns on, allowing you
to listen to other phones on the channel.

        If anyone is interested in the details on how to modify the Liteset to
use a Starset capsule, send me mail.  I'll respond directly, and if there are
enough inquiries I'll post to the net.

                        David Harpe
                        University of Louisville

                        [e-mail]

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

Date: 7 Sep 89 09:39:56 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: Re: Plantronics LiteSet
From: [e-mail]

A local stereo and electronics chain ("The Good Guys") is advertising
"RECOTON Hands-Off" Telephone Headset for $34.  Can anyone "compare and
contrast" this to the "Plantronics LiteSet"?

Victor Schwartz
Xerox Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 89 22:39:02 EDT
From: Barry Shein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers


Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason
TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages
which they *did* charge for.)

I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely
broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on
the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only
that, but we'd achieve ECONOMIC JUSTICE! Something I am sure motivates
every red-blooded Fortune 10 company in America.

Does anyone in this discussion honestly believe they are talking about
anything more important than marketing schemes? Are the folks making
feeble noises about "justice" or "morality" in regards to DA charging
actually serious? Hello...hello...anybody home?

    -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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #360
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 9 Sep 89 1:00:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #361
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Sep 89 00:50:34 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 361

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Help Needed With Mods for Voice-Mail Board (Jerry Durand)
    Want Tech Info on T1 (Phil Howard)
    Re: GTE Bashing (Hector Myerston)
    Re: GTE Bashing (David G. Cantor)
    Re: Phonebook Distribution (Dave Fiske)
    Vandalism in East Bridgewater, MA (Steve Elias)
    Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Help Needed With Mods for Voice-Mail Board
Date: Fri,  8-Sep-89 08:37:35 PDT


I need help with modifying a voice-mail board I designed so that it
may be sold in Australia and the UK.  The current version of the board plugs
into an IBM-AT compatible and has 4 FCC certified direct connect
telephone circuits on it.  My customer is also interested in selling
Direct-Inward-Dial (DID) products in Australia and the UK.

Please mail all responses directly to me, I will summarize.  All help
greatly appreciated.

Jerry Durand                NET:  sun!cup.portal.com!jdurand      MCI:  DISTAR
Durand Interstellar, Inc.   FAX:  [phone]              TEL:  [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 89 16:41:46 -0500
From: Phil Howard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Want Tech Info on T1

I would like to find out where I can get detailed technical information on
T1 communications lines.  I am interested in everything from connector details
and voltages, up to bit framing, scrambling and syncronizing.  I want to know
just what is needed if one is designing either the box that interfaced to the
telco, or if one is designing the equipment telco is using (although the
details of how they deal with it after it gets to them is not important).
If there is a common interface device, I'd want to know the specs on each
(telco and equipment) end.  I am interesting in studying possible designs
of devices than can emulate a T1 line.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 8 Sep 89  09:08 PST
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]

     At least >some< of GTE's service problems are the result of
equipment provided (foisted?) by the infamous Automatic Electric and
its successors.

     When I worked at Western Electric it seemed like the most
satisfying jobs were those where we replaced AE equipment with ESS
machines (1A ESS at that time) for GTE of California.  We did several
in Southern California (Long Beach, LA-Stadium) and the immediate
improvements brought in commendations, editorials etc.  By contrast
PacBell jobs (usually X-Bar replacements) went largely unnoticed.


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

Subject: Re: GTE Bashing
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 89 13:27:32 PDT
From: [e-mail]

I've been a GTE user in a suburban area northwest of Santa Monica for 23
years. 23 years ago the service was TERRIBLE.

In the last 6 or 8 years, however, their service has been excellent and
the line quality is good.

However, this improvement has not extended to the GTE business office,
where the same arrogant, customer-be-damned attitude remains.

They recently enabled "900" service without providing for blocking it,
even to those who already had "976" service blocked.  Of course, since
the telcos control the assignment of prefixes and area codes, etc.,
"900" service is really "976" service.

dgc

David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]
UUCP:      ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonebook Distribution
Date: 8 Sep 89 21:08:32 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steven
Gutfreund) writes:
> While we are on the topic of phonebooks: Has anyone found the 800-directory
> phonebook from AT&T useful? I ordered it, paid for it, and I can't say
> that I have really gotten any good use out of it. Furthermore, I am familiar
> with many 800 numbers (e.g. credit card companies) who are not listed in
> it, but who freely advertise their number.

This week, for some unknown reason, I received an AT&T 800 Directory in
the mail for free.  Why, I don't know, since I didn't request one.  The
enclosed letter said that I had been selected as one of AT&T's lucky
customers to receive one.  This is also puzzling, since I have been
using Sprint for my long distance calls for several years, and I have
no local telephone service in my name (and have never had it in my name
at my present address).  Also, since the mailing label was addressed to
me "or current occupant", I really didn't feel all that privileged.

However, it is marked $9.95 on the cover, so I decided not to look a
gift horse in the mouth.

One of the first things I did was to look up companies whose 800
numbers I have called recently, and, as you say, I did not find most of
them.  The book does say that some companies chose not to be listed in
the book, but I wonder whether it really is "most" companies.

Although I suppose it may come in handy some day, my impression is that
the main value of this (at least for me) is its humor value, since I
instantly started browsing for odd listings (what, for example, do you
suppose "Video Girlfriend" listed under Dating Services, is?).

Here are a few gems I discovered under the Associations category:

    Air Force Sergeants Association
    American Computer Team Roping Association
    American Schizophrenic Association
    Association of Old Crows
    Beer Drinkers of America
    I Care Hot Line, Inc.
    National Council of Corvette Clubs
    North American Loon Fund
    Recording Industry Association--Anti-Piracy
    Southeastern Organ Procurement Foundation
    Structural Foam Conference
    The American Cleft Palate Educational Foundation
    US Handball Association
    US Swing Dance Council

(I don't mean to belittle any of these organizations--it's just
that the barebones listings sound a bit comical.)
--
"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: [e-mail]
Subject: Vandalism in East Bridgewater, MA
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 89 08:11:46 -0400


I'm a bit cranky about things today.  My voice mail is broken and
I'm missing important messages.  I'm going to sign up for a commercial
voice mail account today -- although I may go for the second phone line
whenever this silly strike ends.

Did you hear about the NETel (NYNEX) cable being cut in East Bridgewater
Mass???  NYNEX is offering a 50,000 dollar reward for info.  Some striking
SOB cut the wire.

I have a feeling there is disagreement  on who is "right" in this strike
thing. The union people are being total twits.  They negotiated years ago and
agreed that they would contribute to health coverage.  Now they are striking
on that exact point.  Twits!.

-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail]  (for Chipcom / networking related mail)
-- [e-mail]    (for metroboston email2fax and personal mail)
-- voice mail: broken      (send email to both addresses if you like)
-- work phone: [phone]


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

Date: Fri, 08 Sep 89 11:33:28 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks


In an article <Telecom V9 Issue 347> Patric Townson writes.

    To send mail to FidoNet use:  [e-mail]

The actual addressing should look like:
          [e-mail]

So to send to Bob Smith at 1:2/3 the address would look like:
          [e-mail]


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

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 8 Sep 89 07:28:47 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) writes:
> Are you, in your thin defense of your precious privacy while invading
> mine, condoning the activities of these perverted individuals.  Condoning
> it or not, you seem to be supporting their cause quite well!

I have been viewing the discussion of caller id (CID) from the
sidelines, since it is very doubtful that Pacific Bell  will be
offering CLASS features in the near future and I'm sure my prefix won't
see it in this century (unless they figure out how to make it work in a
1ESS).

But, after reading Mr. Warfield's somewhat lengthy article in favor of
CID, and specifically having the number itself, not a code or name,
show up in the display, I have come to the conclusion that I am against
CID in general and Mr. Warfield's proposals in particular. That which
knocked me off the fence was the passage quoted above.

You bet I want to preserve my precious privacy. All of us have been
fighting the erosion of that commodity all of our lives and the battle
has been getting tougher and tougher. At this point, I make two
assertions. The first is that the problem of crank calls has been
overstated and the second is that there are ways of dealing with cranks
that do not require the general populace to surrender another chunk of
their privacy.

I won't take the time here to list all the things one can do to
discourage a crank caller, but even in the most extreme case, all one
has to do is get a second line and unplug the phone from the first.
Then your antagonist can ring it to his heart's content while you use
your second, unpublished, line. While you are waiting for its
installation, just hang up on your breather. He will get bored quickly.

But why should we *all* have to give up our privacy? I don't make crank
calls. I have a listed number, but I make all outgoing calls on an
unlisted one. No one, and I mean no one, has that number. If it ever
rings, I answer it "wrong number, please learn how to dial" and hang
up. Why should I surrender that number to everyone that I call? And
what good would it do them?

If there will be such a thing as a "private" exemption, then what good
will CID be in detering crank calls? Any crank caller with an IQ
greater than a watermelon will have an unlisted number. And that, to
me, is also giving more information than I wish to give. Most people
don't know that I have a private line since they have my listed number.
When I call them, instead of 723-1395 (calm down, it's in my .signature)
showing up in the display, it will say *PRIVATE* or whatever. Cover blown!

Whenever someone insists that innocent citizens have to give up
something in the name of catching the guilty, the argument's over. If the
catching of perpetrators infringes on the rights of non-perpetrators, then
another method of catching perpetrators needs to be found.

The other (fun) aspects of CID are interesting, and of course I would
have it in an instant. But now we're back to academics, since it won't
be offered in Perpetually Backward territory in the forseeable future.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 89 17:42:59 -0500
From: Phil Howard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID privacy issues

Since I just started reading this newsgroup, can someone (appointed by the
moderator?) give a summary of the reasons people believe that letting who
they call, in one form or another, know who they are that is calling, is
more a violation of privacy than is an anonymous phone call.  I have heard
some legal arguments involving freedom of speech that indicates that
speech in an anonymous way is not protected.  If courts accept that argument
I would surely expect it could be extended to Caller ID.  It just depends.

When I worked at Ohio State, I received at my work phone literally HUNDREDS
of phone calls for a "Dave Applegate".  A variety of different voices made
these calls, though I think there were some repeats.  At first I told the
callers that no such person works there, lives there, or has ever been known
to be there.  No such person was listed in the campus phone directory.  The
callers always hung up without saying anything.  Soon I started just asking
them who they were, but they hung up immediately.  I was suspecting some
telemarketers.  Eventually, after about two years of this (yes, TWO YEARS
averaging 1 every 2-3 days), I finally "trained" myself to make a totally
different response:

****RING****
Me:    I R C C
Them:  Dave Applegate, please
Me:    Could you hold please.
(pause with handset mic covererd)
Me:    He's not in, right now, may I take a message?
Them:  No thank you.
(They hung up)

This repeated a few times, and I still wasn't finding out anything.  So after
a few more months I got even bolder:

****RING****
Me:    I R C C
Them:  Dave Applegate, please
Me:    Speaking
Them:  Yes sir, I'm calling to let you know that your stock purchase has
       been completed and you may pick up the certificates at any time.
Me:    Thank you.
(They hung up before I finished)

After I did this, there were no more calls ever again.  I suspect this was
a drug shipment!!  Any ideas?


[Moderator's Note: I cannot see any reason at all to go back and hash over
all the pros and cons of Caller ID again. If you want to know all the
opinions on the subject, simply check out the last couple dozen or so issues
of the Digest. If you don't have access to these, I'll try to select the
ones which had Caller ID articles in them and sent them along to you.

Seriously, I think Caller ID has been worked to death here in the past month.
There is little more to say which has not already been said; and the messages
are going now more in the direction of telephony only coincidental to
politics rather than the other way around.  I will print whatever messages
are left in the queue on this subject, then let's find something new to
cuss and discuss. The next time an *original* post comes in on Caller ID,
someone kick me if I print it and invite such a barrage of "re: mail" again. It
should be obvious by now no one solution will work for everyone. It should
also be obvious by now that this issue has sharply divided many people in
the industry itself. Consider how many rebuttals and counter-rebuttals have
been printed in our little Digest alone.

You'd think that people would realize the telcos have never sold *privacy*
as part of the deal. They sold only communication links, and the fact that
until recently the caller's identity was hard for the telco to ascertain
is not a valid reason to insist on the same 'privacy' now. The basis for
the industry is communications between people; not the privacy rights of
either, one it gets past the directory non-pub stage.

Don't everyone send this chap copies of the last two dozen Digests at one
time and cause his mailer to break or something. I'll select them if he
can't do it himself.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #361
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 9 Sep 89 17:14:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: SxS Office Tour
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Sep 89 17:10:00 CDT    Special: SxS Office Tour

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Musings on Step-by-Step Central Offices (Larry Lippman)

[Moderator's Note: I received this essay several days ago, but decided to
hold it until the weekend and send it as a special edition, since you may
want to print it out and keep it in your files for future reference. I also
want to take this opportunity to say thanks to Mr. Lippman for submitting
this to the Digest, and note that his submissions are among the best and
most interesting of the many items received each day.  Enjoy it!  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Musings on Step-by-Step Central Offices
Date: 4 Sep 89 13:52:13 EDT (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

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

    I certainly agree with Bernard Mckeever - a SxS CO would be a great
place to visit.  Unfortunately, SxS offices are becoming a thing of the
past, and are non-existent in many areas - even if you could manage to
find a "cooperative" telephone company employee.

    Some of what I am about comment on will be lost on many people, but
it should bring a real smile to those readers who have had any firsthand
experience in an SxS CO.

>   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.

    When an SxS office is relatively quiet, a good ear can really be
a useful diagnostic tool.  A few examples:

1.    A faulty selector, trunk or open wire in a Tip-Ring-Sleeve triple
    will cause the switch train to abruptly collapse and immediately
    seize the next available linefinder-first selector, all occurring
    with a rather characteristic sound.

2.    A faulty preference chain circuit in a linefinder frame, or a fault
    in a subscriber line/cutoff relay circuit will cause the linefinders
    in a given linefinder frame to "thrash" wildly with a truly
    unforgettable sound.

3.    A group of outgoing trunks that are out of service, say due to a
    carrier system failure will result in an ATB (All Trunks Busy)
    condition having a characteristic "BZZZZZT!" sound as a selector
    runs around into the 11th ATB position while trying to find an
    idle trunk.  In those CO's equipped with ROTS (Rotary Out Trunk
    Switch), the same sound, but slightly different, will emanate
    as the 22-position ROTS step switch runs around like a ferris wheel
    trying to find an idle trunk.

>   It also  helps  to  have good eye sight, SXS offices tend to be very dark.

    An abyssmal job is fixing a bank multiple wiring problem, while
sandwiched between the bank wiring sides of two adjacent rows of switch
frames.  It's cramped and dark, with the primary illumination coming
from a portable 48-volt spotlight.  And just when you found the problem,
you pull the spotlight cord too far and an alligator clip comes off the
battery cord, plunging the work area into twilight again. :-)

>   Today most remaining SXS  offices  have  evolved  far  enough  to
>   provide  Touchtone  service, and use digital transmission systems
>   for interoffice communications.

    During the early 1960's the Bell System developed grandiose plans
for conversion of SxS CO's to permit offering DTMF service.  The basic
scheme involved placing a simple trunk circuit between each linefinder
and its associated first selector.  When this trunk circuit detected a
service request from a linefinder it would signal a simple arbitration
circuit (I hesitate to use the term "marker") which would select an idle
register-sender and connect it to the linefinder through a crossbar switch.
The register-sender circuit would decode the DTMF tones using a receiver,
store the decoded digits, and then outpulse them to the first selector.
The register-sender would release and be available for another call upon
decoding and outpulsing a predetermined number of digits, or upon a timeout.

    From a human factors standpoint converting SxS to DTMF presents a
problem in that it is REALLY NO FASTER than rotary dialing.  While a
subscriber may lift their handset and DTMF-dial 7-digits in less than
2 seconds, they may have to wait for at least 7 seconds of *silence* while
the DTMF digits are outpulsed as rotary digits.

    As public "demand" for DTMF service grew in the 1970's, most Bell
System operating companies elected NOT to convert SxS offices for DTMF
service, but to simply wait for eventual total replacement with 2ESS or 3ESS.
The reasons for the lack of conversion effort were many, and included:
(1) "poor" financial investment in already-obsolete apparatus; (2) less than
optimal human factors acceptance; (3) lack of other features that the
public was demanding which could NEVER be provided in a SxS CO, like
call forwarding, call waiting, etc.; (4) desire to implement message unit
timing for all subscribers, whose implementation through a CDA (Call Data
Accumulator) was very expensive; etc.

    As a result, during the 1960's and 1970's comparatively few SxS CO's
were ever converted to DTMF.  While WECO had designed conversion apparatus,
very little was manufactured, and the Bell System elected to do something
which I always felt was unusual: they used conversion apparatus manufactured
by ITT in many small SxS CO's.  ITT makes pretty strange apparatus as
compared to WECO, and I could never understand why the Bell System chose to
give WECO installers and BOC switchmen the culture shock of dealing with this
apparatus.  The only Bell System SxS CO's that I have personally seen (during
the late 1960's, early 1970's) converted to DTMF used the ITT "Tel-Touch"
apparatus.

    The only WECO apparatus that I have personally seen for DTMF
conversion in SxS used a clever, but bizarre scheme of "magnetic core logic"
(really!), and was intended for conversion of 701-type SxS PBX's.  The
operation of this apparatus is similar to that described above, except that
DTMF matrix-to-digit translation was performed using magnetic cores, and the
digits to be outpulsed were stored in magnetic cores (really!).  Such
upgraded 701's, which were relatively few and usually a Centrex CU switch,
represented a unique blend of SxS, crossbar, wire-spring relay, magnetic
core logic and solid-state circuitry never again found anywhere else!

    It is more common to see independent operating telephone companies
still running SxS apparatus that is converted to DTMF.  The technology
most common in this marketplace uses solid-state register-sender circuits
which are dedicated to one linefider-first selector, thereby eliminating
any need for crossbar switches or any common control apparatus.  With
today's integrated circuits, one can manufacture such a register-sender
on a single printed circuit card for a cost of less than $ 35.00 - but
25 years ago such an attempt would have required at least six cubic
feet of space PER CIRCUIT with an apparatus cost 100 times that amount!

>   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.

    There were also emergency alerting systems for use in small towns
with volunteer fire departments which would ring the telephones of
pre-determined firemen in a distinctive fashion when an alarm switch was
operated at the fire station.

>   Yes indeed, bending relays, oiling switches, and adjusting wipers, what
>   fun.

    Adjusting relays using an assortment of bending tools, tension
gages and a 35-type relay test set is an unforgettable skill - sort of
like learning to ride a bicycle.  Also like learning to ride a bicycle,
one thoroughly screws up a lot of relays before learning the art.  :-)
Words alone cannot do justice to a 35-type test set.  This test set, whose
principal design evolved BEFORE 1920, has been virtually unchanged for
almost 70 years - and is STILL IN USE TODAY.  The 35-type test set has
four miniature telegraph-style keys, plus 8 resistance sliders which move
across a tubular ceramic resistance coil, and is used to set the various
operate/non-operate/release current values for the windings on a relay.

    A SxS maintenance job that is the real pits was cleaning switch
bank contacts using "circular" toothbrushes dipped in trichloroethylene;
this was before the days when this solvent was recognized as hazardous,
and extensive cleaning in a poorly-ventilated CO would result in the
switchman getting a good "buzz" from the vapors.

    The most complex circuit I have ever seen in a "traditional" SxS
CO was the SD-31592 Prepay Coin Control Trunk.  Any switchman who could
understand and troubleshoot this circuit was a real craftsman!  A bizarre
bend of old and new technology resulted was when LCOT (Local Coin Overtime)
circuits were added to these trunks.  LCOT used integrated circuits and
optoisolators for interface to the 48 volt SxS apparatus.  Considering
that these SxS coin control trunks were designed in the 1930's, LCOT was
something to behold.

>   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.

    Digit-absorbing selectors were rather clever.  The digit levels
to be absorbed were stored in memories which used BMF technology.
That stands for Bent Metal Fingers. :-)  There was this U-shaped piece
of metal with 10 metal fingers on each side, which were bent with a
needle-nose pliers.  This metal part (called a "normal post cam") was
attached to the selector switch, and rose vertically as a digit was dialed,
with the bent fingers actuating a roller switch at a given digit position.
Another interesting facit of digit-absorbing selectors is that depending
upon the digit sequence to be absorbed, in many case ONLY the LAST digit
had to be dialed.  This resulted in a dialing "short-cut".  For example,
if you were served by a CO with a prefix of say, 778, you could usually dial
other subscribers within the same CO by dialing 81234 instead of 7781234.
Dialing 777777777777781234 would also work. :-)

    Well, there was the 100A and similar power plants which used
mercury vapor rectifiers that gave off a pleasant purple glow.  Also
interesting is that in smaller CO's the +110 V and -110 V collect and
return supplies for coin telephones were furnished by large dry cell
batteries.  No rechargeable batteries, M-G sets or DC/DC converters -
just dry batteries which were periodically replaced.

    SxS design philosophy before 1960 was dead set against anything
electronic.  Even a simple rectifier diode - which in some cases could
eliminate a whole relay - was taboo, despite the reliability and use
of such diodes for over ten years.  Timing circuits were implemented in
five ways: (1) thermal time-delay relay; (2) Adlake pneumatic dash-pot
relay; (3) motor-driven timer; (4) common two-pulse interrupter timing
(where the resultant timing value could vary by a factor of 2); and
(5) the three-element cold cathode electron tube - which required 130
volts to operate, however.

>   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.

    In view of today's technology, counter-EMF cells are unique - to say
the least.  Most of them used potassium hydroxide as an electrolyte, on
top of which was poured mineral oil to retard evaporation.  1960's vintage
counter-EMF cells finally got around to solid-state diodes.

>   And last of all, don't forget the rubber gloves aprons and your face
>   shield  when  measuring the specific gravity of the batteries.

    While I have only seen them in pictures, until the 1960's there
were some large central offices which had battery rooms with open-top
batteries.  That's right, open-top glass or hard rubber containers with
lead plate arrays just hanging over the side walls of the container.
And these were BIG cells, with capacities of 2-3,000 ampere-hours.

>   As for all them copper bars and 600 amp fuses, don't worry it's only 48
>   volts.

    ONLY 48 volts?  Believe me, on a hot, sticky summer day 48 volts
can feel like 480 volts!  While the primary battery voltage was only
48, there was serious current behind it which could result in real-life
pyrotechnics that are worthy of a hokey sci-fi movie.  Power cable was
primarily of the RHW-type, which used a rubber insulation and deteriorates
over time.  There is nothing more harrowing than pulling a new cable in a
cable rack and watching a section of old 750 MCM insulation disintegrate
into dust, exposing the bare conductor.  750 MCM carrying 48 volts will arc
and burn through 1/4 inch cable rack steel long before it blows a fuse!

>   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.

    I'll reminisce some more, if you will. :-)

>       REMEMBER ESS MEANS EVENTUALLY STEP X STEP

    I used to think that way too, except that advances in parallel
processing may someday make us both wrong.  :-)

<>  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?"

[Moderator's Note: And my thanks to Mr. McKeever, whose original article
sparked the reply by Mr. Lippman. I hope both of you will post again.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #362
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 10 Sep 89 0:01:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #362
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Sep 89 00:00:19 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 362

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Town Governments and Switching Telcos (David W. Tamkin)
    Name and Address From Your Number (Kenneth R. Jongsma)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Bob Clements)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Wolf Paul)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John Higdon)
    Re: Directory Enquiries (UK) (Wolf Paul)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks (Genie) (Larry Krone)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Town Governments and Switching Telcos
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 89 14:28:25 CDT
From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>

 From John Higdon in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 357:

| Speaking of rumors, a few years ago there was a major rumor (even saw
| light of day in the newspaper) that Pac*Bell was buying out GTE's Los
| Gatos operations. You should have seen the smiling faces in Los Gatos,
| not the least of which belonged to members of the Town Council. To my
| knowledge, the Los Gatos Town Council is the only governing body to
| have passed a resolution declaring that they wished they had a
| different telephone company serving their town! Now that's not a rumor;
| that really happened!

Rosemont, Illinois (where I rent a post office box), is divided among three
CO's: Centel's Des Plaines CO to the northwest, Centel's Park Ridge CO for
most of the town, and Illinois Bell's Schiller Park CO of the Franklin Park
Exchange at the southern tip.

In the late 1960's or early 1970's the Village Hall was relocated to its
current site on the south side of Bryn Mawr Avenue, just west of the Des
Plaines River (if you've stayed at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare you were on the
north side of Bryn Mawr, across the street of it).  The Centel/Bell border
ran along Bryn Mawr from the river, west across River Road, to Gage Street.

At the same time, the Centel/Bell border between River Road and the river was
relocated south to Williams Street, just letting in the new Village Hall and
the site now occupied by the Rosemont-O'Hare Exposition Center.  The village
government did *not* want to switch its phones to Illinois Bell.

David Tamkin   [e-mail]  {attctc,netsys,ddsw1}!jolnet!dattier
Post Office Box 813           BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570
Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813                [phone]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Name and Address From Your Number
Date: Sat,  9-Sep-89 14:28:31 PDT

There is a full page ad in this month's issue of Inbound/Outbound
(A Telemarketing Trade Magazine) placed by a company called TeleMatch.

This company sells names and addresses based on the phone number you provide
them.

The quote in the ad: "You can use phone numbers for more than making calls.
You can use them to send mail."

Gee... Combine this with ANI or CallerID and you end up unknowingly providing
your name and address with every phone call. Why do I not find that thought
very comforting?

[e-mail]

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

From: Bob Clements <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 9 Sep 89 15:34:31 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Clements <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry
Shein) writes:
> ...
>Does anyone in this discussion honestly believe they are talking about
>anything more important than marketing schemes?
> ...
>    -Barry Shein

Well, I haven't been in this discussion yet, but ... based on last year's
battle in Massachusetts, I believe there are some real serious abusers of
Directory Assistance out there.

Massachusetts has a legislature which seems to believe that _anything_ TELCO
wants is illegal, immoral, fattening and a ripoff of the public.  We still
have free DA and ten cent pay phones (the ones belonging to TELCO only, of
course, not the COCOTs). TELCO asked the DPU for permission to charge for DA
calls.  The legislature got into the act and started screaming about TELCO
trying to abridge the right of free speech (!?!) and ripping off the public
and all the more legitimate objections, too.  I watched some of it on the tube.
Absolutely amazing.

But TELCO kept backing off their position to the point that no reasonable
person could have objected and still wanted the permission (and didn't get
it).  They were willing to allow exemption for anyone who claimed a handicap,
even with no supporting evidence.  They were willing to exempt pay phones.
They were willing to exempt new listings and calls FROM new listings.  They
promised to provide huge supplies of phone books. They were (reluctantly)
willing to exempt not just two calls a month but twenty-five calls per month!
And still they said their figures showed there were many (ab)users of the
system who went far above that level.  (They claimed privacy laws prevented
them from naming those (ab)users.)

This says to me that there are mass users of DA who are using DA as an
extension of their business and not paying for it.  I can't see any reason not
to have them pay their way.

Having said all that, I hereby propose a simple technical solution
to the problem:

    Stop making the DA service so good.  Impose a two-minute
    holding period before giving out the number.  (Maybe except
    from pay phones).  That's long enough to encourage people to
    look it up in the book.  It probably would get the bulk
    abusers to implement their own systems with CD-ROMs.  Today's
    service is so good it is actually faster than looking in the
    book a lot of the time.  But a two minute wait is not too
    oppressive for the occasional legitimate need to find a
    number that isn't in the book or the occasion when you don't
    have a book to look in.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: Wolf Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 9 Sep 89 10:59:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 353, message 1 of 9

>> 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.
>
>Is there a distinction between "common carriers" and "utilities" like
>the electric and gas companies? I was under the belief that electric
>companies charge differing rates depending upon consumption, when the
>consumption occured, etc...

I guess it depends on the way it is phrased (isn't that usually the case
when it comes to legal matters ? :-) ?).

The telco wouldn't say, "XYZ Corp is abusing DA, so we'll charge them more",
rather it would say, "Everyone gets that many calls to DA per $100 in phone
charges; every call to DA beyond that is $.25", or whatever.

In that case they are not charging different parties different rates for
the same service, but rather, everyone's call volume determines their rates.

It is the singling out of **specific** customers for different treatment
which is prohibited to common carriers, not the establishment of different
service levels or rate classes applicable to all customers -- we already
have some of that, i.e. residential and business rates, etc. The criteria
for each such level or class may need to be approved by the PUC, but
the principle is already well established.

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".

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 9 Sep 89 18:55:34 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Barry
Shein) writes:
> Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason
> TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages
> which they *did* charge for.)

Not knowing you, I won't call you a fool, but I was certainly unaware
that telcos (pre-breakup) used DA as a promotion tool. It was (and is)
an essential service to facilitate the use of the telephone.

> I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely
> broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on
> the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only

This is not clear. Currently, DA is charged for. Do you mean make it
free again? DA has costs associated with it just as every service does.
With all of the different service entities now in the telephone
business, the question is who provides DA and who pays for it. If AT&T
maintains a DA bureau and you call it to get aunt Millie's number, then
make the call on Sprint, what on earth did AT&T get out of the
transaction? If you make a DA call for every pay call you make and I
don't, why should I subsidize you?

> Does anyone in this discussion honestly believe they are talking about
> anything more important than marketing schemes? Are the folks making
> feeble noises about "justice" or "morality" in regards to DA charging
> actually serious? Hello...hello...anybody home?

Recovering costs of operation from users is not necessarily "justice"
or "moral", it's just good business. If you have some legitimate
question, such as, "Is the amount charged for DA actually commenserate
with the costs in providing the service?", then let's talk. Otherwise,
you are going to have to accuse every business that charges for its
products of being guilty of conducting "marketing schemes".

--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Wolf Paul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Directory Enquiries (UK)
Date: 9 Sep 89 10:52:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx


In article <[e-mail]> K.Hopkins%computer-
[e-mail] writes:
 >Here's a UK view of charging for DA calls.
 >.......
 >provided for us by default so we expect to be given it without charge. Most
 >people over here usually complain that BT is being immoral (yep, that's the
 >word they use) when they try charging for 192 as  there is no  other source
 >for the information 192 provides.

While I can understand that argument, nonetheless it is flawed: not only
**finding** a phone number, but **calling** a phone number is available
only through a service the telco provides -- since making a phone call is
otherwise impossible, should the telco be prohibited from charging for that
service?  Since driving a car is impossible unless you get one from a dealer
or the manufacturer, should the dealer or manufacturer be required to provide
it free of charge?

 >printing  of  the phone directory  book.  192  calls from coin boxes should
 >still be free as the yobs  have normally torn up the  phone directory books
 >to use as bog roll. We can but dream.

Again, I understand the sentiment, but why should the damage done by the "yobs"
be paid for by the telco rather than you who wants to use the coin box? If the
average Joe Citizen would not look the other way when the yobs ransack coin
boxes (and other public facilities) we would not have such rampant vandalism
(and I am by no means innocent of looking the other way, but I don't assume
that the telco should have to pay because I look the other way).


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: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 10 Sep 89 02:21:26 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:
 ...
> I have been viewing the discussion of caller id (CID) from the
> sidelines, since it is very doubtful that Pacific Bell  will be
> offering CLASS features in the near future and I'm sure my prefix won't
> see it in this century (unless they figure out how to make it work in a
> 1ESS).


Here in NJ, we have Caller*Id from our local 1ESS switch.  Having
subscribed to this service for about six months, I've noticed which
areas in this LATA transmit the calling number, and which don't.  It
appears that the pre-ESS switches, and the 5ESS switches don't
identify the calling party.  The 1ESS and 1AESS do (except in
Summit!).

--
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: Larry Krone <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet Gateways to Commercial Networks
Date: 10 Sep 89 01:18:35 GMT
Reply-To: Larry Krone <[e-mail]>
Organization: IntelliGenetics Inc., Mtn. View, Ca.

Are there any network connections to GENIE...???


Larry

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #362
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 10 Sep 89 1:35:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #363
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Sep 89 01:30:12 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 363

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    'Cause I'm Bored, That's Why! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Macy Explains How Phone Systems Work (Macy Hallock)
    Patty Explains the Bell System Corporate Structure (Patty Winter)
    A Courteous Response to Telemarketers (Gordon Burditt)
    Coping With Junk Calls: Like Nancy, Just Say No (Bernie Cosell)
    Fighting Back Against Junk Calls (Ken Levitt)
    Phone ID Cards (Hector Myerston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 10 Sep 89 0:29:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  'Cause I'm Bored, That's Why!

This issue of the Digest is devoted, by and large, to some humorous messages
I've received in the past week.

I'm tired of Caller ID; I'm tired of debating the merits of charging for
DA; and I thought maybe you were also.

The next time someone starts up the Caller ID thing again, someone please
give me a good swift kick as a reminder not to publish it unless I want
messages to go on for weeks afterward pro and con. Obviously Caller ID brings
the same divisive, heated and ongoing discussion in the telecom group that
guns and abortion bring in talk.politics.misc.

So in this issue of the Digest, nothing serious; nothing earth-shaking;
just a few light-hearted comments to hopefully give you a chuckle or two.
For starters, is there anyone at all who hasn't seen the cartoon of the
minister standing in a payphone booth saying, "Operator, I want to make
a parson-to-parson call"?

Well, the jokes will get better as you read further....


Patrick Townson

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

From: ncoast!fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Macy Explains How Phone Systems Work
Date: Fri Sep  8 01:28:31 1989

In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Wasilko
<claris!apple!netcom![e-mail]> writes:

>I've seen compressed gas cylynders near poles and I've always wondered what
>purpose they are used for? Could anyone shed some light on this?

Although its seldom required anymore with the new electronic offices, those
bottles are local supplies of dialtone.  Usually used in areas where dialtone
form the C.O. just can't make it 'cuz the cable is too old or leaky...

I've answered this question so many times, that I just couldn't resist
giving the answer we always used to give back when I was an telco installer.

These bottles are actually dry nitrogen used to provide a local source
of dry (low humidity) gas/air to pressurize and keep water out of the cable.
Most central offices have "air dryers" to provilded a source of dry,
low pressure air for the cables.  If a splice is open, or if a cable is
very leaky, a local source of dry air is required.  Dry nitrogen fits to
bill for this quite nicely (until some smart-ass screws with the regulator
and ruptures the cable or air dam)

While we're at it, here's a variation of the same idea:
After repairing a phone at a residence (or business) that had no dial
tone, some subscribers would ask what the problem was.  My stock reply
was "Oh, your phone had been in place so long that it had run out of
dial tone.  I took it out to the truck and filled it back up.  Should
last for another four or five years now."

This was back in the days before interconnect and modular phones and all
phone instruments were telco owned.  I got in trouble once because a
subsciber called the business office and said she was going to Florida
and would they send out that nice repairman to fill up all her phones
with dial tone before she left, so they would work when she returned.
District business office managers have no sense of humor, I found out.

Another variation:  In step by step (SXS) central offices, phones left
"receiver off hook" (ROH) tied up central office capacity.  Instead of
trying to explain the techincal reasons to the subscriber, we would use
one of several stock explanations:
- "Your off hook phone makes us run out of dial tone faster."
- "Leaving you phone off hook lets the dial tone run out (all over the
   floor...)"
- "It overheats the wires in the central office..."
- "The operators get tired of hummming (to make the dial tone sound)
   (I had a little old lady offer to bring over cookies and tea to
    the toll board (operator positions) she was so upset that she had
    put them to all that trouble by leaving the phone off hook)

You should have heard us explain cut off problems.....

I've got a bunch of other stories if anyone wants to hear 'em.
Even telephone people have a sense of humor!

       Macy Hallock               fmsystm![e-mail]
       F M Systems, Inc.          hal!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
       150 Highland Dr.           uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
       Medina, OH 44256           Voice: 216-723-3000 X251
       Disclaimer:                My advice is worth what you paid for it.
                                  Your milage may vary.

[Moderator's Note: Yes please! More stories! We want more!!  PT]

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

From: Patty Winter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Patty Explains the Bell System Corporate Structure
Date: 8 Sep 89 04:29:08 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


Patrick Townson writes:
>[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]

I've been waiting for someone who knows the whole list to respond
to Patrick's note, but since no one has, I asked a friend at Bellcore
to tell me all the ones he remembered. Here's his reply:

>Date: Tue, 5 Sep 89 18:08:47 EDT
>From: [e-mail] (Phil R. Karn)

>Here's the list as I remember it:

>Pacific Telesis - Tinker Bell
>Bell Atlantic - Liberty Bell
>Bell South - Southern Belle (there actually is a Southern Bell)
>NYNEX - Yankee Bell
>Southwestern Bell - Taco Bell
>US West - can't remember
>Ameritech - Cow Bell

"Yankee Bell" doesn't make sense to me because it isn't a pun like the others,
but maybe that's the best anyone could think of.

I'm also reminded of the article by Paul Shuch in _QST_ a few years ago in
which he defined the tacobel (tB) as being the accepted designation for a
unit of lunchtime. :-)


Patty
--
=============================================================================
Patty Winter N6BIS                        INTERNET: [e-mail]
AMPR.ORG: [44.4.0.44]                     UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun}!apple!winter
=============================================================================

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

Date: Wed Sep  6, 1989 at 13:31:12 cdt
Subject: A Courteous Response To Telemarketers
From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>

Suppose you have your Caller-ID service all hooked up, and you figured
out some way to get the calling number into your PC, which is equipped with
a database of known telemarketers and other scum.  It is also hooked to an
announcing machine (an answering machine that does NOT take messages) and
it can control whether or not the annoucing machine answers this call or
not.  Your objective is to get telemarketers to quit their jobs, get
fired for nonproductivity, or end up in a mental ward, not just stop
calling your line.

What messages can you transmit to people on your "scum list" without the
phone company having legitimate reason to disconnect your service?

- 30 seconds of silence, then hang up
- pick up the phone for 3 seconds to be sure the call gets billed, transmit
  silence, then hang up.
- a recording of a reorder tone, then hang up
- for those of you who said something about copyrights on reorder tones,
    your best imitation of a reorder tone instead of a recording
- 30 seconds of modem tone, taking care to meet exactly the maximum
    transmit volume rules, then hang up
- 30 seconds of ringback, then hang up
- 30 seconds of hissing, clicking, and an unintelligible voice that might
    be saying "Hello", then hang up.
- an imitation of a machine saying "The number <my number> has been changed.
    Please make a note of the new number, 976-1234.", then hang up.
- a recording saying, "I'm sorry, but the number you are calling from is not in
    service.  Please pay your bill, deadbeat, and try again", then hang up.
- a repeating recording "Thank you for calling Bay Tea and Tee.  Please hold."
    followed by 1 minute of silence.  The machine senses disconnect by
    the other party and hangs up.
- a recording saying, "Please deposit 479 yen for the next 3 minutes",
    preferably in a Japanese voice, followed by a minute of silence
    and then hang up.
- a recording saying, "Organized Crime Death Squad.  Do you have problems
    with witnesses, telemarketers, squealers, and prosecuting attourneys?
    Pests eliminated at economical rates.  Contact your local Mob
    representative for details.", then hang up.
- a recording saying, "Worldwide Drug Emporium.  Cocaine, $5.00 a pound.
    Marijuana, $90 a gram.  Free, confidential delivery service.",
    then hang up.  (Expect a visit from the DEA on this one.  Yes,
    I know the prices are stupid).

And an example of a clearly unacceptable one:

- an edited recording of an AT&T operator, saying "<expletive> you for calling
    AT&T", repeating for half an hour, without sensing disconnect.

                        Gordon L. Burditt
                        ...!texbell!sneaky!gordon


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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Coping With Junk Calls: Like Nancy, Just Say No
Date: 8 Sep 89 14:46:59 GMT
Reply-To: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies, Inc, Cambridge MA


I find junk calls easy to deal with (I get the usual 5-10 per week) ---
it is just a matter of taking a similar attitude as toward junk mail:
finding a bunch of ways to quickly (and low-stressingly) dispatch with
the things.  One technique I've found that has worked perfectly for a
month or two now is very simple: if *anyone* calls asking for me by
name ("Is Mr. Cosell at home?"), I simply say "NO".  The call usually
ends about two seconds later and I'm done with it... no need for
rudeness or aggression or anything.

  /Bernie\

[Moderator's Note: Absolutely! Why be rude and aggressive when you can
simply lie about it instead? Personally, I prefer being rude, crude, lewd and
aggressive, in the slim hope the caller understands English. PT]

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

Date: Fri, 08 Sep 89 11:40:21 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fighting Back Against Junk Calls


In an article <Telecom V9 Issue 347> Patrick Townson writes about demanding
payment for junk calls.

In Massachusetts there is a state law which says that New England Telephone
must compile a list of people/phone numbers who do not want machines to call
them with recorded messages, and that telemarketers with such machines must
get this list from NET and not call anyone on the list.

When this started, I had my name/number placed on the list, but it does no
good.  I still get these type of calls.  Usually the calls only ask you to
speak your name and phone number for them to tape record and do not identify
the company that they are comming from.  One time I was able to identify the
company and tried to file a complaint.  No one at NET or any state office I
could find would admit to having jurisdiction over such complaints.

I have my own method for dealing with companies like this but I can't write
about it in a public forum.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 8 Sep 89  09:02 PST
Subject: Phone ID Cards
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]

     I really like /bernie\'s idea for phone ID cards.  However, it may not go
far enough!.  How about a Universal Product Code tatto on the forehead (or
even better, a sub-cutaneous chip implant).  Then anyone wanting to make a
call would simply scan themselves as a method of ID.

     Later on this same Universal Phone ID could be your Bank ID, Drivers
License etc.

                ==============================
[Moderator's Note: Suppose instead of a Universal Product Code we just use
everyone's Social Insecurity Number instead. Then instead of a unique pin,
everyone would have their very own sin. Your sin, (or sins, if you had more
than one) would be noted in all government records, credit bureau files,
telco records and telemarketing computers. Then to make a purchase or charge
a phone call or complain to some government agency you'd simply have to
confess your sin, so they could identify your account. If, as you suggest,
it was on a chip implanted in our brain, it would only be neccessary for
you to think about your sin while the authorities used probes they attached
to each side of your head.  Cute. Big Brother's Telephone Company and
Credit Card Marketing Service, Inc.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #363
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 11 Sep 89 0:59:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #364
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 11 Sep 89 00:53:19 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 364

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Common Carriage (was Re: Why DA Costs etc.) (David Lewis)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Barry Shein)
    Re: Putting A Call On Hold (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal? (Paul Sutcliffe Jr.)
    What is law on intercepting 10288? (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Common Carriage (was Re: Why DA Costs etc.)
Date: 10 Sep 89 17:35:46 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> Is there a distinction between "common carriers" and "utilities" like
> the electric and gas companies? I was under the belief that electric
> companies charge differing rates depending upon consumption, when the
> consumption occured, etc...

A common carrier is obliged to carry (whatever it is that it's carrying)
for any customer at the same price.  It can (generally) distinguish
between *types* of customers (e.g. business versus residential), but can
not charge different rates to two given customers of the same type.
Like, it can't charge you $12 a month for one residential line and
charge Pat $24 a month because he moderates this Digest that's always
badmouthing the phone guys... :-)

Of course, this is a one paragraph description of common carrier law,
which has its origins somewhere back in the 16th century, so there are a
lot of nuances I haven't touched on...

> If this is the case that there are tiered cost scales for other utilities
> then I see no reason why a business couldn't be charged less/more for
> a particular telecommunications service.

A "business", yes.  A *particular* business, no.  The phone companies
could get away with charging businesses $5 a pop for DA and providing it
to residences free of charge -- but they couldn't get away with
providing it free of charge to anyone except this telemarketing company
(since we always seem to pick on telemarketers even more than the phone
guys...) that called them 400 times last month...

Although they probably *could* get away with providing, say, three calls
to DA a month free of charge and levying a $n fee for any more (which,
in fact, some telcos do).

--
David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 89 13:58:23 EDT
From: Barry Shein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers


From: [e-mail] (Bob Clements)
>Massachusetts has a legislature which seems to believe that _anything_ TELCO
>wants is illegal, immoral, fattening and a ripoff of the public.  We still
>have free DA and ten cent pay phones (the ones belonging to TELCO only, of
>course, not the COCOTs). TELCO asked the DPU for permission to charge for DA
>calls.  The legislature got into the act and started screaming about TELCO
>trying to abridge the right of free speech (!?!) and ripping off the public
>and all the more legitimate objections, too.  I watched some of it on the
>tube. Absolutely amazing.
 ...
>This says to me that there are mass users of DA who are using DA as an
>extension of their business and not paying for it.  I can't see any reason not
>to have them pay their way.

Although I don't think anything you're saying is "wrong" I do believe
there's a lot of moralistic baggage being added to what essentially is
business as usual.

Nynex (et al) has a monopoly, that's why the legislature gets to
meddle in their affairs. If that ever stops being ultimately
profitable they're free to relinquish the monopoly.

It's not shocking that the legislators take the simple view that
adding a new charge for something which was previously free is not in
the consumer's interest and advocate for the status quo. Their job is
to advocate for what they perceive is their constituent's interest,
even if it doesn't seem "fair" (whatever that means in this context.)

I suppose the argument is that "we're all paying for it!", the
standard battle-cry.

I'll be more open to that argument when I hear the BOC say that
they'll reduce other prices if they can charge for DA (hah!) After
all, if it's a zero sum game then they should be able to show how it
will cost all "reasonable" users of DA nothing since rates will be
reduced to reflect the shift in revenue stream.

Zero-sum arguments generally suffer from the fallacy that that there
are only two players in the sum. Generally there are also these
creatures known as stock holders and others with claims on any
increased revenue stream. Not to mention nice fat raises for the big
shots etc. The chances of the savings being passed onto the consumers
is usually miniscule although it seems to appeal to the simple mind as
an argument, great PR gimmick (profits...they cost everyone :-)

Look, these things go on in an atmosphere of pure advocacy. The BOC
takes their best shots and the legislature, DPU etc take their best
shots and somewhere a compromise everyone can live with is found or
else the game ends.

As Clarence Darrow once said, "Justice has nothing to do with what
goes on in the courtroom, Justice is what comes out of a courtroom."

Going back to what I might think is fair, I suspect the whole thing
would be settled if they simply charged business for DA (perhaps with
a few free DA's per month.) Seems to solve the complaint at hand and
they know who the business customers are. Unfortunately they also know
damn well that businesses can be clever about getting around these
charges, possibly by nurturing private or internal DA orgs etc.

That might seem fine by you, but I bet that's not what the BOC is
after.  I'm guessing there are parameters and goals going on here
which aren't being revealed in these discussions.

(and responding to [e-mail] (John Higdon))

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Barry Shein) writes:
>> Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason
>> TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages
>> which they *did* charge for.)

>Not knowing you, I won't call you a fool, but I was certainly unaware
>that telcos (pre-breakup) used DA as a promotion tool. It was (and is)
>an essential service to facilitate the use of the telephone.

I am finding it impossible to distinguish your statement and mine.

Why is "an essential service to facilitate the use of the telephone"
not a "promotion tool" (actually, I said "marketing tool", subtle
distinction)? I thought they made their money from our use of the
telephone?

>> I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely
>> broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on
>> the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only

>This is not clear. Currently, DA is charged for. Do you mean make it
>free again? DA has costs associated with it just as every service does.
>With all of the different service entities now in the telephone
>business, the question is who provides DA and who pays for it. If AT&T
>maintains a DA bureau and you call it to get aunt Millie's number, then
>make the call on Sprint, what on earth did AT&T get out of the
>transaction? If you make a DA call for every pay call you make and I
>don't, why should I subsidize you?

Sorry, the discussion I was responding to was around areas like mine
where DA is not charged for tho it could be extended to yearning for
the days when DA was free everywhere.

There are various ways to recover these costs, direct chargeback is
but one of them.

>Recovering costs of operation from users is not necessarily "justice"
>or "moral", it's just good business. If you have some legitimate
>question, such as, "Is the amount charged for DA actually commenserate
>with the costs in providing the service?", then let's talk. Otherwise,
>you are going to have to accuse every business that charges for its
>products of being guilty of conducting "marketing schemes".

Others were adding a tone of moralism to the discussion, look back at
the messages.

Why would I "accuse" anyone of "marketing schemes"???

I never said there was anything evil going on.

Quite the opposite, if the TELCOs found that free DA increased their
business enough to more than pay for the DA (which is why DA was free
in the first place) by facilitating the use of telephone services then
all power to them, everyone wins.

It's entirely possible that AT&T and MCI and Sprint etc get the sum
benefit of this so it might not be worth bickering over problems you
describe, or they could account the total DA's and come up with some
scheme to distribute these costs among themselves from their
advertising budgets. All I'm saying is that it's not as obvious as
people are presenting that "DA costs money, therefore it must be
direct-charged".

Does Sears charge for their catalogues? There's a lot of precedent to
helping people find your products for free, that's all DA is.

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Putting A Call On Hold
Date: 9 Sep 89 22:35:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Dallas Semiconductor


ssc-vax![e-mail] (Roger Clark Swann) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 360, message 3 of 7
> There was a news story I saw over a year ago where a US West spokes person
> was asked about the newer features such as caller ID, call block, call
> trace, selective forward and so on. The person replied that US West was
> looking into the features but that they didn't think they were viable in
> today's market place....  > OoooK... <

US West is one of the greatest impediments to the modernization of the
phone system.  While the rest of the country is moving forward with a new
set of standards (ESF framing, B8ZS line coding, etc.), US West is digging
in their heels trying to maintain their investment in obsolete equipment.

If you ever try to get a piece of T1 equipment into the US West area, you
will come up against a strange beast called ZBTSI.  This non-solution
addresses the issue that a T1 line conveys the timing in the data, and data
is represented by pulses.  Long strings of zeros mean long intervals with
no pulses, and the repeaters can lose track of the timing.  The preferred
solution is to use a line coding technique called B8ZS which replaces
eight consecutive zeros with a special code word containing a pulse pattern
which does not occur in normal traffic.  The receiving equipment recognizes
this code word and restores the eight zeros.  Older equipment not only
lacks the ability to support B8ZS encoding, but goes so far as to munge
it beyond recognition.

The US West non-solution is a technique called ZBTSI which pre-empts the
T1 facilities data link, normally used for network control and status
monitoring, and requires storage and processing of the data on a frame
by frame basis.  This kludge is totally incompatible with existing standards
and future ISDN capabilities, impedes the ability to do useful things
with the facilities data link, and reduces call quality by introducing
significant processing delays.

The spokesman is right, these advanced calling features aren't viable.
But it isn't because of any lack of demand, it's due to obsolete network
equipment.

(It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway:  these are just my
personal opinions.)

--
Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Dallas Semiconductor / 214-450-5337
Someday the whole country will be one big "Metroplex" - Zippy's friend Griffy

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

From: "Paul Sutcliffe Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 89 23:16:56 EDT
Organization: Devon Computer Services, Lancaster, PA
Reply-To: "Paul Sutcliffe Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SW or CB Mobil Radio: Legal?

In <TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 343, message 7 of 7>, Mark Smith wrote:
+---------
| 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.
+---------
I'm taxing my memory for this, so I may be giving invalid data, but anyway:

The original 23 channels were .01mHz (10 Kc) apart, and ranged from 26.985mHz
(channel 1) up, except there was .03mHz (two empty channels) between channels
22 and 23 (at 27.225, I believe).  We CB'ers used to refer to them as 22A
and 22B.  Most 23 channel transceivers were crystal controlled -- there were
a half-dozen-or-so crystals to make up the 'set'.  Some more 'experienced'
CB'ers would hook up a DPDT switch to get 22A and B.  Later, channels 24
to 40 were assigned up through 27.405mHz.  I seem to recall the old 22A &
B frequencies being officially assigned as channels 24 and 25, but I'm
not sure about that anymore.

Then came PLL (phase lock loop) technology (along about the time of the
40 channel sets).  The PLL circuit synthesized the 40 frequencies, but
actually 'knew' a much broader set of frequencies.  I remember having
used my external speaker/PA switch to allow 'below channel 1' (under 26.985)
and 'over 40' (27.415 through 27.805) dialable from the channel changer.

- paul

PS: disclaimer: I haven't touched my CB radio in at least 10 years.

--
INTERNET:  [e-mail]         |   How many whales do you have to
UUCP:      ...!rutgers!devon!paul       |       save to get a toaster?

[Moderator's Note: Actually the first 23 channels were 26.965 through 27.255.
They were 10 kc. apart, with '3-A' at 26.995; '7-A' at 27.045; '11-A' at
27.095; '15-A' at 27.145; '19-A' at 27.195; '22-A' at 27.235; '22-B' at
27.245 and 23 at 27.255. The so-called A and B channels were really not
for CB use at all. They were garage door openers; radio controlled airplanes
and similar. When CB was expanded to 40 channels, channel 24 and 25 were
squeezed into 27.235 and 27.245 respectively, meaning 24 and 25 are actually
'lower' than 23. Channels 26 through 40 follow evenly upward 27.265 through
27.405.

And yes, those PLL chips were really something, weren't they! With a little
luck and a golden screwdriver, those guys could get the thing to oscillate
all the way up to ten meters. But the feds started raising cain with Uniden
and Motorola, among others, and forbade the further manufacture of the chips
which could be programmed like that. Everything had to be done in ROM from
that point (around 1980) onward. Are any CB radios still coming out with
those programmable chips? Probably not.    PT]

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

Subject: What is law on intercepting 10288?
From: "Wm. Randolph Franklin" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 89 17:28:08 EDT

In July at the Santa Barbara Sheraton I dialled 10288  from the room and
got a Call America operator.  When I called ATT to mention the incident,
they commiserated with me but said that nothing could be done.  However,
later the FCC  Enforcement Division told me that  this WAS  illegal so I
filed a written complaint.

Why  doesn't  ATT tell callers  that trapping 10288,  which many Telecom
respondents say is routinely  done, is illegal  and recommend  filing an
FCC complaint?  Are they afraid to assert their  legal rights?  Or is it
only the  FCC's opinion that this is  illegal, and is there  some  other
authority (maybe a court) who disagrees?
                                     --------
                           Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: [e-mail] (or @cs.rpi.edu)    Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: [phone];  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: [phone]
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #364
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 11 Sep 89 1:57:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #365
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 11 Sep 89 01:50:35 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 365

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Service Interactions Between CFU and CCBS (Busy Retry) (Anthony Lee)
    Los Gatos, Pre-GTE (John Higdon)
    How I Deal With Junk Calls (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Telephone Company Humor (Larry Lippman)
    Memories of SxS (Jon Solomon)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Karl Denninger)
    Supercomputer Network (Scott Loftesness)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Service interactions between CFU and CCBS (Busy Retry)
Date: 11 Sep 89 02:11:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I have a Special Report For Service Interactions by S. J. Chin (BNR Canada)
of CCITT working party XI/5 (1987).

The title of the report is "Specification technique for stage 2 supplementary
service interactions".

In this report there was a section under the subheading Types of functional
interactions.  The author indicated in this section that some services are
functionally incompatible.  The particular example that was given involved
the CFU (Call Forwarding Unconditional) and CCBS (Completion of Call to
Busy Subscriber which is just a retry service) services.  The example goes
like this "... A user activating CFU, when being scanned/monitored for
CCBS recall, will cause the scanning/monitoring to be withdrawn or abandoned."

My question is why withdraw the scanning ?  Why not barred the user who is
being scanned from activating CFU ?  There are a few more examples from
this report which from first reading don't seem to make sense.  If Mr S. J.
Chin or friends are reading this newsgroup could they make a comment ?
Are there later edition of the CCITT report floating around ?

Thanks in advance
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

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Los Gatos, Pre-GTE
Date: 11 Sep 89 04:03:31 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


After sounding off in this forum about GTE, I thought it only fair to
point out what phone service was like in Los Gatos *before* GTE came to
town in the mid-sixties. Before then, it was the Western California
Telephone Company and was it a lot of fun! (As some of you may know,
GTE has spent a considerable amount of its resources buying up Ma and Pa
phone companies.)

In those days there were two COs: 354 and 356. Each has its own
peculiar brand of non-standard SXS. Each allowed five-digit dialing
with Los Gatos. The 354 office had this weird PBX-style ringback with
short rings and a fast cadence. 356 had short rings with a very slow
cadence; in fact 1A2 key systems used to time out between rings. WC
hardly ever installed standard key systems, however. Instead they had
these Automatic Electric phones that had a hold button next to each
line and required no backroom equipment (KSU). The 356 ringback sounded
like terminal flatulance.

To call the neighboring communities of Saratoga and Campbell, you
dialed the seven digit number. The prefix would land you in the
appropriate Bell CO, and the last four digits were counted by the
distant switch, which at that time was either crossbar or SXS, depending
on the prefix. To call any of the other local destinations, it was
necessary to first dial "9", wait for second dial tone, then dial the
seven digit number. "9" connected you with the San Jose tandem, which
accepted the entire seven digit number dialed directly from the Los
Gatos subscriber.

Long distance was reached by dialing "112" plus the ten digit number.
An operator would ask for the number you were calling from. Some of us
found a better way for long distance, however. After dialing "9", the
tandem restricted the calls to local only, however we discovered that
if you dialed a local call, then flashed the switch hook, there would
be a ka-klunk-plunk, then silence. Dial pulses seemed to have no
effect, so we tried something else: MF. Jackpot! You could key
"KP+[anynumberknowntomankind]+ST", and you had a free call.

The standard phone issue was, er, well uh there was no standard phone
issue. It seems they used anything they could get. There were AE,
Kellog, Stromberg, you-name-it. According to some of the GTE switchmen
I talked to later, the cable plant was in about the same shape. From
the CO to any given subscriber, no one could be sure how many times the
pair changed wire types and gauge. Trying to create equalized loops was
a nightmare (even more than GTE's usual).

Considering everything, it was probably a step up for the citizens of
Los Gatos when GTE came to town, but it took away the fun of endless
hours of playing with that weird system. When GTE took over, they
immediately replaced the CO equipment with standard issue AE
directorized step, which had no interesting quirks other than it being
totally unreliable at completing calls. Even all that is now gone and
is now electronic (354=EAX and 356=GTD5). This October the 354 office
will probably become a remote from the 356. Los Gatos now has six
prefixes.


Glossary term of the day:

foreign exchange;  a service GTE provides customers who really need
           phone service, usually provided out of a Bell
           service area.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Sun 10 Sep 89 09:02:40-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How I Deal With Junk Calls


After I got my PBX I discovered a wonderful way to deal with junk calls,
put them on hold!  They'll hear music and most of them are stupid enough
to continue talking. Recently I left a call on hold for several minutes,
and when my curiosity go the better of me, picked up the call only to hear
the girl continuing her endless speach about the wonders of her company's
product. She stopped and said: "Did we get cut of or something?"  I said:
"Gee, I don't know, did we?"

Ole

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

Subject: Telephone Company Humor
Date: 10 Sep 89 19:14:58 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

    Re: the request for "telephone humor", the following is a true
story told to me some years ago by one of the people involved, a Western
Electric installer.

    Two WECO installers were completing an expansion to a New York
Telephone SxS CO located in a small community.  Part of the expansion
effort including the installation of a vacant level intercept recorder
to replace the previous use of reorder tone.  Since the intercept recorders
do not come with any pre-recorded messages, which are usually added by
telephone company personnel after installation, one of the WECO installers
recorded a messsage for test purposes which went something like:

    "Your call cannot be completed as dialed, #$%&*#.  If you are so
*&#$%@ stupid that you cannot dial correctly, then you should not use the
telephone."

    Bear in mind that this message was only used to test the operation
of the recorders and the associated intercept trunks, and there was
allegedly no intention of ever having the public hear the message.  The
intercept recorder and trunk wiring was completed and tested on a Friday.

    Accidentally or "otherwise", one of the WECO installers failed
to busy out the the new intercept trunks and unbusy the old tone trunks,
thereby leaving the recording available for the public to hear.

    On the following Monday morning the situation was discovered when
the WECO installers returned to the CO.  They quickly busied out the new
trunks and "erased the evidence".

    According to a TUR (Traffic Usage Recorder) which was temporarily
installed in the CO, several hundred calls had been made over the weekend
that resulted in the intercept recording.  This was probably 10 times the
expected vacant level intercept traffic, so it was obvious that a number of
people had "discovered" the recording and wanted to hear it for themselves.

    While the recording was the talk of the community for several days,
neither the rather nervous WECO installers nor the local New York Telephone
switchman ever heard a word about it from their respective supervisors.

    Perhaps no telephone subscriber ever complained...

<>  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:  Sun, 10 Sep 89 16:07:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Memories of SxS

Yes, those magnanimous switches were something to behold. What I found
most amusing was the absorbing of digits. In the Niantic CT exchange
(they just went DMS or ESS this year) (203-739), you only had to dial
9-xxxx to get local numbers. The local calling area was them and New London
(all started with 4), Norwich (all started with 8) and then recently
Old Lyme (434 -- which broke the 4-meant-new-london rule into 44 for New
London, and 43 for Old Lyme).

Anyway, you could dial: 7373737373737377773333377777333331-800-536-8000
and it would happily interpret the 1 at the end of the absorption, and
feed the rest of the number to the tandem.

In any case, as a kid growing up, I had PLENTY of fun with this.

In Hamden, CT: (203-288, 203-248, 203-281), you could dial 231 if you
wanted 281, or 238 if you wanted 288. That's sort of the same thing as
absorption but more complex, since there are two digits you can absorb.

I believe (203-684) Stafford Springs, CT is still a SxS exchange, as is
Orange, MA (508-544), but the number is definitely getting smaller.

I think there are more fun things you can do with an ESS now than ever before.
Like "Intelledial" (residential centrex). I just got mine and love it.

--jsol


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

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri Sep  8 20:32:43 1989
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Lars J Poulsen) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 349, message 1 of 4

>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.

IMHO you're out of line.  When you get a telephone you lose that sense
of "privacy" that you so cherish.  The same is true when you use a charge
plate, or register a vehicle, or do any one of a number of other "public"
things.  Next you'll scream about "junk mail" -- although it costs you
nothing to throw it away (just as it costs you nothing, including your time,
to IGNORE that ringing phone.)

It's time that our society started putting responsibility with the
INDIVIDUAL.  Legislation is not the answer.  Your suggestions are insulting.

The solution to the problem you are facing is simple -- don't answer the
telephone.  We have become a society enslaved to that damn little bell, and
it's time that the people realize that just because it rings YOU DO NOT HAVE
TO ANSWER IT.  If you want to insure that you don't miss something important
then buy an answering machine and screen your calls -- tell your friends and
relatives what you're up to so they don't hang up on it.  Instant problem
solved.

The number of people who are hung up on legislative solutions amazes me.  We
used to be a country of free-thinking and free-acting people.  Now we all of
a sudden want to call for laws to ban this, that and the other thing.
Whether it's telephone solicitations, guns or drugs, the point is the same.
We are increasingly unwilling to take responsibility for our own lives and
instead look to the government to solve all our problems.  The trouble with
this "solution" is that it isn't one -- in getting our carrot (regulation of
this or that) we give up our freedom.

You don't like telemarketing?  I don't either.  But you don't hear me
screaming for laws -- I simply turn on the answering machine, and only pick
up the phone if I want to.  The rest can listen to my incredibly boring
message, and waste the tape in the machine if they're so inclined.  It can
always be erased.

Why is it that people think they're enslaved to that darn little bell?  I am
master of my machines, not the other way around.

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


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

Date: 10 Sep 89 14:04:59 EDT
From: Scott Loftesness W3VS (HamNet) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supercomputer Network

Does anyone know if the text of either the Gore bill for a "supercomputer
network" or the text of the NTIA's proposal is available online anywhere?

Scott Loftesness
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #365
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 12 Sep 89 1:04:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #366
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Sep 89 00:55:05 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 366

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Who Pays For International DA? (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Clayton Cramer)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (Joe Konstan)
    Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers (John Higdon)
    Re: Directory Enquiries (UK) (George Michaelson)
    How I Deal With Junk Calls (Leonard P Levine)
    Re: Coping With Junk Calls: Like Nancy, Just Say No (Dave Fiske)
    Re: Coping With Junk Calls: Like Nancy, Just Say No (Brian Gordon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 02:30:57 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who Pays For International DA?

Not I ... I don't get charged for it as a regular DA call, nor do I
pay for it otherwise (as a line-item charge on my monthly bill, mind
you).

And why does the international DA Operator on our side *insist* on
talking?  They could (for all practical purposes) just ask you where
you want to talk to and connect, but *no* ... they feel the need to
verbally "collect" the information so they can then relay it
inaccurately to the foreign DA operator... to be fair, international
DA from the other side <Australia, in this case> seems to lose the
same way ... why won't they let me talk directly to the foreign DA
operator?

Curious,

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

[Moderator's Note: There is no 'international DA operator' that I am
aware of. The AT&T long distance operator simply handles every foreign
DA request I've ever made. I agree it seems like a waste of time for
the operator to stay on the line, however customers have been known to
connive and con less sophisticated foreign operators into completing
the call for them, obviously on a no-revenue basis to AT&T. I'd think
this could be resolved by the AT&T operator warning the other end
"information only, do not connect", as they used to do when connecting
customers to little dinky manual exchanges for DA a few years ago.
What is especially pathetic is the amount of time required to get DA
in some mid-east and far eastern countries. Even Jamaica can be bad,
but try calling Malasia for DA: she'll take the info and be gone off
the line for five to ten minutes. India is another example of
*terrible, terrible* very slow DA. For that matter, it may ring
twenty-five times before they even pick up. Maybe AT&T figures
Americans would be too confused by it all.

I am reminded of the time I visited (pre-Castro) Cuba; I tried to call
back to the USA from Havanna, and the Havanna operator was ringing the
old Miami Overseas Inbound Operator on the cable. Miami must have been
busy because it rang about forty times and finally the Havanna
operator said to me, "Sorry sir, but the United States is not
answering today!"  PT]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 11 Sep 89 16:30:58 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> Call me a naive (and cynical) fool, but I always thought the reason
> TPC had free DA was to encourage you to use the phone system (usages
> which they *did* charge for.)

So does a phone book -- and it's cheaper than DA.  (Though if you had
to listen to advertising while waiting for DA...)

> I suppose given that the telephone companies have gone completely
> broke over this lost leader and have to send their top execs out on
> the streets to beg lunch money we'd better change everything. Not only
> that, but we'd achieve ECONOMIC JUSTICE! Something I am sure motivates
> every red-blooded Fortune 10 company in America.

Local phone service rates are a heavily regulated matter, and I'm
sure if they proposed offering free long distance service by raising
lifeline rates for phone service, Mr. Shein would be screeching about
ECONOMIC JUSTICE at his state PUC.

> Does anyone in this discussion honestly believe they are talking about
> anything more important than marketing schemes? Are the folks making
> feeble noises about "justice" or "morality" in regards to DA charging
> actually serious? Hello...hello...anybody home?
>
>     -Barry Shein

The Left spends most of its energy screeching about "morality" to
justify opposing all manners of economic organization.  Certainly,
the opposition to DA charges in Los Angeles in the early 1980s was
entirely cloaked in this false concern for ECONOMIC JUSTICE.


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!

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

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 15:54:32 -0700
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers


I think there is a simple solution here.  Why not allow DA operators to connect
the call.  In this fashion, if you request DA on a call, and are connected,
there is (first time per number only) no fee.  If you call DA for the same
listing, or call DA and do not choose to place the call, then you are billed
for it.

This solves a number of problems:

1.  Businesses which merely use DA to "verify" phone numbers would pay full
    cost.

2.  LD companies could do the same thing, which would prevent people from
    calling AT&T information and using MCI (or whatever) to place the call.

3.  Pay phones could be made into general exceptions to the rule.

4.  All the legitimate exceptions could still be in place.

A couple of details would need to be worked out:

1.  How do you define "place a call?"  I would go for connection, six rings,
or busy signal (simpler than a later check against billed calls) which would
probably get rid of "Sure, place it!" followed by an immediate hang up.

Overall though, I think this is the type of SERVICE that a phone company
should be providing, and there is no reason LD companies shouldn't compete on
the quality of their DA services.

Oh, and Barry Shein wrote:

>>Does Sears charge for their catalogues? There's a lot of precedent to
>>helping people find your products for free, that's all DA is.

Well, last I looked, Sears, Penney's, and the rest charged for their
catalogues, but gave you a merchandise certificate of about the same value
good for mail order.  (With Penney's, it is a $4 catalog, and a $5 certificate)

This seems almost exactly the same, and I think it should work.

Joe Konstan

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DA Costs Should Be Spread Among All Subscribers
Date: 11 Sep 89 23:26:19 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Barry Shein) writes:
> Does Sears charge for their catalogues? There's a lot of precedent to
> helping people find your products for free, that's all DA is.

Yes, indeed they do charge. And it's not a petty amount, either!

Sorry, I couln't resist. Apparently you haven't tried to get a Sears
catalogue lately. And it points out that at some point even they must
have felt that just giving the catalogues away wasn't cost effective;
those customers that were really serious would be willing to pop for
the catalogue.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: George Michaelson <munnari!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Directory Enquiries (UK)
Date: 11 Sep 89 07:20:37 GMT
Organization:  Prentice Computer Centre, Queensland Uni, Australia


[e-mail] (Wolf Paul) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> K.Hopkins%computer-
>[e-mail] writes:
> >Here's a UK view of charging for DA calls.
> >.......
> >provided for us by default so we expect to be given it without charge. Most
> >people over here usually complain that BT is being immoral (yep, that's the
> >word they use) when they try charging for 192 as  there is no  other source
> >for the information 192 provides.

>While I can understand that argument, nonetheless it is flawed: not only
>**finding** a phone number, but **calling** a phone number is available
>only through a service the telco provides -- since making a phone call is
>otherwise impossible, should the telco be prohibited from charging for that
>service?  Since driving a car is impossible unless you get one from a dealer
>or the manufacturer, should the dealer or manufacturer be required to provide
>it free of charge?

Had BT not been a state owned and run monopoly within living memory, your
expectations would be more correct.

For many of us, BT (and the GPO in general when they were one) represented
a commonly owned *NOT FOR PROFIT* service (albiet one that could and sometimes
did make money, which of course was creamed off into the exchequer rather than
re-invested or even (shock horror) rebated...) and our views were formed as a
result. Even in a post-thatcherist  world BT has cross-subsidization and
other requirements placed upon it which make it more than just a money-making
enterprise. In a world where the phone can be a lifeline, but one denied
to many because of more general economic deprivation, the phone-provider
can (and in my view should) have certain moral obligations to meet.

Before BT left the public fold it was made quite clear that certain services,
such as DA and maintenence of phoneboxes were viewed as essential. BT
has consistently tried to renege on these and other social commitments, to
the extent that OFTEL has been forced to act, and its image as the most
complained-about utility only recently was assuaged by very marked
improvements in staffing directed towards payphone repairs.

I understand one of the first "steamlining" activities to take place
was the CENTRALIZING of all DA enquiries. Of course they under-estimated
the number of lines required, and call-queing was the norm rather than
the exception.

Yes, public ownership was not always rosy. The state's blatent creaming off
of all profits and separation from the GPO did not (in my opinion) help.
Nonetheless, Once upon a time BT was *not* just a company selling a resource,
and if some of our expectations reflect that, so much the better I say!

    -George
--
Internet: [e-mail]                     Phone: [phone]
  Postal: George Michaelson, Prentice Computer Centre
          Queensland University, St Lucia, QLD Australia 4067.

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: How I Deal With Junk Calls
Date: 11 Sep 89 20:49:34 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I ask the caller to give me his/her number so that I can call them back as
I cannot speak with them just now.  When they refuse, I ask them why they
can not give me the number and allow the discussion to continue until
they are tired of this treatment.

I also ask them their name, age and other information and begin a
personal discussion with them about their work.

They usually give up in less than a minute.

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

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coping With Junk Calls: Like Nancy, Just Say No
Date: 11 Sep 89 17:34:43 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bernie Cosell) writes:
> I find junk calls easy to deal with (I get the usual 5-10 per week) ---
> it is just a matter of taking a similar attitude as toward junk mail:
> finding a bunch of ways to quickly (and low-stressingly) dispatch with
> the things.  One technique I've found that has worked perfectly for a
> month or two now is very simple: if *anyone* calls asking for me by
> name ("Is Mr. Cosell at home?"), I simply say "NO".  The call usually
> ends about two seconds later and I'm done with it... no need for
> rudeness or aggression or anything.

Here are some tips I've used--as well as some pitfalls to avoid.

When the telemarketeer for a local newspaper calls, they often pretend
they are checking on your subscription.

    "Hi, this is Julie from the Times-Union.  Are your papers being
     delivered all right?"

This person doesn't have any idea whether you subscribe or not--it's
just their way of finding out whether you are a potential sucker for
their spiel.  I always say "yes" and the person thanks me and hangs up.
One time, though, I goofed, and told the person that I bought the paper
every morning on my way to work, and didn't need a subscription.  I
forgot it was an afternoon paper, so she pointed out that I was
thinking of the wrong one, and I had to listen to the spiel.

Now, sometimes you get someone doing a telephone survey about
something, and you don't feel like spending 20 minutes trying to rate
the texture of buns from McDonalds hamburgers on a 1 to 5 scale.
Usually they ask if you or anyone in your family works for an ad agency
or anything.  I've sometimes told them my wife does, even though I'm
not married.

The cruelest thing I ever did was just to stop talking.  When the poor
woman realized I wasn't responding, she started saying "sir, sir, are
you all right?  Sir?"  After about a minute she hung up, but I think
she really did get worried.

For some reason I never have used what I worked out to be my best
strategy.  The whole idea is for us to make the callers waste as much
time as possible on an unprofitable call.  Remember the person calling
is often just a person who needs a job, and maybe didn't have any
experience for anything more exciting.  There's no need for you to
initiate a nasty exchange.  If the person really gets obnoxious, I'd
say anything is fair, though.  Anyway, I always figured it would be
good just to ask them to hold on, because someone's at the door, then
pretend that you forgot all about the phone.  Chances are they will
hang on for quite a while, expecting you to come back on.  If they wait
3 minutes for you, before hanging up, they will have lost time which
they could have used to call several other people.  Eventually (in
theory) this form of marketing will lose its cost-effectiveness, and
the company will go back to direct mail or something.

--
"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: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coping With Junk Calls: Like Nancy, Just Say No
Date: 11 Sep 89 15:06:19 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View


In article <[e-mail]> Bernie Cosell
<[e-mail]> writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 363, message 5 of 7

>I find junk calls easy to deal with (I get the usual 5-10 per week) ---
>it is just a matter of taking a similar attitude as toward junk mail:
>finding a bunch of ways to quickly (and low-stressingly) dispatch with
>the things.  One technique I've found that has worked perfectly for a
>month or two now is very simple: if *anyone* calls asking for me by
>name ("Is Mr. Cosell at home?"), I simply say "NO".  The call usually
>ends about two seconds later and I'm done with it... no need for
>rudeness or aggression or anything.
>    [...]
>[Moderator's Note: Absolutely! Why be rude and aggressive when you can
>simply lie about it instead? Personally, I prefer being rude, crude, lewd and
>aggressive, in the slim hope the caller understands English. PT]

I've cut down from ~15 calls a week to about 1 every 2 weeks with the
following:
"In order to preserve our peace at home, no matter how worthy the cause or how
 good the product, we refuse to deal with telephone solicitors <CLICK>".

Try it at home.  Your mileage may vary.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #366
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 12 Sep 89 2:15:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #367
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Sep 89 02:15:18 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 367

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (Larry Lippman)
    Re: GTE Bashing (Clayton Cramer)
    German Enclave in Switzerland (Carl Moore)
    I Bought An AT&T Payphone (Michael Katzmann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Date: 11 Sep 89 23:10:37 EDT (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
>      At least >some< of GTE's service problems are the result of
> equipment provided (foisted?) by the infamous Automatic Electric and
> its successors.

    While I have great respect for the quality of Western Electric
apparatus, I have an equal degree of respect for the quality of apparatus
manufactured by the various GTE operations, having had firsthand experience
with the products of both organizations.

    In particular, I take exception to your use of the term "infamous"
as applied to Automatic Electric.  I will provide a bit of historical
perspective before delving into more contemporary issues.

    First, I would like to point out that the Automatic Electric Co.
(A.E.Co.) started out in 1901 as the successor to the Strowger Automatic
Telephone Exchange Co., which was formed in 1891 by Almon B. Strowger.
Strowger was the inventor of the first practicable telephone switching
system, commonly referred to as step-by-step (SxS).

    The Bell System and Western Electric (WECO) had no automatic
switching apparatus to speak of until they _literally_ learned the art
from A.E.Co.  Beginning shortly after World War I, AT&T (i.e., the Bell
System and WECO) began a major effort to install SxS systems designed and
manufactured by A.E.Co.  A.E.Co. began a major training program for AT&T
personnel, starting with 40 Bell System engineers in Chicago in 1919.

    While WECO did introduce the panel switching system during the
mid-1920's, panel was never economically viable for central offices of less
than 3,000 lines.  There are also many qualified people (especially within
the Bell System!) who will state that the panel CO was the most mechanically
complex and unreliable switching apparatus ever built.

    A.E.Co. later licensed various patents to WECO, which then began
manufacturing SxS apparatus on its own beginning in the 1920's.  However,
at various times right up to and including the 1950's, the Bell System
purchased SxS apparatus directly from A.E.Co.  There were a significant
number of SxS CO's installed by the Bell System in small communities
following World War II which utilized A.E.Co. apparatus, most commonly
the A.E.Co. 35E97 SxS system.  The central office area where I live,
Clarence Center, NY, was first installed by New York Telephone as an
A.E.Co. 35E97 office.

    So, the point is: before one blatantly bashes GTE/A.E.Co. on the
quality of their switching apparatus, don't forget they were in the
automatic telephone switching business long before WECO!  1/2 :-)

    If one were to compare SxS apparatus manufactured by A.E.Co. and
WECO, they would be virtually indistinguishable - both from an appearance
and from a quality standpoint.  The only significant difference between
the two manufacturers is in the supporting trunk circuits which are
mounted in 19 or 23 inch wide apparatus frames.  A.E.Co. apparatus has
always used round coil, flat-spring relays for both switching and trunk
apparatus, whereas WECO used round coil, flat-spring relays (220-series)
just for SxS switches, with trunk apparatus originally using U- and Y-series
flat spring relays, followed by introduction of wire-spring relays in the
mid-1950's.  WECO also introduced wire-wrap terminals on relays, other
components and terminal blocks during the 1950's, which was several years
before A.E.Co. introduced the same style connections.

    From an overall quality standpoint, in my humble opinion A.E.Co.
SxS apparatus is on par with that of WECO.  Period.

    With respect to overall quality of CO switching apparatus newer
than SxS, in my humble opinion GTE/A.E.Co. has been on par with that of
WECO.  In particular, I refer to A.E.Co. apparatus such as the analog
No. 1 EAX and No. 2 EAX, and the digital GTD-3 EAX and GTD-5 EAX.

    The first electronic switching product of WECO was the 1ESS, first
installed at Morris, IL from 1960 to 1962, and made commercially available in
1965.  The first electronic switching product of A.E.Co. was the No. 1 EAX
first installed at Portage, IN in 1965 and made commercially available
with an installation in St. Petersburg, FL in 1972.

    The No. 1 EAX used integrated circuits and was a generation newer
than 1ESS when it was made commercially available in 1972.  The first WECO
apparatus to make extensive use of integrated circuits was the 2ESS, which
was not made commercially available until 1973 (it was first field tested in
Oswego, IL in late 1970).

>      When I worked at Western Electric it seemed like the most
> satisfying jobs were those where we replaced AE equipment with ESS
> machines (1A ESS at that time) for GTE of California.  We did several
> in Southern California (Long Beach, LA-Stadium) and the immediate
> improvements brought in commendations, editorials etc.  By contrast
> PacBell jobs (usually X-Bar replacements) went largely unnoticed.

    I rather doubt that replacement of A.E.Co. SxS apparatus with
ESS was any more "satisfying" than replacing WECO 350 or 355A SxS with
ESS.  There is no comparison between the lack of SxS features when
compared to those available with ESS.  With respect to the replacement
of crossbar apparatus with ESS, most crossbar CO's (even No. 1 crossbar)
were already modified for DTMF service by the early 1970's.  The offering
of previously unavailable DTMF service would probably be most noticeable
to any customer following an ESS conversion.

    With respect to other GTE manufacturing organizations, GTE/Lenkurt
is probably the largest single manufacturer of microwave, FDM multiplex,
T1 and fiber optic apparatus in the U.S., with the possible exception of
WECO.

    I am not certain why GTE operating companies have been singled out
for bashing in this forum, but I suspect that IN TRUTH their problems are
no worse than those of any Bell operating companies.  GTE, as an overall
operating telephone company, is as well organized as AT&T, and maintains
uniform standards, practices and procedures as well as AT&T.

    Now, in my opinion, if you want to see telephone central office
which is real trash, just look at some of the apparatus that has been
turned out by Stromberg-Carlson (like X-Y, their original progressive
switching apparatus, some of which is still in service), or that turned
out by ITT (their Pentaconta crossbar switching office, as an example).

    In closing I would like to point out that I own no stock in GTE,
and I am not their spokesperson.  I am simply trying to give matters some
perspective and to be fair.

<>  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?"

[Moderator's Note: Well Larry, your history is right on the mark. Many
people are amazed to find out that Automatic Electric -- and not Bell
-- 'invented' the dial phone system. And an old story has it that the
inventor did so because he was paranoid about the operators diverting
profitable business calls from him to one of his competitors. Any
truth to that?  PT]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE Bashing
Date: 11 Sep 89 16:33:52 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

#      At least #some< of GTE's service problems are the result of
# equipment provided (foisted?) by the infamous Automatic Electric and
# its successors.

#      When I worked at Western Electric it seemed like the most
# satisfying jobs were those where we replaced AE equipment with ESS
# machines (1A ESS at that time) for GTE of California.  We did several
# in Southern California (Long Beach, LA-Stadium) and the immediate
# improvements brought in commendations, editorials etc.  By contrast
# PacBell jobs (usually X-Bar replacements) went largely unnoticed.

As a former victim of Genital Telephone (everytime you got near it,
you got screwed) service, I would have to agree.  The old (213) 392
exchange in Santa Monica was especially amazing.  A friend of mine
used to kid that he could go get coffee in the interval between
taking the phone off hook, and getting dial tone.  When Genital
Telephone finally put me up on an ESS in the mid-1970s, it was
a revelation!  Phone calls that ALWAYS completed, and damn quick!

--
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!

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

Date:     Mon, 11 Sep 89 9:42:33 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  German Enclave in Switzerland

Forwarded to telecom with permission of Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>

I wrote:
   Aug. 20, 1989 Baltimore (Maryland, U.S.A.) Sun, page 2A has an article...
   [regarding the enclave]

   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.

And he replied:
Well, that's not really accurate - they do have German post offices
too, and can use the substantially lower German postal rates.  Just
last year, or was it two years ago, they got a Swiss Post office as
well (8932? not sure any more), so they only pay national rates to
send letters to the people they do business with mainly.  An
adjustment on the phone system is not far from coming, I'm sure, since
a wave of liberalization is sweeping the PTT at the moment.

I wrote:
   ... what does PTT stand for?

And he replied (responding to my query about PTT at the end):
First, it's just my opinion, based on several years of watching Swiss
PTT politics concerning regulation, allowing of third party equipment
installed on subscriber lines, relations with neighboring countries,
etc.

Second, calls from CH *into* Buesingen (sp?) are taxed as national
calls, even from as far way as Zuerich - there's a special area code.
This is true for all border regions.

Third, it's normal that calls to nearby towns within Germany are nine
digits.  If you live in a pop. 2000 village, you most likely have a
4-digit area code and a 4-digit number.  To call the neighboring one
only right down the road, which, if its in a separate "Kreis"
(county?), likely has its own 4-digit area code, you would dial
0+<area code>+<phone number> which is 9 digits.  9 digits is also the
norm in CH, but there are fewer area codes (max 2 digits), so it's not
so often a problem.

Schaffhausen, being Swiss, has 5 or usually 6-digit numbers, so if you
say it takes 9 digits to call SH, I would imagine that there's a
special 2-digit area code for it on the German numbering scheme.
Given the size of SH, that would be a pretty special concession
already, since the shortest area codes in Germany are two digits, and
these are only for the big cities (viz. Berlin 30, Munich 89).
Otherwise, it's 11 or 12 digits going via the international protocol
(004153+number).

Fourth, it is also normal, even within Switzerland, to have the
suburban rate be much higher than the city rate.  I lived 400m from
the Zuerich town border, and yet my phone bills (mostly for modem
calls) to ZH were about 10 times higher than my colleagues who lived
in ZH proper (same area code, too).  My boss was nice enough to
reimburse me, though.

So, while I do believe that an adjustment will be coming, I think it
will probably be to install Swiss phone boxes, and leave them on the
German switch (the new electronic boxes (made by Hasler, I think)
accept multiple monies w/no special hardware, and are made for use in
many different countries.  They already have some at the French train
station in Basel).  I think that this will solve the most irritating
problem, that you can't use the same money for the coin box that you
do for beer, or that works in the coin box down the street.  Perhaps
cross-border calls will get knocked down a rate classification or so
as well, but I am not so certain of this.

It would be, of course, be perfectly in the German character to insist to
wait until they could manufacture their own Multi-Munz box (by Siemens
or AEG, perhaps). :-}

By the way, I believe I got the post code for Buesingen wrong.  I did
not bring any Swiss telephone book with me.  However, the opening of
the Swiss post office on "German sovereign territory" made the papers
all over the country.

Finally, "PTT" (I thought everyone knew this), is a quite European
concept - it means Post, Telephon und Telegraf in Swiss-German, with
the expected variation as you change the language.  The idea is that
of a single government monopoly agency which offers all these
services, and usually banking as well (it's nice - you can always
telephone at the post office for essentially local rates and pay money
afterward - pay any bill, and cash a check, too.  The clerks always
know how to speak the local language - American post offices compare
poorly :}.  In Germany its called the Bundespost, or Post for short
(but they stil do telephones, too).  PTT is understood most
everywhere, though.

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

From: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Subject: I Bought an AT&T Payphone
Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home
Date: 10 Sep 1989 00:00:00


At a hamfest recently I purchased an AT&T payphone.  Unfortunately
there was no information supplied with it.  Does anyone know how the
phone can be connected to a normal subscriber line?  I just want to
use the phone as a regular phone but can put up with depositing 25c
each call. The phone has a fair amount of processing built-in. (as
well as voice sythesis...."deposit 25 cents please").  I believe that
these units are field programmable, so I would be interested to hear
from anyone who has programmed these units.

                        Michael Katzmann
email to
UUCP:       uunet!mimsy!{arinc,fe203}!vk2bea!michael
    Amateur    |    VK2BEA    (Australia)      ' ) ) )      /           //
    Radio    |    G4NYV    (United Kingdom)  / / / o _. /_  __.  _  //
    Stations|    NV3Z    (United States)     / ' (_<_(__/ /_(_/|_</_</_

Michael Katzmann
Broadcast Sports Technology.
2135 Espey Ct. #4
Crofton Md. 21114 USA
Ph: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #367
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 12 Sep 89 3:27:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #368
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Sep 89 03:25:20 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 368

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    NYNEX Strike: No End In Sight (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Vandalism in East Bridgewater, MA (Mike Trout)
    Comment on "Vandalism / Union" Letter (Steve Elias)
    Re: Memories of SxS (Ken Rossen)
    Interactive TV (David Brightbill)
    Re: What Number Is This Anyway? (Seth Benjamin Rothenberg)
    Re: Where Are We Going From Here? (Steven Gutfreund)
    Re: Common Carriage (was Re: Why DA Costs etc.) (John DeArmond)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Sergei A. Gourevitch)
    Telecom Humor (John C. Fowler)
    Re: Telecom Humor ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 07:08:55 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX Strike: No End In Sight
Reply-To: [e-mail]

According to last night's _All Things Considered_ there is no end in
sight to the strike.  Negotiations aren't really happening, and the
union seems to feel that NYNEX is riding it out with the expectation
that union employees will break the strike this Friday, when their
employee benefits will be terminated.

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

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Vandalism in East Bridgewater, MA
Date: 11 Sep 89 17:27:20 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


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

> Did you hear about the NETel (NYNEX) cable being cut in East Bridgewater
> Mass???  NYNEX is offering a 50,000 dollar reward for info.  Some striking
> SOB cut the wire.

Since you obviously know that the cable was cut by a striker (rather than
a company goon, some random vandal, etc.), you must have been an eyewitness to
the act.  I suggest you contact your local law enforcement authorities
immediately and tell them what you saw.  Don't forget about that juicy reward
money, either.  Mind throwing some of it my way?

--
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: [e-mail]
Subject: Comment on "Vandalism / Union" Letter
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 09:26:41 -0400


That posting from me regarding the NYNEX union 'twits' and vandalism
here in Massachusetts was not meant for publication!  I didn't mention
this to Patrick specifically, so I apologize -- my mistake.

In the case of health benefits (the point that the strike centers on),
I think the union is in the wrong.  Most other companies, including
those with IBEW employees, do require employee contributions to health
plans.  I think that $4 per week is a reasonable donation.  Of course,
one could argue that it will start at $4 per week and end up at $40
per week in some future contract.

I really don't want to get in a protracted debate about the strike.
As I said, my initial comments were meant to be private.  Suffice to
say that I think the union is out of line in this case.  It wouldn't
be the first time unions have hosed their members and the public...
Every silver lining has a touch of gray.


-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail]  (for Chipcom / networking related mail)
-- [e-mail]    (for metroboston email2fax and personal mail)
-- voice mail: 617 579 1575
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: Ken Rossen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Memories of SxS
Date: 11 Sep 89 22:01:23 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Rossen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Don't Push Snow Over Here


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I believe (203-684) Stafford Springs, CT is still a SxS exchange, as is
>Orange, MA (508-544), but the number is definitely getting smaller.

I think Orange, like Athol (508/249) is a crossbar, tho' I could be wrong.

But in the (still relatively rural) area of Massachusetts between
Worcester and the Quabbin and stretching all the way from the CT to NH
lines, SxSs are the exception, rather than the rule.  They all have
five-digit dialing, and many (as in my town) will accept four digits
within the exchange.

They all have their quirks, but the one I find most annoying is that
the limited number of long-distance circuits results in a busy upon
dialing "1", the limited number of circuits to each neighboring town
can result in busy after the first two [disambiguating] digits, etc.
This makes it fairly important to listen to the progress of your
dialing, which is impractical with a dialing modem, or with a phone
which (like most pulse/tone switchable phones in pulse mode) blocks
out the noise while dialing is in progress.

In general, New England Telephone seems to have made better progress
migrating New Hampshire to ESS than Massachusetts; remaining SxSs in
the southern half of NH tend to be privately-, even family-owned (as
in Chichester).  They're saying all-electronic by 1992, but many of
the towns in Worcester County and much of 413 has yet to be done.  I
only know of one SxS conversion in Mass. in my four years in New
England, and that's Pepperell (508/433, I'm sure there are a few
others).  Not exactly a breakneck pace.

--
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 14:52:40 edt
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interactive TV

We just got funded for an interactive TV link between our local campus
and a remote campus 3 hours away.  The ITV link will run over a T-1
line.  I'm looking for a consultant who has had experience with the
use of interactive tv as an educational media.  Please email any
suggestions to me at:

     [e-mail] or gatech!loligo!djb

Thanks in advance.

David B.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 18:32:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Seth Benjamin Rothenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Number Is This Anyway?

In New York City, there is a special sequence of numbers you can dial
to reach a computer which will do various things for you if you know
the codes to enter.  Among them are:

   Read back the number you called from
   Call you back (it keeps calling until you keep it off the hook
   for a while)
   etc.

I don't know if it is still in use, and I have not seen it work in any
other area, so I won't confuse anyone by mentioning it.

-Seth

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

From: Steven Gutfreund <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Are We Going From Here?
Date: 11 Sep 89 17:57:34 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


Some of the things I have seen at Bellcore (The video hallway), at GTE
(teleconferencing and the MUSE/Athena project we are jointly doing),
and the recent splash at SIGGRAPH of Virtual environments leads me to
the following guess:

More bandwidth leads to more realistic telepresence. Currently POTS
bandwidth models the remote person as 8K audio. Future systems will
allow a complete "virutual reality" person to come and visit you in
your office. Alternaitively, one can go and visit other locations. One
can go visit another office, or visit home and take care of things you
forgot (The X-10 home control system is latched into one's office
system). Thus one can walk around one's kitchen (from the office) and
start up dinner. (this would look very odd to someone standing in the
kitchen.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund                   [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA                harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

From: John DeArmond <kd4nc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Common Carriage (was Re: Why DA Costs etc.)
Date: 12 Sep 89 04:56:05 GMT
Organization: KD4NC HAM Packet Radio Gateway


nvuxr![e-mail] (David Lewis) writes:

>A "business", yes.  A *particular* business, no.  The phone companies
>could get away with charging businesses $5 a pop for DA and providing it
>to residences free of charge -- but they couldn't get away with
>providing it free of charge to anyone except this telemarketing company

Actually, they could very easily charge telemarketers or any other
phone abusers by simplying classifying the group appropriately.  It's
the same logic used in some areas to charge amateur radio phone
patches commercial rates.  They simply lump the ham club in with other
small businesses.

Another example is how 976- numbers are currently being treated.  I personally
hate to see 976- service as a class disparraged by a few low-rent operators
but that's what's happened.

Even if the courts were to overrule a classification based on current law or
regulation, it would be easy enough to change the offending law given enough
public will.

John

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

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 10:12:28 EDT
From: "Sergei A. Gourevitch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question


I think that some of the controversy is due to the different nature of
the calls which people are envisioning. I can see that if a person is
sitting at home and calling a large organization (the IRS?  (:-  ) one
wants his privacy protected. But, damnit, if you're calling me at home it's
my privacy that's paramount (ask anybody with small children whose phone
rings while the kids are being tended to). If you won't let me know who
you are, and that includes your number, I don't want to be bothered.

Also:
How come the law allows me to tell the Post Office that I don't want
junk mail but I can't tell the Phone Company I don't want junk phone
calls (Telemarketers) ?

Sergei A. Gourevitch
MIT Center for Space Research    Inet:    [e-mail]
Cambridge, MA 02139        UUCP:    !mit-eddie!mit-space!asg
[phone]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 09:57:41 MDT
From: John C Fowler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Humor

The "humor" issue was great!  More in the future, please.

John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Glad you liked it. As I accumulate them, I will publish
more.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 08:23:34 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telecom Humor

Can anyone supply the poet and remaining content of the poem that
begins:

Once there was an elephant
that tried to use the telephant
Oh no I mean an elephone
who tried to use the telephone

?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #368
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 13 Sep 89 0:17:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #369
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Sep 89 00:15:06 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 369

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    More on History of SxS Apparatus (Larry Lippman)
    Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID Privacy Question (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: UK->USA: Which Carrier? (Pete French)
    Eletelephony! (Daniel Zlatin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: More on History of SxS Apparatus
Date: 12 Sep 89 23:07:57 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> the Moderator writes:
> [Moderator's Note: Well Larry, your history is right on the mark. Many
> people are amazed to find out that Automatic Electric -- and not Bell
> -- 'invented' the dial phone system. And an old story has it that the
> inventor did so because he was paranoid about the operators diverting
> profitable business calls from him to one of his competitors. Any
> truth to that?  PT]

    Not only is your statement true, but even more amazing is the
nature of Strowger's occupation: he was an undertaker!

    Rather than merely recite some details about the development
of "automatic telephony" (a term no longer used, but which was first
used to described dial switching systems as opposed to manual
switchboards), I am going to do so in a much more colorful fashion by
quoting few paragraphs from a book in my collection: "Automatic
Telephone Practice", by Harry E. Hershey, Fifth Edition published in
1946.  Hershey was an engineer who joined [Strowger] Automatic
Electric Co. in 1910 and retired in 1945 when he was in his 70's.
Hershey was well acquainted with the founding fathers of Automatic
Electric, and himself played a significant role in shaping the growth
of Automatic Electric and SxS telephone switching technology.
Comparatively few people have heard of Hershey, who in fact held 51
patents in the area of telephone switching systems.  Hershey was a
most colorful character who has written five editions of a most
unusual textbook - unusual in that about 15% of the textbook is
devoted to various discussions of a "philosophical" nature.


"PREFACE TO FIFTH EDITION"

    "In the words of the immortal Elbert Hubbard, 'If a man - -
make a better mouse-trap than his neighbor, though he build his house
in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door'".

    "Strowger Automatic is such a mouse-trap, made by six men - an
undertaker, a clothing salesman, an electrician, and three farm boys.
These men had no cultural background (there was scarcely a high school
education among them), yet they were able to out-think and out-fox
others in the communications field who had hundreds of technicians and
millions of dollars behind them."

    "These men were not handicapped by a profound knowledge of
mechanics or electricity; they merely had a job to do and the
God-given light of genius which permitted them to select the right
approach and the best means of execution.  In the early twenties, when
Panel was first being introduced, John Erickson was approached with
the query, "Will the new Panel System put Strowger Automatic out of
business?'  He answered, 'Twenty-five years ago I gave careful
consideration to that approach and decided that it was workable but
too costly.  We have nothing to fear from Panel.'  Now that the Bell
System has delivered its own verdict on Panel, we know how right he
was."
    "Of the Erickson brothers, John was the mechanical genius and
Charley the electrical wizard; this made for a happy balance between
mechanical gadgets and circuit kinks during the early nineteen
hundreds.  The Martin influence was always in the direction of circuit
accomplishment; but even in 1917 when the first edition of this text
was published, there was still a reasonable relationship between mechanics
and circuits.  Both were simple; and, as the writer demonstrated on many
occasions, it was possible to teach a man Strowger Automatic within a
reasonable length of time."

    "As the years passed and the old heads were retired for one
reason or another the mechanical gadgets disappeared and the circuits
became more and more complex.  In the normal course of events the
fifth edition of this text should have appeared in 1928; but at that
time it seemed that the circuit designers, like Lord Ronald, were
about to mount their horse and ride madly off in all directions at
once.  And so it seemed advisable to watch the pot boil for a few
years."
    "The few years have grown into twenty; the circuits have grown into
thousands and their complexity has increased geometrically.  As a student's
text this compilation will scarcely be as satisfactory as were the earlier
editions.  Its principal excuse for being born is that the writer, now
freed from the necessity of making a living in the telephone business, is
at long last in a position where he can call the shots as he sees them and
takes this opportunity of describing the present Strowger Automatic System
in a brochure replete with historic anecdotes and with numerous references
to men responsible for its rise and for whatever decline it may have
suffered."
    ...
    "Old John and Charley, Keith and Martin, were very, very right
indeed.  Strowger Automatic is still going strong after fifty years of
competition which in many instances was far from being fair.  Other
telephone systems have come and gone, but none of them have so well
combined a reasonable degree of efficiency with a reasonable cost."
    "Whitewater, Kansas.  July 1, 1946.  Harry E. Hershey"


    For anyone seriously interested in reading vignettes about the
history of telephony, especially SxS apparatus, examining this book will
be a most rewarding experience.  I would suspect that a copy may be found
in a large public or university library.

<>  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: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Date: 12 Sep 89 17:12:25 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> our humble moderator
writes:
> [Moderator's Note: Well Larry, your history is right on the mark. Many
> people are amazed to find out that Automatic Electric -- and not Bell
> -- 'invented' the dial phone system. And an old story has it that the
> inventor did so because he was paranoid about the operators diverting
> profitable business calls from him to one of his competitors. Any
> truth to that?  PT]

I have heard (and read) this story in enough places that I believe it to
be true: Charles Strowger, back in 1891 (I think) was an undertaker
somewhere in the depths of small-town America, in a town with two
undertakers. His competitor's wife was an operator, and by virtue of her
job was able to provide her husband information on practically every death
in town (or at least anyone wealthy enough to have a phone). It is also
alleged that she would route all calls to an undertaker to her husband.


In his determination to eliminate the job of telephone operator, and thus
remedy this injustice, Mr. Strowger went out and invented the Strowger
switch, otherwise known as the step-by-step. Each switch has ten tiers,
each tier a semi-circle of ten contacts. One solenoid hits the contact
arm (or whatever the proper term is) once for each dial pulse in the first
digit, and it ratchets up. The second solenoid handles the next digit,
and turns the contact arm over to the proper contact. And now you know
the origin of pulse dialing.

As a side note, I must say that the MIT dormline system is one of my most
favorable memories of MIT. The service was sh*tty, and the lines were
rotting, but it was worth it to be able to go down to the basement of
Walker or Ashdown and watch the calls come in at 11 pm. You could track
the wave of calls coming in from the trunks on one side of the room,
through the various (meticulously soldered) racks, and out to the dorms.
It was a mechanical system that was beautiful in its simplicity - for
instance, the power supply in Walker used two relays that would trip on
high or low voltage, turning the knob on a variac to compensate. With a
few part-time students to burnish contacts and replace them when they wore
out, and modern insulation on the underground wiring to the dorms, it
could have lasted well into the next century. Not bad, when you consider
that (I think) it was built a bit before WWII and installed soon after the
war, and was in continuous operation since then.

So much for nostalgia. I have to admit that the phone service provided by
this antique was lousy.

                                      Peter Desnoyers
                                      Apple ATG
                                      [phone]

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Date: 12 Sep 89 18:08:34 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows



I was fascinated by Mr. Lippman's interesting history and spirited
defense of GTE. Unfortunately it doesn't explain away reality. I
remember growing up in Oakland. Our telephone was connected to one of
those "unreliable" panel offices, which seemed to work pretty much
100% of the time.

We moved to southern California and in GTE land we were shocked. We
learned what it's like to not have calls routinely completed. We even
complained to repair and were told, "Oh, that's normal. You know,
we're so heavily overloaded." Interesting that neighboring areas
served by Pacific Telephone didn't have those problems.

Ask anyone who has had any *real experience* and they will tell you
the truth about AE directorized SXS. I sat in Los Gatos for several
hours one day and determined that AE step has about an 80% call
completion average. Not really impressive. When I called to complain I
was told that the problem was with the "old" equipment that would soon
be replaced.

When they installed their highly-touted 1EAX we were all told, as Mr.
Lippman pointed out, that this equipment was more advanced than the ESS
being used by Bell in the surrounding areas. Why then did it routinely
crash, not offer most features available in Pac*Bell, and find itself
already on the replacement list if it was so wonderful?

If AE equipment is so damn good, then GTE must be completely inept. The
truth of the matter is the service is substandard by any measure. All
service and feature offerings are 5 to 10 years behind Bell, and their
prices are even higher (they have special tarrifs). Pac*Bell has had to
delay implementation of their 900 services in the Los Angeles area for
at least a year while GTE tries to figure out how to set up their
equipment to put the calls through. In the Bay Area and in San Diego,
where there are insignificant amounts of GTE, the 900 service is already
implemented. In area code 714, GTE was responsible for the
implementation of 976. It's the only area code in the state that has no
976 to this date.

Believe me, if there was even the slightest indication that GTE was
pulling its act together, I would be the first to cheer. But you
have much smaller companies like Contel who provide service that runs
rings around GTE. All of my associates have indicated that they would
gladly live in a Contel area before one "served" by GTE. And these
opinions come as a result of actual experience, not just word-of-mouth
reputation.


Glossary term for the day:

subscriber carrier;    GTE's answer to undercapitalization

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Date: 12 Sep 89 19:39:53 GMT
Reply-To: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Sergei A. Gourevitch) writes:
|Also:
|How come the law allows me to tell the Post Office that I don't want
|junk mail but I can't tell the Phone Company I don't want junk phone
|calls (Telemarketers) ?

Since when?  You can only tell the P.O. you don't want obscene mail.
You have the same rights regarding obscene phone calls (though they
may be harder to exercise).

You may request the Direct Marketing Association (?) to ask their
members to take you off all their lists.  That is the only thing you
can do about junk mail, and it is entirely voluntary.

    /JBL
=
Nets: [e-mail]    |
   or {...}!bbn!levin  |
POTS: [phone]   |


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

From: Pete French <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 89 08:34:59 -0100
Subject: Re: UK->USA, Which Carrier?

In Message-ID: <[e-mail]> .....

>[Moderator's Note: Do you know whether or not the British Telecom subscriber
>gets any choice in the matter? That is, can they indicate by any routing
>code, or by going through an operator that they wish the call to be routed
>over AT&T or over MCI? If a subscriber makes a collect call to the USA for
>example, does whoever pays for the call get to select the international
>carrier? Or are they stuck with whoever BT routes them on?   PT]

I am fairly sure that our subbys are stuck with whatever BTI decides to give
them. I had never heard of MCI or Sprint until I started reading this group
and even now I am not quite sure who they are - as far as I can make out
they own the long bits of wire in the States rather than the short bits :-)

Anyway - what difference does it make who handles the call ? Surely the end
result is the same...the charges are, and I dont really care who owns the
bits of wire.


-Pete. (In no way representing my beloved employers...)


       -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

[Moderator's Note: If BT is setting the rate, then absorbing whatever small
differences there may be between inter-carrier rates via AT&T and the same
from MCI, that's fine. If I accept a collect call in the United States from
a friend (let's say vacationing in the UK), will the charge on my Illinois
Bell bill be from BT or from MCI, or AT&T, or??   PT]

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

Date: 12 Sep 89 08:13:00 EDT
From: Daniel Zlatin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eletelephony!

Someone asked for the author and completion of the following poem.  I
can't supply the author, but (who can understand the workings of the
human brain?) for some reason I memorized this upon reading it in my
grade 5(? 6? 4?) reader.  For some reason it's stuck with me for lo,
these many years, so here goes!!


Eletelephony
------------

Once there was an elephant
Who tried to use a telephant.
No, no, I mean an elephone
Who tried to use a telephone.
(Dear me, I'm not certain, quite,
That even now I've got it right.)
Howe'er it was, he got his trunk
Entangled in the telephunk.
The more he tried to get it free,
The louder buzzed the telephee.
I fear I'd better drop this song
Of elephop and telephong.

At least that's the way I reconstruct it.  Spellings are my guesses,
(but you get the idea!) and I can't guarantee I've got it all.

Enjoy!
Daniel Zlatin,
Norstar Development,
Bell-Northern Research
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #369
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 13 Sep 89 1:36:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #370
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Sep 89 01:32:20 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 370

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    "Now If It Would Only Pay For The Call" (Henry Mensch)
    IRMA 3278/79 Term Emulation Package For Sale (Joe Trigone)
    DTMF Terminals? (Seth Benjamin Rothenberg)
    Ripoff Warning!!! $480.00 per Hour Customer Support (Augustine Cano)
    Re: Vandalism in East Bridgewater, MA (Steve Elias)
    Re: Who Pays For International DA? (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Dealing with Junk Phone Calls (David Albert)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Mike Trout)
    Re: Who Pays For International DA? (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Fighting Back Against Junk Calls (Otto J. Makela)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 89 19:33:45 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Now If It Would Only Pay For The Call"
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Pinched from the <New York Times> without permission:

A Dallas-based company has developed an electronic operator system
that allows people to make collect calls and calls billed to a third
party from pay telephones without a human operator.

The company, Intellicall Inc., which makes pay phones for private
ownership, says its computerized operator system will reduce the need
for human operators and save consumers 5 percent to 7 percent on
operator-assisted calls made from pay phones.

Intellicall's electronic operator, called Intellistar, uses voice
synthesis and recognition technology. The regional Bell phone
companies have also begun testing automated-operator systems, but the
Intellicall system differs from those in that a microprocessor, or
"brain," is in each pay telephone and not in the central office
switch. Intellicall says its arrangement is less expensive for
processing a call than that at the Bell companies.

To make a collect call, the caller dials the number of the party to be
billed and the computer asks the caller to give his or her name and
records it. The system makes the call, plays back the name of the
caller and asks whether the charges will be accepted. The system
listens for a yes or no, and processes the call accordingly.

Industry analysts expect the computerized system to bring Intellicall
a significant share of the $2 billion pay-phone market, in which the
government began allowing companies to compete for operator-assisted
calls made from the nation's 1.6 million pay telephones this year. The
American Telephone and Telegraph Co. had previously held a monopoly.

Stephen Polley, Intellicall's chief executive, said pay phone owners
who use the Intellistar system would reap commissions 10 percent
higher than those offered by other alternative-operator service
companies.

Polley said the company has shipped more than 36,000 electronic
operator systems since the product went on the market last year.  The
company is also putting the improvement into the more than 80,000 pay
phones it has already installed.

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

[Moderator's Note: I can see some definite disadvantages to these devices
when cheats use them to relay messages for free: User dials call indicating
it is collect. Phone says,"Record your name" and user says, "Meet me at
the airport at 7 PM". Phone places call, and announces to recipient, "I
have a collect call from (pause, tape kicks in) 'Meet me at the airport
at 7 PM'; press one to accept the call, or two to decline."  Naturally the
recipient declines to accept the call, the phone says thank you and then
disconnects. No charge to caller or callee, but a message has been given,
and for less effort than is used now to send a coded message past the
operator. The owner of the phone still gets stuck for the cost of the one
minute station dialed call.

At least the live, human operator would never tolerate this. You might be
able to sneak past a coded message, but never could you be so brazen as
to deliver an uncoded message under the pretense that it is your name for
collect call authorization purposes. The AT&T operator would not accept
your statement that 'meet me at the airport' was your name. And with the
traditional payphones, the central could keep track of repeated game-playing
of this nature from one particular group of phones. But if the private pay
phone just has a little chip inside which records whatever you say, and
records over it with the next person, a month after the fact the owner of
the phone (or the maintainence company) gets a bunch of one minute
calls and never knew what hit them. Too much opportunity for fraud here. PT]

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

From: Joe Trigone <[e-mail]>
Subject: IRMA 3278/79 Term Emulation Package For Sale
Date: 12 Sep 89 13:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: Joe Trigone <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I have a DCA 3278/79 Terminal Emulation IRMA board for an IBM PC/XT/AT
for sale (USA VERSION ONLY).  Still in box.  Contents includes 1 IRMA
printed circuit board, 1 plastic card guide, 1 keyboard template, 1 set
of keyboard decals, 2 diskettes, user manual.

If interested, please contact Karmy Bekhit after 6PM EST at 215-623-7408.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 89 13:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Seth Benjamin Rothenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: DTMF Terminals?

My bank offers bank-by-phone, where a synthesizer and a DTMF detector
make up a terminal.  I have been unable to track down (neither from the
bank nor from DataPro Reports (are they any good?) any info on such devices.

Does anyone know what they are and the names of some manufacturers?  I
would really be interested in multiport devices, though single-port
(as would be used with a PC) would be helpful.


Thanks
Seth Rothenberg
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 89 18:28:50 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Augustine Cano)
Subject: Ripoff Warning!!!  $480.00/hour Customer Support
Organization: University of North Texas

Boy, did I just get an education in ripoffs!  Public thanks are in order
to the AT&T "billing questions" people for solving the problem to my
complete satisfaction.  I guess competition works miracles...

The background:  Years ago, I purchased a Star Micronics printer (yes Star
Micronics is the offending company.)  It worked fine for straight ascii
printing, but I recently needed to do graphics.  My software had no support
for this particular printer and any attempt to print graphics resulted in
a "Venetian blind" effect.  I wondered if some emulation mode could be set.
The manuals were of no help and all 4 800 customer support numbers there
had been disconnected.  No one on the net seemed to know what the current
number(s) was (were), or of any solution to my problem.

How I got the information: After not finding any number for Star Micronics
in any phone book I have, I call Directory Assistance.  In two minutes, I
have the Star Micronics Tech support number.  It is a 900 number.  Having
heard about these, I ask how much this would set me back: 50 cents is the
answer.  Odd, think I, usually these numbers are at worst regular numbers,
many, like Epson, which I had just called minutes earlier, are 800 numbers.
Maybe this is to avoid frivolous calls...  Maybe I haven't been in the
real world lately...  (how widespread is this kind of thing for peripherals
such as printers, modems, etc... anyway?)

In any case, in less than 4 minutes I had the answer to my question: it
is not possible to use this printer for graphics without modifying the
software that drives it.  This printer (a Gemini 15X) is not Epson or IBM
compatible.

The outrage:  When I got the phone bill, the call cost $32.00 !!!  This
works out to $8.00 a MINUTE or $480.00 per hour.  Kind of expensive to
tell me that there is not a dip switch I can set on a printer which I
could probably not sell for $50.00.  This kind of rate might be reasonable
for up to the second information that might allow commodity traders to make
thousands per minute in the futures markets, but to answer a question about
a product I already paid them hundreds for?!  And it's not like I'm asking
complex and time-consuming OS maintenance questions either...

Apparently, the directory assistance people should not have quoted a figure,
since apparently the 900 charges vary by company.  Also, that kind of rate
seems to be the norm.  Well, maybe for dial-a-porn numbers, but I'd never
heard of such thing for plain customer support.

I won't even touch the issue of the propriety of the phone company referring
people to those numbers without telling them in advance about the exact
cost.

I hope this saves someone a nasty surprise...

Augustine Cano        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Vandalism in East Bridgewater, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 89 08:51:29 -0400


Mike Trout accuses me of being an eyewitness when the NYNEX strikers
allegedly cut some trunks in East Bridgewater, MA.  The reward money does
sound awfully juicy, Mike -- but nobody gets rewards for pointing out
the obvious.  I think this is another case of two plus two equals four.

(Though you could also allege that management cats cut the cables so they
could get paid even more overtime than they already are getting.)

Again, my original comments were posted inadvertently.  They were sent
as private email to "[e-mail]" -- not to "[e-mail]".

-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail]  (for Chipcom / networking related mail)
-- [e-mail]    (for metroboston email2fax and personal mail)
-- voice mail: 617 932 5598
-- work phone: [phone]


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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Pays For International DA?
Date: 13 Sep 89 04:43:50 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


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

> And why does the international DA Operator on our side *insist* on
> talking?  They could (for all practical purposes) just ask you where
> you want to talk to and connect, but *no* ... they feel the need to
> verbally "collect" the information so they can then relay it
> inaccurately to the foreign DA operator... to be fair, international

    Yes, as a general rule the U.S. operator does ask the questions etc when
you do an "International Directory Inquiry". But I have found that if I ask
the Operator if I can ask the questions in a foreign language to speed up
the process, they let me.

    U.S. operators who are used to the Bell standard 18 second max DA number
response are often staggered at the time it seems to take certain European
PTTs. I usually explain that they have to go down the hall to borrow a
directory which the U.S. side ops find pretty funny and helps pass the time
while we are waiting for the operator to get back to us with the number.

    Once at a telco trade show in San Diego British Telecom had a direct
Satellite link on their stand which returned UK (London) dialtone. They
offered me free calls to the UK so I thought "Lets get mum out of bed." So I
dialled 192 (I think) Directory Enquiries according to the Brits on the
stand. Well it rang and rang. I quit and tried again, it rang and rang. I
did call someone in the UK teleport and he confirmed I had the right number
for Directory Enquiries. So I dialled again and let it ring for 15 mins.. No
reply. I decided it would be quicker to write. I now take mother's phone
number to trade shows - just in case. Oh yes, it was about 9 P.M. in london,
so it wasn't that late to want a number.

    Yours

Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo    ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
n6are@k6iyk (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

From: David Albert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dealing with Junk Phone Calls
Date: 12 Sep 89 19:13:22 GMT
Reply-To: David Albert <endor![e-mail]>
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab Harvard, Cambridge, MA


I try not to get rude with junk phone callers, but mainly for my own
benefit: I have a hard time calming down after I get worked up about
anything.  On the other hand, I don't see any special need to provide
useful or correct information to their questions.

My favorite recent exchange was with an MCI salesman:

Him: "Sir, would you be interested in paying lower phone bills each month?"

Me: "No, thanks anyway."

Him: "Why not?" (Can you believe it?  I thought my hint was unsubtle.)

Me: "Well, I actually enjoy paying high phone bills.  But thanks!"


David Albert / UUCP: ...!harvard!albert / INTERNET: [e-mail]

"Some people achieve immortality through their work.  I prefer to achieve
immortality through not dying."  -- Woody Allen

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

From: Mike Trout <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Date: 12 Sep 89 18:14:48 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


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

> [much about modern lack of individual responsibility deleted]

> If you want to insure that you don't miss something important then buy an
> answering machine and screen your calls -- tell your friends and relatives
> what you're up to so they don't hang up on it.  Instant problem solved.

Fine--except for one problem.  What about those folks who can't afford an
answering machine?  There are millions of the new "working poor" who need a
telephone for their jobs, yet barely get by on a hand-to-mouth existence.  I
don't think it's fair for you and me to be able to solve our problems by
spending money, while it's an option that many people don't have.  It's just
another example of how the "haves" have so many advantages over the
"have-nots".  And the argument that "answering machines aren't very expensive"
doesn't apply.  What is "not very expensive" to a single working mother who's
trying to decide whether to buy beans vs. bread for the kids tonight?  Imagine
her some evening, frantically trying to cook dinner, stop the kids from
fighting while getting them to do homework, do the house cleaning, all in a
short enough time to maybe get a few hours sleep before the boss calls
again--all interrupted by three calls from people trying to sell her some
aluminum siding.

Don't get me wrong--I think the bulk of Karl's article is very good, and his
points about our society seeking legislative solutions for everything are
highly valid.  I urge everyone to re-read Karl's article, and think about how
we all abrogate the responsibilities that we should be maintaining.  I think
Karl has zeroed in well on one of our most glaring faults.

But I must take issue with his paragraph above.  The idea that you can solve
your problem by purchasing Product X only applies to those who have the money.
Remember that such solutions always leave out a certain percentage of
people--who are already rather resentful at being left out of the
mainstream--and serves to futher widen the rich-poor gap.  Note also that I am
not proposing any specific alternative; I intend merely to point out the
problems that exist with this approach.


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: Tue, 12 Sep 89 21:09:45 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Pays for International DA
Reply-To: [e-mail]

   Date:     Tue, 12 Sep 89 1:04:10 CDT
   From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>

   [Moderator's Note: There is no 'international DA operator' that I am
   aware of. The AT&T long distance operator simply handles every foreign
   DA request I've ever made. I agree it seems like a waste of time for
   the operator to stay on the line, however customers have been known to
   connive and con less sophisticated foreign operators into completing
   the call for them, obviously on a no-revenue basis to AT&T.

I reckon you haven't been paying attention; every time I call I get
transferred to the "international DA operator."

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

[Moderator's Note: Everytime I place an overseas call from here at my home
in Chicago, I dial 00 (double zero) and ask the AT&T operator who answers
me "Give me DA in Exotic Land."  She says okay, checks her tube for the
correct routing, rings it, and stays on line passing the information badk
and forth. I do not get handed off to any other operator for the purpose
of directory lookups. The Chicago AT&T operator then asks if I want her
to dial it. Usually then I hang up and dial direct.   PT]

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

From: "Otto J. Makela" <mcvax!jyu.fi![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fighting Back Against Junk Calls
Date: 12 Sep 89 14:23:44 GMT
Reply-To: "Otto J. Makela" <mcvax!jyu.fi![e-mail]>
Organization: Grand Hall of Justice, Mega-City One


Over here in the boonies, there are just a few telemarketing companies...
This normally works very well, I'm not so sure if it would work with American
telemarketing companies (specially with automatic devices :-)

(phone rings)
Me:        "Otto Makela"
Salesperson:    "Hello, I'm from the Finnish sports association [or something
        similar].  What are your views on competetive sports ?"
Me:        "I think that competetive sports is a total waste of time and
        money."
SP (weakly):    "Er... in that case I assume you are not interested in our
        'Illustrated sports magazine' ?"
Me:        "Quite correct."
SP:        "Thank you for your time."
(and they never call back)
--
* * * 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); * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #370
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 13 Sep 89 2:11:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #371
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Sep 89 02:10:26 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 371

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Conventional Use of Coin Telephones (Larry Lippman)
    Absorb, Absorb, Absorb (Bernard Mckeever)
    SxS And Tours (Bob Clements)
    SxS in Orange, MA (Jon Solomon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Conventional Use of Coin Telephones
Date: 13 Sep 89 00:38:47 EDT (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

> At a hamfest recently I purchased an AT&T payphone.  Unfortunately
> there was no information supplied with it.  Does anyone know how the
> phone can be connected to a normal subscriber line?  I just want to
> use the phone as a regular phone but can put up with depositing 25c
> each call. The phone has a fair amount of processing built-in. (as
> well as voice synthesis...."deposit 25 cents please").  I believe that
> these units are field programmable, so I would be interested to hear
> from anyone who has programmed these units.

    I am not familiar with the operation of newer coin telephones which
have synthesized voice, mag stripe readers, alphanumeric displays, etc.
since my "nuts and bolts" experience with such apparatus ended during the
1970's before these new-fangled gadgets came into existence.  However, I am
quite familiar with more common coin telephones made by WECO and other
vendors, so perhaps a comment or two may be helpful.

    In the case of WECO coin telephones, from a standpoint of feature
identification, a 1-type telephone is of the standalone "box"-type, and a
2-type telephone is of the "panel"-type often found in shopping malls,
airports and other places of public assembly.  The A-series is a telephone
for coin-first operation (long ago MD-ed and almost non-existent), the
C-series is convertible for either coin-first or dial-tone-first, the
D-series is for dial-tone-first only, and the E-series is for postpay
operation only (non-WECO CO apparatus).  A following number of 1 indicates
rotary dial and a following number of 2 indicates DTMF dial.  An example is
a 1D2, which is a box-type, dial-tone-first DTMF-dial coin telephone.

    There is no way that an an A-series or C-series (configured for
coin-first) coin telephone will work on a conventional (POTS) loop-start
telephone line.  These coin telephones require coin(s) to operate the
totalizer until an an initial rate is deposited, which then puts a
ground on the ring side of the line, which then requires the CO to place
a ground on the tip side of the line.  The presence of this foreign
ground on a conventional loop-start line may well preclude any attempts
at dialing and interference-free transmission.

    Even more important, is that all money deposited remains in the
coin hopper until the CO apparatus sends collect (+100 to +130 VDC) or
return (-100 to -130 VDC) voltage between tip-ring and ground to operate
the coin relay and restore the telephone for another call.  The coin return
lever will NOT cause the deposited coins to exit the coin return chute,
nor will it reset the totalizer.

    So the point is, a coin-first telephone is useless for regular
telephone use unless one modifies the telephone circuit to bypass the
totalizer and coin control components.

    A C-series (configured for dial-tone-first) or D-series coin
telephone will _probably_ work on a conventional loop-start telephone
line PROVIDED that you do not deposit any coins.  If you deposit coins,
you cannot retrieve them without supplying coin-control voltages (not
very practicable!), although you could open the upper housing and manually
remove them from the coin hopper (not very convenient).  You canNOT use
the coin deposit function to allow a call only in the presence of a coin.

    It is sort of interesting to note that the 1A and 1C series coin
telephones have electromechanical totalizers and have a maximum initial
rate of $ 0.55.  The 1D series coin telephone has an electronic initial
rate circuit, which is programmable to a maximum initial rate of $ 3.15.
We can certainly see that AT&T is well prepared for inflation! :-)

    The bottom line is that if you are thinking of using your coin
telephone to actually collect money for calls, this is an impracticable
idea since as far as I know, ALL AT&T (i.e., WECO) coin telephones require
some type of central office coin control.  This is, of course, not true of
some newer non-AT&T coin telephones which are intended for "do it yourself"
operation on conventional loop-start telephone lines.

<>  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, 12 Sep 89 14:03:05 EDT
From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Absorb, Absorb, Absorb
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I sure enjoyed Larry Lippman's SXS article the other day and got a
kick out of his explanation of BMF technology for digit absorbing
selectors. Larry and others mentioned dialing situations where the
digits would be absorbed over and over, I have seen this happen but it
was always a trouble, and resulted in wrong numbers or not enough
digits. Let me explain. The level 7 tandem office I worked in had 2nd
selectors set up to absorb digits 2,3,4, and 7.  The switch would only
allow a digit [any digit] to be absorbed once.  If the exchange you
were calling was 733 you could dial 743 and still get the right party.
On outgoing calls all levels except 7 and 6 were routed to the
appropriate toll or stepper tandem office by the first selector.
Level 6 calls went to a group of special selectors that routed 61X
calls to the test board, repair bureau, or test connectors in the
office. level 62, 63, 64 .....etc. routed to the level 6 tandem trunk
groups or vacant code announcement. Level 7 calls had several
available routings.

71 vacant code
72 absorb
73   "
74   "
75 third selector
76 route to end office
77 absorb
78 route to end office
79 route to end office
70 vacant code

Lets get rid of the 75 calls first. There were 3 separate offices that
had 75 as the first two digits of the office code. The third digit was
required to identify the correct trunk group for the end office.  With
the 4 groups left, the 3rd digit [still on the 2nd selector] would cut
in on any level dialed. This is the only way to direct the call to the
proper connectors for call completion. In this office anyway.

Incoming calls were treated much the same. All level 7 calls entered
on a digit absorbing incoming 2nd selector, except some trunks from
the 3 offices using office code 75X, and were treated as above.  The
trunks from the 75X offices would come in on a non absorbing 2nd
selector if the 2nd digit had been a 2, 3, 4, or 7.  I should restate,
this was a level tandem office, not an end office.  Also the
arrangement of the 75X offices was not a normal one.

End offices had different arrangements that could allow 4, 5, and 7
digit dialing arrangements. I have no doubt that some offices will
allow a few designated digits to be absorbed over and over, but I just
was not lucky enough to work in one.

PS. If anyone reading this is going to be at the NCF in Oct. and
would like to get a look at some modern digital transmission
equipment located nearby let me know.

Bernie McKeever
508-960-6289
BMF


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

Subject: SxS And Tours
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 89 15:01:50 -0400
From: [e-mail]


As long as we're reminiscing about SxS exchanges and tours and such...

I attended MIT in the early sixties.  At that time, and maybe because
it was MIT students asking, New England Tel allowed lots of tours.

We visited Strowger SxS offices, panel offices, #1 crossbars, one
of the new-fangled #5 crossbars (Wellesley, as I recall) and one
of the main Boston tandem offices.

I have a very strong recollection of the LOUDEST room in the phone
system.  It was in the above-mentioned tandem office.  Today its
function would be implemented in RAM backed up by a floppy disk or
tape cartridge.  Then it was implemented in metal punch cards and
solenoids.  What it did was translate from three digits of the phone
number to a trunk group and a number of digits to send on that trunk
group.

    Let's see: You dialed 213.
        Grab a trunk to White Plains and send all ten digits.
    Or: You dialed 358.
    Grab one of these dedicated trunks to Wayland (a SxS) and
    send the last four digits only.

Each such inquiry resulted in a large "WHAM!" as a bunch of solenoids
shoved huge trays of metal cards around.  The selected card had
the answer punched in it.  The cards were metal because of the great
number of read cycles.  Updating the routing consisted of punching a
new metal card and replacing the old one in the bin.  Every once in
a while there was a distinctive "WHAM-WHAM!" in among the many
random "WHAM!"s.  We were told that was a "come-again-six" operation.
That meant that the three digits weren't enough to select the trunk
group - say 603 for NH - and the "ABC" code (3 digits after the area
code, total six) were needed.  The equipment holding the number
had to "come again" (request another cycle) with the rest of the six
digits.

The largest Strowger office I ever toured was Madison WI.  It was
close to 1970 and they still had all Strowger SxS gear, no panel, no
crossbar.  It was absolutely huge, and sparkling clean and well
maintained.

As for not-so-beautiful equipment, I earned my spending money by
working on MIT's dorm phone system.  Some of it was new equipment
(Baker House) but most of it was ancient.  East Campus had a manual
cord switchboard when I was a freshman.  A couple years later it got
dial equipment.

The "new" equipment was junked from the old John Hancock building as
no longer being repairable.  The interbay thousands-of- triples cables
(and the huge battery cables) were cut with hacksaws and the bays were
trucked over to MIT.  I and a couple other guys spent the summer
reconnecting it all.  Soldering on the top of an old MDF (Main
Distribution Frame) is bad enough.  Soldering on the bottom, with
solder dropping into your face, is the pits.

Some of this gear used plunger line switches that were so old that
they weren't even "restoring".  A plunger line switch is a wonderful
device which can't be described without a diagram.  It performs the
function of a Strowger "Line finder".  Each subscriber line controls a
plunger - a solenoid that drives a probe-like contact into a curved
array of contacts.  This connects that subscriber to a first selector
(which provides dial tone and accepts the first digit).  Then the
whole array of plungers pivots over to the next available position for
a free selector.  (If none are available, this whole assembly of 50 or
100 plungers sweeps back and forth looking for one.)  A "restoring"
plunger is one that restores the position of your line's plunger to
the current position of the array when you hang up.  Then you can get
the next free selector if you pick up again.  Without this "restoring"
feature, the plunger stays over the position it just used.  If you
pick up again, you get the same first selector.  So if you happen to
get a dead selector, a "restoring" line switch lets you try a
different one by hanging up and re-seizing your line.  On a
"non-restoring" switch, you are stuck with the bad position until you
hang up and wait for ten other people to make calls so the switch
sweeps back and picks up your plunger.

Batteries; yuck.  Motor-generated dialtone and busy interrupters;
yuck.  Grasshopper fuses; yuck.  Sticky B relays; yuck.  Those were
sure the good old days.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

Date:  Tue, 12 Sep 89 09:59:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SxS In Orange, MA

Orange, MA is definitely a SXS office. Sturbridge used to be SXS and converted
to DMS/ESS some time ago. Natick was SXS until recently also, now it's a
DMS/ESS (Don't know which).

It would seem to me that NET is converting exchanges in quite a nice fashion.

--jsol

[Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon - jsol - is the former Moderator of TELECOM
Digest, and was the founder of this journal nine years ago.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #371
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 14 Sep 89 0:23:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #372
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Sep 89 00:20:08 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 372

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    COCOT Regulation at Last! (Ken Jongsma)
    More on Digit-Absorbing Selectors (Larry Lippman)
    Mail Connections with GEnie (David W. Tamkin)
    How Did This Group Start? (Bernard Mckeever)
    Customer Support on 900-Numbers (Lars J. Poulsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: COCOT Regulation at Last!
Date: Wed Sep 13 19:41:08 1989
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>

My GTE California bill had an interesting insert in it this month.

The California Public Utilities Commision is considering the following
proposed regulation of COCOTS:


     1) Local Calls from *all* payphones would be .20 for 5 years.

     2) All payphones will provide free access to emergency, repair,
        directory assistance, 800 and *local telephone company
        operators when 0 is dialed*.

        (No word about 10xxx access though.)

     3) All payphones will provide clear signs indicating rates,
        dialing instructions, free access, the identity of the
        phone vendor and the long distance carrier serving the
        phone.

     4) Prices approved by the CPUC to be strictly enforced.

     5) An additional charge of .30 (called "Paystation Charge"),
        could be added to 0+ calls. this is addition to the current
        .40 charge for credit card and 1.00 for collect charge.

I think this is terrific and long overdue. The only one that isn't
clear is number 5. Presumably the new .40 charge is in place of any
excessive charge the local vendor has programmed their phone to collect.

I don't know how much luck CPUC is going to have enforcing these
rules on out of state calls, but I wish them all the best. They certainly
would serve as an excellent model for the rest of the country.

The insert goes on to give dates and times of the hearings and an address if
you wish to mail comments. Presumably everyone in CA is getting this insert,
so I won't include that info.

[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Please keep us posted on the results of this.  PT]

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

Subject: More on Digit-Absorbing Selectors
Date: 13 Sep 89 22:51:24 EDT (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bernard Mckeever) writes:
> Larry and others mentioned dialing situations where the
> digits would be absorbed over and over, I have seen this happen but it
> was always a trouble, and resulted in wrong numbers or not enough
> digits. Let me explain. The level 7 tandem office I worked in had 2nd
> selectors set up to absorb digits 2,3,4, and 7.  The switch would only
> allow a digit [any digit] to be absorbed once.  If the exchange you
> were calling was 733 you could dial 743 and still get the right party.

    Most digit-absorbing selectors had a wiring option to absorb a
given digit ONCE or REPEATEDLY, with the latter case allowing for an
infinite number :-) of the same digit to be dialed.  Sometimes in an
office with two consecutive identical numbers (like 773) there was no
choice but to set the 7-level for repeated absorption if the first
selector was to be a combined local/toll/tandem selector.  Therefore,
the instance of repeated absorption was often not a case of trouble,
but was simply a quirk of the particular office switching layout and
the particular digit-absorbing selectors.

     Some digit-absorbing selectors were more complex than others.  A
full-featured digit-absorbing selector (like the SD-30976) was sophisticated
(I use this term loosely :-) ) enough to decide on a level by level basis
whether to absorb once, absorb repeatedly, rotate to ATB, select a path
to a second selector or select a path to an outgoing trunk.  The above was
a pretty common digit-absorbing selector and was used on No. 1, 350A, 355A,
356A and 360A SxS apparatus.  I remember it "fondly". :-)

<>  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: Mail Connections With GEnie
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 16:13:39 CDT
From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>


Larry Krone aksed in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 362:

> Are there any network connections to GENIE...???

GEnie's answer when I phoned was "not at this time."  Two months ago my
interpretation would have been that it was a polite way to say "when hell
freezes over," but we lived to see CompuServe connect.

Other divisions of General Electric are already on the net (the .ge.com
subdomain), and sometimes when customers receive email on GEnie from employee
accounts the senders' names appear in @ style (such as STAFF.ACCOUNT@GENIE I
think) for whatever that is worth.  It certainly doesn't mean much on BIX,
where all mail appears as from sender@BYTECOSY, even from customer accounts,
but they aren't on the net either and are content to let the DASnet people
take care of mail between BIX customers and the net at DASnet's usual rates.

David Tamkin  P.O Box 813  Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 |      BIX: dattier
[e-mail]   [phone]  [phone] | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN
Everyone on Chinet has his or her own opinion about this.|   CIS: 73720,1570
[Jolnet had a disk crash; I should be [e-mail] again soon.]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 10:19:11 EDT
From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Did This Group Start?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Being new to this group I never took the time to research its' history
but if what I suspect is true, the group has changed quite a bit over the
years. The group name, comp.dcom.telecom, suggests a natural evolution
from the comp {computer} hierarchy to a group interested in machine to
machine communications, comp.dcom , and further specializing in machine
to machine communications over telephone facilities.

Today we almost have usable computer to computer communications ;-}
over telephone facilities, in fact we are using it now.  Thanks to T1
pipes and digital transmission circuits, relatively large amounts of
data can be moved from point A to point Z quickly and accurately. But,
and by now you may have guessed where I'm headed, It wasn't always so.

One of the early forms of "data" communications that still has a few
applications left is the telegraph. Several of the older alarm
reporting systems used by fire departments cling to this technology
because it still works, and the tariffs for telegraph grade facilities
are cheap and hard to change for political reasons.  Your favorite
alarm company may still be using McCulloh systems for home and
business protection. Today several vendors have T-CXR channel units
for this service, but it is still a basic series [just like old
Christmas tree lights] circuit that causes the Telco nightmares when
the circuit goes open.

Western Union at one time had a huge telegraph network that spanned
the globe. Often telegraph circuits were transported over analog
carrier systems. I can remember the 43A carrier system that combined
up to 17 separate telegraph circuits on one N1-CXR channel [4 khz
bandwidth]. We had two systems of N1 carrier that each had 10 43A
systems on them. From time to time one or both of the systems would
fail when the A1 cable under the river started to go belly up. NY 7
Telegraph [the control office] would be on the tie line in seconds
arranging a reroute.

Other early applications of data transmission were TWX, another
Western Union service. The Bell System was also allowed "some" TWX
like service. This service used private network switches and addresses
were 10 digit numbers. This is how the now well debated 510, 610, 710,
.....etc. area codes were used. Strangely, this network was to a large
extent maintained by the Bell System and much of the equipment used to
provide the service was located in Long Lines switch rooms. Other
Common Carrier [OCC] decisions forced AT&T to cancel the contract with
W.U. and legal battles began. W.U. cut over to its' own satellite
based system several years later. TWX service ran at several speeds
depending on the model of TTY you had, TTY=Tele TYpewriter, the later
one would operate at 110 - 150 baud. What a racket that mechanical
device made at such "high speeds".

Another common data application was the dumb terminal to host
connection, used mainly with time share systems. Connections were
typically 300 baud, and the modems were much bigger than a bread box.
Connections were available in two flavors, dial-up and private line.

Well thats enough for today, time to go for now.

Bernie McKeever
508-960-6289


[Moderator's Note: TELECOM Digest began publication August 25, 1981. It
began as a break-away from HUMAN-NETS, as a place where the technical
aspects of telephony could be discussed. Jon Solomon said that it was
intended for messages not of general interest to the entire HUMAN-NETS
readership. Volume 1 Number 1 had a discussion on Dimension systems.

About the same time that divestiture occurred, more and more of the
messages began appearing in the Digest discussing telephone-related, but
non-technical topics. The early issues of the Digest were published at
Rutgers University; it changed sites on several occassions as jsol changed
jobs or his residences. Its last home was at Boston University. I moved
the Digest to Evanston, IL in February, 1989.    PT]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 11:19:07 -0700
From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customer Support on 900-numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lars J Poulsen)
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Augustine Cano) writes:
>In two minutes, I have the Star Micronics Tech support number.
>It is a 900 number.  Having heard about these, I ask how much this would
>set me back: 50 cents is the answer.

>In any case, in less than 4 minutes I had the answer to my question: it
>is not possible to use this printer for graphics without modifying the
>software that drives it.  This printer (a Gemini 15X) is not Epson or IBM
>compatible.

>The outrage:  When I got the phone bill, the call cost $32.00 !!!  This
>works out to $8.00 a MINUTE or $480.00 per hour.  Kind of expensive to
>tell me that there is not a dip switch I can set on a printer which I
>could probably not sell for $50.00.

I sympathize with your problem, but I do not agree with your definition
of the problem. As I see it, the problem is
(1) directory assistance gave you the wrong rate. Based on that, you
    should request a chargeback from the local exchange carrier.
(2) the serving company did not provide on-line rate information. Lines
    like this should be answered with a recording that states the rate
    and gives you 15 seconds to get off.

On the other hand, *paid* *technical* *support* is not a problem but a
solution. Technical support is expensive to provide, and vendors need to
recover this cost. This can be done in several ways:
(1) Increase the product price to cover giving support for free.
    This may increase the cost of the product by as much as 100 %, and
    may result in the product being priced out of a mass market into a
    niche market (which in itself reduces the support need, since
    product features and documentation can now be accurately targeted
    to the application and the technical level of the users).
(2) Make support available only to paying subscribers of a support
    contract. This approach is becoming fairly common. Such a support
    contract may run in the following ranges:
    - $75-$100/year for a personal computer program for checkbook
      balancing and tax preparation
    - $500/year for high-end personal computer word processing/page
      layout programs or macro-programmable spreadsheets
    - $1000/year for 8-user Unix systems
    - $5000/year for Mainframe TCP/IP packages
    - $10000/month for IBM's MVS operating system on midrange processors
(3) Bill by the hour for all support. I have had support telephone lines
    announce "please have a current Mastercard or Visa ready for the person
    answering the line".
(4) Ration support by having only one incoming line which is generally busy.
(5) Not make any support available.

Most vendors are moving from option 1 to a combination of options 2 and
4. Personally, I feel that options 2 and 3 are the most fair, with an
allowance for free support in a warranty period following product
purchase (which is a subset of option 1).

I work in the Customer Service department of a company that produces
data communications equipment for high-end systems (from VAX-class
machines and up). While some of our support needs stem from product
deficiencies uncovered in forever changing customer applications, much
of our support effort is basic education in features of the customer's
operating system or 3rd-party software that interoperate with our
equipment. It seems fair to me that those customers that spent money up
front to send their staff to appropriate training classes should not pay
to provide "free" support to those customers that did not.

We support according to option 2 with free installation support for 90
days after our product shipment. We would like to be able to bill by
the hour for out-of-warranty customers with consulting needs.  We have
looked into using 976- or 900- type billing for such consulting, and
have discovered that the California PUC will not allow this.

(1) Interactive 976-services are not allowed in California
(2) 976-services can only be located in certain premise locations leased
    by Pac Bell (in some cases to brokers that will sublease) and cannot
    be located in our GTE service area. The closest 976-access point is
    in West Los Angeles, 100 miles from here.
(3) 976-calls are limited to 3 minutes, and there is an upper limit of
    something less than $5.00 on the charge.
(4) 900-services are not yet generally available in California. Most of
    the Pac Bell has recently opened up, but again, our GTE service
    area is running behind.
(5) 900-services are subject to the same restrictions as 976-services.

In short, I think the $32.00 service charge is not unreasonable; but I
am sure you would not have spent it, if you had known the price.


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #372
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 14 Sep 89 1:22:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #373
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Sep 89 01:20:07 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 373

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller ID in Maryland (Ken Jongsma)
    Central Office Answering Machine (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: Who Pays For International DA? (Dan Ross)
    Re: Who Pays For International DA? (Jeff Wasilko)
    Re: UK->USA, Which Carrier? (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Common Carriage (John DeArmond)
    Re: In Defense of GTE and Their Apparatus (Kevin Blatter)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (John Higdon)
    Re: Dealing with Junk Phone Calls (Patty Winter)
    Re: Eletelephony! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Banned in Boston! Telemarketer Gets Sued (TELECOM Moderator)

[Moderator's Note: Just two issues of the Digest today.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Caller ID in Maryland
Date: Wed Sep 13 15:38:25 1989
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>

No editorializing! From this weeks Communicaions Week: Bell Atlantic has
filed for Caller ID in Maryland. It along with all the other CLASS services
will be available around Baltimore next month. Washington suburbs get it in
November with the rest of the state to follow as SS7 is implemented.


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

Subject: Central Office Answering Machine
Date: Wed Sep 13 15:43:48 1989
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>

US West has begun to push voice mail in the Denver area. They anticipate
76% of the residential customers will sign up for the $6.95/month service.
Installation is $8.50, waived for a 90 day promotional period.

No details are given on how the system operates, but presumably the caller
gets a recording if the system detects a busy or after a certain number of
rings, and is invited to leave a message.

I don't know... Almost $100 a year for an answering machine? One that you
may not even be able to interrogate from another phone? I think they are
way to optimistic on their sign up estimates.

[e-mail]


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

From: Dan Ross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Pays For International DA?
Date: 12 Sep 89 20:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: Dan Ross <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Henry Mensch) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 366, message 1 of 8
>...
>And why does the international DA Operator on our side *insist* on
>talking?  They could (for all practical purposes) just ask you where
>you want to talk to and connect, but *no* ... they feel the need to
>verbally "collect" the information so they can then relay it
>inaccurately to the foreign DA operator...

When I lived in Austin, TX, this past year, I used International DA
through Southwestern (Taco :) Bell by dialing the operator and
requesting "International DA".  I was then connected with someone at
AT&T who "collected" the info; however, when the French operator
answered, the AT&T operator was having trouble passing the info on, so
I (rudely, I suppose) interrupted and talked directly to the operator
in French.  The AT&T opr seemed to sort of disappear from the
conversation -- and the line -- at that point.

This summer, I was in College Station, TX, served by (drum roll) GTE.
When I requested International DA from the GTE operator, she connected
me directly with a French operator, and left me on my own!  (I didn't
even have to interrupt :-)

Dan Ross          [e-mail]


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

From: Jeff Wasilko <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Pays For International DA?
Date: 14 Sep 89 01:10:18 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Wasilko <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}

I recently placed a DA call to England via the AT&T operator and I was allowed
to speak with the BT directory assistance operator. The AT&T operator stayed
on the line the whole time.

The number I was requesting was for the British Telecom office (i was request
ing installation information) so it may have been a special case since I
didn't know which department to ask for.


Jeff Wasilko
[e-mail]          uunet!apple!netcom!wasilko


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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK->USA, Which Carrier?
Date: 14 Sep 89 03:04:56 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.

In article <[e-mail]>, pcf@galadriel.
british-telecom.co.uk (Pete French) writes:
> In Message-ID: <[e-mail]> .....

> >[Moderator's Note: Do you know whether or not the British Telecom subscriber
> >gets any choice in the matter? That is, can they indicate by any routing
> >code, or by going through an operator that they wish the call to be routed
> >over AT&T or over MCI? If a subscriber makes a collect call to the USA for
> >example, does whoever pays for the call get to select the international
> >carrier? Or are they stuck with whoever BT routes them on?   PT]

> I am fairly sure that our subbys are stuck with whatever BTI decides to give
> them. I had never heard of MCI or Sprint until I started reading this group
> and even now I am not quite sure who they are - as far as I can make out
> they own the long bits of wire in the States rather than the short bits :-)
>
    A few years ago when Sprint and MCI first offered overseas calls, I
called their PR dweebs for info. I remember I called the Sprint dweeb in San
Francisco.  I asked if the traffic to the UK was one way or two way. Two way
I was told. Do UK subscribers get a break on call pricing if British Telecom
sends a UK to US call via Sprint? No, I was told. UK subscribers don't get
to choose their carrier and they get to pay what BT tells them to pay. BT we
can assume picks up the profit and uses for glossy annual report brochures.

    For the BT readers, Sprint and MCI are long distance providers. Here in
the US you can choose who will route your call. Your choice is based on
price and service. You can choose a "default" carrier and then select any
other carrier you want on a per call basis. Sorta like Mercury except it
works all over the the country and you don't need a long account number
anymore.

Yours

Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo    ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
n6are@k6iyk (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Date: Wed Sep 13 11:18:03 1989
From: [e-mail] (John DeArmond)
Subject: Re: Common Carriage (was Re: Why DA Costs etc.)
Organization: KD4NC HAM Packet Radio Gateway

nvuxr![e-mail] (David Lewis) writes:

>A "business", yes.  A *particular* business, no.  The phone companies
>could get away with charging businesses $5 a pop for DA and providing it
>to residences free of charge -- but they couldn't get away with
>providing it free of charge to anyone except this telemarketing company

Actually, they could very easily charge telemarketers or any other
phone abusers by simplying classifying the group appropriately.  It's
the same logic used in some areas to charge amateur radio phone
patches commercial rates.  They simply lump the ham club in with other
small businesses.

Another example is how 976- numbers are currently being treated.  I personally
hate to see 976- service as a class disparraged by a few low-rent operators
but that's what's happened.

Even if the courts were to overrule a classification based on current law or
regulation, it would be easy enough to change the offending law given enough
public will.

John


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

From: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Date: 13 Sep 89 13:42:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA

> Telephone Exchange Co., which was formed in 1891 by Almon B. Strowger.
> Strowger was the inventor of the first practicable telephone switching
> system, commonly referred to as step-by-step (SxS).
>
> [...                                 And an old story has it that the
> inventor did so because he was paranoid about the operators diverting
> profitable business calls from him to one of his competitors. Any
> truth to that?  PT]

Yes there is truth to that story.  A. B. Strowger was an undertaker
in Kansas City, Mo.  When a close relative of his chief competitor
(I think it was a sister-in-law) became the operator,  Mr. Strowger
noticed a sharp decline in the calls he received from customers.  To
combat this, Mr. Strowger invented the SXS switch.

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs
Standard Disclaimer

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Date: 13 Sep 89 17:51:42 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Mike Trout) writes:
> Fine--except for one problem.  What about those folks who can't afford an
> answering machine?  There are millions of the new "working poor" who need a
> telephone for their jobs, yet barely get by on a hand-to-mouth existence.  I
> don't think it's fair for you and me to be able to solve our problems by
> spending money, while it's an option that many people don't have.  It's just
> another example of how the "haves" have so many advantages over the
> "have-nots".

One of the nasty little realities of life, and it applies to telephone
service as well, is that those with money can afford to have more than
those without. To my knowledge, it has always been that way. One of my
clients owns about fifteen automobiles, including some very expensive
classic cars, while I drive an '85 Blazer and a motorcycle. Not really
fair, is it?

In this case, unlike depravation of food and shelter, the receipt of
junk calls is hardly life-threatening. I know people who have their
butler screen their calls, but it hasn't occurred to me to hire one for
myself. Glad no one has suggested that as a solution, since as a member
of the working poor, I can't afford one:-)

Yes the "haves" have many advantages over the "have-nots". Else why
would anyone want to become a "have"? It's also true by definition.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Patty Winter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dealing with Junk Phone Calls
Date: 13 Sep 89 19:21:09 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


I deal with junk calls by simply saying, "I'm sorry, we don't accept
telephone solicitations. Please take us off your list."  I give the
caller a chance to say "Okay" and then I hang up.

But my favorite response is the one my friend Phil uses for those
automated telemarketing calls. When they start asking for his name,
address, etc. so they can send him a complete set of Elvis Presley
memento chinaware, he answers every question completely and fully.

In Morse code with the DTMF pad.

:-)


Patty Winter N6BIS                        INTERNET: [e-mail]
AMPR.ORG: [44.4.0.44]                     UUCP: {decwrl,nsc,sun}!apple!winter

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

Date:     Thu, 14 Sep 89 0:34:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Eletelephony!

My thanks to Ed Sachs of AT&T Bell Labs/Naperville and Larry Kollar of
DCA, Inc., Alpharetta, GA who also contributed the complete set of
words to the clever poem which appeared in the Digest a few days ago.

It was funny, but not funny enough to print a couple more times!
Thanks guys.

Patrick Townson


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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Banned in Boston! Telemarketer Gets Sued
Date: Thu 14 Sep 1989 01:00:00


Alan Schlesinger's stock in trade is suing people. But you might say his
stock is too hot to handle at Merrill Lynch these days. A Boston lawyer
who hates telephone solicitors, Schlesinger sued Merrill Lynch after the
brokerage firm ignored 'repeated requests' to quit calling him with
investment proposals.

To Merrill Lynch's surprise, he won an injunction. Indeed, he sued them
*two times* and won. The second time was after an unwitting broker called
him in violation of the court order prohibiting it.

"This is something that bothers a lot of people, but they don't have the
sense they can do something about it," said Schlesinger, whose best retort
is a tort, it would seem. In the second suit, the court awarded him $300,
for the costs of his prosecution of the matter and for his time spent on
the phone with the brokerage house's phone room.

"He is using an atom bomb to deal with a gnat," said William Fitzpatrick,
chief lawyer for the Securities Industry Association, faulting Schlesinger
for doing what comes naturally for an attorney: "Being a lawyer myself,
I can only guess he doesn't have enough brains to just hang up the phone."

Have a nice day. I'll see you tomorrow.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #373
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 15 Sep 89 0:14:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #374
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Sep 89 00:13:58 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 374

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Security of Telephone Company Customer Information (Larry Lippman)
    DC Area (Greg Monti, NPR via John R. Covert)
    Almon B. Strowger [was: Re: In Defense of GTE] (David Robbins)
    DA in the UK (John Pettitt)
    UK Directory Enquiries (Clive Carmock)
    Telephone Technique (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Security of Telephone Company Customer Information
Date: 15 Sep 89 00:28:27 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> laba-2ac%web-2a.Berkeley.
[e-mail] writes:
> In the area of security, in MCI, their customer system was called OCIS
> (pronounced "oh-sis"), for On-line Customer Information System. It ran
> (runs) on multiple IBM 3070's running VMS, in a CICS appication (it
> uses DB-2 for the database). The thing I seem to remember is that they
> were lax as far as what you can get from OCIS. Almost everybody could
> get the full billing information on you (from anywhere in the country, the
> country is divided up into 7 divisions, and you'd have to "access" each
> division to find somebody, but that just takes a few more keystrokes).
> The only thing they placed restrictions on was who could view Calling
> Card codes and who could do changes to that account. They just now got
> on-line call-detail, and the call detail is held on-line for 3 months
> before it is archived. That is how I found an ex-girlfriend (and saw who
> she was calling to boot). We had fun looking up celebrities and other
> people we knew to see who they were calling (get the numbers, call the
> appropriate CNA, then volia, "We Got Your Number!") It was a great way
> to kill time, needless to say.

    The potential of unauthorized access to customer information,
as exemplified above, has always been a source of paranoia to New York
Telephone.  Needless to say, there have been incidents of information
"abuse" which have caused New York Telephone to maintain a reasonable
level of customer information database security, and to conduct
periodic audits of database access.

    While I am not certain of the law in other states, it is a
specific _crime_ in New York State for a person to obtain billing and
physical plant INFORMATION about a telephone subscriber without having
prior authorization to do so.  The actual text of Penal Law 250.30 is
as follows:

    "A person is guilty of unlawfully obtaining communications
    information when, knowing that he does not have the authorization
    of a telephone or telegraph corporation, he obtains or attempts
    to obtain, by deception, stealth or in any other manner, from
    such corporation or from any employee, officer or representative
    thereof:

    1.  Information concerning identification or location of any wires,
    cables, lines terminals or other apparatus used in furnishing
    telephone or telegraph service; or

    2.  Information concerning a record of any communication passing
    over telephone or telegraph lines of any such corporation.

    Unlawfully obtaining communications information is a class B
    misdemeanor."

    I don't know of any attempted prosecutions or case law for the
above criminal offense, although the law has been on the books since
1965.  This law is not intended to cover any act of eavesdropping,
which is covered by other sections of the Penal Law.  A reasonable
interpretation of this law would include billing records of toll
calls.

    This law is one of the reasons why New York Telephone is
sensitive to "unauthorized" use of ANAC (Automatic Number Announcement
Circuit).  While it would certainly be stretching the imagination a
bit, a person using ANAC in an attempt to identify someone ELSE's
telephone pairs could be prosecuted under this law.

    New York Telephone security personnel are a frustrated lot;
while they would love to prosecute people (and there have been cases
where there was sufficient basis for prosecution, but where it was
declined) and set an example for purposes of deterance, such
prosecution would also disclose details which could facilitate others
to commit the same unlawful act.  As a result, New York Telephone
security personnel generally limit prosecution to larceny in one form
or another.

<>  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: Wed, 13 Sep 89 20:59:33 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  13-Sep-1989 2059" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC Area

   >From:    GMONTI       "Greg Monti"   12-SEP-1989 17:46:10.61
   >Subj:    TD Submission:  DC Area

   >*** For Telecom Digest ***

   >Dt:  12 September 1989

Carl Moore writes:
> (Speaking of the
>Pentagon:  it was written a while back in this Digest that pay phones in it
>are in the Arlington, Va. exchange; however, I don't know if they are in the
>Rosslyn-area exchanges or in the Crystal City & National Airport area
>exchanges.)

Private numbers (i.e., not served by the Pentagon PBX, or whatever it
is called) are Area 703 numbers served by C&P of Virginia's Columbia
Pike Central Office, about 2 miles west of the Pentagon.  This
includes pay phones in the bus and subway station just outside the
Pentagon building line and businesses located in the mini shopping
mall inside the Pentagon.  I also once saw a modem, fax or private
line number (I forget which) for someone inside the Pentagon whose
exchange was listed as 202-553.  553 is really in 703 (but temporarily
mapped into 202 until Oct 90).

The pay phones in the Arlington Cemetery subway station, about a mile
north of the Pentagon, are also served out of Columbia Pike.  The
border to the Rosslyn CO must be just north of there.  West of the
Cemetery, U.S. Route 50 is the border.

The Crystal City/National Airport area is served by three (!) central
offices.  Most is served out of Columbia Pike but the southern portion
is served by the Old Town (Alexandria) office.  The border between the
two occurs roughly at 23rd Street South and is like "melted cheese"
with many overlaps and no fixed border.  This can be done because both
CO's serve the same Rate Area ("Alexandria/Arlington").

The third CO is a recent addition: Crystal City now has its own.  It
serves a subset of the area served by Columbia Pike.  It was probably
opened because of the large number of three and four mile long cables
that were being installed from Columbia Pike to the burgeoning number
of Crystal City office buildings.  New prefixes serving Crystal
City/National Airport customers are run out of the new office. Crystal
City CO codes are (703) 271, 418 and 769.  Columbia Pike is (703) 486,
521, 553, 685, 892, 920, and 979.  Old Town is (703) 548, 549, 683,
684, 706, 739, 836 and 838.

Within the airport, phones have mixed Columbia Pike, Crystal City and
Old Town numbers.  Even pay phones right next to each other have
alternating CO's attached to them.  I imagine this provides a level of
backup in case a CO goes down.

>By the way, time of day is set up as a local call throughout Maryland. Prior
>to these DC-area changes (i.e. now) you dial 844-1212 to get Baltimore time of
>day, unless you are in the DC calling area, in which case you dial 844-2525 to
>get Washington time of day.

Another prefix may also have to be "patched up" to work in more than
one Area Code after the change: 202-810.  This is used by the
Arlington, Virginia, cable TV company (and possibly others) to allow
ordering of pay per view movies and events using ANI technology.  To
order, one makes a 7-digit call to the 810 prefix *from one's home
phone*.  C&P reports to the cable company the number you called from.
The cable company's billing equipment goes to its data base and looks
up what customer that phone number belongs to.  It bills that account
for the movie and also looks up the electronic serial number of the
addressable cable box that subscriber possesses.  The box is
authorized (via a data channel on the TV cable) to descramble the
ordered event.

If Cable TV Arlington wants to continue giving its subscribers a
7-digit number to dial to order PPV, C&P may have to make 202-810
reachable with only 7 digits from nearby 703.

Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia;  workplace [phone]

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

From: David Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Almon B. Strowger [was: Re: In Defense of GTE]
Date: 14 Sep 89 12:44:04 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


 From article <[e-mail]>, by kitty!larry@uunet.
uu.net (Larry Lippman):
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> writes:
>>      At least >some< of GTE's service problems are the result of
>> equipment provided (foisted?) by the infamous Automatic Electric and
>> its successors.

>     While I have great respect for the quality of Western Electric
> apparatus, I have an equal degree of respect for the quality of apparatus
> manufactured by the various GTE operations, having had firsthand experience
> with the products of both organizations.
> <>  FAX  [phone] | 716/773-2488     "Have you hugged your cat today?"
> ...
> [Moderator's Note: Well Larry, your history is right on the mark. Many
> people are amazed to find out that Automatic Electric -- and not Bell
> -- 'invented' the dial phone system. And an old story has it that the
> inventor did so because he was paranoid about the operators diverting
> profitable business calls from him to one of his competitors. Any
> truth to that?  PT]

Any truth to that?  Yea, verily!

Almon B. Strowger was a mortician.  He invented the dial phone precisely
because he feared (whether rightly or wrongly I don't know) that the
operators were (or might have been) diverting his calls to his competitors.

The history of Strowger switching was one of things most everybody who
worked for Automatic Electric learned very early on the job.  Not all of
us may have thoroughly memorized the story, but as best as I can recall the
facts are as the moderator suspected.

Larry is also right on the mark in regards to switching equipment.  I worked
on the #1 EAX and the GTD-5 EAX, and I wouldn't contradict anything he said.
Of course, since I still work for GTE, my opinion might still tend to be
favorable towards the company.  And of course anything I say here is strictly
my own opinion -- I do not and cannot represent GTE in any way.  I have no
desire to comment on the GTE-bashing that resulted in the article to which
I have responded here.

Dave Robbins                    GTE Laboratories Incorporated
[e-mail]                40 Sylvan Rd.
 ...!harvard!bunny!drobbins      Waltham, MA 02254


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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Specialix International
Subject: DA in the UK
Date: 14 Sep 89 09:06:27 BST (Thu)
From: [e-mail]

DA in the UK now has a special ring (at least I think thats how the do it).
When you call DA you get:

ring ring "you are held in a queue and you call will be answered shortly"
ring ring "you are etc" ring  . . .

Now if they could get DA (or in UK terms DE - Directory Enquiries) to
answer faster they would not need the fancy ring  . . .

John Pettitt
Specialix International
[e-mail]


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

From: Clive Carmock <[e-mail]>
Subject: UK Directory Enquiries
Date: 14 Sep 89 18:05:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK


Yes in the UK we do object when BT proposes to charge for directory enquiries,
I lot of eople seem to forget that the whole structure of the telephone system
is very different over here.

Essentially BT STILL has a monopoly, but now a private one.  Yes we do have
just two other telephone companies - Mercury Communications and Hull Telephone
Department (this one serves just ONE city).  Mercury cover a small part
of the country, and as they have to use BT local lines, are not any cheaper
than BT for local calls.

There's another point we still pay for local calls over here.  Am I right in
saying that in most other parts of the world, local calls are either free
to residential customers at off peak times, or they can be for a small
subscription?

But here are local calls are still charged AND timed at about 1p/min in
cheap rate time (6pm -8am).  Now that's quite expensive, and there is NO
option available to have untimed calls - i.e. pay 5p for the whole call.

We have to PAY for Bt to give us charge advice on a call - even now that it's
part of our new digital network, and is completely automatic - accessed
via a star service.

BT has had the reputation in the past of 'fleecing it's customers'. Well that
is certainly true, and in the UK I understand we are the second most
expensive country as far as telephone charges go.

There is even no toll free 0800 number to speak to the Telecom accounts
department, who can't issue itemised bills in most part of the country yet.

Worse to come the effective cost of a 2min peak and standard rate call
will DOUBLE in October - they are cutting the time for 1 unit (LOCAL) from
120 seconds to 60 seconds!!

So we are justified in expecting things like Directory enquiries to be
totally free of charge, don't you agree?

Clive Carmock
([e-mail])

P.S. I would be interested to hear from anyone who could give me billing
example of the different call rates/times in the USA, and would be interested
to have details of the OFF PEAK LOCAL calls to residential customers -
ie; do you have to subscribe to a service to get these free?

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Technique
Date: 14 Sep 89 18:49:47 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


Something never mentioned is the different dialing technique required
for different offices. From the time I was wee todler my family had
telephone service provided out of common control offices. Panel in
Oakland, crossbar in San Jose. (A brief stint of "number please", but
we won't get into that. Besides, that's common control, isn't it?:-)

Anyway, In my late teens I spent some time in Norfolk, VA and the
surrounding areas. Got the phone installed and discovered that I had
very lousy luck getting my local calls to complete. Never having been
subjected to SXS (which is what my phone was served by) I was not
familiar with the necessity for each stepper to "find" a path to the
next level. So I would dial the number at warp speed, and as a result,
pulses would travel down the line before the next level was ready to
receive them. Result? No call.

It took a few days to get used to this. I was even treated like some
backwoodsman. "Don't you know you have to dial slowly and carefully?
All us big-city people know that!"
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #374
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 15 Sep 89 1:09:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #375
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Sep 89 01:00:20 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 375

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    2600 Magazine Contents (Greg Monti, NPR via John R. Covert)
    Telephony in Belgium (Alain Fontaine)
    Natick Was Not SxS (John R. Covert)
    ``New Toys for the Phonemaniacs'' (Ben Ullrich)
    Re: Eletelephony! (Kathryn Fielding)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 22:55:44 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  11-Sep-1989 2252" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 2600 Magazine Contents

   >From:    GMONTI       11-SEP-1989 18:06:07.67
   >Subj:    TD Submission:  2600 Contents

   >*** For Telecom Digest ***

   >Date:  11 September 1989

TELECOM Digest recipients have expressed interest of late in the kind of
information that can be found in the magazine "2600."  I subscribed to this
periodical last year.  Here is a sampling of the contents of 2 recent issues:

Spring 1989 issue:

"Hackers in Jail"
"A Hacker's Guide to Unix"
Copies of 2 different dialing instruction pages from U.S. Department of
  Defense telephone directories
"Ever Wonder Who Owns All Those 800 Numbers?" including
  - description of how end offices and access tandems handle 800 calls
  - a glossary of terms
  - a list of all active 800 prefixes and the long distance carriers who
     control each prefix
  - the same for 900 prefixes
"Letters" including
  - Wargames Dialer
  - ANI Codes for some cities
  - Blue Box Questions
  - A Scary Tale (story of a hacker who was arrested and jailed for his illegal
     activities, told in the first person)
"How Pay Phones Really Work"
"Ripoffs and Scams" (an explanation of the AOS business)
"Long Distance Censorship" (story about a long distance carrier which does
  not allow calls to be made to BBS's which publish codes that can be used to
  steal phone service)
"Foulups and Blunders" (short items about authorities who make mistakes)
"Abuse" (about British computer privacy laws)
"Mischief Makers" (about perpetrators of fake viruses that looked real, also
  the story of a British bank who sued a hacker who had broken through its
  lax security to write himself checks for a million pounds; the judge threw
  the case out, telling the bank it should have better security if it wants
  to bring court cases)
"2600 Marketplace" the classified column including ads to buy and sell DEC
  computer manuals, CATV descrambling devices, hacker software, back issues
  of TAP, etc.)
"2600 meeting notice" meetings for 2600 readers, writers and editors are held
  on the first Friday of each month at "The Market" lobby tables at the
  Citicorp Center, 153 East 53rd Street (at Lexington), New York, NY, 6-8 PM

Winter '88-'89 issue:

Copy of an Instruction Card from a British Pay Phone - of 1884
"A Report on the Internet Worm" reprinted from "RISKS," including an
  explanation of how it was done and a list of commonly-used passwords which
  the worm used)
"MCI:  The Phone Company with a Lot of Explaining to Do" (about how MCI
  snatched the magazine's office phone lines to default to MCI dial-1 service
  and how MCI uses an AOS called NTS to handle operator assisted calls at
  a time when MCI had no routine operator service)
"Gall Department" (a copy of an entire AOS page from the magazine's New York
  Telephone bill showing that the AOS had billed a 7 minute collect call to the
  magazine's answering machine which, obviously, could not have "accepted the
  charges;" the call came from Las Vegas, Nevada)
"How to Hear Phone Calls" (suggested bands and modulation methods to look
  for phone calls on shortwave, VHF, UHF, etc.)
 A list of access numbers and customer service numbers for the "MCI Call USA"
  service (reprinted from an MCI ad)
"Letters" including
  - Ideas on 2600's Financial Plight (it had just changed from a monthly to
     a quarterly at the time)
  - Telecaption Adapter Info
  - An AT&T System 85 Nightmare
  - Call Forwarding Questions
  - Some 800 prefixes identified by long distance carrier
"What It's Like Being a Soviet Operator" reprinted from Pravda
Reprint of an AT&T ad describing a cancellation of direct dial service to
  Iran from the U.S. and a resulting increase in rates to use international
  operator service to call Iran
"Interview with Chaos Computer Club" a West German hacker group
"2600 Marketplace" buy/sell ads for red/blue box tone chips, satellite video
  receivers, UNIX operating system books, etc.
"Hard Wiring Your Way In" (about finding pairs, connecting yourself to
  someone else's line)
Book Review of "Tune in on Telephone Calls"


2600 BBS's:

#2  "The Central Office"  914 234-3260
#3  "YoYoDine"            402 564-4518
#4  "Beehive"             703 823-6591
#5  either "Switchboard"
    or "Hacker's Den"     718 358-9209

2600's Usenet address:  [e-mail]

2600's Arpanet address:  phri!dasys1!2600@nyu

"2600, The Hacker Quarterly" is published by 2600 Enterprises, Inc.,
7 Strong's Lane, Setauket, NY  11733.  For subscriptions and information,
write or call 2600 Magazine, PO Box 752, Middle Island, NY  11953-0752
516 751-2600.

Subscription rate is $18 a year for 4 issues (for individuals), $45 corporate.
Lifetime, overseas and multiple-year quantity discounts are available.
Back issues are available for all years 1984 thru 1988 at $25 per year.

I am a subscriber to 2600 and find it to be of moderate interest.  I may
resubscribe for one more year but may let it lapse after that unless it piques
my interest more.  I have no financial interest in 2600 Magazine, am not
employed there and do not personally know any of its principals.  This Telecom
Digest submission is intended to be informative to those who are interested.

Opinions expressed above are my own.

Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia;  workplace [phone]

[Moderator's Note: My objection to 2600 is that they seem to condone theft
of phone service (which they call phreaking) and burglary of phone and
computer systems (sometimes called hacking, much to the disparagement of
true hackers). What possible reason could there be for advertisements
offering red/blue box chips, or books on how to camp on someone else's
pairs? And what are cable descramblers used for except theft of cable
service? Its almost like they encourage that sort of behavior.   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 14:38:04 +0200
From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephony in Belgium

Telecommunications in Belgium - Part 1 - General information

Yes, there are  telephones  (and other  communicating  gadgets) in  this
remote part of  the world. For those who  were  not loving geography too
much while in school, Belgium is in Europe and its capital is Brussels.

Like  in many  European countries,  the telephone  and many  other comm-
related things are a state monopoly. The operating agency is called RTT,
which means 'Regie  des Telegraphes et des Telephones' -  that should be
transparent even for non-French speaking  people. Unlike what happens in
many other European countries, it has  nothing in common with the postal
service.

The monopoly  used to be very  very strong. Just knowing  that the voice
was being transported by electrical signals may have been an infraction.
The user was expected  to use his/her finger to dial,  to speak into one
end of the  thing and listen to  the other end, and that's  it (I nearly
forgot : and to pay the bill within 10 days, including when in holidays,
or be  disconnected a few  days later). Telephone intruments  were wired
directly into a wall box, without  any form of connector. Everything was
provided  by the  RTT, except  some specialized  things like  high speed
modems, which  then had to be  certified by them (and  also the terminal
equipement connected  to the modem), a  procedure that could last  for a
long, long time...

Things have been  relaxed somewhat : now telephones are  attached to the
network using  connectors, and the user  is even expected to  bring back
his telephone to a commercial center in  case it needs to be repaired or
if moving. There are no plans I know of to allow alternate carriers, but
the  terminal  equipment  market  is  now open,  except  for  the  first
instrument on a line. Every item  must still be type-approved, but a new
agency, distinct from the RTT, is  being created to perform the tests in
order to  insure more fairness.  The user  may also extend  his interior
installation himself, using approved wire and components.

That's  surely enough  for  today. If  there is  some  interest in  more
details,  I  could write  further  short  articles  on subjects  like  :
numbering and  dialing, tariffs,  RTT procurement and  industrial policy
(juicy), data communications,  ISDN.

Disclaimer : my shortsighted views only....

[Moderator's Note: Please send along future installments in this series.
We've had very little discussion of Belgium in the Digest to date.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 11:39:13 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  13-Sep-1989 1134" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Natick Was Not SxS

There are two reasons that JSol may have believed that it was:

1. The #5 XBar there had "City Ring," which sounds a lot like the ring
   generators used in most Bell System SxS offices.

2. There was Direct Inward Dialing into some large company's on-premises
   SxS PBX.

Another recent article referred to "that new-fangled #5 XBar" in the sixties.
According to "Events in Telephone History," the first #5 XBar was installed
on July 11, 1948, in Media, Pa.  By the sixties, #5 XBar was certainly not
"new-fangled" even in New England.

/john

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

Subject: ``New Toys for the Phonemaniacs''
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 13:09:10 -0700
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>

This feature appeared in the ``Sunday Punch'' section of the San Francisco
Chronicle on 9/10 .  Have a good laugh!

(copied without permission)

New Toys for Phonemaniacs, by Jackie Burrell

Recently, Hello Systems and Communications acquired the telephone company in
your area, along with telephone services throughout the West Coast.

We at Hello Bells are pleased to be your new phone monopoly, responsive to your
every need and eager to create new ones.

In addition to basic telephone utilities and such services as Call Waiting,
Call Forwarding and Call Calling, we offer a wide variety of options.

Act now and you too can enjoy a fuller, more rewarding relationship with your
telephone.

Many intelligent and attractive people like yourself have already jumped on the
bandwagon, ordering everything from New Age telephone equipment (units to suit
every karma) to mobile telephones (cellular phones for your car and the special
new waterproof and sweatproof Cellulite Phone(tm), perfect for use during
workouts).

Better yet, you can add the services listed below to your current inventory of
programmable phone features.

Don't delay.  Pick up that phone and order now.

Call Backwarding(tm).  You don't have to put up with those pesky phone calls
from ex-spouses, abusive loan officers and irate acquaintances when you have
Call Backwarding(tm).

Simply lift your telephone receiver and punch in the phone numbers of all the
people you don't want to talk to, up to 12,000 numbers.  Then, every time a
call is placed to your line, it's automatically traced.  When a match is made,
Call Backwarding(tm) kicks in, sending the call back to its place of origin.

Imagine your ex-husband phoning you day after day and always getting a busy
signal.  Available for just $29.95 per month, plus installation and nominal
surcharge per call traced.

Costs vary depending on number of calls traced and number of enemies you have
entered into the system.

Solo Calling(tm).  Conference calls are fine when you need to talk to several
people simultaneously, but nothing beats a good talk with yourself.

When you call yourself with Solo Calling(tm), instead of a busy signal, the
calls goes through.  And with the addition of our special Echo(tm) feature,
your telephone receiver repeats everything you say, allowing you to mull over
your own words, enjoying your wit or share a good laugh with yourself.

Solo Calling(tm) is on sale now for just $12.95 plus installation and regular
phone charges. Echo feature is available for an additional $49.95.

Call Tapping(tm).  Thanks to newly developed telephone technology, you can now
tap directly into your neighbors' phone lines.  That's right, listen in on
private conversations incognito.  This offer void where prohibited, [in fine
print] including most parts of the United States of America, maybe all of it,
but you never know, do you?  Call Tapping Blockers(tm) are also available to
protect the privacy of your own telephone conversations.

Normally this optional service costs $100 per month, but for a limited time we
are offering Tapping Blockers(tm) for the low monthly rate of $99.95 plus
installation.  Call Tapping(tm) itself is available for $199.95.

The Party Line(tm).  Widen your social circle, improve your networking skills
and learn more about human nature through the high-tech Party Line(tm).

Through the same extraordinary technology that brought you computer bulletin
boards and conference calling, we hook you up with dozens of other similarly
intelligent and attractive people in your town, along with all the attractive
and intelligent people they speak with.

When you pick up that phone, you never know what interesting conversation may
already be in progress.  Not only fun but useful too!  Go ahead, have a lover's
quarrel by telephone!  You'll have fellow party liners listening in, ready to
referee, cheer you on and provide play-by-play commentary.

We're so excited by this new telephone tool that we're offering it to all our
customers free of charge, starting immediately.

If you're not interested, just order Party Line Blocker(tm), on sale now for
just ...


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: Kathryn Fielding <zardoz!ohio!Thomas.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Eletelephony!
Date: 13 Sep 89 19:32:34 GMT
Organization: Thomas Bros. Maps, Irvine, CA


[e-mail] (Daniel Zlatin) writes:

>Someone asked for the author and completion of the following poem.  I
>can't supply the author, but (who can understand the workings of the
>human brain?) for some reason I memorized this upon reading it in my
>grade 5(? 6? 4?) reader.  For some reason it's stuck with me for lo,
>these many years, so here goes!!

The poem looked right to me, I believe that the author (or at least I
saw it attributed to him) is John Ciardi (sp?).

Thanks for reminding me of the poem.

Kathryn

{uunet|zardoz|sun!sunkist}!ohio!kathryn     |
[e-mail]                          |  Help stamp out TLAs!
                                            |
My opinions are exclusively mine ....       |

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #375
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 15 Sep 89 1:53:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #376
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Sep 89 01:50:15 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 376

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Mechanical Monsters, Plunger Switches and Fuses (Larry Lippman)
    NPA 215 (Greg Monti, NPR, via John R. Covert)
    Re: Caller ID (my rights) (Brian Litzinger)
    Oh No - Not THIS Again !!!!! (Pete French)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Danny Wilson)
    Re: DTMF Terminals (Tom Wiencko)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Mechanical Monsters, Plunger Switches and Fuses
Date: 14 Sep 89 06:39:56 EDT (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> As long as we're reminiscing about SxS exchanges and tours and such...

    [description of routing translator for No. 4 toll tandem office...]

> Each such inquiry resulted in a large "WHAM!" as a bunch of solenoids
> shoved huge trays of metal cards around.  The selected card had
> the answer punched in it.  The cards were metal because of the great
> number of read cycles.  Updating the routing consisted of punching a
> new metal card and replacing the old one in the bin.  Every once in
> a while there was a distinctive "WHAM-WHAM!" in among the many
> random "WHAM!"s.  We were told that was a "come-again-six" operation.
> That meant that the three digits weren't enough to select the trunk
> group - say 603 for NH - and the "ABC" code (3 digits after the area
> code, total six) were needed.  The equipment holding the number
> had to "come again" (request another cycle) with the rest of the six
> digits.

    There was one redeeming feature of the above mechanical monster:
the routing cards were read optically using light beams and photocells,
which was pretty state-of-the-art - for 1950, that is.

    The outputs of the photocells had to drive relays to convey the
translator information to the marker.  Now, knowing WECO design philosophy
as I do, I would bet that those photocells were either of the selenium
photovoltaic variety and directly drove a damn sensitive relay (like a
280-type polar relay), or they were of the cadmium sulfide photoresistive
variety and drove a relay using a cold cathode tube.  Ain't likely that
WECO would have used an electronic circuit using a conventional vacuum
tube as an amplifier to drive a relay.  ANYTHING but a conventional
vacuum tube in a piece of WECO switching apparatus! :-)

    Mechanical monsters of the 1950's and 1960's which rival the
above routing translator were the massive CAMA perforators and readers.
Three-inch wide punched paper tape on 2-foot diameter rolls were something
to behold!

> Some of this gear used plunger line switches that were so old that
> they weren't even "restoring".  A plunger line switch is a wonderful
> device which can't be described without a diagram.  It performs the
> function of a Strowger "Line finder".

    The plunger switch was invented by A. E. Keith in 1906, who was
a founding father of Strowger Automatic Electric.  It is also sometimes
referred to as the Keith Line Switch.  The invention of this particular
device was a vital achievement which simplified previous designs of SxS
switching apparatus.  The 200-point linefinder as we know it today was
invented in 1928, and rapidly replaced the Keith Line Switch.  The
linefinder was such a vast improvement that the Keith Line Switch was
obsolete by 1930.

    Whatever apparatus you had was probably built before 1930!

> Grasshopper fuses; yuck.

    While it was relatively uncommon, the 35-type "grasshopper" fuse
could actually be repaired by replacing the fuse wire!  A LOT of 35-type
fuses were repaired during World War II when materials were scarce.  Can
you think of a more boring job for a switchman?

<>  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: Wed, 13 Sep 89 20:58:52 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  13-Sep-1989 2056" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA 215

   >From:    GMONTI       "Greg Monti"     12-SEP-1989 16:56:25.63
   >Subj:    TD Submission:  NPA 215

How full is Area Code 215 (Philadelphia and environs)?  215 may be the most
populated Area Code in the U.S. which does not yet use prefixes containing a
1 or a 0 as the second digit.

On a recent trip there, I noticed that a local business in the South Street
neighborhood of Philly had a phone number posted on its sign: 215 925-9999.
Some Bell of Pennsylvania pay phones in 215 also now have NXX-99XX series phone
numbers on them.

Philadelphia is Bell of Pennsylvania territory.  Most of the BOC's have had
standing rules for many years that the NXX-99XX series of phone numbers was to
be for internal phone company purposes only (test tones, test silence,
verification operator, test boards, etc.).  This reserves 1% of the numbers in
each prefix for this purpose.  If BellPa is now assigning the 9900
series to ordinary uses, it may be because they are running out of numbers in
area 215.  I don't have a complete list on me, but from what I can remember,
virtually all the NNX series of prefixes are used up in 215.

My understanding of Area Code splits is that Bellcore hands out new Area Codes
when the controlling Local Operating Company for that Area Code can prove that
it is within a certain percent of running out of numbers, *assuming that the
existing number base is being used in the most efficient possible way.*  I
would imagine that Bellcore strongly suggests that prefixes with a 1 or 0 as
the second digit be implemented first, before splitting the Area Code, since
this maximizes the number base within the NPA and minimizes the number of times
the nation at large must endure NPA splits.

In many Area Codes, there is much in the way of older switching equipment which
cannot handle three-digit combinations with 1 or 0 as the second digit when
used as local prefixes.  In these NPA's the split occurs when the NNX
combinations run out.  Examples:  California 714/619, Massachusetts 617/508,
and most if not all the NPA splits which occurred prior to 1980.  If the
controlling LEC can prove to Bellcore that they can't handle N1X/N0X prefixes,
then Bellcore allows the split without those CO codes.

Is BellPa using the 9900 series phone numbers while it rushes to make all its
Southeastern Pennsylvania switches N1X/N0X compatible?  Or will it run out of
NNX combinations and have to split anyway? I assume that last-minute
brinksmanship is not allowed since NPA splits take plenty of planning.

Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia;  workplace [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Caller ID (my rights)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 0:42:26 PDT
From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>

It seems rather simple to solve the caller ID problems discussed on
this forum.  Let us imagine the following scenario:

I buy a phone and lease/rent a local and long distance service to
perform various local and long distance services for me. Now I have
particular things I wish to do with my phone.  That is I wish to allow
people to call me, and I'd like to call some people.  (people includes
businesses).

In the previous utopian society I lived in, I was happy to have anyone
who wanted to call me call.  However, recently I've been contacted by
an increasing number of people that I don't want to talk to.

So I got an unlisted number and only gave it to people I wanted to
talk to.  Unfortunately, I still got calls from people I did not wish
to talk with.  In fact, I got even more calls from people I did not
wish to talk to than I got with the previous number.

Well, I've decided that I'm not going to talk with anyone who is not
willing to identify themselves before I have to talk with them.  Right
now I'm up in the air as to whether you will have to provide your
actual phone number to me or some other means of identifying
yourself. In either case, if you aren't willing to provide your number
or some sort of identifying substitute, I do not wish to talk with you.

It is that simple, I will not talk to you unless you provide the
identification.  I'm happy and your rights are not being violated
because you don't have to call me.  And the fact that you don't want
to provide the identification makes it very clear to me that I don't
want to talk to you, and everyone is happy.

There are also people I wish to call to whom I do not wish to provide
my identification.  I'll simply enter a code before the number and the
phone won't send my identification before attempting to place the
call. Now, if the receiving party doesn't accept unidentified calls,
great! I'm happy and the recepient is happy!

However, if the recipient is the type that still wants to take the
call eventhough the identification is missing then great!  They can
simply pick up the phone and everyone is still happy!

So everyone is happy.  You and I and everyone else can choose to accept
or ignore identified or unidentified calls.  And you and I and everyone
else can determine on a call by call basis whether or not our
identification is sent before the call.

We have now re-attained our utopian society.

You are, however, still at a little risk from this solution.  That is
that I can do whatever I wish with you identification once I receive
it.  I could publish it or sell it.  Well, if you are worried I'd do
that or anything else you might not approve of, I'd strongly suggest
you don't call me.

I'm very much "an eye for an eye" sort of person, so I've now decided
that your identification must be your phone number.  Once, again
you don't have to call me, and I don't want you calling me unless you
provide your actual number.

There are some problems with this system.  For example, what if someone
is calling from a public phone whom I wish to speak with.  The
obvious solution of a portable ID is useless because those ID's will
be misused and we'll be back to square one.  Or perhaps they will work
well enough?

There are solutions to the public phone problem, as there are solutions
to the Caller ID question even if Caller ID is legislated out of existence.

In fact, Caller ID has existed in our society, for those who can afford it,
for far longer than the posters to this forum seem to suspect.

--
<>  Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
<>  UUCP:  {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian    [e-mail]
<>  VOICE: 408 370 9077      FAX: [phone]


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

From: Pete French <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 09:43:43 -0100
Subject: Oh No - Not THIS Again !!!!!

>[Moderator's Note: Well Larry, your history is right on the mark. Many
>people are amazed to find out that Automatic Electric -- and not Bell
>-- 'invented' the dial phone system. And an old story has it that the
>inventor did so because he was paranoid about the operators diverting
>profitable business calls from him to one of his competitors. Any
>truth to that?  PT]

Oh no - time to dig up this one again.

Almon Strowger was a Kansas City undertaker. In those days calls were connected
by hand by an operator. The operator was the sister (or was it cousin) of
a rival undertaker and she was surruptisiously diverting calls for Strowger
to him. Mr Strowger was, understandably, a bit irritated by this and so
set about devising an automatic exchange to get round this problem. This is
what is commonly known as a "Strowger" exchange - although I think the
Americans call it "SxS" for some reason.

When I joined British Telecom this is one of the first stories we were told
about the history of telephones. It was quite interesting at the time - since
then the story has been told at almost every introduction to something that
I have been to. Just about every BT student must know it off by heart by now.

If any of you get a chance to go in a Strowger exchange then do so - they are
far more interesting than any of the other types - simply because they move
and do things. They are a bit loud though - you need ear-defenders in some
of the larger ones. But it is quite facinating to atch the uni-selectors and
two-motion selectors do their stuff. At one point in out training we were
allowed to play with a simple one ( uni-selector->dual-motion slector->end
selector) and you could dial and wwatch the progress of the call as you did so.
Another interesting this is to stand in front of the "wall" of meters and
listened to all that clicking ("Those clicks are paying your wages sonny") They
are always clicking - but no matter how hard you try the ones you are looking
at are never the ones that move.

I also find it interesting that nobody has designed an electronic version of
Strowger. Mechanical parts wera out and surely a solid-state replacement for
each of the units would be very cheap and more reliable. There are still a
lot left in operation.


       -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: Danny Wilson <idacom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 15 Sep 89 00:33:34 GMT
Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Roy Smith) writes:
> > Other types of radio services use both W and K, depending.

> Don't airplanes use N prefixes for their call signs?

Airplane registration numbers use N in the United States only. This
is their national code. Canadian (and German, Japanese) etc. all
have different prefixes.

Danny Wilson
IDACOM Electronics        [e-mail]
Edmonton, Alberta        {att, watmath, ubc-cs}!alberta!idacom!danny
C A N A D A

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

From: Tom Wiencko <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Terminals?
Date: 14 Sep 89 15:13:56 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Wiencko <stiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Wiencko & Associates, Inc.

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

>>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 370, message 3 of 10
>>My bank offers bank-by-phone, where a synthesizer and a DTMF detector
>>make up a terminal.

>>Does anyone know what they are and the names of some manufacturers?  I
>>would really be interested in multiport devices, though single-port
>>(as would be used with a PC) would be helpful.

Dialogic Corporation makes some dandy little boards which hook up to PC
or compatible devices.  They have several different kinds of boards, with
different numbers of lines available (we used the 4 line D40 boards and
liked them a lot).  If you really wanted to get fancy, you could plug
a whole slew of them into a single PC - up to six boards if I remember
right.

They also had a little cross-connect switch board which you could hook
up in front of the telephone boards which would give you the capability
of building a little baby PBX if you really wanted to.

I don't have their number and address handy, but can dig it up if you
need it.

Tom Wiencko                                            (w) [phone]
gatech!stiatl!tom                                  Wiencko & Associates, Inc.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #376
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 16 Sep 89 0:00:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #377
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Sep 89 00:00:27 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 377

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (Dave Troup)
    Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (Na Choon Piaw)
    Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (Kim Greer)
    Re: Residential 800 Service? (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Where Are We Going From Here? (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: UK <-> Ireland Access Codes (Dave Horsfall)
    Re: DC Area (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Troup <carroll1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Date: 13 Sep 89 20:06:57 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Troup <carroll1![e-mail]>
Organization: Carroll College-Waukesha, WI

One of the interesting operations that GTE participates in when you
have not paid your phone bill is to NOT disconnect your line, but
rather call block OUTGOING calls...except 800's. When they did this to
myself, I didnt care because I almost never made any local calls...one
call to the Sprint # or AT&T Conference and I could make all the lond
distance calls just like usual. After a couple months of this, I
finally got enough $$ to pay my bill. Local service wasnt connected
for ANOTHER 3 WEEKS...but was I bothered? Nope. Thanks GTE :)


"We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, knowin' that ain't allowed"__         _______  _______________    |David C. Troup / Surf Rat
    _______)(______   |         |[e-mail] : mail
  ______________________________|414-524-6809____________________________

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Date: 12 Sep 89 15:47:12 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA


I rather enjoyed Larry Lippman's defense of GTE and AECo.  It's good to
refresh the memory.  And yes, it is widely believed that Strowger the
undertaker was upset that his competitor's wife was the local
telephone operator.  I don't doubt it -- it's a gruesome business to
think about though.

GTE-Pacific has had some particular problems, though.  It's not
apocryphal that many (many!) of their customers are very upset.  I
once spoke to the mayor of Santa Monica, who was quite upset about it
too, like most of her townspeople.  So why is this true?

I don't blame entirely blame GTE Corp. for this.  California's
regulatory system has at times been just plain nuts.  All states
regulate local telcos based on Return on Investment.  All investments
go into a Rate Base, against which all revenues minus expenses are
compared.  That provides an ROI figure.  If it's too low, the telco
gets a rate increase.  If it's high, they cut rates.  Most of rate
hearings are devoted to determining the "right" ROI, comparing stock
market expectations of return on equity along with money market debt
costs.  Telco capitalization is a mix of the two; it's all bundled
into ROI calculations.

The California PUC historically has given GTE (and the old PacTel)
very low ROI, often a couple of percentage points or more below
everybody else.  When most states were allowing 13% and California was
allowing 10%, which state would YOU invest in?  To make matters worse,
C-PUC would penalize GTE for its poor performance by lowering its ROI
even more.

AT&T was too proud of its "Bell System" reputation to let PacTel go
down the tubes, so they dumped money into CA even with a cruddy rate
of return.  But GTE had other fish to fry with its cash, so they gave
the state pretty much what it paid for.  It looked bad, because it was
bad, but it was a sound business decision.  I don't know the current
authorized ROI in CA, but I suspect it's higher, and GTE service
should improve over time as a result.

BTW this ties in to Steve Elias' distrust of DA charging.  ALL such
expenses are counted in computing rates.  If telco saves money, it
raises their ROI, which is made up for by lowering other rates
(usually at the time of the next general rate case).  They don't get
to "keep" the savings.  They still benefit but it's not the ripoff
that the Mass. legislature pretends it is.
     fred

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

From: Na Choon Piaw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Reply-To: Na Choon Piaw <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 89 00:58:48 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peter Desnoyers) writes:
[...]
>As a side note, I must say that the MIT dormline system is one of my most
>favorable memories of MIT. The service was sh*tty, and the lines were
>rotting, but it was worth it to be able to go down to the basement of
>Walker or Ashdown and watch the calls come in at 11 pm.........

Very few people know that after SxS's are long gone, Universal/MCA will
be preserving a picture of one in operation. All you have to do is rent
the movie "Dial M For Murder" (no pun intended....???), and in one of the
scenes where Grace Kelly is dialing away, the scene switches to a SxS,
grinding away from the pulses. It was a typical Hitchock cliffhanger. I
did mention while Ms. Kelly is dialing away, there is a man with a knife
moving up right behind her.

     Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]><[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 10:04:52 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


AT&T has taken over the GTE switch business.  It is now a joint venture with
GTE, and in five years will be fully owned by AT&T.   The GTE product will
migrate to the 5ESS.

Herman Silbiger

The preceding facts are generally true, although the details may be inexact.

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

Date: 15 Sep 89 11:42:29 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC

In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:

>    I am not certain why GTE operating companies have been singled out
>for bashing in this forum, but I suspect that IN TRUTH their problems are
>no worse than those of any Bell operating companies.

  You may not be cetain why GTE is "singled out", but I think I understand.
For year after year here in Durham I put up with :
    - noisy lines - wild buzzes and garbage, not just white noise
      and itsy, bitsy clicks now and then
    - picking up the phone to dial, only to find other people on the
      line in the middle of a conversation
    - getting chewed out at work, while on call, for not answering the
      phone to come in to do an emergency lung scan.  The phone hardly ever
      rang when someone called me ... lots of people said "Where were
      you last night?  I tried to call, but there was no answer."
    - "touch tone" that was not buffered well enough and was converted
      to pulse anyway (Dial "too fast" and you have to start all over.)
    - dropped connections in the middle of a conversation
    - wrongly routed calls (several times someone in other cities would
      have the operator to place a call to the Methodist retirement home,
      only to *still* have the equipment end up connecting to me)
    - wrong numbers, much more than I though was reasonable to expect.
      Why do I say that?  Well, how can even the stupidest person
      continue to dial "8364" instead of "4082"?  Wrong numbers were
      frequently not even remotely similar to my number.

  The list goes on, but you get the point I hope.  And these were not
isolated things every couple of months or so --- it was *all the
freaking time*.  I came very close several times to have the "service"
disconnected and save the money and hassle.

  When I lived in Charlotte (Southern Bell), phone service was just
that- a service.  It was not a hassle and headache that someone
charged you to have.  SB was great.  GTE _was_ a pain in the ass.

  To their credit, our exchange (383) was converted to ESS of some sort
or other (all I ever heard was "its digital".), and all of the above
kind of non-sense has stopped.  GTE still charges for dmtf (about
$1.50 / month I think).  I refuse to pay them for something that is in
my opinion to their benefit as much or more than mine to have.  Why
pay for subsidizing the pulse dial phone users when tone is more
efficient from the standpoint of the switch?

  GTE has a rather large presence here in Durham, though some parts are
being moved or have moved to other distant lands (Florida I think).  I have
several friends who work for GTE, but I never bothered to embarass them
with all of the above.  I'm sure they knew it all first hand anyway.

Kim L. Greer
Duke University Medical Center          try: [e-mail]
Div. Nuclear Medicine  POB 3949         ...!mcnc!ecsgate!dukeac!klg
Durham, NC 27710  919-681-2711x223       fax: [phone]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Residential 800 Service?
Date: 14 Sep 89 09:42:41 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections/VMJ, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan

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

>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?

>[Moderator's Note: Depending on the time of day and other circumstances,
>an 800 number is less expensive than an incoming call on a Calling Card.

Maybe this belongs in soc.singles, but many people have 800 numbers so
that they can give them to members of the desired sex.  I find it
convenient to give a woman my 800 number so that she doesn't have to
pay to call me.  Sure, I could always say "Call me collect", but many
people are unwilling to make a collect call but will happily call an
800 number (even though it's the same thing).

                         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: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Are We Going From Here?
Date: 14 Sep 89 10:06:23 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections/VMJ, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289) writes:

>25 years ago, who would have thought that the network would evolve to what it
>is today. At that time digital transmission facilities were just being
>introduced.

That sounds like the current state of affairs here in Japan.  We asked
for some phone lines to be brought in digitally, but they have never
heard of such a thing.  We also have some lines coming from a distant
CO, and they actually run them analog all the way from the home CO to
us.  This is probably 15 to 20 kilometers and the lines sound like it.
Sometimes, when the lines ring, you pick up the phone and just keep
hearing ring voltage in your ear and can not seize the line.  The sound
level is way low of course.

There was an article in the Nihon Keizai Sinbun on 09/12 talking about
this very subject.  It was comparing all the wonderful features
available in the U.S. to the dearth of services here.  It also
mentioned that no volume discounts are available here, even on the new
toll-free 0120 service.

We are also running into the problem that most buildings have very few
available pairs from the CO.  Most of the office buildings we have
looked at renting space in have less than twenty pairs available.  NTT
(the phone company) says they will install any additional cable for
free, but will require six months to one year for completion.  This
means that we would have to pay for up to one year's rent for space
that we could not occupy.

                         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: Dave Horsfall <munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK <-> Ireland Access Codes.
Date: 15 Sep 89 02:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA

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

No replies to this so far, so...

Indeed it is - it's used in Australia, along with ISD (International
Subscriber Dialling).  There are very few manual exchanges left in the
country, incidentally.  AXE is slowly replacing step-by-step and Xbar.

Would I be wrong in guessing that most (if not all) of what used to be
the British Commonwealth countries use the STD/ISD terms?  Speak up,
Canucks and Kiwis!

--
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

Date:     Fri, 15 Sep 89 10:39:09 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  DC Area

For the purposes of the notes I have been keeping, the Columbia Pike
and Crystal City offices you refer to are lumped together (although I
do note the newer prefixes coming out of Crystal City), and Columbia
Pike/Crystal City is the same as what I called "Crystal City &
National Airport".  Also, you are apparently saying that Columbia Pike
picks up the pay phones in the Pentagon.

However, it's interesting to note the "melted cheese" (prefixes which
serve the same rate area but, aside from such border situations,
different geographic areas).  I think I noticed some such "noise"
around Broad Street and Vine, on or near the border in Philadelphia
between "center city east" and "center city west" groups of prefixes
in Phila. zone 1.

Back to Va. suburbs in DC area: How close to the boundary between
Columbia Pike/Crystal City and Old Town Alexandria is National
Airport?  (You noted National Airport as having some Old Town
Alexandria prefixes among its pay phones.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #377
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 16 Sep 89 1:24:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #378
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Sep 89 01:20:50 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 378

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: UK->USA, Which Carrier? (Herman R Silbiger)
    Re: UK->USA, Which Carrier? (John R. Covert)
    Re: UK->USA, Which Carrier? (Jerry Durand)
    Re: Memories of SxS (David Robbins)
    Re: Memories of SxS (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: DTMF Terminals? (John DeBert)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Larry Campbell)
    Followup: Mechanical Monsters, Plunger Switches, Fuses, DA (Bob Clements)
    Correction to Earlier Article (Jon Solomon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 11:24:13 EDT
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK->USA, Which Carrier?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

> [Moderator's Note: If BT is setting the rate, then absorbing whatever small
> differences there may be between inter-carrier rates via AT&T and the same
> from MCI, that's fine. If I accept a collect call in the United States from
> a friend (let's say vacationing in the UK), will the charge on my Illinois
> Bell bill be from BT or from MCI, or AT&T, or??   PT]

All US carriers charge the same rate to a foreign administration for
carrying a call.  This is a US regulation, and prevents problems when
multiple providers have to deal with a single entity.  There is no
advantage to BT, or any others, to give a routing preference.

Commonly, calls are routed in proportion to their receipt in the
sending country, i.e.  if 80% of the calls to BT come from AT&T, and
20% from MCI, than that same proportion will be preserved on the calls
from BT.

Collect, or credit card calls of course are routed to the owner of the
account.

Herman Silbiger

The above information although generally true, may have errors in the
details.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 89 11:56:20 EDT
From: "John R. Covert  13-Sep-1989 1145" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: UK->USA, Which Carrier?

>Anyway - what difference does it make who handles the call ? Surely the end
>result is the same...the charges are, and I dont really care who owns the
>bits of wire.

The end result isn't necessarily the same.  Different carriers do
provide a different quality of service.  And for collect calls, the
rates aren't the same for AT&T vs. MCI.

>[Moderator's Note: If BT is setting the rate, then absorbing whatever small
>differences there may be between inter-carrier rates via AT&T and the same
>from MCI, that's fine. If I accept a collect call in the United States from
>a friend (let's say vacationing in the UK), will the charge on my Illinois
>Bell bill be from BT or from MCI, or AT&T, or??   PT]

I can guarantee that it won't be from BTI.  As has been discussed,
collect calls are billed by the TERMINATING carrier, at the
TERMINATING carrier's rates.

If you call collect using AT&T's USA-Direct service or MCI's Call USA
service, the answer is obvious.  If you place the call through the
originating country's international operators, the answer is not so
obvious.

I had a discussion with the BTI operators last night about this.  They
say that they just put the number into their computer and have no
influence over which carrier is chosen.

What we therefore don't know is how the computer routes collect calls
originating through the BTI operator.  What happens is going to depend
on the agreements for carrying traffic that BTI has signed with AT&T,
MCI, and US Sprint.  It is obviously merely a small matter of
programming for the billing and routing mechanism to be interconnected
in a fashion which allows proper billing from AT&T if the call came on
an AT&T circuit, and so on.

/john

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: UK->USA, Which Carrier?
Date: Fri, 15-Sep-89 09:09:24 PDT

MCI now has a number you can call in most countries that will connect you
directly with one of their operators.  You can then complete the call in
english and bill it directly to your MCI account.

        Jerry Durand

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

From: David Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Memories of SxS
Date: 14 Sep 89 13:00:42 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA

 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Ken Rossen):
 ...
> But in the (still relatively rural) area of Massachusetts between
> Worcester and the Quabbin and stretching all the way from the CT to NH
> lines, SxSs are the exception, rather than the rule.  They all have
                      ^^^^^^^^^                  ^^^^
Surely you meant SxSs are the *rule* rather than the *exception*.

> five-digit dialing, and many (as in my town) will accept four digits
> within the exchange.
 ...
> In general, New England Telephone seems to have made better progress
> migrating New Hampshire to ESS than Massachusetts; remaining SxSs in
> the southern half of NH tend to be privately-, even family-owned (as
> in Chichester).  They're saying all-electronic by 1992, but many of
> the towns in Worcester County and much of 413 has yet to be done.  I
> only know of one SxS conversion in Mass. in my four years in New
> England, and that's Pepperell (508/433, I'm sure there are a few
> others).  Not exactly a breakneck pace.

Those of us who live in Central Mass. are constantly reminded by the Boston
and Providence news media (by being totally ignored in same) that we don't
really exist.  We're sort of in between, and despite the fact that
Worcester, at last count, is the second largest city in New England, we have
no "major" media "of our own."  (I live in a town just southeast of Worcester.)

However, in 1989 New England Telephone has most definintely taken notice
of us.  From April through August 1989, NET converted at least six or eight
exchanges in the Blackstone Valley (towns south of Worcester) from SxS to
ESS -- if that doesn't qualify as a breakneck pace, I don't know what does.
This doesn't speak to the rest of Central and Western Mass., but where I
live it has been astounding.  There may well be much more conversion taking
place; I am aware only of my local area, because NET places ads in the
local papers explaining to people such concepts as seven-digit dialing for a
month or two prior to the cutover.

Dave Robbins                    GTE Laboratories Incorporated
[e-mail]                40 Sylvan Rd.
 ...!harvard!bunny!drobbins      Waltham, MA 02254

[Moderator's Note: Well, he may have meant SxS is the rule rather than
the exception, and that may be what you meant, but around here it is
not only an exception, it is a rarity. Illinois Bell has been almost
100 percent ESS for about three years. It is very rare to dial
anywhere in northern Illinois -- within IBT territory -- and hear the
ringing and clattering associated with the older type exchanges.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Memories of SxS
Date: 13 Sep 89 14:52:16 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ken Rossen) writes...
>But in the (still relatively rural) area of Massachusetts between
>Worcester and the Quabbin and stretching all the way from the CT to NH
>lines, SxSs are the exception, rather than the rule.  They all have
>five-digit dialing, and many (as in my town) will accept four digits
>within the exchange.

That's backwards, and I think you meant to say it right:  SxS is the
rule in that area.  New England Tel is (wisely) phasing out crossbar
much faster than it's phasing out SxS.  The latter ages more gracefully!
Only steppers generally accept abbreviated dialing.

>In general, New England Telephone seems to have made better progress
>migrating New Hampshire to ESS than Massachusetts; remaining SxSs in
>the southern half of NH tend to be privately-, even family-owned (as
>in Chichester).  They're saying all-electronic by 1992, but many of
>the towns in Worcester County and much of 413 has yet to be done.  I
>only know of one SxS conversion in Mass. in my four years in New
>England, and that's Pepperell (508/433, I'm sure there are a few
>others).  Not exactly a breakneck pace.

As of 1/1/89, NET had 96 steppers left in Mass., about a third of their
offices and about 7 1/2% of lines.  NH had 55 steppers, 45% of offices
and 12 1/2% of lines.  Maine had 100 steppers, 71% of offices and almost
a third of lines.  That includes a lot of replacement work done in the
past four years!  Most of Worcester County is due for upgrade in
1990, though.  Middlesex County (closer in to Boston) is pretty much out
of steppers now; Littleton upgraded in 1986.

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

From: John DeBert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Terminals?
Date: 15 Sep 89 19:59:27 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 997-9175}

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Seth Benjamin Rothenberg) says:
> X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 370, message 3 of 10
> My bank offers bank-by-phone, where a synthesizer and a DTMF detector
> make up a terminal.  I have been unable to track down (neither from the
> bank nor from DataPro Reports (are they any good?) any info on such devices.

   First Interstate, right?

> Does anyone know what they are and the names of some manufacturers?  I
> would really be interested in multiport devices, though single-port
> (as would be used with a PC) would be helpful.

   There is a hybrid modem device that contains a sysnthesizer with female
   voice, a Bell 103/212A modem and can detect DTMF and single tones that
   is made by XeCom in Milpitas, CA. It's a very small device - about the
   length of a 40-pin DIP and 3/4 inch high by 1 inch wide. It was featured
   in Steve Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar column in BYTE a few years back.

   I don't have the address on hand but I will dig around for it.

   JJD
   [e-mail]


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

Date: 12 Sep 89 03:24:28 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.


Karl's "solution" to junk calls (use an answering machine to answer all your
calls) doesn't work.  Suppose I get an answering machine and use it to
screen all my calls.  Now suppose all my friends and relatives do the same.
We'll never reach each other, because we're all just taping each other's
messages instead of having conversations.

There is a real and significant difference between junk mail and junk calls
that Karl doesn't seem to understand.  I can deal with junk mail at my
leisure.  I cannot do that with telephone calls.  The telephone interrupts
me.  I refuse to screen all my calls with an answering machine because of
the problem stated above.  And I get _mighty_ upset when I jump out of
the shower, or off the pot, to run and answer the phone, and it turns out
to be some asshole selling timeshare condominiums.

I agree completely that business users should be prohibited from making
unsolicited telephone calls to residence telephones.  (This would also
stop telephone polls, a highly desirable side effect.)

Larry Campbell                          The Boston Software Works, Inc.
[e-mail]                        120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell                   Boston, MA 02146

[Moderator's Note: Well Mr. Campbell, why don't you install a pot next to
your phone, er, uh, I mean a phone next to your pot. Then put the pending
call on hold or otherwise muffle the mouthpiece when you engage in the
normal hygenic practices associated with concluding your visit to the
water closet. Just the other day I had the dubious distinction of being
seated on my throne when what should arrive on the devil's instrument but
a call from the Rosehill Corporation, managing agents for our local
industry, the Rosehill Cemetery. The young man wanted to sell me a prepaid
burial plan and gravesite. My answer was a three letter word, "NOE", and
I had but barely resumed my originally scheduled activities when the
thing rang again. This time it was the <Chicago Tribune> wanting to know
if my papers 'were arriving okay each day'. Thank goodness for my wall trimline
phone in the kitchen with the 25 foot cord which stretches down the hallway
and into the door of the water closet.  PT]

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

Subject: Followups: Mechanical Monsters, Plunger Switches and Fuses and DA
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 89 13:26:29 -0400
From: [e-mail]

A couple of short followups to followups to my recent posts:

In volume 9, issue 376, Larry Lippman says:
> > Grasshopper fuses; yuck.
>       While it was relatively uncommon, the 35-type "grasshopper" fuse
> could actually be repaired by replacing the fuse wire!  A LOT of 35-type
> fuses were repaired during World War II when materials were scarce.  Can
> you think of a more boring job for a switchman?

That's what I meant by my "Yuck".  You mean you could buy grasshopper
fuses that already had the wire on them? :-)

And:
>     Whatever apparatus you had was probably built before 1930!

I seem to recall some date codes on those units that said 1919.  I couldn't
believe it at the time (1963), but it may have been true from what you say!

And John Covert commented on my comment about new-fangled #5
crossbar machines that:

> "By the sixties, #5 XBar was certainly not 'new-fangled' even
> in New England."

Correct.  I only meant new-fangled compared to most of the stuff we
saw on our tours.  Sorry, I worded it badly.

And in volume 9, issue 364, Barry Shein selectively edited an argument
I made on Directory Assistance, creating an argument I never made and
which I disclaim.  I stand by my posting in volume 9, issue 362.

Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

Date:  Fri, 15 Sep 89 03:37:40 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Correction to Earlier Article

Yes, John, You are right. I was thinking of Wayland (508-358), not Natick.

--jsol

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #378
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 17 Sep 89 2:14:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #379
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Sep 89 01:49:51 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 379

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    A History of Phone Service at MIT (John McNamara)
    Call Rates in the U.S. (John R. Covert)
    Speaking of Strowger (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Re: Central Office Answering Machine (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 89 10:47:41 EDT
Subject: A History of Phone Service at MIT

Recent  postings  by Bob Clements and Peter Desnoyers concerning
MIT's Dormitory Telephone Service ("Dormphone") bring to mind  a
number of fond memories.  Please forgive the mention of specific
names,  but it simplifies the telling of the story.  In 1914 (?)
a young man named Fredrick E.  Broderick went to work  for  MIT,
which  was  at  that time still located in Boston.  By 1918, MIT
had moved to its Cambridge  location,  and  another  young  man,
Carlton  E.  Tucker, graduated (his thesis was on the effects of
air pressure on underground trolley car operation, bespeaking an
interest in railroads and transit that lasted all his life).

In  addition  to  his  interest in railroads, Carlton Tucker was
very interested in telephones.  During the next thirty years, he
rose to full professorship in  the  MIT  Electrical  Engineering
department,   while   simultaneously   managing   MIT's  growing
telephone systems.  I say "systems" because there were two:  one
rented from New England Telephone, and an MIT-owned system.  The
MIT system consisted of a small 100-line SXS system that  served
the  EE  department  (providing dial service long before the NET
system went dial in 1941) and two manual  switchboards,  one  in
the  graduate  student residence (150 lines) and one in the East
Campus dormitories (550 lines).  The MIT system  was  maintained
by   Professor  Tucker's  friend  Fred  Broderick,  who  ran  an
instrument room in the EE department.

In  1949,  MIT  built the first of the West Campus undergraduate
dormitories,  Baker  House.  New   AECO   SXS   equipment   (300
self-aligning  plunger  lineswitches,  30 first selectors and 30
connectors) was installed to provide a phone in every one of 250
rooms.  In addition, when MIT  purchased  the  nearby  Riverbank
Court  residental  hotel a few years later and converted it into
Burton House / Connor Hall, 25 lines from Baker  were  run  into
that building to provide corridor telephones, each serving about
20  people.  Lines  from  the  Baker  SXS system appeared at the
Graduate House and East Campus manual boards (only about 4 lines
each).  The Baker System was fairly reliable,  except  that  the
lineswitches had a preference chain (of contacts) that often got
dirty,  resulting  a  loss of dial tone for up to 100 users.  In
addition, the dial tone  generator  was  really  a  buzzer,  and
occasionally   failed.   Upon  one  such  occasion,  maintenance
personnel replaced it with a tape "Dial  Dammit,  Dial  Dammit".
The  Baker  system was maintained by students supervised by Fred
Broderick, beginning a tradition / fraternity  that  would  last
for 40 years, half of them under Broderick's direction.

Sometime  in the late 50's a student approached Professor Tucker
with the idea of buying some surplus SXS equipment from a  South
Sea  island  location and fully automating the dormitory system,
which at that  time  consisted  of  100  SXS  lines  in  the  EE
department,  300  SXS lines in Baker, and about 700 manual lines
in Graduate House and East Campus.  Professor  Tucker  explained
to  the  student  that the freight costs would be excessive, but
the idea stuck in his mind.

In  about  1960, when Bob Clements and I were both Freshmen, the
John Hancock Company equipment (3400 lines of AECO SXS) came  on
the  market.  According  to  one  story,  MIT dragged their feet
about getting the equipment, and the "newest" equipment had been
sold before Professor Tucker could convince MIT to pick  up  the
remainder,  about  2000  lines.  Indeed,  three  of the 100-line
groups that MIT purchased bore date  stickers  "1922".

During  the  1961-1962  period, Bob Clements and a couple others
(from the original "WTBS" - the MIT station) put  the  equipment
together,  and  he and I and others installed dial telephones in
the rooms.  On September 1, 1963,  the  system  went  completely
dial,  with  roughly  1500  lines in service.  The equipment was
located in three separate locations spread over the campus,  and
included  non-aligning  and  self-aligning  plunger lineswitches
(see Bob Clement's posting for the difference), linefinders, and
lots of selectors and connectors.

We had lots of variety.  Some of the lines in the Graduate House
were  party lines with Tip Party / Ring Party selective ringing.
Some of the connector switches were Trunk and Level Hunting, and
were used for dormitory  desks  and  student  activities.  Power
systems  included  70  ampere  motor generator sets, large glass
cased batteries, and the motor-driven Variac kludge  that  Peter
Desnoyer  mentioned.  (The  latter  was  given to us by NET.  It
used a Whetstone bridge circuit that compared the office battery
to a reference battery.  Current  flow  in  the  center  of  the
bridge  operated polar relays that flipped field capacitors in a
220V  motor  that  operated  the  Variac.  The  Variac  in  turn
regulated Tungar rectifier tubes.)

Since  this  was  5  years  before  Carterphone,  there  was  no
connection to the outside world,  and  there  was  no  operator.
With  the advent of Carterphone, various interconnection methods
were employed, including one where the MIT operator (at the  NET
owned  switchboard)  used  one  cord  set to set up the call and
another (via a second jack)  when  the  called  party  answered.
Needless to say, disconnections were common.

In 1976, the NET PBX (about 7000 lines of SXS) was replaced with
a  CO  Centrex  (1A  ESS).  Shortly  thereafter,  direct  inward
dialling was installed between the CO and Dormphone,  permitting
anyone  in  the world to call into 40-50 year old equipment.  As
Larry Lippman has pointed  out,  a  good  ear  is  an  important
maintenance tool, and it was easy to tell the difference between
the slow and irregular dial pulse strings generated by Dormphone
dials,  and  the crisp and rapid perfectly timed digits incoming
from the ESS.

Since  MIT  did  not  want  to  have  to  bill the students, all
outgoing calls were credit card / collect / third party, and all
incoming calls were greeted with a  recorded  message  "This  is
MIT,  collect  and  third  party  calls are not accepted at this
number".  The recorded message was stored digitally and was  the
highest  tech  thing  ever  to grace Dormphone.  It was also the
subject of  several  hacks,  as  people  would  break  into  the
exchange and change the recording.

During the late 70's and early 80's, additional dormitories were
added  to  the  West  Campus,  and  equipment was purchased from
American Optical and other sources, to bring the total number of
lines in service up to about 2800.

Meanwhile,  the  ancient  equipment,  including the 300 lines of
1922 equipment, continued to serve well past its 40 year  design
life,  and  remained  in  service  until  August  1988, when MIT
installed a 5ESS purchased  from  AT&T.  All  of  the  Dormphone
equipment  was scrapped.  Fred Broderick's name lives on amongst
MIT students as a  station  at  the  Tech  Model  Railroad  Club
(recipient  of  a lot of Western Electric college gift equipment
via Fred).  Carlton Tucker's name also is immortalized in a TMRC
station (he was the TMRC faculty advisor), and in a follow-on to
his  Wire  Communications  course,  6.311  Telephony.   To   me,
Dormphone lives on as the most fun job I ever had.

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

Date: Thu, 14 Sep 89 23:29:27 -0700
From: "John R. Covert  15-Sep-1989 0204" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Rates in the U.S.

Clive Carmock ([e-mail]) asks:

>P.S. I would be interested to hear from anyone who could give me billing
>example of the different call rates/times in the USA, and would be interested
>to have details of the OFF PEAK LOCAL calls to residential customers -
>ie; do you have to subscribe to a service to get these free?

Things are incredibly complex here.  Remember that we have hundreds (or is it
thousands) of telephone companies, each with different rates.

I'll present just a few examples.  First, AT&T's rates for calls which
originate in one state and terminate in a different state (as of 1
July 1989):

Standard Rates:

 Mileage          Initial Minute   Additional Minutes  Discount Periods
   1-10            .18        .17
  11-22            .21        .20           33% off Sun-Fri 5P-11P
  23-55            .23        .22
  56-124        .23        .22           48% off Every day 11P-8A
 125-292        .23        .23             All day Saturday
 293-430        .24        .23             Until 5P Sunday
 431-925        .24        .24
 926-3000        .25        .25
3001-4250        .31        .30
4251-5750        .33        .32

Note that we can call coast to coast for a maximum of 25 cents (about 15p) per
minute (similar to the U.K. b rate, actually, but for a much longer distance).

This is the end of the simple example.  There are all sorts of discount plans
that you can subscribe to which get you discounts on the above rates (and other
companies have similar rates and similar discount plans).

If your call is not crossing a state boundary, then the rates will be regulated
by each of the fifty states.  In Massachusetts, each carrier has two sets of
rates, one set for calls that do not cross a LATA (local access and transport
area) boundary, and another for calls which do cross the boundary.  These are
quite often drastically more expensive than AT&T's long haul rates.  It costs
me more to make a 1 minute call to a point in Massachusetts only 11 miles away
than to call 3000 miles to Los Angeles.  Additional minutes are lower, but a
call to a point 86 or more miles away within my LATA in Massachusetts costs
55 cents for the first minute and 23 cents each additional minute, so more
expensive no matter how long the call is than a call up to 460 miles away
outside the state.

The rates for local calls vary from town to town.  There are places
where all local calling is unlimited (for both residential and
business customers), places where all businesses pay measured rates
and all residences are unlimited, places where even residential
customers cannot get unlimited rates, places where different rates for
local calls are available depending on the chosen base rate, places
where there is a per-call charge for unlimited duration, places where
there are charges based on both distance and time within the "local"
calling area, places where the rates for local calls are the same no
matter what time of day, places where there are off-peak rates for
local calls, and so on.

The size of local calling areas varies drastically.  From where I live, only
a few of the adjacent towns are local calls, and one town which has a common
border with our town is 19 cents for the first minute and 9 cents each addi-
tional minute.  Yet in Atlanta, the diameter of the local calling area is
about sixty miles.

There has been a lot of discussion of this in the archives, and if Patrick
decides to publish them, I'm sure you'll get as many different examples of
rates as there are readers of this digest.

/john

[Moderator's Note: As JC points out, the variety of rates just go on and
on and on. Fifty states, each with a regulatory agency to set the rates
within that state, a federal structure (FCC) for interstate calls; and some
local community involvement in a few places. Typically, rates mile per
mile <interstate> are less expensive than for the same number of miles
<intrastate>. Tariff and rate publications are large enough that they fill
up entire rooms in telco accounting offices.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 89 20:59:52 EDT
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speaking of Strowger
Organization: Columbia University

They way I've always heard/read the story is that it was the competing
mortician's WIFE who worked in the telephone office, and whenever the
bereaved call would come in saying, "connect me to the undertaker,"
she'd naturally ring her husband's line.

FYI, I don't know if this has been discussed already, but Strowger's
original system did NOT use a telephone dial.  It used three telegraph
keys, and could only accommodate 999 phones.

To place a call to, say station # 521, you'd press the first key five
times, the second key twice, and the third key once.  You would then
wind the magneto, thereby causing the other party's telephone to ring.
If the other number was busy, you woud NOT hear your own bell ring as you
cranked, and thus you'd know you weren't getting through.  Flashing the
switch-hook would cause the selectors to reset, and cranking the
magneto without dialing anything would raise the operator.

The original strowger phones worked on a five wire system.  One for talk,
three for the keys, and a ground return.

By the way, here's an interesting fact about the somewhat later Strowger
telephone dials.  They had 11 finger-holes.  You had the usual 10 numerical
holes, and then one marked "Long Distance."  In actually, this extra hole
did NOT send out 11 pulses as one might suspect.  It sent out only 10, the
same as dialing 0.  Why did they have it?  The researchers feared that the
public would not be able to grasp the concept of using 0 both as a digit and
as a way to call the operator!


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.      "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]        to be seriously considered as a means of
gmw1@cunixc (bitnet)               communication. The device is inherently of
[e-mail]          no value to us."
WUI :650-117-9118                     - Western Union internal memo, 1877

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Central Office Answering Machine
Date: 16 Sep 89 22:03:38 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, kenj%wybbs.UUCP@sharkey.
cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes:
> I don't know... Almost $100 a year for an answering machine? One that you
> may not even be able to interrogate from another phone? I think they are
> way to optimistic on their sign up estimates.

It IS catching on in many places. First, there is no capital outlay. It
is one thing to go shopping, plunk down $100 (or more), bring the thing
home and try to figure it out and hook it up, and worry about what
happens when it breaks, and quite another to call "the phone company"
and tell them you want their message service. I believe there is a
central number you can call to retrive your messages (at least there is
on the voice mail offered with my cellular phone).

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

[Moderator's Note: This is a perfect example of why so many of us always
opt when possible for 'centrex-like' features on our phones. For several
years I had a small 'mini-PBX' in my home (a Melco 212, actually); a Demon
dialer for speed-calling, and other attachments. Those things do not come
inexpensively, and they do break down eventually. When you go centrex, you
eliminate all the hassle. Starline service (Illinois Bell's home centrex
service) gives me everything I had before for an extra $5.50 per line/month.
No fuss, no bother, no maintainence. Why not go with central office
answering equipment also? Makes sense to me.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #379
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 17 Sep 89 3:03:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #380
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Sep 89 03:00:00 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 380

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some Comments About Small Independent Telephone Companies (Larry Lippman)
    Pac*Bell: The Old Bell System? (John Higdon)
    Submission for comp-dcom-telecom (redsox![e-mail])
    Re: NPA 215 (Jay Maynard)
    Re: Memories of SxS (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Some Comments About Small Independent Telephone Companies
Date: 16 Sep 89 16:38:29 EDT (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John Higdon) writes:
> In those days there were two COs: 354 and 356. Each has its own
> peculiar brand of non-standard SXS. Each allowed five-digit dialing
> with Los Gatos. The 354 office had this weird PBX-style ringback with
> short rings and a fast cadence. 356 had short rings with a very slow
> cadence; in fact 1A2 key systems used to time out between rings. WC
> hardly ever installed standard key systems, however. Instead they had
> these Automatic Electric phones that had a hold button next to each
> line and required no backroom equipment (KSU).

    Those three-line key telephones were the 575-series, and were made
by AE, ITT, Stromberg-Carlson and Northern Electric (later called Northern
Telecom).  This "key system" (I use the term loosely) design was really
the pits.  There was no visual ringing indication, although using an external
transformer one could wire the sets with lamp illumination for line use and
hold.  Hold was accomplished by bridging a couple-hundred ohm resistor
across the line when the companion hold key was depressed (it LOCKED in
place until released by the line key).  Northern Electric had a small
optional accessory unit which could be used with these sets; I don't remember
exactly what it did, but it may have provided lamp flashing for a ringing
indication.

> The 356 ringback sounded like terminal flatulence.

    Some of the tone generators for older SxS, XY and Leich CO's used
vibrating reed interrupters (like old car radio vibrators) instead of
AC generator windings on a motor-driven ringing machine/interrupter.
It sounds like the ringback tone (probably dial tone and busy tone, too)
was generated in such a manner.

> To call the neighboring communities of Saratoga and Campbell, you
> dialed the seven digit number. The prefix would land you in the
> appropriate Bell CO, and the last four digits were counted by the
> distant switch, which at that time was either crossbar or SXS, depending
> on the prefix. To call any of the other local destinations, it was
> necessary to first dial "9", wait for second dial tone, then dial the
> seven digit number. "9" connected you with the San Jose tandem, which
> accepted the entire seven digit number dialed directly from the Los
> Gatos subscriber.

    The second dial tone is rather unusual for a central office.  I
have seen a number of weird CO dialing schemes used by independent operating
telephone companies, but have never run across one where there was actually
a second dial tone - especially on a 9-level, which is strangely similar
to that of a PABX.

> Long distance was reached by dialing "112" plus the ten digit number.
> An operator would ask for the number you were calling from. Some of us
> found a better way for long distance, however. After dialing "9", the
> tandem restricted the calls to local only, however we discovered that
> if you dialed a local call, then flashed the switch hook, there would
> be a ka-klunk-plunk, then silence. Dial pulses seemed to have no
> effect, so we tried something else: MF. Jackpot! You could key
> "KP+[anynumberknowntomankind]+ST", and you had a free call.

    What you relate is uncommon.  Usually the DC open on the local
loop which results in a signaling open toward the tandem that is long
enough to release and reseize the tandem office is long enough to collapse
the local switch train - thereby precluding this type of fraudulent call.
Most people with "blue boxes" have plied their art through the use of
2,600 Hz SF tone to release and reseize a tandem office, thereby not
affecting the local switch train.

    Blue box fraud was actually less common in areas using Automatic
Electric apparatus since GTE/Lenkurt was usually used to supply the
N-carrier and associated signaling.  Most GTE/Lenkurt installations
that I have seen utilized 3,700 Hz out-of-band signaling, thereby
precluding the use of simulated SF tones to release and reseize a
tandem office.

> The standard phone issue was, er, well uh there was no standard phone
> issue. It seems they used anything they could get. There were AE,
> Kellog, Stromberg, you-name-it.

    This is a rather common characteristic of smaller independent
operating telephone companies.  There were several companies in the
U.S. which sold refurbished 500-type sets for between $ 8 and $ 12
apiece, with no choice of vendor.  Many independent telephone companies
with tight budgets bought their telephones from these refurbishers,
which was one reason for the variety.  The variety of telephones was
also confusing to IR (installation-repair) personnel; while WECO,
Northern Electric (Telecom), and ITT telephones pretty much used the
WECO wiring conventions, AE and Stromberg-Carlson were different from
each other - and the rest of the world.  These were in the days of
non-modular telephones, so line and handset cords had to be replaced
wire-by-wire, sometimes leading to confusion if one forgot to which
terminal a particular wire connected.

    I once coined a term to describe this variety of telephone
set vendors and models, and suggested to the owner of an independent
telephone company that he place a sign in the business office announcing
the "Telephone Du Jour".

    Strangely enough, though, he failed to see as much humor in this
suggestion as I did. :-)

> According to some of the GTE switchmen
> I talked to later, the cable plant was in about the same shape. From
> the CO to any given subscriber, no one could be sure how many times the
> pair changed wire types and gauge. Trying to create equalized loops was
> a nightmare (even more than GTE's usual).

    One of the problems which results in this situation is that many
independent operating telephone companies with 2,000 lines or less have
no engineering personnel who can assure that cable plant and central
office apparatus is installed according to generally accepted engineering
practices.  While times have been changing and there is now better formal
education among plant personnel in smaller independent telephone companies,
it is not uncommon to see technical operations of an independent telephone
company planned and supervised by someone whose knowledge of telephony was
largely self-taught or learned from a family member, with some additional
experience from some short courses taught by vendors of telephone apparatus,
and possibly from experience in the military.

    As a result of the above, much outside plant has been installed
which may work for POTS service, but which is less than optimal for carrier,
data or radio program circuits.  Improperly changing gauges of cable and
failing to install the proper loading coils at the proper spacing will
result in cable which simply cannot be adequately equalized or repeatered
using the balance and build-out networks in off-the-shelf apparatus.

    The problem is that the personnel responsible for the original cable
installations simply didn't know any better, later resulting in a situation
that is very expensive to correct.

    Once upon a time I was speaking to the owner, and, um, "plant
superintendent" of a small telephone company about the transmission on
his intertoll trunks to a Class 4 office.  This fellow had a rather profound
regional accent, and could probably understand me on an equally poor basis.
A real puzzled look came across his face when I started talking about
VNL (Via Net Loss).  He finally interrupted me and thought I had changed the
subject and was taking about venereal disease!  While he did know something
about veneral disease, he knew nothing about VNL - which I guess proves my
point about lack of engineering skills in smaller independent telephone
companies. :-)

<>  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: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell: The Old Bell System?
Date: 16 Sep 89 20:02:41 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


Over the past months, a number of disturbing manuvers have been
executed by Pacific Telesis. It would appear that in direct
contradiction to the spirit of Judge Greene's order, our RBOC is trying
to re-create the old Bell System.

In the past year, Pacific Telesis has attempted or received approval
from appropriate agencies to provide the following:

Voice Mail
Cable TV Service
VideoTex
AudioTex
InterLATA Long Distance Service
Telephone Equipment Vending

In short, it looks like a major attempt to become a one-stop
telecommunications shop once again.

Some items to consider:

Pac*Bell has finally obtained its long-sought ability to arbitrarily
disconnect 976 providers. In a recent federal court decision, Pac*Bell
was told that it could disconnect any provider that had "obscene"
material. The determination of "obscene" is, of course, left in the
hands of none other than Pac*Bell.

It doesn't take much imagination to see what a tremendous advantage
that would give Pac*Bell in the AudioTex field. It would be "obscene"
if some competitor was taking away busines from PB, ergo turn him off!

We're already seeing what control of the network can do for a
promotional effort. When I was in the equipment vending business, it
was quite common for PB to contact one of my customers and darkly imply
that if they got their equipment from "the phone company", that their
service would improve substantially.

A friend of mine, who is currently in the equipment business, has
documented proof that PB is perpetually causing trouble on a customer's
trunk. He reports trouble, they clear it, and the next day it's bad
again. When, on behalf of his customer, he asked someone at PB what all the
trouble was, he was told that "there seemed to be cronic trouble with
the CPE". That was followed with a well-timed call by a Pac*Bell rep
who raved about the virtues of Centrex to the customer's telephone
administrator. Of course there had been no trouble with the CPE; if
there had there would have been major charges levied by Pac*Bell.

This Thursday, there will be a discussion by industry players on the
matter of Pac*Bell's entry into the VideoTex field at the State
building in San Francisco. Yours truly will certainly be there watching
the PUC, Pac*Bell, and videotex providers battle it out.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Date: 17 Sep 89 00:04:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.


I said I hate to jump off the pot to answer phone calls from salespeople,
and Our Moderator recommended:

-[Moderator's Note: Well Mr. Campbell, why don't you install a pot next to
-your phone, er, uh, I mean a phone next to your pot. Then put the pending
-call on hold ...

Why should I spend MY time and money to rewire MY house just to reduce the
hassle level from assholes who invade MY personal space to sell me crap I
neither want nor need?  It is just as rude for total strangers to call me at
home to sell me stuff as it would be for them to stop me on the street to
sell me stuff.  Or to knock on my door.  Fortunately, door-to-door salesmen
seem to have gone the way of the dodo.  What we need for telephones are the
moral equivalent of the "No soliciting" signs many apartment complexes have.

Larry Campbell                          The Boston Software Works, Inc.
[e-mail]                        120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell                   Boston, MA 02146

[Moderator's Note: But strangers do stop passers-by on the street; if not
to sell something, then just to beg for money or cigarettes, etc. And the
Jehovah Witness people still come to my door every week without fail. Have
you ever had to get off the pot to answer to the door for them? It is true
that door-to-door salesmen for the larger commercial organizations have
pretty much gone the way of the California Condor, but we still have many
intinerant sales people, ala Fuller Brush salesmen coming around. What is
your response to the innocent wrong number caller when you jump off the
pot for them? As a purely pragmatic thing, it just makes sense to have a
phone in a place where you don't want to be subject to a quick, untimely
exit. Either that, or an answering machine.   PT]

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

From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NPA 215
Date: 17 Sep 89 00:57:52 GMT
Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
com (John R. Covert  13-Sep-1989 2056) writes about NPA split rules and
N0X/N1X code usage.

The 713/409 split in the Houston area occurred after 1980, and we still
don't have N0X/N1X. We may not for a while yet, either, as there are
still a fair number of 713 NXXs left open by the split (I think).


Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"The unkindest thing you can do for a hungry man is to give him food." - RAH

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Memories of SxS
Date: 16 Sep 89 22:25:54 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


> [Moderator's Note: Well, he may have meant SxS is the rule rather than
> the exception, and that may be what you meant, but around here it is
> not only an exception, it is a rarity. Illinois Bell has been almost
> 100 percent ESS for about three years. It is very rare to dial
> anywhere in northern Illinois -- within IBT territory -- and hear the
> ringing and clattering associated with the older type exchanges.  PT]

Not so in California. If you travel anywhere outside of any hard-core
metro area, you will find old-timey CO equipment being operated by
Pac*Bell. Even in the metro areas, crossbar is still the order of the
day. San Jose, California's third largest city, *still* has about
twenty prefixes served by #5 crossbar, and quite a few prefixes served
by ESS offices running an obsolete generic. In the nearby Santa Cruz
mountains they are running SXS as they are in many other areas of the
state.

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

[Moderator's Note: Years ago people were saying how very progressive Illinois
Bell was, relative to her sisters. I think it was true. We were among the
first places to be equipped with 911; we had centrex service in several
large organizations (Chicago Tribune, City of Chicago, and Amoco Credit
Card, to name just three) in the middle 1960's -- on crossbar yet, as was
our first 911; our downtown and near north side were ESS as of 1973-74;
and over a nine year period Chicago was completely converted to ESS. We
in the outlying areas finally cut over about 1984.

Historical trivia: The City of Chicago offices operated on a seven position
cord board (RAndolph 6-8000) for fifty years. Police emergency was translated
by each CO from POlice 5-1313 to some other number at police HQ. The police
administrative number was WAbash 2-4747. In about 1963 when all city offices
were scheduled for cutover to centrex, some wit at telco who was a bit of
a radical in the radical 1960's when police were unkindly referred to as
'pigs' said people should dial P-I-G to reach them. It so happens the 744
prefix was *not* in use, and as a lark, that person maneuvered to have that
prefix assigned to the new City of Chicago centrex. So now to reach the
main number for City Hall, we can dial 312-PIG-4000. Or to reach any certain
police officer, dial PIG and the desired four digit extension. :)   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #380
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 17 Sep 89 5:16:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #381
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Sep 89 05:00:58 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 381

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Starline Service From Illinois Bell (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 17 Sep 89 4:58:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Starline Service From Illinois Bell

A while back, a reader in Australia asked for more information about home
centrex service here in the United States. In some places, this service is
called 'Intellidial', and in other places, such as Chicago, it is known
as 'Starline'. There may be other names for it in other communities. In
most cases, the features are the same.

Here are the basics --

You have between two and six incoming lines from the CO, as you desire, based
on your needs. (I have two.) Each line has its own number, just as you
would probably have anyway. In Chicago at least, all (both) numbers must
be on the same prefix, or exchange. In my case, this is 312-743.

In addition to the usual 'custom calling' features available, such as call
waiting, three way calling, call forwarding and speed dialing, several
other options are available, as well as some enhancements on the first four.

Each phone on your premises can be reached two ways:

   1) In the usual method, by a caller dialing the seven digit number.
   2) As an intercom from all other lines on your premises, by dialing
      the intercom code, which  is 2# through 7#, as assigned.

There is no charge for intercom calls. Make as many as you like. Intercom
calls can be distinquished from CO calls by the ring. CO calls to the line
cause a short, double ring-ring (pause) ring-ring sound. Intercom calls
cause the 'normal' ring-pause-ring-pause sound. This enables the person
receiving the call to use the appropriate answer phrase. Intercom calls
do busy out the line, however call-waiting eliminates any problems here.
Both the CO and an intercom call can camp-on with call-waiting tone to
another line which is in use. As in conventional call-waiting, just one
camp-on is allowed.

Another feature is call pickup. Any call can be answered from any line.
If the call is coming into the line you pick up, then just respond as
usual. If the call is coming into some other line, then dial *9 and the
ringing call will be automatically transferred to your line instead.

Call holding is available. You would want to hold a call for various
reasons; such as to answer a call-waiting on the line you are presently
using, or to pickup a call ringing on another line on your premises. You
might wish to simply put a call on hold while doing something else, or
to go to another phone to continue the conversation.

To hold a call, flash, then dial *8. If a call waiting is on the line,
it will automatically be handed to you at that time. To go back and
forth between the calls-waiting, just flash and dial *8. You will alternate
between calls as desired. If a call is ringing in on another phone in your
group, you would flash, then dial *8 (to put your call on hold) then *9
to answer the other line. At that point, both calls are treated like
calls-waiting, and flashing, followed by *8 alternates between them.

To simply leave a call on hold while you are engaged elsewhere, flash and
dial *8, then abandon the line, leaving the phone off-hook. The new dial
tone will time out after about fifteen seconds. To return to the call,
replace the receiver for a second, and answer when the phone rings. To
pick up the call from some other line, hang up the first phone, go to
the desired phone and use *9 to retrieve the call left ringing elsewhere.

Three way calling is also enhanced by Starline. Under ordinary custom calling,
a three way call *cannot* be started when call-waiting is in use, since
the former requires a switchhook flash, and if a call is waiting, the flash
will simply bring up the other call. Using the Starline 'flash, star 8'
approach, three way calling becomes possible. In addition, under ordinary
custom calling, you must be the originator of at least one of the three
sides to the conversation, and must remain on the line at all times during
the three-way call. This is not so in Starline.

Here is an example: I'm on a call, and get a call-waiting. I flash, dial
*8 and take the second call. I alternate between them. On one of the two
incoming calls, I wish for the caller to speak with my brother in his bedroom.
I flash, dial his 'extension' (or intercom code, really, which is 2#), and
when he answers, I announce the call and hang up. Now, that call is gone
from me. My phone rings again, and the call I left on the other side of
the call-waiting is back with me again. As another example, I place or
receive a call. The other party wants to talk with a third person, but does
not know his number. I flash, dial the third number, announce the call
and then *disconnect*. Those two parties will remain connected, and I will
drop out of the call -- and free my line -- just as in 'regular centrex'.

If you have two calls on the line, the one on the 'top of the stack'
is the one to be affected by a transfer to another line in or out of your
group. You manipulate, or 'pop the stack' to get whichever caller you want
on top for the purpose of transferring, etc. In other words, the one I am
talking to now (or have most recently put on hold) is the one who gets
transferred; while the other one waits for my return. If you are not talking
to the 'right one' for this purpose, then flash, dial *8 and bring around
the one you want prior to again flashing and transferring.

Ordinary phone systems can usually 'hunt' in rotary for a free line. I had
this feature for years. If my first line was busy, the call would be put
on my second line, unless it was also busy, in which case busy would be
returned to the caller. Under Starline, some enhancements are available:
'Circular hunt' allows any line in the group to hunt to some other line.
My first can hunt the second, and the second can hunt the first. The six
lines maximum in a Starline group can go around hunting each other as
programmed. Backward or foreward does not matter.

'Transfer on busy/no answer' starts the hunt process not only if the called
line is busy, but also if it does not answer after three rings. The 'busy'
part of this scenario only applies if the call-waiting is also engaged on
the line in question, or if there is dialing in progress (call waiting never
occurs when you are dialing, as it might interefere with the dialing
process). So if your line is 'truly busy' by CO standards for same, then
the hunt process begins. Since we use *70 to 'suspend call-waiting' for
the duration of the call in progress, this also forces a busy condition
on the line should a new call arrive (and have to hunt elsewhere).

'Suspend call-waiting', or *70 as a prefix to whatever else you dial, has
long been a standard custom calling feature here except in a couple of
offices with older generics. This feature is used for those 'very important
calls' which you do not want disturbed, and for modem calls, where a
call-waiting signal would interfere with the data.

Call Forwarding is enhanced under Starline. It operates as expected, but
does NOT forward intercom calls if the place forwarded to is outside your
group. It DOES forward intercom calls as well if the forwarding is to
another phone in your group. You can forward in or out of group as desired.
The exceptions are you cannot forward to 411,611,911, any 555-1212, 976
or 900+anything. Nor can you forward to 950 or a long distance number *on
other than your default carrier*.

Call Forwarding takes precedence over call-waiting from a phone outside
your group, but not from an intercom call, unless the forwarding is within
your group. Here is another example:

Station A hunts to station B on 'busy/no answer'. Station B has call
forwarding turned on to some place outside the group. A is busy and gets
a CO call, so it hunts to B. The call will forward to wherever B is being
sent. On the other hand, A is not busy, but there is no answer. Since B
is being forwarded, the call to A just continues to keep ringing on A,
since there is no reason to assume A would want his calls answered by
some out of group place where B calls are going. I realize this is not
entirely logical (to forward via B if A is busy, but not forward via B
if A is unanswered) but that is the way they have it set up. I think they
would change it for me if I asked, but that is another part of the story.

Convenience Dialing is known as 'speed calling' in many places. Under
Starline, you get a thirty number repretoire, which are dialed as
*20 through *49. Any number in the world, dialable from your phone,
including international calls, can be programmed into the 'speed dial'.
It is programmed from any line in the group, and can be accessed from
any line in the group. They tell me there is a method of partitioning
it, with certain speed dial abbreviations going to one line, some to
another, etc... but mine is set up so all speed dial numbers can be
accessed from all lines. Only one programming is required; what you
program on one line works from all the others.

In summary, Starline gives me tremendous and virtually complete control
over my phones. A new feature being made available in the next few months
is a form of call identification which allows up to three CO numbers to
be assigned to one line. Variations in the ringing pattern advise which
CO line was dialed. This permits various users of the same line to know
ahead of time who is being called. In my case, I'll have my 800 number
assigned to a new CO number, which will ring two short/pause/one long to
tell me I'm paying for the next call I receive.

Not peculiar to Starline, but available from Illinois Bell is consolidated
billing. Unit charges and toll charges from all lines in the Starline
group are accumulated as a total where discount volume rates would apply.
For example, since we here must pay for local calls -- but there is a
discount in pricing after a certain number -- all calls from both my lines
are tallied together to count toward the total required. My Reach Out
America plan can be used from either line with just one monthly fee to
AT&T.

The monthly billing does itemize which long distance calls went out/came
in on each line, but the total of all is used toward monthly purchase
requirments. The bill will have a section entitled, "Calls from 743-xxxx"
with those calls which specifically originated (or were received collect
on) any line other than the main billing number.

A collect call to my second line will show up on the bill charged to the
second line *for the entire duration of the call* even though I may have
'pulled the call' when it came in to my first line via *9. Likewise, any
outgoing calls are billed in their entirety to the line they were dialed
out on, even though in mid-conversation I may switch to another extension
to continue, or indeed, even transfer the call out of my system entirely
via three way calling and disconnect myself.

Starline users get a little manual, or instruction book to use (are you
surprised?), but after a few days it all becomes very easy to remember.
I think the CO installers are the ones who need the lessons, however. To
get Starline turned on is a challenge. At least it was when I first started
using it two years ago.

I put in the order with the business office and was told it would be on
within two days. A week was more like it. At least four different people
fiddled around with it before they could get it right. Each person said
they 'had it working okay' and the results on my end were different (and
wrong!) each time. I put the order in on Monday. They started trying to
get it working on Wednesday. For four days my phones were screwed up.

Finally, after I made a real stink Saturday afternoon with Repair Service,
I got a call back Sunday morning at 8 AM no less, from a woman who said
"I am going to be here (in the CO) all day with my husband, and one or
the other of us will have it going correctly for you by this afternoon.
I personally will call you, or he will, when the job is finished."

Yeah sure, I thought. But true to her word, about 11 AM she called me and
said let's go through all of it together and see if it is doing what you
want it to do now. And sure enough, it was fine, and has been since.

The next morning, the business office manager called me, "ooooh, Mr. Townson,
I dooooo hope we have gotten your system in order finally....and with
your permission I will show today as the starting date for billing
purposes."

My total monthly bill for local service is as follows:

Non-pub directory service   1.45  (covers both lines)
Two touch tone services     1.46  (.73 each for two CO lines)
Two line charges            9.06  (4.53 each for two CO lines)
Two Starline packages      11.04  (5.52 each for two CO lines)
One Call Waiting            2.50  (I took it off my modem line entirely)
One Convenience Dialing     5.00  (32 number speed dialing for entire group)
One Call Forwarding         2.50  (only on modem line, not first line)
Total Local Service        33.01

Then I pay about 4 cents per 'unit' and long distance rates as applicable.


Patrick Townson

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of GTE and their Apparatus
Date: 16 Sep 89 22:14:36 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
> The California PUC historically has given GTE (and the old PacTel)
> very low ROI, often a couple of percentage points or more below
> everybody else.  When most states were allowing 13% and California was
> allowing 10%, which state would YOU invest in?  To make matters worse,
> C-PUC would penalize GTE for its poor performance by lowering its ROI
> even more.

And what made things REALLY worse was that just when GTE would find
itself in a position of lowering its costs (by installing new CO
equipment) it screwed itself by not reducing the bloated work force
that was previously required to maintain the old steppers. It was not
uncommon to find a GTE CO staff exactly the same size with GTD5 or
1AESS that it had before the cut.

> AT&T was too proud of its "Bell System" reputation to let PacTel go
> down the tubes, so they dumped money into CA even with a cruddy rate
> of return.  But GTE had other fish to fry with its cash, so they gave
> the state pretty much what it paid for.

Even so, PacTel was indeed the poor stepchild of AT&T. I remember C&P
and Illinois and Southern Bell all having neat stuff while PacTel reps
didn't even know what I was talking about. Back in the 70s, I was
working with a radio station in a transmitter move in the Jacksonville,
FL, area. We needed a pair of 15K equalized lines in a hurry and
Southern Bell had them up in twenty-four hours. You were lucky to ever
get them with PacTel, and have them right.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #381
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 17 Sep 89 5:59:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #382
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Sep 89 05:59:08 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 382

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some History About Alarm Systems and Data Transmission (Larry Lippman)
    Musings on Progress in PABX and Station Apparatus (Larry Lippman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Some History About Alarm Systems and Data Transmission
Date: 17 Sep 89 00:21:47 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bernard Mckeever) writes:
> One of the early forms of "data" communications that still has a few
> applications left is the telegraph. Several of the older alarm
> reporting systems used by fire departments cling to this technology
> because it still works, and the tariffs for telegraph grade facilities
> are cheap and hard to change for political reasons.  Your favorite
> alarm company may still be using McCulloh systems for home and
> business protection.

    The McCullough Loop system is still around, but it is rapidly
disappearing.  The McCullough Loop works by running a huge series circuit,
which begins and ends in the alarm company central station, through each
and every alarm customer location,  While there is only a single pair
which enters a customer premises, the wires should be visualized more
as "in" and "out" rather than "tip" and "ring".

    The combined resistance of a closed (i.e., no customer sending
a signal) McCullough Loop might be several thousand ohms.  The alarm
company central station excited the loop with 130 volts DC, and used a
sensitive relay to detect current flow.  Each customer location had a
NcCullough "transmitter" which consists of a motor-driven code wheel,
which when operating sequentially opens the loop and shorts it to ground.
Each customer for each alarm (a customer could have more than one alarm)
had a transmitter with a uniquely-coded code wheel, which resulted in a
signal not unlike that of Morse Code.  The alarm company central station
was equipped with a "pen register" which drew lines on moving paper tape
to display the code.  The design of this pen register can be traced back
to before 1850 - the era of Samuel F. B. Morse!

    When an alarm customer sent a signal, the initial open of the
McCullough Loop operated an audible alarm at the alarm company central
station, where an attendant would go over to the pen register and attempt
to decode the signal.  While this was rather crude, it worked well except
for one situation - where TWO or more customers were simultaneously
sending signals!  Since 50 or more customers could be on a given McCullough
Loop, this was not uncommon - especially at common times in the morning and
evening when customers with intrusion alarms would automatically report
"openings and closings".

    A particular problem arose when the McCullough Loop would go open
due to a cable problem.  In some cases certain customers would still have
alarm protection since the transmitter also shorted the loop to ground, and
the alarm company apparatus was also equipped to detect this condition.
However, other customers might be totally without protection.  It was
generally not possible for the alarm company to know where a loop open had
occurred, so they immediately called the telephone company, who would in
turn dispatch a repairperson to a suspected CO to check each pair from the
CO on trial-and-error basis.

    It was also easy for a burglar with technical knowledge to defeat
the target alarm system by first shorting the McCullough loop at a utility
pole, and then opening the pair to the subscriber premises.  The apparatus
at the alarm company central station could never detect this condition,
and more than one burglary was effected in this manner without anyone
being the wiser - until it was too late.  This weakness was never countered
until the late 1960's when electronic Loop Integrity Devices were available.
The Loop Integrity Device was installed at customer locations willing to
pay for this additional security.  In operation, added apparatus in the
alarm company central station would send a low-speed coded interrogation
signal with a unique address for each Loop Integrity Device, superimposed
on the normal McCullough Loop current.  Since this was DC signaling, the
speed was 50 baud or less.  When the Loop Integrity Device recognized its
address, it would momentarily open its loop as an acknowledgement to the
alarm company system.  Polling would be interrupted upon receipt of an
alarm signal.  The Loop Integrity Device was only of limited benefit,
since an open loop due to cable failure (accidental or "otherwise") still
put some customers out of service.

    Most McCullough Loop systems have now been replaced with apparatus
that uses bridged data lines (so that a short on one subscriber loop will
not affect other subscribers) with frequency-shift keying of two-way
digital data.  The newer systems also allow one alarm unit at a customer
location to send a number of individual signals to indicate different
alarm conditions.

> Today several vendors have T-CXR channel units
> for this service, but it is still a basic series [just like old
> Christmas tree lights] circuit that causes the Telco nightmares when
> the circuit goes open.

    It was also an annoyance for customers.  When my organization
still had McCullough Loops for fire and intrusion protection, I was called
in the middle of the night more than once to open up the building and
meet the telephone company who was trying to localize a cable problem!

> Western Union at one time had a huge telegraph network that spanned
> the globe. Often telegraph circuits were transported over analog
> carrier systems. I can remember the 43A carrier system that combined
> up to 17 separate telegraph circuits on one N1-CXR channel [4 khz
> bandwidth]. We had two systems of N1 carrier that each had 10 43A
> systems on them. From time to time one or both of the systems would
> fail when the A1 cable under the river started to go belly up. NY 7
> Telegraph [the control office] would be on the tie line in seconds
> arranging a reroute.

    There is still a lot of 43-type and compatible apparatus in service
today.  The 43A1 voice frequency carrier data system system was developed
in the early 1950's to replace the 40C2 system, which was developed
around 1930.  While the 43A1 also added 8 channels in the above-voice
frequency range of ~3,500 to ~5,000 Hz, the basic 17 channels from 425
to 3,145 Hz were compatible with the earlier 40C2 system.

    The 40C2 system, which used rather large vacuum tubes (with grid
caps, no less!) was a monster where ONE channel occupied about 16 inches
of rack space.  I saw 40C2 in service during the 1960's, but I am certain
that it is all gone by now.

    The 43A1 system used miniature vacuum tubes and plug-in modules,
and then allowed three channels to occupy about 14 inches of rack space.
I feel certain that there is still 43A1 in service, but it must be getting
scarce by now.

     The 43A1 system was replaced by the 43B1 system in the late 1960's.
The 43B1 finally used transistors, and all 17 channels could fit in less
than 36 inches of rack space.  The 43B1 was compatible with all channels
in the 43A1 system.  I am not aware of any WECO apparatus newer than the
43B1, and it is entirely possible that nothing has replaced it since the
43-type system is, by its very nature, doomed to a now rapid obsolescence.

    The 43-type system has primarily been used for two purposes: low
speed (150 baud and less) telegraph channels for baudot telex service and
private line teletypewriter service, and for telemetering and control
circuits as used by utility and pipeline companies.  Both of these
applications are changing, however.  International telex is going to higher
speed ASCII terminals which work at 1,200 baud or more - at least in the
U.S. where the international ASCII <--> baudot conversion is performed
at the U.S. switching center of the telex carrier.  Utility and pipeline
companies are migrating toward process computer-to-computer communication
which can handle numerous data and control points with a single high speed
data channel.

    However, there is still a large number of 43-type compatible
systems in service for the utility and pipeline industry, especially
on private microwave radio links.  Since actually little WECO apparatus
has been sold to these industries, most of the apparatus is made by
such vendors as RFL Industries, GTE/Lenkurt, etc. and is functionally
compatible with the 43-type system, but is physically different.

> Another common data application was the dumb terminal to host
> connection, used mainly with time share systems. Connections were
> typically 300 baud, and the modems were much bigger than a bread box.
> Connections were available in two flavors, dial-up and private line.

    Data sets for 1,800 bps and below which employed the switched
network or private lines all operated on frequency-shift keying, and
all dealt with bit-serial data.

    Well, there was an interesting type of data set - now long since
obsolete - which operated as a _parallel_ data set; i.e., it sent data
as _characters_ formed by sending simultaneous tones.  These data sets
fell into two categories, the 401-series which could transmit data at
a maximum rate of 20 chars/sec, and the 402-series which could transmit
data at a maximum rate of 75 chars/sec.

    Up to three simultaneous tones could be transmitted.  The tones
were divided into three groups.  The "A" group had four tones which
were exactly the same frequencies as the 4x4 matrix DTMF Low Group tones.
The "B" group had four tones which were exactly the same frequencies as
the 4x4 matrix DTMF High Group tones.  The "C" group had three frequencies
which were higher than the "B" group.

    Some versions of these data sets only used the "A" and "B" group
tones so that the data sets were effectively compatible with conventional
DTMF signaling with a 4x4 matrix.  There were also three additional tones,
which were optional, and were assigned as "idle" tones for the "A", "B"
and "C" group.

    A common application of these data sets during the 1960's and early
1970's was a direct interface to unit record equipment for sending data
encoded in Hollerith character format.  'Don't see that no more. :-)

<>  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: Musings on Progress in PABX and Station Apparatus
Date: 16 Sep 89 00:15:05 EDT (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

> [Moderator's Note: Bernie, thanks very much for a very fitting close to
> this issue of the Digest. Indeed, the changes going on in just the past
> decade -- let alone the past quarter century of telephony are astounding.
> To the younger folks, it probably does not seem all that mind-boggling,
> but some of us have been three or four major changes: from manual service
> to the very early stepper switches; then to crossbar and more sophisticated
> applications such as E-911 (we had this in Chicago on crossbar!); then to
> ESS; now various enhancements to that. Where does it end? You tell me what
> to expect in the year 2014, a quarter-century from now.   PT]

    It particularly amazes me how PABX and station equipment has changed
in just twenty years.

    Twenty years ago I could >rent< a PABX from one and one only vendor:
New York Telephone, and I could have a choice of anything I wanted as long
as it was:

*  507B "cordless" manual board with 5 trunks and 20 lines; a 1950 version
   of 1920 technology

*  556 cord board; a 1945 version of 1920 technology having "modular
   construction"

*  608 cord board; a 1960 version of 1920 technology having new-fangled
   features of "automatic ring and attendant flash"

*  701 and related (710, 711, 740, etc.) SxS PABX's; required dedicating
   a WHOLE ROOM to the telephone company

*  756 dial PABX; maximum of 80 lines, size of two household refrigerators

*  757 dial PABX; maximum of 200 lines, full-featured version with maximum
   number of lines occupying size of EIGHT household refrigerators

*  20/40 Dial Pak; the worst excuse for a PABX ever conceived, with the
   possible exception of the 755 (which was so useless that it was already
   discontinued)

    Of the dial PABX's above, DTMF service was technically available,
but was non-tariffed and considered a "special assembly" by New York
Telephone, and was not provided unless one's organization was a Very
Important Customer. :-)

    The 558 >manual< PBX using Moden Crossbar Technology was not yet
offered in 1969, nor was the 770 crossbar PABX, or the electronic crossbar
PABX's like the 805, 811 or 812.  The original Dimension PABX (now quite
obsolete), were it described in 1969 would seem like something out of a
Buck Rogers movie.

    The Carterfone Decision and the birth of the interconnect industry
certainly sparked a revolution in telecommunication technology at the
PABX and station level.  I shudder to think about how far station and
PABX technology would have advanced had there been no Carterfone Decision.

    My organization has four separate facilities, and in July we had a
local interconnect company install a Northern Telecom Meridian SL-1 to serve
about 100 extensions in two buildings about 1/4 mile apart (we have our
own UG cable between the buildings).  The SL-1 replaced a badly aging
Tele-Resources electronic PABX which was losing about one call in ten.
The SL-1, complete with voice mail and auto-attendant features and
equipped for 100 lines is about the size of a four-drawer file cabinet.
Almost all of our stations are electronic sets, some of which have LCD
alphanumeric displays.

    This SL-1 is so sophisticated and so different from the technology
at the time when I had firsthand experience in the telecommunications
industry that it boggles my mind beyond belief.  The SL-1 is more of a
computer than a PABX in the traditional sense of the word.  Also, since
there is there is absolutely no way to "tinker" with it :-), unlike PABX's
of previous generations, I have nothing to do with its administration
other than to make certain that some system-wide features get set up
correctly by the interconnect company.

    Telecommunications technology sure has changed in the past twenty
years!

<>  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?"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #382
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 18 Sep 89 0:37:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #383
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Sep 89 00:21:18 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 383

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some Comments On The GTE "Problem" in California (Larry Lippman)
    Phone Remarks in Clancy Novel (Joe Loughry)
    Telephants and NPA 215 (Scott D. Green)
    Telephone Museum in Chicago (Larry Lippman)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Brian Kantor)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (John Higdon)
    Re: Accessories on Multi-Party Lines - Not a Good Idea (Roy Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Some Comments On The GTE "Problem" in California
Date: 16 Sep 89 19:33:45 EDT (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John Higdon) writes:
> I was fascinated by Mr. Lippman's interesting history and spirited
> defense of GTE. Unfortunately it doesn't explain away reality.
> ...
> We moved to southern California and in GTE land we were shocked. We
> learned what it's like to not have calls routinely completed. We even
> complained to repair and were told, "Oh, that's normal. You know,
> we're so heavily overloaded." Interesting that neighboring areas
> served by Pacific Telephone didn't have those problems.

    For the past few days I have been trying to determine how to
respond to your statements, and until today have been at a loss for words.
I admit that I have had no firsthand experience with GTE in California,
but I have had considerable experience with GTE elsewhere, and I have
known a number of people in both the GTE manufacturing organizations
and in their operating telephone companies.

    What you relate is simply contrary to what I have personally
experienced.  Its sounds like GTE has let their CO apparatus go to hell
in the proverbial handbasket.  I will defend to my death that SxS apparatus,
while hardly state-of-the-art, is actually rather reliable - PROVIDED that
it has been cleaned, oiled, routined and otherwise maintained.  It sounds
like such maintenance was simply not performed, which indicates some
serious lack of CO personnel and serious lack of responsible management
for a telephone company.

    The apparatus will indeed do the job - but in the situations which
you describe it is PEOPLE who have let the apparatus down and caused these
service problems.

    Now, the burning question is how could GTE allow this to happen in
California?  The most reasonable answer just appeared in telecom article
<[e-mail]> by [e-mail],
and boils down to not having enough revenue to operate a telephone company
in a reasonable manner.

$> The California PUC historically has given GTE (and the old PacTel)
$> very low ROI, often a couple of percentage points or more below
$> everybody else.  When most states were allowing 13% and California was
$> allowing 10%, which state would YOU invest in?  To make matters worse,
$> C-PUC would penalize GTE for its poor performance by lowering its ROI
$> even more.
$>
$> AT&T was too proud of its "Bell System" reputation to let PacTel go
$> down the tubes, so they dumped money into CA even with a cruddy rate
$> of return.  But GTE had other fish to fry with its cash, so they gave
$> the state pretty much what it paid for.

> Ask anyone who has had any *real experience* and they will tell you
> the truth about AE directorized SXS. I sat in Los Gatos for several
> hours one day and determined that AE step has about an 80% call
> completion average. Not really impressive. When I called to complain I
> was told that the problem was with the "old" equipment that would soon
> be replaced.

    Actually, most central offices are designed with an overall grade
of service between .01 and .001.  This means that it is "acceptable" for
between 1-call-in-100 and 1-call-in-1000 being lost due to equipment
failure or trunk blockage.  Prior to ESS, a .01 grade of service was not
uncommon.

    So, your apparent grade of service was .2; it could have been a
 .3, and therefore worse.  :-)

> When they installed their highly-touted 1EAX we were all told, as Mr.
> Lippman pointed out, that this equipment was more advanced than the ESS
> being used by Bell in the surrounding areas. Why then did it routinely
> crash, not offer most features available in Pac*Bell, and find itself
> already on the replacement list if it was so wonderful?

    Beats the hell outta me...  I have seen the No. 1 EAX, and it is
not junk.  I don't know why there was trouble in this particular office,
unless it was a very early machine (say, before 1974).   Part of the
problem may be the CO personnel being inadequately trained.  ESS has been
a real culture shock for older SxS switchmen who have learned their trade
solely through on-the-job experience.  It is pretty difficult to teach
the use of an oscilloscope to someone whose principal troubleshooting
tools have been a test lamp and test receiver for the past 25 years.

    I have personally seen a case where an "older generation" SxS
switchman destroyed half the MF receivers and all of the spare boards
in a CO because he was trying to examine TTL levels with a test lamp,
one side of which was connected to -48 volts!  Despite what appeared
to be adequate training, this fellow really never understood what he was
doing.

> Glossary term for the day:
> subscriber carrier;    GTE's answer to undercapitalization

    The Bell System has also used subscriber line carrier of the lowest
quality - the infamous Superior/Continental AML.  This subscriber line
carrier provides no bridged ringing (ringing is brought out on a third wire),
and offers an on-hook loop voltage to the subscriber station of a whole
6 volts (less, if the battery ain't charged).  Needless to say, such
subscriber line carrier at best can operate a 500-type set, and nothing
else.

<>  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: Sun, 17 Sep 89 13:21:12 mdt
From: "J. Loughry" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Remarks in Clancy Novel


I found this tidbit in Tom Clancy's new novel, "Clear and Present Danger."
Jack Ryan (who lives near Annapolis, I believe) is out mowing the lawn when
he receives a call on his cordless phone.  He answers it, then:

    "Ryan terminated the call and placed one to his house, which had three
    lines.  It was, perversely, a long-distance call.  He needed a D.C.
    line for his work.  Cathy needed a Baltimore connection for hers, plus
    a local line for other matters."

Maybe someone can explain this to us Westerners.

Joe Loughry
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 89 14:43 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephants and NPA 215

    -  Elephone/Telephant:  I'm not certain, but it sounds an
awful lot like Ogden Nash.

    -  re:  Greg Monti's observation of NPA 215.  Having just
received my new Bell o' PA White Pages and updated my call
accounting system to include those exchanges that have recently
come into being, I can report the following:

    -  5 exchanges were added within the City of Philadelphia
    -  6 were added in the Suburban Philadelphia (Measured Local
Usage) area
    -  8 were added in the Greater-215 (intra-LATA toll) area.

It still leaves (apparently) plenty of room for growth, even
without going to N0X/N1X prefixes.  Here's the list of available
exchanges (hang on, it's going to be exciting!):

230    239    240    260    290    292    325    366    392    393
394    396    397     420     421    428    429    442    450    451
454    460    470    475    478    479    490    520    529    530
550    554    558    571    573    575    580    594    599    651
652    654    655    656    658    669    680    695    720    730
731    733    737    738    761    762    764    771    772    773
774    792    798    832    840    850    859    880    882    883
888    890    930    940    954    955    958    960     984    989

That appears to leave us with the ability to add about 800,000 new
lines, not including the N0X/N1X.  I don't know what the "formula"
might be to determine an NPA split, but it looks to me like we've got
a ways to go yet.

-scott

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

Subject: Telephone Museum in Chicago
Date: 18 Sep 89 00:17:41 EDT (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

    All of this discussion about telephone history reminded me of
something which may also be of interest to readers in the Chicago area.

    Several years ago, when I was in downtown Chicago and had a few
hours to kill between appointments, quite by accident I discovered an
interesting telephone museum which was operated by Illinois Bell.  On
a second occasion I was able to find it again, but I cannot recall the
exact address.  I know very little about the Chicago area, but remember
this much: it was less than 10 minutes away from the first block of
S. Franklin St. and may have been located on Madison or Monroe St.
(but I am not certain).

    I feel confident that the Moderator will know the answer to
this question. :-)  I am going to be at a trade show in Chicago for a
whole week in November and would definitely like to visit this museum
again if it is still in operation.

<> 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?"

[Moderator's Note: Surely. The museum is operated by the Telephone Pioneers
of Illinois Bell Telephone Co. The museum is located in the Headquarters
Building, 212 West Washington/225 West Randolph Street, downtown Chicago.
It is open during regular business hours, and is quite interesting.   PT]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Date: 17 Sep 89 13:45:42 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


[Our moderator writes:]
>....  As a purely pragmatic thing, it just makes sense to have a
>phone in a place where you don't want to be subject to a quick, untimely
>exit. Either that, or an answering machine.   PT]

Or just let the damn phone ring.  I installed the telephone for my
convenience; when it is inconvenient to answer it, I don't.

I often don't answer my front door either.  Around here, most people
who come to my door without appointment are either selling candy or
religion, and they've clearly already ignored my "no soliciting" sign.
Only my own overinflated respect for human life and the law keeps me
from killing them on the spot and relieving the world of yet another pest.

If there were a "kill calling party" button on your phone....

An interesting exercise: put a scorepad next to your phone.  Each time
you answer an incoming call, put a check in either the column
"important" or "not important" (perhaps "worth answering" or "not worth
answering" would be better categories).  At the end of a month or so, count
up the checks and you'll have some statistical basis for the "but it might
be important" argument for your almost-Pavlovian response to a ringing
phone.  If the bell annoys you, stuff cotton into it so that it's a
pleasant and unobtrusive sound.

Perhaps this is the wrong newsgroup for rational(?) arguments about the
importance of telephones to modern home life (grin).
    - Brian

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Date: 18 Sep 89 01:14:16 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Larry Campbell) writes:
> Why should I spend MY time and money to rewire MY house just to reduce the
> hassle level from assholes who invade MY personal space to sell me crap I
> neither want nor need?

Because you're the one who doesn't want it invaded. Surely, you don't
expect the world to cater to your every whim? Life deals you what it
deals you and it's up to you to handle it. But you have stumbled on to
the very solution that I use to keep the solicitors away. Read on...

> What we need for telephones are the
> moral equivalent of the "No soliciting" signs many apartment complexes have.

I don't know about moral equivalent, but I can suggest the practical
equivalent. Callers who dial my listed number are all confronted with
my machine. It offers callers three choices: 1. Leave a message, 2. Page
me on my beeper, or 3. Force the call through to The-Real-Me. There is
no default; if no DTMF digit is entered the system hangs up after 30
seconds.

For the page and call-through options, there are appropriate warnings
about misuse. In the two years that I have had this system, I can't
recall being paged unnecessarily. Solicitors that "come through" have been
warned about solicitation, so it's very easy to hang up on them. No
automatic solicitation machine can get through (but who knows what the
next generation may bring:-). My greeting recording changes according
to the time of day, changing the options when I really don't want to be
disturbed. With two years of experience, I can tell you that the system
works.

Now I'll answer your flames in advance. Callers without DTMF can't get
through. I don't know of anyone I wish to speak to that doesn't have a
touchtone phone. It's not cheap. A Watson and the host computer will set
you back at least $1,500 (but if you have an old XT with at least a 20
meg drive, this could be new life for it.)

On the "have not" to "have" scale, I would put this solution somewhere
between "using a machine" and "hiring a butler". Remember, my first
choice would be to have a butler:-)

In addition, I have an electronic key set mounted next to the
porcelain convenience that can access all necessary lines (soon the
front door, also) just to be prepared for all eventualities.

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Accessories on Multi-Party Lines - Not a Good Idea
Date: 7 Sep 89 00:31:45 GMT
Reply-To: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)


kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman) writes:
> 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.

    I have heard stories of people with Telebit TrailBlazers who have
picked up a phone on the same line as the modem, while it was on line.
They heard a lot of screaching, but the modem didn't miss a beat.  For
those not familiar with TrailBlazers, they talk some kind of packetized,
error-corrected, protocol between themselves, and have the ability to adapt
to amazingly bad phone lines.  I wouldn't be surprised if some of the new
MNP level-whatever or V.32 modems would be similarly resistant to loosing a
connection just because sombody picked up a phone on the line.


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 #383
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 18 Sep 89 1:17:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #384
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Sep 89 01:15:23 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 384

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Service Interactions Between CFU and CCBS (Busy Retry) (Anthony Lee)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Karl Denninger)
    Re: Coping With Junk Calls: Like Nancy, Just Say No (Tad Cook)
    Re: Starline Service From Illinois Bell (John Higdon)
    Re: Residential 800 Service? (Roger Rock Rosner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Service interactions between CFU and CCBS (Busy Retry)
Date: 18 Sep 89 00:25:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science Department, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia


I have two responses to my question on CCBS and CFU.  The following is
a summary of replies to my question.

The original question was:

>I have a Special Report For Service Interactions by S. J. Chin (BNR Canada)
>of CCITT working party XI/5 (1987).
>
>The title of the report is "Specification technique for stage 2 supplementary
>service interactions".
>
 ....
>.......  The particular example that was given involved
>the CFU (Call Forwarding Unconditional) and CCBS (Completion of Call to
>Busy Subscriber which is just a retry service) services.  The example goes
>like this "... A user activating CFU, when being scanned/monitored for
>CCBS recall, will cause the scanning/monitoring to be withdrawn or abandoned."
>
>My question is why withdraw the scanning ?  Why not bar the user who is
>being scanned from activating CFU ?  There are a few more examples from

                  =============================
One reply was actually from S. J. Chin:

I noticed your question about CFU and CCBS, and an article by Mr. S. J.
Chin.  I forwarded a copy of your message to Mr. Chin, who happens to
work (somewhere!!) in this building.  His reply, in part, is as follows:

I'm no longer working on feature interactions.

To answer the specific questions below:
 - why CFU overrides CCBS:
    the 2 features are incompatible, ie
    cannot be activated at the same time, so one has to give way,
    and CFU having precedence over CCBS makes for simpler
    interactions and/or more 'rational' operation from the users
    perspective (eg the U in CFU stands for Unconditional, ie the
    user would expect to be able to activate the feature
    irrespective of any outstanding CCBS, etc).
 .....

swee-joo
 ...
Daniel Zlatin
                   ==========================
My comment:

Why does CFU having precedence over CCBS makes for simpler interactions ?
                   ==========================

The second reply:
Someone else responsed that the reason why a subscriber
wanted to invoke CFU is because he might not want to be disturbed
at that particular number.

>My question is why withdraw the scanning ?  Why not bar the user who is
>being scanned from activating CFU ?

A decision based on the user's perspective.  If I'm setting CFU,
it's because I don't want to be disturbed.  Unconditionally (hence the 'U').

 ....
J. Deters - [e-mail]  [e-mail]
                    ==========================

My comment:

There are however other reasons why a subscriber might want to invoke CFU.
For example he might want to move to a new location and do not want to
miss important calls.  If the subscriber did not want to be disturbed then
why not set up call blocking instead ?   The setting of CFU could be that
the subscriber do not want to be distributed but still wants to record
important calls and so have all future calls forwarded to and answering
machine.  If that's the case then why not have the CCBS scanning transferred
to the forwarded number ?

This kind of question can also arise in a PBX as well, so are there any
PBX manufacturers out there who care to comment ?

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

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

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun Sep 17 12:05:06 1989
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Larry Campbell) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 378, message 7 of 9

>Karl's "solution" to junk calls (use an answering machine to answer all your
>calls) doesn't work.  Suppose I get an answering machine and use it to
>screen all my calls.  Now suppose all my friends and relatives do the same.
>We'll never reach each other, because we're all just taping each other's
>messages instead of having conversations.

Not if you SCREEN calls with the machine.  The idea being here that you turn
the volume up on the machine enough to hear it from where you normally are.
Then you simply LISTEN to the incoming call.  The person calling you
identifies themselves after the beep, you hear them, and if you like the
sound of the caller's voice THEN you are interrupted -- and pick up the phone.

The machine that I have (and I suspect most modern ones as well) will drop
off the line if I pick up any extension in the house during a call.  Thus I
can either (1) be interrupted and pick up the phone immediately, (2) let the
call time out in 4 rings and allow the machine to get it, THEN decide
whether or not to pick up after the person identifies themselves, or (3) let
the machine take a message and call the person back later (if I want to).
Maximum choice, minimum hassle.  Works great if I am on the pot too -- the
machine takes the call, and I can call back when I get done using the
toilet or showering or whatever.

>There is a real and significant difference between junk mail and junk calls
>that Karl doesn't seem to understand.  I can deal with junk mail at my
>leisure.  I cannot do that with telephone calls.  The telephone interrupts
>me.

The telephone does not have to interrupt you.  You can mask the interrupt in
one of three ways:

1) Turn off the ringer.  Then no one can get through to you except when you
want to be interrupted (by turning on the ringer again).  This has the
undesirable effect that if someone you want to interrupt you calls, they
can't reach you either.  Such is (one) price of privacy.

2) Use an answering machine to screen the calls.  This means you get to hear
who it is on the other end BEFORE you pick up the phone.  This has lots of
advantages over even Caller*ID -- caller id gives you a number, but doesn't
necessarily identify the >caller<, which is the purpose of this exercise.
The machine does, since you get to hear a voice first.  Finally, a Caller*ID
number display may not guarantee you a return phone call path, as some lines
are (on ESS switches) configured for outgoing calls only.  There is a
further advantage -- most telemarketers hang up when they get a machine, so
in many cases all you hear is "ring ring ring <click>..... <click>!"  Since
I have started doing this I have not had to answer <one> "junk call", yet
all my friends and relatives still manage to get through.... seems as though
it solves the problem to me!

3) Ignore the ringer when you don't want to be bothered.  Why do you have to
answer something just because it is beeping for your attention?  I certainly
am not compelled to pick up the phone when it rings -- I do it by choice.

>I refuse to screen all my calls with an answering machine because of
>the problem stated above.  And I get _mighty_ upset when I jump out of
>the shower, or off the pot, to run and answer the phone, and it turns out
>to be some asshole selling timeshare condominiums.
>
>I agree completely that business users should be prohibited from making
>unsolicited telephone calls to residence telephones.....

Why prohibit anything?  Is having a telephone, and a silent one at that, a
God-given right?  I think not.  You have several means at your disposal to
deal with the problem.  When you have telephone service installed you
implicitly, by having an incoming number, make it possible for me to dial
it.  If the possibility of that phone ringing bothers you, then deal with
it.  Instead of taking responsibility for your own choices and results,
you (and lots of other people) want the government to do it for you.  Feh.

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


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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Coping With Junk Calls: Like Nancy, Just Say No
Date: 18 Sep 89 00:56:04 GMT
Organization: very little

Here are some methods I have used with phone solicitations.

I respond in a hurried voice, telling them that I got their call
on call-waiting, while on a long distance call.

If they ask, "Is this Mr. Cook?", I say, "No, he's dead!", and
hang up.  I got the idea after answering calls at my folk's
house after my dad died   :(

If I am in my ham radio room in the basement, I tune in some weird
sounding howling signal on shortwave (Radioteletype is nice!) and
gradually increase the volume, acting distracted and unresponsive.
When they ask what is going on, I tell them that I am receving some
messages from overseas operatives, and they have called at a bad
time.

My favorite is when the long distance carriers call.  I tell them
that I recently did a comparison of their carrier with the one
I currently subscribe to by using 10XXX codes, and that their
bit-error rate and call setup time are unacceptable.  They don't
really want to get into a discussion of nuts and bolts technical
aspects of the system, and they go away real quick.

Another way to deal with solictors is to listen to the spiel,
and tell them flat-out that I am not going to buy.

Oh yeah....I just remembered another cute ploy....

I have call transfer on my line (hookflash, dial the number,
hang up) and have transferred them to dial-a-prayer.

:>

Tad Cook
[e-mail]

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Starline Service From Illinois Bell
Date: 17 Sep 89 23:47:26 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator) writes:
> A while back, a reader in Australia asked for more information about home
> centrex service here in the United States. In some places, this service is
> called 'Intellidial', and in other places, such as Chicago, it is known
> as 'Starline'. There may be other names for it in other communities. In
> most cases, the features are the same.
>
> Here are the basics --

[complete explanation of Starline, deleted]

What you have described is identical to Pac*Bell's Commstar II with
some interesting differences. (It used to be called Premiere 2/6.)
Instead of 6 lines, Commstar II has 30 line capability with intercoms
numbered #20 thru #49 (I have 8 in mine). The trade-off, which I hated
until I needed to add those 2 extra lines:-), is that speed calling is
only 6 numbers (how useful) and is individually programmed on each line
as opposed to being programmed system-wide from the "main" line. Speed
numbers are accessed with *2 thru *7. Since *7 is a valid beginning to
other features such as cancel call waiting and forwarding, etc., when
you call the *7 entry you either wait six extra seconds or hit # (*7#).

The other difference is that *8 is used for call pick-up, while *9 is
used for hold/call waiting.

Your explanation of how they screwed up your order I think must be
written into the Bellcore spec for the offering. Every time (and I mean
every time) I have placed the simplest change order or have ordered new
service in conjunction with my Commstar II, it has been a circus,
wherein they either botch the order itself and I don't get what I want,
or the bill makes Fantasy Island look like sober truth. They used to
have a "complex residential" department, but apparently they have
decided that it's more fun just to foul things up.
--
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Roger Rock Rosner <pyrdc!lighthouse!lighthouse.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Residential 800 Service?
Organization: Lighthouse Design, Ltd.
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 89 17:32:34 GMT

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

>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?

>[Moderator's Note: Depending on the time of day and other circumstances,
>an 800 number is less expensive than an incoming call on a Calling Card.

In fact, it can be significantly cheaper.  My company has found Sprint
800 service compares very favorably with daytime direct dial rates,
and furthermore installation of the service is free until next month
(however there is a $10/month fee).  Thus for families with members
widely dispersed, the personal 800 number makes a lot of practical
sense.

rrr

P.S. I have no business connections with Sprint...

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #384
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 18 Sep 89 1:56:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #385
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Sep 89 01:55:33 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 385

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Western Union: Telex, TWX and Time Service (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Where Are We Going From Here? (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 17 Sep 89 21:09:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Western Union: Telex, TWX and Time Service

A few issues ago, someone mentioned that at one time, Western Union
had a huge international network of telegraph lines. This is true.
Until a few years ago -- maybe ten -- it was very common to see TWX
and Telex machines in almost every business place.

There were only minor differences between Telex and TWX. The biggest
difference was that the former was always run by Western Union, while
the latter was run by the Bell System for a number of years. TWX
literally meant "<T>ype<W>riter e<X>change", and it was Bell's answer
to competition from Western Union. There were 'three row' and 'four
row' machines, meaning the number of keys on the keyboard and how they
were laid out. The 'three row' machines were simply part of the
regular phone network; that is, they could dial out and talk to
another TWX also connected on regular phone lines.

Eventually these were phased out in favor of 'newer and more improved'
machines with additional keys, as well as a paper tape reader
attachment which allowed sending the same message repeatedly to many
different machines.  These 'four row' machines were not on the regular
phone network, but were assigned their own area codes (410-510-610-710-
810-910) where they still remain today. The only way a four row machine
could call a three row machine or vice-versa was through a gateway of sorts
which translated some of the character set unique to each machine.

Western Union's network was called Telex and in addition to being able
to contact (by dial up) other similar machines, Telex could connect
with TWX (and vice-versa) as well as all the Western Union public
offices around the country.  Until the late 1950's or early 1960's,
every small town in America had a Western Union office. Big cities
like Chicago had perhaps a dozen of them, and they used messengers
to hand deliver telegrams around town. Telegrams could be placed in
person at any public office, or could be called in to the nearst
public office.

By arrangement with most telcos, the Western Union office in town
nearly always had the phone number 4321, later supplemented in
automated exchanges with some prefix XXX-4321. Telegrams could be
charged to your home phone bill (this is still the case in some
communities) and from a coin phone, one did not ask for 4321, but
rather, called the operator and asked for Western Union. This was
necessary since once the telegram had been given verbally to the wire
clerk, s/he in turn had to flash the hook and get your operator back
on the line to tell them 'collect five dollars and twenty cents' or
whatever the cost was. Telegrams, like phone calls, could be sent
collect or billed third party. If you had an account with Western
Union, i.e. a Telex machine in your office, you could charge the calls
there, but most likely you would simply send the telegram from there
in the first place.

Sometime in the early 1960's, Western Union filed suit against AT&T
asking that they turn over their TWX business to them. They cited an
earlier court ruling, circa 1950's, which said AT&T was prohibited
from aquiring any more telephone operating companies except under
certain conditions. The Supreme Court agreed with Western Union that
'spoken messages' were the domain of Ma Bell, but 'written messages'
were the domain of Western Union. So Bell was required to divest
itself of the TWX network, and Western Union has operated it since,
although a few years ago they began phasing out the phrase 'TWX' in
favor of 'Telex II'; their original device being 'Telex I' of course.
TWX still uses ten digit dialing with 610 (Canada) or 710/910 (USA)
being the leading three digits. Apparently 410-510 have been
abandoned; or at least they are used very little, and Bellcore has
assigned 510 to the San Fransisco area starting in a year or so. 410
still has some funny things on it, like the Western Union
'Infomaster', which is a computer that functions like a gateway
between Telex, TWX, EasyLink and some other stuff.

Today, the Western Union network is but a skeleton of its former self.
Now most of their messages are handled on dial up terminals connected
to the public phone network. It has been estimated the TWX/Telex business
is about fifty percent of what it was a decade ago, if that much.

Then there was the Time Service, a neat thing which Western Union
offered for over seventy years, until it was discontinued in the
middle 1960's.  The Time Service provided an important function in the
days before alternating current was commonly available. For example,
Chicago didn't have AC electricity until about 1945. Prior to that we
used DC, or direct current.

Well, to run an electric clock, you need 60 cycles AC current for
obvious reasons, so prior to the conversion from DC power to AC power,
electric wall clocks such as you see in every office were unheard of.
How were people to tell the time of day accurately? Enter the Western
Union clock.

The Western Union, or 'telegraph clock' was a spring driven wind up
clock, but with a difference. The clocks were 'perpetually
self-winding', manufactured by the Self-Winding Clock Company of New
York City. They had large batteries inside them, known as 'telephone
cells' which had a life of about ten years each. A mechanical
contrivance in the clock would rotate as the clock spring unwound, and
once each hour would cause two metal clips to contact for about ten
seconds, which would pass juice to the little motor in the clock which
in turn re-wound the mainspring. The principle was the same as the
battery operated clocks we see today. The battery does not actually
run the clock -- direct current can't do that -- but it does power the
tiny motor which re-winds the spring which actually drives the clock.

The Western Union clocks came in various sizes and shapes, ranging
from the smallest dials which were nine inches in diameter to the
largest which were about eighteen inches in diameter. Some had sweep
second hands; others did not. Some had a little red light bulb on the
front which would flash.  The typical model was about sixteen inches,
and was found in offices, schools, transportation depots, radio
station offices, and of course in the telegraph office itself.

The one thing all the clocks had in common was their brown metal case
and cream-colored face, with the insignia 'Western Union' and their
corporate logo in those days which was a bolt of electricity, sort of
like a letter 'Z' laying on its side. And in somewhat smaller print
below, the words 'Naval Observatory Time'.

The local clocks in an office or school or wherever were calibrated by
a 'master clock' (actually a sub-master) on the premises. Once an hour
on the hour, the (sub) master clock would drop a metal contact for
just a half second, and send about nine volts DC up the line to all
the local clocks. They in turn had a 'tolerance' of about two minutes
on both sides of the hour so that the current coming to them would
yank the minute hand exactly upright onto the twelve from either
direction if the clock was fast or slow.

The sub-master clocks in each building were in turn serviced by the
master clock in town; usually this was the one in the telegraph
office. Every hour on the half hour, the master clock in the telegraph
office would throw current to the sub-masters, yanking them into synch
as required. And as for the telegraph offices themselves, they were
serviced twice a day by -- you guessed it -- the Naval Observatory
Master clock in Our Nation's Capitol, by the same routine. Someone
there would press half a dozen buttons at the same time, using all
available fingers; current would flow to every telegraph office and
synch all the master clocks in every community. Western Union charged
fifty cents per *month* for the service, and tossed the clock in for
free! Oh yes, there was an installation charge of about two dollars
when you first had service (i.e. a clock) installed.

The clocks were installed and maintained by the 'clockman', a
technician from Western Union who spent his day going around hanging
new clocks, taking them out of service, changing batteries every few
years for each clock, etc.

What a panic it was for them when 'war time' (what we now call
Daylight Savings Time) came around each year!  Wally, the guy who
serviced all the clocks in downtown Chicago had to start on *Thursday*
before the Sunday official changeover just to finish them all by
*Tuesday* following. He would literally rush in an office, use his
screwdriver to open the case, twirl the hour hand around one hour
forward in the spring, (or eleven hours *forward* in the fall since
the hands could not be moved backward beyond the twelve going
counterclockwise), slam the case back on, screw it in, and move down
the hall to the next clock and repeat the process. He could finish
several dozen clocks per day, and usually the office assigned him a
helper twice a year for these events.

He said they never bothered to line the minute hand up just right,
because it would have taken too long, and '.....anyway, as long as we
got it within a minute or so, it would synch itself the next time the
master clock sent a signal...' Working fast, it took a minute to a
minute and a half to open the case, twirl the minute hand, put the
case back on, 'stop and b.s. with the receptionist for a couple
seconds' and move along.

The master clock sent its signal over regular telco phone lines.
Usually it would terminate in the main office of whatever place it
was, and the (sub) master there would take over at that point.

Wally said it was very important to do a professional job of hanging
the clock to begin with. It had to be level, and the pendulum had to
be just right, otherwise the clock would gain or lose more time than
could be accomodated in the hourly synching process. He said it was a
very rare clock that actually was out by even a minute once an hour,
let alone the two minutes of tolerance built into the gear works.

"....Sometimes I would come to work on Monday morning, and find out in
the office that the clock line had gone open Friday evening. So nobody
all weekend got a signal. Usually I would go down a manhole and find
it open someplace where one of the Bell guys messed it up, or took it
off and never put it back on. To find out where it was open, someone
in the office would 'ring out' the line; I'd go around downtown
following the loop as we had it laid out, and keep listening on my
headset for it. When I found the break or the open, I would tie it
down again and the office would release the line; but then I had to go
to all the clocks *before* that point and restart them, since the
constant current from the office during the search had usually caused
them to stop."

But he said, time and again, the clocks were usually so well mounted
and hung that '....it was rare we would find one so far out of synch
that we had to adjust it manually. Usually the first signal to make it
through once I repaired the circuit would yank everyone in town to
make up for whatever they lost or gained over the weekend....'

In 1965, Western Union decided to discontinue the Time Service. In a
nostalgic letter to subscribers, they announced their decision to
suspend operations at the end of the current month, but said 'for old
time's sake' anyone who had a clock was welcome to keep it and
continue using it; there just would not be any setting signals from
the master clocks any longer.

Within a *day or two* of the official announcement, every Western
Union clock in the Chicago area headquarters building was gone. The
executives snatched them off the wall, and took them home for the day
when they would have historical value. All the clocks in the telegraph
offices disappeared about the same time, to be replaced with standard
office-style electric wall clocks.

Fortunatly, I was able to grab a couple for myself, and I use them in
my home. The one I really wanted quickly became unavailable however:
the lobby of the Telegraph Federal Savings and Loan Association (aka
Western Union Employees Credit Union) had a beautiful grandfather
clock with a Western Union mechanism inside it. I don't know who got
that one!

Wally took a few clocks home and kept them in his basement, selling
them to whoever wanted one. I got one of mine from the Chicago Board
of Education employees cafeteria when they remodeled the place and
took it down; I got the other one from the men's grill in the old
Morrison Hotel when they tore that building down. The one clock dates
to 1897, the other to 1945, and they both keep perfect time, even
without the Naval Observatory to prompt them periodically.

Western Union was a grand old company in its time. During October, I
will post excerpts from an article which first appeared in the
<Chicago Tribune> in 1901, at the retirement dinner of the fellow who
was on duty in their Chicago office the Sunday night of the Great
Fire, thirty years earlier.  His story is fascinating also.

Patrick Townson


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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Are We Going From Here?
Date: 17 Sep 89 20:05:06 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> Some of the things I have seen at Bellcore (The video hallway)...

Actually, it's called "Video Window".  It used to be called "Video
Wall", but someone somewhere decided that a "window" projected a better
image (as it were) than "wall".

> More bandwidth leads to more realistic telepresence. Currently POTS
> bandwidth models the remote person as 8K audio.

Again nitpicking... it's actually 3.3kHz.  ISDN bearer capabilities
include 3.3kHz audio and 7.5kHz audio.


David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #385
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 19 Sep 89 0:34:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #386
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 Sep 89 00:30:33 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 386

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Dealing with Telephone Subscribers Who Fail to Pay Their Bill (L. Lippman)
    Modified Plantronics LiteSet Works Great (Tad Cook)
    Calling the Caribbean (Steve L. Rhoades)
    International 800 Service? (Brian Jay Gould)
    Automated Attendents/Answering Machines (Jim Durand)
    Customer Support From Nynex (Phil Stanhope)
    Reach Out Overseas? (Henry Mensch)
    10-Cent Pay Phones (Mark A. Holtz)
    Re: Residential 800 Service? (John Higdon)
    800 Numbers For Opposite Sex? (Steve Elias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Dealing with Telephone Subscribers Who Fail to Pay Their Bill
Date: 17 Sep 89 12:40:16 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article: <[e-mail]> carroll1!dtroup@uunet.
uu.net (Dave Troup) writes:
> One of the interesting operations that GTE participates in when you
> have not paid your phone bill is to NOT disconnect your line, but
> rather call block OUTGOING calls...except 800's. When they did this to
> myself, I didnt care because I almost never made any local calls...one
> call to the Sprint # or AT&T Conference and I could make all the long
> distance calls just like usual. After a couple months of this, I
> finally got enough $$ to pay my bill. Local service wasnt connected
> for ANOTHER 3 WEEKS...but was I bothered? Nope. Thanks GTE :)

    That was indeed rather nice of GTE to permit 800 calls, but none
other.  Perhaps their business office was an 800-number, and they wanted
you to be able to still call them to make payment arrangements? :-)

    The above selective denial of service can, of course, only be
provided with an ESS office.  All other telephone companies that I know
of simply deny all outgoing service, with not even a dial tone.

    In a SxS or XY office we would deny outgoing but still permit
incoming service by either of two methods: (1) removing the connection
on the distributing frame which connected the "deadbeat" line to its
linefinder group, leaving the connector group jumper in place; (2) placing
two plastic insulating sleeves over contacts on the cutoff relay in the
linefinder group, thereby lifting the connection to the line relay.

    When the customer still did not pay their bill after 10 days,
we REALLY got nasty. :-)  We yanked his protector, thereby opening the
subscriber pair, and we wired his line to an intercept recorder stating
that "The number you have dialed is temporarily out of service."  We
actually left all of the other MDF jumpers in place for several weeks so
that if the customer repented and paid his bill plus a service restoral
charge, all we had to do was replace the protector and remove the intercept
trunk jumper.

    Working in a central office, at times like this, was not unlike
that of playing God. :-)

    In a crossbar office, service denial methods similar to the above
would be employed.  In an ESS office, denial of outgoing service is
performed as a command function through the maintenance tty.

<>  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: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Modified Plantronics LiteSet Works Great!
Date: 18 Sep 89 00:47:55 GMT
Organization: very little

I got one of the LiteSets last week from DAK.  My boss got one
a couple of months ago.

Being a ham, I could not resist modifying it.  I noticed that when my
boss got more than 100 ft from the base, he started to fade.  Probably
wasn't helped by all the RFI radiating computers we have around the
office.

I saw the the little antenna on the base was about 1/10 wavelength long,
so I decided to make a 1/4 wave groundplane out of hookup wire.

I popped open the unit and found the ground connection on the circuit
board was common with the ground on the negative power input.  I ran
out a piece of wire for the ground connection.  I also saw that because
of the short antenna, they had loaded it with an inductor.  I disconnected
the antenna, and ran my own wire to the outside of the unit, tapping off
the coil just a few turns from the transmitter.

I put the base unit on a couple of large metal file cabinets next to my
desk, and ran my new 1/4 wave (5 foot) antenna wire up the wall.  I used
wire that matched the wall, so it doesnt look too ugly.  Then I ran 2
ground radials, one in each direction, taped horizontally on the wall,
and hooked these to the ground wire I brought out of the unit.  Then I
ran 2 more 5 foot radials, diagonally from the common ground point across the
filing cabinets, under potted plants, and down opposite corners of the cabinets
to take care of the excess wire.

The range on this thing is now phenomenol.  My boss and I ran a tesst
where I went outside and just kept walking...wonderful clear transmission.

At one point after lunch I took a little hike into the woods north of
our office, found a nice grassy area where I could lay down and watch
the clouds roll by, and took a few calls from customers!

I also got in the car and drove, and found that we still had good
transmission several blocks away!  This was after I got out of the
METAL car, of course.

Tad Cook
[e-mail]
KT7H @ N7HFZ
MCI Mail: 3288544


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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 09:40:00 PDT
From: riot![e-mail]
Reply-To: "Steve L. Rhoades" <riot![e-mail]>
Subject:  Calling the Caribbean

Being amused by some of the various telco recordings I have heard
over the years, I tried calling the Caribbean today (809-793) and
got the following recording:

"Due to the hurricane in the area you are calling, your call
 cannot being completed at this time..."

It was fun to forward to for a few hours :-).

IN-REAL-LIFE: Steve L. Rhoades
US MAIL:  Post Office Box 1000, Mount Wilson, Calif.  91023
UUCP: ...CRASH!CIT-VAX!RIOT!SLR
ARPANET: [e-mail]
VOICE-MAIL: [phone]
TOLL-FREE: [phone]   except in Nebraska  (just kidding, Toto.)

"Violence on televsion only affects children
 whose parents act like television personalities."

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: International 800 Service?
Date: 18 Sep 89 16:44:19 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


I know there has been some discussion in the past, but I missed it.

Is there an equivalent to 800 service internationally.  Specifically,
Japan, Hong Kong and Holland.

***********************************************
*  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    *
***********************************************

[Moderator's Note: Do you mean domestically, within those countries for
calling within those countries, or do you mean to call from there to here
with the American business footing the bill, etc? Many countries have
some form of internal '800 service' including the UK where it is known as
'0800'.  PT]

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Automated Attendents/Answering Machines
Date: Mon, 18-Sep-89 09:28:15 PDT

I have noticed a disturbing trend in companies using automated attendent
systems.  With an automated attendent, it's even easier for twits to call
you than it was with a Centrex system.  The result of this is most if not
all extensions in an office are programmed as "away from my desk" so the call
is routed to the voice-mail system.

Now if you are in a company that is set up this way and you are trying
to reach someone else who is also "away from his desk", you might as
well send a letter since neither one of you will ever talk directly to
the other.  I design voice-mail and automated attendent hardware, but
I use a standard answering machine to screen my calls so that I can
pick up any call that sounds important.  Maybe I should add an option
like this to the voice-mail systems we design?  Any ideas?

Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., sun!cup.portal.com!jdurand

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 16:21:06 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Customer Support From Nynex

After wading through the seemingly endless mail about how good/bad ATT
was with respect to Sprint or MCI I thought I'd send along a story
about what happened to me today when dealing with Nynex.

I'm about to move and dreaded my call to Nynex to disconnect my
service and then transfer the number (I'm moving within the same town
and area code - in fact this number has now survived four moves) to my
new residence. I did have to wait awhile but not that long (5 minutes)
and then put the request through. I had been hearing horror stories
about 1 month backlogs (what with the strike and that fact that
200,000+ students have just moved to Boston) and was very happy to
discover that they would do the change within 5 days. The
representative then went over my basic charges which was Metro
service, touch tone, and call waiting. I said that we didn't want call
waiting and we were all set.

I then talked to my wife so that we could remove one more item from
our endless list of moving to do's and she said that we never had call
waiting and had, for example, gotten a busy signal trying to call me
the previous week.

I called Nynex business office back (waited for 5 minutes again) and
asked if we were indeed being charged for call waiting. We had in fact
been being charged for call waiting (Nynex doesn't itemize the monthly
charges to you can't tell by looking at the bill). I explained that it
didn't work and never wanted it in the first place. I was put on hold
for about 30 seconds and then was told that my next bill would be
credited for 18 months of call waiting - a credit of $48.

Needless to say I was very happy. If ever given an option for local
carrier I would never change, just as I've never changed my long
distance from AT&T.

Now I don't know what's going on with negotiations with the strikers
and as an aside I agree with their position (from what I've read of it
in the local papers) but I'd be worried if I were them. I've never had
to wait for more than 20 or 30 seconds to get directory assistance in
the past 6 weeks and when I've called the business office I been
treated very well. Comparing the service from Nynex against
tech/customer support from the biggest (and smallest) computer
software and hardware companies that I've dealt with over the past few
years doesn't even make sense. Nynex wins hands down - even with half
of their staff not at work.

Phil Stanhope
Manager of Software Engineering
Gold Hill Computers, Inc.
Cambridge, MA. 02139
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 21:39:05 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reach Out Overseas?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I've seen it mentioned here, but none of the AT&T promo literature I
have mentions it (it stops at Reach Out Canada).  Any clues?

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

[Moderator's Note: At present, I know of Reach Out UK, Reach Out Israel,
and Reach Out Phillipines. There may be more by now. Info at 800-222-0300. PT]
------------------------------

From: "Mark A. Holtz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10-Cent Pay Phones
Date: 19 Sep 89 01:02:28 GMT
Organization: Sacramento Public Access, Ca. USA


I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country
that still have payphones for a dime?

The reason why I ask is that the phone company that I subscribe to
(Roseville Telephone), still has 10-Cent pay phones. The Pac*Telesis
system, meanwhile, has 20-Cent pay phones.

*=> Mark Arthur Holtz
<=> AppleLink PE: Mark Holtz <=* *=> 7943 Sungarden Drive <=> GEnie:
M.HOLTZ <=* *=> Citrus Heights, CA 95610-3133 <=> Home: [phone]
<=* *=> UUCP: {ames att}!pacbell!sactoh0!mholtz <=> "UUCP or bust!"
<=*


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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Residential 800 Service?
Date: 19 Sep 89 00:53:57 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, pyrdc!lighthouse!
lighthouse.com![e-mail] (Roger Rock Rosner) writes:
> >[Moderator's Note: Depending on the time of day and other circumstances,
> >an 800 number is less expensive than an incoming call on a Calling Card.
>
> In fact, it can be significantly cheaper.  My company has found Sprint
> 800 service compares very favorably with daytime direct dial rates,

And in fact, within California, AT&T's 800 offering's off-peak rate
(9PM-9AM M-F, all weekend) is significantly cheaper than *anyone's*
night rate. I have had their service for years and is a considerable
savings over all the gagle of standard LD offerings. AND it has the
added plus of allowing me to call home to check my machine with total
convenience and avoidance of AOS. It is billed in 0.1 min increments.

On the minus side, it costs about $170 to install and requires a
dedicated loop. However, is can be used in conjunction with Commstar
II (as mine is).


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Numbers For Opposite Sex?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 08:40:53 -0400


OK, you studly (and babely) phreaks!  The cat's out of the bag.

Jim Gottlieb (remote from Tokyo) refers to the practice of giving out
one's 800 number to fabulous members of the desired sex.  I think you
800 number singles-cats ought to inform your prey that you will be able
to see what phone number they are calling from when they dial your
"1-800-DO-LUNCH" phone number...

-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail]  (for Chipcom / networking related mail)
-- [e-mail]    (for metroboston email2fax and personal mail)
-- voice mail: 617 932 5598
-- work phone: [phone]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #386
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 19 Sep 89 1:23:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #387
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 Sep 89 01:15:30 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 387

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    British Telecom Delays Centrex Launch (Kevin Hopkins)
    British Rail's Telephone Network (Kevin Hopkins)
    More on the History of Telephone Dials (Larry Lippman)
    Speaking of Western Union (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Re: Phone Remarks in Clancy Novel (Amanda Walker)
    Re: Phone Remarks in Clancy Novel (Kevin Blatter)
    Re: Telephants and NPA 215 (Carl Moore)

[Moderator's Note: Just two issues of the Digest today.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: British Telecom Delays Centrex Launch
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 09:30:30 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


Computing, a weekly trade mag, ran a small article as follows on 07.09.89.
Reprinted without permission though the magazine does not have a copyright
notice so it seems that they don't mind.

My comments in thingies ()

BT WITHHOLDS VERDICT IN CENTREX TRIAL

British Telecom (BT) is conducting  an in-house trial  of a centrex service
but is still undecided on a date for its launch.

Rival Mercury  (the only other  long-distance carrier in the UK) introduced
its 2110 Centrex service in May 1987 and, soon after, BT announced its own,
Centel, but did not implement it after teething troubles with the switch.

Centrex services  use software to   run the operation  of  a pabx  from the
public network.

A BT spokesman said: "We have had an in-house trial of a centrex service to
gain operational experience, but we are still finalising a business plan.

"We want to make sure that when we do start the service, we will be able to
deal with all our customers' requirements.

"We  realised the  concept  of centrex  involved  far more  than    just an
alternative to a pabx.  It offers, in effect,  private network services run
on the public exchange," he added.

As BT decide on  when  to launch  a   service, Mercury  is  increasing  its
customer base. According to  a spokesman, it has  more than 20 customers at
over 35 sites.

"Centrex has proved to be a very competitive product and is already a major
contributor to to Mercury's profits," he said.

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [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 Rail's Telephone Network
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 09:31:19 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


Another article from Computing dated  07.09.89.  It seems  British Railways
are expanding their trackside telphone network, but unlike Sprint (Southern
Pacific Railways?) they are  not  going  to offer  direct  competition   to
British Telecom and Mercury for long distance calls but  are going to lease
out capacity on the line to various companies. Read on ...

My comments in ()

BR TELECOMS PLAN HITS DOUBLE SNAG

British Rail's (BR) plans  to provide  a  national fibre-optic  network for
telecommunications will  have  to wait  until the  liberalisation    of the
British Telecom and Mercury duopoly.

BR recently created the post  of director of commercial  telecommunications
and appointed Peter Borer,  formerly with Kingston  Communications which is
based in Hull.

(In fact it isn't  a telecommunications duopoly in the  UK when it comes to
providing public telephone networks.  For historical reasons the council of
Kingston-upon-Hull  on the east coast, usually  known as Hull, has provided
its own telephone  services within the city, and  seems likely to do so for
the forseeable future.  This  department of  the  council is  now  known as
Kingston Communications.  Not  to be confused with  Kingston-upon-Thames SW
of London.)

With some 2,000 km of  fibre  cable, BR has  a  network  of similar size to
Mercury. The   company already leases  capacity  to  Mercury and has future
plans to exploit its communications infrastructure further.

Current regulations  to  encourage    competition and and   protect British
Telecom's position prevent BR from renting or selling its network directly,
Borer said.

"We  are building our communications  infrastructure  to  be  ready for the
duopoly review," he  said.  "We see  our  position as providing a  national
fibre  optic grid as a minority  partner, but  BR  is unlikely  to become a
public telephone operator."

The Government's telecommunications policy stated a  review of  the British
Telecom and Mercury duoploy would not take place  before November 1990. "It
is  unlikely  any new government policy will  be made until   the middle of
1991," Borer said.

BR is expanding its fibre network by about 500 km a year at the  moment and
Borer predicts that its size will almost double in the next few years.

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [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: More on the History of Telephone Dials
Date: 17 Sep 89 12:43:17 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> FYI, I don't know if this has been discussed already, but Strowger's
> original system did NOT use a telephone dial.  It used three telegraph
> keys, and could only accommodate 999 phones.
> ...
> The original strowger phones worked on a five wire system.  One for talk,
> three for the keys, and a ground return.

    The first dial telephones in the Strowger system appeared in 1896,
and were installed in Augusta, GA.  However, these telephones still used
four wires plus a ground return, and the dial was substantially different
from what we know today.  The two-wire (without a ground reference)
telephone with dial as we know it today was not invented until 1907.
Most of the development work on the rotary dial which eventually led to
the 2-wire system was performed by Keith (also of plunger switch fame) in
collaboration with the Erickson brothers, all of whom were awarded various
patents in this area between 1895 and 1908.

> By the way, here's an interesting fact about the somewhat later Strowger
> telephone dials.  They had 11 finger-holes.  You had the usual 10 numerical
> holes, and then one marked "Long Distance."  In actually, this extra hole
> did NOT send out 11 pulses as one might suspect.  It sent out only 10, the
> same as dialing 0.  Why did they have it?  The researchers feared that the
> public would not be able to grasp the concept of using 0 both as a digit and
> as a way to call the operator!

    There were indeed some strange (and incorrect) perceptions about
what the public could and could not cope with.  Strange as it may seem,
between 1895 and 1915 there was some SERIOUS opposition to automatic
telephone switching - especially on the part of the Bell System!  An
interesting quote from the 1913 AT&T Annual Report underscores this feeling:

    "We have designed, and manufactured, and installed all kinds of
switchboards - automatic, semiautomatic, and manual - and we have
exhaustively studied the practical workings of every type of switchboard
in use.  ... As yet it has not been demonstrated that the automatic
system would give as good and dependable services as we now render to
the public [using operators with manual switchboards] ..."

    An interesting quote from the historical Hershey book (which I
mentioned in a recent article) makes reference to dials and the public:

    "In the early days of Strowger Automatic it was realized that a
four digit number was about the most that a subscriber could carry in his
head, so the telephone offices were designated by a single letter.  The
manual opposition [i.e., people in favor of retaining operators] immediately
cried to high heaven that the public did not have intelligence enough to
dial one letter followed by four digits."
    "The literacy of the dear public must have greatly improved in
the last twenty years.  Now they are expected to dial the first three
letters of an exchange name, disregard the remaining letters, and then
dial the required four digits.  Verily it maketh a difference whose ox
is being gored."

    Another interesting piece of trivia is that dial tone did not come
into general use until the late 1920's.  Before the use of dial tone,
subscribers picked up the telephone and simply waited a few seconds before
dialing.

<>  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, 18 Sep 89 21:47:06 EDT
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speaking of Western Union

While we're on the subject of Western Union, here are a few questions about
WU that I've had for quite a while.

    1. When did WU take the manual telegraph out of operation and
       replace it with the teletypewriter?  I've always been fond of
       the telegraph myself.  I have an 1884 Western Union private
       line telegraph transmitter/receiver set among my collection
       of antique telephones.

    2. It was mentioned that WU used telco lines.  I was always led to
       believe that WU had their own lines.  When did this practice
       end?  Or did it?

    3. Do telegrams and mailgrams have any modern commercial application
       with the advent of electronic mail, the overnight letter, fax,
       etc.?  I have nothing against telegrams, and it would be a pity
       for such a thing to ever die out, but are they still used in major
       ways today? (other than the traditional sending of a telegram to
       a wedding when you're away)

    4. Am I right to assume that the "public telegraph office" has
       more or less been replaced with the 800 Western Union phone
       number?  When did this come to be?

    5. What exactly is WU up to these days?  I'm sure they're getting
       into long distance telephone like everyone else.  Can anyone
       fill me in?

Speaking of Western Union, you all might enjoy the quotation that I have
in my signature.

Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.      "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]        to be seriously considered as a means of
gmw1@cunixc (bitnet)               communication. The device is inherently of
[e-mail]          no value to us."
WUI:650-117-9118                     - Western Union internal memo, 1877

[Moderator's Note: Regards your point (2) above, they had (still have) both,
depending. Sometimes they even had wire pairs within a telco cable that
were 'their' pairs and not telco's for use. It was a hodge podge of things.
Western Union always had a very special status with the Bell System, and
that included the rates given to WU for their phone service. Their lines
always shared the same conduits inside buildings with Bell, even prior to
the court ruling which said Bell had no right to make other folks vacate
the conduit when they (Bell) caught them in there. Oddly enough, it was
because they were allowing WU to use their conduits at will that the court
said they could jolly well allow all sorts of commuications services in
there. Likewise with house pairs; WU always took what they wanted.

Regards your point (4), the public offices were pretty much phased out during
the 1970's in favor of the 800 number. Then they began realizing there was
money to be made in the business of money transfer, so they began cutting
deals with banks and currency exchanges to function as Western Union agencies
for the purpose of taking in/disbursing funds transferred around the country.
But the currency exchange/agencies of today do NOT resemble the fabulous
old public offices of a quarter century ago. In smaller towns, they sometimes
worked through a telegraph agency rather than have their own office.  That
is, someone else owned the business and got a commission for handling traffic
for WU. In small towns, the agent could never make a living from WU alone,
so he did other things also. In Coffeyville, Kansas, and Hammond, Indiana,
to name just two towns, circa 1940-45, the telegraph agency was in the bus
depot; the agent sold Greyhound tickets (as well as the tickets for every
other bus line which came through town) and operated the telegraph machines
as well. The guy in Hammond had enough going on to keep a girl busy working
the counter two shifts a day and a guy who was there all night. The telegraph
machines (usually two or three of them) would chatter constantly in the
background, and the phone was ringing constantly, 24 hours a day.

Regards point (5), they now have a long distance service; they have public
e-mail (EasyLink); they still 'do' telegrams; money transfer and sundry. PT]

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

From: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Remarks in Clancy Novel
Date: 18 Sep 89 19:29:36 GMT
Reply-To: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation


In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (J. Loughry) writes:
>     "Ryan terminated the call and placed one to his house, which had three
>     lines.  It was, perversely, a long-distance call.  He needed a D.C.
>     line for his work.  Cathy needed a Baltimore connection for hers, plus
>     a local line for other matters."
>
> Maybe someone can explain this to us Westerners.

The phone service around DC and Baltimore is a bit strange...  In many areas,
you get a choice of what kind of line you want, with different kinds having
different areas that are considered "local".  The quoted example sounds a
little stretched, but that kind of thing does happen in these parts :-)...

Amanda Walker
[e-mail]

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

From: "K.BLATTER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Remarks in Clancy Novel
Date: 18 Sep 89 20:34:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (J. Loughry) writes:
> I found this tidbit in Tom Clancy's new novel, "Clear and Present Danger."
> Jack Ryan (who lives near Annapolis, I believe) is out mowing the lawn when
> he receives a call on his cordless phone.  He answers it, then:
>
>     "Ryan terminated the call and placed one to his house, which had three
>     lines.  It was, perversely, a long-distance call.  He needed a D.C.
>     line for his work.  Cathy needed a Baltimore connection for hers, plus
>     a local line for other matters."
>
> Maybe someone can explain this to us Westerners.
>
> Joe Loughry
> [e-mail]

Clearly this is an example of using FX (Foreign eXchange) lines.  Jack
had an FX Line which terminated in Washington DC, and Cathy had an
FX line which terminated in Baltimore.

Perhaps someone else out there in netland could give a better
description of an FX line, but here goes my explanation...

An FX line is a suscriber line which terminates in a central office
other than the central office which provides local access to the
telephone network.  These numbers are most often used by businesses
that have operations in another city which would justify the added
expense of one of these lines.  If you subscribe to this feature, you
would literally have a phone number which would be non-local.
Therefore, referring to Clancy's novel, in calling his own house from
his yard over an FX line, he would have to make a toll call.

Also, most people are familiar with this service as radio stations
often use this service -- especially stations that have large broadcast
areas.  I remember growing up and when the radio station would have
a contest, they would list six or seven numbers that listeners could
call into to win.  While each of these numbers was from a different
geographical area, they all terminated at the radio station.

Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs
Standard Disclaimer

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

Date:     Mon, 18 Sep 89 11:17:26 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Telephants and NPA 215

I have had some previous messages in the digest at odd times regarding
use or non-use of Wilmington (Del.) area prefixes in area code 215.
Local calls from Pa. to Del. now require the area code; previously,
Chester Heights (Pa.) had 7-digit dialing to Phila. and suburban
Phila. and West Chester and (now requiring area code)
Wilmington/Newport/Holly Oak (Del.).

A recent advertisement I received had 456 prefix in Newark, Del.
This duplicates a prefix in Philadelphia.

Also, I notice that phone prefixes in Lambertville, Ewing, and Trenton, NJ
(all of which have local service into part of area 215 in Pa.) are not dup-
licated in area 215.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #387
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 20 Sep 89 0:10:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #388
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Sep 89 00:00:32 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 388

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Conventional Use of Coin Telephones (Robert A. Carson)
    Re: Some Comments On The GTE "Problem" in California (John Higdon)
    Re: Customer Support From Nynex (Thomas Narten)
    Re: 10-Cent Pay Phones (Charlie Goldensher)
    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Dr. T. Andrews)
    Re: Starline Service From Illinois Bell (Anthony Lee)
    Re: Radio Station Names (munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122)
    Re: Who Pays For International DA? (munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 14:43:01 EDT
From: Robert A Carson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Conventional Use of Coin Telephones
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:
> > At a hamfest recently I purchased an AT&T payphone.  Unfortunately

>     The bottom line is that if you are thinking of using your coin
> telephone to actually collect money for calls, this is an impracticable
> idea since as far as I know, ALL AT&T (i.e., WECO) coin telephones require
> some type of central office coin control.  This is, of course, not true of
> some newer non-AT&T coin telephones which are intended for "do it yourself"
> operation on conventional loop-start telephone lines.

This was accurate as of a few years ago.  Since then AT&T has introduced
two COCOT's, the AT&T Private Pay Phone and the AT&T Private Pay Phone Plus.
These are designed to operate on any standard residential-type line,
coin control is not required.

One other thing to add to Larry Lippman's description of AT&T (WECO)
Coin Telephones.  Recently, AT&T introduced a follow-on to the venerable
1D2-type coin telephone.  This is the AT&T Next Generation Coin Telephone.
It is a standard coin telephone for the Local Exchange Carriers, plus
it has many new capabilities made possible by a microprocessor and a modem.
The phone reports to a central computer various bits of diagnostic data
(eg. handset missing, chute jammed) traffic data, and coin box information.
It can also be programmed from the computer for things such as initial rate.

    Bob Carson
    attmail!inuxz!rac
    AT&T Bell Labs
    Indianapolis, In

These are my views, that's why I have them.

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Comments On The GTE "Problem" in California
Date: 19 Sep 89 05:24:46 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <[e-mail]>, kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:
>     The apparatus will indeed do the job - but in the situations which
> you describe it is PEOPLE who have let the apparatus down and caused these
> service problems.

It is obvious, from the very encounters that I have experienced with
GTE that it is indeed the people who make (or in GTE's case) break the
operation.

>     Beats the hell outta me...  I have seen the No. 1 EAX, and it is
> not junk.  I don't know why there was trouble in this particular office,
> unless it was a very early machine (say, before 1974).   Part of the

As a matter of fact, it was installed in about 1974. At that time they
offered no features whatsoever. It was many years before I learned that
they were offering call waiting and call forwarding (and nothing else).
At a place served by this switch, I had particular use for three-way
calling, but it has never been available. Down south, I know that GTE
does offer 3-way in the No. 1 EAX.

The scuttlebutt around the times the switch went completely down was
that some local character who knew nothing really about the equipment
was fooling around with the programming and managed to screw it up to
the point where it would no longer process calls. The reason it was
down for so long is that they had to fly a specialist up from Santa
Monica to straighten the mess out.

The EAX call forwarding has a neat feature (seriously). If you dial 79#,
you will be immediately forwarded to the number previously forworded
to. This is handy if you regularly forward to the same number, or want
someone to forward your phone without having to reveal the number it's
being forwarded to.

As an aside, I should point out that GTE Mobilnet (the wireline
cellular provider in the Bay Area) is quite an excellent operation. The
coverage is good, the service reliable, the people responsive. Calls
complete in about 2 seconds (as opposed to about 20 seconds for PacTel
Cellular in the LA area). GTE Mobilnet offers superior subscription
plans to Cellular One (the Bay Area non-wireline system owned primarily
by Pacific Telesis) and has been first with all of the GeeWhiz features
like a big area, follow-me roaming, etc. We have all theorized that it
must be some other GTE, since GTE California is just the
opposite--running the worst phone company I have ever seen.

>     The Bell System has also used subscriber line carrier of the lowest
> quality - the infamous Superior/Continental AML.  This subscriber line
> carrier provides no bridged ringing (ringing is brought out on a third wire),
> and offers an on-hook loop voltage to the subscriber station of a whole
> 6 volts (less, if the battery ain't charged).  Needless to say, such
> subscriber line carrier at best can operate a 500-type set, and nothing
> else.

Fortunately, I have never seen any of that. But GTE in California used
theirs as a matter of routine. A favorite trick of the pea-brains in
Los Gatos was to install subscriber carrier and then at some future
time turn off the service of the metallic subscriber (battery and all).
After some indeterminate amount of time, the nicad in the SC unit would
become weak and the carrier subscriber's service would just fade away.
This actually happened to me. You should have heard me trying to
explain this to some 611 droid. You should have seen how long it took
them to fix it. After several days I rigged up an outboard supply and
got my service back. That fix would be there to this day if they hadn't
finally added more cable to the area and converted my line to metallic.
And this was business service!

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Subject: Re: Customer Support From Nynex
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 89 08:40:01 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>

The Nynex strike has been going on long enough now that many of the
services formerly handled by the strikers are being processed with
reasonable speed.  I for one, however, am still waiting for the strike
to end;  I've been without service for over 4 weeks, and while I can't
pin them down on an installation date, the most optimistic target I've
been given is November.

The problem is that I just moved into a new apartment that has never
had phone service before.  To establish service, NYNEX must send
someone to phsyically connect the wires.  They apparently need the
strikers for that.

Disconnecting and reestablishing service to older units is apparently
not a problem, because that can be done through software from the
central office.

Thomas Narten

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 89 12:25:56 EDT
From: Charlie Goldensher <vicorp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10-Cent Pay Phones
Reply-To: Charlie Goldensher <vicorp![e-mail]>
Organization: V.I. Corporation, Amherst, Massachusetts

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mark A. Holtz) writes:
>I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country
>that still have payphones for a dime?

Yes.  Where I live, in Franklin County, Mass., Nynex operates
pay phones that cost ten cents for a local call.  Unfortunately,
that hardly makes up for the lousy phone service we get.

(I don't know much about the technical aspects of telephony,
but we still have pulse-only dialing.  And there was one evening
when I couldn't even reach the operator, much less anyone else,
even though I had dial-tone.  And how do they deal with problems?
They "check out the line" and "find nothing wrong".  Perhaps
the equipment is so antiquated that they don't have many people
left who know how to diagnose and fix its problems.)

Incidentally, does anyone know why I might not be able to use
the 10xxx access codes?  Could it be related to the fact that
we only have pulse-dialing (or some other aspect of our antiquated
system)?  Or should I complain to Nynex?  When I try one of the
codes, I get a (fast, I think) busy signal.


Charlie Goldensher        [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 6:58:11 EDT
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Organization: CompuData, Inc. (DeLand)

A moderator note...
) ... As a purely pragmatic thing, it just makes sense to have a phone
) in a place where you don't want to be subject to a quick, untimely
) exit. Either that, or an answering machine.

In a pig's eye, perhaps.  There is one important fact being
overlooked here: I put the instrument of the devil in for my
convenience, not that of every Tom, Dick, and Olan Mills salesman.

If the thing rings while it's not convenient for me to answer it, and
that includes meal-times as well as swimming and visits to the throne
room, it doesn't get answered.  It is senseless to be a slave to that
ringing bell, hopping to serve at the whim of any salesman able to
compose a string of digits.

If a call is important enough to really want my attention (or even
if the caller merely perceives that it is important), he may call
back later when it may be more convenient for me to answer.


 ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra attctc gatech!uflorida uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner


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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 10:27:14 EST
From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Starline Service From Illinois Bell
Organization: Computer Science Department, The University of Queensland,
 Brisbane, Australia

Hi Patrick,

Thank you for your interesting article on Starline.  I've noticed you said
many of the services had already been available and that Starline only
enhanced them.  As I said before here in Australia we are only starting to have
the original services.

One thing I do notice is that as the number of services that are available to
the customer increases and as more of them becomes active then this business
of having to press *nn (nn two digit number) or #nn becomes a real mess.
Why can't your telco give you a more sophisicated handset ?  I suppose there's
no point unless you have ISDN signalling.  Even with DFTM, there'll needed
to be a lot of logic built into a handset just to display useful info
to the user.  I just wonder if the interface between the user and the CO
is more intelligent, how much of this service interactions stuff can be
gloss over ?  You see I am really interested in the interactions between
enhanced features.

I didn't get a chance to read your ISDN summary but do you remember if
there was any mention of the use of ISDN signalling to enhance the way
enhanced services are delivered to the customer.  The topic in itself is
worth discussing.  May be you can post this message on comp.dcom.telecom
and see if there anyone out there who would be interested.

BTW I recently got a message from someone in Bellcore and she called
me the Down Under-er.  I think that's sounds good consider there aren't
too many Down Under readers in this newsgroup.

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

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

From: munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 13:09 +1000
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


Can some kind soul please tell me if there is any rhyme or reason to radio and
television station call signs in the USA?

What are the 'K' and 'W' for?

In Australia, each state has a number:
2 New South Wales
3 Victoria
4 Queensland
5 South Australia
6 Western Australia
7 Tasmania

Postcodes in the state are of the form Nxxx, where N is the state number and
xxx are three digits.

Radio station call signs are of the form N-cc for AM and N-ccc-FM for FM
eg in Sydney (NSW) there are 2BL, 2WS, 2ABC-FM, 2JJJ-FM, 2-DAY-FM etc and in
Melbourne (Vic) there are 3LO, 3AK, 3MMM-FM (triple M) 3-FOX-FM (the Fox) etc.

The call signs of country stations usually reflect their location, eg 3GL in
Geelong, 2PK in Parkes.

This means that if you hear the call sign of a radio station, you instantly
know which state it is from, and can hazard a guess at the area too.

Is there a system in the USA?

Daniel

[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: We covered this pretty extensively several issues ago.
Check old messages with the 'Radio Station Names' title. In a nutshell:
The first letters are assigned all over the world by international
agreement. The United States gets W and K mostly; Canada gets C; Mexico
gets X, etc. In the United States, broadcast stations in the eastern
part of the country use W. In the western part of the country, they use
K. The W or K is followed by two or three other letters, assigned by
the Federal Communications Commission. The dividing line between W and K
is the Mississippi River, a large body of water which runs the length
of our country from north to south. There are some exceptions to the W/K
rule, but not many. The two or three letters following the W/K are often
specifically requested by the station. If they are not already assigned
the FCC will usually give them out. Frequently they will be the initials
for the name of the owner, or have some other significance to the owner
of the license.

Quick examples in Chicago:
WGN = World's Greatest Newspaper  (owned by Chicago Tribune)
WLS = World's Largest Store (from long ago when it was owned by Sears Roebuck)
WMBI = Moody Bible Institute   WCFL = Chicago Federation of Labor
WBBM = We Broadcast (from the) Broadmoor Ballroom
WVOA = The Voice of America  (in Red Lion, PA -- not Chicago)

Every country gets one or more letters assigned for the first letter. In
Equador, the starting letter is H; thus a very loud shortwave station heard
all over the world from Quito, Equador is HCJB. And who will be the first
TELECOM reader who knows what those letters mean?  :)     PT]

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

From: munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 13:51 +1000
Subject: Re: Who Pays For International DA?
Organization: The University of Melbourne

> And why does the international DA Operator on our side *insist* on
> talking?  They could (for all practical purposes) just ask you where
> you want to talk to and connect, but *no* ... they feel the need to
> verbally "collect" the information so they can then relay it
> inaccurately to the foreign DA operator... to be fair, international
> DA from the other side <Australia, in this case> seems to lose the
> same way ... why won't they let me talk directly to the foreign DA
> operator?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have rung international DA in Oz  number of
times.  Mostly, the Operator does not disconnect me while she makes the
inquiry, and sometimes I have assisted in clarifying the address.  Once, when
asking for a UK number I was connected to the London operator and allowed to
make the enquiry myself.  The London operator and I then chatted until the
Sydney operator disconnected us.

> [Moderator's Note: There is no 'international DA operator' that I am
> aware of. The AT&T long distance operator simply handles every foreign

In USA maybe, not Oz.

[Moderator's Note: It seems to be a Chicago phenomena. I just dial double
zero, and the AT&T operators here insist on ringing up wherever and doing
all the talking themselves. What's funny is when I get one here who can
barely speak English (the rule these days, not the exception) and she is
trying to question the operator in India or Singapore for me. I have to
wonder sometimes what operators in those countries think of their American
counterparts in the past few years. Remember when all Europe-bound traffic
went through the international toll center in White Plains, NY and the
AT&T operators there were at the least bi-linqual if not tri-linqual?  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #388
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 20 Sep 89 1:42:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #389
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Sep 89 01:40:22 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 389

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Ancient Equipment Still in Service / Telemarketing (Pete French)
    The Number You're Calling From (Russell Shackelford)
    The 'Public Telegraph Office' (TELECOM Moderator)
    Western Union Today (Hector Myerston)
    Charging For Customer Support (William G. Martin)
    Splits of NNX? (Carl Moore)
    Telephone Museum in Boston (Larry Campbell)
    Re: Dealing with Telephone Subscribers Who Fail to Pay Bill (Dave Troup)

[Moderator's Note: Just two issues of the Digest today.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Pete French <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 89 08:45:02 -0100
Subject: Ancient Equipment Still in Service / Telemarketing

>And:
>>     Whatever apparatus you had was probably built before 1930!
>
>I seem to recall some date codes on those units that said 1919.  I couldn't
>believe it at the time (1963), but it may have been true from what you say!

As I was sitting reading the aforementined article and having a good laugh
at the fact that anyone would use such antique equipment, one of my
colleagues happened to look over my shoulder and informed me that B.T. is
still actually opearting an exchange built in 1920.

This wonderous piece of equipment is "pre-Strowger" - or at least it is not
the strowger we all are familiar with , maybe it uses these non-restoring
plungers that you talk about. Aparrently it is so slow that it can take up
to a minute to return dial-tone ! The offending piece of apparatus is at
a place called Illingworth in Yorkshire and is soon to be replaced - not by
an exchaange but by a local concentrator. The march of progress....

(Don't blame me of the accuracy of the above information - I only repeat what I
am told.)

And just a final note - a word on telemarketing.

I have never experienced this - yes I said _NEVER_ ! We've had an ex-directory
(unlisted) number for the last 8 years or so and I assume that this is the
cause, even though it does go on in my town. Just the other day I noticed that
on of the services offered by B.T. is Telemarketing! This seems like a good
idea to me - if the telemarketing is being done by the phone company then it is
surely far easier to tell them to stop calling you - they have, after all, an
interest in keeping the customer happy. Thoughts anyone...


       -Pete French.               | "She stares at the screen,
  British Telecom Research Labs.   |  At the little words of green,
 Martlesham Heath, East Anglia.    |  Tries to remember what to do next."
All my own thoughts (of course)    |                            -N.M.A.

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

From: Russell Shackelford <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Number You're Calling From
Date: 19 Sep 89 15:49:03 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


I'm sure that this has been covered before, but ......

Situation: lady friend and I went away for the weekend to a rented house
at the beach.  Arrived early evening, after Real Estate Co. had closed.
Needed to call her children to tell them phone number to call in case of
emergency.  Phone number NOT written on phone at rental house.

Problem: called "0", asked for number of phone we were calling from. Was
told that she knew but couldn't tell us.  Surly attitude from both
operator and her supervisor (Gulf Bell). Called customer assistance
at both Sprint and MCI.  Sprint person didn't know, but gave us a
5-digit number to call that would help us.  Number didn't work.  MCI
person knew nothing.  Called 911, they WANTED to help, they had the
number in front of them on their screen, but were afraid that it would
cost them their jobs (they had good attitude, offered alternative way
to route kids to us through them).  Summary: NO WAY to find out phone
number.

Questions (2):

1. What's the deal?  Of the several people who KNEW but COULDN'T tell
us what the number was, NOBODY knew why they couldn't tell us!  They
just mumbled something vague about violating privacy laws.  Is it
REALLY the case that the legal system ASSUMES that the reason you
want to know the phone number you're dialing from is that you are
a BURGLAR who wants to know the number of a house you've just broken
into so that you can then charge calls to that number?  If so, why
aren't Phone Books illegal?

2. HOW can one readily discover the number of a phone one is dialing
from.  Surely, there is some number to dial that will parrot back to
you the dialed-from number?  Is there a std num for this function?

Thanks,

Russell Shackelford
School of Information and Computer Science
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332
[e-mail]         [phone]

[Moderator's Note: And this, too, we have covered at length in recent weeks.
There is no formula -- no set number -- which works in all places for the
purpose of ring-back and/or number i.d. But there is the Townson Plan, which
always works without fail:  Use the phone in question to place an AT&T person-
to-person call to someone who won't be there to receive the call. For example,
in the case at hand, call yourself at your home number person-to-person.

When the kiddies answer the phone, the operator will ask for you; you'll
not be home, but since you are calling person-to-person the operator will
'leave word' on request, asking the kiddies to take a message for daddy
to call as soon as he comes in. Tell the operator, "....just leave this
number here, operator, I will be around all evening...". And the accomodating
operator, without thinking twice about it, will tell the kiddies, have your
daddy call Operator 8 in Podunk, and ask for 123-4567."

Thank you, operator! Thank you indeed. By leaving word on a person to person
call, the operator has to give the number and you'll overhear it being given.
Have your pencil poised so *you* don't have to ask her to repeat it! Don't
worry if the kiddies got it right or not. In theory, the operator is supposed
to split the connection before passing that information; it is rare that
they bother. And if they do, just place another call; the next operator
will be more cooperative, I'm sure!    PT]

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

Date:     Wed, 20 Sep 89 0:44:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  The 'Public Telegraph Office'

Someone the other day asked, 'Have the public telegraph offices mostly been
replaced by the 800 phone service?'

The answer is yes. The 800 service along with personal terminals and accounts
on Easy Link for hundreds of companies which used to rely on telex and/or
TWX have virtually decimated the telegram, and the telegraph public office.

I mentioned that in small (and some medium size) towns, Western Union did
not actually own the facilities, but operated through an agent; someone
who had other things going on as well, such as the local agent for the bus
lines; now and then the local (independent and rural) telco office, etc.

In larger cities such as Chicago, St. Louis, New York, Boston, Los Angeles
and similar, Western Union operated their own public message centers. The
Chicago office is well etched in my mind, in the 1955-60 time period.

The office was 1930-ish Art Deco design. It was about the size of a typical
high school basketball gymnasium, with the same sort of vaulted ceilings.
In front, several small writing desks, like in a bank, where one would stand
and write out the message on a form submitted to the clerk. The fountain
pens were chained to the counter so they could not be stolen. A large
calendar on the wall, and of course, the 'telegraph clock'.

At the counter, which was marble, three or four places for clerks, although
there were usually just one or two on duty at a time. Behind them, nine
or ten rather large, somewhat noisy teletype machines. Usually there were
two operators attending all the machines; they would walk to one, peer
at the paper feeding out, look at the next machine, etc. Sitting down at
a machine, these operators -- invariably men, although the counter clerks
were frequently women -- would type messages and receive them.

The room had a constant din from the machines. One or more was constantly
typing. A small bell, driven by a <control-G> just like today would go
'bing bing bing' and the motor inside the machine would start going with
a soft sort of whirring noise. Maybe two seconds later the keys would
start printing and the carriage would move back and forth on the platen.
As quickly as it started, it would stop. The motor would shut off, and
the machine would go silent. But the starting and stopping could not
be predicted. Sometimes all would be running, other times just two or
three. Just as one would stop, another would start. And the men would
walk around, gather up paper from each and give it to the clerks at the
counter. One machine would stop, and immediatly bing! bing! another one
would start.

The operators seemed to be fast typists. Picking up a piece of paper from
the clerk, one would sit at a machine and begin typing -- quite fast it
seemed to me at the time, although I learned later they were only going
about 60 baud, or some ridiculous pace by today's standards. And always
with a cigarette hanging out of their lips as they sat there banging away.

The clerk functioned much like a school teacher grading an essay paper.
You'd take your message to the counter written out, and with a red pencil
the clerk would say, "what's this word here?", "how do you spell that
name?", "I can't read your writing, you will have to go back and print it
over again".

When satisfied, she'd count the words and looking at a chart say, "well,
that's fifteen words, gimme dollar seventy five". You would pay, and she
would hand the message over to the operators for typing into the network.

 From time to time the operators would hand over messages to the clerk, who
would speak loudly, "Smith? John Smith?", and if Smith was waiting around
for his message, he would come to the counter to get it. Sometimes it would
be registered, meaning he signed for it, and the operator would send back
a message to the other end saying delivery had been made. If Smith could
not be located in the office, then a messenger -- either a twelve year old
kid or a seventy five year old man -- they seemed to have no one in the
middle age at all doing this work -- would take the message and set
off on a bicycle to deliver the message to Smith at his office or home.

Twenty four hours a day, seven days a week this went on. If money was
wired to you, they would write a check payable to you, which you were free
to endorse and cash right there if the clerk had enough money in the
drawer, or you could cash it elsewhere.

If you just hung around the place all day, talking to the people coming
and going, you got quite an education and heard the life stories of everyone
passing through, it seemed.

Patrick Townson


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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 19 Sep 89  08:47 PST
Subject: Western Union Today
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]

     The firm has been reorganized more times than AT&T (and with worse
results!; they are in or near bankruptcy).  They have recently bailed
out of the Long Distance voice markets (WULDS).  They "sold" their
installed base of users to Telecomm*USA but NOT their network which
consisted of 6 Tamden Switches and owned and leased IMTs between
them.

    There is a glut of Long Distance system equipment in the
market as resellers and smaller carriers drop by the wayside.  WULDS
has been unable to sell many of their switches (DMS 250s and DEX).
Not all of the old WULDS user choose to be "sold" to Telecomm*USA,
many have gone elsewhere.


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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 89 07:36:14 MDT
From: "William G. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charging For Customer Support

Sorry that this response is so late; it sat in our outgoing mail queues
at my home host for 5 days and wouldn't send, even though we were getting
mail IN from Telecom all during that time with no difficulty. I've asked
our mail maintainers to look into the problem... WM

I must say that the long explanation (or should I say "justification"?)
for charging for customer support did not convince me. After all, if I
buy a $2 can of deodorant, there is an 800 number on the can I can call
about the product. If you complain about some defect, they'll even send
you a coupon to use to get another can (even a larger one than the
original!). If I get this level of support for a trivially-priced
consumer product, I would certainly expect MORE, not less, support for
a $1000 piece of electronic hardware!

No one forced these companies into the business of making these devices
that people now need support for. If they are not willing to live up to
the obligations they incurred by producing and selling these things,
they should not have gotten into the market in the first place!

Will Martin

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

Date:     Tue, 19 Sep 89 9:33:41 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Splits of NNX?

In response to the messages indicating splits of areas NOT having
N0X/N1X:

I am also NOT aware of N0X/N1X prefixes in use in the following
splits after 1980:
305/407 in Florida
303/719 in Colorado

The only splits from 1965 thru 1981 are:
305/904 in Florida in 1965 (305 was split again last year to form 407)
703/804 in Virginia in 1973 (N0X/N1X has since come to DC area, with
   some of those prefixes coming to Va. suburbs, in 703)

[Moderator's Note: The 703/804 split was the first, nearly twenty five years
ago, if memory serves me. Then the 305/904 split. Then none for many years,
until the one in New York. Is my timing correct?  PT]

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


From: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Subject: Telephone Museum in Boston
Date: 19 Sep 89 01:55:27 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.


Rushing in to the local New England Telephone building a few months ago to
pay my (typically late) bill, I stumbled across an interesting telephone
museum.  It's in the New England Telephone building on Franklin Street in
Boston -- the city where, of course, the telephone was invented.  The museum
is a replica of Alexander Graham Bell's garrett workshop where the famous
conversation ("Mr. Watson, come here" etc.) occurred.

Although the room itself is a replica -- the actual building was demolished
decades ago and the street it was on no longer even exists -- most of the
paraphernalia are real, including the workbench, some really odd looking
gizmos, and some notebooks.  Also some of Bell's early commercial equipment,
which at the time was used mainly for burglar alarms.

It's not worth making a special trip to Boston, but if you're here anyway,
it's worth half an hour.  You can't miss it -- it's just inside the main
entrance of the Franklin Street building (the art deco building festooned
with microwave horns).

Larry Campbell                          The Boston Software Works, Inc.
[e-mail]                        120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell                   Boston, MA 02146


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

From: Dave Troup <carroll1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dealing with Telephone Subscribers Who Fail to Pay Their Bill
Date: 20 Sep 89 03:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Troup <carroll1![e-mail]>
Organization: Carroll College-Waukesha, WI


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman) writes:
>    That was indeed rather nice of GTE to permit 800 calls, but none
>other.  Perhaps their business office was an 800-number, and they wanted
>you to be able to still call them to make payment arrangements? :-)
>

    Yep. They wanted me to call they're 800 customer
    service number to work out the bill and my
    possible payment. I must thank them for making
    my connection to them (the the rest of the world)
    as easy as calling an 800 number. "Let your
    fingers do the walking.."


"We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, knowin' that ain't allowed"__         _______  _______________    |David C. Troup / Surf Rat
    _______)(______   |         |[e-mail] : mail

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #389
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 20 Sep 89 23:27:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #390
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Sep 89 00:20:42 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 390

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls? (Doug Davis)
    Re: Service Interactions Between CFU and CCBS (Robert C. Chancer)
    Re: Telephony in Belgium (90784000)
    Re: Central Office Answering Machine (90784000)
    Re: Speaking of Western Union (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Phone Remarks in Clancy Novel (Mike Morris)
    Re: Pac*Bell: The Old Bell System? (Chet Wood)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can We Outlaw Junk Calls?
Date: 18 Sep 89 19:13:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl
Denninger) writes:
>The machine that I have (and I suspect most modern ones as well) will drop
>off the line if I pick up any extension in the house during a call.

If not, for 7.95 at Radio Shack, or 9.95 at your local att fone center
you can purchase a little device that will do it for you.. I hacked
one of these together to breath more life into my old answering machine
and was so proud of it I took the schematics and put 'em on the cad machine
at work.  Then I gave 'em to a fellow fone hacker and he told me for 1/2 the
cost of the parts I could have purchased something that did the same thing.....

I thought I had something there (sniffle) ;-(

BTW, the next release of the comic collection (or is that commical? :-) )
     of fun things to do with your cellular phone is coming out Oct 1.
     If you want yours included, better get it here soon.


Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740
{sys1.tandy.com, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug
 "comp.unix.aix is an Oxymoron."

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

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 89 15:59:17 EDT
From: Robert C Chancer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Service Interactions Between CFU and CCBS (Busy Retry)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

> The original question was:
>
> >I have a Special Report For Service Interactions by S. J. Chin (BNR Canada)
> >of CCITT working party XI/5 (1987).
> >
> >The title of the report is "Specification technique for stage 2
> >supplementary service interactions".

> >.......  The particular example that was given involved
> >the CFU (Call Forwarding Unconditional) and CCBS (Completion of Call to
> >Busy Subscriber which is just a retry service) services.  The example goes
> >like this "... A user activating CFU, when being scanned/monitored for
> >CCBS recall, will cause the scanning/monitoring to be withdrawn or
> >abandoned."

> >My question is why withdraw the scanning ?  Why not bar the user who is
> >being scanned from activating CFU ?  There are a few more examples from

Having worked on Stage 2 descriptions in CCITT and have some understanding
of the implementations of CCBS being described I may be able to shed some
light on the subject.

Call Completion to Busy Subscriber may be totally implemented in the
originators switch. It would only poll the other switch to see if the
Called party is busy.  The destination switch would have no knowledge
of the timers for CCBS or possibly even that CCBS was invoked. So, if
a user at the destination switch wanted to invoke a service, such as CFU,
it would allow it.

If CCBS is implemented by the destination switch, via a message from the
originating switch to implement, then this info could be used to disallow
CFU.

One ot the things being strived for in CCIT is a consistent service view
to the customer, you cannot have the service be different depending on the
implementation, so CFU takes precedence.

Bob Chancer
houxa!chancer

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

From: 90784000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephony in Belgium
Date: 20 Sep 89 09:00:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I was stationed in The Netherlands (Maastricht) in the US Air Force during
1966-1969 as part of a radio relay maintenance team.  We had two microwave
sites in Germany, two in The Netherlands, and two in Belgium, in addition to
a maintenance site at Roclenge sur Geer, Belgium.  We constantly used the
telephone system to contact all six sites from Belgium and I learned inter-
national dialing early in life.  It was less than 15 minutes driving between
the Maastricht site (located in a Dutch PTT tower) to the maintenance site in
Belgium, but was an international call.

What made it particularly bad was that our site was located on the dividing
line between the Flemish (Dutch) and Walloon (French) speaking sections of
Belgium.  Telephone maintenance was all but impossible and winter conditions at our sites in the Ardenne Mountains made it worse.  We had all of the sites
linked by HF radio as a backup, but often we would drive to Maastricht across
the border to use the microwave communications channels connecting the sites
to make reliable contact!

Our customers were all military as part of the Allied Forces Central Europe
(AFCENT) network and we essentially duplicated the existing HF/VHF radio
links and PTT/RTT networks.  As I was leaving Europe in 1969, satellite
networks were taking over much of the communications requirements.

Belgium had to be one of the more interesting countries in Europe at that
time, since they were just instituting vehicle drivers licenses in 1969
(as I recall) and most drivers were grandfathered into the system.  The others
had to either take a written exam _or_ a road test!  Belgium also had one of
the highest accident rates in Europe then.

Thanks for the reminder!

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

From: 90784000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Central Office Answering Machine
Date: 20 Sep 89 09:42:46 GMT
Reply-To: Larry McElhiney <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:
>X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 379, message 4 of 4

>In article <[e-mail]>, kenj%wybbs.UUCP@sharkey.
>cc.umich.edu (Ken Jongsma) writes:
>> I don't know... Almost $100 a year for an answering machine? One that you
>> may not even be able to interrogate from another phone? I think they are
>> way to optimistic on their sign up estimates.

>It IS catching on in many places. First, there is no capital outlay. It
>is one thing to go shopping, plunk down $100 (or more), bring the thing
>home and try to figure it out and hook it up, and worry about what
>happens when it breaks, and quite another to call "the phone company"
>and tell them you want their message service. I believe there is a
>central number you can call to retrive your messages (at least there is
>on the voice mail offered with my cellular phone).

Late 1970's through early 1980's Plantronics Inc. in Santa Cruz, CA built
and marketed a system called CentraVox--a CO based answering machine for
individual subscribers.  FCC ruling against recording devices in COs
finally killed the product line.

Last operating system that I am aware of was part of the PNB system in the
Seattle area.  The service was popular among the masses, I am told.

Consisted of a 19" rack mounted aluminum box with p/s and central tape
driving motors.  12 individual line modules would independently push tape
and a rubber roller against a rotating shaft to drive the tape.  Two tapes,
an announce on a loop and about 20 minutes of message tape were included
in an interchangable unit about the size of many cassette recorders.  All
of the electronics other than the voice recording was digital.

The system was controlled by DTMF signals from the subscriber site and there
was a tone sequence indicating waiting messages when the handset was taken
off hook.  VOX was the other feature, up to a 20-min length of message was
possible, and the system sensed the end of "intelligibility" and then rewound
the tape to that point to await the next call.  All features for control were
available from the unmodified home telephone and there was a remote included
so that you could access your service by calling your home number remotely
and sending a BCD signal to authorize.  You could change announce, listen to
and erase messages all from any telephone.

Cost was very low to the consumer as well...  Too bad it died just pre-1984!

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

From: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Western Union
Date: 20 Sep 89 23:20:45 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].
edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>    3. Do telegrams and mailgrams have any modern commercial application
>       with the advent of electronic mail, the overnight letter, fax,
>       etc.?  I have nothing against telegrams, and it would be a pity
>       for such a thing to ever die out, but are they still used in major
>       ways today? (other than the traditional sending of a telegram to
>       a wedding when you're away)
>
My parents have a collection of telegrams received at their wedding.
They're all addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. Morton Greenberg; Park Manor;
Eastern Parkway; Brooklyn, New York".  They were delivered to the
catering hall (the Park Manor) at the wedding.  Most of them are done
on special "Congratulations" telegram blanks, and they have the words
printed on strips of paper glued to the blank.  \

Now, my parents got married in 1954.  When I got married in 1982, one
of my friends sent a telegram from out of state.  What I got was a
telephone call from a bored operator.  She read me the message, and
offered a confirmation copy, which was printed out as a mailgram and
mailed about three days later.  I've given up on Telegrams.  I'd
rather send a fedex package with a Texas Sized Jelly Donut or
something.

The poster says that he'd hate to see them die out, but I think that
they have.  There's probably good reason to dictate a message, and have it
printed out and delivered by a messenger, but that's hardly cost
effective these days.  For instance, for $25, you can send an MCI Mail
letter which is delivered by Purolator courier within four business hours.
If telegrams cost $25, who'd use them though.
                -edg

Ed Greenberg
uunet!apple!netcom!edg

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Remarks in Clancy Novel
Date: 20 Sep 89 23:00:20 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


Amanda Walker <[e-mail]> writes:
%In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (J. Loughry) writes:
%>     "Ryan terminated the call and placed one to his house, which had three
%>     lines.  It was, perversely, a long-distance call.  He needed a D.C.
%>     line for his work.  Cathy needed a Baltimore connection for hers, plus
%>     a local line for other matters."

%> Maybe someone can explain this to us Westerners.

%The phone service around DC and Baltimore is a bit strange...  In many areas,
%you get a choice of what kind of line you want, with different kinds having
%different areas that are considered "local".  The quoted example sounds a
%little stretched, but that kind of thing does happen in these parts :-)...

When I read the book I just assumed that he had a electronic key system, with
a local line and 2 foreign exchange lines.  Yes, DC is wierd.

Mike Morris                      UUCP: [e-mail]
                                 ICBM: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     PSTN: 818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     cat flames.all > /dev/null

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

From: Chet Wood <arc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell: The Old Bell System?
Date: 20 Sep 89 21:29:29 GMT
Organization: Advansoft Research Corp, Santa Clara, CA



john> Over the past months, a number of disturbing manuvers have been
john> executed by Pacific Telesis. It would appear that in direct
john> contradiction to the spirit of Judge Greene's order, our RBOC is trying
john> to re-create the old Bell System.

john> [ ...lots of complaints about PacBell muscling in everywhere... ]

I have been waiting to whine about a pet peeve of mine for quite a
while. This is a good chance, though it's a nickel-dime matter compared
to John's complaints.

Yesterday I was ordering new service and the lady asked me if I wanted
touch-tone service. I said no, and she acted real surprised and said,
"Don't you have any pushbutton phones?" I said "they're pulse" and
that satisfied her.

I think that's distinctly fraudulant. If they are going to be allowed
to push so hard for their extra dollar a month, at least they should
be limited to correct terminology and ask, "aren't you using
Touch-Tone (TM) phones?"

I had had non-touch-tone service in my home for years-- I was able to
use touch-tones to dial with no problem, and was rather proud that I
was avoiding the $1 + per month ripoff. About a year or two ago, the
business office called my wife on some pretext to "review" our phone
service, asked her the same question, and pressured her into ordering
the extra service.

They probably are raking in several million dollars a year on that scam.

Why are they be allowed to charge extra for this anyway? I'm sure
it doesn't cost them anything, given today's technology-- pulse
dialing may even cost them more, since the line must be open longer.

John, I've heard that the PUC has a bbs. Would it do any good if I
called them up and complained?

Chet Wood                       ~                         [phone]
     arc![e-mail]         .  Advansoft Research Corporation
          [e-mail]         .       4301 Great America Parkway
               apple!arc!chet   .            Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #390
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 21 Sep 89 0:31:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #391
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Sep 89 01:30:28 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 391

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: 10-Cent Pay Phones (Mike Morris)
    Re: 10-Cent Pay Phones (John Higdon)
    Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations (Mike Morris)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB) (Rich Wales)
    Re: Automated Attendents/Answering Machines (Gary Gallaher)
    Annapolis (Md.) Area (Carl Moore)
    800 Number Prefix Allocation (Guy Shaw)
    Area Code Splits (was: Splits of NNX?) (Carl Moore)
    HELP: I Need To Know the Telephone Number! (Patrick Wong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10-Cent Pay Phones
Date: 20 Sep 89 22:41:17 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


(Mark A. Holtz) writes:
>I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country
>that still have payphones for a dime?

>The reason why I ask is that the phone company that I subscribe to
>(Roseville Telephone), still has 10-Cent pay phones. The Pac*Telesis
>system, meanwhile, has 20-Cent pay phones.

When I was visiting in Oregon last week all the NorthWestern Bell pay
phones were 25-cents, and the ones that I made a point of looking at
had long distance service by ITI.  When I dialed 10288 I had a 1-in-3
chance of it routing to ITI _anyway_, even when I tried 102880.
I didn't have time to follow it up, I just drove down the road some
more and finally found a pay phone (which didn't look any diferent)
that "took" 10288-0-818-447-7052, and then "bong"ed at me for the
billing suffix.

Mike Morris                      UUCP: [e-mail]
                                 ICBM: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     PSTN: 818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     cat flames.all > /dev/null

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10-Cent Pay Phones
Date: 21 Sep 89 02:52:57 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, vicorp![e-mail].
net (Charlie Goldensher) writes:
> Incidentally, does anyone know why I might not be able to use
> the 10xxx access codes?  Could it be related to the fact that
> we only have pulse-dialing (or some other aspect of our antiquated
> system)?  Or should I complain to Nynex?  When I try one of the
> codes, I get a (fast, I think) busy signal.

It is related in so far as a general rule of thumb: If your CO
equipment doesn't do DTMF, then it is too antiquated for equal access.
All CO switches can be adapted to accept DTMF, but those that have to
be adapted don't intrinsically do 10XXX dialing.

To my knowledge, there are no SXS offices operating FGD (feature group
D). No. 5 crossbar can be adapted for it with an adjunct called CONTAC
(we have a lot of that here). However, if CONTAC is installed, then the
switch will do DTMF, since that's how the adjunct communicates with the
crossbar's originating registers. CONTAC itself would rather see DTMF
from the subscriber. It is very intolerant of off-speed rotary dials.
Pulses must fall between 8-12 pps or the call will fail (no 20 pps
dialing).

All electronic switches (ESS, DMS, EAX, etc.,) can run software that
supports FGD and all electronic switches intrinsically accept DTMF.


        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations
Date: 20 Sep 89 23:26:03 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (K.BLATTER) writes:

>Also, most people are familiar with this service as radio stations
>often use this service -- especially stations that have large broadcast
>areas.  I remember growing up and when the radio station would have
>a contest, they would list six or seven numbers that listeners could
>call into to win.  While each of these numbers was from a different
>geographical area, they all terminated at the radio station.

LA has most of it's FM station on a 5,000' mountain so both the AM and
the FM has excellent coverage - LA county has 2 complete area codes
(818 and 213) and pieces of 2 more (714, 805).  Many of the radio
station also cover portions of San Bernadino and Riverside counties
(area code 619). A while back (pre the 213-818 split) I noticed
that more and more stations were giving out 213-520 numbers for dial-in.
After the split, I noticed that they were giving out the same number
as "dial 213-520-xxxx or 818-520-xxxx".

Well, to make a long story short there is only one 520 exchange, but it
can be accessed from both 818 and 213.  A acquaintance in Pac Bell tells me
that if they can get GTE to co-operate that they might be able to do the
same thing with 714, only it would have to be something other than 520,
as that is already in use in the city of Anaheim.

It probably won't happen with 619 as that is north San Diego, and all of
Riverside and San Bernadino, and many of the lower powered stations don't
reach that far.  My '84 Riverside book does not list a assignment for
619-520 however.

I was told it was done at the (collective) stations request to lower the
number of FX lines and hence the cost, but I kinda doubt that -


Mike Morris                      UUCP: [e-mail]
                                 ICBM: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     PSTN: 818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     cat flames.all > /dev/null

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

From: Rich Wales <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB)
Date: 20 Sep 89 20:58:39 GMT
Reply-To: Rich Wales <[e-mail]>
Organization: UCLA CS Department, Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]>
munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au![e-mail] describes radio
station names in Australia:

    Radio station call signs are of the form N-cc for AM and
    N-ccc-FM for FM eg in Sydney (NSW) there are 2BL, 2WS,
    2ABC-FM, 2JJJ-FM, 2-DAY-FM etc and in Melbourne (Vic) there
    are 3LO, 3AK, 3MMM-FM (triple M) 3-FOX-FM (the Fox) etc.

    The call signs of country stations usually reflect their
    location, eg 3GL in Geelong, 2PK in Parkes.

    This means that if you hear the call sign of a radio station,
    you instantly know which state it is from, and can hazard a
    guess at the area too.

There is apparently no international requirement that radio stations
all have call letters conforming to the international (ITU) plan.  If
there were such a requirement, Australian stations would have call
letters starting with AX, VH-VN, or VZ.

For that matter, the Australian call signs mentioned above overlap all
over areas of the naming space reserved by the ITU for other countries.
For example, 2PK (indeed, *all* calls starting with a 2) "should" be in
Great Britain; 3AK ought to be in Monaco; and 3MMM belongs in China.

Of course, Australia is not alone in ignoring the ITU list.  In Canada,
the radio and TV stations of the CBC all have call letters starting with
the letters CB -- which, under international treaty, must mean that the
CBC is really based in Chile. :-}  (Canada doesn't own *all* of the
"C..." call letter space, you see -- only CF-CK and CY-CZ, in addition
to VA-VG, VO, VX-VY, and XJ-XO.)

    Is there a system in the USA?

As Patrick (our moderator) mentioned, there is no comparable system for
commercial radio or TV call signs in the US (other than the K/W split).
However, amateur radio calls in the US *do* indicate the general part of
the country; the digit indicates one of ten areas (which do *not*, how-
ever, correspond to the first digit of our "ZIP" postal codes).  This
system isn't perfect, though, since if a ham moves, he gets to keep his
call sign even if his new residence is in a differently numbered part of
the country.

Patrick added:

    In Ecuador, the starting letter is H; thus a very loud shortwave
    station heard all over the world from Quito, Ecuador is HCJB.
    And who will be the first TELECOM reader who knows what those
    letters mean?  :)

HCJB is run by an evangelical Christian group; the letters stand for
"Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings".

   Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // [phone]
   3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA
   [e-mail]      ...!(uunet,ucbvax,rutgers)!cs.ucla.edu!wales
"Then they hurl heavy objects. . . .  And claw at you. . . ."

[Moderator's Note: Yours was the only answer in the queue as of 12:30 AM
Thursday. Therefore I declare you first, and the winner. Your prize is
a free, lifetime subscription to TELECOM Digest. Lucky you! I suppose you
also knew that WINB, Red Lion, is the World InterNational Broacasters,
another shortwave station. What about WOR, KOA, and KCMO? Here's a real hard
one for you: WNBC. What about KSL? Some are more obscure: the old WEFM here
in Chicago was named for Edward F. McCormick, president of the Zenith Radio
Corporation (where the quality goes in before the name goes on, remember?)
back in the 1940's, when WEFM was the first FM station in the USA.  No further
messages re: HCJB will be printed unless the writer has something to say
besides explaining the call sign.   PT]

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

From: Gary Gallaher <pbseps![e-mail]>
Date: 20 Sep 89 15:37:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Automated Attendents/Answering Machines
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Gallaher)
Organization: Pacific Bell Separations, San Francisco, CA


In article <[e-mail]>
 portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail] writes:
>....  I design voice-mail and automated attendent hardware, but
>I use a standard answering machine to screen my calls so that I can
>pick up any call that sounds important.  Maybe I should add an option
>like this to the voice-mail systems we design?  Any ideas?

>Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., sun!cup.portal.com!jdurand

Sounds like a great feature, Jerry.  I know a lot of people who use
their answering machines that way, so there must be a "market".--


Gary G. Gallaher, 180 New Montgomery St., Room 602, San Francisco, CA, 94105
1 415 545-7590 || UUCP {ames,pyramid,sun,att,bellcore}!pacbell!pbseps!gary


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

Date:     Tue, 19 Sep 89 9:44:41 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Annapolis (Md.) Area

Area code 301:
In Annapolis, Md., there are 3 different local services available.
The one you find on pay phones is toll to both Balt. & DC.  Also
available is "Severna Park service", which is local to Balt. metro
area (and gives up some local service to southern Anne Arundel County),
and "Bowie-Glenn Dale service", which is local to DC metro area (and
is toll to the other Annapolis prefixes).

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

From: Guy Shaw <paralogics![e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Number Prefix Allocation
Date: 20 Sep 89 03:46:41 GMT
Organization: Paralogics; Santa Monica, CA


I have a client who wanted to apply for an 800 number which they had
picked in order to advertise their toll-free number by its "spelling".
The number they picked required the prefix 646.  When they tried to
apply, they were told that no 800-646-XXXX numbers were available.
When they inquired further, they were told that this was true, not
just for their area and their normal long-distance carrier, but that
no place in the United States and no long-distance company had such a
number, and that they were not yet allowed to be allocated.  They said
something about a committee of seven people and about some independent
agency that decides what numbers get allocated to what LD companies,
and when, all for the sake of fairness.  Sorry to be so vague, this
information is second-hand.

Can anyone tell me if this is true, and if so, what is this
independent agency, where did they get their authority, what is their
charter, and what, if any, method is there to their allocation of
numbers?  Is it possible to reserve an 800 number in advance?

Also, how long does it usually take, from the time you apply for an
800 number, to get it put into service?  That is, assuming no problems
like trying to reserve unavailable numbers.

Thanks in advance.

Guy Shaw
Paralogics
paralogics![e-mail]  or  uunet!paralogics!shaw

[Moderator's Note: The 'independent agency' is called Bellcore. Some Bellcore
people are readers of this Digest. Bellcore came from the old Bell System,
and specifically from AT&T. In years past, AT&T had the duty to assign all
area codes and prefixes. Since divestiture, Bellcore does this. They assign
prefixes to telephone companies and long distance carriers upon application
for same. I don't know whether 800-646 is assigned or not; I'll take your
word for it. It will not be assigned until Bellcore chooses to do so, and
then, all telcos everywhere will be notified to program their machinery
to respond to 800-646 in the same way. When it gets assigned to some (most
likely) long distance company, they will turn it on at their leisure, and
having done so, you may then apply *to that company* for an account. Until
then, you'll have to settle for some other number. There is nothing your
local telco or any long distance carrier can do about it.  Perhaps someone
from Bellcore will discuss this further in email with correspondent.  PT]

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

Date:     Wed, 20 Sep 89 9:41:46 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Area Code Splits (was: Splits of NNX?)

To telecom moderator:  The timing you gave regarding 703/804 and 305/904
splits is contradicted by my immediately-foregoing message.  Here is what
I have regarding splits (I don't know what if anything was done before
July 1965):

305/904 Florida, July 1965
703/804 Virginia, June 1973
714/619 California, November 1982
713/409 Texas, March 1983
213/818 California, January 1984
212/718 New York, September 1984
303/719 Colorado, 5 Mar. 1988
305/407 Florida, 16 Apr. 1988
617/508 Massachusetts, 16 July 1988
312/708 Illinois, November 1989
202 District of Columbia & vicinity, 1 Oct. 1990
    (202 area code is being withdrawn from Md. and Va. suburbs)
214/903 Texas, fall 1990
201/908 New Jersey, 1991
415/510 California, 7 October 1991 (full cutover 27 January 1992)

[Moderator's Note: Well, I *thought* Virginia was split earlier than that.
I'm almost certain I saw references to 804 in the late sixties. I guess
not. Thanks for the detailed correction on this, Carl.   PT]

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

From: Patrick Wong <[e-mail]>
Subject: HELP: I Need To Know the Telephone Number!
Date: 21 Sep 89 03:50:15 GMT
Organization: Theory Center, Cornell U., Ithaca NY


Hi, netters:

I have the an out-of-state toll free number of a theatre (or show
company) box office but I don't have the in-state number or the
regular number.  I would like to make some reservation at that box
office.  Thus, I called up 1-800-555-1212 to try to get its in-state
or regular no.  The operator could not help me because I don't know
the name of the ticket office (by the way, I know it is in Rochester,
NY) even I have the out-of-state no. the operator could not do
anything.  Anyway, can someone outside NY state call this toll free
no.  (800-832-8080) and ask for the in-state toll free no. (or the
regular no.) on my behalf.  Thousand thanks !

Please respond via e-mail !

Patrick Wong
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #391
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 21 Sep 89 1:25:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #392
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Sep 89 02:15:48 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 392

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Promises, Promises From Swedish Telco (Howard Gayle)
    GTE & GTE-Mobilnet (two different companies) (George Goble)
    STD/ISD in Commonwealth Countries (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed)
    Direct Inward Dialing (Brian Kantor)
    Hello Direct Catalog (TELECOM Moderator)

[Moderator's Note: eecs.nwu.edu converted today from four-point-two to
four-point-three, heh, heh!!  It seems to be working okay, but I am
still feeling my way around a little. The reader will also note the
Digest is published in CDT, yet the envelope shows CST. If anything
goes haywire, I'll no doubt see/hear about it in the next couple days. PT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 13:34:17 +0200
From: Howard Gayle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Promises, Promises From Swedish Telco
Reply-To: [e-mail]

This is mostly based on an article in the Stockholm newspaper Dagens
Nyheter, 19 September 1989, p. 72.  It looks like the article was in
turn based on a press release.

The Swedish phone company says it will improve service to residential
subscribers.  Faults are to be fixed within one day.  Repair visits
are to be scheduled to the nearest hour; if the craftsperson doesn't
show up during the scheduled hour, the subscriber's line charge for 3
months is rebated (SEK 142, or about US$21).  Broken coin phones are
to be fixed within one day.  At large airports and train stations,
coin phones are to be fixed within 3 hours, and calls are to be free
when the coin boxes are full.  I'll believe all this when/if I see it.

Another new service is detailed call billing for subscribers connected
to AXE offices.  This will only be available for international calls,
and will of course cost extra.  At present, phone bills simply give
the total number of units per quarter, and the line charge.

An exception is bills for mobile phones; these show each number
dialed.  Many subscribers object to this for privacy reasons, so the
billing for mobile calls is to be changed to a single figure for all
calls.  Surprisingly, it is legal in Sweden to listen to mobile calls,
including cellular calls.  Scanners for the appropriate frequencies
are available.

Howard Gayle TN/ETX/T/BG Ericsson Telecom AB S-126
25 Stockholm Sweden [e-mail] uunet!ericsson.se!howard Phone:
[phone] FAX : [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 11:32:04 -0500
From: George Goble <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE & GTE-Mobilnet (two different companies)

In Article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>As an aside, I should point out that GTE Mobilnet (the wireline
>cellular provider in the Bay Area) is quite an excellent operation. The
>coverage is good, the service reliable, the people responsive. Calls
>complete in about 2 seconds (as opposed to about 20 seconds for PacTel
>Cellular in the LA area). GTE Mobilnet offers superior subscription
>plans to Cellular One (the Bay Area non-wireline system owned primarily
>by Pacific Telesis) and has been first with all of the GeeWhiz features
>like a big area, follow-me roaming, etc. We have all theorized that it
>must be some other GTE, since GTE California is just the
>opposite--running the worst phone company I have ever seen.

I whole heartedly second this!  Purdue (W. Lafayette, IN) has GTE for
the landline system, and GTE-Mobilnet for the wireline (B) cellular
carrier.  Over the years, we have experienced many of the
"GTE-Bashing" scenarios for the landline part of the operation..  Much
of it is releated to the people and their attitudes.  There was even a
home football game, where some students hauled a large bed-sheet sign
around the infield track which read "GTE SUCKS", the police didn't get
it confiscated until it made it most of the way around (this may have
been intentional??).  It drew a standing ovation from BOTH sides I
heard (I did not attend this game).

GTE-Mobilnet, seems to bear no relation to the GTE-landine folks, they
are a complete separate division, reporting to a common parent.  The
Mobilnet employees really give a damn about the quality of their
service.  I know several of the engineers/techs at the Indy MTSO
(switch) which serves most of the center 1/3 of IN.  I often give them
signal reports (we are 60Mi north of Indy), reports of channels
flaking out and other misc problems.  If I find a flakey channel, they
will down it immediately.  They have been several times when the Indy
people have gotten other cellular carriers to fix non-GTE follow me
roaming problems (Bell South Mobility in Miami).  Once I was talking
to a GTE- Mobilnet engineer at the local cellsite (via a landline to a
wall phone in the cell site), there was this horrible buzz (60 Hz hum
as if one side of the landline is grounded), and they replied, "Yea,
this phone has been this way since it was installed (3 months ago), we
cannot get GTE to make our phones work!"

Other bits and pieces of conversations with GTE Mobilnet have shown
that they have much the same (or worse) problems with "GTE" that you
and I run into.

Other tidbits about Mobilnet: They offer a huge "local" calling area
(air time only).. which is most of 317 area + some 219 & 812 areas..
You call "219-NXX-YYYY" (no 1+ or 0+) (I am in 317 NPA) to make a
"local" call to their areas in 219. They use Motorola switch and RF
equipment (the best). works well with portables in buildings 8Mi away.
They carefully balance transmit power with receiver patterns.. so as
you approach the service area, you start to "hear" the cell (in
service lite) real close (mile or two) of where the cell site can year
you.  Ameritech and others, blindly turn up the cell xmit power,
"blanketing" the area, and have a zone of 20-25 miles, were your
mobile will "see" good service, but you still cannot send or receive
calls, since the cellsite cannot hear you.  I have heard it said, that
competing carriers have power wars so the cell phones which are not
programmed for one carrier only will "lock on" to the strongest paging
channel.  GTE Mobilnet does not do this.  Mobilnet also uses "Bognar
(sp?)"  antennas, which even on the same tower, and 20' lower than the
competition, still provide much better building penetration and less
multipath problems then the competition. Their voice-mail is even
"free" (air time only) as is the follow-me roaming (free meaning no
flat monthly fee here)

Geo. Goble, Purdue Univ Engineering Computer network.  [e-mail]


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

Date: Wed, 20 Sep 89 11:49:24 MST
From: Shamim Zvonko Mohamed <[e-mail]>
Subject: STD/ISD in Commonwealth Countries

In India the term for long distance is indeed STD. I'm not sure about
ISD, though. I may as well take this opportunity for some
reminiscences...  the phone system is, of course, a government
monopoly under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. They handle all
phone lines, trunks, telex, microwave links, etc.

Ah, the telephone service! Those memories... some areas in New Delhi
(where I grew up) have a waiting list of 10 years for a 'phone
connection.  No DTMF dialing here, almost all the exchanges are
mechanical. (About 5 years ago a digital switch was introduced on a
trial basis - worked quite well, from what I remember.) In the summer
after almost every rainstorm thousands (I'm not exaggerating!) would
be knocked out.

One of my childhood memories is being taken to a crossbar exchange by
my father (he used to be in the telecom field and had a few cronies in
the Post and Telegraphs Department) and watching/listening to those
things. I was about 8 at the time and can't really remember the
details, though. :-(

My grandfather's phone was even more interesting - it was on a rural
exchange and had an operator that would complete calls by plugging
jacks on a board (don't know the jargon for this). The exchange itself
was about 6 miles away and every summer the line would be destroyed by
the monsoon. (This was about 5 years ago)

STD was introduced about 10 years ago, I think, and was more expensive
than the regular operator-assisted "trunk call." (To make one of those
you had to call a number and book the call at some priority, with the
cost increasing geometrically with higher priorities... it would often
be 4-6 hours for the call to go through at the affordable priorities)
The trunk call may still be cheaper than an STD call. The city codes
for STD calls are of variable length - for instance New Delhi is 11
but smaller towns have upto 4 digits.

Caveat: All of the above information is at least 3 years old.

Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,allegra,cmcl2..}!arizona!sham / [e-mail]

  "Take this cross and garlic; here's a Mezuzah if he's Jewish; a page of the
    Koran if he's a Muslim; and if he's a Zen Buddhist, you're on your own."

[Moderator's Note: 'STD' means Subscriber Trunk Dialing, for those who did
not know this abbreviation. It is a common enough phrase in some countries
which essentially means 'long distance' as we think of it here in the United
States. I might add to the above report, calling DA in India is quite a
chore at times also. I've been on 15 minutes to get a single number.  PT]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Direct Inward Dialing
Date: 21 Sep 89 04:51:03 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I'm interested in building a widget to automatically route incoming
calls much as a PABX does - in this case, to a bunch of metering
recorders.  What I'd like to do is have one (or a few) lines which look
to the outside world like a bunch of separate phone numbers, and have
the TelCo signal me what number was actually dialed.

I am told that this is what is known as Direct Inward Dialing - DID for
short.  Is that right?  I'd appreciate a brief explanation of how it works,
or even better, a pointer to a Bell PUB or other specification.  A quick
literature search in our local engineering library didn't find anything.

Thanx!
    - Brian

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

Date:     Thu, 21 Sep 89 1:06:31 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Hello Direct Catalog

The Fall, 1989 issue of the 'Hello Direct' catalog appeared in my
mailbox a few days ago. I can't stress enough that this is 'must
reading' for everyone interested in telephone equipment, supplies, and
just plain gimmicks.

These 48 page catalogs are published four times a year, and make
fascinating reading even if you do not order anything; but frankly, it
is pretty hard to resist getting something.

Their prices are a bit steep for some items, but everything appears to
be top quality: no discount electronics, etc.

To get a copy: 1-800-444-3556   aka 1-800-HI-HELLO

From outside the USA, call 408-972-1990.  FAX to 408-972-8155.

Hello Direct
140 Great Oaks Blvd.
San Jose, CA 95119  USA

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #392
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 21 Sep 89 23:08:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #393
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Sep 89 00:00:42 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 393

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Urgent: Hurricane Wreaks Havoc (TELECOM Moderator)
    STD/ISD in Commonwealth Countries (Laura Halliday)
    Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
    'Enterprise' Numbers? (Edward Vielmetti)
    How Do I Reach The Inward Operator? (Holly Aaron)
    Australian Broadcast Call Signs (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx) (Danny Wilson)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB) (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Area Code Splits (was: Splits of NNX?) (Carl Moore)
    Re: 800 Number Prefix Allocation (Larry Krone)
    Re: International 800 Service? (Ronald vd Pol)
    Re: Ancient Equipment Still in Service (Larry Campbell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 21 Sep 89 22:25:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Urgent: Hurricane Wreaks Havoc

Not only has the hurricane wreaked havoc in Puerto Rico and caused millions
of dollars in damage, but it has caused emotional havoc in the lives of
Americans with relatives and friends in Puerto Rico as well.

I received a sad note today in my mail at Chinet from James J. Steiner,
asking for information on a rush basis from the folks who read the Digest,
and I said I would pass his request along.

He has a new employee working in his office who came from Puerto Rico just
three weeks ago, apparently here on the mainland for the first time in his
life. And now after such a short time in a new and strange place, this
poor fellow is faced with the news that his homeland has been ransacked
and virtually decimated.

The phone service to PR is still erratic at best. Apparently a special
800 number has been established by the long distance carriers as a special
humanitarian effort to folks who need to establish contact with friends
and family there.

       ** Does anyone have the number?  Can you locate it? **

Also, there are a couple numbers in New York where relief efforts are
underway for Puerto Rico. What are those numbers?

Send email on a rush basis if possible:  [e-mail]

He thanks you, and so do I. No response to the Digest is needed unless you
feel posting the number here is merited.

For next: As I write this, the word is the hurricane is definitly expected
to hit the Carolinas in the early morning hours Friday. The television on
Thursday night said that it is almost inevitable at this point that there
will be extensive, very horrible damage along the east coast.

I hope those of you in the affected area will be able to maintain your
communication links, and that you will keep TELECOM readers posted on
emergency restoration efforts going on. My understanding is that many
residents are voluntarily evacuating the area; and that the telcos, among
other vital services, are gearing up to repair what they assume will be
quite extensive damage, if the storm hits as predicted, and it is now
a ninety five percent certainty that it will.

Patrick Townson

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

Date: 21 Sep 89  8:56 -0700
From: laura halliday <[e-mail]>
Subject: STD/ISD in Commonwealth Countries


Here in Canada, our phone system is (almost) a clone of the American system.
We even have the same country code.

We don't say STD and ISD - we used to say DDD (Direct Distance Dialling),
but now the phone book (Vancouver, B.C., anyway) just talks about 1+,
0+ and International calls.

With the exception of Bell Canada in Ontario, Quebec and parts of the Arctic,
each province has its own phone company. Some are private (e.g. B.C. Tel),
while some are government-run, like Alberta Government Telephones. The
phone companies cooperate to provide long distance service within Canada
through Telecom Canada, while overseas access is through Teleglobe Canada.
There are a few independent phone companies, in cities like Prince Rupert,
B.C. and Edmonton, Alberta.

We don't have any choice on long distance carriers, though some companies are
trying to change that. The Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC), our analog of the FCC, flatly refuses such requests.

Phone costs here in B.C. are moderate compared to American ones. Connecting
a line costs $23.50 (all costs are in Canadian dollars; the exchange rate is
currently about $C1.00 = $US0.85), while the monthly charge for a line in
Greater Vancouver is about $14.00. Long distance within Canada is pricey;
Vancouver to Toronto during the day is $0.68 a minute, while Vancouver to
New York is $0.63 a minute. I never did figure that one out...Call setup time
is good, and line quality is usually good. Service is fairly quick - you may
have to wait a week for your phone to be connected if it's a busy time of
the month. We have the option of buying our own phones, or renting them
from the phone company. Custom calling is available in areas with electronic
switching, and costs (and works) about the same as in the U.S.

B.C. Tel have just introduced a long distance deal, with the poetic name
`Between Friends', where you pay a fixed monthly rate for half an hour of
long distance, then get a discount on further long distance. It's good deal
if you make a lot of long distance calls sufficiently far away, since the
additional minutes cost you $0.18 within B.C., and $0.33 for the rest of
Canada and the U.S.

 ...laura

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

From: Sharon Lynne Fisher <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking
Date: 21 Sep 89 14:50:58 GMT



I moved a couple of months back, and I've had a weird problem since then.  I
get lots of wrong numbers.  Some of them are the normal "Is Joe there?" and
I say no and the person goes away.  But the vast majority of them have no
voice at all.  I pick up the phone, hear a faint 'clickclickclick' in the
background, and nothing happens, so I hang up.  On my answering machine,
I don't get any message either; just those faint sounds.  I thought perhaps
it was people calling me from a computer, but then I'd hear a modem tone,
wouldn't I?  Incidentally, I get these calls both long-distance and local.
Anybody have any idea what's going on?

If you're going to respond by mail, please reply to
[e-mail] rather than to the address on this header. Thanks.

"Goldfish are quiet, under the water.
Girls who keep goldfish are often quite noisy."
                          -- The Jazz Butcher

[Moderator's Note: But we prefer replies here, so if you write Sharon, please
copy the Digest. Thanks.   PT]

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

From: Edward Vielmetti <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'Enterprise' Numbers?
Date: 21 Sep 89 23:49:35 GMT
Reply-To: Edward Vielmetti <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor


What's the story on those (rare) numbers that I see listed in the
phone book as something like this:

Foonly Enterprises        call Operator and ask for
                Enterprise 2368

If I had to guess it was a long-ago version of the 800 number
scheme, but it would be nice to get some more info.

Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan Math dept.

[Moderator's Note: 'Enterprise' a/k/a/ 'Zenith' numbers were an early version
of automatic reverse charge calling, serving the same function as 800 numbers
do today. When you dialed your operator and asked for Enterprise xxxx, the
operator consulted first her own records, and if necessary, the Rate and
Route people. Like many 800 numbers on non-dedicated lines, Enterprise numbers
translated to some regular number where the subscriber had authorized
automatic acceptance of collect calls. Like 800 numbers, not all Enterprise
numbers were valid in all places. Some were local only, some were long
distance only, or some other combination. All Enterprise calls had to be
placed manually by dialing the operator and asking for the number. Some
Enterprise numbers were non-pub, just like some 800 numbers, and were only
used internally by the subscriber's employees. If it appeared in the phone
book, a list of acceptable calling points was included.

Enterprise service is no longer offered, but is grandfathered to subscribers
who want to keep it for some reason instead of 800 service.   PT]

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

From: Holly Aaron <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Sep 89 03:13:35 GMT
Reply-To: Holly Aaron <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Do I Reach the Inward Operator?
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


I've wondered for quite a while how does one get the inward in another
country or city for example.  I hear only operators can do that with
special keys.  How those that work.  Do they just type a number or
is is more complicated.

[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: You don't get Inward. Only the operators get it. There
are no 'special keys' involved, but rather, special dialing codes which
the equipment will accept when dialed by an operator. Inward is generally
the area code plus another three digit number. The operators use it to
converse with their counterpart in another city, for assistance in making
a connection or verifying that a number is engaged, or troubled.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 05:30:03 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Australian Broadcast Call Signs

They are all under VK (i.e., the FM station 4GGG on Australia's gold
coast has a call sign of VK4GGG).  The number indicates (mostly)
which state the station is in (1=Tasmania <I think>, 2=New South
Wales, 3=Victoria, 4=Queensland, and I don't know the rest :>)

Since they're all VK callsigns, the VK becomes "silent."  New Zealand
broadcast stations use a similar convention: the "ZL" becomes silent,
and the number indicates location (1=North Island, 2=South Island).

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

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

From: Danny Wilson <idacom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 15 Sep 89 00:33:34 GMT
Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Roy Smith) writes:
> > Other types of radio services use both W and K, depending.

> Don't airplanes use N prefixes for their call signs?

Airplane registration numbers use N in the United States only. This
is their national code. Canadian (and German, Japanese) etc. all
have different prefixes.


Danny Wilson
IDACOM Electronics        [e-mail]
Edmonton, Alberta        {att, watmath, ubc-cs}!alberta!idacom!danny
C A N A D A

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB)
Date: 22 Sep 89 01:41:47 GMT
Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University, Computer Science Dept.


The Moderator Writes:
>                                   Some are more obscure: the old WEFM here
>in Chicago was named for Edward F. McCormick, president of the Zenith Radio
>Corporation...

Naming stations for people is rather common.  KRHM-FM (which no longer exists)
in Los Angeles was named for the owners:  Ruth and Harry Mazlish.

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date:     Thu, 21 Sep 89 9:09:57 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Area Code Splits (was: Splits of NNX?)

References to 804 in the late sixties?  Unfortunately, I have had
non-Telecom cases where I react "I heard or read that somewhere" and
can no longer pin down where "somewhere" was.  Around 1976 or so, I
was looking at a 1972 Williamsburg (Va.) phone book, already knowing
that Virginia had areas 703 and 804, when I discovered that it said to
dial 1+7D for long-distance within Virginia!  All of Virginia was
703-NNX when that phone book went to press, and there is a Washington
Post article announcing the new area code 804.

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

From: Larry Krone <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Number Prefix Allocation
Date: 21 Sep 89 23:37:21 GMT
Reply-To: Larry Krone <[e-mail]>
Organization: IntelliGenetics Inc., Mtn. View, Ca.


Could somebody post the current 800 prefix assignments to this group
(or email them to me)....

Thanx,

Larry


[Moderator's Note: It has been awhile since we ran that chart of prefix
allocations. I would run it again, but it is probably out of date. Does
anyone have a more recent version than from early this year?   PT]

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

From: Ronald vd Pol <mcvax!cs.vu.nl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Service?
Date: 21 Sep 89 09:27:26 GMT
Organization: V.U. Informatica, Amsterdam, the Netherlands


[e-mail] (Brian Jay Gould) writes:

>Is there an equivalent to 800 service internationally.  Specifically,
>Japan, Hong Kong and Holland.
                       ^^^^^
Yes.

A Dutch business can buy a special telephone number in some foreign
countries (including the USA). This phone number has a special prefix
(see below). When anyone in the foreign country wants to phone the
Dutch business, he/she phones this special number and the Dutch business
will be billed (sometimes the caller pays the LOCAL call tariff, but
generally its free). So when a Dutch business wants people from eg UK, USA
and Finland to be able to phone them for free, the business must
explicitely buy phone numbers in the UK, USA and Finland and all three
numbers are different.

I think this holds for other countries too (eg USA has this option too).

country        prefix

Belgium          11
Danmark        0430
Germany        0130
Finland        9800
France        1905
Norway         050
UK        0800
USA        1800
Switserland     046
Sweden         020

        Ronald van der Pol  <[e-mail]>
These are the days of miracle and wonder, this is a long distance call....


From: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Subject: Re: Ancient Equipment Still in Service
Date: 21 Sep 89 01:42:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.


Eight years ago, I spent a few nights in a hotel in Gort, Ireland.  Gort was
so small that ("How... small... was it?") the telephone number of the hotel
was 7.  That's not a typo; the number was 7.  (OK, they did have a second
line, and that number was 27.)

One night, I returned to the hotel about 1 AM and found it locked.  The town
wasn't too small to have an all-night donut shop crowded with policemen;
they told me to go to the phone booth down the street and tell the operator
to ring up the hotel manager at home.

I went to the phone booth and encountered -- a hand-cranked telephone!  With
no dial!  Just like you see in silent movies!  I had no idea how to work the
thing -- the instructions were completely obliterated by graffiti -- and it
took several experiments to discover that FIRST you turn the crank and THEN
you pick up the earpiece.  (I was doing it backwards.)

A few minutes after the operator rang him up for me, the hotel manager drove
up, looking a bit rumpled, and let me in.

Do I win the prize for Most Ancient Telephone Equipment Actually Observed
in Regular Operation This Decade?

Larry Campbell                          The Boston Software Works, Inc.
[e-mail]                        120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell                   Boston, MA 02146

[Moderator's Note: And you sir, win a lifetime subscription to TELECOM Digest.
Lucky you!  Thanks for a humorous close to this issue of the Digest. In
the Digest second edition for Friday, issued about 1:00 AM CDT, a detailed
discussion of telex, TWX, clock service and Western Union in general by
Larry Lippman and others.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #393
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 22 Sep 89 0:11:49 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #394
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Sep 89 01:00:41 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 394

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some Comments on TWX, Telex and WU Time Service (Larry Lippman)
    Re: The 'Public Telegraph Office' (Nickolas Landsberg)
    Re: Speaking of Western Union (Mark H. Weber)
    Telegrams Revisited (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Re: Some Comments on the GTE "Problem" In California (Scott Hazen Mueller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Some Comments on TWX, Telex and WU Time Service
Date: 21 Sep 89 20:17:25 EDT (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> the TELECOM Moderator
writes:
> There were only minor differences between Telex and TWX. The biggest
> difference was that the former was always run by Western Union, while
> the latter was run by the Bell System for a number of years. TWX
> literally meant "<T>ype<W>riter e<X>change", and it was Bell's answer
> to competition from Western Union.

    The sequence of events as implied from the above is not correct.
AT&T TWX service PRECEDED Western Union Telex service by approximately
25 years.  More about this in a moment.

> There were 'three row' and 'four
> row' machines, meaning the number of keys on the keyboard and how they
> were laid out. The 'three row' machines were simply part of the
> regular phone network; that is, they could dial out and talk to
> another TWX also connected on regular phone lines.

    I would urge a bit of caution in identifying teletypewriters as
"three row" or "four row" devices; the preferred method should be 5-level
(Baudot) or 8-level (ASCII).  While the implication may be that 3-row
are 5-level Baudot devices, and that 4-row are 8-level ASCII devices, this
is not strictly true.  French and German 5-level Baudot teletypewriters
are 4-row devices, with some of these 4-row German machines made by
Siemens being common in the U.S.

    TWX service was started by AT&T in 1931 using 5-level (i.e., Baudot)
teletype machines.  TWX was totally manual service with the connection
established by an AT&T TWX "operator" until 1962 when dial switching was
installed.  Also, until this time only 60 wpm 5-level teletype apparatus
could be utilized on the TWX network.  Simultaneously with the introduction
of dial connection service, the TWX network was changed to 100 wpm
(110 baud) 8-level (ASCII) to take advantage of newer teletypewriter
apparatus, such as the Teletype Corp. Type 33 and Type 35.  For a short
period of time both 5-level and 8-level apparatus co-existed on the TWX
network using 5-level <--> 8-level translators, but the 5-level apparatus
was phased out by 1964.

    TWX switching was originally handled by regular WECO #5 crossbar
offices which had some separate line and trunk groups for TWX service.
The behavior of a dial-up TWX line is virtually identical to that of
a regular telephone line.  It was a voice-grade line which used a 103-type
data set.

    Most Telex service operating on leased lines utilize a totally
DC circuit (i.e., there was no modem) from the subscriber location to
the central office.  The DC circuit discipline is usually either neutral
or polar, depending upon service area and circuit length.  Once in the
central office, however, the DC circuit is often converted to 43-type
telegraph carrier.  Modems have been used with leased lines on Telex
service, but they are generally the exception rather than the rule.

    The "original" Western Union Telex system was installed in the
U.S. in 1957; it actually obtained world-wide access through the Canadian
Telex system which was installed in 1956.  All of the message switching
apparatus used in the original Western Union Telex system was manufactured
by a German vendor, Siemens-Halske, who has produced much of the Telex
station and message switching apparatus used elsewhere in the world.
Western Union later established its own direct Telex links to other
countries on a world-wide basis, and no longer routed messages through
the Canadian access point of Montreal.

    At some point in time - but I am not certain when or of the exact
details - Western Union split its operation into two separate companies:
"Western Union" (WU) for all domestic U.S. Telex, TWX and other services,
and "Western Union International" (WUI) for all communications and services
NOT domestic to the U.S.  I don't believe that the WU-WUI split was exactly
voluntary on their part; I believe there were some regulatory, legal and
financial legal issues involved.

    WUI has been owned by MCI for several years.  The relationship
between WU and WUI is somewhat unusual.  If you have WU Telex or TWX
service and send an *international* Telex, you must use an international
carrier such as WUI, RCA, ITT, etc.  You access the international carrier
through your WU terminal, and you may choose the international carrier
on a call by call basis.  So the point is, WU does business with WUI in
the sense that WUI may serve certain WU customers.  However, WUI also
drectly offers Telex service with terminals in the U.S., and to some extent
they compete with WU for basic service.

    Perhaps some telecom reader knows more about the WU and WUI split
and their relationship.

> Today, the Western Union network is but a skeleton of its former self.
> Now most of their messages are handled on dial up terminals connected
> to the public phone network. It has been estimated the TWX/Telex business
> is about fifty percent of what it was a decade ago, if that much.

    Well, that's no surprise.  Cost and improved, alternate transmission
methods such as FAX have substantially supplanted Telex and TWX service.
As an example of cost, in 1976 my organization first subscribed to TWX
service; we bought our own ASR-33 and paid for the monthly TWX service from
WU.  The basic monthly charge at that time (less usage, of course) was
around $ 30.00 per month, which *included* an additional mileage charge
because we were located outside the Buffalo, NY metropolitan area.  By 1985
our basic monthly charge was up to $ 135.00 and our traffic was way down
because of the use of FAX.  Since I wasn't too happy with WU anyways, I
told them to pound salt and we switched to RCA Global Communications for
straight international Telex service using a dedicated dial-up line (i.e.,
we installed a telephone line with a dedicated 300 baud terminal which
RCA calls when they have incoming traffic).  Our Telex traffic is now
99% international; we may have received one domestic message so far
this year.  Even international traffic is going FAX, and our Telex
traffic diminishes every year.  If this keeps up, we may well ax the
Telex service within the next five years.  However, our cable address
is easy to remember (RECOGNIZE NEWYORK, if you're curious :-) ), and we
get some international traffic on the Telex translated from our cable
address instead of from our actual Telex number.

> Then there was the Time Service, a neat thing which Western Union
> offered for over seventy years, until it was discontinued in the
> middle 1960's.  The Time Service provided an important function in the
> days before alternating current was commonly available. For example,
> Chicago didn't have AC electricity until about 1945. Prior to that we
> used DC, or direct current.

    You can't possibly mean 1945, can you?  1915, I can believe;
1945, I can't.

> The sub-master clocks in each building were in turn serviced by the
> master clock in town; usually this was the one in the telegraph
> office. Every hour on the half hour, the master clock in the telegraph
> office would throw current to the sub-masters, yanking them into synch
> as required. And as for the telegraph offices themselves, they were
> serviced twice a day by -- you guessed it -- the Naval Observatory
> Master clock in Our Nation's Capitol, by the same routine.

    The Pacific time zone of the U.S. was not serviced by the Naval
Observatory, but by a distributing clock located at the Mare Island
Navy Yard.

    Until the WU time service was discontinued, the "distributing"
clock at the Naval Observatory and at the Mare Island facility generated
synchronizing pulses for regional WU clocks.  The distributing clocks
sent pulses at two times per day: 1155 to 1200 hrs, and 2155 to 2200 hrs.
Pulses would be sent for five minutes right up to the hour itself.  No
pulse would be sent on the 29th second of each minute, and for the first
four minutes no pulses would be sent on the 55th through 59th second.  On
the 59th minute, and only on the 59th minute, no pulses would be sent on
the 50th through 59th second, with a single pulse at first second of the
hour.

    How's THAT for useless trivia? :-)

    Each day at approximately 1130 hours the distributing clocks
would be corrected based upon the Naval Observatory master clocks,
which were in turn corrected by astronomical observations.

    The overall accuracy of the WU clock system was a few tenths of
a second.  It was no better because of the various relay operate times,
and to a lesser extent because of electrical propagation delays since
electrical signals in long communication cables travel much slower than
the speed of light.

    Of course, all of the above time standard methods are now quite
obsolete and have long been replaced by the use of rubidium and cesium
"atomic" clocks.

> Western Union was a grand old company in its time.

    That's certainly true.  Unfortunately, as far as I know, the
financial future of WU is now rather cloudy.

<> 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?"

[Moderator's Note: We got alternating current in the downtown area around
1915 or so. It was fully implemented in town by around 1925. I suppose we
are technically-oriented enough here that 'three-row' and 'four-row' could
have been replaced with other terms. But those were the terms WU used to
explain the machines to their customers. The WU Directory had a detailed
picture of each type keyboard (three or four row) and the subscriber was
supposed to select the one resembling his model, then read the instructions
associated. There was a section which explained how the one type was to
connect with the other type as well.

Regards clock service, did you know at one point, circa 1930-50, the FCC
required all radio stations to have a Western Union clock on the premises
for accurate time-keeping? And did you know that for about forty years,
the famous beep-tone heard on WGN (720 kc, Chicago) came from the clock
itself? The station ran a wire from the little red light bulb in the clock
to a little device which made the beep; and that was wired right into the
transmitter. For nostalgia purposes, they still give the beep every hour,
but it hasn't been from the clock for over twenty years!   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 09:54:17 EDT
From: Nickolas Landsberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The 'Public Telegraph Office'

Hello Patrick,
    Hope this gets through, have had trouble in the past sending
stuff to you, but it mostly wasn't too terribly important, and, anyway
someone always had a better answer in a day or two than I did.

    In the above mentioned article, you mentioned that the speed
was around 60 baud.  Well, it was actually something called "75-speed"
which indicated a maximum speed of 75 WPM, transmitted in 5-level
"baudot" encoding.  After doing all the mumbo-jumbo af adding start/stop
bits, etc. this translates to an equivalent bits-per-second of 56.83
or thereabouts.  A system I worked on once had to monitor transmissions
from a telco switch which also used this.  An interesting sidelight is
that they could transmit the full upper-case character set, the numerics
and a goodly supply of punctuation using just 5 bits.  (Actually, they
used a "switch" character to flip-flop between meanings of particular
bit patterns.  The "alternate" set would continue to be used until
the "switch" character was seen again.)

Nick Landsberg

P.S.  I thoroughly enjoy the TELECOM Digest.  Thanks for your efforts!

[Moderator's Note: Blush. Thank you. If you have trouble getting the mail
through in the future, try one of these alternate addresses, all of which
terminate here at the Digest in Evanston, IL:
                    [e-mail]
                    [e-mail]
                    attmail!ptownson (slower, but it gets here)
                    [e-mail]                    PT]

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

From: "Mark H. Weber" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Western Union
Date: 21 Sep 89 18:32:57 GMT
Reply-To: "Mark H. Weber" <gvlf1-c![e-mail]>
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa

The instructions for registering in the UUCP  ".US"  domain indicate that
city codes assigned are Western Unions' "City Codes". Is there a reference
available for these codes, or a number to call to find out what the city
code is for a particular city? I called my local Western Union office, but
the operator had no idea what a "city code" was.

  Mark H. Weber ( [e-mail] [128.126.220.102]  or
  ...!psuvax1!burdvax!gvlv2!markw   or ...!uunet!lgnp1!gvlv2!markw )
  Unisys - Great Valley Laboratories  Paoli, PA  19301  [phone]

[Moderator's Note: City Codes are three letter mnemonics unique to each
city, such as CHI STL NYC DFW. I don't know them all, but that is the idea.
It is how telegrams were routed long ago.   PT]
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 89 21:14:35 EDT
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telegrams Revisited
Organization: Columbia University

What is the modern distinction between a telegram and a mailgram?  I've
received several telegrams over the past years, and as one poster also
confirmed, they usually come as telephone calls from WU followed my a
mailgram a few days later.

Are traditional paper "telegrams" still used?  (i.e., those that come by
WU messenger and say "telegram" on the top, rather than coming by the
post office)

Besides, if WU is going to charge you $12.50 to make a telephone call,
you might as well just make it yourself!


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.      "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]        to be seriously considered as a means of
gmw1@cunixc (bitnet)               communication. The device is inherently of
[e-mail]          no value to us."
WUI:650-117-9118                     - Western Union internal memo, 1877

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

Date: 21 Sep 89 10:30:50 PDT (Thu)
From: Scott Hazen Mueller <zorch.SF-Bay.ORG![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Comments On The GTE "Problem" in California
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix

John Higdon wrote:
|Fortunately, I have never seen any of that. But GTE in California used
|theirs as a matter of routine. A favorite trick of the pea-brains in
|Los Gatos was to install subscriber carrier and then at some future
|time turn off the service of the metallic subscriber (battery and all).
|After some indeterminate amount of time, the nicad in the SC unit would
|become weak and the carrier subscriber's service would just fade away.
|This actually happened to me. You should have heard me trying to
|explain this to some 611 droid. You should have seen how long it took
|them to fix it. After several days I rigged up an outboard supply and
|got my service back. That fix would be there to this day if they hadn't
|finally added more cable to the area and converted my line to metallic.
|And this was business service!

I'm not picking on John, really I'm not; his was just a good example.  I
read the the words, but I'm seriously lacking some referents.  For instance,
"subscriber carrier"?  The description implies a <something> generator on
John's premises, which was powered from the phone system, and which he
added a power supply to when GTE switched it off.  What is it, and why is
it bad, and why is their carrier on a phone line anyway?  I though that it
was DC with pure AM transmission?  Also, his line was "converted to metallic"?
What was it before it was metallic - a piece of string with two tin cans?

I find Telecom Digest very informative, and I like the stories about old
phone equipment and telco history, when I can understand them.  I would love
to see on occasional tutorial article to clarify some of these things.


Scott Hazen Mueller| [e-mail] (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott
685 Balfour Drive  | [phone]   |Mail to [e-mail]
San Jose, CA 95111 |No room for quote.|for sci.physics.fusion digests via email

[Moderator's Note: Actually, Scott has an interesting idea. Would any of
you be interested in writing part of a tutorial, something we might call
"TELECOM Digest Guide to How Telephones Work" or similar? Maybe it could
be a five or six part tutorial, with a section devoted to crossbar; a
section devoted to ESS; a section on the workings of the instrument itself;
a section on cellular; one for historic information, etc. They would be
kept in the archives and accessible on request. Another part might be
"Most Common Questions and Answers from the Digest", which would be sent
out to all new subscribers automatically. Write me personally with your
ideas on this.   '[e-mail]'.      PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #394
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 22 Sep 89 20:07:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #395
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Sep 89 21:00:08 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 395

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Phone Service During Hugo (Dave Fiske)
    Hurricane Hits SC (Carl Moore)
    Answering Device With Continuous Play and Hangup Features (Douglas Ertz)
    Telephone History: For Sale? (Kent Borg)
    Area Code 510 Press Release From Pac*Bell (Linc Madison)
    Local Service From 215 Area (Carl Moore)
    Long Distance Access Numbers Info Needed (Alden Jackson)
    Who Controls the 800-838 Prefix? (Ken Levitt)
    Dialtone Frequencies (Gabe Wiener)
    Sources for AT&T System 85 Maintenance (John Gruber)
    ATT Digital / System 85 (Mike Bunnell)
    TELECOM Archives (George Wang)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Service During Hugo
Date: 22 Sep 89 19:12:11 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


Although my mother's residence is in the city of Charleston, they fled
to Asheville NC, so I don't have any real good stories (though, I'm
glad they did leave).

I had tried to call them early last evening, with limited success.
Using AT&T resulted in an intercept recording that mentioned the
hurricane.  Using Sprint, I got either a reorder tone, a ring which was
answered with a recording that "All circuits are busy...", or a
completed call.  My family had their answering machine on, however, so
I didn't actually make contact until they called upon arrival in
Asheville.

I'm sure the problem was just a deluge of other calls to relatives,
which tied up the circuits.  Around 1 AM this morning, after the eye of
the hurricane had passed through, I dialed the Charleston number, and
got a ring, but no answering machine.  Presumably the power was out.
As far as I could tell, the phones were operating.

During the night, Cable News Network spoke to people over normal phone
lines, as well as cellular.  Around 2 AM, they spoke (by phone) to
a woman who was working at the Southern Bell office in downtown Charleston.
She mentioned that, with the exception of two barrier islands, all phone
service was still in operation.  She mentioned that this was due to
79% of their lines being underground.

Overall, I think it was a very impressive showing by Southern Bell.

"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:     Fri, 22 Sep 89 9:05:16 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Hurricane Hits SC

I am hearing of many buildings, including City Hall, being leveled
in Charleston.  Perhaps someone wants to write about phone service
to SC?

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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 15:11:29 MDT
From: Douglas Ertz #350 x2589 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Device With Continuous Play and Hangup Features
Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Organization: U S West Advanced Technologies


I am looking for a device that will

     1)     answer a phone call (either by detecting ringing or via
            an RS-232 connection that can be used to send commands to the
            device telling it to go off-hook)

     2)     play a continguous message

     3)     go on-hook when it detects that the caller hangsup the phone
            or a command is sent to it, via the RS-232 mentioned earlier,
            telling it to go on-hook.

The message being played back is a tone, so some type of box that
genarates tones instead of playing back a message would also do.

The key words here are continguous playback and detects hangup.  I
have talked to a number of manufactures and none seem to provide these
features.

P.S.  This will be used on a tip and ring circuit.

                                        Doug Ertz
                                        [e-mail]
                                        [phone]



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

From: Kent Borg <lloyd!sunfs3![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone History: For Sale?
Date: 21 Sep 89 16:58:37 GMT
Reply-To: Kent Borg <lloyd![e-mail]>
Organization: Camex, Inc., Boston, Mass USA



There have recently been some wonderful articles on the history of
telecommunications: automatic equipment for dialing undertakers, time
from Western Union, etc.  Thank you to all who have written them.
Very nice stuff.

My question is where might I buy an 11-hole Stowger dial phone, or a
Western Union clock?  (Would be sooo much fun to synchronize it to
WWV.  Both the historian and techno-nerd in me start drooling at the
thought.)  How about simply the oldest dial phone which will still
talk to a modern switch, or an even older non-dial phone which will
ring and let me answer?

Must I just go look through the regular antique channels, or are there
better ways?  I might have just acquired an expensive taste...


Kent Borg                "You know me, bright ideas
[e-mail]                 just pop into my head!"
or                            -Mrs Lovett
 ...!husc6!lloyd!kent                (from Stephen Sondheim's "Sweeny Todd")

[Moderator's Note: Well, you can't purchase my two Western Union clocks,
one of which hangs on the wall here in my computer room right in front of
me; despite a terminal which tells me the time, a system command which does
the same, my wristwatch, a digital clock in a little stand, and one of those
Radio Shack Weather/WWV receivers, I still prefer the big telegraph clock
the best. I attached a little doorbell button and a piece of wire up
to it and a nine volt battery hidden inside the case. To synch it, I listen
to WWV, and press the doorbell switch at the appropriate time. PT]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 04:00:47 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code 510 Press Release From Pac*Bell

I've seen allusions to it in a couple of articles, but missed any
direct discussion...

Pacific Bell recently announced (in my phone bill which came today)
that Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Oakland, CA, and vicinity)
will be split from the rest of Area Code 415 (San Francisco &vic.)
on October 7, 1991, into Area Code 510.

Does anyone know why we get 510, when there are still N0X/N1N codes
available (not many, but still 909 and 917 off the top of my head)?
Also, any particular reason for starting with an old Western Union
code?  Now that we've unleashed the great flood of possible area
codes, will there be a rush to split more NPA's?  I looked through
an atlas a while back and saw several areas that were pushing the
population figures at which splits seem to take place.

For anyone interested, here follows the text of Pac*Bell's note:

                    415 area code SPLIT


Beginning October 7, 1991, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties will have
a new Area Code, 510.  San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin and parts of
Santa Clara County, as well as the islands in San Francisco Bay will
retain the 415 Area Code.  An easy way to remember this change is to
think of San Francisco Bay as the Area Code boundary.

The new Area Code is necessary to provide phone numbers for new
customers in this expanding area.

If your business is located in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties,
remember only the Area Code will change.  Your 7-digit local telephone
number will remain the same as will your local toll-free calling areas.

Our change of Area Code may affect the operation of some of your
programmed telephone equipment.  In particular, automatic dialing
devices, speed calling services, alarms and mobile phones may need to
be reprogrammed.  Your equipment vendor will be able to advise you,
whether your telephone equipment needs to be reprogrammed.

As you order printed materials, such as new letterhead, advertising,
and business cards, please keep the October 7, 1991, change in mind.
We will send you another reminder as the 1991 date draws near.

-- Linc Madison    =    [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: 909 and 917 are available, and I suppose 706, 903
and 905 will be also once they are no longer needed to hack our way to Mexico
from non-IDDD exchanges. But its a funny thing about 909: Telenet has used
that for their own administrative 'area code' for many years on their network
and I've a hunch Bellcore will take sympathy and make it the last one to
be put in service elsewhere. My guess is 917 will go, along with a couple
more of the XX0 codes first. By then, maybe 706, 903 and 905 will be open,
etc. I think 210 and 310 are also valid choices from Bellcore, no?  Does
anyone remember when AT&T used to advertise their DDD service in its early
days by showing a telephone with the number 310-555-2368 on the dial?  PT]

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

Date:     Fri, 22 Sep 89 9:18:16 EDT
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Local Service From 215 Area

I have written of area code being required for local calls from Pa.
to Del. (not required the other way around, though).  There is some
local service between NJ and Pa. starting around the Trenton area
and proceeding north along the Delaware River, and it involves parts
of areas 609 and 201.  There is no local service between 215 area
and Md.; notice that only 255 Kemblesville and 932 Oxford touch Md.
I know of two cases where service across the 215/717 border in Pa.
is local: between 215-593 Atglen and 717-442 Gap, and between 215-932
Oxford and 717-529 Kirkwood.

With the recent exception of Delaware, I don't know of any duplications
between such local prefixes outside 215 and the 215-area prefixes.
The local calls from 201 into 215 should now require the area code
(this was noted by someone else in this digest, to provide some relief
in 201 while awaiting the 201/908 split there).

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

From: Alden Jackson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Access Numbers Info Needed
Date: 22 Sep 89 14:12:50 GMT
Reply-To: Alden Jackson <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Delaware


Does anyone out there have a list of the access (102xx) codes for the
various long distance companies?  Are these numbers standard all over
the country?  If not, I am served by Diamond State Telephone (302).
Please respond via email.  Thanks.

alden

PS:  Does anyone know whether AT&T or MCI's "Reach Out America" type
plan is cheaper for calling East Coast to West Coast after 10pm?

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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 13:39:14 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who Controls the 800-838 Prefix?


In an earlier article someone indicated that different long distance
carriers control different 800 prefixes.

I would like to know who controls 800-838.

Please respond direct to me unless you would like to publish the entire list.


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

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

From: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialtone Frequencies
Reply-To: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 20:05:16 GMT

Does anyone know when the common telephone dialtone (i.e. 350Hz and 440Hz
played together) was adopted?


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.      "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]              to be seriously considered as a means of
[e-mail]        communication. The device is inherently of
[e-mail]          no value to us."

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

Date:  Fri, 22 Sep 89 15:01:49 -0400
From: John Gruber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sources for AT&T System 85 Maintenance


We currently have an AT&T System 85. I am interested in determining
alternative sources of maintenance for this equipment, or, at least,
for our digital and hybrid phones. Do any of you have any suggestions?

B.G.S.U. is in Northwest Ohio.

Thanks.

John Gruber  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 20:42 EDT
From: NUTSY FAGEN <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT Digital / System 85

        Well, I finally decided to throw you guys a question.  Several
years ago, my college installed a new ATT phone system (System 85, I
believe) We're talking digital links, fiber optics, microwave link to
a 'satellite' building, etc.

        I'm wondering if this (or other) digital systems have been
prone to any 'boo-boos'.  I remember last year, we had several days of
chaotic telephone service (on campus).  Things like dialing 9 and
getting a high pitch blast in your ear, and dialing on-campus numbers
only to end up listening to another conversation (but they couldn't
here you :).  This stopped for a while, then came back, and finally it
seems they got the problem fixed.  (this happened with both the
digital and analog sets used on campus).

        So, just wondering if anyone else had had prior experience like this,
and if it was more or less liking to happen wth the 'old fashioned' systems
then with todays digital switching, electronic wonders.
        Thanks!

(I ain't got no footer thingy...)
Mike Bunnell
MJB8949@ritvax, RIT

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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 10:36:38 -0500
From: "G. Wang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Archives


In a recent message concerning Patrick's suggestion of having
telephone tutorials (well, actually it was some other person who
suggested it but PT also agreed...), PT mentioned that an archive
exists for ol telecom articles, tutorials, etc... Where is this site?
Is this FTPable by internet?  If so, what directories are these
articles contained in?

Thanks
George Wang
University of Illinois
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Ah, another chance to toot my horn. The TELECOM Archives
are indeed reached by anonymous ftp from any internet site permitting this
activity. Here is how to do it:

       ftp cs.bu.edu    (site is a/k/a its old name: bu-cs.bu.edu)
       login anonymous, give some non-null password
       cd telecom-archives, then 'ls' to view the contents.
       Continue your session according to ftp routine.

You will find almost every issue of the Digest from its beginning in August,
1981 through the present time. The last forty or fifty issues are in the
file called 'telecom-recent', earlier issues are in files labled like this:
                       1989.vol9.iss001-075  (just an example)
which means 1988, volume 9, issues 001 through 075 are stored therein. Due
to severe constraints on storage, all issues except the past year are now
compressed. You will need to be able to decompress them back to normal size
on your system. If you cannot do this, then take along the copy of 'tar'
we left there for you, and read 'READ.THIS.FIRST' and 'READ.ME' for details.
In addition, a number of special articles and reference materials are there
for your review. Help yourself.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #395
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 22 Sep 89 21:08:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #396
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Sep 89 22:05:09 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 396

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Chicago Cubs Trash Illinois Bell (TELECOM Moderator)
    Radio Station Contests (Bernard Mckeever)
    Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations (Joe Talbot)
    Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB) (Kim Greer)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB) (Brent Chapman)
    Re: Area Code Splits (Bob Clements)
    Western Union City Codes (Larry Lippman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 22 Sep 89 18:57:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Chicago Cubs Trash Illinois Bell

With the Chicago Cubs likely appearance in the baseball World Series
this year, the fans are obviously eager to get tickets to the games. A
few days ago, the Cubs management announced that ticket sales would be
handled by Ticketron, and that phone orders would be taken commencing
at 6 PM Friday night. Only several thousand tickets are available to
the public, versus a million or so people in northern Illinois who
would like to attend at least one game.

At 6:00 PM tonight, *thousands* of calls began pouring into the
Ticketron phone lines, where tickets were sold on a first-call,
first-served basis to credit card holders. By 6:01 PM, Illinois Bell
was so saturated with traffic the network almost stopped functioning
completely. Waits of three to five minutes for dial tone were not
uncommon, and call completions were almost as rare.

It has to be the most frustrating thing I can think of to wait five
minutes for a dial tone only to accidentally dial a wrong digit and
have to hang up and (after waiting for new dial tone!) start over. The
next most frustrating thing would be to finally get a dial tone, place
the call and be told by the other end, 'due to heavy call volume, we
are unable to complete your call at this time....please try again
later.'

Those of us who know a few things about the matter simply hung up the
phone and went to do other things for a few minutes....but now, almost
two hours later, the problem is continuing for two reasons:

1) People are still banging away trying to get through to Ticketron,
although I am sure every ticket to the Cubs World Series must be gone
by now.

2) The people with less knowledge of the system are still sitting by
their phone, taking it off hook, waiting a minute or two and hanging
up, then going off hook again and unwittingly putting themselves at
the end of the queue. If they eventually decide to hang up and go
watch television instead, maybe the network can normalize and become
stable once again.

I've had it to the eyebrows with the Cubs. I have to ride the subway
at least two or three nights a week from downtown to my home, and it
seems like this past summer invariably its been at the same time as
one of their night games was letting out. Since they have successfully
managed to screw up the CTA service on the northbound Howard line
after their night games, I guess it should be no surprise that
Illinois Bell will be screwed up with ticket sales calls for the next
few days.

In this issue of the Digest, some other commentaries about the use of
special exchanges for mass calling are included.

Patrick Townson


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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 14:14:23 EDT
From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Station Contests
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Recently a reader mentioned that many of the local radio stations were
using the same telephone exchange for call in contests or other
promotions that generate large call volumes. I'm sure all of us have
heard horror stories about network blockage when 50,000 little people
tried to call Santa when the local Bozo show announced the number.
This was happening all to often and the local network is not designed
to handle this type of traffic.  I'm sure the phone company convinced
the radio station to use a number assigned to the MASS ANNOUNCEMENT
EXCHANGE. This network is designed to limit traffic at the point of
origin, and except for a few quirks, it works great.

The network I remember only provided 2 trunks from any central office
to one of the 4 tandem switches. Each tandem had 4 trunks to the host
switch. Most radio stations had from 2 to 10 lines hunting a lead
number. No matter how big a load is offered only a small % of callers
would actually use network resources. The system was fair because
every caller from every central office had an equal chance of getting
into the contest line.

The problems with this network were minimal. If more than one radio
station at a time ran a contest, chances were that the 2nd station
would not get any calls for several minutes. Sometimes the DJ was not
told by engineering how the system works and we would get trouble
reports.

An example: Radio station DJ gets ready to give away free tickets to a
sold out concert. Goes to the call director to "check out" the lines.
Places 4 calls to the contest line and only 2 ring in. Complains that
the %^@@$ network is no good. Wont take no for an answer. Test board
dials 2 calls each from 2 different exchanges. DJ is another satisfied
customer until next time.


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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations
Date: 22 Sep 89 08:33:25 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
gov (Mike Morris) writes:
> [e-mail] (K.BLATTER) writes:
>
> LA has most of it's FM station on a 5,000' mountain so both the AM and
> the FM has excellent coverage - LA county has 2 complete area codes
> (818 and 213) and pieces of 2 more (714, 805).  Many of the radio
> station also cover portions of San Bernadino and Riverside counties
> (area code 619). A while back (pre the 213-818 split) I noticed
> that more and more stations were giving out 213-520 numbers for dial-in.
> After the split, I noticed that they were giving out the same number
> as "dial 213-520-xxxx or 818-520-xxxx".

This works the same as 976, both area codes translate to the same
thing. The 213/818 520 prefix is a "choke" prefix, designed to prevent
Radio and TV station contest calling from disrupting the network.
Typically only 2-4 trunks are available from each office. A special
prefix does not appear to be needed, often, in smaller communities, a
prefix and a single hundreds group function the same way. Examples:
Colton (714) 431-5XXX, Phoenix used to be that way, maybe still is
(602) 260. Other choke prefixes of note are:  Chicago (312) 591-XXXX,
San Jose (408) 575-XXXX, Orange County (714) 977-XXXX, San Francisco
(415) 478-XXXX, San Diego (619) 570-XXXX.

> Well, to make a long story short there is only one 520 exchange, but it
> can be accessed from both 818 and 213.  A acquaintance in Pac Bell tells me
> that if they can get GTE to co-operate that they might be able to do the
> same thing with 714, only it would have to be something other than 520,
> as that is already in use in the city of Anaheim.

It's really too bad that 520 in Anaheim didn't get used. The 520 prefix
was already in service in LA years before 520 even got assigned. 520 in
Anaheim has a whole bunch of big centrex/DID customers on it, no hope
of any change. (One customer had a recording reminding callers to dial
213 before the number because of huge numbers of misdirected calls!).
Note that Orange County has its own choke prefix (714) 977.


> It probably won't happen with 619 as that is north San Diego, and all of
> Riverside and San Bernadino, and many of the lower powered stations don't
> reach that far.  My '84 Riverside book does not list a assignment for
> 619-520 however.

The prefix 520 is not special. It just happens to be one of the last
to be assigned because of its position on the Bellcore list. Prefixes
that end in 0 are later to be assigned because of confusion with the
letter O.

> I was told it was done at the (collective) stations request to lower the
> number of FX lines and hence the cost, but I kinda doubt that -

Stations often are forced to pay foreign exchange and milage charges
just to get service, because that service MUST be on a choke system.


joe@mojave
I finally changed my dumb signature. People were always telling me what
a great signature I had.

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

From: Edward Greenberg <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations
Date: 22 Sep 89 16:31:07 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]> Mike Morris <morris@jade.
jpl.nasa.gov> writes:

>>Also, most people are familiar with this service as radio stations
>>often use this service -- especially stations that have large broadcast
>>areas.  I remember growing up and when the radio station would have
>>a contest, they would list six or seven numbers that listeners could
>>call into to win.  While each of these numbers was from a different
>>geographical area, they all terminated at the radio station.

I was paging through the Criss Cross Directory yesterday, and
discovered that in the 408 area, the 575 prefix is used only for radio
stations, and only for call-in's as well.  It doesn't seem to matter
where in San Jose the station is located, or if it's located out of
area.

My guess is that this is done so that massive promotions won't take
out residence and business service when the number of incoming calls
skyrockets.  I remember when WNBC in New York went "Total
Request!!!!!"  Businesses and residents in mid-Manhattan were out of
phone service, as CIrcle-6 was "tubed".  (An air traffic control
expression which stems from going 'down the tubes.')

                -edg
Ed Greenberg
uunet!apple!netcom!edg

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

From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Wxxx - Kxxx)
Date: 22 Sep 89 10:12:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC


>Every country gets one or more letters assigned for the first letter. In
>Equador, the starting letter is H; thus a very loud shortwave station heard
>all over the world from Quito, Equador is HCJB. And who will be the first
>TELECOM reader who knows what those letters mean?  :)     PT]

HCJB = Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings

This was about the second shortwave station I ever listened to when
I first got the swl bug (I was about 13 yrs old).  One of these days
I'm going to dust off the set and stick up another antenna - but I
think I will wait til after Hugo gets through dumping on us.


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

From: Brent Chapman <capmkt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB)
Date: 22 Sep 89 23:20:58 GMT
Organization: Capital Market Technology, Inc.; Berkeley, CA

[e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
#The Moderator Writes:
#>                                   Some are more obscure: the old WEFM here
#>in Chicago was named for Edward F. McCormick, president of the Zenith Radio
#>Corporation...
#
#Naming stations for people is rather common.  KRHM-FM (which no longer exists)
#in Los Angeles was named for the owners:  Ruth and Harry Mazlish.

Kingman, Arizona, is a little town (population about 15,000) in northwest
Arizona (closer to Las Vegas than to Phoenix) that has the rather strange
distinction of having both KAAA-AM and KZZZ-FM...

-Brent

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

Subject: Re: Area Code Splits
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 13:30:12 -0400
From: [e-mail]

Speaking of area code splits, note that some area codes get much
fuller than others before they are split.  For example, 617 (Boston)
was split into 617/508 before any exchanges of the form N0X or N1X
were assigned.  So it wasn't as full as a number of other NPAs
were/are.

It would be interesting to see a "how full was it" listing of the
split area codes if anyone can find that data.

Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Western Union City Codes
Date: 22 Sep 89 19:42:45 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
com (Mark H. Weber) writes:
> The instructions for registering in the UUCP  ".US"  domain indicate that
> city codes assigned are Western Unions' "City Codes". Is there a reference
> available for these codes, or a number to call to find out what the city
> code is for a particular city? I called my local Western Union office, but
> the operator had no idea what a "city code" was.

    Well, one would think that someone in a Western Union office would
have a listing of Western Union city codes, huh?

    I guess this must be a symptom of WU's "poor health".

    In any event, if one really cares, they can find a complete listing
of all WU city codes in any WU Telex Directory.  There are over TEN THOUSAND
WU city codes for the U.S. and Canada, which range from "AAAI" (Auburn, IN)
tp "ZUMB" (Zumbrota, MN).  There is one code which begins with a number,
"150M" (150 Mile House, BC).  I bet y'all wanted to know that one! :-)

    Personally, I think the WU city codes are an anachronism since
Zip Code seems to be universally used for localization for any physical
delivery system.

<> 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?"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #396
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 22 Sep 89 23:01:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #397
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Sep 89 00:00:34 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 397

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Payphone Innards (Gabe M. Wiener)
    Reminiscing: Mass Calling Prefixes (213) 520, etc. (Jon Solomon)
    Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking (Steve Elias)
    Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking (Robert C. Elliott)
    Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking (Donald L. Ritchey)
    Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Toll Stations...One More Time! [Deep Springs College] (Bruce Hamilton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 14:50:53 EDT
From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Payphone Innards
Organization: Columbia University

It's really surprising how talkative a telco man can become.  I've found an
easy way to strike up a conversation with a NYTEL repairman.  Just ask,
"Is the strike over?"  (knowing full well, of course, that is isn't).

Earlier today, I was passing a NYTEL guy finishing up work on a payphone and
I did just that.  He immediately started explaining that he was an upper-level
computer-systems manager filling in on the field work, in particular, in
replacing payphones.  "Replacing them?" so I asked.  "We're replacing the
electromechanical payphones with all electronic ones."  Gently pushing for
more info, I got him to open one up and show me the difference.

 From the outside they look identical to a regular telco slot.  But the
inside is radically different.  The upper section (the removable one) is
virtually hollow.  Nothing at all in there except for the inital coin
recepticle (but NOT the counter) the keypad, and a few other parts.  On the
inside section, however, are a number of removable modules.  The mechanical
coin detector/counter has been completely replaced with a digital one.  It
is a square-ish black module that is removable (he removed it to show it to
me) and connects to the chassis with a ribbon cable).  It's solid plastic on
the outside, and simply has a coin inlet and a coin outlet.

The only real electromechanical part left in there is the coin hopper, which
looked the same as always.  One thing I noticed on the inside of the phone
was an LCD readout.  I asked him about it, and he explained that it was used
in troubleshooting the phones.  Whenever these phones have problems (jammed
coins, etc.), they automatically call into a central computer and report it.
They also call in and report when the coin box is nearing full.  When a
serviceman comes to repair it, he plugs a special cord circuit into a
socket in the phone, and the LCD indicates various status factors of the
unit.  He explained that they also have time-clocks in them, so that they
will upload their statistical usage data during the night).

Another cute feature is that if the phone knows it has service trouble, it
will open up the coin hopper so that any coin put in will be immediately
returned.  If someone phones in trouble, the central computer can signal
the slot to open the hopper.

The actual coin signalling, however, is the same as usual.  Regular in-band
tones generated by an on-board module (he pointed it out.  It's on the upper
right side of the phone, right above the data-communications module).

All these modules, btw, plug in with ribbon connectors to the chassis which,
I assume, contains the motherboard.

There are only about 100 of these nifty phones in operation right now, but
they're trying to replace more and more of them as time goes on.  It's moving
rather slowly because of the strike.

So, gentle reader, we see that the strike DOES have some benefits...namely
running into service folks who will gladly take a payphone apart in front
of you to show you how it works.  On top of that, he also told me some
other interesting info, about my local switch, etc.

It seems that most telco folks will be glad to take the time to talk to
passers-by if they seem interested (this is especially true for the
management personnel who are filling in for the strike).


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.      "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]        to be seriously considered as a means of
gmw1@cunixc (bitnet)               communication. The device is inherently of
[e-mail]          no value to us."
WUI:650-117-9118                     - Western Union internal memo, 1877

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

Date:  Fri, 22 Sep 89 23:54:55 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reminiscing: Mass Calling Prefixes (213) 520, etc.

Ah yes, I have stories about the mass calling prefixes (or numbers) in
Connecticut (there weren't any) and elsewhere.

First of all, the Mass Calling Prefixes (as I were told they were
called) were designed as others have described them to limit the
number of calls to one exchange or number so that hundreds of
thousands of calls wouldn't interfere with the normal operation of the
phone network. Nowadays this is only needed for the local exchange
network, the long distance carriers have computers to restrict the
number of calls to a given number to no more than a couple from each
tandem.

The 900 number used to call the President way back when was the
experiement that led to this. I won't go into the details of this
because someone already described the system, but they basically set
up regional centers which took limited numbers of calls and sent them
to a target spot in Washington and two lines to the president (one for
the Call In Progress and one Waiting).  *Everybody* else got a
recording saying try again. It was toll free unless the call was
answered. I had fun.

In Hamden (a suburb of New Haven, CT), there was a small radio
station, WCDQ (I was friends with the son of the owner of the
station). The station was within the walking distance of my home.
Their number was on the 203-281 ESS #1 exchange, as was mine.

This was before the days of "user settable speed calling". I had
WCDQ's phone number programmed in as *1 (it was *1 to *8 then, not 2#
to 9# like it is now).  When they announced a contest, I was quick on
the trigger. All the other phones in the area were on step-by-step
machines. I had the *fastest* route to the station. I was caller 2, 4,
6, 8, and the winner, 10. every time.  They eventually told me I could
only win one contest a month. Sigh. They almost told me I couldn't win
anything since I was friends with the Station Owner..... but .....

My first experience with a MCP was in NYC, 212-955 (now also 718-955).
I was calling in Long Distance from Hoboken, NJ, so it wasn't so bad.
I did manage to win a few times. The system there seemed to be geared
towards callers from outside of the 212/718 area codes. Maybe because
I was in 201 helped since the lines went through ATT.

In LA I found 213-520 (and now 818-520). Interesting about them was
that they did two things. They 1) prevented you from flooding the
network, and 2) prevented you from using speed dialing. The way they
did that was to insert pulse dialing between the last tandem and the
target machine. In additon, calls from that machine went out to the
tandem FIRST so they would be treated the same as outside calls.

I am fairly sure that 520 had a step tandem of sorts, because you
always got the familiar rapid busy signal if you overloaded the tandem
switch.  Bop bop bop bop bop bop............. At the very least it was
a step front end to the final machine making it impossible to be
quick-on-the-fingers.

I got around that by using several lines.

--jsol

[Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon was the founder of TELECOM Digest and the
moderator for several years.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 10:49:25 -0400


Sharon asked who (or what) might be calling her phone number and then
not talking (or "tone"-ing").  My guess is that someone has published
her phone number incorrectly as a FAX number.  When fax machines
initiate a call, they first *listen* for a faxmodem tone from the line
they have called.  If no tone is heard, they just hang up.  (I think.)

So, Sharon -- you might try plugging in a fax machine into your line
during the periods when you receive these mystery calls.  If a fax
comes through, you'll be able to track down the company who published
your number as their fax number.


-- Steve Elias
-- [e-mail]  (for Chipcom / networking related mail)
-- [e-mail]    (for metroboston email2fax and personal mail)
-- voice mail: 617 932 5598
-- work phone: [phone]


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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 18:21:25 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Robert C Elliott)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert C Elliott)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


That is probably a modem calling you.  The clicking sound is from the modem
trying to determine if the phone is ringing, voice answer, or another
modem.

Only an answering modem puts out a tone right away; the originating
modem responds only when it hears that tone.  That's why you don't hear
any modem tones.

Rob Elliott: [e-mail] (summer: [e-mail])


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

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 13:25:47 CDT
From: Donald L Ritchey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking

Summary:

well![e-mail] (Sharon Lynne Fisher):
In article (Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>), you wrote
> X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 393, message 3 of 11

> I moved a couple of months back, and I've had a weird problem since then.  I
> get lots of wrong numbers.  Some of them are the normal "Is Joe there?" and
> I say no and the person goes away.  But the vast majority of them have no
> voice at all.  I pick up the phone, hear a faint 'clickclickclick' in the
> background, and nothing happens, so I hang up.  On my answering machine,
> I don't get any message either; just those faint sounds.  I thought perhaps
> it was people calling me from a computer, but then I'd hear a modem tone,
> wouldn't I?  Incidentally, I get these calls both long-distance and local.
> Anybody have any idea what's going on?

Originating modems do not emit tones on connection.  Terminating (or
answering) modems answer the call with one of a variety of tones to
indicate the type of modem and its desired speed of connection (300,
1200, 2400, or other).  The clicking you hear in the earpiece is
probably the modem switching its various filters in and out of circuit
to determine what type of modem it is connected to.  Try whistling a
low, continuous tone into the mouthpiece (and varying the frequency you
whistle) and see if you get the other end to start its transmission
speed negotiation preamble (that will definitely identify the other end
as a modem).  I have used that trick to see if connections I was trying
to debug were getting through to a modem, when I couldn't bridge a
speaker or butt set onto the line.

I don't design or work with modems other than as a user, so I may be
wrong on the explanations of the clicking.  I can speak from experience
about the originating modems not generating tones, unless some of the
newer, fancier modems that have come into use in the last few years do
things differently.


Don Ritchey       [e-mail]
(or in real life) [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Labs IH 1D-409
Naperville, IL 60566
[phone]

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking
Date: 23 Sep 89 03:36:25 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA

In article <[e-mail]>, well![e-mail].
gov (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
 ...
> I thought perhaps it was people calling me from a computer, but
> then I'd hear a modem tone, wouldn't I?...


No, Sharon, a modem originating a call to another modem remains
silent, and expects the answering modem to make a tone first. (Much
like people ... the answering party generally speaks first.)

Your calls may, in deed, be coming from a modem, or perhaps a fax
machine.  If it's convenient, you might wish to let your modem
answer, and see if the calling person or device responds to its
answer tone with a carrier.


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: Bruce Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Stations...One More Time! [Deep Springs College]
Date: 21 Sep 89 22:19:07 GMT
Reply-To: Bruce Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xerox Corp, El Segundo, CA


As an alumnus of Deep Springs College (1971-74), let me fill you in on
the phone situation there.  For at LEAST the past five years, it has
been direct-dialable at 619/872-2000.  Curiously, they only discovered
this by ACCIDENT!  They started getting wrong numbers and asked the
caller what number they had dialed.  (I guess Continental Telephone
was afraid that if they admitted that they'd added direct-dial, they'd
have to support it, or something stupid.)

Within the last two years or so, ConTel's service got so noisy and
unreliable that DS spent several thousand bucks and put in a microwave
relay to replace the land lines that go up Silver Canyon from Bishop,
CA and down Wyman Canyon to Deep Springs, CA (somewhere around 20
miles).

Anyhow, they still have just the one phone line, which unfortunately
does NOT support fax or modem, and along with the microwave they got
some sort of mini-pbx that serves as an intercom system for around the
ranch.

Back when I was a student, we still had crank phones.  Crank one long
for the operator (originally in Bishop, but now way down south in
Victorville, I believe).  There were about half a dozen parties on our
line, so you had to listen for our "Deep Springs #2" ring -- one long,
three short.  The other parties included a CalTrans highway
maintenance station a mile away, a phone booth in Oasis, and a couple
of other ranches over in Fish Lake Valley.

It didn't even help to write down the "mark other place - inward
routing" stuff, because it seemed like they changed the numbers every
couple of years.  I have written down 619+058+181, and I also have
887-225-0002, for what it's worth.

p.s. For more information about Deep Springs, which was founded in
1917, has a student body of about 24 men, and combines a two-year
full-scholarship liberal arts program with ranch work and
self-government, you can write to the college at P.O. Dyer, Nevada
89010 or read a good article in the Los Angeles Times Magazine, Sunday
14 May 1989 (the one with Charles Manson on the cover :-)).

--Bruce
CSNet: [e-mail]
UUCP: xerox.com!hamilton.osbuSouth
213/333-8075


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #397
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 22 Sep 89 23:47:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #398
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Sep 89 00:45:11 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 398

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Teletypewriter Descriptions & "Junk Telex"  (Larry Lippman)
    Technical Specifications of TTY Machines (Mike Morris)
    Baudot and Baud Rates (Larry Lippman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Teletypewriter Descriptions & "Junk Telex" (Yes, it exists, too)
Date: 22 Sep 89 19:41:38 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> the Telecom Moderator
writes:
> [Moderator's Note:  I suppose we
> are technically-oriented enough here that 'three-row' and 'four-row' could
> have been replaced with other terms. But those were the terms WU used to
> explain the machines to their customers. The WU Directory had a detailed
> picture of each type keyboard (three or four row) and the subscriber was
> supposed to select the one resembling his model, then read the instructions
> associated. There was a section which explained how the one type was to
> connect with the other type as well.

    I seem to recall a diagram in earlier WU directories, but we discard
the old WU directories, so I have nothing to refer to.  According to the WU
directory that we do have, WU does not appear to use "three row" or "four row"
any more, but refer to the machines as "Model 32" and "Model 33".  Of course,
WU does not mention Baudot or ASCII, either.  There is no illustration of
any keyboards, but there is an illustration of how to read 5-level and
8-level paper tape - which is a skill that all state-of-the-art people
involved with telecommunications should master, along with being proficient
in Morse Code. :-)

    As an amusing aside to the recent issues about "junk fax", there
is a similar problem which exists with telex service - but it is less severe.
Most of the solicitations come from the international telex carriers,
such as WUI, ITT, RCA, FTCC, etc.

    However, the WORST part of "junk telex" is not material received
on the telex machine, but fraudulent invoices for listings in either
non-existent or virtually non-distributed telex directories.  This is
a somewhat more sophisticated scam similar to that of phony "Yellow Pages"
invoices for directory advertising.  The largest and most widely used
international telex directory is the multi-volume "Jaeger & Waldmann
International Telex Directory", more commonly referred to as the "J&W".
The J&W lists the subscribers of ALL telex carriers on a WORLDWIDE basis
FREE OF CHARGE.  The J&W is sold throughout the world, and is not affiliated
with any particular telex carrier.  The purchase price and legitimate paid
advertising in the J&W obviously defrays the cost of listing all telex
subscribers.  In addition, each telex carrier publishes their own telex
directory which is sent free of charge to all of their subscribers, and
which obviously does not charge for a subscriber listing.

    My favorite scam invoice comes from a company located in Hollywood,
CA called "The Telex/TWX Directory", and the "invoice" amount is generally
for slightly over $ 100.00.  "The Telex/TWX Directory" sounds pretty much
like the legitimate Western Union directory, right?  Wrong - its a scam!
Somehow, most of these phony firms manage to stay one step ahead of the law.

    What is even more interesting is that many of these scams originate
in foreign countries and pertain to a listing in some phony "international
telex directory".  My organization receives phony international telex
directory invoices at least ONCE PER MONTH, with most of the letters
originating in Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Hong Kong.
The foreign invoices generally have no "fine print" which functions as
an attempted legal disclaimer; they are blatantly fraudulent since the
perpetrators know that they are essentially immune to any prosecution
or civil litigation since the remittance address is outside the U.S.

<> 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: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Technical Specifications of TTY Machines
Date: 22 Sep 89 16:31:37 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


(Nickolas Landsberg) writes:
>
>    In the above mentioned article, you mentioned that the speed
>was around 60 baud.  Well, it was actually something called "75-speed"
>which indicated a maximum speed of 75 WPM, transmitted in 5-level
>"baudot" encoding.  After doing all the mumbo-jumbo af adding start/stop
>bits, etc. this translates to an equivalent bits-per-second of 56.83
>or thereabouts.  A system I worked on once had to monitor transmissions
>from a telco switch which also used this.  An interesting sidelight is
>that they could transmit the full upper-case character set, the numerics
>and a goodly supply of punctuation using just 5 bits.  (Actually, they
>used a "switch" character to flip-flop between meanings of particular
>bit patterns.  The "alternate" set would continue to be used until
>the "switch" character was seen again.)

A bit of nit-picking here: the upshift character was called FIGS (for
FIGureS, and the downshift character was called LTRS.  All the machines
had a feature called USOS for UnShift On Space, and sometimes a message
would have to be resent because an inexperienced operator would send
a message with a lot of numbers on a machine that would drop back to
letters and be received on a machine that wouldn't.  Smart operators
sending strings of numbers would send a FIGS after any space character
just in case.

As a side note, the standard speeds were 60, 75 and 100 words a minute,
using either a standard length stop pulse or a 1.5 length stop pulse.
There are electronic speed converters around, most machines came geared
for 60, or 66 (WU's own speed).  The type-15 and type-19 machines could be
geared for 60, 66, or 75, but had maintenance problems at 75.
The later type-35 machines could be geared for 60, 75, or 100 wpm, or have
a 3-speed gearbox.

5-level machines are still in use in the amateur radio field, and still
passing traffic - the name there is RTTY for Radio TeleTYpe, sometimes
called "Ritty".  Here in Los Angles, much of the local activity is on
146.70 Mhz, and some of the stations are quite sophisticated, using
selective call (imagine a answering machine), and answer-back, etc.
Bless the man that designed the first UART chip with 5,6,7 and 8 bits/char!

Teletype has discontinued parts availability for the Type-15 and Type 19
(which I have in my station) and for the Type-28 (which I may upgrade to
soon- for hauling it away!) - all 5-level).  BTW, my type-15 is
manufacture-dated 1933, and is still in full working condition - I
had to replace the internal wiring as the cotton insulation had
hardened and cracked, and become oil-soaked.  I saw a picture of a
type 20 - it was a 6-level machine used in typesetting - the brief
story said it was a 5-level unit with a case bit.  The type-26 was a
light-duty printing drum machine (like the later 32/33 line) - the
ones I worked on were just not designed for 8-hours-a-day use.
I was told that there was a type 29 and 30, but sever saw literature or
any machines.  The Type 32 is the last of the mechanical 5-level machines,
(I was told it was a redesign of the 26) and it interestingly came in a 3-row
and a 4-row configuration.  The famous type 33 is the common 8-level
machine that I learned BASIC on, interestingly it's stiff keyboard is
blamed for the "tersenes" of UNIX (tm).  The type 35 is the standard
8-level heavy duty machine.  The 37 was an attempt at a upper/lower case
8-level machine - I've only seen 3 in my life, and one of those was in
a scrap heap - supposedly it was a maintenance nightmare.  The 40 was
an attempt at a do-all-end-all integrated system that never made it - I
saw only a few in use, and those were used as dumb terminals.  The
saving grace was the printer - it was built like a mini-IBM-1403, a
train mechanism and was almost indestructible.  I saw several in use
on minicomputer systems, running day in and out with no downtime.  The
type 42 is a 5-level version of the 43 8-level dot-matrix machine - the
one with the strange paper size (8.5 inches wide, _including_ the
perforations!).  If anybody wants a 43, let me know - I've access to 70
in excellent condition in a warehouse - make offer!.  I know several local
amateurs that use 43s as logging printers, and as _quiet_ RTTY stations (with
UART-based 8-level-to-5-level converters).  8-level RTTY is legal in the
amateur service, but is (naturally) incompatible.

Packet is slowly replacing RTTY for message handling, due to it's natural
connectivity (it's X.25 based) but there are still a lot of people using
the old mechanical marvels.

Amateur radio has many facets: voice, television (yes, you can own a TV
transmitter!), radioteletype, packet, radio astronomy, satelites, and more.
If you're interested, look at rec.ham-radio or rec.ham-radio.packet.

Sorry if I got off the subject of FIGS & LTRS, but I happen to like
the old machines.  I spent 13 months working for a TTY sales & service
shop, and still dabble a bit.

Mike Morris                      UUCP: [e-mail]
                                 ICBM: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     PSTN: 818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     cat flames.all > /dev/null

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

Subject: Baudot and Baud Rates
Date: 22 Sep 89 22:38:50 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

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

>     In the above mentioned article, you mentioned that the speed
> was around 60 baud.  Well, it was actually something called "75-speed"
> which indicated a maximum speed of 75 WPM, transmitted in 5-level
> "baudot" encoding.  After doing all the mumbo-jumbo af adding start/stop
> bits, etc. this translates to an equivalent bits-per-second of 56.83
> or thereabouts.

    Actually, there were about half a dozen different versions of
5-level Baudot teletype systems which had baud rates that varied from
a low of 45.5 at a nominal 60 wpm to a high of 75 at a nominal 100 wpm.

    What confuses the issue is that while 8-level ASCII has the same
duration for start, information and stop bits, some of the 5-level Baudot
systems used a LONGER stop bit duration which was a non-integer multiple
of the start and information bits.  For example, the earliest Baudot
systems ran at 45.5 baud with a start/information bit duration of around
22 ms, and a stop bit duration of around 31.2 ms; this provided a nominal
60 wpm.  The 75 wpm system in Nickolas Landsberg's example is 56.9 baud
with a start/information bit duration of around 17.6 ms and a stop bit
duration of around 25 ms.

    Even though there were timing differences, from a practical
standpoint many of the 5-level Baudot systems did in fact communicate
with each other.  The Teletype Corp. Model 28 apparatus could run at
either 60 or 75 wpm, and the Model 32 apparatus could run at a maximum
of 100 wpm, if it felt in the mood. :-)  The Model 32 may have been
faster, but it was a LOT less rugged than the slower Model 28!

> A system I worked on once had to monitor transmissions
> from a telco switch which also used this.  An interesting sidelight is
> that they could transmit the full upper-case character set, the numerics
> and a goodly supply of punctuation using just 5 bits.  (Actually, they
> used a "switch" character to flip-flop between meanings of particular
> bit patterns.  The "alternate" set would continue to be used until
> the "switch" character was seen again.)

    All 5-level Baudot machines have a "Letters" mode and a "Figures"
mode in order to fit the various alpha characters, numbers, punctuation
symbols and control characters into the coding scheme.  These modes were
set by corresponding control characters, 11011 for FIGURES and 11111 for
LETTERS.

    The most unusual device I have ever seen which generated 5-level
Baudot to drive a Model 28RO page printer was the WECO 520 Emergency
Reporting PBX.  This system, which was designed during the 1950's,
was an early PBX used by police and fire departments to handle call
box telephones used by police and the public.  A teletype printer was
used to log the box number of a reporting telephone and the date/time.
The PBX used wire-spring relays and crossbar switches.  The interesting
part is that WECO used a sequential series of standard 22-position
stepping switches to actually encode and generate the properly-timed
5-level Baudot characters to drive the teletype printer!  One could
look at the bank wiring on the step switches and actually SEE the
character encoding for <CR>, <LF>, the digits, etc.

<> 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?"

[Moderator's Note: A curiosity when I was employed by the University of
Chicago Telecommunications Department (then, in 1959-61 they just called
it the 'telephone room') were the two TWX machines. One functioned normally
and brought us messages from everywhere, but the other was on a special
circuit to the local telco central office, known as the 'Kenwood Bell' due
to its location on the corner of 61st Street and Kenwood Avenue, just south
of the campus. All our long distance service went through there. To place
a long distance call then, most people dialed 211 and passed the call to
the operator. We plugged in on our board to tie-lines which went straight
to certain positions at telco. They knew it was UC calling, and all we had
to pass was the caller's extension number; then we could cut out and go
on to other calls. Once an hour, the aforementioned TWX would come to life
and a message would print out listing 'time and charges by extension'. We
took this and matched it with the toll tickets we started when first
putting the call through. All this machine was ever used for was to bring
us the time and charges, for billing purposes to the campus extensions.
IBT billed the campus master account; we re-billed each department.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #398
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 24 Sep 89 15:04:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #399
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Sep 89 15:00:00 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 399

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some Comments on PABX Auto-attendants and Voice Mail (Larry Lippman)
    ATT System 85 terminals (NUTSY FAGEN)
    ISDN Subscriber Equipment (Fred Fierling)
    HUGO and Other Disasters (David Brightbill)
    Re: Phone Service During Hugo (Martin B. Weiss)
    Self-Routing Fast Packet Switch (David Lewis)
    Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking (John Higdon)
    Re: Some Comments On The GTE "Problem" in California (John Higdon)
    Re: 10-Cent Pay Phones (Jay Schuster)

[Moderator's Note: Happy Birthday to me! For my present this year, the
name server at eecs (I suspect, else the network connections) went bad.
We've been sort of disconnected from the world for a couple days. Issue
397-398 were in transit at the time. If you did not get either of those
issues, please advise. PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Some Comments on PABX Auto-attendants and Voice Mail
Date: 22 Sep 89 19:38:55 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> portal!cup.portal.com!
[e-mail] writes:
> I have noticed a disturbing trend in companies using automated attendent
> systems.  With an automated attendent, it's even easier for twits to call
> you than it was with a Centrex system.

    While my organization has never had Centrex at its facilities, in
July we did install a Northern Telecom Meridian SL-1 with auto-attendant
features to replace a somewhat aging electronic PABX.  The "twit call"
problem actually seems to have diminished as callers find themselves
with a voice mailbox in 4 rings as opposed to an unanswered call reverting
back to the PABX attendant with the previous system.  Getting back to the
attendant then creates the opportunity for the "twit" to ask the attendant
to - gasp! - page me! :-)

    With the Sl-1 system, getting back to the attendant requires a second
call - which usually deters "twits" - UNLESS they know the "secret", which
is to dial "0" with a touch-tone telephone after they have reached any
voice mail box.  Some of our users have elected to make the announcement
of dialing "0" to reach the attendant in their personalized voice mail box
greeting (a feature of the SL-1), but I have so far decided not to so so.

> The result of this is most if not
> all extensions in an office are programmed as "away from my desk" so the call
> is routed to the voice-mail system.

    That is the way ALL of the extensions in our system are programmed;
i.e., calls unanswered in 4 to 5 rings go to the user's voice mail box.
I was originally somewhat skeptical of the voice mail box system, and was
going to have my external calls permanently programmed to revert back to
the "live" attendant on no answer.  However, this turned out not to be
necessary as outside callers have "adapted" to the voice mail system.

> Now if you are in a company that is set up this way and you are trying
> to reach someone else who is also "away from his desk", you might as
> well send a letter since neither one of you will ever talk directly to
> the other.  I design voice-mail and automated attendent hardware, but
> I use a standard answering machine to screen my calls so that I can
> pick up any call that sounds important.  Maybe I should add an option
> like this to the voice-mail systems we design?  Any ideas?

    At first, I was not certain how well the voice mail system would work
out, and I had some reservations as to how useful it would be.  The first
few days following cutover did nothing to mitigate my concerns as a number
of our telephone users had "fun" with the voice mail system by leaving
obscene messages for other extensions, changing the personalized voice
mail greetings of unsuspecting users (before passwords were implemented),
etc.  However, within a week everyone got the "novelty" aspect of voice
mail out of their system, and got down to serious business.

    I also had mixed feelings about voice mail because I have been
a proponent of greater use of UNIX electronic mail.  However, to paraphrase
an old saying, "You can put a UNIX terminal in a person's office, you can
lead them to UNIX mail, but you can't MAKE 'em use it." :-)

    The voice mail system has certainly diminished use of UNIX mail,
except between two of our facilities which are located 25 miles apart
and have no voice tie lines.

    The bottom line is that voice mail has been EXTREMELY effective
in improving communication within my organization and, three months
after cutover, has been accepted and used by everyone in our organization.

    HOWEVER, I believe that there is a particular reason why voice mail
has worked so well for us - all of our telephone sets (except for data
lines) are multi-line electronic telephone sets with a "message" indicator
and a "message" key which immediately accesses the voice mail box system.
No user within the facility ever has to call the voice mail system to
ascertain if they have mail waiting - they merely glance at the LCD
"message" indicator on their telephone set to see if it is flashing.  Many
earlier voice mail systems do not have this feature, and I believe the
key to success in voice mail systems is to eliminate the repetitive chore
of a user having to dial a code to check their mail box.

    Of course, we have a voice mail access number so that users within
the facilities but away from their desks can check their voice mail boxes,
and any user can also check from outside the building using a number
dialed through the auto-attendant.

    Sometimes I miss a call by a second or two and it "escapes" to
the voice mail box system.  At first, I wished there were some way to
retrieve the call, but since I can get any message within seconds
after it was left I no longer care about this situation.

<> 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: Sun, 24 Sep 89 14:07 EDT
From: NUTSY FAGEN <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT System 85 terminals

Does anyone know how I can get a hold of a catalog for available
digital terminals (telephones) to use with an ATT System 85 network.

Thanks ahead of time.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred Fierling)
Subject: ISDN Subscriber Equipment
Date: 23 Sep 89 02:47:57 GMT
Organization: Microplex Systems Ltd


>From what I've read I understand that the U interface would be provided
via an single pair coming from the CO to the subscriber's premises and
terminate on an NT1 box which would provide the S/T interface to all
digital telephones on the premises.

Assuming this is correct, I understand that it would be possible for two
independent calls to be handled on each of the B channels.  So, how would
both telephones perform call set up and tear down on the one D channel?

Fred Fierling    Tel: [phone]   Microplex Systems Ltd, 265 East 1st Avenue
uunet!mplex!fff  Fax: [phone]   Vancouver, BC, V5T 1A7, Canada


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

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 89 15:26:52 edt
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: HUGO and Other Disasters

The American Red Cross, in addition to it's other disaster relief
activities, provides a Disaster Welfare Inquiry (DWI) service.  If you are
trying to find out the status of a relative who lives in an area effected by
HUGO or another storm, you should contact your LOCAL Red Cross office.  They
will take your information and relay it to Red Cross workers in the effected
area.  The workers on the scene will atempt to determine the status of your
relatives and get the information back to you.  DO NOT TRY TO CONTACT THE
RED CROSS OFFICE IN THE EFFECTED AREA DIRECTLY.  They are real busy and will
not accept DWI's unless they come from your local office.

The actual physical layer communication links may be over a variety of media
including land line telco/twx/fax, etc; ham radio (RACES), military radio,
local government radio service (LGRS), or by flying dwi's to the area and
flying the answers back.

In the case of international inquiries, the same system works, except that
it is coordinated by the International Association of Red Cross and Red
Cresent Societies.

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

From: Martin B Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service During Hugo
Date: 24 Sep 89 15:30:37 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services


My parents live on the SW corner of Puerto Rico.  They had minimal damage
due to Hugo, as they were over 100 miles from the eye.  I haven't yet gotten
through to them on MCI, although, using 10288, I have been successful several
times with AT&T.

   Martin Weiss
   Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh
   Internet: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
   BITNET: mbw@pittvms

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Self-routing Fast Packet Switch
Date: 23 Sep 89 03:14:17 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pete French) writes:
> I also find it interesting that nobody has designed an electronic version of
> Strowger. Mechanical parts wera out and surely a solid-state replacement for
> each of the units would be very cheap and more reliable. There are still a
> lot left in operation.

Ever hear of a self-routing fast packet switch?  OK, it's not *exactly*
the same.  But it's an analog of an SXS.

It's an interesting set of paradigm shifts -- from "central control" (an
operator at a patchboard", to "distributed control" (an SXS), back to
central control (central control XBs and ESSs), and (potentially) back
to distributed control in fast packet switches...  (one could
potentially do a thesis on this.... I want the movie rights, tho :-))


David G Lewis                ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej

            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers With Nobody Talking
Date: 23 Sep 89 04:35:16 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, well![e-mail].
gov (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
> I don't get any message either; just those faint sounds.  I thought perhaps
> it was people calling me from a computer, but then I'd hear a modem tone,
> wouldn't I?  Incidentally, I get these calls both long-distance and local.
> Anybody have any idea what's going on?

How do you know that they're long distance or local? Anyway, it could
be a modem calling you (like a wrong number in someone's Systems file!)
and you would hear nothing when you answered. Remember, an originating
modem needs to hear the answering modem's tone before it will speak. If
you have a modem, you might let it answer your phone for awhile and see
if something connects with it:-)

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Comments On The GTE "Problem" in California
Date: 23 Sep 89 04:53:54 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, zorch.SF-Bay.ORG!scott@
cs.utexas.edu (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:

> I'm not picking on John, really I'm not; his was just a good example.  I
> read the the words, but I'm seriously lacking some referents.  For instance,
> "subscriber carrier"?

When the phone company runs out of pairs and there are more lines that
need to be installed, subscriber carrier allows two subscribers to use
one physical pair of wires. At the CO (or wherever it is necessary to
channel two services into one pair) a carrier unit is installed and a
matching unit at the "carrier" customer's location. The unit
superimposes 30-60 KHz carriers on the line which carries the voice
and supervisory signals. The "metallic" customer is the one using the
line in the conventional manner with a conventional instrument, while
the "carrier" customer has his service out of a "subscriber carrier"
unit.

> The description implies a <something> generator on
> John's premises, which was powered from the phone system, and which he
> added a power supply to when GTE switched it off.

Yes, the unit is on the premises. It has a nicad which trickle charges
off the DC on the phone line when the line is not in use by either
party. The ring current, talk battery, and carrier encoding/decoding
are all powered by that nicad. If the phone is used a lot, or for some
reason that DC is not present, eventually the carrier subscriber's
phone may not ring or even pull dial tone. Fortunately, there is a
place inside the unit where one can hook up a 15V transformer and the
unit then becomes independent of the DC on the line.

> Also, his line was "converted to metallic"?

Eventually, they had enough cable pairs in the area (by installing new
cable) to give me one all to myself.

> What was it before it was metallic - a piece of string with two tin cans?

No. That probably would have worked better.

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]
    [e-mail]      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

From: Jay Schuster <uvm-gen![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10-Cent Pay Phones
Organization: The People's Computer Company, Williston, VT
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 21:24:58 GMT

[e-mail] (Mark A. Holtz) writes:
>I am kinda wondering. . . . is there still some areas in this country
>that still have payphones for a dime?

Vermont payphones cost a dime.  They raised it to twenty cents a
couple of years ago and there was an incredible outcry, so it went
back down to a dime.

Having grown up here, it was a while before I discovered pay phones
that cost more than a dime.  I think Maine and Louisiana have either
nickel or dime pay phones.

Jay Schuster <[e-mail]>    uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay
The People's Computer Company    `Revolutionary Programming'

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #399
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 24 Sep 89 15:53:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #400
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Sep 89 15:50:49 CDT    Volume 9 : Issue 400

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Conman Loses Prison Phone Privileges (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations (Mike Morris)
    Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations (Tad Cook)
    Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB) (Peggy Shambo)
    Re: Pac*Bell: The Old Bell System? (Dell Ellison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 23 Sep 89 19:41:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Conman Loses Prison Phone Privileges

Readers of TELECOM and/or RISKS may recall a news report from about a
year ago involving a plot to steal $69 million from the First National
Bank of Chicago through a fraudulent wire-transfer scheme masterminded
by Armand Moore. Using the telephone and computer -- the tools of his
trade, Mr. Moore planned to transfer money from the accounts of
corporate customers at First National to his account in Switzerland.

He needed some inside help to bring it off, and he found two young
guys in the wire transfer room at the bank who were willing to help.
Both of the clerks were fellows in their early twenties, who had
worked for the bank a couple years each. Both had come from families
living in a ghetto neighborhood on the south side of Chicago; but
their families had raised them to be honest. Both had been average
high school students; neither had any previous criminal record of any
sort; both had been given a break by an employer who treated them
fairly and allowed them to rise to positions of trust: handling
**huge** sums of money -- about a hundred million dollars a day --
in the wire-transfer unit at the bank. Both showed great promise; then
Armand Moore came along.

Moore wined and dined these two kids; showed them the best of times
and what it was like to have a fancy apartment in a wealthy
neighborhood instead of living with your parents in an inner-city
ghetto. Its not that they weren't guilty -- after all, they did provide
the secret passwords and phrases which bank employees say to one
another on the telephone, and they did press the buttons which sent
$69 million dollars on its way to Europe -- but they would not have
done it if Armand Moore had not been there.

So instead of a career at the bank, the guys exchanged it for an indictment
for bank fraud; loss of their jobs; humiliation for themselves and their
families; and the right to say 'convicted of bank fraud' on future job
applications. Naturally, they are blacklisted in the banking and computer
industries for the rest of their lives. One of the guys said Armand had
promised to give him money to buy his mother a new coat.

The job at First National was bungled as we all know, two young guys had
their lives ruined, and the court took all this into consideration when
Armand Moore was sentenced to ten years in prison last June. But as Paul
Harvey would say, "...then there is the rest of the story...."

It seems Armand Moore was no stranger to bank fraud. He had previously
pulled a couple of smaller jobs, using a telephone and a computer to
net about a million dollars from two banks in the Detroit area. The
feds had not previously connected him with those jobs. He had this
money stashed away, waiting for him when he got released from prison,
which in this latest scheme, would be a lot sooner than the government
expected.

Mr. Moore is the sort of fellow who could sell the proverbial ice-box
to an Eskimo.....or a newspaper subscription to a blind man....he can
get *anybody* to do *anything* it seems....by flirting with them, showering
them with attention, and if necessary, just bribing them. Now two more
lives have been ruined by Armand Moore, and his only regret is he got
caught.

Since his trial in June, Armand Moore has been a guest of the
government at the federal penitentiary in downtown Chicago. As a long
term resident, he's gotten to know a lot of the folks, including the
employees of the prison. In particular, he got to be very good friends
with Randy W. Glass, age 28, an employee of the prison in the computer
facility there. Glass' duties include entering data into the prison
computer about the inmates, their sentences and other data. Oh...is
the story becoming clearer now?

Glass and his wife live in Harvey, IL, a middle class suburb on the
south side of Chicago. It seems like so many other people who meet
Armand Moore, Glass enjoyed the company of this older, very
sophisticated and friendly chap. After several meetings in the past
three months, Glass was finally seduced by Moore's money, like
everyone else who meets him. That, plus his pleasant manners, his
smooth conversation and his assurance that nothing could go wrong led
to Glass finally agreeing to accept a $70,000 bribe in exchange for
punching a few buttons on the computer to show Armand Moore's sentence
was complete; him and a couple other inmates who were sharing the same
room at the prison. Just change a few details, punch a few buttons --
and to be on the safe side, do it from home with your modem and terminal,
using the Warden's password which I just happen to have and will give
to you in exchange for your cooperation.

$70,000 was hard to resist. But Glass was a prudent man, and he asked
what guarentee would he have of payment once Armand Moore was
released.  After all, hadn't he promised those fellows at the bank all
sorts of things and then tried to skip town immediatly when he thought
the transfer had gone through? He would even cheat his fellow crooks,
wouldn't he?

Moore offered a $20,000 'down payment' to show his intentions. A
confederate outside the prison would meet Glass' wife and give her the
money. Then the job would be done, and following Moore's (ahem!)
untimely release from the joint, the rest would be paid. The deal was
made, alleges the government, and Armand Moore used a pay phone at the
prison that day to call his stepsister and have her arrange to meet
Mrs. Glass. The money would be exchanged; Glass was off two days later
and would make the necessary 'adjustments' from his home computer; the
prison roll would reflect this on the next morning's roster of
prisoners with the notation 'Time Served/Release Today'. They would
meet that evening and exchange the rest of the money.

All telephones at the prison, including the public pay phones, are
subject to monitoring. A sign on each pay phone advises that 'your
call may be monitored by an employee authorized to do so'. The FBI
alleges that recordings were made of Moore on the phone telling his
stepsister that she should '...work with Randy, a person affilated
with the law...' and that she would meet Mrs. Glass the next day. With
a court ordered tap obtained a few minutes later, the FBI heard
Stephanie Glass agree to meet Moore's stepsister at 5:45 AM the next
morning in a parking lot in Richton Park, IL.

At the appointed time the next morning, the two cars met in the
parking lot, and the FBI alleges the one woman handed the other a
package containing $20,000 in cash. The FBI videotaped the meeting and
waited until Mrs. Glass had driven away. They followed her home, and
arrested her at that time. Randy Glass was arrested at the prison when
he arrived for work about an hour later. Armand Moore was arrested in
his cell at the prison once Glass had been taken into custody. To do
it the other way around might have caused Glass to get tipped off and
run away.

On Thursday, September 21, Mr. & Mrs. Glass and Armand Moore appeared
before United States Magistrate Joan Lefkow for arraignment and finding
of probable cause. Finding probable cause, she ordered all three held
without bail at the prison until their trial. Randy Glass is now, so to
speak, on the wrong side of the bars at the place where he *used* to work.
He was suspended without pay at the time of his arrest.

At the hearing, Magistrate Lefkow directed some particularly acid comments
to Mr. Moore, noting that he was forbidden to ever use the telephone again
for any reason for the duration of his confinement, and was forbidden
to ever be in the vicinity of the computer room for any reason, also
for the duration.

She noted, "....it seems to me you continue to seek the conspiracy's
objectives by using the telephone, and convincing others to manipulate
the computer....you stand here today and show no remorse whatsoever
except that you were caught once again. Your prison record notes that
on two occasions, prison staff have observed you using the telephone
and '...pressing the touchtone buttons in a peculiar way during the call...'
and that you were counseled to stop doing it. I will tell you now sir
that you are not to use the telephone for any reason for the remainder
of your current sentence. I find probable cause to hold you over for trial
on the charge of bribery of a government employee. Stay away from the
phones and computers at the prison Mr. Moore!"

Like Gabriel Taylor at the First National Bank, neither Randy Glass or
his wife had any prior arrest record or conviction. In a foolish moment
of greed, spurred on by a friendly fellow who Randy really enjoyed
talking to '..because he was so smart and well-educated...' they now
get to face prison and the loss of everything in their lives. When all
three were leaving the courtroom Thursday, Armand Moore snickered and
smiled at the audience. He'll find other suckers soon enough.

Patrick Townson

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations
Date: 24 Sep 89 18:47:30 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


I wrote...

[e-mail] (K.BLATTER) writes:  (Regarding Foreign Exchange service)
%
%>Also, most people are familiar with this service as radio stations
%>often use this service -- especially stations that have large broadcast
%>areas.  I remember growing up and when the radio station would have
%>a contest, they would list six or seven numbers that listeners could
%>call into to win.  While each of these numbers was from a different
%>geographical area, they all terminated at the radio station.
%
%LA has most of it's FM station on a 5,000' mountain so both the AM and
%the FM has excellent coverage - LA county has 2 complete area codes
%(818 and 213) and pieces of 2 more (714, 805).  Many of the radio
%station also cover portions of San Bernadino and Riverside counties
%(area code 619). A while back (pre the 213-818 split) I noticed
%that more and more stations were giving out 213-520 numbers for dial-in.
%After the split, I noticed that they were giving out the same number
%as "dial 213-520-xxxx or 818-520-xxxx".
%
%Well, to make a long story short there is only one 520 exchange, but it
%can be accessed from both 818 and 213.
%
%I was told it was done at the (collective) stations request to lower the
%number of FX lines and hence the cost, but I kinda doubt that -

Brian Kantor straightened me out...

     From: [e-mail] (Brian Kantor)
     Subject: Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations

     All the radio stations in San Diego have a 570 prefix for their numbers.
     That is done to limit the number of inter-CO trunks that can be tied up
     whilst they are running one of their "the 91st caller wins two free
     tickets to the moon" contests.
              - Brian

Thank You.

Mike Morris                      UUCP: [e-mail]
                                 ICBM: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     PSTN: 818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     cat flames.all > /dev/null

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Prefix '520' For Los Angeles Radio Stations
Date: 23 Sep 89 21:10:31 GMT
Organization: very little


I think the reason that many radio stations have the same special
prefix is so that the local telco can do selective blocking when
they announce: "..be the 9th caller and win $10,000!".

Without special prefixes, an announcement like this could cause
major problems when calls from all over start heading for one
CO.  With the special prefix, an "intelligent network" can allow
a limited number of calls from each originating office, and the
rest can get locally generated "all trunks busy".

Tad Cook
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Tell me about it! The Chicago Cubs World Series
tickets went on sale Friday at 6 PM here, via Ticketron. They did
*not* use any special prefix or traffic routing at first. By 6:01 PM,
phones all over northern Illinois were sluggish, and experiencing
delays in getting dial tone. By about 6:45 Bell employees had managed
to re-route some of the traffic, but the mess wasn't totally under
control until about 10:00 PM.  PT]

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

From: Peggy Shambo <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat Sep 23 14:34:42 1989
Subject: Re: Radio Station Names (Australia, Canada, HCJB)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peggy Shambo)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL


In article <[e-mail]> "Marc T. Kaufman"
<[e-mail]> writes:
>The Moderator Writes:
>>                                   Some are more obscure: the old WEFM here
>>in Chicago was named for Edward F. McCormick, president of the Zenith Radio
>>Corporation...

>Naming stations for people is rather common.  KRHM-FM (which no longer exists)
>in Los Angeles was named for the owners:  Ruth and Harry Mazlish.

It seems to me that WRGB (Channel 6, Schenectady, NY) was named for Roy G.
Biv.. then again, I might be wrong?

Anyone got something different on this?  Actually I thought it kind of
clever.  :-)

Peg Shambo           | Anybody know of any IDMS/ADSO positions in
[e-mail]  | the South of England? (London, Southampton,
             | Portsmouth, Bournemouth would all be nice)

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

From: Dell Ellison <asuvax!gtephx!proto10![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell: The Old Bell System?
Date: 23 Sep 89 12:03:28 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, arc![e-mail] (Chet
Wood) writes:
> Yesterday I was ordering new service and the lady asked me if I wanted
> touch-tone service. I said no, and she acted real surprised and said,
> "Don't you have any pushbutton phones?" I said "they're pulse" and
> that satisfied her.

> I think that's distinctly fraudulant. If they are going to be allowed
> to push so hard for their extra dollar a month, at least they should
> be limited to correct terminology and ask, "aren't you using
> Touch-Tone (TM) phones?"

I totally agree with you that they shouldn't push people into paying for
"Touch-Tone" when they don't really need or want it.

However, "Touch-Tone" is just a trademark.
I think it's better to use the following terminology:

   DP     Dial Pulse
   DTMF   Dual Tone Multi-Frequency

I think these are more common in the industry.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #400
*****************************