Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1989.volume.9/vol9.iss551-603

Text File | 1990-01-14 | 857KB | 20,238 lines

Date:     Tue, 5 Dec 89 0:15:00 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #551
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Dec 89 00:14:26 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 551

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Modems and Phone Rates (Jonathan Bayer)
    Re: Modems and Phone Rates (Ted Schroeder)
    Re: PC Pursuit (Roger Preisendefer)
    Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (Paul Guthrie)
    Re: Long Ago Memories of Telex/TWX Calls (Joe Talbot)
    Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell (David Lewis)
    Re: NY Tel New Service For Handling Operator Assisted Calls (Scot Wilcoxon)
    Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (Kevin Hopkins)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (John Higdon)
    New Report in Archives: Eavesdropping Laws (TELECOM Moderator)
    Must Part With Tele-Expand System (David C. Troup)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jonathan Bayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates
Date: 4 Dec 89 17:06:00 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Software Products, Inc.

[e-mail] (David Robinson) writes:

> From the discussion so far it appears that modems do not take up
>anymore phone network resources than a normal voice call, you get the
>same ~4KHz bandwidth whether you are talking or using a modem.

Sorry, you're wrong.  The telephone network is designed to work with
human voices. As such the equipment multiplexes many conversations
onto a single wire.  Human conversation has many gaps that the network
can use to multiplex other conversations using the same frequency.  A
modem is on continously, tying up a frequency full-time.  Assuming
that a wire can handle 100 different conversations at one time, and
further assuming that 10 % of the conversations is quiet, that means
that with the proper equipment a single wire could handle 110
conversations at the same time. However, you use modems and all of a
sudden the network loses some of its excess capacity.

I am sure that my numbers are not correct, but the method is valid.  I
do not support the idea of extra charges for modem usage, and the
phone companies' numbers will have to be looked at very carefully,
however you cannot deny that modems _do_ take up bandwidth that
conversations do not.


Jonathan Bayer        Intelligent Software Products, Inc.
[phone]        500 Oakwood Ave.
[e-mail]        Roselle Park, NJ   07204

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

From: Ted Schroeder <ames!ultra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 17:49:19 GMT


In this discussion nobody has mentioned the fact that modems place a
continuous carrier on the line, unlike human voices that pause between
sentences and words.  There is a form of compression called DSI (and
there may be other forms also) that allow this "dead space" to be
used.  You might put 12 calls on 8 lines and assume the "dead space"
would allow you to compress bandwidth this way.  I know this is done
quite frequently in fully digital private networks, but I don't know
how the public networks work and whether they use this type of
technology.

Does anyone out there know about this?


      Ted Schroeder                   [e-mail]
      Ultra Network Technologies      ...!ames!ultra!ted
      101 Daggett Drive
      San Jose, CA 95134
      408-922-0100

Disclaimer:  I don't even believe what I say, why should my company?

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PC Pursuit
Date: Mon,  4-Dec-89 19:23:46 PST


A quick summary:  I cancelled my PCP account end of May, and
continued to be billed through November.  Telenet ignored calls,
letters, and certified mail.  I finally changed my CC account #
to stop the bills.

Patrick Townson, the moderator of the comp.dcom.telecom newsnet,
took my complaint to Dave Purks directly.  He replied with a form
letter post to the comp.dcom.telecom board, addressed to all.
Still never bothered to talk to me, though.

This was not good enough, so I sent another complaint through Patrick
T.  This resulted in a call, the next day, from David Rupp, from
Telenet.  He has been given the unenviable assignment of watchdog over
customer service at Telenet.  He was amiable, knew about my problem,
and arranged a credit (theoretically, we'll see when I get my
statement.)  There was no record of my registered letters that he
could find.  He'll look into it....

I explained that I wasn't the only one in this boat, and asked him to
fix that.  He replied that he would like everyone with this type of
problem, who has not been able to get satisfaction from customer
service, to write to him directly, bypassing CS.  To do this, send
mail to:

        Telenet Communications Corp, HQ23E, 12490
        Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, VA  22096, Attn:  David Rupp.

The only way he will find out if CS is screwing up is to hear from
you, so write him if CS ignores you!

Roger Preisendefer
X-PCP customer

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 07:03:40 GMT


One thing to keep in mind is that the use of dialers to access
inter-lata carriers does not necessarily mean that the customer pays
for the local call into the carrier.  Many carriers use FGB lines (950
NXX), and bear the (much reduced) costs.

Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Ago Memories of Telex/TWX Calls
Date: 4 Dec 89 12:11:47 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


I used to work for a radio station in Orange County that had a TWX
machine. We used it to get orders from ad agencies and to add or
"pull" music from the playlist (we were programmed by someone from
another area). When I first started there (november 1978) the TWX
machine's dial tone came from Pacific Telephone (from the Anaheim
Lemon street crossbar). The, one day, it changed! The dial tone level
was lower, and the service came from an electronic switch. The switch
wouldn't allow the use of pulse dialing, probably because the machine
we used normally was a tone machine (model 33, yecch).


joe@mojave
I finally changed my dumb signiture. People were always telling me what
a great signature I had.

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell
Date: 4 Dec 89 18:36:15 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, apple!netcom!edg@
> ames.arc.nasa.gov (Edward Greenberg) writes:

> > Last month, my phone bill advertised a little service called Intercom
> > Plus.  Being the phone junkie I am, I called up the business office
> > and ordered it right up.

> Leave it to Pac*Bell to sell its ringback codes to the public and then
> have to gall to refer to it as "advanced" service.

> How long is Pac*Bell going to sell bits and pieces of Centrex service
> to the residential and small business public while avoiding the
> necessary upgrades to offer really state-of-the-art telephone service?

As long as necessary to fully depreciate their 1AESSs.  Pac*Bell has a
whole pile of 1As; the 1A feature book is about 4 pages thick;
Pac*Bell is not allowed by the CPUC to writedown their 1As for several
years yet; it doesn't take a genius to figure out their best move...

Seriously, have you seen a thing called the "Intelligent Network Task
Force Report"?  Their definition of "Intelligent Network" is about 10
times the size of my definition, but it's interesting -- the
definition of what's needed for "really state-of-the-art telephone
service."

I won't go into it (it's a fairly long piece of work), but copies
should be available -- it's a public document.  However, the only
address I have for Pac*Bell documentation is:

    Pacific Bell
    Information Exchange
    2600 Camino Ramon, Room 1S450
    San Ramon, CA 94583
    [phone]

(I got my copy at the 1989 IN ComForum in Chicago.)

David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Scot E Wilcoxon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NY Tel New Service For Handling Operator Assisted Calls
Date: 5 Dec 89 00:19:43 GMT
Reply-To: Scot E Wilcoxon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN


>[Moderator's Note: Can't you *just imagine* the fraud with this new toy?
>On being asked to record their name, caller responds:
>'Meet me at the airport at seven'; 'Call me back at acc-xxx-yyyy'; 'I do
>not have change, but I'll be home soon.'; or a whole variety of messages
>to which the callee can refuse to accept charges. Is telco going to
>keep track of all the 'names' (heh-heh!) that callers use when placing
>collect calls?

I don't know what telco plans are, but it might be a profitable side
effect.  As the calls would undoubtedly get charged the minimum amount
for a "collect" call, dredging for these lost calls could easily be
worthwhile.  Instead of several human operators handling many calls, a
single operator could listen to the few recorded seconds from many
calls and tap a "charge for call" button (or type the 'name') when
appropriate.  Security staff can start by with random sampling, and it
could increase to a task to fill operator idle times (or not retiring
an operator replaced by the automated service).  A permanent record of
corrected charged calls, and the legal differences between a phone
call and an obvious recording should be useful.

Should we consider it a "collect voice mail" service? :-)


Scot E. Wilcoxon  [e-mail]    {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco
Data Progress      UNIX masts & rigging  [phone]    uunet!datapg!sewilco
    I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.

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

Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 89 19:54:42 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


I know it's in the wrong direction, but I believe you can  use country code
89, instead of 1, to reach the US from the UK  via the transatlantic cable.
Using country code 1 just picks the next channel to the US whilst 89 avoids
the satellite. I saw  this on a UK  newsgroup a few  months back and cannot
remember who mentioned it - I don't have first  hand experience and I don't
know if it still works. Can anyone shed more light on this?

BTW, country code 89 has not been assigned by CCITT.

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [e-mail] | Kevin Hopkins,              |
| or    ..!mcsun!ukc!nott-cs!K.Hopkins         | Department of Computer Science,|
| or in the UK: [e-mail]         | University of Nottingham,      |
| CHAT-LINE: [phone] x 3815         | Nottingham, ENGLAND, NG7 2RD   |
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Date: 5 Dec 89 01:21:09 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


Mr. Rotenberg's basic premise involves the comment that just because
we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. Also, he assumes that there
is some inherent, cast-in-stone right to privacy concerning the use of
the telephone.

I'd like to turn it around. Just because in years past we have *not*
had the technology to reveal callers' phone numbers does not mean that
failing to do so is the natural order of things. I'm sure that if
Caller-ID had been an inherent feature of automatic switching systems
from the beginning, this would be a non-issue. The word "Luddite"
comes to mind: A person who automatically resists change, particularly
technological.

I, for one, barely tolerate the lack of Caller-ID service in
California only because I recognize that Pac*Bell is too backward to
provide it.  This, as bad as it is, is at least a legitimate reason
for its non-existence. However, if Pac*Bell could provide the service,
and it was unavailable simply because some Luddites had decided that
people who call me have the right to know my number but I have no
right to know theirs, I would be pulling out all the protestation
stops.

Yes, Mr. Rotenberg covers his ground very well, but unfortunately you
have to subscribe to his basic assumptions to be able to agree. I, for
one, do not.

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

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

Date:     Mon, 4 Dec 89 1:49:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New Report in Archives: Eavesdropping Laws

I am pleased to announce another recent donation to the TELECOM
Archives for your reading pleasure.

The draft copy of a research paper on the eavesdropping laws has been
presented by Mr. Christopher Seline, <[e-mail]>. Mr. Seline,
who is studying for the bar, has made his research available to us.

The paper is entitled, "Eavesdropping on the Electromagnetic
Emanations of Digital Equipment: The Laws of Canada, England and the
United States."

This file is about 55 K in length, and is filed in the archives under
the title, 'eavesdrop.laws'

The usual ftp rules apply:

ftp cs.bu.edu
login anonymous
as a password, give your name and site, i.e. [e-mail]
'cd telecom-archives'
'ls' to review the selections.

And of course, if you did not get a copy of the Special Edition over
the weekend, you will also want a copy of 'rotenberg.privacy.speech'.

My thanks to Mr. Seline for making this paper available.

Patrick Townson

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

From: "David C. Troup  -  Skunk Works : 2600hz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Must Part With Tele-Expand System
Date: 4 Dec 89 23:21:24 GMT
Organization: Carroll College Stealth Rock Climbing Club


For all those who showed interest. I am selling my Tele-Expand small
phone system. Best offer takes this hard-to-get item.


We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed_
    _______  _______________    |David C. Troup / Surf Rat_2600 hz__________
    _______)(______   |         |[e-mail] : mail______________
________________________________|414-524-6809(dorm)/7343(work)______________

[Moderator's Note: Please correspond direct with Mr. Troup, thanks.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #551
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 5 Dec 89 1:03:28 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #552
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Dec 89 01:03:00 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 552

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: The Use and Abuse of UUNET (Was: ATTMAIL Access?) (Fred E.J. Linton)
    Re: How Do I Rotary? (Lars J Poulsen)
    Re: Caller*ID and *69 (David Lewis)
    Re: Another Thought on 8-digit Phone Numbers (David Lewis)
    Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not is Ringing) (K.Thompson)
    Re: The Lighter Side: An Unusual Story (Dave Fiske)
    A Word of Thanks is in Order (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Use and Abuse of UUNET (Was: ATTMAIL Access?)
Date: 4 Dec 89 20:04:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:

> ... recitation-of-the-month: AT&T Mail is a commercial e-mail service.
> There is *no* gateway between the AT&T Mail service and the Internet.
>
    This seems to be quite correct -- except -- that most of the
well- connected Unix systems "registered" with AT&T Mail seem willing
to overlook another AT&T Mail subscriber's _occasionally_ sending
through them FROM his own AT&T Mail account TO an
Internet/Bitnet/Usenet/etc.-net destination.

    Not so, however, for mail ORIGINATING somewhere else and
destined for you on your AT&T Mail account (except in flukey cases,
where the postmaster isn't aware of how his machine is getting mugged,
or doesn't know how to stop it):

>   It's not a technical problem (AT&T Mail talks uucp, and so
> do several gateways), but a billing question.  Any system that acted
> as a gateway would be billed by AT&T Mail for all messages it passed
> on, and of course wouldn't have reliable way of passing the bills along
> along to the systems it served; as a result, no one wants to be a gateway.

    Indeed, I once found (briefly) a seeming Internet-to-attmail
gateway -- very soon I had "cease-and desist" mail from its
postmaster, with whom (since I hadn't cost him more than 85 cents, in
fact) I quickly was able to make peace; shortly thereafter, he had a
patch on his mailer rejecting third-party attmail-bound traffic
through his machine.  Many sites spring to mind -- cbosgd and athq03,
among others -- who are no longer even on attmail because of the
expense of forwarding in this way, or who -- like uunet, seismo, ihnp4 --
just blankly refuse to forward into attmail except for their own
local users.

> Yes, it would be nice if there was a gateway.  Yes, there are gateways
> to MCI Mail and CompuServe.  I know it.  AT&T Mail management knows
> it.  As of right now, there isn't one.

Gentle pressure on the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center reps at +1
800 624 5672 may, in time, cause AT&T Mail management to realize that
permitting inbound mail at no charge to the site last handling it
before it arrives in attmail can only be _good_ for business -- a fact
MCI Mail and C'Serve have already realized (and _that_ fact may help
convince AT&T Mail!).

> ... get from the Internet to AT&T Mail?  You can't, okay?

    You can however make yourself a little switch box that will
connect in "triangle-routing" fashion your keyboard to your
mainframe's data-in line, your mainframe's data-out line (normally to
your CRT) to a modem TxD line, and the modem's RxD line to your CRT,
and in this way, on the line with AT&T Mail, you can transfer to your
AT&T Mail account, for further processing, anything that reached you
from Internet; similarly, by reversing the triangle, you can download
from your attmail account and into your mainframe account and thence
onwards into the Internet whatever has arrived there.  (I made myself
such a box using a couple of 4P2T switches -- totally hassle-free.)

        As to how the Moderator finds his way into AT&T Mail accounts,
I'd be curious to know -- perhaps the attmail recipients have an
agreement with the gatewaying machine to reimburse expenses, or the
gatewaying machines haven't yet realized they're being taken advantage
of, or...

> [Moderator's Note: Sorry, but I have to differ with you
> on the 'no gateway to attmail' statement. TELECOM Digest is sent to
> a few people who recieve it in their attmail boxes at their request.
> I send control copies of the Digest to my own attmail box from time
> to time to test the link.

 ... or maybe they'll just up and plug the leak, with no warning, and no
bounce report... (-: ?


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06457

ARPA/Internet:  [e-mail]           (preferred)
Bitnet:         FLINTON%eagle@WESLEYAN[.bitnet]     (also works)
from uucp:      ...!{research, mtune!arpa, uunet}!eagle.Wesleyan.EDU!FLinton
on ATT-Mail:    !fejlinton                     ( ...!attmail!fejlinton )
Tel.:           + 1 203 776 2210 (home)  OR  + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)
Telex:          <USA> + 15 122 3413   FEJLINTON
CompuServe ID:  72037,1054     ( OR, maybe:  [e-mail] )
F-Net (guest):  [e-mail]    OR    ...!inria.inria.fr!linton

[Moderator's Note: Well, if that occurs, then those users will need to
supply me with some other address. It would be a shame.  PT]

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

From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Rotary?
Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 17:30:19 GMT

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

>                                               ... hunting costs an
>arm and a leg with Pac*Bell (like everything else). It costs $20.00
>per line to make any change in hunting e.g. install, remove, number
>change, etc. For instance, if I have two lines (as I do for my UUCP
>modems) and I want the lead number to "hunt" to the second number,
>then I pay $40.00 extra ($20.00 per line) to install over and above
>any other charges and $1.00 per month ($0.50 per line). It would cost
>$40.00 to have the hunting removed as well (@ $20.00 per line).
>                             ... With busy-forwarding, you pay $5.00
>to put it in (on the first line, which when busy "forwards" to the
>second) and $2.00 per month.        ... and there is no termination
>charge if and when it is removed.

I am amazed that people put up with such rip-offs, and THEN talk about
how bad GTE is. In my GTE area, the technical quality has been
excellent since they ripped out the entire CO plant and replace it
with ESS about 3 years ago. Since then they have replaced the cable
plant in most of the city (they were running out of pairs). And
hunting is free. I have my two lines in a circular hunt group, though
I'll probably change that some day. (When the voice line is busy, I
don't usually want to deal with another voice call untill I get off
the first one).

Technically, what is the difference between hunting and busy-
forwarding ? Sounds to me like the same thing in an ESS environment.


/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>   [phone]  or [phone] ext 358
  ACC Customer Service              Affiliation stated for identification only
                My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID and *69
Date: 4 Dec 89 18:55:53 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> I heard today that Bell of PA is now offering the Caller*ID feature
 ...
> I have a few questions first:

> 1) What areas do the incoming calls have to come from for the number
> to be displayed? Do they have to be local, from within PA, from an
> area that also has Caller*ID, or will every number show up? What about
> long distance numbers? I get most of my calls from Baltimore,
> Pittsburgh and Boston. I'm in Philadelphia.

(sigh).  I really oughta put this in a file and just copy it when the
question comes up...  (but will I?  Probably not...)

For Caller*ID information to be displayed, assuming you have
subscribed to Caller*ID and have the Caller*ID box (and therefore your
CO is equipped with the appropriate hardware and software), one of the
following must be true:

1.  The caller must be calling from a phone subtending the same CO you do;

2.  The caller must be calling from a phone subtending a CO which is
equipped with SS7 (common channel signaling system #7), which is in the
same LATA as your CO.

(At some time in the future (beyond 1991), when Interexchange Carrier
SS7 interconnection is available, add:)

3.  The caller must be calling from a phone subtending a CO which is
equipped with SS7, run by a telco which has SS7 connectivity with the
caller's IC, which has SS7 connectivity at the appropriate tandem
switches, and has SS7 connectivity to your telco.

Simple, hey?

In practical terms: Today, you would get the calling number from calls
inside your LATA (in the philly area, generally local calls), from COs
which are SS7-connected (not intuitively obvious which are, but
generally some reasonably high percentage of "major" COs in the LATA
will be SS7-connected before a telco will offer CLASS).

You would not get calling number from Pittsburgh, Baltimore, or Boston.

At some point in the future -- but not before mid-1991, most likely --
you would start getting some calling number delivery from outside your
LATA.  There are so many variables involved that I won't even *try* to
predict where you would and would not get delivery....  save to say
that Pittsburgh would be your best bet (Bell of PA), followed by
Baltimore (C&P of Maryland, different telco but part of Bell Atlantic)
followed by Boston (different Regional Company -- NYNEX).

David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Thought on 8-digit Phone Numbers
Date: 4 Dec 89 18:59:16 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Ihor J Kinal) writes:

> Somewhere I was told that the phone company [MA BELL] did studies in
> the distant past, and found that people remember 7 digits much better
> than 8.

There's a famous work on short-term memory called "Seven Plus-or-Minus
Two".  I don't recall the author (I guess it's not *that* famous), but
the basic conclusion is that a person's short-term memory can hold, on
average seven "chunks" of information, plus or minus two.

Of course, most people don't remember phone numbers as digits, but as
collections of numbers.  My phone number, for example, isn't stored in
my memory as "2", "0", "1", etc..., but as "201", "758", "40", "99".
Four chunks.  Same with SSN -- "XXX", "XX", "XXXX".

David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*)
Date: 4 Dec 89 22:08:58 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


It sounds exactly like the ATT system we have at work.  You can buy an
analog phone that has a little message led that flashes once a second
when there is a message.  This is in addition to the sudder dial tone.
Your old phone can do the job.  Put an led in series with a 22K
resistor across your phone line.  Get the polarity right so that the
led lights when the phone is ON HOOK.

When you have a message the led will blink off momentarily once a
second.  It will flash brightly when the phone rings and when you are
off hook it will go nearly out.  Have fun.


 PS.  This is being used all over our building.


Ken Thompson     N0ITL
NCR Corp.  3718 N. Rock Road
Wichita,Ks. 67226  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Lighter Side: An Unusual Story
Date: 4 Dec 89 21:57:09 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


In article <[e-mail]>, telesci!ashepps@
pyrnj.pyramid.com (Anton C Shepps) writes:

< Climbing down from the pole, Pat found:

<      a. Dog was tied to the telephone system's ground post via an iron chain
< and collar.

<      b. Dog was receiving 90 volts of signalling current.

<      c. After several jolts, the dog was urinating on ground and barking.

<      d. Wet ground now conducted and phone rang.

Gee.  Might this be a solution for the person who wanted to be able to
"see" (via lamps) the phone ringing from any room in the house?

Provided you could see the dog's pen from all relevant rooms, just
watch for the dog urinating, then dash and pick up the phone!

I'm sure it would impress visitors, too.

"CROOK ROBS 16 BANKS --              Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WITH A CUCUMBER"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

Date:     Tue, 5 Dec 89 0:30:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  A Word of Thanks is in Order

I want to publicly extend my thanks to Chip Rosenthal who assisted
with the comp.dcom.telecom gateway for over a year during my tenure as
moderator of this Digest.

About a month ago, I received a note from Chip saying that his
circumstances were changing at his place of employment, and that it
would be necessary to make some changes in the gateway between the
Digest and Usenet, which was until that time being administered at
'vector', a well-connected site in Dallas, Texas.

Arrangements were made to handle the gateway from here in Evanston on
the accuvax. We were not ready to go at the end of November, and Chip
graciously assisted for a few more days from his new location,
'chinacat.lonestar.com'.

I appreciate his tireless efforts; particularly his work in writing
software which completely automated the gateway while he was managing
it.  He expects to re-locate at his new permanent base of operations
within about a month or two.

The cutover was made this past weekend, and not without some fumbles,
for which I take the entire blame. For your records, should you wish
to correspond with him, his address is '[e-mail]'.

Again, thanks!

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #552
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Dec 89 0:27:31 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #553
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Dec 89 00:25:05 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 553

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) (David Lewis)
    ISDN and TCP/IP (Robert P. Weber)
    Message Lights For Audix Systems (Ken Thompson)
    More Internet -> AT&T Mail Access (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
    Panasonic KX-T 61610 (Robert Jesse)
    Problem with Demented 900 Number (Dave Fiske)
    ANI Does Not Seem to Work (Holly Aaron)
    Kermit Sliding Windows Needed (Jose Valenzuela Sanz)
    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Tad Cook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...)
Date: 4 Dec 89 19:03:41 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> Bandwidth is not dynamically allowcated by
> some analysis of the sonic material on the line, but is fixed by the
> telco in the transmission system involved.
 ...
> It would be a neat trick indeed if you could automatically get extra
> bandwidth out of a telephone connection on demand. The audio leased
> line department would go out of business in a hurry!

Wait for Broadband ISDN.  SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork) layer 1,
plus ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) layer 2, plus the appropriate
definition of bearer capabilities, signaling, user-network interfaces,
and all that stuff (yet to be done...), gives you dynamic baodwidth
allocation.

Not until at least 1994, tho.  And even then only in very limited
deployment.  Not the kind of thing you'll order when you move into
that new apartment.


David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

Date: Mon, 1989 Dec 4   20:01 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ISDN and TCP/IP

Harvard University is installing a 5ESS running version 5 of the
software. We also have a fiber optic ethernet backbone network whose
configuration was chosen to permit easy upgrade to FDDI when such
bandwidth is required and when the upgrade is cost effective. The
environment is mostly Unix and VMS machines on the ether, running
TCP/IP with some DECNet. There is some LAT on local ethernets, but
only TCP/IP and DECNet will be supported on the backbone. The backbone
is implemented at present with cisco routers and subnets for various
faculties and departments. THere are a few IBM hosts that are or will
be running TCP/IP, including the server for the library catalog
application.

The is some confusion here about the utility of ISDN in the short
run and in long run. The following questions have arisen:

1. How do we create a gateway between ISDN and TCP/IP so that
the following common cases can get access to TCP (and the world):

   a. Dumb terminals with an rs232 connection to circuit switched
      d or b channels (i.e., 9.6 kbs or 64kbs).

   b. Intelligent peronal computers such as msdos and macintosh
      machines. These machines would ordinarily have ethernet
      cards and run something like FTP Software's TCP implementation,
      or NCSA Telnet on the macs. There might be a stray Unix box
      somewhere (no one wants to run slip). THe ISDN connection is
      BRI, not PRI.

   c. Local area networks in buildings which are nt yet connected
      to the fiber ethernet network. These networks are typically
      Appletalk or TCP/IP itself, with a few Novell networks
      here and there. Again, the ISDN connection is BRI, not
      PRI.

Thanks for any information you can offer.


Robert Philip Weber, Ph.D.       | Phone: [phone]
Senior Consultant                | Fax:   [phone]
Academic and Planning Services   |
        Division                 |
Office For Information Technology| Internet: [e-mail]
Harvard University               | Bitnet:   Weber@Harvarda
50 Church Street                 |
Cambridge MA 02138               |

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Message Lights For Audix Systems
Date: 4 Dec 89 23:07:55 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


For those with audix, an old phone, and no money to purchase an AT&T
phone with a message light...  Here is a circuit that works to
indicate an audix message is waiting.  Mount the led that lights in a
conveniently visible location.

                          |\ |
        <---------+-------| >|-----+-----'\/\/\/\/`-----+
                  |       |/ |     |        22k         |
                  |        led     |                    |
to phone          |                |                    |
line              |       | /|     |                    |
(green/red)       +-------|< |-----+                    |
(L1/L2)                   | \|                          |
                           led                          |
                                                        |
                                                        |
        <-----------------------------------------------+

This is for information only.  No one is encouraged to actually use
the circuit.  Legal or moral considerations of modifying or destroying
company property are not addressed.

No warranty expressed or implied.  Not liable for any direct,
consequential, or incidental loss or damage.  This circuit has not
been certified as complying with Part 68 of FCC regs.

WARNING: Telephone circuitry contains potentially lethal voltages.  No
user serviceable parts inside.  Refer all repairs, adjustments and
modifications of any equipment to qualified service personnel.


Ken Thompson     N0ITL
NCR Corp.  3718 N. Rock Road
Wichita,Ks. 67226  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Internet -> AT&T Mail access
Date: 5 Dec 89 21:07:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes:

> Yes, it would be nice if there was a gateway.  Yes, there are gateways
> to MCI Mail and CompuServe.  I know it.  AT&T Mail management knows
> it.  As of right now, there isn't one.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Fred E.J.
Linton) writes:

> Gentle pressure on the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center reps at +1
> 800 624 5672 may, in time, cause AT&T Mail management to realize that
> permitting inbound mail at no charge to the site last handling it
> before it arrives in attmail can only be _good_ for business -- a fact
> MCI Mail and C'Serve have already realized (and _that_ fact may help
> convince AT&T Mail!).

Fred, I realize your intentions are good; but my efforts to pass this
message along to AT&T Mail management have been much more sucessful
than the Customer Assistance Center's.  I have a large (well, virtual)
sign over my telephone that says "CTFC" (call the CAC), and I'm one of
their biggest fans; but, *please*, if you want to apply pressure on
AT&T on this topic, contact *me* (e-mail, please), not the AT&T Mail
Customer Assistance Center.  (If you need help with AT&T Mail
products, please call the CAC instead of me.)

>         As to how the Moderator finds his way into AT&T Mail accounts,
> I'd be curious to know -- perhaps the attmail recipients have an
> agreement with the gatewaying machine to reimburse expenses, or the
> gatewaying machines haven't yet realized they're being taken advantage
> of, or...

> > [Moderator's Note: Sorry, but I have to differ with you
> > on the 'no gateway to attmail' statement. TELECOM Digest is sent to
> > a few people who recieve it in their attmail boxes at their request.
> > I send control copies of the Digest to my own attmail box from time
> > to time to test the link.

>  ... or maybe they'll just up and plug the leak, with no warning, and no
> bounce report... (-: ?

I suspect most of the people at AT&T who want the Digest are also
reachable via the .att.com domain.  I have no idea whether non-AT&T
employees on the service have other paths.  (As far as I'm concerned,
and speaking as the person who plugged at least one Internet to AT&T
Mail leak, I'd rather help you find a better link.  *Please*, oh kind
Moderator, don't publish this path to the hole (:-) world, lest it
become a problem.)


Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

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

From: [e-mail] (robert.n.jesse)
Subject: Panasonic KX-T61610
Date: 5 Dec 89 15:35:01 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Jesse)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


More features I'd like to see added/fixed in the Panasonic 161610:

o  Allow one-keystroke dialing on proprietary sets of speed dial numbers
   (using the 12 memory buttons), LNR, and SNR.   Pressing any of these
   while on-hook would imply "SP PHONE".

o  Be able to program "SP PHONE" (or ICM or CO) buttons in the station
   speed dial memories.  The goal is to be able to program a button, DO
   NOT DISTURB, for example, that would, with a single keystroke, go off-hook
   (sp phone), dial *7110, wait for the confirmation tone, and go back on
   hook.

o  Momentarily drop loop current to a 2500-style station when disconnect
   is detected.  This would allow me to connect my answering machine as an
   extension without having to wait several seconds for VOX disconnect on
   incoming messages.

o  Be able to program ringing phase for each station, so that physically
   nearby telephones ring simultaneously (subject to max current limitations).

o  Be able to assign different ringing cadences (selecting from maybe three
   or four options) to different CO lines so I can tell which is ringing
   without having to look at, or even have nearby, a proprietary telephone.

o  (This one takes hardware, obviously:)  Decode Caller-ID on CO lines
   and send it to the LCD displays on the expensive proprietary telephones
   I've already bought.


Robert Jesse
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (starting mid-december)

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

From: Dave Fiske <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problem with Demented 900 Number
Date: 5 Dec 89 16:51:08 GMT
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY


On the Dr. Demento radio program this week, he mentioned that he had
to change the 900 number he had just instituted.  (Previously, you had
to call a regular number at your expense to make requests, etc.  Now,
you still call at your expense, but I guess it could be cheaper
depending when and from where you call.)

Anyway, he said that for some reason, certain areas were not able to
get through to his number, 1-900-BANANAS.  This translates to
1-900-226-2627.  Why should this be a problem?

At any rate, the new number is 1-900-773-7333.  (I forget what the cost
was.)


"CROOK ROBS 16 BANKS --              Dave Fiske  ([e-mail])
 WITH A CUCUMBER"
                                     Home:  [e-mail]
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef

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

From: Holly Aaron <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI Does Not Seem To Work
Date: 5 Dec 89 20:53:52 GMT
Reply-To: Holly Aaron <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


I always thought that ANI could work from any phone but its seems that
on some phones ANI (in my case 311) has no effect.  Those any- one
why.  Is there any other way to find out your number?

                [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 16:46:24 +0100
From: Jose Valenzuela Sanz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kermit Sliding Windows Needed

     I am looking for a version of kermit, called :

     Kermit Sliding Windows ("SuperKermit")

     Could you help me?

     Thank you very much,

              Jose

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Date: 6 Dec 89 02:45:24 GMT
Organization: very little


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

> Regarding Doug Davis's comments, I am not aware of any scanner
> receiver manufacturers that limit coverage in the 46-49 MHz region.

> Also, Doug says that Radio Shack does not limit coverage in the 800
> MHz celluar area on their scanners.  Not true.  They started blocking
> these frequncies in their scanners even before passage of the ECPA,
> although the radios can be modified back to full coverage.  Some
> owners have reported that Radio Shack has refused to service these
> radios after the cellular mod has been made!  The mod consists of one
> clipped diode.

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, one diode (from D-12, I think) is clipped
> and re-inserted at D-9 to gain full 800 coverage as well as 68-88
> megs.  Unfortunatly, the scanner loses 30-50 megs in the process; but
> who cares?  And even losing 30-50, you can use the 'magic number'
> calculation to bring 46.61 => 46.97 back at 68.01 => 68.37 and 49.67
> => 49.99 back at 71.07 => 71.39. The IF is 10.7; just double it (21.4)
> and add to the desired frequency.  It isn't the best reception, but it
> works.  PT]

Followup note:  Not true!  In the PRO2004, all it took was a clipped diode
to restore cellular.  If it was re-inserted at D9, then you get 100
more memories.

I have the PRO2005, which just takes one clipped diode...nothing inserted
to get the cellular restored.

Neither mod causes you to lose any coverage in the 30-50 MHz range, or
anywhere else.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I was discussing the PRO-34; sorry this was not
made clear in the original message.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #553
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Dec 89 1:06:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #554
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Dec 89 01:05:28 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 554

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC (Edwin R. Carp)
    Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC (Rick Farris)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (David Lewis)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Peter Weiss)
    Re: Modems and Phone Rates (Sam Fulcomer)
    Re: Modems and Phone Rates (Bernard Rupe)
    Re: Modems and Phone Rates (John Higdon)
    Modem Line Noise Problem (Bruce Nelson)
    Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (John Hughes)
    Re: Wrong Numbers From Directory Assistance (Jay Schuster)
    Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not is Ringing) (D Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Edwin R. Carp" <khijol![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC
Date: 5 Dec 89 04:01:47 GMT
Reply-To: khijol![e-mail]
Organization: Deadly Force, Inc., aka Clint Eastwood School of Diplomacy


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daryl Jones) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 548, message 8 of 8

>Some time ago we had a lengthy discussion about the origins of the
>coax connector names such as BNC, TNC, etc. I have just come across an
>article in QST, a Ham magazine that I think is the real McCoy. I would
>like to share it with you.

>Named the type C connector, it was the first designed as a true 50-ohm

I have used the type C connector.  They are rather hard to find (maybe
I haven't looked hard enough), but they are great for making portable
and mobile 2-meter antennas!  I had a friend in Salt Lake City who
used one on his car (5/8 wave 2m antenna), and it lasted quite a long
time!  For those of you who are not familiar with the type C
connector, it's like a BNC, except larger.  Bayonet mount, the whole
shot.  Much nicer than type N.

           Ed Carp    N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5)    erc@puzzle!khijol
           Austin,  Tx; (home) [phone]
           Snail Mail:  1800 E. Stassney  #1205
                        Austin, Tx  78744

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Subject: Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC
Date: 4 Dec 89 20:27:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott D. Green)
writes:

> ... that the BNC conncector is so named because it is a Berry Nice
> Connector.

We always called them "Baby N Connectors" and "Tiny N Connectors"...


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


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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Date: 5 Dec 89 16:13:45 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


All in all a very interesting article, and I add my thanks to David
Gast for submitting it to the Digest.

Although I tend to disagree with some of the content... and while I
was trying to figure out why, I realized that the central theme of Mr.
Rotenberg's comments is.

"(Calling Number Delivery) compels the disclosure of personal
information, without the consent of the caller.  This is at the heart
of information privacy and the reason that so many civil libertarians
and consumer advocates are concerned about the service."

Given that, the rest of the arguments tend to flow.  There is a basic
assumption here that Mr. Rotenburg doesn't address, though:

  Is a telephone number "personal information"?  Or is it corporate
  information belonging to the telephone company?

I don't have an answer, of course (but I smell a Ph.D. thesis...)

I will offer some possibilities for discussion, though.

What exactly is "personal information"?  Name?  Blood type?  Is there
some common thread that distinguishes "personal information" from
other types of information?

If the telephone company wanted to change your phone number, would you
be able to get a restraining order preventing them from doing so?  The
telephone companies, after all, have changed people's telephone
numbers in the past and will continue to do so -- ask anyone whose
number used to be 312-NXX-XXXX and is now 708-NXX-XXXX.  If a second
party can change information, is that information "personal"?


I do agree very strongly with Mr. Rotenberg's second recommendation --
involving privacy advocates, public advocates, and so on in the
process of defining new services.  (And, presumably, getting 'em to
sign non-disclosure agreements wouldn't be a problem... :-))


David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 5 Dec 1989 12:46:59 EST
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>

In addition to what was mentioned in the speech wrt. <disguising the
actual source of the call>, is the potential for accidental or
purposeful spoofing e.g., I'm at a friend's house and call one of
those enterprises that support CLASS.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 10:27:46 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates


I tried to stay out of this, but...

[e-mail] (David Robinson) writes:

> From the discussion so far it appears that modems do not take up
>anymore phone network resources than a normal voice call, you get the
>same 4KHz bandwidth whether you are talking or using a modem.

[e-mail] (Jonathan Bayer) writes:

>Sorry, you're wrong.  The telephone network is designed to work with
>human voices. As such the equipment multiplexes many conversations

Well, you're both half right. If your modem traffic is passing through
trunks (not just confined to two local loops served by the same end
office) you're going digital. A modem conversation is one continuous
scream and definitely (depending on how the signal is modulated/
compressed) takes up more trunk and switch bandwidth than the circuit
held by two people who have fallen asleep after phone sex.

If, however, your local loop (assumed still analog) is connected to
another local loop at the same end office via an analog switch, what
you've got is similar to an operator sitting in front of a patchboard
- an electrical circuit which doesn't care what it's carrying (you get
your 4KHz).

Then there's ISDN with digital local loops....


_/**/Sam_Fulcomer
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 13:08:01 CST
From: Bernard Rupe <motcid!ivory![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Bayer)
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 551, message 1 of 11

>Sorry, you're wrong.  The telephone network is designed to work with
>human voices. As such the equipment multiplexes many conversations
>onto a single wire.  Human conversation has many gaps that the network
>can use to multiplex other conversations using the same frequency.  A
>modem is on continously, tying up a frequency full-time.  Assuming
>that a wire can handle 100 different conversations at one time, and
>further assuming that 10 % of the conversations is quiet, that means
>that with the proper equipment a single wire could handle 110
>conversations at the same time. However, you use modems and all of a
>sudden the network loses some of its excess capacity.

>...however you cannot deny that modems _do_ take up bandwidth that
>conversations do not.

Although I haven't been following this subject consistently, I think I
can shed some light on the situation.  Voice calls in today's network
are indeed restricted to 3400 Hz.  These calls are sampled at 8 kHz
and converted to a digital rate of 64 Kb/s.  These 64 Kb/s channels
are then multiplexed and sent into the telephone network.  Today's
technology does not take advantage of any silent passages in
conversation (although it could be done, it would be very expensive).

Modem data is converted into the same 64 Kb/s and is multiplexed into
the telephone network just like a voice call (otherwise, how could you
use a regular phone line for a modem call?).  The result, then, is
that a modem call and a voice call take up exactly the same bandwidth
in the telephone network.

Bernie Rupe  uunet!motcid!rupeb

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates
Date: 6 Dec 89 05:42:03 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, ames!ultra![e-mail] (Ted
Schroeder) writes:

> In this discussion nobody has mentioned the fact that modems place a
> continuous carrier on the line, unlike human voices that pause between
> sentences and words.  There is a form of compression called DSI (and
> there may be other forms also) that allow this "dead space" to be
> used.  You might put 12 calls on 8 lines and assume the "dead space"
> would allow you to compress bandwidth this way.  I know this is done
> quite frequently in fully digital private networks, but I don't know
> how the public networks work and whether they use this type of
> technology.

There are two major problems with this. Long distance companies rarely
do this anymore (it was too disconcerting to the customers) and local
telcos *NEVER* do this between local offices. And remember, it's the
local telcos that want to put the extra charges onto modem users.

The drift has been lost here. Every justification for discerning
between modems and the human voice would apply to LD carriers, not the
metallic circuit that runs between your PC and your local central
office. You already pay for long distance; is someone suggesting that
modem calls should be charged at a higher rate?

But the original question concerned whether lines used for modems
should have higher *local* charges applied across the board.

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

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

From: Bruce Nelson <kodak![e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Line Noise Problem
Date: 5 Dec 89 17:07:40 GMT
Reply-To: Bruce Nelson <kodak![e-mail]>
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY


I have been experiencing a problem which has me completely baffled.

I have 2 phone lines, one for voice, and one for modem. I run a bbs on
the modem line, and use it for outgoing calls to other bbs's, locally,
and long distance. I am also president of a users' group which runs
another bbs, which I call often.

The problem is that I have absolutely no (transmission) problem
calling any other bbs, local, or l/d. No user of my bbs ever has
problems, including calls from the same modem the user group bbs uses.
The only problem is when I call out from my modem to the user group
bbs modem, on my modem line.  I get lots of <null>} echoed in response
to my outgoing characters. If I switch my modem to the "voice" line, I
have perfect transmission to the user group bbs. I have tried several
modems at my end - I currently have a Supra 2400 on it. I have tried a
Promethius 1200, which is the same modem as the user group uses. The
problem persists with both of my modems.

The phone company did come out and fix a grounding problem, and even
changed the line to another pair, and the line tests 100% quiet. They
are unable to do anything else.

Every combination of my modem to anyone else's seems to be perfect in
both directions, except for the one bbs, that bbs modem can call mine
ok, and using my voice line to call theirs is successful, which seems
to rule out interexchange trunk problems, too. Can anyone give me any
insight as to how to cure the problem (other than using the voice
line?).

Bruce Nelson
 ...!rochester!kodak!nelson

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

From: "John H." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US?
Date: 5 Dec 89 16:28:24 GMT
Organization: Axis Design, 135 rue d'Aguesseau 92100 Boulogne France


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

> Thus the US could then follow the
> international recommendations for international prefix (i.e. 00),
> instead of having 010 which is not used anywhere else in the world.

Well, in fact the UK uses 010, I think (please don't shoot me if I'm wrong)
the US uses 011.

> I am dreaming the day when I can pick up a telephone anywhere in the
> world and dial home, always using the same number.

Haha!  If you think 010 or 011 is funny, try coming to France, we have
to do 19 AND WAIT FOR A SECOND DIAL TONE!  Primitive!

John Hughes

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

From: Jay Schuster <uvm-gen![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers From Directory Assistance
Organization: The People's Computer Company, Williston, VT
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 01:06:25 GMT

[e-mail] (Henry Mensch) writes:
>If you get a wrong number from Directory Assistance, is there any
>point in calling them and letting them know, or do they just bitbucket
>this information and keep giving out the wrong number?

My company's name is The People's Computer Company.  For a while
after we got an office, DA was giving out our number as the
PeopleExpress Airlines reservation number.  Someone would ask for
Peoples Express, the DA would type in Peoples... and come up with
our number and give it out.

We kept track of the number of times we had to give out the correct
PeopleExpress phone number, and eventually billed New England
Telephone for using us to give out the PeopleExpress phone number.

After a fair amount of wrangling, we actually *got* a check from
them, which we photocopied, framed, and hung in our office.

Even after we had solved the problem with NETel, we continued to
get calls from Quebec.


Jay Schuster <[e-mail]>    uunet!uvm-gen!banzai!jay, attmail!banzai!jay
The People's Computer Company    `Revolutionary Programming'

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*)
Date: 6 Dec 89 03:37:37 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> It sounds exactly like the ATT system we have at work.
 ...
>  PS.  This is being used all over our building.

No, Ken, that works all over your building because your building is
served by a PBX or other switching system that offers a message-waiting
notification feature.  Normal central office subscriber lines will not
control the message-waiting lamps on your telephone sets.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #554
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Dec 89 1:43:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #555
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Dec 89 01:40:16 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 555

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Various Questions and Observations (Mark B. Cohen)
    PacTelesis Power Grab (Kian-Tat Lim)
    Answering Machine MESSAGE STOPPER! (Thomas E. Lowe)
    9600 Baud Modem Standards (Theodore Lee)
    Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated? (Paul S. Sawyer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 13:39:47 EST
From: "Mark B. Cohen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Various Questions and Observations


Recent, and some not so recent, articles in the Digest have brought a
few questions and observations to mind.

Old CO switches: I live in a town that only recently upgraded from
pulse-only to electronic switching.  [As a side note, kudos to New
England Telephone for no noticable problems during the actual change.]
My parents live a town that is also pulse-only (with no known plans
for change....)  With the old switch here in 508-865, intra-exchange
calls could be dialed using 5-XXXX.  At my parents residence, in
413-229, a similar intra-exchange call is dialed using only XXXX.
Dialing the five digits would connect to 9XXX and drop the final
digit.  Is this difference significant, or just a feature from
different switch manufacturers?

Alternate LD from pay phones: Recently, I stopped at a pay phone in
Brewster, NY (914-???) to place an interstate call using my NETel/AT&T
calling card.  The phone was clearly labelled with "Calls outside the
914 area code are handled by AT&T Long Distance Service".  Dialing
0+number produced the expected 'gong' tone, after which I entered my
card number.  The response was a recording: "Thank you for using First
Fone."  After waiting for about 5 seconds (for a connection that is
normally almost instantaneous) I closed the connection, and redialed
using 10288+.  This time, the connection was effectively instantaneous,
with the traditional AT&T recording.

In the past, I've also gotten a Sprint attachment to my NETel bill for
an interstate calling card call.  Two questions on this issue: First,
is there any form of legislation that requires the _correct_ LD
carrier to be displayed on a pay telephone?  Second, can carriers such
as Sprint or FirstFone utilize another carriers validation code?  My
understanding is that one must establish an account with an alternate
carrier and receive a carrier-specific validation code.

Misuse of local DA?  A chain of diet centers in the MetroBoston area
has been using a commercial that in my estimation is a blatant misuse
of DA.  At the close of the commercial, instead of an expected list of
locations or a toll-free number, etc. etc., the image ends with the
text "Call 411 today."  Ironically enough, I first noticed this
commercial shortly after the start of the strike against NETel.  I
called the NETel business office and mentioned the existence of the
commercial.  Their response was that if I wanted to file a formal
complaint they could investigate it.  I told them, thanks anyway, but
I just thought they should know about it.

NPA splits: I've now lived through two splits, one in each part of the
affected area.  During the 212/718 split, I had a job similar to
Patrick's: I was a collector for second and third-party payments for a
large hospital in Manhattan.  For the 617/508 split, I moved less than
two months after the split, so my number effectively changed twice in
six weeks.  I was never aware of any reported difficulty during either
split.

Toll-free numbers: A local radio station recently ran a large campaign
for giving away thousands of dollars.  (Don't they all? :) The
station's studio is located in Worcester.  Their business and request
lines are local Worcester numbers.  For this campaign, the number they
advertised was 931-1045, which they claim is a toll-free call.
(Non-coincidentally, their frequency is 104.5 MHz.)  Calls to 931-1045
require a leading 1 from 508-865, which is local to Worcester.  A
check of the phone book showed an entry for 617-931 in Boston, and no
entry for 508-931.  617-931-1045 is invalid.  Is it possible to have
an intra-NPA toll-free call without the leading 800?

(I've never been able to get anything other than a busy, fast-busy, or
a circuits busy recording when calling, so I don't have a record of a
completed call.)

Old telco equipment: In the basement of my parents home, I recently
discovered some form of old telco battery.  There was a case somewhat
secreted among the floor joists, with a small cable (disconnected)
running to it.  The case itself it roughtly the size and shape of a
large binocular case.  Within the case are what appear to be two large
dry cells.  Each of them is cylindrical, roughly 8 inches high and 3
inches in diameter.  They both have two screw-top terminals on the
upper face.

The upper and lower faces appear to be cardboard, and the wrapper is
brown (now anyway) paper with the words (from memory) "Bell Telephone
Property, Nov. 1929" (Date is approximate, I haven't looked in while.
It's definitly the 1920's though.)  From my understanding of the
history of the house, it was built in the late 20's.  Until 10 years
ago, the house was at the end of the line for both telephone and
electric service.  (What's cable TV?  :)

So what are these things?  Everything I've read on the history of
telephony indicates power supplies were centralized.  It also doesn't
make sense to me to place expendables in a location not easily
accessed.

One final question, not directly related to telephony: Is the large
population of people on the network with technical telephony knowledge
the result of UNIX(tm) originally having been a Bell Labs product?

Thanks to everyone in advance.


Mark Cohen    [e-mail]  [e-mail]
  ...!well_connected_site!wpi.wpi.edu!markc  (Not UUCP domain registered)

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

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 22:47:15 PST
From: Kian-Tat Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacTelesis Power Grab

    Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles
Times.  Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad):

[Big headline]    Can you imagine living in a country that limits the
        flow of information to its students?

[Big headline]    You do.

[Bold italic] If Naason Sanchez lived in Great Britain, his telephone
line could connect him to a computerized information service that
would help him learn to solve math problems and answer geography
questions in an instant.  But Naason lives in Los Angeles, California
 -- in the United States of America -- and he isn't that lucky.

    Here in America, the Bell telephone companies aren't allowed
to work closely with educators to create and offer information
services like these that can help students learn.  Or for that matter,
provide many other services that could improve the lives of American
citizens in ways people in other countries take for granted.  Nor are
the Bell companies allowed to design and produce equipment which could
make these services easier to use.

[Headline]    Why is the U.S. behind?

    In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice
Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific
Telesis and six other regional holding companies.  At that time, very
narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company
subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer.

    Today, students in many other countries can use their phone
systems to reach special computerized tutoring services, or they can
access data bases that can help them do the research necessary to
complete their homework assignments.

    Meanwhile, here in America, it's a different story.  These
services are available, but only in limited locations, and at high
cost.  If the Bell companies could develop and provide these services,
along with many others that people in other countries take for
granted, they would become more widely available, and growth of this
market would encourage more information providers to enter it.

[Headline]    There _is_ something you can do.

    Legislation that would lift restrictions on Pacific Bell has
already been introduced in the U.S. Congress.  But it's not too late
for you to learn more about this issue, and help us do something about
it.
    The education of Naason Sanchez and millions of other American
kids is too important to put on hold.

[Boxed]        STOP PUTTING AMERICA ON HOLD
[Logo of telephone handset with a pair of hands]
For further information, call Pacific Telesis Group.
1-800-776-1636.

[My comments:

1.    I sincerely doubt that Pacific Telesis expects to make much
money off of education-only information services.  I would expect them
to quickly take a back seat to more lucrative commercial services.

2.    How many countries have telco-owned information services?
Britain, France, and who else?

3.    Lifting restrictions may be a bit more general than the ad
implies.  I plan to call to get the further information.

4.    [Not telecom related] Is answering geography questions
instantly, by reference to a computer database, really a good way to
improve our educational system?


Kian-Tat Lim ([e-mail], KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)


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

From: Thomas E Lowe <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Answering Machine MESSAGE STOPPER!"
Date: 5 Dec 89 18:50:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Not too long ago, someone was asking about making their answering
machine stop when they pick up ANY extension on that line.

I came across a little gadget that is supposed to do just that in a
catalog from a company called "The Fordham-Scope Catalog".  Below is
the description as it reads in the catalog:

Answering Machine MESSAGE STOPPER!

   Stop your answering machine mesage when you pick up any phone in the
   house.  Your answering machine will automatically reset while you speak.
   Simply plug the Message Stopper into the telephone wall jack.
   Then connect your answering machine and telephone into their respective
   slots.  The Message Stopper can also be used to prevent others from
   interrupting or overhearing your phone conversation.
   Message Stopper model #MS-2.  $7.95 each  2 for $15.00

Physically, it looks like one of those two-for-one adapters that give
you two plugs for one, plus a green and red led (one for each jack)

The phone number for the company  is 800-645-9518 (800-832-1446 in N.Y.)
Supposedly their catalog is $2.00.  If anyone wants, I can fax them the
page that has the Message Stopper pictured.  Just send me mail.


Tom Lowe    [e-mail]   attmail!tlowe     201-949-0428
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A
Crawfords Corner Road,  Holmdel, NJ  07733
(R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T  (keep them lawyers happy!!)

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

From: Theodore Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: 9600 Baud Modem Standards
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 23:46:05 EST


Could someone please describe what 9600 baud modem standards,
including error-correction, are now current?  (Telenet is starting to
offer 9600-baud service -- how do I make sure that their modem is
compatible with mine or with one I might call from their network when
they get around to adding 9600 baud outdial as well?)

(I don't read this Digest regularly, so if the question has been
answered recently please point me to the answer, and, in any case,
please reply directly.)

Ted Lee <[e-mail]>

[Moderator's Note: But in answering Mr. Lee, please 'cc' the Digest
also. Thanks. PT]

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

Subject: Re: Why Aren't College Telcos Regulated?
Date: 5 Dec 89 15:25:11 EST (Tue)
From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>

[Please note that any comments following are my personal opinions.  I
make no policy for, nor do I speak for UNH.  I run the UNIX System,
not the switch.  We are familiar with ACUS only as users of software
which they own.]

Many persons, apparently students, have written lately to complain
about various campus phone services.  Recently Paul Selig brought up a
few points to which I would like to add, to help show the position
that we are in as service providers....

Since Divestiture, the local telco may not want to bother with serving
your dorm room, unless it is already wired.  Sometimes the telco does
not even have wires to the building.  It is the property owner's
responsibility to provide the means (space in existing conduits or on
poles, or easements and in some cases costs to install conduits or
poles) to serve those buildings.  Some colleges/universities do not
wish to do this.  Some opt to let an outside agent handle this.

UNH is wiring buildings as possible, trying to eventually provide
service for all campus residents.  If we had to act as a public
utility, we would have to do this all at once and so might not do it
at all, since our main job is to provide business telecommunications
for staff users.  In most cases, we are making use of existing
equipment and capacities which are not otherwise fully used after
business hours.

Keeping track of even a small number of students as customers is quite
different from keeping track of departmental customers, especially
with no additional staff.  Outside agencies such as ACUS can seem
attractive when they can act as turnkey service providers.

Although some larger or more fortunate institutions have central
office type switches and answer supervision, we and many others do
not, and it would not be cost effective to implement soon (so they
tell me).  TSPS or similar service which someone mentioned as
available to hotels, etc., was refused to us because we ARE NOT A
HOTEL under the tariff, said the telco....

We already process outside toll tapes which include collect calls,
etc., so we do not charge extra for such calls, but if you attempt a
fraudulent call or make an operator assisted call which gets billed to
other than your own number, we have to research it, and "Bill'em,
Danno" an extra $2.00.  We do this whether you are student or staff,
since it is preventable.

We do not knowingly block access to any long distance company that is
normally accessable, although our direct dial prices should be lower
than those with credit card or operator surcharges.  We do not charge
for 1-800- 950- or local calls.

Our business office treats our fees as normal student expenses, so we
do not need to charge a deposit or cut you off at a line of credit.
Some institutions do not want to collect telephone bills.

I agree that "Colleges and universities can only get away with this
crap if their students and staff let them!" [[e-mail]], as
ACUS and other third parties all make some arrangement with some agent
of any institution they serve, one or more of President, VP, Dean of
Students, Telecom Office, Buildings and Grounds, Housing Office,
probably Trustees and/or State Board of Regents, etc, ad infinitum, ad
nauseum.  Each institution has different people making different
arrangements for different services, and differs in responsiveness to
student needs.

As telephone service providers at UNH, we try to be responsive, we
welcome complaints, and we even give credits!  (sometimes...  B-) But
you don't call the public utilities commission because the lights in
your dorm flicker every time you make popcorn...  so work with whoever
runs these things on YOUR campus and maybe you can get somewhere!

        Best of luck, Paul
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Paul S. Sawyer              uunet!unh!unhtel!paul     [e-mail]
UNH Telecommunications        attmail!psawyer       [e-mail]
Durham, NH  03824-3523      VOX: 603-862-3262         FAX: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #555
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 6 Dec 89 23:30:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #556
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Dec 89 23:30:15 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 556

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Russell McFatter)
    Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network? (Russell McFatter)
    Re: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) (S. Fleming)
    Re: Modems and Phone Rates (David Lewis)
    Re: Modem Line Noise Problem (Richard S. Walker)
    Re: How Do I Rotary? (John Higdon)
    Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Date: 4 Dec 89 21:18:11 GMT
Reply-To: Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA


The Communications Act of 1934 actually goes a bit further: it
basically states (as a result of international accord) that the
airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, not the government.  The concept here
is that any signal which is beamed into YOUR airspace belongs to you,
and you can do with it as you please subject to certain restrictions
for reasons of national security.

The concept here is "personal use" of material which is intentionally
or unintentionally sent into your property: Just as with broadcast TV,
you can (watch / videotape) to your heart's content, as long as the
material is for your own personal use.  You cannot sell, or in many
cases give away, such information if it is "obviously" of a restricted
/ copyrighted nature.  Under the Act, if you are to receive a
transmission of a "secret" nature, you are obliged not to divulge the
information to anyone (even for free), but may listen to it yourself.

There are three recent examples of subsequent laws which appear to
violate the Act: (1) States which ban radar detectors, which are
effectively radio receivers.  The Communications Act of 1934 is
frequently used in defense of radar detectors (although your rights
for receiving signals while MOBILE, on public property, are not
clear).  (2) Descrambling satellite transmissionswas made illegal not
too long ago.  This is another case of a (presumably contestable)
situation where you are prohibited from using, even for your own
personal reasons, information beamed into your house without your
consent.  (3) Protection for cellular telephones.

I think that half the reason for the Communications Act of 1934 is one
that we are seeing right here: If, by voluntarily transmitting a
low-power signal on an authorized channel, in such a manner that the
signal invades my neighbor's property, can I now seek to make it
illegal for my neighbor to listen to that frequency ever again?  Is
the liability my NEIGHBOR'S (for listening), or MINE (for beaming the
signal into his house)?  This is what the Act seeks to resolve: that
airwaves are public in nature, and cannot be monopolized by people who
intend to use the resource as their own private communications device.

If I wanted my baby's noises to be secure from prying ears, I could
have easily trotted down to Radio Shack and purchased a wired(!)
intercom that doesn't pollute the airwaves, or (what a concept!) put
the baby where I can hear it without electronic assistance.  (A bit
more reliable, don't you think?)  If I'm really bent on wireless
intercoms inside my home, I should either accept the fact that I am
voluntarily BROADCASTING, or at least take measures on my own to see
that the transmissions do not leave my house.  Most manufacturers of
cordless phones (even some cellular phones), baby monitors, and other
"Part 49" gizmos DO alert you to the fact that wireless communications
defy privacy.  This is not merely our law, but a law of nature as
well; to legislate otherwise will bring us nothing but headaches.

   Russ McFatter     [e-mail]


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

From: Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do Modem Users Congest The Phone Network?
Date: 4 Dec 89 20:45:54 GMT
Reply-To: Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA


While debating the question of how much load modem users actually
create, I think that we've been missing a more important issue.  Let
me ask you the question: Why do you suppose the phone companies are
really in favor of modem surcharges??  Does anyone really believe that
this is out of a well-meaning intent to avoid the kind of dial-network
overload that we only ever see on certain holiday afternoons and
during major disasters?

At least in THIS area, NYNEX seems to provide their own answer-- in
terms of incredibly expensive, prime-time regional television
advertisements telling you that you should be using the phone MORE.
Keep in touch with everyone you know!  Give 'em a call right now!
This is backed by more TV and radio ads with themes such as "...you
should have FAXed it!" and "How could you have known that the store
was closed??  You should have called!!".  Print ads do much of the
same.  Is this the behavior you would expect of a utility that is
short of resources and wants to conserve them?  (Contrast with an
electric utility, which nowadays as they near peak capacity would
never run an ad such as "Turn it way down and keep COOL this summer...
with enjoyable central air conditioning"!!)

Unfortunately, the BOC's tend to complain about the cost of providing
some service until such a time as the rate commission gives in to the
increase...  and then they follow up with a marketing frenzy for the
same service.  New England Telephone has complained for years about
not being allowed to charge for directory assistance, and they keep
reminding us how it costs them "millions" of dollars.

A friend of mine from New Mexico tells me that the story was the same
there, but in his area a 60-cent-per-call charge was approved, and now
they run advertisements telling you how much better it is to use
directory assistance than to actually look up the numbers yourself.  I
suspect the same would be true for modem surcharges...  "Don't sit
there waiting for YOUR news...  Poll your news host every five
minutes!!"  "Spend a good long time with your friendly local bulletin
board service... Only $8.60 an hour! (based on a ten-hour call at
lowest off-peak rates with maximum quantity discount and other
provisions for calls in your local service area for a limited time
only with rebate at participating locations.)

I suppose that part of the basis of our (still a monopoly) phone
network is to charge you something for (virtually) nothing: Tone
service (they could actually save a lot of money by getting everyone
to switch to tone and eliminate pulse dial)...  Custom calling
services (that are all handled at no extra expense by the central
office's computer)...  and the ubiquitous $8-$25 "service order
charge" that represents 60 seconds that an service representative
takes to punch your order for these into a computer.  Haven't we had
enough of this already?

    Russ McFatter    [e-mail]
(std. disclaimers)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...)
Date: Wed,  6-Dec-89 08:02:30 PST

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

> It would be a neat trick indeed if you could automatically get extra
> bandwidth out of a telephone connection on demand. The audio leased
> line department would go out of business in a hurry!

David G Lewis (...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej) responds:

>Wait for Broadband ISDN.  SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork) layer 1,
>plus ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) layer 2, plus the appropriate
>definition of bearer capabilities, signaling, user-network interfaces,
>and all that stuff (yet to be done...), gives you dynamic bandwidth
>allocation.

>Not until at least 1994, tho.  And even then only in very limited
>deployment.  Not the kind of thing you'll order when you move into
>that new apartment.

Even though I think it will happen earlier than 1994, I agree with Mr.
Lewis.  And, yes indeed, "the audio leased line department will go out
of business in a hurry!"  When a user can dial up a full T1 circuit
for 10 minutes *and be billed for only 10 minutes use*, it's going to
be hard to justify leasing a 19.2 kb/s connection 24 hours a day, 7
days a week.

ISDN was a warm-up.  *Broadband* ISDN is really going to change the world.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stephen Fleming                 |  Internet: [e-mail]   |
| Director, Technology Marketing  |  Voice:    [phone]           |
| Northern Telecom                +-------------------------------------|
| Federal Networks Division       |    Opinions expressed do not        |
| Vienna, Virginia  22182         |    represent Northern Telecom.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates
Date: 6 Dec 89 18:23:05 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> [e-mail] (David Robinson) writes:

> > From the discussion so far it appears that modems do not take up
> >anymore phone network resources than a normal voice call, you get the
> >same ~4KHz bandwidth whether you are talking or using a modem.

> Sorry, you're wrong.  The telephone network is designed to work with
> human voices. As such the equipment multiplexes many conversations
> onto a single wire.

Yes, but the multiplexing method you describe is not the one used in
general.

>  Human conversation has many gaps that the network
> can use to multiplex other conversations using the same frequency.  A
> modem is on continously, tying up a frequency full-time.  Assuming
> that a wire can handle 100 different conversations at one time, and
> further assuming that 10 % of the conversations is quiet, that means
> that with the proper equipment a single wire could handle 110
> conversations at the same time.
> I am sure that my numbers are not correct, but the method is valid.

Valid, perhaps.  Used, no.  (OK, before someone jumps on me and starts
throwing "statistical TDM" around... not used by the public switched
telephone network in any major applications.)

> I do not support the idea of extra charges for modem usage, and the
> phone companies' numbers will have to be looked at very carefully,

OK, let's clarify some terms.  A two-way voice conversation includes
energy in the frequency band 20-20000 kHz.  The majority of this
energy is below 4000 Hz.  An intelligible voice conversation,
therefore, can be considered to include energy in the frequency band
300-3300 Hz.  It also includes a large amount of dead air.

A telephone voice channel is capable of carrying energy in a frequency
band from about 300 to about 3300 Hz.  This channel is constantly
available, end to end, to the user.  Regardless of the fact that no
energy may be carried at a given point in time, the capacity is
immediately, fully, directly available to the end user at any given
point in time, and is not used by the network for any other purpose.

This is true whether you're talking an analog loop, an analog trunk, a
time-division multiplexed digital trunk (on any medium), an ISDN
loop...  doesn't matter.  The 3000Hz of capacity is not used by the
network for any other purpose.

Therefore, it matters not whether that 3000Hz of capacity is 100%
utilized, 90% utilized, or 10% utilized -- the resources are fully
available to the end user, and you should not charge the end user more
because he's able to make more efficient use of the channel provided
him.

> however you cannot deny that modems _do_ take up bandwidth that
> conversations do not.

Yes, I can.  I can't deny that modems make more efficient use of the
available bandwidth -- but I certainly can deny that modems "take up
bandwidth conversations do not".

A modem, be it a 300bps Bell 103, a 1200 bps Bell 212a, or a 9600 bps
V.32, uses 3000 Hz of bandwidth.  Period.  A conversation uses 3000 Hz
of bandwidth.  Period.

David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: "WALKER,RICHARD S" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Line Noise Problem
Date: 6 Dec 89 18:49:10 GMT
Reply-To: "WALKER,RICHARD S" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


BALLco, Inc sells a modem noise filter that comes with a money-back guarantee.
It costs 30 bucks and seems to work fine for me.  Call [404] 979-5900.

Richard S. Walker                         Georgia Tech Research Institute
GA Tech Box 35302                         [e-mail]  (vm)
Atlanta, GA 30332                         [e-mail] (vms)
[404] 894-7161[W]                         [e-mail] (unix)
[404] 352-3726[H]                         [e-mail] (cis)

The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect that of my employer.

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Rotary?
Date: 7 Dec 89 00:29:19 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lars J Poulsen) writes:

> I am amazed that people put up with such rip-offs, and THEN talk about
> how bad GTE is.

Yes, but what do you pay monthly for a phone? I'll bet it's higher
than my rate. Of course, I probably actually pay more because I have
Commstar (home Centrex) which you can't get on unmeasured lines. Neah!

> Technically, what is the difference between hunting and busy-
> forwarding ? Sounds to me like the same thing in an ESS environment.

At first blush, it would appear that the two are simply tariff
differentiations. But busy-forwarding also allows you to cross prefix
boundaries, and will forward after a preset number of unanswered
rings.  In my case, I have that number set to something like 15 or so.

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

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off
Date: 7 Dec 89 00:20:25 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


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

> One thing to keep in mind is that the use of dialers to access
> inter-lata carriers does not necessarily mean that the customer pays
> for the local call into the carrier.  Many carriers use FGB lines (950
> NXX), and bear the (much reduced) costs.

It's time to dump this myth. I have the package for OCCs that is
supplied by Pac*Bell. It includes all of the technical requirements,
rates, billing procedures, etc., etc., for the various connections
that OCCs can get to Pac*Bell.

The long and the short of it is: the difference in cost to OCCs
between FGB and FGD is fractional cents per minute. Plus, with FGD you
can accept or waive a number of Pac*Bell services that can materially
affect your connection costs. The major difference is POP
requirements.

Besides I wasn't talking about FGB in the first place. I was talking
about FGA.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #556
*****************************











Date:     Thu, 7 Dec 89 0:12:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #557
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Dec 89 00:10:58 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 557

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA (David Smallberg)
    Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (Mike Warrington)
    Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (John Pettitt)
    Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) (Ge' Weijers)
    Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) (Steven_Tenney)
    Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC (Michael Katzmann)
    Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Ge' Weijers)
    Re: 10XXX from Pay Phones (John Owens)
    Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell (John Higdon)
    Pay Phone Questions (Gary Skinner)
    CLASS in Canada (Ken Jongsma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA
Date: 6 Dec 89 02:55:10 GMT
Reply-To: David Smallberg <lanai![e-mail]>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


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

>>>speaks. Do any operators speak a second language? No!

>                        Operators are not language junkies; they are
>(educationally) ordinary people for the most part.

>Which ones would you like them to speak: English, French, Spanish,
>German, Dutch, Portuguese, Chinese (lots of dialects), Japanese,
>Korean, Vietnamese, Hindi, Urdu, Serbo-Croatian, Hungarian, Farsi,
>Russian (lots of variants), Italian, Turkish, Gaelic, Tamil, [lots of
>Papua-New Guinea variants], Greek, Arabic, Swahili, ... ?

Maybe it's just the U.S. that's backward, then.  A Japanese
acquaintance of mine was an operator for KDD (Japan's international
phone company), and she spoke Japanese and English well, plus enough
Mandarin, Korean, and French to handle most telephone requests.  She
said most other KDD operators could handle phone transactions in four
or five major languages.  The last time I used an international
operator in the U.S., I asked her as an aside what languages she spoke
other than English.  She said none.  As Yakov Smirnov would say, "What
a country!"


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

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

Date: Wed,  6 DEC 89 09:13:58 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections


> I know it's in the wrong direction, but I believe you can  use country code
> 89, instead of 1, to reach the US from the UK  via the transatlantic cable.
> Using country code 1 just picks the next channel to the US whilst 89 avoids
> the satellite.

I tried this last night using both BT and Mercury and it didn't work
(I actually called a number in Canada, but I guess that shouldn't have
made a difference).  Maybe now that the number has been 'discovered',
BT has changed it to some other unused country code.

Mike Warrington

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

From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 89 15:02:29 GMT
Organization: Specialix International
Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections?

[e-mail] (Kevin Hopkins)
writes:

>I know it's in the wrong direction, but I believe you can  use country code
>89, instead of 1, to reach the US from the UK  via the transatlantic cable.
>Using country code 1 just picks the next channel to the US whilst 89 avoids
>the satellite. I saw  this on a UK  newsgroup a few  months back and cannot
>remember who mentioned it - I don't have first  hand experience and I don't
>know if it still works. Can anyone shed more light on this?

>BTW, country code 89 has not been assigned by CCITT.

Almost right, it works like this:

There are several providers of transatlantic service using both cable
(copper & fiber) and satellite links. British Telecom International
(BTI) routes calls by some algorythmn known only to themselves and you
may get any one of the above and any one of 3 or 4 long distance
providers on the US end of the link.

There is a magic code that you can dial after the get out code (010)
country code (1) and before the areacode-prefix-number.  This code
will force the call to use MCI for the US end which seems to force a
fibre link across the pond most of the time (~95%).

I am not going to post the code since I think it is a bug in the
programming of the international switch in London and I don't want it
to go away because of overuse.  It's not 89.

If anybody knows any more about this please post/let me know.

I just spent 10 minutes on the phone to BTI trying to get some more info
but it's like banging your head on the wall trying to get anybody
technical.


John Pettitt
Specialix International
[e-mail]

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

From: Ge' Weijers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again)
Date: 6 Dec 89 16:27:07 GMT


iiasa![e-mail] (wolf paul) writes:

>And that is the thing which needs to be outlawed -- it should be
>prohibited to place calls to random numbers. If the direct marketers
>want to use the telephone, let them research their prospective
>customers, and call only numbers where they know at least the name of
>the private individual (if that's their target) or business (another
>legitimate target) who happens to be the subscriber.

It would be enough if public opinion would consider those who use
unsolicited phone calls to be unreliable. Never deal with companies
that use phones in such an intrusive way. Let them go broke. Don't
give the courts something extra to do.

A nice technical solution: put a 'what-a-jerk' button on every phone,
by using the # or * keys. If you're annoyed push it.  If a telephone
subscriber gets too many black marks he is disconnected, except for
emergency numbers.

Ge' Weijers
Ge' Weijers                                    Internet/UUCP: [e-mail]
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science,   (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge)
University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1
6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands              tel. [phone] (UTC-2)

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

From: Steven_Tenney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again)
Date: 6 Dec 89 22:13:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon


Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol
placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want
any telemarketers/solicitors calling.  If telemarketers do call the
particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could
be fined heavily (up to $25,000).  Needless to say this will kill the
computerized random calling technique in Oregon.

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

Date: 6 Dec 89 16:10:27 GMT
From: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Origin of Coax Connector Names: BNC & TNC
Reply-To: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home


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

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott D. Green)
writes:

> ... that the BNC conncector is so named because it is a Berry Nice
> Connector.

I didn't see the original article to this but from what I remember it went:

    BNC : Bayonet Navy Connector.

    TNC : Threaded Navy Connector.

    N   : Navy connector (Presumably)

Perhaps the navy needed a better connector than the then standard UHF
(sic) connector, considering the harsh corrosion environment.

    JONES : Jumble Of Numerious Efforts at Standardization (perhaps
                                Apocryphal)
    (and we all know why an "F" connector was so named)

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]

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

From: Ge' Weijers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US?
Date: 6 Dec 89 17:44:15 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Goudreau) writes:

>As someone has already pointed out, there are a lot more people and
>phones here in the NANP (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) using 011
>as the prefix than there are in Europe using 00 as the prefix.  If
>such a change is really needed (and I don't agree that it is), it
>sounds like *you* should change to conform to the majority, not us.
>(And no, I'm not advocating such a change, I'm merely pointing out the
>absurdity of the rationale.)

There are a lot of places using 00. A short list:

Algeria, Argentina, Aruba, Brazil, Brunei, Chili, Peoples Republic of
China, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Federal Republic of Germany, Ecuador,
Egypt, Philipines Gabon, Gibraltar, Greece, Guatemala, Hungaria,
India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jordania,
Cameroon, Kuwayt, Libya, Luxemburg (nice country, no area codes!),
Malaysia, Morocco, Dutch Antilles, Nepal, New Zealand, North Yemen,
Oman, Austria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal (Porto 07)
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, Czechoslovakia, Tunesia,
Venezuela, United Arab Emirates, Zambia, Switzerland.

I've translated this out of a list provided by the Dutch PTT, which
explains the order and odd spelling of some names (I'm not going to
look them all up in the Webster on my desk.)

To make my point: this makes for a lot of telephones. So why make all
those people convert to 010. Incidentally 010 is the area code for
Rotterdam in the Netherlands. The Dutch system uses 00x for special
services like operator assistance, the time, the weather and the
likes. They are moving these services to 06xxxxxx numbers though.
Maybe we are converting from 09 to 00 for international access. Does
anyone know?  (maybe someone from DNL cares to comment?)  In the
meantime use a good agenda.


Ge' Weijers                                    Internet/UUCP: [e-mail]
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science,   (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge)
University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1
6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands              tel. [phone] (UTC-2)

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

Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership
Subject: Re: 10XXX from Pay Phones
Date: 6 Dec 89 18:56:02 EST (Wed)
From: John Owens <[e-mail]>

On Dec 2,  1:30pm, Eric Swenson wrote:

> If I walk up to a pay telephone and want to make a call (local or
> otherwise, same area code or different) without depositing coins,
> shouldn't I be able to dial 10777-0-[AC]-XXX-XXXX, get a BOING, and,
> assuming I have a U.S.  SPRINT FONCARD, be able to dial my FONCARD
> number and complete my call?

In my experience, with Sprint and MCI at least, you can use your local
BOC calling card (which is usually the same number as your AT&T card)
for 10xxx+0+ calls, but FONcard or MCI card numbers will not work.  I
believe that the BOC does the calling card validation and handles the
billing in this case.  If you have any volume discounts with these
carriers, your FONcard or MCI card calls would contribute to them, but
using your BOC card probably wouldn't.  (You probably wouldn't get
your MCI "Around Town" discount either.)

This is mostly speculation, so take it for what it's worth, but try
using 10777-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX and using your local operating company card
number.

(C&P Telephone recently reissued fancier-looking "IQ Cards" to their
customers to replace the old "Bell Atlantic cards".  The new cards
actually contain the last 4 digits, and the glossy brochure
accompanying them explained [in marketing-ese] that default 0+
carriers can be now individually assigned to pay phones and that you
can use their card regardless of the default carrier, or with specific
carriers using those carriers' access codes.)


John Owens        [e-mail]        uunet!jetson!john
[phone]        [e-mail]

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Intercom Plus" by Pacific Bell
Date: 7 Dec 89 00:11:04 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


In article <[e-mail]>, nvuxr![e-mail]
(David Lewis) writes:

> > How long is Pac*Bell going to sell bits and pieces of Centrex service
> > to the residential and small business public while avoiding the
> > necessary upgrades to offer really state-of-the-art telephone service?

> As long as necessary to fully depreciate their 1AESSs.

I have no problem with Pac*Bell keeping their 1As around for awhile.
They can provide almost any service currently available (with help
from an adjunct, they can provide *any* service) and they do it in a
grand style when compared to DMS or 5ESS. 1AESS has always had
superior feature implementation, IMHO.

My major gripe involves the way Pac*Bell can't get off their can and
replace their rickety-tickety crossbar. Don't tell me they can't write
those dinosaurs off yet. And in my case, I am sick of this 1ESS that
can't even do "cancel call forwarding". My CO has four prefixes of
1ESS (marginal, at best) and eight (8) prefixes of crossbar. For any
telco that pretends to be "big time", this is laughable.

But it boils down to: Yes my calls are completed somewhat reliably (if
slowly), dialtone is there most of the time (when the earth doesn't
shake), and I can hear the party to whom I am speaking. If it was GTE,
that would all be somewhat iffy. So I'm supposed to count my
blessings, and be thankful that I have Pac*Bell. Well, I guess
crossbar is better than directorized step-by-step.

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

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

From: Gary Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay Phones
Date: 5 Dec 89 23:33:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO


What does it actually take to install a pay phone?

Does the CO have to provide a special line, or can I put a pay phone
on any old line?  I believe the full function pay phones need special
signals to correctly work.

Any idea of relative cost of pay phone line?

Who gets what money for the line?

Thanks for the info in advance.
G Skinner   att!drutx!gfs

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: CLASS in Canada
Date: Wed, 6-Dec-89 05:22:59 PST
Reply To: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!ken

A few issues ago, I reported that Bell Canada was going to offer CLASS
throughout Canada. Even though I was summarizing an article I saw, I
should have known better than to imply that Bell Canada served all of
Canada. Several people have written and reminded me that there are
more operating companies in Canada.

Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #557
*****************************














Date:     Thu, 7 Dec 89 0:55:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #558
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Dec 89 00:55:18 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 558

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Two Lines From a Twisted Three? (Todd Inch)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (John G. De Armond)
    Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not is Ringing) (J. McHarry)
    Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not is Ringing) (Todd Inch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: Two Lines From a Twisted Three?
Date: 6 Dec 89 17:38:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Organization: Global Technology International, Inc.


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

>I want to bring a second phone line into my apartment . . .

>Running from the terminal block to my apartment is an old-style
>twisted-3 (conductor cable) . . .

>From the junction box to my apartment is only a run of about 25 feet,
>but the twisted three shares a conduit with two other twisted threes
>serving two other apartments.

>One thought was to use the extra wire of my three with an extra wire
>taken from somewhere . . .

I found out the hard way how important the "twisted pair" is:

I once wired a building for phone using two "twisted-3" cables.  My
thought was that I wanted a total of six conductors, for up to three
lines.  What I really needed was a 3-pair equivalent, but at the time
I didn't understand the "pair" concept.  So I used one conductor from
each cable to form the three pairs: {red A & red B}, {white A & white
B}, {black A & black B}, where A is one twisted-3 cable and B is the
other.

This worked fine for the first line, but I had all the six conductor
jacks installed before I connected the second line.  That's when the
trouble started.

You could hear the conversations on the second line almost as well as
you could hear your own conversation on the first, and vice-versa.

Apparently, the twisting of the pair effectively sheilds it from the
electromagnetic radiation of the other pairs.  By not using any of the
existing two twisted pairs but instead using separate twists for one
wire of each line, I had created the worst-case condition, effectively
creating a transformer which coupled the two lines together.

The problem was especially bad because, at the time, my parents were
going through a divorce and each had a separate phone line and they
were sorta in separate buildings which shared some wiring.  They
didn't appreciate being forced to listen to each others'
conversations.

Anyway, if you try to use the spare conductor from your cable and the
spare conductor from someone else's, you may end up with a three-way
party line.

It might work for only 25 feet, but I wouldn't bet on it.

>I've been told there is a way to use some kind of bridge circuit at
>each end of a 3-conductor wire to enable two phone lines to be run
>over the wire.

I once had a device on the outside of my house that allowed two
different lines to somehow use the same pair to the phone company.
Telco installed it and there must have been a device at the CO to run
it.  This was mentioned in passing here in the digest about a month
ago.  I'm not sure if you could convince telco to install one or not.


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]
"You are the booger in the nose of my life." - My wife, to me. (Jokingly?)
Disclaimer:  My boss will read this while checking up on me and will disagree.


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

From: rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond)
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Date: 6 Dec 89 07:43:01 GMT
Reply-To: rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond)
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun
 works facility)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 551, message 9 of 11


>Mr. Rotenberg's basic premise involves the comment that just because
>we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. Also, he assumes that there
>is some inherent, cast-in-stone right to privacy concerning the use of
>the telephone.

>I'd like to turn it around. Just because in years past we have *not*
>had the technology to reveal callers' phone numbers does not mean that
>failing to do so is the natural order of things. I'm sure that if
>Caller-ID had been an inherent feature of automatic switching systems
>from the beginning, this would be a non-issue. The word "Luddite"
>comes to mind: A person who automatically resists change, particularly
>technological.

Well, Luddite may come to your mind but personal privacy rights come
to mine.  I am incensed that my personal privacy rights have been
eroded both by government and by greedy private companies.  I'll give
you an example.

Have you ever pulled a credit report on yourself?  If you are at all
affluent and/or have had many credit transactions, the personal
information the credit databanks maintain on you is a disturbingly
accurate reflection of your personal lifestyle.  That is disturbing
enough but what is worse is that almost anybody that wants access to
it can have it.

The law says that the credit bureaus must keep a record of who
accesses your credit data and must provide it to you on request.  In
my record, there are literally dozens of inquiries from companies I've
never heard of nor done business with.  I'm sure that some of these
companies were prowling for likely candidates to send free credit card
applications to.  Others were most likely building profiles for people
to inflict telemarketers onto.  I terribly resent either use.

Still another, much more insidious use is by the IRS.  They collect
data on lifestyle from this and other databanks, such as mailing lists
so that they can impute an income from lifestyle in the event they
think you pay too few taxes.  I am personally very vunerable to this
type attack.  By virtue of skillful trading, purchasing and
craftsmanship, I live an apparent lifestyle several multiples of my
actual income.  And yet the IRS could use this very personal
information to screw me if they so chose.

What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL
BUSINESS and no one elses.  Particularly those slimebags who are most
likely to use such a service - the telemarketers and the government.
More than adequate means already exist to trap prank and obscene
calls.  The only motive that can be assigned to wanting to personally
know the ID of a prankster likely looks somewhat like vigilanteism.

I'll give you another example of EXISTING caller ID, or as
traditionally known, ANI.  I've posted before about the sleeze phone
company I wrote switch software for.  They had feature group D lines
which provided among other things, ANI.  ANI was needed for billing
but they went further.  They collected calling statistics by caller
and built and sold mailing list names.  While it may be legal, it sure
is not right.

Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use.
No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically
than they do barging through my front door.  Not answering the phone
is NOT an answer.  Aside from being driven from a service I pay for,
tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls.  I found out the hard
way when I was a teenager.  I got to spend the night in jail on a bum
bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night.  That
we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no
consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail.

I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I
want to talk to or is an emergency.  All caller ID will do is allow
slime to discover my phone number more readily.

Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the
entraprenural opportunity.  Hey guys, how do you think a commercial
automatic redialing service would fly.  You know, you dial an access
number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's
line.  You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract
to never collect or release calling information would fly?  I do.


John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | The Fano Factor -
Radiation Systems, Inc.     Atlanta, GA    | Where Theory meets Reality.
emory!rsiatl!jgd          **I am the NRA** |

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

Date: Wednesday, 6 Dec 1989 13:36:56 EST
From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*)

I haven't had a chance to build this yet, but:

Most US subscriber loops have about -52v on the ring and ground on the tip
when on hook.  When off hook, the voltage drops to something less than 8-9
volts.  Ringing is accomplished by superimposing a nominal 86v rms on the -52v
ring-tip voltage.  An indicating device that turned on at something greater
than 52v would accomplish the task, if it could be kept on by an external
power source or by the 52v on hook voltage, the latter requiring very low
current draw to avoid appearing off hook.

As I recall, a device that can do this is the old NE-2 neon bulb.  It requires
something over 80? volts to turn on, but can be kept lit by well under 1 ma.
The bulb, in series with a 100k resistor should be put in series with a diode
good for at least 200v.  Put about a 2 micro farad cap across the resistor and
lamp part of the circuit.  Hang the whole thing across tip and ring with the
cathode end of the diode hooked to ring.  If the lamp is so sensitive as to
light with just the 52v, a 100-200k resistor across the lamp should solve the
problem.  The diode and cap are in the circuit to keep the positive cycle of
the ringing voltage and short interruptions of the 52v from extinguishing the
lamp.  Taking a phone off hook should automatically extinguish the lamp by
interrupting the -52v long enough for the cap to discharge.

As I said, I have yet to build this, but it should work.  It may be subject to
some falsing due to lightening, etc.  Also, it should be checked for immunity
to 'dial tap'.  It will indicate an incoming call attempt, but not whether
there is voice mail, of course.

(The usual disclaimers)**2  and do be careful, a telephone line can bite like
a light socket...remember the apocryphal dog.
***************************************************************
* John McHarry    [phone]         [e-mail] *
***************************************************************

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Need a Light to Indicate Phone *Has Rung* (Not *is Ringing*)
Date: 6 Dec 89 18:46:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Organization: Global Technology International, Inc.


I want to reply to the person who wanted a light to tell him if the
phone rang (and therefore he probably has voice mail) while he was
away.  (Sorry, I lost the original article, please forgive my vague
reference.)

About a week ago I submitted an article on how to make your phone bell
into a ringer.  If you do that, or use some other relay-type device,
it should be easy to make the lamp stay on with the following circuit.

Get a relay which will operate on the same voltage as the lamp you
want to power.  A common normally-open single-pole single-throw type
will probably do (see note at end.)

Connect the contacts of the ringer-relay (operated by the phone
ringing), the power supply (or possibly battery if you use an LED),
and the coil of the new relay in a series circuit.  Now the first
relay will operate the second relay when the phone rings.

Now connect the contacts of the second relay across (in parallel with)
the contacts of the first relay.  This allows the second relay to
"turn itself on" and the ringer-relay can also still turn it on.  When
a pulse through the ringer-relay operates the second relay, the second
relay will keep itself on after the pulses have stopped.  This is a
simple latch which I've also used for burgalar alarms.

Connect the lamp in parallel with the coil of the second relay so it
is also turned on and kept on.

Install a normally closed (normally "on") switch in series with the
power to the circuit (or just an on-off power switch.)  This will
reset the second relay and lamp by momentarily disconnecting the
power.

It may be necessary to add a diode (rated between 1 and 15 amp and at
least twice whatever voltage you're using) in parallel with the second
relay coil and the lamp.  Be sure the Cathode (striped end) is
connected to the Positive side of the coil and the Anode is connected
to the Negative side, which is backwards from the way they are usually
connected.  This will effectively stretch the pulses by using the
coil's inductance to keep its current flowing after the pulses have
stopped.  This is assuming you're using DC power.

If you do have a second pair of contacts in the relay, I'd use those
for the lamp circuit, disconnecting the lamp from the relay coil.
This may be necessary if the lamp draws lots of current.

If you use an LED (light emitting diode) with a series 220 ohm to 2K
ohm resistor (depending on the voltage) as the indicator lamp, you
shouldn't need the diode across the coil and you won't need to worry
about the lamp current draw.

Also - regarding my previous suggestion for turning a WECO-type bell
into a ringer-relay, you MAY be able to place the reed switch in the
right spot on the frame or near the magnet or somewhere so that the
ringer is still intact (and therefore rings) but also operates the
reed switch, although I haven't tried it.  The switch may provide
pulses which are too short if the magnetic field at that location is
too weak.

I hope I haven't made this sound too complicated, it really isn't, but
let me know if you want more info.  Hope this helps.


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]
"You are the booger in the nose of my life." - My wife, to me. (Jokingly?)
Disclaimer:  My boss will read this while checking up on me and will disagree.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #558
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 7 Dec 89 22:41:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #559
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Dec 89 22:40:29 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 559

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: ISDN and TCP/IP (Michael A. Patton)
    7kHz voice and ISDN (Dick Jackson)
    HDLC on DS0 in DS1 lines (Kamran Husain)
    Request - AI Applications on Network Management (Ben Lippolt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 20:32:47 EST
Subject: Re: ISDN and TCP/IP
From: "Michael A. Patton" <[e-mail]>

   Date: Mon, 1989 Dec 4   21:27 EST
   From: (Robert Philip Weber)   [e-mail]

(glad to see Harvard's up the creek again :-)

       [Dr. Weber's description of Harvard's installation of a 5ESS
        in parallel with existing TCP/IP network removed -MAP]

This is very much like the installation MIT has just gone through
downriver.  I expect that since your network & telecom people see ours
all the time, they should already know much of this...here is my view
from the "epicenter".

> There is some confusion here about the utility of ISDN in the short
> run and in the long run. The following questions have arisen:

There was here, too.  In fact there was a sometimes amusing
presentation at the MIT Communications forum a couple of years ago,
after both Harvard and MIT had jointly and independantly made their
decisions, where the "responsible" parties from each organization
(along with some others) talked about ISDN.

As I recall the appropriate paraphrase from both the MIT and Harvard
presentations on why they included ISDN in the purchase was, "It's the
new telecom buzz-word. If we don't include it and it turns out to be a
winner, they'll have our heads for getting stuck behind the times.  If
we do include it and it turns out to be a lemon, we can always blame
it on the Telco...they over-stated its capabilities."

Nobody there had any detailed concrete plans of even a single specific
use to be made, but there was lots of fluff and smoke.  I believe that
state persisted even unto the actual cutover at MIT.  (In fact the
smoke persisted a little after cutover.  :-) Harvard's probably just
in that same boat.

> 1. How do we create a gateway between ISDN and TCP/IP so that
> the following common cases can get access to TCP (and the world):

You build one yourself (the only way to get "a", meaning single box,
at present) or buy what pieces you can.  I'll describe what MIT has
done or is considering for each of these.

> a. Dumb terminals with an rs232 connection to circuit switched
> d or b channels (i.e., 9.6 kbs or 64kbs)

I'm not sure what you mean here, several points come to mind that you
might be asking about.  First, the connection (at 19.2kbps) between
the dumb terminal on my desk and the ISDN is a standard DB25 on the
back of this here AT&T 7506 phone.  It even offers you the option of a
semi-rasonable command interpreter or Hayes command set (but I guess
Hayes is (tm) since the word does not seem to appear in the manual at
all, I think they refer to it as "the industry standard AT command
set", shades of Strowger and Step-by-Step).

The second thing you might be trying to ask is for the case of someone
without an actual ISDN connection in the office (i.e. POTS).  These
people can hook up any kind of modem to the line (they have a standard
RJ-11) and call a bank of modems which gives them that same interface
(at 300, 1200, or 2400 bps) preset to command interpreter (it's just
some dedicated, no voice, connections with the same circuits and
software as my phone).

The third possibility is you were asking how people outside get
connected to my machine if I put it on the ISDN.  They can call a
number (assigned seperately by telecom) which the 5ESS routes through
that same modem bank, but then automatically connects through to my
digital number.  These three are all in service and in regular use on
the MIT switch.

> b. intelligent personal computers such as msdos and macintosh
> machines. These machines would ordinarily have ethernet
> cards and run something like FTP Software's TCP implementation,
> or NCSA Telnet on the macs. There might be a stray unix box
> somewhere (no one wants to run slip). The ISDN connection is
> BRI, not PRI

Again, I'm not quite sure which direction you mean to go here.  If
they're normally connected to your TCP/IP network via Ethernet, what
more do you want?

> c. local area networks in buildings which are nt yet connected
> to the fiber ethernet network. These networks are typically
> appletalk or tcp/ip itself, with a few novell networks
> here and there. Again, the ISDN connection is BRI, not
> PRI.

The best use of ISDN here would probably be to simulate 64kbps leased
lines and connect with some standard routers or bridges.  You don't
get full bandwidth, but with Appletalk at the end do you really care?
If you do, pay to get the fiber.  I thought Harvard was doing the same
thing as MIT.  I think we pulled an order of magnitude more fiber than
the ESS and Network required together and distributed it to many more
places.  The cost of the fiber was small compared to the other costs
of the installation and the labor to pull N rather than 1 is
negligible.

Once the fiber is lying there in the dark it doesn't cost a lot to run
your photons through it :-).

> Thanks for any information you can offer.

You're welcome, but you didn't ask about the two most interesting
areas (one of which MIT has in place and one of which is "under
discussion"), so I'll get to them here.  It's probably the case that
you meant one of the above to include this and I just misinterpreted
it, but I re-read them and I still don't see it.

First, given the above, my terminal can reach all over campus at
19.2kbps.  So what do I do?  Everyone of interest is on the TCP/IP
network (this is by definition, my job is managing TCP/IP networks :-)
and they're not going to rush out and buy ISDN cards or X.25 software
just so I can reach them.

The answer is a box from Cisco (the one we use, other manufacturers
also do this) with an X.25 connection at 64kbps on one side and an
Ethernet connection on the other that knows how to translate between
the respective terminal protocols and deal with terminals in general.
You call it Pad.MIT.Edu, the MIT PAD.  It's just like any other X.25
PAD except that rather than real terminal lines they're virtual using
standard TCP/IP networking.

Now, while I wait for all the random machines to put in something, I
can always call PAD and connect over the network.  Note that this
system also works in reverse.  If someone hooks up with an X.25 host
connection designed to be called from a PAD, I can network from my
workstation and use commands on Pad to set up X.25 calls.

Second, can the 5ESS be used to provide an X.25 subnet to run TCP/IP
over?  This is the one that's "under discussion".  I think the answer
is "yes, but why?"  I think what's going to happen here -- at least in
the foreseeable future -- is that the ESS will be used for "leased
line" type services to a few outlying spots, but that no general
TCP/IP subnet service.

** *  *   *    *     *      *       *       *      *     *    *   *  * **

Gee, this turned out to be a lot more than I started out to say.
Anyway to get back more directly to your specifics, Dr. Weber.  I
would suggest you should be talking to appropriate people at MIT and
Harvard.  I see you're in OIT, you should talk to Scott Bradner at
Harvard, who should be in touch with Ron Hoffmann and Jeff Schiller
here.  I would also be willing to answer a few more questions (but
it's their job), too.  I suspect that MIT and Harvard are the very
leading edge of exploring this and many more ideas (and questions)
will come up as we expand it.

        __
  /|  /|  /|  \        Michael A. Patton, Network Manager
 / | / | /_|__/        Laboratory for Computer Science
/  |/  |/  |atton    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are a figment of the phosphor
on your screen and do not represent the views of MIT, LCS, or MAP. :-)

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

From: Dick Jackson <ttidca.TTI.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: 7kHz Voice and ISDN
Date: 7 Dec 89 18:24:30 GMT
Reply-To: Dick Jackson <ttidca.tti.com![e-mail]>
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica


As I understand it, work is afoot to implement a standard for the ISDN
defined 7kHz voice service, wherein audio sampled (presumably) at 16
ksamples per second is encoded (using cunning modern techniques) at
the ISDN bearer channel rate (64 kbps).

I envisage the appearance of "hi-fi" telephones capable of using this
service. Voice would be clearer and music could be carried (with
fidelity equivalent to that of a.m. radio). Further, digital
technology could enable superior echo cancelling allowing speakerphone
use without the "in-a-tomb" effect.  Clearly, the new phones would
have to be compatible with POTS phones, but Q.931 and SS7 know enough
for the service to be negotiated automatically on call set-up.

Such phones might become the next great consumer electronics fad,
following compact discs and cellular phones.  Once people heard the
higher quality, they might feel they had to have one, to keep up with
their yuppie friends.

Any comments? From those who know how the technology is progressing?
From potential owners?

Oh yes, if these things caught on, they would drive the market for
ISDN lines to residential as well as business premises. Just what the
local carriers need!

Dick Jackson

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

From: uunet!stsusa.com![e-mail]
Subject: HDLC on DS0 in DS1 lines
Date: 6 Dec 89 09:02:01 GMT
Organization: Siemens Transmission Systems, Albuquerque, NM


I am using a DS0 on a DS1 signal for a data communication
application. The layer 1 protocol is HDLC and LAPDwith an AT&T telephone system purchase and $560 when
purchased alone.  One-year warranty and standard one-, two- and
four-year maintenance contracts apply.

                           # # #

              AT&T MERLIN(R) Cordless Telephone


Corded Sound Quality         ensures that calls will be crisp
                             and clear.

Ten-Channel Selection        allows users to change channels
  From Handset               instantly for clarity.

Five Line Appearances        give user access to outside
                             lines, intercom links or system
                             programmable features.

Direct Access to             allows user to connect phone
  System                     directly to the system, without
                             adaptor.

Message Light on             lets users know that they have
  Base Unit                  a call.

Three-Position Ringer        allows user to adjust volume for
Volume on Base Unit          changing environmental needs.

Visual Indicators on         show status of all lines or
  Handset                    features.

Extended Life Battery        makes frequent recharging
                             unnecessary.

Automatic Digital            has up to 65,000 codes, guarding
  Security System            against unauthorized use.

User Replaceable             make replacements fast and
  Battery and Antenna        inexpensive.

Full Range Performance       provides extensive indoor and
                             outdoor use.

Out of Range Indicator       provides audible tone to alert
                             user that phone is going out of
                             range from the base.

Visual and Audible           provide a clear indication when
Low Battery Indicators       handset recharging is necessary.

Transfer Button              allows user to transfer calls
on Handset                   to other system extensions.


Hold Button                  allows user to put one call on
Handset                      hold while placing or answering
                             other calls.

                          # # #

SPECIFICATIONS


Wiring                   Four-pair modular

FCC Compliance           Conforms to FCC rules, Part 15 for
                         cordless phones.

FCC Reg. #               AS 55HM-ATTMLC5

Certification            Transformer UL Listed
                         Set UL listed 1/1/90

Jack Type                657 - 4pr. Modular

Temperature              32 - 122 F (0 - 50 C)

Dimensions               8 1/2"(L) X 5"(W) X 2 3/4" (H)
                         Wt. 3 lbs.

Installation             Installed by AT&T Technician or Self
                         Installed

System Compatibility     MERLIN(R) Plus Communications
                         System
                         MERLIN(R) II Communications
                         System
                         MERLIN(R) 206/410/820
                         Communications Systems
                         MERLIN(R) 1030/3070 Communications
                         Systems
                         AT&T System 25

Repair Procedures        Return for repair or replacement at
                         authorized AT&T Service Center

Warranty                 One year

                            # # #
   ====================================================

Don H Kemp            "Always listen to experts.  They'll
B & K Associates, Inc.         tell you what can't be done, and
Rutland, VT             why.  Then do it."
unet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk                         Lazarus Long


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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 11:30:58 EST
Subject: Re: Two Lines From a Twisted Three
From: "Michael A. Patton" <[e-mail]>

   From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
   Date: 2 Dec 89 21:21:29 GMT

>Whatever you do, NEVER pick conductors from two different cables to
>serve as your "pair". This, in effect, causes your line to look like an
>unbalance circuit in each of the cables you have selected and there
>will be major crosstalk. In other words, don't take the third conductor
>from, say your existing service and your neighbor's service, to supply
>the run for your second line. Everyone will end up talking to everyone
>else.

You are wrong about this NEVER working, I had such an installation in
service for many years with a run of 4 floors vertical plus some
horizontal distance.  I used this "extra" line for 212-style dialup
data and had fewer problems than any other line I've used with 212
modems.  However, a warning (somewhat moderated) is still in order.

This "kludge" was done only on the fifth "installation" trip---the
first to feature a repeat performer, by the way.  On several of the
earlier trips many different options were explored, including
fire-rated drop cable through an interior "well" in the building and
many others.  I had talked with the installation and repair supervisor
literally dozens of times (we were getting to be good buddies, too bad
he's not there any more :-).

After all this and another while on this call scouting more
possibilities, the three of us decided that the only way that could
possibly work was to use my "third wire" and the "third wire" from
either the apartment above or below me, we knocked on doors and one of
the neighbors was home.  I got it installed this way with the implied
agreement between me and the supervisor that I wouldn't complain if it
was "noisy" (I actually got the impression that he attached a notation
of "Contact <his name>" for all reports concerning this line before
any action).

It turned out to be a perfectly fine connection, never a single
problem with errors.

I would caution however that it really shouldn't have worked, as John
points out.  In fact I was somewhat agast at it actually being BETTER
than the original line had been, I'd expected to need to use the
original to get data connections at all and start telling all my
callers to use the other phone.  We only got to this after exploring
MANY other options with the landord and the phone company.  I
recommend exploring ALL other options first.

The phone company was ready to declare it "uninstallable" without
this, in fact if I hadn't shown such a wide knowledge of TPC during
all the previous dealings with installers and the supervisor they
probably wouldn't even have suggested it.  I forget why subscriber
carrier wasn't an option in my case, but it was brought up.  If
possible, I would guess this has a better likelihood of working than
picking two random wires as a "pair".

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

From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE vs Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?)
Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 17:39:23 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lars J Poulsen) writes:

>> I am amazed that people put up with such rip-offs, and THEN talk about
>> how bad GTE is.

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

>Yes, but what do you pay monthly for a phone? I'll bet it's higher
>than my rate. Of course, I probably actually pay more because I have
>Commstar (home Centrex) which you can't get on unmeasured lines. Neah!

I pay $23.50/month for two lines, one tone service with 1+ provided by
ATT, and one which is supposed to be pulse-only, with 1+ dialing
disabled. The two lines busy-forward to each other. This includes
unlimited local calling (but not 6% sales tax).

I have considered replacing the second line with a 3002 leased circuit
to my place of work (my wife works there too); GTE offered at no extra
cost to make the line end-to-end metallic. The distance is 3.2 miles
(served by same CO) and I think I could run 56kbps on that circuit.
The main reason I'm not doing it, is that I'd have to pay for a
terminal server port card on the receiving end (system manager says
"all ports are taken"). The cost of such a leased line would be about
$150 to install and $23.50/month.

I find these rates very reasonable. Especially when I read in TELECOM
Digest about people that pay over $35/month for a single residential
line.

And I have no desire to get CommStar. I'd MUCH rather install a KX-308.
I have:

 - one phone in the kitchen
 - one cordless in the master bedroom
 - one more in the master bedroom because my wife hates the sound
   quality on the cordless (Radio Shack alarm clock radio phone combo).
 - one phone in my study connected to the main number
 - one phone in the study connected to the modem line
 - two modems (one on each line)
 - an answering machine serving both lines

With a Centrex service I'd have to have at least 6 lines to get what I
want. That's 4 more than I have now. Even where GTE offers measured
service, this would be at least $40/month. That would buy me a PBX in
a year.


/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>   [phone]  or [phone] ext 358
  ACC Customer Service              Affiliation stated for identification only
                My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!

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

From: Alain Arnaud <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T System 2000 Inquiry
Date: 7 Dec 89 15:13:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I have seen ads for the ATT System 2000 master phone for $200 and for
the slaves for $150. The System 2000 connects to two external lines
and allows six internal units with no modification to the internal
wiring of the house. It has features such as intercom between units,
three way calling, and speed dialing. Other than the two lines
restriction, I would like to find out if anyone has had any experience
with this system.

Alan Arnaud
Guest account (till 12/31/89) [e-mail]
Permanent account:  uunet!ecla!arnaud

Standard disclaimer + Just a consultant at ATT.

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

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 02:24:12 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?

Mark Cohen in Digest 9.555 mentioned a commercial suggesting viewers
"dial 411" in order to contact the advertiser.

Mr. Cohen suggested that this was a flagrant abuse of DA and said he
called his telco to inform them of this travesty.

But I really don't understand what is wrong with this...

 A) it allows people from anywhere in the viewing area to find
    the number for the outlet/branch closest to them

 B) the phone company will charge the customer for the DA call.
    Customers know this; if they don't want to pay, they can
    use the phone book.

It seems remarkably straightforward.  Many advertisers do it, and I've
never heard of one getting in trouble, most likely because there isn't
a conceivable thing wrong with it.  Or is there?

[e-mail]

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

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US?
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 18:51:02 GMT

John Hughes wrote:

>Haha!  If you think 010 or 011 is funny, try coming to France, we have
>to do 19 AND WAIT FOR A SECOND DIAL TONE!  Primitive!

Within a couple of years, when the whole of France uses 8-digit
numbers, 00 will be introduced as the prefix for international
dialing.

Sweden will do the same in the mid-nineties. We now use 009, and
the tone comes after the country number!

    /Dan Sahlin

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

Date:     Thu, 7 Dec 89 23:46:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Phone Network Overflow: 12-7-41


Forty-eight years ago today, December 7, 1941, was the day King
Roosevelt II said would live in infamy forever....and it was a day not
to be forgotten by the thousands of telephone operators in the old
Bell System, either.

When the news reached the mainland a few minutes after the attack on
Pearl Harbor (it was at 7:30 AM Hawaii Time; 12:30 PM EST), *everyone*
jumped on the phone to tell their neighbors. In those days of mostly
manual telephone service, with well-trained operators moving cloth
cords in and out of jacks on switchboards very rapidly, Sunday was
usually a slow day, and smaller than usual (for a business day) staffs
were on duty.

In Chicago, which at that time had a mixture of dial exchanges and
manual exchanges (about a dozen dial exchanges downtown, but manual
service elsewhere in the city and suburbs), phone service came to a
virtual halt about noon when the crush of calls based on the news
report from Pearl Harbor generated a record volume of traffic in the
history of phone service in our town.

Chicago was no exception to the rule: all over the United States,
telcos sent out urgent messages to every available employee to come in
and help 'work the boards'; and even with a full week-day complement
of operators by later that Sunday afternoon, delays of twenty minutes
just to reach the operator requesting 'number please?' were not
uncommon.

In Chicago, the telco went on 'emergency calls only' status beginning
about 2:00 PM and remained on that status until mid-day Monday, when
the volume of calls had dropped back to a manageable level. The
operators answered each call by saying 'We can only handle emergency
calls at this time; (pause)....call later please'; then yanking the
cord and moving on to the next in line of dozens waiting.

Although the area around Pearl Harbor suffered extensive damage to
telecommunications lines, the small exchange there stayed open
throughout the bombing and managed rather well. (See Telecom Archives
file 'pearl.harbor.phones' for specifics).  Calls to Hawaii were
blocked by the overseas operators in Oakland, putting them through
only when the operators at Hickam Air Force Base (where the exchange
was then located) told them they could handle more calls.

Nothing like the volume of calls that day had ever been seen before;
nothing like it was seen again until the day in November, 1963 when
JFK was gunned down.

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #560
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 8 Dec 89 21:09:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #561
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Dec 89 21:08:39 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 561

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    A Tangled Tale (Theodore Lee)
    64 kbps Access Now Available  (AT&T Press Release via Don H. Kemp)
    User Control of Feature(s) (Will Martin)
    How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Douglas W. Martin)
    Data Over Voice (Richard Steele)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 01:24:34 EST
From: Theodore Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Tangled Tale

There is some kind of lesson in an annoying problem I just had with PC
Pusuit that has taken Telenet a month and a half to resolve, although
I'm not sure exactly what it is.  But it does seem worth recording for
posterity here.

Our company's headquarters is in Maryland, in some sense midway
between Baltimore and DC.  We have arranged to be serviced by what I
believe is called a "metro foreign exchange."  It is in area 301, but
dialable as a seven digit local (non-toll) call from metro (e.g,
downtown) DC (area 202).  For a good part of a year I have been using
PC Pursuit's DCWAS outdial to connect to our computer.  All of a
sudden, in mid-October, my calls stopped going through. (The PC
Pursuit dial command always returned Busy.)  For some reason, whoever
supplies Telenet with their telco information had, we eventually
determined, made a mistake, and decided that our exchange was no
longer a local call from metro DC, so calls to it were blocked by the
outdial software.  Tracking that down and convincing Telenet of the
mistake is an interesting tale.

At first, Telenet insisted it was a line problem: we have a Telebit
Trailblazer on one of the lines; apparently the Telenet engineers had
never heard its initial handshaking, which is not your ordinary 2400
baud Hayes, and decided our modem was bad or that there were local
phone line problems.  (It turns out that in fact we did have some C&P
line problems at about this time, so at first I put the problem down
to that.) Then they tried dialing from their Reston offices (area 703,
not metro DC) -- and (of course?) they found it to be a toll call and
reported that the exchange was not reachable.  (We didn't realize
until a little later that they were attempting to debug the problem
from Reston rather than metro DC, where the outdial modem is.)  About
this point I was beginning to panic, having visions that the DC area
toll structure had been redone without our knowing it.  So I tried
contacting C&P telephone to see what was up: my first call (to the
service number for the exchange in question) shook me -- whoever I
talked to said that the exchange was a Baltimore exchange, not a DC
exchange.  (At this point I should mention that I'm doing this from
Minneapolis.)  That didn't seem right (since I knew we had chosen that
exchange specifically so that it would be a DC local call.)

What I wanted to do then was find an operator in the exchange where
the Telenet outdial was located and ask her whether the exchange I was
trying to call was still a local call or not.  It took me over an hour
to find the right magic words to get my local long distance operator
to talk to the DC local operator: there apparently is no way for a
customer to be connected to a remote operator; my local operator kept
telling me to talk to my long distance operator, my long distance
operator kept telling me to talk to my local operator.  After mumbling
something about inbound service operator and stating my question, I
finally did get my long distance operator to ask their operator the
question, which was answered in one word, "Yes" (it is a local call.)
Telenet wouldn't take my word for it and wouldn't make the same check
themselves -- as far as I can tell, they had to wait for a new,
updated (this time correct) exchange list.  (To add insult to injury,
somewhere in the middle of this process one of the Telenet service
people decided the problem had been solved, when it hadn't, and closed
out the first trouble ticket.  And I almost don't want to mention, but
will, that the engineers said it was poor beleagured David Purks'
problem, whereas he said he was waiting for them to install the new,
correct exchange lists.)  To their credit, I do need to add that the
Telenet customer service people I talked to really did seem to be
trying to help and were as mystified by what was going on as I.

The last time I was in DC I looked at a phone book and think I have a
clue to what may have caused the problem: the exchange in question
belongs to the town of Ashton (although our offices are not in
Ashton).  The boundary between the Baltimore LATA and the DC LATA goes
right through the middle of Ashton, and I suspect if you look in some
list somewhere you'll find Ashton as part of the Baltimore LATA, even
though some of its exchanges are in the DC LATA and in fact local as
well.  Who says communications companies understand the business
they're in?

Ted Lee <[e-mail]>

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

Subject: 64 kbps Access Now Available
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 15:31:49 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>

[Moderator's Note: Another press release from AT&T to the Consultant
Liason people, submitted by Mr. Kemp.   PT]


       BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T announced today it will
  make available 64 kilobit-per-second clear-channel access to
  customers who subscribe to its International ACCUNET (R)
  Digital Services and SKYNET (R) International Service
  offerings.

       Currently customers leasing an international digital
  circuit from AT&T who require bandwidth in excess of 56 kbps
  must use T1.5 (1.5 megabits per second) access for the local
  connection.

       "The 64 kbps rate is a common international data rate,
  and our multinational customers want and need the direct link
  that 64 kbps provides," said Elaine Kaup, AT&T Deputy
  Director -- International Product Management.

       The offering, which will be known as International
  ACCUNET Digital Direct Link Services and SKYNET International
  Direct Link Service, will initially be available from two
  locations in New York City and will be limited to the 64 kbps
  data rate.  In early 1990, AT&T will expand the Direct Link
  offering to additional cities and will provide it at the
  commonly used Fractional T1.5 data rates (i.e., 128 kbps,
  256 kbps, etc.).

       The effect of the Direct Link offering will be to reduce
  the overall cost of AT&T's International ACCUNET Digital
  Services and SKYNET International Service offerings to its
  customers.

       Customers of AT&T private-line services are connected to
  the international network via one or more of 28 AT&T
  International Pricing Points, located throughout the U.S.

       "By integrating data-rate-specific access into the cost
  of the international circuit, we are creating for our
  customers an offering that includes both a direct access link
  and the international half-channel circuit,"  said Kaup.
  "This package will be economical and customized to their
  specific requirements," she said.

       AT&T is issuing revised network specification
  information as an addendum to three documents:  AT&T
  Technical Reference Publication 54019, the International
  ACCUNET Digital Service Description, and Network Interface
  Specifications.  This addendum describes the interface --
  which conforms to industry standards -- for the end-to-end
  64 kbps clear-channel service.  AT&T will provide Technical
  Reference Publication 54019 to manufacturers of customer
  premises equipment who write on their company stationery to
  Nayyar Azam, AT&T - Room 5359C1, 295 N. Maple Ave., Basking
  Ridge, N.J. 07920.

       The information will also be available through Corporate
  Mailing Inc., 26 Parsippany Road, Whippany, N.J.  07851
  (1-800-338-4038).


                             # # #


Don H Kemp            "Always listen to experts.  They'll
B B & K Associates, Inc.         tell you what can't be done, and
Rutland, VT             why.  Then do it."
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk                         Lazarus Long


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

Date:     Fri, 8 Dec 89 9:36:23 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  User Control of Feature(s)

Another nice-to-have telecom capability, which can be added to the
"wishlist" of features the telcos should offer, is dynamic user
control of hunting and rotaries. When I am in the office alone, I
should be able to turn off the rotary so that only one incoming call
can hit at one time. Any others should get a busy signal. That is
preferable to them getting a ring that isn't answered, if I am tied up
on the preceeding call. You will note that this is just the opposite
philosophy from "call-waiting", which assumes that later callers have
the right to interrupt earlier ones. My opinion is just the reverse --
the first caller has priority and later callers should wait their
turn.

It might be that some local PBX or in-house telecom system does offer
this sort of user control.  Right now, we are on Centrex and do not
have that capablity, as far as I can determine.  You can get something
almost like what I am thinking of with call-forwarding by forwarding
(to a perpetual busy) any of the calls that arrive at the second
number in the rotary.  I would prefer a simple user-available command
which, when entered from the first number in the group, would shut
down the rotary to the next one.  Another simple command would enable
it again.  You wouldn't have to enter the number (the next one in the
rotary) in any case.  [Are "hunt group" and "rotary" two terms for the
same thing, or are they different?  The recently-distributed
"glossary" implies they are the same by defining only "rotary hunt".
I'm using them as synonyms here.]

I get the impression that this and a host of other improvements to the
telecom system are not available due to a basic difference in design
philosophy between me (and other reasonable sane people) and the
telcos.  :-) This might be something like the difference between
computer systems like UNIX (which ironically was engendered in Bell
Labs originally) and systems like IBM OS's. One puts maximum control
in the user's hands, while the other limits the user capability much
more and vests control in a separate administrator. Since the telcos
want to charge you for eveyrhing possible, they tend to the latter
approach, making sure you have to go through them for all sorts of
minor changes, which they can then bill for.

Obviously, this approach is why the aftermarket in-house telecom
system is such a popular item now that deregulation has made it
possible.  However, I get the impression (not being terribly familiar
with such products) that most of these systems merely move the
administration functions down from the telco's offices to a little tin
god within the business itself, as opposed to moving all possible
control (while still keeping security and accountability in mind) down
to the user him/herself.

In my mind, the ideal system would let an administrator set things up
and make changes, etc., for those customers who don't want to do it
themselves, but the system would also let the user do things on their
own that are now restricted to "superuser" types. For example, an
office would have a specified group of telephone numbers and the users
within that office, when entering system commands from an instrument
with one of those numbers, could do things like set up their own
preference for rotary hunting, enable/disable functions like
call-forwarding or call-waiting, shift the intercom functions and
reassign numbers to other instruments, etc. They couldn't affect other
offices' numbers or instruments, except for such limited things as
making one the destination for call-forwarding. To shift things
between offices would require a "superuser" type to be involved, but
intraoffice changes wouldn't require the administrator. Doing things
like establishing a hunt sequence would require more effort by the
user initially, but the system should remember such things and let
them then be switched on and off by minimal-length commands entered
directly from an affected instrument by anyone inside that office.

Are there any systems on the market that incorporate this sort of
design philosophy? I'd be interested in reading about any that do so,
or even approach this attitude.

We are going to be moving to a new office building in the near future,
and part of that transition is a leap to a new, non-telco in-house
telecom system. Unfortunately, I am sure it will not provide anywhere
near the level of user-friendliness that I described above. (Being a
GSA low-bidder system, I will be amazed if it works at all... :-)

Regards, Will

[Moderator's Note: Actually, part of the 'wishlist' was resolved some
time back here in Chicago. Illinois Bell offers 'Centrex Mate' (?)
which is a sort of do-it-yourself service representative thing. From a
terminal, you connect with the IBT computer and make service changes
yourself. This option is only available to centrex customers.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 15:37:34 PST
From: "Douglas W. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen?

     I posted this request several months ago, but got no response.
Anyone with any ideas or speculations is greatly appreciated.

     I am interested in finding literature references on how the
various telephone sounds, e.g. dial tone, busy signal, and the
decaying tone associated with credit card calls, were chosen.  What
kinds of psychoacoustic research were done to determine that these
sounds are easily remembered, easily discriminated in noise, or less
annoying than other sounds which could have been selected.  I am
looking for references on how these sounds were selected.

     Also, can anyone supply information about the frequency,
duration, etc. for the off-hook alarm signal?

Thanks,
Doug Martin
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 11:58:58 -0500
From: Richard Steele <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data Over Voice
Reply-To: Richard Steele <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over
voice (DOV) units.  These are small boxes, about the size of a regular
modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the
University computer.  Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but
it leaves the phone free for regular use_.  We can still receive and
make calls with the DOV working with no obvious distortion on the
line.  Thus, in addition to having a reasonably fast connection (and I
used to think a 2400 baud modem was speedy!), I don't have to take the
wrath of my roomates for hogging the phone line all night long.

The DOV unit connects to the phone line before any other equipment;
i.e. there's are line in and line out jacks.  In addition, just like a
Hayes Smartmodem, there are a plethora of LEDs on the front like CD
(carrier detect), RD (receive data), SD (send data), etc.

Question: How would something like this work?  The phone company
_does_ need to make some changes on their end, but the phone line
remains the same.

So, what magic is involved here?  Thanks to all who respond...

Richard A. Steele                                       Purdue University


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #561
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 8 Dec 89 21:56:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #562
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Dec 89 21:55:53 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 562

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: 10XXX from Pay Phones (Robert Michael Gutierrez)
    Re: Pay Phones (Michael Katzmann)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA (Colin Plumb)
    Re: Modems and Phone Rates and Reality (John Boteler)
    Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (Julian Macassey)
    Re: ANI Does Not Seem To Work (John Higdon)
    Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?) (Colin Plumb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 09:23:13 -0800
From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10XXX from Pay Phones
Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office

<[e-mail]> writes in V-9, I-557, Msg 8 of 11:
>On Dec 2,  1:30pm, Eric Swenson wrote:

>> If I walk up to a pay telephone and want to make a call (local or
>> otherwise, same area code or different) without depositing coins,
>> shouldn't I be able to dial 10777-0-[AC]-XXX-XXXX, get a BOING, and,
>> assuming I have a U.S.  SPRINT FONCARD, be able to dial my FONCARD
>> number and complete my call?

>In my experience, with Sprint and MCI at least, you can use your local
>BOC calling card (which is usually the same number as your AT&T card)
>for 10xxx+0+ calls, but FONcard or MCI card numbers will not work.  I
>believe that the BOC does the calling card validation and handles the
>billing in this case..........

John may have misinterpeted Eric's question, which I will attempt to
clarify here.

Eric's question would work for MCI since MCI *has* installed Automated
Operator Positions (AOP's) in their network now, and subscribes to (I
believe) 3 card authorization service companies. So, when you do dial
10222+1+NPA-NXX-XXXX, you should get a bong, and it should be MCI's
AOP answering (you can let it time out, and it should go to a MCI TOPS
operator). Now, the caveat is that the payphone will probably be
programmed to intercept the call and go to an AOS (in the case of
COCOTS only) in which case you have NO idea who is handling the call,
and charging whatever outrageous amount to make that call.

The incoming MF signalling from the local telco determines if the call
is coming from a public or private payphone, and the MCI switch sees
it is a 0+ call, and then sends the call to a switch which has an AOP
(very few switches have AOP's still as of 6 months ago), then the
usual AOP processes apply from here on.

John's answer would be true, though, if you attempted to make an
intra-lata call (within your service area), because the local BOC's
don't subscribe/have access to the alternate L.D. carriers calling
card databases. They only have access to AT&T's at the present time,
though, this may change.

BTW: MCI's AOP's are IBM PS/2 - Model 80's.

>........................  If you have any volume discounts with these
>carriers, your FONcard or MCI card calls would contribute to them, but
>using your BOC card probably wouldn't.  (You probably wouldn't get
>your MCI "Around Town" discount either.)

I was attempting to find out of the MCI Around Town discount was going
to apply to BOC card calls, and the initial answer was 'No'. The
problem was that Around Town determination was done at MCI's billing
centers, not at the switch, and it was determined also by your *issued
card number*, not the billing telephone number.

I found out about this in my customer service days there, and the
trick is to change your telephone number to that area's prefix, issue
a card, then change back to your regular telephone number, and
volia...you have 2 MCI cards with 2 around town areas. One area was
based in San Rafel, and the other was based in Hayward (both in the
San Francisco Bay area). Since the San Rafael card covered Marin and
San Francisco for around town coverage, and the Hayward card covered
the East Bay, I had Around Town coverage for most of the whole Bay
Area! It was fun!

Now that MCI has BOC billing, this trick could be a little harder
since now MCI's computers do a check against the BOC's databases (this
only applying to Pacific*Hell's.....<cough>...Pacific*Bell's area)
when you sign up for service.

Does this help clear up anything???


| Robert Gutierrez -- NSI Network Ops Center <[e-mail]> |
| NASA Science Internet Project, Bldg 233-8, Moffett Field, CA. 94035-5000 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  "Pain....will you return it....I say it again....PAIN!" (Depeche Mode)  |

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

Date: 7 Dec 89 15:47:45 GMT
From: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phones
Reply-To: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Skinner) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 557, message 10 of 11

>What does it actually take to install a pay phone?
>Does the CO have to provide a special line, or can I put a pay phone
>on any old line?  I believe the full function pay phones need special
>signals to correctly work.
>Any idea of relative cost of pay phone line?
>Who gets what money for the line?

A few months ago I posted an article asking for help in getting a pay
phone going that I bought at a hamfest. Well I got a few replies, one
of which put me on the right track.

   Apparently since the Bell breakup any one can operate a payphone.
As such you can buy "private" payphones from various companies that
will work on normal phone lines. ATT sell a version of their payphones
that they call a Private payphone. These differ from the standard BOC
type payphone in that the phones themselves figure out how much to
charge. This is done, in the case of my "Elcotel" phone (which
incidently has everything except the electronics made by Weco (ATT)),
with the aid of a rating module.

This has stored in it all the information as to billing from the
payphone's number to anywhere in the US.  This phone also has stored
voice announcements "Please deposit 25 cents", "Invalid Number",
"Please call again, Thank you" etc. The phone waits till you have
finished dialing before validating the number, connecting to the
exchange line and dialing the number. It also has the 0+ bong stored
(it deliberatly has about a 3dB S/N so as to sound like a long
distance connection!!  (on MCI I suppose).

   You can change rating information from the keypad (after entering
the security code) or do it by modem. (i.e. dial upthe payphone which
answers after 5 rings (programmable)). The payphone can also be made
to automatically ring you up when the coinbox becomes full, or when it
is being vandelised!  The phone works out that you have connected, and
thus takes you money, by doing a voice signature analysis! (Very
clever...)

   It has alot of ways of redirecting your long distance calls to your
favourate LD co. (It is set up initially to reject 10XXX calls! but
this can be re-programmed).

   New, these phones are about $1500 and up! Much better if you can
find a hamfest. (I payed $125 (and all that was wrong was that the
keypad was miswired and the tone-progress detector chip was fried))

   The BOC type phones a dumb phones with the billing worked out at
the CO, and voltage "wink" to tell the phone to take your money etc.
If you're a business C&P (in our area) may put in a payphone for you
and give you a slice of the profits. (but if you just want a REALLY
sturdy phone for home,(you know, the ones as strong as the phones that
you got from Bell before the break-up) you're out of luck)


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]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 00:22:18 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?

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

>Mark Cohen in Digest 9.555 mentioned a commercial suggesting viewers
>"dial 411" in order to contact the advertiser.

>It seems remarkably straightforward.  Many advertisers do it, and I've
>never heard of one getting in trouble, most likely because there isn't
>a conceivable thing wrong with it.  Or is there?

>[e-mail]

I've spent most of this year in Washington state (Seattle), and much
to my surprise, there's no such thing as 411 in this state!  When I
first arrived, I tried it from a payphone (what did I know).  It
didn't work, so I called the operator.  She said "Why would you dial
411?  Directory assistance is at 1-555-1212" She acted as if she had
never heard of 411, and it definately doesn't work from any phone I've
tried.  Also, no 611 (you have to go through the operator to get
repair service).  (Reportedly, 611 will "read" you the number of the
calling phone if you're in a GTE service area).


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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Operator Handling of International DA
Date: 8 Dec 89 08:23:19 GMT
Reply-To: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


While I was in Europe last summer, I noticed that many operators could
handle 2 or 3 languages, and the *international* ones many more.

You'd think if I dialled the country code for Germany, it would be
a hint that speaking german would be useful?

(No, I haven't checked the situation in Canada, not having anyone
in Germany I want to call right now.  I'm pretty sure they all know
how to cope with French, if only to forward you to a French-speaking
operator.  I've occasionally been answered with telephoniste, but I
just start speaking in English and all is fine.)

I have to admit that there are plenty of places I don't reasonably
expect an operator to be able to handle, but I don't think western
Europe is asking too much.

    -Colin

[Moderator's Note: Colin and others dialing into an intercept message
in Quebec area codes may have noticed that the taped message is
frequently (usually?) recited first in French, then in English.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates and Reality
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 6:14:29 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>

Having entered this discussion after reading the 'Subject:' line,
perhaps we should return to the subject.

I submit that any attempts to draw analogies between cost of
providing telecom service and rates charged for that service
will prove frustrating.

Looked at your itemized bill lately? Touch-Tone service at $$$/month,
eh?


Bote
NCN NudesLine  703-241-BARE  --  VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible
{zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections?
Date: 8 Dec 89 14:04:20 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


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

> [e-mail] (Kevin Hopkins)
> writes:

> >I know it's in the wrong direction, but I believe you can  use country code
> >89, instead of 1, to reach the US from the UK  via the transatlantic cable.
> >Using country code 1 just picks the next channel to the US whilst 89 avoids
> >the satellite. I saw  this on a UK  newsgroup a few  months back and cannot
> >remember who mentioned it - I don't have first  hand experience and I don't
> >know if it still works. Can anyone shed more light on this?
>  Stuff deleted

> There is a magic code that you can dial after the get out code (010)
> country code (1) and before the areacode-prefix-number.  This code
> will force the call to use MCI for the US end which seems to force a
> fibre link across the pond most of the time (~95%).

> I am not going to post the code since I think it is a bug in the
> programming of the international switch in London and I don't want it
> to go away because of overuse.  It's not 89.

> If anybody knows any more about this please post/let me know.

This is what I read in New Scientist Mag a few years ago. It was
also published on P69 Dec 1988 Popular Communications Mag.

RCA     0101 83 [phone]
ITT     0101 84 [phone]

Yes, I know these carriers don't really exist anymore.

    Any hacker can now spend some time trying carious 8X
combinations seeing what they get. You may try: 0101 8X (700)
555-4141. For the brits, the [phone] number will give you a
recorded message telling you who your long distance carrier is.  The
700 number works from any line in the US, except some slimeball COPT
payphones where they block it.

    Please post results. Enquiring minds want to know.

Yours,

Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Subject: Re: ANI Does Not Seem To Work
Reply-To: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 8 Dec 89 12:58:26 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

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

>I always thought that ANI could work from any phone but its seems that
>on some phones ANI (in my case 311) has no effect.  Those any- one
>why.  Is there any other way to find out your number?

You might try two approaches. One, call the business office and see if
they will help you. Until I passworded my accounts, people used to get
my unpublished numbers that way all the time! The other way Patrick
suggested some time ago: call someone person to person that isn't
there and have the operator leave a call back number. She will give
the number of the line you are using and you should be able to hear
it.

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

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE vs Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?)
Date: 8 Dec 89 22:44:06 GMT
Reply-To: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


In article <[e-mail]> Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> I pay $23.50/month for two lines, one tone service with 1+ provided by
> ATT, and one which is supposed to be pulse-only, with 1+ dialing
> disabled. The two lines busy-forward to each other. This includes
> unlimited local calling (but not 6% sales tax).

> I find these rates very reasonable. Especially when I read in TELECOM
> Digest about people that pay over $35/month for a single residential
> line.

Another data point: in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, I pay $8.75 a month
for pulse-only POTS, and rent (I'm a student; I'm not going to be here
long enough for it to be worthwhile to buy a half-decent phone) a
basic indestructible telephone (it says QSQM500AX on the bottom, along
with 07-89B and "Property of Bell Canada") for $1.75.  Plus 8% sales
tax.

These are, of course, Candian dollars, which everyone got excited
about nearing $0.87 US the other day.

Unlimited local calls.  Calling Toronto (1.5 hours drive or so) is
$21.00 an hour, $8.40 an hour after 11:00 (60% discount).  I should
see if I can work out a volume discount with the phone company...  I
call Toronto a lot.

    -Colin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #562
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 9 Dec 89 10:00:50 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #563
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Dec 89 10:00:03 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 563

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Phone Connections East/West Germany (Allgemeine Zeitung via H. Schulzrinne)
    Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) (Brian Gordon)
    International LD Headaches: Cuba, India, Egypt (David Lesher)
    ISDN and British Telecom (Data Comm, others via Pete French)
    Re: Pay Phones (John Higdon)
    Re: Anachronistic Rip-off (Paul Guthrie)
    When Writing to the Digest (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 10:45 EST
From: Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Connections East/West Germany

The following are excerpts translated from the November 18 edition of
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt, West Germany (translated
without permission):

"Calling the GDR is almost hopeless"
====================================

The situation in the German-German telephone communication is by now a
catastrophe. It takes many hours to get a connection. Often that
doesn't happen at all. It has become basically impossible to make
important phone calls. Even attempts to use telegrams are almost
hopeless. All regional postal administrations report that telegram
traffic is totally overloaded.

The telephone system of the GDR has not made the switch to digital
technology. The existing system is based on analog switching, just as
it was the case in West Germany not too long ago, and is outdated.
There are bottlenecks in switching and the cable plant. Microwave
links would have to be set up between the Federal Republic
(W.-Germany) and the GDR.

How tight capacities are can be seen by the fact that a total of 1313
conversations can be accomodated concurrently from the Federal
Republic while from the GDR only 215. East Berlin and 221 other
localities can be reached without operator assistance.

According to figures provided by the postal administration in East
Berlin, more than one million residents of the GDR have applied for a
telephone line. 45000 additional lines had been planned for 1990. In
the Federal Republic, 97 of 100 household have a telephone, in the GDR
only 16. There are 27.5 mio. phone lines in West Germany, 1.6 mio in
East Germany [population is 61 vs. 17 mio, roughly].

The postal administration in Munich points out that in early November,
250 calls were registered per day. Today, the number is 950. Only
every tenth attempt for connection is successful when direct-dialing.
According to the postal administration in Lower Saxony, only every
fifth caller has a chance of getting through.

=====

Henning Schulzrinne  ([e-mail])
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: [phone] (EST); FAX: [phone]

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

From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again)
Date: 8 Dec 89 18:45:16 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven_Tenney) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 557, message 5 of 11

>Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol
>placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want
>any telemarketers/solicitors calling.  If telemarketers do call the
>particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could
>be fined heavily (up to $25,000).  Needless to say this will kill the
>computerized random calling technique in Oregon.

 ... but only FROM telephones in Oregon.  Callers in other states
won't be affected by an Oregon law, and probably won't even have
access to the "symbols" even if they wanted to comply.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian G. Gordon    [e-mail] (if you trust exotic mailers)     |
|            ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself)          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: International LD Headaches: Cuba, India, Egypt
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 23:35:45 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>

If you REALLY want to raise your blood pressure, try calling Cuba.
Here's the procedure:

    loop n=1 to 3E8
        call 1-700-460-1000
        get announcment in Spanish
        hang up
    next n
    (Get recording in English, go back to line 1.)

    Get ATT operator after several hours of above
    give him/her #s
    {s}he dials
        call aborts, or answers dead or any of 100 things,
    ATT keeps trying.
    (It is a big help to be calling a location with many
    trunks, as a busy sends you to line 1, again)
    Call answers, with at least one-way audio. Try and converse.
    Patience please, as you are in a conference call with about
    thirty other conversations, most only about 6 db. down from
    you, much less the other end.
    Hang up.

BTW, to get credit for a call that didn't go through, you must get
that 700 operator again.

When you are there, it isn't much better. The 4 wire 75 baud 20ma data
circuit was down. After three days, the telco man showed up at site.
His first move was to call his test board. To do that, he had to find
a working outgoing trunk. Since only 3 or 4 of 20 work on any day,
this was a bit of a problem.  Now his butt set consisted of a 300
series handset with braided insulation cord. No dial. No network I
could see.

He looked for a trunk on the protector with it. Since some were
ringing, he jumped a lot. When he got one, he dialed by banging his
pliers on the protector terminal. After 15 minutes of this, I loaned
him my Buttinski. This took a translator to explain the Monitor/Talk
switch. After many calls, he got through to the board (I always knew
that redial on a butt set should be an option) When I left a day
later, they were still working on it.

In India, more than 30 languages are in regular use, and no more than
40% of the people speak the most common. This according to a friend of
mine from there.

I supect that Cairo is even worse than Havana. About 10 years ago, I
remember reading that somehow the PTT swapped President Sadat's line
with that of the local UPI office. (oops!)  After MONTHS of attempting
to get this fixed, Sadat and UPI gave up and just traded numbers.


A host is a host & from coast to [e-mail]
no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

[Moderator's Note: I tried calling 1-700-460-1000 Friday evening
several times using my default carrier, AT&T. I kept getting
intercepted locally, right here from AT&T in Chicago. ('cannot be
completed as dialed, please check the number and dial again...')  It
never moved passed that point. Are you sure you have the right number?
Then I tried 10222-1-700-460-1000 and 10333-1-700-460-1000. These rang
several times, but both eventually cut into their respective carrier's
intercept messages, telling me the same thing, and to call customer
service for assistance.  PT]

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

From: Pete French <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 89 14:25:00 GMT
Subject: ISDN and British Telecom

The following article is reproduced from "Data Comms" magazine...

Britain is set to unveil big ISDN push, at last. After years of
pushing back the introduction of ISDN, British Telecom is now planning
a great leap forward. Instead of installing 1,500 ISDN basic-rate
interface (2B + D) lines in the first year as originally planned, it
is telling suppliers that it will install 50,000 lines during 1990.
Plans for the following years have been given a similar upward thrust,
in line with a memorandum of understanding between European PTTs that
ISDN will be made available to 95 percent of business customers by the
end of 1992. Currently, the UK has about 1,000 "ISDN" lines installed
as part of BT's nonstandard Integrated Digital Access (IDA) service.

              ====================================

And reproduced from a photocopy that landed on my desk a few minutes
ago...

Plans for the digital communications era of the future have been
unveild by British Telecom with the launch of an advanced service to
carry voice, data and pictures. The service, "British Telecom ISDN 2",
will pave the way for more high-tech applications such as the
picture-phone, ultra-fast fax and high-speed data transfer.

ISDN 2 will provide high-speed digital services to branch offices and
small and medium businesses. Such services have, until now, been
available only to large business sites.

The launch follows a 23 million pound order with STC
Telecommunications for equipment to provide up to 90,000 lines of
network capacity.

Nick Kane,BT's Director of Marketing and Sales said: "Our new service,
the first ISDN service in the world to conform to the latest
international standards, enables a broad spectrum of our customers to
take advantage of information technology services previously only
available to large businesses. In doing so it will accelerate the
introduction of the information society."

             ==================================

Trying to disentangle this from the marketing blurb ... ISDN 2 is
"true" ISDN and seems to be based on standard I420. The older ISDN 1
was BT's Integrated Digital Access (IDA) service and was based on the
1980 ISDN standard which got changed (oops...). What interests me is
why we all found this out from external sources when we are in the
division that is supposed to be supporting the introduction of ISDN.

Maybe I'll be able to throw away my modem someday soon... :-)


       -Pete French.               | "The rhythm's gone,
  British Telecom Research Labs.   |  The radio's dead.
 Martlesham Heath, East Anglia.    |  And the damage done,
All my own thoughts (of course)    |  Inside my head."

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

Subject: Re: Pay Phones
Reply-To: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 9 Dec 89 00:25:07 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

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

>What does it actually take to install a pay phone?

>Does the CO have to provide a special line, or can I put a pay phone
>on any old line?  I believe the full function pay phones need special
>signals to correctly work.

You will need a special line, but not because of technical
requirements of the phone. The line will have certain restrictions
such as no IDDD, billed number screening (so people can't call it
collect, etc.), and a few other restrictions. The local rate is a bit
different from standard business lines as well.

"Full function" pay phones do all the work. They set the rate and ask
for the money, detect answer and collect, and some of them now do
automated collect calls. They do "OCC-style" dialing to put calls over
slimeball carriers. The line itself does nothing to assist the phone
in its duties.

>Any idea of relative cost of pay phone line?

It's roughly the same as a business line.

>Who gets what money for the line?

The telco and they charge you for local calls as well. Your profit is
the difference between what you collect and what telco charges you.
Long distance goes to your carrier who shares with you a preset
amount.

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

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anachronistic Rip-off
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 07:28:10 GMT

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

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Guthrie) writes:
>> One thing to keep in mind is that the use of dialers to access
>> inter-lata carriers does not necessarily mean that the customer pays
>> for the local call into the carrier.  Many carriers use FGB lines (950
>> NXX), and bear the (much reduced) costs.

>The long and the short of it is: the difference in cost to OCCs
>between FGB and FGD is fractional cents per minute. Plus, with FGD you
>can accept or waive a number of Pac*Bell services that can materially
>affect your connection costs. The major difference is POP
>requirements.

This may be true in your area.  I was not talking about carrier costs,
merely the subscriber costs in accessing the carrier.  FGBs (and FGDs)
cost the subscriber $0 on their phone bill (except that which is
naturally passed back to them through the LD call costs).

>Besides I wasn't talking about FGB in the first place. I was talking
>about FGA.

And I wasn't talking about FGD, just pointing out that just because
you have dialers, does not mean FGA...... It could be FGB.


Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

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

Date:     Sat, 9 Dec 89 9:52:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  When Writing To the Digest


It has come to my attention once again that unfortunatly, a certain
amount of mail addressed to the Digest simply never gets here. You
should be so lucky that it bounces back to you, alerting you to try
again. Some just vanishes....  :(

The 'auto-reply' is my way of letting you know your submission or
administrative request was received here. Everytime you write to the
Digest, you should receive back an automatic message saying your
submission or request was received.

Sometimes the 'from' address is so badly mangled that the auto-reply
itself bounces back to *me*, and I do not attempt to make re-delivery
on these, so failing to get your receipt does not automatically mean I
did not get your letter. But if you fail to get the receipt AND you do
not see your article in a day or three, THEN please write again.

On the other hand, if you get multiple copies of the receipt for the
same submission, this is because you attempted to post your article
direct to comp.dcom.telecom; it was rejected by several backbone
sites; and each of the backbones sent me a copy. Ten copies of the
same letter from the same person are not uncommon when that person
attempts to circumvent moderation for whatever reason.

*Always save a copy of your submission to the Digest until you see it
in the Digest.*  They do get lost (as per above), and sometimes they
get lost in processing here as well.

Auto-reply is for your benefit, and proves your submission was received
here.

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #563
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 10 Dec 89 12:52:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #564
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Dec 89 12:49:53 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 564

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Roy Smith)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (John R. Covert)
    Re: User Control of Feature(s) (Dave Levenson)
    Re: User Control of Feature(s) (John Stanley)
    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (John Higdon)
    Re: 7kHz Voice and ISDN (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Data Over Voice (Steve Elias)
    Re: Phone Solicitations (Again) (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 16:46:53 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC

> [dialing 411 from a payphone] didn't work, so I called the operator.  She
> said "Why would you dial 411?  Directory assistance is at 1-555-1212"

    In New York City they used to have an interesting hack (I
think this was before the 212/718 split).  If you dialed 411, you got
DA for the borough you were in.  If you wanted DA for one of the other
4 boroughs, you dialed 555-1212 without an area code.  I'm not sure if
this still works.


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"

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

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 07:14:46 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  10-Dec-1989 0957" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?

>Mark Cohen in Digest 9.555 mentioned a commercial suggesting viewers
>"dial 411" in order to contact the advertiser.

>Mr. Cohen suggested that this was a flagrant abuse of DA and said he
>called his telco to inform them of this travesty.

>But I really don't understand what is wrong with this...

> A) it allows people from anywhere in the viewing area to find
>    the number for the outlet/branch closest to them

Valid observation: I'm sure this is why the advertiser (a chain) was
doing this.

> B) the phone company will charge the customer for the DA call.
>    Customers know this; if they don't want to pay, they can
>    use the phone book.

Invalid observation: In-State Directory Assistance in Massachusetts is
free to residential customers.  (Can't expect you to have known this.)

This may be partly due to the cost of distributing directories of
everyone's local calling area.  Although Acton's local calling area
only includes the four exchanges Acton/Boxborough, Concord/Carlisle,
Maynard/Stow, and Littleton, not all of these towns are in the local
phone book (Littleton is in another book).  Each of these other towns
has at least one local exchange that is in some other adjacent phone
book.  It would not be possible to re-align the books to solve the
problem, since _each_ town has a different set of surrounding towns.
(I suppose it would be possible to list towns in more than one book,
but that, too would increase the cost of the books.)

Apparently N.E.T. has determined that the cost of distributing an
additional phone book for all the adjacent areas to each customer (a
requirement before the DPU could get away with permitting a D.A.
charge) is higher than the cost of D.A.  (At least all N.E.T. phone
books can be had for free for the asking.)

But I'm sure that residents of Massachusetts don't feel that Mr. Cohen
was some sort of hero for reporting the abuse.  Rather than helping to
preserve our free access to D.A., Mr. Cohen's report is more likely to
be used by N.E.T. as ammunition in their attempts to get approval for
a D.A. charge without the requirement that nearby phone books be
delivered without a special request.

I'll try and see if a residential D.A. charge is part of N.E.T.'s $16
million rate reduction filing now pending before the D.P.U.  (DPU
89-300, Public Hearing at the State House, Thursday, 4-Jan-90, 7:30pm.)

/john

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User Control of Feature(s)
Date: 10 Dec 89 00:06:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Another nice-to-have telecom capability, which can be added to the
> "wishlist" of features the telcos should offer, is dynamic user
> control of hunting and rotaries. When I am in the office alone, I
> should be able to turn off the rotary so that only one incoming call
> can hit at one time. Any others should get a busy signal.
 ...

This service IS available, today, from 1ESS and 1AESS central offices
in New Jersey.  It may be available elsewhere.  I don't know the USOC
for it, but it is a tarrifed service.  It is implemented as a separate
pair from the CO to the customer premises.  At the customer end, they
install a simple keyswitch that either opens or closes the pair.  If
this switch is open, hunting works normally.  If this switch is
closed, calls dialed to any number in the hunt group ring only that
number - or reach a busy signal.  It is used by customers who
subscribe to answering services, who want calls dialed to their main
number to reach the service after hours, or a busy if the service
(presumably only connected to the first line) is already talking to
another caller.  It enables late-workers to receive calls on numbers
other than the main LDN.


Dave Levenson                Voice: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.               Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA              UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]      AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave


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

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 01:22:41 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User Control of Feature(s)


[e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:

>Another nice-to-have telecom capability, which can be added to the
>"wishlist" of features the telcos should offer, is dynamic user
>control of hunting and rotaries. When I am in the office alone, I
>should be able to turn off the rotary so that only one incoming call
>can hit at one time. Any others should get a busy signal. That is

Should be do-able. We are moving soon, and want our main number to
follow us for a while. Answer: call forward. Problem: if our main
number gets forwarded, that over-rides the hunt we have. So, if anyone
calls any of the other lines in the hunt, which will all be
disconnected, they get disconnect notice. If anyone calls the old main
number while someone is still being forwarded, they don't hunt, they
get busy.

So, forward overrides hunt. Forward your first line to the second.
This will make all calls come in on second line, but the forward gets
handled first, so subsequent calls get busy as first line is busy
while forwarding to second.

This is what our rep says, haven't tested it yet.

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

Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 9 Dec 89 15:42:03 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 556, message 1 of 7

>If I wanted my baby's noises to be secure from prying ears, I could
>have easily trotted down to Radio Shack and purchased a wired(!)
>intercom that doesn't pollute the airwaves, or (what a concept!) put
>the baby where I can hear it without electronic assistance.  (A bit

With the proliferation of wireless devices, the public (and the
public's representative--congress) seems to have become numb to the
reality that the airwaves are nothing more than a big party line. To
use this big party line, people have to cooperate, realize that their
use can be monitored by others, and accept the laws of physics that
relate thereto.

I had to field a call once from a very irate person who had been
informed that the reason her garage door opened occasionally on its
own was because of signal from my client's FM radio station. Garage
door openers operate at a frequency that is roughly the third harmonic
of the center of the FM band. While it is possible that a broadcast
could have measureable output on the third harmonic, it would be
unlikely that it would exceed FCC limits (which are well defined).

Coincidentally, I had been doing other work on the transmitter and
happened to have measured the station's third harmonic and found it to
well exceed FCC requirements for suppression. When I informed the
person of this, she became even more irate and told me that she didn't
care about FCC rules, it was the radio station's problem, pure and
simple.

Not having a lot of time to waste, I directed her to the statement on
her unit which declares that the user must accept any interferrence
and must not interfere with any other devices or services. She felt
very wronged but I am sure that she gave no thought to the big
picture--that a radio station serving hundreds of thousands of
listeners be put on the same priority footing as her (probably
defective) garage door remote control. I told her it was her problem
to remedy and it would have to be at her expense. Sorry, that's
reality.

>If I'm really bent on wireless
>intercoms inside my home, I should either accept the fact that I am
>voluntarily BROADCASTING, or at least take measures on my own to see
>that the transmissions do not leave my house.  Most manufacturers of
>cordless phones (even some cellular phones), baby monitors, and other
>"Part 49" gizmos DO alert you to the fact that wireless communications
>defy privacy.  This is not merely our law, but a law of nature as
>well; to legislate otherwise will bring us nothing but headaches.

But, of course. Using the party line analogy, those with experience in
this area have observed that sometimes people fight over the use of
the party line, just as they sometimes do with the radio spectrum.
Perhaps it's my radio background, but whenever I use a cellular phone,
the thought never leaves my mind that the conversation is on the air
and that at least someone else, not a party to the conversation, is
listening. If the message is critically private, we move to landline.
It's like breathing and eating. That's why this privacy flap is so
funny. If you want to use the public airwaves for private
communications, then it is up to you to encode them sufficiently to
keep them private.

But for someone to intentionally bug their own house (baby monitor),
put it (unencoded) on the air, and then get angry when someone does
the inevitable evesdropping, well...

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 7kHz Voice and ISDN
Date: 8 Dec 89 16:55:39 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, ttidca.TTI.COM![e-mail]
(Dick Jackson) writes...

>As I understand it, work is afoot to implement a standard for the ISDN
>defined 7kHz voice service, wherein audio sampled (presumably) at 16
>ksamples per second is encoded (using cunning modern techniques) at
>the ISDN bearer channel rate (64 kbps).

>Any comments? From those who know how the technology is progressing?
>From potential owners?

Funny you should ask.  Yes, there's a new ISDN 7 kHz audio bearer
service.  It makes use of 64 kbps ADPCM encoding.  (Digression:
Standard PCM uses 64 kbps to do 3.1 kHz audio.  ADPCM is more
efficient, so 32 kbps is essentially adequate for 3.1 kHz audio, with
only minimal distortion (modems might complain, humans won't).  So if
you use the ADPCM principle on the usual 64 kbps bandwidth, you can
get better audio.)

The network uses PCM to generate tones and announcements for ISDN
telephones in the telephony bearer service.  The 7 kHz standard says
that you begin all calls in standard 3.1 PCM mode, specifying that
it's really a 7 kHz call.  Once the two ends are connected to each
other, they do a handshake to confirm that they're ready to switch
into 7 kHz mode.  That way the terminals are in 3.1 PCM mode when
doing call setup (talking to the network) and in 7 kHz ADPCM mode when
actually communicating with each other.

This hack makes it essentially transparent to the network, which will
speed implementation.  You just need the chips in your telephones.  I
don't personally see much use for it in "handsets", given their cruddy
mic/speaker combos, but it could be very nice for speakerphones, audio
dial-up program services, remote broadcast feeds, etc.

     fred  (member, ANSI T1S1, speaking for himself)

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

From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice
Date: 10 Dec 89 16:19:11 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>

 Richard Steele <[e-mail]> writes:

>Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over
>voice (DOV) units.  These are small boxes, about the size of a regular
>modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the
>University computer.  Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but
>it leaves the phone free for regular use_.

>So, what magic is involved here?  Thanks to all who respond...

Try screaming into the phone while you are watching 960 cps output on
your CRT...  does the data rate slow?

I think there are some nifty boxes out there which will encode the
voice digitally and use any excess digital bandwidth for other data.
Maybe this is the sort of device Purdue has given you.

Now for the next step, you must TAKE IT APART, of course!  The sign of
a truly curious engineer.  what are the labels On the outside of the
box and on internal boards ?


Steve Elias ; [e-mail] ; 6179325598 ; 5086717556 ; { *disclaimer(); }

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

Subject: Re: Phone Solicitations (Again)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 9 Dec 89 18:16:55 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steven_Tenney) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 557, message 5 of 11

>Oregon is soon to pass a law where a subscriber can have a symbol
>placed by their name in phone books indicating that they do not want
>any telemarketers/solicitors calling.  If telemarketers do call the
>particular residence anyway (whether it's a mistake or not) the could
>be fined heavily (up to $25,000).  Needless to say this will kill the
>computerized random calling technique in Oregon.

Oh, dream on! Do you think for one microsecond that ALL or even most
telemarketing directed at Oregonians originates inside Oregon? No
offense, but I seriously doubt that major telemarketers set up boiler
rooms in Oregon itself.

And how will the phone police *prove* (remember proof? it's required
in court) that any particular calls originated within the state
boundaries of Oregon? In California, junk callers are required to get
the victim's permission before sicking a machine on them. When I tried
to turn one in that didn't, they said, "Oh, we make all of our
telemarketing calls from Wisconsin." I knew they were lying, but it
was EOD (end of discussion).

I predict the new law will have negligible effect on the computerized
random calling technique in Oregon.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #564
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 10 Dec 89 13:46:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #565
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Dec 89 13:45:31 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 565

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Gregory G. Woodbury)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (John Higdon)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Christopher Davis)
    Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: FCC Doing It Again (Andrew D. Kailhofer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 01:18:36 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) writes:

>What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL
>BUSINESS and no one elses.

The fact that you CONTRACT with the phone company for the use of their
facilities says otherwise.  If you operated your own telephone system
between you and your friends and the social services that you want to
use, then MAYBE it would be your own business (I suspect that the govt.
would call it a phone company ;-)

>Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use.
>No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically
>than they do barging through my front door.  Not answering the phone
>is NOT an answer.
><personal anecdote deleted>

Except that it is not YOUR phone service - you contract for it.

>I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I
>want to talk to or is an emergency.  All caller ID will do is allow
>slime to discover my phone number more readily.

This is the part of your argument that I fail to follow.  CNID will
allow YOU to determine if you know the party calling and accept the
interruption.  It would make sense for you to ask for the phone
company to not implement CNID on your outgoing calls.  Then, when you
call someone as insistent as you are about your right to remain
unidentified, that person can ignore the call because the calling
party chose to not identify itself.

The phone companies are BUSINESSES.  Due to the common opinion that
phone service is a RIGHT (its really a purchased service), the
government decided early to regulate it.


Gregory G. Woodbury
Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...dukeac!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] (Home)  [phone] (Work)
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>

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

Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Reply-To: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 9 Dec 89 01:05:47 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) writes:
>Have you ever pulled a credit report on yourself?

Yes I have, and what has that got to do with your phone number? My
credit report was a surprisingly accurate account of my credit history
and was quite detailed. Would you like a copy?

>Still another, much more insidious use is by the IRS.  They collect
>data on lifestyle from this and other databanks, such as mailing lists
>so that they can impute an income from lifestyle in the event they
>think you pay too few taxes.  I am personally very vunerable to this
>type attack.  By virtue of skillful trading, purchasing and
>craftsmanship, I live an apparent lifestyle several multiples of my
>actual income.  And yet the IRS could use this very personal
>information to screw me if they so chose.

Again, I fail to see what your tax manipulations have to do with an
individual knowing what number you are calling from? Is it because you
want to pull some scam involving falsification of who or where you
actually are? Sounds to me like you are paranoid about something and
for some non-specific reason you are not sure you want anyone to know
any more about you than they already do.

>What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL
>BUSINESS and no one elses.

Wrong. What you buy is your credit card company's business, your
bank's business, even the IRS's business if you deduct for business
purposes.  Where you go is generally known by your credit card
company. Who you call is known by your telco, your long distance
company, and the IRS if you deduct telephone calls. Whenever you use
the telephone, your number is given to the long distance company for
billing, to the business you called if you used an 800 number, to the
information provider if you called a 900 number. These many businesses
(some of whom ARE scumbags) already have access to your number. What
you seem to be against is the private individual having this same
information.

>More than adequate means already exist to trap prank and obscene
>calls.  The only motive that can be assigned to wanting to personally
>know the ID of a prankster likely looks somewhat like vigilanteism.

That's nonsense. I have already dreamed up some creative things that I
will do with my computerized answering machine when the day comes that
it is fed callers' numbers. For instance, giving important messages to
known friends and business associates, being able to return calls
where I couldn't understand the number spoken, etc. Just because you
are short-sighted concerning the uses of this technology doesn't mean
the rest of us should be deprived of its benefits.

>Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use.
>No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically
>than they do barging through my front door.  Not answering the phone
>is NOT an answer.  Aside from being driven from a service I pay for,
>tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls.  I found out the hard
>way when I was a teenager.  I got to spend the night in jail on a bum
>bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night.  That
>we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no
>consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail.

It sounds like you are carrying a lot of baggage concerning your
affairs. Why do you think that your precious unlisted number will be
compromised in a world with Caller-ID? Who do you call that will
spread it around? If you thought that you didn't want me to have it,
for instance, I would invite you not to call me. After all, what gives
you the right to bother me if I can't "bother" you? If you are so hung
up about all this, get two lines and use the listed one to make calls
to those whom you seem to want to call without them being able to call
you on your unlisted number.

>I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I
>want to talk to or is an emergency.  All caller ID will do is allow
>slime to discover my phone number more readily.

I have more unlisted numbers than you do. I have nine; how many do you
have? Am I afraid of Caller-ID? Absolutely not. Those who know me will
also tell you that I am a staunch advocate of civil rights, the right
to privacy, and that I am a strict constitutionalist. But Caller-ID is
not snooping by the government--they don't need it. It is not snooping
by big business--they don't need it. It is a useful tool that puts
just a little more control of the telephone back into the hands of
call recipients. You have yet to convince me why that is undesireable;
your obvious paranoia notwithstanding.

>Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the
>entraprenural opportunity.  Hey guys, how do you think a commercial
>automatic redialing service would fly.

Why go through all that? Why not just have telco offer "calling number
hiding"? Because someone will ask, "why do we have to pay to keep our
God-given unlisted number private", and the debate starts all over
again.

>You know, you dial an access
>number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's
>line.  You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract
>to never collect or release calling information would fly?  I do.

Ah, but the service would know. And after awhile, your paranoia would
once again surface and you would wonder if the IRS, or whoever you are
hiding from was getting a court order to look at their records. And
then what would you do?

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

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

Date:  Sat, 9 Dec 89 10:56:55 est
From: Christopher Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID once again)
Reply-To: Christopher Davis <[e-mail]>

>>>>> On 6 Dec 89 07:43:01 GMT, [e-mail] (John G. De Armond) said:

 > Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use.
 > No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically
 > than they do barging through my front door.  Not answering the phone
 > is NOT an answer.  Aside from being driven from a service I pay for,
 > tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls.  I found out the hard
 > way when I was a teenager.  I got to spend the night in jail on a bum
 > bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night.  That
 > we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no
 > consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail.

 > I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I
 > want to talk to or is an emergency.  [...]

Thank you, Mr. De Armond, for one of the strongest arguments *in
favor* of Caller-ID.  Presumably you'll have a better idea if you want
to talk to someone if you know their phone number before you pick up
the phone...

 > All caller ID will do is allow slime to discover my phone number more
 > readily.

Depends on who you call; I'd like to note that telesalescreeps managed
to find my second line even though Caller-ID was [obviously] not
available at that point.  (The line was data only, which was always
fun; nobody called on that line except salescreeps and folks who I'd
asked to call back on that line to free up the main line... that gave
me license to just turn on the auto-answer modem much of the time.
Ah, sweet revenge.)

 > Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the
 > entraprenural opportunity.  Hey guys, how do you think a commercial
 > automatic redialing service would fly.  You know, you dial an access
 > number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's
 > line.  You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract
 > to never collect or release calling information would fly?  I do.

Go for it.  Just don't expect me to answer the phone if I don't
recognize your number--I'll punt to the answering machine, which is
what I do without Caller-ID.

 Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90  <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Sat, 9 Dec 89 13:59:32 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen?

Doug Martin ([e-mail]) asked in digest 9.561 about the tone the
phone company blasts out when you leave your receiver off-hook for too
long.

As far as I know, it's 1400 Hz + 2060 Hz + 2450 Hz + 2600 Hz
simultaneously, cycled on and off every .1 seconds.


[Moderator's Note: But, I believe his question was, how were these
sounds chosen? Did a committee somewhere listen to various sounds and
choose this as the most appropriate? When and how were they picked?  PT]

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

From: Andrew D Kailhofer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Doing It Again
Date: 10 Dec 89 18:02:05 GMT
Reply-To: Andrew D Kailhofer <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ameritech Applied Technologies


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

[ stuff about the phone company rate-negotiators being evil and larcenous ]

>Fortunately, you can fight back.  If you are being charged more for a
>tone line, ask for a pulse line.  SURPRISE!  Unless you have an old
>pulse phone exchange, you still can use tone on the `pulse' line - the
>pulse-to-tone converter lets the DTMF tones through to the exchange.
>If the phone co. sends you an "Aha!  You're using tone on a pulse line
>so we'll charge you more!"  letter they can be taken to court.  The Federal
>Trade Commission has ruled that if anyone gives you a service that you
>haven't asked for, it's a FREE GIFT and you don't owe them a cent.

This is true and not true.  Let me first disclaim...  While I am an
Honest-To-Goodness employee of Ameritech Applied Technologies, I have
never been a Telephone-Company-Person.  I was hired for my UNIX skills
and that's what I do, *but* you can't work around here w/o soaking up
knowledge about the network.  That said, the facts as I know them...

Once upon a time, everything was pulse.  The step-by-step switches
whirred along nicely.  Then they started selling DTMF service to the
subscriber, requiring pulse-to-tone converters.  It was generally more
cost effective (at least here in Wisconsin) to wire an entire office
with this equipment than the individual subscriber, so this was what
was done.  This stuff persisted through the SXS, the Crossbar, and
most of the #1 and #1A ESSs.

The end result of all of this is that if you did not feel any twinge
of guilt at committing petty larceny against (what was at that time)
AT&T, you could pilfer DTMF service at no cost except (potential)
guilt.

Once digital switching started to get more and more widely propagated,
however, things changed.  With the advent of the AT&T #5ESS (and
presumbaly the DMS 10 & 100), the switch was able to recognize Pulse
or DTMF on its own instead of relying on some piece of hardware in the
network to perform conversion.  The end result--if you don't pay for
the service, you can't use it.

I cannot comment on whether or not I think that DTMF should cost less
than pulse, but consider the people still served by older switches who
should pay more for something that extra equipment is required to
provide...  Can a PSC (or would a BOC want their PSC) to require a
different billing reate for (potentially) each CO?  Yikes.


Andrew D. Kailhofer
MS-CS candidate/UW-Milwaukee ([e-mail])
Analyst--Network Systems/Ameritech Applied Technologies--WI
    ([e-mail]) 414/678-7793

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #565
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 11 Dec 89 0:31:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #566
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 11 Dec 89 00:30:15 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 566

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Panasonic Rebates - No Luck (Amitabh Shah)
    Info on PBX: Toshiba Perception II? (Sean Burke)
    Cuba: The Mystery of 700-460-1000 Revealed (John R. Covert)
    Calling Cuba (David Lesher)
    Slick 96? (Dave Brightbill)
    Caller ID Question (Scott D. Green)
    Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones (John Higdon)
    Re: PacTelesis Power Grab (John Higdon)
    Re: Data Over Voice (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: ISDN and TCP/IP (Jim Breen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Amitabh Shah <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic Rebates - No Luck
Date: 10 Dec 89 04:19:53 GMT
Reply-To: Amitabh Shah <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell University Computer Science Department


Many of you are aware of the Panasonic rebates on several of the
Panasonic/Technics products, as a settlement of the antitrust suit
brought against the parent co. of Panasonic.

My story: I had purchased two products that might have qualified - a
KXT 3000 cordless phone and a KXT 2432 phone/ans. mac. combo. While
the first was listed in the qualified products, the second one was
not; in fact it's white colored sibling KXT 2429 was. (2432 is black
but otherwise identical to 2429.)

I called up the Fund office about this product and was told that it is
possible that they may allow 2432 as well and asked me to send in the
application, which I did. I did not have the receipts, so I sent in
cutouts from the boxes, showing model numbers, as they had instructed.

After about a month or so, I get back in mail a letter saying that my
application is rejected because I have the wrong model numbers. Both
my proofs of purchase were cut in half and sent back. I call them up;
they tell me that 2432 is not allowed. So I ask why the other part was
returned. The woman didn't know anything about it and asked me to
resubmit the application for the KXT 3000. After another month and a
half, I get back another letter in mail saying that my application has
been denied on the grounds of *wrong model number* as well as *missing
serial number* which I had provided!

I'm really pissed off.

My question: has anyone succeeded in getting any rebate from the
Antitrust Fund?


Amitabh Shah                                    [e-mail]--(INTERNET)
Dept. of Computer Science                       shah@cornell------------(CSNET)
Upson Hall -- Cornell University                { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP)
Ithaca NY 14853-7501                            [phone]----------(VOICE)

[Moderator's Note: From the way you describe it, it sounds to me like
it would be a good idea for the attornies for the Class to petition
the court to have the Trustee removed due to incompetence and a new
Trustee appointed. Let the Trustee argue about that in court, and in
the process, perhaps replace at least a few of his most incompetent
employees -- the ones who almost cost him this contract with the
court.  PT]

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

From: Sean Burke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on PBX: Toshiba Perception II?
Date: 9 Dec 89 23:53:41 GMT


  My company just moved into a new building that is equipped with a
Toshiba Perception II PBX.  This is all I know about it.  I would
appreciate hints from readers of this group on the following kinds of
questions:

  > Does this system have any noteworthy features, particularly data
    networking capabilities?

  > As a UNIX weenie and a non-expert telecom user, can I have any fun
    with with this baby?

  > If any of the above items merit a positive response, where do I
    find out more about the machine?  It didn't come with a reference
    manual, just those cryptic little pamphlets that tell you what the
    buttons on the phones do.

  Please email any replies, as I don't read this this group regularly.

Thanx,
Sean

Bach is right next to The Bad Brains in MY record collection!

[Moderator's Note: But please copy replies to the Digest as well.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 11:05:13 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  10-Dec-1989 1401" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cuba: The Mystery of 700-460-1000 Revealed

David Lesher reported in Issue 563 that the way to call Cuba is to
dial 1-700-460-1000 to reach an AT&T operator handling calls to Cuba.

Many of us immediately dialled the number to see what the scoop is --
and any of us not in Miami did not get through.

AT&T International Information Service (800 874-4000) confirms that
the number is for Miami only.  Anyone else would dial "00" or
"10288-0" to reach an AT&T operator, who would then connect you to the
international operator for Cuba.

Apparently the large number of people in Miami who would like to call
Cuba has caused AT&T to implement a special arrangement to get calls
directly to the operator handling calls to Cuba without tying up
regular AT&T operators.

/john

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Cuba
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 19:03:20 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>

I did some checking, with the groundwork being done by John Covert.
700-460-1000 is a direct line to the Pittsburg IOC, valid only from
Miami (not Lauderdale, not Palm Beach, not Chicago.) You, of course,
must be on ATT via 10288. Now the international info number says I
should be able to also call 102880 and request the IOC, but every time
I tried, I got told to use the 700 line.

Moral: If you want to call Cuba, use an FX to anywhere except Miami.


A host is a host & from coast to [e-mail]
no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

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

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 20:52:59 EST
From: Dave Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Slick 96?

My rural community is served by Centel.  A few years ago, we upgraded
our home service from a 4-party line to a private line.  Because of a
lack of available pairs, we had to wait for a line.  The telco solved
the problem by installing some sort of magic box on a post in our
community.  All of our lines have been wired back to it.  The
installer called it a "slick-96" box, and from her description, I
would guess that it is some sort of mux.  My guess is that the "96"
refers to 9600 baud.  So is this a digital mux?  Can it do any tricks?

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

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 16:36 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Question

So the PA PUC finally gave in, and will allow Caller ID beginning next
month.

What is the interaction with Call Waiting?  Now *that* would be
useful: To know who was interrupting you before you actually
interrupted the call-in-progress.  I'm not sure if it's $6.50/month-
useful, though.  Plus equipment.


Scott Green

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones
Date: 9 Dec 89 22:43:52 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Don H Kemp <[e-mail]> writes:

>      NEW YORK -- AT&T today announced the first multi-line cordless
> telephone for business.
> [huge list of features offering little more than a Panasonic
> cordless phone connected to a single-line port on a KX-T123211, deleted]
> Suggested
> prices are $485 with an AT&T telephone system purchase and $560 when
> purchased alone.  One-year warranty and standard one-, two- and
> four-year maintenance contracts apply.

I see AT&T's interpretation of "fair market value" comes to light once
again. I have a KXT3900 cordless connected to a single-line port on my
1232. I can answer any line, place a call on any line, answer any
ringing extension, answer and call my [homemade] doorphone, conference
calls, receive second call indication at the handset, access speed
dial, have system last-number-redial, park and retrieve calls, and
access internal and external paging. The phone itself scans the 10
channels for a vacant one when you go off hook and allows the user to
change channels should one become unusable during the conversation.

The price for all this? I paid $149.95. That's nearly 400% less than
AT&T's remarkable breakthrough. It also has a one-year warranty, but
I'm not stupid enough to get a maintenance contract. You see, it
(unlike what I've heard about Merlin) won't need it.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacTelesis Power Grab
Date: 9 Dec 89 23:18:32 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Kian-Tat Lim <[e-mail]> writes:

>     Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles
> Times.  Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad):
> [...]
>     In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice
> Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific
> Telesis and six other regional holding companies.  At that time, very
> narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company
> subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer.

And for good reason. This was the topic of a meeting at the State
building in San Francisco a couple of months ago between PacTelesis,
information providers, and a rep from the PUC. A lot was discussed,
but the long and the short of it is that since Pac*Bell controls the
network, they could and probably would use every trick in the book to
unfairly compete with independent providers. Once they gained a
monopoly (in a completely unregulated market), they would only
concentrate on lucrative aspects of the service. Since the PUC is not
really sympathetic to Pac*Bell on this issue, it appears that they
have taken to the streets.

To see how information services provided by Pac*Bell would evolve,
just look at the nation's cable TV industry. Cable companies scrambled
to get exclusive franchises in cities across the US, promising to
offer, not only TV stations from all over, but interactive services,
educational services, and cultural programming. What did we really
get? With minor exceptions, there is no interactive capability, they
dropped the "out of area" TV stations and substituted all manor of
over-priced pop-market pay channels.  There are shopping channels,
pay-per-view channels, and the rates have gone through the roof, even
though technology and economies of scale would contraindicate the
present high cost to the consumer.

> If the Bell companies could develop and provide these services,
> along with many others that people in other countries take for
> granted, they would become more widely available, and growth of this
> market would encourage more information providers to enter it.

This is blatant nonsense. If the market is so promising, why aren't
entreprenuers falling all over themselves to enter it now, as they are
perfectly able to do? Is the reasoning that just because a "Bell
company" enters a market that a stamp of approval has been issued?

> 1.    I sincerely doubt that Pacific Telesis expects to make much
> money off of education-only information services.  I would expect them
> to quickly take a back seat to more lucrative commercial services.

Absolutely correct. See my comments above about cable TV to see how
there motives line up with reality.

> 3.    Lifting restrictions may be a bit more general than the ad
> implies.  I plan to call to get the further information.

There is only one thing to remember: PacTelesis' dream is to become an
"unregulated monopoly".


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 17:59:12 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice

A little while ago, Richard Steele wrote:

 >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over
 >voice (DOV) units.  These are small boxes, about the size of a regular
 >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the
 >University computer.  Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but
 >it leaves the phone free for regular use_.

In response to which Steve Elias wrote:

 > I think there are some nifty boxes out there which will encode the
 > voice digitally and use any excess digital bandwidth for other data.
 > Maybe this is the sort of device Purdue has given you.

Actually, I'd think it much more likely that there are just extra
pairs running from all the university phone jacks that are activated
on request and connected to the "University computer".

Here at the University of Michigan (which I tend to assume works
exactly the same as everyplace else), they will supply dorm residents
with line drivers for a hundred bucks a year.  Sometimes they refer to
them as "data over voice" or other similarly deceptive hi-tech terms,
but there's nothing magical about it.

They work at 19200 baud and connect through Secondary Communications
Processors (whatever they are) located in various campus buildings.  I
don't even think they're switched by the campus PBX...just wired
straight.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: ISDN and TCP/IP
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 03:04:17 GMT

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

> 1. How do we create a gateway between ISDN and TCP/IP so that
> the following common cases can get access to TCP (and the world):

>    a. Dumb terminals with an rs232 connection to circuit switched
>       d or b channels (i.e., 9.6 kbs or 64kbs).

>    b. Intelligent peronal computers such as msdos and macintosh
>       machines. These machines would ordinarily have ethernet
>       cards and run something like FTP Software's TCP implementation,
>       or NCSA Telnet on the macs. There might be a stray Unix box
>       somewhere (no one wants to run slip). THe ISDN connection is
>       BRI, not PRI.

>    c. Local area networks in buildings which are nt yet connected
>       to the fiber ethernet network. These networks are typically
>       Appletalk or TCP/IP itself, with a few Novell networks
>       here and there. Again, the ISDN connection is BRI, not
>       PRI.

This is a question which comes up again and again, so it certainly
deserves some considered attention. We are in a similar position with
a backbone using ethernet and routers, and with ISDN compatible
PABX's. We intend to make almost NO use of ISDN internally. We will be
deriving B-channels for some of our intercampus traffic, and running
them between routers, i.e.  TCP/IP will be there at layers 3 & 4 but
we don't have an interface problem because our (Plessey) digital
handsets provide a standard X.21 64kbps interface.

What you need to solve your problems are some ISDN Terminal Adaptors
(TA) of various flavors. The problem is they haven't been developed
yet! In (a) above you need a pair of asynch TA's, i.e.  TA's which map
various asynch speeds onto a 64k channel, enabling access to some sort
of terminal server. In (b) we all hope there is a PC card coming which
speaks BRI. Of course you need to connect somewhere, so it might be
slip after all. For (c) a TA which can bridge ethernet segments would
be fine.

Clearly there is a long way to go with data access to ISDN, and there
is room for a lot of innovative product development. Start shouting at
your suppliers NOW. Better still, get some designers and builders
together with a venture capitalist and go for it.

        _______           Jim Breen ([e-mail]) Department of Robotics &
       /o\----\\     \O      Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology
      /RDT\   /|\   \/|   -:O____/         PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145
     O-----O        _/_\    /\ /\          (p) 03-573 2552 (fax) 572 1298

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #566
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 12 Dec 89 0:00:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #567
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Dec 89 00:00:18 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 567

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Data Over Voice (Robert Halloran)
    Re: Data Over Voice (Lars J. Poulsen)
    Re: Data Over Voice (Gary Segal)
    Re: Slick 96? (Michael A. Patton)
    Re: Slick 96? (Bernard Mckeever)
    Re: Slick 96? (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Halloran)
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice
Date: 11 Dec 89 14:17:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Halloran)
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


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

>A little while ago, Richard Steele wrote:
> >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over
> >voice (DOV) units.  These are small boxes, about the size of a regular
> >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the
> >University computer.  Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but
> >it leaves the phone free for regular use_.

>In response to which Steve Elias wrote:
> > I think there are some nifty boxes out there which will encode the
> > voice digitally and use any excess digital bandwidth for other data.
> > Maybe this is the sort of device Purdue has given you.

>Actually, I'd think it much more likely that there are just extra
>pairs running from all the university phone jacks that are activated
>on request and connected to the "University computer".

The group I am contracted to here in AT&T manages for the local
employees a service called 'CO Lan'.  The box originally described,
called a VDM for Voice-Data Mux, gives a 19.2K connection on the local
pair (NOT a second line as suggested above) by modulating it out of
the voice bandwidth and runs that back to the CO (which must be within
a certain distance, 5 km I believe).  There is no need for a digital
link as suggested elsewhere above.

At the CO it is split back out and run into a Datakit (TM, I'm sure)
circuit switch and connects into the AT&T internal network. The RBOC's
are marketing this like crazy for terminal connections and low-speed
networking in a 'campus' environment, where the buildings are
sufficiently close to take advantage of such an arrangement.  The
switches can also be trunked together to provide wider-area networks.

For those of us with a PC at the house that we like to use in the
evening to read news :-), or in a college/university environment as
described above, it seems a useful way of providing general
connectivity without major add-ons to physical plant; no new wires to
string, just put the data switch in the CO and hand out the VDM's.
There is also some improvement of security, since you are not
providing generic dial-ups.

                    Bob Halloran
                    contracting at, not working for
                    AT&T Bell Laboratories
=========================================================================
UUCP: att!mtune!rkh                Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed.
Quote: "Remember, kids, if some weirdo in a blue suit offers you some DOS,
       JUST SAY NO!!!"

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

From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice
Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 17:31:03 GMT

A little while ago, Richard Steele wrote:
> >Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over
> >voice (DOV) units.  These are small boxes, about the size of a regular
> >modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the
> >University computer.  Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but
> >it leaves the phone free for regular use_.

In response to which Steve Elias speculated that these boxes might be
delivering unused bandwidth of a digital subscriber loop for data use.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Actually, I'd think it much more likely that there are just extra
>pairs running from all the university phone jacks that are activated
>on request and connected to the "University computer".

>They work at 19200 baud and connect through Secondary Communications
>Processors (whatever they are) located in various campus buildings.  I
>don't even think they're switched by the campus PBX...just wired
>straight.

The data communication magazines carry ads from several manufacturers
of Data Over Voice units. They are carrier-frequency devices that
share the local loop to provide a permanent modem circuit on the
subscriber pair while allowing normal use of the telephone. The data
signal is recovered by a "modem" box (twin to the one on the
subscriber end) where the line enters the PBX.

I recently learned that our local GTE outfit offers DOV on residential
lines. The DOV circuit goes into a CBX (data PBX for asynch traffic)
and is delivered to other DOV lines or to dedicated business data
liens on the other side. (I wish they had an X.25 option on the other
side).  Several of the high-tech companies in town have access lines
to this switch, as does the university (UCSB). The DOV facility
provides 19.200 bps service for about the same cost per month as an
extra residential subscriber loop.

Unfortunately, my employer is unlikely to replace the current 5
dial-in lines with connections to this service.

/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>   [phone]  or [phone] ext 358
  ACC Customer Service              Affiliation stated for identification only
                My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice
Date: 11 Dec 89 20:09:27 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (Richard Steele) writes:

>Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over
>voice (DOV) units.  These are small boxes, about the size of a regular
>modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the
>University computer.  Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but
>it leaves the phone free for regular use_.  We can still receive and
>make calls with the DOV working with no obvious distortion on the
>line.  Thus, in addition to having a reasonably fast connection (and I
>used to think a 2400 baud modem was speedy!), I don't have to take the
>wrath of my roomates for hogging the phone line all night long.

>The DOV unit connects to the phone line before any other equipment;
>i.e. there's are line in and line out jacks.  In addition, just like a
>Hayes Smartmodem, there are a plethora of LEDs on the front like CD
>(carrier detect), RD (receive data), SD (send data), etc.

>Question: How would something like this work?  The phone company
>_does_ need to make some changes on their end, but the phone line
>remains the same.

>So, what magic is involved here?  Thanks to all who respond...

Carnegie-Mellon University has had something called "Metropolitan
Campus Network" (MCN) for a while (since fall 1986, I think).  It
gives people on certain CO's a 9600bps data link to the campus
computing network.  It is implemented using Gandolf DOV modems (model
number escapes me), which sounds very much like the beast Purdue is
using.  When installed, the connection looks like this:


        +-----------+    | 2-wire to CO    |   +-----------+
 =======| DOV Modem |=======================| DOV Modem |=========
 2-wire |           |    |        |   | in a Bank |Many Pairs
 to VF  |           |    |        |   | O' DOVs   |to CO
 equip. +-----------+    |        |   +-----------+equip.
 (phones,       !    |        |    !
  modems,       !    |        |    !
  faxes...)     !    |        |    !
        !    |        |   Many RS-232 links to
    RS-232 to computer    |        |   data switches &
            |        |   terminal concentrators
            |        |
    Customer Premise    | Poles, etc...    |   Central Office

VF = Voice Frequancy

How does it work?  Simple, if the line between the CO and the customer
premise is pretty good, you can get more than 300-3400Hz bandwidth out
of it.  The DOV modems use carrier frequancies above 3400Hz.  They
have a filter that sits between the DATA/Voice side and the VF side
that removes the data signals.  In addition, all of the normal
telephone signals are passed through without changes.  At the CO end,
the data is "peeled" off before the channel banks or other such CO
equipemnt.  Thus, the DOVs are transparent to VF and telephone
signaling.

In order for this to work, the pair from the CO to your premise must
be pretty darn good.  When MCN was first offered by Bell of PA and
CMU, they listed the exchanges that you could get it on.  I believe
they had installed DOV shelves in three CO's, so if you were attached
to any of those, you could get it.  In addition, they stated that if
you were more than a certain distance from the CO (2 or 3 miles, I
think), it wouldn't work.

There was also talk of making a 64Kbs link availible, however I don't
know if it was going to be by DOV or ISDN.

Oh yeah, it was fairly expensive for your average student, something
like $100 to install, $200 for the DOV and $25 a month.

Maybe somebody at CMU can bring us up to date on the current state of
MCN.


Gary Segal, Motorola C.I.D.            1501 W. Shure Drive
 ...!uunet!motcid!segal                Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Disclaimer: The above is all my fault.        [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 18:20:07 EST
Subject: Slick 96?
From: "Michael A. Patton" <[e-mail]>

   Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 20:52:59 EST
   From: Dave Brightbill <[e-mail]>

   [In our rural community] we upgraded ... from a 4-party line to a
   private line.  [There was] a lack of available pairs [which was
   solved] by installing [something] called a "slick-96".

I believe it's a SLC-96 (pronounced "slik-96").  It stands for
Subscriber Line Carrier, 96 channels.  They use T1 (or similar)
connections from the box to the CO, this gives them 96 subscriber
drops off the box.  It comes in various sizes, I have also seen sizes
for one or two T1 circuits and for a T3 circuit.  The latter was
installed in an industrial park where I was working and (except for a
short interruption when the installer accidentally cut the wrong wire
:-) we couldn't notice the difference.  Running one T3 circuit back to
the CO was cheaper (or as cheap) than stringing another N-pair cable,
and it freed up pairs for use in neighboring residential areas that
were also expanding.

These units seem to be much better than the ones they try and use to
get two lines out of one.  You probably lucked out that they didn't
just do one of these funny mux things between you and whoever you
formally shared the pair with.  Maybe the tariffs don't let them use
those when they're two seperate residences.


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

From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Slick 96
Date: 11 Dec 89 19:04:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Slick 96 is really Subscriber Loop Carrier - 96 or SLC-96 {R}. This
type system may also be referred to as a Digital Pair Gain System
because is requires fewer outside plant pairs to serve a larger number
of customers.  You are quite correct to assume that it is a MUX, but
it is a form of T1 MUX [1.544 Mbs] based on D4 channel banks. SLC-96
may be configured in several ways for POTS, Special Service, or a
mixture of both. Mode 2 allows up to 96 subscribers on 48 time slots.

A typical SLC system will have at least 1 protection T1 span and a few
metallic pairs for test access and other maintenance applications. SLC
systems will work with coin stations.  The remote terminal may be
mounted in cabinet, pedestal, vault, or customer location. Each remote
terminal works with a central office terminal, or connects to a
digital switch via a interface module. SLC does not use the two most
popular framing patterns SF and ESF and can not be directly connected
to a channel bank without framing conversion.

Does it do tricks? Yes!  It allows 1FR service in areas where the
TELCO does not have enough outside plant to support it. For people
having that nasty problem of a bunch of [[[[ messing up your modem
connection, [you know who you are] the problem may be between a SLC
system and your brand new Digital CO.

SLC-96 is not the first or the last of the pair gain systems, SLC-1
was an added main line service that provided 2 lines over one pair.
SLC-40 [an analog system] provided additional capacity and the newer
systems are smaller and employ many additional features. No tricks.

You can order 56 Kbs private line service over SLC and expect the same
results as you would over CO based services. If your CO supports ISDN,
SLC has a channel unit available to provide this service. In short SLC
systems extend the range of the central office and outside plant
without costing as much [by far] as a new CO.

Bernie McKeever

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Slick 96?
Date: 12 Dec 89 00:53:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> My rural community is served by Centel.  A few years ago, we upgraded
> our home service from a 4-party line to a private line.  Because of a
> lack of available pairs, we had to wait for a line.  The telco solved
> the problem by installing some sort of magic box on a post in our
> community.  All of our lines have been wired back to it.  The
> installer called it a "slick-96" box, and from her description, I
> would guess that it is some sort of mux.  My guess is that the "96"
> refers to 9600 baud.  So is this a digital mux?  Can it do any tricks?

We, too, have service from the local telco via SLC-96 (which is
Subscriber Loop Carrier, 96 channels per T-1 span).  This system uses
digital multiplexing and local switching to concentrate a large number
of subscribers on a small number of 1.55 Mbit digital loops to the CO.
It regenerates battery feed, ringing, loop current interrupts, and
anything else needed to support your local Tip and Ring telephone
sets.

A group of T-1 links to the CO (or fiber, in some installations)
provide the physical circuits.  Each T-1 link supports 24 derived
voice circuits, using digital multiplexing.  The actual ratio of
supported subscribers to available derived circuits is engineered to
provide an acceptable blocking probability, based upon the traffic
generated by the subscribers served.  When you're using a CO line, you
get switched on to one of the available derived channels.  When you're
not, no channel is assigned.  It's fast enough that you'd never notice
it, except for the minute probability that no channel will be
available when you want service.  In that case, you'd experience a
wait for dial-tone, or a party calling you would experience a fast
busy (I think).

We have run voice and data through that mux for several years, and
have never experienced data integrity or blocking problems.  The
transmission quality is noticably better than it was when we had
loaded-loop metalic circuits, a few years ago.

When it was first installed, the remote terminal was buried in a vault
under a man-hole a few blocks from here.  There was a lot of
excavation, and lots of noise while it was under construction.  This
moved a few of our neighbors to ask the town zoning board to deny
permission to the Telco for use of their easement in this manner.  I
don't know how the politics finally were resolved, but the mux was cut
back in about 1986 or so, and probably bothers nobody today!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #567
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 12 Dec 89 0:47:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #568
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Dec 89 00:45:41 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 568

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Modem Line Noise Problem (Tad Cook)
    Re: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...) (Tim Pozar)
    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Jim Budler)
    Re: ISDN and British Telecom (Johnny Zweig)
    Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Gary Segal)
    Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (Stephen Tell)
    Re: Modems and Phone Rates (H. Shrikumar)
    Re: Caller ID Question (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID once again) (M. Gersten)
    Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections? (John Pettitt)
    References Wanted For Graduate Project (Tolba Hany)
    Various Mysteries/Question (Hector Myerston)
    Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Matt Simpson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Modem Line Noise Problem
Date: 11 Dec 89 03:21:45 GMT
Organization: very little


Anyone have this problem?  Sometimes when I call certain BBSs, my 2400
baud modem "hangs".  It just sits there spewing out ones and zeroes,
and never connects, making a shhhhhh sound, even after I send the
on-hook command.

Anyone know about this?  Should I throw away my otherwise functional
off-brand "Swan" modem?

Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 22:14:24 PST
From: Tim Pozar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (was Re: Do Modem Users...)
Reply-To: Tim Pozar <hoptoad.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: KKSF-FM (San Francisco)

In article <[e-mail]> nvuxr![e-mail]
(David Lewis) writes:

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

>> Bandwidth is not dynamically allowcated by some analysis of the
>> sonic material on the line, but is fixed by the telco in the
>> transmission system involved.

>> It would be a neat trick indeed if you could automatically get extra
>> bandwidth out of a telephone connection on demand. The audio leased
>> line department would go out of business in a hurry!

>Wait for Broadband ISDN.  SONET (Synchronous Optical NETwork) layer 1,
>plus ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) layer 2, plus the appropriate
>definition of bearer capabilities, signaling, user-network interfaces,
  .....

    I hope it's better than the noisy and distortion prone 8-bit junk
than the stuff most phone equipment providers have been pushing.  We
(Broadcasters) need something at least 14 or 16 bits.


Tim Pozar    Try also...
Internet: [e-mail]
    Fido:  1:125/555
  PaBell:  [phone]
  USNail:  KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 03:04:40 GMT

[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

} Perhaps it's my radio background, but whenever I use a cellular phone,
} the thought never leaves my mind that the conversation is on the air
} and that at least someone else, not a party to the conversation, is
} listening. If the message is critically private, we move to landline.
} It's like breathing and eating. That's why this privacy flap is so
} funny. If you want to use the public airwaves for private
} communications, then it is up to you to encode them sufficiently to
} keep them private.

In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence
gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations
by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it
possible? I would assume it's picking up the cell transmitters, not
the 4 watt portables, but...


Jim Budler    [e-mail]    ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim
compuserve: 72415,1200     applelink: D4619
voice: [phone]     fax: [phone]

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN and British Telecom
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 02:34:24 GMT

[e-mail] (Pete French) writes:

>Britain is set to unveil big ISDN push, at last. After years of
>pushing back the introduction of ISDN, British Telecom is now planning
>a great leap forward. Instead of installing 1,500 ISDN basic-rate
>interface (2B + D) lines in the first year as originally planned, it
>is telling suppliers that it will install 50,000 lines during 1990.

>The launch follows a 23 million pound order with STC
>Telecommunications for equipment to provide up to 90,000 lines of
>network capacity.

Huzzah for the Revolution!  Anyone at Illinois Bell getting word of
any of this?  ISDN is still in messy/expensive/poorly-supported
"trial" (the term is used in the same sense that Kafka used it, I
believe) stage here, and anyone smaller than McDonald's Corp. can't
get a hold of it in any reasonable sense.

 Johnny 128-kbps-or-bust

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen?
Date: 11 Dec 89 18:54:51 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (Douglas W. Martin) writes:

>     Also, can anyone supply information about the frequency,
>duration, etc. for the off-hook alarm signal?

The off-hook warble tone comes on after about 18 seconds.  It is a
composite of a 1400Hz tone and a 2060Hz tone at about -12dBm.  It is
on for 0.1 second and then off of 0.1 second.

While I'm at it...

Ringback is 440Hz & 480Hz, 2.0 seconds on, 4.0 seconds off, -12dBm.
Busy is 480HZ & 620Hz, 0.5 sec on, 0.5 sec off, -12dBm.
Reoder is busy twice as fast (0.25 on, 0.25 off).

Off course, the above is only sometimes true, and only then in the
USA.


Gary Segal, Motorola C.I.D.            1501 W. Shure Drive
 ...!uunet!motcid!segal                Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Disclaimer: The above is all my fault.        [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen?
Date: 11 Dec 89 05:13:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


A related question on choice of tone signals:
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of people in the "general public"
(non-telecom-junkies) can't tell the difference between a busy and
a reorder, or maybe don't know to listen for the difference in
interuption rate?

I'm still in touch with a lot of people at Duke University, where I used
to be a student, but now I'm just beyond the area that is a local call
for people on campus.  It has happened many times that someone has tried
to call me from a restricted campus phone (local-only, like a public
non-coin phone), and complained "Your line is always busy."

The Duke phone system (their own 5ESS) gives reorder for this case, also for
the case of dialing only 7D when 1+7D is required.  The latter may be more the
problem, since GTE in Durham (around Duke, off-campus) doesn't want the
leading 1.

I explain "that's not a busy signal" and get funny looks from people who
never heard of reorder, but I wonder how many calls I miss this way?
(Perhaps this is an item for RISKS?)


Steve Tell                    [e-mail]
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.
Former video guy, Duke Union Community Television, Durham, NC.

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

From: "H.Shrikumar{[e-mail]}" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates
Date: 11 Dec 89 20:24:52 GMT
Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar{[e-mail]}" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst


In article <[e-mail]> ames!ultra![e-mail]
   (Ted Schroeder) writes:

>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 551, message 2 of 11

>In this discussion nobody has mentioned the fact that modems place a
>continuous carrier on the line, unlike human voices that pause between

  Interesting ... to remember that PEP modems like the Telebit
Trailblazer put out essentially half duplex packets, with fast
turnaround to simulate full duplex. Now if only the modems will keep
silent when there no data to send, (except perhaps for a keep alive
packet every second or so) then ... what is the difference if any at
all between these modems and human conversation ?

  Will the (now being discussed) modem-service-charge apply in that
case ?  :-)

   shrikumar ( [e-mail], [e-mail] )

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Question
Date: 12 Dec 89 00:56:04 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott D. Green)
writes:

 ... regarding Caller*ID and Call-Waiting...

> What is the interaction with Call Waiting?  Now *that* would be
> useful: To know who was interrupting you before you actually
> interrupted the call-in-progress...

Sorry, but Caller*ID does not function on calls waiting.  Because
the information is only sent between rings, and because your
telephone does not ring when the call-waiting signal is sent, no
Caller*ID information is sent.


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: Michael Gersten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID once again)
Date: 12 Dec 89 04:14:59 GMT
Reply-To: Michael Gersten <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Serial Tree BBS, [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> Christopher Davis <ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@
bu-it.bu.edu> writes:

> > is NOT an answer.  Aside from being driven from a service I pay for,
> > tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls.  I found out the hard

>Thank you, Mr. De Armond, for one of the strongest arguments *in
>favor* of Caller-ID.  Presumably you'll have a better idea if you want
>to talk to someone if you know their phone number before you pick up
>the phone...

* Grrr. That's two non-thinking replies to the same point I just read.

This person is saying that if you ignore phone calls, you can be
ignoring important emergency noticies. Then two people claim that if
they don't know the number, then it can't be that important.

Do you know the number of all the hospitals in the area? What about the
police stations?

You cannot just ignore phone calls from numbers you don't know. So you
gain nothing by having ANI except being able to recognize numbers you
don't want to talk to. And since you're already at the phone it is
easy enough to just pick it up, hear the voice, and hang up.

ANI gives no effective new features to end users. It gives plenty of
ABUSE to people compiling information and selling it.

            Michael

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

From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 17:05:19 GMT
Organization: Specialix International
Subject: Re: How Do I Avoid Satellite Connections?


One '>' = Julian Macassey, [e-mail]
Two '>>' = John Pettit, [e-mail]

>> I am not going to post the code since I think it is a bug in the
>> programming of the international switch in London and I don't want it
>> to go away because of overuse.  It's not 89.

>> If anybody knows any more about this please post/let me know.

>This is what I read in New Scientist Mag a few years ago. It was
>also published on P69 Dec 1988 Popular Communications Mag.

>RCA     0101 83 [phone]
>ITT     0101 84 [phone]

OK since the codes have been posted here is the current state:

    0101 83 [phone]  will route via MCI

I have not found any other codes that work.  700 555 4141 is blocked
for UK callers but you can check that 83 is MCI by calling a 976
number and getting an intercept.


John Pettitt                UUCP:  uunet!slxsys!jpp
Internet: [e-mail]    JANET: [e-mail]
POTS: [phone]            FAX:   [phone]
Disclaimer: Me, say that ?  Never, it's a forged posting !

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

From: Tolba Hany <[e-mail]>
Subject: References Wanted For Graduate Project
Date: 10 Dec 89 11:14:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Tolba Hany)
Organization: CRIN - INRIA, Nancy, France


Hallo out there.  A friend is prepearing his graduate project on the
following subject and he is searching for the available ref. So I am
posting this for him.

The subject is realisation of an automatic computer based answering
machine and the problem is, that my friend doesn't have any
infromation concerining this subject and he will appreciate any help.
So if any one out there knows any references, please mail it to me.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 11 Dec 89  11:35 PDT
Subject: Various Mysteries/Question
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


Data over Voice (DOV) aka Speech+Plus is as old as the hills.  All it
does is use the >metallic< twisted pair bandwidth ABOVE the 4Khz voice
band for data.  Straight analog frequency division multiplexing, not
digital, not magic.

SLC-96 is the semi-generic name for Subscriber Loop Carriers.
Originally WECO using metallic pairs carrying T-1 (24 channel) PCM
multiplexed traffic.  5 T-1s per box, 1 for backup, 4 for traffic (24
* 4 = 96).  Today SLCs can carry more channels, do concentration, use
fiber etc.

Pulse/DTMF.  It is not true that only the 5ESS can detect whether a
line in coming in Pulse of DTMF.  At least the 1AESS does the same.
Parameters set by Telco decide what to do (Ignore or print on the
Maint TTY)

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

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 15:56:24 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fiber Optics and ESS??


My local CO has just switched over to ESS (I don't know what model),
which means subscribers have been deluged with mail and phone calls
from the LD carriers telling us that equal access is coming, and we
have to select a default carrier. This much I can understand. What I
can't understand is all the propaganda from the local BOC (South
Central Bell), in the form of bill inserts, news releases, speeches to
civic clubs, etc.

They keep talking about their new fiber-optic network, and how it
makes all this new neat stuff possible. The miracle of fiber-optics
will allow us to have call-forwarding, call-waiting, etc.  I thought
all that stuff was done in the switch -- what does the transmission
media have to do with it. Also, where is this amazing new fiber-optics
network? I don't think I have glass fibers running into my house, it
looks like copper wire to me.

Has anyone heard of fiber being used anywhere in the local system,
other than inter-office trunks? Is there any connection at all between
fiber-optic cables and the availability of all these new features, or
does SCB just think we're so dumb they can throw all this gee-whiz
hype at us and expect us to be suitably amazed?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #568
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 13 Dec 89 0:16:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #569
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Dec 89 00:15:02 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 569

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Hungary Gets Cellular; US West Gets Contract (Will Martin)
    High-Seas Communications  (Thomas Lapp)
    First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Patrick M. Landry)
    The Pinnacle Payphone (John Higdon)
    Dumb Question on Caller*ID (Will Martin)
    Using a UK Modem in the USA (Jerry Durand)
    Questionable Placename in TELECOM Article (Alayne McGregor)
    CLASS Services in Central NC (Gregory G. Woodbury)
    U5434122 says, "Sorry!" (Daniel O'Callaghan)
    Re: Slick 96 (Various respondents, summarized by Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 10:29:44 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hungary Gets Cellular; US West Gets Contract

The following article was on page 11A of the Dec. 5, '89,
St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

U.S. FIRM GETS HUNGARIAN TELEPHONE CONTRACT
[New York Times News Service]

US West Inc., one of the seven regional Bell telephone companies,
announced Monday that it had signed an agreement with Hungary to build
a mobile cellular telephone system in Budapest.

The Hungarian cellular system will be the first such telephone network
in Eastern Europe.

Because of the shortage of telephones in their country, Hungarians are
expected to use cellular telephones for basic home service, as well as
mobile communications.

For Hungary and the other Eastern European countries that have
antiquated telephone systems, it will be faster and cheaper for the
Government to deliver telephone service by cellular networks than it
would be to rebuild the nation's entire telephone apparatus.

A cellular telephone network transmits calls on radio waves to small
receiving antennas, called "cell" sites, that relay calls to local
phone systems.  The system to be built in Hungary will transmit calls
from cellular phone to cellular phone and through the existing
land-based telephone network.

The system, which is scheduled to begin operation in the first quarter
of 1991, will initially provide cellular communications to Budapest's
2.1 million residents.  Eventually, the system will serve all of
Hungary, a nation of 10.6 million.

Hungary has 6.8 telephone lines for every 100 people, according to The
World's Telephones, a statistical compilation produced by AT&T.  By
comparison, the US has 48.1 lines for every 100 people.

***End of article***

[Note: an abbreviated and slightly different version of this article
was posted to the RISKS Digest.  That one was followed by a comment
pointing out the danger of relying on unencrypted cellular for the
bulk of telephone traffic.]

(Does anyone out there know if that "The World's Telephones"
publication cited above is something you can get from AT&T as a
freebie, or is it available only for purchase, or is not available at
all?)

Regards, Will

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

Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 14:24:18 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: High-Seas Communications
Reply-To: mvac23![e-mail]

In several of the messages in the last week or so, it has been
mentioned that the Pittsburgh International Operator was used for
making high-seas calls.

Whilst tuning across the bands on my short-wave receiver, I once came
upon a transmission which seemed to be a high-seas conversation.  Can
anyone tell me more about how ship-to-shore (is this the same as
high-seas?) telephony works?  From the conversation I heard, it
sounded as though I was hearing only one of the parties, and an
operator? radio- person? who would tell someone, "O.k. your party is
on the other end", or "Your party is still there -- you may talk" (the
connection apparently was a poor one, since there was a lot of
repetition of sentences).

I guess I can assume that high-seas conversations are via radio
("What's that long wire we're dragging captain?" "Oh, that's our
telephone line!  Goes all the way back to shore... ;-), but can you
supply any more details?


Thanks,
                         - tom
internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1
Location: Newark, DE, USA
Quote   : Virtual Address eXtension.  Is that like a 9-digit zip code?


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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Landry Patrick M <[e-mail]>
Subject: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Date: 11 Dec 89 16:41:12 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana


I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone for my father and
would appreciate it if a couple of things could be explained to me. I
will be purchasing a portable unit (as opposed to a car-mounted one).
I understand the way cellular works but I don't know some of the
admisistrative details.

1) Do the Bell Companies actually own the cells?

2) What is all the hubbub about subscribing with a certain carrier?
   What are the differences between different carriers?
   What questions should I be asking to find the right carrier for me?

3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to
   transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer
   market?

4) How can I get my hands on a cell map?

5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing?

Thanks for the time. I can provide a condensation of replies if anyone is
interested.


patrick
[e-mail]
uunet!dalsqnt!usl!pml

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

Subject: The Pinnacle Payphone
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 10 Dec 89 21:25:10 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

For your dining and dancing pleasure, here is a facsimile of the card
on the payphone at the entrance to the Pinnacles campground. The card
was typewritten so the following is an exact representation, character
for character, including the typo. Wish I could include the sounds
that it made!

     ____________________________________________________________
     |           SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS - NO COIN TETURN.         |
     |         DO NOT DEPOSIT COINS UNTIL PARTY ANSWERS.        |
     |                                      |
     |FREE LOCAL CALLING FOR 389 PREFIX - DIAL LAST 3 #'S ONLY. |
     |                                    |
     |LONG DISTANCE - INSIDE  408  DIAL 00 + 7 Numbers          |
     |              - OUTSIDE 408  DIAL 00 + 10   "             |
     |              - 800 #'S      DIAL 00 + 800 + 7 #'s.       |
     |              - CALLING CARD  "   00 + #'S, Later, Your #.|
     |                                    |
     |INFORMATION   - INSIDE  408  DIAL        411              |
     |              - OUTSIDE 408  DIAL 00 + (CODE) + 555-1212. |
     |                                    |
     |                   THIS # IS 389-9495                     |
     |__________________________________________________________|

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

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 9:45:53 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dumb Question on Caller*ID

I don't recall the following point being mentioned in the ongoing and
longstanding Caller*ID discussion: If the calling number is displayed,
how long does it remain on the display? Until you pick up the phone?
Until the phone is hung up? For some fixed period and then the display
blanks? Or does the last number continue to be displayed until the
next one (or the message about an unidentifiable number) is shown?

Do any of these displays remember the last "n" numbers shown, so if
you get a string of calls in rapid succession, you can look back
through the history of received numbers to locate, say, the third-last
caller's number? If so, how big is "n" and do they store the
"unidentified" label the same as if it was a number? Are any of these
fancy enough to store the date/time along with the number, or do you
have to hook your own computer or automated logger on the line to get
that degree of service?

Thanks for info!

Regards, Will

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Using a UK Modem in the USA
Date: Tue, 12-Dec-89 14:05:59 PST

A friend is having trouble hooking up a modem on a computer system she
brought with her from the UK.  She needs to use this system to
communicate with her company back in England.  I assume her modem will
work on US telephone lines, but she needs to know the wireing
conversion to hook it up.  I have not seen this system and do not know
the brand of modem she has.  Any ideas?

Jerry Durand
[e-mail]

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

Date:     Tue, 12 Dec 89 11:45:41 EST
From: Alayne McGregor <dciem!gandalf![e-mail]>
Subject: Questionable Placename in TELECOM Article


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

> This story was related by Pat Routledge of Winnepeg, ONT about an unusual
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but there's no such place. Assuming ONT is short for Ontario
(and I haven't heard of anywhere else with that abbreviation), there's
no such town/village/city in it. The closest is Winnebago.

There is, however, a Winnipeg, the capital of the province of Manitoba
(where I happened to grow up).

Makes me wonder if the whole story isn't an (ex)urban legend.

Alayne McGregor
dciem!nrcaer!gandalf!alayne


[Moderator's Note: Alayne, that story is *so old* I first heard it
about twenty years ago, and in those days, it was an installer over in
Scotland someplace.... :) And regards Winnepeg, Manitoba, *thank you*
for catching this. I generally edit obvious (to me) errors in place
names in the Digest, and I know it is in Manitoba, but that got right
past me....until I saw your message.  PT]

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

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: CLASS Services in Central NC
Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 03:57:35 GMT

Just a quick report to the Telecom Digest concerning CLASS services in
the Central NC area.

Southern Bell (part of BellSouth) in central NC (specifically Raleigh
area LATA) is offering CLASS services without CNID.  The NC PUC has
the CNID service held up in red tape while ACLU and other
"intervenors" complain about privacy etc.  Last # redial, last caller
autodial and "wardialer" services (as well as call trace) are being
heavily advertised on local TV.

The GTE satrapy in Durham is finally advertising that they have the
disable call waiting service in place, but it is not generally enabled
in the switches - you have to specifically order it.

Both phone companies are still charging for DMTF services.  GTE
disables DMTF by reversing polarity on the line at the switch frame.
(i.e. you can remove "Touch Tone" from your line charges, and in about
a week your modem and DMTF phones will generally stop working - but a
check with a polarity reader (the led on a stick) will indicate that
the polarity is "reversed" -- I know I wired it right when I redid my
parent's place a couple of years ago ;-)

GTE spokespersons said that CLASS services will become available in
Durham in about 6 months or whenever the PUC finally decides the issue
of CNID.  An inquiry about the difficulty of re-programming the CO
switches was met with a snide remark and a statment that the phone
switch software is the most recent available from the manufacturer.
Private information is that Durham is all NT DMS-10's and that the
NT/BNR complex in RTP is working on it as fast as possible.


Gregory G. Woodbury
Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...dukeac!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] (Home)  [phone] (Work)
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: U5434122 says, "Sorry!"
Date: 12 Dec 89 17:15:19 (UTC+11:00)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


Apologies to all those who tried to reach me by e-mail.  I discovered,
to my horror, that I have been misquoting my e-mail address, since the
new, improved addresses were introduced.

My correct address is:

[e-mail]

Sorry again,

Daniel

(Daniel O'Callaghan, University of Melbourne )

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

From: Various Writers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Slick 96?
Date: 12 Dec 89 00:00:00 CST

[Moderator's Note: There have been numerous replies to the 'Slick 96'
message which appeared a couple days ago. Yesterday I printed three
replies, and today, four more are presented in summary form, for the
sake of helping to clear the present backlog in the queue.  Dave
Brightbill presented the original questions/comments.  PT]

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

>My rural community is served by Centel.  A few years ago, we upgraded
>our home service from a 4-party line to a private line.  Because of a
>lack of available pairs, we had to wait for a line.  The telco solved
>the problem by installing some sort of magic box on a post in our
>community.  All of our lines have been wired back to it.  The
>installer called it a "slick-96" box, and from her description, I
>would guess that it is some sort of mux.  My guess is that the "96"
>refers to 9600 baud.  So is this a digital mux?  Can it do any tricks?

                     =======================

   Organization: Leptons and Quarks, Winfield, IL 60190-1412
   Date: 11 Dec 89 23:26:10 CST (Mon)
   From: Randolph J. Herber <[e-mail]>

It is a Subscriber Line Interface Circuit (96 lines).

Yes, it is a mux.  Yes, it is digital.  No, it does not do tricks.

It is used to concentrate 96 subscriber circuits to a single metallic line
or optical fiber which then runs to the telephone exchange.  In your case,
it is probably using your original metallic line.

    Randolph J. Herber,
    @ home: {att|mcdchg|laidbak|clout|obdient|wheaton}!yclept!rjh,
        [e-mail]

                   ==========================

   From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
   Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
   Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
   Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 08:29:27 GMT


The SLC in SLC-96 stands for Subscriber Loop Carrier (althout I have
also heard the C stand for Concentrator, but I think Carrier is
right).  The 96 stands not for "9600 baud", but for the 96 lines that
are concentrated onto a T-1 type trunk interface, which normally
carries 24 channels.  The quick will notice a 4:1 ratio on the SLC-96.
I don't recall the signalling protocol.


Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

                  ============================

   From: Paul Elliott x225 <optilink![e-mail]>
   Date: 12 Dec 89 16:02:18 GMT
   Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

The box referred to is a "SLC-96 (tm)", which stands for "Subscriber
Loop Carrier - 96".  This is a four-T1 system. A T1 circuit uses two
pairs of special wire, running at a digital rate of 1.544 Mbit/sec.
Each T1 circuit carries 24 channels of PCM.  24 channels times four
circuits equals 96 channels, hence the "96".

The SLC-96 has been in service for many years, and has been widely
cloned.  It is a convenient size for providing service to remote
clusters of subscribers.  The SLC-96 can provide some types of data
service via different line card plug-ins, however I am not familiar
with all the offerings, or the cost and availability of them.  Can
anyone out there comment on this?


Regards,
Paul M. Elliott      Optilink Corporation     [phone]
         {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!elliott
"I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure."

                  ============================

   From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
   Date: 12 Dec 89 17:19:06 GMT
   Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

96 refers to 96 phone lines - 4 DS1s (also known as T1s), which is
actually a DS2. (I guess DS2s do exist outside of add-drop
multiplexors.)  The data rate is 96*64000 bps plus DS1 and DS2 framing
overhead, or somewhere around 6.2Mbps. I don't know if you can get DDS
(56kb/s) or T1 (1.544Mb/s) lines off of a SLIC, though.

I have heard (rumor only) that it is possible - if the switch software
can handle it - to provide basic rate service on some SLICs by
dedicating 3 lines for D, B1, and B2, plus the appropriate hardware. I
would appreciate it if someone could tell me whether there is any
truth to this.

                                      Peter Desnoyers
                                      Apple ATG
                                      [phone]

[Moderator's Note: In each response above, extensive quoting was
removed in order to save time in re-reading the same quotes, and to
allow more space for replies from readers.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #569
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 13 Dec 89 0:58:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #570
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Dec 89 00:57:00 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 570

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Data Over Voice (Steve Parowski)
    Re: Data Over Voice (Michael Fryd)
    Re: ISDN and TCP/IP (Torsten Dahlkvist)
    Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Kevin P. Kleinfelter)
    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Colin Plumb)
    Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones (Joe Talbot)
    Re: GTE vs Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?) (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Parowski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bell Atlantic Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 21:37:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Richard Steele <[e-mail]>
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 561, message 5 of 5

>Here at Purdue U., we now have access to something called data over
>voice (DOV) units.  These are small boxes, about the size of a regular
>modem, that gives the user a 9600 bps asynchronous data line to the
>University computer.  Not only is the bugger faster than a modem, _but
>it leaves the phone free for regular use_.  We can still receive and
>make calls with the DOV working with no obvious distortion on the line.

>Question: How would something like this work?  The phone company
>_does_ need to make some changes on their end, but the phone line
>remains the same.

>So, what magic is involved here?  Thanks to all who respond...

Here in Bell Atlantic we offer this as a tarriffed service it is
called LANgate or Central Office Local Area Network.  See your local
sales rep for prices.

How it works......

That box that has jacks for your phone and your terminal converts your
terminal signal from digital to analog.  The box then Frequency
multiplexes your voice and the analog data onto the same copper pair.
At the Purdue Central Office this process is reversed.  This is an
excellent way to provide 9600 bps without wiring changes or expensive
modems.

Steve Parowski

Wal La

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

Date: Tuesday, 12 December 1989 20:26:17 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice

Around here, DOV means "Data Over Voice" and refers to the Gandlaf DOV
640 modems that provide 64kb synchronous communications over a
standard voice pair, without interfering with normal voice service.

In Pittsburgh, this service is known as Metropolitan Campus Network
(MCN) and is provided by some combination of Carnegie-Mellon
University (CMU) and Bell of PA.

My house was a beta-test site for this service a few years ago, and in
the many technician visits I picked up a few things.  I have since
moved, so some of the details may have changed.

Two DOV modems are actually used for each house served.  One is placed
at the Bell of PA Central office(CO), between the switch and the cable
pair to your house.  The second DOV is installed in your house,
electrically between the Network Interface Jack and your existing
household phone wires.

+---------+
| Central | voice +--------+  data and voice +---------+ voice +---------+
| Office  |-------| CO DOV | ----------------| user DOV|-------|telephone|
| switch  |       +--------+                 +---------+       +---------+
+---------+            |                           |
                       |data                       |data
Port Selector in CO--- +                           +-------Home terminal or PC

The modems communicate using frequencies above the voice band.  The
DOVs completely ignore all of the normal telephone signals, allowing
uninterrupted data communications regardless of whether the phone line
is in-use, ringing, or idle.  The DOV operates as 64Kb synchronous.
In order for the DOVs to work you must be within a pre-set distance (I
think on the order of a few miles) from the CO.

The real problem with this setup, is that it only allows you to communicate
with the CO.  Bell of PA installed port selectors in three of the COs
near CMU.  These were connected by fiber to CMU.

At my house, I just plugged my terminal into the DOV, and hit return.
This got the attention of Bell's port selector.  There were few
destinations at CMU that I could select (Most of which were additional
port selectors or terminal concentrators).

When I left the program, only 9600 and 19.2 kBd async was supported,
with plans for 64Kb, possibly using Serial Line IP.

The most amazing thing was that the system worked very well.  Voice
and data operated independently on the same copper pair.  Incoming and
outgoing calls did not affect data at all.

I have no idea what the applicable tariffs were.  Payments were made
to CMU, but installations and service was provided by Bell of PA.  I
was always amazed that the Bell service operators (just dial 611) were
able to cope with MCN trouble reports.

The biggest problem during the testing phase was noise on the phone
line.  The DOVs went through quite a few revisions before there was no
audible interference with the standard voice usage.

If I've left anything out, let me know and I'll be happy to give the
answer if I know it.

Michael Fryd
President                           Voice: [phone]
MEFCO, Inc.                         Fax:   [phone]
2401 Coulter Road                   Email: [e-mail]
McKeesport, PA  15131-4251

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

From: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN and TCP/IP
Date: 12 Dec 89 12:10:24 GMT
Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden


Hello again!

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

>What you need to solve your problems are some ISDN Terminal Adaptors
>(TA) of various flavors. The problem is they haven't been developed
>yet! In (a) above you need a pair of asynch TA's, i.e.  TA's which map
>various asynch speeds onto a 64k channel, enabling access to some sort
>of terminal server. In (b) we all hope there is a PC card coming which
>speaks BRI. Of course you need to connect somewhere, so it might be
>slip after all. For (c) a TA which can bridge ethernet segments would
>be fine.

>Clearly there is a long way to go with data access to ISDN, and there
>is room for a lot of innovative product development. Start shouting at
>your suppliers NOW. Better still, get some designers and builders
>together with a venture capitalist and go for it.


Funny you should ask...

I spent five years (83 - 88) as part of Ericsson's ISDN terminal
project. We did produce a feature-phone and a range of TA:s which
conform very closely to the "official" ISDN spec. The deviations were
due to the fact that the specs aren't yet quite waterproof. There are,
to put it bluntly, holes in the protocols at some places, so we had to
device ways around these.

Ericsson's terminals are available NOW for Ericsson customers. The
TA:s handle V24, X21 and X25 to mention the more popular protocols.
The only problems are availability and the prices...

You see, we started that project way back before any VLSI:s had
appeared on the market (actually, we cooperated closely with AMD in
their work with their chipset) and the custom-circuits used in that
first generation of terminals are *expensive* and hard to get. This
puts the prices of the terminals at a level few customers can handle
and in reality all sales so far have been to Telcos using Ericsson
equipment who want to set up field-trials for ISDN.

So why don't we re-build them using state-of-the-art hardware and
market quick as hell? Partly because the afore-mentioned gaps in the
protocols are still there, no *true* standard exists. Partly because
no-one in their right minds ventures a project like that when it's
well known that several major Japanese producers have competing
products in the pipe-line. We're a high-tech, high-cost country. We
can't compete with far east producers when it comes to volume sales
and all projections indicate that we'd get the market kicked out from
under our feet well before we'd made our investment back.

However, all is not lost. There are at least a couple of Ericsson
trials going on in the U.S. today so if you're lucky enough to be in
one of them you may soon get your datacomm gear :-)

Sorry if this all sounds like a lot of gripe and blatant advertising.
It's just that when Jim said "The problem is they haven't been
developed yet" I felt I had to point out that there's a difference
between "doesn't exist" and "isn't available in the U.S.". I *know*
for a fact that our equipment is beeing installed in Mexico City. But
how do you sell telecom equipment on a market where everybody still
believes in their hearts that AT&T is the best while spending half the
bandwidth of comp.dcom.telecom arguing that Sprint is better... :-)

Disclaimer: I DO work for an Ericsson subsidiary but that doesn't mean
I have any say-so. Anybody asking for price-quotations will be
promptly referred to some suitable sales-creature and will after that
be constantly drowned in junk mail. Don't say I didn't warn you!


 Torsten Dahlkvist
 ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories
 P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25  ALVSJO, SWEDEN
 Tel: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 12:41:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics and ESS??

You are right that most of the gee whiz services BellSouth talks about
are a function of the switch, not of the type of wire to the home.

On the other hand, there are about 20 fiber to the home trials
underway in various parts of the U.S.  Several combine voice and video
delivery, some voice only.  Bellsouth has been a leader in undertaking
such trials, but every RHC has one underway.  Don't hold your breath
waiting for generalized availability.  The majority of trials involve
new subdivisions where they had to go install new wiring anyway.
Replacement of existing copper to the home with fiber is a decade (at
least) away.

Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University

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

From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Date: 12 Dec 89 17:57:53 GMT
Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA


So the consensus seems to be that the neighbor is certainly not doing
anything ILLEGAL by listening to the broadcast from the wireless
intercom.

What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his
stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)?  Who gets priority?
Is this a first-come/first-serve situation?


Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc [phone]
gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Date: 12 Dec 89 21:59:47 GMT
Reply-To: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
>But for someone to intentionally bug their own house (baby monitor),
>put it (unencoded) on the air, and then get angry when someone does
>the inevitable evesdropping, well...

I think it's fair to be a little annoyed at the *impolite* behaviour
of the neighbour, but I agree that I don't think it's illegal.

If you want privacy, go for wires or encryption.  That's one of the
things I'm looking forward to with digital telephony... the ability to
encrypt my conversations.  Straight analog schemes do horrible things
to fidelity and keep getting out of tune.  But once I've got a digital
channel, feeding it through a handy DES chip would keep out most
would-be eavesdroppers.

    -Colin

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones
Date: 12 Dec 89 03:47:01 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


I'll be very honest here in saying that I'm not a fan of the Merlin
System from AT&T. I feel that you get very little bang for the buck,
and you really don't even get the old time AT&T reliability or feel.
But,

    Why do you need four pairs for an electronic phone?

Electronic phones have been out for years, I beleive that the SL-1
phone from Northern Telecom was one of the first. It (and almost every
other) uses two pairs! One is used for data and powering the set,
another is used for an analog tip and ring.


joe@mojave
I finally changed my dumb signiture. People were always telling me what
a great signature I had.

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

Subject: Re: GTE vs Pac*Bell (Was: How Do I Rotary?)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 10 Dec 89 20:48:55 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 560, message 3 of 7

>I pay $23.50/month for two lines, one tone service with 1+ provided by
>ATT, and one which is supposed to be pulse-only, with 1+ dialing
>disabled. The two lines busy-forward to each other. This includes
>unlimited local calling (but not 6% sales tax).

Does it include: 1) FCC-mandated access charge; 2) local tax (deaf,
911, etc.? If not, it's a couple of bucks per line higher than
Pac*Bell. If so, you got a bargain!

>And I have no desire to get CommStar. I'd MUCH rather install a KX-308.

How about both? I have six Commstar lines on my KX-T1232. The Watson
lives on an extension giving it the ability to answer multiple lines.
It can also "reach through" the 1232 and transfer calls to other
lines, keeping it's own line free. Commstar also allows me to have a
WATS line serve both me and my UUCP modems, although, come to think
about it, so would the 1232. The other four lines go directly to
zygot's modems, but if they lived on extensions then there could be
some outgoing flexibility.

Maybe it's time to rethink my telephony! (Is this enlightenment while
on line, or what?!)

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #570
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 14 Dec 89 0:16:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #571
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Dec 89 00:15:23 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 571

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Modem and Phone Rates (Krishna E. Bera)
    Re: FCC Doing It Again (John Higdon)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Randal Schwartz)
    Re: User Control of Feature(s) (John Higdon)
    Re: Data Over Voice (George Gray)
    Re: Slick 96? (Stephen Fleming)
    Answering Machine "Calls Back?" (Anton Rang)
    AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones (Doug Faunt)
    SONET Revisited (Michael Hui)
    Sorry, Wrong Number (Michel Denber)
    Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Otto J. Makela)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Krishna E. Bera)
Subject: Re: Modems and Phone Rates
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Krishna E. Bera)
Organization: Brian's Gang, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 18:53:44 GMT


ames!ultra![e-mail] (Ted Schroeder) writes:

>In this discussion nobody has mentioned the fact that modems place a
>continuous carrier on the line, unlike human voices that pause between
>sentences and words....

Has anyone in the modem protocol design business considered dropping
the carrier when the line is idle, and picking it up again when there
is data to be sent? Can't modems be made to recognize the difference
between on and off-hook?  This would render moot the whole 'separate
charge for modem use' issue, as modems would have the same line usage
as human voice as far as the phone company was concerned.


Krishna E. Bera
"Programmer on the loose"

Voice:    [phone]

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

Subject: Re: FCC Doing It Again
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 11 Dec 89 21:22:59 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> Andrew D Kailhofer <[e-mail]>
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 565, message 5 of 5

>Then they started selling DTMF service to the
>subscriber, requiring pulse-to-tone converters.
>[...]
>This stuff persisted through the SXS, the Crossbar, and
>most of the #1 and #1A ESSs.

Well, in your words, yes and no. In the case of SXS, they had to add
converters, UNLESS they (notably GTE) used directorization. Then the
tone receivers were imbedded in the equipment used on everyone's line.
And it was impossible to turn off the tone capability.

In the case of crossbar, they had to use the Teltone or Mitel
converters (the Mitels were much better; they weren't tone to pulse,
but rather tone to 'OR lanquage--2 of 7' and worked instantaneously).
As you said, it was usually more cost effective to equip all ORs with
converters, even though in the early days they did try to shuttle all
non-TT-paying customers to non-equipped registers.

But even that is no longer the case. Now they use CONTAC, an adjunct
to provide equal access. Since the customer dials into the CONTAC,
which is inherently TT-capable, you have to consider that TT is now
imbedded in crossbar. In fact, CONTAC has a difficult time dealing
with rotary and must receive pulses within the range of 9 to 12 PPS,
or it will bomb. No 20 PPS for all those speed freaks that wanted to
avoid TT.

ALL electronic switches (including all permutations of ESS) have
embedded tone receivers.

>Can a PSC (or would a BOC want their PSC) to require a
>different billing reate for (potentially) each CO?  Yikes.

Wouldn't that be a hoot? If the cost of your phone was linked to the
actual cost of maintaining your CO switch, you would pay more for more
antiquated service. The more modern your service, the less you would
pay.

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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 12:23:40 PST
From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA


In article <[e-mail]> somebody writes:
| I've spent most of this year in Washington state (Seattle), and much
| to my surprise, there's no such thing as 411 in this state!  When I
| first arrived, I tried it from a payphone (what did I know).  It
| didn't work, so I called the operator.  She said "Why would you dial
| 411?  Directory assistance is at 1-555-1212" She acted as if she had
| never heard of 411, and it definately doesn't work from any phone I've
| tried.  Also, no 611 (you have to go through the operator to get
| repair service).  (Reportedly, 611 will "read" you the number of the
| calling phone if you're in a GTE service area).

I've lived in the Pacific Northwest all my life, and had never *heard*
of 411 as the number for info until I began taking business trips to
the Bay Area two years ago.  And then, I had exactly the *opposite*
shock.

I was looking up a number, and couldn't find it, so I dialed "113"...
the info number for PNW Bell (now US West Telecom).  When it didn't
work, I asked a local, and they said "411", and gave me this blank
stare when I said I had tried "113", as if knowing "411" gives you
information was like knowing that "0" gives you operator!

I had never understood the line in Patty Labelle's song "Who's Zoomin'
Who?" that "getting the four-one-one on someone" meant getting
information.  Suddenly, it all dawned on me.

So, is the Pacific Northwest the *only* place in the country that
*doesn't* use 411?  (And we still don't!)

Thanks for the tip about 611 giving calling-number-ID.  Wow!  What
fun!  It works!  You mean you use that for "service"?  Geez.  We just
call the operator. :-)

Just another provincial local,


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

[Moderator's Note: Hah! *He* thinks 611 gives calling-number-ID! Here
in Chicago we know it reaches the Illinois Bell Repair Service. And
for many years, 211 reached the Long Distance Operator for 90 percent
of the subscribers, while 811 reached Long Distance for the other 10
percent or so. And what we used to call Enterprise numbers *he*
probably called Zenith numbers.  Just a local yokel myself! :) PT]

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

Subject: Re: User Control of Feature(s)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 13 Dec 89 11:17:46 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> nmri!![e-mail]
(John Stanley) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 564, message 4 of 8

>If anyone calls the old main
>number while someone is still being forwarded, they don't hunt, they
>get busy.

Not generally true. When the forwarded call supervises (is answered)
then the forwarded phone will pass another call. And so on. The reason
this was done (they used to forward any number of calls, regardless of
supervision status) was to prevent forwarding loops. Try it; place a
call to your forwarded number and when it answers, place another--it
should forward as well.

An exception to this is RCF. When you set up Remote Call Forwarding (a
number that you don't even get a pair for, they just forward it for
you to a number of your choosing), they ask you to specify how many
"forwards" are to be allowed. This number should corespond to the
number of lines available at location that is receiving the calls.

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

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

From: George Gray <nynex1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice
Date: 13 Dec 89 15:23:28 GMT
Organization: NYNEX Science and Technology, White Plains, N.Y.


DOV (Data Over Voice) is a techniqiue that uses a single pair of wires
that permits both data and voice on a line simultaneously.  The data
portion of the service is modulated at a higher frequency outsied of
the normal voice conversation. For example, the voice conversation is
at 300-4000 Hz (approx) and the data would be sent at 40Khz on the
receive side and 80Khz on the transmit side. Because of the
frequencies involved, the operating distances between 2 DOV units is
usually less than 10,000 feet.  DOV units are connected similar to a
modem with a TESLSET jack and a TELCO LINE jack plus power. There are
several maufacturers of these units among them are TELTONE and APPLIED
SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGIES.


George Gray

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Slick 96?
Date: Wed, 13-Dec-89 11:21:43 PST


>[e-mail] (Dave Brightbill) asks:

>My rural community is served by Centel.  A few years ago, we upgraded
>our home service from a 4-party line to a private line.  Because of a
>lack of available pairs, we had to wait for a line.  The telco solved
>the problem by installing some sort of magic box on a post in our
>community.  All of our lines have been wired back to it.  The
>installer called it a "slick-96" box, and from her description, I
>would guess that it is some sort of mux.  My guess is that the "96"
>refers to 9600 baud.  So is this a digital mux?  Can it do any tricks?

SLC*96 (trademark of AT&T) is a 'Subscriber Loop Carrier - 96 lines'.
Also called a pair-gain device, it performs analog to digital
conversion on up to 96 telephone lines and transmits them over 8
copper pair (4 digroups) to a central office switch.  It is an
environmentally hardened channel bank, or time division digital
multiplexer with analog interfaces.  Nothing to do with 9600 baud...
but a reasonable guess!

It can do a lot of neat tricks, but none that are accessible to an
end-user.  SLC*96 is now being replaced with SLC Series 5, which
performs essentially the same function but in about half the space,
and Northern Telecom's DMS-1 Urban, which provides additional
pair-gain savings through a concentration function.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stephen Fleming                 |  Internet: [e-mail]   |
| Director, Technology Marketing  |  Voice:    [phone]           |
| Northern Telecom                +-------------------------------------|
| Federal Networks Division       |    Opinions expressed do not        |
| Vienna, Virginia  22182         |    represent Northern Telecom.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 03:38:10 -0600
From: Anton Rang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine "Calls Back?"

My officemates and I have noticed a curious phenomenon when we call
our answering machines from the office to check if we have messages.
After we hang up, our office phone (which we just called from) often
starts ringing almost immediately.  When we pick it up, all we hear is
the hangup "click".

  What causes this?  Please respond by E-mail to [e-mail], as
I don't always have time to read this group.

    Thanks in advance!

      Anton

[Moderator's Note: But please copy the Digest with your replies.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Dec 89 08:53:32 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones

The electronic phones on an AT&T System 75 can use up to 4 pair.  If
it's a hybrid phone they use one pair for analog, one pair for digital
in, one pair for digital out, and if it's running an accessory, like a
speakerphone another pair for distributing central power.  If you have
no accessories the power pair is unnecessary (this can also be handled
by having a PS local to the device).  If you're using a digital set,
then the analog pair is not necessary.

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

From: Michael Hui <[e-mail]>
Subject: SONET Revisited
Date: 13 Dec 89 19:39:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada


Could someone recommend a trade journal or magazine comparing the
architecture of the various SONET compatible transmission products
being offered on the market right now? I have searched through a few
libraries' journal collections already, and have not come across a
single article on SONET, except the original IEEE Communications
Magazine article.

I am interested in actual product comparison, not a tutorial on what
SONET is and how it could be used in the future.

Thanks.

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

Date: 13 Dec 89 15:47 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sorry, Wrong Number

We've all heard jokes about people who leave obscene phone calls on
answering machines.  Well, today someone left a "wrong-number" on my
answering machine.  I found a recording today that went "This is Mr.
Fnord (name changed to protect the seriously confused).  Please call
me at xxx-xxxx."  So I call him back and get his secretary.  I tell
her I got this message.  She doesn't know what I'm talking about and
puts me on hold.  Several minutes later the conversation went like
this:

"Mr. Fnord didn't call you."
"But I have his message right here - how would I have known to call him?"
"Oh, it must have been a wrong number."
"Then why did he leave a message?"
"He was calling someone else."
"Oh."

At this point I decided to quit before we got to the old line about
"Well if it was a wrong number, why did you answer the phone?".  Makes
you wonder.

            - Michel

[Moderator's Note: Too bad you don't have an answering machine like
Anton Rang (see two messages above).  :)   PT]

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

From: "Otto J. Makela" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: 14 Dec 89 01:28:47 GMT
Organization: Justice HQ, Mega-City One


Does anyone have an idea how to get the "real", out-of-country-
callable number for a company which only has published the 1-800
number ?

This came up like this: We have a very funny kind of a problem with a
Bell Technologies multi-RS-232 card.  It's pretty late and we should
try to get the machine and the card to the customer in the morning, of
course in a fully operational status.  The people who delivered this
card to us are not at work at this time (not surprising, it being
1AM!).

However, Bell Technologies has a customer help line number on their
manual.  On the forlorn hope that they have seen this problem before,
we dial them.  We get an answering machine saying they no longer are
Bell Technologies, but a part of Intel Corp.  AND THEY ONLY GIVE A
1-800 NUMBER !  We of course cannot call this number from Europe.

After some messing around with Finnish outlands directory
assist and American directory assistance operators, we are told: a)
one cannot direct-dial a US directory assistance (areacode + 555 1212)
from outside the United States (we tried).  Why ?

a) A 1-800 number cannot be traced back to the owner's "real" number,
since there is no 1-800 directory assistance.  True or false ?

b) There are no services which we could call who could make us a
almost-free (for them) call to a 1-800 number, while charging us for
this service.  Really, no-one has thought of this great business
opportunity ?

Finally, I called a good friend of mine in the US and had him call the
Intel 1-800 and ask what their "real" number is.  THEY REFUSED TO TELL
THIS, SINCE THE NUMBER WAS "INTERNAL" EVEN AFTER HE EXPLAINED WHAT THE
SITUATION WAS !  What they did give him was two numbers to the UK and
Finland Intel offices.  I can make a bet that the Finnish Intel has
never even heard of BellTech, and I'd be surprised if the UK Intel can
help us with this problem at all.  Anyway, it's way past business
hours in Europe at this time, so these numbers are no use to me now.
Is Intel customer service always this sticky ?

Anyone care to comment ?

* * * 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); * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[Moderator's Note: I will only respond to (a): Yes there is 1-800-555-1212
for obtaining listed 800 numbers. You can't call it or most 800
numbers because the called party has not agreed to accept charges from
outside the United States (or Canada).   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #571
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 14 Dec 89 21:51:28 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #572
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Dec 89 21:50:28 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 572

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) (A. R. White)
    A Hart Attack (TELECOM Moderator)
    Wanted: Experiences with RCI Long Distance (Robert Freimer)
    Remote Parts of Area 619 (Carl Moore)
    3CL's Wanted (Ken Ganshirt via Randy Bush)
    Telephone Message Waiting Signal From CO (Doug Corey)
    Options With Cellular Phones (Mark Solsman)
    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Dean Sirakides)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 12:44:21 PST
From: [e-mail]


   On Tuesday Pacific Bell and General Telephone jointly announced
that on February 1, 1992, 2.4 million telephones in the western and
southern parts of Los Angeles will be assigned area code 310.  The
cause is L.A.'s "voracious" appetite for new technology -- cellular
telephones, pagers, facsimile machines, and modems.  "Simply put, we
are running out of telephone numbers," said Dominic Gomez, Pacific
Bell area vice president.  This marks the first time demand for
technology has been more important than population growth in the
introduction of a new code.  "It looks like we use this technology
more intensively here in L.A. than in New York," said Larry Cox, a
spokesman for GTE California.

   In 310 will be the coastal areas -- from the Ventura county line on
the west to Long Beach on the south -- Westwood (UCLA), Beverly Hills,
and South Central L.A.  Downtown L.A. and Hollywood will remain in
213.  213 will border 310 at La Cienega Blvd. on the west, El Segundo
Blvd.  on the south, and 818 on the north & east.  Small parts of
Culver City and Beverly Hills will be split between 213 and 310;
213-255, -257, -258, and -852 won't become 310.  "They" tried to
divide 213 so that the two pieces would grow at similar rates.

   310 was chosen because seven of the nine area codes available
already were assigned as prefixes in 213, leaving 210 and 310 -- and
they judged 310 was easier to distinguish from 213.

   There will be the usual three-month grace period between Feb. 1 and
May 1, 1992, when phone calls to former 213 prefixes still will go
through.


A. R. White
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina Del Rey, California
90292-6695
[phone], x162            -- (310) xxx-xxxx after 1/31/92
[phone]  facsimile

ARPA:  nomdenet @ ISI.edu

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

Date:     Thu, 14 Dec 89 0:26:46 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  A Hart Attack

Former Senator Gary Hart is stringing telephone wire across the Soviet
Union.  Hart, who is a close personal pal of Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev, is trying to bring the Soviet telephone system into the
fast approaching twenty-first century.

In conjuction with *US WEST*, he is working on setting up fiber optic
lines across the Soviet Union, and international phone lines from
Hamburg to Tokyo.

"Hart and Gorbachev signed a letter of agreement for the phone system
a few days ago," said my source for this news. "And if Hart isn't
getting a nice commission on this deal, he's nuts!."

Da!

Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 12:37:30 -0500
From: Robert Freimer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Experiences with RCI Long Distance


I would like to know if anyone has had any experience with RCI Long
Distance, a subsidiary of Rochester Tel, either good or bad.  They are
offering a new program, Empire 750, designed for people who call
mostly within New York State.  Their rates to anywhere within the
state are $.13/min daytime and $.11/min evenings and nights.  These
are significantly cheaper than AT&T's intrastate rates.  They are
further sweetening the offer by discounting the first month's bill by
50%, switching you over for free, and switching you back after 60 days
if you are not satisfied.  This sounds like a very good deal, but how
is the quality of their lines, and their billing?


Robert Freimer

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

Date:     Thu, 14 Dec 89 14:55:49 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Remote Parts of Area 619

Are there certain groups of exchanges starting with a common set of
2 digits in the remote (i.e., away from San Diego) parts of area code
619 in California?   Example is 37x:

372 Trona
373 California City
374 Randsburg
375 Ridgecrest
376 Kernville
377 Inyokern
378 Weldon
379 Lake Isabella

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

From: Randy Bush <m2xenix![e-mail]>
Date: Mon Dec 11 23:00:35 1989
Subject: 3CLs Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ken Ganshirt)
Organization: SaskTel


Yep, you read it right .. Northern 3CL Cord Boards!  I'm looking for
some.  Need them desperately.  We've chased down every source we can
think of and have come up absolutely dry so far.  Any leads (pun
intended) anyone can give me, no matter how tenuous, will be greatly
appreciated.

Since alternative solutions to my problem are also quite acceptable,
here's my problem.  We are relocating all of our operator positions to
another city.  Most of the positions are TOPS or TOPS/MP running off
our DMS-200 toll switches so those present no problems.  However, we
have some services that are inconvenient to do on a TOPS position (tie
up a position for too long), would require extensive (ie: expen$ive)
mods to TOPS, or are just flat impossible to do on TOPS in any useful
fashion in any reasonable time frame.

The service giving us the worst fits is General Mobile Telephone
Service (GMTS).  And we have _lots_ of GMTS all over the province and
it isn't likely to go away any time soon.  So far it appears that
there really isn't any other convenient way to provide GMTS service
than with a cord board because of its nature, and that's the way we
are doing it right now.

The characteristic that is the killer is the requirement for a
"revertive calling" capability.

For those who don't understand "revertive calling" (I didn't until a
couple of weeks ago, and barely do even now <g>), an example may serve
best.

When a GMTS mobile wishes to make a call, s/he calls the mobile
operator to set up the call.  At the time the calling mobile places
the call, they may say something like "George is out at the well-site
and probably won't be able to answer right away so let it ring for
awhile.".  The operator plugs into the trunk associated with the
channel the called mobile should be on and then she will let the thing
ring for up to 3 minutes (mobile users _are_ quite frequently unable
to answer in much less time than that, and mobile phones are usually
wired to make the horn beep when the phone rings).  If there is no
answer, the calling mobile may then say something like, "Well, George
may be over on the other channel .. could you please try that one."
(We have many areas where there are as many as 4 channels available so
you can iterate this last scenario up to four times!)

Of course if the operator had to actually sit there and listen to the
silly phone ring for 3 minutes each time through the loop, s/he
wouldn't get a heck of a lot done, right?!  Which is where the cord
boards are so well suited to this task.  While the phone is ringing,
s/he can go on and handle other calls and simply plug into the one
that s/he left ringing periodically to see what's happening.  A good
mobile operator can have some number of calls on the go at any one
time ....[

 ....and most importantly, ALL OF THOSE CALLS _STAY_ AT THAT POSITION
so s/he can manage them all and doesn't lose any of them.

And _there's_ the flaw with most of the other possibilities we've
looked at.  With any ACD- or PBX-based alternative we have looked at,
you can't keep the call at that position without staying "plugged
into" it, and in most cases you can't keep it there under any
circumstances.  In most cases with the "agent" positions on ACDs and
PBXs, as soon as you set up the outgoing loop, the operator is dropped
out of the call automatically, with no way to monitor progress or get
the call back. In the few cases where the operator can hold the call
at that position, they can only do it by staying hooked into the call,
making it impossible to do anything else for the entire duration of
the call, which could be more than 10 minutes (see above).

Why would she have to stay hooked in for the entire duration, even
when the call is connected to the called party?  Well, the billing on
these calls is done with manual tickets so the operator is also timing
the call(s) and needs to know when they're finished.  All of the ACDs
and PBXs we have looked at so far either have no "billing" capability
at all, or the "billing" system is only looking at "lines" and not
"trunks" (the GMTS channels are all coming and going on "trunks"),
and/or comes up way short in some other area(s) that makes it
unusable.

So if anyone knows of a system that can have "trunks" connected to it
and has operator or "agent" positions that will handle multiple
simultaneous calls at each position and let the operator keep the call
at that position (with a light or some other indication that the call
is still present there) without having to stay plugged into the call
so s/he can handle other calls concurrently, I would be overjoyed to
hear about it.  And if you actually sell a product that will do what I
need, so much the better!!

Otherwise, keep those leads on where I can get some Northern 3CL cord
boards coming in....please!!

    Ken Ganshirt, Network Standards Manager - Switch/MUX
    SaskTel,    Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Voice 306-777-2155 (days, CST)
    FidoNet: 1:140/18   Compuserve: 76247,230   Envoy: GANSHIRT.KJ

I can also correspond via uucp-FidoNet gateway at:
  "[e-mail]" or "..!uunet!m2xenix!keng"

uunet!{ tektronix!nosun!qiclab, oresoft, intelhf }!m2xenix!news  Randy Bush


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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 18:00:24 MST
From: Doug Corey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Message Waiting Signal From CO

There was a question a short time back about how to replace stutter
dial tone with a message waiting light.  This is available at least to
certain US customers with Centrex, Centron, or single line service
provided that service is off an appropriate switch (1AESS, 5ESS and, I
believe NT switches, running the appropriate generic) and provided the
voice mail system sends the right signals to the switch (if you get
stutter dial-tone, it probably does).  AT&T (I think) came up with
this service a couple of years ago.

In general its called "Message Service System" and includes "The Bulk
Calling Line Message Service", "Individual Calling Line Message
Service", "The Visual Message Waiting Indication Service", and
"Message Waiting Indication via the I/O Channel for Bulk Calling Line
Message Service".  The specifications and message formats are
described in an AT&T Technical Description, CIR 231-099-022TD (the
copy I'm looking at is labeled "Issue 3", and dated February, 1987).

As far as "turning on the light" goes, the voice mail provider sends a
request to the switch which tells it to provide stutter dial-tone,
and/or send a message over the customer's line (using FSK signalling)
to alert a "light box" which is bridged on the line at the customer's
premise.  Messages are only sent while the phone is on-hook or during
the silent interval of ringing (latter case I suppose for calling
number ID).  AT&T (and perhaps others) sells a "light box receiver"
and a telephone equipped with the equivalent circuitry.  I seem to
have tossed the flyer I had so I don't recall the model numbers but as
I recall the light box lists for around $50, the phone with the light
for a few dollars more.  I've never tried to buy one.  I suppose you
could start with your friendly neighborhood AT&T phone center.

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

Subject: Options With Cellular Phones
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 14 Dec 1989 11:32:38 EST
From: Mark Solsman <[e-mail]>

   I am in the same boat as the rest, I would like a cellular
telephone in my car. Does anyone know if a telephone with an elapsed
time counter is made?  Preferably two of them- one to keep track of
the peak and one for the off-peak.

          Thanks in advance!

Mark Solsman
US mail  -> 1012 Whippoorwill Drive   Clarks Summit, Pa   18411
BitNET   -> MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET
InterNET -> MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDU
RelayNet -> Mark Solsman  (direct mail to node OUTER)

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

From: Dean Sirakides <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Date: 14 Dec 89 15:51:10 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Landry Patrick M) writes:

>I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone for my father and
>would appreciate it if a couple of things could be explained to me. I
>will be purchasing a portable unit (as opposed to a car-mounted one).
>I understand the way cellular works but I don't know some of the
>admisistrative details.

>1) Do the Bell Companies actually own the cells?

A quailfied *yes*. In each cellular service area there are two
licenses, one wireline and one non-wireline (this is attempt to allow
for competition in any given service area). The wireline licenses
are used by the local Bell Companies, the other license is used by the
company that was lucky enough to win the right in the FCC lottery.
This brings us to your second question:

>2) What is all the hubbub about subscribing with a certain carrier?
>   What are the differences between different carriers?
>   What questions should I be asking to find the right carrier for me?

Each carrier may offer different features depending on which type of
equipment they own (even though it is not uncommon for each to have
identical CO equipment).  The best question to ask is in regards to
ROAMING: how much $, can your phone be tracked automatically when you
leave your home area...

>3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to
>   transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer
>   market?

Cellular phones come in there power levels: 4.0, 1.6, 0.6 watts (ERP).
4 watts is used by most car phones and bag phones. 0.6 watts is used
by most portables. Bottom line: usually all phones of the same type
use the same power levels.

>4) How can I get my hands on a cell map?

You got me with that one, I'm not sure they are public information.

>5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing?

Buying a cheap cellular phone is like buying a cheap house phone don't
kid yourself that "a phone is a phone". Ask the dealer which phones
are always coming back for repair.


Dean Sirakides                            uunet!motcid!sirakide
Motorala Cellular                  Arlington Heights, IL
Of course I speak for myself, not my employer...

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #572
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 14 Dec 89 22:58:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #573
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Dec 89 22:57:05 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 573

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John R. Covert)
    Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Scott D. Green)
    Re: Data Over Voice (Steven J. Morris)
    Re: Slick 96? (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Brian Capouch)
    Re: PacTelesis Power Grab (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: PacTelesis Power Grab (Lang Zerner)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Marion Hakanson)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Seth Zirin)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Scott D. Green)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 08:03:15 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  14-Dec-1989 1048" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number

>Does anyone have an idea how to get the "real", out-of-country-callable
>number for a company which only has published the 1-800 number ?

If you know the name of the company and the city it's in, you should
be able to call your own country's international directory assistance
number in order to get the regular listed directory number of the
company (which may or may not be answered by the same people who
answer the 800 number).

Although some 800 numbers have a corresponding regular number, this is
not always the case.  Historically, when there was one phone company,
800 service was provided by routing the 800 number to a local central
office.  However, depending on the destination, the translation may
have been to a dialable number or it may have been to a completely
fictitious number which could not be reached except with the 800
number.  Even in the cases where there was a real number, in the old
days it was contrary to the tariffs to dial it, because the old-style
billing on 800 Service was generated based on the usage to this
number.  If you called it as a regular number, the 800 customer still
paid for the call (and you did, too), and the wrong amount of revenue
was generated (a real big no-no for a regulated monopoly).

Now that there are many long distance companies providing 800 service,
it is more common for there to be a regular number and the billing is
usually handled in a more rational manner.  However, this still is not
always the case.  The 800 service may be provided on trunks directly
from the long distance carrier, with no regular number associated with
it, or the fictitious numbers may still be used, or the real numbers
may "belong" to the long distance carrier, not to the customer.

Even when there is a regular number, the customer may not wish it to
be given out, so the long distance companies are not authorized to
provide the translated number.

And finally, 800 Service is pretty sophisticated.  If I call 800
221-2000 to reach TWA Reservations, I will reach a different
reservation center depending on what part of the country I'm calling
from and what time of day it is.

As Patrick already mentioned, there is 800 Directory Assistance, but
giving out translated numbers is neither part of their job nor
possible for the reasons stated above.

>one cannot direct-dial a US directory assistance (areacode + 555 1212)
>from outside the United States (we tried).  Why ?

This is not unique to the United States.  I know of no case where
customers in one country can call the directory assistance number in
another country.  Your own country's international directory
assistance operator should be able to provide you any information the
NPA+555-1212 operator could provide.

The reason?  Mainly because CCITT recommendations suggest that local
operators should handle international directory assistance calls.
This is done to ensure that only "trained" persons are on the line
dealing with a possible language barrier, and to ensure that the
information is presented in the CCITT approved format.  (Whether
operators are really trained to do this or not is another story.  See
my article in V9#543.)  Also, your local telephone company or PTT may
not be willing to spend money on international circuits being used for
a service that cannot be charged at the full international call rate --
and many European countries will have a large set of foreign
directories in their own international directory assistance bureau to
use rather than making the call.

>There are no services which we could call who could make us a almost-free
>(for them) call to a 1-800 number, while charging us for this service.

I've seen ads in some airline magazines for companies which do provide
services similar to this.  In fact, they provide local or toll-free
numbers in many European countries that you can call and be connected
to their message center, where they will connect calls, relay messages
and so forth.  Maybe someone remembers the name of one of these
companies.  I don't think their service is cheap.

>Finally, I called a good friend of mine in the US and had him call the
>Intel 1-800 and ask what their "real" number is.  THEY REFUSED TO TELL
>THIS, SINCE THE NUMBER WAS "INTERNAL" EVEN AFTER HE EXPLAINED WHAT THE
>SITUATION WAS!

Well, now you're just dealing with a person whose ability to handle a
customer located outside the U.S. is less than satisfactory.  If this
customer service department is not willing to give out the number for
their local switchboard, then there's not much else we can say about
it.

Too bad your friend in the U.S. didn't have three-way calling or call
forwarding.  He could have connected you.

>Is Intel customer service always this sticky?

Sounds like this is beyond the scope of TELECOM Digest, and I hope the
Moderator will not permit this rathole to develop.

/john

[Moderator's Note: Customer service problems *within the realm of
telephone companies, telephone equipment manufacturers, etc* is okay
here.  But as Mr. Covert points out, if a company does not wish to
give out their phone number in order to receive calls from customers,
there is little more we can say about them here. Write them off and
find another equipment supplier if possible.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 11:23 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number


I was involved in a similar situation in the UK - it was the middle of
the British night when I needed to book a flight back to NY.
Everything in Europe, it seemed, shut down before midnite.  Directory
assistance (800, 212, 718, etc) only had 800- numbers to call, with
not a clue as to how to reach them from overseas.
               ==========================

[Moderator's Note: You might also try 312, and 202. Most large
airlines with offices in NYC will probably have offices in Chicago.
For the two largest carriers in the USA, you can call their Chicago
offices as follows: United Airlines 312-569-3000; American Airlines,
312-372-8000. British Airways only has an 800 number here.  PT]

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

From: sjm <@sun.acs.udel.edu:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice
Date: 14 Dec 89 14:08:29 GMT
Reply-To: sjm <@sun.acs.udel.edu:[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Delaware


Here in Delaware I have been told that it costs $100 to install a DOV
line and $25/month afterwords. We are installing a campus wide fiber
optic backbone so in a year or so most of the DOV lines will go away.
Eventually the Centrex system will too. (Oh goody, then we have to
learn a new phone system again.)


Steven Morris

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

From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Slick 96?
Date: 15 Dec 89 01:30:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


A predecessor to Subscriber Loop Carrier systems was Subscriber Loop
Multiplex (SLM).  The SLM-40 provided 40 channels, and used Delta
Modulation coding.  As far as I know, this was the only use of delta
modulation in the US telephone network.


Herman Silbiger

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 17:20:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Brian Capouch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fiber Optics and ESS??

In TELECOM Digest #570, Marvin Sirbu writes:

>Replacement of existing copper to the home with fiber is a decade (at
>least) away.

I wish he would have marked this as an opinion.  This topic, of
course, has been the subject of hot debate amongst telco and
networking techies, not to mention savvy venture capitalists, for the
past year at least.  There is definitely *not* yet a consensus.

I am of the "sooner" frame of mind.  With the advent of FDDI, SONET,
and other high-bandwidth fiber technologies, coupled with a decreasing
premium for the cost of installing fiber, there is bound to be a move
on the part of *all* common information carriers to wire everything
new with fiber.  This will, IMHO, cause an upsurge in demand on the
part of business and residential consumers, and that resultant demand
will push providers into rewiring the rest of the plant with fiber.

The bigger question is *who* is going to do the wiring.  Will it be TV
cable companies, local telcos, or some other innovative entity that is
out there on the fringes right now, waiting for the cashflow equations
to work out right?  The "50 Megabit Living Room" that the folks at the
Media Lab have been talking about will be here sooner than most think.
"Telecommunications" magazine carried a very informative article about
the financial aspects of fiber to the home a year or so ago, and I'm
sold on the 5-year timespan as being most likely.  But of course, this
is just an opinion.  I'm inviting flames.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PacTelesis Power Grab
Date: 14 Dec 89 16:02:05 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kian-Tat Lim)
writes...

>    Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles
>Times.  Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad):

>[Big headline]    Can you imagine living in a country that limits the
>        flow of information to its students?

>[Big headline]    You do....
>[Headline]    Why is the U.S. behind?

>    In 1984, an agreement between AT&T and the U.S. Justice
>Department split up the nationwide Bell system, forming Pacific
>Telesis and six other regional holding companies.  At that time, very
>narrow limits were imposed on the services that their phone company
>subsidiaries, like Pacific Bell, could offer.

Cute.  PacTel is simply doing the usual pressure-job on the courts.

Under the judicially-imposed regulations (i.e., the consent decree's a
settlement to an antitrust suit, and implies previous guilt), "Bell"
companies are allowed to have monopolies on local telephone service,
but are not allowed to manufacture or own information providers.  They
have to buy their goods from the free market (what's that, they
wonder?).

Indeed Naason Sanches is allowed to have information services,
available by phone.  What PacTel isn't allowed to do is sell the
information.  They can sell the access to third parties who provide
the information.  But Bells are common carriers, who carry information
for a price, and not information providers.  The court has ruled, in
effect, that if they were to be both, they'd have too much clout to
compete with other information providers.  If they really guaranteed
fairness, they'd probably be given more leeway.  (The FCC has relaxed
its rules, but the court is now the limiting factor.)

It takes time for a monopoly to learn to compete fairly.

      fred

Disclaimer:  I speak for me.  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires
permission.

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

From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacTelesis Power Grab
Date: 14 Dec 89 06:29:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kian-Tat Lim) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 555, message 2 of 5

>    Pacific Telesis ran a full-page ad in today's Los Angeles
>Times.  Here's the text (there is no copyright on the ad):

For the future reference of all posters, the United States has joined
the Berne International Copyright Convention, which means that the
text is copyright by default, even if not explicitly stated.  I doubt
PacTel would be too upset about this message getting spread 'round,
but forewarned is forearmed.

Be seeing you...

Lang Zerner
[e-mail]   UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz   ARPA:[e-mail]
"...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"


[Moderator's Note: The only one I have trouble with here is Dow Jones
and Company / The Wall Street Journal. Those people have screamed a
couple times about stuff 'reprinted without permission' on the net in
one news group or another. Other papers seem to like us discussing their
articles. But Mr. Zerner's point is a good one worth remembering.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 11:14:36 -0800
From: Marion Hakanson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR


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

>I've lived in the Pacific Northwest all my life, and had never *heard*
>of 411 as the number for info until I began taking business trips to
>the Bay Area two years ago.  And then, I had exactly the *opposite*
>shock.

>So, is the Pacific Northwest the *only* place in the country that
>*doesn't* use 411?  (And we still don't!)

I've also lived in the NW (in Southern Oregon 'til recently) all of my
life, but I remember when 411 did work.  And when it stopped working.
We lived in the 503-459 prefix area (or whatever you call it), and one
used to be able to dial "9" for the prefix if you were calling inside
the local area.  My memory is hazy, as this was when I was "just a
kid," but I think you could dial neighboring prefixes using just the
last digit, as well.

Anyway, my best guess is that both of these things stopped working
sometime in the late 1960's.  I remember getting a recording that
reminded you to dial "459" when you'd just dialed "9", along with my
parents receiving mailed announcements warning of the cutover.  No
doubt an expert could tell us which old piece of switching equipment
was replaced with which new one.


Marion Hakanson         Domain: [e-mail]
                        UUCP  : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!ogicse!hakanson

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

From: Seth Zirin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?
Date: 14 Dec 89 18:04:03 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CCS Consultants, Inc.


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

>So, is the Pacific Northwest the *only* place in the country that
>*doesn't* use 411?  (And we still don't!)

Nope.  My local loop connects me to a "Back Woods" telephone company
named "United Telephone of NJ" and they also use 555-1212 for DA.
They *just* upgraded to a "modern" switch from what surely must have
been an old crossbar.  I no longer hear 90 bazillion clicks before a
dial tone and my answering machine no longer records 60 seconds of
busy signal before IT drops incoming calls.  Calling home from
civilized areas of the global network no longer result in three and
sometimes four fast pulsed switching (routing?) sequences.

Now if only they could clear up the static I hear on my underground
line when the wind blows...

I recently made a local credit card call from one of United's
payphones and heard only "Thank you".  No "for using AT&T" or "for
using New Jersey Bell".  I'll probably have a coronary when the bill
comes...

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 11:19 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?


Here in 215 (Bello PA) one dials 1-555-1212 for *any* number in 215.  Isn't
that a little ridiculous?

That's what I love about standards, there are so many of them.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #573
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 15 Dec 89 0:02:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #574
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Dec 89 00:00:58 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 574

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Dave Horsfall)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Bob Clements)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (David Robbins)
    Re: Dumb Question on Caller*ID (Mark Robert Smith)
    Re: Dumb Question on Caller*ID (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Caller ID Question (Russell McFatter)
    Re: Caller ID Question (Anthony Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Horsfall <munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Date: 14 Dec 89 08:26:24 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


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

| The word "Luddite" comes to mind: A person who automatically resists
| change, particularly technological.

I was under the impression that the Luddites resisted the introduction
of technology because it would put them out of a job.  Can't really
blame 'em - no such thing as unemployment benefits in those days.

This got discussed to death in sci.space on NASA vs. Christics.


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 15:51:08 -0500
From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> [... cites emergency calls from unknown numbers ...]
>You cannot just ignore phone calls from numbers you don't know.
> [...]
>ANI [sic, really CLID]  gives no effective new features to end users.

This is just silly.  There are five cases:
   A) Call is unidentified, "Number refused by caller"
   B) Call is unidentified, "Out of area, number not available"
   C) Call is identified, and I (the callEE) know the number and like it.
   D) Call is identified, and I know the number and dislike it.
   E) Call is identified and I don't know whose number it is.

Given that, I can totally ignore categories A and D, always answer
category C and route B and E to an answering machine for screening and
possible answering.  You might choose a different selection.  I might
change the selections depending on whether I am going to be awake or
not.  But that is certainly an effective new feature.

>It gives plenty of ABUSE to people compiling information and
>selling it.

That's why selective blocking by the callER is a requirement in my
view.  It must be possible to CHOOSE whether you will give out your
number.  If it's an emergency, I think the caller would not be so
foolish as to block the calling number.  In any case, I would arrange
to give a message "I don't take unidentified calls" when I get such a
call.  Then the caller could redial from an unblocked phone if it were
REALLY necessary.  (I don't expect this case to arise in practice, but
that's how I would handle it if it did.  You might choose some other
option.  It's a free country.)


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: David Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Date: 12 Dec 89 17:05:21 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


I find it faintly amusing that one aspect of Caller ID is regularly
ignored in the midst of all the heat it periodically generates;

   Caller ID is in fact nothing of the sort: it identifies the *telephone
   line* from which the call originated, but says nothing reliable about
   the *person* who originated the call.

If you assume that Caller ID will tell you who is calling, you will at
least occasionally be surprised.  You really can never be 100%
confident that you know who is calling from the number that Caller ID
displays: there is always the possibility that someone has tapped into
someone else's line to make their call.

For those of you who will rely upon Caller ID to, in effect, tell you
whether or how to answer the call:

   If I call you from a friend's house, or from a pay phone, will you
   refuse to answer the call because you don't recognize the number I'm
   calling from? How can you ever be sure that a call coming in from a
   number you don't recognize is a call you can safely ignore?

Those of us (myself included) who presently have *unpublished*
directory numbers are *paying* the telephone company to refuse to
disclose our numbers to the *public*.  We are allowed to choose
whether and to whom to disclose the numbers, and we are *never*
*forced* to disclose the number as a consequence of our using the
telephone.

While it is true that our number is known to the local telco and the
LD carrier, we have some expectation as a result of past and present
practice that the number will not be given or sold to the general
public.  My number has been unpublished for quite a few years, and it
has yet to fall into the hands of telemarketers.  I don't call the 900
sleazebags, so they won't get my number.  I have no doubt that a
resourceful telemarketer could, with sufficient expenditure of effort,
obtain my unpublished number -- it's not exactly classified TOP
SECRET.  But the whole idea of unpublished numbers is to give the
customer a certain level of control over the disclosure of the number.
Caller ID does, in fact, change that, and does so to a degree I am
personally uncomfortable with.

The bottom line is that Caller ID is being oversold -- it promises
something that it in fact cannot deliver, namely identification of the
*person* who is calling (why do you think they call it *Caller* ID?) --
and it takes something away from those of us who pay for an unpublished
number.  The more I think about it, the less value I can see in having
Caller ID.  What on earth would I do with it?

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dumb Question on Caller*ID
Date: 14 Dec 89 15:57:37 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


The caller ID box I have will hold 10 calls in it's memory.

When a call comes in, it displays the number for about 10-20 seconds,
then the display reads "CALL" until you actually review the numbers
later.  To delete a call, you hit the delete key twice.  To review
calls, you hit the review key, which cycles you back in time
call-by-call.  The first time you cycle through a given call, a little
"NEW" indicator appears.  To see the time and date of the call, you
hit the Time-And-Date key.

Calls remain on the box until you delete them, or memory is full.
When the memory if full, a new call will push the oldest call out of
memory.

If a given phone number calls you twice before you review, only the
latest time and date is kept and a "REPEATED CALL" flag is activated.
Note that if you have an old call with the same number, it is
considered a separate call from the new one, and the repeated call
flag is not activated.  This way, if Aunt Grace keeps calling you, she
doesn't bump all other calls out of memory.

Any other questions?  Send mail to [e-mail]


Mark Smith, KNJ2LH                All Rights Reserved
RPO 1604               You may redistribute this article only if those who
P.O. Box 5063                 receive it may do so freely.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063              [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dumb Question on Caller*ID
Date: 15 Dec 89 05:07:55 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I don't recall the following point being mentioned in the ongoing and
> longstanding Caller*ID discussion: If the calling number is displayed,
> how long does it remain on the display?...

The information is only transmitted once, in a single burst, after the
first ring.  I suppose that different display units act differently.
Mine (AT&T logo, made by Colonial Data Systems) displays the number
for about fifteen seconds after the first ring, whether or not I
answer.

> Do any of these displays remember the last "n" numbers shown, so if
> you get a string of calls in rapid succession, you can look back
> through the history of received numbers to locate, say, the third-last
> caller's number? If so, how big is "n" and do they store the
> "unidentified" label the same as if it was a number? Are any of these
> fancy enough to store the date/time along with the number, or do you
> have to hook your own computer or automated logger on the line to get
> that degree of service?

Again, individual products may be different.  Mine remembers the last
30 calling numbers, and the date/time for each.  Note that I wrote
"last 30 numbers" and not "last 30 calls".  If the same number calls
several times the same day, it is stored only once, with the most
recent date/time, and with a notation that it was a repeat call.

The date/time is sent by the CO and does not depend upon a local clock
in the display unit.

Push-buttons on the unit allow the user to scroll backward in time
through the memory, and view the number, date/time, whether or not it
was a repeat caller, a NEW notation if it hasn't previously been
viewed in review mode.

When I return to the office, the device lets me see who called, and
when, while I was out.  The answering machine also date/time stamps
its messages, so it is easy to correlate them with the Caller*ID
display.  I can also correlate the display with messages taken by the
answering service (they only pick up on the main line) but their
wallclock is apparently less accurate then the answering machine!

The notation OUT OF AREA is considered a calling number.  It, too,
shows up with the most recent date/time when I scroll back.  It, too,
shows RPT if more than one arrived the same day.


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: Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Question
Date: 13 Dec 89 18:56:18 GMT
Reply-To: Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA


I distinctly remember that the first time I saw Caller ID mentioned in
the press, New Jersey Bell was working on it.  The description of the
service was very complete (for an article that came out at least five
years before the product itself): it even showed a picture of a
telephone set with a tiny 10-digit LED (this is before LCD displays
hit it big!) display where the number card usually goes.

The text of the article explained what would happen with unlisted
numbers: If you were called by a person whose number was unlisted, the
display would show a numbered code (such as "A51033") which the
telephone company, under court order or for their own investigations,
could translate into the actual number.

Years later, after the big breakup, New Jersey Bell actually does
introduce the service, and this time the story is different.  The
company has decided that the right to know who is calling supersedes
the right to keep your number secret.  (I'll agree with that,
particularly in the context that if I pay for Caller-ID service, I
want just that.  Peephole analogy and all.)

I want to change the topic: I think that while Caller ID is an
improvement over no identification at all, it doesn't really resolve
the ACTUAL issue at hand: knowing who is at the other end of the
phone.  No matter how much effort we put into identifying the PHONE
that a particular call comes from, we will never be able to solve
certain problems:

1:  If you are blocking/ignoring "unknown" caller ID's, you may not be
    able to get an emergency call from a person you know if they are
    using an "unknown" phone.

2:  If you specifically block a particular number, you can't be sure that
    the next call from that phone isn't one that you want.  If you block
    a pay phone because some creep is making prank phone calls, your
    daughter might decide to use that phone (which was at a highway
    rest stop) to tell you that she was just in an accident and needs
    help.

3:  If you block specific numbers, like the creep calling from the pay phone,
    nothing stops the creep from moving to the next phone and trying again.
    The same goes for telemarketers with dozens of outgoing lines.  In order
    to stop them, you'd have to block ALL calls from unknown numbers, which
    brings us back to problem #1.

4:  Even if you DO happen to recognize the caller ID that flashes on your
    display, you have no idea WHO is calling you.

An apparent (oh so obvious) fix to all these problems is to identify
the CALLER, not the phone being used to make the call.  In the UNIX
world, we don't identify people by the TTY they're using, do we?  We
have usernames and passwords.  Why not eventually implement this idea
for the dial network as well?  This would solve a host of problems...

1:  Fixes 1-4 above.  We can allow our example daughter to call us from any
    phone anywhere, even if we are blocking "unknown" calls.

2:  A tremendous fix to the privacy problem.  When placing a call, the use
    of a personal ID is OPTIONAL...  If I don't want to voluntarily give away
    my identity, I don't dial a PID.  I then take the risk that the number
    I am calling may not be accepting "anonymous" calls, of course.

3:  Replaces calling cards; I can request that any call I place using my
    PID is billed to me regardless of where I call from.

4:  Personal defaults:  Your default long-distance company, for example,
    can apply to you even away from home if you use your PID.

5:  Makes dozens of features that we've always wished for possible.  For
    example, reverse call forwarding:  Forward calls FROM my own phone to
    me HERE!  I always thought it a stupid concept to have to forward my
    phone before I leave home, and not to be able to change/cancel the
    forwarding until I return.  If I want to get my calls at a friend's
    house, I have to forward it before I leave, and for the duration of my
    trip, my friend gets any call intended for me, even though I'm not
    there yet!  (And I would have to pay for this!  No wonder I don't get
    this feature myself!)

6:  Ultimately:  Call placement to PEOPLE instead of LOCATIONS.  ("I want
    to talk to my friend; I don't care where he is right now.")  A minor
    extension to reverse call-forwarding.

7:  Destination routing / forwarding based on the caller's ID.  ("Send
    all calls to my answering machine EXCEPT for my stockbroker, who
    should get forwarded here immediately!")  Solves the premier problem of
    call forwarding; having to pay for forwarding of "junk" calls.
    My answering machine will know not to answer calls from family/friends
    if I am home (so I will answer them myself).

8:  Security and other authentication functions (good for data calls, lets
    my answering machine know it's OK to playback my messages, etc.)

Being able to change passwords "online" would be a nice touch (a big
gripe with telephone calling cards: too easy for someone to discover,
too difficult to change if I suspect it has been compromised).

    Russ McFatter  [[e-mail]]
    My opinions don't necessarily represent anyone else's.  Sorry.


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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Question
Date: 15 Dec 89 00:23:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Scott D. Green) writes:

>What is the interaction with Call Waiting?  Now *that* would be

I don't see how there would be any interaction between Caller ID and
Call Waiting.  Actually does the Blue Book say anything about Caller
ID and Call Waiting ?


Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor)
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:[phone]
Internet: [e-mail]        ([phone] (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #574
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 16 Dec 89 1:50:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #575
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Dec 89 01:50:08 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 575

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    JCS Phone (David Dodell)
    Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Martin J. Shannon)
    Kids, Call Santa For $2/minute (Bill Mihalo)
    Case in Point (John Higdon)
    Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start (Jim Gottlieb)
    AT&T, MCI, Sprint Rates to South Asia (Gihan Dias)
    Re: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) (David Gast)
    Re: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Phone Connections East/West Germany (Piet van Oostrum)
    Re: A Tangled Tale (David J. Buscher)
    Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Hector Myerston)
    Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones (John Higdon)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Jon Solomon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 08:12:02 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: JCS Phone

A couple of weeks back, someone made an inquiry about the JCS Portable
Telephone, asking what it was since it claimed to be non-cellular.

I made a phone call to JCS and received their literature, and in
addition spoke to someone in sales.

The portable phone is simply a half-duplex radio with touchtone pad
and proper signaling to be used on either an IMTS/MTS phone system in
the UHF/VHF services.  The short antenna is not for 800 mhz, but is
just one of the newer style short stubby antennas you see used on HT
these days.

For $2300 (I think that was the price), I would go cellular anyday, or
if you are in an area that doesn't have cellular service, just get a
30 watt mobile, you'll probably be better off.  My last IMTS phone I
bought reconditioned for $300 with a one year warrantee.


David

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
                  Internet: [e-mail]


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

From: Martin J Shannon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers?
Date: 14 Dec 89 18:26:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (martin.j.shannon,59112,lc,4nr10,201 580 5757)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>In article <[e-mail]> somebody writes:
Stuff about 411 & 611 in the northwest USA.

But what *I*'d never heard of is referred to in Patrick's moderatorial
note:

>[Moderator's Note: Hah! *He* thinks 611 gives calling-number-ID! Here
>in Chicago we know it reaches the Illinois Bell Repair Service. And
>for many years, 211 reached the Long Distance Operator for 90 percent
>of the subscribers, while 811 reached Long Distance for the other 10
>percent or so. And what we used to call Enterprise numbers *he*
>probably called Zenith numbers.  Just a local yokel myself! :) PT]

Well, I've spent all my (phone-aware) life in either Staten Island
(now 718), and northern NJ (201), and I've never heard of either
Enterprise *or* Zenith numbers.  What are they?


Marty Shannon; AT&T Bell Labs; Liberty Corner, NJ, USA
(Affiliation is given for identification only:
I don't speak for them; they don't speak for me.)

[Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference.
Some telcos used one name; other telcos used the other. These numbers
were the granddaddy of 800 service. In mostly manual, pre-dial-direct
times, companies offered Enterprise xxxx or Zenith xxxx numbers as a
way to induce customers to call them. They were automatic reverse
billing numbers, functioning just like 800 numbers do today. You would
raise the operator, and ask for Enterprise xxxx. The operator would
consult with Rate & Route to find the 'real' number (remember that
phrase from the past few days here?), and she would connect the call.
Getting permission from the called party to accept the charges was not
necessary. Like 800 numbers today, the old fashioned style could be
set up to accept local, regional, intrastate, interstate or
international calls, or various combinations. Believe it or not, there
are a few companies still listed in the Chicago phone book with
Enterprise numbers, but they are few and far between. In the early
1970's, I had Enterprise 5479, which rang my office phone, WEbster
9-4600.  The charges came on the regular long distance phone bill.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Kids, Call Santa For $2/minute
Date: 15 Dec 89 14:38:14 GMT


I just saw a TV ad on one of the cable channels where somebody dressed
in a Santa suit is asking kids to call him at a 900 number. The charge
is $2/minute.

My four-year-old son saw the ad and immediately wanted to call Santa.
We had a long discussion that the person in the ad wasn't the real
Santa. Although we've taught our four-year-old to dial the phone (for
emergencies), he can't remember the string of 11 digits needed to make
a 900 call.

Bill Mihalo
uucp: att!chinet!calumet!wem

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

Subject: Case in Point
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 15 Dec 89 12:25:27 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

What on earth can be done? Last week, an associate ordered a simple
8KHz audio circuit from Pac*Bell, who promised an install date of
12/19. Today we learn that because the far end terminates in GTE
territory (and GTE has expressed a total non-willingness to perform on
this according to our Pac*Bell rep) we won't have the circuit until
January 4.

My experience with GTE in the past is that this is probably the first
of many missed due dates to come. We all talk about whether GTE has
this latest equipment or that, or that one-line residence POTS
customers seem to be satisfied with their simple service, but it's the
GTE *attitude* that is the major problem here. The impression here is
that the people associated with GTE genuinely don't give a damn
whether they provide useful service or not. When I checked into GTE
rates, I was given a third degree regarding the purpose of my inquiry,
whereas Pac*Bell cheerfully sent me a detailed brochure.

It is truly amazing that GTE can screw up virtually everything it is
involved with, and yet defenders seem to come out of the woodwork. I
am convinced that even more than Pac*Bell (and I've certainly made no
secret of how I feel about them), GTE has got to be the real ball and
chain on the legs of telephonic progress in California.

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

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start
Date: 15 Dec 89 23:58:41 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


As we outgrow our KX-T1232, we are looking for a new PBX.  Of course
we want all the normal PBX features like ARS and DID; what we want
that is a bit unusual is the ability to have station lines that are
ground start or at least provide a CPC signal (a momentary open) when
the calling party hangs up.

The only switch that I have personally witnessed this on was a NEC
NEAX 2400.  The analog ports on the NEC received CPC.  However, a
friend reports that he checked another NEAX 2400 and found that not to
be the case.  Perhaps there are several varieties of analog station
cards.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone that knows of a switch that does
what we want.  Thanks...

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

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 11:48:20 PST
From: Gihan Dias <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T, MCI, Sprint Rates to South Asia

Patrick,

I hope you can help me with some info. Recently [e-mail] (Don
H Kemp) sent a message on comp.dcom.telecom about an AT&T rate change
to South Asia.  I called AT&T international rate info, but they
wouldn't confirm it.

Do you know anyplace I could find out if this rate change has been
approved and is going into effect?

Also I'd like to know if MCI and Sprint are following suit, do you
have contacts for these Co's too?

Thanks,

Gihan

[Moderator's Note: Can anyone help this fellow find what he wants?  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 14 Dec 89 21:43:28 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310)


Just out of curiosity, why is it that when an Area Code becomes full,
it is split when it might make more sense to alter the boundaries of
neighboring area codes.  There are many examples.  201 is being split,
yet 609 its neighbor to the South in New Jersey is almost empty.  312
has just been split, yet 815 which used to surround 312 in Illinois
has plenty of room.  Similarly it was just announced that 213 would
split into 213 and 310, yet 714 and 818 are hardly busting at the
seams and 805 and 619 have plenty of room.

On a related note, the 213 split is said to have occurred because of
the growth of cellular and fax lines (and probably centrex and numbers
which are used but not associated on a one to one basis with physical
lines).  It seems to me that rather than pass the cost of this split
onto every individual in the country, that the cost should be born by
those who are causing the trouble.  Given the prevailing socialism for
the rich and powerful, however, everyone will pay.

Finally, the LA paper seemed to gloat over the fact that LA would be
the first city with 3 area codes and 4 if you include 714 in Orange
County.  It obviously never appeared to the editor that NYC has 2 area
codes and 5 if you count contiguous, metropolitan areas.  201 is right
across the Hudson; 516 is on Long Island just past the city boundary.
914 includes Westchester County which is just North of the Bronx.
Finally, 203 is in Conn.  I can't remember for sure if it touches NYC;
I seem to recall that Conn is only a few miles away from NYC.  (Note:
I do not believe that Orange County ever touches LA either).  As far
as I can tell, an extra area code just means more dialing; it is not
great accomplishment.

[ The minor geographical issues involved are not worth many
follow-ups.  This is TELECOM Digest, not alt.geography.trivia.  Please
send me your information.  I can then summarize to the Digest if
necessary.  Please do not copy the Digest. ]


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


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

Date:     Fri, 15 Dec 89 17:23:52 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Los Angeles to Get a Third Area Code (310)

Is 310 to:
Border area 805 on the west?
Include Malibu?

When 818 was formed, JSol (a former Telecom moderator) pointed out
that there are some "Los Angeles" prefixes which serve as "foreign"
exchanges in places like Burbank, with such "foreign" prefixes staying
in 213 although the other exchanges serving that (e.g. Burbank) area
went into 818.  Are there any such "foreign" exchanges in what will
become 310 area?

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Connections East/West Germany
Date: 15 Dec 89 14:27:16 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]>, HGSCHULZ@cs (Henning Schulzrinne) writes:
 `The following are excerpts translated from the November 18 edition of
 `the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt, West Germany (translated
 `without permission):
 `
 `"Calling the GDR is almost hopeless"
 `====================================
 `

A few days ago the PTT-ministers of the FRG and GDR governments met.
The FRG is offering upgrades to the GDR telephone system (especially
Berlin) and to the connections between the two.


Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: [phone]   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   [phone]   Internet:  [e-mail]   (*`Pete')

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

From: "David J. Buscher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Tangled Tale
Date: 15 Dec 89 17:09:04 GMT
Reply-To: "David J. Buscher" <aplpy.jhuapl.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory


It seems that the tangled tale may be more far flung. I live in
Clarksville, MD between Balt and Wash. and am in Balt LATA. I have an
FX line in Wash. It is a 596 exchange and I frequently call a 484
exchange in Wash. In Nov. my usual $30 phone bill went to $178 with a
bunch of 484 calls to Pikesville (Balt) listed. I called the business
office and after going round and round finally got the appropriate
credit. Dec the same thing happened and C&P said the problem should
now be fixed.  Perhaps there is a relationship to the Ashton problem.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 15 Dec 89  09:19 PDT
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics and ESS??
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]

When I read Marvin Sibu's original comment (No fiber to the home for a
decade (at least)) I thought he was being wildly optimistic.  Now
Brian Capouch sees it within 5 years.  Opinions being what they are...
Here is mine:

Facts:  [Maybe Factoids :-)]

o  We are a long way from rudimentary steps like digital local loops to
provide even "ISDN-like" services.  Read the actual NUMBERS behind the
trials, announcements and PR BS.

o  While fiber may be getting cheaper vis-a-vis copper the terminal
equipment isn't.  How is the fiber going to support grammy's black 500
POTS set?.  Lets see... a fiber network interface, a fiber mux, a
fiber-to-copper converter, an ISDN Terminal Adapter... plus, of course
an uninterruptable power source.

o  Market tests show that most of the general public is not as
impressed as us techies by things like HDTV.  How many people do you
know have megabuck TVs connected to rabbit ears or tolerate third rate
CATV systems?  Check the history of Teletex services, bank-at-home and
interactive video in the US.

I wish it were not so, but I think that fiber-to-the-home or even its
cousin fiber-to-the-curb are much more than 10 years away.  I doubt if
things like ISDN, HDTV standards, or even Calling-Party ID ( :-) )
will be settled by the year 2000.

Of course, the 37th re-incarnation of the AT&T Picture Phone will be
"just over the horizon" by the year 2000.

Just an opinion.


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Multi-line Cordless Telephones
Date: 14 Dec 89 23:28:20 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]> writes:

> The electronic phones on an AT&T System 75 can use up to 4 pair.  If
> it's a hybrid phone they use one pair for analog, one pair for digital
> in, one pair for digital out, and if it's running an accessory, like a
> speakerphone another pair for distributing central power.  If you have
> no accessories the power pair is unnecessary (this can also be handled
> by having a PS local to the device).  If you're using a digital set,
> then the analog pair is not necessary.

But why, Why, WHY, can't they put data send, data receive, and power
on ONE pair? Every other manufacturer in the known civilized world
seems to be able to do this. An exception is Mitel, who puts analog
voice (full duplex), send data, receive data, and power over A SINGLE
PAIR.

The question wasn't "what is on the pairs", but rather "why do they
have to use so many when others don't for the same amount of
information conveyance"?


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

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

Date:  Fri, 15 Dec 89 11:35:53 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?

In Connecticut, you dial 1-411.


jsol

[Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon (jsol) was the founder of TELECOM
Digest and the moderator for several years.     PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #575
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 16 Dec 89 2:44:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #576
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Dec 89 02:40:27 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 576

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (John Higdon)
    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Russell McFatter)
    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Dean Sirakides)
    Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (David Lewis)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Wm. R. Franklin)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Jon Solomon)
    Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards (Randolph J. Herber)
    Re: 3CLs Wanted (Julian Macassey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Date: 14 Dec 89 23:55:26 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

"Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b![e-mail]> writes:
> What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his
> stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)?  Who gets priority?
> Is this a first-come/first-serve situation?

This is what cooperation is all about. "Professional" users of the
airwaves have known for decades that the only way maximum use can be
made of the spectrum is by mature, enlightened interaction. If your
scenario can resemble reality, it is good motivation for *not* turning
over the airwaves to the masses.

To answer your question, if the people involved couldn't get together
and work out an arrangement (change frequencies, time share, etc.)
then I guess they'll just have to slug it out or go back to the jungle
from whence they came.

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

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

From: Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Date: 14 Dec 89 23:50:31 GMT
Reply-To: Russell McFatter <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA


In article <[e-mail]> msa3b![e-mail] (Kevin P.
Kleinfelter) writes:

>What if he gets one one the same frequency, and puts it next to his
>stereo (which he leaves running 24 hours a day)?  Who gets priority?
>Is this a first-come/first-serve situation?

There are actually plenty of FCC regulations to cover situations of
this type.  The general overview, as I understand it, works like this:

Although FCC regulations even prohibit low-power (Part 49) stations
from causing intentional interference to each other, it's very
unlikely that they would get involved in such a case.  One of the two
stations would have to prove not only that the interference exists,
but that the intent of the other party is malicious.  Even if a formal
complaint were filed with supporting information, the FCC's first act
would usually be to suggest a peacable, voluntary coexistence
(possibly by getting one of the stations to switch to a different
frequency if possible).  Beyond that, a civil suit would probably have
to be filed to get any action.

What, then, of the guy with the baby monitor next to his stereo?
Nothing will probably happen to him, unless the neighbors decide to
take him to court (where, if they can prove intentional interference,
the FCC's regulations will be on their side).  Many questions would be
asked in such a case: Was the defendant using this setup for a
legitimate purpose, or purely to harass and annoy?  (Did he listen to
the monitor's receiver 24 hours a day?)  Was it actually necessary?
Did either party consider alternate measures, such as a wired
intercom, or remote (wired) speakers for the stereo?

The cost of doing all this would most likely outweigh (by a few
thousand times) the cost of a wired intercom.  How many people bought
a CB radio and gave up on it because of all the interference and
noise?  The baby monitor in this case would probably end up in the
attic next to the CB.


Russ McFatter  [[e-mail]]
Std. disclaimer applies.


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

From: Dean Sirakides <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Date: 15 Dec 89 17:21:51 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Jim Budler) writes:

>In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence
>gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations
>by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it
>possible. I would assume it's picking up the cell transmitters, not
>the 4 watt portables, but...

In his book, you'll recall, the bad guys used *portables* to make
their calls.  Portable cellular phones transmit at a maximum of 0.6
watts and usually less to conserve battery life; it seems hard to
believe that this would be detectable from space.

The base sites use 50+ watts, so detecting them may be more feasible,
although, it is commonplace to use directional transmit antennas,
further complicating things.

The whole situation is made worse by the pleathora of frequencies used
and the variety of cell locations.

When I read the book, I wondered why everyone went through the trouble
of a satellite and supercomputer.  After all, cellular calls still
make use of land lines. Why not just tap the trunk at the EMX where
ALL cellular calls pass?


Dean Sirakides            uunet|motcid|sirakide
Motorola Cellular        Arlington Heights, IL
Of course I speak for myself, not my employer...


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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neighbor Bugs Family By Eavesdropping
Date: 15 Dec 89 19:26:03 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


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

>In Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" one of the intelligence
>gathering methods used was intercept of cellular phone conversations
>by satellites. How real was this use in a fictional story? Is it
>possible.

It's very real.  And it's not just cellular conversations.  I was
rather surprised when I visited a satellite dish-owning friend and he
showed me how he could listen in to _regular_ long distance telephone
calls.  And it didn't take any fancy equipment.

I guess we can be thankful that the use of satellite for telephone
calls is declining (these calls were all from Alaska to Florida), but
this is just a reminder that you can never assume that ANY call is
completely private.

                              Jim Gottlieb
  E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: Fri, 15-Dec-89 05:33:21 PST

I had a similar experience on a recent trip to Melbourne, Australia.
I had forgotton to reconfirm my return seat the next day and the
Sydney ticket office was closed.

I tried using AT&T's USA Direct to get the US International Desk, but
the operator wouldn't put the call through to United's 800 number.

As a last desperate measure :), I had the local operator get me the
local United number in Chicago, then placed an international call to
that number.

Seems to me it cost about $8, but at least I didn't lose my seat!

Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: 15 Dec 89 16:44:08 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Otto J. Makela) writes:

> Does anyone have an idea how to get the "real", out-of-country-
> callable number for a company which only has published the 1-800
> number ?

I can recommend the technique suggested by Anna Robrock in an article
on international telecom in the latest issue of IEEE Communications
Magazine.

(Paraphrasing, cause I don't have the article on me.  Note that Ms.
Robrock lives in Italy).

  "I call the Italtel operator and, in my best colloquial Italian, swear
   at these idiotic self-centered Americans who think they're the whole
   world, and see if I can get him or her to get through to a US operator
   and look up the number.  If she/he won't, I hang up and try again in a
   few minutes to see if I get another operator."


David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: 15 Dec 89 19:14:34 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Otto J. Makela) writes:

>AND THEY ONLY GIVE A
>1-800 NUMBER !  We of course cannot call this number from Europe.

Spending most of my time in Japan lately, I come across this problem
constantly.  In fact, I had a DISA (Direct Inward Station Access)
installed on my home Centrex here in L.A. to help with this problem.
Unfortunately, I have problems breaking its dial tone from Japan.  So
I'm back in the same boat.

It just does not occur to people in the U.S. that people outside North
America can not call their (800) number.  Recently, I saw an ad in the
Far Eastern Economic Review directed towards business people in Asia.
And the only number given in the ad was their U.S. (800) number!

Since computer hardware in Japan is twice the price, we try to buy
everything in the U.S. and ship it over.  I use magazines like Byte,
Unix World, and PC to track down what we need.  The advertisers who do
not provide a non-(800) number can't get my business.  Perhaps one
more example of American businesses not doing what it takes to get
more international business (but again, this subject is beyond the
scope of this group).

                         Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
     V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 15 Dec 89 20:00:23 GMT

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

>And finally, 800 Service is pretty sophisticated.  If I call 800
>221-2000 to reach TWA Reservations, I will reach a different
>reservation center depending on what part of the country I'm calling
>from and what time of day it is.

That feature really bugged me  a few years  ago when I, living  in CA at
the time, wanted to check on my IRS return, which  had been filed in NY.
The IRS 800 number connects to a regional office, they'd won't  give out
the non-800 equivalent for other offices, and  each office has access to
only the records for its region.  (I finally persuaded  them to transfer
me on an internal tie  line, but they were  reluctant  to.)  So its  not
just international callers who have problems with 800 numbers.

                           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

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

Date:  Fri, 15 Dec 89 11:32:50 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number

Some Boston area airlines have 617-XXX-XXXX numbers which ring
directly at the airport (most of them were downtown Boston numbers,
but that could change now that the Airport exchange is ESS (it was
crossbar before). Depends on how many lines there are, and how much
they want to save money vs. change their phone number.

  jsol

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

Subject: Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards
Organization: Leptons and Quarks, Winfield, IL 60190-1412
Date: 14 Dec 89 23:48:58 CST (Thu)
From: Randolph J. Herber <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 555, message 4 of 5

>(Telenet is starting to >offer 9600-baud service -- how do I make sure
>that their modem is compatible with mine or with one I might call from
>their network when >they get around to adding 9600 baud outdial as well?)

>Ted Lee <[e-mail]>

1. Telenet's customer service number is 1 800 336 0437 (1 703 689 6400).

2. From their Winter 1989 booklet, "U.S. Access Telephone Numbers":
   a. The modems are Microcom V.29 compatibles
   b. The 9600 baud service is available in
      * Phoenix, AZ * Los Angles, CA * San Francisco, CA * Denver, CO
      * Washington, DC * Maimi, FL * Atlanta, GA * Chicago, IL
      * Kansas City, KS & MO * New Orleans, LA * Baltimore, MD * Boston, MA
      * Ann Arbor, MI * Detroit, MI * Minneapolis, MN * St Louis, MO
      * Newark, NJ * Princeton, NJ * New York, NY * Cincinnatti, OH
      * Cleveland, OH * Columbus, OH * Kent, OH * Portland, OR
      * Philadelphia, PA * Pitsburgh, PA * Dallas, TX * Ft Worth, TX
      * Houston, TX * Seattle, WA * Milwaukee, WI

3. From discussions with their customer service department, I learned
   that the modems were neither PEP or V.32 compatible, that they have
   received many requests for V.32 support, and that they were considering
   installing V.32 capacity in early 1990.

    Randolph J. Herber,
    @ home: {att|mcdchg|laidbak|clout|obdient|wheaton}!yclept!rjh,
        [e-mail]

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 3CLs Wanted
Date: 15 Dec 89 20:20:34 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


    There are some places in the U.S. that are still using Cord
Boards. Crown City Plating, Rosemead CA, used to have one - may still
do. You can call them at [phone] and ask. I once told them they
would be happy with a Mitel, they scowled. They are a pretty high tech
plater of plastics etc. Kinda funny to see an attendant (telephonist)
sitting at a board in the eighties.

    But I digress. About five years ago when I was meeting with
some British Telecom people from Martlesham, they told me that BT was
still producing cord boards. So try giving BT a bash. Maybe a BT type
will write in and give an address/number where these devices can be
bought shiny and new.

    Some countries in Europe were still using cord boards in COs
up till the seventies. I remember seeing a creaky old mahogany board
in a Norwegian CO. Screwed to the mahogany top was a Touch Tone pad.
Yup, you rang the operator and she dialled Oslo for you on the Touch
Tone pad. So maybe some Europe telcos have warehouses of these things --
Cord boards, not TT pads.

    Now Northern Telecom U K has been selling switches into
Europe, Africa and Asia where they have replaced cord boards. Maybe
they have taken these things away as a trade in deal. Ask them if they
have any, when they have stopped laughing maybe they will let you have
them cheaply. NT UK Tel # [phone].

    By the way, in my kitchen I have an old Western Electric
operators high chair. Built like a battleship. Good luck with the
search.


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  {ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@K6IYK (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #576
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 16 Dec 89 3:21:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #577
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Dec 89 03:20:32 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 577

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again) (David Gast)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again) (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID Question (Bernie Cosell)
    Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland (John Hughes)
    Re: Data Over Voice (Richard Steele)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 00:39:34 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again)


Unfortunately I cannot remember exactly who made this arguement and I
must admit it was very persuasive for a while, but I just realized why
it is not cogent.

The arguement is that a telephone number is not private because the
telephone company, not the individual controls it.  I suggest that the
individual does not have significant control over much private
information.

Most people would agree that a Social Security Number is private, yet
the individual has no control over it.  The government assigns it; if
they wished they could change it.  Since some SSN's have been given
out more than once, I suggest that the government has excercised that
right.

Most people would agree that a person's salary is private, yet most
individual's cannot unilaterally change their salary.

The list could go on, but I suggest that privacy does not only concern
information the individual has complete control over.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well David, you would be happy with phone service
here in Chicago, then. Illinois Bell today announced that while many
CLASS features are being implemented during the last half of 1990
here, including my own CO, Caller-ID will *not* be available in the
IBT LATA in the forseeable future. Bah, humbug!  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again)
Date: 15 Dec 89 00:31:05 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Michael Gersten <[e-mail]> writes:

> * Grrr. That's two non-thinking replies to the same point I just read.
> [...]
> ANI gives no effective new features to end users. It gives plenty of
> ABUSE to people compiling information and selling it.

And thank YOU for your comprehensive and throughly-thought-out
pronouncement concerning Caller-ID.

I'm an end user and I can think of plenty of uses.

1. When callers talk to my computerized answering machine, it can
recognize their number and give them an appropriate outgoing message,
or even a particular message that I have wanted to deliver to them.
Unrecognized numbers would still go to a general recording.

2. I am on call and my answering machine can page me. With Caller-ID,
the machine could page and insert the caller's number in my pager,
eliminating a confusing and error-prone step in the paging process.

3. A list could be prepared of "hang-up calls". This would provide me
with evidence of how effective my answering system is in encouraging
clients to leave their pertinent information. Also, I could return
calls from those retiscent to leave information.

4. Since I have irregular hours, I am frequently sleeping when the
world at large is doing business. However, there are some people that
I must speak to when they call, regardless. Caller-ID would help my
machine to deal with that problem much more effectively than it does
now.

Believe it or not, I will concede that there are legitimate concerns
about the implementation of Caller-ID. But I will not stand still for
one second when short-sighted people catagorically dictate that they
can't see any reason why we, the public, don't need something they
don't like.


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

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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Question
Date: 15 Dec 89 17:00:16 GMT


[e-mail] (Russell McFatter) writes:

Ah... the topic that won't die...

>I want to change the topic: I think that while Caller ID is an
>improvement over no identification at all, it doesn't really resolve
>the ACTUAL issue at hand: knowing who is at the other end of the
>phone.  No matter how much effort we put into identifying the PHONE
>that a particular call comes from, we will never be able to solve
>certain problems:

[... the mostly-clear problems inherent in CID...]

>An apparent (oh so obvious) fix to all these problems is to identify
>the CALLER, not the phone being used to make the call.  In the UNIX
>world, we don't identify people by the TTY they're using, do we?  We
>have usernames and passwords.  Why not eventually implement this idea
>for the dial network as well?  This would solve a host of problems...

Just as I opined, about a year ago: the I-can't-deal-with-answering-the-
phone-and-just-hanging-up crowd will figure out that CID really
doesn't do much for any _real_ problem, and that the "ansering a phone
is *privacy* but doing electronic identifying isn't" folks will soon
be asking for things like:

>2:  A tremendous fix to the privacy problem.  When placing a call, the use
>    of a personal ID is OPTIONAL...  If I don't want to voluntarily give away
>    my identity, I don't dial a PID.  I then take the risk that the number
>    I am calling may not be accepting "anonymous" calls, of course.

Won't that be good --- a nice, nation-wide electronically-tracked
database of *everyone* who wants to __USE__ a phone.  Not even a
matter of conditions on *having* a phone.... and he calls this a
tremendous "fix" to the privacy problem... I guess in his worldview
the "problem" is that it might still be possible to do *somehting*
without the gov't tracking you every step of the way.

>5:  Makes dozens of features that we've always wished for possible.

Yeah... everything except privacy.. :-(

[PS, as an aside I'm curious: when did this notion that "answering the
phone" was somehow related to "privacy" in the Constitutional sense?
It seems totally bizarre to me.  People keep talking about the
"peephole" analogy, but the reality is very different: peepholes
protect you from *physical* threat, and in some sense DO have to do
with your privacy [since the person can see if you're dressed or not,
or where the stereo is, or if your new copy of the heavy breathers
journal is on the coffee table].  Answering the phone embraces no such
threats --- it seems that asking who is calling and if you don't get
an answer you like hanging up more than adequately protects your
"privacy".

Now, you can complain that your *peace* has been disturbed, and I
totally agree, but the peephole analogy doesn't work there at all.  IF
the doorbell rings, you have to go figure out who is there ANYWAY [and
if it is an otherwise undistinguished person, you'll STILL have to ask
them who they are and what they want... just like answering the phone.

[Unless your world is different than mine: no one is "ID"ed on my
front porch... the very best I can do is only the crudest of physical
guesses about who's there [thereby displaying all your latent fears
and prejudices about which book-covers conceal real threats
inside-the-book].  That stranger on the porch is as liable to be a new
neighbor from the next block as another Jehovah's Witness as a person
selling storm windows].

Accepting privacy threat (as I see it) of CID as the response to the
breach of your *peace* sure seems like overreaction --- killing a fly
with a sledgehammer.  There are MUCH easier ways [IMHO] to effect some
kind of effective screening of your incoming calls [probably better
than CID could ever dream to be unless the CID-likers get their
apparent wish and we go to a fully-electronically-tracked society].
When we should be up in arms about the abuses to our privacy *already*
being done, it is astonishing that there are knowledgable folks
seriously arguing that that we should have *less*.  If anything,
instead of lobbying my PUC to get CID available, I'd be fighting to
get *tougher* laws to make it mucho mucho mucho harder to let
**ANYONE** see the CID info.

Oh well... sorry to flame on again on this long dead topic, but that
turn of phrase: that to really "fix" the privacy problem we need
*better* electronic tracking of us all really got to me... :-(

  /Bernie\

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

From: "John H." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Wiring and Voltage Levels in Britain/Ireland
Date: 15 Dec 89 19:52:56 GMT
Organization: Axis Design, 135 rue d'Aguesseau 92100 Boulogne France


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Lars J Poulsen) writes:

   - UK uses a different dial layout from the rest of Europe and the USA.
   - I would expect Ireland to follow England in this respect.
   - In the US, a "1" is a single pulse, and "0" is ten pulses.
   - In the UK, a "0" is a single pulse, "1" is two pulses,
   - and so on, until "9" which is ten pulses. To find out the status
   - of this, ask your parents to look at the dials on rotary telephones.
   - If "0" is to the left of "9" rather than to the right of "1",
   - then dialling in pulse mode may require translation of the keys.
   - This is usually not convenient for older people.

Well, I think you're confusing the UK and Sweden.  Pulse dialing in
the UK is just like everywhere else, I.E. "1" sends one pulse, "2"
sends two and "0" sends 10.


John Hughes (British expatriate, ex owner of BT).


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

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 14:16:18 -0500
From: Richard Steele <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Over Voice
Reply-To: Richard Steele <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Thanks to everyone who replied (both by mail and news) to my query
about "data over voice" (DOV) units.  I'd like to reply to everyone
who responded, but since it's finals week here (I'm sure everyone
remembers those), I'll save time by responding to
[[e-mail]] since his experience with DOV is very
close to mine:

>Around here, DOV means "Data Over Voice" and refers to the Gandlaf DOV
>640 modems that provide 64kb synchronous communications over a
>standard voice pair, without interfering with normal voice service.

This is exactly the unit we have here.

>In Pittsburgh, this service is known as Metropolitan Campus Network
>(MCN) and is provided by some combination of Carnegie-Mellon
>University (CMU) and Bell of PA.

This is similar to the arrangement Purdue has...

>Two DOV modems are actually used for each house served.  One is placed
>at the Bell of PA Central office(CO), between the switch and the cable
>pair to your house.  The second DOV is installed in your house,
>electrically between the Network Interface Jack and your existing
>household phone wires.

>+---------+
>| Central | voice +--------+  data and voice +---------+ voice +---------+
>| Office  |-------| CO DOV | ----------------| user DOV|-------|telephone|
>| switch  |       +--------+                 +---------+       +---------+
>+---------+            |                           |
>                       |data                       |data
>Port Selector in CO--- +                           +-------Home terminal or PC

>The modems communicate using frequencies above the voice band.  The
>DOVs completely ignore all of the normal telephone signals, allowing
>uninterrupted data communications regardless of whether the phone line
>is in-use, ringing, or idle.  The DOV operates as 64Kb synchronous.
>In order for the DOVs to work you must be within a pre-set distance (I
>think on the order of a few miles) from the CO.

I believe this was the general concensus of the many replies I've gotten.

Perhaps my biggest problem was that I didn't realize the simple twisted
pair could handle such large bandwidths.  Why is there a limit on the
distance to the CO?  Is there any reasonable way to increase this?

>The real problem with this setup, is that it only allows you to communicate
>with the CO.  Bell of PA installed port selectors in three of the COs
>near CMU.  These were connected by fiber to CMU.  [more info deleted]

This is where the Purdue system differes (slightly) from the one at
CMU.  Since Purdue effectively owns the local network (i.e. we have to
dial "9" to get an off-campus number), the "CO" is actually on-campus,
very near the computer setups.  Our hookup is to an ISN (Integrated
Services Network), which is, I believe, a product from AT&T.  We can
go from there directly to most campus networks or go to the SDS
(Serial Data Switch) to get to others, including those off campus.  (I
could, if I had the desire and the account, log onto a computer at
Indiana University from the comfort of my own home!  Life _is_
wonderful...)

>When I left the program, only 9600 and 19.2 kBd async was supported,
>with plans for 64Kb, possibly using Serial Line IP.

Unfortunately, ISN (I think as Purdue has it configured) only supports
9600 baud.  Unless I'm doing a _big_ file transfer to my home PC, this
is very acceptable.  Of course, there's the old programming adage that
a project will fill the time alotted; a loose corollary would be a
user always fills the bandwidth provided...  :-) :-)

>The most amazing thing was that the system worked very well.  Voice
>and data operated independently on the same copper pair.  Incoming and
>outgoing calls did not affect data at all.

I definately agree.  The system is _much_ slicker than using a 2400
baud dialup.  Not only is it faster, but my roomates are much happier
now that they have a phone again.

>I have no idea what the applicable tariffs were.  Payments were made
>to CMU, but installations and service was provided by Bell of PA.  I
>was always amazed that the Bell service operators (just dial 611) were
>able to cope with MCN trouble reports.

We make our payments to our residence hall; the program right now is
limited to most of the housing units, with plans to expand to
off-campus users.  I'm not sure how this would affect the CO
connections, since Purdue has its own CO -- I hate to think of the
mess it might cause!  My roomate (_he's_ the expert in telephony)
insits we should just go to ISDN; I'll bring him back to this century
sometime before lunch. :-)

As for cost, we pay $100 for the academic year, which includes charges
from the CO.  The unit is rented and there is no monthly fee.  From
several responses I've gotten, I'd say this is a competetive deal...


>Michael Fryd
>President                           Voice: [phone]
>MEFCO, Inc.                         Fax:   [phone]
>2401 Coulter Road                   Email: [e-mail]
>McKeesport, PA  15131-4251

Thanks for the helpful response...

Richard A. Steele                                         Purdue University


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #577
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 17 Dec 89 0:01:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #578
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Dec 89 00:00:01 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 578

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" (John Higdon)
    Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" (Anton Rang)
    Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (David Lewis)
    Re: Slick 96? (Mark L. Milliman)
    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (John Higdon)
    Cincinnati Bell Used 411 for Ringback (Tony Schaeffer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?"
Date: 14 Dec 89 23:45:14 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Anton Rang <[e-mail]> writes:
> My officemates and I have noticed a curious phenomenon when we call
> our answering machines from the office to check if we have messages.
> After we hang up, our office phone (which we just called from) often
> starts ringing almost immediately.  When we pick it up, all we hear is
> the hangup "click".

You have left out a considerable amount of information, such as:

1. Are you using single-line phones behind a PBX or proprietary phones?

2. What, if any, calls did you make immediately preceeding your call
the the answering machine?

3. If single-line, what type (flash, standard, etc.)?

When I sold PBXs, before we started using "flash" phones (phones that
have a timed hookswitch "flash" for feature activation and a timed
disconnect to prevent an inadvertant flash) we had a lot of customers
complain of similar occurances. It goes like this:

You make a call on the single line phone. It's busy, or doesn't
answer, or you are otherwise in a hurry to check your machine. You
hang up on the previous call for the length of time of a "flash",
putting the first call on hold. You get (second) dialtone, dial "9",
then dial your call. In the meantime, the hold timer has determined
that your previous call has been on hold long enough, but can't do
anything about it. Then you hang up on your answering machine. The
switch now sees your idle line and rings you (hold callback) to remind
you that you left a call on hold. When you answer, you get what ever
junk was left from that first call. Maybe a busy, ringback, or just
clicks.


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 10:05:24 -0600
From: Anton Rang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?"


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

>I said:
>> [ When I call my answering machine from the office, my office phone
>>   rings after I hang up. ]

>You have left out a considerable amount of information [ ... ]

  We have standard single-line phones, running through a Centrex
system (don't know any details about that, except that it's activated
by special dialing sequences and/or using a "flash").  This happens
whether or not we've made other calls recently.

> [ PBX possibility deleted ]

  This isn't what's causing our problems, as far as I can tell -- we're
not making any other calls before this....

  Thanks for your help!

        Anton ([e-mail])

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

From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards
Date: 16 Dec 89 19:06:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Randolph J. Herber)
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
> >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 555, message 4 of 5

> >(Telenet is starting to >offer 9600-baud service -- how do I make sure

> 2. From their Winter 1989 booklet, "U.S. Access Telephone Numbers":
>    a. The modems are Microcom V.29 compatibles
>    that the modems were neither PEP or V.32 compatible, that they have
>    received many requests for V.32 support, and that they were considering
>    installing V.32 capacity in early 1990.

The V.29 modem is standardized as a private line 9600 Kb/s modem. The
V.29 configuration is also used in Group 3 facsimile.  I assume that
Telenet is installing these for receiving and sending fax messages,
since it does not seem to be a private line application.

The V.32 is intended for dial-up applications.  Its price seems to be
coming down steadily.

Current work in Group 3 standardization has settled on the V.33
configuration for speeds up to 14.4 Kb/s.

Herman Silbiger
[e-mail]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Date: 16 Dec 89 19:17:31 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> Those of us (myself included) who presently have *unpublished*
> directory numbers are *paying* the telephone company to refuse to
> disclose our numbers to the *public*.  We are allowed to choose
> whether and to whom to disclose the numbers, and we are *never*
> *forced* to disclose the number as a consequence of our using the
> telephone.

Brrrp.  Well, define "the public".  If by "the public" you mean "any
joe schmuck who can read", you're right.  If you mean "anyone outside
the telco or LD carrier", you're wrong.  Any call through an IC, if
that IC offers an ANI delivery service, and the called party
subscribes to the ANI delivery service, results in your unpublished
phone number being disclosed to the called party.

Immediately. Irrevocably.  Without any possibility of blocking on your
part -- even if your local telco offers calling number delivery
blocking, you've subscribed to it, and you've blocked CND on this
call.  Congratulations; you've just been forced to disclose your
telephone number by using the telephone, and this has been going on
for several years.  (Anyone know exactly when ATT-C started offering
ANI delivery?)

> While it is true that our number is known to the local telco and the
> LD carrier, we have some expectation as a result of past and present
> practice that the number will not be given or sold to the general
> public.

Again, define "general public" and see my above comment.

> My number has been unpublished for quite a few years, and it
> has yet to fall into the hands of telemarketers.

Of course, you have no proof of this -- you haven't been bothered by
any telemarketers, which is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that
they don't have your phone number -- but you have absolutely no way of
knowing who knows your phone number.

> But the whole idea of unpublished numbers is to give the
> customer a certain level of control over the disclosure of the number.
> Caller ID does, in fact, change that, and does so to a degree I am
> personally uncomfortable with.

Again -- Caller*ID doesn't change that; it's been changed for several
years.  The general public just hasn't been aware of it.

> The more I think about it, the less value I can see in having
> Caller ID.  What on earth would I do with it?

I've had it on my work phone for three months now.  Yesterday I had
some conversations with other people at Bellcore about it, and we
talked about the value.  I realized that in the three months I had not
rejected any calls because I didn't want to talk to the person or
didn't recognize the caller -- but that for the past week (while I've
had the service temporarily turned off -- it's not really Caller*ID,
but part of an experimental package of services we're playing with
internally) I've missed it.

It was not so much the ability to screen calls that I liked, but just
the knowledge of who it was calling so I could prepare myself mentally
for the call.  If it was my boss, I'd be in a different frame of mind
than if it was a drinking buddy...  I just felt more comfortable
answering the phone knowing in advance who I was going to be talking
to -- even if it didn't overtly affect my behavior in answering the
phone.

If I could have CND, with the number able to be delivered from 80%+ of
the phones in the US, with an expectation that no more than about 10%
of callers would have blocking, I'd be willing to subscribe, and
probably pay about $3 a month for it.


David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Mark L Milliman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Slick 96?
Date: 16 Dec 89 20:47:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T-Bell Laboratories


Here is one additional reply to the many others on AT&T's SLC(r) 96
Subscriber Loop Carrier System.  SLC is a registered trademark of AT&T
Technologies, Inc.

As stated by others, the SLC 96 carrier system is a digital subscriber
carrier system that provides for up to 96 subscriber channels, when
fully equipped, between a central office terminal (COT) and a remote
terminal (RT).  The subscriber channels are pulse code modulated and
then time division multiplexed into DS1 (1.544 Mb/s) type signals.
The DS1 signals are then processed for transmission facilities.  In
addition to single and multiparty message telephone service, the
system can provide coin service, voice-frequency special services,
digital dataport service, and voice-data circuit switched digital
capabilities.

The system can operate in three modes:

    Mode I - Provides 96 dedicated lines over 4 T1 lines.
    Mode II - Concentrates groups of 48 lines onto 24 channels or 1 T1
          line.
    Mode III - Provides 48 special service, coin, or dataport channels
           per system.

The signals can be transported between the COT and RT electrically or
optically at the DS1, DS2, or higher order optical rate.  This system
was introduced in the early '80's as an economical replacement to the
single copper pairs that run from the line card in the exchange to
each subscribers home.  Since that time a number of other vendors have
introduced similar systems to the SLC 96.  Because what once took 96
pairs of wires now takes 5 pairs (4 service and 1 protection), this
equipment is called a pair-gain system.

There is a sucessor to SLC 96 called SLC Series 5.  This new system is
similar to its predecessor but it serves twice as many subscibers in
the same space with less power.  It also has many enhanced features
over SLC 96.  One of those features is the capability to replace those
copper pairs that extend from the RT to the home with fiber optic
cable.


Mark L. Milliman            Internet:  [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories                UUCP:  att!homxc!mlm
Holmdel, NJ   07733
[phone]                I want my ftp!

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Date: 15 Dec 89 00:14:12 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Landry Patrick M <[e-mail]> writes:
> 1) Do the Bell Companies actually own the cells?

In each cellular market, there are two sets of channels. One set, the
"B" set is supposedly for use by "the landline telephone company".
This could be a Bell Company, or more correctly a subsidiary of the
Regional holding company. For instance, Pacific Telesis is the holding
company for both Pacific Bell (my friendly telephone company) and
PacTel Cellular, the abomination in Los Angeles that extorts money
from people under the guise of providing mobile telephone service.
Oops, sorry.

The other set, the "A" channels, are for an independent company, such
as an RCC or paging company. Therefore, there can be a maximum of two
carriers in any given market.

The distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, however. In San Francisco the
wireline provider is GTE, who has an insignificant share of the
telephone subscribers in this area; the non-wireline provider is
Cellular One, owned primarily by Pacific Telesis, the major telephone
service provider in the Bay Area.

> 2) What is all the hubbub about subscribing with a certain carrier?
>    What are the differences between different carriers?
>    What questions should I be asking to find the right carrier for me?

Shopping for carriers is like shopping for anything else. Who provides
the best coverage in the areas you intend to travel in? What pricing
packages do they offer? Ask customers in both systems how they like
the service.

> 3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to
>    transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer
>    market?

Car phones and transportables (luggables) all have a maximum of three
watts. I say maximum because the unit does not always transmit at
maximum power. Its output is under the direct control of the cellular
system which will turn your transceiver's output power down to the
lowest usable level to prevent it from interfering with other cells.

Handhelds are limited to .6 watts. Power is not important. The design
of the cellular system is much more significant. My handheld works
just fine in this system with its 600 MW anywhere I go.

> 4) How can I get my hands on a cell map?

Unless you are an experienced RF engineer, a cell map won't tell you
much.  They use very directional antennas, massive beam tilt, and
other tricks. If you weren't in on the design concept of the system as
a whole, you would be wasting your time trying to find such a map.

> 5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing?

Use it. If you like it, buy it.


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 20:11 CST
From: TONY SCHAEFFER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cincinnati Bell Used 411 For Ringback


This may be an anachronism, but:

In the mid fifties, when I was in high school, Cincinnati Bell used
411 as a ring back number.  If you dialed 411 and hung up, your phone
would ring back.

This worked well because it was easy to "dial" 411 by pushing the hook
on a phone without a dial.  Then someone else would have to answer -
nothing.

Life was simpler then!  :)


Tony Schaeffer
Eastern Illinois University


[Moderator's Note: It sure was simpler, and the phone service was much
better, relative to the technology available at the time. Chicago used
to use 571 (pause for new tone), 6 for ringback. We could also test
the accuracy of the touch tone buttons by entering (after the 6) the
digits 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-0. If they were all on the proper frequency,
the CO would respond with two short tone spurts. Now we use 1-571
through 1-577 followed by the last four of the calling number. Whether
it is 571, 572, 573....577 depends on your CO.  Thanks for your note.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #578
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 17 Dec 89 0:46:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #579
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Dec 89 00:45:22 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 579

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Executone Equity II (Bruce E. Howells)
    Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) (David Lewis)
    Abuse of Information (was Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy) (David Lewis)
    Re: Caller ID Question (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Caller ID (Alonzo Gariepy)
    Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen? (John Higdon)
    Re: CLASS Services in Central NC (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Bruce E. Howells" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Executone Equity II
Date: 16 Dec 89 08:10:12 GMT
Organization: Boston University Information Technology


At work (not at all computer-related, a CVS/Pharmacy), we have an
annoying beastie called an Equity II - 5 CO lines, intercom, and not
much else documented.  If you've ever heard of this thing, a couple
questions...

Is there a way to keep it from dumping routinely (about once a week)?
I've got to go back and load half a page of binary into it with
pushbuttons every time it does it, and answer all 5 incoming lines
from the "main" phone.  Not a good thing, especially when I've got
better things to do than push buttons - like run the store...

Can this thing do anything else than switch intercom calls?  There are
Call Forward, Do Not Disturb telltales, and a Page button, but no
documentation locally, and all the Executone service guy will do is
push the buttons to get it going again when it dies...

Thanks for any info!

Take care-

Bruce Howells,   [e-mail]   |  engnbsu@buacca (BITNet)
  Me?  I'm just a random undergrad!

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab)
Date: 16 Dec 89 18:46:33 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> What PacTel isn't allowed to do is sell the
> information.  They can sell the access to third parties who provide
> the information.  But Bells are common carriers, who carry information
> for a price, and not information providers.  The court has ruled, in
> effect, that if they were to be both, they'd have too much clout to
> compete with other information providers.

The problem with this "neat" breakdown -- telcos are information
common carriers, therefore they can't be information providers -- is
that the telcos also "own" information that they could potentially
"sell".  (Of course, the question of who really owns information is
still very thorny...)  Should you restrict the telcos from selling,
say, online white pages service?  If you do, the service is never
going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it.
Should you make the telco give the service away?  It costs money to
provide it -- where does this money come from?

Conceptually, the information common carrier idea is a nice one.  But
it raises some unintended effects in its implementation...


David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Abuse of Information (was Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy)
Date: 16 Dec 89 19:01:21 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >It gives plenty of ABUSE to people compiling information and
> >selling it.

> That's why selective blocking by the callER is a requirement in my
> view.  It must be possible to CHOOSE whether you will give out your
> number.

Here's something I don't get.  One argument against calling number
delivery and/or in favor of calling number delivery blocking is the
potential for abuse by the called party.  The argument is essentially
(and if I mistate it, please correct and not flame -- I'm really not
trying to set up a straw man)

"Called parties can abuse calling number delivery by using the calling
number to compile customer lists, harass me by phone, sell my phone
number to telemarketing companies, etc.  Therefore, [calling number
delivery shouldn't be permitted | I should be able to selectively
block calling number delivery]."

Like I said, I don't get this.  There is potential for the service to
be abused, therefore, the service should be shut off (or blockable).
Isn't the problem (in this case, anyway) the *abuse* of the service,
not the *existance* of the service?

Wouldn't it make more sense to outlaw the abuse of caller information,
whether delivered automatically or manually?  If you call a mail order
company, and the agent says "and may I have a phone number where you
can be reached", and you give it to the agent, the potential for abuse
exists.  (Yes, you have the potential to "block" the "delivery" of the
calling number in this case; some people may do this.)

My point is, it seems somewhat of an overreaction (typical of a great
many overreactions by the american public and "public servants" these
days) to attempt to quell a potential abuse of technology by
attempting to restrict the use of the technology.  What's needed is
not the outlawing of calling number delivery -- what's needed is a
clear statement of policy about the (I seem to be dwelling on this a
lot lately) ownership of information and the rights of parties to use
or sell information that "belongs" to someone else.

David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Question
Date: 16 Dec 89 10:57:22 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]> writes:

> Won't that be good --- a nice, nation-wide electronically-tracked
> database of *everyone* who wants to __USE__ a phone.
> [...]
> There are MUCH easier ways [IMHO] to effect some
> kind of effective screening of your incoming calls [probably better
> than CID could ever dream to be unless the CID-likers get their
> apparent wish and we go to a fully-electronically-tracked society].

Bad news, Bernie. The tracking has long been in place and will be made
much more sophisticated in the years to come regardless of the Chicken
Little rantings of the Preserve our Privacy crowd. The question before
us is not whether this network should be created and put into place,
but rather if some of the information traveling on that network should
be made available to you and me. Obviously you think it shouldn't;
only the "big boys" should have it. I disagree.


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 11:18:55 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID


The solution to the Caller-ID controversy seems obvious to me.  So
here is the Ken Levitt plan for ANI.

1.  Every line should have a parameter set at the CO to indicate the default
    selection for that line.  By default the ID will either be sent or
    not sent depending on this setting.  There would be no charge to
    establish your default the first time when you install a new line.
    There would be a small charge to change your default setting.

2.  There would be two special codes that could be entered prior to each
    call to force ANI on or off for that one call.

3.  Calls that have ANI turned off at the source should be identified on
    the receiving end with some code different than the code used to
    indicate that ANI information is not available.

4.  Subscribers should be able to request an alias ANI for each line.
    The alias would be a unique number with a special area code to indicate
    that it is not a real number.  All calls from that line would transmit
    the alias number unless ANI is suppressed for that call.  The alias system
    could also be used to transmit the main number for a location that has
    several lines.

If such a system existed, I would want the following system installed at
my home:

1.  A programmable computer would check ANI on all incoming calls.

2.  Based in the ANI information and the time of day, the call would be
    routed to one of the following:

    a.  A real phone
    b.  An answering machine
    c.  A modem
    d.  A FAX machine.

3.  I would be able to reprogram the computer at any time to meet my needs
    at that point in time.  I would also want the system to send all calls
    destined to the real phone to my answering machine after some specified
    number of rings.  It would also be very nice to be able to pick up any
    extension in the house and enter a code to tell the computer to switch
    to some special program like "Do not disturb" which would force all
    calls to the answering machine.

Some people say that calls from the police or a hospital should not be
ignored because I have not listed them as calls that I want to take.
This is the ultimate in "Big Brother Syndrome".  It is my business and
no one else's as to which calls I choose to take.  There is no law on
the books that requires me to talk to the police or a hospital if I
have decided not to take calls at that time.  I do not wish to be a
slave to my telephone.

I would be interested in knowing if anyone can find a flaw in my plan.
Unless you believe that I should be forced to answer some calls, I
don't think that anyone should have an objection to such a system.


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 89 13:16:40 -0500
From: microsoft![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID


We have been discussing all these problems with telephone
solicitation, caller ID, privacy of the caller, privacy of the
receiver, robot calls, sequential autodialing, etc.

Perhaps we should consider some kind of licensing arrangement.  This
way, the caller ID feature can display a license number instead of a
telephone number.  Telephone solicitors would have to have an
appropriate license.  Your phone could be programmed to reject all
calls from licenses of a certain class.  Privacy of callers is
maintained as there is no way to map a license onto a name or
telephone number without the licensees prior consent.  The receiver's
privacy is maintained because no one can make a call without
disclosing their license number.  If you receive an obscene call, the
license can be reported to authorities and the problem dealt with in
an appropriate manner.  In the meantime you have the ability to reject
calls from that source.

The key thing here is that one has a telephone number to receive calls
and a license for making them.  Most telephones would have both.

One can imagine the license encoding several pieces of information,
especially for commercial users:

1.    owner id        License owner
2.    service type        Licensed uses
3.    telephone        Sublicense for a particular line

The service type can encode such things as: solicitation, computer
communications, general business, emergency services, private
residence, local only, operator, language preference.

Use of a telephone for solicitation without an appropriate license
would be against the law.  Other license notations such as for
language preference and computer use can be on a voluntary basis.  If
you get a line for your computer it will have a license indicating its
use.  Non-computer users can reject all such calls.  There is some
potential here for dealing with phone abusers in a way more lenient
than taking away their service altogether.

You can imagine various special services such as:

 -outgoing only service (no telephone number)
 -incoming only service (no license)
 -licenses that are rejected by default unless specifically enabled
 -license as phonecard (with extra password) not necessarily tied to a phone
 -automatic collect call approval
 -automatic routing based on language

Alonzo Gariepy
alonzo@microsoft

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Were Telephone Sounds Chosen?
Date: 14 Dec 89 22:51:21 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Stephen Tell) writes:

>The Duke phone system (their own 5ESS) gives reorder for this case, also for
>the case of dialing only 7D when 1+7D is required.  The latter may be more the
>problem, since GTE in Durham (around Duke, off-campus) doesn't want the
>leading 1.

>I explain "that's not a busy signal" and get funny looks from people who
>never heard of reorder, but I wonder how many calls I miss this way?
>(Perhaps this is an item for RISKS?)

Hasn't an organization the size of Duke University heard of intercept
recordings? It's not at all surprising that people are confused by
getting a reorder every time they do something wrong. A reorder
conveys little useful information to the caller except the absolute
assurance that the call isn't going through.

Here in PacTelLand, tariffs forbid you, as a DID subscriber to simply
have invalid numbers go to reorder. You MUST have an intercept
recording, preferably with SIT. Pac*Bell (and GTE, although they're
more used to it) got tired of having tons of "call fails" rack up on
their network tally devices. Since the lines are monitored for busies,
reorders, and SITs, a high number of reorders looks real bad.

Even on the PBXs that I tend, I use the ARS to send wayward calls to
various Pac*Bell intercept recordings, which are available in a
convenient bank of non-supervising numbers.

Tell the telecom administrator at the university that the telephone
users are not psychic and need to be given a clue as to why their
calls fail.


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

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLASS Services in Central NC
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 15 Dec 89 11:00:51 PST (Fri)


In article <[e-mail]> "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.UUCP!ggw@
duke.cs.duke.edu> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 569, message 8 of 10

>The GTE satrapy in Durham is finally advertising that they have the
>disable call waiting service in place, but it is not generally enabled
>in the switches - you have to specifically order it.

Maybe that's because, as in California, they charge extra for it! It's
a $1.50/month option that they will include free if you buy the entire
package of custom calling.

>GTE spokespersons said that CLASS services will become available in
>Durham in about 6 months or whenever the PUC finally decides the issue
>of CNID.

This is their usual crock. This gives them no end of reprieve in
providing services to the customer. A notable example: 976. Their
excuse for not providing it in the area code for which they were
responsible (805, 714) was that there were too many unresolved issues.
In other words, let everyone else battle it out and do the pioneering,
we'll sit back and just collect the money when it's cool. BTW, I'm not
interested in discussing the pros and cons of 976 and furthermore it's
not up to a regulated monopoly to make those judgements, either.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #579
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 18 Dec 89 1:06:55 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #580
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Dec 89 01:05:06 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 580

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start (Macy Hallock)
    Re: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) (John Higdon)
    Re: Fiber Optics and ESS?? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Kids, Call Santa for $2/minute (Tad Cook)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Tad Cook)
    Re: Case in Point (Macy Hallock)
    411 in TV Beer Commercials (Roy Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start
Date: 17 Dec 89 19:51:54 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> As we outgrow our KX-T1232, we are looking for a new PBX.  Of course
> we want all the normal PBX features like ARS and DID; what we want
> that is a bit unusual is the ability to have station lines that are
> ground start or at least provide a CPC signal (a momentary open) when
> the calling party hangs up.

The AT&T System 25 provides a 500 msec open loop on its Tip & Ring
station lines when a call is disconnected.  I don't know any way of
getting ground-start station lines, but CPC is definitely available.


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: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Looking for PBX w/ CPC or Ground Start
Date: 16 Dec 89 22:20:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 575, message 5 of 13

>As we outgrow our KX-T1232, we are looking for a new PBX.  Of course
>we want all the normal PBX features like ARS and DID; what we want
>that is a bit unusual is the ability to have station lines that are
>ground start or at least provide a CPC signal (a momentary open) when
>the calling party hangs up.

>The only switch that I have personally witnessed this on was a NEC
>NEAX 2400.  The analog ports on the NEC received CPC.

Wow, this is a tough one.

Most XBAR and SXS systems had this, of course.  Even 101ESS Centrex CU
appliques had it.  But on a modern electronic PBX in the 100 line
range?

If you were big enough, you could get the PBX version of the 5ESS or
DMS-100 (SL-100), and they could be equipped with the right station
cards to do it...

The only system I know of that might have it (definite maybe here) is
Redcom.  As a manufacturer of small CO's, you might be able to fit
their system with the right kind of line cards, if the software could
handle it.

You might ask National Telecom / Solid State Systems (in Atlanta) if
their Jr. Exec or other switch could do it.  These systems are
somewhat specialized....

There's a lot of similarity between some of the Northern Telecom
systems and their small CO's....but you'll have to talk to their
engineering people to confirm this.

A hint: If the switch can be fitted to provide answer supervsion
(reverse battery) on the ports, then it's probably going to do the
job.

Wanna buy an old OKI 200 line crossbar switch?  I'm pulling one out in
January from a hotel...


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Insert favorite disclaimer here)   (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?)


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab)
Date: 17 Dec 89 02:37:46 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]> writes:

> Should you restrict the telcos from selling,
> say, online white pages service?  If you do, the service is never
> going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it.

Information passes freely to and from telcos. For instance, they don't
think twice about telling every Tom, Dick, and Harry that pretends to
be you on the phone to the business office anything they would like to
know about your account. Why couldn't the telcos simply sell the info
to an online service, who would administer the actual product? They
have no problem selling you the data one number at a time through
their "online" voice directory assistance; why not just sell the whole
thing to a data information provider?

The rule of thumb should always be to prevent the regulated monopoly
from engaging in any competitive service that utilizes its regulated
network.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fiber Optics and ESS??
Date: 17 Dec 89 19:44:32 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> When I read Marvin Sibu's original comment (No fiber to the home for a
> decade (at least)) I thought he was being wildly optimistic.  Now
> Brian Capouch sees it within 5 years.  Opinions being what they are...
> Here is mine:
 ...
> I wish it were not so, but I think that fiber-to-the-home or even its
> cousin fiber-to-the-curb are much more than 10 years away.

In my neighborhood, they already run T-1 to the curb -- actually to
the SLC-96 buried beneath the curb a couple of blocks from here.  In
the bundle of cables that feed the SLC-96 vault from the CO, there is
one bundle with little red plastic markers hanging from it next to
every poll.  The marker warns repair crews that the bundle contains
optical fiber!  Walking the pole line, I have followed the fiber to
where it goes underground, a block from the AT&T Bell Labs complex at
Liberty Corner!

Not exactly fiber to the home, or to the curb, but it's out there in
the street.  The conversion to copper, and to metallic base-band DC
loop technology, is available in the SLC-96 equipment.  When a service
that is of some value to ordinary comsumers (other than Bell Labs!) is
offered, the technolgy appears to be in place to deliver it.


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: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Kids, Call Santa For $2/minute
Date: 18 Dec 89 00:23:32 GMT
Organization: very little


Regarding calling "Santa" on 900 and 976 services, there was a HUGE
flap here in Seattle a couple of years back when a local UHF station
ran an ad that not only asked kids to call Santa, but even instructed
the kids to hold the phone to the TV speaker while the ad produced the
DTMF tones necessary to automatically dial the call!

No one ever explained to me what would happen with the same number
being dialed at EXACTLY the same moment from all of those phones at
once, but I can imagine.

There was a big investigation, involving lots of refunds from the
telco and dial-a-porn operator that ran the ad.  The TV station also
got a black eye, as they helped produce the ad!


Tad Cook
[e-mail]
MCI Mail: 328-8544


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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?
Date: 17 Dec 89 23:55:59 GMT
Organization: very little


Regarding Andrew Schwartz's comments about never hearing of 411 used
for DA in the northwest, they used to use it, along with 611 for
repair.  That was back when DA (information) was free.  Then sometime
in the 1970s Pacific NW Bell filed for new tarrifs, saying that they
had to employ too many operators and that their studies had shown that
most folks were dialing 411 rather than look it up.

So part of the change was, if they were going to charge for the
service, they made it so you were at least aware of change by making
it 1+ and just like dialing DA for parties outside the NPA, 555-1212.

Recently I tried dialing 411 from within the 881 NNX in Redmond, WA.
It is served by GTE, and you do get an ID of the line you are calling
from by a mechanized voice.

Tad Cook
[e-mail]
MCI Mail: 328-8544

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Case in Point
Date: 16 Dec 89 22:05:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 575, message 4 of 13

>....[details of poor due dates from GTE deleted]...
>My experience with GTE in the past is that this is probably the first
>of many missed due dates to come. We all talk about whether GTE has
>this latest equipment or that, or that one-line residence POTS
>customers seem to be satisfied with their simple service, but it's the
>GTE *attitude* that is the major problem here. The impression here is
>that the people associated with GTE genuinely don't give a damn
>whether they provide useful service or not.

>It is truly amazing that GTE can screw up virtually everything it is
>involved with, and yet defenders seem to come out of the woodwork. I
>am convinced that even more than Pac*Bell (and I've certainly made no
>secret of how I feel about them), GTE has got to be the real ball and
>chain on the legs of telephonic progress in California.

[Well, since I've recently flamed John about his attitude, I guess I'd
better act as an equal opportunity troublemaker...]

Mr. Chairman, I heartily second gentleman's motion.

GTE can and will screw up most anything, it would seem.  GTE's
personnel appear to be less qualified and less diligent in their
efforts to serve the lowly ratepayers.  In addition, they seems
determined to hang on to monopoistic attitudes more suited to the
1950's than the next century.

To be fair, anytime a service order affects more than one telco and/or
carrier things slow down...and the mean time to repair goes up, too.
I have seen the same problem John described occur time and time again
when telco boundries are crossed...be they BOC, GTE, United, Contel,
Centel, or other independant telco.

What seems to set GTE apart, in my mind, is their attitude.  All
attempts to escalate problems, be they repair, missed due dates or any
other matter, are met with stalling, bumbling, and excuses.  The poor
morale of many GTE employees seems to be part of the problem.

I have another axe to grind with GTE, since I compete with them in
equipment sales.  They barrage the customer with "we are the phone
co., buy from us 'cuz we can do it better" and then go out of their
way to provide exceptional services as part of the sales (from both
the regulated and deregulated services)....and neglect us normal
ratepayers...

I still have an off premise station from my office to house that
cannot be used for data (even 1200 bps!) due to noise bursts.  GTE
cannot find the problem...they say they have replaced everything!
This on a 6000' metellic circuit with only a repeater in the CO !  I
first reported the problem in May after a thunderstorm...and I pay
$64.00 per month for this?  And they tell my customers that they will
have less problems if they buy from the phone co?

I still have to explain proper procedures on line polarity,
identification and location routinely to GTE installers.  GTE
personnel WILL NOT mark or identify circuits/lines on their
demarcation jacks 90% of the time!  Its been how many years since FCC
type-acceptance...and GTE personnel still do not know how to properly
set up demarcation jacks?  The only field people who do decent work
for GTE, IMHO, are the contractors!  All other decent GTE line
personnel seem to leave, quit, get promoted to elsewhere or transfer!

Now GTE knows how to perform...look at Mobilnet...they should give
lessons to the rest of GTE.  The sharpest GTE central office field
engineer I know transferred from GTE Ohio telco operations to Mobilnet
because his supervisors at the telco were only concerned with
paperwork and procedures, not service to the customers.  He was
constantly in trouble for fixing things in the GTD-5 CO's that
regional said weren't broken.  Mobilnet actually encourages his
efforts.......the effects of honest competition might just help the
telcos, I think.

I have literally dozens of stories in this same vein about GTE.  I
have far less horror stories about Ohio Bell, and I have more systems
installed in OBT territory than GTE.  This is more than just sour
grapes from a competitor, really....

(I tend to get carried away on this subject...I even worked for GTE
for two years...and quit in utter frustration)

Then, again, there's Alltel (Mid-Continent Telephone)..and United
Telephone of Ohio...IMHO, they are little better than GTE most of the
time.  I'm no fan of Ohio Bell, but if I judge by results, they are
the most consistiently reliable and easy to deal with.

Now lets talk about long distance carriers...and attitude...


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Insert favorite disclaimer here)   (What if I gave a .sig and nobody cared?)

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 09:57:17 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: 411 in TV Beer Commercials

    There is a series of beer commercials on TV lately for a brand
whose name I can't remember (really effective advertising, right?) in
which they use somewhat absurd "wouldn't it be great if ..." one
liners.  In one of the commercials they have "wouldn't it be great if
the boss called you at home looking for some information and you told
him to call 411?"  I wonder if they run different versions of the
commercial in different parts of the country, or if the 555-1212'ers
are just left not knowing what's going on?


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #580
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 19 Dec 89 0:53:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #581
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 Dec 89 00:52:51 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 581

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (John R. Levine)
    Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Mike Morris)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John Stanley)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John Chew)
    Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards (J. J. Wasilko)
    Re: Case in Point (John Higdon)
    Re: Existing FXs in New 310 Area Code (Mike Morris)
    Re: Answering Machine "Calls Back?" (Jerry Durand)
    Calling Yourself? (Cliff Coombs)
    Transmission Textbook Wanted (Fred R. Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers?
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 18 Dec 89 14:47:41 EST (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>

Enterprise numbers (known as WX numbers near Philadelphia, there'a
another trivium for you) do offer one thing that 800 numbers or remote
call forwarding don't -- very precise control of where you will accept
calls from.  For example, Pakistan Airlines has an Enterprise number
that one can call from downtown Boston or East Boston (where the
airport is) but from anywhere else you have to call their number in
New York.

The real utility of this is of course open to debate, but there it is.
Does anyone know how much an Enterprise number costs?  Can you still
order them or are the existing ones grandfathered?

One other thing.  You call the local telco operator and ask for the
Enterprise number, she puts the call through.  I presume they use AT&T.
Is there an equal access waiver?

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

[Moderator's Note: What you say about flexibility is not true. 800
numbers can be configured for local calls only; intrastate calls;
interstate calls only from certain regions (the old 'band 1', 'band 2'
....'band 6' method of assigning numbers), or various combinations
thereof.  I think Enterprise service is grandfathered, and no longer
available to new subscribers.  Regards the placing of the call, my
phone book says 'dial your long distance operator and pass the
number'.....which leaves the question can MCI/Sprint/miscellaneous AOS
types also handle Enterprise calls?  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 12:39:18 PST
From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers?

>[Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference.
>Some telcos used one name; other telcos used the other. These numbers

Wouldn't ENterprise have been confusing back when numbers were given out
in AAN-NNNN format?  I was tolds that Zenith was used 'cuz there was no
"Z" on the dial..

>international calls, or various combinations. Believe it or not, there
>are a few companies still listed in the Chicago phone book with
>Enterprise numbers, but they are few and far between. In the early

The California Highway Patrol still has Zenith 1-2000.  I remember my
father telling me how it worked 30 years ago during a cub scout tour
of the Pacific Bell central office on Grand street in downtown LA...
"The switchboard girl has a card file of the most common ones, the
rest she has to get from an operators' operator.  She has probably
memorized the CHP number by now...


Mike Morris                      Internet:  [e-mail]
                                 Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     Bellnet:   818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     Radionet:  WA6ILQ

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 09:06:11 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number


[e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb) comments, in regard to 800 numbers not
dialable from overseas:

>Perhaps one
>more example of American businesses not doing what it takes to get
>more international business

Or, perhaps, a realization that international business is more
expensive and complicated than most small businesses want to deal
with.

First, shipping is not free. Maintaining a staff to follow up on
mis-routed or lost orders is not free. Dealing with wire transfers or
monetary conversions is not easy nor free.

Maintaining a staff to process export licenses is not free. The time
to figure out that an export license is not needed is not free. Hiring
a lawyer to defend oneself when one exports non-exportable material is
not free.

Hiring staff to cover the phone after normal business hours is not
free.

In order to compete, small companies have to cut costs. They could not
afford to do all this and provide adequate support without raising
prices. Too high a price decreases sales, poof, scratch one more
company.

>It just does not occur to people in the U.S. that people outside North
>America can not call their (800) number.

And what makes you think everyone with an 800 number WANTS people
outside NA calling them? If I had a small company struggling for
survival I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of overseas calls on top of
all the other expense and headache of overseas sales.


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

Date:    Mon, 18 Dec 89 16:04:32 EST
From:    John Chew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Organization: Trigraph Inc., Toronto, Canada

Nits:

1. Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]> said in <[e-mail]>:
> It just does not occur to people in the U.S. that people outside North
> America can not call their (800) number.

   There are plenty of people *in* North America who cannot call
   American 800 numbers.  Many of them are called Canadians.  They
   inhabit a few sparsely-populated area codes off the north coast
   of the United States, and are saturated in the broadcast and print
   media by instructions to dial unreachable American 800 numbers.
   We sometimes feel like complaining, but it's such a trivial example
   of American ethnocentricity that it rarely seems worth the trouble.

2. In Volume 9, Issue 569, message 7 of 10, our moderator wrote:
> ... And regards Winnepeg, Manitoba, *thank you*

   Winnepeg?  Winnipeg.  WINNIPEG.  TWO EYES AND ONE EE!  ARGHHHHH....


john j. chew, iii             phone: [phone]     AppleLink: CDA0329
trigraph, inc., toronto, canada   {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john
dept. of math., u. of toronto     poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca}

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

From: "J.J. Wasilko" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh.cs.rit.edu!ultb!jjw7384>
Subject: Re: 9600 Baud Modem Standards
Date: 15 Dec 89 16:58:07 GMT
Reply-To: "J.J. Wasilko" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh.cs.rit.edu!ultb!jjw7384>
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


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

>Could someone please describe what 9600 baud modem standards,
>including error-correction, are now current?  (Telenet is starting to
>offer 9600-baud service -- how do I make sure that their modem is
>compatible with mine or with one I might call from their network when
>they get around to adding 9600 baud outdial as well?)

Telenet's 9600 baud indials are supported with Microcom's AX/9624c
modems. These modems are async/sync modems, with support for MNP
classes up to 6. These classes are: (paraphrased from my AX/9624c manual)

    MNP Class 2:    Utilizes asyc framing for data transmission.
            Actual throughput less than bps rate of modem.

    MNP Class 3:    Utilizes syncronous framing techniques, removing
            the start and stop bits prior to transmission.
            Results in a (claimed) 20% increase in
            performance over MNP Class 2 service.
            Actual throughput may reach 2600 bps.

    MNP Class 4:    Utilizes syncronous framing techniques, plus a
            redesigned packet header to reduce overhead.
            Class 4 includes Adaptive Packet Sizing, which
            adjusts the size of the data packets based on
            the quality of the telephone line.
            Actual throughput may reach 2900 bps.

    MNP Class 5:    Provides data compression, allowing throuput
            at up to twice the connection speed.

    MNP Class 6:    Utilizes half-duplex, fast-train high-speed
            reliable connections with other MNP Class 6
            modems at speeds of 4800 to 9600 baud.
            Uses Universal Link Negotiation to connect with
            other MNP modems at the highest common speed.
            Uses Statistical Duplexing to adjust the line
            bandwidth (?) and data traffic flow during
            reliable connections.

Unfortunately, the Microcom modems do not support the now-emerging
standard V.32.

Telenet is supporting 9600 baud indials in some of the larger cities
(I used the Los Angeles, CA 9600 buad indial when I was there). In
their usual style, Telenet would not commit to supporting the Microcom
AX/9624c modems one a 9600 baud standard emerged. They also would not
comment on plans for 9600 baud outdials.

My experience with the AX/9624c has been pretty good (it was purchased
specifically for a Telenet connection to an information service), but
it sees more use in 2400 baud MNP Class 5 (4800 bps throughput). Every
AX/9624c I have seen has tended to run very warm (even though it has
an external power supply), but I haven't seen any adverse affects.

Jeff

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Case in Point
Date: 18 Dec 89 15:56:14 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Macy Hallock) writes:

> What seems to set GTE apart, in my mind, is their attitude.

Well, I'm glad it isn't just me!

> Now GTE knows how to perform...look at Mobilnet...they should give
> lessons to the rest of GTE.

Funny you should mention that. Mobilnet is my cellular provider and I
will second that statement. They bent over backwards helping me solve
a roaming problem with another provider--and it wasn't even their
doing. Within my home area service is so good, I don't even think
about it. Calls complete within two seconds, they stay up, and
coverage seems flawless everywhere I go in the Bay Area (and that's
using my .6 watt handheld). I have nothing but praise for Mobilnet.
And I repeat: they should drop GTE from their name--it would help
business, I'm sure.

A fellow radio engineer recently dropped out of broadcasting to go to
work for Mobilnet. He travels all over the country solving cell site
coverage problems, recently in Hawaii. He says that it is an
outstanding operation to work for, mainly because they really seem to
be interested in providing first-cabin service.


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

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 12:53:20 PST
From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Existing FXs in New 310 Area Code

>Is 310 to:
>Border area 805 on the west?
>Include Malibu?

>When 818 was formed, JSol (a former Telecom moderator) pointed out
>that there are some "Los Angeles" prefixes which serve as "foreign"
>exchanges in places like Burbank, with such "foreign" prefixes staying
>in 213 although the other exchanges serving that (e.g. Burbank) area
>went into 818.  Are there any such "foreign" exchanges in what will
>become 310 area?

Disclaimer:  I do not work for PacTel and therefore my crystal ball is
             probably fogged/cracked/etc.

Based on what happened when 213 split, and some personal experiences,
I believe that exsisting FX lines will keep their "home" area code.

Case in point: (pre-818/213 split): 24X is Glendale, CA.  245 is the
downtown LA FX exchange.  Post-split, 245 is still in the 213 area
code, all of the other 24X numbers are 818.  To this day, there is not
a 245-prefix in 818, probably to avoid confusion.  In fact, if you
dial 245-1234 from within 818, you get a recording "The number you
have dialed is not in service in this area code".

I hope this answers your question(s).


Mike Morris                      Internet:  [e-mail]
                                 Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     Bellnet:   818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     Radionet:  WA6ILQ

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Answering Machine "Calls Back?"
Date: Sun, 17-Dec-89 11:32:48 PST

>My officemates and I have noticed a curious phenomenon when we call
>our answering machines from the office to check if we have messages.
>After we hang up, our office phone (which we just called from) often
>starts ringing almost immediately.  When we pick it up, all we hear is
>the hangup "click".

>  What causes this?  Please respond by E-mail to [e-mail], as
>I don't always have time to read this group.

>    Thanks in advance!

>      Anton

I just finished interfacing a voice-mail system to a customer's Mitel
phone system that has the same problem (as well as others).  It seems
that when an outside line calls in, it controls the disconnect in the
Mitel switch, so when you hang up before the calling party, it assumes
you wanted to do a flash/hold.  The way you normally reconnect to a
call on hold is to hang up and it rings you back.  In this case it
does both flash/hold and ring-back in the same operation.  We couldn't
find and way to disable this in the version of the switch they have.

Jerry Durand
[e-mail]

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

From: Cliff Coombs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Yourself?
Date: 18 Dec 89 16:02:51 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


Friends, Romans, Netlanders!

Is there a way of calling your own phone number, so that someone would
be able to ring an extension on the same line.  I think I remember
doing this when I was a kid by calling a certain number.  If it
matters (someone told me it did) the area code is 201.

May the packets be with you!

  Cliff Coombs                                          [e-mail]
  Campus Network Coordinator                    [e-mail]
  Kean College of New Jersey, Union, NJ, USA, Earth.        Fax [phone]
  Disclaimer: You can't quote me, I'm still on lunch...   Voice [phone]

[Moderator's Note: This question comes up quite frequently. There is
no one single universal standard for this. What works in one community
does not work in the next, and it doesn't even continue working where
it was very long before it gets changed to something else. The only
way to solve this is by asking locally.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transmission Textbook Wanted
Date: 18 Dec 89 22:20:59 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA


I'm planning to teach a course on Telecommunications Transmission
Systems (CEU level).  The previous instrutor had specified the book,
"Telecommunications Transmission Handbook, 2d edition" by Roger
Freeman, which was quite the book when it came out in 1981.  Alas, it
is not only out of date but out of print.  I've been to some
university bookstores and haven't seen any good replacements, though.
Does anyone have any recommendations?  Does Lee's ABC's have something
in this order?

I'm looking for a non-mathematical survey of the whole area, including
twisted pair, analog FDM, microwave (digital and analog), satellite,
and optical fiber.  There are some good specialized books, but I think
the class would much prefer to have only one book.  Thanks for any help.

    fred

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #581
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 20 Dec 89 0:35:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #583
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Dec 89 00:35:02 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 583

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Doug Davis)
    Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (David Singer)
    Re: Why Not 00 as the International Prefix in the US? (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Hunt-groups vs Busy-forwarding (John Higdon)
    Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell (John Higdon)
    Re: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) (David Lewis)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Ed Morin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Date: 17 Dec 89 03:41:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Dean Sirakides) writes:


>>3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to
>>   transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer
>>   market?

>Cellular phones come in there power levels: 4.0, 1.6, 0.6 watts (ERP).
>4 watts is used by most car phones and bag phones. 0.6 watts is used
>by most portables. Bottom line: usually all phones of the same type
>use the same power levels.

Er, I believe that *three* watts is the maximum legal power that
a cellular radio may transmit.

>>4) How can I get my hands on a cell map?

>You got me with that one, I'm not sure they are public information.

Most companies publish a simple one as part of their sales brochures.
Depending on who you talk to sometimes it's just a phone call away.
At least thats what it took me, with Southwestern Bell.  I'm sure your
milage may vary.

>>5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing?

>Buying a cheap cellular phone is like buying a cheap house phone don't
>kid yourself that "a phone is a phone". Ask the dealer which phones
>are always coming back for repair.

Also, call the carrier, or better yet write them a letter.  Most
dealers will sell you the unit they are getting the best spiff off of
this week.  Most of all shop around, have several different places
show you the same unit, ask about where accesories for that unit may
be purchased.  You'ed be suprised how many companies sell just the
phone, and can't even *ORDER* an extra antenna, or battery pack for
it.

Also, and I hate to company bash here, (except for GTE) especially
since a representive of the company I am about to bash gave very good
answers to your questions.. But...

Motorola cellular customer service *sucks* *rocks*..
(whew, that felt good)

Let me explain, I am the ideal cullular customer, I constantly run
bills in the 500-800 minute a month range.  I have sold several phones
to associates of mine and they too run rather large bills.  At the
time I purchased my phone I shopped around and the general consenses
was that Motorola made the best/most reliable phones.  This may be
quite true, my phone still functions just fine after well over 100,000
hours of time. But..

When I purchased this phone I was assured that it would take an
adapter that would allow hands free communication in a car, (like a
normal telephone speaker box) In the box with my phone was a brochure
that has a picture of and about 1/2 dozen other options I could buy
for it.  Now then, this Christmas I was going to treat myself to a
hands free adapter, I called the same people I purchased the phone up
and had them order me one.  They called back a few hours later and
said that Motorola, NEVER MANUFACTURED THE HANDS-FREE ADAPTER FOR THIS
PHONE.  Needless to say I was a bit miffed over this and gave Motorola
a call about it.

The nice lady on the phone proceeded to explain to me that *they*
didn't put that brochure in the box with the phone, the fact that it
was sealed in the same plasic as the owners manual, in a sealed box,
and it was pretty much obvious that it was the first time the box had
been opened when the dealer pulled it from stock for me.  Didn't seem
to phase her one bit.  Matter of fact, the *ONLY* thing she could do
for me was sell me another phone for 4000.00 that WOULD do hands free
in the car, of course that little option was a mere 1500.00 more.  Oh
yeah she also told me that I should *NEVER* buy a phone from a dealer
since they obviously wouldn't know if the phone could support hands
free.  (I guess that must be right if they look at the brouchures
that come in the box with the phone.)

Well at 5500.00 dollars I can buy several portable phones from almost
anywhere and most of those have hands free adapters for < 100.00.

Anyway, now that I've vented my frustrations a bit, I will say that I
have put this unit through h*ll and it still works like the day I
bought it.  So, technically the phone is great, just that Motorola
doesn't know the meaning of the word's "customer service."

Oh, yeah, I did write a very nice letter, including a photo-copy of
the brochure, to several places inside of Motorola, if something
interesting comes back I will be sure to follow up with it to Telecom.


Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740
{texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug

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

From: David Singer <ibmarc!ks!ibmarc.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: 18 Dec 89 17:44:11 GMT
Reply-To: David Singer <ibmarc!ks!ks.almaden.ibm.com.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center


Many airlines have "city ticket offices" in cities all across the
country; here in San Jose, the yellow pages have reservations listings
for American, Canadian, China, Continental, Delta, Iberia, Japan,
Korean, Lufthansa, Mexicana, TWA, UTA, United, and Varig, as well as
many strictly domestic carriers.

Also, your friendly neighborhood travel agent probably has a local
phone number you could use from abroad.

[I realize this isn't strictly Telecom-related, but thought it would help
answer the specific question.]


David Singer ([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 89 12:45:26 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why not 00 as the international prefix in the US?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


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

>>As someone has already pointed out, there are a lot more people and
>>phones here in the NANP (US, Canada, much of the Caribbean) using 011
>>as the prefix than there are in Europe using 00 as the prefix.  If
>>such a change is really needed (and I don't agree that it is), it
>>sounds like *you* should change to conform to the majority, not us.
>>(And no, I'm not advocating such a change, I'm merely pointing out the
>>absurdity of the rationale.)

>There are a lot of places using 00. A short list:
[omitted]

>To make my point: this makes for a lot of telephones. So why make all
>those people convert to 010.

If you had even bothered to read my message, you would have noticed a
few of *my* points:

1)  I'm *not* advocating that "00" countries change to "011".  I was
    merely pointing out that telephony does not begin and end in
    Europe.  (In fact, the inventor of the telephone, Alexander
    Graham Bell, was a *Canadian* immigrant to the *US*, so how's that
    for NANP credentials!)

2)  300 million people in the (mostly prosperous) NANP makes for a
    *lot* of telephones.  How many phones are in use in the "00"
    countries you cited?  Remember, except for the Western European
    ones, most of those on the list are third world countries and
    usually have comparatively very few phones.

3)  For the second time, it's "011", not "010", that's used as the
    usual international access code in the NANP.  The United Kingdom
    uses "010" -- add another 50-60 million people to your non-00
    hit list.

>The Dutch system uses 00x for special
>services like operator assistance, the time, the weather and the
>likes. They are moving these services to 06xxxxxx numbers though.
>Maybe we are converting from 09 to 00 for international access. Does
>anyone know?  (maybe someone from DNL cares to comment?)  In the
>meantime use a good agenda.

I'm not sure what is meant by the last sentence; please elaborate.

>6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands              tel. [phone] (UTC-2)

Does the Dutch PTT also advocate running all of a number's digits
together without using any intervening whitespace or punctuation to
make it easier for people to read?  This practice is not exactly what
I'd call good human-factors engineering.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hunt-groups vs Busy-forwarding
Date: 19 Dec 89 06:53:42 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Rick Farris) writes:
> Well, somebody let the cat out of the bag at PacTel, because by the
> time I called, the install charge for busy-forwarding was $10.00 and
> the monthly fee was $3.50!  Needless to say, the economics of the
> situation was considerably skewed, so I ordered a hunt-group.  I don't
> know why I didn't do it sooner, it works like a charm!

Oops! I may have a red face over this one. You have to understand that
I have had Commstar since 1981 (formerly Premiere--home Centrex) and
sometimes forget that the custom calling features pricing for Commstar
lines is different than for "stand-alone" lines. The price for
practically any optional custom-calling feature is $5.00 to install
and $2.00 per month. Call waiting, call forwarding, speed call, busy
call forwarding, etc., etc. are all that price on Commstar. What you
confronted was "real world" pricing of the feature. Sorry 'bout that.

> I asked the business attendant what was the difference in the
> services, and she claimed there were no differences, other than the
> fact that busy-forwarding could forward to a business number.  That
> doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I suppose they're just trying
> to gouge the person that needs a personal and a business number
> forwarded to each other.  Are there a lot of those people?

 From a tariff standpoint the difference is significant. Hunting may
only occur between lines with the same prefix, with the same class of
service (business or residential; measured or unmeasured), billed to
the same party. In mechanical offices, there are even additional
restrictions concering the "hundreds" group. Busy forwarding
effectively drops all of those restrictions. However, busy forwarding
is not available from a mechanical office, either.

When my business was considerably more complex than it is now, I had a
salesman in Concord who had a listed number in my company's name. We
had busy call forwarding on that number such that if it he didn't
answer it within about 3 or 4 rings, it would forward to our 800
number in San Jose.  It took them days to make it work, but it finally
did. You can't do that with hunting. (Busy forwarding is actually
busy/no answer forwarding, with the number of rings predetermined at
installation.)

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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell
Date: 19 Dec 89 07:17:05 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Scott Alexander <[e-mail]> writes:

> My impression is that Pac*Bell serves most of California with pockets
> being served by GTE.  (And very small pockets served by independents.)
> How large are the pockets served by GTE?  Is there any easy way to
> find out which company serves an area (without visiting the area)?

In southern California, it's not pockets but major infestations. A
friend of mine who lives in that area once remarked that GTE
controlled all the places in the LA Metro area that were worth living
in. GTE handles the beach cities, and major areas more inland.
Unfortunately, there's no easy way to tell in advance anymore. You
used to be able to call a given prefix and hear that dreaded "GTE
ringback", but now they're even using AT&T 1AESS switches right out of
the box. You mentioned Pasadena; it's served by Pac*Bell. Or you could
play it safe--come live in the Bay Area. Safe, but boring,
telephone-wise.

Areas to avoid: Long Beach, (or most of the beach cities), Santa
Monica, West LA, Diamond Bar, most of the "Inland Empire" (San
Bernardino, Ontario, etc.), Westminster. Frankly, it's a jungle down
there. Pac*Bell areas include LA proper, Hollywood, Santa Ana,
Pasadena, Alhambra, Orange, Anaheim. If you look at a map, you'll
practically see a checkerboard pattern.

> Given all the California telephone horror stories, I'm not sure that
> I'm looking forward to dealing with either company.

Tut, tut! If you're looking for good, reliable, plain vanilla
telephone service, then Pac*Bell will do the job nicely. They are even
fairly pleasant to deal with. But don't expect any CLASS features, or
ISDN or anything else that is au currant.

> Pinnacles from Pasadena?  Can I get a foreign exchange line to there? :-)

Hah! Pinnacles is up here, just south of the Bay Area!

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

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab)
Date: 19 Dec 89 14:43:44 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> The rule of thumb should always be to prevent the regulated monopoly
> from engaging in any competitive service that utilizes its regulated
> network.

Not quite, according to the FCC.  The rule of thumb is more like the
regulated monopoly should not be able to engage in any competitive
service that takes undue advantage of its monopoly power.  Three
Computer Inquiries have tried to find ways to enable telephone
companies to utilize their regulated networks to engage in competitive
services...


David G Lewis                    ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej
    (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center)
            "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."

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

From: Ed Morin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?
Date: 19 Dec 89 18:56:42 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.; Seattle, WA


Here in Woodinville Washington (a GTE suburb of Seattle), 411 works
great.  I think we have one of the newer phone switches though because
when call waiting beeps in my ear the calling party can't here the
obvious click that one gets on other (presumably) older switches.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #583
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 20 Dec 89 1:32:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #584
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Dec 89 01:30:58 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 584

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: 7kHz Voice and ISDN (David Stodolsky)
    Re: High-Seas Communications (Kent Hauser)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Charles Buckley)
    Re: White Pages (David Tamkin)
    Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Jon Solomon)
    Of Interest to Time Freaks (Roy Smith)
    Call Forwarding (Steve Elias)
    800 Number Phone Solicitors (Steve Elias)
    Caller ID on 800 Service (Steve Forrette)
    LADS Service (Joe Stong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 23:11:47 +0100
From: David Stodolsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 7kHz Voice and ISDN


[e-mail] in <[e-mail]> writes

>Funny you should ask.  Yes, there's a new ISDN 7 kHz audio bearer
>service.  It makes use of 64 kbps ADPCM encoding.

Mermelstein, P., (1988). G.722, A New CCITT Coding Standard for
Digital Transmission of Wideband Audio Signals (IEEE Communications
Magazine, v. 26, n. 1) describes a way to split audio input into two 4
khz bands using ADPCM coders. Audio data can be transmitted at 64, 56,
or 48 kbits, thus allowing simultaneous transmission of other data.
The system is targeted toward "audio- visual conferencing applications
where one would like to approach the quality of face-to-face
communication (p. 8)."

My interest, is not the improvement in audio quality, but the use of
data-speech multiplexing. This is projected in the article, for
speaker identification or fax on the established connection. One of
the major problems in teleconferencing is speaker selection, how to
decide on the next speaker without using the normal cues one has when
face-to-face. The Danish Telecommunication Research Labs. produced a
pre-ISDN prototype with separate lines for audio, and speaker id and
queuing data via modem, some years back.  It turned out to be too
complex for practical use. A version of my equal-time resolution rule
was programmed into that system (Stodolsky, D. (1987).  Dialogue
management program for the Apple II computer. _Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers_, _19_, 483484.). This rule has been
show to yield benefits in both emotional tone and group performance in
controlled experiments.

I would like to see the rule applied in one of these new ISDN
conferencing systems, but its hard to get the attention of the
equipment suppliers on this point. They typically resort to
centralized control by a chairmen, without even the ability to run on
"auto pilot", where people queue themselves up by pressing a "request"
button or just by starting to talk with a voice-operated switch
"pressing" the button for them.

Central control of speakers was strongly disliked in the prototype
system. In fact, all units were eventually rebuilt, so each one could
be the "master" in a multi-unit conference. Chairmen management seemed
a bit clumsy, even when the queuing was automatic and the chair just
announced the name of the next speaker. From a psychological
standpoint, fully distributed control is the only way to go, and it is
quite feasible with ISDN, any takers?


David S. Stodolsky, PhD      Routing: <@uunet.uu.net:[e-mail]>
Department of Psychology                  Internet: <[e-mail]>
Copenhagen Univ., Njalsg. 88                  Voice + 45 31 58 48 86
DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark                  Fax. + 45 31 54 32 11

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

From: Kent Hauser <tfd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: High-Seas Communications
Date: 19 Dec 89 20:57:41 GMT
Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC


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

> In several of the messages in the last week or so, it has been
> mentioned that the Pittsburgh International Operator was used for
> making high-seas calls.


There is also satellite communications to ships at sea.

Three country codes exist for ships: 871 = Atlantic, 872 = Pacific, &
873 = Indian ocean.  Calls are placed just like a normal int'l call:
e.g. (in the US) 011 871 1234567 #

All ship numbers are seven digits (octal representation of a 21-bit ID
number). When a ship moves from one ocean to another, it's number
doesn't change, only it's `country code'.

In the US, the ground stations for INMARSAT (as the system is known),
are located just outside of Danbury, Conn. & Ventura, Calf. Other
countries also have ground stations.  The American stations are
directly connected to the ISCs for AT&T, Teleglobe, & MCI. (Who says
there is only one country code in North America?)

Further technical info can be obtained out of the CCITT docs. I
believe that Q.170 is gen'l info.  Also one of the previous versions
of the CCITT docs (I think it was the yellow books) had a supplement
to the No. 5 signalling spec (Fascicle VI.2) showing some additional
info.

On an non-technical note -- a real problem for the system is that when
someone calls the operator (AT&T Employee) & asks for a ship, they are
normally connected with the high-seas operator (AT&T Run), not the
INMARSAT system (non-AT&T).


Kent Hauser            UUCP: {uunet, sun!sundc}!tfd!kent
Twenty-First Designs        INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 22:00:47 PST
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number


   [Moderator's Note: I will only respond to (a): Yes there is 1-800-555-1212
   for obtaining listed 800 numbers. You can't call it or most 800
   numbers because the called party has not agreed to accept charges from
   outside the United States (or Canada).   PT]

But no-one's *asking* them to pay for the call - just accept it.  The
restrictiveness of this practice boggles my mind, too.  Do there exist
800 numbers you can call from abroad at all?  I don't think so.

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White Pages
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 10:17:22 CST

John Cowan asked in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 582:

| Where does Trans Western get its white page info?  It matches
| Taconic Telephone's exactly.

The two local telcos here share white pages information with one
another, and the independent books that proliferated here in late 1987
credit the telcos with the info.

For example, Community Telephone Directories' 1987-88 book for the
near northwestern suburbs of Chicago has these two paragraphs on page
2:

:Listings for 296, 297 [rest of list elided], 825, and 827 prefixes
:were transcribed by Community Telephone Directories, Inc. pursuant to
:a license from Central Telephone Company of Illinois, from
:compilations copyrighted by Central Telephone Company of Illinois and
:may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent
:of Central Telephone Company of Illinois.

:Listings of the Illinois Bell Telephone Company contained within this
:directory were transcribed by Community Telephone Directories, Inc.
:pursuant to a license from Illinois Bell Telephone Company (from
:compilations copyrighted 1987 by Illinois Bell Telephone Company) and
:may not be reproduced in whole or in any part, or in any form
:whatsoever, without :written consent of Illinois Bell Telephone
:Company.

National Suburban Directories' books have similar language.  Fairly
likely Trans Western has a similar arrangement with the telcos in
Columbia County.

The local book from Illinois Bell (the Chicago white pages) contains
listings for Centel service within the city of Chicago, and the local
Centel directory (Des Plaines/Park Ridge) includes listings for
Illinois Bell service within the city of Des Plaines.  However,
neither telco's directory has a notice of license such as those above
for use of the other telco's listing information.

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


[Moderator's Note: In addition, Centel publishes a directory for
Chicago which is entitled 'Chicago-Newcastle', and the information
therein is duplicated in Illinois Bell's Chicago White Pages.   PT]

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

Date:  Tue, 19 Dec 89 11:41:58 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers?

Telecom readers,

    What John Levine was talking about is really true. I know a
radio station in Connecticut which used enterprise numbers to
determine which exchange it would accept incoming calls from on a talk
show.

"Today's exchange is Middletown", for example. They didn't give out
their real number, so only if you called enterprise 9842 would the
call go through.  Incidentally the call letters for that station were
WTIC, and their enterprise number spells out that call.

800 numbers don't provide the granularity this sort of thing offers.
Also, the telephone companies probably won't let you change the 800
number's calling area every day like the Enterprise numbers would.

Enterprise numbers (at least in CT) were billed as collect calls.

jsol

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 20:01:03 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Of Interest to Time Freaks
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, NYC

    This has nothing directly to do with tcp-ip, but I know a lot
of time freaks hang out here.  If you care about keeping accurate
time, in particular the history of said endevour, you will probably
want to get your hands on the following interesting little book I
found in the library today:

%T Sky With Ocean Joined: Proceedings of the Sesquicentennial Symposia of
the U.S. Naval Observatory, December 5 and 8, 1980.
%E Steven J. Dick
%E LeRoy E. Doggett
%I U.S. Naval Observatory
%C Washington, D.C.
%D 1983

    No, they don't discuss NTP, but they do talk about earlier
ventures in that direction such as Western Union clocks (discussed at
length in TELECOM Digest in the past) and time balls, as well as more
modern devices such as atomic clocks.

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

Subject: Call Forwarding
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 09:17:21 -0500
From: [e-mail]


    Subject: Re: User Control of Feature(s)
    Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

>Not generally true. When the forwarded call supervises (is answered)
>then the forwarded phone will pass another call. And so on. The reason
>this was done (they used to forward any number of calls, regardless of
>supervision status) was to prevent forwarding loops. Try it; place a
>call to your forwarded number and when it answers, place another--it
>should forward as well.

This isn't correct, at least in the Boston area switches.  A couple of
years ago, one could have many calls being forwarded through a single
line.  Now, only one call can be active through a call forward at one
time.

I just confirmed this moments ago, John!  If the first forwarded call
is still active, subsequent callers get a busy signal.  This is for my
residential service -- I've heard that you can indeed ask that
multiple calls be allowed through, but the phone company people are
baffled when I try to explain the situation.


steve elias / 508 671 7556 / 617 932 5598

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

Subject: 800 Number Phone Solicitors
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 09:17:21 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Have any other 800 number owners out there been receiving calls from
some bonehead in Missouri who is trying to sell something?  I got a
very strange message from this individual a few days ago.  He
"instructed" me to write a letter containing all sorts of information
about my company and to send it to him at some obscure address in
Missouri.  Naturally, I ignored him.  If this keeps up, I'm going to
begin to get peeved at the thought of solicitors dialing my 800
number!


steve elias / 508 671 7556 / 617 932 5598

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

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 05:10 EDT
From: STEVEF <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID on 800 Service

Does anyone know what the service is called or where to get more
information on AT&T's offering of Caller ID on 800 service (the
service used by American Express in the previously posted story)?  I
have spent about 2 weeks talking to various people at AT&T, but nobody
even acknowledges that it exists.

Other questions:  Is this service available to 800 Access Line subscribers?
(This is where incoming calls get routed to your regular local lines, instead
of coming in on dedicated trunks).

I have gotten various responses, such as "You need ISDN to do that" I
don't believe this is true.  Anyone know for sure?

Does this service use the same boxes used for Caller ID CLASS service
offered by the RBOC?  Do you have to be in a CO that has Caller ID?

Thanks in advance - please mail responses to:
       [e-mail]

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

From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: LADS Circuits
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Joe Stong)
Organization: Computer Center, UCSF
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 05:10 EDT


I would like to hear of people's experiences with LADS (solid copper 4
wire or 2 wire circuits only for sites local to the same central
office).  In particular, I'm curious about what you can get through
them in the way of frequency response.

My understanding at the moment is that T1 is delivered on a regular 4
wire connection to one's building.  Are there equalization networks
along the "subscriber loop" of a T1 that make it "better" than a LADS
circuit?

Here's the scenario: I'm wondering if I/others can connect a LADS
circuit to an ARCnet board on a PC, running the Phil Karn (KA9Q)
software, with the ARCnet-TCP/IP driver in place (don't worry, we're a
non-commercial outfit) to get a TCP/IP connection between home and
work.  The 1 megabaud (nominal?) rate from the ARCnet board should be
lower rate than a T1 at 1.544 megabaud; will it make it in terms of
frequency response?  If this setup would work, it would let everybody
use relatively CHEAP interfaces and software to make a FAST
connection.

An old story: Back when 9600 baud modems were horribly expensive, we
arranged a remote terminal on a LADS circuit for a customer in Arcata,
CA.  The "couplers" (not modems) that got purchased seemed to be
transformer coupled, and mostly seemed to convert to/from some RZ
coding scheme at a fixed baud rate (9600) onto the LADS line.  The
whole setup was horribly sensitive to electrical noise (changing the
interior wiring that PacBell had done from silly "quad wire" (NOT
twisted pair) to twisted pairs helped some, but it was still subject
to garbage occasionally.

Would current-loop couplers have been better for this 6 mile circuit?
(Traditional sillyness, the offices were only 2 blocks apart, but the
phone company would only make the connection into the office on the
other side of town, and back out again) I notice that some other
high-speed devices use RS422 (like microwave transmitters), but I've
had better luck with current loop lines than differential or
single-ended lines.

At least in San Francisco, LADS circuits are extremely cheap, namely
$200 initial installation and $18 a month, when I checked a couple of
years ago.


       Joe Stong       [e-mail]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #584
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 21 Dec 89 0:31:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #585
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Dec 89 00:30:47 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 585

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behidn a 1-800 Number (David Tamkin)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John Bruner)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John R. Levine)
    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Dean Sirakides)
    Re: Telephone Security in Colleges (Gabe Wiener)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (David Tamkin)
    Re: LADS Circuits (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: Caller ID (Gregory K. Johnson)
    Info Needed: Natural Microsystems VBX Speech Board (Jose Diaz-Gonzalez)
    ISDN User Interface Group? (Dru Nelson)
    PBX / Keysystem With RS232 Control? (Steve Elias)
    Anyone Know Of "Reserved" Suffix 0020 (Steve Forrette)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 21:22:20 CST


John Stanley wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 581:

| And what makes you think everyone with an 800 number WANTS people
| outside NA calling them? If I had a small company struggling for
| survival I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of overseas calls on top of
| all the other expense and headache of overseas sales.

The original question, as the title of the thread ("Finding Out the
`Real' Number behind a 1-800 Number") indicated, was not why companies
wouldn't accept reverse-charged international calls; the answer is
fairly obvious, along the lines of Mr.  Stanley's logic.  The question
was why some companies give out only their toll-free numbers and
refuse to give out another number that an overseas caller can dial at
the caller's own expense.

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 08:21:18 CST
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number


Twice I've had problems similar to those experienced by out-of-country
callers when I wanted to call a special phone number from the wrong
state.

The first time I was calling from California concerning my
soon-to-be-established service in Illinois, and the only number I had
was an 800 number that (naturally) only worked within the state of
Illinois.  Fortunately in that case I had a Champaign-Urbana telephone
book which listed the general office number in area code 312.  (They
couldn't handle my request, but they did give me a different 800
number.)

The second incident occurred when I needed to clear up a billing
problem on my just-disconnected Pacific Bell service.  I was now in
Illinois.  Pac*Bell (at least in the part of the Bay Area where I was
living) had instituted a special 811 prefix for all of its office
numbers.  I guess that the goal was to route calls to the nearest
office.  Naturally, these 811-xxxx numbers didn't work long-distance.
A call to directory assistance yielded the 811 number; however, after
I explained my problem they gave me another number (with a different
prefix but the same xxxx).  (Perhaps the fact that it had something to
do with money for them motivated the provision of this unlisted
information.)


John Bruner    Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois
    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: 20 Dec 89 18:28:43 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles Buckley)
writes...

>   [Moderator's Note: I will only respond to (a): Yes there is 1-800-555-1212
>   for obtaining listed 800 numbers. You can't call it or most 800
>   numbers because the called party has not agreed to accept charges from
>   outside the United States (or Canada).   PT]

>But no-one's *asking* them to pay for the call - just accept it.  The
>restrictiveness of this practice boggles my mind, too.  Do there exist
>800 numbers you can call from abroad at all?  I don't think so.

Accepting a call on an 800 line is equivalent to paying for it.  These
lines may be billed on a minutes-of-use basis, without regard for the
source of the call.  So if you did know the underlying non-800 number,
it would be billed as an 800 call anyway.

There are indeed overseas 800 numbers, but they're typically in the
national equivalent of 800 service.  Thus you can get a line in the US
that answers to a UK 0800 service, and pay an appropriate
international rate for minutes of use (around $100/hr from Europe).
Of course you need a separate number from each country.  The SAC 800
we dial in the US doesn't map across the puddle.  (Not that it
couldn't be force-fitted, but the billing systems in Europe would see
a call to +1, and bill for it, even though the recipient was also
paying.  Potential rathole noted.)

     fred

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

Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 20 Dec 89 21:13:39 EST (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Do there exist 800 numbers you can call from abroad at all?

Actually there are quite a lot of them, but the caller uses a number
assigned in the country he's calling from.  In the UK, for example,
the numbers start with 0800, in France they start with 05 (and are
called green numbers for some reason.)

The same thing applies in reverse.  There are a lot of 800 numbers you
can call in the US that connect to people in other countries.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

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

From: Dean Sirakides <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Date: 20 Dec 89 15:36:42 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Doug Davis) writes:

>>>3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to
>>>   transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer
>>>   market?

>>Cellular phones come in there power levels: 4.0, 1.6, 0.6 watts (ERP).
>>4 watts is used by most car phones and bag phones. 0.6 watts is used
>>by most portables. Bottom line: usually all phones of the same type
>>use the same power levels.

>Er, I believe that *three* watts is the maximum legal power that
>a cellular radio may transmit.

Er, I believe that *four* watts is the maximum legal power that a
cellular radio may transmit. This is what is meant by ERP--Effective
Radiated Power.  The *three* watts refered to by most ads is the
*chasis* power of the device. However, after antenna gain this is
increased, but should not exceed 4 watts nominal ERP.

Sorry I didn't make that clear.


Dean Sirakides              |    Cellular Infrastructure Division
 ...uunet!motcid!sirakide    |    Motorola, Inc.
                            |    Arlington Heights, IL
      Of course I speak for myself, not my employer...

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

From: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Security in Colleges
Reply-To: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 18:25:56 GMT


Here at Columbia we have a digital phone system (much to my dismay).
Billing is relatively secure.  Each student is issued a Personal
Security Code which must be entered on the phone before you can get an
off-campus trunkline.  This PSC is the source of all billing.  Thus
even roommates who share the same phone will receive separate bills.

It's a little inconvenient having to dial 91 plus a seven-digit PSC
followed by the number, but it saves a lot of hassles in billing
later.

The distributing frames in the dorm basements are locked, but there
are always ways to get around that.  However, there isn't much point,
as you can't "listen in" to a digital signal, and you can't make a
call w/o the PSC number.

Before 1988, Columbia was on a Centrex system, and the panels for that
were blatently exposed.  You could walk into the phone closet of any
floor or the dist. frame in the basement and play all the games you
wanted with a test set.  I don't think it was ever too widespread,
though.


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."  -Western Union memo, 1877

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 14:35:31 CST

Ed Morin wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 583:

| Here in Woodinville, Washington (a GTE suburb of Seattle), 411 works
| great.

411 works great to do what in Woodinville?  To make your own telephone
ring back, to tell you the number from which you are dialing, or (as
411 does in most of the rest of the USA) to reach Directory Assistance?


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813 [phone] [phone]
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LADS Circuits
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 01:51:51 GMT


[e-mail] (Joe Stong) writes:

>I would like to hear of people's experiences with LADS (solid copper 4
>wire or 2 wire circuits only for sites local to the same central
>office).  In particular, I'm curious about what you can get through
>them in the way of frequency response.

We had a LADS circuit of about 4 mile length for several years.  I
have plenty of experience.  They are a 4 wire metalic connection with,
if connected properly, sealing current on the line.  Sealing current
on LAD circuts is a relatively new item (couple of years) so not all
have it, and if you don't get it converted.  It cut our service calls
from one per week to almost never.  (And they did the conversion for
free, just to save on their service calls)

Ok, here is what it can do: Send a audio signal end to end, with about
a 12Khz bandwidth.  Why: transformers on both ends to trap the sealing
current.  In fact, they make special modems for LAD circuits.

Those modems can do 19200 for about 1 mile, 9600 for about 3-4 and
1200 for about 12-20.  In our case, we got 9600 to work pretty
reliabably.

There are strict standards as to what signals can be put on the line,
to avoid cross talk with the other normal pairs in the cable plant.

>My understanding at the moment is that T1 is delivered on a regular 4
>wire connection to one's building.  Are there equalization networks
>along the "subscriber loop" of a T1 that make it "better" than a LADS
>circuit?

T1 can be distributed on metallic, if you put regenerators ever so
often, and its not that far apart at T1 rates.  56KB can go farther
without regen, but even at 56KB, you probably will need one to go 6
miles.  Getting ARCnet to run is not too likely.  Remember to run T1,
you must run CSU's, and they are fixed rate.

=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd            FAX:   [phone]


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

From: Gregory K Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 20 Dec 89 19:39:29 GMT
Reply-To: Gregory K Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University


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

>Perhaps we should consider some kind of licensing arrangement.  This
>way, the caller ID feature can display a license number instead of a

My main problem with this is that it will require us all to dial an
additional 10-digit number to make a phone call.  I do this already on
the PBX we use here (it takes two digits plus a seven-digit code to
get an outside line) and it is really an unnecessary hassle.  Just
think of having to use your calling card to make every call, how
annoying it is when you misdial, etc.

I doubt the public, which complains about having to dial an extra 3
digits occasionally when an area code is split, will take kindly to
having to dial a personal ID code every time they make a call.


Greg

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

From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed: Natural Microsystems VBX Speech Board
Date: 20 Dec 89 15:42:28 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


Hi there!

    Well...the subject line says it all!, I have only read about
this board in a recent article in Unix Review, and I have no idea of
where Natural Microsystems might be located.  So, I need some pointers
here.  The board digitizes and plays back audio, and has a DTMF
interface.  I expect it is provided with Unix drivers.  Please respond
by email, since I don't subscribe to all the newsgroups above.
Thanks.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+                     +                    +
+    Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez     +                                +
+    GTE Laboratories, Inc.       +       Tel:   [phone]    +
+    MS-46                          +       email: [e-mail]        +
+    40 Sylvan Rd.             +                    +
+    Waltham, MA 02254         +                    +
+                     +                    +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

From: Dru Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN User Interface Group?
Date: 20 Dec 89 00:51:14 GMT


There was a group that mentioned itself here a while back (1 month or
less) that was interested in setting user interface guidelines for
ISDN equipment.

Could someone please e-mail me any info or address to the person
representing the group on the net.

Thank you.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%         Internet:  [e-mail]           %%
% Dru Nelson %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Miami, FL  %           $3,000,000,000,000 DEFICIT???!?!?!  and....    %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% frying my mind & spirit? on certain questions about life!%%

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

Subject: PBX / Keysystem With RS232 Control?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 18:39:47 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Hello everyone...

Can anyone point me to a PBX with a two way RS232 interface for
automagic call distribution, etc?  Something like Z-Tel tried,
perhaps?  20 extensions or so.


; Steve Elias
; work:   508 671 7556 ;   email:      [e-mail]
; other:  617 932 5598 ;   more email: [e-mail]


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

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 07:52 EDT
From: Steve 'No Squash' Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anyone Know of "Reserved" Suffix 0020

I noticed a couple of years ago in PacBell land in Northern CA that
the 0020 suffix in just about any prefix always went to a loud,
continuous tone, which has about a 1/2 sec gap every 15 secs or so.
This also seems to be the case in Washington State.  Anyone know what
this is used for?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #585
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 21 Dec 89 1:21:55 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: NPA 213 Controversy
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Dec 89 01:20:12 CST    Special: NPA 213 Controversy

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

   Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split (Various writers via Michael Berch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 13:48:33 -0800
From: "Michael C. Berch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split

Patrick,

I haven't seen anything in Telecom yet about the apparent brou-ha-ha
over the split of NPA 213 in the Los Angeles Area.  There is a
discussion taking place in the newsgroup ca.general, which I presume
you don't get, so I have forwarded the articles (my 2 among them) to
you for use in Telecom.

Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb

  ==========

[Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending these along. First, the newspaper
account which started the discussion, then the responses:  PT]

  ==========

The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Wednesday,
December 13, 1989, page A1.

Running Out of Numbers, L.A. to Get 3rd Area Code

by Paul Feldman
Times Staff Writer

Times staff writers John H. Lee and Jocelyn Stewart contributed
to this report.

     The mathematics of life in the Los Angeles metropolis is about to
become a bit more complicated.  In a city where commutes already are
defined by numerical sequences -- as in, take the 110 to the 10 to the
405, and if you hit the 101 you've gone too far -- an unprecedented
third telephone area code is in the works, officials announced
Tuesday.

     In February, 1992, the boundaries of area code 213, which only
five years ago begat the 818 area code, will be split again, creating
a U-shaped sector of 2.4 million telephone customers with a new 310
area code.

     The new district will include some of the city's priciest
neighborhoods -- Beverly Hills, Malibu, Santa Monica and the Palos
Verdes Peninsula.  It also will serve more humble locales, such as
Downey, Whittier, Compton and Lynwood.  Downtown Los Angeles and some
surrounding communities, such as Hollywood and Montebello, will remain
within the 213 area code.

     At a joint press conference Tuesday, GTE California and Pacific
Bell officials said the addition of a third area code is necessary
because they simply are running out of phone numbers for Los Angeles.
It will become the first U.S. city encompassing three area codes --
and those with a more metropolitan view of the Southland might count
four codes, including Orange County's 714.

     The announcement reflects the region's booming economy and
increasing reliance on new technology, such as fax machines and
cellular phones, according to Dominic Gomez, Pacific Bell regional
vice president.

     "This explosion in technology has exhausted our prefixes at a
rate no one could have predicted," he said.

     The cost of calls between the 213 and 310 area codes will remain
the same as before the split, officials said.  Customers will retain
their existing seven-digit numbers.

     Since the 818 code was introduced in the San Fernando and San
Gabriel valleys in 1984, an additional 1.3 million telephone lines
have been added within the 213 area code.  Based on that rapid growth,
officials said, the phone companies would have run out of numbers by
the end of 1992.

     With the new 310 code, those who let their fingers do the walking
are certain to get a bit more exercise.  A caller one block east of La
Cienega Boulevard who wants to ring a pizza shop a block west of the
boulevard will now have to dial 11 numbers, as with any long-distance
call.

     On the Westside, the rough dividing line between the 213 and 310
area codes will be La Cienega Boulevard, slicing West Hollywood in
half and resulting in immediate howls of protest from community
officials and business people.

     "This will have a serious impact on certain businesses in my
city," said West Hollywood Mayor Abbe Land, who was not consulted
before the announcement.  "Now people will have to say, 'Oh, that
business is on Fairfax and I'll have to dial one prefix,' or 'Oh, this
is west of La Cienega, I'll have to dial another prefix.'  That's
unacceptable."

     Land, whose City Hall office will now be in a different area code
than her home, said that the city of West Hollywood will explore
possible legal action.

     Defending the decision, telephone company officials said the new
boundaries are governed by technological considerations rather than
political guidelines.  Rather than relying on city borders, they based
the new districts on telephone prefixes.

     "We looked at dozens of plans and there are no plans where some
communities weren't impacted," said Pacific Bell media relations
manager Kathleen Flynn.  "This is the plan with the least amount of
impact."

     One rejected alternative, officials said, would have kept Los
Angeles International Airport and the Port of Los Angeles in the 213
area code.  Growth patterns are such that such a split would have
forced yet another new area code within 13 years, they said.

     With the plan announced Tuesday, officials said, Los Angeles will
not run out of phone numbers again before the year 2015.

     The new division also reflects phone usage patterns, according to
Stephanie Bradfield, GTE public affairs director.  Los Angeles and
Hollywood were kept together, she said, in part because of the large
number of calls between the two communities.  Bradfield warned against
trying to read too much into the divisions: Creating a new status code
was not the intent.

     "Where there were strong ties, we tried to keep communities
together," she said.  " . . . [But] this is basically a technical
engineering decision, not a social engineering decision.  The code
cuts a wide swath through the entire community."

     The choice of 310 as the new area code was a matter of deduction.
There were but nine remaining area codes available in the United
States, telephone officials said.  Seven of these duplicated existing
prefixes within the 213 area code.  That meant the choice boiled down
to 310 or 210.

     Gomez of Pacific Bell said 310 won out because it was distinct
from the existing 213 code.  That the 210 code duplicated the numbers
of the Foothill Freeway apparently was not a factor.

     The new 310 code, which will take effect Feb. 1, 1992, is being
assigned to 2.4 million customers.  That will leave 2.6 million in the
213 code.

     As when the 818 area code was introduced, phone subscribers will
have a grace period in which they can use either code.  In this case
it will be three months.  But that provided little consolation to some
telephone customers when they heard of the change.

     "This will greatly confuse things," said Mitchell Ogas, manager
of Sunset West Beauty Salon in West Hollywood.  "You may be just down
the street, but it will seem a world away with another area code.  It
will be much more complicated that with 818 . . . .  I would think
they would have broken it up by city boundaries."

     Several businesses on La Cienega Boulevard with two phone lines
will now have one in each area code.  This is because their telephones
have different prefixes, one served by each area code.

     "This is going to be terrible.  At Laffs R Us, we are not
laughing today," said Susan Valerie, program director of a "comedy
traffic school" on La Cienega.

     Among the few happy businesses contacted Tuesday were those that
will get extra work printing new business cards, stationery or shop
signs.

     "It will be an inconvenience for most businesses, except for
printing," said Robert Davidson, a production manager at Printmasters
in Los Angeles.  "By the end of 1991, business will be booming.  It
will be great."

     Meanwhile, the city's top real estate brokers speculated that the
changes may actually reduce the status sometimes connected with area
codes.

     "It's going to fragment that," said Fred Sands, a well-known real
estate executive.  "You've got Beverly Hills sharing with San Pedro.
They're worlds apart."

     Sands said that in the past he has heard people from Beverly
Hills put down San Fernando Valley residents as "real 818s."

     "Perhaps," he said, "the area code won't signify as much as it
did before."

   ==========
>From: [e-mail] (Michael C. Berch)
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, Calif. USA


Sigh.  There's always some political bozo who wants to run off filing
protests because he/she has to dial a few extra numbers.  What?  My
home in a different area code than my office?  Lawsuit! Lawsuit!

I hope the city of West Hollywood, or better yet Ms. Land personally,
will be forced to eat the cost of this litigation.

People *do* seem to take this sort of thing seriously, don't they...
Sheesh.  We are located on the edge of Mountain View, and have to dial
1+408+number to dial numbers in Sunnyvale, two blocks away.  I have
never heard anyone complain about this, except maybe those who had to
reprogram their autodialers.


Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb

  ==========

>From: [e-mail] (Chuq Von Rospach)

Yah. When they went to split up 212 in New York, all the Brooklynites (and
other people who moved out of 212) claimed it was discrimination -- that the
'lesser' people were kicked out of the area code and were being
discriminated against by being forced into a second rate code.

sheesh.

Chuq Von Rospach   <+>   [e-mail]   <+>   [This is myself speaking]

  ==========

>From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey M. Hoffman)


Excuse me, Michael, but as a taxpayer you should be more outraged at
the amount of money be spent on Prop 103 litigation.  However, there
is merit to Abbe Land's argument--when NYC was split, 212 was retained
in Manhattan and the Bronx, and 718 for Queens, Brooklyn and Staten
Island.  The business people in these boroughs were quite upset,
because previously they could list their address as NY, NY (with the
appropriate ZIP code) and have a 212 number.  Thereby gaining the
prestige of a NYC address without the cost of a Manhattan location.

When 718 went into effect, these businesses could no longer "pretend"
to be in Manhattan, because it would be clear from the phone number
that they were in one of the less prestigous boroughs.  Of course,
they lost their case.

However, NYC was split along county boundaries (each borough is really
a county).  In the present case, the phone company is trying to split
up an incorporated city.  This is particularly annoying since people
tend to associate a single area code with a particular subdivision.
For example, even though you live only two blocks from an area code
change, that change occurs ON A CITY BOUNDARY.  It is easy for one to
remember that Sunnyvale is 408 and Mountain View is 415, but it would
be a lot harder to know whether a particular phone number is for a
location east or west of some random boulevard.

Think of the confusion that will arise in the future if this practice
is continued.  I support Ms. Land's case.  However, the phone company
does have a point--technically, the phone system was set up before
West Hollywood attained cityhood.  This means that it was just an
unincorporated area of LA with no "political" boundaries.  La Cienega
Avenue is a large street and was a logical division point for
switching equipment, etc., but it now divides the city of West
Hollywood and is no longer a "neat" way to subdivide LA area codes.

jeff

  ==========

>From: [e-mail] (Bill Galcher)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


Well, as it turns out, the above is not quite true either.  I lived
and worked in Sunnyvale for a number of years, and part of Sunnyvale
is in (408) while other parts are in (415).  The first/only time I
believe this became a concern was when they actually cracked down on
the area code usage.  Up until 1982 (?), if you were in the 408 area
code, you could dial a number in the 415 area code by just dialing the
exchange WITHOUT the (415) at the beginning.  When the 408 area code
wanted to start using some of the same exchanges that were in 415,
they started by giving you warning messages that "you had to dial 415
for that exchange and will no longer be able to use just the exhange
after such-and-such date", then let the call go through.  That caused
a number of people to have to adjust their auto-dialers but did not
otherwise cause a major fuss.

Sheesh - it's just not that big a deal.  So you have to buy new
stationary.  So you might have to get a foreign exchange number in the
other area code.  BFD.  It's certainly not worth getting this bent out
of shape about.  Leave it to someone in West Hollywood to get in a
tizzy about this.

    Bill Galcher

 ==========

>From: [e-mail] (Michael C. Berch)
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, Calif. USA

> Excuse me, Michael, but as a taxpayer you should be more outraged at the
> amount of money be spent on Prop 103 litigation.

Well, I am, but I look at that as more or less unavoidable.  The
people of California were stupid enough to enact an intitiative that
was both unworkable and partially unconstitutional, and those
adversely affected by it went to court and won their case.  I would
love to claim some sort of exemption from having to pay for the
litigation by showing that I wasn't silly enough to vote for 103 in
the first place, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way...

> However, there is merit
> to Abbe Land's argument--when NYC was split, 212 was retained in Manhattan
> and the Bronx, and 718 for Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island.  The business
> people in these boroughs were quite upset, because previously they could
> list their address as NY, NY (with the appropriate ZIP code) and have a
> 212 number.  Thereby gaining the prestige of a NYC address without the cost
> of a Manhattan location.

So what?  How does that lend merit to Ms. Land's argument?  Do you
think that firms have a property right in being able to attempt to
mislead people about their address?  I'm *real* impressed by that one.
Furthermore, they weren't supposed to use "New York NY" as their post
office address anyway; I remember reading that NYC was divided up into
a number of so-called "Post Offices" (no correspondence with real Post
Office buildings) where only Manhattan was "New York", Brooklyn, [The]
Bronx, and Richmond used their borough names, and Queens was divided
up into three or four "P.O.'s": Long Island City, Flushing, and Forest
Hill among them.

> occurs ON A CITY BOUNDARY.  It is easy for one to remember that Sunnyvale
> is 408 and Mountain View is 415, but it would be a lot harder to know
> whether a particular phone number is for a location east or west of some
> random boulevard.

It's not that simple here, either.  The dividing line is by NXX
(prefix), not city/county lines.  Near El Camino Real, where we are,
the line follows the city boundary, but there are parts of Sunnyvale
in 415.

> Think of the confusion that will arise in the future if this practice is
> continued.  I support Ms. Land's case.

But what is the "case" based on?  What duty does Pac Bell owe to a
city not to assign phone numbers in a particular way?  On what legal
theory is that duty based?  Does the city of West Hollywood have a
compensable property interest in the way the telephone network
namespace is divided?

I got several pieces of mail about my posting, and all the northern
California people shared my amusement that anyone would get excited
about such a non-issue, and all the southern California people tried
to explain (though they didn't agree that Mayor Land had a case) why
it was an issue.  Sheesh.  All I can recommend is that you Angelinos
change out of the fast lane for a while and mellow out a bit; you
might enjoy life more.

And as for those who suggested that I thought the way I did because
the change doesn't affect me -- you should all know that 415 is being
split even sooner than 213 -- my house in the East Bay will be moving
to the new area code 510.  Since hearing this news a few months ago, I
have spent at least a good 20 or 30 seconds worrying about it. :-)


Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: NPA 213 Controversy
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 21 Dec 89 23:14:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #586
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Dec 89 23:13:48 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 586

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Pac*Bell Ordered to Cut Rates (John Higdon)
    Direct-Dial International Directory Assistance (Mark Brader)
    Phone Off Hook: How Could it Ring?!? (Mike Koziol)
    800 Service Directory Available on Compuserve (David Dodell)
    Area Codes & Geographies (Louis J. Judice)
    Phone Frustration (from Risks) (Will Martin)
    Dial Pulse Month in TX (Ken Levitt)
    Special Numbers (Information, etc.) (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Lars J. Poulsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Pac*Bell Ordered to Cut Rates
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 19 Dec 89 11:25:08 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Information taken from an AP stroy in the San Jose Mercury:

Pac*Bell was ordered by the PUC to cut its rates 6% yesterday. The
company had sought only a $239 million cut, saying it had higher labor
costs after settling a strike. The PUC's Division of Ratepayer
Advocates had called for a $504 million cut, saying Pacific Bell had
made accounting changes that distorted its 1989 revenues.

Sometime next year, the commission is also scheduled to order Pacific
Bell and GTE to eliminate their current $1.20 monthly charge for
touch-tone phone service and to expand toll-free local calling areas
from eight to twelve miles.

This is the first ruling by the PUC under the give-away program
granted by the commissioners earlier this year. You remember--this is
the best of both worlds system: Pac*Bell is allowed to compete against
its own network customers, such as alarm companies, information
providers and the like. To provide plenty of capital for their vulture
pricing and undercutting, they are guaranteed an 11.5 percent rate of
return PLUS an inflation factor from their captive regulated market.

Nice work if you can get it.

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

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Direct-Dial International Directory Assistance
Date:     Tue, 19 Dec 89 21:59:35 EST

John R. Covert writes:

> I know of no case where customers in one country can call the
> directory assistance number in another country.

Canada and the U.S. constitute an exception, both ways.  I would
suspect that the sharing of a country code (or having a notional
country code that consists of another country's code plus more digits,
as with the Vatican) would tend to indicate a similar degree of
integration in other places.  I'd be surprised if Liechtenstein and
Switzerland aren't treated as one country for telephonic purposes, for
instance.

Within the North American area (country code 1), however,, area code
809 covers a number of small countries.  I just tried 1-809-555-1212
and it gets intercepted.  Are directory assistance calls from 809 to
here and between 809 and the U.S. also not allowed to be
direct-dialed?


Mark Brader       "I can direct dial today a man my parents warred with.
Toronto            They wanted to kill him, I want to sell software to him."
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]            -- Brad Templeton

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

Date: Wed, 20 Dec 89 04:59:14 EDT
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Off Hook: How Could it Ring?!?


A quick scenario: I had just finished a 16 hour shift at work, gone to
the dentist, and had about 4 hours to sleep before going in for
another 16 hour day. As my head hit the pillow I remembered that I had
forgotten to turn off the ringers to the phones, and I didn't even
want to consider getting up to turn them off, I dropped the handset of
my trendline (fastened to the frame on the waterbed for convenience
sake) to the floor. In what seemed a very short time later the phones
started ringing. Even in my incoherent state I realized that I
couldn't answer the phone when it was already off the hook!! What's a
poor boy to do? Hang up he phone, curse myself for not turning off the
ringers, and get up (slowly) and go to work.

I can only think of a couple reasons the phones would ring, the switch
wanted to alert me my phone was off the hook, or someone had asked the
operator to "check the line". Any ideas?

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 12:15:24 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Service Directory Available on Compuserve


I saw the following notice in my USAToday feed this morning, anyone
know any information about it?

AT&T UPGRADES 800 SERVICE:

   To make it more convenient for shoppers to do business through 800
numbers, customers can now find suppliers or vendors faster by calling
an 800 directory on their computers. By agreement with CompuServe,
AT&T's directory of 800 service numbers is available now free of
computer connect time charges via CompuServe Information Service.

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
                  Internet: [e-mail]


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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 12:15:35 -0800
From: "Louis J. Judice  21-Dec-1989 1045" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Codes & Geographies


Let me be devil's advocate and ask:

    "Why should area codes be directly associated with a geographic
     entity?"

For example, the 310 area code in Los Angeles could be assigned to all
new exchanges regardless of where in the region they are located, or
all cellular #'s in the LA/Orange County area, or all modem lines or
fax lines, etc...

If Los Angeles already has multiple area codes (confused ME the first
time I spent lots of time there), why not simply assign codes by
service instead of by geography. It might well be simpler to associate
"310" with FAX, MODEM and CELLULAR than with a group of seaside towns.

Of course this is all quite naive. This probably violates many
conventions of switch setup, etc. I'm not even suggesting that I think
there is a sociological problem with spliting area codes; just asking
a dumb question!

Lou Judice
Digital Equipment Corporation
Piscataway, NJ
908-562-4103

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 15:00:12 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Phone Frustration (from Risks)

The following item was in the latest RISKS Digest; thought Telecom should
have a copy, too...

  RISKS-FORUM Digest  Thursday 21 December 1989   Volume 9 : Issue 56

  Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 15:09:01 PST
  From: [e-mail] (Shamus McBride)
  Subject: Frustrated With Phones

The Bellevue, Washington, Journal American ran an article on
telephone glitches collected from its readers.

   o "... a dark stormy night, a desperate woman, a telephone from Kafka".
     Using a pay phone at a service station along the highway, she
     dialed 0 then the number and the phone went dead. She tried again
     and again. She finally reached an operator and found out that (a)
     the phone was owned by a private company (not AT&T), (b) collect
     calls could not be made, and (c) she could not be connected with
     an AT&T operator.

   o Another woman received hourly calls with the recorded message
     "The maximum dollar amount is exceeded by the number 4-4-4-4-4-4."
     The problem was traced to a pay phone at a local gas station with
     a full coin box. The phone was programmed to call someone when the
     coin box was full. Unfortunately, it was programmed with the wrong
     number.

   o For six months a woman had long distance calls to Mexico City
     on her bill. The phone company finally discovered that the woman's
     line was cross wired with a neighbor's line. The twist in the
     story was that the neighbor had recently moved into the house and
     did not realize it had TWO lines (the phone company had failed to
     disconnect the second line when the previous owner moved out).
     The neighbor's bill looked normal since most of his calls were on
     his primary line. Only when he used a secondary phone were the
     calls billed elsewhere.

   o One family had phones that rang three times then stopped.
     Friends said they called and let the phone ring 20 times
     and no one answered. "After extensive investigation [GTE]
     found an electronic glitch at a nearby central office."

The article concluded: "the letters we received showed that people are
dependent on the telephone and, when things go wrong, hardly in a mood
to hear a pitch about the values of consumerism. True phones don't go
wrong often, they said, But when they do ..."

***End of item***

[Moderator's Note: Will, thanks for sending this over to us. One of
the sad facts of post-divestiture phone service is that the consumer
is the last person to be considered. Unheard of -- indeed, almost
unthinkable -- problems with phone service prior to divestiture, of
the sort enumerated here, and lots more, became commonplace once the
judge signed off on the most tragic, and misguided legal decision in
American history.  Instead of merely giving equal-opportunity to all
new comers (and how could the Bill McGowans of the world survive in a
scenario like that?)  they had to bust up a century's worth of
finely-tuned procedures and practices due to the anti-AT&T bias so
prevalent in the court.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 89 13:05:31 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial Pulse Month in TX


The following is reprinted from the FidoNet Consulting echo.
===========================================================================
 From:   Jim Westbrook
 To:     All Modem Users
 Subj:   International Pulse Dial Month

    12-14-89       JANUARY IS INTERNATIONAL PULSE DIAL MONTH!

    The Central Texas Sysop Association has initiated a grass-roots
    experiment of one method of containing the costs of running a BBS.
    As many of you are already aware, SWBT (the phone company) is
    involved in a Public Utilities Commission proceeding with several
    sysops from the Houston area.  The outcome of this proceeding may
    affect the expense of BBS operation by classing all BBS operations
    as non-residential customers.

    One of the peripheral expenses accompanying such a change would be
    an increase in the cost of optional services.  In the instance of
    tone dialing, the differential is approximately ten-fold (from
    approx.  50 cents/month to approx.  $5/month).  Over the course of a
    year, discontinuing tone dial would offset approximately two months
    of the basic non-residential service.  This makes it worthwhile to
    determine the impact on BBS operations if pulse dialing were adopted
    as "normal operations" for both BBS's and users.

    The experiment does not involve actual termination of tone dialing
    service, although that may prove to be a viable option.  All that is
    necessary to participate in the experiment is to change your modem
    dialing string to use pulse dialing instead of tone dialing.  In the
    case of Hayes-compatible modems this is simply to change from "ATDT"
    to "ATDP" as the dialing prefix command for your software.

    Please help us examine this alternative to taking our BBS's off line
    should they be re-interpreted to be non-residential.  Again, here's
    when and how to participate:

    START:     00:01:00  January 1, 1990
    FINISH:    23:59:00  January 31, 1990
    CHANGE:    dialing prefix to use Pulse Dial
               (ATDT to ATDP for Hayes-types)

    Thanks in advance for your assistance in this cost containment
    experiment.

                   Jim Westbrook
                   President - CTSA
                   Vice-President - COSUARD



Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if there is something else
this experiment is intended to communicate to SW Bell.....:)   PT]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Numbers (Information, etc.)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 09:13:51 EST

There seems to be two sets of numbers which have been in use, possibly
according to which side of the Mississippi or the Rockies one was on.
I'll call these "West" and "East", as that's where I've seen them in use.

                    West        East
Long Distance        110         211  (gone with the advent of
Information(*)       113         411           direct dialling)
Repair Service       114         611

Now, at least in some of New England Telephone areas I frequent, 411
and 611 are no longer in use.  For Information within the New
Hampshire area code (603), one dials 1-555-1212 whether or not the
number is in your local calling area. Repair service is 1-555-1611
(residence and coin) or 1-555-1515 (business) in NH and eastern Mass.
(617).  [Exceptions: some single town independent phone companies.]
Other 555 numbers are given for certain telco business related
functions.

Aside: the business office is reached via a number which requires a 1
prefix to dial, though no charges are ever recorded to that number.
When I call it while the office is busy, the recording which greets
the caller begins with a message to long distance operators that
collect calls are always accepted.

    /JBL

(*) Directory Assistance?  What's that?

[e-mail]  |  "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
 ...!bbn!levin  |  bureau that morning.  Wide-eyed and distraught, she
[phone]  |  stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."

[Moderator's Note: I don't think there were any geographical boundaries
involved here. I think the 110/113/114 style was largely used by the
independent telcos and GTE; with Mom and her daughters tending to use
the 211/411/611 arrangment instead.   PT]

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

From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 17:38:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Dean Sirakides) writes:

>              ... *four* watts is the maximum legal power that a
>cellular radio may transmit. This is what is meant by ERP--Effective
>Radiated Power.  The *three* watts refered to by most ads is the
>*chasis* power of the device. However, after antenna gain this is
>increased, but should not exceed 4 watts nominal ERP.

If 3 watts of power goes into the transmitter, I do not see how the
laws of physics would allow 4 watts to be radiated into the electro-
magnetic field ?

Or is "4 Watts ERP" a derated number sortof like "the power that would
be radiated out of a 4-watt transmitter using 1930's technology",
meaning that the energy content of the field is really more like 1.5
Watts ?


/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>   [phone]  or [phone] ext 358
  ACC Customer Service              Affiliation stated for identification only
                My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #586
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 22 Dec 89 0:06:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #587
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Dec 89 00:06:11 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 587

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (John Higdon)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Paul Guthrie)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Steve Elias)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: Anyone Know of "Reserved" Suffix 0020 (John Higdon)
    Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) (T. Dahlkvist)
    Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused? (Randal Schwartz)
    Re: Caller ID (Alonzo Gariepy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: 21 Dec 89 02:44:56 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

"Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Accepting a call on an 800 line is equivalent to paying for it.  These
> lines may be billed on a minutes-of-use basis, without regard for the
> source of the call.  So if you did know the underlying non-800 number,
> it would be billed as an 800 call anyway.

Nope! There is no clock or counter on the POTS line associated with
800 service. Dialing into the number directly, without using the 800
alias would result in no 800 billing. 800 billing is done in two ways:
in the originating CO, as part of the AMA system; or in the carrier's
tandem switch. AT&T still uses, for the most part, originating CO
billing as a carry-over from the old days, while other carriers do
their own billing in their own switches.

Remember, many companies now offer 800 service, and they have no
access to any data relating to the incoming calls on the POTS number
that didn't go through their system. Also, many 800 service plans
(like the one I have) depend on where the call originates from. A call
to the ordinary POTS number would just not register.


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

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 08:45:50 EST


One more data point, from the pre-1984 period:

We had an 800 number in a place I staffed occasionally, and at the
time I knew the Cambridge ANI number (dial it and it "speaks" the
number you are calling from).  The 800 line had dial tone, so I tried
ANI, of course, and I got a legitimate Cambridge number on a normal
Cambridge exchange.  But when I called that number from another line I
got a "not in service" intercept.  Also, I believe I was unable to
make any real calls from the 800 line, getting either an intercept or
reorder (though I could be wrong about this).

    /JBL


[e-mail]  |  "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
 ...!bbn!levin  |  bureau that morning.  Wide-eyed and distraught, she
[phone]  |  stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."

[Moderator's Note: At a place where I worked in 1969, I had an
incoming WATS line on my desk. One day I got five or six wrong numbers
in a row, all from the same poor old woman who kept saying, "Hello!
Hello?? Did I reach WEllington 5-6924? Hello!".... after a couple such
calls, I then realized she was dialing that number, which was used to
bring in our 800 number. Of course, she had a wrong number.  PT]

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 20:21:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

>Accepting a call on an 800 line is equivalent to paying for it.  These
>lines may be billed on a minutes-of-use basis, without regard for the
>source of the call.  So if you did know the underlying non-800 number,
>it would be billed as an 800 call anyway.

Not true.  Most billing is done on the originating end.  If indeed you
did call the underlying non-800 number you would get billed for this
as a normal call, not as an 800 (toll free) call.  However, the
receiving party would *also* get billed, as (as you mentioned) 800's
are billed on a usage basis.


Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

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

Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 12:47:34 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Fred Goldstein <[e-mail]> writes:

>Accepting a call on an 800 line is equivalent to paying for it.  These
>lines may be billed on a minutes-of-use basis, without regard for the
>source of the call.  So if you did know the underlying non-800 number,
>it would be billed as an 800 call anyway.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Fred's point, but I think that it is
entirely incorrect.  I can dial into my home phone number through
either an 800 number, or the normal number.  When someone dials my
number directly (not 800), the call surely doesn't appear on my
FONLINE 800 bill from US Sprint!


{ Steve Elias ; [e-mail] ; 6179325598 ; 5086717556 ; }
/* C */     { *disclaimer(); }
/* not C */ { z = disclaimer(y) : (y = lim [x-->0] ( 1/x ) ) }

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 12:44:24 -0800
From: "Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number


I think this needs clarification.

There are two types of 800 numbers.  The old type used a dedicated
line, provided by the local telco under an AT&T contract.  It could be
billed based on minutes of use, since ALL use was dialed to the 800
number.  Nowadays, you can also get an 800 number pointed at a real
number, and it's billed from the source end (by the LD carrier
providing the 800 number) and not from the minutes of use at the
destination.

      fred

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anyone Know of "Reserved" Suffix 0020
Date: 21 Dec 89 02:55:05 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve 'No Squash' Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> I noticed a couple of years ago in PacBell land in Northern CA that
> the 0020 suffix in just about any prefix always went to a loud,
> continuous tone, which has about a 1/2 sec gap every 15 secs or so.
> This also seems to be the case in Washington State.  Anyone know what
> this is used for?

This tone is known in the biz as the "miliwatt". It is a 1004 hz tone
that originates with a power of .001 watt in the CO. It is a standard
so that by dialing that number, a field tech can readily measure the
loss on that particular circuit.

There was a number that a phone man used once on some PBX trunks that
I had installed that produced the strangest sounds I had ever heard.
They interacted with a big expensive-looking piece of hardware that he
had. For the life of me, I can't remember that number. The test was
supposed to be a very comprehensive analysis of the trunk.

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

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

From: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP)
Date: 21 Dec 89 08:59:30 GMT
Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden


In article <[e-mail]> munnari!cit5.cit.oz.au![e-mail]
(Jim Breen) writes:

>I feel somewhat humbled talking about ISDN with someone like Torsten,
>who is clearly well on top of both the technology and the pit-falls.

My irony-detector started trembling on that paragraph. I'm not used to
such praise. Must be my old inferiority-complex acting up again :-)

>It is also fascinating for me, an Australian, to be discussing topics
>with a Swede via a newsgroup moderated in the US. What is also
>fascinating is the apparent low level of understanding of ISDN in the
>US.

Uh oh, asbestos suit on quick...

>Why is this? Is it the state of fragmentation in the US telecommunications
>industry? Does a country need monopoly suppliers like Televerket or
>Telecom Australia in order to have a working ISDN?

I can't wait to see the flames this is coing to cause!


>Getting back to Torsten's reply to my reply to Dr Weber's questions,
>clearly he is right; there *ARE* TAs around. The trouble is you can
>scour the trade press and not find a single advertisement for them.
>You can ask Ericsson's Australian subsidiary for details of Torsten's
>TAs and be told that they can only supply bog-standard adaptors for
>their MD110 PABXs (and this from the company which supplies the AXE
>exchanges (COs) on which our ISDN is built!)

Let me put it this way: I work at the company which did virtually ALL
the R&D on both the AXE COs and the MD110 PABXs. *I* don't have even
an MD digital line, much less an ISDN one.

>As a Volvo owner (a Japanese speaking one at that) I am saddened that
>Ericssons aren't taking on the world with their TAs. You can only take
>corporate conservatism so far.

Of course Jim is right. There's something saddening about the way big
companies are going about this business, Ericsson not excluded. (Don't
let anyone at Management see this...)

You see, while small compared to the dragons of the telecom world,
Ericsson is still in many aspects an uncomfortably big corporation
when it comes to introducing changes. The MD110 PABX is manufactured
by one company division while the AXE exchanges are made by another
one. Unfortunately, phones and TAs are considered "office equipment"
and thus fall under the same division as the PABXes. The sales people
over there are utterly convinced that "ISDN can never be a success
because they use 4-wire installations which must obviously be twice as
expensive as ordinary ones". Needless to say, the Ericsson-specific
(digital) feature-phones and TAs available for MD110 use 2-wire
installations... ("bog-standard" to use Jim's words.)

But all is not lost yet. I forwarded the message that "there are no
TAs for sale in the US" to some appropriate people who immediately
started sprouting little $$-symbols in their eyes in the best possible
Scrooge MacDuck-style.  We've made a HUGE investment in R&D on these
buggers and every sale would be a help in cutting the losses!

The problem preventing an immediate introduction is that the entire
U.S.  ISDN spec is "bog-standard", i.e. U.S.A. has chosen to specify a
different method of rate adaption than the rest of the world and there
are other "sublte" differences too. Some of them are fairly easily
overcome - like the protocol differences I mentioned in my previous
posting - while others would need major re-designs (or at least
program changes in several micro- processors). I wasn't aware of that
last part until I asked around a bit.  Sorry.

But I must ask a question to the net, U.S. readers in particular: I
know for a fact (= I was there when it happened!) that Ericsson has
been approached by one of *the* major Japanese electronics
manufacturers (no, I'm NOT going to say which one - I'm far out on a
limb as it is already!) which wanted to sell a line of ISDN phones
with built-in TA functions. Essentially a small feature-phone with a
V.24, X.21 or (I think, but memory is vague) X.25 connector. We tried
it and found that with minor changes in CO software it could be used
with our CO (remember I said our implementation is *very* close to the
international standard. We like to think it's *the* closest one on the
market at present!).

Now, the price tags on these phones were rather persuasive - I think
they'd be a success on the U.S. market at once if they were released.
My question: Does any net.reader know if they're available in the
U.S.? If not: Does anybody know why? My own hypothesis so far is that
they're slowed down by those very same "oddities" of the U.S.  ISDN
spec as have deterred us. Knowing the capacity of these Japs I'd
expect US-type TAs shortly unless your own import restrictions prevent
them :-)

/Torsten

P.S. Jim: has Telecom Australia made any introduction of BRI yet? As
far as I know, Ericsson has only sold PRI to them; hence the MD110
stuff.

P.P.S. MD110 = Ericsson's modular PABX. I'm not sure if Marketing has
used the same name in the U.S, but it's currently beeing installed at
MIT, so I know it's available there. It uses a proprietary (sp?) 2B+D
2-wire interface for feature-phones which provides "ISDN-like"
facilities but (unfortunately) so far in a non-standard way.


 Torsten Dahlkvist
 ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories
 P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25  ALVSJO, SWEDEN
 Tel: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Dec 89 16:55:11 PST
From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Can 411 Be Flagrantly Abused?
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA


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

| Regarding Andrew Schwartz's comments about never hearing of 411 used
            ^^^^^^ That's *Randal*, please.  Read comp.unix.questions! :-)
| for DA in the northwest, they used to use it, along with 611 for
| repair.  That was back when DA (information) was free.

Nope, nope, nope.  Maybe in *your* neck of the woods, but it's always
been "113" for local directory assistance (state-wide was 1-555-1212)
and "0" for repair (or some seven-digit number).  This is in Portland,
Oregon.

|                              Then sometime
| in the 1970s Pacific NW Bell filed for new tarrifs, saying that they
| had to employ too many operators and that their studies had shown that
| most folks were dialing 411 rather than look it up.

Yeah, this is about the time they switched.

Just another old-timer 'round these here parts,


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

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

From: microsoft![e-mail]
Date: Thu Dec 21 07:09:46 1989
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA

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

> The solution to the Caller-ID controversy seems obvious to me.  So
> here is the Ken Levitt plan for ANI.
>...
> 4. Subscribers should be able to request an alias ANI for each line.
>    The alias would be a unique number with a special area code to indicate
>    that it is not a real number.  All calls from that line would transmit
>    the alias number unless ANI is suppressed for that call.  The alias system
>    could also be used to transmit the main number for a location that has
>    several lines.

This is a better alternative than licensing.  You either give out your
number or you have have a pseudo number that does the same as a
license.

You can choose to have your number revealed (a convenience to both
caller and receiver) on a per call basis.  We could get a measure of
control by giving particular kinds of users (emergency, phone company,
telemarketers, etc.) an identifying pseudo area code (most such users
would prefer not to give out there real numbers anyway).

This is a good plan and should be given real thought.  Does anyone
know if there is some hidden agenda behind Caller-ID (conspiracies
everywhere...)?

Alonzo Gariepy
microsoft!alonzo

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #587
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 22 Dec 89 23:42:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #588
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Dec 89 23:40:43 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 588

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc.) (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc.) (Daniel Faigin)
    Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell (J.M. Ivler)
    Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number Behind a 1-800 Number (David Tamkin)
    Re: 800 Directory Service Available on Compuserve (Lang Zerner)
    800 Numbers and Canada (Sam Ho)
    International Directory Assistance (John R. Covert)
    Re: Caller ID on 800 Service (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc.)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 09:34:24 EST


Re my note about the information and repair service numbers that used to
be in effect, Patrick notes:

>[Moderator's Note: I don't think there were any geographical boundaries
>involved here. I think the 110/113/114 style was largely used by the
>independent telcos and GTE; with Mom and her daughters tending to use
>the 211/411/611 arrangment instead.   PT]

My direct experience with 113 and 114 was in Utah and Arizona in the
'60s with Mountain Bell Telephone, one of the big twenty two.

    /JBL

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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 08:13:19 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc.)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA


>[Moderator's Note: I don't think there were any geographical boundaries
>involved here. I think the 110/113/114 style was largely used by the
>independent telcos and GTE; with Mom and her daughters tending to use
>the 211/411/611 arrangment instead.   PT]

Actually, in the Greater Los Angeles incarnation of Generally Terrible
Equipment, 411 and 611 *are* used. At least, that's what I call from home
(which is in Grouchy Turtle Enterprises area).


Daniel

Work :The Aerospace Corp M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-8228
Home :9758 Natick Avenue * Sepulveda CA 91343 * 818/892-8555
Email:[e-mail] (or) [e-mail]
Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest"

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP)
Date: 22 Dec 89 15:20:01 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Torsten
Dahlkvist) writes...

>In article <[e-mail]> munnari!cit5.cit.oz.au![e-mail]
>(Jim Breen) writes:

>>Why is this? Is it the state of fragmentation in the US telecommunications
>>industry? Does a country need monopoly suppliers like Televerket or
>>Telecom Australia in order to have a working ISDN?

>I can't wait to see the flames this is coing to cause!

I was gonna say, "deliver me from temptation" but instead I'll take
the bait.

>But all is not lost yet. I forwarded the message that "there are no
>TAs for sale in the US" to some appropriate people who immediately
>started sprouting little $$-symbols in their eyes in the best possible
>Scrooge MacDuck-style.  We've made a HUGE investment in R&D on these
>buggers and every sale would be a help in cutting the losses!

>The problem preventing an immediate introduction is that the entire
>U.S.  ISDN spec is "bog-standard", i.e. U.S.A. has chosen to specify a
>different method of rate adaption than the rest of the world and there
>are other "sublte" differences too.

There are lots of differences between US POTS and Euro-aussie POTS.
For example we use 1.544 Mbps T1 and mu-255 PCM encoding instead of
2.048 Mbps E1 and A-low encoding.  ISDN is a lot less different.

There is no US rule for rate adaptation, since that's entirely
transparent to the network.  We have this system here, "competition",
which basically says that the telco's fist stops at the customer's
face, at the demarcation jack (reference point U).  Rate adaptation
occurs at a higher layer, so the telco has no say.  The manufacturers
here (especially AT&T and IBM) tend to favor the HDLC-based rate
adaptation technique found in CCITT V.120, which was developed here.

Some European-based vendors prefer the older bit-bashed technique
found in V.110.  And Northern Telecom has its own non-standard T-link
which is fairly well established in the field.  As long as the
customer matches both ends, it'll work.  The middle (network) needn't
care.  Hayes uses V.120, if I recall.

>But I must ask a question to the net, U.S. readers in particular: I
>know for a fact (= I was there when it happened!) that Ericsson has
>been approached by one of *the* major Japanese electronics
>manufacturers (no, I'm NOT going to say which one - I'm far out on a
>limb as it is already!) which wanted to sell a line of ISDN phones
>with built-in TA functions. Essentially a small feature-phone with a
>V.24, X.21 or (I think, but memory is vague) X.25 connector. We tried
>it and found that with minor changes in CO software it could be used
>with our CO (remember I said our implementation is *very* close to the
>international standard. We like to think it's *the* closest one on the
>market at present!).

"ISDN Phones" are a classic example of technology missing the market.
ISDN makes a terrible desktop data solution.  Most terminal-host
connectivity is within the building (local area).  ISDN, no matter how
you slice it, costs more for this than a LAN with terminal servers.
And the terminal servers tend to offer more flexibility, features,
etc.  Better, faster, cheaper.  Pick three.  So why waste ISDN by
putting it on the desktop?  Yes, I remember the early "integrated
voice/data PBX" days, and helped put a rack of PBX data modules next
to a VAX.  Ugly, costly, and happily abandoned to the dregs of
history.

ISDN's strength in the data world is when you go beyond the LAN.  ISDN
to the home, or ISDN between locations.  It makes a great modem
replacement.  But who in their right mind uses modems to dial down the
hall?  ISDN voice/data phones are about as useful as phones with
built-in V.22bis modems: No reason not to put a phone on a modem, but
not a mass market item.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
    Do you think anyone shares my opinion, let a long a big corporation?

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

From: "JM Ivler" <[e-mail]>,
Subject: Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell
Date: 21 Dec 89 06:52:23 GMT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas M&E, Cypress CA


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

> Areas to avoid: Long Beach, (or most of the beach cities), Santa
> Monica, West LA, Diamond Bar, most of the "Inland Empire" (San
> Bernardino, Ontario, etc.), Westminster. Frankly, it's a jungle down
                              ^^^^^^^^^^
> there. Pac*Bell areas include LA proper, Hollywood, Santa Ana,
> Pasadena, Alhambra, Orange, Anaheim. If you look at a map, you'll
> practically see a checkerboard pattern.

Correction. As a resident of that area, I pay my bills to Pactel *not*
GTE. I have refused to live in GTE service areas since I got out here
(over 11 years ago). Westminster may have lots of problems (like half
the store signs are *not* in english), but phone service is not one of
them.


JMI   [e-mail]
Disclaimer: If my company knew I was on NEWS I would be shot, so what makes you
            think that they would ever let me speak for them?

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Out the "Real" Number behind a 1-800 Number
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 10:50:15 CST


Various contributors have been saying yes, no, and sometimes to the
comment that a call to the underlying local number behind an 800
number is still billed to the callee at 800 rates.  (I know from
personal experience that the answer is either "sometimes" or "no", for
I worked somewhere where it wasn't.)

If that is the reason that a company wouldn't want to give out the
underlying phone number of its 800 indial, surely they have other
incoming lines on which suppliers, local business contacts, and
employees' families can call them without their paying to receive the
calls.  It's very poor business practice to tell a potential customer
that they refuse to talk by telephone with people in his or her
location and that he or she must deal with them through the mail.

Perhaps the question to them should not be "What's the true local
phone number underlying your inward WATS service?" but rather "If
someone who wants to buy from you can't dial your 800 number where
(s)he is, is there another number (s)he can call your company on at
his/her own expense?"


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813 [phone] [phone]
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Service Directory Available on Compuserve
Date: 22 Dec 89 19:39:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc


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

>By agreement with CompuServe, AT&T's directory of 800 service numbers is
>available now free of computer connect time charges via CompuServe Information
>Service.      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does one still need to pay some minimum monthly fee for access to
Compuserve, or is there some way for this to be really free of charge?
In other words, have they essentially set up an anonymous
"800-directory" account for which AT&T is picking up the tab?

Be seeing you...

Lang Zerner
[e-mail]   UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz   ARPA:[e-mail]
"...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!"


[Moderator's Note: When I called CIS Friday evening about another
matter, I inquired from the customer service rep about this new
offering. You can access the data base from within the regular CIS
menus, and there is no connect charge while in that area; but
supposedly there is also an 800 number which terminates directly on
their machine in that service. He said he did not have the number, and
to 'ask someone at AT&T'...that he knew almost nothing about it.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 14:45:12 PST
From: Sam Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Numbers and Canada


While most 800 numbers do not work from Canada, I believe it is
possible to get US+Canada accessible 800 service.  However, I've also
seen Canadians instructed to dial 112-800-NNX-XXXX, toll-free.  I
can't remember the number offhand, but the pledge line for our local
PBS station, KCTS-9, is one.  "Call 728-9000 (mass calling prefix,
apparently) in Seattle, or 1-800-something in Washington State.  For
our viewers in Canada, (cut to shot of volunteers in Vancouver) call
112-800-something.  Remember, Channel 9 is viewer-supported
television, etc."  Anybody know the purpose of this oddity?


Sam Ho
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 05:01:09 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  22-Dec-1989 0755" <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Directory Assistance


>> I know of no case where customers in one country can call the
>> directory assistance number in another country.

>Canada and the U.S. constitute an exception, both ways.  I would
>suspect that the sharing of a country code (or having a notional
>country code that consists of another country's code plus more digits,
>as with the Vatican) would tend to indicate a similar degree of
>integration in other places.  I'd be surprised if Liechtenstein and
>Switzerland aren't treated as one country for telephonic purposes, for
>instance.

Yes, these sorts of things have never been treated as real
international calls.  In the case of CH and FL, although FL is a
sovereign country, CH is responsible for the phone system.  The
Vatican isn't even separate from Rome; it's just a local phone number
there.

>Within the North American area (country code 1), however,, area code
>809 covers a number of small countries.  I just tried 1-809-555-1212
>and it gets intercepted.  Are directory assistance calls from 809 to
>here and between 809 and the U.S. also not allowed to be direct-dialed?

The U.S. can call 809 555-1212; an operator in Jacksonville answers
and routes the call to the correct directory assistance operator based
on the destination.  And you get charged if it's Puerto Rico or the
U.S. Virgin Islands; D.A. for the other locations in the Caribbean is
free.  I suspect the reason Canada can't dial 809 D.A. is that Canada
never saw fit to dedicate an operator to splitting the traffic.


/john

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID on 800 Service
Date: 22 Dec 89 00:38:08 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


STEVEF <[e-mail]> writes:

> Does anyone know what the service is called or where to get more
> information on AT&T's offering of Caller ID on 800 service (the
> service used by American Express in the previously posted story)?  I
> [...]
> I have gotten various responses, such as "You need ISDN to do that" I
> don't believe this is true.  Anyone know for sure?
> [...]
> Does this service use the same boxes used for Caller ID CLASS service
> offered by the RBOC?  Do you have to be in a CO that has Caller ID?

The service that provides the 800 customer with the callers number has
nothing to do with CLASS and does not require CLASS capability at
either the origin or the destination. It is simply the passing of the
caller's number obtained via ordinary ANI to the end customer.

This can be and is done in several ways. One is to simply send the
info as a stream of MF or DTMF tones to equipment at the 800
subscriber's premises.  A better way would be via a separate data
line, and yes, ISDN could be used for this purpose. Whether or not it
is required is simply a policy call by the long distance carrier.

I would suspect that this service is only supplied to major customers
and that anyone an individual might reach calling listed numbers will
know nothing about it. To find anyone who is knowledgeable, at AT&T or
anywhere else, will require a considerable amount of legwork. I was
peripherally involved with a project that involved this and I know
there was a major amount of channels that had to be gone through
before anyone would talk about it.

Again, the service has nothing to do with SS#7, CLASS, or any other
relatively recent technology. When in use, there is no way to block
your number from being transmitted. There are no tarrifs or
regulations that would protect your privacy. And there is no way to
know if it is being used. It doesn't matter where you call
from--across town or across the country; it works just as well either
way. As long as you are calling from a FGD compliant office (most of
them are now) the 800 customer has *your* number.

How's that grab all you privacy phreaks out there? :-)


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

[Moderator's Note: John, I suspect many of the privacy phreaks would
go so far as to say just because some company is paying for their
call, that company still has no right to know the number of the call
they are paying for!  Just a guess, but there are some extremists in
that camp.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #588
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 23 Dec 89 0:32:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #589
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Dec 89 00:30:31 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 589

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller-ID Objections (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID (Jeff Jonas)
    Re: Caller ID (Alonzo Gariepy)
    ISDN at MIT (Michael A. Patton)
    Using Existing Copper to Interconnect DS-1 Interfaces (Joe Wiesenfeld)
    Using CLASS With a Personal Computer (Jeff Jonas)
    AT&T Cutting Rates (Will Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Caller-ID Objections
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 22 Dec 89 02:57:03 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In going over the megabytes of discussion on Caller-ID, something
suddenly stared me in the face: all objections to Caller-ID are based
on the potential for abuse. Line after line, page after page, people
rant on about how this could happen or that could happen.

Is there no other aspect of telephony that has potential for abuse?
What about junk calls in general? What about bunko scams that fleece
the unwary? What about crank calls and threats? What about calls to
detect whether someone is home by burglers? What about general
harrasment? None of these involve Caller-ID.

Maybe we shouldn't have telephones at all. Look at all the harm they
cause. Silly, you say? Not half as silly as some of the arguments that
have come down the line against Caller-ID. The IRS will learn nasty
things about you. Credit agencies will do nasty things to your
reputation. Husbands will march down to shelters and beat up their
wives. Telemarketers will conspire to sell you things you don't want.
Your cable company will keep a dossier on you and send you subliminal
messages over the cable (no kidding!). All the mean, nasty people I am
forced to call will find out my sacred unlisted number, causing my
injury or death.

I don't notice that in the areas of the country where Caller-ID is
available that people are dropping like flies. It's a non-issue. It
will eventually be universal (even here). But how many man-hours of
discussion and rehash will have to go on first? Let's just get on with
it. I routinely ride my bike at 65 on the freeway and survive, contrary
to what people thought about going faster than 30 around the turn of
the century. The concerns over Caller-ID sort of sound like that.

microsoft![e-mail] writes:

> This is a good plan and should be given real thought.  Does anyone
> know if there is some hidden agenda behind Caller-ID (conspiracies
> everywhere...)?

How many times does it have to be said; how loudly does it have to be
yelled? Your number as a caller is circulated *all over the bloody
network* all the time. People who do conspiracies *already have access
to your number*. They don't need Caller-ID--THEY ALREADY HAVE YOUR
NUMBER AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Period.

When we discuss Caller-ID, we're talking about the info that is sent
to you and me as lowly individual telephone subscribers. The big boys
can get callers' numbers as much as they please. Caller-ID as a CLASS
features offering simply provides a way for the *ordinary* telephone
subscriber to have access to information about calls they receive,
just as the big corporations, the government, and who knows who else,
already have.

Is this finally clear? Now, can we discuss the real ramifications of
Caller-ID and leave out issues of privacy, conspiracy, marketing, the
IRS, credit reporting agencies, and many other irrelavent issues that
don't even come to mind? The question is: should I as a telephone
subscriber have the right to know what other telephone subscriber is
calling me before I pick up the phone? You KNOW what I think. I'm open
for legitimate objections.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Jonas)
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 21 Dec 89 23:44:50 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Tinton Falls, N.J.


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

> 2.  Based in the ANI information and the time of day, the call would be
>     routed to one of the following:

>     a.  A real phone
>     b.  An answering machine
>     c.  A modem
>     d.  A FAX machine.

I like that idea!

Wouldn't it be nice if ALL fax machines could identify themselves
BEFORE anything picked up so the same line could share devices?  That
way, data calls (FAX, MODEM) would automatically route themselves to
devices WITHIN A TELEPHONE NUMBER.

This could be done if there were a user definable field after the
phone number in ANI.  As a human, I'd put my name there.  Machines
would put some standard ID there so all modems would recognize each
other.

Soliciters would be required (by their telemarketing license as well
as laws I'd like to see on the Federal/state level) to put some
message like "solicitor".  Now, you can know a little about the call
requested as well as the originating line number.  It could be used
like the "subject" line in articles.  This way, you could use this
information to help screen your calls.  All emergency calls (hospital,
police) could be identified by this user field, despite your never
seeing the number before.  Isn't this that you want - the ability to
prioritize your calls?

A cutsey feature could be programming each phone in your house to
transmit a different I.D.  That way, when I use the office phone, my
name appears on the callee's phone.  Other people in the household
have their names appear when they use their phones.  That way, a
recipient knows not just that the call is from the Jonas household,
but also can identify who the call is to or from!  No more picking up
the phone for others!

The closest thing I know to this is extensions within a telephone
number.  It hasn't been mentioned here lately, so I'll ask.  Isn't
there an ability to pre-dial numbers that get passed to the subscriber
(ex: dial the desired extension after the phone number without waiting
for the call to complete)?  If so, will this be made available to us
with the Caller-ID boxes, or will we need a full ISDN feed?  I thought
some 800 numbers had this, but that's for commercial users that will
pay big bucks for features.

Some people here on comp.dcom.telecom have premises equipment.  I
recall reading how they're used to manage several outgoing lines as
well as internal services (call holding, intercom).  What about some
support for multiple extensions (beyond call hunting)?


Jeffrey Jonas
[e-mail]

[yes, I know there are devices that discriminate between fax and voice
calls, but they introduce a delay that I find inexcusable.]


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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 16:16:54 -0500
From: microsoft![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


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

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

> >Perhaps we should consider some kind of licensing arrangement.  This
> >way, the caller ID feature can display a license number instead of a

> My main problem with this is that it will require us all to dial an
> additional 10-digit number to make a phone call.

I don't think there is such a requirement.  Each licensed line can
pass this information itself.  Indeed this is necessary to guard
against forgery.  While calling cards would probably take the form of
such licenses, this does not imply that all calls would require a
calling card.

The suggestion made about using pseudo phone numbers for the license
allows users to substitute the actual phone number if (and when) they
want.  This would be done by quick setting of the line and not
necessarily on a per call basis.  This idea may never get to the
detail stage...


Alonzo Gariepy
microsoft!alonzo


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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 15:19:21 EST
Subject: ISDN at MIT
From: "Michael A. Patton" <[e-mail]>

Since I've already admitted to knowing something about this, I should
correct a possible misinterpretation here.

   From: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
   Date: 21 Dec 89 08:59:30 GMT
   Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>

   P.P.S. MD110 = Ericsson's modular PABX. I'm not sure if Marketing has
   used the same name in the U.S, but it's currently beeing installed at
   MIT, so I know it's available there.  [...]

The only recently installed ISDN switch at MIT that I know of was
purchased from AT&T and is called a #5 ESS, it services the entire
main campus area (including dormitories).  It was installed in Fall
1988.  If there's another "currently beeing [sic] installed at MIT" it
would be a surprise to me.

            __
  /|  /|  /|  \         Michael A. Patton, Network Manager
 / | / | /_|__/         Laboratory for Computer Science
/  |/  |/  |atton       Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are a figment of the phosphor
on your screen and do not represent the views of MIT, LCS, or MAP. :-)

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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 19:47:39 PST
From: Joe Wiesenfeld <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Existing Copper to Interconnect DS-1 Interfaces


I am looking for a way to possibly utilize existing copper to
interface Lan Bridges between buildings.  The Lan Bridges have two
available interfaces, a modular connector to directly plug into a DS-1
at 1.5xx mb/s or a configurable rate RS-530 interface.

The existing copper was installed as part of a campus PBX procurement,
and there are available pairs running from the central PBX location to
the various buildings where it is desired to install local building
LANs.

The question is: are there DSU's available that can be interconnected
directly via the existing copper or is additional equipment required
between the DSU's?  Further, should we elect lower than T-1 rates such
as 56 kbps modems, are there modems available that can be directly
hard wired eliminating the PBX?  I know that we can utilize 9600 baud
modems through the PBX but this solution would not provide adequate
bandwidth for the anticipated appalication.

Thanks in advance for your responses.


Joe Wiesenfeld Systems Engineer TRW Information Networks Division
Internet: [e-mail]
USMail: 1001 Worcester Road, Framingham, MA 01701  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Jonas)
Subject: Using CLASS With a Personal Computer
Date: 23 Dec 89 02:48:02 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Tinton Falls, N.J.


I just a flyer in my phone bill that CLASS service is available.  This
displays the phone number of the calling party on a display...

<<< enter wish mode  I wish I had...>>

Rather than having separate lines for voice and data, I'd like a board
to my computer (like the Watson board) where it answers the phone with
an outgoing message.

If you want voice, just leave a message.  If you want data, enter a
digit (say, '1') and the voice disconnects and the modem connects.
(ah, but how to get uucp chat scripts to do this) Me - I'd enter a
security code and use the telephone as a terminal:

    input: the keypad
    output: tones and speech synthesis

        What could I control?  Anything that a X10 controller can handle
    (ex: start dinner as I leave the office,
    stop dinner if I'm delayed)

The modem also gets the phone number ANI.  This can be used for
authentication, or at least log users.

When the phone rings, should I pick it up?  I don't know if it's a
person or a modem at the other end before I pick it up EXCEPT if I
know the number of the caller is a modem (from previous registration).
Perhaps if the computer recognises the originating number as that of a
modem, the modem would answer immediately rather than requiring an
entry to connect the modem.

This has good security potential.  If I use a PC as a smart console, I
can log all phone calls on the console (rather than the publically
accessable system).

This console also monitors that system and sounds an alarm for unusual
activity (such as unusual set-UID programs reported by PS).  I'd then
have a log of when the phone call started, the originating number, and
I'd then start logging the serial line (use a line monitor to capture
both sides of the session).  I emphasize the use of a separate
computer for the console and data logging so that the hacker cannot
'cover his tracks' and it's harder to defeat the alarms.

Is there a number I can call that tells me what number I dialed?

I need this to check my auto dialer.  Perhaps auto dialer
manufacturers offer such a diagnostic service (like Panasonic, or any
phone manufacturer?)  My neighbor had a lot of grief when her parent's
autodialing phone misdialed her phone number.  All I could say was to
reprogram the phone.  I wish I could have her parents check it for
themselves and verify that the number was misprogrammed, or test if
the dialer was misdialing.


[Moderator's Note: If the distant end answers, *ask them* what number
you reached. If the other end is not in service, an intercept message
will tell you what number you 'reached' (actually, dialed) in the
course of telling you it is not in service. That resolves two possible
cases.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 10:12:52 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Cutting Rates

This article was in the Business section of the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch on Wednesday, Dec 20 89:

AT&T CUTTING LONG-DISTANCE RATES BY 1.3%

Washington (AP) -- ...AT&T announced Tuesday that it will cut basic,
daytime interstate rates an average of 1.3% Jan. 1. Evening rates will
drop an average of 2%.

AT&T spokesman Herb Linnen said the reductions were necessary under
changes earlier this year in the FCC's regulation of long-distance
charges.

The FCC now imposes caps on AT&T's LD rates based in the company's LD
expenses, as opposed to a pre-set rate of return.

AT&T said the lowered rates reflect reduced expenses, mainly from
reduced access fees that AT&T will pay in 1990 to local telephone
companies.

Linnen said the reductions would affect both operator-assisted and
direct-dialed calls.

John Hauser, a spokesman for AT&T's principal competitor, MCI
Communications Corp., said that MCI would also pass on savings in local
telephone company access charges. "We will remain competitive with
them," he said.

Hauser's counterpart at US Sprint, Robin Pence, said, "We are
reviewing the filing and we intend to remain competitive."

AT&T claims about 70% of the LD market. MCI is No. 2 with more than
10%.  US Sprint claims 7 to 8%.

In a notice filed with the FCC, AT&T estimated that the reductions
would save customers $300 million a year on interstate and
international LD services used primarily by residential and small
business customers.

A 10-minute AT&T call during daytime hours on a weekday to anywhere in
the US will cost $2.50 or less, an average decrease of 1.3%.

Linen said a 10-minute daytime call from Washinton to New York, which
now costs $2.30, would decline to $2.20, a drop of 4.3%. An evening
call from Washinton to San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Dallas, which
now costs #1.67 for 10 minutes, would drop 5.3% to $1.58. The
reductions would be less for many other calls.

International calls from the 48 contiguous states to 25 of the most
frequently called countries wil be slashed by $104 million. The
reductions will vary from country to country.

***End of Article***

[Some abbreviations used.]

Regards, and happy holidays!
Will Martin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #589
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 23 Dec 89 1:01:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Canadian Lecture Series
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

Dear TELECOM Digest Readers,

Below is a special mailing I received a couple days ago. It was too
large for use in a regular Digest, and too small for a special edition.
I'm passing it along FYI.     PT

======================================================================

  Received: from jarvis.csri.toronto.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23353;
          21 Dec 89 15:43 CST
  Received: by jarvis.csri.toronto.edu id 5438; Thu, 21 Dec 89 16:41:48 EST
  To: [e-mail]
  From:    Ron Riesenbach <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Lecture Series on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
  Organization: University of Toronto, CSRI
  Distribution: na
  Date:    Thu, 21 Dec 89 16:41:03 EST
  Message-Id: <[e-mail]>


     C O M P U T E R   S U P P O R T E D   C O O P E R A T I V E   W O R K
                             The State of the Art


                       a lecture series presented by:


                  The Information Technology Research Centre

                                     and

                     The Department of Computer Science
                            University of Toronto


                             January-March 1990

                           University of Toronto
                             Galbraith Building
                         35 St. George Street, Rm.244
                                  Toronto



What is Computer-Supported Cooperative Work?

Imagine an accountant in Toronto working with a client in Northern
Ontario.  The client, a small businessman, has prepared a spreadsheet
that represents the financial forecast for his business for the coming
year, and wants to review it with the accountant prior to submitting
it to the bank.

In the past, he would have to travel to Toronto to do this
effectively.  Now, thanks to a revolutionary mix of computer and
communications technologies known as a system for Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (CSCW), this is no longer necessary. A single command
to his computer causes it to dial and establish a connection with his
accountant's computer. Simultaneously, the two are placed in telephone
contact using their hands-free speakerphones, and in live video
contact through images of each other which appear in windows in their
workstations.  Furthermore, their screens are linked so that any
change to the spreadsheet made by either party is visible in the
other's version with no perceptible delay.

Available today?  No.  Science fiction?  Definitely not.  All the
individual elements needed to paint this picture are technically
feasible today.  Given the anticipated developments in technology and
systems integration, reductions in the cost of high bandwidth
telecommunications, and results of human factors investigations
designed to explore how such visions can be translated into useful,
useable systems, this scenario can be a reality in under 5 years.

Furthermore, the same system can help doctors in remote locations
consult with specialists in distant medical centres, managers in
branch offices communicate and coordinate with their counterparts and
supervisors in the head office, and programmers at distributed
locations work together to write or maintain large software systems.


Coverage

The lecture series will survey and introduce the state-of-the-art and
the potential of this exciting new field.  It will attempt to answer
such questions as: What are the roles of computer, audio, and video
technology is supporting distributed coordinated work? How does
software for CSCW, sometimes known as groupware, need to differ from
that designed for individual users? What needs to be done in order for
such technology to become viable?  What is the impact of social and
organizational factors?  What are the major stumbling blocks hindering
the successful development and deployment of effective CSCW systems?


Who Should Attend?

This technology is of particular relevance to Canadians.  MIS managers
and others concerned with monitoring, adopting, and managing new
technology will find CSCW particularly relevant to communication among
individuals and coordination of resources in a country with a widely
dispersed population base.

Computer and communications researchers in Canada, leveraging upon the
country's strengths in communications technology, software, media, and
interface design, will find CSCW a particularly fruitful area for the
development and marketing of innovative new products.


The Lecture Series

Tuesday, January 9, 1990
4:00 p.m. -  An Introduction to CSCW.

Ronald Baecker, Professor of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering,
and Management at the University of Toronto, will survey and introduce
key concepts and issues in computer supported cooperative work,
including computer support for face-to-face meetings, meetings at a
distance, and asynchronous communications.



Tuesday, January 23, 1990
3:00 p.m. - Video and Demonstrations
4:00 p.m. -  Tools for Informal Communication

Dr. Robert Kraut, Research Scientist and manager of the Interpersonal
Communications Research Group at Bellcore, the research arm of the
Bell operating companies, will motivate the need for improving
collaboration at a distance, will review some successes and failures
in video conferencing, and will describe current work at Bellcore
including the facilitation of casual video meetings.



Tuesday, February 6 1990
4:00 p.m. - Modalities of Interaction and Shared Space

Mr. Bill Buxton, Research Scientist and consultant to Xerox PARC and
Commodore Business Machines, and Adjunct Professor, Department of
Computer Science, University of Toronto, will examine some of the
relationships that exist between sensory modalities of communication,
the information that is passed down those channels, and the tasks
being performed.  Using examples, he will explore this space, and
discuss how insights can be gained that help in the design of improved
collaborative tools.



Tuesday, February 13, 1990
3:00 p.m. - Video and Demonstrations
4:00 p.m. - Computer-Aided Meeting Environments

Marilyn Mantei, Associate Professor of Computer Science and Library
and Information Science at the University of Toronto, will
demonstrate, through recorded video examples, recent developments in
computer-aided meeting rooms, and will discuss key factors that affect
the success of such environments.



Tuesday, February 27, 1990
4:00 p.m. -  Media Spaces

Dr. Sara Bly, Research Scientist at the Xerox Palo Alto Research
Centre (PARC), will review an experimental system developed at PARC
and other Xerox laboratory sites which employs coordinated computer,
audio, and video connections to enable individuals in remote locations
to meet and work together.



Tuesday, March 13, 1990
3:00 p.m. - Video and Demonstrations
4:00 p.m. - Desktop Teleconferencing: A Systems Perspective

Dr. Keith Lantz, Principal Engineer at Olivetti Research California,
will discuss the hardware and software requirements for desktop
teleconferencing, with particular emphasis on support for application
sharing including tools (e.g. shared window systems) that enable the
sharing of single-user, collaboration-transparent applications and
tools that make it easier to develop multi-user, collaboration-aware
applications from scratch.



Tuesday, March 20, 1990
4:00 p.m. - Beyond Electronic Mail

Thomas W. Malone, Patrick McGovern Professor of Information Systems at
the Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., will show how artificially
intelligent agents, hypertext, and object oriented user-interfaces can
help users build powerful tools for information sharing and
cooperative work.


Monday, March 26, 1990
4:00 p.m. -  Problems and Prospects for CSCW Systems

Dr. Jonathan Grudin, Research Scientist at the Microelectronics
Computer Corporation, currently visiting at Aarhus University,
Denmark, will review and analyze past successes and failures in
systems for computer supported cooperative work.



Details

All lectures will be held in Galbraith 244.  Preceding the lectures on
January 23, February 13, and March 13, Ms. Ilona Posner and Mr.
Gifford Louie of the Department of Computer Science will show CSCW
video tapes and demonstrate groupware products in the adjoining
building, the Sandford Fleming Building, Room 2103, from 3:00 to 4:00.
Following each lecture the speaker will be available to answer
questions over tea and coffee.

PLEASE NOTE: All lectures but the last one will be held on Tuesdays.
The March 26 lecture is on a MONDAY.

Registration

The lecture series is free to interested computing and communications
professionals, researchers, and technical managers.  Attendees are
requested to register by phoning or e-mailing Rosanna Reid at the
ITRC's Toronto Site office [ph.[phone], or send e-mail to:
[e-mail]] at least one-week prior to the lecture(s)
they wish to attend.


This lecture series is supported by funds from the Information Technology
Research Centre, from the Department of Computer Science at the University of
Toronto, and from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada under a Strategic Grant.

=====================================================

End of Forwarded Message


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator
December 23, 1989












Date:     Sat, 23 Dec 89 12:36:27 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #590
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Dec 89 12:36:06 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 590

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Phone Frustration (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Patrick Townson)
    Fidonet <===> UUCP Gateway in Europe? (Leon Oninckx)
    Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc) (Jon Solomon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 11:30:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
 .....

>[Moderator's Note: Will, thanks for sending this over to us. One of
>the sad facts of post-divestiture phone service is that the consumer
>is the last person to be considered. Unheard of -- indeed, almost
>unthinkable -- problems with phone service prior to divestiture, of
>the sort enumerated here, and lots more, became commonplace once the
>judge signed off on the most tragic, and misguided legal decision in
>American history.  Instead of merely giving equal-opportunity to all
>new comers (and how could the Bill McGowans of the world survive in a
>scenario like that?)  they had to bust up a century's worth of
>finely-tuned procedures and practices due to the anti-AT&T bias so
>prevalent in the court.  PT]

The moderator's views about the divestiture are well known, but the
problems enumerated in Will's message can hardly be blamed on
divestiture.

   o "... a dark stormy night, a desperate woman, a telephone from Kafka".
     Using a pay phone at a service station along the highway, she
     dialed 0 then the number and the phone went dead. She tried again
     and again. She finally reached an operator and found out that (a)
     the phone was owned by a private company (not AT&T), (b) collect
     calls could not be made, and (c) she could not be connected with
     an AT&T operator.

Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephones became possible as a result of
the FCC's Carterfone decision (1968) authorizing customers to attach
any sort of device to their phone line, coupled with the decision
eliminating AT&T's ban on resale I expect the problem was solved
through the use of a call trace capability by the local phone company
just as it would have been had AT&T been integrated (1980)--both
preceding divestiture..  Thus, even without the breakup, we would have
been likely to see this scenario.  Indeed, it is a common one in
France where COCOT's have been authorized for decades and the
telephone company is still a monopoly.

   o Another woman received hourly calls with the recorded message
     "The maximum dollar amount is exceeded by the number 4-4-4-4-4-4."
     The problem was traced to a pay phone at a local gas station with
     a full coin box. The phone was programmed to call someone when the
     coin box was full. Unfortunately, it was programmed with the wrong
     number.

Again, this problem has nothing to do with divestiture, but could
happen with any sort of autodial customer equipment -- even equipment
which was forced to operate through the old Bell Protective Access
Arrangement which made modems so expensive for us computer users.
Even if we went back to the pre-Carterfone days when all autodialers
had to be leased from AT&T, it wouldn't prevent a customer from
programming a wrong number. I expect the problem was solved thorugh
the use of a call trace capability by the local phone company just as
it would have been had AT&T been integrated.

   o For six months a woman had long distance calls to Mexico City
     on her bill. The phone company finally discovered that the woman's
     line was cross wired with a neighbor's line. The twist in the
     story was that the neighbor had recently moved into the house and
     did not realize it had TWO lines (the phone company had failed to
     disconnect the second line when the previous owner moved out).
     The neighbor's bill looked normal since most of his calls were on
     his primary line. Only when he used a secondary phone were the
     calls billed elsewhere.

There's nothing in this story to suggest that divestiture had anything
to do with the problem -- unless you want to argue that the old AT&T
never got customer's wires crossed!

   o One family had phones that rang three times then stopped.
     Friends said they called and let the phone ring 20 times
     and no one answered. "After extensive investigation [GTE]
     found an electronic glitch at a nearby central office."

This story doesn't even involve AT&T, and can thus hardly be blamed on
Judge Greene.  Indeed, one postive consequence of divestiture is that
the equipment market has become more competitive, leading GTE to throw
in the towel and merge its switch operations with AT&T.  This will
likely prove quite beneficial in the long run to GTE customers.

In short, the moderator should spare us his non sequiters about Judge
Greene.


Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University

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

Date:     Sat, 23 Dec 89 11:38:17 CST
From:     Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Phone Frustration

>The moderator's views about the divestiture are well known, but the
>problems enumerated in Will's message can hardly be blamed on divestiture.

  (Example given: person under difficult circumstances needs to call the
  AT&T operator from a desolate area with one pay phone; it belongs to
  someone other than the local Bell; she cannot get through.)

>Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephones became possible as a result of
>the FCC's Carterfone decision (1968) authorizing customers to attach
>any sort of device to their phone line....

>Thus, even without the breakup, we would have been likely to see this
>scenario.  Indeed, it is a common one in France where COCOT's have
>been authorized for decades and the telephone company is still a
>monopoly.

And France has really great and effecient phone service, don't they?
What a great example for Americans! What a goal to strive for! Phone
service as good as that in France. COCOTS may have been authorized as
of 1968, but they did not begin appearing on the scene until the
early 1980's -- once they knew that AT&T was unlikely to find a legal
environment friendly enough to stop them.

 (Example given: woman receives calls from a misprogrammed pay phone
  telling her the box needs to be cleaned out. This goes on until
  the call is 'finally traced' to the COCOT proprietor.)

>Even if we went back to the pre-Carterfone days when all autodialers
>had to be leased from AT&T, it wouldn't prevent a customer from
>programming a wrong number. I expect the problem was solved thorugh
>the use of a call trace capability by the local phone company just as
>it would have been had AT&T been integrated.

Indeed, it could happen anytime, but the difference is, now-a-days it
is up to the consumer to find out what is wrong, *and convince
others*. By this, I mean the lady can call 'repair service' or the
operator to report the problem. As far as telco is concerned, there is
no problem. *They* don't control the equipment in question, and *their*
equipment is working fine...she got the calls, didn't she? And I
venture to say when the lady called the COCOT to complain about
getting constant calls from one of their phones, she was told to check
with the telco.

One of the notorious problems since divestiture, now that we get our
local service one place, our long distance service somewhere else, and
our equipment from a third place, is that all three love to point
their fingers at the other two as the troublemaker. In our office, for
example, getting the WATS lines repaired is like a three ring circus.
The long distance guy says the local telco dedicated circuits to his
switch are not working. Telco says it must be our PBX which is not
handling the calls correctly. Our PBX guy says call the long distance
company. Finally with some effort, I get all three together on our
premises at one time, and let them stand there and point their fingers
at each other, but none of them leave until my phones are working
again.

 (Example given: people get billed for long distance calls not their
  own. Problem is found to be crossed wires in the junction box coming
  into the subscriber's premises. How did the wires get crossed?)

Mr. Sirbu notes,

>There's nothing in this story to suggest that divestiture had anything
>to do with the problem  -- unless you want to argue that the old AT&T
>never got customer's wires crossed!

Yes, AT&T, or more precisely, the local telco did get wires crossed.
But that condition is far more common now that the local telco by law
cannot work on wires past the point they enter the subscriber's
premises. If the telco is going to charge $$$ to come out and install
your phone these days, and you have the option of having 'someone else'
do the work, then you get 'someone else' (the building janitor, maybe?)
who claims to know what he is doing. It is frightening to me to
realize that in a large apartment complex or office building, with a
big IT in the basement, that anybody and everybody these days who
wants a phone installed is free to get in the cabinet and tamper with
the wires.

So the victim of the cross-wiring with the wrong calls on his bill
calls the long distance supplier, and gets a third degree run-around.
He calls the local telco, and is told they have nothing to do with the
wires in his building or long distance. The building manager says call
the telco. The telco says call the long distance company.  I am
victimized when you moved into the apartment across the hall and your
friend said he could save you big money by doing the installation
himself! An unusual and rare occurence? Not in the big city in many
older neighborhoods.  Tenants in an apartment building have gotten
into physical fights with each other accusing the other of stealing
their service or cutting the wires off entirely, etc.

In big, older urban areas like Chicago, multiples come up all over the
place in the cable run. You go to the basement of my building --
private property where the telco can no longer under law work without
charging a hefty fee -- and you'll find pairs for everyone on this
block.  So your efforts to wire your phones victimize several other
folks in the vicinity. Even novice installers from the local telco in
the old days did not bungle things so badly!

 (Example given: Problem in the switch causes subscriber to lose calls.)

>This story doesn't even involve AT&T, and can thus hardly be blamed on
>Judge Greene.  Indeed, one postive consequence of divestiture is that
>the equipment market has become more competitive, leading GTE to throw
>in the towel and merge its switch operations with AT&T.  This will
>likely prove quite beneficial in the long run to GTE customers.

In the old days when I reported a condition like this, someone looked
into it and repaired it. Now, when I call Repair Service, I am given a
third degree questioning: Have I tested every phone in my house? Have
I unplugged all but one, tested it, and used a process of elimination?
Can I prove it is a central office problem and not a problem on my
end?  Am I aware that if telco comes out to my premises a week from
Tuesday and finds the problem on my end I will receive a hefty bill
for having bothered them? I know how telephones work, and I can't get
through their questioning at times; what about the average consumer?

>In short, the moderator should spare us his non sequiters about Judge Greene.

Mr. Sirbu is, of course, technically correct. No matter where you
look, you'll not find any piece of paper signed by Harold Greene
saying COCOT proprietors are free to screw the (relatively ignorant of
telephony practices) consumer. No where did he sign off on anything
saying service was to get worse, or that the conditions given in the
examples were to be permitted to exist.

But....what could he *possibly* have expected to happen otherwise?
COCOTS began proliferating once Greene set the pace. Long distance
rip-offs began in an agressive way once Greene set the pace. By the
court's portrayal throughout the entire divestiture process of AT&T as
an evil giant which had to be squashed, everyone understood what
Greene was saying, which was that AT&T, in his estimation, was a bad
organization which had to be stopped.

He could have easily permitted competition without smashing AT&T in
the process; but instead, he took a century of fine-tuning and
carefully planned practices which had given the USA the finest
*totally integrated* phone network in the world, bar none, and
indicated his willingness to see it picked apart. Unlike other
utilities such as electricity and gas, where your use of the utility
is of little concern to me, as to what you attach to the pipes or
wires, telephones are different: it takes two to tango, so to speak,
and my service becomes worth less or more in large part based on the
configuration of your service and equipment.

That's what made the Bell System so successful over the decades: One
way of doing things; one standard; everyone shape up or ship out.

Greene could have authorized competition by telling MCI/Sprint and
others they were free to compete; and that they could spend the next
century developing a system or network equally as efficient and good
as Bell if they desired. You say its not fair to MCI/Sprint to have to
spend that long to accomplish it?  Who gave AT&T and the Bell System
any breaks over the past hundred years? Where did Greene find the
moral or ethical authority to force AT&T to sell off its property?

Mr. Sirbu is indeed correct: Divestiture was a very narrow thing; it
said only a few words, relative to all the water which has passed
under the bridge in the past five years; but ideas have consequences,
and I can't imagine Harold Greene didn't know that from the moment he
first entertained the concept of divestiture in his courtroom.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Leon Oninckx <[e-mail]>
Subject: FidoNet <===> UUCP Gateway in Europe?
Date: 23 Dec 89 15:09:00 GMT
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands


I was wondering if there already IS a gateways available between
BITNET/ InterEunet/UUCP networks for reaching people in Zone 2
(Europe) and vice versa. Please followup in this newsgroup.


| Leon Oninckx, Pennendijk 7, NL-4851 VB Ulvenhout, The Netherlands
| email : [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

Date:  Sat, 23 Dec 89 11:17:07 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc)

411 is used here in Massachussetts.

611 is not.

911 is in some places.

jsol

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #590
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 24 Dec 89 13:46:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #591
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Dec 89 13:45:33 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 591

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Announces Lower Prices (Don H. Kemp)
    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (John Higdon)
    Re: Call Forwarding (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID on 800 Service (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Canadian Lecture Series (Wayne Hamilton)
    Re: 800 Numbers and Canada (Gary L. Dare)
    Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc.) (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: A Hart Attack (Sakari Mattila)

[Moderator's Note: I want to wish a very happy holiday to all readers
of the Digest. Barring an unforseen developments, the next issue of the
Digest will be Tuesday morning, December 26.    PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Lower Prices
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 89 13:07:41 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>

 More Propoganda from the Mother of all Bells :-)


FOR RELEASE TUESDAY, DEC. 19, 1989

    WASHINGTON -- AT&T today said it plans to lower prices by $300
million annually on interstate and international long- distance
services used primarily by consumers and small business customers.

    The price decrease would take effect Jan. 1, 1990, and apply to
AT&T's basic long-distance service, most international calls and Reach
Out(R) America, the company's optional long-distance plan for
consumers.

    The decrease, AT&T's 10th since 1984, would bring total reductions
in long-distance prices to 40 percent in the six years since the
breakup of the Bell System.  When the Jan. 1 decrease takes effect, a
10-minute AT&T call, at any time of day to anywhere in the continental
United States, will cost $2.50 or less.  Placed during the
night/weekend calling period, such a call will cost $1.32 or less.

    The price cuts, filed late Monday with the Federal Communications
Commission, reflect reduced expenses, primarily from lower fees AT&T
will pay in 1990 to local telephone companies for access to customers'
lines.  Under FCC guidelines, those cost savings lower the "price cap"
on AT&T long-distance services.

    AT&T's proposal includes:

o   A 1.3 percent drop in prices for basic long-distance
    service during the weekday calling period (8 a.m. to
    5 p.m. Monday through Friday) and a 2 percent drop during
    the evening calling period (5 p.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday
    through Friday).

o   Greater discounts for subscribers to the Reach Out
    America 24-Hour plan.  Customers of the plan will receive
    a 10 percent discount, up from 5 percent, on weekday
    calls, and a 25 percent discount, up from 20 percent, on
    evening calls.  Reach Out America's evening calling
    period is from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Friday.
    In addition, AT&T on Friday, Dec. 15, proposed to extend
    its waiver of the sign-up fee for new Reach Out America
    subscribers through Jan. 31, 1990.

o   A $104 million price reduction on international calls
    from the U.S. mainland to 25 of the most frequently
    called countries and overseas areas including Canada,
    Mexico, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Israel,
    Brazil, Australia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Korea.
    The percentage reduction varies by country and time of
    day.

o   Lower prices for AT&T World Connect(sm) Service to 39
    countries or territories.  AT&T World Connect Service
    gives frequent international callers a discount on
    direct-dialed calls from the U.S. mainland.

o   Reductions in basic long-distance prices from Puerto Rico
    and the U.S. Virgin Islands to 95 countries and
    territories.

                           # # #



Don H Kemp            "Always listen to experts.  They'll
B B & K Associates, Inc.         tell you what can't be done, and
Rutland, VT             why.  Then do it."
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk                         Lazarus Long


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Date: 22 Dec 89 01:20:27 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> If 3 watts of power goes into the transmitter, I do not see how the
> laws of physics would allow 4 watts to be radiated into the electro-
> magnetic field ?

Antenna "gain" is most common in the RF world. It involves the amount
of energy radiated in a given direction from the antenna. In a given
azimuth, a 5/8 wave antenna (as used in cellular mobile phones)
radiates more energy than a 1/2 wave reference dipole for a given RF
input.

An easy way to visualize this is to refer to the case of an FM
broadcast antenna (oh, no, Martha, here it comes!). If you take a
single "bay" or element and you could see the energy being radiated
from it, it would appear as somewhat spherical, coming off in every
direction. Unfortuately, the receivers are all out at some horizontal
distance from the antenna.  There are hardly any listeners in the sky
or under the ground, so all that energy is being wasted. If you place
a second bay on the tower exactly one wavelength's distance above or
below the first and divide the energy between the two, the formerly
spherical pattern will now "flatten out", with more energy being
radiated out horizontally and less going up and down. The antenna is
now said to have "gain" over the standard dipole. No energy was
created, just redirected in a more useful manner.

The ERP (Effective Radiated Power) from a standard dipole equals the Input
Power to the antenna which is close to the transmitter output power. The
ERP from a "gain" antenna is equal to the Input Power times the power gain
of the antenna. In the case of our FM example above, adding that second
element would give the antenna a gain of 2. The gain of a 5/8 wave antenna
is approximately 1.3 referenced to the standard 1/2 wave (I think--don't
work with those much). I know more about FM antennas than cellular, but the
principle is the same.

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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding
Date: 21 Dec 89 23:45:37 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> [in response to my claim that call forwarding would work for multiple
> calls]

> This isn't correct, at least in the Boston area switches.  A couple of
> years ago, one could have many calls being forwarded through a single
> line.  Now, only one call can be active through a call forward at one
> time.

> I just confirmed this moments ago, John!

Well, I just comfirmed moments ago that my office phone in Santa Clara
would indeed forward at least three calls, assuming that each of the
preceeding calls was supervised. It is served by a 1AESS co-located
with the Pac*Bell tandem.

However, when I tried the same trick on my home phone, it didn't work.
My home phone is handled by an unknown number of trained hamsters
(1ESS). With its 1951 generic, I'm not surprised. This little
experiment would lead one to believe that multiple forwarding is
something that can work on a switch-by-switch basis. I would suggest
that you might try other Boston area switches, but that doesn't solve
your problem with your particular switch.

> This is for my
> residential service -- I've heard that you can indeed ask that
> multiple calls be allowed through, but the phone company people are
> baffled when I try to explain the situation.

As much as I kinda doubt it, maybe there is a distinction between
forwarding on business vs forwarding on residential. It's ridiculous,
but who knows?

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

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

Date: Sat, 23 Dec 89 10:13:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID on 800 Service


>The service that provides the 800 customer with the callers number has
>nothing to do with CLASS and does not require CLASS capability at
>either the origin or the destination. It is simply the passing of the
>caller's number obtained via ordinary ANI to the end customer.

>Again, the service has nothing to do with SS#7, CLASS, or any other
>relatively recent technology. When in use, there is no way to block
>your number from being transmitted. There are no tarrifs or
>regulations that would protect your privacy.

Unless the carriers are providing calling number identification to
customers for free (fat chance!) they must file a tariff for the
service with the FCC.  AT&T did indeed file a tariff with the FCC for
its Info-Call service and charges 2-3 cents per calling number
delivered.  We can thank the FCC for completely igonoring the privacy
aspects of the tariff and approving it without much fanfare.

The FCC could have chosen to take the same policy stance as the
California PUC and mandate the ability to block calling line
forwarding to *IEC customers* (though not of course to the IEC itself
which needs the number for billing purposes).  They chose not to.


Marvin Sirbu

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

Date: Sat, 23 Dec 89 11:00:20 -0600
From: Wayne Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Canadian Lecture Series


> Now, thanks to a revolutionary mix of computer and
> communications technologies known as a system for Computer Supported
> Cooperative Work (CSCW), this is no longer necessary. A single command
> to his computer causes it to dial and establish a connection with his
> accountant's computer. Simultaneously, the two are placed in telephone
> contact using their hands-free speakerphones, and in live video
> contact through images of each other which appear in windows in their
> workstations.  Furthermore, their screens are linked so that any
> change to the spreadsheet made by either party is visible in the
> other's version with no perceptible delay.

> Available today?  No.  Science fiction?  Definitely not.  All the
> individual elements needed to paint this picture are technically
> feasible today.  Given the anticipated developments in technology and
> systems integration, reductions in the cost of high bandwidth
> telecommunications, and results of human factors investigations
> designed to explore how such visions can be translated into useful,
> useable systems, this scenario can be a reality in under 5 years.

With the exception of the windowed video images, we were doing all
that on tenex systems back in 1974!  even with the shift to PCs, it
sounds like Carbon Copy (or one of the work-alikes) and a seperate
voice line.  what's so revolutionary about it?


        Wayne Hamilton
    U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL
UUCP:    {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!osiris!hamilton
I'net:    [e-mail]
Lowtek:    Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801; [phone](voice), -4311(BBS)

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

From: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers and Canada
Date: 23 Dec 89 18:25:05 GMT
Reply-To: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Ghostbusters Institute at Columbia University


In X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 588, Sam Ho writes:

>While most 800 numbers do not work from Canada, I believe it is
>possible to get US+Canada accessible 800 service.  However, I've
>also seen Canadians instructed to dial 112-800-NNX-XXXX, toll-free.

Continent-wide 1-800 for Canada and the US is not unusual; a radio
call-in show called "Rockline" (11:30 PM Eastern) has 344-ROCK for
both countries.

>in Canada, (cut to shot of volunteers in Vancouver) call
>112-800-something.

That's not unusual; for some strange reason, 1-800 numbers inside
British Columbia have to be prefixed with 112-800, not 1-800.  I don't
know why, but when they list domestic numbers on television or
whatever, there is always a seperate B.C. number like this.  So if
your Canadian PBS viewers are in British Columbia, then they'll have
to use their BC Tel to get at the operators.

NB: Remember that there are 10 Canadian provinces, each one a bit
different from the other like Texas and New Hampshire and Oregon.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare                Jesus Saves!
> [e-mail] *temp.    Gretzky gets the rebound -
> [e-mail]            he shoots, he scores!

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc.)
Date: 24 Dec 89 08:06:07 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B. Levin) writes:

>                    West [sic]  East [sic]
>Long Distance        110         211  (gone with the advent of
>Information(*)       113         411           direct dialling)
>Repair Service       114         611

And not to forget:    Old         New
Emergency             116         911

At least I remember when I was but a tyke (late '60s) that we had a
sticker next to the phone giving out the 116 number.  There was,
however, a gap of about 15 years between the time 116 went away and
the time we got 911.

                                  Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: Sakari Mattila <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Hart Attack
Date: 24 Dec 89 14:11:16 GMT
Reply-To: Sakari Mattila <[e-mail]>
Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland


It may be of interest to know, that there is at least one public BBS
in the USSR.  It is located in Tallin, Estonia. Its phone number is
reachable using direct dialing [phone].  I have called it,
lines are quite noisy, but usable. Modem is CCITT V.22 (1200 b/s),
also CCITT V.21 is said to be available. There is, of course,
auto-answer full 24 hours a day.  BBS software is PCBoard (R) version
14.1/D running on some kind of PC klone.

Its name is "EESTI BBS 1", command language is English, texts are at
least in English, Estonian and Finnish.


Sakari M. Mattila  (OH2AZG)   [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: What a nice holiday present it might be to give
this chap a call, even for five minutes or so, and wish him the best
from his friends in the United States and elsewhere in the world of
TELECOM Digest readers. If anyone does call, consider reporting back
to us here, or perhaps downloading a bit of your session on line.

My best wishes for a safe and happy holiday to all. The next issue of
the Digest will be Tuesday morning, December 26, barring unforseen
developments.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #591
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 26 Dec 89 0:21:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #592
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Dec 89 00:20:45 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 592

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon)
    Re: International Directory Assistance (John R. Levine)
    Re: Caller ID on 800 Service (John Higdon)
    Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell (John Higdon)
    Re: Internet <-> Fidonet Mail (David Dodell)
    Democratic Caller ID (Dave Levenson)
    Calling the BBS in Estonia (Ken Jongsma)
    Calling the BBS in Tallinn, Estonia (John R. Covert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 23 Dec 89 21:32:22 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Patrick Townson, the TELECOM Moderator writes:

> In the old days when I reported a condition like this, someone looked
> into it and repaired it. Now, when I call Repair Service, I am given a
> third degree questioning: Have I tested every phone in my house? Have
> I unplugged all but one, tested it, and used a process of elimination?
> Can I prove it is a central office problem and not a problem on my
> end?  Am I aware that if telco comes out to my premises a week from
> Tuesday and finds the problem on my end I will receive a hefty bill
> for having bothered them? I know how telephones work, and I can't get
> through their questioning at times; what about the average consumer?

Well, with all of my railings about Pac*Bell, I guess it's time for
the equal fairness doctrine. I have experienced none of the above.
Yes, the frontline person always asks if I am sure my equipment is OK,
but all I have to say to end that thread is tell him/her that I have
checked it at the "network demark". That ends that.

What follows makes the "old days" look like the dark ages. Within
minutes, someone is testing the line (the frontline person performs a
continuity test while you're talking to them; you can hear the click
and they ask you if you are talking on that line). Within about an
hour, a technician calls you back if they need additional information.
This person will "talk telephone" with you and does not treat you like
an idiot. If you speak over his/her head, you are put on the line with
yet another, higher level, person.

If the trouble cannot be located in the CO, they will dispatch. And it
isn't a week from Tuesday; they are very apologetic if they can't send
someone out the very same day (you never wait more than 24 hours,
including weekends).

Now I'll tell you how they handle businesses. That's when they really
haul ass. You phone repair service at 1:00 am and the call-back person
(who calls before 2:00 am) will ask (again if the problem requires it)
if you can wait until business hours for a dispatch, or you need one
*now*. The majority of all service calls are handled same day, usually
with an hour or two. What else could you want?

I don't know how it is in other RBOCs, but Pacific Bell's Repair
Service is first class all the way, and a resounding improvement from
the days of Pacific Telephone. This is one area where you can keep the
old Bell System.

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

[Moderator's Note: The only people in Chicago who get a premise visit
*now* (within an hour or less of their call) are subscribers with
emergency requirements such as police/fire departments; hospitals, etc.
I'll grant you 24 hour turnaround is pretty common. Work in the CO is
usually done within an hour or two, even at night provided the office
is attended all night. Otherwise its the next day in the CO.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: International Directory Assistance
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 23 Dec 89 14:49:14 EST (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>The U.S. can call 809 555-1212; an operator in Jacksonville answers
>and routes the call to the correct directory assistance operator based
>on the destination.  And you get charged if it's Puerto Rico or the
>U.S. Virgin Islands; D.A. for the other locations in the Caribbean is free.

How does the billing information get passed back?  I was under the
impression that billing information for DA calls is collected just
like any other, either at the caller's exchange or at the calling POP.

And if they can do that, it seems to me it should be equally possible
not to charge for calls to any other DA when they can't provide the
desired number.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID on 800 Service
Date: 24 Dec 89 20:11:36 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]> writes:

> Unless the carriers are providing calling number identification to
> customers for free (fat chance!) they must file a tariff for the
> service with the FCC.  AT&T did indeed file a tariff with the FCC for
> its Info-Call service and charges 2-3 cents per calling number
> delivered.  We can thank the FCC for completely igonoring the privacy
> aspects of the tariff and approving it without much fanfare.

It is true that tariff would have to be filed with the FCC, but I had
discounted that when I made my comment. With the exception of
broadcasting, the FCC has historically avoided "social engineering"
aspects of the communications field. Originally, the purpose of the
FCC was to prevent chaos on the airwaves. From a logical point of
view, the FCC was correct to ignore the privacy aspects of 800 caller
number delivery. It's only function should have been to ensure that
the technical aspects of the feature were sound, did not violate any
other *technical* provisions of the rules and regs, and to advise on
the suitability of the proposed charge. Yes, indeed, we can thank the
FCC for doing its job, and not assuming the role of thought policeman
for us all.

BTW, answering an 800 number without calling number delivery is
roughly equivalent to answering a POTS line and having the operator
say, "I have a collect call, you've just accepted the charges, and
it's none of your business who it is."

But back to the FCC for a moment. To get an idea why I am against the
FCC meddling in areas other than technical one only has to look at the
way the commission handles the broadcaster. As you are no doubt aware,
commissioners are appointed by the party in the White House. Over the
past twenty-some years that I have been in the business, the FCC's
policies directly reflect the political leanings of the moment.

For instance, under Johnson, the FCC set up this incredibly exhaustive
list of requirements for public service that radio and television
station had to adhere to in order to keep their license. Every three
years, each and every station had to prove that they had met their
public service commitment. You remember public service, the stuff that
played every Sunday morning and late at night that no one listened to.

Many of these requirements lasted through the Nixon-Ford
administration, and stayed with Carter. Broadcasters jumped for joy as
the Reagan administration promised to ease up on all these programming
requirements. That plus a relaxing of many technical rules was
heralded as a major step forward. They thought they had arrived.

The Republicans had a surprise in store. Reacting to fundamentalists
and other righteous folk, the FCC has now set itself up as the
Prudence Peabody of the airwaves. For instance, a station in Las Vegas
was recently fined for playing a rock record (I forget what) that
somebody thought was obscene and complained about it. Never mind that
the same record routinely plays everywhere else in the country, or
that the place was, after all, Sin City. The FCC considers a station
guilty of obscenity until proven innocent--and most stations would
rather pay the fine than the high costs of litigation.

So this is what happens when the FCC tries to diddle with things that
are not related to the nuts and bolts of communication. I would rather
not have the FCC consider the social ramifications of the entities
that they oversee and stick to their design function: the
establishment and enforcement of technical standards in our
communications services.

> The FCC could have chosen to take the same policy stance as the
> California PUC and mandate the ability to block calling line
> forwarding to *IEC customers* (though not of course to the IEC itself
> which needs the number for billing purposes).  They chose not to.

Thank heaven for that.

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

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

Subject: Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 24 Dec 89 23:19:20 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail], , (JM Ivler) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 588, message 4 of 9

>Correction. As a resident of that area, I pay my bills to Pactel *not*
>GTE. I have refused to live in GTE service areas since I got out here
>(over 11 years ago). Westminster may have lots of problems (like half
>the store signs are *not* in english), but phone service is not one of
>them.

Sorry, I could have sworn that Westminster was GTE. Not being a
resident of southern California, my information comes from a variety
of sources. This particular association of GTE with an area came from
some conversations a couple of years ago with people concerning 976.
As a result of these conversations I got the impression that should
GTE ever provide generally available (no pun intended) 976 service in
714 that the call would be billed as a call to Westminster (as 213 is
billed as Los Angeles, 415--San Francisco, 619--San Diego, etc. The
natural assumption was that Westminster would be a GTE area.

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Dec 89 11:31:07 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fidonet <===> UUCP Gateway in Europe


 >From: Leon Oninckx <[e-mail]>
 >Subject: FidoNet <===> UUCP Gateway in Europe?

 >I was wondering if there already IS a gateways available between
 >BITNET/ InterEunet/UUCP networks for reaching people in Zone 2
 >(Europe) and vice versa. Please followup in this newsgroup.

Yes, Fidonet is fully intergrated into Internet, and ANY fidonet
address can be reached from the internet.  It doesn't make a
difference what Zone in fidonet the node is located.

If anyone wishes more specific details, they can write me direct and
I'll take care of individual requests that way.


David

   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
                  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Democratic Caller ID
Date: 25 Dec 89 00:05:47 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


It is interesting to note (as a recent poster to this group has) that
AT&T's INFO-CALL service is basically a little-known Caller-ID service
that's been around for a long time for 'big guys' like American
Express Co.

Any state that legislates against the provision of Caller-ID service
will, perhaps inadvertently, legislate against INFO-CALL, as well.
This should bring some 'big guns' out in opposition to such
legislation!

Caller-ID, like other luxuries, should not be limited only to
subscribers like American Express.  It should be available to all
subscribers who want it enough to pay for it.  Even residential
subscribers! No?


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: [e-mail]
Subject: Calling the BBS in Estonia
Date: Sun, 24-Dec-89 17:26:10 PST


I just tried the number given for the BBS in Estonia. The thought occured
to me that given the country I was calling, I was probably dialing into
the KGB's office :). Still, in the spirit of the season, I gave it a shot.

Sprint (Dial 1): "The call you have attempted requires dedicated access
                  service. Please contact customer service for assistance."

ATT (10288):     "Direct Dial Service is available only to Moscow. For other
                  cities, please contact your operator."

MCI (10222):     "We're sorry. All International circuits are busy. Please
                  try your call again later."

Oh well. I assume I could have had an AT&T or Sprint Operator place
the call, but it _is_ Christmas Eve. :)


Ken Jongsma

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

Date: Sun, 24 Dec 89 22:55:11 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  25-Dec-1989 0150" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling the BBS in Tallinn, Estonia

>Moderator's Note: What a nice holiday present it might be to give
>this chap a call, even for five minutes or so, and wish him the best
>from his friends in the United States and elsewhere in the world of
>TELECOM Digest readers. If anyone does call, consider reporting back
>to us here, or perhaps downloading a bit of your session on line.

It's going to have to be someone elsewhere in the world, since AT&T
has not seen fit to reenable direct-dialing to anywhere in the SU
except for Moscow.  Tallinn was dialable in 1980 before Brezhnev shut
off all incoming traffic from the west, but not now.

I believe that AT&T feels that the grade of service (either due to
number of lines or line quality) to Tallinn is not adequate for direct
dial service and would prefer to have operators assisting customers
who want to call.

Readers will note that the information about the Tallinn BBS was
submitted by someone in Finland, rather close to Tallinn, who can
probably reach it on direct circuits from Helsinki.

/john


[Moderator's Note: Here is my question to you: Isn't it still possible
to call that system from here in the States by going through the
operator?  That is, place the call through the AT&T operator and
advise her at that time that the number will likely answer with a
modem tone *which is okay*, and that she should exit ASAP once the
carrier comes on. When the carrier is heard, immediatly enter ATO on
your modem (or the equivilent), and proceed with your session.
Admittedly the connection would not be the best; I doubt if a baud
rate faster than 300 would be successful at all unless the connection
was very, very clean. Any problems you can cite with using your modem
and computer through a manual operator connection?  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #592
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 26 Dec 89 1:50:44 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #593
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Dec 89 01:50:42 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 593

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    USOCA Press Release on Privacy Issues (Michael T. Doughney)
    FCC & Modem Charges (Ken Levitt)
    New Illinois Bell Rates Effective 1-1-90 (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Dec 89 02:04:29 EST
From: "Michael T. Doughney" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  USOCA Press Release on Privacy Issues


[The following is from a press release issued 12/19 from "Bonnie
Guiton, Special Adviser to the President for Consumer Affairs, and
Director, United States Office of Consumer Affairs".  Large parts of
it address issues seen frequently in TELECOM Digest.]

SAFEGUARDING YOUR PRIVACY: TEN WAYS TO KEEP THIS NEW YEAR'S
RESOLUTION

by Bonnie Guiton

    1990 begins a new decade that will be marked by quantum leaps in
technological innovation.  These innovations will certainly benefit
consumers; but they also create concerns about the collection, storage
and dissemination of personal information and buying habits.

    You may have seen or read stories about violations of an
individual's privacy -- pertaining to financial and credit records or
insurance and medical records.

    What concerns one consumer may not necessarily concern another.
But if you are concerned, you can help protect your privacy in a
number of ways, and the new year presents a good opportunity to adopt
simple, safeguarding habits.  Here are the top ten:

[Omitted sections 1-4 concerning credit records, medical records,
 and incentive programs.]

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

5)  LEARN ABOUT WAYS TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY ON THE TELEPHONE

    Caller ID: You may have been hearing a lot recently about
    Caller ID.  It is New Jersey's version of "automatic number
    identification" service soon to be offered by local phone
    companies in several other states.

    Subscribing to an ANI service allows you to protect yourself
    from unwanted callers.  The caller's number will show up on
    a read-out device attached to your phone.  If you don't
    recognize a number, you have the choice of answering it or not.

    If you don't want your own number revealed to those you call,
    just dial through an operator, or from a public phone.

    Answering Machines:  A "low-tech" version of "Caller ID" is
    the more familiar answering machine.  If phone calls at home
    are becoming intrusive, an answering machine can be used to
    screen calls, and may be a worthwhile investment for you.

    Cellular and Cordless Phones:  Cellular and cordless phone
    conversations are easily monitored -- both intentionally and
    unintentionally.  Be careful that you don't conduct confi-
    dential conversations on a cellular/cordless phone.

6)  ASK TO OPT OUT OF MARKETING PROGRAMS RUN BY COMPANIES THAT
    PROVIDE 800 AND 900 NUMBERS

    While the private home use of ANI technology is very new and
    experimental, the commercial uses of ANI technology are not.
    Many 800 and 900 number switchboards have the capability of
    capturing your number and matching it to your name and
    address to create customer lists.

    Many companies have legitimate reasons for creating such
    lists -- to keep track of customer complaints or consumer
    product inquiries, for example.  But some consumers object
    when the list is sold to marketers without the callers'
    knowledge or consent.

    And that is why it is important for you to register your
    desire to either participate in or opt out of those
    marketing programs using lists provided by companies you
    contact.

DIRECT MARKETING

    Many people appreciate direct mail and telephone offers.  But
businesses have difficulty determining who they're pleasing, and who
they're offending, when they conduct sales calls and direct mail
promotional campaigns.  So they appreciate hearing from potential
customers who aren't pleased as much as from those who are.

7)  SUBSCRIBE TO THE TELEPHONE PREFERENCE SERVICE (TPS)

    The Telephone Preference Service is sponsored by the Direct
    Marketing Association.  By notifying TPS that you do not
    wish to receive telemarketing calls, your name will be
    struck from the lists of DMA members who participate in the
    service.

    For DMA members, the service is a business tool; for all
    telemarketers combined, 3% of consumers contacted appreciate
    the calls, while 80% do not.  The Telephone Preference
    Service helps DMA members reach only those consumers who
    want their offers.

    Write:  DMA Telephone Preference Service, 6 East 43rd
    Street, New York, NY 10017

8)  DON'T GIVE ANY MORE INFORMATION THAN IS NECESSARY

    The most simple thing you can do to protect your privacy is
    to get in the habit of saying "no" to telemarketers you're
    not familiar with, to those who want more information than
    you feel is necessary to complete the business at hand, and
    to those who refuse to send you follow-up explanatory
    materials.

    Never give your credit card number over the phone unless you
    initiated the call, or are completing a transaction with a
    known vendor.  Never give your credit card (or Social Secur-
    ity) number over the phone for identification purposes only.

[Omitted sections 9-10 concerning mailing lists.]

    By following one or all ten steps and incorporating them as daily
consumer habits, you can protect yourself from intrusions of personal
privacy in 1990 and beyond, and still enjoy the many benefits of our
modern, high-tech marketplace.

                           - end -

Note to editors and reporters: Bonnie Guiton is taking the lead for
the White House on the issues surrounding consumer privacy.  For more
information, contact Bonnie Jansen at [phone].

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mike Doughney, Chief Engineer, UPI Radio Network, Washington, DC
(mtd @ ai.ai.mit.edu)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


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

Date: Mon, 25 Dec 89 11:44:39 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC & Modem charges


This article is reposted from Fidonet and may be of interest to
Telecom readers.

============================================================================

   Date: Sat Dec 23 1989 12:51:24
   From: Jack Lohman
   To: All
   Subj: FCC PROBLEMS

MOBILIZE!
=========

Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of
protest) failed to institute regulations that would impose additional
costs on modem users for data communications.

Now, they are at it again.  A new regulation that the FCC is quietly
working on will directly affect you as the user of a computer and
modem.  The FCC proposes that users of modems should pay extra charges
for use of the public telephone network which carry their data.  In
addition, computer network services such as CompuServ, Tymnet, &
Telenet would also be charged as much as $6.00 per hour per user for
use of the public telephone network.  These charges would very likely
be passed on to the subscribers.  The money is to be collected and
given to the telephone company in an effort to raise funds lost to
deregulation.

Jim Eason of KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, Ca) commented on the
proposal during his afternoon radio program during which, he said he
learned of the new regulation in an article in the New York Times.
Jim took the time to gather the addresses which are given below.

Here's what you should do (NOW!):

 1- Pass this information on.  Download MOBILIZE.ZIP which contains the
    text you are reading now.  Find other BBS's that are not carrying
    this information.  Upload the ASCII text into a public message on the
    BBS, and also upload the file itself so others can easily get a copy
    to pass along.

 2- Print out three copies of the letter which follows (or write your
    own) and send a signed copy to each of the following:

         Chairman of the FCC
         1919 M Street N.W.
         Washington, D.C. 20554

         Chairman, Senate Communication Subcommittee
         SH-227 Hart Building
         Washington, D.C. 20510

         Chairman, House Telecommunication Subcommittee
         B-331 Rayburn Building
         Washington, D.C. 20515


Here's the suggested text of the letter to send:

   Dear Sir,

   Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal
   which would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the
   telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an attempt to
   restrict the free exchange of information among the growing number of
   computer users. Calls placed using modems require no special telephone
   company equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use
   of the network in the form of a monthly bill. In short, a modem call
   is the same as a voice call and therefore should not be subject to any
   additional regulation.

   Sincerely,
   [your name, address and signature]


It is important that you act now.  The bureaucrats already have it in
their heads that modem users should subsidize the phone company and
are now listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear
that we will not stand for any government restriction on the free
exchange of information.

Thanks for your help.

========================== End of FidoNet Posting ===========================

Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date:     Tue, 26 Dec 89 0:51:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  New Illinois Bell Rates Effective 1-1-90


Some changes are being made to the Illinois Bell local rate structure
starting next week. Here is a brief outline:

Since August, 1988, a temporary credit has appeared on everyone's bill
each month entitled 'Credit Due to Rate Reduction'. That credit will
not appear starting with January cycle billings, because the rate
reduction was made permanent. Illinois Bell had been required to issue
the credit each month while the matter was under advisement by the
Illinois Commerce Commission.

The cost of local calls has been reduced. We will *no longer have message
units*. A per-minute billing will replace unit billing and apply to
each call. As is the case now, the rates will be about five cents per
call, no matter how long we talk on calls within our local (eight miles)
calling area. The cost of calls outside the local area will continue
to depend on the number of minutes used, the time of day of the call,
and the distance of the call.

EXAMPLE: A five minute call during the peak phone period.

Type of Call         Current       New

Local Area           5.2 cents     5.2 cents
8-15 Miles          20.8 cents    17.1 cents
16-40 Miles         27.5 cents    24.2 cents
41+ Miles           45.7 cents    42.1 cents

Rates for calls between Illinois Bell phones and locations served by
other local telephone companies (i.e. Centel) will be reduced by 25%
beginning in July, 1990, except that calls from IBT/Chicago-Newcastle
to points served by Centel will continue to be billed as local area
calls, with no reduction, remaining 5.2 cents each.

Also on January 1, 1990, the monthly line access charge will increase
by $1.03 per month for most residence customers. Illinois Bell says
this will bring the charge closer to the actual cost of providing the
line from the CO to the residence. Illinois Bell says even with this
increase however, most customers will see a reduction in over-all
costs because of new time- of-day discounts being introduced, as
follows:

Calls originating between 9-11 AM and 2-8 PM Monday through Friday
will be billed at the standard rates shown above.

Calls made Monday through Friday between 8-9 AM, 11 AM-2 PM, and 8-9
PM will be given a ten percent discount; i.e. a local 5.2 cent call
will cost about 4.5 cents. A standard rate call costing 30 cents will
cost 27 cents during these three time periods.

Calls made between 9 PM daily and 8 AM next day will receive a forty
percent discount; i.e. a local 5.2 cent call will cost about 2.8 cents.

Calls made between 9 PM Friday and 8 AM Monday (all day Saturday and
Sunday) will receive this forty percent discount.

Calls which overlap time periods will be billed on a pro-rated basis,
with a portion of the call billed at each applicable rate.

There will no longer be discounts given for volume purchases of units,
since units per se are being discontinued.

Finally, Call Waiting, as a stand alone feature of custom calling will
be reduced from $3.00 to $2.50 per month. Most custom calling features
will have some reduction made. Business rates for custom calling
features and touchtone service will be reduced to match rates
currently paid by residential users of these features.

In a few months, I will let you know how it actually works out on my
bill.

In Wednesday's Digest, I have extensive details on the CLASS options
being made available to Illinois Bell subscribers during the second and
third quarters, 1990.


Patrick Townson


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #593
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 26 Dec 89 23:51:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #594
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Dec 89 23:50:12 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 594

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    New Illinois Bell CLASS Options (TELECOM Moderator)
    Some Australian/USA Comparisons (David E. A. Wilson)
    Linking a Moving Target to a PS/PC-AT (Miguel R. Arana)
    "What's My Line?" (L. Brett Glass)
    Florida Caller-ID (Bill Huttig)
    Re: Direct-Dial International Directory Assistance (Chris Johnston)
    Re: FCC & Modem Charges (Fred R. Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 1:37:18 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Illinois Bell CLASS Options


The CLASS options being phased in by Illinois Bell during 1990 will be
those listed below. Some CO's will be equipped in the second quarter,
1990, while others will be equipped in the summer or fall. My office
(Chicago- Rogers Park) is set for fourth quarter, 1990.

Please note, the infamous 'Caller-ID' will *NOT* be offered by Illinois
Bell at this time. The features we will have are these:

Automatic Callback -

Dial *69  (rotary, dial 1169)
The number of the last call *received* will be dialed automatically, and
attempts will continue for thirty minutes if no answer, or indefinitly
until the busy number is free. We will get a special ring when the other
line is free. On answering, the other line (if it was busy) will begin
to ring.

It won't work with long distance calls or calls to offices not yet served
with this feature. An intercept recording will advise that the call cannot
be returned.

To cancel a pending request, dial *89   (rotary, dial 1189).

This can only be used to return *incoming* calls. There is no time
limit on when you can return the call, as long as you do so before you
make or receive other calls.


Call Screening -

Intercept calls from up to ten designated numbers. Callers will then
receive the following announcement: "Your call cannot be completed.
The number you are calling has activated Call Screening, indicating
that they do not wish to recieve your phone call at this time."

To activate Call Screening, dial *60#   (rotary, dial 116012). Listen
to the recorded instructions explain how to designate up to ten numbers
for Call Screening, or how to make changes in your Call Screening list.

To add a number at that point, dial # (rotary, dial 12), wait for three
confirmation tones, then dial the number to be added. Now touch tone
customers dial # again; rotary, wait for time out.

To remove a number from the list, dial * (rotary, dial 11), wait for
three confirmation tones, then dial the number to be deleted. Now touch
tone customers dial * again; rotary, wait for time out.

You can also delete an individual entry by dialing 07 after it is read
aloud to you by the computer.

To reject the number of the last call you received, when the number is
unknown, such as an obscene or nuisance caller, dial # (rotary, dial
12), wait for three confirmation tones, then dial 01 in place of the
number when prompted. Now touch tone customers dial # again; rotary,
wait for time out. When the list of screened calls is read aloud to
you, these numbers unknown to you will be termed 'private entry' by
the computer.

To clear the entire list, dial *80* (rotary, dial 118011). Listen to
the recorded announcement which follows, which will ask you to confirm
that you wish the entire list deleted. If you dialed this in error and
wish to save your list, simply hang up.


Distinctive Ringing -

You may designate up to ten numbers for 'special' ringing. When you
receive a call from one of these numbers, your phone will ring in a
distinctive pattern. Designate numbers of family members, employers,
etc for special treatment in this way.

Dial *61# (rotary, dial 1161612).  A recorded message will guide you.
To add or delete a number, follow the instructions given for Call
Screening.

To clear the entire list, dial *81* (rotary, dial 118111). A
confirmation tone will ask you to verify what you are doing.


Repeat Dialing -

To call back a busy number, dial *66  (rotary, dial 1166).
You will hear ringing, followed by a recording telling you the number
is still busy (if it is). If the called number is free in the next
thirty minutes, you will be called back with a special ring. Only
after you answer will the ringing commence on the other end.

To call back the last number *you dialed* -- NOT THE LAST CALL YOU
RECIEVED -- dial *66 (rotary, dial 1166). The number of the last call
you made will be dialed automatically.

If the number you are attempting to call back or repeat dial is a long
distance number or outside the area served by Repeat Dialing, you will
hear a recording advising you that the call cannot be made.

To cancel Repeat Dialing requests, dial *86  (rotary, dial 1186). You
can only use this feature on calls you dialed. To return calls you
*received* you must use Automatic Callback.


Call Identification Service -  ($4.95 1st addl. line; $3.95 2nd addl. line)

You receive up to three phone numbers, each with a separate listing if you
wish. These will all ring on the same single line, but each will have a
distinctive ring. Main number will have standard ring. First addtional
line will have two long rings then a pause. Second additional line
will have one short, one long and one short ring.

Call waiting: first addtional line will have two tones. Second
additional line will have three tones.

Call forwarding: Customer can have all numbers forwarded, or only the
main number forwarded. This has to be done in the central office. On
forwarded calls, the different lines will not have unique rings. If the
additional lines are not forwarded, they will continue to ring in their
unique way at your premises and may be used in the normal way.

You must wait for a complete ringing cycle in order to know who is
calling and use the appropriate answer phrase. The calling party hears
only normal ringing, not the special ringing. Answering machines may
'count' the unique rings in an odd way, and answer inappropriately.

This service is used to designate one number for family members, one for
after hours emergencies from your employer, one for children, etc.


Intercom Calling -  (Announced price: $6.50 per month)

Dial a two digit code and hang up. Phones throughout your premises
ring in a unique way. Based on ring sounds, others know who is to answer.
On an incoming call, flash to put caller on hold, dial two digit code.
Hang up. When the called party answers the call will be connected.

To make an intercom call, dial the two digit code. Hang up and wait until
ringing stops, then lift the receiver and talk to the other party. An
incoming CO call during this time will generate a call-waiting tone. Hang
up to take the outside call.

You can also hold calls, and move to a different extension to resume
the conversation.


Patrick Townson

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

From: "David E. A. Wilson" <munnari!wolfen.cc.uow.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Some Australian/USA Comparisons
Date: 24 Dec 89 11:19:47 GMT
Organization: Uni of Wollongong, NSW, Australia


Just got my telephone bill and it contains a little leaflet. I thought
I would share some of its contents with you and ask a few questions.

"By the mid-1990s we intend that every domestic customer in Australia
will have a push button phone."

Has a claim like this been made anywhere else in the world (or has
this been achieved)?

"What Telecom handles in one year
  - 10,000 million phone calls - including 85 million overseas calls
  - 7.4 million phones in operation
  - 124 million 'dial-it' service calls
  - 683,000 new telephone services
  - 1871 new connections daily
  Handled by 84,000 staff

What Telecom spends in one year
  - A$2,810 million to employees on wages, superannuation & compensation
  - A$1,240 million to lenders, as interest on loans
  - A$2,240 million reinvested in the business..."

How does this compare with other phone companies around the world?

Re all the fuss about area code splitting in the USA: With the
Australian/ British (where did it start?) format of area codes
starting with 0 we will never have your problem of not being able to
use some area codes because they look like exchange prefixes. How long
is it expected to be before 10 digit phone numbers have to be dialed
as 1+10 digit numbers?

Re 800 numbers and dialing the real number: In Australia we have the
same choice when we get a 008 number - either it is a new phone + line
or it is overlaid on an existing service and both the old & 008
numbers can be used.

Re cellular phones eating up numbers in LA: In Australia our cellular
phones have their own prefix (018) and thus do not contribute to code
splitting.  Is this not possible in the USA because of the splitting
up of the Bell network?

Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year from Wollongong, Australia.

David Wilson

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

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 10:15:54 ARG
From: "Miguel_R._Arana" <atina!intiar![e-mail]>
Subject: Linking a Moving Target to a PS/PC-AT

Hi world,

I am working in a project where I must link a moving target (a robot)
to a PS/PC-AT.

The target would move in a straight way more or less 100 metres. I
have thought of two ways to do it:

  - Infrared link with high power infrared leds
  - Low power RF (not regulated)

The problems are that it is an enviroment where would be severals
computers and full of magnetics tapes (don't Know if RF would afect
the computers ) and the problems that may have the IRED wave to focus
in a moving target.

Has anybody there seen, tried, heard of, some commercial products to
do something similar?  If so, please tell me whose products, and if
possible where can I get the specifications of them.  Please answer
directly to my address below because I am not in all the newsgroupst
hat I am posting this to.

Thank you in advance,

           INTI - National Institute of Industrial Technology

Miguel R. Arana            |
INTI - SMA                 | uucp:     ..!uunet!atina!intiar!miguel
C.C. 157 (1650) San Martin | BITNET:   UUNET!ATINA!INTIAR!MIGUEL@PSUVAX1
Argentina                  | internet: [e-mail]

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

From: "L. Brett Glass" <well![e-mail]>
Subject: "What's My Line?"
Date: 26 Dec 89 17:42:21 GMT
Reply-To: "L. Brett Glass" <well![e-mail]>
Organization: None whatsoever.... ;-)


I'm working on (re)wiring an old house for telephones, and need to be
able to identify which line I'm on without tracing the wires through
other tenants' apartments. I understand that Pacific Bell installers
(and, in fact, installers in most telephone companies throughout the
world) have set up a machine that tells you the number you're calling
from when you dial a certain 3-digit code. When I lived on the east
coast, the code was common knowledge and was often used by folks
installing their own wiring.

Does anyone know what the code is nowadays? When I called the business
office, the person who answered had no idea that such a thing even
existed.

If you know how to reach the machine in my area (Palo Alto, CA) or
anywhere else (many use the same numbers), please send e-mail.  It'll
save me a lot of probing!

<BG>

[Moderator's Note: Here we go again! There is *no single, standard
code* which applies everywhere. It varies from community to community.
If anyone knows the number currently in use in Palo Alto, please write
this fellow.  PT]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Florida Caller-ID
Date: 26 Dec 89 22:44:15 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


The Forida PUC approved Caller-ID for Southern Bell at the rate of
$7.50 a month.  Southern Bell will start installation/programming of
Caller-ID in Feburary and should be system wide around November 1990.
The charge for the display device will be about $80.

Bill
[e-mail]


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

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 16:46:34 198
From: Chris Johnston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Direct-Dial International Directory Assistance
Organization: U. Chicago Computer Science Dept.


    I had occasion to call directory assistance in Puerto Rico from
Chicago.  Dialing 1-809-555-1212 got me an AT&T operator who answered
with "What Island?"  I was then transferred to the Puerto Rican
operator who answered in Spanish then English.  After looking up my
number the operator transferred me to a computer which read the number
to me (in English) with a Spanish accent!

    (The 809 area code covers a large number of Caribbean islands.)

cj


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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC & Modem charges
Date: 26 Dec 89 15:39:32 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
writes...

>This article is reposted from Fidonet and may be of interest to
>Telecom readers.
>   From: Jack Lohman
>   To: All
>   Subj: FCC PROBLEMS

>MOBILIZE!
>=========
>Now, they are at it again.  A new regulation that the FCC is quietly
>working on will directly affect you as the user of a computer and
>modem.  The FCC proposes that users of modems should pay extra charges
>for use of the public telephone network which carry their data.  In
>addition, computer network services such as CompuServ, Tymnet, &
>Telenet would also be charged as much as $6.00 per hour per user for
>use of the public telephone network. ...

Cripes.  This again.  It's becoming the new Chain Letter.

It popped up in comp.unix.wizards last month and I think I had it
squashed there, but alas, this moderated group has allowed it to
surface.

Here's the poop.  When the new FCC chair Alf Sykes was being
confirmed, he was grilled on this topic by Congressman Markey, who
chairs the House subcommittee that oversees the FCC.  Sykes was made
to swear on a stack of bibles, so to speak, that this "enhanced
service provider" (not modem, btw, though the two often overlap)
surcharge was dead.  Markey made clear that a congressional LAW
preventing it was being put on the back burner only out of courtesy to
Sykes.  If Sykes hadn't been so docile, the law would have been
passed; Congress doesn't like this crap any more than we do!  And
Markey does have power over Sykes to hit him where it hurts in case he
is lying: His subcommittee oversees the FCC's budget and appropriations.
In government, that's everything.

I do have a copy of the appropriate Congressional Record article (Nov. 6,
1989) quoting Markey on this, and Markey's press release on the subject.
So I'm not rumormongering.  Someone on Fidonet is.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #594
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 27 Dec 89 0:46:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #595
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Dec 89 00:45:06 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 595

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Jerry Leichter)
    Re: Calling the BBS in Tallinn, Estonia (Steven W. Grabhorn)
    Re: Calling the BBS in Tallinn, Estonia ([e-mail])
    Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell (Eric P. Scott)
    Re: 800 Numbers and Canada (Stuart Lynne)
    Re: 800 Number Phone Solicitors (Tad Cook)
    Re: 800 Service Directory Available on Compuserve (Gary W. Sanders)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again)
Date: 26 Dec 89 23:13:03 GMT
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department, New Haven, Connecticut, USA


Discussion on this topic continues interminably.  What's unfortunate
about it is how many not-quite-truths make it into the discussions.

For example, John Higdon's messages are well argued, but often miss
the point.  He claims (correctly) that Caller ID could be very useful
to him, and to others.  Fine, but from that it does not follow that
the privacy issues others have raised are of no import.

Another interesting claim he makes is that the alleged privacy right
here is an artifact of history - had Caller ID always been available,
no one would question it.  This is a false reading of history.  In
fact, essentially ALL our notions of privacy are fairly recent, and
could be seen as artifacts of history.  Doors date back only a few
hundred years.  Glass windows are even more recent.  The degree of
"personal monitoring" in the small towns of yesterday would be
considered grossly unacceptable by almost anyone raised in today's
Western society.  (I know to little about other societies to feel
secure in saying anything about them.  But things do vary - I am told
that in Japan, to this day, bank statements are sent out on postcards,
and no one is particularly bothered by this.)

Expectations of privacy develop through experience in the world; I
know of no ab initio arguments for what should and should not be
private.  Higdon does not expect his phone number to be private.
Others disagree.  Neither side is "right" or "wrong" here, and I'd say
neither side is likely to convince the other - these are gut
reactions, learned over many years.  The issue is not one of right and
wrong, it is one of public policy.

Whatever Higdon may want, there will always be cases in which calls he
receives will not contain an ID he will find useful - calls from pay
phones, for example.  He can't base his arguments on an "every call
ID'ed" model; anything he does must be useful even if some calls are
"anonymous".

Technologically, the possibilities are clear - and even supported by
the relevant standards:

  1. A caller can select to send an ID, or not to send an ID.
  2. A caller can set either sending an ID, or not sending an ID,
     as his default.
  3. A callee can select to read the ID sent, or not to.
  4. If the callee selects to read the ID sent, he may refuse any call
     that does not provide an ID.

 From a strictly logical point of view, allowing (1) provides callers
with an additional choice while imposing no constraint on callees
that, as I noted, was not there to begin with.

Given that (1) is available, there is no logical reason for not
allowing (2) - it makes things easier for him and has no effect on
anyone else.

Given that (1) is available (and especially that (2) is available),
there is no logical reason not to give callees the choices in (3) and
(4).

Now, Higdon will argue that giving callers choices (1) and (2) will
decrease the value of his choice (3).  Fine - why should the rest of
the world's choices be constrained by his convenience?  Presumably a
"philosophical debate" of sorts will emerge as people "vote with
their fingers": If most people agree with Higdon that having their ID
sent is no big deal, hardly anyone will exercise choices (1) and (2).
On the other hand, if most people DO feel this is a big deal, Higdon
may find himself rejecting most calls out of hand.  To which all I can
say is, too bad - the voice of the majority will have spoken, and it
will have said that Higdon was wrong in his estimation of where most
people consider their privacy rights with respect to phone numbers to
lie.

Finally, the real crux of the matter here is money.  Who should have
to pay for the various choices?  The phone companies would obviously
argue that EVERYONE pays - those who want to read Caller ID pay, those
who want special privacy pay (as they pay now for unlisted numbers).
If phone service were a free market, this would, I suppose, be fine.
(Well, maybe not.  After all, we do have laws against extortion and
blackmail, "free enterprise" notwithstanding.  At what point we
consider a service to become extortion, and beyond the pale, is
difficult to determine; "honest men of good will" may differ.)

However, phone service is not a fully free market, nor can it be, so
questions of fairness come into play.  The phone companies have argued
that it costs them extra to keep numbers unlisted, so they should be
entitled to charge for that peculiar negative service, but the
additional costs for providing choices (1) and (2) should be minimal.
Further, I'd argue that the entire system is being created for the
benefit of subscribers who wish to exercise choices (3) and (4) - if
not for them, choices (1) and (2) would be non-issues.  Since it is
those who exercise choices (3) and (4) who create the need for OTHERS
to exercise choices (1) and (2), the fairest approach is to let THEM
pay the costs.  Frankly, I doubt this will make any significant
difference in what Caller ID users are charged (since rates for
"custom" telephone services have little or nothing to do with the
incremental cost of providing them anyway) - but it will make the
system seem much fairer to those who choose not to use the new
services.

            -- Jerry

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

From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling the BBS in Tallinn, Estonia
Date: 26 Dec 89 08:57:55 GMT
Reply-To: "Steven W. Grabhorn" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


Well, I just tried it via AT&T. Unfortunately, I should have been a
*little* more prepared when the operator finally connected me! It took
about 7 minutes through various operators; I connected to the modem
tones, and then I desperately tried to get my modem on line.  AAAHHHH!
Too much pressure and too little time. I guess I'll try it again when
I haven't been celebrating so much.....  Ya All have some Happy
Holidays!

(Direct dial doesn't seem to work, but the operators got me through.)


Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152
Phone:[phone] Internet:[e-mail] UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 12:16:48 -0800
Subject: Re: Calling the BBS in Tallinn, Estonia

 Received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23891;
           26 Dec 89 14:22 CST
 Received: from cdp.UUCP by arisia.Xerox.COM with UUCP
     (5.61+/IDA-1.2.8/gandalf) id AA16143; Tue, 26 Dec 89 12:16:48 -0800
 Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
 Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 12:16:48 -0800
 From: [e-mail]
 MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at eecs.nwu.
 edu

 To: [e-mail]
 Subject: comp.dcom.tele: Re: Calling the BBS in Tallinn, Estonia


Dear friends!

I tried to connect with Tallinn maybe 100 times. Twice connection was
established, but I received NO CARRIER (on 300bps). Maybe you have
some recommendations for parity stop/data bits? It's real problem to
call Tallinn from Moscow. I will try again tomorrow.

Andrei
Moscow


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for writing. I believe yours is the first
letter ever published in the Digest from the Soviet Union. For the
benefit of the curious reader/student of email routing, I've enclosed
the envelope received with your letter for review. If you succeed in
connecting with Tallinn, please download your session to us for
inclusion in a Digest.   PT]

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

From: Eric P. Scott <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 00:42:54 PST
Subject: Re: GTE vs. Pac*Bell
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Eric P. Scott)
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco


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

>Pac*Bell areas include LA proper, Hollywood, Santa Ana,
>Pasadena, Alhambra, Orange, Anaheim.

When I moved here from Pasadena a year and some months ago there was a
chunk of the city (east of Sierra Madre Villa and north of Foothill if
I recall correctly) served by GTE from a Sierra Madre CO.  A friend
working at one of the "high tech" companies had no end of complaints
about this, not the least of which was that he was literally across
the street from Pac*Bell's territory even though well within
Pasadena's corporate limits.

Moral: Find out where the boundaries REALLY are.  (Another friend
found that the line ran right through his west-of-LA apartment
complex, and he too was on the "wrong" side.)

                    -=EPS=-
            {claris,ucsfcca,hoptoad}!wet!epsilon
            Fast: wet![e-mail]
            Cheap: cca.ucsf.edu!wet![e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers and Canada
Date: 26 Dec 89 21:20:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sam Ho)
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 588, message 7 of 9

>While most 800 numbers do not work from Canada, I believe it is
>possible to get US+Canada accessible 800 service.  However, I've also
>seen Canadians instructed to dial 112-800-NNX-XXXX, toll-free.  I
>can't remember the number offhand, but the pledge line for our local
>PBS station, KCTS-9, is one.  "Call 728-9000 (mass calling prefix,
>apparently) in Seattle, or 1-800-something in Washington State.  For
>our viewers in Canada, (cut to shot of volunteers in Vancouver) call
>112-800-something.  Remember, Channel 9 is viewer-supported
>television, etc."  Anybody know the purpose of this oddity?

You probably havn't seen that recently. Up until a few years ago all
long distance dialing in BC was done with 112-XXX-YYYY. BC Tel
switched us over a year or three back.

It is possible for companies in the US or Canada to get 800 numbers
that work across the line. I believe since about 1982.

AT&T for example has 800 numbers that are available in Canada for
ordering documents (although I believe our 800 numbers are different
from the US ones).

SCO (as in SCO Xenix) has an 800 number that get's you into their
sales department (and in this case the 800 number is identical to the
US one).

I use this as a test of how much a company wants Canadian business. If
they have an 800 number and it doesn't work in Canada I form the
opinion that they are not interested in my business.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532 (voice)    604-939-4768 (fax)


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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: 800 Number Phone Solicitors
Date: 27 Dec 89 00:21:39 GMT
Organization: very little


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

> Have any other 800 number owners out there been receiving calls from
> some bonehead in Missouri who is trying to sell something?  I got a
> very strange message from this individual a few days ago.  He
> "instructed" me to write a letter containing all sorts of information
> about my company and to send it to him at some obscure address in
> Missouri.  Naturally, I ignored him.  If this keeps up, I'm going to
> begin to get peeved at the thought of solicitors dialing my 800
> number!

This sounds like the weird things I have been getting at work on our
response cards from some outfit in Kansas City calling itself
"Bonnhoeterloff".  I checked with the Zip+4 folks at the post office,
and the address is a mail drop.

For fun, I sent a memo to this outfit, and got a response even more
bizzare, about how they were in the "information business", and they
wanted us to submit data on our products classified according to their
strange "system".

Looks like the work of a demented obsessive-compulsive.

Anyone else hear from this outfit?


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders)
Subject: Re: 800 Service Directory Available on Compuserve
Date: 26 Dec 89 13:58:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>   To make it more convenient for shoppers to do business through 800
>numbers, customers can now find suppliers or vendors faster by calling
>an 800 directory on their computers. By agreement with CompuServe,
>AT&T's directory of 800 service numbers is available now free of
>computer connect time charges via CompuServe Information Service.

    As a Compuserve advisor I did some beta testing of the TFD
(Toll Free Directory) on Compuserve. Its a simple database look up
program.  You can however do lookups based on a couple of options.
name, state, city and product type.  The database will provide toll
free numbers and list the state the numbers are valid from.  It will
also list a direct dial number if toll free is not available from your
area. (I'm not sure if this was in the production release).

The big problem is it is slow. You can call 800 info and get the number
faster.  The other problem is you need a CIS account. The computer
connect time may be free but you still incure network access time.


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #595
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 27 Dec 89 21:22:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #596
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Dec 89 21:20:41 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 596

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Phone Frustration (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Phone Frustration (David Lesher)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Robert E. Laughlin)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Dale Frye)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 26 Dec 89 15:14:54 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Patrick Townson)
writes...

>>Thus, even without the breakup, we would have been likely to see this
>>scenario.  Indeed, it is a common one in France where COCOT's have
>>been authorized for decades and the telephone company is still a
>>monopoly.

>And France has really great and effecient phone service, don't they?
>What a great example for Americans! What a goal to strive for! Phone
>service as good as that in France. COCOTS may have been authorized as
>of 1968, but they did not begin appearing on the scene until the
>early 1980's -- once they knew that AT&T was unlikely to find a legal
>environment friendly enough to stop them.

etc... in an exchange with Marvin Sirbu.

I hope the moderator won't censor my "amen" to Marvin Sirbu's
comments.  I'm also sick and tired of hearing our "moderator" treat
Judge Greene like the Spanish Inquisition.  I was working in the
telecom biz before "divestiture" and while there are certainly
problems, I hardly think it's nearly as bad as Patrick likes to claim
it is, and most of the problems I see have very little to do with
divestiture itself!  It's rather like laying blame for the cold
weather on divestiture: There's no causality, but heck, wasn't it warm
back in the winter of '77?

COCOTs are an oddity.  They do stem from a set of circumstances that
very remotely include divestiture, but mainly they're an FCC creation.
Remember "mad monk Mark" Fowler, the Ceaucescu of M St., who ranted
his way through his FCC term about "competition" while really doing
everything in his power to help monopolies crush it, and mainly screw
the consumer.  I think I've posted this before, but COCOTs as we know
them stem from the following succession of events:

1) Carterfone allowed customers to plug things into phone lines.  This
was a 1968 decision that broke one of the most noxious monopolies in
modern history and made technological progress possible.  But
Carterfone and the later Registration rules (Part 68) made one
excetion: Pay phones.  That was because existing pay phone technology
would have left too much chance for fraud.  COCOTS were invented
later, and depend upon microprocessors. So...

2) In the early '80s, the FCC decided to allow registration of phones
with coin slots on them.  They look like regular phones to the telco
line, so the old rules were technologically unnecessary.  Of course,
you couldn't have made money on them except for...

3) Sharing and resale.  In the '70s, the FCC overrode AT&T rules
against sharing and reselling lines.  Europe, of course, always
allowed the monopoly-provided calls to be resold, since the monopoly
always got its due.  AT&T was even stricter, though, and had allowed
no resale.  That made Full Time WATS practical, and it was the first
casualty.  (TELPAK also was a victim of resale.)  So if you could
resell interstate calls (intrastate being governed separately), you
could make money on a COCOT.  But how could you handle the big-money
coinless toll calls?  Enter...

4) Equal access.  This part came from divestiture.  The idea was to
make MCI et al equal to AT&T.  So anybody's Long Distance company
could get access to Bell bills.  At any rate.  Thus the AOS scumballs
came into being.  The FCC has every right to regulate them, of course,
as the states can (and do) regulate their intrastate calls.  But the
FCC seems to like scumballs.  All the judge did was require the FCC to
treat AT&T, MCI and scum more or less equally, though AT&T's rate
setting is still (quite reasonably) subject to increased scrutiny due
to its overwhelming market power.

I should also point out that it was the Dept. of Justice (again
Reagan's ideologues) and AT&T who cooked up the divestiture as a
response to an old (1949?) festering anti-trust suit where AT&T
appeared to be incredibly guilty.  So rather than separate Western
Electric (leaving AT&T a PTT-like service provider), as the original
suit had asked, AT&T made the deal to keep WECo and become a big force
in computers (heh heh).  The Judge simply ironed out the most noxious
portions of the deal, leaving a few crumbs for the RBOCs.

But our revisionist moderator's version of history seems to blame it
all on the Judge.  Oh well, a nice simple but wrong answer is always
easier to spew out than the more complex truth.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
I speak for me.  Sharing requires permission.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 13:20 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration


     "... a dark stormy night, a desperate woman, a telephone from
     Kafka".  Using a pay phone at a service station along the highway,
     she dialed 0 then the number and the phone went dead. She tried
     again and again. She finally reached an operator and found out that
     (a) the phone was owned by a private company (not AT&T), (b)
     collect calls could not be made, and (c) she could not be connected
     with an AT&T operator.

I've run into several COCOTs that have an annoying habit.  They're all
owned by "Tele-America."  Their COCOTs want $.85 to call my number,
although they'll call other numbers in my building (with other CO
prefixes) for the traditional $.20. Calls to their repair service (211
of all things) yield nothing but a ringing phone.  Calls to the listed
800 number for Tele-America yield the same.

Today I called the Public Utilities Commission.  I told them the story
and they say that "they'll get their attention."

I say, "May maledictions pursue Tele-America and all their ilk to the
lowermost depths of world slime."
                                    -edg

Ed Greenberg
[e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 10:59:00 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Midst the moderator' regular tirades about nasty Judge Greene, I have
never seem mention of ANY improvement from the 'good old days' of
Maximum Control for Maximum Profit.

Well, I'm not as old as the moderator, but I have worked in, and been
both a subscriber and customer for both POTS and variety of special
services in and around the communications business for many years.
Also, I have lived in several metropolitan areas, (with different
BOC's and PUC's) rather than just one. I have traveled and seen other
PTTs in {mostly in-}action.

Here are a few things I can comment on.  They all relate NOT to the
divestiture issue that Judge Greene addressed, but to DEREGULATION,
which depending on your point of view, {caused, was caused by} it.

1) Local equipment:

Used to be, you got a 500 set. If you wanted colors other than ebony
("We don't have black phones, that's racist" a rep told me once) it
cost you extra. EVERY month. If you wanted more phones, more extra
MONTHLY charges. A choice?--forget it. Memory dialer--we got card
dialers (ugh) or Magicall (double ugh). PBX, you rent what we offer,
period. Music-on-hold--She don't write music, you can't play someone
else's on her equipment. ACD, what's that?

Until the late 70's, all Bell 2500 sets came with Touch-Tone
generators invented in the mid-50's. They used two special tapped,
tuned, pot core inductors in an exotic circuit. Why?  Because when
first designed, transistors cost big money, and this circuit used one,
not two. But why did they continue to build them like that for years,
while other companies had hybrid and IC designs out that cost much
less?

If you DARED to hook up "FOREIGN EQUIPMENT" to their network, they
came out and confiscated it WITHOUT A WARRANT. If you denied him
(never her, unless it was an operator, then always) entrance, goodbye
service. I even have copies of an old SWB employee newsletter
defending this and instructing employees on how to deal with the sub
(NEVER A CUSTOMER) while doing this. A friend of mine who worked for
Ma designed and installed an automatic ringer_counter in several #5
X-bar offices just to detect this "ILLEGAL EQUIPMENT".

Of course, I can't help but mention the answering machine. After all,
it was Carterphone, (reported to be financed by answering machine
companies -- Carterphone sure didn't have the cash to take on Ma in
court) that broke the dike. Maybe the moderator rented (do I hear an
echo?) a 1B answering machine. I never did, because I never had a big
enough house. It was best described by the term "tank" as in Sherman.

Of special interest to UseNet'ers would be the modem. Blazer--you have
got to be kidding. You RENT (there's that word again) our 300 baud
modem. If WE decide you are worthy of a faster one, we will invent it.
Well, their next one was the 202, gawd help us all. Does anyone on-net
think we would be here today if we still moved all the news via 202's
and decvax? Look at the EUNET/EUUG situation for a comparison.

 2) LD Service:

In case it escaped your attention, there was a recent rate decrease.
That is 'd' as in down. While we can pontificate ad-nauseam for hours
about access charges, AOS, etc, when in the history of
lock_stock_&_barrel Bell was there a decrease? Plus, I can call from
any local phone and pay direct-dial, not "credit card" rates. In those
good_old_days, such calls cost about 3x as much. If I get po'ed at my
carrier, I can change, just the same way I can buy a Ford instead of a
Olds. Such freedom of choice is important. Ask anyone who has bought a
Lada, for example, if they would not have preferred a Nisson.  The
moderator has extolled the virtues of PC Pursuit several times.  Would
IT be around if we were still single-sourced?

About the only thing that drove Ma to upgrade their LD network was
when a blind student figured out She was stupid enough to set up the
calls on the same path used to talk on. All of a sudden CCIS was the
hottest thing since Hula-Hoops. If it wasn't for Hi-rise Joe, we
likely would still listen to MF on every call we make. Along the same
topic, I had a couple of friends that were foolish enough to get mixed
up in such toll fraud. (Being in love seems to drive even the most
sensible people to do crazy things. Being such and poor too, is even
worse.) When caught, Ma wanted two things from them.  First, how did
you figure it out, and who have you told? Agree to tell no one else.
Second, pay for the calls. If broke, pay a little per month, but tell
us item one NOW. Only when they stalled on item one were they
threatened with criminal charges.  Ma's only interest was her fear
others would discover her shortcomings.

3) Special Services

I no longer have an active role in this end of the business, but do
have friends that are involved. While it hasn't gotten a lot better,
it has improved somewhat. Now at least the man at the board does not
go into shock when you talk about 'your' equipment on his line. You
can find someone who at least has some idea about what's going on. I
clearly remember trying to get the rep. to explain the difference
between 3003 and 3004 (I believe those were the numbers) grade leased
lines. They had the same specs, went the same place, got the same
loading treatment, etc. But one was twice as expensive as the other.
He had NO idea, but would not admit it. In my most active days as a
special service subscriber, I used to have to buy Christmas cases of
brew for two local and one Long Lines testboards so they would break
the rules and talk to me about the problems.

The big change is not in the equipment area, but rather in outlook.
The people, albeit slowly, are learning a customer is far more
important that a subscriber ever was. My engineer friend surprised me.
He was *happy* about it. He could go out and buy things from NEC that
solved problems the KS equipment had been unable to handle.  He no
longer had all of New Jersey looking over his shoulder. He could go
fiber now instead of 'real soon now' if he needed it.

In short, competition has been good for our communications system.
Sure there are new, different problems. But since Mussolini, the
trains never run on time anymore, either. If the moderator really
relishes those great old days of monopoly control, I STRONGLY urge him
to go live in (or at the very least make an extended visit to) a
European (or Latin American) country, or even better Cuba. Call the
PTT. Get an answering machine, order call waiting and Star-whatever
service. Obtain a Mitel PBX. Set up a UseNet site and call your feed
every day for 7.2 meg of news. Then come back and tell us about it.

What do other TELECOM reader think? Have you seen ANY improvements
since D-Day?

(By the way, who did say you installed those terminal boxes in your
basement?)


A host is a host & from coast to [e-mail]
no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

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

From: "Robert E. Laughlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 27 Dec 89 21:10:09 GMT
Reply-To: "Robert E. Laughlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


The moderator's comments boil down to "IF IT AINT BROKE DON'T FIX IT!"

I tried to tell people that during the trial(?), but no body listened;
too bad now we ALL suffer to "get the advantages of competition in long
distance telephoning."

bel

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

From: Dale Frye <wucs1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Reply-To: Dale Frye <wucs1![e-mail]>
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 21:27:18 GMT


I, for one, love the breakup.

1: Some years ago I called (from a neighbor's phone) to report no dial
tone. The operator was not intrested in my troubleshooting except for
whether or not I had checked to see if all the phones were on the
hook. Then I had to guarentee that someone would be home in case they
had to come out.

Two weeks ago I lost dial tone. From a neighbor's phone I told repair
"At the network interface ther was no dial tone but there was
voltage."(PERIOD)  Operator said "Can I have a phone number to reach
you in case we need to talk to you?". By the time I walked home the
phone was fixed. No hassles of someone staying home "just in case". My
NTI is outside so there is no reason for me to sit at home waiting.

2: I wired my house when it was built (about 5 years ago). I included
enough wire (4 pairs) to handle most possible wiring schemes. The
wiring is run in a star configuration with the terminus in the
basement (it's a full basement). I have used the wiring for an
intercom also. Sure Bell could have wired it this way way back when
but do you think they would have let me used the extra pairs for my
own purposes. If they had they would have charged me a monthly rate
just to use the wire in my own house! Worst of all can you imagine how
much it would have cost for them to run the wire!

I could go on with examples of what things would be like it Bell still
had the same amount of control but I assume you can extrapolate those
conditions to now. It appears to me that those whining about the
"Good Old Days" have one specific complaint that might not have
existed under the old ways (i.e. problems due to antiquated wiring,
finger pointing, etc.) but then forget about all the additional
problems that existed (or would have existed in today's communications
environment) cause by all that excess baggage. This whinning reminds
me of the person complaining about the paving of the roads because it
causes the horse's shoes to wear out faster. The break up forced the
communications system to become more modular.

Some of the problems of modular systems are the inablility to "fine
tune" and finger-pointing amoung the caretakers of the modules however
an extremely fine tuned integrated system can only grow so big before
it fails under it's own weight. IMHO the time for the breakup was
right. It clearly opened a logjam of improvements. The whiners fail to
see the vast number of small improvements as being better than some
small set of additional problems created. As these improvements become
more apparent and the new problems are solved (or die a natural death)
maybe then they'll shut up.

1981 - IBM PC - It doesn't support CP/M, no software available, no hard
                disk, 160K floppy -- don't buy it.
1984 - Mac - It doesn't support DOS, no software available, no hard disk,
                128k memory -- don't buy it.
1988 - Next - It doesn't support Mac, no software available, no floppy
                disk (????) -- don't buy it.


Dale Frye
Washington University in St. Louis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #596
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 27 Dec 89 22:15:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #597
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Dec 89 22:15:02 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 597

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Caller-ID Objections (Bill Cerny)
    Re: Caller-ID Objections (Alonzo Gariepy)
    Re: 800 Numbers and Canada (Dan Fandrich)
    Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc) (David Singer)
    Largest Toll-Free Region? (Theodore Lee)
    Repair Service Turnaround (Syd Weinstein)
    ISDN in Massachusetts (Torsten Dahlkvist)
    The New Decade (Brian Kantor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Objections
Date: 27 Dec 89 04:52:16 GMT


I need to keep up-to-date with all the 1.0E6 products & services that
are emerging in the World of Telecom, so that I can identify possible
optimizations/enhancements to my company's telecom profile (you, too?)

When the new issue of the trade rag plops on my desk, I scour thru and
make perhaps a half dozen inquiries in one day, resulting in call
backs.  When (if) the return call arrives, it starts, "Hi, this is
Joe.  What can I answer for you?"  And I attempt to figure out who Joe
works for, and what product/service his company has caught my
attention.

Hello Caller*ID!  I'd like to build an inquiry record keyed "Company
X, Product/Service Y" by telephone number.  Since the return call
won't arrive from the 800 number (marketing) I dialed, I'll have a few
alias entries that include NPA-NXX ("for instate callers").  If the
return call is made to my original inquiry, I'll be able to deduce the
subject of the call quicker (and prevent the notion that I've been in
contact with the competition).

Yep; I'm ready for Caller*ID.  If my local telco won't provide it, I
can always get it in another LATA, right?


Bill Cerny
[e-mail]    |    attmail: !denwa!bill    |    fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Alonzo GARIEPY)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Objections
Date: 27 Dec 89 20:08:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Alonzo GARIEPY)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


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

> Is there no other aspect of telephony that has potential for abuse?
> What about junk calls in general? What about bunko scams that fleece
> the unwary? What about crank calls and threats? What about calls to
> detect whether someone is home by burglers? What about general
> harrasment? None of these involve Caller-ID.

Is this supposed to be an argument?!!  "We already have problems so
there is nothing wrong with amplifying them."

You are wrong that none of these abuses involves caller ID.  Caller ID
is attractive to people for the very reason that it solves some of
these problems.  The purpose of this discussion is the avoidance of
other, perhaps worse, problems.

You stray dangerously close to a definition of progress that has
nothing to do with improving people's lives.

> microsoft![e-mail] writes:

> > This is a good plan and should be given real thought.  Does anyone
> > know if there is some hidden agenda behind Caller-ID (conspiracies
> > everywhere...)?

> How many times does it have to be said; how loudly does it have to be
> yelled? Your number as a caller is circulated *all over the bloody
> network* all the time. People who do conspiracies *already have access
> to your number*. They don't need Caller-ID--THEY ALREADY HAVE YOUR
> NUMBER AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Period.

Relax, John.  I was mostly kidding, but the question is valid.  Who
cares about police, we're talking really scary organizations like
Reader's Digest.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 26 Dec 89 23:18 -0600
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers and Canada
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


In article <[e-mail]> Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 591, message 6 of 8

>In X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 588, Sam Ho writes:

   [among other stuff,]

>>in Canada, (cut to shot of volunteers in Vancouver) call 112-800-something.

>That's not unusual; for some strange reason, 1-800 numbers inside
>British Columbia have to be prefixed with 112-800, not 1-800.  I don't
>know why, but when they list domestic numbers on television or
>whatever, there is always a seperate B.C. number like this.  So if
>your Canadian PBS viewers are in British Columbia, then they'll have
>to use their BC Tel to get at the operators.

That was true several years ago, but BC Tel changed the entire
province over to the "standard" 1+ dialing in 1985, just in time for
Vancouver's Expo '86.  Prior to mid-1985, directory assistance was
113, repair was 114, and (at least in my exchange, 604-853) the number
that got your own number spoken back to you was 117, and the
pulse/tone speed/frequency test number was 110 (I'm 92% certain of the
last two).  Now we have 411, 611, 211, and 311, respectively, just
like everybody else (except Washington :-)

I missed the original article (or maybe it just hasn't arrived yet
:-), so ignore the rest if I sound incoherent.  I know the Seattle, WA
PBS station (KCTS) has an office in Vancouver, BC to handle its BC
subscribers (apparently quite a few).  If there are two 800 numbers
shown, one is likely for the Seattle office, the other for the
Vancouver office.

(Aside: Is it possible to have a single 800 number route you to the
closest Canadian or American office depending on where you're
calling?)  KCTS would definitely know about the BC change to 1+
dialing, so maybe you were discussing WTVS, the Detroit PBS station
that's just became available to some Vancouver cable subscribers.
That's probably what was in the original article, right?  So this
*was* rather incoherent, wasn't it?  I'd better quit while I'm
ahead...


CdnNet:     [e-mail]
Compu$erve: 72365,306
FidoNet:    Dan Fandrich at 1:153/508

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 89 10:41:44 PST
From: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Numbers (Information, etc.)

Richmond, Virginia (C&P Telephone, a BOC) used 113 for Information and
114 for Repair Service until at least the mid-'60s.  They eventually
changed to 411 and 611, and may have changed yet again.

Back then, I could also reach the weather recording by dialing
9xx-xxxx; since I was using a dial phone at the time, I usually
dialled 911-1111.  I suspect that no longer works....


David Singer ([e-mail], SINGER at ALMADEN, or SINGER at ALMVMA)

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 89 01:26:21 EST
From: Theodore Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Largest Toll-Free Region?

     From time to time, including even fairly recently here in the
TELECOM Digest, people make observations about how large a toll-free
region they are located in, or about how much more fortunate somebody
else is in being in an especially large one.  Those observations made
me wonder: has any ever attempted to determine the size of toll-free
regions and list the largest ones, much as lists of the largest cities
or SMSA's are done?  It sounds like it might make an interesting paper
or project for a telecom course; it might even have practical value.

     Note that the question is not as well-defined as it might first
appear: each of the terms in "toll-free region size" is ambiguous and
has several reasonable meanings.  To simplify things a little, let us
start by defining "local call" as follows: exchange B is a local call
from exchange A if making that call using typical non-measured
residential service adds nothing to the bill.  (In locations where
there is an optional higher level of service that I think I have seen
called "metropolitan" service or something like that, assume that the
residence is paying for that higher level of service, i.e., has chosen
the broadest "normal" service it can.)

     "Toll-free region" then has at least three meaningful
definitions, one of which I'll call "compact toll-free region", the
second "local toll-free region," and the third, "extended toll-free
region:"

  Compact toll-free region: Let R be a set of exchanges.  R is a compact
  toll-free region if and only if for all exchanges x and y that are
  members of R y is a local call from x and for all exchanges z that are
  not members of R, there exists at least one x in R such that either z
  is not a local call from x or x is not a local call from z.  In short,
  a compact toll-free region is a set of exchanges such that any two
  exchanges in the region are local calls from each other and that all
  exchanges outside the region are non-local calls to or from at least
  one exchange in the region.  (I don't know if "local call" is always a
  symmetric relation: are there cases where A is a local call from B but
  B is not a local call from A?)  Note that, in theory, different compact
  toll-free regions can overlap.

  Local toll-free region:  for each exchange x, find the set of all
  exchanges y such that y is a local call from x.  Each such set is a
  local toll-free region.  This is probably what a person means when he
  talks about the size of the toll-free region he is in, since, in short
  it is the set of all exchanges *HE* can reach toll-free.

  Extended toll-free region:  Define the relation is-linkable-to as
  follows -- given two exchanges x and y, x is-linkable-to y if either,

       a)   x is a local call from y,
       b)   y is a local call from x, or,
       c)   there exists an intermediate exchange z such that either x is a
            local call from z or z is a local call from x and z is
            linkable to y.

  It can be seen that is-linkable-to is an equivalence relation over
  the set of exchanges.  The set of equivalence classes under that
  relation define the set of extended toll-free regions.  In short, two
  exchanges are in the same extended toll-free region if an appropriate
  sequence of all local calls could be used to pass a message, e.g.,
  using uucp, between customers in the two exchanges, noting that if
  "local call" is ever non-symmetric some of the calls may have to be
  initiated by receivers rather than senders.  (An obvious first
  question here is: is there in fact more than one extended-toll-free
  region, i.e., are there in fact at least two areas where you "can't
  get there from here?")

     The hypothetical term project then is: a) identify all the
compact, local, and extended toll free regions. b) rank the three
lists of regions by geographical area covered, number of telephone
numbers covered, and population covered.

     Has anyone done any of this?  Any ideas short of looking at every
telephone book in the country how someone would proceed?  (I'm not
intending to carry out the project, only curious as to whether it
could even be done.)

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Repair Service Turnaround
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 89 21:54:16 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]

Here in Bell of PA country, repair service varies by the type of line.
For businesses, it is usually <4 hour response for first contact,
counting business hours only.  However, all data lines, including
normal lines terminating in RJ45's, are two hour response lines.  That
is, they get someone on site within 2 hours, 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, or at least damn well try to.  The other week, I lost a pair,
and called, within 15 mins I had a call back from the tester (who was
very knowledgeable), and stated, with appology that it would be
sligtly more than 2 hours before the next person could get here to fix
it (about 1/2 hour late), was that ok, or should they expedite it?

I said, OK, and someone was here within the 2 hours anyway, with the
problem already fixed (it was a bad pair in a feeder line).

No questions about did I check it, or charging if no problems, just an
immediate test on the in-coming call, and 15 mins later a call back to
schedule with the trouble isolated.  This was at about 2 in the
afternoon, on a weekday, but I have had the same service at 3 in the
am on the weekend in the past also.

=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems,
Inc.                Voice: [phone] [e-mail] or
{bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd     FAX: [phone]

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

From: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN in Massachusetts
Date: 27 Dec 89 08:27:22 GMT
Reply-To: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael A. Patton) writes:

>Since I've already admitted to knowing something about this, I should
>correct a possible misinterpretation here.

>   From: Torsten Dahlkvist <[e-mail]>

>   P.P.S. MD110 = Ericsson's modular PABX. I'm not sure if Marketing has
>   used the same name in the U.S, but it's currently beeing installed at
>   MIT, so I know it's available there.  [...]

>The only recently installed ISDN switch at MIT that I know of was
>purchased from AT&T and is called a #5 ESS, it services the entire
>main campus area (including dormitories).  It was installed in Fall
>1988.  If there's another "currently beeing [sic] installed at MIT" it
>would be a surprise to me.

Boy did I get it for this...

Humble pie, grovel grovel!

It's *not* MIT, its *University of Massachusetts* that's installing
Ericsson's MD110 PABX. Cut-over date is July '90.

Well, how was I to know the difference? Them's just names to me :-)


Torsten Dahlkvist
ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories
P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25  ALVSJO, SWEDEN
Tel: [phone]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: The New Decade
Date: 27 Dec 89 16:52:01 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


>by Bonnie Guiton
>    1990 begins a new decade ....

No it doesn't; the new decade doesn't start until 1991.


[Moderator's Note: If there is anything that can provoke as many or
more replies than Caller*ID or my messages on His Honor, it would have
to be the every-tenth-year debate on 'when does the new decade
start?'.  The theory is, since we did not have a year *named* Zero,
the first decade was the years 1 through 10; the second was 11 through
20.....the 199th is the years 1981 through 1990. But this overlooks
the fact that even though we did not refer to the year before year one
as year zero *we still had a chronological year pass by*.

Some people say we went immediatly from the year 1 BC to the year 1 AD;
but I would remind you that in the 'BC years' the people did *not* think
of the year in those terms; they called it by some number or name, but
'BC' was not part of the title. Many scholars believe that the person
for whom the renumbering was done, whose birthday was celebrated a few
days ago, was born in the year 4 BC....in other words, four years *before
he was born*....so calendar mixups are not unheard of; witness the fiasco
a few hundred years ago when several days had to be dropped from one year
to compensate for extra leap year days which had been inserted in error;
and the fact that in the colonies, we defied the old world, and refused
to change our calendar for several more years. So why don't we bite the
bullet and admit that the early days of our present year numbering system
were not without some flaws in the methodology, write off the missing
zeroeth year and celebrate a new decade this weekend.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #597
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 28 Dec 89 1:41:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #598
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Dec 89 01:40:42 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 598

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Novice Cellular Buyer Condensation (Patrick M. Landry)
    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Robert P. Warnock)
    ISDN In My Ole House (Michael Hui)
    Running Out of Area Codes? (Theodore Lee)
    Caller-ID Equipment (John Scott McCauley Jr.)
    Authentication & Billing Schemes for Terminal Servers (Subhasis Chaudhuri)
    Re: Dial Pulse Month in TX (Eric Schnoebelen)
    Why Not Make 800 Numbers Available Outside US? (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Call Forwarding (TM) (John Boteler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 89 15:15:44 -0600
From: "Patrick M. Landry" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Novice Cellular Buyer Condensation


This is a condensation of the information I received in response to my
queries about cellular phone service. Thanks to all who replied. In
the following, some words are my own and some are from respondents.
All the mistakes are mine however :-)

>1) Do the Bell Companies actually own the cells?

Two cellular companies operate in each geographic area.
Theoretically, one is a wireline, and one is a non-wireline company,
but this distinction is not always the case. The Cellular companies
call these companies the "A" (non-wireline) and "B" (wireline)
carriers. Each carrier operates their own cell hardware (towers,
etc.). Cellular phones can communicate with either carrier-type but
most phones will allow you to restrict use to one type.  This setup
was an effort by the FCC to have some competition without all out
chaos. The wireline license normally goes to a (the) large wireline
carrier in the area. The non-wireline license is issued via a lottery.

>2) What is all the hubbub about subscribing with a certain carrier?
>   What are the differences between different carriers?
>   What questions should I be asking to find the right carrier for me?

The major differences pointed out to me were roaming agreements,
coverage in the priciple service area, customer service and rates.

Each company has agreements with other, adjacent cellular providers.
Leaving your primary service area is called "roaming". The roaming
agreements specify what rates you will pay when using the adjacent
systems.  Also, manual intervention is sometimes required, sometimes
not, when leaving your primary cell area. This is obviously very
important.

The cellular companies' coverage in the principle area can be quite
different.  For instance, in my area one carrier has 400 ft towers and
the other 300 ft towers. When talking to some of their customers I
found that this made a significant difference in reception in my
hometown which is about 20 miles from the main city where the cells
are.

Straight out you should ask each carrier why you should subscribe with
his service instead of the competition and then do your homework to
figure out how much of it is tru. I found that talking to current
customers was very informative. Especially concerning coverage area.

>3) What is the maximum power (watts) cellular phones are allowed to
>   transmit? What kind of power can I expect to find in the consumer
>   market?

Well, seems I struck a nerve here. From what I have been able to
gather, the maximum power is 3 watts. Most car and shoulder mount
units output 3 watts. Handhelds are normally MUCH less ( < 1 watt ).
Also, the cell hardware constantly adjusts the power output of your
phone when is use to use the least amount of power necessary to
maintain a good signal.

>4) How can I get my hands on a cell map?

Some carriers, I discovered, will readily provide you with a map
indicating the coverage area of their cell hardware. Others say they
don't publish such maps and would rather you ask, location by location
that you are interested in, and they will tell you whether that
location is covered.

There are companies (third parties) that publish nationwide maps. I
don't have any names.

It was also pointed out to me that geographical features radically
affect coverage area. I was also told that the carriers' equipment is
highly directional. I had figured that out from the maps I had seen.
This is another reason that two carriers, with nearby cells, will have
radically different coverage.

Motorola published a nationwide map in 1988. I saw a copy. It was
published much like a road map. It may have even been from
Rand-McNally. (sp?) Anyway, I don't have a Moto cellular retail office
in my city so I didn't look for a 1989 copy.

>5) Anything else a novice should know before purchasing?

I got a few suggestions here but mostly stuff I have covered before.
The questions I asked where apparently what I wanted to know. The
bottom line is that with this information and minimal good shopping
practices on the buyer's part you can make an intelligent purchase and
feel like you know what's going on. If there is anything I hate it is
feeling like I don't know anything about something I am buying.

Well, I hope this helps some out there. It sure helped me!!  Thanks
again to all who responded!!


patrick
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 89 20:52:50 PST
From: "Robert P. Warnock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

+---------------
| Antenna "gain" is most common in the RF world. It involves the amount
| of energy radiated in a given direction from the antenna. In a given
| azimuth, a 5/8 wave antenna (as used in cellular mobile phones)
| radiates more energy than a 1/2 wave reference dipole for a given RF
| input...
+---------------

[...and more good tutorial stuff about Effective Radiated Power (ERP)
and how you get effective gain...]

Except that I thought the "reference" for ERP was the hypothetical
isotropic radiator, not a dipole. An isotropic radiator's pattern *is*
a uniform sphere; a 1/2-wave dipole is more like a doughnut with a
really small hole in it.  (The dipole "threads" the hole. That is, the
maximum power from a dipole is broadside to the antenna.) A 1/2-wave
dipole has (I think) about a 3dB gain (factor of 2 power gain), due to
the fact that it doesn't "waste power" radiating off the ends. Even a
1/4-wave whip has some gain (as long as you hold it "up" and don't
actually point it at the cellular site!).

A properly phased stacked array of a ground plane plus 1/4-wave plus
1/2-wave (which is what I think you're calling a 5/8-wave, which is
*about* what it is after the account for the shortening due to the
loading-coil effect of the phasing coil between the two sections) has
an (advertised) gain of about 5dB, or a power gain of 3.2 or so.

This is how Radio Shack et al. get away with calling a 1/2-wave whip
(the funny thing which is really *center*-fed 'cause the bottom half
is the folded-back shield of the feed line) a "3dB gain" antenna, even
though ita gain is barely a dB or so more than a 1/4-wave whip. It's
3dB with respect to an *isotropic* antenna.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

From: Michael Hui <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN In My Ole House
Date: 28 Dec 89 05:46:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada


Lucky us in this city are slated to get ISDN in two years.

I believe it requires two twisted pairs to each phone within the
house.  I wonder whether my current house wiring of standard four
conductor cable to each modular phone jack will be adequate, or will
the wires have to be replaced with special controlled impedence wiring
when I order ISDN? I think the short length of straight non-twisted
wire from the lightning protector to the phone jack is short enough to
allow reflections to be kept to a minimum, hence allowing the digital
signal to be received and transmitted properly.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 89 01:44:43 EST
From: Theodore Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Running Out of Area Codes?

I was surprised to see in the discussion over the new 310 area code
that there are only nine (or will it be eight?) left.  I knew it was
tight, but I hadn't realized it was that tight.  What are the
predictions on when they will be used up and what is the plan then?

[Moderator's Note: I believe the estimated date when all existing area
codes *as we know them* will be used up is 1995. I think 1993 might be
a better estimate. From that point on, area codes will resemble
prefixes, and dialing 1 before long distance numbers everywhere will
be mandatory. I've heard there is some consideration being given to
also using 300-400-500-600-211-311-511 for area codes. That might
stretch the supply another year or two, or even get us to 2000. There
is nothing official on the use of the double zero or double one
numbers at this time.  PT]

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

From: "John Scott McCauley Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Equipment
Date: 28 Dec 89 06:18:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, NJ


What companies (other than the local phone company) sell Caller-ID
equipment?  I am thinking for now of just an add-on that displays the
caller's number, but was wondering if there are any products out on
the market that can be attached to a computer or built in to a modem.

    Thanks,

        Scott


Scott McCauley, [e-mail] (INTERNET)
Home:    [phone]
Office: [phone]   (FTS 340-3312)
Fax:    [phone]   (FTS 340-2160)

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

From: Subhasis Chaudhuri <[e-mail]>
Subject: Authentication and Billing Schemes for Terminal Servers
Date: 28 Dec 89 06:54:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


Could the readers of this group point me to authentication and billing
schemes designed around terminal servers and the terminal servers
which support them?

Please *EMAIL* your replies to [e-mail]

Thanks Much,

Pushpendra Mohta


[Moderator's Note: Please reply only to the author; not the Digest.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: Dial Pulse Month in TX
Organization: Central Iowa (Model) Railroad, Dallas, Tx.
Date: 22 Dec 89 11:52:30 CST (Fri)
From: Eric Schnoebelen <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> it is written:

- The following is reprinted from the FidoNet Consulting echo.
- ===========================================================================
-  From:   Jim Westbrook
-  To:     All Modem Users
-  Subj:   International Pulse Dial Month
-
-     12-14-89       JANUARY IS INTERNATIONAL PULSE DIAL MONTH!
-
-     One of the peripheral expenses accompanying such a change would be
-     an increase in the cost of optional services.  In the instance of
-     tone dialing, the differential is approximately ten-fold (from
-     approx.  50 cents/month to approx.  $5/month).  Over the course of a
-     year, discontinuing tone dial would offset approximately two months
-     of the basic non-residential service.  This makes it worthwhile to
-     determine the impact on BBS operations if pulse dialing were adopted
-     as "normal operations" for both BBS's and users.

        I don't see what the big deal is. I have never had or used
tone dial services on egsner or my voice lines.  (I rather refuse to
pay for some thing, such as touch tone service, that doesn't cost the
phone company, and that I don't use.)

        Egsner communicates just fine with it's neighbors in Dallas/Ft
Worth using pulse dialing.  I have never had a dialing problem, and
the slight delay caused by pulse dialing is hardly noticeable.

        As a side note: When I ordered service for my new home, I
ordered two lines.  The service rep asked if I wanted tone service to
which I replied no.  They then asked (paraphrased) "Doesn't the
computer, since that is what you are planning to use on your second
line, need tone service to dial?", to which I replied (again,
paraphrased) "no, I have never used tone on any of my modems" I could
hear the disbelief over the phone..


Eric Schnoebelen    [e-mail]        [e-mail]
            "/bin/sh: Bourne in the USA"

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

Subject: Why Not Make 800 Numbers Available Outside US?
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 89 14:52:03 CST
From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>

Why can't AT&T or Bellcore or whoever allow access to 800 numbers from
outside the US as regular long-distance numbers, with regular
long-distance charges to the caller?

It just seems like such an obvious thing.


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone]. <[e-mail]>.
 'U`  Also <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>.
"It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier
and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- [e-mail]


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

Subject: Re: Call Forwarding (TM)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 89 10:45:46 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


re: Multiple simultaneous calls forwarding

Mr. Higdon writes in <[e-mail]>:

>[e-mail] writes:
>> This isn't correct, at least in the Boston area switches.  A couple of
>> years ago, one could have many calls being forwarded through a single
>> line.  Now, only one call can be active through a call forward at one
>> time.

>Well, I just comfirmed moments ago that my office phone in Santa Clara
>would indeed forward at least three calls, assuming that each of the
>preceeding calls was supervised. It is served by a 1AESS...
>However, when I tried the same trick on my home phone, it didn't work.
> [ for multiple forwards ]

>As much as I kinda doubt it, maybe there is a distinction between
>forwarding on business vs forwarding on residential. It's ridiculous,
>but who knows?

Traditionally there is a distinction between business and residential
class of service, particularly in this matter.

We have noticed in many operating regions around the eastern part of
the nation that business rated service has an essentially 'unlimited'
number of forwards, whereas residential service is limited to one
forward.

Further, orders for Remote Call Forwarding (TM), as pointed out
previously, do allow the customer to specify the maximum number of
simultaneous forwarded calls in many operating companies (even some
satrapies :).  Clearly, it is in the operating company's best
interests to keep that number as low as possible to conserve
resources, so don't be suprised that this wasn't eagerly offered to
you if you recently ordered RCF!


Bote
NCN NudesLine  703-241-BARE  --  VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible
{zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #598
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 29 Dec 89 7:51:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #599
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Dec 89 07:50:08 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 599

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cellular Information Service (George Goble)
    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Tad Cook)
    US Sprint Visa/FON Card (Steve Forrette)
    Caller-ID Segment on ATC (Jerry Leichter)
    Re: Caller-ID (Tad Cook)
    Re: Largest Toll-Free Region? (Jay Maynard)
    Multiple Call-Forwarding Error (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: The New Decade (Brian Gordon)
    Hi-Rise Joe (Bernard Mckeever)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 89 07:40:57 -0500
From: George Goble <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Information Service


There is a comprehensive publication called "Cellmaps", in loose leaf
binder format, updated 4 times/year, published by "Cellular
Directions, Inc".  This is pretty much the industry standard I have
heard.  Subscription is around $200/year I think. Most cellular
customer service depts subscribe, so you should be able to ask them to
look it up in Cellmaps.

Info included is coverage areas, compiled from all the company
published coverage areas, for USA, & Canada.  Also listed are billing
plans, Roaming numbers, emergency, and "trouble" numbers (like *611),
and other carrier info numbers, and "follow me roaming" status.

Reciprocal roaming agreements between companies are listed in detail
as are system configurations (system I.D. #, number of cellsites, mfgr
of their equipment, phone numbers of various directors in the company,
etc, etc).

Chapter on "future service areas", listing RSA (rural service area)
lottery winners, current status of RSA's, when construction permits
were filed, estimated "turn up" date, phone numbers of parties
involved, etc, etc.

Also published, are a nation wide coverage map, wall size for around
$18 or so, and 8-1/2" X 11" for about $3.  This is nice to have.  They
also publish a paperback (once/year), called "Roamer's handbook"
(around $15), which is a scaled down Cellmaps, but contains the
coverage maps, roamer ports, contact numbers, etc.  For $15, no
cellular user should be without the Roamer's Handbook & the nationwide
coverage map.

Above items are available from:

Cellular Directions, Inc
P.O. Box 66843
Saint Petersburg Beach
Florida 33736-6843

[phone]

They take credit-card phone orders.


George Goble, Engineering Computer Network, Purdue U, W. Lafayette, IN 47907
ph: [phone]. uucp: {backbone}!pur-ee!ghg  internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Date: 28 Dec 89 07:22:17 GMT
Organization: very little


Lars Poulsen asked how a 3 watt transmitter could put out 4 watts ERP
(Effective Radiated Power).  4 watts ERP would result when the
transmitter is connected to an antenna with an overall gain of 12.5 db.

Broadcast stations are also regulated like this.  If they are allowed
50,000 watts ERP, they may have 12.5 KW into a 6 db gain antenna
system.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]
MCI Mail: 3288544
KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA


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

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 89 05:58 EDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint Visa/FON Card

I just got a mailing from US Sprint today announcing their combined
FON card/ Visa card.  It has a picture of it - one card that is a Visa
as well as a calling card.  More pictures show a woman using it at a
clothing store to buy stuff, and another showing a man using it at a
payphone and touch-toning the number.  The brochure says the one
number on the card does it all.

I though that I MUST be missing something, so I called Sprint customer
(dis)service to find out what the scoop was.  They said that as far as
they knew, the brochure was right - one number does it all.  I asked
them how they planned to provide security if every merchant and their
employees where I shopped knew my calling card number.  They said it
was secure; since the back of the card is not copied onto the carbon,
they would not know the dialing instructions!  I mentioned that I'm
sure that someone posing as a customer would have no problem getting
that information from their operators or customer service people.  The
response was that they don't give out dialing instructions to just
*anyone*.  They verify name and address first.  I know that I'm going
to sleep well with them looking after my account so diligently.

Perhaps they figure that the 2% or whatever they're going to pocket
off of the purchases will cover the fraud losses.  Sounds pretty
stupid to me.  Any thoughts?

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

From: "Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Segment on ATC
Date: 29 Dec 89 05:03:16 GMT
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department, New Haven, Connecticut, USA


All Things Considered ran a piece on Caller-ID services tonight
(Thursday, 28 December).  There were interviews with Telco people and
with someone from an organization concerned with privacy.  Most of the
things mentioned have been discussed many times here.

The problem caused by Caller-ID that got the most discussion, however,
has not really drawn much attention here - but has quickly made itself
known in New Jersey, which is at the forefront of the debate.  It is
common for people working with possibly-disturbed patients, ranging
from doctors to social workers, to have unlisted numbers.  In
addition, however, many of them must be reachable by their patients in
an emergency.  The usual mechanism such people use is an answering
service; they then return the call.  Of course, with Caller-ID, the
"unlistedness" of their number is quickly lost.  Such calls are by no
means uncommon - my sister, who is a surgeon, had to give up her
listed number after repeated abusive calls from someone she treated in
an emergency room.  Now no patient gets to call her at home, period.

The telephone company's representative presented some ways out of
this.  Some were absurd - call from a friend's phone (right, let a
psychotic patient get your friend's number, YOU'LL sleep fine), call
from a pay phone (emergency calls usually come in the middle of the
night), etc.  The rest - e.g., get a second phone line - all had one
common thread: They involved the person involved shelling out more
money to, you guessed it, the phone company.

BTW, the piece as a whole was fairly balanced; if it leaned either
way, I'd say it was toward the Telco's: Their speakers seemed to get
more air time, and there was a lot of "gee wiz, look at the neat
things this allows" to the piece.
                            -- Jerry

[Moderator's Note: There is however, something to be said for the idea
that if you can call me at home, I can call you at home -- if you don't
want calls at home, neither do I. Attornies often fit in this category:
they want *my* home number so they can work at home at night; when I
ask for theirs, they say 'I don't give it out'. Neither do I, pal. They
take calls at the office; so do I.  In this respect, Caller*ID helps
even the score a little in favor of us peasants, doesn't it!   PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 28 Dec 89 07:30:25 GMT
Organization: very little


Among other things, Jeffrey Jonas asked about ways of routing fax
calls away from voice calls on the same line.

There are a few devices out there that work with distinctive ringing
service.  This is where for a few extra bucks a month, the phone
company assigns more than one phone number to a line, each with
distinctive ringing.  A detector on the line can then route incoming
calls to a telephone, modem, or FAX, based upon the ringing cadence.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]

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

From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Largest Toll-Free Region?
Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 89 22:33:39 GMT


I would submit the Houston metropolitan area as one of the largest
toll-free regions, both in population and in area...

The central zone and first and second-tier exchanges (what's the
difference between central and first/second-tier, anyway, in this
context?) make up a compact toll-free area, by the definition given:
all calls involving two phones in this area are local. This area is
bounded, very roughly, by a circle forty miles in diameter, and
includes most of the Houston SMSA.

The normal toll-free area for someone inside that circle is bounded by
a rough circle about 60-65 miles in diameter, and includes anything
that could remotely be considered a suburb of Houston, including Katy,
Richmond/Rosenberg, League City, Baytown, and Tomball, extending well
into Montgomery, Galveston, Waller, and Fort Bend counties. The normal
toll-free area for someone in the parts of this zone outside the
central 40-mile circle is that circle, and all exchanges adjacent to
the caller's exchange. (I was disappointed to discover that my
parents, who live in Tomball, are a long-distance call from me in
League City, even though we both have metro service.) The extended
toll-free area is the same as the local toll-free area for the central
zone. There is precious little territory in the 713 area code that
this does not include.


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 +----------------------------------------
     Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...

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

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 89 01:01:50 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error

My phone number (313-663), certifiably a residence, allows seemingly infinite
concurrent call forwards with the regular Michigan Bell call forwarding
service.  As an added bonus, you can forward it to another number (in a
different switch) and forward that other number back to it, and call either,
and hear endless clicks as the call gets bounced back and forth, eating
up more and more trunks (or whatever they use for interoffice calls
these days..).

[Moderator's Note: If you are correct in this, then I would say there
is a very serious problem there; one that MichBell should correct. You
can cross-forward here in Chicago, but the call forwards only once in
each direction and rings through. That is, I forward to you and you
forward to me: Calls to me ring through on your line regardless of how
yours is set, and calls to you ring through on me, regardless of how
my line is set. Apparently some information is sent with the forwarded
call telling the next switch 'call is already being forwarded, ignore
further forwarding and ring as requested', or something like that.
PT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 89 12:57:20 PST
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The New Decade
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>    [...]
>to change our calendar for several more years. So why don't we bite the
>bullet and admit that the early days of our present year numbering system
>were not without some flaws in the methodology, write off the missing
>zeroeth year and celebrate a new decade this weekend.   PT]

What happened to "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?  Just because the "man on
the street" is confused about end/start of decades, centuries, millenia, etc.,
there are still perfectly valid definitions in place.  Why change them just
to align with ignorance ;-} ?


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian G. Gordon    [e-mail] (if you trust exotic mailers)     |
|            ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself)          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 89 10:12:18 EST
From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hi-Rise Joe
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


A tip of the hat to the person that mentioned "HI-RISE" Joe.  Joe is a
very real person who attained urban legend status.  I worked with Joe
for several years and can assure everyone that the stories told about
him are true. Yes he did call the Kremlin and he also worked for the
phone company for a few years.  Ma Bell wanted to put him in jail but
one of the local companies hired him anyway. Joe performed a valuable
service by using his uncanny ability to hear his way through the
network and "find" trouble spots and routing errors. Let me share a
few quick first hand stories about Joe.

Joe would call the 904 Data Test Center late at night and ask to hear
the tones used to test modems. In no time at all he could ID any modem
and could tell if it was within working limits.

Joe paid for and hosted his own radio talk show.

One night I challenged Joe to a test. I would sent 1, 2, or 3
frequencies over the line and he was to tell me what they were.
Without error he could correctly ID any and all combinations within a
few Hz every time.

Joe collected door bell sounds. When you talked to him on the phone he
would ask you to ring your door bell. From that time on he could tell
who was calling by the sound of the door bell without the calling
party saying a word.

Sadly Joe left the company after a few years. As I remember it was one
of the most unselfish motives for leaving I have ever heard of. He
left so that a friend of his with greater needs could take his job.

I have not included Joe's last name or the company he worked for in
the hopes that his legend is spread from town to town and that his
true love for his fellow man and the network spreads with it.

I've left much unsaid so that others can share "HIGH-RISE" stories
with us if they want to.

Seasons greatings to all and best wishes for the new year!

Bernie McKeever
508-960-6289


[Moderator's Note: Stories like yours are legion. Maybe some other
readers will share a few. To close out 1989 (and the decade, if you
think of it that way!) a special edition of the Digest will be issued
over the weekend made up of downloads from two readers who got through
to the BBS in Estonia.  One from Moscow, the other from Colorado City,
CO, USA have sent along their sessions. Watch for it probably Saturday
or Sunday.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #599
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 29 Dec 89 23:31:03 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #600
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Dec 89 23:30:21 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 600

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: US Sprint Visa/FON Card (David Dyer-Bennet)
    Re: US Sprint Visa/FON Card (John R. Levine)
    Re: US Sprint Visa/FON Card (David Tamkin)
    Re: Largest Toll-Free Region? (John R. Levine)
    Re: ISDN In My Ole House (Dick Jackson)
    Re: Caller-ID (Thomas E. Lowe)
    Re: Caller ID on 800 Service (Leonard P. Levine)
    Re: Caller ID Segment on ATC (Ihor J. Kinal)
    Re: Caller-ID Objections (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Dyer-Bennet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Visa/FON Card
Reply-To: David Dyer-Bennet <ns![e-mail]>
Organization: Terrabit Software
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 89 16:46:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steve Forrette) writes:
:X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 599, message 3 of 9

:I asked them how they planned to provide security if every merchant
:and their employees where I shopped knew my calling card number.

:Perhaps they figure that the 2% or whatever they're going to pocket
:off of the purchases will cover the fraud losses.  Sounds pretty
:stupid to me.  Any thoughts?

The merchant knows my credit card number anyway; that's worth a lot
more in possible fraud than my fon card number.  And by going to the
right places, prarticularly airports, they can make phone calls with
my credit card number anyway.  Frankly I don't see a significantly
increased exposure here.


David Dyer-Bennet, [e-mail]
or [e-mail]
or Fidonet 1:282/341.0, [phone] 9600hst/2400/1200/300
or terrabit![e-mail], ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!terrabit!ddb

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

Subject: Re: US Sprint Visa/FON Card
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 29 Dec 89 11:21:16 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>I just got a mailing from US Sprint today announcing their combined
>FON card/ Visa card.  It has a picture of it - one card that is a Visa
>as well as a calling card.  [The fraud possibilities are great.]
>Sounds pretty stupid to me.  Any thoughts?

There exist COCOTs now that let you enter a Visa card number from the
keypad, so I don't see that the increased fraud possitilities are all
that great.  If they have trouble, a straightforward possibility would
be to reqire the Visa card's PIN, the one that you use to to get a
cash advance from an ATM, for phone calls.

There are also at most airports phones that will accept any common
credit card and charge calls to that card using any of the usual LD
carriers including Sprint.  The card number is send as a long string
of DTMF digits which you can hear while waiting for the call to start
ringing; for all I know you could dial the same thing from any other
phone and charge Sprint calls to your Visa card now.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Combined Visa/FON Card
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 89 15:46:27 CST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Steve Forrette wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 9, Issue 599:

| I though that I MUST be missing something, so I called Sprint customer
| (dis)service to find out what the scoop was.  They said that as far as
| they knew, the brochure was right - one number does it all.  I asked
| them how they planned to provide security if every merchant and their
| employees where I shopped knew my calling card number.  They said it
| was secure; since the back of the card is not copied onto the carbon,
| they would not know the dialing instructions!  I mentioned that I'm
| sure that someone posing as a customer would have no problem getting
| that information from their operators or customer service people.  The
| response was that they don't give out dialing instructions to just
| *anyone*.  They verify name and address first.  I know that I'm going
| to sleep well with them looking after my account so diligently.

And of course, if a merchant or a merchant's employee has a similar
combined VISA/FON card of his or her own; if another customer (or
maybe you) should forget the card at the store and it is held there
for the customer to return and pick it up; or if the store has your
name and address on file because your order is to be delivered or
shipped or because you are on the store's mailing list;

Then the merchant (or employee) can either read the dialing
instructions at leisure or get them from US Sprint with no trouble and
then use them with your card number.  Infriggincredible.


David Tamkin  P.O Box 813  Rosemont, Illinois 60018-0813 |      BIX: dattier
[e-mail]   [phone] [phone] | GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN
No two chinet users agree about this (or anything else). |   CIS: 73720,1570

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

Subject: Re: Largest Toll-Free Region?
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 29 Dec 89 11:15:07 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


I don't know if this counts by whatever rules one wants to use for
determining toll-free regions, but if you have a cellular phone in New
York City or northern New Jersey, any call to 201, 212, 718, 516, much
of 914, a little of 203, and soon to be 908 incurs no toll charge
beyond the usual per minute air time charge.  There appear to be cases
where it's cheaper to make a cellular call than a regular one, e.g.
from Toms River NJ at the southern tip of 201 to Montauk at the
eastern end of 516, a distance of over 100 miles.

This seems to be true of both the A and B carriers.

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

From: Dick Jackson <ttidca.TTI.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN In My Ole House
Date: 29 Dec 89 16:33:13 GMT
Reply-To: Dick Jackson <ttidcc.tti.com![e-mail]>
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 598, message 3 of 9

>Lucky us in this city are slated to get ISDN in two years.

>I believe it requires two twisted pairs to each phone within the
>house.  I wonder whether my current house wiring of standard four
>conductor cable to each modular phone jack will be adequate, or will
>the wires have to be replaced with special controlled impedence wiring
>when I order ISDN?

This whole subject has been puzzling me.  The standard model for
premises ISDN is an NT1 hooked to a station via the two-pair S
interface, or to multiple stations (up to 8) via a passive bus
version.  Since most homes now have multiple phones, the first thought
is to have passive bus wiring.  But each station is different
logically I believe and only one phone can use a B channel at a given
time (no "conferencing").  Unless I have some deep misunderstanding,
it seems that the simple model will not serve a multi-phone house very
well.

I suspect that in practice people will choose to buy NT12 units. The
NT2 portion of these will effectively be a PBX and in addition can
support an R interface (one pair analog) to existing POTS phones for
those who don't want to replace all their current phones with $500
ISDN sets and also rewire their homes.

Such NT12 units are likely to be expensive, especially at first, and
this is another reason why I am pessimistic about ISNDN service
catching on for residential use.


Dick Jackson

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

From: Thomas E Lowe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 29 Dec 89 16:47:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (thomas.e.lowe,ho,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>Wouldn't it be nice if ALL fax machines could identify themselves
>BEFORE anything picked up so the same line could share devices?  That
>way, data calls (FAX, MODEM) would automatically route themselves to
>devices WITHIN A TELEPHONE NUMBER.

New Jersey Bell (and others) are now offering something called
"Ident-A-Ring" where a single phone line is assigned up to three
different phone numbers.  (Kind of a glorified use of an old fashioned
party line.)  Each number would have a distinctive sounding ring.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a little box with one input and three
outputs.  Then, based on which ring it received, it would switch to
the appropriate output.  You could put FAX on one, MODEM on another,
and VOICE on the last.  Cheap and Simple.


Tom Lowe    [e-mail]   attmail!tlowe     201-949-0428
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2E-637A
Crawfords Corner Road,  Holmdel, NJ  07733
(R) UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T  (keep them lawyers happy!!)

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID on 800 Service
Date: 29 Dec 89 19:55:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John Higdon):

> How's that grab all you privacy phreaks out there? :-)

> [Moderator's Note: John, I suspect many of the privacy phreaks would
> go so far as to say just because some company is paying for their
> call, that company still has no right to know the number of the call
> they are paying for!  Just a guess, but there are some extremists in
> that camp.  PT]

I do not know about other privacy freaks, but here in Wisconsin there
are several "anonymous" 800 numbers you can call with crime tips.

They all stress that no one will ask your name, special codes are used
to insure privacy, rewards are given etc. all with no way of detecting
just who was the tipster.

Lots of people believe that these systems are secure, when they find
out that they are not, they will feel tricked.  Nothing is more
offensive to a person than to find that a trusted person has just
played a trick on them.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| 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: Ihor J Kinal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Segment on ATC
Date: 29 Dec 89 20:12:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


This article refered to a doctor who got a call from her answering service.

The fear was that when she returned the call, she would be giving away
your unlisted number, perhaps to some mentally-ill person.  THIS SEEMS
LIKE A VERY VALID COMPLAINT.

It occurred to me that the answering service should then also offer
the service of forwarding her call back to the patient!!!  [Hopefully,
the added cost would be minimal, since presumably the major cost of
the service is the human interface].

Also, perhaps people could subscribe to such services if they wanted
to maintain their privacy.  The call-forwarding would hopefully keep a
log, available under suitable safeguards.  Consequently, obscene
callers would not be able to hide.

Ideally, then forwarding service would display on the receiver's in a
manner that would be recognized for what it was, and the receiver
could then process the call as desired.

This solution might server to solve everyone's complaints [but I'm
sure someone will find fault :-) ].


Standard disclaimers apply + I a software person, and only a
guest where I work.

Ihor Kinal
att!cbnewsh!ijk

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

Subject: Re: Caller-ID Objections
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 28 Dec 89 11:25:22 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


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

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

>> Is there no other aspect of telephony that has potential for abuse?

>Is this supposed to be an argument?!!  "We already have problems so
>there is nothing wrong with amplifying them."

Everything we accept in the name of progress carries risks. Driving an
automobile, riding a motorcycle, flying in a plane, even, as I pointed
out, simply having a telephone. Shall we forgo every new technology
that might carry a potential downside?

>You stray dangerously close to a definition of progress that has
>nothing to do with improving people's lives.

So if someone, somewhere, can find a potential disadvantage with a new
way of doing things, we should immediately remove that thought from
consideration? If a new service or invention won't improve your life,
no one should benefit? Can you substantiate harm caused by Caller-ID?
It does exist in the world; it should be a simple matter to pull up
some case histories.

Someone explain why I, JMH, should not be entitled to see the number
of those people who call me. Don't tell me about whackos and criminals
who might abuse the system; I'm not one of them. Don't tell me about
big business and government; they already have access to these
numbers.  Saying that some of us shouldn't have this technology
because others might abuse it is akin to saying that no one should
have computers because some malicious hackers might cause trouble, or
that no one should have automobiles because there are irresponsible
people who will drink and drive and kill people (a much more
compelling argument than any against Caller-ID, IMHO).

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jerry Leichter
([e-mail])) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 595, message 1 of 7

>Discussion on this topic continues interminably.  What's unfortunate
>about it is how many not-quite-truths make it into the discussions.

Amen, brother.

>For example, John Higdon's messages are well argued, but often miss
>the point.  He claims (correctly) that Caller ID could be very useful
>to him, and to others.  Fine, but from that it does not follow that
>the privacy issues others have raised are of no import.

But you are the first to bring up some well-thought-out and legitimate
privacy concerns. Heretofore we have been subjected to every
conceiveable privacy non-sequitur, from wife-beating to IRS fraud.
Previous comments provided no reasons whatsoever for considering the
privacy issue; yours did. In my previous post on the matter, I invited
legitimate concerns, as opposed to what we had been subjected to so
far.

>Higdon does not expect his phone number to be private.

Here, I will take issue with you. I have *many* private numbers and I
expect them to remain so. But I am prepared, in a world of Caller-ID,
to take the necessary steps to keep them private. In other words, I
will take the responsibility for maintaining my privacy, not by
denying the rest of society the advantages of Caller-ID, but by taking
prudent steps to make sure that none of these numbers appear on an
undesireable display. This can mean watching who I call with what
line, or even how I handle incoming calls when I know that my number
has been compromised.

But do not simplistically dismiss me by saying that "Higdon doesn't
care about his privacy". That is absolutely wrong. But maintaining my
privacy is my responsibility in any environment, and not that of some
utility regulator.


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


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #600
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 30 Dec 89 10:11:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: BBS in Estonia
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Dec 89 09:15:25 CST    Special: BBS in Estonia

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

  On-line With BBS in Soviet Union (Dave Hughes via D. Dodell & F. Linton)
  On-line With BBS in Soviet Union (Andrei Kolesnikov, calling from Moscow)

[Moderator's Note: Fred E. J. Linton and David Dodell both sent copies
of the online session by Dave Hughes with the BBS in Estonia. Other
than slight differences in editing, the copies were identical. I've
tried to eliminate any editing in the text presented here, but some
technical problems required a couple of minor changes, such as the
indentation of the word 'From' when it appeared, and the removal of
some dash marks. The second text is from our Soviet correspondent to
the Digest, Andrei Kolesnikov. I hope you enjoy reading this as much
as I did, and Happy New Year to all!  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 89 12:48:58 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: BBS in Estonia

I found this posting in alt.bbs ... didn't know if you wanted to repost it to
the group:

  From: [e-mail] (Dave Hughes)
  Date: 25 Dec 89 07:46:14 GMT
  Organization: Old Colorado City Communications, Colorado Springs, CO
  Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
  Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.misc


I have managed to log on tonight, Christmas Eve, to the 1st BBS inside
the USSR. Its in Tallinn, Estonia. Phone number Country Code +7, City
Code 0142, Number 422 583. You can't dial that direct from the US. I
had to use the technique I use to call my son's modem in China - using
a voice phone branched off the modem, going through two operators. Got
it at 1200 baud, 7S1, Bell212.

Below is most of that 30 minute first session. The software resembles
a public domain US package. The Finns from Helsinki helped set it up.

[Hughes note: I edited out redundant menus and some line noise.]
[Moderator's Note: And I had to remove some dashes on a few lines.  PT]

atd
CONNECT

CONNECT 1200 / 12-25-89 (03:12)

Eesti BBS # 1
PCBoard (R) - Version 14.1/D

Do you want graphics (Enter)=no?

** EESTI BBS # 1 **

Welcome to Tallinn !

Tere tulemast Tallinnasse !

What is your first name? dave
What is your last name? hughes

DAVE HUGHES not found in USER's file.
(R) to re-enter your name or (C) to continue logon as a new user? C
New Users see this File

Would you like to register with us (Enter)=yes?
                            (------------)
Password (One word please!)? ...
                            (------------)
Re-enter password to verify? ...

                            (------------------------)
City and State calling from? Colorado Springs, Colo

                            (-------------)
Business or data phone # is? 7196324111

                            (-------------)
   Home or voice phone # is? 7196362040

                            (------------------------------)
 Brand of CPU you are using? Toshiba Laptop MSDOS

Please wait - Adding name to Quick Index File ...

Registration Information Saved .


                     *****  Eesti BBS # 1 *****


15/12/89

Conferences added, preferably use ProDoor to read & enter messages.
Command: OPEN 1 or DOOR 1.

*************************************

14/12/89

Tere tulemast Tallinna seltskonda.

We established BBS system just today. We are newcommers into the
Bulletin world.
We have a lot to learn, please be patient with us.Keep in touch.

Our number is [phone].

Scan Message Base Since 'Last Read' (Enter)=yes?

(Ctrl-K) or (Ctrl-X) Aborts, (Ctrl-S) Suspends.

Scanning Main (0) .....
  Msgs For You: None
 Msgs From You: None
  # Msgs Found: 58


Press (Enter) to continue?
(----------1---------2---------3---------)
            (M123456789012345678901234567890123456789)
MBase Areas: XXXXXX
MBase Scans: XXXXXX
Caller Num.: 270
Lst Date On: 12-25-89
Expire Date: None
# Times On : 1
Page Length: 23
Expert Mode: Off
Security Lv: 20
# Downloads: 0
# Uploads  : 0
Bytes Avail: 1024000
L/Msg. Read: 0
High Msg. #: 90
Active Msgs: 89
Tr/Protocol: None

Press (Enter) to continue?

============================[   Main Menu   ]=================================

 A)bandon Conference  H)elp Functions      O)perator Page    T)rans. Protocol
 B)ulletin Listings   I)nitial Welcome     OPEN a DOOR       TS)Txt Srch Msgs
 CHAT between NODEs   J)oin a Conference   P)age Length Set  U)pload a File
 C)omment to SYSOP    K)ill a message      Q)uick Msg Scan   V)iew Settings
 D)ownload a File     L)ocate Files(name)  R)ead Messages    W)rite User Info
 E)nter a Message     M)ode (Graphics)     REPLY to Msg(s)   X)pert On/Off
 F)ile Directories    N)ew Files(date)     RM)Re-Read Mem #  Y)our Per. Mail
 G)oodbye (Hang up)   NEWS file display    S)cript Question  Z)ippy DIR Scan

(28 min. left) Main Board Command? j

=======================[ Conference Listings ]===============================
   #                           Description

   1  - EestiSuomi - Discussions in Estonian, Finnish, English
   2  - Internat - Discussions in English only, the international ones
   3  - IBMPC- The hardware and sofware matters in any languages
   4  - Othercomp - The stories about the other computers
   5  - Telecom - The messages for Estonian companies
   6  - Private - This is for  the private mail only
   7  - UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW, PLEASE DON'T DISTURB

Conference # to join (Enter)=none? 1

EestiSuo (1) Conference Joined

Scan Message Base Since 'Last Read' (Enter)=yes? ~r

(Ctrl-K) or (Ctrl-X) Aborts, (Ctrl-S) Suspends.

Scanning EestiSuo (1) .
  Msgs For You: None
 Msgs From You: None
  # Msgs Found: 9

(13 min. left) EestiSuo (1) Conference Command? r

(H)elp, (1-9), Message Read Command? 1-9

  Date: 12-17-89 (00:41)              Number: 1
  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
  From: TIMO AUKIA                      Read: HAS REPLIES
  Subj: HYV[[ JOULUA                  Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

No kun kerran alueen nimi on Eesti/Suomi, niin kirjoitellaan
 suomeksi.
Toivottavasti edes joku ymm{rt{{. On hienoa, ett{ Viron asiat ovat
alkaneet menn{ parempaan suuntaan. Toivottavasti Suomen pys{htynyt
hallitus {ly{{ my|s nousta Stalinismin sulkeutuneisuudesta. Eik{ t{ss{
sitten mit{{n muuta asiaa olekaan, kuin Hyv{{ Joulua kaikille
Virolaisille.

(H)elp, (1-9), Message Read Command? 2

Date: 12-17-89 (04:55)              Number: 2
  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
From: SAMI ROPPONEN                   Read: (N/A)
Subj: KUVARUUTUEDITORI              Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

Onneksi tll saa puhua suomea.
Kertokaa, miten saa kuvaruutueditorin (fullscreeneditor) plle?

(H)elp, End of Message Command? h

(End of Message) Command - Function Help
----------------------------------------

 Commands Available to All:

              (Enter) contines on with message read function
              (N) stop reading messages
              (NS) continue reading messages in non-stop format
              (T) thread read (forward) (or T+)
              (T-) thread read (backwards)
              (#) a specific message number between 1 and 9999999
              (+) or (-) added to the end of a (#) forces either a
                  forward or reverse read respectively.
              (+) alone reads messages forward from present position
              (-) alone reads messages backwards from present position
              (RE) enter a reply to the message just read
              (M) memorize that message number for later return
              (RM) return to a previously "memorized" message number
              (TS) begin a text search of message header information
              (NEXT) reads next higher message number available
              (PREV) reads next lower message number available

              (K) kill the message
              (E) edit the "To:" and "Subj:" of the message header
                  and 'Echo' flag if applicable

 Additional Commands Available for Sysops ONLY!

              (P) "protect" the message (make it "private")
              (U) "unprotect" the message (make it "public")
              (F) find caller's USERS file record and display
              (MOVE) Move the message to another conference

Comments:  If you do not have a security level necessary to perform the
           Sysop functions above, do NOT attempt to enter those commands
           as excessive attempts to do so may lock you out of this system!
           Commands can be stacked together at this prompt if desired.

(11 min. left) EestiSuo (1) Conference Command? r

(H)elp, (1-9), Message Read Command? 7

  Date: 12-23-89 (00:09)              Number: 7
  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
  From: GILES TODD                      Read: (N/A)
  Subj: HELLO                         Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

Hi.  Congratulations {on your BBS.

Giles (phoning from the UK).

(11 min. left) EestiSuo (1) Conference Command? e

                            (-------------------------)
           To (Enter)=`ALL'?
      Subject (Enter)=abort? MERRY XMAS FROM USA
  Message Security (H)=help?

    Enter your text. (Enter) alone to end. (72 chars/line, 25 lines maximum)
   (------------------------------------------------------------------------)
 1: MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OF YOU IN ESTONIA, AND
 2: THE REST OF THE USSR, AND YOUR FINLAND FRIENDS FROM ALL OF US
 3: COWBOYS IN COLORADO IN THE UNITED STATES.
 4:   I have left a message in the International Section, xDbut there
 5: is a little English here too!
 6:   And Congratulations on the fine BBS - as I understand it the
 7: first in the USSR!
 8:   I am a veteran American 'onliner', running a series of systems
 9: myssel fromthe Old Colorado City District of
10: Colorado Springs Colorado, 11: USA, at the foot of 14,000 foot Pikes Peak
   mountain in the  Rocky Mountains.
13:   I will call back and *really* exercise your system, and if you
14: do not mind, even critique, from one who spends 4 hours a day
15: online,. and have operated from one-line BBSs in 1981 to my
16: current multi-user Unix 386 system with global
17: Usenet, for general use, education, politics, business, and
18: {_culture. My system number in the USA is  Area Code 719 and
19: number 632-4111 at 1200 baud, 8N1. And my global usenet
20: address is [e-mail].
21:   I have exhanged many messages via Tokyo,
CAUTION: Auto-Disconnect in (3) min.!
 and US with Sergei Alexandrov in Moscow at Novosti.
22 And with one of my sons in China - by direct conenct dial.
Two lines left before message is full!
24:   So once again  from a veteran who has seen
25: em all. Terrific start. Global networking, here we come!
Text Entry is Full ...

(A)bort, (C)ontinue, (D)elete, (E)dit, (H)elp, (I)nsert, (L)ist, (S)ave
Text Entry Command? s

Saving Message # 10 ...........

(2 min. left) EestiSuo (1) Conference Command? f

====================[ Main Board File Directory ]=============================

                   1 - PCBoard Software Text Files

(H)elp, (1-2), File List Command? 1

*************  Directory 1 - PCBoard Bulletin Board Software  ***************

PCB12DOC.ARC     5506  10-01-87  PCBoard Ver. 12.0 Changes Documentation


(H)elp, (1-2), File List Command?

(1 min. left) EestiSuo (1) Conference Command? g
{_
Minutes Used: 29

NO CARRIER

Also, the following message was the only one - composed today,
Christmas Eve, in the International Section. To which I replied
warmly, with also greetings to Mikael and Raisa Gorbechev.


Date: 12-24-89 (15:04)              Number: 1
  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
From: JUSSI ROKKA                     Read: (N/A)
Subj: HELLO                         Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

HELLO!
Is anybody here?
Christmas wishes to all...
                        Jussi

==================================

             (End of Online Session)

Dave Hughes          Old Colorado City Communications
"It is better to light one screen than cursor the darkness"
hplabs!hp-lsd!oldcolo!dave

             (End of Forwarded Message from David Dodell)
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------
          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
                  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Dec 89 05:41:15 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling the BBS in Tallinn, Estonia

Thanks Patrick!

It will be great if you can give me some basic info about telecom
conference.  I finally got Estonia BBS from my home. I have
Tosh1100/int.modem 1200bps home and MAC in the office.  We use
USRobotrics Courier 2400e with MNP inside Soviet Union. Or any 300bps
modems (CCITT).  BBS in Tallinn: 300-1200bps CCITT, E, 7, 1.  part of
the session:

==========BEGIN===========

ATDP8,,0142422583
CONNECT

CONNECT 300 / 12-29-89 (01:01)

Eesti BBS # 1
PCBoard (R) - Version 14.1/D

Do you want graphics (Enter)=no?

7-E-1 Operation in Effect.

CONNECT 300 / 12-29-89 (01:01)

Eesti BBS # 1
PCBoard (R) - Version 14.1/D
** EESTI BBS # 1 **
Welcome to Tallinn !
Tere tulemast Tallinnasse !

What is your first name? andrei
 What is your last name? kolesnikov
Password (Dots will echo)? ...

Scan Message Base Since 'Last Read' (Enter)=yes?

(Ctrl-K) or (Ctrl-X) Aborts, (Ctrl-S) Suspends.

Scanning Main (0) ......
  Msgs For You: None
 Msgs From You: 115     116
  # Msgs Found: 73


Press (Enter) to continue?

(29 min. left) Main Board Command? e

                            (-------------------------)
           To (Enter)=`ALL'?
      Subject (Enter)=abort? more bbs?
  Message Security (H)=help?

    Enter your text. (Enter) alone to end. (72 chars/line, 25 lines maximum)
   (------------------------------------------------------------------------)
 1:
21:

(A)bort, (C)ontinue, (D)elete, (E)dit, (H)elp, (I)nsert, (L)ist, (S)ave
Text Entry Command? s

Saving Message # 117 ........


============================[   Main Menu   ]=================================
...

(27 min. left) Main Board Command? g

Minutes Used: 3

  [Moderator's Note: some of session online not available.   PT]

(10 min. left ) Main Board Command? r

Scanning Main (0) . . . . .

 Date: 12-28-89 (02:51)        Number: 105
 To: ANDREI                Refer#: 104
 FROM: LEMBIT PIRN        Read: NO
 Subj: Tallinn            Status: RECEIVER ONLY

That's nice this BBS will be opened in Moscow!  Best regards and Happy
New Year!

**Lembit

   *Via ProDoor 3.1

(H)elp, End of Message Command?

 Date: 12-28-89 (04:47)        Number: 106
 To: ANDREI                Refer: 104
 From: JUSSI PULKKINEN        Read: NO
 Subj: USA                Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

Hi Andrei!

Just to-night I got a voice call from the US of A telling me that it was
impossible to get a line from there.

According to the editor of PC-Computer magazine he got a recorded
message saying 0011 (or whatever it might be) 7 was for Moscow only. I
hope he'll manages the call to this BBS somehow.

Folks, ain't that funny you can't dial here from the States? And still you can
pick up your phone here in Estonia and dial any number in America? Ain't that
funny, indeed?

 *Via ProDoor 3.1

Sysop CHAT active at 00:32

Hello, this is SysOp.
Hallo, Andrei. Tanks for calling to us.
>DO YOU HEAR ME?
I see you
>THANKS
Is that in US or in Moscow, I don't understand?
>OK. I'm in Moscow, sure. Do you provide 300bps?
Yes
>Maybe I will use 300 next sessions, too much noise...What is your >number for
voice?
OK. Its 42-63-19 in Tallinn.
>Kak tebia zovut (*what is your name?*)
Menja zovut Jaak. (*my name is Jaak*)
>Hi Jaak., how do you do?
Nice. By the way Ive lived in Moscow for 4 years.
>Great! How to catch you in BBS?
To send message at To: prompt type
To: Jaak Mannik.
===============END===============

[Note from Andrei: It was very noisy connection. Many {-.@$8%(asd(23fdd  's.]

[Moderator's Note: He then apparently logged off, as per below. PT]

   Thanks for calling, Andrei!

       ====================================================

[Moderator's Note: My thanks to Andrei, David, and Fred for sending
along the material for this special issue of the Digest. And I hope
Andrei will extend our warmest regards to Estonia, and wish them a
very happy and propsperous New Year.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: BBS in Estonia
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 30 Dec 89 11:17:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #601
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Dec 89 11:16:09 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 601

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Risks of Computerfax (Steve Elias)
    Automatic Ordering/Automatic Pranking (John Higdon)
    Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance (Mark Brader)
    Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error (John Higdon)
    Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error (Edwin R. Carp)
    Re: Hi-Rise Joe (Andrei Kolesnikov)
    New Year Greetings from Tallinn BBS#1 (Andrei Kolesnikov)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Risks of Computerfax
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 89 09:25:15 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Commercial email to fax gateways are beginning to hit the market.
I've been faxing email for people for many months, and one problem
which recurs is people supplying me with incorrect fax numbers.  I
usually try a voice call first, to ensure that the destination phone
number is indeed answered by a fax machine.  Occasionally it is not,
and I am forced to confuse the innocent person who answers.  Often,
the person can supply me with the correct fax number.

This problem is compounded with fully automated computerfax systems.
Some computerfax hardware is able to detect voice on the line, and
hence "do the right thing": don't call again, and return an error.
Some computerfax systems do not properly detect voice, and they might
redial the phone number N times before returning an error.

One solution might be to use computerfax hardware that has the
capability to play digitized voice and ask the recipient to press
touch tones to indicate his annoyance level!  Most computerfax
hardware does not have this capability, unfortunately.

A risk is that blue network meanies would purposely ask for a fax to
be delivered to a non-fax number, in order to cause an "annoyance".
Annoyance calls are illegal.  I wonder whether the computerfax machine
owner is liable for such calls, or whether the sender is responsible?
(comp.dcom.telecom cats can probably answer this question.)

We've seen the uproar in Washington about junk faxes...  Computerfax
opens the door for an email user to cause junk fax, intentionally or
unintentionally.


; Steve Elias
; work phone:  [phone] ;   email:  [e-mail] , [e-mail]
; voice mail:  617 932 5598 ;

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

Subject: Automatic Ordering/Automatic Pranking
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 28 Dec 89 20:30:20 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Quote from my latest Pac*Bell bill:

"Now you can order Commstar Features* automatically -- anytime! Place
your order for Call Waiting, Three-Way Calling Speed Calling/8 or Call
Forwarding 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.  Interacting with this
computerized system is easy -- just dial 811-7050 from your touch-tone
telephone.

    WE'RE MAKING THINGS EASIER sm

* Commstar Features are available in most areas.
** You may have to dial a "1" before dialing this toll-free
number."

After playing a little with Pac*Bell's automatic custom calling
feature ordering, I feel that it's an idea whose time should never
come. What would stop me or anyone from ordering every feature on the
accounts of people we don't like? That's a rhetorical question since
the answer is obviously nothing.

The session goes something like this:

You are welcomed to the service and are told to take a powder if you
have a rotary phone. Then you are asked for the area code and number
of the phone that the order applies to. You get a list of the features
and are told to enter the numbers of the features you want turned on.
The voice then reads back the features you selected, then give you the
one-time charge and the monthly charge for the features you ordered.

The safety may be in the fact that Pac*Bell now confirms by mail all
orders. If, however, the "victim" is out of town, then he will find
new features on his telephone when he returns. Or at least new charges
on his bill. The only other protection would possibly be to record the
caller's (person who places the order) number, which is quite possibly
what's done. The number (811-7050) rings into a DMS which give three
ringbacks then no-answer-forwards to something else. The calling
number would be available to the system from any FGD compliant office.

When I tried to use the system to order on one of my own lines, it
wouldn't accept the order. This could be because: 1) My accounts are
passworded or 2) all of my lines are Commstar II-equipped
(mini-centrex).

I wish Pac*Bell would put its energy into real stuff like CLASS...

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

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance
Date:     Sat, 30 Dec 89 02:47:26 EST


Our moderator writes:

> ... area codes *as we know them* will be used up is 1995. I think 1993
> might be a better estimate.  From that point on, area codes will resemble
> prefixes, and dialing 1 before long distance numbers everywhere will
> be mandatory. ...

Presumably by "long distance" he meant here "to another area code".

The thing that most distresses me about this whole
area-code-exhaustion business is that it'll mean that we'll LOSE the
possibility of a leading 1 ACTUALLY meaning, as it still does where I
am, "long distance".

Here, we dial NNX-XXXX for local calls, 1-NNX-XXXX for long distance
within our area, and 1 + 10 digits for other area codes (I'll call
this "Syntax 1").

Now, we're about to run out of NNX prefixes in 416, which means that
the 1 + 7 digits syntax becomes ambiguous and has to be dropped.  Bell
Canada then has two options.  They could drop the "leading 1 means
long distance" rule, and we'd dial 7 digits within the area no matter
whether local or not, and 1 + 10 digits outside ("Syntax 2").  Or they
could drop the "no area code required within area" rule, and we'd dial
7 digits for local calls and 1 + 10 digits for long distance no matter
whether within the area or not ("Syntax 3").

Bell Canada has actually elected to go to Syntax 3, and I personally
am most pleased that they have done so.  (The effective date is
sometime in March, I believe.)  But it appears to me from reading this
forum that Syntax 2 is rather more common in other parts of North
America.  In Syntax 2 places, you have to know which prefixes in your
area code are local calls and which are not -- or in some cases, the
sharp division of calls into local (free) and long distance (not free)
doesn't exist.  Of course Syntax 2 does have the advantage that it can
be used where the local calling area is larger than the local area
code.

To be complete I should mention Syntax 4, which I think was formerly
common and is becoming rare: leading 1 is never used, and one dials
NNX-XXXX for any call within one's area, 10 digits for calls to other
areas.  It only works in areas where all exchanges are NXX.  And
finally, there are the variants of Syntax 1, 2, or 3 where the leading
1 is replaced by some other access code, such as the 112 mentioned as
having been used until recently in B.C.; I remember that Toronto used
to use 112 about 20 years ago, too.

Now, finally, my question.  Can anyone comment on the relative
prevalence of the four syntaxes that I have called 1, 2, 3, and 4 in
North America, or better yet, actually provide a list of what areas
use what syntax?  (Note: My interest here is in major operating
companies, not, say, Pinnacles.)


Mark Brader            "It can be amusing, even if painful, to watch the
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto         ethnocentrism of those who are convinced their
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]     local standards are universal."    -- Tom Chapin

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error
Date: 29 Dec 89 20:37:55 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:
> My phone number (313-663), certifiably a residence, allows seemingly infinite
> concurrent call forwards with the regular Michigan Bell call forwarding
> service.

A little digging reveals that it is not a business/residence matter at
all. It is simply a matter of feature implementation in the various
switches/generic software releases. When the feature was first
generally offered, it allowed unlimited unconditional forwards. When
it was found that two numbers forwarded to each other could wipe out
the entire trunk bank between the two switches, the generic was
modified to allow only one forward. Later, it was realized that simply
requiring each call to be supervised before the next was forwarded
would prevent a trunk-gobbling loop and this change was folded into
the 1AESS generic.

My office CO has a 1AESS running the very latest generic (CLASS
capable, I'm told) and can multiple forward, while my residence is
"served" by an old rusty 1ESS running shareware (I'm told it's
actually capable of connecting two telephones together, sometimes) and
forwards exactly one call, period.

> hear endless clicks as the call gets bounced back and forth, eating
> up more and more trunks (or whatever they use for interoffice calls
> these days..).

If you can actually do this, it indicates that they are running a
positively *ancient* generic and deserve to have all of their trunks
disabled by pranksters, which I'm surprised hasn't happened already.
If that were possible here, the trunks would be gone in an instant
because of the SS#7 signaling employed.

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

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

From: "Edwin R. Carp" <khijol![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error
Date: 30 Dec 89 02:44:08 GMT
Reply-To: khijol![e-mail]
Organization: Deadly Force, Inc., aka Clint Eastwood School of Diplomacy


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 599, message 7 of 9

>and hear endless clicks as the call gets bounced back and forth, eating
>up more and more trunks (or whatever they use for interoffice calls

I read the moderator's note.  Can A forward to B, who then forwards to C,
who then forwards to A?  This can be repeated ad nauseum -- is the phone
company smart enough to pick up on this?


Ed Carp    N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5) ...!attctc!puzzle!khijol!erc  (home) [phone]
Snail Mail:  2000 Cedar Bend Dr., #335, Austin, TX  78758
[Disclaimer: The information contained in this message is soley for
informational purposes only.  Use at your own risk.  No warranty
expressed or implied.]

Score:
Noriega: 1  USA: 0

"Good tea.  Nice house."  -- Worf


[Moderator's Note: Good point. Honestly, I don't know in all cases. We
seem to have two versions running in Chicago: One says stop the
forwarding when the point where *the person presently requesting it*
has been reached. In other words, no chain-forwarding. A forwards to
B; B to C; and C to A. Calls to A ring through to B regardless of B's
setting; calls to B ring through to C regardless of C's setting; and
calls to C ring through to A regardless of A's setting. Somehow the
call takes information with it saying in effect, "I am not really a
call to B, I am a call to A only reaching B by virtue of forwarding,
and how do we know A wants to really wind up with C ?"....

The other generic operating here will chain-forward some absolute
maximum number of times: this can be straight forward, A to B to C to
D, or it can be in a circle, A to B to A to B to A, and at some point
when it sees it is getting nowhere and is unable to ditch the call
someplace then it quits and returns re-order to the original caller. PT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 04:03:19 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hi-Rise Joe


I think I know this sound/recognizer. Probably he was in Moscow, May,
1988. Maybe it's my mistake, but I know one from the States who was at
jail, because he open any system using special sound generator.


Bye,
andrei

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

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 07:05:58 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Year Greetings from Tallinn BBS#1

====NEW YEAR GREETINGS from TALLINN BBS====

  Date: 12-30-89 (14:28)              Number: 126
  To: DAVE MCLANE                   Refer#: 125
  From: ANDRUS SUITSU                   Read: NO
  Subj: AEGIS HAPPY NEW YEAR 3        Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

    I am very happy to see that we are getting more friends from
around the world with the help of our BBS!

    Best wishes to all of you far out there in Japan for the coming
year of 1990!

Let us hope that the telecommunication bond that has been made will
continue to hold.  I wish you all in Estonia and the Soviet Union a
very happy Christmas and peaceful New Year.

Roomsaid Joulu Phui ja Uut Aastat.    --Danyll Wills


Peaceful wishes to all computer fans everywhere. Let us open our
hearts, and widen our circle of friends to embrace peoples from all
nations of our world.                 --Frank Abbott


All the best for 1990! May the last ten years of the century fan the
love that mankind has for itself and the world.

We wish you a happy New Year and more happy 1990s. :)
                                      -- M. Kubo

Welcome to the world of BBS.  May the God who is our joy fill you with
unspeakable joy throughout the coming year.
                                      --Ron Hartley

Very few people would have believed that the Eighties would end with a
real chance for Peace in our lifetime.  The sudden changes in the
world that have happened since 9 November have helped to make such a
Peace possible.  I hope that we in the industrialised West and Japan
can rise to the occaision and prove ourselves equal to the task.  The
last decade of this century could well come close to accomplishing
what so many in the past have been unable to do: create a real and
lasting peace.


  Date: 12-30-89 (12:08)              Number: 122
  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
  From: LEMBIT PIRN                     Read: (N/A)
  Subj: Greetings                     Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

All the best and good wishes to all of You from The Estonian BBS #1 !
A nice New Year's Eve and a Happy New Year, 1990 !  We hope to hear,
read and meet You soon here, in Tallinn !  with the best regards and
special thanks to all of our BBS mothers and fathers.

            -- Lembit Pirn, Jaak Mannik and all our ATAK-company.


  Date: 12-29-89 (09:09)              Number: 119
  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
  From: ERIC ANSLEY                     Read: (N/A)
  Subj: GREETINGS FROM CANADA         Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

Greetings to you all from Canada's west coast. Although I am having a
little trouble with line noise, this is an amazing connection in many
ways. Best wishes for the coming decade. I will think of you in Estonia
this New Year's Eve.


THANKS
andrei

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #601
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 30 Dec 89 20:55:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #602
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Dec 89 20:52:20 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 602

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    CompuServe & AT&T 800 Directory (Don H. Kemp)
    800 Wrong Numbers (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID on 800 Service (John Higdon)
    "First" BBS in USSR (Phil R. Karn)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes & How to Dial Long Distance (John R. Levine)
    Re: New Illinois Bell CLASS Options (Peter Weiss)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Tad Cook)
    Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice (Tad Cook)
    Multiple Call Forwarding vs. Call Multiple Forwarding (David Lesher)
    Re: Caller-ID Equipment (Bill Cerny)
    Re: Caller-ID Segment on ATC (Brian Matthews)
    Re: Caller-ID (The Blade)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: CompuServe & AT&T 800 Directory
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 14:08:00 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


 Patrick:

 Here's AT&T's press release on the Compuserve 800 Number Directory
 service.  I haden't bothered to send it to you before, guess I
 thought no one would be interested 8-{.  I _don't_ see any
 reference to access except as a regular Compuserve subscriber,
 though.

 Don

FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1989

    BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T is making it more convenient than ever
for shoppers to do business through 800 numbers: now customers can
find suppliers or vendors faster by calling up the 800 directory on
their computers.

     By agreement with CompuServe Incorporated, AT&T's directory of
800 service numbers is available now free of computer connect time
charges via CompuServe Information Service, the world's largest online
information service for personal computer users.

     "Although this is not a foray into electronic publishing for
AT&T, it is a unique form of electronic directory assistance," said
Cliff Holtz, AT&T's district manager, 800 services. "Right now, it's
the first 800 yellow pages directory available through a commercial
online computer information service."

      CompuServe's 550,000 subscribers will be able to instantly
retrieve the 800 directory information in their homes or offices. To
reach CompuServe, members need a personal computer, a modem,
communications software and a telephone.  Members can use the service
via a local phone call in 600 cities across North America and in more
than 100 foreign countries.

     "We're pleased to join with AT&T to offer our members a quick,
convenient way to find the variety of 800 service numbers available,"
said Maurice A. Cox, executive vice president of CompuServe's
Information Services Division.  "The directory is comprehensive in
scope, but employs easy- to-use search methods."

     The online computer directory is an electronic version of AT&T's
consumer and business 800 directories merged into one file. Users will
be able to look up 800 numbers alphabetically and by subject-matter.

     In addition, the service will feature a special section with
discount offers available only to AT&T 800 service directory users.

     AT&T 800 Toll-Free Directories are available for purchase in
softcover consumer and business editions at AT&T Phone Centers
nationwide. More than two million directories are distributed free
each year to businesses and households across the country.

                            # # #


Don H Kemp            "Always listen to experts.  They'll
B B & K Associates, Inc.         tell you what can't be done, and
Rutland, VT             why.  Then do it."
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk                         Lazarus Long


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

Subject: 800 Wrong Numbers
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 27 Dec 89 11:02:47 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


One of the greatest annoyances connected with subscribing to 800
service is The Wrong Number. Naturally there are those calls where you
say "hello" (remember, I'm not a business) and the caller simply hangs
up. But what began getting to me some time ago was the pattern that
started emerging.

Idiot calls to my 800 number now fall into two categories:

1. Callers wishing to reach a local (SF) ferry and public
transportation service;

2. Callers wishing to reach the Hilton Hotel chain.

After blowing my stack when awakened at 5:45am by a woman who said,
"Isn't this ferries?" (I beg your pardon!!), I developed a new
approach. The moment I realize what the person who is on the line is
after, I take their reservation or give them what (made up)
information they seem to be seeking. Great fun!

A similar tactic is used for the Hilton callers. I used to take their
confirmed reservations, but lately I have informed them that Hilton
has gone Chapter 7 and that they should call 800-325-3535 for
reservations at Sheraton. "Are you sure?" "Well, I answered the phone,
didn't I?  We're just the cleanup crew, carting stuff out of the
offices."

Maybe this is all a bit mean, but after all I am paying for the
entertainment.

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

[Moderator's Note: A similar situation here in Chicago several years
ago was when the Hyatt Regency people opened their new, very posh
hotel.  A flop house of half a century here, the *Hotel Regency* was
frequently getting phone calls wanting reservations at Hyatt Regency.
They took the reservations, had the customer secure them with a credit
card number, and cheerfully gave out their address to the naive
out-of-town callers who if they showed up at Hyatt Regency were
disappointed to find their reservations had never been received, even
though the charge came through on their card later on....if they
showed up at the Hotel Regency, they were doubly disappointed, I'm
sure. And in the few cases where Hotel Regency got sued, they won
every time; they had said nothing deceptive on the phone, and they had
given the address of their establishment.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID on 800 Service
Date: 30 Dec 89 11:56:03 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

> [concerning anonymous "tip" lines]
> Lots of people believe that these systems are secure, when they find
> out that they are not, they will feel tricked.  Nothing is more
> offensive to a person than to find that a trusted person has just
> played a trick on them.

I couldn't agree with you more. It would be totally inappropriate for
such a service to have callers' numbers available to it, either by
800-style ANI or by CLASS implimentation. A service such as this would
be out of business in a hurry if it was discovered to be keeping
records of callers' phone numbers.

But just because a service isn't appropriate everywhere for everybody
is not an excuse to make it unavailable to anyone, is it? Call waiting
is hardly an appropriate feature for a modem line, but is that any
reason to make the service unavailable to anyone? No, you use things
where they are useful, obviously.

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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 19:29:15 EST
From: "Phil R. Karn" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "First" BBS in USSR

I was interested to read of the claim that the BBS in Estonia is the
first in the USSR. This is incorrect. Earlier this year, an amateur
packet radio bulletin board system was established in Moscow with the
callsign RA3AT. I believe it can be accessed over HF radio through a
HF/VHF gateway switch also in Moscow.

Amateur packet radio technology was first known to have been used in
the Soviet Union during the Soviet/Canadian SKITREK arctic expedition
of 1988. Donated amateur packet equipment was also delivered to Moscow
a year ago for use in Armenian earthquake relief efforts.

I also know that my TCP/IP package for the PC has found its way into
the USSR, so it probably won't be long until we see the first Soviet
site on the (amateur radio) Internet. Maybe I can persuade them to
name one of their machines "kremvax". :-)


Phil

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

Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 30 Dec 89 15:58:03 EST (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


The dial-1-for-money distinction was lost in many parts of the U.S.
long ago.  Many cities, notably New York and Los Angeles, have
multiple area codes for local calls.  Even here in Boston, you dial 1
for long distance except that there are a lot of exceptions where you
dial 1+number or 1+npa+number but it's local anyway.  What is a free
call depends greatly on what kind of service you have, a call that
costs nothing on one of my lines can cost 26 cents on the other (which
has cheaper monthly service).  Also, as I've noted before, there are
places in New Jersey where you can dial any of a local intra-lata
call, a local inter-lata call, a toll intra-lata call or a toll
inter-lata call with seven digits.

Dialing 1+area code for intra-NPA calls is a gross hack and is
unlikely in the long run to retain a useful distinction between free
and toll calls, although it does let them delay replacing some of
those old SxS exchanges.  Perhaps we need home COCOTs that tell you
when you dial how much you're spending.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

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

Date:    Sat, 30 Dec 89 09:05 EST
From:    Peter Weiss [phone] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Illinois Bell CLASS Options


I'm curious: are Illinois' FXs eligible for CLASS?


Peter M. Weiss PMW1@PSUADMIN     |  (this line intentionally left blank)
31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | Don't FAX me, I'll FAX you!
University Park, PA 16802        | Disclaimer :1 * applies herein

[Moderator's Note: Good question. I don't know. No orders are being
taken right now in any event. Try calling the business rep who
presently handles your FX lines here sometime around July.   PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 30 Dec 89 20:17:51 GMT
Organization: very little


I was chatting with someone at the PUC for Washington State recently,
and found out that they are very interested in hearing about COCOTs
that won't reach either the repair or refund numbers posted on the
phones.  These numbers are supposed to be free.  I have found a BUNCH
of COCOT phones around Seattle that say to dial 211 for refund and 611
for repair.  Often I hear the phone outpulsing a 7 digit number in
response to these 3 digit codes.  On many of the phones I get a
response of "call cannot be completed as dialed."

Our PUC has an 800 number.  A call to the PUC with the location and
telephone number of the phone has resulted in DISCONNECTION of the
non-complying phone every time.

The fellow at the PUC told me that these are usually phones owned by
someone who has NO concept of how the phone system works, the legal
requirements, or how to program the thing.  COCOT companies that
operate the phones are usually more in compliance.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]
KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
MCI Mail: 3288544

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: First Time Cellular Phone Buyer Needs Advice
Date: 30 Dec 89 20:29:35 GMT
Organization: very little


I was shocked to read my posting on antenna gain and ERP.  It looks
like I moved a decimal point.  It should have said that going from 3
watts to 4 watts implied 1.25 db, not 12.5!


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multiple Call Forwarding vs Call Multiple Forwarding
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 13:32:21 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


I see two different but related topics discussed here.

1) How many hops can a forwarded call take?

2) If ending in a hunt group or rotary, can more than one call
   be forwarded at the same time?

Item one has some uses. Item two is very nice if you run a dialin
bank, shall we say in Metro DC, with 10 modems. You can get one line,
in a 'straddle' zone (maybe Howard County) and always forward calls to
the bank. Then up to ten people can benefit from the extended area of
local calling available.

Alas, one method of squelching loops (1) is implementing a block on
(2). For whatever the reason, in the areas of DC where (2) did work,
it seems to no longer.


A host is a host & from coast to [e-mail]
no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Equipment
Date: 30 Dec 89 04:52:34 GMT


You might contact Software Studios (Annandale, VA) at [phone].
They have a product dubbed "Clyde" {8->} that includes a box with an
RS-232 interface and pc (clone) software.  Call [phone].

Disclaimer:    I'm not associated with Software Studios; I'm just
        waiting for them to ship my Clyde box.

Bill Cerny
[e-mail]    |    attmail: !denwa!bill    |    fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Matthews)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Segment on ATC
Date: 30 Dec 89 21:15:59 GMT
Reply-To: 6sigma2@.UUCP (Brian Matthews)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


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

|Also, perhaps people could subscribe to such services if they wanted
|to maintain their privacy.

Why should I have to spend extra money/time/hair :-) to maintain my
privacy?  People should have to do something special to give up their
privacy, not to keep it.


Brian L. Matthews    [e-mail]

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

From: The Blade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID
Comments: Racist Nazi Skinheads From Heaven
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 10:35:52 PST
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM


Caller*ID in NJ Bell is being challanged by various public action
groups.  The main reason is that when a customer is paying for their
number to unpublished, CID is taking that away, in turn making it a
worthless service.

I heard in PA. that they are having trouble passing it through the
courts, which is my case is good.  CID would mean almost an end to
phreaking, and hacking for that matter.  It would save millions in
lost revenue for the long distance companies, and almost wipe out
illegally using these codes from one's residence.  Granted, you could
go to a payphone and not worry about it, but the hassle would tempt
one to stay inside and pay for the call.

Does anyone know if there is such a thing as a 800 reverse directory,
or an on-line national reverse directory?


Blade

[Moderator's Note: If it is *good* in your opinion that long distance
companies lose millions in revenue to phreaks who work from the
comfort and privacy of their home to steal phone service and
burglarize computer systems (usually both at the same time) with ease,
then I would say that's all the more reason to implement CID -- ASAP!

It goes without saying that phreaks (or do you say freaks?  :} ) have
been among those voicing the loudest objections to CID. The lack of
anomynity is going to hurt, isn't it guy?

I do not know of any 800 reverse directory, but Haines Criss-Cross
might publish one since they publish x-refs for most major cities.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #602
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 31 Dec 89 9:16:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V9 #603
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 Dec 89 09:15:19 CST    Volume 9 : Issue 603

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Hi-Rise Joe (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller-ID (Tad Cook)
    Re: Caller-ID Objections (John R. Levine)
    Re: Caller-ID Segment on ATC (John Higdon)
    Don't Forget ANI (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller-ID (Bernie Cosell)
    Enuff Already  (TELECOM Moderator)
    That's It, Folks! (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Hi-Rise Joe
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 30 Dec 89 18:59:12 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 601, message 6 of 7

>I think I know this sound/recognizer. Probably he was in Moscow, May,
>1988. Maybe it's my mistake, but I know one from the States who was at
>jail, because he open any system using special sound generator.

Are we talking about the infamous Capt. Crunch here? I believe he
currently resides here in Alameda but last year there was a whole lot
of stuff on comp.misc about his trip to Moscow for a "hackers"
convention or some such.

"special sound generator" == "blue box"?

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID
Date: 30 Dec 89 20:37:25 GMT
Organization: very little


Someone asked about a device that could route calls to fone/fax/modem
based upon distinctive ringiing.  There is a box that does this,
called Autoline.  I think it is made by ITS in New York.  I have the
info at work.  If anyone needs their phone number, call me at the
office before 7pm EST (4pm PST) at 206/881-7000, ask for Paul Cook.


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

From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Objections
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 20:49:48 GMT


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

>I have *many* private numbers and I expect them to remain so. But I am
>prepared, in a world of Caller-ID, to take the necessary steps to keep them
>private. ...

Me, too.  It seems to me appropriate steps are to insist that any C-ID
implmentation provide per-line and per-call ways to turn C-ID on and
off.  That can't be hard; a previous message implied that the Bellcore
spec for C-ID already has provisions for that.

Few of us claim that it's a bad idea ever to provide the caller's
number under any situation.  But there is a long-standing presumption
in practice and in law that my list of callees is private.  That's why
every state has laws about wiretaps and pen registers.  I realize that
there are cases now where the number is delivered (and I wish American
Express would stop denying it) but we should be looking for coherent
privacy policy, not making it by default as the technology changes.


John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617
864 9650 [e-mail],
{ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Segment on ATC
Date: 30 Dec 89 22:24:57 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Brian Matthews) writes:

> Why should I have to spend extra money/time/hair :-) to maintain my
> privacy?  People should have to do something special to give up their
> privacy, not to keep it.

And where is this pearl cast in stone? Space forbids listing the
legion of encroachments on your privacy that come up every day, that
you must make an effort to thwart. But let's put it this way: if the
majority of the people either aren't as paranoid as you about this
particular privacy matter and/or they wish to avail themselves of this
technology that you consider threatening, then it is you, my friend,
that will have to bear the expense and go to the trouble to protect
your minority interest.

If most people don't care if their numbers are known to their callees,
isn't it fair that those few who do care would have to be the ones to
exert special effort. Remember, Caller-ID doesn't place your number on
billboards all over town, just on some displays of *people you,
yourself voluntarily call*. You still have to make the call for
someone to get your number. How many people do you bother that you
don't want bothering you in return?


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Don't Forget ANI
Date: 30 Dec 89 23:05:07 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


The Blade <[e-mail]> writes:

> I heard in PA. that they are having trouble passing it through the
> courts, which is my case is good.  CID would mean almost an end to
> phreaking, and hacking for that matter.  It would save millions in
> lost revenue for the long distance companies, and almost wipe out
> illegally using these codes from one's residence.  Granted, you could

What miserably moronic idiot thinks that without CID it is perfectly
safe to hack out authorization codes for long distance? As one of the
original MF blue boxing phreaks of the sixties let me say that these
imbeciles give phone phreaking a bad name. Not only is their only
activity sitting there and trying one code after another for the sole
purpose of making free calls, but they don't even seem to realize that
their "phreaking" attempts are leaving trails that look like
interstate freeways at the long distance companies they are trying to
defraud.

When you place a call through a long distance carrier, CID or no CID,
the local telco has delivered the number of the originating telephone
to the LD company. Sprint, for one, has very aggressive "hacker"
detection, and all recorded attempts include a phone number.

Not that it was justification, but at least when we used to scoot
around the world via MF, we learned a lot about the network. Some of
what I know today came from those efforts. Making free calls was
indeed secondary to the thrill of establishing multi-tandem
connections, routing around the world to a phone on the next desk,
playing with auto route/rate, talking with operators around the world,
etc. Even in those days, when things were wide open, the number one
rule was: never use your own phone.

Jerks who hack out authorization codes apparently don't even have a
clue how the system works. Those droolers are beneath contempt.

> It goes without saying that phreaks (or do you say freaks?  :} ) have
> been among those voicing the loudest objections to CID. The lack of
> anomynity is going to hurt, isn't it guy?

I object to using the term "phreak" in association with this scum. It
sullies the name.


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

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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID
Date: 31 Dec 89 14:09:36 GMT


[e-mail] (The Blade) writes:

}I heard in PA. that they are having trouble passing it through the
}courts, which is my case is good.  CID would mean almost an end to
}phreaking, and hacking for that matter.  It would save millions in
}lost revenue for the long distance companies, and almost wipe out
}illegally using these codes from one's residence.  ...

}[Moderator's Note: If it is *good* in your opinion that long distance
}companies lose millions in revenue to phreaks who work from the
}comfort and privacy of their home to steal phone service and
}burglarize computer systems (usually both at the same time) with ease,
}then I would say that's all the more reason to implement CID -- ASAP!

Nonsense.  And again, the CID wanters seem to think of themselves as
vigilantes and so argue that giving THEM the number is the way to
bring the forces of justice to bear. Further, in the case of
phreaking, they generally call someone who WANTs to talk to them, no?
So why does it matter if the person you call can figure out your
number... they either already know it or you'd probably just tell
them.  The problem with phreaking is figuring out that it is
happening, NOT figuring out where the call is coming from.

I still think we would be MUCH better off with a bunch of very strict
"privacy of information" laws making it _very_ hard [e.g., requiring a
court order] to allow ANYONE to 'peek' into the phone company's
electronic dossier; treat that information like your medical records.
Everything _legitimate_ that you can do with CID you can do just as
well by having the phone company manage information [and still keep it
as protected as possible].

  /Bernie\

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

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 89 9:03:26 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Enuff Already


Lest anyone accuse me, in my immoderation of this Digest to only
giving one side of the Caller-ID controversy, I've printed several
more (?) messages against my better judgment in the past month or two.

With Bernie's message above, let's call it quits for now. Maybe in a
couple months we can stir up the pot again. Its the start of a new year,
so let's change the topic.

The only problem is, some people do not read what others write here -- they
simply write their own messages, and as sure as I'm sitting here, by this
time next week some part-time or new reader will come along and bring the
topic up again: in PA, NJ, FL or just in general.

Sigh. As requested earlier (and I am guilty also), let's limit further
messages on CID to technical questions, press reports and summaries.
No more 'is it good or is it bad'.  I'll try to remember also.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 89 8:43:33 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: That's It, Folks!

Another year past; another volume of the Digest complete. This past
year has seen a growth in TELECOM Digest traffic that would have
seemed very unlikely in December, 1988:

    603 regular issues of the Digest this year, and several special issues,
    meaning a nearly three-fold increase over 1988, when there were 213
    regular issues, and a four-fold increase over 1987.

    Per the Usenet Arbitron program, an estimated 17,000 regular readers
    of comp.dcom.telecom at the end of 1989, versus 9800 at the end of 1988.

    Several hundred of you receive TELECOM Digest via direct email
    subscription; the list has about doubled in size this past year. Names
    on the direct list are primarily on the Internet, but include about
    100 Bitnet sites; and copies go to MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, Compuserve,
    Fidonet, Telemail, the Net-Exchange of PC Pursuit, West Germany's
    Tele-Box Mail, and NYCENET (a service of the New York City Board of
    Education).

    65 'exploder addresses' or expansion addresses are on the direct mail
    list. These are sites which receive the Digest and automatically
    re-distribute it to names on their own list. I've no idea who most of
    these people are, or how many copies are re-distributed in this way.

As much as I would like to take the credit for this growth, the fact
is that the *quality of the messages and the readership* of TELECOM
Digest has played a far more important role in the growth of our
little journal during the past year, and for that, I thank every one
of you.

This Digest originated in August, 1981, and was founded by Jon
Solomon, who successfully moderated the group for several years until
I assumed that responsibility in October, 1988. My work has been much
easier because of the reputation and foundation he laid for the Digest
during his tenure. Although some readers chose to quit participating
when jsol resigned, most of you who are long-term participants chose
to remain, and your messages and thoughts have been particularly
useful to me. And of course, [e-mail] gave invaluable
help most of the year with the problems involved in getting the Digest
out to the Usenet people.

Although the rapid growth and radical changes in the telecom industry
has been partly responsible for the increase in message traffic in
TELECOM Digest, the fact remains that you, the readers, have made it
happen.

Here's to 1990, and another year of thought provoking, informative,
educational and sometimes controversial reading!  Caller-ID has worn
out its welcome, don't you think? Let's try something else for awhile.

No Digest Monday.....next issue on Tuesday morning, 1/2/90.


Patrick Townson


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #603
*****************************