Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss001-050

Text File | 1990-01-28 | 861KB | 21,972 lines

Date:     Tue, 2 Jan 90 1:01:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #1
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jan 90 01:00:00 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Service Quality in Corpus Christi (Mark Earle)
    Demark Termination Problem (Mark Earle)
    Texas BBS's vs Phone Company (Ken Levitt)
    The Operator's Beep (Gabe Wiener)
    Direct Dialing the USSR (Gabe Wiener)
    Hayes 9600 v.42 (Jason Goldberg)
    800 Wrong Numbers (William Degnan)
    Wrong Number at Directory Assistance (Jay Maynard)
    Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error (Brian Kantor)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 11:32:48 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Service Quality in Corpus Christi


I don't have handy the original poster's name...but this is a geneal
comment about service. I live in Corpus Christi, TX, a town of about
200,000, give or take. We're served by Southwestern Bell (with major
rural areas immediately north of the metro area being served by GTE).

Upon changing apartments, I ordered a second residential rate line.
They were having, after all, a Christmas season special on 'Teen
Lines'.  The lady taking the order, however, directly asked me if part
of the reason was modem useage. I answered, yes, that my work requires
me to access the computer at the office from home; so the second line
would allow my main line to remain clear. No problem, she probably
marked that down on a data base.

In reality the line is for Fidonet 160/50, my bbs...

On business lines, we generally get 4 hour promised response, but the
longest I've waited ever is 2 hours. Residentail, after they go
through the questions (usually stopped if my mention you've
trouble-shot to the demark point) usually is "same day" and they try
hard not to leave ya in a bind overnight without dialtone, although by
my choice, they did once (I just coudn't see getting an insaller out
at 8 p.m. on a 20 degree night, just for the bbs line.) But, they
*would* have sent one had I wanted /needed it up.

So, that's a summary of how it is down here in Texas.


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

Date: Sat, 30 Dec 89 11:36:04 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Demark Termination Problem

Upon having my second line installed, in the demark, there is a
circuit across the tip/ring which is a 47 uf cap, a 1n914 diode, and a
15k resistor in series. Aparently, this allows some sort of loop
testing. It was screwing up my 2400 baud calles (but 3, 12, and 9600
HST worked fine!). Aparently, there is another of these test circuits
on the block outside--there should not have been another at my
demark; the installer just forgot to check it. I removed it, then
called customer service and confirmed that the test circuit was still
on my line, from her end..so it must be outside in the box... the
installer admitted he was a manager, catching up on the 'Teel Line
Christmas Special' so a regular full time installer probably wouldn't
have made this mistake. Just thought y'all might find it of interest.

Mark Earle


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

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 89 14:50:26 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texas BBS's vs Phone Company


The following article is being reposted from the FidoNet Law echo.  I did not
write it, please don't respond to me about it.
============================================================================

  Date: 12-18-89 (18:19)
  To: ALL
  From: ED HOPPER
  Subj: PROGRESS REPORT

Progress report on status of negotiations:

On December 8th, the period in which the Texas BBS case (Texas PUC
#8387) was held in abeyance for the purpose of negotiation expired.
Shortly thereafter, conversations between the petitioner group and
Southwestern Bell resumed. We (the COSUARD board) have been advised
that an agreement on the issue of compensation may be possible.
Southwestern Bell has indicated a willingness to agree that residence
rates apply to BBS systems that do not *REQUIRE MONETARY
COMPENSATION*. (Please note those three critical words).

Southwestern Bell continues to insist that BBS operations be limited
to one line. (I should state that there is confusion and inconsistency
on the question of whether or not "separate" BBSs could be co-located
in the same home. Southwestern Bell's responses on that issue in the
past have been poorly phrased and difficult to relate to real world
BBS operations).

Last Thursday (December 14), the COSUARD board met to consider the
latest statements from Southwestern Bell. While we were encouraged and
pleased to see the new position regarding compensation, we continue to
be troubled by the complete insistence on one line. A single line was
not one of the considerations first raised by Southwestern Bell when
this issue was first raised in October 1988. Since it first surfaced,
in the spring of 1989, Southwestern Bell has never provided a
justification for this position other than statements that BBSs using
over one telephone line "seem like a business".

Southwestern Bell will not force other residential customers to
business rates based upon the number of telephone lines installed in
the home. In fact, Southwestern Bell is currently engaged in a
marketing effort to sell additional phone lines to residential
customers. This is supported by television and radio advertising.

As president of COSUARD, I am greatly concerned about the inequity of
the basic "one-line per BBS" proposition put forth by Southwestern
Bell. I am also very much aware that certain types of BBS systems
("Chat" boards and UNIX based systems, among others) virtually require
more than one phone line to operate properly. These systems are a part
of our BBS nation and are deserving of the solidarity and support of
all.

All of the officers of COSUARD seek your input on this issue. Should
we continue to stand firm on the one line issue? Should we accept some
other limitation or should we insist on treatment that is equal to
that received by other residential customers?

Member and non-member, in Texas or the rest of the world, we want to
hear your views.


Sincerely, Ed Hopper, President
COSUARD-The Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination
  RNet 1.02R: COSUARDNet:Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Tx - 713-782-5454
  Origin: Ed Hopper's BBS (PCBoard 1:106/889.6)
============================ End of FidoNet Message =======================

Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Operator's Beep
Reply-To: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 02:04:54 GMT

Occasionally I'll call some AT&T number or directory assistance line
and hear that "beep" sounded by the operator before they get on the
line.  I used to hear it on all operator calls pre-breakup, but it has
pretty much gone by the wayside for 0 and 00 calls.

Can anyone tell me its purpose?  Moreover, why did they stop using it?


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: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Direct Dialing the USSR
Reply-To: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 02:09:39 GMT


Just for the hell of it, I tried dialing that Estonian BBS # directly,
and sure enough, I got an intercept saying, "Direct dial service is
available to Moscow only."

That sparked a few questions:

1.  Why direct service only to Moscow?

2.  How are international trunklines set up with countries with which we
    have less than an amicable relationship?  Who pays for and maintains
    such lines?

3.  What is the state of technology of the telecom system in Russia?
    Do they build their own hardware?  or import it?

4.  Does subscriber trunk dialing (to use the British term) exist inside
    the USSR?  Or must all long-distance still be placed w/operator
    assistance?

Thanks, and happy new year!


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: Jason Goldberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hayes 9600 v.42
Date: 1 Jan 90 19:02:37 GMT
Reply-To: Jason Goldberg <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Irvine


I have a few questions about modem protocals I was trying to sort out.
First does anyone have any suggestions on how I can get ahold of a
power transformer for a Hayes 9600 (Its a long story but I need it
ASAP and I think delevery from Hayes will take a while.)

Anyway, according to the Hayes 9600 v.42 manual it does error-checking
and compression.  Is it compatible with MNP style modems (to what
level?).  I know that US Robotics have a "Dual Standard" modem, is my
Hayes going to be compatable with most 9600's out there.  Will I get
error checking on most 9600 connections?  Will I get error checking on
monst MNP 2400 connections?

Thanks,

-Jason-

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

Date: Sun, 31 Dec 89 22:21:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Wrong Numbers

A client was getting dozens of wrong number calls on his 800 number.
It turned out that his number was a cross-polination of two numbers
printed (too close to each other) on Southern New England Telephone's
bills.

        To place an order: 1 800 555-2345
        Billing questions: 1 203 555-1234        (numbers changed
                                                  to protect the innocent)

If the caller dialed, 1 800 555-1234, they got the unhappy client.

We asked the nice folks at SNET to put "a little air" between the
numbers (or pay for a number change, stationary printing and
advertising costs), but they were uncooperative, at best.

In desperation, I hinted that the client might have no other choice
than to tell callers what they wanted to hear:

"You are moving your offices from Danbury to Hartford on Monday and
want to keep the same number? NO PROBLEM!"

"Can't pay your bill? NO PROBLEM! Just send us what you can, when you
can. We won't cut you off..."

SNET managed to find a way to fix the unfixable. They just needed a
little motivation. And to understand that some problems are less
expensive than other problems.


Regards, Bill

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383
William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31)
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wrong Number at Directory Assistance
Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 19:17:09 GMT



I have been getting sporadic calls for someone with a completely
different name over the past year or so. The callers all tell me that
they got the number from directory assistance. Today. I finally got
enough information to track down the listing - and, sure enough, the
number they have for that person is my number. I've lived here for
3-1/2 years now, and had the same number for all of that time.

How do I go about getting the erroneous listing removed?

A complicating factor is that DA in this area is run by Southwestern
Bell, but my area is served (?) by GTE.

(Oh, for those who are interested: DA used to be 411 in the Houston
area, until a charge [5 free calls, then 25 cents each per month] was
instituted; then it was changed to 1411. This goes anywhere in 713.)


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...

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Call-Forwarding Error
Date: 31 Dec 89 17:53:23 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


Our campus Ericsson MD110 &*^$^%#%^ switch currently allows exactly
one forward; when it was first installed you couldn't forward to a
phone that was forwarded to you, but you could make a three-number
loop and then crash the switch by calling any of the three numbers
(complete crash: no audio paths, no ringing, no dial tone, DEAD!).
Now you can set up a such a loop but the call will only forward once,
and the switch won't crash.

Actually, since they use divert-on-no-answer to provide voice mail,
that means that I can't use my secretary's voice mail to answer my
line, since even if I forward my phone to her number, it won't divert
a second time to the voice mail.

    - Brian

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 03:04:12 GMT


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

> 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.

Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who
(as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements.
How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first?

It's only common courtesy. Of course if you *have* tried this route, I
apologise for jumping to conclusions. But you didn't give any
indication you have.

For other people: before using the power of the state, how about
trying old-fashioned *communication* first... in this and other cases?
You're all communications experts (or at least talented amateurs)
after all...


`-_-' 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]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V9 #604
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 3 Jan 90 0:03:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #2
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:00:13 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: "First" BBS in USSR (Dave Hughes)
    Re: "First" BBS in USSR (Andrei Kolesnikov)
    Re: Hi-Rise Joe (Tad Cook)
    Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon)
    Re: The Operator's "Beep" (Steve Forrette)
    Caller ID Prefixes in PA (Sten Peters)
    Question About Area Code Split (Dean Sirakides)
    Area Code 908 Lives (Dave Levenson)
    Cordless Phone Recommendations (Andrew Palfreyman)
    Telephony in Greece (Hector Myerston)
    Re: 800 Wrong Numbers (Roy Smith)
    Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (James Cowan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Hughes <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "First" BBS in USSR
Date: 1 Jan 90 22:32:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil R. Karn)
writes:

> 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.

     Well Phil, I knew, from my contacts with the local packet radio
ham community - such as Andy Freeborn, President of the Tuscon group
(TAPR) and Bdale Garbee - that there had been such packet radio bbs
set up in Moscow. But it requires a ham license!  And for years I have
struggled with the contrast that modem users can be anybody, while
packet radio users have to be licensed hams, or use pretty pricey
commercial systems. So, yes the Packet BBS was the 1st - but only for
a closed group.  The Estonian BBS is 1st for just about anybody.

     I did something about that, by going out to get a business packet
radio license for my area, and then assembling amateur-design packet
controllers with low cost commercial radios.  And *then* doing a
'patch arrangement' whereby the base station, instead of terminating
with a computer (BBS) terminated with a properly configured modem, so
I could go out to any other modem-answering system.  (In fact we have
had a company make a set of packet controllers with radios and modems
to our specifications under our label).

     An 'extender' of phone modem communications via packet to a field
or mobile location.  Rather than just phone to phone, or radio to
radio.  But computer to radio to radio to phone to computer.

     Which seems to me to be one of the few practical answers for a
lot of countries which do not have good enough telephone service.  As
well as many places in the US where either phone service is poor,
party lines exist, or costs to extend phone service is prohibitive, or
the cost of phone service itself is prohibitive. Such as in about
every school in the world.

     If that Estonian BBS was packet-radio connected to Moscow at say,
9600 baud, terminating in a radio-packet-modem-Moscow-phone callable
direct dial from the US, the noise would be less of a problem, and
even the costs would be less (direct dial rather than operater
assisted, which is about $7.00 for the first three minutes).

     But what is it going to take to get recognition that packet radio
as (1) a general communications service (2) as an extender of
phone-modem service is a desirable communications policy goal, not
only for the US (FCC) but for PTT's elsewhere?  And get laws and
regulations amended accordingly.  The solution cannot be for everyone
to go get a ham license, code or no code - since one cannot do
business over such nets, or encrypt to give even rudimentary privacy.
(And the Estonian BBS is for business more than anything else.)

     You hams have done a wonderful job inventing the technology of
packet radio, but the Berlin Wall of Licensing-Use-Policy is still up.


Dave Hughes
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 05:45:40 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "First" BBS in USSR


Yes, correct. But Estonia BBS is the first for public access.  It is
very long story about packet radio in the USSR. Right now there is a
net in Armenia for coordination of several projects.  Leo Labutin was
the first who open a packet link between Soviet Amateur Center and the
Institute for Automated Systems. Now we plan to continue these
experiments, but after we received a permission from Soviet PTT and
frequency.  (Not amateur frequency.)


Thanks,
Andrei

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Hi-Rise Joe
Date: 2 Jan 90 20:35:03 GMT
Organization: very little


Regarding John Higdon's remarks about Cap'n Crunch, I ran across him
on USENET last year!  His name is John Draper, and I actually
exchanged mail with him for awhile.  Unfortunately, I don't have his
network address any longer.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 2 Jan 90 02:38:15 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

> Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who
> (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements.
> How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first?

Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs
in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be
aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his
instrument of annoyance on us all? In the matter of COCOTs, I have
wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform
them of things they should already know.

My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations,
as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the
business, is no justification for not following the rules.

> For other people: before using the power of the state, how about
> trying old-fashioned *communication* first... in this and other cases?
> You're all communications experts (or at least talented amateurs)
> after all...

In other circumstances I might agree, but the public has little enough
support as it is from regulatory bodies concerning COCOTs. If it
became known that violation of the few customer protections in place
would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators
would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they
could get away with up front.

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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 12:27 EDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Operator's "Beep"


Regarding the message someone posted about the "beep" heard before the
operator comes on the line when you dial 0, 00, or calling card calls,
my experience has been that they have NOT gone away, at least for AT&T
operators.  My recent experience is for calls from the Seattle,
Sacramento, and Oakland areas.  Calls to the local operators do not
seem to do this.

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

From: [e-mail] (Sten Peeters)
Subject: Caller ID Prefixes in PA
Date: 2 Jan 90 09:56:19 GMT


Pennsylvania has finally introduced Caller ID the the 215 area code.
Unfortunately Philadelhia and Harrisburg will be the only ones with
the service.

These are the telephone exchanges where Bell of PA's caller ID service
initially will be available:

Harrisburg Area-

231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 255, 257, 540, 541, 545, 558, 561, 564,
652, 657, 691, 697, 731, 737, 761, 763, 766, 782, 790, 795, 975

Philadelphia Area-

221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 232, 233, 235, 236, 238, 242,
243, 246, 247, 248, 271, 276, 281, 288, 289, 291, 324, 329, 331, 332, 333,
334, 335, 336, 338, 339, 342, 349, 351, 365, 379, 382, 386, 387, 389, 423,
424, 425, 426, 427, 438, 452, 455, 456, 457, 462, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468,
471, 472, 473, 474, 476, 477, 482, 483, 487, 492, 533, 535, 537, 545, 546,
548, 549, 551, 552, 553, 556, 574, 578, 581, 585, 590, 592, 596, 597, 621,
624, 625, 627, 629, 632, 634, 635, 637, 662, 663, 671, 673, 676, 677, 684,
697, 698, 722, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 732, 735, 739, 742, 743, 744,
745, 747, 748, 753, 755, 763, 765, 769, 782, 786, 787, 790, 823, 824, 829,
831, 836, 841, 842, 843, 844, 848, 849, 871, 875, 877, 878, 879, 893, 895,
897, 898, 922, 923, 924, 925, 927, 928, 932, 934, 937, 951, 952, 961, 969,
973, 976, 978, 985, 991

Suburban Philadelphia Area-

237, 244, 245, 248, 259, 284, 352, 446, 449, 461, 522, 528, 532, 534, 572,
576, 583, 586, 622, 623, 626, 638, 639, 734, 789, 853, 881, 884, 885, 886, 887

(Copied from a notice which was added to my last phone bill)


Sten Peeters        2005 Buckman Ave        Wyomissing, PA 19610
ProLine: sp@pro-deli             Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp
Arpanet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli![e-mail]
Fidonet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org!Sten.Peeters
Talk: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!talk!sp


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

From: Dean Sirakides <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Question About Area Code Split
Date: 2 Jan 90 16:32:54 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


As I am sure most people know, the Chicago area has undergone an area
code split from 312 to 312 and 708.

Of course, most radio and tv ads now have to give an area code with
their phone numbers to keep things clear -- usually.

*Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone
number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying,
"in either 708 or 312".  This is also true for most of the radio
request lines in Chicago: you can always dial them without an area
code. (I assume this will remain true after the grace period ends).
How is this done?

And as a related question: how do companies get phone numbers like
"dial LAWYERS" when the prefix for the spelled out number is not used
in the area that services the address of the business?

Thanks. (notice this article offers no opinion on Caller-ID)


Dean Sirakides              |    Cellular Infrastructure Division
 ...uunet!motcid!sirakide    |    Motorola, Inc.
                            |    Arlington Heights, IL
      Of course I speak for myself, not my employer...

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code 908 Lives
Date: 3 Jan 90 03:48:19 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Right on schedule, 1/2/90, our shiny new area code began working in
Central New Jersey.  I forget when it's supposed to become mandatory,
but folks who choose to use it can now call us on 908.  Others can
still use 201.


Dave Levenson            Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900
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: Andrew Palfreyman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Phone Recommendations
Date: 31 Dec 89 02:09:23 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara


Does anyone have specific recommendations which would assist a
neophyte buyer of a cordless phone? Email if you please.

 ..........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman    a wet bird never flies at night        time sucks
[e-mail]    there are always two sides to a broken window

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 2 Jan 90  16:19 PDT
Subject: Telephony in Greece
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


     From time to time items appear in this newsgroup which defy
intelligent analysis.  Volume 9 Issue 597 is the first to contain not
one but TWO such items.  Congratulations to both contributors.


[Moderator's Note: Uh, Hector, would you kindly share your wisdom on
this with us? If you'll cite the items in particular, perhaps someone
can explain them to you.   PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: 800 Wrong Numbers
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 15:26:20 GMT


[e-mail] (William Degnan) write:

> In desperation, I hinted that the client might have no other choice
> than to tell callers what they wanted to hear [...] SNET managed to find
> a way to fix the unfixable. They just needed a little motivation.

    This is somewhat off the original subject, but...  my mother
recently told me a cute story.  An organization she works with was
having a day-long seminar.  They printed up flyers giving a phone
number to call for information and reservations.  Unfortunately, they
printed the wrong number, and some bakery was getting all their calls.
Neither party was happy about the screwup and tensions mounted.  Then
somebody got a bright idea and a deal was struck -- the bakery agreed
to politely redirect calls to the proper number and in return, the
group agreed to use the bakery to cater all their danish etc. for the
coffee breaks.


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"

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
X-Subject-Explanation:  Thurbing is, of course, what a Thurber does.
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 16:33:32 GMT


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

>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!

James Thurber, in one of his short stories, discusses a similar type
of wrong-number strategy.  His hero deals with a call from a woman who
wants to know when the next train leaves for such-and-such a place.
(Presumably she was meaning to call the train station.)  He tells her
that there will be no further train until 2:30 A.M.  When she protests
that such a departure hour is unreasonable, he says, "That's true, but
as a special service to you, madam, we will send a taxi for you at
1:30 A.M. sharp.  Please be ready to go when the taxi arrives."
Mollified, the woman hangs up.

What happened to her after that?  Thurber doesn't say.  But surely it
must have changed her life in more ways than one.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #2
****************************










Date:     Wed, 3 Jan 90 21:00:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #3
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jan 90 21:00:00 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    One-armed Bandits (Steve Forrette)
    Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (Anthony Lee)
    Request For Info About Dowty Information Systems (Dan Hall)
    Help! (John Higdon)
    The MDF....RIP, and a Quiz! (Bernard Mckeever)
    Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Allyn Lai)
    Tariff Change on International Calling (Deepak Sabnis)
    Special Issues Planned for Digest (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:59 EDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: One-armed Bandits


The topic of COCOT's has been popping up here lately, so I thought I'd
offer my comments on the matter:

IMHO, COCOT's provide nothing but a disservice to the calling public.
The vast majority of callers have trouble enough with all the dialing
sequences and choices we have today, and adding misprogrammed and
faulty equipment to the problem is in nobody's interest.  I have
*never* heard of someone who had anything positive to say about them,
and almost everyone has had nothing but bad experiences.

These one-armed bandits seem eager to eat your money at the drop of a
hat, and overcharge you when they do work.

I was surprised to see someone *defending* a COCOT owner who had not
properly programmed their phone for the refund number.  The excuse
that the person that owned the phone probably knew nothing about
telephones doesn't cut it.  Someone not in-the-know about telephones
should not be operating what amounts to their own telephone company.
[How does GTE get away with it?  :-) ] When the phones charge what
amount to *illegal* rates, ignorance is no excuse.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for competition in the telecom industry.
The competitive marketplace in long distance carriers has brought
substantial rate reductions and improved quality (if you pick the
right carrier) over the past few years.  But COCOT's are a different
story.  Most of the time, they charge MORE than "real" payphones, and
for this added cost, you get LESS service and quality.  Is this what
competition is supposed to bring?

Here's my list of gripes that I've run across at various COCOT's
(mostly in California):

    - No call completion detection (a timeout instead).

    - No incoming calls.

    - No address posted.

    - At least in CA, they are allowed to charge up to 10 cents for
      calling card calls, collect calls, and 800 calls.  That's right,
      you must deposit 10 cents cash to use your AT&T card if the owner
      chooses to require it.

    - Having the internal time-of-day clock set wrong so you get billed
      daytime rates at night or on weekends for coin long distance.

    - Blatant tariff violations, such as requiring local call deposit
      for 950 numbers charging long distance for "special" prefixes (such
      as to cellular phones) that are local from a real payphone.

    - Charging for directory assistance.

    - Passing to their own operator (as opposed to the BOC operator) upon
      dialing of "0".

    - Blockage of DTMF after call completion, so you can't use interactive
        services, answering machines, pagers, etc.

The one that really gets me is the 10 cent deposit for calling card
and collect calls.  We spend 100 years developing the technology to
allow coinless calls, and it is undone by an act of law by the PUC so
that someone can make 10 cents off a call that costs them nothing.
What about the kid that's stuck at the mall and needs to call home
collect for a ride?  Or how about me when my car breaks down, need to
call AAA, and don't have any change?

Granted, I am using someone else's equipment, but it seems like the
traditional purpose for businesses for having payphones is for
customer convenience and to bring new customers into their
establishment that would not otherwise have come.  Clearly, there is a
public interest in having kids being able to call home in an emergency
or me being able to call a tow truck, and the PUC does not seem to be
looking after this very well.  And a substantial number of the COCOT's
are replacements for old BOC sets, so they are not "adding more
convenient locations" as some would say.

So by not allowing free collect/calling card calls, the replacement
phones have removed what I consider to be a substantial service in the
public interest that the phone network had previously provided.

It's not that much of an issue for me since I got a cellular phone,
but most people don't have one, and most people use payphones when
they are in the least opportune position to deal with problems.  Most
people don't know the difference between real payphones and COCOT's,
and blame the proverbial "phone company" for the problems they have.

Pacific Bell's attitude to problems is "fill out this form, send it
in, and if we get 3 complaints on the same phone, *maybe* we'll
disconnect it."  I can understand 3 complaints for money-eating, poor
quality, etc., but for blatant tariff violations?  If a phone is
charging 60 cents for a call which by law can cost at most 25 cents,
why does it take 3 complaints to have it shut off?

Granted, they will probably look into it on the first complaint, but
for something as serious and reproducable as that, why three before
guaranteed action?  Actually, I believe that the PUC has set the 3
complaint threshold; and they're the ones that are supposed to be
looking after us in the first place?  My beef is with the COCOT
operators and the PUC for letting them get away with it, not with
Pacific Bell.

And these tariff violations are not as uncommon as you may think.  A
couple of years ago, I got a copy of all the rules from Pacific Bell
(so I would know what I was talking about), and did a little testing.
Out of the 20 phones I tested, NOT A SINGLE ONE was compliant.  (Yes,
by the way, I usually *do* have something better to do with my time,
but I'm sure we'll all had pet peeves with the BOC or whomever that
we've spent a couple of hours looking into.

Besides, if nobody takes the time to uncover tariff violations, these
cheesy companies will continue to operate they way they do now.)  I
say feed these folks to the lions along with the AOS people (probably
the same in many cases!)

And I thought one-armed bandits were only allowed in Nevada and
Atlantic City...

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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs
Date: 3 Jan 90 11:29:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone
companies in the US besides the RBOCs.  Particularly Nynex (sp??), I
read recently that Nynex have made a deal with Telecom Australia.
Anyone know more about the deal ?


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

[Moderator's Note: There are over a thousand telephone companies in the
United States. Many are *very* small, serving only a few hundred
subscribers.  The largest, following the Mother Company and her former
children are GTE, with several telephone operating company subsidiaries;
United, Continental and Centel, although not necessarily in that order. I
think the smallest telco is one with eight subscribers.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 15:33:28 -0800
From: Dan Hall  03-Jan-1990 1732 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For Info About Dowty Information Systems


  I am considering the purchase/recommendation of some products
manufactured by Dowty Information Systems of Cherry Hill, NJ.
Specifically, I am interested in the Multirate CSU/DSU, P/N 7055000,
the T-1 CSU, P/N 7055020, and the ESF CSU, P/N 7055060.  Can anyone
offer their experience with any of these units?  More importantly, can
anyone comment on experiences with Dowty?  In particular:

  1) How responsive has Dowty been?

  2) Does someone return phone calls in a timely fashion?

  3) Is the person on the phone capable of fielding questions, or does it
     take several calls to several people?

  4) Are repairs processed satisfactorily?

  5) Are installations "clean", and are field personnel competent?

  6) Are orders filled on time and completely?

  7) Does the product arrive intact?

  8) Do the different departments within Dowty appear to communicate
     effectively?

  9) Is the product reliable?

  10) What kind of problems have been encountered?

  11) How many DOA's have been found?

  12) Are there inexplicable performance irregularities?

  13) How does the reliability of Dowty products stack up to
      that of the other products in the network?

  14) Based on experience, what sort of recommendation seems appropriate to
     a prospective Dowty customer?

Please reply to me at one of the addresses below.  I will post a summary
of the responses received later.  Thank you in advance for any information
you may have to offer.

 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 | Dan Hall                 |    Email: [e-mail]               |
 | Digital Equipment Corp.  |      -or- [e-mail]         |
 | Merrimack, NH            |      -or- ...!decwrl!state.dec.com!hall         |
 \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

Subject: Help!
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 1 Jan 90 12:20:02 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Since I made my little aside about Capt'n Crunch, my mailbox has
overflowed with people informing me that Capt'n Crunch and High Rise
Joe are not the same person. I KNOW that. I know the Captain
personally and have long known about High Rise Joe.

My comments were a response to Andrei's mention of someone who had
been in Moscow, done time in jail, and used a "special sound
generator".  That fits Capt'n Crunch; I was unaware that High Rise Joe
had been in Moscow.

Thanks for all the cards and letters, but I'm not that far out of it,
yet! Sorry if my mention was ambiguous.

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

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

From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: The MDF....RIP, and a Quiz!
Date: 3 Jan 90 17:57:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The Main Frame, may it rest in peace.

Southern Bell announced last month that they have cut over a central
office that uses 100% optical fiber for interoffice and feeder
facilities. What's more, by using digital cross connect systems, they
have been able to eliminate the MDF. Taken a bit further, although not
mentioned, they have eliminated the Central Office Technician.

With today's Intelligent Network Elements [INE] provisioning and
maintenance tasks are performed from remote operations centers. The
only requirement for a technician [in most cases] is to replace known
bad circuit packs under the direction of a tester or automatic
diagnostic.  When the fiber reaches your home, and you own the
terminal adaptor, the outside plant technician will also pass into
history. When this takes place circuit designers will be gone as well.
Can test boards be far behind?  Who does that leave?

Before we get too sad let me explain who that leaves. It leaves a
group of technicians that will have one of the most challenging and
rewarding jobs in the industry. They will manage and control the
network using the latest support systems and the newest performance
monitoring equipment.  Expert systems will be required because all the
old experts will be gone, but knowledge will be the key factor in the
new network. Tomorrow when something brakes, and it will, automatic
systems will attempt to re-route service but the key to the situation
will be the employee that KNOWS what must be done to restore service.

Today's challenge, for anyone in the industry, is to design, build,
and manage, new technology that will allows us to evolve from todays
mostly digital network to tomorrows intelligent network.

Here's a quick quiz for all you OLD Telco people that worked on large
over crowded MDFs'.

    WHAT IS A STICK MAN ?.......
    HOW ARE THE HORIZONTALS LABELED ?.......
    WHAT DO THE FOLLOWING STAND FOR
       A. G&T [SXS]
       B. LL [XB5]
       C. MG [ESS]
       D. CXR
       E. DLL
       F. TL1,TL2
       G. PN1,PN2
       H. E,M,SG,SB.
       I. 2W 10W BRG

That's it for now. Happy New Year!


Bernie McKeever
598-960-6289

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)
Date: Wed,  3-Jan-90 10:59:44 PST


Ok folks what is the definitive answer on the modem tax?  Is it being
considered again or is this a rumour?  Someone on a local system
claims to have checked (who?  The FCC?) and they say that it IS being
reconsidered!

I remember an article was recently posted to TELECOM which seems to
have put the subjet to rest.  Unfortunately, I can't the article on my
local system.

Can anyone help?


Allyn Lai
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement
by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in
general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their
phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was
squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a
Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group
of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present.
The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the
earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been
killed. Levitt sent along another anouncement last week stating that a
group of sysops was actively negotiating that issue and others with
SWBT. I'm sure more news will be forthcoming soon, and that the
sysop's organization will keep us informed.  PT]

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

From: Deepak Sabnis <hplabs![e-mail]>
Subject: Tariff Change on International Calling
Date: 2 Jan 90 23:36:43 GMT
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA


Used to be that the most economical time to call India from U.S.  on
AT&T was between 11:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.. Effective December 31, 1988
AT&T has changed it to between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m..

As a matter of fact the rate structure has dropped from three tiers to
two tiers (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is now the most expensive times to
call India). A lot of folks will be surprised next months when they
see their bills. They would be making calls during what they thought
was the most economical time to call only to discover that it is the
most expensive time.  AT&T tells me that they have ads in most new
papers today 1/2/90 announcing the changes. Wonder if similar changes
(not the rates but the time when it is most expensive etc) have hit
the tarrifs for calling other countries. What about other carriers?

Deepak Sabnis       hplabs!hpda!deepak

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 19:30:50 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issues Planned for Digest


The year is less than a week old, and already, two special issues of
TELECOM Digest are in the planning stages --

Ben Lippolt has kindly provided a bibliography of publications
relevant to AI Applications. This bibliography is in bibtext format.

William Degnan has provided a lengthy press release from the Texas
Office of Public Counsel (the rate-setting organization in that state)
which responds in detail to complaints and other comments by
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company regarding a proposed across the
board rate reduction in that state.

Watch for these special issues of the Digest when they are distributed
during the next week.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #3
****************************










Date:     Thu, 4 Jan 90 0:02:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #4
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Jan 90 00:00:31 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Roy Smith)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Bob Sutterfield)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Jamie Hanrahan)
    Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) (Jim Breen)
    Re: Multiple Call Forwarding vs Call Multiple Forwarding (Blake Farenthold)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance (David Lewis)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Seth Zirin)
    Re: The New Decade (Steven Tenney)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 15:48:50 GMT


In <[e-mail]> John Cowan <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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!

    Shame on you!  Put yourself in the place of the person
calling.  They have made an honest mistake (maybe it wasn't even their
mistake; maybe some place listed the wrong number in an ad or
whatever) and you take it out on them like they were some evil person
calling you on purpose to annoy you?  Imagine if you called to make an
important train reservation.  At the right time and date, you show up
at the station, baggage in hand, only to find out that they have no
record of your reservation and there isn't space on the train, and
there isn't another train until tomorrow, by which time you'll miss
your important meeting or whatever.  Pretty cruel joke to play on some
random unfortunate person.


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"

[Moderator's Note: Your point is a very good one. Some readers may
recall the columns by {Chicago Tribune} writer Mike Royko on this
subject.  Royko complained that his centrex extension at the Tribune
(312-222-xxxx) was the same as a very heavily used number at AT&T,
less the 1-800 on the front of it.  He complained that AT&T should
change *their* number due to the several people calling locally who
failed to prepend the 1-800 to the number and wound up annoying him
instead.  His way of 'getting even' with evil old AT&T for refusing to
cater to him was to pretend to be an AT&T service representative, and
make nasty, ignorant and crude comments to the callers.

AT&T put him on notice, telling him he was free to say whatever he
wanted to people who reached him via a wrong number, except that he
was not free to purport to be an employee, representative or agent of
AT&T, either by direct statement or insinuation.  He was told if he
was caught making such a misrepresentation of himself or AT&T while
discussing the service of present, past, or potential subscribers of
AT&T he would get sued.  That simple. The eventual outcome was the
Tribune changed his extension number, and sent the other one to an
intercept on their switch.  PT]

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

From: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Date: 3 Jan 90 13:28:19

When my dorm room phone was one digit off that of the Better Cab
Company (serving Chicago's near north suburbs), I often received calls
at bar closing time.  I would mumble something like "we'll be right
there" and hang up.  When I finally got too fed up with the game
(probably during finals week), I stormed the local IllBell office.
They changed my number while I waited, and posted an operator to
answer my old number and discern who was the caller's intended
recipient.

Our company's WATS number is one digit off that of Texaco's customer
service hotline.  We keep wanting to say "don't worry, ignore that
bill and we'll take care of everything" but nobody's gotten up the
nerve just yet.  Somehow corporate life is different from a dorm room
at 2:00am.
      ============================================
[Moderator's Note: I admit it sounds funny....but it is not funny! As
Mr. Smith pointed out, it is a dreadful joke to play on an
unsuspecting person. Even a drunken patron of a public house deserves
the courtesy of being told 'wrong number', even if you say it angrily
and slam the receiver in the process.

Yes, I've done it too, years ago when I was a Young Man with an
attitude problem. In 1972, my business number was 312 - WEbster
9-4600. Sears, Roebuck Chicago Region Credit Services was WAbash
2-4600. I had two lines; they had a five position cordboard which
rocked around the clock with 65 incoming trunks in rotary hunt. One
day IBT/Chicago-Pullman cut over to ESS, and some fool of a CO
maintainence employee didn't know his 922's from his 939's. For six
hours one day, I was *saturated* with calls from people wanting to
gripe about their Sears credit card and I had a little fun with
them....considering the volume of calls, Sears didn't even notice they
were losing any. (How could you when you ordinarily get 350 calls per
hour...or like Amoco Oil's sales authorization reps, closer to 1000
calls per hour?)    PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Date: 3 Jan 90 11:47:21 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

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

> James Thurber, in one of his short stories, discusses a similar type
> of wrong-number strategy...

Here's another tale in a somewhat similar vein.  (On second thought,
it's not similar at all.  But John's story reminded me of this one!)

Opening night of a particularly dreadful play -- intended to be a
comedy -- in NYC was attended by, among others, the well-known
humorist Robert Benchley.  Benchley was sitting near the front row and
was fast asleep by the end of the first act.

The second act opened on a set devoid of actors; the sole "performer"
visible was a ringing telephone.  Benchley stirred and said, loud
enough for much of the audience to hear, "Will somebody please get
that?  I think it's for me."

A review the next morning commented that "The funniest line of the
evening was spoken by Robert Benchley, who unfortunately was not in
the cast."

(I'm not sure, but I think I got this from a little book called "The
What To Do While You're Holding The Phone Book", by Gary Owens -- yes,
the LA-area DJ and tv personality.  Those old enough to remember
60s-era tv, and those fond of watching Nik at Nite reruns, will
remember him as the hand-on-the-ear announcer on Laugh-In.)

    --- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

Internet:  [e-mail],         | Future shock:  A sense of bewilderment
 or if that fails, [e-mail] | felt by those who were not paying
Uucp:  ...{crash,decwrl}!simpact!jeh | attention. -- Analog (Jan 90)


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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP)
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 00:15:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Torsten
Dahlkvist) asks:

> 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.

The short answer is no, not yet. PRI was under trial for a year or so
(it kept being delayed by you-know-who's AXE software), and was
formally introduced last August.

Telecom has announced "BRI" for mid-1990, as a "supplementary service"
wherein a PRI will be demuxed into 14 2B+Ds in a local exchange. Just
how much this will differ from true BRI, I don't know, but I have to
spend some time soon finding out. I guess the mux will have to sort
out the SAPIs, TEPIs, etc.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Fred R.
Goldstein) writes:

> "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.

[etc] ... and

> 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?  [etc]

Exactly. The applications I am looking at for ISDN involve using it
for WANs, as either a replacement for modems and DDS NTUs, or as a
standby to back-up our 2.048 M services. This is why I would like some
TAs, either to go on separate BRIs or to go on our P(A)BX. There *is*
a demand for ISDN phones, provided they supply this sort of wide area
data connectivity.

   _______           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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 16:18:31 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Call Forwarding vs Call Multiple Forwarding


In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]

>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 dial-in
>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.

There was a 14 or so line CB Simulator in Ft. Worth that tried this a
few years back.  As it was explained to me they had about 14 business
lines that "hunted" (or whatever term is in vogue now) in Ft. Worth.
They wanted to extend service into Dallas without an expensive "metro"
number (numbers that can be reahed toll free from the entire Dallas
Ft. Worth metroplex) so they rented a closet or somthing in one of the
mid cities (Arlington, Irving, D/FW Airport [yes D/FW Airport, Texas
is a city], that is a local call to/from both Dallas and Ft. Worth)
and set up fowarding.  It worked for a while and would multiple
forward.  Then the phone company caught on (or just coincidently
changed their software) and it started only forwarding one call and be
busy for any additional calls 'till the first one hung up.

The sysop then (or so he claims) set up a PC in the "closet" and when
it "heard" the short ring indicating a call is being forwarded it
picked up the line, dialed *73 (cancel call forwarding), hung up,
picked the phone back up, then dialed *72 <number> (activate call
forwarding).  This only "sorta" worked as often a caller would call
into the Dallas number while the PC was in the process of
re-establishing the forwarding.

I have no idea if they are still doing this and have lost touch with
the people involved since they sold the system.  Judging by SWBell's
attitude towrds BBSers they have probably found a way to stop this, if
they know about it.


UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890     |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]     |    CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899     |  GEnie: BLAKE


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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes, and How to Dial Long Distance
Date: 3 Jan 90 15:55:30 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:

> 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".

However... the distinction between "local" and "long distance" is
becoming more and more vague.  *Generally*, the distinction is useful
because long distance service is measured (pay for each minute), and
local service is unmeasured (a flat fee gets you unlimited minutes of
calling).

As time passes, though, more and more telcos are moving more and more
in the direction of local measured service.  (Just ask Patrick...)
Plus, marketing organizations come up with a near-infinite number of
"local calling areas", "extended calling areas", "message rate
service", "low usage message rate service", etcetera, etcetera,
etcetera.

So a leading 1 could indicate "long distance".  But should this mean
"measured service call"?  "Outside local calling area call"?
Something else?

The North American Numbering Plan is a *numbering* plan.  It provides
an unambiguous syntax for *numbering* -- not for cost of calls, or for
billing method, or for marketing distinctions.

Yes, it would be nice to know, as you are making a call, whether that
call will cost you a flat amount, an amount proportional to the length
of the call, or whether it's covered in your normal monthly bill.  It
would also be nice to know, in real time, how much that call is
costing you.  But I think that "1+" is not an appropriate solution.

> 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?

Of course not -- Why should I answer the question you asked when I can
answer another one?

Seriously, I doubt that anyone can completely answer the question.  I
can tell you the "recommended" method (1+10D for calls outside the
home NPA; 7D for calls within the home NPA), but this is another case
where the recommendation is one sentence and the exceptions would fill
a good-sized book...


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

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

From: Seth Zirin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives
Date: 3 Jan 90 14:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
writes:

>Right on schedule, 1/2/90, our shiny new area code began working in
>Central New Jersey.  I forget when it's supposed to become mandatory,
>but folks who choose to use it can now call us on 908.  Others can
>still use 201.

Not in the areas served by United Telephone.  Those people are lucky
when 201 works!

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven_Tenney)
Subject: Re: The New Decade
Date: 2 Jan 90 22:31:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, Oregon


This is why Arthur C. Clarke named 2001: A Space Odyssey thusly instead
of 2000: A Space Odyssey.  Just a little trivia!

   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Steve Tenney                   |  They asked me if I could
    Hewlett-Packard  Corvallis, ORE|   Talk the Talk
    [e-mail]           |    'n Walk the Walk
          \ == ///                 |  I said, "Neither--so you'll
           ||||\\\                 |  'cuse me while I slide on through!"
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #4
****************************










Date:     Thu, 4 Jan 90 23:46:30 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #5
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Jan 90 23:45:42 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Modeming on Electronic Switch System (John Heckendorn)
    Free Local Phone Calls (Voice News, December, 89 via [e-mail])
    Airfone Service by GTE (Billy Bradford)
    "Calling" Card Charges (Theodore Lee)
    TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Wayne Hamilton)
    Two Questions About Caller ID (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Direct Dialing the USSR (Thomas E. Lowe)
    Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (John R. Levine)
    Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Tad Cook)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Louis J. Judice)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: BMUG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modeming on Electronic Switch System
Reply-To: BMUG <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 04:02:40 GMT


Perhaps someone from Northern Telecom or someone else familiar with
this situation can point me in the direction of a solution...

We have installed on our site an electronic Northern Telecom DMS100
telephone system.  Because the system does not recognize normal tones,
the system as configured will not work with standard modems, FAX
machines, answering machines, etc.  It *is* possible to get individual
lines massaged to enable use of these devices, but said massage costs
over $10/line/month (which gets to be kind of expensive when we're
talking about ~25 lines).

One thing I'd love to do is to connect a dialing device to our
Macintoshes to enable our staff to use a software address book/
dialer.  On a standard phone system, of course, there are myriad
possibilities, such as modems and devices like HyperDialer.  I'd like
to find out whether a hardware interface to the NT electronic system
exists, or better yet, whether someone has written a utility which
will convert standard tones to whatever digital language the telephone
system understands -- preferably under the Mac OS :-) -- to which the
output from our dialing software can be sent and translated.

Please respond via email, as this newsgroup is virgin territory to me.
However, I promise to post a summary if info and interest warrant.
Thanks!


John Heckendorn
                                                             /\
BMUG                      ARPA: [e-mail]    A__A
1442A Walnut St., #62     BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne             |()|
Berkeley, CA  94709       Phone: [phone]             |  |

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

Subject: Free Local Phone Calls
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 90 22:01:08 -0800
From: [e-mail]


The following annoucement was sent to me by a colleague.  I thought it
might be of interest to the list.  Maybe the blipvert isn't as far
away as we thought.....

                                Malcolm

Isn't technology wonderful? --

Phone Spots Inc. (Weston, MO) has received a patent for a device that
places recorded messages in the four second interval between rings of
a telephone.  The company is in the early stages of developing one
application, called Freephone Service, for its invention.

The Freephone concept involves distinctively marked, coinless public
telephones that allow anyone to make free three-minute local calls.
Callers will hear short advertising messages between rings while
waiting for the phone to be answered.  When the called party picks up
their receiver, the messages stop.  Sites for the phones include
airports, hotels and convention centers.  Currently there are over
48,000 public pay phones in these areas.  Phone Spots expects
advertising revenues to support the service.


VoiceNews, December 89

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

From: Billy Bradford <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 12:47:44 EST
Subject: Airfone Service by GTE


[Moderator's Note: This was forwarded from Telenet's Net Exchange.  PT]

I flew to Texas for Christmas vacation.  On all of the flights
(round-trip), after the cabin attendant had finished the usual oxygen
mask/saftey flotation cushion lecture, she said "For those of you who
would like to make a phone call, there is now a public phone installed
in the back of this aircraft.  The card in your seat pocket has more
information."  I got the card and started reading.

"The AirFone (or AirPhone, I can't remember which) is a new service
being offered by GTE.  It allows you to make phone calls from most of
the many inter-US airline flights.  Rates are printed on back."  It
then gave information about how to use the phone.

You have to use a credit card, US calls are $2.00 a minute, and
international calls are $4.00 a minute.  Apparently the AirFone is
similar to cellular, it said that it worked on a radio network that
had stations placed at strategic locations throughout the US.

"Occasionally, due to weather conditions, noise may occur in your
call or you may get disconnected.  If that occurs, please call your
AirFone representative and your bill will be credited."

That's all that I can remember off of the card, I left it in the seat
with my six bucks worth of magazines!

   +-----------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Billy Bradford        |  "What are you trying to do,    |
   | P. O. Box 1374        |   change the world?"            |
   | Anadarko, OK  73005   |  "No, just my little corner     |
   | [phone]        |   of it."                       |
   |                       |     ---A Digest contributor     |
   +-----------------------+---------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 21:12:56 EST
From: Theodore Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Calling" Card Charges


Can someone explain who determines how "calling" (aka credit) card
charges are billed?  I have a USWest card (Minneapolis RBOC).  Almost
all calls I make using it, e.g., from either East coast or West coast
back to Minneapolis, show up on my AT&T bill.  Recently I made a
couple of calls between Virginia and Maryland using it, both ends
within the DC LATA.  Those calls showed up on my local (USWest) bill.
If the DC RBOC (C&P) can manage to get the bill sent back to USWest,
why can't AT&T???


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

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 17:45:58 -0600
From: Wayne Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones


Last nite I saw a promo spot for a local TV station's news department.
They (WCIA, Channel 3, Champaign, IL) have arranged with Ameritech
Cellular for "*3" dialed on cellular phones in this area to connect to
WCIA news, toll-free, so that motorists can report unusual news events
as they happen.

    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)

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 12:47 EDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Questions About Caller ID


1) Long distance and Caller ID

How well does Caller ID work with incoming long distance calls?  I
would imagine that it would depend on how much information the carrier
passes to the local service provider, which probably varies between
carriers?

2) Caller ID on DID lines

Is this possible?

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

From: Thomas E Lowe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Direct Dialing the USSR
Date: 4 Jan 90 13:45:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (thomas.e.lowe,ho,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>That sparked a few questions:
>1.  Why direct service only to Moscow?

I was trying to reach the Estonia BBS and the circuits to USSR were
very busy.  I got to talking to one of the operators in Pittsburgh
(where they route international calls....there is also a center in
Denver) and they said that ever since Moscow went to direct dial, the
circuits have been incredibly busy.  I suspect that if all of USSR
went direct dial, that would just compound the problem.  As it is now,
there is at least a limit to the number of attempts for circuits to
non-Moscow sites.

The operator also told me that more circuits via satelite are
supposedly soon to come.

I did eventually get through to the bbs and got as far as entering a
password and got disconnected.  I tried and tried again all day till
the afternoon and someone ended up answering the phone.  I talked to
him for a couple minutes.  I told him I would try again another day to
get the bbs.  I don't know if it was the sysop or not, but it was
apparently the correct number.


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!!)

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 03:35:08 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)


> [Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement
> by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in
> general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their
> phone service. This first came up a few years ago, presumably was
> squashed, then the issue was raised again lately. Ken Levitt, a
> Fidonet participant in the Digest, passed along a report from a group
> of BBS sysops in SWBT territory implying the threat was again present.
> The following day, a message appeared here which referred to the
> earlier message as just a rumor that supposedly had long since been
> killed...  PT]

Au contraire...  The "modem tax" is something the FCC rumbles about
every few years when the phone companies start complaining.  It was
apparently put off the last time because of the flood of letters which
came in to FCC people and legislators, presumably as a result of a
national BBS campaign.  The campaign has started again, because the
FCC is apparently considering levying an additional hourly charge
(like $6) on companies like Telenet which make use of the phone
network for information transit.  Also, apparently (though I'm fuzzy
on this) there is something involving a similar fee for any modem use
over phone lines.  I'm sure others out there know much more about
this.

[Moderator's Note: This is true, but the key here is the writer had
asked about a message which appeared in the Digest just a few days
earlier saying the 'tax' was only a rumor. The message he made
reference to was one sent in response to Mr. Levitt's regards SWBT
vrs. the BBS'ers using residence lines. But indeed, the suggested
'tax' you remind us of is still a possible threat also.  Eternal
vigilence is required, friends. PT]

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

Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 4 Jan 90 11:23:55 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In case nobody else tells you, here are the names of the RBOCs:

NYNEX        New York and New England
Bell Atlantic    middle Atlantic states
BellSouth    south east
Ameritech    northern midwest
Southwest Bell    Texas and southwest
U S West    mountain and northwest states
Pacific Tel    California and Nevada

There were a lot more operating companies than this; U S West has
merged all of its operating companies into U S West Communications,
the rest still have the operating companies as subsidiaries, e.g. Bell
Atlantic still has New Jersey Bell, Bell of Pennsylvania, Diamond
State Tel (Delaware), and the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
companies of, respectively, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the
District of Columbia.  This is a long list, several of the holding
companies have only one or two operating companies.

The various companies have taken different diversification strategies.
BellSouth and Southwest Bell have bought into a lot of cellular
telephone companies outside their home area, Bell Atlantic has bought
software and computer maintenance companues, NYNEX has a chain of
computer stores, Pacific Tel is in undersea cables, and U S West is
doing all sorts of miscellaneous stuff.  It is my impression that the
ones that have stuck most closely to telephony have been the most
financially sucessful.

Two other of Ma's heirs that bear mention are:

Southern New England Telephone    most of Connecticut
Cincinnati Bell            small area around Cincinnati Ohio

They were affiliates rather than subsidiaries of AT&T (i.e. AT&T owned
a minority rather than a majority of the stock) and so are not subject
to the restrictions placed on the holding companies, even though
before the breakup they acted as part of the Bell System as much as
anybody else.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 19:48:20 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


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

>Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone
>companies in the US besides the RBOCs.  Particularly Nynex (sp??), I
>read recently that Nynex have [sic] made a deal with Telecom Australia.
>Anyone know more about the deal ?

I don't know any more about that particular deal, but I can tell you
that NYNEX is NOT one of the major non-Bell telcos like GTE; rather,
it is one of the 7 RBOCs spun off from AT&T during the breakup.  Its
regional subsidiaries are New York Telephone (which serves most of New
York state and a little bit of Connecticut, I believe) and New England
Telephone (which serves almost all areas in Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island).  New York and New England --
hence the name "NYNEX".


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives
Date: 4 Jan 90 07:27:40 GMT
Organization: very little


When the new area code in Illinois arrived last fall, Illinois Bell
had a nationwide WATS number that you could call which would prompt
you to dial a 3 digit prefix, and then tell you whether or not it was
in the new area code.

Is there any service like this for the new 908 code?  Any other way
of finding out some exact definitions of the area it covers?  I need
to update my mailing list at the office, and also a list that I use to
cross reference the first three digits of a postal Zip Code to the
telephone area code.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]

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

From: "Louis J. Judice  04-Jan-1990 0842" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives
Date: 4 Jan 90 00:00:00 GMT

> re: message indicating that in United Telecom areas, A/C 908 is not
> working yet.

Another problem is that many PBX's are programmed to reject area codes
(to reduce phone abuse). Since public knowledge of 908 is virtually
non-existant, most system administrators have not turned 908 on yet.

Incidentally, while on a 411 call to get a number from NJ Bell
information I asked "is the 908 area code working fully now?" - and
got the response "what are you talking about, there is NO 908 area
code here in my list"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO KIDDING!

Lou Judice
Digital Equipment
(908/201) 562-4103

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #5
****************************










Date:     Fri, 5 Jan 90 0:44:44 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #6
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest       Thu, 4 Jan 90 00:43:58 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    COCOT Scam (Dave Brightbill)
    Re: One-armed Bandits (Lars J. Poulsen)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Todd Inch)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Tad Cook)
    Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Bennett Todd)
    Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (David Esan)
    Telephone/Computer Interface (Roger Clark Swann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 14:17:07 EST
From: Dave Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT Scam


I just had an amazing conversation with a PSC (state utility
regulation) person about COCOT's in Florida (which, for some strange
reason, they call "PADS").  I was calling to bitch about a pay phone
with evil alignment and we got to talking about some of the newer
COCOT scams which they are currently investigating.  There is a guy
who is selling installed COCOT's to folks who want to immigrate to
this country and need an excuse.  The deal is that he sells a phone
for around $50,000.  The buyer now owns a business in Florida and
under US immigration law, can enter the US to attend to his business
affairs without having to have a green card.  I also learned that
COCOTs are a fav of folks with large clumps of cash to launder.  They
put in a phone and report huge takes in the coin box.  Sort of like
the vending machine business used to be.

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

From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits
Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 07:46:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>
   [e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

>IMHO, COCOT's provide nothing but a disservice to the calling public.

Agreed.

>So by not allowing free collect/calling card calls, the replacement
>phones have removed what I consider to be a substantial service in the
>public interest that the phone network had previously provided.

Agreed.

>Pacific Bell's attitude to problems is "fill out this form, send it
>in, and if we get 3 complaints on the same phone, *maybe* we'll
>disconnect it."  I can understand 3 complaints for money-eating, poor
>quality, etc., but for blatant tariff violations?  If a phone is
>charging 60 cents for a call which by law can cost at most 25 cents,
>why does it take 3 complaints to have it shut off?

Because any single violation could be an honest keystroke error in
configuration. Technically, each business hosting a COCOT is the
operator of that service, and each must be given a chance to clean up
their act. Never mind that you and I know that the real operator is the
device manufacturer who knows better and preprograms all of them in
violation of the rules.

>Granted, they will probably look into it on the first complaint, but
>for something as serious and reproducable as that, why three before
>guaranteed action?

>And these tariff violations are not as uncommon as you may think.  A
>couple of years ago, I got a copy of all the rules from Pacific Bell
>(so I would know what I was talking about), and did a little testing.
>Out of the 20 phones I tested, NOT A SINGLE ONE was compliant.

If it's that clearcut, we should be able to put them all out of
service within a month!!! How long is the list of rules, what are the
typical violations, and did they guarantee to shut them d~rown after 3
complaints ? An afternoon a week would be very well spent shutting
down COCOTs.

Here in Santa Barbara, (GTE country) we're a bit behind in COCOTs; I
don't think I have seen any yet, but when they start coming, I'd love
to nail them.


/ 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 !!

[Moderator's Note: The above message had to be substantially edited to
remove excess quotes. May I remind everyone that messages which
contain more than a 50/50 ratio of quotes to new text will NOT pass
the Usenet gateway, thus cannot be used here. Keep quotes to a
minimum, or better still, don't quote at all; just paraphrase earlier
remarks.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 90 19:47:18 GMT


John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses
disconnected by complaining to the guvmint.

I responded:
    Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who
    (as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements.
    How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first?

John's response:
> Don't you think that we, the public, are put upon enough with COCOTs
> in general without having to hold the hand of someone who should be
> aware of the rules and regs of his business BEFORE he foists his
> instrument of annoyance on us all?

Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of
business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd
much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than
have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the
laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a
traffic signal a block east".

The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a
phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street.

> In the matter of COCOTs, I have
> wasted way too much time trying to track down owners of same to inform
> them of things they should already know.

Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter
and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you
let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use
your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to
try the easy route first.

> My clients' listeners go straight to the FCC for perceived violations,
> as well they should. Ignorance of the law, no matter how small the
> business, is no justification for not following the rules.

One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people
like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear
on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured
response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and
less legal excrement can only help the situation.

  [ If it were known that violating the law, even accidentally ]
> would result in summary disconnection, maybe more COCOT operators
> would obey them in the first place, instead of trying to see what they
> could get away with up front.

You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that
might not be there.  Many people can't even program a VCR reliably,
you know.

And the very people who are likely to be the subject of your ire are
the people least likely to know they're in danger of summary
disconnection.  No matter what you do.

And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the
phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the
block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that.

No legal ones, anyway.


 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. [phone]. <[e-mail]>.
/ `-_-'\ Also <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
\_.--._/
      v

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

From: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 4 Jan 90 22:18:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Organization: Global Technology International, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

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

>> 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.

>Pretty nasty thing to do to some individual or small businessman who
>(as you later pointed out) may have NO idea of the legal requirements.
>How about trying to talk to the person running the thing, first?

Although this would be the polite thing to do, and I would probably
try it first myself, I disagree that a person is being unreasonable or
rude by calling the PUC instead.

Since I'm not at all connected with the telecom biz I may
misunderstand some of the details, but it seems that if you are going
to provide telephone service of any type to the public, through a
privately owned coin phone in this case, it is your responsibility to
know what you're doing and to make sure you've followed all the
regulations.  The public should be able to hold you accountable for
this.  If you don't know what you're doing, you should hire a
knowledgable consultant.

If I were in the restaurant business, for instance, I'd have to
understand sales tax, health regulations, etc.  (Hmmm . . . should a
customer tell me about gross things he found in the hamburger, or just
call the Health Dept?)  There are plenty more examples.

I assume that the phones in question are intended to make profits or
to support another business (hotel, etc) which make profits.  I
wouldn't feel quite so strongly about this if the phone were truly a
public service rather than a revenue-generator.

There is already too much confusion in the telecommunication business
which the consumer has to deal with.  I can do without more naive
business people trying their hand at these new markets.

It IS reasonable to try to keep others from having trouble with a
problem (billing, operation, or whatever) phone by having it shut off.

How easy would it be to find the owner/operator of the phone, let
alone convince him of the problem?

Most of the times I've tried to convince a business that they have a
problem, either I can't find the right person or they don't care.
I've found this to be true of even very small business that you'd
think would want your input.  Kinda sad.  That's my $.02 worth,
anyway.


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: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 4 Jan 90 07:13:56 GMT
Organization: very little


I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting
regarding disconnection of COCOTs.  At the time that I wrote it, I was
a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed.

Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending
COCOT phones....but get nowhere.  Often the guy at the gas station or
convenience store says they don't know anything about it.  Also, in
this state it is a requirement that these phones have the name,
address, and phone number of the COCOT owner displayed, along with a
coin-free method of reaching them for repair or refund.  In each case,
my complaint revolved around the fact that the phone could not reach
these numbers.

Actually, I am not anti-COCOT.  I also think that the tarrifs on
COCOTs are awfully steep, especially since the telco wont give them
answer supervision.  But I also expect to be able to reach the
operator of each COCOT, as provided by law.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (Bennett Todd)
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)
Date: 4 Jan 90 18:55:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bennett Todd)
Organization: Diagnostic Physics, Radiology, DUMC


In-reply-to: [e-mail]

I think two different issues have gotten confused with one and other
here.

1: A couple of years ago the FCC was considering a ruling that would
require services like GTE's PC-Pursuit to pay an access charge,
similar to that paid by alternative LD carriers. This has been hooted
down, and I haven't heard any new news about that in a couple of
years. As far as I know that one's dead.

2: In a completely unrelated piece of news, SWB has been battling for
a while now to force individuals to pay business rates if they use a
modem. They particularly targeted BBS owners. That issue appears to be
open still, though it looks like the sysops have succeeded in making
major headway.


-Bennett
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled?
Date: 4 Jan 90 15:09:23 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:

> How many multi-lata area codes are there other than 609?  I know that
> 914 in New York is one, as is 408 in California.  Are there many
> others?

Yes, most NPA's have more than one lata in them.  As a matter of fact,
according to my last search 99 NPA's have more than one lata.  They
are:

201    219    317     412    509    608    704    805    901
203    301    318    413    512    609    705    806    902
205    303    319    414    513    612    706    807    904
206    304    402    417    515    613    712    809    905
208    305    403    419    516    614    715    812    912
209    307    404    501    517    615    716    813    913
214    308    405    502    601    618    717    814    914
215    309    406    503    602    619    719    815    915
216    313    407    504    605    701    801    816    916
217    314    408    505    606    702    803    817    918
218    316    409    507    607    703    804    819    919

   ____________________________________________________________

 -->        David Esan                rochester!moscom!de

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone/Computer Interface
Date: 4 Jan 90 05:55:27 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA


I seem to remember that someone was asking about an interface box
here recently. Today I came across an ad for a box that some of you
out there might be interested in. All I know about the device is
from the ad....


TELEPHONE/COMPUTER INTERFACE

T-130 Telephone Access unit with 2-way Touchtone/ASCII conversion:

* Intelligent dialer for PC's and other DTE devices. Responds to call
progress tones, voice, and other calling signals. ASCII controlled
DTMF and audio input.

* Intelligent answering device reports incoming rings for auto or
commanded answer. Answer tone, audio port, and DTMF to ASCII
conversion for remote phone data entry.

For more info call: 1-800-426-3926 (in Washingtion State: 206-827-9626)

TELTONE (R)   10801  120th Avenue NE, Kirkland, WA 98033

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #6
****************************










Date:     Fri, 5 Jan 90 1:39:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: AI Applications
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jan 90 01:25:00 CST    Special: AI Applications

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Summary of AI Applications in Telecommunications (Ben Lippolt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ben Lippolt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Summary of AI Applications in Telecommunications
Date: 3 Jan 90 15:23:33 GMT
Organization: PTT Research Neher Laboratories
Lines: 558


A few week ago I posted an inquiry about publications on
AI-applications to telecommunications network management. I got
several responses. Thanks to everybody who replied. Here follows a
summary and a list of titles in bibtex format.

The most important sources for this topic are:

*  the book "Expert System Applications to Telecommunications",
   by Jay Liebowitz (ed), Wiley, 1988.

*  proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications,
                  June 1988, Philadelphia.

*  proceedings of ICC'89: International Conference on Communications, 1989.

*  proceedings of Avignon'89: specialized conference on Artificial
                  Intelligence, Telecommunications & Computer Systems,
                  May 1989, Avignon. (also the 1987 proceedings
                  contain some articles on this topic. The same specialized
                  conference will be held again in 1990).

*  the journal "IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications" of june
   1988 is a special issue on this topic.

I hope this information is useful.


Ben Lippolt
PTT Research, Neher Laboratories   || E-mail         : [e-mail]
PO Box 421                         || EARN/BITnet    : LIPPOLT@HLSDNL5
2260 AK Leidschendam               || UUCP           : hp4nl!dnlunx!lippolt
The Netherlands                    || Tel            : [phone]

    --------------------------- cut here -----------------------------------
@article{K614,
    AUTHOR = {{C. Cynar}},
    TITLE = { Computer desing networks by imitating the experts},
    JOURNAL = { Data Communications},
    YEAR = {1985},
    VOLUME = { 4},
    NUMBER = { 4},
    PAGES = { 137-145},
}

@misc{K360,
    AUTHOR = {{G.J. Garwood}},
    TITLE = { Role of Expert Systems in the Maintenance of Telecommunication Networks},
    BOOKTITLE = { 6th European Conference on Electronics EUROCON'84},
    YEAR = {1984},
    PAGES = { 9-13},
}

@inproceedings{K575,
    AUTHOR = {{F. Ghazvinian} and {J.J.M. Wang} and {R. Godfrey}},
    TITLE = { Application of expert system in CLASS},
    BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 1745-1749},
    ADRESS = { Philadelphia},
}

@article{K482,
    AUTHOR = {{D. Gross}},
    TITLE = { Applications of AI technology in communications networks},
    JOURNAL = { Expert systems},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 5},
    NUMBER = { 3},
    PAGES = { 248-251},
}

@article{K018,
    AUTHOR = {{C.N. Klahr}},
    TITLE = { An expert system can greatly reduce expenditures for telecommunications},
    JOURNAL = { Data Communications},
    MONTH = {july},
    YEAR = {1985},
    PAGES = { 155-167},
}

@article{K615,
    AUTHOR = {{L. Mantelman}},
    TITLE = { AI carves inroads: network design, testing, and management},
    JOURNAL = { Data Communications},
    YEAR = {1986},
    VOLUME = { 5},
    NUMBER = { 7},
    PAGES = { 106-123},
}

@inproceedings{K570,
    AUTHOR = {{H.T. Mouftah}},
    TITLE = { Expert systems for the performance evaluation of communication networks},
    BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 1719-1723},
    ADRESS = { Philadelphia},
}

@inproceedings{K572,
    AUTHOR = {{B. Pagurek} and {A.R. Kaye} and {D. Helmy}},
    TITLE = { Knowledge based fault location in a data communication network},
    BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 1729-1733},
    ADRESS = { Philadelphia},
}

@article{K089,
    AUTHOR = {{D. Probert}},
    TITLE = { Towards expert systems for telecommunications policy analysis},
    JOURNAL = { Computer communications},
    MONTH = {april},
    YEAR = {1983},
    PAGES = { 58-64},
}

@inproceedings{K567,
    AUTHOR = {{S. Rabie} and {T. Bult} and {V. Snarr Carter} and {B. Cavan}},
    TITLE = { DRESS: diagnostic repair expert system shell},
    BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 1467-1472},
    ADRESS = { Philadelphia},
}

@inproceedings{K571,
    AUTHOR = {{B. Roberts}},
    TITLE = { A network analyst's assistant},
    BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 1724-1728},
    ADRESS = { Philadelphia},
}

@article{K499,
    AUTHOR = {{W. Sayles} and {J. Thomas}},
    TITLE = { Finding and fixing network faults with an expert system},
    JOURNAL = { Data Communications},
    MONTH = {june}
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 149-165},
}

@article{K329,
    AUTHOR = {{M. Thandasseri}},
    TITLE = { Expert systems application for TXE4A exchanges},
    JOURNAL = { Electrical Communication},
    YEAR = {1986},
    VOLUME = { 60},
    NUMBER = { 2},
    PAGES = { 154-161},
}

@inproceedings{K573,
    AUTHOR = {{E.J. Zakrzewski} and {R. Quillin}},
    TITLE = { Applications of expert systems to network control},
    BOOKTITLE = { IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm.'88},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 1734-1739},
    ADRESS = { Philadelphia},
}

@article{K627,
    AUTHOR = {{Shri K. Goyal} and {Ralph W. Worrest}},
    TITLE = { Expert systems in network maintenance and management},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE},
    YEAR = {1986},
    VOLUME = { 39},
    PAGES = { 1225-1229},
}

@article{K629,
    AUTHOR = {{JY. Brossier} and {B. Faller} and {A. Fron} and {G. Garcia} and {P. Kirsch}},
    TITLE = { A communication network trouble-shooting expert system},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE},
    YEAR = {1986},
    VOLUME = { 39},
    PAGES = { 1238-1240},
}

@article{K632,
    AUTHOR = {{Y.V. Ramana Reddy} and {Shankar B. Uppuluri}},
    TITLE = { Intelligent systems technology in network operations management},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE},
    YEAR = {1986},
    VOLUME = { 39},
    PAGES = { 1220-1224},
}

@inproceedings{K662,
    AUTHOR = {{David Leinweber}},
    TITLE = { Real-Time Expert Systems and Communications Network Applications},
    BOOKTITLE = { Sixth Annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications, IEEE},
    MONTH = {feb},
    YEAR = {1987},
    PAGES = { 548-550},
    ADRESS = { Scottsdale USA},
}

@inproceedings{K663,
    AUTHOR = {{Sol J. Greenspan} and {Clement L. McGowan} and {M. Chandra Shekaran}},
    TITLE = { Toward an object-oriented framework for defining services in future intelligent networks},
    BOOKTITLE = { IEEE International Conference on Communications '88},
    MONTH = {June},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 867-873},
    ADRESS = { Philadelphia USA},
}

@inproceedings{K664,
    AUTHOR = {{A. Taylor}},
    TITLE = { How expert systems can support network diagnostics, management and control},
    BOOKTITLE = { International Conference on Private Switching Systems and Networks},
    MONTH = {June},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 159-164},
    ADRESS = { London},
}

@inproceedings{K665,
    AUTHOR = {{Roman O. Yudkin}},
    TITLE = { On testing communication networks},
    BOOKTITLE = { GLOBECOM Tokyo '87},
    MONTH = {Nov},
    YEAR = {1987},
    PAGES = { 1843-1850},
    ADRESS = { Tokyo, Japan},
}

@inproceedings{K666,
    AUTHOR = {{N.A. Khan} and {P.H. Callahan} and {N.S. Lee} and {R. Dube} and {J.L. Tsay} and {W. van Dusen}},
    TITLE = { An engineering approach to model-based troubleshooting in communication networks},
    BOOKTITLE = { GLOBECOM Tokyo '87},
    MONTH = {Nov.},
    YEAR = {1987},
    PAGES = { 1818-1824},
    ADRESS = { Tokyo},
}

@inproceedings{K667,
    AUTHOR = {{T. Bult} and {D. peacocke} and {Sameh Rabie} and {Vicky Snarr}},
    TITLE = { An interactive expert system for switch maintenance},
    BOOKTITLE = { Proc. Int. Switch. Symp.},
    MONTH = {March},
    YEAR = {1987},
    PAGES = { 59-65},
}

@article{K668,
    AUTHOR = {{Wei-Dong Zhan} and {Suchai Thanwastien} and {Lois M.L. Delcambre}},
    TITLE = { SIMNETMAN: An expert workstation for designing rule-based network management systems},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Netw.},
    MONTH = {Sept.},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 2},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 35-42},
}

@article{K669,
    AUTHOR = {{Kenneth J. Macleish}},
    TITLE = { Mapping the integration of artificial intelligence into telecommunications},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on selected areas in communications},
    MONTH = {June},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 2},
    PAGES = { 892-898},
}

@article{K670,
    AUTHOR = {{Paul H. Callahan}},
    TITLE = { Expert systems for AT\&T switched network maintenance},
    JOURNAL = { AT\&T Technical Journal},
    MONTH = {Jan-Feb},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 67},
    NUMBER = { 1},
    PAGES = { 93-103},
}

@article{K671,
    AUTHOR = {{T.E. Marques}},
    TITLE = { STARKEEPER network troubleshooter: an expert system product},
    JOURNAL = { AT\&T Technical journal},
    MONTH = {Nov-Dec},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 67},
    NUMBER = { 6},
    PAGES = { 137-154},
}

@article{K672,
    AUTHOR = {{A. Pitchai} and {S. Chaganty} and {T.W. Morgan}},
    TITLE = { NET-HELP: An online rule based help system for the network},
    JOURNAL = { Proc. SPIE - Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 937},
    PAGES = { 666-670},
}

@inproceedings{K685,
    AUTHOR = {{A. Benicourt} and {V. Crommelynck}},
    TITLE = { CENTAURE: an expert system for monitoring the French Railways nationwide computer network},
    BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications},
    MONTH = {May 29 - June 2},
    YEAR = {1989},
    PAGES = { 17-34},
    ADRESS = { Avignon},
}

@inproceedings{K686,
    AUTHOR = {{C. Baird} and {T. White}},
    TITLE = { A real-time network monitor},
    BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications},
    MONTH = {May 29 - June 2},
    YEAR = {1989},
    PAGES = { 35-44},
    ADRESS = { Avignon},
}

@inproceedings{K687,
    AUTHOR = {{L.M. Cross} and {T.S. Dillon}},
    TITLE = { A knowledge-based approach to network traffic management in a national telecommunications network},
    BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications},
    MONTH = {May 29 - June 2},
    YEAR = {1989},
    PAGES = { 45-62},
    ADRESS = { Avignon},
}

@inproceedings{K688,
    AUTHOR = {{B. Lutticke} and {D. McArthur} and {A. Neuhaus} and {S. Sachs} and {A. Swanson}},
    TITLE = { An interactive graphical configurator for networked systems},
    BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications},
    MONTH = {May 29 - June 2},
    YEAR = {1989},
    PAGES = { 119-130},
    ADRESS = { Avignon},
}

@inproceedings{K689,
    AUTHOR = {{E. Hausen-Troppen} and {S. Pierre}},
    TITLE = { An expert system for designing large scale computer networks},
    BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications},
    MONTH = {May 29 - June 2},
    YEAR = {1989},
    PAGES = { 131-143},
    ADRESS = { Avignon},
}

@inproceedings{K690,
    AUTHOR = {{G. Fleischanderl} and {G. Friedrich} and {J. Retti}},
    TITLE = { Model-driven fault localization in audio routing systems},
    BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications},
    MONTH = {May 29 - June 2},
    YEAR = {1989},
    PAGES = { 173-184},
    ADRESS = { Avignon},
}

@inproceedings{K691,
    AUTHOR = {{F. Ferrara} and {F. Giovannini} and {E. Paschetta}},
    TITLE = { IAS: an expert systems for packet-switched network monitoring and repair assistance},
    BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications},
    MONTH = {May 29 - June 2},
    YEAR = {1989},
    PAGES = { 185-198},
    ADRESS = { Avignon},
}

@inproceedings{K692,
    AUTHOR = {{L. Goffaux} and {R. Mathonet}},
    TITLE = { Providing object-oriented systems with automatizable knowledge representation formalisms. An application to network troubleshooting},
    BOOKTITLE = { 9th International Workshop on Expert Systems and their applications},
    MONTH = {May 29 - June 2},
    YEAR = {1989},
    PAGES = { 199-211},
    ADRESS = { Avignon},
}

@inproceedings{K693,
    AUTHOR = {{C. Radcliffe}},
    TITLE = { An expert system for integrated network management},
    BOOKTITLE = { Proceedings of the international conference on Network Management},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 137-148},
    ADRESS = { London},
}

@inproceedings{K694,
    AUTHOR = {{D. Chivers} and {I.P. Sharp}},
    TITLE = { Experience of an expert system for network management},
    BOOKTITLE = { Proceedings of the international conference on Network Management},
    YEAR = {1988},
    PAGES = { 149-160},
    ADRESS = { London},
}

@article{K695,
    AUTHOR = {{L. Bernstein} and {C.M. Yuhas}},
    TITLE = { Expert systems in network management - The second revolution},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 784-787},
}

@article{K696,
    AUTHOR = {{K. Ganesan} and {M. Ganti}},
    TITLE = { A multimedia front-end for an expert network management system},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 788-791},
}

@article{K697,
    AUTHOR = {{N.A. Khan} and {P.H. Callahan} and {R. Dube} and {J.L. Tsay} and {W. van Dusen}},
    TITLE = { An engineering approach to model-based troubleshooting in communication networks},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 792-799},
}

@article{K698,
    AUTHOR = {{D.M.D. Liu} and {D.A. Pelz}},
    TITLE = { I-test: Integrated testing expert system for trunks},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 800-804},
}

@article{K699,
    AUTHOR = {{R.O. Yudkin}},
    TITLE = { On testing communication networks},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 805-812},
}

@article{K700,
    AUTHOR = {{D. Peacocke} and {S. Rabie}},
    TITLE = { Knowledge-based maintenance in networks},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 813-818},
}

@article{K701,
    AUTHOR = {{K.E. Brown} and {C.F.N. Cowan} and {T.M. Crawford} and {P.M. Grant}},
    TITLE = { Knowledge-based techniques for fault detection in digital microwave radio communicatio equipment},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 819-827},
}

@article{K702,
    AUTHOR = {{J.J.P. Tsai}},
    TITLE = { A knowledge-based system for software design},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 828-841},
}

@article{K703,
    AUTHOR = {{K. Takahashi} and {N. Shiratori} and {S. Naguchi}},
    TITLE = { An intelligent support system for protocol and communications software development},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 842-849},
}

@article{K704,
    AUTHOR = {{T. Kinoshita} and {K. Sugawara} and {N. Shiratori}},
    TITLE = { Knowledge-based design support systems for communication systems},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 850-861},
}

@article{K705,
    AUTHOR = {{M.T. Harandi}},
    TITLE = { Buiding a knowledge-based software development environment},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 862-868},
}

@article{K706,
    AUTHOR = {{K.H. Muralidhar} and {B.W. Irish}},
    TITLE = { MAPCON: an expert system for configuration of MAP networks},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 869-873},
}

@article{K707,
    AUTHOR = {{Y.X. Zhang} and {K. Takahashi} and {N. Shiratori} and {S. Naguchi}},
    TITLE = { A knowledge-based system for protocol synthesis (KSPS)},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 874-883},
}

@article{K708,
    AUTHOR = {{B. Chandrasekaran} and {W.F. Punch}},
    TITLE = { Hierarchical classification: Its usefulness for diagnosis and sensor validation},
    JOURNAL = { IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications},
    MONTH = {june},
    YEAR = {1988},
    VOLUME = { 6},
    NUMBER = { 5},
    PAGES = { 884-891},
}
    --------------------cut here----------------------------------------

[Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks to Mr. Lippolt for producing this special
issue of the Digest. I hope you'll find his research useful, and take the
time to drop him a note if you are able to use it.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: AI Applications
****************************










Date:     Fri, 5 Jan 90 20:31:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #7
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jan 90 20:30:38 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (John Higdon)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (John Cowan)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook)
    Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (John Higdon)
    Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Edward Vielmetti)
    Re: Caller ID Prefixes in PA (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: Airfone Service by GTE (William Payne)
    Re: Airfone Service by GTE (John R. Levine)
    Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled? (John Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Date: 4 Jan 90 01:58:34 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:

>     Shame on you!  Put yourself in the place of the person
> calling.

No! You put yourself in my place. Just this morning I have received
five calls for Hilton. Each of these calls costs ME money, disturbs my
peace, interupts my tranquility. Is it my fault that idiots out there
can't dial their damn phone?

> [Description of consequences to unsuspecting person being duped by my
> dark humor.]
> Pretty cruel joke to play on some random unfortunate person.

The only thing cruel about it is that I would not have the
satisfaction of seeing it happen.

> [Moderator's Note: I admit it sounds funny....but it is not funny! As
> Mr. Smith pointed out, it is a dreadful joke to play on an
> unsuspecting person. Even a drunken patron of a public house deserves
> the courtesy of being told 'wrong number', even if you say it angrily
> and slam the receiver in the process.

It is ceasing to become funny. It's now damned annoying and I even
called Hilton and told them what was happening and what I was doing
about it. They said they were sorry, but they weren't responsible
(they aren't) and whatever I did with the callers was up to me.

Pac*Bell informs me that it will cost $30 to have my number changed.
That's really wonderful. And after I have had my number changed (and
suffered all the screwups that will go with it), will I then get
Sheraton's calls?

No, there's no point in having it changed. It would probably be
trading a headache for an upset stomach.

Late word: One of the last callers, after questioning, has informed me
that *my* number is listed as Hilton reservations in their local
phonebook. I'm going to get a copy of that book. If this is true, I am
really going to be unhappy paying $30 because of a Pac*Bell mistake.
And who do we refer *my* old number to, Hilton or me?

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jan 90 11:26:34 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thurbing (Was: 800 Wrong Numbers)


In Telecom V10 #4 Roy Smith writes:

"Shame on you" {for misleading people who dialed a wrong number}

I think it depends on the situation and the type of business involved.
We all must take responsibility for our actions and live with the
consequences.  Anyone who dials a number at 3am better make sure they
are dialing the correct number.  If I wake up in the middle of the
night it may take me an hour or two to get back to sleep.  In this
case no punishment is too severe for the the offending caller.
(wouldn't Caller*ID be great?).

Many years back there were only two exchanges in my town (653 and
655).  One day we started getting a very large amount of wrong numbers
on one of our two lines.  It turned out that a catalog store had just
opened that week and they had the 653 number that corresponded to out
655.  I called the phone company and they said that we could pay to
change our number which we had been using for 9 years.  I then called
the store manager who was very arrogant and told me I should change my
phone number.  I pointed out to him that we had this number for 9
years and he had his for one week.  It would be a lot easier for him
to change his number than for us to change ours.  I also suggested
that it would not be good for his business if callers ended up talking
to an irate person on the phone.  He seemed not to care.

The people calling were interested in knowing about products for sale
or orders that they had placed.  These were not urgent items.  For a
while I did take some orders and told people that other orders had
come in.  The theory was that one of two things would happen.  Either
the store would get a lot of flack about this or people would stop
doing business with them.

After a while I got tired of this game and just left an answering
machine on the line.  I changed the message to something very generic
so that it did not identify who had been reached.  Some callers did
seem irate that they has called sever times and had not been called
back.

The funniest message that was ever left was from an employee of the
store who said that he would not be in that day.  You would think that
an employee would know that the store did not have an answering
machine.

The store finally went out of business after about two years and
things have been mostly quiet since then.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 21:00:34 GMT


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

>In <[e-mail]> John Cowan <[e-mail]> writes:

>[quoted nastiness deleted]

[flame in response deleted]
[comment by Digest Moderater deleted]

Please be more careful when editing messages!  The [quoted nastiness]
was >not< by me, but by John Higdon <[e-mail]>.
Furthermore, the flame actually responded to a stretch of material
written by me but paraphrasing a >fictional< story by the well-known
author James Thurber, as indicated in the text itself.

I have >not< told a wrong-number caller I was a railway station.  John
Higdon has apparently misled some wrong-number callers.  A fictional
character in Thurber's short story has done the same.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Date: 4 Jan 90 07:23:49 GMT
Organization: very little


I spoke with a woman in Chicago recently that was constantly getting
calls for the bus station on her cellular phone.  She claims that one
time she took a reservation from a woman, and told her that there was
a special "buffet service" available, and that the bus would pick her
up at her house!


Tad Cook
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: That is weird. The Chicago Greyhound-Trailways
Terminal gave schedule information on 312-FInancial 6-5000 for about
forty years.  Only recently they installed a centrex system, in the
312-781-29xx series, and give schedule/fare information on 781-2900.
Does her cell phone number come anywhere close to that?  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones
Date: 5 Jan 90 02:17:20 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Wayne Hamilton <[e-mail]> writes:

> They (WCIA, Channel 3, Champaign, IL) have arranged with Ameritech
> Cellular for "*3" dialed on cellular phones in this area to connect to
> WCIA news, toll-free, so that motorists can report unusual news events
> as they happen.

About two years ago, Cellular One set up a similar service with a
"newstalk" radio station in San Francisco. To report (mainly traffic)
events one dials "*KGO81". The airtime is picked up by the station.
Not to be outdone, Mobilnet turned around and offered a similar
arrangement with the other "newstalk" station. Mobilnet customers dial
"*CBS" and of course, KCBS picks up the tab.

Apparently this arrangement has paid off, since both operations are
still in force after these two years. They usually give air credit to
a "traffic spotter" when the report they are giving comes from a
cellular subscriber.

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

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

From: Edward Vielmetti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones
Date: 5 Jan 90 17:18:46 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI.


> WCAI Channel 3 in Champaign is toll-free *3

WWJ Radio in Detroit has a similar arrangement, dial *WWJ (*995) to
get their traffic bureau to report accidents or big pot-holes or the
like.  Seems like they get more traffic reports by phone than from the
helicopter these days.

          --Ed

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Prefixes in PA
Date: 4 Jan 90 03:23:47 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sten Peeters) writes:

>Pennsylvania has finally introduced Caller ID the the 215 area code.
>Unfortunately Philadelhia and Harrisburg will be the only ones with
>the service.
>Harrisburg Area-
>
>231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 255, 257, 540, 541, 545, 558, 561, 564,
>652, 657, 691, 697, 731, 737, 761, 763, 766, 782, 790, 795, 975

(I presume that although the article mentions area code 215, that's
for Philadelphia and the Harrisburg exchanges are really in 717.)

Does this mean that exchange 717-697, the one (but I'm not saying only
one) where you can't get touch-tone at any price without changing your
number out of that exchange (according to relatives who live there, as
of a few weeks ago) is going to get Caller-ID?  What switch supports
caller-ID and not touch-tone?

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 15:37:06 CST
From: William Payne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AirPhone Service By GTE


A while ago I asked for any info on GTE's AirPhone service after using
it during a Thanksgiving flight. Lo and behold the following article
showed up. I reproduce it below w/o permission.

 From Electronic Engineering Times; Issue 571; January 1, 1990, page 8.

AirPhone Creator Proposes Flight FAX

Washington- Jack Goeken, the man who started the GTE AirPhone service
in 1976 and thus ensured that no one could get away from it all, has
another plan up his sleeve for making flight time more productive. His
new company, In-Flight Phone Co., has petitioned the [FCC] to allow
air travelers to send facsimiles from air to ground, check on flight
schedules and seat availability and transmit data from portable
computers, all without leaving their seats.

-Cheaper than AirPhone-

    The proposed services, designed to be available at passenger seat
backs, would cost less than present AirPhone charges, which are about
$4 for the first minute and $2 per each additional minute. In-Flight
estimates that computer data - requiring less bandwidth than a voice
channel - could be transmitted for $1 or less per minute.

    Goeken expects the new service's power to permit air travelers on
delayed flights to check flight-connection alternatives while still
airbound will make the system attractive to customers and airlines
alike.

    AirPhone - which permits travelers to make, but not receive,
in-flight calls - is the only chartered air telephone carrier at
present, a situation which Goeken plans to remedy with his own VHF
two-way systems in 1990, pending FCC approval.

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

Subject: Re: Airfone Service by GTE
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 5 Jan 90 11:30:58 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


I have used Airfones a few times.  You walk to the phone (unless it's
in the back of the next seat, as on some Trump shuttle planes) and put
in a credit card, then it unlocks and you can take the handset, which
resembles a cordless phone, back to your seat.  It takes the usual
cards, Amex, MC, VISA, but not any telco calling cards.  You wait,
sometimes a long time, for it to seize a channel and get a dial tone,
then dial calls the usual way.

They're very expensive, $7.50 for the first three minutes for calls
withing the U.S. and about $2/minute after that.  (The rates may have
recently been changed, but not by much.)  Directory assistance is
free, 800 numbers are not.  International calls are possible but I
haven't tried any.

The bad news is that they don't work worth beans.  The connection is
terrible, sort of like talking to East Germany, with lots of static
and distortion, often to the point where you can't understand the
other person.  There is interference on the plane itself, and I've
found that you hear a lot better if you keep the phone next to the
base rather than going back to your seat.  The phone only works when
the plane is actually in the air, so the time when you most need it,
when you're stuck on the ground for an hour waiting for a landing slot
so you can take off, you can't use it.  In short, I don't think it
merits the radio channel that the FCC has assigned it.

The Airfone company has had a checkered career.  There used to be some
connection with GTE, since severed.  It is run by Sandy Goeken, who I
believe is the daughter of the guy who started MCI, who like her
father had to overcome innumerable technical and political barriers to
get the service started.  I only wish she'd turned her talents to
something more worthwhile.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

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

Subject: Re: How Are Inter-LATA Calls in the Same Area Code Handled?
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 5 Jan 90 12:02:19 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Yes, most NPA's have more than one lata in them.  As a matter of fact,
>according to my last search 99 NPA's have more than one lata.  They are:

There's something wrong with this search algorithm. Looking at the
list, I see 403, 613, 705, 807, 819 and 902 which are in Canada.  706
and 905 are pseudo-area codes for Tijuana and Mexico City which are
being phased out in favor of 011 5266 and 011 525.  809 is the odd
area code for most of the Carribean (although I have no idea whether
equal access is supposed to apply to Puerto Rico and the USVI, the two
American pieces of 809.)  Within the US, some of the ones look wrong.
The last time I looked, Utah (801) was one LATA possibly except for
some little independent telcos around the edge.  203 is mostly served
by SNET, a non-Bell telco, except for Greenwich which is New York
Tel's -- I don't know whether toll calls between Greenwich and other
parts of Connecticut are carried by SNET or inter-lata carriers.

But actually, I was really wondering if most multi-lata NPAs have
something like 1+number for interlata calls or if it's like 609 where
you dial everything with 7 digits and can't really tell until the bill
comes who carried it.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #7
****************************










Date:     Fri, 5 Jan 90 21:16:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #8
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jan 90 21:15:30 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Question About Area Code Split (David Lewis)
    Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon)
    Re: One-armed Bandits (David A. Cantor)
    Re: COCOT Scam (John Higdon)
    Re: The Operator's Beep (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
    New England Telephone Massachusetts Rate Restructuring (John Covert)
    976 in Massachusetts (Steve Elias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question About Area Code Split
Date: 4 Jan 90 15:06:26 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Dean Sirakides) writes:

> As I am sure most people know, the Chicago area has undergone an area
> code split from 312 to 312 and 708.

> *Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone
> number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying,
> "in either 708 or 312".  How is this done?

[I have a feeling this is one of those questions that about 17 people
will answer.  Apologies for any unwanted duplication...]

There are several ways I can think of doing this; I'm not sure which,
if any, are *the* way it's done in any particular instance, but I
think they'd all work...

First of all, I don't *think* that a single exchange can overlap NPAs,
so that (for example) 708-888 and 312-888 would refer to the same
central office.  I can't find anything explicitly excluding this in my
references, though, so I could be mistaken -- if anyone knows this is
definitely the case, please let me know...

That means if (for example) you want your phone number to be 888-8888
in both 708 and 312, you have to have some sort of service in both 888
exchanges.

The simplest way I can see would be to get service in the appropriate
exchange in the "other" NPA (if your office is in 312, get service in
708) with the desired phone number, and forward it to your office.

A second solution would be to get foreign exchange (FX) service in the
other NPA, with dial-in capability and the appropriate phone number.

A third solution would be to get service in the other NPA with the
appropriate phone number and use private or leased facilities to tie
it to your office, but that's getting into the category of Serious
Hack.

Then, of course, there are all sorts of ways using services that
haven't been implemented yet, but that's not really relevant...

> And as a related question: how do companies get phone numbers like
> "dial LAWYERS" when the prefix for the spelled out number is not used
> in the area that services the address of the business?

Same ways, I presume.

> Thanks. (notice this article offers no opinion on Caller-ID)

Thank you.  Sincerely.


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: Phone Frustration
Date: 5 Jan 90 03:02:17 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

> John Higdon described how he got certain COCOTs owned by small businesses
> disconnected by complaining to the guvmint.

I would be proud to claim credit for disconecting one of these
monsters, but unfortunately you are miscrediting someone else's
success to me. But moving on...

> Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of
> business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd
> much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than
> have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the
> laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a
> traffic signal a block east".

What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at
all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your
area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an
increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell
phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real*
public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no
pay phones before, your argument would be valid.

Actually, in some cases COCOTs did show up near Pac*Bell phones, but
eventually the Pac*Bell phones were removed because the COCOTs
couldn't survive with real phones within sight. Yes, I checked with
the store owners; it was that way, not the other way around.

> The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a
> phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street.

No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to
the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more
money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his
customers.

> Well, if you're there you can walk up to the person behind the counter
> and say "Excuse me, do you know that the law says so-and-so? Could you
> let the owner know?". If that doesn't get results, go ahead and use
> your nuclear option. But it doesn't take *any* time at all for you to
> try the easy route first.

Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have
to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches
disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine.
Leaving message is futile. There was one notable exception on a phone
outside of a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. I reached a live person to
whom I complained about not being able to access AT&T. I was given a
lengthy discourse on how they wouldn't make any money of they allowed
this. "How would you like it if you had people using your telephone
all the time and you didn't get anything out of it?" In other words,
the kickbacks weren't big and fat like those from his ripoff AOS. It
was much nicer when that was a Pac*Bell phone. I even used it then.

> One of the biggest problems in this country, in my opinion, is people
> like you who think that it's OK to bring the force of the law to bear
> on someone. Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But a measured
> response to an irritation is only common courtesy. More courtesy and
> less legal excrement can only help the situation.

Don't you think it is a bit naive to think that the average person is
supposed to be more knowledgeable concerning telephony regulations
than those in the business? How many people do you suppose a
misprogrammed COCOT will rip off before a knowledgeable person finally
uses it and does something about it? Of the somewhere between 50 and
100 times I have complained to COCOT operators about their
non-compliant phones, not one has ever done anything to correct the
condition(s). Your even-handed approach is wasted on this particular
breed of businessman.

Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you". Those
who know me are fully aware that in matters concerning "legitimate"
businesses, I am most patient and long suffering. As a broadcaster, I
almost never involve the FCC in any problem with a fellow broadcaster.
But we're talking about people who are well informed and have a desire
to comply with the standards of their business, not the "get rich
quick" people in the COCOT racket.

> You're attributing motivations to the owners of these COCOTs that
> might not be there.  Many people can't even program a VCR reliably,
> you know.

True, but they aren't in charge of a television station, either. If a
person doesn't know anything about the telephone business, why is he
subjecting the public to the consequences of his ignorance? I always
thought that people got into business because they had some expertise
to contribute or at least some interest in their endeavors. Lacking
any of that, IMHO their motivations are indeed suspect.

> And you might find that the response will be for them to pull the
> phone out completely, and direct walk-ins to the laundromat down the
> block and across the street. I'm sure you have no problems with that.

As a matter of fact, a COCOT was yanked from a 7-eleven near my home.
A Pac*Bell phone took its place. I certainly had no problem with that!

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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 13:31:27 -0800
From: "David A. Cantor  05-Jan-1990 1220" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 3, Steve Forrette (<STEVEF%WALKER_RICHER_
[e-mail]>) writes:

>These one-armed bandits [COCOTs] seem eager to eat your money at the drop of a
>hat, and overcharge you when they do work.

>   - Blatant tariff violations, such as requiring local call deposit
>     for 950 numbers charging long distance for "special" prefixes (such
>     as to cellular phones) that are local from a real payphone.

>And I thought one-armed bandits were only allowed in Nevada and Atlantic City.

That last whimsical statement has more truth to it than the author
realizes.  Two weeks ago, I was in Atlantic City International Airport
(ACY) and tried to use a payphone for a 950 call.  I dialled 950-1022
(MCI) and the phone said "Please deposit NINE DOLLARS AND NINETY-FIVE
CENTS." (emphasis is mine).  I used MCI's 800 number instead.


Dave C.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOT Scam
Date: 5 Jan 90 03:11:26 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dave Brightbill <[e-mail]> writes:

> I also learned that COCOTs are a fav of folks with large clumps
> of cash to launder.  They put in a phone and report huge takes
> in the coin box.  Sort of like the vending machine business used to be.

Ah, but unlike the old vending machine scam, it would be possible to
audit one of these babies and nab the perp. Remember, the cash in the
box would have to be at least loosely related to the local charges on
the line and the charges from the AOS or LD carrier. A clever IRS man
could nail one of these laundramats in a hurry. And the more cash
reported, the greater chance an audit would be triggered, particularly
if receipts seemed way out of line from the rest of the industry.

Just a thought.

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

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep
Date: 5 Jan 90 06:29:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gabe Wiener)
writes:

> Occasionally I'll call some AT&T number or directory assistance line
> and hear that "beep" sounded by the operator before they get on the
> line.  I used to hear it on all operator calls pre-breakup, but it has
> pretty much gone by the wayside for 0 and 00 calls.

> Can anyone tell me its purpose?  Moreover, why did they stop using it?

I have no idea what it *used* to mean.  Nowadays, it's generated any
time you go through AT&T; if you don't hear it, you've got some other
company.  (And some other company's rates.  My in-laws called collect
from a payphone in Charleston just after the hurricane, to tell us
their phones and power were out but they were okay.  The five minute
call went through an "Alternative Operator Service" company that
charged me six dollars!)


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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 05:17:18 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  04-Jan-1990 2205" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New England Telephone Massachusetts Rate Restructuring


N.E.T. had filed a complete rate restructuring of almost all services
in Massachusetts, to take effect 31 December 1989.  The D.P.U. has
suspended these tariffs until 1 July 1990, and is holding public
hearings.  The first of these was tonight at the State House; future
hearings are 24 Jan in Springfield, 25 Jan in Lee, 30 Jan in East
Sandwich and (date missing) in Worcester.

I attended the hearing tonight, at which little clarity appeared.  I
had expected some sort of handout with the new rates to be available,
but I was wrong.  I had expected N.E.T. to make some sort of
presentation of the rates, but I was wrong.  I was able to briefly
borrow State Rep. Galvin's copy of the tariff to get an idea of what
is proposed.

This is truly a strange filing.  The cornerstone of the filing is an
increase of approximately $3/month in all categories of residential
service, whether measured or otherwise.  There are little things like
an increase in the Touch-Tone charge from $0.58 to $0.98.  But the
truly strange stuff has to do with the "rate experimentation" as
N.E.T.  calls it.

Disclaimer: all the new rates which follow are approximate, since I
didn't get a chance to write it all down.

Intra-LATA toll rates are proposed to remain the same for residential
customers in Eastern Massachusetts, but business customers will get a
new toll rate structure.  Whereas intra-LATA toll currently varies
from .19(1st min)/.09(addl min) to .55/.23, and is the same for both
residence and business customers, and the same in either eastern or
western Mass., the rate filing proposes to eliminate WATS and
basically make all business lines pay roughly the current WATS rate,
something like .01 per call and .12/minute, regardless of distance.
Volume discounts apply.

In Western Mass., both residence and business customers will pay
something like .01 per call and .055/minute for any intra-LATA toll,
regardless of distance.

Message unit pricing remains the same in Eastern Mass., .111 for
business customers and .0898 for residence customers (regardless of
time of day), but the existing 3-message unit area in Boston Metro is
folded into the 2-message unit area.

But in Western Mass, local message units change to .01/call and about
.012/minute during the peak period (9AM to 9PM) and less off-peak.
These same peak/off-peak periods apply on Western Massachusetts
intra-LATA toll and I think on Eastern Massachusetts business
intra-LATA toll.

It was a truly strange filing, and a truly strange hearing.  I was one
of the few people who spoke about the propriety of the rates,
emphasizing that the national trend was to reduce or eliminate the
Touch-Tone charge, not to increase it, asking if it was proper public
policy to have toll rates different in different parts of the state or
to lower business toll rates while keeping Eastern Mass residential
toll rates higher than inter-LATA rates to almost anywhere outside the
state.

Most of the attendees were CWA or IBEW reps or members, every one of
whom was angry with N.E.T. and dead set against allowing their
employer any rate increase while N.E.T. is attempting to cut costs by
reducing staff and hiring contractors from out of state.  The mood of
the employees is very, very bad, and they were very, very unruly,
shouting down the N.E.T.  attorney whenever he said anything they
didn't like.

/john

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

Subject: 976 in Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 08:22:38 -0500
From: [e-mail]


The Massachusetts DPU has apparently just given the OK for 976 (and
more) tariffs.  Also, 940 tariffs for "adult" messages.

Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls.
Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be
available for free.


Steve Elias
work phone:  [phone] ;   email:  [e-mail] , [e-mail]
voice mail:  617 932 5598

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #8
****************************










Date:     Sat, 6 Jan 90 0:02:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #9
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Jan 90 00:00:12 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Western Electric Maternity Leave Litigation (Clerk of US District Court)
    AT&T Planning Computer Access To Phone Numbers (James Price Salsman)
    201/908 Split Dates -- Official Word (John R. Covert)
    AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (David Dodell)
    Equinox Data Switch (Alan Bell)
    One Modem, Multiple Lines (Kevin P. Kleinfelter)
    The People Side of Managing Your Network (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
    Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Martin J. Shannon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 2:27:07 CST
From: Clerk of US District Court <[e-mail]>
Subject: Western Electric Maternity Leave Litigation


This is a legal notice, and may affect your rights. Please read it
carefully and ask your attorney for advice if you have questions about
this notice.

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division

*************************************************
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,        *
Communications Workers of America,  et al       *
Plaintiffs                                      *   Consolidated  78 C 3951
                                                *   Dockets:      82 C 1542
                                                *
             --  vrs  --                        *
                                                *   Hon. James H. Alesia
                                                *   Special Master:
AT&T Technologies, Inc., et al                  *     Frank J. McGarr
Defendants                                      *
                                                *
*************************************************


                          N   O   T   I   C   E
                          =====================

If you took a maternity leave from Western Electric Company between
July 2, 1965 and August 7, 1977, and were employed by Western Electric
on or after March 23, 1971, you have a right to receive money,
employment at AT&T, seniority and other benefits.

The Basis of the Lawsuit:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a United States
government agency, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), and
several Western Electric employees as individuals are plaintiffs in a
lawsuit claiming that Western Electric's maternity leave policies
discriminated against female employees. The Court has ruled that
certain policies were discriminatory against women by:

      o  Forcing pregnant women to stop working at a specified time
         regardless of whether they were still able to work.

      o  Failing to reinstate or delaying the return to work of women
         on maternity leave.

      o  Giving women on maternity leave only 30 days of seniority.

Who May File a Claim:

You may file a claim if you took one or more maternity leaves between
July 2, 1965 and August 7, 1977, and if you were employed by Western
Electric on or after March 23, 1971. If you were on leave or layoff
status as of March 23, 1971, you may also file a claim.

If you took a maternity leave from facilities in Watertown or
Southboro, Massachusetts; Burlington or Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
the State of New Jersey or the State of Arizona, you are NOT entitled
to file a claim.  The terms of your union contract, and/or state and
municipal laws in the aforementioned places governed labor practices
at your facility. If you were employed at any other facility of the
Western Electric Company in the United States, then you ARE entitled
to file a claim.

How to Present Your Claim:

To present your claim, you must fill out a Claim Form. Claim Forms
have been mailed, but the passage of time has caused the records of
the Plaintiffs and Defendants to become out of date and inaccurate. If
you believe you are entitled to file a claim, and have not received a
Claim Form in the mail, you may request one by one of the two methods
listed below. A Claim Form and instructions will be sent to you by
return mail.

Attornies for the Plaintiff Will Assist You:

If you have any questions or want legal counsel before submitting the
Claim Form, you may telephone toll-free to attornies representing the
female employees in this case. The attornies are:

                            Julie Bowman
                            Michael Erp
                            Arthur Benson

Their telephone number is 1-800-628-2289. Or, you may consult your own
attorney for advice. Show this notice to your attorney and request
an explanation and assistance.

If you prefer, you may WRITE and request a copy of the Claim Form and
Instructions, by writing to:

                        H. Stuart Cunningham
             Clerk of the United States District Court
                   ATTN: Western Electric Claims
                      Post Office Box 909703
                        Chicago, IL 60690

    << Include your Social Security Number in your correspondence >>

Timely Notice Required:

The Request for Claim Form and Instructions must be mailed promptly.
The deadline for submitting your claim is March 22, 1990. The Court
will not consider claims submitted after that date. The statements
made in your claim will be verified against the employment records of
the Defendant, and you may be asked to prove the statements you make
in your claim.

The only persons authorized to discuss your claim are the attornies
noted above or the Clerk of the United States District Court.
Correspond only with the persons named above. Do not telephone the
Court. Do not telephone, write, or otherwise contact the Western
Electric Company/AT&T Technologies, Inc.


/signed/

H. Stuart Cunningham
Clerk of the United States District Court
Chicago, Illinois


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

Date: Fri,  5 Jan 90 15:02:45 -0500 (EST)
From: James Price Salsman <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Planning Computer Access To Phone Numbers


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Salsman forwarded this message to us which was
posted earlier today in a news file at andrew.cmu.edu    PT]

  NEW YORK -- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. is seeking permission
from the Federal Communications Commission to offer corporate
customers nationwide computer access to local phone listings.

  If approved, the service will be the first of its kind in the
country, as local phone companies are barred by law from offering
access to facilities outside their own service areas.

  Moreover, AT&T's service could eventually alter the way local phone
companies staff their directory assistance operations, because
corporations, which account for most calls to operators, will be able
to get access to phone numbers anywhere in the country without human
intervention.

  "It's just like directory assistance today, only you access the
information using a computer instead of talking to the operator," said
Nora Glover, product manager for the new service.

  AT&T plans to begin offering the service, dubbed AT&T Find America,
on Jan. 18, when the FCC's normal 45-day period for public comment on
the request expires. It will be available initially to companies
seeking listings of customers in the five-state territory of
Southwestern Bell Corp., the St. Louis-based regional Bell telephone
company. By the end of the year, however, AT&T plans to cement
agreements with all seven regional Bell companies and offer the
service nationwide.

  By mid-1990, AT&T plans to begin talks with overseas telephone
administrations about extending the service internationally, Glover
said.

  AT&T made its request to the FCC on Dec. 4 in a special tariff
filing, but chose not to publicize it because "We didn't have a name
for the service" at the time, Glover said. The FCC said the tariff has
been unopposed.

  AT&T is aiming the service at the banking and credit industries
first, said Kimberley Partoll, marketing manager for the new service.
Secondary targets will be the retail and transportation industries.
All that a customer will need is a computer terminal or mainframe
computer to get access to the same listings from phone company data
bases that operators use, with one exception: Unlisted numbers won't
be made available.

  Partoll said customers have shown an interest in the new service,
but can't sign up until after midnight Jan. 17, when the tariff is
expected to take effect.

  AT&T is offering to waive for one month the $2,200 monthly fee for
any customer that subscribes by Feb. 28. AT&T also will knock off the
$100 charge for listing the customer's password. Besides these regular
fees, AT&T will charge 35 cents for each computer screen of
information and $22 an hour for transmission.

  Glover said each of those transmissions should take about 3.6
seconds to retrieve a listing -- about one-tenth the time that a
regular directory assistance call takes today.

  In its FCC filing, AT&T estimated that first-year revenue from the
service will amount to at least $12.6 million, or 3.2 million minutes
of usage. After three years, AT&T estimated, revenue could hit $82.8
million a year.

  A spokesman for Southwestern Bell said the company also is offering
other long-distance carriers, such as MCI Communications Corp., the
opportunity to provide computer access to its local phone listings.
Regarding the services' potential effect on operator staffing, he
said: "This is a new service. We don't really know that now."

  At MCI, a spokesman said the company is studying AT&T's proposal,
but doesn't have any immediate plans to offer similar service. US
Sprint Communications Co., a unit of United Telecommunications Inc.,
didn't have any comment.


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has offered a similar service for
several years but using only its own directory database. The service
here, called 'Directory Express' allows access to the same information
the operators use, using a terminal or PC. It is not cheap, the charge
is by the hour of connect time, and about the only subscribers are
some large credit grantors and collection agencies.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:53:47 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  05-Jan-1990 1526" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 201/908 Split Dates -- Official Word

OK, here's the official word on what's happening with 908, from the
responsible people in the Bellcore and NJ Bell network planning
departments:

The "network event" beginning permissive dialling was 1 Jan 90.  It
should be working from everywhere, however, due to the next item,
reporting a trouble may not always be effective.

For now, it's really a "network event" for people in the telecom
industry only.  The general public should _continue_to_use_201_ for
now.  For this reason, I was unable to get _any_ information from
normal business office sources.

In July 90, NJ Bell will start talking about it in new telephone
books.

On 6 Jan 91, customers will be told that their numbers are 908 numbers
(and I infer that new 908-only prefixes may begin to open).

On 8 June 91, the permissive dialling period ends, and 908 must be
used for any of the codes transferred in the split.


/john

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jan 90 20:48:18 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid


I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad
showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but
getting Fuji instead.

Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679, while Phoenix is
area code 602 ... on top of this you need to dial 011 to get
international access.

I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't
dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they
are using.  The ad implies otherwise.

Oh well, advertising at its finest.


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: abell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Equinox Data Switch
Reply-To: Alan Bell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 19:38:54 GMT


We have an Equniox DS-5 Data PBX and are looking for either
replacement parts or a complete system.  The main boards of interest
are the 24-line CS and 24-line-XS boards.  Let me know if you have
boards/system which you would like to dispose of, or know of where we
can get reasonably priced boards.


Alan C. Bell  ([e-mail])
Computer Science Department                  ..!ucbvax!voder\
California Polytechnic State University      ..!sdcrdcf!csun |!polyslo!abell
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 [phone]   ..!lll-crg!csustan/

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

From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b![e-mail]>
Subject: One Modem, Multiple Lines
Date: 5 Jan 90 16:04:45 GMT
Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA


We have two phone numbers (a local and and 800) which our clients use
to dial-up our computer.  We have n lines connected to n modems on the
local line, and m lines connected to m modems on the 800 line.  (Both
the local and the 800 roll to the next number when busy.)

Of course, sometimes all n local lines are busy, and 0 of the 800
lines are busy or vice versa.

Is there a device which allows one to connect two phone lines to a
single modem (or single-line telephone, for that matter) such that
when one line rings, the other line is busied out, and the ringing
line is connected through to the device?  Is there a better way?

(Our 800 is provided as a channel on a T1 from AT&T, and our local
number is just an extension on our PBX.  What I wish we had, but do
not think we can get, is a deal where the 800 number rings on our
local extension.)


Kevin Kleinfelter @ Management Science America, Inc [phone]
gatech!nanovx!msa3b!kevin

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

From: Sharon Lynne Fisher <well![e-mail]>
Subject: The People Side of Managing Your Network
Date: 5 Jan 90 18:51:08 GMT


I'm working on a story for a magazine called Connect; it's a quarterly
that's put out by 3Com.  The story is on the people side of managing a
network. How do you find and train people to do this?  Is it
difficult? How is it determined who manages what, as voice and data
networks become increasingly merged?  You can reply to me here or via
mail to [e-mail] or [e-mail] Thanks!

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

From: Martin J Shannon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)
Date: 5 Jan 90 18:14:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (martin.j.shannon,59112,lc,4nr10,201 580 5757)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Several folks have made mention of the FCC's recurrent proposed tax on
modem use, and the SWBT fiasco with BBS users and operators, and I'm
sure that various & sundry regulatory agencies have proposed
surcharges and/or taxes on modem use in the past, and will continue to
do so until the modeming community makes itself heard.

How to make ourselves heard, you ask?  (I'm *so* glad you did!)

Consider the following for a moment:

How much revenue would the local phone companies (*and* long distance
carriers) lose if most modem use were to cease for a month?  How many
BBS users regularly run up a $100/month bill? $200/month? $500/month?
I can't remember the last time my BBS hopping cost less than $100/
month; in fact, only 1 month in the last 8 or so was under $200!  I
can't really believe that I'm particularly pathological in my modeming
habits, so I'd figure that a protest of voting with our wallets would
carry a great deal of weight.

Now, I'm not (necessarily) actually proposing such a stunt, but if the
FCC (or any of the state PUC's) were to make the mistake of penalizing
BBS users and/or operators, it would seem to me that the only "right
and proper" thing for us all to do is "Just say no!"

Do any of you TELECOM folks have access to ballpark figures of just
how much the "little people" (BBS users & operators) actually pay to
the various phone companies?  I'd love to see some figures!


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.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #9
****************************










Date:     Sat, 6 Jan 90 23:26:46 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #10
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Jan 90 23:25:56 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (John Higdon)
    Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Allyn Lai)
    Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!) (Peter Marshall)
    Re: The Operator's Beep (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Direct Dialing the USSR (Sakari Mattila)
    Re: Free Local Phone Calls (Alonzo Gariepy)
    Re: One-armed Bandits (Peter da Silva)
    Re: One-armed Bandits (David Tamkin)
    Re: One Modem, Multiple Lines (Macy Hallock)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (David Tamkin)
    Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOC's (William Degnan)
    Re: Special Issues Planned for Digest (Peter Marshall)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)
Date: 6 Jan 90 14:32:18 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Martin J Shannon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Do any of you TELECOM folks have access to ballpark figures of just
> how much the "little people" (BBS users & operators) actually pay to
> the various phone companies?  I'd love to see some figures!

I'm sure everyone's mileage varies, but I know how much I spend to
support my computer habit. My home computer uses four lines, two
measured and two unmeasured. This comes to about $50/month with all
the tax and license. Plus, my machine is in regular contact with
several systems in southern California to the tune of about
$100/month. Simple arithmetic would indicate that my home computer
spends $150/month with "the phone company".

But in all fairness to Pac*Bell, I have to say that there have been no
rumblings whatever about screwing modem users. Furthermore, sometime
this year Pac*Bell and GTE California will drop all charges for touch
tone (as opposed to raising them as I have heard some other telcos are
doing). Pac*Bell is fully aware of the use to which I put my phone
lines and I have never had any crap about upgrading to business, "one
line limit" per machine, or any of the nonsense that SWBT seems to be
laying on its customers.

This is, after all, Silly Con Vallee. As one Pac*Bell rep admitted to
me, it is very common in this area for people to have many residential
lines and have them heavily used for modem traffic. If Pac*Bell were
to pull any of the horsehooey that seems to go on elsewhere, they
would find many people up in arms. There are a lot of Pacific Telesis
buildings in San Francisco to picket in front of, not to mention the
State building down the street!

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

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)
Date: 5 Jan 90 20:29:53 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


There are two things.  One is the FCC Enhanced Service Provider (ESP)
surcharge, which they don't call a surcharge, but is one.  That is
what the latest "modeming" chain letter was about.  It is a false
rumor, as my message of last week sought to squash.

The other is Southwestern Bell's idea that people who use modems at
home are really doing business with them, and not qualified for
residential rates.  That's a state issue and totally separate.  SWBT
is losing there too, but seems to fight on.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)
Date: Fri,  5-Jan-90 22:55:42 PST


Ok it looks like there are really two similar issues being discussed.
One is the SouthWestern Bell vs. Texas BBS operators issue and the
other is the FCC "access charge" issue.

I think the people on my local BBS are talking about the FCC access
charge.  So I presume that this issue is being discussed in Congress
right now?  Anybody know how to check up on such things?  Doesn't seem
likely to pass what with all the businesses in the U.S. that depend on
common carriers (i.e. Telenet, Tymnet)...

Anyway,

thanks!

Allyn Lai
[e-mail]

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

From: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Tax (Again? Again!)
Date: 6 Jan 90 15:30:52 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In Lai's 1/3 post and moderator's note regarding so-called "modem tax,"
the moderator seems to be confusing and blending two different, yet
conceptually similar, matters.  The so-called "modem tax" affair was
an FCC thing; it was, and is, unrelated to the SWB-COSUARD matters
referenced in the moderator's note.


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

Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 02:55 EDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep


In previous posting, Paul S. R. Chisholm indicates that the operator's
beep lets you know that you've got AT&T.  Does this mean that it is a
registered trademark of AT&T?  If not, what is to prevent some AOS
cheese from using it?

As an aside, I always wondered why AT&T didn't file for trademark
status for the calling card "ka-bong".  Now that others are using it
to trick people, I've noticed AT&T added a voice "AT&T" with a short
tune (not tone!) so you know BEFORE you enter your card who you're
dealing with.  (by the way, I do believe that such things may be
registered.  My favorite example is the red stripe on the top of some
zip-closure bags.  It's a registered trademark of a specific
manufacturer)

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

From: Sakari Mattila <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Direct Dialing the USSR
Date: 6 Jan 90 13:27:23 GMT
Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Laboratory for Information Processing (VTT/TIK)


In calling Estonia BBS try Bell 102 modem at 300 b/s. This good old
modem goes thru almost any telephone system.


Sakari M. Mattila    [e-mail]
                     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Alonzo Gariepy)
Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls
Date: 6 Jan 90 09:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Alonzo GARIEPY)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


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

> The Freephone concept involves distinctively marked, coinless public
> telephones that allow anyone to make free three-minute local calls.

I view payphones as an essential public service along the lines of
mailboxes, trashcans, fire hydrants, and ...ahem, we won't mention
that...

Free local-only phones have the potential to drive pay phones out of
locations where most of the revenue is generated by 25 cent local
calls.  That includes almost everywhere but airports and hotels.  The
result is reduced service.  The 25 cents you normally pay for short
local calls justifies the existence of a full service telephone that
can be used for toll calls and longer local calls.

This also bears on the claim that a COCOT shouldn't charge ten cents
for 800 calls because they don't cost the owner anything.
Ridiculous!! The costs of a tollfree call are the same as a local call
to the owner: a monthly line cost and paying the lease on the phone.
COCOTs look much better in the long run then these free phones.

Most free things are worth what you pay.  Commercial television is a
good example.


Alonzo Gariepy            //  Think of something original to say;
alonzo@microsoft        //  endless debate is so boring...


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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:05:39 GMT


Let's get this straight. I'm not defending folks who are deliberately
ripping off the public. I'm attacking the attitude that it's OK to sic
the law on someone without even trying to find out if they've made an
honest mistake.

That's the attitude that fills the courts with technically legitimate
but nonsensical lawsuits.

This is getting off the subject of telecommunications. If you folks
have anything further to say on the subject send me email.

 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. [phone]. <[e-mail]>.
/      \ Also <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
\_.--._/
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'


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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One-armed Bandits
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 4:06:26 CST


During the course of 1989 two COCOT-related events occurred within a
quarter mile of my home:

1. A COCOT-owning pharmacy closed when its owner decided to retire.
The COCOT was torn out and Central Telephone installed an additional
real public telco coin phone next to the existing one outdoors.
Several months later Centel put a third real public telco coin phone
in next to the first two.  (In addition, there has been another telco
coin phone all along inside a tavern in the same shopping strip.)

2. Down the street a gasoline station owner had the two Illinois Bell
true public payphones taken out.  I saw someone working with wiring at
the hole in the ground where they had been: his equipment was in an
unmarked van.  I said, "That's bad news." He asked me what I meant.  I
said, "You're taking out the Illinois Bell coin phones and putting in
private ones." He replied "No, these are from Illinois Bell."

Well, the hell they were.  The next day one COCOT had replaced the two
telco payphones.  It bore no number on its face (and still doesn't);
later when I tried it it didn't disable the pad after an 800 number,
but if you attempt to dial 950 it interrupts after three digits and a
badly digitized voice tells you, "Invalid number.  Invalid number."

I saw the same installer there that second day; I looked at the COCOT
and looked at him, and he acted as if he had no idea of what was on my
mind.  Perhaps he truly didn't.  Shortly thereafter another identical
COCOT appeared at the gasoline station, so now there were two phones
to replace the two removed phones, but I would have a hard time
deciding which is worse: one COCOT and no other phone or two COCOTs.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sat Jan  6 16:19:44 1990
Subject: Re: One Modem, Multiple Lines
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 9, message 6 of 8

> ....request for a method of terminating two lines groups on
> one set uf modems...

In your specific case you have apparently:
    - DID incoming local lines thru your PBX
    - AT&T Megacom lines via T1 that terminate directly
      on the modems.

This is a fairly common situation in order entry systems...

The most common solution is to have your AT&T T1's terminate on your
PBX as DID lines, too.  This is very common.  Where the DID number
dialed into the PBX is different than the DID dialed in on the outside
lines, set up a call forward to the correct desired group.  AT&T
actually prefers that Megacom services act as DID's, its easier for
their 4 ESS's to do.  Depending on the type of PBX (or Centrex) you
have, the T1's can terminate directly into the switch or channel banks
with tie line type channel cards terminating on your PBX as tie lines
or DID trunks will be req'd.  Talk to your equipment vendor.


 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?)

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 3:55:09 CST


Amid all the tales of pretending to be the business whose phone number
was misprinted and making promises to callers that the called party
isn't going to keep, are there any tales of the callee's simply
saying, "Sorry, they've gone out of business"?  It seems that would
stop the caller from dialing but would cause a lot less damage.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 19:05:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Companies in the US Besides the RBOCs


In an article of <3 Jan 90 11:29:39 GMT>, munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!
[e-mail] (Anthony Lee) writes:

>Wonder if anyone could post a summary of all the major telephone
>companies in the US besides the RBOCs.  Particularly Nynex (sp??),

Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York Telephone
(NY) and New England Telephone (NE).

The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection?

>I read recently that Nynex have made a deal with Telecom Australia.
>Anyone know more about the deal ?

This isn't the deal where they going to put cellular phones on the
kangaroos?  :)  :)


Regards, Bill

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383

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

From: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Issues Planned for Digest
Date: 6 Jan 90 15:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


A small correction: please note that the Texas Office of Public
Counsel is not "the rate-setting organization in that state," but the
"public advocate" for utility matters. The "rate-setting
organization," of course, is the Texas PUC.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for the correction on this. And this is as
good a time as any to remind readers this special issue of the Digest
will be issued and in your mailboxes sometime Sunday.     PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #10
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 7 Jan 90 0:22:36 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #11
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jan 90 00:22:14 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Test Lines (was 0020 Suffix lines) (Macy Hallock)
    ISDN Sets (Macy Hallock)
    Default Long Distance Carrier Override (Steve Forrette)
    Clarification on COCOT Disconnection (Steve Forrette)
    DC Area AC Usage (David Lesher)
    Cutting the Overhead (John Higdon)
    Demise of Telephone Museum (Curt Larock)
    Where Can I Buy a Caller*ID Box Now? (John Boteler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Test Lines (was 0020 Suffix lines)
Date: Sun Jan 7 00:00:00 1990
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


[Moderator's Note: This was mailed to the Digest on December 25. It
arrived January 5!! The dating above was changed so it will have a couple
days life in Usenet.   PT]

In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 587, message 6 of 9

>> 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 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 are several other "standard" test lines that are commonly used.
Working from memory here are a few...( it's been a few years...)

    1004 Hz milliwatt tone (commonly known as 0.0 db tone)
    Quiet line, terminated
    Quiet line, unterminated
    Quiet line, synchronous
    1004 Hz low level, -20 db I think
    Sweep tone, for frequency response test
    Various progress tones (busy, intercept, etc) for equip. test
    Responder lines (send them 1004 Hz. 0.0 db and they respond)
    Dial test lines (pulse and DTMF), respond with beeps is dial is OK
    ANI line
    Ringback line  (these have been talked to death here)
    Automatic analysis line (call it, hang up, the line you called from
          is checked and you are called back with "reading" info)  GTE's
          Fourtel has an option like this, too.

Of the above, 1004 and terminated quiet line are the most freqently used.

>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.

This was probably a "sweep" line, which uses a set of tones to check
the frequency response and phase envelope delay characteristics of a
line, usually a special test unit is used at the site.  These were
often used to setup and test "conditioned" lines and "program" lines.
They do sound very odd when you listen to them.

These lines often are set up to require a test set to interact with
the CO unit, or they won't respond. Calling one with a 2500 set
usually gets a simple beep, then they hang up.

And then there is automated testing...

GTE has several "access" lines here to use the automation, but few of
the craftsmen use them.  Their common gripe is the Fourtel is "too
sensitive" and responds to many type of equipment as "trouble".  At
one time, GTE dispatched a repairman on every Fourtel ticket...and
they found alarms, data sets, fax machines, key sysetms, PBX's and
even a few single line phones created tickets...

So now the GTE people run them in a more traditional format...each
Fourtel ticket is checked by a human on the test board first before it
is dispatched.  Now they use Fourtel to spot "trends" on groups of
lines (like spotting wet cable) primarily, and individual lines are
checked individually.  A GTE foreman told me that a recent upgrade to
the system had solved a lot of these problems.

Automated line testing still tends to set off a lot of alarms with
"telephone line cut monitors", especially if it's a long loop.  We've
had to tell GTE to "bypass" several of our customers (it's actually a
class mark in the CO database).  Ohio Bell line test stuff has caused
us few problems.

Craftsmen are still resisting the use of automated test and respond
lines, though.  They still want to talk to a testboard operator.
(Gives them time to drink their coffee, while they wait on hold...)

I always used to get mad at holding, and have the frame open the pair,
and then use my trusty old Simpson 260 along with some 22 volt
batteries to clear the pairs....

I'd be very interested in hearing anyone else's info, experiences, and
problems with test lines and/or automated testing.


 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?)

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: ISDN Sets
Date: Sun Jan 7 00:00:00 1990
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


[Moderator's Note: This message likewise was delayed 12/25 ==> 1/5.  PT]

In article <[e-mail]> Torsten Dahlkvist <euatdt@euas17c10.
ericsson.se> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 587, message 7 of 9

>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 :-)

Fujitsu is doing something in this area, I am told.  We do not
use/sell their ISDN stuff, but rumors are they are preparing to
introduce several new "applications oriented" versions of their ISDN
customer site gear.  The way I heard it, Bellcore and the CO
manufacturer's cannot agree on the CO sofware end of things, and
Fujitsu cannot proceed.  Since Fujitsu has entered the CO switch
market in the US, they could go ahead and introduce these units as
proprietary applications, but since ISDN and CO switching are two
different Fujitsu US divisions, that seems unlikely.

(Note: I am not cross-posting this to talk.rumors, but that's what
this is: unsubstantiated gossip, nothing more...)

 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: Sat, 6 Jan 90 08:24 EDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Default Long Distance Carrier Override


In a previous posting, John Higdon indicates that a COCOT did not
allow him to access AT&T.  I don't know when this occurred, but I'm
relatively sure that a year or two ago the FCC made a rule that said
ALL phones (COCOT's, hotels, etc.)  MUST allow the caller to specify
the ld carrier of his/her choice (presumably with an 10xxx access
prefix).  It is a crime to block this (but as we know, some are
getting away with highway robbery).

(John mentioned that the phone's operator stated that they wouldn't
make any money if they allowed this.  That rep should know better than
that; how much of the calling public in general knows what 10xxx is?)

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jan 90 08:12 EDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clarification on COCOT Disconnection


A couple of people have indicated that disconnection by PUC upon
report of a tariff violation is a bit much.  Here's what I meant by my
previous posting:

If a COCOT is found to be in violation of tariff and the PUC is
notified, they should contact the owner, who should fix it IMMEDIATELY
(a day or two), or face termination (of the phone, that is).

If the phone is being maintained by a company that does such things,
and they are notified by PUC that one of their phones is in violation,
any reports of the same violation on other phones under their care
should result in immediate termination (in this case, shoot first, ask
questions later).

I agree with the other posters that small operators should not be
yanked upon a first violation, which they *may* not have known about.
But they should be told in no uncertain terms by PUC that they are
expected to be 100% compliant with tariff, and that if they can't
handle that, they are in the wrong business.  I have a copy of the
Pacific Bell documentation and agreement that the operators sign, and
the rates they can charge are spelled out quite clearly (examples
along with the jargon so non-techies can understand it).  The
application that they sign also makes quite clear that they are
expected to follow *all* of the rules, and that it is *their*
responsibility to see to it that it is done.  Of course, nobody reads
the "fine print", right?

The companies who are in the business of putting many phones in
various places and maintaining them have no excuse for violations.
However, I am willing to grant them a warning on the first instance of
a particular violation on any of their phones (aren't I nice?).  But,
if they fix just that one phone and leave others in violation of the
same tariff, it seems quite clear cut that they are *knowingly* in
violation of tariff, and IMHO deserve to have all remaining phones
that are in violation disconnected without notice.  If this happened a
couple of times to some of the larger operators, how long do you think
it would take before almost all COCOT's were in *complete* compliance?

I think that the above guidelines would not be unreasonable to the
small operators, yet would go a long way in bringing order to the
anarchy that exists today in the COCOT world.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC Area AC Usage
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 23:46:34 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


As other have reported, the {202,301,703} DC metro area is starting to
require area codes on intra-area calls to ease the prefix shortage.
Prior to this, LD calls to 202 xxx-yyyy worked even if the number was
301 or 703 (IF it was a local DC call)

Well that's no longer true  -- sometimes.

A normal 703-455 (Newington) call cut to intercept today when dialed
as 202-455. But a 202 call to a DID (system 85) number in that same
building did complete. Now that 85 is linked to several others in the
DC area to provide 5 digit internal dialing, etc. This includes one in
202 itself, and another couple in Rosslyn (703) VA.

Now, I'd guess at least 50% of the phones in that area are on one or
another govt or large private {PBX,Centrex,DID system}. If they extend
this reserved prefix treatment to all of them, have they REALLY gained
that many prefixes??


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

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

Subject: Cutting the Overhead
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 6 Jan 90 00:32:06 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Now that the PUC has ruled that Pac*Bell can keep its "excess"
profits, the Chronicle reported today that Pacific Telesis will reduce
its workforce by 11,000 over the next five years. This amounts to 16%
of the total employees. This will be done by offering early retirement
or "exit" packages and by not replacing those who quit. They did not,
however, rule out the possiblity of layoffs. Company officials
insisted that the job cuts will be accomplished without any decline in
the quality of telephone service. [I'll leave that one alone!]

This amounts to the deepest personel cut by any of the RBOCs.

Gee--who is going to keep all that crossbar running?

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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 12:04 EST
From: Curt Larock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Demise of Telephone Museum

While in Chicago over the holidays I attempted to visit the Telephone
Museum.  The museum, alas, has been closed - permanantly.  According
to the Illinois Bell receptionist the museum was dismantled due to the
renovation of the building now underway.  Some of the exhibits were
given to the Chicago Historical Society, but there are no plans at
present to put them on display.


[Moderator's Note: The museum closed permanently a couple months ago
when the IBT Headquarters Building was in the process of being renovated.
The loss was extremely unfortunate. The people at IBT who seemed to have
some say-so about whether the museum should be there or not apparently
have no interest in any link with the past. Its as though they feel
the telephone somehow came into existence 1/1/84 or thereabouts. Their
own internal history -- let alone that of the industry in general -- is
fascinating, but I guess no one there felt it had anything to do with
telephony as we know it today. Even the Telephone Pioneers were given
no choice in possibly supporting the museum at some other location.   PT]

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

Subject: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 10:45:31 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Boteler shares a letter with us he recently
sent to [e-mail].  PT]

Hi, it's me again, the thing that wouldn't leave!

Having received the notice from C&P announcing a $16 service
charge waiver incentive for activating CLASS features, I decided
I can't wait for other promised products to hit the market.

My question: where can I buy any Caller*ID box now! Even with
its flaws, the one you have would be an acceptable alternative
in the interim. I haven't seen nor heard of any others, anywhere.
Someone mentioned Sears, Roebuck, & Co. the other day; they must
be cheaper than Hello Direct's $100 price tag!

p.s. I talked to a ham operator named 'John' the other day who
seems to be into computers at UM@CP. In fact, half the ham radio
club there seems to be. I'll check to see if we know some people
in common.

Thanx now, til then!

Bote
Common Sense Computing 703-241-7818
NCN NudesLine          703-241-BARE  --  VOICE only, Touch-Tone (TM) accessible
{zardoz|uunet!tgate|cos!}ka3ovk!media!csense!bote

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #11
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 7 Jan 90 1:32:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #12
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jan 90 01:30:15 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber (Macy Hallock)
    One Solution to 800 Wrong Numbers (Lars J. Poulsen)
    Marking COCOTS Out of Order (Brian Kantor)
    A Bad Time to Fall Asleep (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sat Jan  6 15:59:10 1990
Subject: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]>:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 7, message 1 of 10

 ...discussion of wrong numbers on 800 lines and effects thereof....

>Late word: One of the last callers, after questioning, has informed me
>that *my* number is listed as Hilton reservations in their local
>phonebook. I'm going to get a copy of that book. If this is true, I am
>really going to be unhappy paying $30 because of a Pac*Bell mistake.
>And who do we refer *my* old number to, Hilton or me?

We had a similar problem which still haunts me to this day...we have
had to refer the whole thing to the attorney, in fact.

When the OCC's were first starting up 800 numbers, I worked with my
local MCI rep and F M Systems was assigned [phone]...  (real
close to 723-3000, which we have had for almost 20 years as out local
number...a story in itself)...and I was real proud of myself 'cause
good 800's are hard to get.  Of course no good deed goes unpunished.

And almost immediatly we began to get "strange" phone calls.  On
answering the 800 line, our receptionist would get people (always a
male voice) with requests like: "I'd like a blonde" and "I want
someone who likes to play..." and worse.

This went on for weeks.  On most days we would get three to five times
as many "odd" calls as legitmate calls.  The "odd" callers would be
strangely unresponsive and even rude if you asked questions about
where they got the number and why they were calling.

I contacted MCI and requested assistance in this...they were no help.
I called a friend at MCI (informally) and asked him to help...he ran a
few checks and told me the calls were from all over the country, but
mainly from a few major cities (we have most of our customers in
Northern Ohio), so this was a little bit of help.  We now knew that we
were not being "pranked" by one person.

One day my receptionist got one of the callers to give him the number
he was calling by acting like an intercept operator (she was getting
very tired of this by now, too). Turns out that the number was (800)
727-3300.  I called this number and asked a few questions...what I got
was basically an answering service that did not want to answer my
questions...but the name of the service was Date-Line.

Well, I was getting fed up with this, too.  So I called the 3300
number back and used my best "intelligent, helpful telephone
repairman" personality and then pointedly asked for a supervisor.  I
was given a local number in the 718 area code as a local business
office number for Date-Line.

After some further investigation (the details of which I will leave a
an excerise for the student) here is what I found:

The number [phone] (note the one digit difference from (800)
727-3000) was being advertised in "Village Voice" and several
"underground" newspapers as Date-Line, a dating service for those with
"unusual" requirments.  While I did not get into the exact details of
the nature and working of Date-Line, I now knew what was happening and
why...this was the next best thing to having my number one digit away
from a sex line (or kinky pizza shop, I guess) At least I knew why the
callers on these wrong numbers acted so strangely.  And why they had
made several specific suggestions to my receptionist.

About this time Ruth, our receptionist, had ceased to see the humor
and educational value in all this...probably brought on by the male
caller who responded to Ruth's polite greeting with a husky "I'm
wearing panty hose..."  Ruth's reply was a rather brusque "Well, so am
I!" and she slammed down the phone...and screamed.

Well, I had talked to MCI about this three or four times.  They did
not even have the courtesy to suggest changing our number (much less
doing anything to Date-Line) until I called to drop the service....All
my accounts with them, as matter of fact.  I contended they had an
obligation to me to assist...they should not assign heavily
advertised, much less sexually oriented numbers adjacent to normal
businesses.

So, two years later, they still contend that I owe them several
thousand dollars more than I paid (I paid one-third of the bill,
probably much more than my actual business usage).  They even agreed
to settle with me on that amount at one point, and then sent the
account to collection...a year later.  Needless to say, they'll have
to fight for it, especailly after agreeing to settle.  I can tolerate
mistakes, but not lies.

This is another instance of a larger company using tariffs to shield
itself from irresponsible behavior.  Pity....until this, I had
encouraged my customers to use MCI, because I thought they were more
innovative and agressive and more service oriented than their
competitors.

Well, take note, and beware...we now advise our customers on several points
about 800 numbers:

    - Do not commit to the number until it is installed and
      you have lived with it for a couple months.  This is
      the only way to prevent this nonsense.

    - Get a reverse 800 listing from the carrier to see who
      your 800 neighbors are.  I know the company who accidently
      got the number that was 800 F*CKYOU....I now use a program
      I wrote check the cute letter combinations that arise.

    - Place test calls from various cities regularly.  Routing
      problems do occur...

    - Be prepared to eat wrong number charges.  You will get
      neither credit nor sympathy from your carrier.

    - Ask for a "tough" number, not an easy one.  You will
      have less problems.

    - Consider detailed billing service, which gives the
      oringinating numbers of the callers on the billings.
      Very helpful for tracking abuse and the marketing
      types love the demographics they can derive from this.

    - Always expect the bill to be bigger than you think...
      usage always rises on 800 numbers.  It's the old
      WATS is free battle...

Its a shame I could not post the audio log tapes of some of the calls
we got...maybe we should sell them to Playboy Channel for one of their
comedy shows. And there is no truth to the rumor that I had this
number reassigned to John Higdon's or Dave Lesher's home phones...they
are responisible for their own weird calls.  :)


 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?)


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

From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers
Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 06:02:20 GMT


While "wrong number" calls at odd hours are a great nuisance to
residences, they are no big deal to businesses. Maybe the solution is
to move towards separation of residential number space and business
number space. Most people expect an 800-number to be a business
number, and may be less careful when dialing than they would for a
regular number. How about assigning a separate NPA for residential use
?  810, anyone ?

With new technology, and lots of small long-distance carriers to
compete, residential 800-service is going to boom, and I think it
would be better to have separate prefixes for residential and business
than to have multiple mixed NPAs.


/ 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: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Marking COCOTS Out of Order
Date: 7 Jan 90 06:10:33 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I wonder if perhaps the best solution to noncompliant COCOTs isn't to
just hang an OUT-OF-ORDER sign on all that you encounter, with perhaps
a written explanation of what's wrong with the phone.

I suspect COCOT owners will pay attention to an empty coinbox more
quickly than almost any other thing.  And it's much more polite than
repairing the phone with an axe.

    - Brian


[Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign
down.  Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy
machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed
Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area.
Make sure you cover the coin slot.  Once you have thus affixed the
notice, be sure to visit the location in a day or two to see if the
phone is still marked out of service, or if some creature came out of
the swamp and scraped off the notice; if so, you will need to affix a
new sticker after checking the phone to see if it is now 'repaired'.
Minimum repair requirements will be considered met if dialing 10288-0
produces you know who, and if dialing a sample 800 number produces a
'thank you' without demanding a deposit.

If you have the time and money to stand there and perform further
diagnostics, please do.  In your new role as trouble-shooter, you may
also wish to get cozy with the manufacturer of the COCOT as a
potential buyer of several hundred units.  With the installer's manual
at hand, perhaps you can liberate -- uh, I mean reprogram the firmware
yourself. :)   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 90 0:31:10 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Bad Time to Fall Asleep


There were simpler times in the history of telephony, and simpler
problems to deal with.

During the several years I lived in the Hyde Park neighorhood on the
south side of Chicago during the 1960's, my favorite neighbor was
Lauri Fermi, widow of Enrico Fermi, known for his work on the Atomic
Bomb.  Mrs. Fermi and I lived in the same apartment building on East
56th Street, directly across the street from the Museum of Science and
Industry, and we chatted and dined together frequently.

In the fall of 1965, on the occassion of the twentieth anniversary of
the completion and first testing of the bomb, Mrs. Fermi told a
fascinating story of that summer day, twenty years earlier. Her
comments were tape-recorded, and are transcribed below:

"The testing was of course kept closely under wraps, you know, the
government was awfully sensitive about it. All the papers were giving
reports that a monster-like weapon was in the final testing stages,
but some of the newspaper accounts were ridiculous. Enrico was given
his orders only two days earlier as to exactly where we were to be
stationed in the test zone area. Even the local people in New Mexico
were told as little as possible; I think the governor and some state
officials were told, and sworn to secrecy.

"In Alamogordo, we checked into the hotel then drove out to where
Enrico had been assigned. It was set up that the scientists were
deployed over about a two hundred square mile area; we were about
fifteen miles from the target.

"The test was set for 4:30 AM the next morning, so we returned to the
hotel and went to bed early. We got up at 3 the next morning and drove
out to the location, since it took about an hour to set up the test
gear Enrico would use....I suppose it was about 4:15, when a fierce
rain storm developed. It lasted only five or ten minutes, but was
quite a downpour, and Enrico remarked he hoped nothing would go wrong
with the test because of it.

"Well, the time came and went, everything was quiet, no bomb, nothing.
About 4:45, Enrico decided we had better return to town and see what
was what, and we drove back. He wanted to make a phone call and see if
the test had been cancelled or not, and the only place open in town at
that time of night was the hotel where we had stayed. There was a
payphone in the lobby, and Enrico went in the booth, but he didn't get
anywhere. I heard him flashing the hook and swearing softly, then he
came out and said he could not get the operator. (Alamogordo had
manual service at that time, just a small switchboard.)

"We got in the car, and Enrico had me drive while he leaned out the
window and kept looking overhead at the phone wires. He'd have me turn
down one street, then turn back up another street, and finally he said
pull the car over and stop.

"Where we stopped was in front of a house on one of the residential
streets there, but what looked odd to me was on the side of the house,
there were hundreds of wires converging, coming in from a dozen
telephone poles which all seemed to meet in the back yard or on the
side of the house. And all these wires came down out of the sky you
might say, and went in the side of the house in a big bundle.

"The front porch light was burning, and when we went up on the front
porch, the front door was open, but the screen door was latched from
the inside. A radio was playing music very softly, and the room was
rather dim with just a single light burning. A switchboard sat on one
side of the room, and the signal lights on it were flashing off and on
like Christmas tree lights. Over by the other corner was a sofa, and
a woman was laying on the sofa, obviously sound asleep. This was right
about five o'clock, I guess, or a few minutes after.

"Enrico banged on the screen door a few times, then kicked it once or
twice with his foot. All of a sudden, the lady woke up; she looked
over at us very startled, standing at the door; she looked over at the
switchboard; looked back at us; jumped up and rushed over to the board
and sat down, pausing long enough to light a cigarette and she started
frantically answering all the flashing signals.

"We got back in the car, and drove out to where we had been before. We
were there about five minutes, and the test was conducted. Everything
the poets have said about the brilliance and beauty of that first
explosion was true.... later, we got together with the others who had
been assigned there and found out that it wasn't the rain that delayed
things; it was that woman asleep; you see, the main people responsible
were linked by phones through Alamogordo; they had to coordinate what
they were doing and sychronize their work. All of them got the same
thing on the phone we got: no answer from the operator for 45 minutes!

"Really, I can't blame the lady much. The whole summer of 1945 was
just horrid. When we arrived the day before, the temperature was over
a hundred; the poor lady probably couldn't sleep at all that day from
the heat, and still had to go to work that night exhausted. Then the
rain cooled things off twenty degrees in fifteen minutes; that sofa
was just too tempting for her; and probably every other night she only
got two or three calls in the whole eight hour shift....

"No one ever said anything to her or the woman who owned the phone
exchange there, so I suspect to this day, twenty years later, she
doesn't realize she was responsible for causing the first atomic bomb
explosion in the world to be delayed for a little over an hour....but
as I think back now, probably someone should have told her ahead of
time about that very special morning, and sworn her to secrecy until
the test was completed.

"When I was there in town two weeks ago for the (twentieth
anniversary) reunion, just from curiosity I went past that house; it
took me awhile to remember where it was. No wires anywhere like
before; and I asked someone there if the phone exchange was there. He
told me the 'telephone lady' had been gone for years; Bell or someone
had bought it and moved it to a building in the downtown area."

===================== End of Transcription =======================

And that was Laura Fermi talking about the summer of '45 in the desert
of New Mexico, in the fall of '65 at a dinner.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #12
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 7 Jan 90 2:23:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Texas OPC/SWBT
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Jan 90 02:17:00 CST    Special: Texas OPC/SWBT

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Preface and Introductory Remarks (William Degnan)
    Texas OPC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (William Degnan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 05 Jan 90 19:06:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Preface and Introductory Remarks


>William Degnan has provided a lengthy press release from the Texas
>Office of Public Counsel (the rate-setting organization in that state)

To clarify:

The Ofice of Public Utility Counsel (OPC) was created by the Public
Utility Regulatory Act -- the same legislation which created the
rate-setting organization-- the Public Utility Commission.

The OPC:

"(1) shall assess the impact of utility rate changes and other
regulatory actions on residential consumers in the State of Texas and
shall be an advocate in its own name of positions most advantageous to
a substantial number of such consumers as determined by the
counsellor;

"(2) may appear or intervene as a matter of right as a party or
otherwise on behalf of residential consumers, as a class, in all
proceedings before the commission;

"(3) may appear or intervene as a matter of right as a party or
otherwise on behalf of small commercial consumers, as a class, in all
proceedings where it is deemed by the counsel that small commercial
consumers are in need of representation;

"(4) may initiate or intervene as a matter of right or otherwise
appear in any judicial proceedings involving or arising out of any
action taken by an administrative agency in a proceeding in which the
counsel was authorized to appear;"

(and so on)

The Texas OPC initiated docket 8585 which is a general inquiry into
the reasonableness of SWB's rates and tariffs. This is a departure
from "tradition" where rate cases result from the Telco's request for
a rate increase. SWB was preparing to ask that rates be frozen and
that they be given additional "incentives" to modernize the network.

OPC and PUC staff testimony in 8585 has called for massive rate
decreases and refunds.


Regards, Bill

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 90  3:39:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texas OPC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.


The following information was received from The Texas Office of Public
Utility Counsel (OPC), and is distributed for your information/comments.

PRESS RELEASE

Contact:  C. Kingsbery Ottmers

[phone]


PUBLIC  COUNSEL  SAYS SOUTHWESTERN BELL
LOCAL TELEPHONE CHARGES SHOULD BE REDUCED

Newly-released  plans  provided  by  Southwestern Bell  Telephone
Company (SWB) confirm that the  telephone utility's  rates should
be reduced substantially, according to  testimony filed  today by
the Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC), a state agency  which
represents residential ratepayers.

The  latest  testimony  filed by OPC accountant  Randy  M.  Allen
evaluates  the effect of SWB's recently)released 5 year  Business
Plan  on OPC's previously recommended revenue reduction  of  $595
million.  SWB had claimed that its latest plan and its  testimony
based  on  that plan effectively rebutted much of  the  testimony
filed by various intervenors.  After reviewing this newly  avail-
able  information, OPC accountant Randy M. Allen  testifies  that
the  new  information  substantiates his  conclusion  that  SWB's
revenues should be reduced at least $595 million.  Earlier testi-
mony filed by five other OPC experts suggested that the reduction
should be used to reduce rates for each major service category by
approximately  16.9%.

For  example, a 16% reduction to the local service  charge  would
reduce the average local rate from $9.69 to $8.14.  Those  previ-
ous filings included the testimony of Washington D.C.  economists
Dr.  Marvin  Kahn and Dr. Charles Johnson,  Boston  engineer  Dr.
Frank Collins, and OPC economic analysts Clarence Johnson and Dr.
Carol  Szerszen.   The determination that SWB's revenues  can  be
reduced was the culmination of a major investigation by Mr. Allen
and  other OPC experts in conjunction with two  major  consulting
firms that specialize in telecommunications economics.

The testimony is part of the Public Utility Commission's hearings
established  to determine whether SWB is earning excess  profits.
SWB  responded  to  the hearing by proposing a  plan  that  would
minimize rate reductions.

Referring to SWB's so)called "Texas First" plan, Ms. C. Kingsbery
Ottmers, the Public Counsel, said "the phone company's insistence
on  keeping its monopoly profits should really be called  `South-
western Bell First'".

She  said  that traditional regulatory controls  on  monopolistic
profits  provide  the best opportunity to  further  the  economic
development  of Texas.  "Our proposal will put money back in  the
pockets  of consumers and businesses throughout the  state,"  she
pointed out.

"Under SWB's plan, excess profits would be funneled to the  tele-
phone  company's  St. Louis-based holding  company,  Southwestern
Bell  Corporation," the public counsel said.  "Contrary to  SWB's
self-serving  description  of `Texas First', the  corporate  game
plan  is to diversify into competitive enterprises all  over  the
world and that means siphoning off excess profits from its  Texas
monopoly  and investing in businesses from Australia to  Europe",
she  continued.  OPC's recommended revenue level includes  suffi-
cient funds for SWB to upgrade the Texas telecommunication system
 --  an investment that the utility believes will cost $340  mil-
lion.   Ms. Ottmers stated that economically  justified  improve-
ments  to the telephone network should be performed --  and  that
high-tech  services which are made possible by the  modernization
should  pay  for the upgrades.  Ms. Ottmers stated  "the  quality
telephone  service  can  be  enhanced,  the  telephone  equipment
throughout the state, including rural areas, can be improved, the
rates can be cut by almost 17%, and the Company would still  make
a totally reasonable profit".

She noted that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company did not  offer
to  provide  service  improvements in rural  areas,  until  their
overearnings  were questioned by the Public  Utility  Commission.
"Public utilities are obligated to invest in facilities that  are
necessary to provide reasonable and efficient service -- that  is
why they earn a profit", she said.  "Now SWB wants permission  to
spend ratepayers -- not investors' -- money on its investment, in
addition to earning excessive profits".

OPC is particularly critical of SWB's recent claim that  proposed
rate  reductions  would force them to lay off employees  and  cut
service.  Ms. Ottmers said it is important to "distinguish  sound
business plans from pure public relations".  OPC points out  that
its proposed revenue reduction includes sufficient expense levels
to  meet currently expected payroll.  "Bell is trying to  confuse
the public", she said.  "The telephone company does not point out
that 5,700 employee reductions occurred since its last rate  case
 -- without any rate reductions".

Ottmers also branded as "preposterous" Bell's claim that a  reve-
nue reduction is illegal.  According to the Public Counsel, SWB's
version of "doublespeak" ignores the purpose of regulation.  "SWB
makes the incredible claim that regulation is intended to promote
excess profit rather than the fair and reasonable profit required
by law", Ms. Ottmers responded.

She  also denies that revenue reductions will reduce SWB's  level
of  service.   She said that traditional regulation  operates  to
calculate  revenue required to cover reasonable expenses  plus  a
reasonable return on investment.

"If  rates are reduced to cover the utility's cost,  including  a
fair profit margin, and the telephone company responds by cutting
service,  that  means the telephone company  is  diverting  funds
required  for utility service into its excess profits", Ms.  Ott-
mers  said.   "I  do not think the Commission  should  stand  for
that".

OPC's  testimony  defends traditional ratemaking as a  sound  ap-
proach which equally protects ratepayers and the utility's share-
holders.   "It is ironic that SWB argues, on the one  hand,  that
traditional regulation is outmoded, while at the same time admit-
ting that traditional regulation has allowed SWB and Bell  compa-
nies  throughout  the United States to  offer  quality  telephone
service at affordable rates", Ms. Ottmers added.

"Ratemaking"  as  practiced in Texas is mandated  by  Texas  law,
which was passed by the Legislature of Texas, according to OPC.

Hearings in the SWB case are expected to start in January of next
year.

                              -30-





 FACT SHEET:  TEXAS FIRST


 1.   Is SWB'S "TEXAS FIRST" PROPOSAL A GOOD THING FOR TEXAS?

 Without a revenue reduction, Bell's profits will be far too  high
 to  be  called  "reasonable".  Many of the  Texas  First  service
 changes have merit.  Incentive rate regulation is not a prerequi-
 site  for technological advancements.  A modern telephone  system
 is possible under traditional regulation.


 2.   IF WE DO NOT ACCEPT SWB'S TEXAS FIRST, WITH SWB'S PRICE TAG,
 ARE  WE CHOOSING STAGNATION - AS SWB CLAIMS - INSTEAD  OF  GROWTH
 AND PROGRESS?

 Of  course not.  SWB's current profits will be far too high.  SWB
 is  understandably trying to hold on to as much of the excess  as
 possible.  Their claims of less growth and progress, and even  of
 reductions  in present levels of service, are nothing  more  than
 scare tactics.  SWB is a monopoly, and the fundamental purpose of
 utility  regulation  is  to prevent the  telephone  company  from
 extracting monopoly profits out of Texas consumers.


 3.   THE  COMMISSION STAFF AND VARIOUS INTERVENORS ARE  PROPOSING
 REVENUE REDUCTIONS OF $392 TO $702 MILLION.  WITH CUTS THAT DEEP,
 WON'T BELL HAVE TO CUT SERVICE AND LARGE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES  IN
 ORDER TO COMPETE FOR INVESTORS, AS BELL CLAIMS?

 Not at all.  In rate cases at the PUC, Bell's rates are set at  a
 level  to pay for all its legitimate business expenses  necessary
 to provide reliable service to its customers.  That includes  new
 digital  equipment, where required, and all necessary  employees.
 In addition, the rates are set to include a reasonable profit  to
 the  Company  (a  return on the utility's  investment),  so  that
 investors will continue to invest in the utility.  The  utility's
 federal income tax on that profit is also paid by the ratepayers,
 to make sure the utility nets enough profit.

 The point is this:  Bell has no good reason to cut any  necessary
 service  or  employee, because the rates are set high  enough  to
 cover all legitimate expenses, plus a reasonable profit.


 4.   IF THE RATES ARE SET TO GIVE BELL ONLY A REASONABLE  PROFIT,
 WHY ARE THEY MAKING EXCESS PROFITS NOW?

 There  are several reasons.  Bell's present rates were set  about
 four years ago.  Since that time, the federal income tax rate has
 been  reduced from 46% to 34%.  Ratepayers have continued to  pay
 Bell  for those taxes at the 46% rate, even though the most  Bell
 would pay is at the 34% level.  Some of Bell's operating expenses
 have increased and some have decreased since rates were last  set
 in  1986.  For example, Bell has already reduced  its  employment
 level  by  5,700 employees.

 OPC  has recommended an increase in some expenses and a  decrease
 in  other expenses to arrive at a total level of  legitimate  ex-
 penses  less  than the level requested by SWB.  SWB's  rate  base
 (remaining  investment) has also changed, and the resulting  cost
 of  capital, including the cost of borrowing money, is less  than
 the cost at the time of SWB's last rate case.

 Because  the rates were set high enough to cover taxes and  other
 expenses  no longer being paid by Bell, Bell's revenues  are  now
 too high.  No matter whether Bell uses the excess revenue to  pay
 for something not required to provide good service, or uses it as
 excess  profits for shareholders, the result cannot be  justified
 so long as Bell remains a protected monopoly.


 5.   SWB SEEMS TO THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH TRADITIONAL
 RATEMAKING.  IS THERE?

 Traditional ratemaking provides a reasonable profit for utilities
 that  provide reliable service.  Sound ratemaking principles  and
 state  laws  balance the public interest by not allowing  SWB  to
 earn  excessive profits at the expense of Texas citizens.   Texas
 First  is SWB's attempt to keep its excessive profits.  In  fact,
 most  of Texas First can be accomplished under traditional  rate-
 making.


 6.   IS SWB  RIGHT WHEN  THEY SAY THE  OFFICE OF  PUBLIC UTILITY
 COUNSEL IS DISREGARDING TEXAS  LAW BY RECOMMENDING THESE CUTS IN
 BELL'S PROFITS?

 That  claim  by SWB must have been made from  anger  rather  than
 reason.  The claim is preposterous.  This office has no reason at
 all  to disregard the law, and it does not disregard it.   It  is
 Bell  which would like to avoid the mandates of Texas  regulatory
 law - and the utility regulatory laws in Texas are based squarely
 on  traditional ratemaking.  Any contention that utility  regula-
 tion  is  intended  to promote, rather  than  restrain,  monopoly
 profits disregards the historic antecedents of regulation.


 7.    SWB SAYS THE RATES IN TEXAS ARE 20% BELOW THE NATIONAL AVER-
 AGE. DOES NOT THAT SUGGEST WE ARE ACTUALLY GETTING A GOOD DEAL NOW
 ON OUR TELEPHONE RATES IN TEXAS?

 Bell is also claiming Texas rates are bargains because the  typi-
 cal  monthly bill is less than the cost of a pizza.   Those  com-
 parisons  are  not very relevant.  If SWB's claim  were  correct,
 then it is also true that SWB's costs are more than 20% below the
 national  average.   Of course, too many  factors  prevent  valid
 comparisons  of that type.  The way utility rates are  set  under
 traditional ratemaking, and under Texas law, is to set the  rates
 based  on  what  it costs that utility to  serve  its  customers.
 Anything more is a gift from the telephone customers to SWB.


 8.    DOES THE CURRENT LAW ALLOW FOR THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF SWB'S
 BUSINESS?

 Yes,  S.B.  444  has been incorporated into  the  Public  Utility
 Regulatory Act and rules promulgated by the Commission.  SWB  has
 not been hesitant to use these rules and other Commission  proce-
 dures  to  implement many new services.  Public Counsel  has  not
 opposed  implementation  of these new services so  long  as  they
 comply  with the law and monopolized services, e.g., basic  serv-
 ice,  are not used to subsidize them.  OPC's concern is that  the
 new services be fair to SWB's customers and competitors.


 9.   DOES  SWB  NEED A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE  TO  PROVIDE  RELIABLE
 SERVICE?

 No.  SWB, as a regulated utility, has a moral and ethical respon-
 sibility  to provide adequate and reliable service at  the  least
 possible cost with regulatory constraints.  After all, SWB is  in
 business to provide service to and support the citizens of Texas,
 not  the  other way around.  SWB would earn a  reasonable  return
 under  OPC's  proposal that is sufficient to  attract  investment
 capital.  _Reasonable_ return constitutes adequate  incentive  to
 conduct business properly.


 10.  HAVE OTHER STATES ADOPTED INCENTIVE RATE PLANS SIMILAR TO
 TEXAS FIRST?

 While many Bell Telephone Companies have proposed similar  plans,
 most  state  regulatory commission have only adopted  such  plans
 after ordering significant rate reductions and changes similar to
 those proposed by OPC and other intervenors.

===========================================================================
Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383
William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31)
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Degnan for passing this along and
for his efforts in producing 'digest-ready' copy. Special issues of
the Digest are prepared without number referencing so that they can be
kept in your reference files without an interupption in regular Digest
numbering.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Texas OPC/SWBT
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 8 Jan 90 1:20:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #13
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 8 Jan 90 01:20:13 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: 976 in Massachusetts (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (William Degnan)
    Re: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber (John Higdon)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Bernie Cosell)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Area 908 Lives (Tad Cook)
    Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers? (Paul Fuqua)
    Re: The Operator's Beep (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? (George H. Martin)
    Re: Texas OPC/SWBT  (John Higdon)
    1990 Area Code Directory Available (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 6 Jan 90 22:30:27 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 8, message 7 of 7

>The Massachusetts DPU has apparently just given the OK for 976 (and
>more) tariffs.  Also, 940 tariffs for "adult" messages.

>Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls.

Excuse me, but how is a "940" provider supposed to make any money if
no one can call his number? Since the whole premise of 976, 900,
"940", etc., is to allow casual, impulsive calls and provide a
surefire billing mechanism, who would bother setting up a service that
would require clientele to go through elaborate preparations in order
to make calls?

>Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be
>available for free.

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


[Moderator's Note: Unlike 900 & 976 which are by default open and
blocked on request, the 940 numbers will be blocked by default and
opened on request. The 940 numbers will generally be explicit -- very
explicit -- in sexual content, and subscribers who want to avail
themselves of the phone-sex service will need to specifically ask to
have their lines authorized.   PT]

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

Date: Sat, 06 Jan 90 18:04:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid


In an article of <5 Jan 90 03:48:18 GMT>, [e-mail]
(David Dodell) writes:

 DD>AT&T ad...trying to call Phoenix but getting Fuji instead.

 DD>...ad is just plain stupid...

I wonder if this is a carefully targeted ad? I know _I_ feel insulted
by it, but are they looking to gain (or retain) the business of those
people who aren't bright enough to direct-dial a call to Phoenix?

I object to the "slice of fear" advertising that AT&T uses. I rarely
meet people who regard the LEC or AT&T as some kind of protector from
technical and financial adversity.

Would AT&T continue to run these ads if they didn't work? Would
reliance on fact-laden ads place them in a more favorable position? Is
it an outward sign that AT&T still thinks it is 1959?


Regards,

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Obscene Callers Plague MCI 800 Subscriber
Date: 7 Jan 90 11:35:28 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

fmsystm![e-mail] writes:

>     - Be prepared to eat wrong number charges.  You will get
>       neither credit nor sympathy from your carrier.

I feel fortunate in this instance. My AT&T 800 number (which is
administered by Pac*Bell) has had it's share of wrong numbers and
billing errors. I have had no trouble convincing Pac*Bell reps that I
am fully aware of the amount and origin of legitimate traffic on the
line and they have not hesitated to remove any and all charges that do
not correspond to my known usage.

BTW, the 800 number I *really* wanted was an MCI prefix. I gave it up
because I wanted AT&T. After reading Macy's narrative, I'm glad I did.

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

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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 7 Jan 90 15:22:51 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

}[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

}> Well, he could just not provide a public telephone at his place of
}> business at all. That's a valid option. Lots of places do that. I'd
}> much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than
}> have to put up with "no, we don't allow phone calls... but the
}> laundromat across the street there has a public phone: there's a
}> traffic signal a block east".

}What you seem to be saying here is "better a COCOT than nothing at
}all." Well, that's debatable, but not an issue. I can't speak for your
}area, but here in the Bay Area the onslaught of COCOTs did not mean an
}increase of public phones, but the wholesale replacement of Pac*Bell
}phones with COCOTs. This is my main complaint. If all the *real*
}public phones remained and COCOTs showed up where there had been no
}pay phones before, your argument would be valid.

I don't understand quite how this applies at all.  Are the various
RBOCs under some obligation to provide "public phones"?  Could not
*all* public phones, telco and cocot alike, all go away tomorrow if
the various owners/operators chose?  There are two kinds of pay phones
in the world as far as I can tell --- really public ones [which means
NOT on private property: like an outside phone booth on the corner]
and public-service ones [where some private person has made
arrangements to have a publicly accessible phone on their property].

For the latter, much as I despise COCOTs, I'm not sure I have anything
to say about it, just as Peter points out.  As for the former ones, I
don't have a clue if there is some real set of public regulations
requiring some density of those suckers or not, but it seems to be the
only place where we can legitimately have a gripe: if there *is* such
a standard, then I think it is exactly right that we bitch if there
are not an adequate number of the really-public phones of a "socially
reasonable" type, either real-local-telco, or COCOT with rational
firmware.  If there is NOT such a standard [or if the reality is that
there are already "enough" of the public-public phones in the area],
then there's not much to complain about [other than to try to get the
standards changed].  In either event, I don't think we should have any
particular way to tell the local hardware store what sort of phone
they must/cannot provide.

}> The guy's providing a service. There's no law saying he has to make a
}> phone available to the next guy who walks in off the street.

}No, but the Pac*Bell phone he used to have was somewhat superior to
}the COCOT which took its place. His shiney new COCOT may cough up more
}money for him, but it is certainly not as much service for his
}customers.

Sounds like the American way.  Why should he have one type of phone
service or another for YOUR convenience?  It pisses me off that I
can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life ---
he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I
think my needs are best served.  How else would you have it?


  /bernie\

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 14:36:53 GMT


> I was interested to read Peter da Silva's comments about my posting
> regarding disconnection of COCOTs.  At the time that I wrote it, I was
> a bit concerned that my posting sounded a little heavy handed.

Yeh, a little. :->

I also seem to have gotten you confused with John Higdon.

> Actually, I have tried communication with the owners of the offending
> COCOT phones....but get nowhere.

That's different, then. I withdraw my complaint with you. I still
think that there's a general problem with people shooting from the hip
and calling the law in long before it's reasonable. Legal action
should be a last resort, not the first thing you consider.

First, I apologise for confusing you with the person who really posted
the article, but...

> Invariable answer: "I don't know anything about the phone. You'll have
> to call the number on the card." Card says call "211". Reaches
> disconnect recording, doesn't answer, or reaches answering machine.

Then you've got a reason to call the PUC. But my point is that there
was no indication that the person involved had made such an attempt.
And that's what I was complaining about.

> Oh, and I wish you would avoid the phrase, "people like you"...

Again, I publicly apologise for the misunderstanding.

Thinking back on it, what with I remember of your stand on Caller ID
and similar subjects, getting lumped in with people like that must
have really hurt.


 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. [phone]. <[e-mail]>.
/      \ Also <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>
\_.--._/
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'


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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives
Date: 7 Jan 90 20:57:06 GMT


I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got
nowhere.  Also my Sprint line at home will not accept 908 calls.  I
have the Bellcore letter announcing 908, but it seems to have a LONG
period of permissive dialling...til June 1991!

When I called GTE about it, they claimed that there was NO 908 area
code.  When I read the Bellcore letter, I was passed to a supervisor
who claimed that New Jersey Bell had decided not to implement it "just
yet"!


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90  18:23:42 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers?

    Date: Thursday, December 14, 1989  12:26pm (CST)
    From: mjs at mozart.att.com (Martin J Shannon)
    Subject: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers?

    [Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference.
    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.  PT]

The only Enterprise numbers I see any more in Dallas are the ones on
the "don't dig here, there's cable/pipes underground" signs that seems
to be everywhere.  Most recently, there was one on the telephone
junction box (or whatever) attached to my old apartment.  Since it was
built in 1985, I guess they're not phasing Enterprise out very quickly
for their own stuff.


Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail]
                               {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center
PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep
Date: 8 Jan 90 04:35:19 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


All operator systems provide an audible warning to the operator that a
new call has arrived.  Only the AT&T TSPS lets the caller hear the
beep.  I have always liked it, but I'm not even sure it was
intentional.

Most BOCs these days are installing Northern Telecom's TOPS (their
answer to TSPS).  TOPS does not let the customer hear the beep.  It's
as simple as that.

                          Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
         V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: "George H. Martin" <hodgenet![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now?
Date: 8 Jan 90 05:27:31 GMT
Reply-To: "George H. Martin" <hodgenet![e-mail]>
Organization: Homer Dodge Network Systems, Inc.


I should be able to post information about a real nice Caller*ID
display unit very soon. If I receive permission to advertise this
unit, I will post the ordering information, etc. This unit stores the
last 64 calls (including the date and time) and will sell for under
$100 ($70-90 ?). Give me a week.

I am also considering having a unit developed that will provide an
RS-232 interface, for connection to a processor or printer (i.e.,
ASCII).  I would like to here from anyone who would be interested in
this capability.


George H. Martin
uunet!hodgenet!georgemartin
Homer Dodge Network Systems, Inc.
[phone]


Moderator's Note: Although the Digest is not usually a forum for
advertising commercial products, some definitive information about
sources for purchasing the boxes would be welcome.   PT]

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

Subject: Re: Texas OPC/SWBT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 7 Jan 90 21:31:03 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

That whole preceding with SWB sounds very familiar. Looks like
Pac*Bell started something with this new breed of "deregulation". It's
nice to know that Pac*Bell is a pioneer in something: screwing the
public.

Unfortunately, the CPUC bought Pac*Bell's package and went the SWB
proposal one better. In addition to the already exhorbitant rates that
Pac*Bell charges, they are allowed to *raise* their rates
AUTOMATICALLY every year. No questions asked. Notice how they got
their SWB-style regulation package through the commission and THEN
they announced the elimination of 11,000 jobs. So now Pac*Bell's
excessive profits turn into obscene profits.

Oh, in case you doubt, check Pacific Telesis' last few quartarly
reports. It will blow your socks off. They will have plenty of capital
to explore new international ventures, all courtesy of the California
ratepayer.

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 1:11:32 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1990 Area Code Directory Available


The 1990 edition of AT&T's 'Area Code Handbook' is now available. The
most recent edition shows communities in area code 708.

In addition, this publication gives brief information on country codes
involved in international dialing, a map, and some other interesting
items.

The price is $2.95 each, plus applicable state tax <for your state>.
You may send your check, or request a charge to your VISA, Master Card
or American Express.

When you write, ask for publication Select Code 999-600-111. You might
also ask for your free copy of the International Calling Guide, which
lists very detailed instructions for placing/receiving calls from
other countries.

Write to:

AT&T Customer Information Center
Marketing Department
Post Office Box 19901
Indianapolis, IN 46219-0901

Orders must be prepaid, or charged to credit cards. For credit card orders
only, you may phone [phone].

Allow about two weeks for delivery by mail.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #13
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 8 Jan 90 23:40:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #14
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 8 Jan 90 22:40:00 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Free Local Phone Calls (John Higdon)
    Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order (John Higdon)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook)
    Re: 976 in Massachusetts (John R. Levine)
    Re: 976 in Massachusetts (Wolf Paul)
    Re: Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split (Carl Moore)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Brian Matthews)
    Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (Tad Cook)
    Texas BBS/SWBT News in Alt.Cousard (was: Modem Tax) (Blake Farenthold)
    Another Meaning for 'NYNEX' (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Phone Frustration (John Higdon)
    Definition of "IT"? (Will Martin)
    SDL Diagrams for LAPB (Mike Gertsman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls
Date: 7 Jan 90 11:05:58 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Alonzo Gariepy) writes:

> This also bears on the claim that a COCOT shouldn't charge ten cents
> for 800 calls because they don't cost the owner anything.
> Ridiculous!! The costs of a tollfree call are the same as a local call
> to the owner: a monthly line cost and paying the lease on the phone.

Not true. COCOT owners are charged for local calls the same as any
other business. What the COCOT owner makes off local calls is the
difference between what he charges and what the telco charges him. 800
calls, on the other hand, cost him nothing at all. Just as 950, local
and intralata information, emergency, and repair service cost him
absolutely nothing.

One of the costs of doing business in the COCOT world is providing the
facilities for those free calls. In the case of emergency and repair
service, the PUC mandates that these calls be permitted without
charge.  If you consider public phones to be a necessity of life, how
can you justify COCOTs being less of a service to the public than
telco pay phones? One of the reasons I have an 800 number is to check
my messages from anywhere in the state without being gouged by AOSs.
Another is so that I don't have to have change handy. If the only
phone in the area requires a dime that I don't have, I am not served.

If COCOTs can't provide *at least* the level of service as the telco
pay phones, they are extra baggage to society and should never have
been allowed in the first place. I have no problem with creating a new
industry as long as it doesn't displace a public service that has
become traditional over past decades.

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

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

Subject: Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 7 Jan 90 23:22:48 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> Brian Kantor <[e-mail]> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 12, message 3 of 4

>[Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign
>down.  Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy
>machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed
>Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area.

As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago one of the inhabitants of
essug.*, our statewide telephone news group, had a bunch of stickers
printed up and sent them around to everyone that wanted them. I just
ran across the few that I had left. There were some notorious COCOT
violators and when all else failed, I started sticking it to them.

These people were uncanny in their ability to remove them as fast as I
stuck them on, usually the same day. There was one phone that charged
for everything, including repair service and information, had no
mention of who owned it, and required coin for all long distance no
matter how paid. It was a vile thing and I would put stickers on it
daily that invited people to take their telephony business elsewhere,
but it was uphill all the way. Needless to say, I soon gave up. Even
though the shopkeeper professed to know nothing about the phone, I
suspect that it was he who was removing the stickers. "I don't know
nuthin 'bout da fone, just putchya money in an' shuddap."

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Date: 8 Jan 90 03:30:22 GMT
Organization: very little


The moderator asked if my aquaintance with the cell phone who was
getting bus station calls had a cell phone number anything like
781-2900.  I don't know.  But it sure was an entertaining story,
at least the way she told it.  Remember that this person was in SALES,
were they like to tell funny stories, so she may have made it up. :)


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't believe that sales people in the telecom
industry make up stories. Do they?  They do?   :)    PT]

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

Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 8 Jan 90 09:30:04 EST (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>

My impression is that the phone sex crowd are dedicated enough to send
in a postcard one time to get the 940 numbers turned on.

I have philosophical problems with all of the 900 style surcharged
numbers because unlike any other number you can dial, the number
itself gives you no idea of how much the call will cost.  I think they
should do something like prefixing each call with a message: "This
call to <provider> will cost <amount> per minute, starting at the
third beep" followed by three slow beeps to give you time to hang up.
Truth in labelling and all that.


Regards,
John

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 13:47:05 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


In TELECOM-DIGEST 10/13, John Higdon writes:
> >Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls.

> Excuse me, but how is a "940" provider supposed to make any money if
> no one can call his number? Since the whole premise of 976, 900,
> "940", etc., is to allow casual, impulsive calls and provide a
> surefire billing mechanism, who would bother setting up a service that
> would require clientele to go through elaborate preparations in order
> to make calls?

If enough consumers want this kind of service, someone will probably
provide it. I am sure the phone company will be glad to provide a
count of unblocked subscribers to potential service providers who can
then decide if it is worth it.

Allowing casual, impulsive calls just simply is not suitably for all
types of materials, since there would be nothing to stop children from
impulsively calling such numbers, nor does anyone who casually
misdials a number need to be confronted with certain materials.


Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465    BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]
UUCP:   uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp   INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 15:01:40 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Controversy Over Area Code 213 Split


I heard there were some adjustments made along the then-proposed
213/818 border because of communities otherwise facing split along
that border.

I realize this was from the article, but when 310 comes into use, it
will be 8, not 5, years since the 213/818 split.  But that's still
shorter than the 11 1/2 years between N0X/N1X prefixes coming to 213
(covering what is 213 & 818 at this writing) and the 213/818 split.

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Matthews)
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid
Date: 8 Jan 90 18:42:58 GMT
Reply-To: 6sigma2@.UUCP (Brian Matthews)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


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

|I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad
|showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but
|getting Fuji instead.
|I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't
|dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they
|are using.  The ad implies otherwise.

Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when
I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji
instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever
long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give
him instant credit.


Brian L. Matthews    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones
Date: 8 Jan 90 03:32:57 GMT
Organization: very little


A friend of mine works for the local ABC affiliate, and they put in
this kind of service for reporting of traffic problems to their AM
radio new department.  He claims the service has turned out to be a
big pain for the radio station....most of the calls are from cellular
customers asking why the traffic is slow, rather than giving
information!


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 12:29:21 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texas BBS/SWBT News in Alt.cousard (Was: Modem Tax)

>[Moderator's Note: It was not a modem 'tax', but rather, a requirement
>by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that users of modems in
>general, and BBS operators in particular, pay business rates for their
>phone service.

>... I'm sure more news will be forthcoming soon, and that the
>sysop's organization will keep us informed.  PT]

Actually if you are really interested in the issue find a site that
carries the usenet newsgroup alt.cousard which started out as the
tx.cousard. That group carries all the info about the ongoing battel
w/SWB.  Thr group has a s/n ratio with a lot of messages that don't
contain what I'd concider useful info.  The group is, however,
interesting as it has a lot of "non-usenet" sites (mainly bbs's) that
have hacked gatewats.  I beleive it is carried as a fidonet echo-mail
conference as well.  We carry it as a conference on pro-party
(512/882-1899 3-9600 HST).


UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]


Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890     |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]     |    CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899     |  GEnie: BLAKE


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

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 08:13 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NYNEX

    Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York
    Telephone (NY) and New England Telephone (NE).

    The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection?

                                        - Anthony Lee

I thought NYNEX was how much your phone bill went up with divestature
(9x).


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 8 Jan 90 07:29:28 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]> writes:

> Sounds like the American way.  Why should he have one type of phone
> service or another for YOUR convenience?  It pisses me off that I
> can't get "New Scientist" at the local news stand, but that's life ---
> he runs his business as he sees fit, and I take my business where I
> think my needs are best served.  How else would you have it?

Why, no other way at all. And I am perfectly entitled to take my
business else where if the merchant demonstrates his attitude toward
his customers by have a COCOT.

This is no joke. A COCOT was replaced by a Pac*Bell phone in a
restaurant that I frequent. When I enquired of the owner (whom I know
personally), she said that the complaints that she was getting
indicated to her that customer relations were being damaged slightly.
Since her customers meant more to her than some extra nickels from the
pay phone, she switched. Yes, she did it for her customers'
convenience because she values her customers.

I would assume that if you can't get "New Scientist" at your local
news stand, you go somewhere else rather than throw up your hands and
say, "that's life". And let your local merchant know it!

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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jan 90 10:00:30 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Definition of "IT"?


The recently-made-available acronym lists and glossary files don't list
"IT" as an abbreviation with a definition. So, in the moderator's
posting in issue 590 that mentions "a big IT in the basement", what
does "IT" mean?


Regards, Will

[Moderator's Note: Many installers, or at least the older ones, use
'IT' to mean 'inside terminal', and this is typically the demarcation
point in a (large) building where the cable first comes in from the
street, is punched down on several strips to be mated with appropriate
house pairs. The ones I have seen, specifically in older, large
apartment-hotel type buildings, have the incoming cable punched down
on the left side on three or four strips of 40-50 terminals each. The
house pairs terminate on the right side on three or four similar
strips.  Then jumper wires cross connect the two sides of the IT, or
inside terminal. The jumper pairs will usually have little tags tied
on with string saying things like 'second pair to apartment 903' or
'OPX to 123 Main Street, circuit 903-V'. To install a new line to
someone in the building, the installer goes to that box, finds the
cable and pair assigned and jumps it to the desired house pair.  PT]

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


Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 11:09:29 EST
From: Mike Gertsman <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: SDL Diagrams for LAPB


Can anyone point me to a source of SDL diagrams for the LAPB (X.25
level 2) data link control protocol?  The X.25 specification (in the
CCITT Red Book) does not seem to have these diagrams.  I would think
that they would be available since Q.921 (in the CCITT Blue Book) has
such a set of diagrams for LAPD.

Please reply directly to me if possible.  Thanks.


Michael Gertsman   [e-mail] or uunet!mitel!spock!gertsman

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #14
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 9 Jan 90 0:37:01 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #15
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Jan 90 00:35:19 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Mobile Communications in the Soviet Union (Andrei Kolesnikov)
    Robust Answering Machines? (Jerry Leichter)
    Old Speakerphone Information Needed (Larry Bierma)
    Telephone Voltage Information Needed
    BBS a Business? So What? (John Boteler)
    San Marino / Trinidad & Tobago Code Change? (John R. Covert)
    Area Code Mapping (John Boteler)
    How To Dial Long Distance (Greg Monti via John R. Covert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 14:09:43 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mobile Communications in the Soviet Union


Anybody  know  more  about  the  following  announcement  on  the  Nokia
Telecommunications venture?

Two interesting points:

1. That the Nokia deal did involve  coverage for international  cellular
communications inside Moscow or other big cities.....

2. Did not involve cellular communications; using existing analog  lines
with radio waves overlay.....

If first is correct, good deal!  If only second - no big deal, no new
technology.

========================================================================

         MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE HEART OF THE SOVIET UNION

MOSCOW GETS ITS FIRST RADIOPHONE LINK-UP AS THE AMT JOINT VENTURE  TAKES
TO THE AIRWAVES

Work has begun on the construction of a mobile radiotelephone network in
the  Moscow City area under the auspices of a new joint venture  company
formed  between Nokia Telecommunications and the Soviet  Union's  Moscow
Telephone Network.

In the initial stage, AMT, in which Nokia has a 40 % share, is supplying
its  services  primarily  to  international  companies  and   diplomatic
missions   in  the  Soviet  capital.   The  company  is  also   offering
maintenance  and  installation services for the equipment  delivered  by
Nokia.

Nokia  Telecommunications is delivering both the network  infrastructure
and  end-user  equipment.   Offering ease of  use  of  automatic  mobile
networks, the Moscow system provides complete coverage of the city area,
together  with  connections  to the  fixed  domestic  and  international
telephone networks.

Construction  of the mobile network got under way this autumn, with  the
first subscribers planned to go on line early in 1990.

At  the second stage, AMT will also install a paging system and  provide
other modern speech and data transmission services.

Moscow  Telephone Network holds a 60 % share in the joint  venture.  For
Nokia  Telecommunications, this collaboration marks the company's  entry
into the service provision sector of the industry.

==================THANKS=================

andrei
 ...!labrea!cdp!sfmtmoscow
 ...!hplabs!cdp!sfmtmoscow


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

From: Leichter-Jerry <@venus.ycc.yale.edu:[e-mail]>
Subject: Robust Answering Machines?
Date: 8 Jan 90 13:30:50 GMT
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)


I have a cheap answering machine (made by Conair).  I picked it up at
a clear- ance sale for about $20, in a concession to modern technology
- I had managed for years to do without one.  The thing works
reasonably well most of the time, but has an annoying sensitivity: The
briefest power glitch (and we have those every couple of weeks) resets
the machine to a state in which it doesn't answer calls at all.
(According to the instructions, the only way to reset this state is to
re-record the answer message, thus also losing any messages taken
before the glitch.  Fortunately, experimentation has revealed that you
don't have to do that.)

Anyhow...now that I've gotten used to having the machine, I find this
annoy- ing.  (Ah, how indulgences become necessities!)  Presumably
better-quality machines are not so sensitive.  However, I have yet to
see anyone advertise "robustness in the face of power failures" as a
feature of their machines, so I'm not about to shell out four or five
times what I paid for this one for a fancy machine with the same
vulnerability.

What is the collective experience out there with answering machines?
Do some of them survive power failures more intelligently?  If so,
which ones?

(Side-bar for the "central office lovers": Yes, a central office voice
mail service would not have this problem.  However, I don't see such a
service offered in my area....)
                            -- Jerry

[Central Office Lover's Note: I love my voice mail from Centel. The price
is right ($5.95 per month for a 'front end' with two partitions in it);
ability to retrieve from any phone and change outgoing messages from
anywhere; date stamping; it can handle several calls at once, etc.  PT]

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

From: Larry Bierma <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 January 1990 1329-PST (Monday)
Subject: Old Speakerphone Information Needed
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Greetings,

I've rescued from the trash an old speaker phone (originally hooked
up to 5-button dial set).  The identification on the bottom is:

    108 Loudspeaker set.

I have two pieces, the speaker box and the little on/off volume
control (appears to have the mic it it also) both terminate in
"sawed off" 25 pair connectors.

The question is can I make what I have work with a basic plain
pushbutton phone that connects to an rj11 jack?  (I do have
an old 5-button dial set if that is needed to make the speaker
phone work).

Thanks!

Larry    ARPA: [e-mail]
    UUCP: ucsd!nprdc!bierma
    PSTN: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sten Peeters)
Subject: Telephone Voltage Information Needed
Date: 8 Jan 90 13:16:18 GMT


Just a simple question. but, What is the ring voltage on a telephone
line?  And also, what is the voltage on the line when the phone is on
the hook and off the hook. The info would be appreciated.


Sten Peeters        2005 Buckman Ave        Wyomissing, PA 19610
ProLine: sp@pro-deli             Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!sp
Arpanet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli![e-mail]
Fidonet: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!f101.n273.z1.fidonet.org!Sten.Peeters
Talk: {rosevax, bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!talk!sp


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

Subject: BBS a Business? So What?
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 11:33:12 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>

This article concerns the discussion of the SouthWestern Bell
position that modem users, specifically BBS operators, should
pay business rates, and no other matter.

The question which has not been answered, because it was never asked
is:

Why should a BBS operator care that business rates could be imposed?

In my operating company area (C&P), monthly business rates are cheaper
than residential, presumably because the anticipated message unit
income would easily recover costs for the phone company. If the BBS
receives incoming calls, how can a similar rate structure be
detrimental? No message units would be incurred.

Email me, if the answers are too obvious for me to see.


Thanx

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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 20:58:22 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  08-Jan-1990 2359" <[e-mail]>
Subject: San Marino / Trinidad & Tobago Code Change?


Corroboration requested on the rumour that San Marino (now reached via
Italy) will change to country code 295 and that Trinidad & Tobago (now
in area code 809) will change to country code 296.

/john

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

Subject: Area Code Mapping
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 12:13:19 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


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

>In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Dean Sirakides) writes:

>> *Question* : I have heard several ads for stores where the phone
>> number is given out and the annoucer qualifies the number by saying,
>> "in either 708 or 312".  How is this done?

>[I have a feeling this is one of those questions that about 17 people
>will answer.  Apologies for any unwanted duplication...]
>First of all, I don't *think* that a single exchange can overlap NPAs,
>so that (for example) 708-888 and 312-888 would refer to the same
>central office.  I can't find anything explicitly excluding this in my
>references, though, so I could be mistaken -- if anyone knows this is

This is my answer to an answer to a question:

A single exchange may indeed be accessed by different area codes via
mapping.  A present and fast vanishing example is the 202 area code
serving your Nation's Capital (TM).

The Washington Metropolitan Calling Area covers the District of
Columbia, and parts of suburban Maryland and Virginia inside the
Beltway. Telephone dialups in the WASHMET zone are mapped into 202,
including those in 301 or 703 for the benefit of the sanity of John Q.
Public.

For example, to call a telephone in Falls Church, Virginia, one has
the choice of dialing 703-241-xxxx or 202-241-xxxx; both work at
present, until number conservation goes bye-bye next year!

This has flabbergasted many phone phreak friends of mine, and may very
well be one of the last relics of a more peaceful time in the life of
the phone network.


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

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 21:04:32 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  09-Jan-1990 0002" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How To Dial Long Distance

  From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert

How to Dial Long Distance


  Mark Brader <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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".

Actually, one or both can currently apply.

My understanding of the North American Numbering Plan is that a
leading "1" was *always* intended to mean "area code next."  The use
of it with a seven-digit number after it is a hack implemented by
phone companies originally as a "get out of this central office" code
in the old, step- by-step days in many areas. Later, as people got
used to it meaning "long distance next," the telcos and their
regulators kept the "1" for that purpose.  1+7 digits only works FROM
area codes where there are no interchangeable codes (prefixes that
look like area codes).

Once interchangeable codes are implemented, users within that area
code can no longer use 1+7 digits.  Once the *whole NANP* goes to
interchangeable codes in 1995 (or whenever "Time T" it turns out to
be), 1+7 digit dialing will have to be eliminated in *all* NANP area
codes.

> 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".

Not necessarily.  The standard seems to have been laid out already.
Those places will go to your "Syntax 3" system so BOTH effects of the
"1" will apply.  "1" will mean "long distance" *and* "area code next."
1+7 digits will be replaced by 1+10 digits.

> 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.

You are correct.  See below.

> 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.)

Okay.  First a summary:

Syntax 1:  Local within area code:  7 digits
           Toll within area code:  1 + 7 digits
           Local to another area code:  7 digits
           Toll to another area code:  1 + 10 digits

Syntax 2:  Local within area code:  7 digits
           Toll within area code:  7 digits
           Local outside area code:  1 + 10 digits
           Toll outside area code:  1 + 10 digits

Syntax 3:  Local within area code:  7 digits
           Toll within area code:  1 + 10 digits
           Local outside area code:  7 digits
           Toll outside area code:  1 + 10 digits

Syntax 4:  Local within area code:  7 digits
           Toll within area code:  7 digits
           Local outside area code:  10 digits
           Toll outside area code:  10 digits

"Syntax 1" is the most common in the USA and Canada.  It generally
applies in areas and states and provinces where the area codes are so
large that most, or many calls within it are toll.  Population density
is small enough that prefixes can be assigned in a "conserved" way, so
that prefixes in nearby parts of adjacent area codes are not
ambiuguous with the same prefixes in the home area code.

This allows 7 digit dialing across the area code boundary, but only
for local calls.  VIRTUALLY ALL places that now have Syntax 1 dialing
will convert to Syntax 3 dialing in 1995, or whenever "Time T" is.
Massachusetts' 617 is currently a variation on Syntax 1 (local outside
area code is now 1 + 10 digits) which will change to Syntax 2
eventually, according to previous posttings on this Digest.
Neighboring 508 has the same Syntax 1 exception, but is staying that
way indefinitely.

Michigan's 313 is a Syntax 1 area code moving to Syntax 2.  There, the
1 + 7 digits has become a mess, with some local calls requiring it and
Michigan Bell is going to straighten it out by eliminating 1 + 7
digits.

"Syntax 2" is used in the biggest of the big cities where many area
codes may be within the local calling area and where mandatory local
measured service is common and where interchangeable codes are now
used.  Most places with Syntax 2 now had Syntax 4 up until about 1980
when the first interchangeable codes were issued as prefixes.  Syntax
2 areas are 213 (and the new 310, when implemented), 818, 415 (and
510), 212, 718, 201 (and 908), 312 and 708, I believe.  Area 609 in
New Jersey is a variation of Syntax 2.  Its exception: local calls
outside the area code are also 7 digits.

"Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T".  It is already in
effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon
416.  Some areas which use this already are adding variations due to
the number crunch: 214, 202, 301 and 703 will use 10 digits for local
outside area code.  That appears to be a new standard for crowded
areas already using Syntax 3.

"Syntax 4" is a rarity: places that still don't have interchangeable
codes but do have large calling areas with mandatory local measured
service. 516, 914 (maybe not all of it, though) and 408.  Syntax 4
areas switch to Syntax 2 after "Time T".  Did I get everything?

Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia  work [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #15
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 10 Jan 90 0:45:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #16
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Jan 90 00:45:32 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: BBS a Business? So What? (John Higdon)
    Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System (Dave Livingston)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP) (Peter Desnoyers)
    Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones (John Wheeler)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Tad Cook)
    Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers) (Robert P. Warnock)
    Re: 976 in Massachusetts (Ted Ede)
    Re: The Operator's Beep (John Boteler)
    One After 909 (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BBS a Business? So What?
Date: 9 Jan 90 10:35:08 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John Boteler <csense![e-mail]> writes:

> Why should a BBS operator care that business rates could be imposed?

> In my operating company area (C&P), monthly business rates are cheaper
> than residential, presumably because the anticipated message unit
> income would easily recover costs for the phone company. If the BBS
> receives incoming calls, how can a similar rate structure be
> detrimental? No message units would be incurred.

In my area, and I suspect others, the basic rate for business measured
is higher than residence unmeasured. Furthermore, most BBSs call out
quite often, so I don't understand your argument that no message units
would be incurred. It was frequently pointed out in all of the SWB
flap that business service was considerably higher than residence
service.

In my case, I don't have a BBS, but I do have a well-connected UNIX
machine. It uses four lines. It calls out at least as much as it
receives calls. It is not used for business, but for hobby purposes.
If I had to pay business rates, it would become unaffordable.

The question remains: Why should anyone have to pay more for telephone
service simply because they allow a modem to speak over the line?


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

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

Subject: Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System
Date: 9 Jan 90 13:41:15 EST (Tue)
From: Dave Livingston <ntpdvp1![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, bmug%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.
berkeley.edu (BMUG) writes:

>Perhaps someone from Northern Telecom or someone else familiar with
>this situation can point me in the direction of a solution...  We
>have installed on our site an electronic Northern Telecom DMS100
>telephone system.  Because the system does not recognize normal tones,
>the system as configured will not work with standard modems, FAX
>machines, answering machines, etc.  It *is* possible to get individual
>lines massaged to enable use of these devices, but said massage
>costs over $10/line/month (which gets to be kind of expensive when
>we're talking about ~25 lines).

Before we can find a solution, we must first define what the problem
is.  The first thing that must be defined is the terminology, normal
tones.  To me, normal tones are the tone definitions that have been
established by Bellcore as standards. The examples that come to mind
here are, of course, digitone (dual tone multi frequency), mf (multi-
frequency), busy tone, etc.

With that definition, then we can determine that the problem is not
that the DMS-100 will not recognize standard tones. All Northern
Telecom digital switches meet the standards defined by Bellcore for
tone generation/reception.

Based upon what I do know, I think that centrex service has been
provided to the office, and that the service has been provided on
Electronic Business Sets versus a standard 2500 telset. This can cause
some confusion. The EBS is not a standard telset, since it has a 19.2
digital data link to the switch where all the signaling, off-hook,
ringing, etc is passed.  The EBS will require that a different type of
line card be used within the DMS-100.

As far as the rest of the problem, the solution to me is quite simple.
For those systems that need to be connnected with the telephone
network, like the fax machine, order a standard IBS line. For modems,
the question then must be asked if it is for data communication or
some type of telephone dialing system. For data communications, I opt
for a dedicated line, as for the fax.  For dialing systems, I would
investigate the features that Meridian Digital Centrex has to offer,
especially with EBS. Your customer service rep should be able to help
you.

I realize that answers were requested via E-mail...But I feel that the
question and answer might be of benefit to the digest..



Dave Livingston                            Standard Disclaimer Applies
Northern Telecom - DMS-10
Research Triangle Park, NC
EMAIL ...!uunet!mcnc!rti!ntpdvp1!davel
919/992-3322


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

From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid
Date: 9 Jan 90 19:46:38 GMT
Reply-To: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation


In article <[e-mail]> 6sigma2@.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes:

|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Dodell)
|writes:
||I figure that this ad is just plain stupid, since if someone can't
||dial a number correctly, it has nothing to do with the carrier they
||are using.  The ad implies otherwise.

|Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when
|I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji
|instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever
|long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give
|him instant credit.

Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the
ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling
Fiji with calling Phoenix.  And of course the alternate implications,
that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that
the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake.  This is
only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of
which are perpetrated by AT&T.

    /JBL

Nets: [e-mail]  |  "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
 or {...}!bbn!levin  |  bureau that morning.  Wide-eyed and distraught, she
POTS: [phone]  |  stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Torsten & Jim ISDN Chat Show (was ISDN & TCP/IP)
Date: 9 Jan 90 20:50:21 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Torsten
Dahlkvist) writes:

> 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!).

Sorry to come into this discussion so late (I had a rush project
before Christmas and am just catching up on news).

Anyway, this sounds similar to the AT&T 7500 set with the optional
rate adaption card. I imagine that it would cost lots-o-bux, but I
know they are selling them to real people (i.e. they're not just
engineering samples) because I saw one in a hotel in Key West. It'll
handle 5ESS BRI (of course) at the S interface and seems relatively
reliable. I've never used the rate-adaption card - I think the
physical interfaces available are RS232 and V.34.

                            Peter Desnoyers
                            Apple ATG
                            [phone]

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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TV News Mates With Cellular Phones
Date: 9 Jan 90 04:08:19 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward Vielmetti)
writes:

>WWJ Radio in Detroit has a similar arrangement, dial *WWJ (*995) to
>get their traffic bureau to report accidents or big pot-holes or the
>like.

Here in Atlanta, on January 1, 1990, the "WGST NewsRadio Six-Forty
BellSouth Mobility Traffic Center" became the "WGST NewsRadio
Six-Forty Pac*Tel Traffic Center". Access is, of course, by dialing
*640 from your Pac*Tel mobile phone. Apparently Pac*Tel outbid
BellSouth for the advertising. At least it made the name shorter!


*  John Wheeler - Unix/C Systems Designer/Programmer/Administrator/etc...    *
* Turner Entertainment Networks * Superstation TBS * TNT * Turner Production *
*           ...!gatech!nanovx!techwood!johnw    (404) TBS-1421               *
* "the opinions expressed in this program are not necessarily those of TBS"  *


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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance
Date: 9 Jan 90 22:49:34 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
writes...

>  From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert

>Syntax 1:  Local within area code:  7 digits
>           Toll within area code:  1 + 7 digits

Or, "1 for toll"

>Syntax 2:  Local within area code:  7 digits
>           Toll within area code:  7 digits

Or, "1 for area code"

>Syntax 3:  Local within area code:  7 digits
>           Toll within area code:  1 + 10 digits

Or, "1 for area code, but you dial your own for toll calls)

>Syntax 4:  Local within area code:  7 digits
>           Toll within area code:  7 digits

>"Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T".  It is already in
>effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416.

I don't think so; rather, Syntax 2 is the "standard".  Syntax 3 is
a hack for people who are so used to "1 for toll" that intra-NPA calls
must be dialed as inter-NPA.  I think it's a bad idea, and not the
standard.  In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you
have to specify _which_ area code you want.  (NYC has 4, for instance.)

Whether 2 or 3 is adopted doesn't matter to Time T; Syntax 4 must go
away, as must Syntax 1, since both fail to disambiguate between prefix
code and area code.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]



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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Date: 9 Jan 90 20:50:54 GMT
Organization: very little


The moderator, in connection with the story about the saleslady
getting bus station calls on her cellular phone said that he didn't
think telecom sales people make up stories :>

This lady was a FAX salesperson!

;=)
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: A FAX salescreature? Oh dear! I'm sure she wouldn't
lie about anything.  I chased one out of our office just last week.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 04:22:10 PST
From: "Robert P. Warnock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thurbing (was: 800 Wrong Numbers)
Reply-To: "Robert P. Warnock" <rigden![e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:
+---------------
| I spoke with a woman in Chicago recently that was constantly getting
| calls for the bus station on her cellular phone...
+---------------

I also get lots of wrong numbers on my cellular phone, and suspect
that that in the Bay Area lots of PacTel Mobile customers do, too. You
see, here in (415), PacTel Mobile numbers run "999-abcd", and for many
"a"s (including mine), there *are* non-cellular "99a-" local
exchanges. So if somebody's finger stutters (or they have a really
cheap phone), instead of dialing 99a-bcde", they dial "999-abcd".
Their local CO cheerily ignores the superfluous "e", and rings my
phone (or one of the other few thousand cellular phones).  In my case,
one of the ten potentially confused numbers (e = 0-9, remember)
happens to be a popular Mexican restaurant!

And yes, I do get calls from people calling in sick or whatever,
usually much earlier than my normal waking time. ("No, I *can't* get
the manager for you. No, I *can't* take a message.") And worse, often
in Spanish, which I don't speak.

By now, I have just accepted several wrong numbers a week as part of
the cost of using PacTel Mobile...


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: [e-mail] (Ede)
Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts
Date: 9 Jan 90 19:05:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ede)
Organization: The MITRE Corp. Bedford, MA


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

>Initially, all telephones will be blocked from making 940 calls.
>Blocking for 940 numbers, as well as 1-900 numbers will initially be
>available for free.

To clear up a minor point.  Blocking will always be free.  It's making
a change to the blocking that the phone company will eventually charge
you for.

The pamphlet that they mailed was very interesting.  In about six
different languages on the cover it said something like, "This is very
important information.  Please have it translated."

I'm surpised the don't put that on their bills.  But what do you
expect from a company that give you *net 45* to pay.

|Ted Ede -- [e-mail] -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road|
| linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B090 -- [phone] |
|                   - this line intentionally left blank -                  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+


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

Subject: Re: The Operator's Beep
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 4:17:26 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Regarding the 'beep' tone which is heard when an operator's position
is connected to a caller: the beep was named the 'high tone',
frequency 480 cps.

Since the original poster noticed its absence, it must have done its
job of announcing the operators presence. :)


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

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

Date:     Tue, 9 Jan 90 11:40:46 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  One After 909


Cavern City Tours in Liverpool, England, has, as the last 4 digits of
its phone number, 9091.  (From the song "One after 909".)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #16
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:26:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #17
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Jan 90 01:25:43 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Computer-Mediated Communication in Education (N. R. Coombs)
    The Big PUC Give-Away (John Higdon)
    Answer to Area Code Congestion (Daniel O'Callaghan)
    Odds and Ends (Daniel Leibold)
    CES Shows Cellular Phones With Caller-ID & RS232 Ports (Brian Litzinger)
    Caller*ID Display Sources (John Boteler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "N.R. Coombs" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh.cs.rit.edu!ultb![e-mail]>
Subject: Computer-Mediated Communication in Education
Date: 9 Jan 90 21:06:26 GMT
Reply-To: "N.R. Coombs" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh.cs.rit.edu!ultb!nrcgsh>
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


                                 Announcement


                Computer-Mediated Communication in Education:

                           An Electronic Conference


                            sponsored by Comserve

               edited and moderated by Professor Norman Coombs
                                       Rochester Institute of Technology


            Members of the Speech Communication Association and other
       interested individuals are invited to participate in an
       electronic conference addressing the uses of computer-mediated
       communication for educational purposes.  The conference will
       explore how electronic mail and computer conferencing might be
       integrated into college education.  Among the topics considered
       will be: the techniques and technologies that are currently being
       used and new ones that are envisioned; uses of electronic mail
       and computer conferencing to deliver information, conduct class
       discussions, handle questions and answers; how these educational
       technnologies influence course content, teaching style, student
       participation; studies that have explored the success of these
       applications, etc.

            The conference will be edited and moderated by Professor
       Norman Coombs of the Rochester Institute of Technology.  Prof.
       Coombs has used electronic mail and computer conferencing to
       teach college courses for the last four years and conducts
       research in the educational applications of information
       technology.  Earlier this year, Prof.  Coombs won a Masters of
       Innovation Award from Zenith for his innovative use of computer
       conferencing in an educational program for deaf students.

            The conference is scheduled to begin January 15, 1990 and
       continue through the Spring semester.  Individuals with
       experience in computer conferencing applications in education,
       individuals who are interested in exploring such applications,
       and graduate students are encouraged to participate.  The
       conference is sponsored by Comserve and will take place over the
       CommEd Hotline.  For more information, send an electronic mail
       message to Support@Rpiecs, or write:

                         Comserve
                         Dept. of Lang., Lit., & Communication
                         Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
                         Troy, NY  12180

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

Subject: The Big PUC Give-Away
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 9 Jan 90 16:27:54 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


My mailbox has been filling up with messages from people who think
that I am being overly mean to Pac*Bell concerning their recent
"modern regulatory changes" that they whisked past the CPUC.

One writer said that my comment about Pac*Bell being allowed unlimited
profits was incorrect; that they indeed had to share with the rate
payers. Well, yes and no. Granted, the wording on the ruling would
indicate that, but who will determine how much of a profit has been
made? Why, Pac*Bell, of course.

There are so many tricks to hide a profit from one subsidiary by
pumping up another that space forbids going into that here, not to
mention the inappropriateness of the group. But let us just say
whenever you have an intentional monopoly, it MUST be regulated or the
public will suffer. Allowing a "rate of return" against the CPI as the
sole standard for regulating a monopoly is most ineffective protection
for the consumer.

This is particularly true when you have a holding company that has as
much diversification as Pacific Telesis. They are now into every form
of electronic communications, including equipment supply. Which brings
up an interesting scam. What would stop a Pacific Telesis supply arm
from buying, for instance, Northern Telecom DMS100s at a steal of a
price (quantity, someone sleeping with someone, whatever) then turning
around and selling those switches to Pac*Bell at full list? And then
when it comes time to compute rate-of-return for Pac*Bell they show
exhorbitant costs for their CO equipment, reflecting a lower apparent
rate-of-return. But Pacific Telesis made the profit at its other
subsidiary, *totally at the expense of Pac*Bell's ratepayers*. Back to
my question: What would stop them? Nothing. They do it all the time.
Now that the PUC isn't watching them anymore, it will be even easier
to get away with it.

Pac*Bell's PR is most effective. I was reminded by some that they
agreed to give up touch-tone charges in this package. Actually, that
was the new PUC chairman's idea. It was an obsession with him to
remove those charges, and Pac*Bell had to agree to it before the PUC
would proceed with the give-away. In my case, it is meaningless.
Touch-tone is included with Commstar II, and if anyone thinks that
Pac*Bell will lower the cost of Commstar II to reflect that then I
have some large artifacts near New York I would like to sell to you.

I hate to be such a curmugeon on this topic, but where in the hell was
the public (and, for that matter, the consumer advocacy organizations
like TURN) when all this was before the PUC? The media spoke of the
whole matter in glowing terms, printing verbatim what the Pac*Bell
spokespeople spewed forth on the subject. The California telephone
ratepayer was taken to the cleaners. Let's hope the good people of
Texas are not taken for a ride by SWB the way we where here in CA.

Remember, Pacific Telesis isn't in business to serve the public; it's
in business to make money--any way it can.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Answer to Area Code Congestion
Date: 10 Jan 90 16:31:07 (UTC+11:00)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult
to implement in North America.  It basically means that the affected
area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to
know.  Most telephone numbers stay the same, with the addition of
another digit, and for those that change, working out the new number
is very easy.

Taking Los Angeles area 213 as an example:

1. Abolish area code 213 and in its place establish areas 225 and 228.
This will mean that all areas using 225 and 228 as prefixes must
remove 1+7D toll dialling.

2. There is no geographical isolation of 225 and 228.  Instead, the
areas are assigned to the prefixes 2xx-5xx and 6xx-9xx.

3. Old numbers beginning with 5 and 8 have their first digit changed
to 7 and 3 respectively.

4. Dialling within the 225-228 area *must* begin with either a 5 or an
8.  Any attempt to dial a number beginning with 2,3,4,6,7,9 should be
directed a recorded message to remind about the new system.  This
should last several months.

The new numbering system would be:

  Old            New
213-2xx-       225-2xx-
213-3xx-       225-3xx-
213-4xx-       225-4xx-
213-5xx-       225-7xx-

213-6xx-       228-6xx-
213-7xx-       228-7xx-
213-8xx-       228-3xx-
213-9xx-       228-9xx-

There would certainly be teething problems, especially for people
whose old numbers began with 5 or 8, since there can be no slow
change-over for them.

The benefits of this system are many, including the retention of LA as
a large community, and an inexhaustible supply of new prefixes, by
simply adding new pseudo-areas 22N when everyone was used to 8 digit
dialling.  8 digit numbers could provide up to 80 million services,
and I doubt that even the USA's voracious telephone appetite would use
them all.  Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing
easy identification of a number as mobile.

Lastly, by using area codes in the series NXX (X not 1,0 ) 80
megalopoli could have their area code worries removed forever.  It
would even be possible to merge areas already separated.  e.g. Assign
332 and 337 to 212 and 335 and 339 to 718.

After a year or so, when everyone is used to 8 digits the old 212 and
718 areas would be part of the 33N area.

Comments anyone??


Daniel O'Callaghan,
[e-mail]


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

Subject: Odds and Ends
Date:    Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:26:31 EST
From:    woody <[e-mail]>


The following items cover various subjects; you may respond to whatever
item(s) you wish, via email or posting as appropriate...

News and notes...

(1) Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers? Zenith Numbers?

>    [Moderator's Note: Enterprise and Zenith were the same difference.
>    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.  PT]

In Bell Canada territory, there is supposedly a service called Contac
which runs like Zenith, but is intended for use by municipal
governments.  I have yet to see a single Contac number anywhere,
however.

(2) 416 goes from NNX to NXX

As of 1st Dec 89, area 416 customers can use the 1 + 416 + number to
call within their own area if they like (as well as previous 1 +
number only).  As of 1st Mar 90, dialing 1 + 416 + number will be
mandatory.

(3) multi-LATA/NPA zones

I read about the area codes with multiple LATAs; i believe there are
LATAs with multiple area codes such as one around Detroit where a LATA
covers a bit of northwestern Ohio as well (thus, a multi-state LATA).

(4) Phone Piracy Article

The latest high-profile news item on phone phreaking can be found in
the 7th Jan 90 issue of the _Toronto_Star_, for those of you with
access to libraries that carry the _Star_. It begins on the front
page.

(5) COCOTS

Haven't seen any COCOTS in Canada yet, though Bell Canada is trying
out a nice card phone. Some day, COCOTS might infect Canada, though
it's possible the greater regulatory hurdles up here might alleviate
some of the COCOTS problems reported on this newsgroup.

(6) 940 service

940 service has been mentioned as an "adult entertainment" service.
Here in 416, 940 exchange is assigned as a regular exchange outside of
Toronto.  940 is presumably not a universally adopted exchange for
special service as 950 or 976 would be; the complications of wrong
numbers can arise here...

Requests...

(6) area code splitting

Area code 312 recently split into 312/708 and there's the new 908
code.  What will be the next area codes to be assigned, and where?

(7) 800/900 exchanges

I notice that the 900 area code tends to use N(0/1)X codes such as
200, 410, 909, etc. while I haven't found any of these on 800 service.
Are the NXX codes for 900 purposely chosen to be different from
anything on the 800 service to avoid confusion?

Also, is it possible to get a list of 800 and 900 exchanges (NXXs) and
what they do (what cities, functions, which ones are Sprint, MCI,
etc)?  Please e-mail one (to [e-mail]) if possible (or it
could be posted if there is general interest).

(8) 10xxx + codes

Does anyone have a list of the 10XXX codes used for alternate
carriers?  If so, please mail one to me ([e-mail]), or post
the 10XXX list if it has not appeared in the past while.

Thanx.

|| David Leibold....... "Art is anything you can get away with"
|| [e-mail]...                      - Marshall McLuhan

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

From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: CES Shows Cellular Phones With Caller-ID & RS232 Ports
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 11:21:20 PST
Organization: APT Technology, Inc.  San Jose, CA,  USA


At CES last weekend, there was about 2400 square feet of floor space
dedicated to consumer telephones, especially cellular.

Motorola was showing there new ultra slim cellular phone.  It folds
up and fits in your shirt pocket for about $2300.  For $3000 they
offered the same unit with caller-ID builtin.  [The $2300 model was
discounted to $1300 only a few booths away.]

There were also phones there with caller-ID and RS-232C ports which
connected to a box.  This box contained a hard-drive with a
"reverse-directory" on it, which allowed the phone to look up the name
and address of the caller when it received a caller-ID.

Thus it displayed the caller-ID, name of the person and their address
if available.

There were also simple caller-ID capable phones there for as little as
$28 dealer cost.

<>  Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
<>  UUCP:  {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian    [e-mail]
<>  VOICE: 408 370 9077      FAX: [phone]

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

Subject: Caller*ID Display Sources
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 2:59:07 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


It appears that I am now the moderator of an impromptu survey to
locate suppliers of Caller*ID display units of any description for
consumer use.

I currently have information on the way from Zoom Telephonics and
Software Studios concerning their offerings. When that information
arrives I shall analyze, homogenize, and summarize.

Any reader who can email names of sources, features, and other
pertinent information to the address BELOW will win one acknowledgment
response, hand typed by me. I will summarize as needed.

So far, the field of players consists of AT&T. That's it.

But, after all, "aren't you glad you never left home?" :-/


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #17
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 10 Jan 90 2:16:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #18
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Jan 90 02:15:27 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (TELECOM Moderator)
    Common Carrier Dialer (John Stanley)
    New Sleazy 900 Service (Edward Greenberg)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Tad Cook)
    Re: Phone Frustration (Dell Ellison)
    Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order (Mike Morris)
    Two Jokes (Edward Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:58:23 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else!


[Excerpts from the Chicago Tribune and New York Times,
Sunday, January 7, 1990]

By Calvin Simms

With college students returning to campus after the holiday break,
long distance telephone companies are continuing their nationwide
crackdown on students who steal telephone services by using illegal
credit card numbers and access codes.

To combat telephone fraud, the companies are closely monitoring all
long distance calls placed from college campuses so they can quickly
detect patterns of abuse.

The long distance carriers have also started an information campaign
to let students know they will be prosecuted for stealing telephone
service. In some cases, the companies have agreed not to prosecute
students if they come forward and pay for the illegal calls.

Two years ago more than 1000 students at North Texas State University
in Denton confessed to using stolen telephone credit card numbers to
make long distance calls and agreed to pay MCI Communications Corp.
about $100,000 in restitution.

The same year, about 400 students from American University in
Washington, DC faced prosecution for using unauthorized codes, but
under an amnesty program offered by MCI, they paid $32,000 in
restitution.

Although telephone fraud on college campuses has shown a slight
decline in the last two years, law-enforcement and telephone company
officials say many students continue to steal long distance service by
charging calls to someone else's account, especially at the beginning
and ending of semesters.

College students are the second-largest group responsible for phone
fraud according to Rami Abuhamdeh, executive director of
Communications Fraud Control Association, an industry group financed
by telephone companies.  The group most responsible for phone fraud is
prisoners. Telephones for inmate use in penitentiaries have a very
high rate of fraud, and usually are monitored very closely, and have
numerous restrictions on the types of calls which can be placed from
them.

Telephone fraud costs long distance companies more than $500 million
per year, or about one percent of the industry's total revenue, the
fraud control group said. Of that, colleges, military bases and
penitentiaries account for thirty percent, or $150 million, and of
those three groups, prisons are first, college campuses second, and
military bases third.

"A lot of students think it is impossible to trace back fraud calls to
them, but the fact of the matter is we can, and we will," said Robert
F. Fox, Vice-President, Corporate Security, of US Sprint. He pointed
out that in many instances, Sprint has an agreement with schools to
match the destination of illegal calls with the home addresses of
students enrolled at that school.

A spokesman for MCI agreed, saying that most colleges and universities
will supply telephone companies with the home addresses and telephone
numbers of their students.

Providing phone service to students on college campuses is a very
tricky problem, and to guard against lost revenues, phone companies
often treat college students and prisoners the same: as high-risk
customers of whom a large security deposit will be required. Or, they
may require some third person to make a personal guarentee for the
payment when it comes due.

Ronald Potter, Manager of corporate security for AT&T, said that the
company has begun a nationwide deterrent campaign that includes
posters and leaflets warning students that they are breaking the law
if they use stolen codes.

And he noted, "We remind them that upon conviction for this in a
federal court, the law provides for imposition of punishment including
fifteen years in prison and a $50,000 fine."

The fraud control group stated that techniques for discovery and
prevention of fraud are 'becoming much more sophisticated than ever
before.....we are catching people all the time, and college students
in particular are watched closely'.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 1:08:46 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that conversations on
cordless phones are not private.

Justices turned down an appeal by Scott Tyler, of Dixon, Iowa, whose
conversations on a cordless phone were overheard by neighbors who
called police when they suspected he had broken the law.

Tyler was convicted in 1984 of criminal conspiracy and theft in
connection with business arrangements that had been discussed over his
cordless phone. He then sued his neighbors and the police, contending
the eavesdropping was an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy.

A federal judge in Davenport, Iowa threw out the suit, saying users of
cordless phones should know that the technology used in their phones
makes it possible to overhear a conversation without a wiretap. As
readers of the Digest know, cordless phones use low-power radio
signals in the 46-49 megahertz range that broadcast conversations a
short distance and can be intercepted by other cordless phones,
scanners and some other types of radio equipment.

"Because there was no justifiable expectation of privacy, the
interceptions did not violate the Fourth Amendment," the judge decided.
An appellate court agreed and rejected Tyler's appeal.

In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Tyler's attornies acknowledged
that conversations on cordless phones are more susceptible to casual
interception than traditional phone calls. But, they argued, that
"does not justify ignoring the Fourth Amendment entirely any more than
crossed wires in a phone exchange short-circuit all Fourth Amendment
safeguards."

The justices did not explain their decision, which was announced by an
unsigned order. Nonetheless, the action can be used as precedent in
other similar cases which may and have arisen elsewhere.

Stephen Shapiro, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union
who argued the matter before the Supreme Court claimed "this decision
deprives millions of Americans the privacy rights they *think* they
have when they are talking at home on a cordless phone." (emphasis
mine)

He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a
regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone.

Cordless phones, which are in use in an estimated twenty-five percent
of American homes are not covered by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), which protects conversations on wired and
cellular phones from interception without a judge's permission.


Patrick Townson


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

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 09:46:16 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject: Common Carrier Dialer


 Help.

 I have just come accross some interesting pieces of phone hardware
and would like to know if I can use them for anything
productive/intriguing.

 They are called "Common Carrier Access Dialer and Call Controller"
with the name SMarT-1 and Mitel on them, and the claim they are
manufactured by SMT Corp.

 I understand they are the way a local small-time long distance
company got around equal access.

 Does anyone have any info on how to program them?


       nn    m m   RRR   i    John Stanley
      n  n  m m m  R  R       New Methods Research, Inc.
      n  n  m m m  RRR   i    6035 Corporate Drive
      n  n  m m m  R R   i    East Syracuse, NY 13057
      n  n  m m m  R  R  i   (This space reserved for electronic addresses,
    #include <disclaimer.h>   when I finally figure out what they are.)

[Author's note: isn't it interesting. We moved recently. Once we turned the
systems on, uunet was happily bringing us our electronic mail. The US Mail is
still hiccuping. Wouldn't it be nice if ...]


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

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:40 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Sleazy 900 Service


Latest ad is for a service that will "add your name" to a
communication to your legislators announcing your feelings (pro or
anti) on the abortion issue.  Call 1-900-xxx-xxx0 for one view and
1-900-xxx-xxx0 for the other view.  In letters 3 pixels high for about
10 seconds, it states that the call costs $4.95.  Otherwise, no audio
mention of the cost.

The announcer is a pretty lady with a soothing voice telling how
important the issue is, and how the supreme court has put it back in
the hands of the legislator and how disasterous it would be if your
voice wasn't heard.  Unsaid, but implied is the threat that if the
other side calls in more times than your side does, legislators will
be influenced against your position.

Boy, this industry has hit new lows in sleeze.

                        -edg

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 9 Jan 90 07:15:54 GMT
Organization: very little


In response to the posting by /bernie\, yes the PUC usually requires
the telco to put payphones in lots of areas that they dont want to,
for public convenience.  The telcos complain that the COCOTs naturally
take the "good" locations.

Again, I am not anti-COCOT or pro-telco, even though I am the guy who
calls the PUC and gets them removed.  Oh, and another thing about
removal.  It doesn't happen without warning.  The COCOT owner gets a
letter explaining the problem, and is given time to correct it.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

From: Dell Ellison <asuvax!gtephx!phobos![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Frustration
Date: 9 Jan 90 19:08:00 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

> ...  I'd
> much rather have a little problem with a privately owned COCOT than
                     ^^^^^^ ???

Sorry, but that's where I differ in opinion, which might be what it
comes down to: everyone's own opinion.

But, (IMHO) I would much rather have a little problem of finding a
valid payphone than have to deal with the rip-offs by mail.


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

Date: Tue, 9 Jan 90 00:31:30 PST
From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Marking COCOTS Out of Order

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

>[Moderator's Note: But the proprietor may come along and rip the sign
>down.  Better to use some *very sticky* pre-printed (office copy
>machine?) labels which say "Out of Order Due to Misprogrammed
>Routing/Rates" which you slap on the phone across the coin slot area.
>Make sure you cover the coin slot.  Once you have thus affixed the
>notice, be sure to visit the location in a day or two to see if the
>phone is still marked out of service, or if some creature came out of
>the swamp and scraped off the notice; if so, you will need to affix a
>new sticker after checking the phone to see if it is now 'repaired'.

>If you have the time and money to stand there and perform further
>diagnostics, please do.  In your new role as trouble-shooter, you may
>also wish to get cozy with the manufacturer of the COCOT as a
>potential buyer of several hundred units.  With the installer's manual
>at hand, perhaps you can liberate -- uh, I mean reprogram the firmware
>yourself. :)   PT]

Somebody is reading your mind, Patrick!  Yesterday I saw one at a
local Union Oil gas station with a _professional_looking_ but
laser-printed sticker across the coin slot, and upon looking closely,
I saw that somebody had gotten even and had glued all the buttons with
(what looked like) 5-minute epoxy!  The sticker said "Out of order -
crooked owner!".

It would be interesting if it could be programmed without opening the
case - the only info I have on the guts suggests that there is a
switch inside that must be closed to enable programming mode.  I know
a couple of types can be remotely programmed - one of them is marked
"Cannot receive incoming calls".

When a new prefix was turned on here in LA I deliberately tried it on
a couple of phones the following week, and then called the "repair
number" and chewed them out for "preventing me from calling my mother"
- one outfit thought I was the client!!  They told me they would
verify the new prefix, and "download the new database immediately.
Would I like any other changes at the same time?  No charge, since we
have to add the new prefix."  I was very tempted....


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: Tue, 9 Jan 90 10:17 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Two Jokes


The future:

    AT&T will announce its new "Intergalactic Direct Distance Dialing"
    system (IGDDD).  Although no foreign galaxies will yet have been
    hooked into the system, it will be recommended that users begin
    placing calls immediately since the time lag to get a ring at the
    called party's phone may range up to hundreds of millions of years
    or more.  When asked about charging for the new service, the
    official reply will be, "if you have to ask, you can't afford it -
    but you won't have to worry about getting a bill any time soon.

    In a dramatic event, a team of hard-core teenage computer
    "crackers" will be found to have  spent over 10,000 man-hours
    attempting to break into what they thought was a high-security
    computer system.  It will be revealed, however, that the
    youngsters were actually attempting to log in to a modem that
    was not attached to a computer at all.

    The local district attorney's office will announce that charges of
    malicious mischief will be filed against the crackers as soon as
    they have been deemd safe to be released from their rubber rooms,
    where they continue to babble, "Man, this is one tough system
    to crack..."


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #18
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 11 Jan 90 0:10:54 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #19
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:10:12 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Reach Out World  (Don H. Kemp)
    The REAL Scoop on the FCC Surcharge Rumor (Glenn Popelka)
    Looking For a Good Installer (Jeff M. Cochran)
    CES - Request For Info (Peter Weiss)
    Caller ID Question (W.L. Ware)
    Phone/FAX/Modem Switches ([e-mail])
    Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Mark Ahlenius)
    Wrong Numbers (Piet van Oostrum)
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (John R. Levine)
    Re: NYNEX (Don H. Kemp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Reach Out World
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 17:20:08 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Kemp has forwarded another AT&T Press Release
to us. Thank you, Don.    PT]

FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1990

     BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T today announced its international
discount calling plan, called AT&T Reach Out (R) World.  The FCC
tariff for this plan has been in effect since July 1, 1989.

     Customers save 10 percent or more on calls made during Reach Out
World's hours. For a $3 per month fee, customers receive discounts on
calls to 25 of the most frequently called countries and overseas
areas: Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, Australia,
France, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

     Other countries and areas in the program are Denmark, Ireland,
Norway, Sweden, Monaco, Brazil, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, the
Philippines, Korea, Guam, Taiwan, Pakistan, Kuwait and Israel.

     Reach Out World customers also receive a 5 percent discount on
direct-dialed interstate calls within the United States.

     AT&T also announced today it will soon add nine new countries and
overseas areas to Reach Out World, including West Germany, Spain, Hong
Kong, Greece and Thailand.

     John Berndt, president of AT&T International Communications
Services, said, "The dramatic reduction in international prices over
the last few years has democratized international calling.  Our Reach
Out World plan is an example of how inexpensive and convenient it has
become. As the barriers between East and West and between the nations
of the world come down, telecommunications is leading the way toward a
world in which ideas flow freely."

     A nationwide advertising campaign in support of the Reach Out
World plan will begin tomorrow in newspapers.

     Reach Out World is part of a continuing effort by AT&T to make
international calling more convenient and affordable.  On January 1,
AT&T reduced international calling prices by $104 million. The AT&T
Reach Out World calling rates also now reflect that reduction.

     AT&T has offered discount calls to Canada through its Reach Out
(R) Canada program for three years. For the past two years, AT&T has
offered Reach Out (R) United Kingdom and Reach Out (R) Philippines.

     The January 1 rate decrease and Reach Out World plan continues a
decades-long trend toward lower AT&T international rates. The average
price of an AT&T international call today is less than half the
average price of 15 years ago.

     AT&T has also been working to make international calling easier
by adding Spanish-speaking representatives, introducing multilingual
capabilities and extending to more than 65 countries its USADirect
Service, which allows people phoning the U.S. from overseas to be
directly connected to an AT&T operator in the U.S.

     At the same time, AT&T has expanded its Worldwide Intelligent
Network. In the next few weeks, AT&T will add the Philippines and
Taiwan links to a fiber-optic network that now stretches from Europe
to Asia. And later this year, AT&T plans to expand the fiber-optic
network to include Hong Kong and Korea in the Pacific, and Colombia,
Puerto Rico, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean.

                          #   #   #

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


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

From: Glenn Popelka <[e-mail]>
Subject: The REAL Scoop on the FCC Surcharge Rumor
Date: 10 Jan 90 20:07:57 GMT
Reply-To: Glenn Popelka <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Chicago


     The file MOBILIZE.ZIP has been circulating recently, urging you
to write to a variety of beaurocrats and politicians about a proposed
FCC surcharge on modem usage. The file mentions a talk show from KGO
radio in San Francisco.

    I called KGO today (Jan. 10,1990) to get the real scoop on this
issue. The talk show mentioned is several years old. In fact, its so
old, they couldn't give me the date the show originally aired. KGO
is aware that the issue has re-surfaced, and spent most of yesterday
(Jan. 9,1990) talking about it. I will talk to the producer later
today (again, Jan. 10,1990) to see if I can get a transcript of the
show to post.

    So for now, sysops should take the file MOBILIZE.ZIP and put it
away for possible future use. I can't fault people for being concerned
and wanting to take action against this; I think it demonstrates one
of the better qualities of the BBS community. But, we have to get our
facts straight. Check your sources. Verify the facts. (And cite them.)
Include dates on all postings.

    If you are concerned about dampers being placed on the free flow
of information by malignant utilities, I suggest you follow alt.cosuard,
and write a letter to Southwestern Bell. This is a current issue (as of
Jan. 10, 1990) which could set a dangerous precedent for all of us.


peace & peebs,
glenn popelka
from chicago's great south side.


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

From: "Jeff M. Cochran" <heltel![e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For a Good Installer
Date: 10 Jan 90 08:18:55 GMT
Organization: Cochran & Associates


I am looking for someone who is capable of doing some phone
installation work in West Caldwell, NJ. The first thing that must be
done is the installation of a Panasonic KXT-123211 with two phones and
a couple of lines. That part is simple. The next thing that needs to
be done is the installation of a Newbridge 3612 Mainstreet
Multiplexer.  Then in addition to some voice lines the MUX will have to
have some terminals and printers connected to it. I will need the work
to be done in the next couple of weeks.  If you do this sort of work
or can recommend somebody to do it please email your response to me
at: [e-mail] Thank you in advance.


Jeff M. Cochran              [e-mail]                   415/327-6165

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

Subject: CES - Request For Info
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 10 Jan 1990 15:12:33 EST
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>


I would like to read of other C.E.S. attendees' impressions of the
new/novel.  There is already a trickle flowing to Usenet, but I think
you can do better than CNN-TV.


/Pete

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

From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh.cs.rit.edu!ultb![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Question
Date: 10 Jan 90 18:25:37 GMT
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


I live in Rochester NY, and have a question about caller ID.
Rochester Telephone says that they are planning to implement thier own
version of caller ID, the lady I talked to was not all to sure of
exactly what would go into it but she said probably inthe next 6
months it would be out.

We are on ISDN here so my question is can I buy a Caller ID box from
some 3rd party and plug it in and expect it to work?


Lance

************************************************************************
*W.L.Ware                                             LANCEWARE SYSTEMS*
*WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu                    Value Added reseller*
*WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu                          Mac and IBM Access. *

[Moderator's Note: The answer is yes you can. Shop the catalogs.   PT]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:34:33 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone/FAX/Modem Switches

Has anyone had experience with the various phone/FAX switches that are
being advertised lately in the U.S.? They run from $100 to $350 and
allow you to call your home and switch past an answering machine to a
modem or FAX.  Anyone seen any comparative reviews?

    G. Perkins, Mpls, MN, USA


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

From: Mark Ahlenius <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Question on Automatic Calling Devices
Date: 8 Jan 90 14:44:58 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I recently moved and got a new home phone number.  Each night at
approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device.  It
does not sound like any modem device I have ever heard before.  It has
a short beep (about 0.5 sec.) then pauses for 3-4 seconds or so and
repeats until either I hang up or it gives up a minute or so later.
It does not sound like any fsk device.  It almost sounds like the type
of beep you hear when someone is recording a phone conversation.
Anyway it will try to call us 3 times and then finally give up.  Maybe
HAL or the WHOPPER were revived?

I called Ma Bell (Illinois Bell in this case) and explained the
problem.  They told me that the previous owner of this number had it
changed some time ago cause they got calls from some Bank's fax
machine.  And I could have it changed too. They couldn't resolve the
problem at that time either.  But alas we have already published our
new number to a lot of folks and hate to change it again.  A phone
trap will cost ME bucks and we have to get the local police involved -
something that I don't want to spend money on.

I called our fax machine at work and it does not sound like this
device either - so I am confused about it.  If it is indeed a fax
machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax modem and hook it
up and try to recieved their cover sheet and in effect - return the
favor.  My guess is that our number is programmed in some auto calling
device by mistake and no one knows about it.  Then I can call the
culprits and tell them of the trouble and if that doesn't stop them I
could fax them the whole Sears catalog - until they get the picture!

Anyway does anyone have any ideas on what this problem could be?  If
so - please email me your suggestions and I will post any successful
solutions if so desired to the group.


Thanks in Advance.

    Mark


[Moderator's Note:  What you are suggesting is a fun idea, but then
they could make trouble for you. I suggest instead that you have IBT
trace the calls. If the service rep tries to tell you there will be a
charge to you for tracing, start yelling loudly and demand to have a
supervisor 'or someone who has been trained to talk to subscribers and
correct problems' come on the line. Remind them that their own tariffs
cover tracing of nuisance calls; they are there to serve you, not the
other way around; and do they want to do their job or will you be put
in the postion of having to appeal to the Chairman's office?

They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office
of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the
offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the
offender's service. I will look up the appropriate regulation number
if telco can't find it for you. Then take your bill for what all this
has cost you and file suit in Small Claims Court against the offending
caller to collect for your expenses. I had an almost identical
situation three years ago involving a computer at a bank in Chicago
which was mis-programmed to dial my second line. All the pleading in
the world did no good; I could reach no one in authority to correct
the matter and was told they would do as they pleased. All of a sudden
when one day they were notified by telco that they had a Commission
complaint with a 48 hour 'correct or disconnect order' and the next
day the Sheriff served them with my summons in Small Claims, they
became very solicitous and eager to talk to me.  PT]

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wrong Numbers Can Be Profitable
Date: 10 Jan 90 14:04:13 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


A friend of mine got a telephone number that previously belonged to a
building supplies company (they moved to a different exchange). He got
several telephone calls for the company. After getting tired of it he
called the company and offered them to give their new number to the
callers in exchange for a 10% discount on any purchase. They agreed.


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')

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

Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 10 Jan 90 17:16:21 EST (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Alan Dershowitz, normally a fairly reasonable guy, was all upset about
the Court's decision and how it would inconvenience all of the users
of cordless phones.  I don't have to explain to any readers here that
the technology used in cordless phones makes any expectation of
privacy unreasonable and to attempt to legislate otherwise is spitting
into the wind.

If we step back a little here, what has really happened is that a
technology has been implemented willy-nilly without a thorough
understanding of what it really is or what its implications are, and
when people find out later what has happened they get all upset.  Is
there anyone around trying to educate the population in general and
the legal profession in particular about social implications of
technical change?  If so, they're not doing a very good job.  I
suppose if I really care so much I should do something about it
myself.

Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

PS:  I wouldn't dream of mentioning Caller ID again.  Oops, I just did.
Sorry.

John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
[e-mail], {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl
"Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."

[Moderator's Mote: Caller-ID?  Gaak!  You devil, you!   :)   PT]

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

From: Don H Kemp <uvm-gen!teletech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX
Date: 10 Jan 90 20:51:33 GMT
Organization: B B & K Associates, Inc., Rutland, VT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]:

>>     Well NYNEX is the holding company that owns to BOCs: New York
>>     Telephone (NY) and New England Telephone (NE).

>>     The "X" part may stand for Xtra money? Or, X as in cross connection?

>>                                         - Anthony Lee

> I thought NYNEX was how much your phone bill went up with divestature
> (9x).

While holding idle chit-chat with some NYNEX sales types today, I
was told a little war story about the origin of the name.

    It seem that when New England Telephone and New York
    Telephone management were argui.. (sorry) discussing who
    would come first in the name of the new holding company,
    NYTel decided to be very gracious.

    "New England can come first in the name.  See, N for New
    England, then Y for New York.....

On a related subject, the front page story in the WSJ of 01/09 about
Nynex Material Enterprises overcharging the two operating companies
(to the tune of $120,000,000), brings to mind the name used for the
holding company by many of it's current and former employees.....
SlimeX


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #19
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 11 Jan 90 1:21:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #20
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:20:41 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Henry Mensch)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Kent Borg)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Dimetri Vulis)
    Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Gary Sanders)
    Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Seth Zirin)
    Re: Don't Steal Telephone Service, or Else! (Thomas Lapp)
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Thomas Lapp)
    Re: Two Questions About Caller ID (David Lewis)
    Re: Texas PUC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 04:01:06 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid


Well, maybe the example is stupid, but it is indeed possible for an
unwary user to misdial the other way around (i.e., trying to get a
foreign destination and getting a domestic one instead).

My office phone in Australia was

        [phone]

and at least one person told me that the number they dialed got them a
disconnect message (in area code 617, 595-1431 "has been
disconnected.")  They obviously didn't dial the "+" (011) first...


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

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

From: Kent Borg <lloyd!sunfs3![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid
Date: 10 Jan 90 23:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: Kent Borg <lloyd![e-mail]>
Organization: Camex, Inc., Boston, Mass USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Dodell)
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 9, message 4 of 8

>I'm sure other members of the conference have seen the recent AT&T ad
>showing some guy at a telephone both trying to call Phoenix but
>getting Fuji instead.

>Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679...

Wow!  I knew Fuji had their own blimp, and I knew there were a lot of
big and powerful multinational corportions out there, but this is the
first time I have heard a company having its own *country* code!

I don't approve--maybe we should all start buying Kodak film in
protest.


Kent Borg                lloyd![e-mail]  or  ...!husc6!lloyd!kent
MacNet: kentborg                              H:[phone]  W:[phone]
"The wall has been opened.  One of the most insurmountable borders in Europe
 has become a German dance floor."  -Christoph Hein, NYT Magazine, 17 Dec 1989

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 00:12 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid


Brian L. Matthews said:

>Not that I want to stick up for AT&T's advertising department, but when
>I first saw the ad, I thought the point was that having called Fiji
>instead of Phoenix, he had to call the billing department of whatever
>long-distance company he was using, while an AT&T operator would give
>him instant credit.

Huh! Last fall I called my father in Leningrad, USSR via AT&T. As
discussed previously on Telecom, you have to go thru an AT&T operator
to call there. The operator dialed the number incorrectly. I
immediately called the operator back and they said they won't charge
us for this. Imagine our surprise (well, not much, really) when I
accidentally looked at the itemized AT&T bill and noticed $6+ for that
call! Unfortunately, I don't have the habit of checking the phone bill
in great detail, and this one has already been paid. We're trying to
straighten it out now.

Moral:
If the AT&T operator says you got instant credit, it ain't necessarily so.


Dimitri Vulis
Department of Mathematics
City University of New York Graduate Center

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders)
Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service
Date: 10 Jan 90 14:34:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 18, message 4 of 8

>Latest ad is for a service that will "add your name" to a
>communication to your legislators announcing your feelings (pro or
>anti) on the abortion issue.  Call 1-900-xxx-xxx0 for one view and

    I noticed another sleazy thing that is happening in the
900/976 world is on pricing.

    I have seen a number of ads stating a price of 50 cents a
minute, that is about 1/2 of what other services are charging, but if
you look closely there is a "*" and very small print at the bottom of
the page that says cost is based on 1/2 minutes.

    The other sleazy item is get minimum number of minutes, you
get this "great rate" but there is a 15 minute minimum on the call.

    With many of these chat/talk lines running $60 to $75 an hour
I dont see how people can really spend that kind of money.  Are people
really that lonely? The quality of the phone lines and quality of the
service overall is very poor.


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

From: Seth Zirin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service
Date: 10 Jan 90 14:26:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

>The announcer is a pretty lady with a soothing voice telling how
>important the issue is, and how the supreme court has put it back in
>the hands of the legislator and how disasterous it would be if your
>voice wasn't heard.  Unsaid, but implied is the threat that if the
>other side calls in more times than your side does, legislators will
>be influenced against your position.

There are worse ads in the NY Metro area.

  1) A "free" information kit for people with bad credit that
  desire a credit card.  The call costs 6.95 and the warning
  is visual only and lasts 1 second.

  2) Information on buying cars seized from drug dealers for $100.
  They show new Vettes, BMWs, etc and the call costs $59.00!
  Again, there is no audible warning.

  3) WOR in NJ seems to bombard their evening viewers with ads
  for various date and love lines.  They state that only women
  will be on the line.  Since we never see ads geared towards
  women that claim only men will be on the line, we can only
  assume that the women are employees of the service provider
  and are not women calling in on some other number.

Using 900 for these calls was a bad idea.  Anyone dialing an off by
one to a toll free 800 number can get zapped.  Imagine trying to get
credit for a $59 wrong number from one of the fly by night "telephone
companies."

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:16:16 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Steal Telephone Service, or Else!
Reply-To: mvac23![e-mail]


TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> [Excerpts from the Chicago Tribune and New York Times,
> Sunday, January 7, 1990]

> tricky problem, and to guard against lost revenues, phone companies
> often treat college students and prisoners the same: as high-risk
> customers of whom a large security deposit will be required. Or, they
> may require some third person to make a personal guarentee for the
> payment when it comes due.

When I attended Ohio State University as a grad student, it was the
first time I had telephone service installed.  When I called to have
service installed, I really expected to have to pay dearly for
service.  Much to my surprise, even though I let the order taker know
that I had never had phone service before, I was not required to put
down a down payment.  Nor was I required to pay for service in advance
(other than the usual billing for installation and the first month).
Of course, I don't know if she took employment info or not, but I was
employed by the University (as a teaching associate).


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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 19:16:16 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private
Reply-To: mvac23![e-mail]


And in a comment on another posting in the same issue in which the
Supreme Court ruled that conversations over cordless phones are not
considered private:

> A federal judge in Davenport, Iowa threw out the suit, saying users of
> cordless phones should know that the technology used in their phones
> makes it possible to overhear a conversation without a wiretap. As
> [...]
> who argued the matter before the Supreme Court claimed "this decision
> deprives millions of Americans the privacy rights they *think* they
> have when they are talking at home on a cordless phone." (emphasis
> mine)

What bothers me about this is that if users of cordless phones should
be aware that they can be overheard, the Supreme Court should also
apply the same reasoning to cellular telephones since it is OBVIOUS
that carphones, etc. use radio waves (the antenna tends to give it
away :-).  It seems inconsistant that the ECPA protects cellular
phones but not cordless phones; or vice versa, that the Supreme Court
can rule that cordless phones are not private, but not strike down the
ECPA on that same point.

> He said it also takes away the privacy protection of callers using a
> regular phone who, unknowingly, speak with someone using a cordless phone.

Now I could see this side of it, although most of the time, the
quality difference between cordless and corded telephones is such that
most people can tell which is being used at the other end.  And
likewise, most people know that they are dialing a cellular telephone
when they do so, although the quality difference is less noticable (in
my opinion).

                         - 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?


[Moderator's Note: There is no logical reason why cordless phones are
not protected by ECPA and cellular phones are. The only reason for this
discrepancy is that cellular phone companies have big $$ to spend on
aggressive attornies. Actually, there is no valid reason for ECPA, period,
but that's a story for another day.   PT]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Questions About Caller ID
Date: 10 Jan 90 17:37:15 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


[What was it you said, Patrick?  Two weeks before we start up again?]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Steve Forrette) writes:

> 1) Long distance and Caller ID

> How well does Caller ID work with incoming long distance calls?

It doesn't.  [Inasmuch as "long distance" is defined as inter-LATA.]
None of the CLASS service package, of which Caller ID is one service,
will work in any way with inter-LATA calls.

However, some certain 800 calls will result in the billing number
(which, in 99% of residential applications, is the same as the calling
number) being delivered to the called party.  AT&T offers billing number
delivery (a.k.a. ANI delivery) over an ISDN BRI from their 4ESS to a
customer's PBX; MCI is shortly going to begin delivery of billing number
(ANI) via MF signaling to customers.  Both of these are, so far as I
know, offered only in conjunction with 800 service.


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: Texas PUC Responds to Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Date: 10 Jan 90 22:16:19 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


An interesting point.  The Texas OPC (Office of Public Counsel) claims
that SWBT can modernize the network, and use the revenues from new
services to pay for that modernization.  The quote was...

>Ms. Ottmers stated that
>economically  justified  improvements  to the telephone network should
>be performed --  and  that high-tech  services which are made possible
>by the  modernization should  pay  for the upgrades.

Unfortunately, those "high-tech" services cost money above and beyond
that to upgrade the network.  For an example near and dear to the
hearts of the Digest, consider the CLASS service package.  To deploy
CLASS, you have to "upgrade the network" -- deploy CCS7 to all your
end offices.  However, you also have to purchase the CLASS software.
The services then have to recover the cost of not only the software to
provide the service, but also the network improvement.

A case could even be made that this is *not* in the public interest,
because all users of the telephone network are benefiting from the
deployment of new technology, but not all users are paying for said
deployment.  However, it's been an accepted practice since the
beginning of time for PUCs to permit (nay, encourage) this sort of
internal subsidy, because it's the general public who receives the
benefit.  (General public pays for benefits to limited set of users ==
not good; limited set of users pays for benefits to general public ==
good.)

This aside, I would go out on a limb and say that if PUCs accept the
argument that telcos should put up the money for network improvements
and expect to recover those costs in revenues from new services, it's
going to be a cold day in El Paso before we see a slew of network
improvements.

Why?  Because telephone companies are risk-averse.  They attract
investors precisely because they are risk-averse; regardless of their
intentions, they will continue to be risk-averse for a very, very long
time.

Consider the reaction of Wall Street if SWBT made the following announcement:

(The following is a simulation.  Please do not adjust your set.)

SWBT ANNOUNCES NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS

Southwestern Bell Company today announced that it was reducing investor
dividends for the third quarter by a total of $340 Million to fund its
"Oklahoma First" network improvement plan.

"We feel that there is sufficient revenue out there to justify the
cost," said xxx, Vice President for Network Planning.  "The PUCs aren't
guaranteeing our usual 12% rate of return on capital investments, but
our market research indicates that the Oklahoma market for advanced
services is tremendous.  We expect to recover our investment in two
years."

(This has been a simulation; we now return you to our regularly
scheduled post.)

Imagine the reaction of pension fund managers and mutual fund managers
who have SWB stock because it's a nice, safe investment returning 12% a
year.  Now, they've gone and kicked $340M into an investment that's not
nice, safe, guaranteed, and they're counting on market research for
services that no one's ever sold before to pay it back...  Sell!  Sell!

I don't know if the answer is new forms of regulation, or competition in
the local loop, or more intelligent regulatory bodies, or what -- but
I'm fairly certain it's *not* what the OPC thinks it is in this case...


Industrial-strength disclaimer -- this is my opinion, not Bellcore's.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #20
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 11 Jan 90 2:08:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #21
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jan 90 01:50:34 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Notes on the Network: Dialing Procedures (David Lewis)
    Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (John R. Covert)
    Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Chris Johnston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Notes on the Network: Dialing Procedures
Date: 10 Jan 90 23:45:57 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


Given the apparent resumption of the discussion of dialing plans to do
with interchangeable codes, I thought it might be a good idea to present
"the straight story", from Notes on the Network.  I took the effort to
get the following excerpts from Notes typed in.

{However, this is an unauthorized reproduction.  While I shouldn't get
into *too* much trouble...}

I would ask that:

(1) all distribution in electronic form of the following excerpts
reproduce the excerpts in their entirety, without change, deletion, or
modification of any parts;

(2) all distribution in electronic form of the following excerpts
include the full citation and copyright notices;

(3) no more than one hardcopy, for personal use only, be made by any
reader of the following excerpts.


[Moderator's Note: I appreciate your concern, and have prepended your
note to me to the start of this article. I ask that readers observe
your special requests under the circumstances.   PT]

=========================================================================

The following is excerpted from _Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986
Issue 1, April 1986
TR-NPL-000275

Copyright (c) American Telephone and Telegraph, Inc., 1980, 1983

Copyright (c) Bell Communications Research, Inc., 1986

All rights reserved.


3.0 Interchangeable Codes

3.01    The subject of interchangeable codes is frequently
misunderstood, perhaps in large part due to the terminology used.  Some
definitions of interchangealbe codes that will be useful in the
following discussion are provided below:

    * Interchangeable CO codes:  This refers to anygiven NPA in
which codes of the format N 0/1 X (i.e., those codes traditionally used
only as NPA codes) are used for CO codes, in addition to the traditional
CO codes of the format NNX.  Thus, interchangeable CO codes are of the
format NXX.  Interchangeable CO codes are currently in use in NPA 201
(Northern New Jersey), NPAs 212/718 (New York City), 213/818 (Los
Angeles), 312 (Chicago), 214/817 (Dallas/Fort Worth), 905 (Mexico City),
and 706 (Northwest Mexico).  {Note -- as of April, 1986.  I presume 718
is also using interchangeable CO codes; some others may be as well.}

    * Interchangeable NPA codes:  This refers to codes of the format
NNX (i.e., those codes traditionally used only as CO codes) are used as
NPA codes in addition to the traditional NPA codes of the format N 0/1
X.
Thus, interchangeable NPA codes are also of the format NXX.  No
interchangeable NPA codes are in use at this time.  However, Bellcore
has recommended that the NANP service area implement interchangeable NPA
code capability by July 1, 1995.

3.02    The two interchangeable code situations together are often
referred to as "full code interchangeability" or "fully interchangeable
codes."  The term "interchangeable codes" is frequently used to refer to
either situation.  Unlike the ANC (All Number Calling) situation, there
are some significant effects on both caller-dialing procedures and the
switching equipment when interchangeable codes are implemented.  These
effects are discussed in the remainder of part 3.0.

3.03 omitted

3.04 omitted

3.05    Interchangeable CO codes are implemented on an individual NPA
basis without any resulting effect on the dialing procedures or
switching system arrangements in any other NPAs.  However, within the
NPA in which the conversion takes place, all switching systems must be
modified to accept codes of the format N 0/1 X as the first three digits
of a 7-digit number, as well as the first three digits of a 10-digit
number.

3.06    When interchangeable CO codes are introduced in an NPA, the
ability of the switching systems to distinguish between a 7- and a
10-digit address by examing the first three address digit is impaired.
Thus, some other method for making that distinction is required.
Several possibilities exist.  One possibility is to have the callers
provide a positive indication of their intention by dialing "1" in front
of the area code on all 10-digit (and only 10-digit) calls.  This is
referred to as the "1+" or "prefix" method.  Another is to have the
switching machine wait a fixed period of time (i.e. approximately four
seconds) after seven digits have been received to see if additional
digits are received.  If no additional digits are received within the
required period, the switching machine will time out and process the
call on a 7-digit basis.  This is referred to as the "timing" method.
Yet a third possibility is a compromise between the prefix and timing
methods.  This will be referred to as the "hybrid" method in this
document.  The hybrid method is summarized below.

CALL TYPE        DIALING PROCEDURE        TIMING REQUIRED
Local 7D        NXX-XXXX            No

Toll 7D            1+NXX-XXXX            Only if NXX is also
                            an assigned NPA code

All 10D            1+NPA-NXX-XXXX            No


3.07    Thus, the hybrid method requires timing only in those cases
where a toll call is dialed on a 1+7D basis, and the dialed NXX code is
assigne as both a CO code within the HNPA {Note -- Home NPA a.k.a. home
area code} and an NPA code elsewhere in the North American network.  The
successful application of the hybrid method depends upon a switching
system capabile of examining the first three digits received after a
leading "1" to determin whether they are an NPA code only, an office
code only, or an ambiguous code that is in use as both.  Only in the
latter case will the timing option have to be applice, after the seventh
digit, to determine whether a 7- or 10-digit number is being received.

3.08    The 1+ or prefix method is the recommended standard dialing
procedure.  As expected, there are advantages and disadvantages for both
the prefix and the timing methods.  The decision to designate the prefix
method as the standard for the future include the following considerations:

*    The prefix method has the disadvantage of requiring the dialing
of an extra digit.  However, this is applicable only on 10-digit calls,
and over 90% of BOC main stations already use a 1+ when dialing 10-digit
calls.

*    The prefix method avoids the need for imposing a four-second
post-dialing delay scheme on some, or all, local calls.  Avoidance of
this extra delay on local calls is beneficial both to the telephone
companies in the form of reduced holding time for the switching system's
common control equipment, and to the caller in the form of reduced
call-setup delay.

*    With the timing method, common control switching systems have
the ability to avoid the need for timing except where ambiguous codes
(i.e., those codes actually assigned for both NPA and CO use) actually
exist.  The need for timing would be minimized initially.  However, as
time passes and the quantity of ambiguous codes increases, the quantity
of time-out applications will also increase.  Also, for those callers
with an ambiguous office code, all intra-NXX calls would be subjected to
the timing delay.

*    With the advent of Common Channel Signaling (CCS), connections
can be completed within a few seconds after dialing.  As the average
long-haul post-dialing delay continues to decrease, the existance of a 4
to 6 second delay on an increasing number of local calls would become
increasingly irritating to callers.

*    Those areas with step-by-step switching equipment will have an
additional penalty under the prefix scheme.  HNPA toll calls will have
to be dialed on a 1+10D basis instead of the 1+7D basis often used now.
As the common control systems replace the step-by-step equipment, all
HNPA calls will be dialable on the recommended 7D basis.

*    The recommended dialing procedure for use with interchangeable
codes specifies 0+10D dialing for all operator-assisted calls, both HNPA
and Foreign NPA (FNPA).  The HNPA 0+ call is the one case where, even
after step-by-step is replaced, customers will be asked to dial
additional digits (other than the 1+) beyond their present dialing
patterns (i.e., 0+10D instead of 0+7D for HNPA operator-assisted calls).
The additional three digits will avoid the nominal 4-second timing
period that occurs if only seven digits are dialed.

3.09 omitted

Effects of Implementing Interchangeable Numbering Plan Area (NPA) Codes

3.10 omitted

3.11    ... Dialing procedures also will have to be changed in many
areas.  The same comments made in parts 3.03 through 3.09 for
interchangeable CO codes apply to interchangeable NPA codes with regard
to the requirement for 1+ dialing for 10-digit calls...

The Prefix or 1+ Method As USed with Interchangeable Codes

3.12    It should be noted that, in this document, references to the
prefix or 1+ method in connection with interchangeable codes mean that
1+ is used *only* for 10-digit calls and without regard to whether or
not the 10-digit call is a toll or local call.  With the prefix method,
dialing 1+7D will result in a partial-dial situation once
interchangeable codes have been implemented in an NPA.  Many callers
that are presently required to dial 1+10D are also required to dial 1+7D
for 7D toll calls.  The latter procedure will have to be eliminated (or
the hybrid timing method implemented) prior to implementation of
interchangeable CO codes in an NPA.  Similar action will be required in
all NPAs prior to implementation of interchangeable NPA codes in the
NANP.  The temporary use of 1+HNPA+7D may be required in some cases.


TABLE D

Type of call        Without                With
                Interchangeable CO Codes

Local Direct Dialed
HNPA            NNX-XXXX    R        NXX-XXXX    R*
            1+NNX-XXXX    NR        1+NXX-XXXX    NR
            NPA+NXX-XXXX    NR        NPA+NXX-XXXX    NR
            1+NPA+NXX-XXXX    P        1+NPA+NXX-XXXX    P

FNPA             NNX-XXXX    R        NXX-XXXX    R
(protected codes)    1+NNX-XXXX    NR        1+NXX-XXXX    NR
            NPA+NXX-XXXX    NR        NPA+NXX-XXXX    NR
            1+NPA+NXX-XXXX    P        1+NPA+NXX-XXXX    P

FNPA            NPA+NNX-XXXX    R        NPA+NXX-XXXX    NR
(nonprotected codes)    1+NPA+NNX-XXXX    P        1+NPA+NXX-XXXX    R*

Toll Direct Dialed
HNPA            NNX-XXXX    R        NXX-XXXX    R*
            1+NNX-XXXX    NR        1+NXX-XXXX    NR
            NPA+NXX-XXXX    NR        NPA+NXX-XXXX    NR
            1+NPA+NXX-XXXX    P        1+NPA+NXX-XXXX    P

FNPA            NPA+NNX-XXXX    R        NPA-NXX-XXXX    NR
            1+NPA+NNX-XXXX    P        1+NPA+NXX-XXXX    R*

R = Recommended
R* = Recommended, These are the recommended long-term procedures to be
applicable after step-by-step equipment and protected codes are
obsolete.
NR = Not Recommended
P = Permissive; may be permitted in addition to recommended procedure.

Note: Code protection is discussed in part 4.02, item 4:

4.02    CO code conservation forestalls the need for code relief and the
associated expenditures... The following is a list of CO
code-conservation measures recommended for CO code administration:

 ...

4) Code protection is an arrangement wherein a CO code assigned in one
NPA is excluded from assignment in an adjacent NPA, to permit 7-digit
dialing across the common boundary.  This is a permissible arrangement
and has advantages where a community of interest bridges the boundary in
question, but is acceptable only as long as it can be contunued without
causing exhaustion of the CO code universe in the NPA protecting the
code...

======================================================================

End of excerpt

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


[Moderator's Note: Thank you very much for the work involved in getting
this prepared for the Digest.   PT]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 05:36:29 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  10-Jan-1990 0822" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America


Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes:

>Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult
>to implement in North America.  It basically means that the affected
>area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know.

Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar
central offices throughout North America, changing the length of
telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of
dollars in expenditure in other areas.

Unlike countries where most telephone service is provided by either
ancient step-by-step or modern electronic offices, the North American
Integrated Numbering Plan Area (U.S., Canada, and the 809 Caribbean)
is chock full of central offices of an intermediate type.  These
common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number,
in what is known as an Originating Register.  This is a hardware
register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing
three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0"
was dialled first.

To implement eight digits _anywhere_ in North America would require
costly modifications _throughout_ North America to every originating
register in every remaining No. 5 XBar office, many of which are not
scheduled for retirement until sometime in the first two decades of
the next century.

>Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification
>of a number as mobile.

It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified
as mobile numbers.  Why should anyone care?

/john

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 16:05:16 199
From: Chris Johnston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls?


When I was in Oakland (415) last summer I wasted nearly 20 minutes
trying to call a San Francisco number.  First I dialed 1-415-123-4567
and got an intercept "You do not need to dial 1 before this number".
So I dialed 415-123-4567 and got the message "You must dial 1 before
this number".  Eventually I figured out I was already in 415 and was
required to use the seven digit number.

Yesterday something similar happened on the Howard "L" platform.  One
end of the platform is in Evanston the other in Chicago.  Since I
wanted to call a 708 number I carefully checked the number card on the
(Illinois Bell) pay phone it (incorrectly) read 312.  So I dialed
1-708-xxx-xxxx and got a recording which sounded like a local telco
installer who gruffly said "<crackle> dial 1 <crackle>" I redialed
without the areacode and got right through.

Why can't I always use eleven digit dialing?  Why must I know the
local geography to dial a phone?

Does anybody check these messages to see if they make sense?  Is every
switch message recorded locally?  Could this be an old switch which is
not centrally maintained?

cj

[Moderator's Note: Please double-check on this. The elevated platform
is entirely in Chicago. Evanston starts about five feet west of the
embankment on the north side of the street at that point. The Evanston
boundary then runs parallel to the tracks on the west side up to where
the turn-around is wedged in at the corner of Jonquil Terrace and
Clark Street (aka Chicago Avenue in Evanston). The City of Chicago
then has a little wedge about a block long terminating on the north
side by the Calvary Cemetery. It is only at that point that Evanston
moves east of the tracks. The pay phones on the platform and in the
station downstairs were all HOllycourt 5 the last time I saw them,
which is a Chicago exchange (312-465). This was about three weeks ago. PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #21
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 11 Jan 90 19:31:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #22
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jan 90 19:30:56 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (John Boteler)
    Picking on the BOCs? (William Degnan)
    Faxnet Info Request (Hank Nussbacher)
    National Telecom Policy (William Degnan)
    Conn./Mass. Cellular 911 Access Upgraded (John Boteler)
    Looking For a Used Panasonic KX-616 (John Kennedy)
    An Annenberg/CPB Special Funding Initiative ([e-mail])
    Re: Don't Steal Phone Service, or Else! (Carl Moore)
    Re: Reach Out World (Clive Dawson)
    Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 4:13:06 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Excerpted from:
UPce 01/08 1709  Phone user vows new court fight

   DIXON, Iowa (UPI) - An Iowan whose eavesdropping case was turned
down by the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday the issue sets up affluent
cellular phone users as a special class over average Americans using
cordless phones.

   The high court refused to hear a case brought by Scott Tyler, of
Dixon against some nosey neighbors and Scott County officials who
listened in on his cordless telephone conversations for months in
1983.

   At issue is whether users of such phones, now in millions of homes,
have an expectation of privacy in their conversations as they would
when using a traditional phone.

   Tyler said he plans to refile the appeal before the Supreme Court
Oct. 1 after mounting a publicity campaign backed by supporters in the
Seventh Day Adventist Church.

   Tyler has already received invitations for national radio and
television talks shows as well as news programs. National media such
as Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal plan feature stories.

   A local talk show host, Jim Fisher of WOC radio in Davenport, said
he will tape cordless phone conversations he picks up and air them
over his station to illustrate the problems with the Supreme Court's
decision.

   Tyler said it's case of the justices lagging behind technological
development. He noted almost 40 years passed between the time of the
telephone's first widespread use and the first supreme court ruling in
1928 that phone conversations were covered by Fourth Amendment rights
of privacy.

   Tyler said the refusal to extend those rights to cordless phones is
a slap at the common citizen. Privacy rights have been granted to
phone pagers and cellular communications already.

   "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the
average man's isn't," Tyler said.

   According to lower court records, the case began when Richard and
Sandy Berodt, whom Tyler described as "political enemies," discovered
in 1983 that their cordless telephone could intercept conversations on
the cordless telephone in the Tyler household more than four blocks
away.

   Tyler said he was suspected of narcotics dealing when the Berodts
misunderstood "light load" for "white load." Tyler ran a wholesale
food firm at the time.

   Based on what they overheard, the Berodts suspected Tyler of
criminal activity and contacted the Scott County Sheriff's Department
and were urged to monitor Tyler's conversations. The county eventually
supplied the Berodts with recording equipment.

   Tyler was never charged with drug dealing but was convicted on
theft and conspiracy charges stemming from his business. He served
four months in prison.

   Tyler then brought suit against his neighbors and county officials,
charging the eavesdropping violated his constitutional rights. Lower
courts dismissed the case ruling he had no expectation of privacy when
using a phone they knew could easily be monitored and he appealed to
the high court.

   Tyler is currently unemployed. Three supporters in the Seventh Day
Adventist Church are paying for Tyler's legal bills, which have
amounted to more than $200,000, and giving him a stipend to travel the
country publicizing his case, he said.

   He argued phone partylines are covered by privacy rights and also
said the lower court's reliance on radio waves as a justification for
not protecting cordless phones does not make sense.

   Cellular phones are entirely broadcast over radio while cordless
phones are merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit, which
is plugged into a regular phone jack. The other half of conversations
could also be over regular landlines and would have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, Tyler said.  [ wrong - ed ]

   "This could take on Orwellian excesses," Tyler said. "Police could
sit on a street with an AM radio and wait for a criminal conversation
to occur."

/* end excerpted text */

Interesting to Telecommers, notwithstanding some of the inaccuracies.


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


[Moderator's Note: I will comment for now only on the proposed
activities of Jim Fisher, the talk-show host on WOC/Davenport. I
can't believe he is as dumb as he sounds. *If* he plays those phone
calls over the radio, he will risk the station losing its license, and
being fined heavily. In addition, there could be fines against him.

You may not broadcast a telephone call over the air without the
knowledge and consent of the person(s) on the phone. Steve Dahl tried
it in Chicago and had fines heaped upon his station by the FCC. You
may not ever engage in an activity for personal gain based upon what
you overheard in a radio transmission not intended for yourself.  You
may not discuss what you heard, or acknowledge that you heard
anything.  Please note a 'broadcast' is a radio transmission intended
for you; a telephone conversation which uses a radio link in part or
in whole is a radio transmission *not* intended for you, and while I
disagree with the ECPA, and believe I have the right to decipher any
electromagnetic radiation which comes my way, I still believe the FCC
was correct in prohibiting the use of information overheard by third
parties while tuning their radios, etc. Not in *listening* to it, mind
you, just in acknowledging it or using it.

Mr. Fisher seems to think its okay to personally gain from what he
hears by using it for an 'interesting' program, and he certainly does
not feel he needs to obtain permission from the telephone users. His
proposed violations of the law are not merely 'cordless phone issues',
but rather, violations of various other FCC regs.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 20:54:01 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Picking on the BOCs?


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>What would stop a Pacific Telesis supply arm
>from buying, for instance, Northern Telecom DMS100s at a steal of a
>price (quantity, someone sleeping with someone, whatever) then turning
>around and selling those switches to Pac*Bell at full list? And then
>when it comes time to compute rate-of-return for Pac*Bell they show
>exhorbitant costs for their CO equipment, reflecting a lower apparent
>rate-of-return. But Pacific Telesis made the profit at its other
>subsidiary, *totally at the expense of Pac*Bell's ratepayers*. Back to
>my question: What would stop them? Nothing. They do it all the time.
>Now that the PUC isn't watching them anymore, it will be even easier
>to get away with it.

John, don't you think you're just a little paranoid? Nahhhhhh.

 From the MDF (Main Distribution Frame) Echo on Fidonet:

  053/061 09 Jan 90  19:18:04
  From:   News Desk @ 382/39
  To:     All
  Subj:   Cross-subsidization? Us? Nahhhhh.

 NYNEX AUDIT -- When Nynex ... set up a subsidiary to buy supplies
 for them, the idea was to save money:  The purchasing unit could
 buy in volume, and the savings would be passed on to customers.
 From the start, regulators worried that it wouldn't work that way.
 Because profits of the purchasing unit wouldn't be regulated,
 Nynex might be tempted to have this unit charge the phone
 companies inflated prices. ... It was a temptation Nynex
 apparently couldn't resist.  A year-long federal audit has
 concluded that ... Nynex has overcharged its own companies this
 way to the tune of $120 million.  The FCC ... may act against
 Nynex as early as this week. ... The complex web of intramural
 transactions at Nynex ... reminds regulators of the cozy ties that
 AT&T's Western Electric unit had with the Bell operating
 companies, a relationship that helped prompt the breakup of AT&T.
 Since the breakup, such relationships have become increasingly
 common with the ... Baby Bells. ... New York Times, A1.

     ===============================================
"Just 'cause you're paranoid, doesn't mean they ain't out to getcha."

Regards, Bill

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383

William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31)
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 18:24:45 O
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Faxnet Info Request

I am looking for information about Faxnet products and integration to
PCs.  I am aware of Fax machines that can maintain lists of numbers to
dial so that one can have a distribution list via FAX.  But what if I
am on a PC and I want to send my data directly from my PC to a Faxnet
machine so that certain copies will be sent via Fax but some will be
sent via e-mail so that the destination user will receive the letter
in computer readable format.

What of the reverse?  Someone feeding in a typed letter into a FAX and
the FAXnet machine sending it to some people via straight FAX and
others via e-mail.  Is that posssible?

I am interested in hearing of any papers, documents, articles on this
matter.


Many thanks,
Hank

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 12:54:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Telecom Policy


The following summary was received in our office this morning. Does
anybody here have access to the "notice"? I'd sure like to see it.

  =================================================================

  COMMENTS, PLEASE -- The government has begun an inquiry into
  whether basic telephone service in the future should include
  technical innovations such as call-forwarding and access to data
  and video networks. ... The Bush administration said Tuesday it
  wants to have a policy in place a year from now. ... Key issues
  are how, how fast and which various elements of the industry can
  best improve U.S. competitiveness and the quality of life. ... In
  a 99-page notice published Tuesday, the policy-advising National
  Telecommunications and Information Admin. ... said it wants fresh
  comments within the next 90 days from the industry. ... AP, McGraw
  Hill, 1/9.



Regards, Bill

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383

William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31)
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Conn./Mass. Cellular 911 Access Upgraded
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 4:06:57 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


UPI New England reports that cellular telephone users in Connecticut,
as well as users in Springfield, MA, may now access local emergency
dispatch centers directly via E-911.

The article indicated that prior to January 1 an operator intercepted
the calls to 911, rerouting them to the appropriate agency. It did not
indicate exactly what will happen now, however the EMX (TM) switches
have probably implemented call steering to route the call to the
appropriate emergency communications center based on the location of
the active cell site.

It is my understanding that Metropolitan WashiMore subscribers to
Cellular One have had this capability for several years, at least.


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

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

From: John Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For a Used Panasonic KX-616
Date: 11 Jan 90 12:42:22 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Kennedy)
Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD


Perhaps you're about to upgrade?  I'm looking to spend around $500.


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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 09:27:48 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: An Annenberg/CPB Special Funding Initiative


The Annenberg/CPB Project Announces A Special Funding Initiative:

The Project seeks proposals from a broad range of 2- and 4-year
colleges and universities that would use technologies to make academic
programs more accessible to more types of students.  Priority will be
given to projects that can serve individuals who face constraints of
schedule, distance, physical impairment, and/or cost.

Submission Deadline:
May 15, 1990

For guidelines, write or call:

The Annenberg/CPB Project
1111 Sixteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]

or send electronic mail to:

[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:47:29 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Steal Phone Service, Or Else!

The published item says "beginning and end of semesters".  Let me add
this: A caution I read several years ago was that at the beginning of
a traditional spring term, students usually have less money available
than at the beginning of the fall term; therefore, various forms of
fraud (shoplifting, phone fraud, etc.?) are more likely to occur at
the beginning of the SPRING term.

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

Date: Thu 11 Jan 90 11:49:06-CST
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reach Out World


A comment regarding ATT's new Reach Out World program.  I called ATT
to inquire what the discount rate would be for calls to Mexico.  I was
told that the rate under Reach Out World would be $.15/minute, with an
additional 5% discount on calls over 10 minutes.  I told the rep this
was too good to be true, and sure enough, it was.  He said, "Of
course, this applies only to the U.S. portion of the call up to the
international boundary.  We have no control over the foreign country
rates."

Blah.  From Austin, the U.S. portion of the night-time rate to Mexico
is currently $.14/minute, and I don't have to pay $3/month to get it!
(The Mexican portion is about $.75/min -- that's the real killer.)

Does anybody have any info regarding a rumor that the Mexican
telephone industry was recently de-regulated and/or that the
government has relinquished direct ownership?

Clive

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modeming on Electronic Switch System
Date: 11 Jan 90 14:50:47 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, ntpdvp1![e-mail] (Dave Livingston)
writes:

[specifics omitted]

> ...standards defined by Bellcore...

While we're talking correct terminology... Bellcore doesn't define
standards; Bellcore writes technical requirements.  Committee T1,
CCITT, and ISO write standards, to which Bellcore (and Northern
Telecom/Bell Northern Research, among others) is an active
contributor.

I know what you meant, but the term is actually "Bellcore
Requirements".


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #22
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:10:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #23
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:10:30 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    New Telephone Numbering System in Hong Kong (Albert Pang)
    Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (John R. Levine)
    Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (David Lewis)
    Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion (Steve Gaarder)
    Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (Dan O'Callagan)
    Re: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers (David Lewis)
    Re: Caller ID (Keith Vitek)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 13:32:03 EST
Subject: New Telephone Numbering System in Hong Kong


I have just returned from Hong Kong and have withnessed this historic
event in telecommunication history in Hong Kong.

As of Dec 30, 1989 00:01a.m. ("Easy Dialing Day"), no "regional code"
will be needed in HK's phone numbers. Most phone numbers now have
seven digits (with the exception of "999" the emergency number, etc).
From then on, the "regional code" (a 3 for Kowloon, 5 for Hongkong
Island or 0 for New Territories) will be stripped off from phone
numbers with 7 digits.

For those numbers with 6 digits, the "regional code" will become part of
the telephone number.

Example:
   3-376756  will become 337-6756  (a 6 digit phone # in Kowloon)
   5-8172780 will become 817-2780  (a 7 digit phone # HK island)

The new way of writing phone #s is to divide the # into 2 groups: a
group of 3 digits and a group of 4 digits.  From news media, I learned
that there will be a transition period during which you can still use
the old # but you will hear a recording telling you about the change.

Over two million numbers were changed overnight.  All these changes
were for the preparation of a all digital system by year 1995.

 From my observation, the general reaction of the public was
favourable.  Due to massive advertisement (since June 1989) in TV,
radio, Newspaper etc, It is almost impossible to overlook the changes.


<Albert PANG>  [e-mail]
McGill University, Montreal, Canada.


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

Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 10 Jan 90 18:11:21 EST (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult
>to implement in North America.  It basically means that the affected
>area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to
>know.  ...

It seems to be difficult for people from other countries to understand
how deeply ingrained 3+7 digit phone numbers are in North America.  It
is not practical to suggest that we change to anything different.
Both central office equipment and premises equipment such as PBXes,
memory dialers, toll restrictors, etc. have the 7 and 10 digit lengths
wired in.

Also, now that every dialable phone number in North America has been
ten digits since about 1955, an entire generation has grown up with
3+7 numbers and it's ingrained in our dialing fingers.  I'm 35 and I
don't remember anything else.

By the way, on another thread, I suspect that the reason that some
areas are going to 1+NPA+number rather than just the number for
intra-NPA toll calls is due to the limitations of old exchanges that
need a leading 1 for tandem access.  As noted elsewhere, toll charging
is complicated enough that "dial 1 for toll" really isn't very
meaningful any more.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

PS:  Didn't mention Caller ID at all.  Oops, did it again.  :-)

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion
Date: 11 Jan 90 18:31:04 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult
> to implement in North America.  It basically means that the affected
> area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to
> know.  Most telephone numbers stay the same, with the addition of
> another digit, and for those that change, working out the new number
> is very easy.

> Taking Los Angeles area 213 as an example:

> 1. Abolish area code 213 and in its place establish areas 225 and 228.
> This will mean that all areas using 225 and 228 as prefixes must
> remove 1+7D toll dialling.

In effect, this means that all of the North American Numbering Plan
must cutover to fully interchangeable codes.  Although you restrict it
to 225 and 228 at the start, you assume that farther down the line 22X
is the next step, and 33X and other prefixes will be used in other
areas.  As time goes to infinity, the number of NPAs that have none of
these prefixes assigned goes very, very rapidly to 0.  Therefore, the
entire NANP must cutover to fully interchangeable codes.  This is,
when it occurs around 1995, going to be *the* biggest and most
expensive change to the NANP.

> 2. There is no geographical isolation of 225 and 228.  Instead, the
> areas are assigned to the prefixes 2xx-5xx and 6xx-9xx.

> 3. Old numbers beginning with 5 and 8 have their first digit changed
> to 7 and 3 respectively.

> 4. Dialling within the 225-228 area *must* begin with either a 5 or an
> 8.  Any attempt to dial a number beginning with 2,3,4,6,7,9 should be
> directed a recorded message to remind about the new system.  This
> should last several months.

Let me see if I understand this.  The number that used to be
213-455-XXXX would now be 225-455-XXXX, but would be, within this NPA,
dialed as 5-455-XXXX.  From outside this NPA, it would be dialed
1-225-455-XXXX.  Dialing within the NPA would be 8-digit; dialing to
outside the NPA would be 11-digit (1+NPA+NXX-XXXX).

> The benefits of this system are many, including the retention of LA as
> a large community, and an inexhaustible supply of new prefixes, by
> simply adding new pseudo-areas 22N when everyone was used to 8 digit
> dialling.

Here's a trap.  You say above that, in a "pseudo-area" 2 2 5/8, CO
codes can not begin with 5 or 8.  So if you add "pseudo-areas" of the
format 22N (I think you meant 22X -- N excludes 0/1, X doesn't), this
restricts you from having CO codes beginning with N (X).  Therefore,
CO codes don't begin with any number (as CO codes cannot begin with 0
or 1).

> Comments anyone??

Well, you asked for it.

First, the implementation side.  As mentioned above, this is not "easy
to implement" -- it means cutting over the entire NANP to fully
interchangeable codes.

I've been trying to figure out how, exactly, to phrase the other
problems I see with it -- the usability problems, as opposed to the
implementation problems.

I think what it comes down to is -- why bother screwing around with
8-digit dialing when we can go straight to 10-digit dialing, in a
manner consistent with the current dialing syntax, continuing to
provide 7-digit dialing for HNPA calls?  The proposal here would:

* Change on the order of 1.5M 7-digit phone numbers (all 5/8XX-XXXX numbers)

* Change dialing syntax from 7-digit to 8-digit in some -- but not all
  -- NPAs, therefore removing the universality of HNPA dialing in the NANP
  (Now, in your home NPA, you dial 7 digits.  In this proposal, in some home
  NPAs you dial 7 digits, in some you dial 8 digits.)

* Provide less than an order of magnitude increase in available numbers,
  compared to more than two orders of magnitude increase by going to fully
  interchangeable codes

* Not be any less expensive to implement than fully interchangeable codes.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this seems to present all the
disadvantages of fully interchangeable codes, add new disadvantages of
its own, and not provide any advantages...


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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 11:34:20 EST
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer to Area Code Congestion

If you really want 8-digit dialing in large cities, the way to do it
is to use the last digit of the NPA code.  To use the numbers in the
last example, LA could get NPA codes 225 and 226 (after
interchangeable NPA codes are activated).  Local calls would be
5xxx-xxxx or 6xxx-xxxx.  Long distance calls would use area code 22
followed by 8 digits of number. This would not require changes to any
systems outside the local area.

I don't think this is worth the trouble, though.  We all have 7-digit
phone numbers as a standard, and having 8-digit in parts of the
country would add vast user confusion (almost as bad as the
introduction of COCOTs).


Steve Gaarder


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America
Date: 12 Jan 90 11:30:52 (UTC+11:00)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
writes:

> Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes:

>>Here is a way to ease area code congestion without being too difficult
>>to implement in North America.  It basically means that the affected
>>area switches to 8 digit numbers without any other area needing to know.

> Unfortunately, due to the presence of a large number of No. 5 Crossbar
> central offices throughout North America, changing the length of
> telephone numbers is not technically possible without billions of
> dollars in expenditure in other areas.

> common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number,
> in what is known as an Originating Register.  This is a hardware
> register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing
> three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0"
> was dialled first.

I am not suggesting that subscribers' numbers be made 8 digits.  What
I propose is that two or more areas are not geographically distinct
and have the same first two digits.  Also, dialling 1+3+7 should be
mandatory for *all* calls, except that '5' is an abbreviation for
'1-225-' and '8' is an abbreviation for '1-228-'.  Only those central
offices in the affected area need to be changed so that the 'flag'
register indicates '1','0','5' or'8'.  All other central offices can
continue quite happliy believing that (225) and (228) are totally
different, and for wiring purposes they can be.  Each central office
in the affected area is in either (225) or (228), in *exactly* the
same way COs were split between (312) and (708) in Chicago.

Is impossible to convert the flag to handle 4 digits?  If these COs
are Stored Program Control Crossbar, can't they be programmed to
substitute 1-225- for '5' and 1-228- for '8' on the first digit?

>>Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification
>>of a number as mobile.

> It is not clear that it is desirable for mobile numbers to be identified
> as mobile numbers.  Why should anyone care?

In Australia the caller pays the charges for calling a mobile number.
The charges are the same as long distance rate 165-745 km, 39c/min
8am-6pm, 26c/min 6pm-10pm and 15c/min 10pm-8am+Saturday night and all
day Sunday.  Since the caller pays, it is nice to know before you ring
the number.  Also, cellular phones are not wasting prefixes in the
normal area codes.


Daniel

[e-mail]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One Solution To 800 Wrong Numbers
Date: 10 Jan 90 22:28:51 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lars J Poulsen) writes:
>
> While "wrong number" calls at odd hours are a great nuisance to
> residences, they are no big deal to businesses.

I think you'd get some argument on that, but I won't provide it.

> Maybe the solution is
> to move towards separation of residential number space and business
> number space. Most people expect an 800-number to be a business
> number, and may be less careful when dialing than they would for a
> regular number. How about assigning a separate NPA for residential use
> ?  810, anyone ?

Actually, N10 codes (with the exception of 610) are in the set of usable
area codes and not reserved as Service Access Codes (SACs, like 700,
800, 900).  Whereas 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 are in the reserved set,
so it would make sense to use one of them.  How 'bout 400?  Like, half
of 800...

> With new technology, and lots of small long-distance carriers to
> compete, residential 800-service is going to boom, and I think it
> would be better to have separate prefixes for residential and business
> than to have multiple mixed NPAs.

I think it's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's a good one.
(Haven't thought through the implications yet.)  Would be interested
in comments, and if there's anything useful (like, maybe a general
agreement!?), I'd be willing to pass things along to the
Numbering/Dialing Planning District here at Bellcore.  (Although I'd
greatly appreciate, if this is viewed as a Good Thing, if perhaps our
moderator could compile all the appropriate posts into a single file
and mail it to me -- I've had difficulty getting to the archives.)


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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:57:53 CST
From: Keith Vitek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID


How can you stop Caller ID on your line?


UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

Keith Vitek              | Voice: 512/852-1841     | I want my NeXT...
5914 LiptonShire         |    or: 512/852-1780     | I want my AmigaUUCP...
Corpus Christi, TX 78415 |  FIDO: 1:160/40         | I want ..........


[Moderator's Note: Do you mean, how can you stop someone who is
equipped with a Caller-ID readout from seeing your number?  You can't,
however at the present time, the display seems to be limited to calls
within the local community. Long distance identification is not very
common yet.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #23
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 12 Jan 90 2:01:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #24
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Jan 90 02:00:18 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Common Carrier Dialer (William Degnan)
    Most Expensive 900 Call? (Curtis Galloway)
    Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Louis J. Judice)
    Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (David Lewis)
    Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (John Higdon)
    976 (Don't) Dial-It (Robert E. Seastrom)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (John J. DiLeo)
    Re: BBS as a Business (Wolf Paul)
    Those Beeps _Are_ a FAX Machine Trying to Call (John R. Covert)
    Mobile Telephone Questions (Anthony Lee)
    Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Chris Johnston)
    Customer Support (Ken Levitt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 20:45:01 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Common Carrier Dialer


In an article of <9 Jan 90 14:46:16 GMT>, nmri!![e-mail]
(John Stanley) writes:

 JS>From: nmri!![e-mail] (John Stanley)
 JS>Date: 9 Jan 90 14:46:16 GMT
 JS>Organization: TELECOM Digest
 JS>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 JS>Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom

 JS>They are called "Common Carrier Access Dialer and Call Controller"
 JS>with the name SMarT-1 and Mitel on them, and the claim they are
 JS>manufactured by SMT Corp.

Call Jane Conti at Mitel, 555 Taxter Road, Elmsford, NY 10523 (914)
592-1110, if you're buying. She can probably point you in the right
direction. (Ask her if she found that Pizza place near Amtrack in
Rensselaer.)

For literature, including installation practices:

Mitel, Inc., Literature Center, 5400 Broken Sound Boulevard, Boca
Raton, FL 33487 [phone].

Some of them have speed dial, an smdr port and ARS.


Regards, Bill

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383

William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31)
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 10:10:02 PST
Subject: Most Expensive 900 Call?


The other day, I saw a commercial on cable TV for one of those
"credit-repair" services.  It seemed remarkably uninteresting, until I
noticed the cost of the 900 number which you call for information on
their service.

For one telephone call:  THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS.

I'm curious to know if other Telecom readers have seen more expensive
calls.  (Gee, the Jose Canseco hotline seems like a bargain now!)


Curtis Galloway                       |
The Santa Cruz Operation              |         /\/\
[e-mail]                       |     I   \  /  DISCLAIMERS
 ...{uunet,ucbvax,ucscc}!sco!curtisg   |          \/

[Moderator's Note: Yes, there is one charging $58. See later article.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 07:23:05 -0800
From: "Louis J. Judice  11-Jan-1990 0916" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service


Ok, here is a mega-buck idea for a 900 service...

Set up an 800 number, 1-800-RATFINK and advertise that people should
call to report crimes, indescretions, income-tax evasion and other
nasty behavior.

Then set up the 900 service, with a $49.95 charge and advertise that
if you call it, we WON'T use any information we collect on you!

It's sort of a post-de-regulation, post-devestiture variant of the
Monty Python skit about the "Blackmail" show.

/ljj

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service
Date: 11 Jan 90 15:06:01 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

[description of latest sleazy ad for 900 service -- "important issue,
add your name to the list of people in favor", 3-pixel high
notification that it costs $4.95 and will be billed directly to your
phone bill -- omitted.]

That's nothing.

You know those ads you always see in the back of magazines about
buying vehicles from the government for $49?  Where, basically, you
send them $5 and they send you a copy of a GSO printout of vehicle
auctions.

Lately on NYC TV I've been seeing ads for a "service" which will
provide you information on how you can get vehicles from the
government for exorbitantly low prices... starts sounding familiar...
of course, this is TV advertizing, so they call it an "association" or
something, and give you a fancy embossed credit card-type membership
card with your name and "membership number"...

The kicker?  The "membership fee" is like $57.95.  The number to call
is a 900 number.  In small print at the bottom of the screen is the
disclaimer "fee will be directly charged to your phone bill."

In other words, you call, they collect the money, send you a pile of
stuff you could get for about $0.85 by writing to the GSO, and when
you find out it's worthless, you have very little recourse...

Sigh.  P.T. Barnum is alive and well and selling 900 services...


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: New Sleazy 900 Service
Date: 11 Jan 90 04:13:56 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Seth Zirin <[e-mail]> writes:

>   3) WOR in NJ seems to bombard their evening viewers with ads
>   for various date and love lines.  They state that only women
>   will be on the line.  Since we never see ads geared towards
>   women that claim only men will be on the line, we can only
>   assume that the women are employees of the service provider
>   and are not women calling in on some other number.

While there are female employees of the service provider lurking on
the line to keep things under control (get rid of obnoxious callers,
keep a sagging discussion going, etc.), the ads are set up in this
manner because it is difficult to get men to call. They need to make
it look like the line is teeming with women, and it usually is.

> Using 900 for these calls was a bad idea.  Anyone dialing an off by
> one to a toll free 800 number can get zapped.  Imagine trying to get
> credit for a $59 wrong number from one of the fly by night "telephone
> companies."

As the weary recipient of many 800 number misdials, let me say that
this would be a great incentive to dial the right number, don't you
think?

But unlike other evils in the telephone jungle, the 976/900 sleaze
market is something you can easily avoid. When your car quits on some
lonely road and the only phone for miles is a misprogrammed COCOT,
you're screwed. When your local telco is gouging you for local
service, it's already too late. If you can't get any modern features
because your telco is more interested in profits than modernization,
well...

On the other hand, 976/900 are easy to do without: just don't dial
them.  I have to say that regardless of how sleazy the TV spots are,
no matter how much they charge for their questionable "service", or
how much money I *could* waste by calling them, I have not lost one
cent to these people. This is a truly *optional* evil. You need go to
no pains to avoid spending a single dime. For this reason, I can't get
too excited about this particular telephony annoyance.


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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 11:34:38 EST
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 976 (Don't) Dial-It


I saw these really great stickers pasted up all over the place the
other day and just *had* to peel a couple off and take them with me.
They said:

      WARNING:

*Please* Don't Call
    This Number

     976-DONT
     976-3668

(It's habit forming)

   $2.98 per call
     if you did


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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 16:29:33 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John J. Dileo (CSD) <dileo>)
Organization: USAMSAA, APG, MD 21005


In article <[e-mail]> Joel B Levin <[e-mail]> writes:

>Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the
>ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling
>Fiji with calling Phoenix.  And of course the alternate implications,
>that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that
>the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake.  This is
>only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of
>which are perpetrated by AT&T.

   If I am thinking about the same commercial, it seemed that his call
was *MISROUTED* by the carrier, not misdialed by him.  In fact, he
dialed the number twice and received the same incorrect number both
times.  What AT&T was really doing was playing on two at once: that no
other phone company is competent to handle long-distance service, and
that no other company is as competent at handling complaints, billing,
etc.

   I admit that the ad in question was quite melodramatic, but I don't
think it was as stupid as previous posters have suggested.

 --John DiLeo
   [e-mail]


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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BBS as a Business
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 14:22:06 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 16, John Higdon <[e-mail]>
writes:

> The question remains: Why should anyone have to pay more for telephone
> service simply because they allow a modem to speak over the line?

In the SWBT vs. COSUARD situation, that is not the question. SWBT
argues that a BBS is a business not because it uses a modem, but
because it advertises and offers a service.

That the vast majority of BBSs are not making any profit, and are not
charging for their service is immaterial -- after all, non-profit
organizations like the Salvation Army also pay business rates.

To illustrate their argument, they maintain that when a sysop imposes
online time limits, but then gives time credit for uploads, that
actually constitutes a business transaction. He accepts the upload as
payment for increased online time.

Needless to say, I don't share SWBT's opinion; however, even if
business rates were imposed on BBS operators and users,
telecommunications as a hobby would still be much more affordable in
the US, and offer greater possibilities (even in GTE areas :-) than
over here in Austria :-(.


Wolf N. Paul, International Institute
for Applied Systems Analysis Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A -
2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465 BITNET:
tuvie!iiasa![e-mail] UUCP: uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp INTERNET:
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 07:09:22 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  11-Jan-1990 0743" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Those Beeps _Are_ a FAX Machine Trying to Call


>I called our fax machine at work and it does not sound like this
>device either - so I am confused about it.

The sound you describe is the CCITT standard sound for "the device
calling you is an autodialer."  FAX machines generate this sound when
making calls.  They do not generate this sound when answering calls.

>If it is indeed a fax machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax
>modem and hook it up and try to recieved their cover sheet ...

Patrick is correct to point out that the phone company is required to
help you find the source of an annoyance call -- at no charge.  But
your own idea above (except for the harrassment part which followed)
is a good idea.

Since these calls come at a specific time, if you have call
forwarding, you could make arrangements with one of those P.O.Box/FAX
drops (or anyone with a FAX machine) for you to forward your calls to
their machine from 10:20 to 10:35 some night to receive the FAX and
find the originator.


/john

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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Mobile Telephone Questions
Date: 12 Jan 90 03:35:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In a normal telephone call, the destination can suspend the call by
replacing the hook.  Just wondering, in the case of a Mobile call,
what does the dest.  do to suspend the call ?

Also I call setup procedure in the 79 Bell Journal a bit hard to
follow.  Does anyone know a good introduction text that explain mobile
call setup in a more procedural way ?

Thank you

Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor)
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651
Internet: [e-mail]        +(61)-7-377-4139 (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 21:30:44 199
From: Chris Johnston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls?
Organization: U. Chicago Computer Science Dept.


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 21, message 3 of 3

>[Moderator's Note: Please double-check on this. The elevated platform
>is entirely in Chicago.
> (convoluted boundaries omitted)
>pay phones on the platform and the station downstairs were all
>Hollycourt 5 numbers, which is a Chicago (312-465) exchange.  PT]

Patrick is right the Howard platform is entirely in Chicago.  I
checked a couple of pay phones including 312-465-9810.  The switch is
programmed incorrectly and won't allow 1-708- (or 1-312-) calls.
First it returned my quarter then rang about three times, the
recording was "We are sorry you must dial <pause> 1 before ...
<static> <static>".  The static was part of the recording.

By the way the half dozen pay phones I checked in Wilmette and
Evanston were incorrectly labeled with the 312 area code.

>Why can't I always use eleven digit dialing?  Why must I know the
>local geography to dial a phone?

cj


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

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 22:46:17 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customer Support


I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather
tight.  This venture requires that my partner and I provide an
incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a
week.  I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem.

The following items are givens:

   1.   80 percent of the calls will be answered by either myself or my
        partner and will not need special processing.

   2.   Telling customers that "If you can't reach us, to call my beeper
        number", is not acceptable from a corporate image point of view.

   3.   We can not afford to hire an employee to help with the support.

   4.   We can not always be here to answer the phone.

   5.   98 percent of the time a client should be able to talk with us
        within 15 minutes of their call.

   6.   We can not be calling in to an answering machine every 15
        minutes to see if anyone has left a message.

I have thought of three possible solutions but I don't know where to
find the equipment for numbers 2 and 3.

   1.   Hire an answering service.  Either tell them where I can be reached
        at all times or get a beeper and tell them to beep me if any calls
        come in.  This seems like an expensive solution, but it should work.

   2.   Have a call forwarding device that would answer on one line and call
        out to me on another line.  In order for this to work, I would have
        to be able to re-program the forwarding number remotely.  I don't
        think New England Telephone offers a service like this. (do they?)

   3.   I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will
        take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper)
        to inform you that you have a message waiting.

If anyone has any additional ideas or can tell me how to locate
devices listed in #2 and #3 above, I would like to hear from you.
Please contact me directly.  If there are any interesting solutions, I
will post them to the Digest.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #24
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 12 Jan 90 23:49:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #25
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Jan 90 23:45:59 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (Jim Breen)
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private (David Tamkin)
    Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (John R. Levine)
    Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (Bernie Cosell)
    Re: Faxnet Info Request (John R. Levine)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid (David Tamkin)
    Re: The Big PUC Give-Away (Tad Cook)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Mark Brader)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Kent Hauser)
    Re: Reach Out World (John Gilmore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 23:08:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas Lapp)
writes:

> What bothers me about this is that if users of cordless phones should
> be aware that they can be overheard, the Supreme Court should also
> apply the same reasoning to cellular telephones since it is OBVIOUS
> that carphones, etc. use radio waves (the antenna tends to give it
> away :-).  ........

It is interesting to note how Australian law differs here. We have no
general right to privacy, but there is a strict law on phone tapping
and on recording phone calls. Whether listening in to a cordless or
cellular call on your el cheapo scanner constitutes a tap, or is just
legitimate use of your right to listen to any frequency you like has
yet to be tested in court (and may never be.) Recording of a phone
call is a definite no-no.

There was a very funny case a couple of years ago where the leader of
the opposition Liberal (i.e. conservative) Party in Victoria had a
long car phone conversation with Andrew Peacock, then Federal deputy
leader (also in opposition) of that party.  Andrew made a lot of
highly uncomplimentary comments, complete with plenty of four-letter
words, about his colleague and leader, John Howard.

Of course, a ham with a scanner and recorder was listening in, and
within minutes the choice bits of the conversation were being played
on commercial radio. The fur flew, and Andrew lost his job. (He
eventually rolled Howard and became leader. In his victory Press
conference he promised to stay awy from car phones.)

I believe the ham got a bit of a wrist slapping and was told not to do
it again. No charges were laid.

The US has a long history of listening to other people's phone
conversations. For years the CIA happily read all the car phones of
the Soviet leadership. This was one of the reasons behind the
(understandable) distress over the release of the "Pentagon Papers".
Some of the material in those papers could only have been obtained
from car phone taps, and thus the release effectively blew (and
destroyed) the whole sigint operation.


   _______           Jim Breen ([e-mail]) Department of Robotics &
  /o\----\\     \O      Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology
 /RDT\   /|\   \/|   -:O____/     PO Box 197 Caulfield East 3145 Australia
O-----O        _/_\    /\ /\      (ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Calls Not Private
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 17:03:14 CST


Has anyone yet looked into the situation of a person who picks up a
wired phone to place a call, but the callee answers on a cordless
phone?

Has anyone yet looked into the situation of someone who picks up a
wired phone to answer a call that, it turns out, is being placed from
a cordless phone?

If the person on the wired phone has no rightful expectation of
privacy (especially in the second situation, where the person on the
wired phone didn't even place the call), how is he or she to know that
the call is legally monitorable?  Is one to assume that no telephone
conversation is private at all?

In ancient times recording devices were required to emit periodic
beeps to warn the party at the other end that the call was being
recorded.  Maybe we need something similar for cordless phones.


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: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 12 Jan 90 00:00:41 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>You may not broadcast a telephone call over the air without the
>knowledge and consent of the person(s) on the phone.

My recollection of the ECPA is that it specifically prescribes no
penalties for disclosing a cordless phone conversation.  It is not at
all clear how that relates to the traditional policy that radio
transmissions not intended for the public may be intercepted but not
disclosed.

For that matter, the question of party lines is an interesting one.
Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a party line?  How
about if you pick up the phone wishing to make a call and, e.g.
inadvertently overhear business plans or something of which you could
take advantage, are you allowed to do so?  What a mess.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl


[Moderator's Note: Listening to a radio transmission is not the same
as *disclosing* the contents of the transmission, and it certainly is
not the same as *re-transmitting* the original transmission without
the consent of the people involved.  Forget cordless phones for a
minute, and think 'radio transmissions' instead.  PT]

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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight
Date: 12 Jan 90 04:55:58 GMT


csense![e-mail] (John Boteler) writes:

}   DIXON, Iowa (UPI) - An Iowan whose eavesdropping case was turned
}down by the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday the issue sets up affluent
}cellular phone users as a special class over average Americans using
}cordless phones.
 ......
}   Tyler said the refusal to extend those rights to cordless phones is
}a slap at the common citizen. Privacy rights have been granted to
}phone pagers and cellular communications already.
 ......
}   "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the
}average man's isn't," Tyler said.
 ......

This is probably a misc.legal matter, but I'll ask anyway: isn't this
guy a bit confused?  The "Privacy rights" for phone pagers and
cellular phones are, I thought, *not* a matter of "rights" but a
matter of "law".  That is, that if cellular phones were *not* covered
by the ECPA, the SC might well rule that they, too, don't carry such
an expectation.

/ Bernie \


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

Subject: Re: Faxnet Info Request
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 11 Jan 90 23:36:44 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>

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

>But what if I am on a PC and I want to send my data directly from my PC to
>a Faxnet machine so that certain copies will be sent via Fax but some will be
>sent via e-mail so that the destination user will receive the letter
>in computer readable format.

All of the major E-Mail services such as MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and
Compuserve do this already.  Fax addresses typically look like email
addresses to a pseudo-system named fax or something like it.  To get
data from your PC to the E-Mail system you can use something like
Lotus Express which uses a proprietary protocol on top of X.PC to talk
to MCI Mail or UUPC, a free PC implementation of uucp, which should be
adequate to talk to AT&T Mail.

>What of the reverse?  Someone feeding in a typed letter into a FAX and
>the FAXnet machine sending it to some people via straight FAX and
>others via e-mail.  Is that posssible?

Not really.  Current OCR technology, certainly current low-cost OCR
technology, has a high error rate and I doubt anyone would be happy
with an OCR interpretation of a document scanned in via a Fax machine.
What is possible now is to receive faxes on your PC and treat the
image as a graphic email message.  One particularly clever
implementation allows you to attach the fax card to a DID trunk so the
fax card can have a whole lot of phone numbers, one per email user,
and route the incoming graphics messages based on the number called.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 90 18:05:33 CST


Joel Levin wrote in Telecom Digest, volume 10, issue 16:

| Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the
| ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling
| Fiji with calling Phoenix.  And of course the alternate implications,
| that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that
| the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake.  This is
| only one of a number of moderately sleasy long distance ads, most of
| which are perpetrated by AT&T.

There is no alternate implication.  The caller dials to Phoenix twice
and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times.  Clearly AT&T's fantasy
has the carrier at fault.  To top it off, horror of horrors, he has to
call the carrier's customer service department for credit and look up
(or, pain of pains, REMEMBER) a telephone number longer than "00".
With AT&T, your *operator* can arrange credit.  We couldn't live
without that, could we?

Thrust of the message: if you are

(1) too stupid to follow calling card instructions;

(2) dumb enough to think that AT&T's calling cards are easier to use
    than those of other carriers;

(3) intimidated by dialing 1-800 plus seven more digits to reach
    your long-distance carrier's offices; and

(4) closed-minded and angry at the notion of any change in your life,
then American Telephone and Telegraph thinks you're important enough
to have a special commercial targeted just to getting your business.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: The Big PUC Give-Away
Date: 12 Jan 90 06:35:05 GMT
Organization: very little


Higdon mentioned something about what would happen if an unregulated
subsidiary of a regulated telco bought equipment, and then sold it to
the regulated telco at an inflated price.

The Wall St. Journal had an excellent article on this on Tuesday,
January 11 right on the front page.  It looks like Nynex was doing
just that...forcing the regulated telco to buy from their unregulated
purchasing arm...at inflated prices!  This came out in an FCC audit,
and the article indicated that other telcos have been doing the same
thing.

So the rate of return on the telco to the holding company is
guaranteed, and any expenses are covered by the ratepayers.  The
unregulated purchasing arm can sell to the telco at high prices, give
the profits to the holding company, and the regulated telco (the
ratepayers) foot the bill!

Pretty slick!  Or as Oliver North would say, "A neat idea!"


[e-mail]


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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 03:37:49 EST


Fred Goldstein writes:
> In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you
> have to specify _which_ area code you want.  (NYC has 4, for instance.)

Ah, but what Greg Monti said was that "7 digits for inter-area local
calls" was used only where area codes cover a large area, and not in
places like NYC.  For instance, I was recently in Hull (area code 819)
and watched my wife make a (local) call to Ottawa (area code 613) by
dialing 7 digits.  For instance, 239 is an Ottawa prefix; from Hull,
239-5000 would reach the Canada's Capital Visitor Information Centre
in Ottawa.  The trick is that if 239 exists in area 819 at all, it's
in a location that is NOT a local call from Hull, and one dials
1-239-5000 to reach it.


Mark Brader            "...most mistakes are made the last thing before
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto            you go to bed.  So go to bed before you do
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]    the last thing."    -- David Jacques Way

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 10:53:36 EST
From: Kent Hauser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance

[ Discussion of various syntaxes used for toll dialing in US ]

Of course, yet another syntax should be added.

Syntax U (universal):    1 NPA NXX XXXX
    Should connect me with the unambiguously specified line.

Allow me to give an example of it's use --

I have a modem with a `autodial' button on the front.  I use it to
call the office.  However, I carry my modem around.  Sometimes I need
7 digits, sometimes I need 11.  Whenever I travel, I have to reprogram
my modem's autodialer.  This is stupid, because my number hasn't
changed.

For all of you that feel that 1+ dialing is a numbering plan issue &
not a `toll call' issue, I suggest that you add the lack of `Syntax U'
to your pet peeves.


    Kent

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 02:31:12 PST
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reach Out World

>      AT&T has offered discount calls to Canada through its Reach Out
> (R) Canada program for three years.

I looked at this program last year since I spend $60-80/mo calling
utzoo in Toronto from hoptoad in San Francisco.  Turns out that the
Reach Out Canada flat rates were MORE expensive than the night
direct-dial rate.  Thanks a lot, AT&T!

(It also took three calls to operators, and some excessive bills,
before I could get a correct answer to "what ARE the night rate hours
when calling Toronto from SF?"  Midnight to 8 AM every day, and that's
all.)


[Moderator's Note: Reach Out Canada really is not a very good deal
except for people in the geographical extremities of the US calling
some geographically extreme place in Canada; i.e. a call from Miami,
FL to Fort Nelson, BC would probably be cheaper via Reach Out Canada.
I investigated it for my use calling between Chicago and Toronto/suburbs,
and found the same thing as you: Regular rates were frequently less
expensive. For that matter, even Reach Out America has a certain
distance factor involved before it becomes useful: calling someplace
less than about 400 miles away, interstate, during the overnight hours
is cheaper when you use the 'regular' night rates, i.e. it is more of
a bargain for people on the coasts than in the midwest.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #25
*****************************










Date:     Sat, 13 Jan 90 0:32:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #26
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jan 90 00:30:52 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Customer Support (Randal Schwartz)
    Re: Customer Support (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Customer Support (John Higdon)
    Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Chris Johnson)
    Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Support
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 16:03:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, levitt@zorro9 (Ken Levitt) writes:

| I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather
| tight.  This venture requires that my partner and I provide an
| incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a
| week.  I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem.

| I have thought of three possible solutions but I don't know where to
| find the equipment for numbers 2 and 3.
|    1.   Hire an answering service.  Either tell them where I can be reached
|         at all times or get a beeper and tell them to beep me if any calls
|         come in.  This seems like an expensive solution, but it should work.
|    2.   Have a call forwarding device that would answer on one line and call
|         out to me on another line.  In order for this to work, I would have
|         to be able to re-program the forwarding number remotely.  I don't
|         think New England Telephone offers a service like this. (do they?)
|    3.   I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will
|         take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper)
|         to inform you that you have a message waiting.
| If anyone has any additional ideas or can tell me how to locate
| devices listed in #2 and #3 above, I would like to hear from you.

It's called a "cellular phone".  I use a portable cell phone *all* the
time (for the last 18 months) to do exactly what you asked for.  But
most of the time, I'm not paying airtime rates, because I have
forwarded the call to a landline that I happen to be at.  If I'm
really concerned about expenses, I start to handle the call, and then
get a number and call them back.  And, as a benefit, I can make
outgoing calls while walking around, if the time is more important to
me than the money.

Of course, I had the expense of getting the phone (Radio Snack CT300)
in the first place, but that's life.  I also happen to live in an area
where prime-time charges are only $0.31/min, and call-forwarded calls
are only $0.07/min on a $15/month fee.  (Apparently, that's pretty
low.)

Believe me.  I had a answering-service/pager solution before this, and
there's no comparison.  (I still have the service, but they refer
people to my cell phone if the caller asks for me by name.  And I
forward the cell phone to the service when I'm not willing to take
calls.)

Just another cell-phone user.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Support
Date: 13 Jan 90 03:14:16 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather
> tight.  This venture requires that my partner and I provide an
> incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a
> week.  I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem.


I have been involved in a business with similar customer-support
requirements, for several years.  We have a business number which is
covered by a full-time answering service.  They have the beeper
numbers and mobile phone numbers of the customer-contact people.
The number also rings in my residence.

The answering service costs $50 / month.  Each beeper cost us $100
or so to buy (used).  The beeper service charge, per number, is
about $16.50 / month.  The mobile service here costs $29.00 / month
per phone, plus $0.55 / minute.

I tried an answering machine with automatic outcalling
message-notification features.  It works, technically, but suffers
from the ills that plague a lot of answering machines...people don't
like to reach it, and often don't leave readable messages.  (A high
percentage of our callers speak English as a poor second language.)
The human being at the answering service is a whole lot better at
prompting an intelligible message out of most callers!


Dave Levenson            Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900
Westmark, Inc.            Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Support
Date: 12 Jan 90 12:25:54 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ken Levitt <[e-mail]> writes:

>    3.   I understand that there is a type of answering machine that will
>         take a message and then call some other number (like a beeper)
>         to inform you that you have a message waiting.

 From what you describe, a Watson (tm) from Natural Microsystems,
located somewhere in MA, would fill your bill. I have one and it does
essentially what you seem to require. I do freelance work, and the
Watson does all of the call processing for that.

I would heartily recommend a mechanical solution, such as a Watson,
over any answering service. Over the past ten years I have had
considerable experience with answering services, from cord boards to
the now-trendy DID computerized type. All of that experience has been
most negative. They hire complete losers to man the stations, they get
names and phone numbers wrong, they page on wrong numbers and fail to
page when a client is off the air, and they have no concept of how
important your telephone is to your business. I wouldn't have a live
answering service if they paid ME. Several months of answering service
fees would buy your Watson.

If you do get a Watson, I would be happy to share with you some of the
programming tricks that I have learned regarding paging, etc.


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

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices
Date: 12 Jan 90 21:02:41 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN, USA


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Mark Ahlenius) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 19, message 7 of 10

>I recently moved and got a new home phone number.  Each night at
>approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device.  It
>    < description deleted >

>[Moderator's Note:  What you are suggesting is a fun idea, but then
>they could make trouble for you. I suggest instead that you have IBT
>trace the calls. If the service rep tries to tell you there will be a
>    < stuff deleted >
>They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office
>of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the
>offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the
>offender's service. I will look up the appropriate regulation number...]

Let me suggest that the original writer at least proceed to find the
caller and ask them to cease and desist before calling in the
government and hanging them high.  There's far too much animosity in
this world already; we really don't need any more.  It may well be an
honest mistake so there's no good reason in my book to screw someone
for it.  Besides, anyone who is reading this is already using an
electronic network which makes extensive use of auto-dial modems, and
you can bet your life that some of them on some occaision have been
connected to the wrong number.  If people make too big a stink about
something like this, the legal risks of running an auto-dial modem
could become prohibitive.

For example, a friend of mine runs a BBS here in the Twin Cities of
Minneapolis/St. Paul.  He is part of a local and nationwide net of
such BBS's.  A month or so ago, he somehow got the wrong number in his
database for a new network node.  So for a day or three, his system
autodialed a wrong number.  He corrected the problem as soon as he
discovered it.  However, the called party was very irate.  They called
the phone company and the police and what not.  Even though my friend
wrote the victim a letter of apology, and offered to pay for any costs
(of which there should be none, if indeed the phone company must trace
nuisance calls for free by tariff), they are pressing charges in
court!

He stands to be one very screwed over ex-BBS operator in the near
future, because they are not being the least bit understanding.
Apparently they view him as one of those notorious, criminal and vile
hackers out to do no good with malicious intent, instead of someone
who made a simple mistake.  Somehow I doubt they would be pressing the
same charges against my company if one of our Usenet modems made such
a mistake (and PEP tones are a lot more obnoxious than 1200 baud, let
me tell you! :-), simply because we are a respectable company who made
a mistake instead of young man with a hobby.

I would suggest that the moderator's advice is good, but only when
your civil and mannerly avenues have been exhausted.  And certainly,
the phone company ought to help you out with those, too.  Maybe I
interpret things differently than others, and perhaps the disconnect
order suggested by the moderator is not as obnoxious as I am viewing
it at the moment.  I sure won't object to someone clarifying or
correcting me.

I have no qualms against throwing the book at someone who continues to
do something harmful and annoying when they've been asked to stop, but
when it might be an innocent mistake by someone who will be more than
apologetic, why not try that approach first?  Too often it seems with
our legal system today, the more you get the law involved, the more
freedom to do as we wish gets taken away.  Certainly I don't think
anyone here wants a return to the bad old days of having to pay the
phone compay to connect a modem to your phone line for it to be legal,
do they?


Chris Johnson                     UUCP:  [e-mail]
Com Squared Systems, Inc.         ATT:  +1 612/452-9522
Mendota Heights, MN  USA          FAX:  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 18:13:30 GMT


Didn't we just go through this?

> They'll do the trace, and when it is completed, then go to the office
> of the Illinois Commerce Commission and file a complaint against the
> offender and request that the ICC order telco to disconnect the
> offender's service.

Please, before you do this call the offender and ask them to stop
calling you. You don't know who they are, and they don't know that
they have the wrong number.

Then if they are recalcitrant go ahead and call the cops.

But most likely that won't be necessary. It's not in their interest to
keep calling a wrong number.


 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. [phone]. <[e-mail]>.
/      \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'


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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Calling Devices
Date: 12 Jan 90 14:55:25 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Mark Ahlenius) writes:

> I recently moved and got a new home phone number.  Each night at
> approximately 10:28 pm we get a call from some auto dialer device.  It
> does not sound like any modem device I have ever heard before.  It has
> a short beep (about 0.5 sec.) then pauses for 3-4 seconds or so and
> repeats until either I hang up or it gives up a minute or so later.

That sounds to me like a fax machine calling...

> I called Ma Bell (Illinois Bell in this case) and explained the
> problem.  They told me that the previous owner of this number had it
> changed some time ago cause they got calls from some Bank's fax
> machine.

Fits.

> If it is indeed a fax
> machine - perhaps I can borrow a fax machine or fax modem and hook it
> up and try to recieved their cover sheet and in effect - return the
> favor.

Borrowing a fax machine or fax modem to get their cover sheet is a
reasonable idea.  General courtesy calls for putting a return phone
number and fax number on a fax machine.  You could then send them a
fax notifying them that the number in their autodialer is incorrect
and would they please change it, and call them and tell them the same
thing.

Then again, if there's some interesting information on the fax, maybe
you could just keep the fax machine for a while and see what turns
up...

> [Moderator's Note about getting the service disconnected omitted]

Chill out a bit, Patrick.  I agree that a complaint to the PUC is a
last resort, but first assume that it's just a mistake on the part of
the "caller" and deal with *them* to resolve it.  First try to talk to
the people placing the fax calls.  If they're uncooperative,
unresponsive, or don't want to deal with you, *then* get in touch with
the PUC.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.


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


[Moderator's Note: But you yourself quoted part of the original
message in which the writer said the earlier assignees of the number
had to get it changed because of the same problem. If between telco
and the original user of the number, the problem could not be
corrected short of changing the number, why will it be different this
time around?

Nor do I think it is malice *or* stupidity. It is a situation where a
large organization (the bank) has no provision for imaginative people
on its staff to make changes of this sort without going through
various levels of staff and chains of command. No one can do it if it
isn't part of their job description, and people are frightened to make
changes to job descriptions for fear of losing their own. When I had
this problem, whenever I would call the bank, I would be transferred
between people, round-robin style, getting no one who would admit to
any authority or knowledge. You'd have thought it was the COCOT in the
lobby of the building they were talking about!  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #26
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 14 Jan 90 0:02:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #27
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jan 90 00:00:32 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Government Eyes Phone Service of the Future (Will Martin)
    Tariff Question (Steve Golson)
    London (England) Telephone Number Prefix Changes (Tony Walton)
    Re: Customer Support (John Higdon)
    Re: Customer Support (Paul Guthrie)
    Re: Area Code Mapping (Carl Moore)
    Re: Most Expensive 900 Call? (John Higdon)
    Re: Question on Automatic Dialing Devices (Henry Mensch)
    Re: 800 Wrong Numbers (Steven W. Grabhorn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 13:47:28 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Government Eyes Phone Service of the Future


In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of 10 Jan 90:

GOVERNMENT EYES PHONE SERVICE OF THE FUTURE

Washington (AP) - The government on Tuesday began an inquiry into
whether basic telephone service in the future should include technical
innovations such as call-forwarding and access to data and video
networks.

Sure to fuel an intense turf battle among the phone, cable, broadcast,
satellite, and newspaper industries going into the next century, the
Bush administration said it wants to have a policy in place a year
from now.

Assistant Commerce Secretary Janice Obuchowski said the key issues are
how, how fast, and which elements of the industry can best improve US
competitiveness and the quality of life in an increasingly
information- based world economy.

In a 99-page notice published Tuesday, the policy-advising National
Telecommunications and Information Administration that Obuchowski
heads said it wants fresh comments within the next 90 days from the
industry.

Among the key questions, she said, is whether an emerging
infrastructure of fiber optics, cellular phone systems, fax machines
and other technologies is advancing fast enough on its own or
requires, in effect, a government-sponsored telecommunications
"industrial policy."

"In the United States we have relied on customer pull or demand to set
the pace for technology deployment," she said. "Some of our strategic
competitors worldwide have rather more strongly relied on government
push in setting the pace."

Japan, for example, has set a goal of having a fully fiber-optic
nationwide voice and data transmission system in operation within the
next decade.

The study will tackle head-on issues that have widely divided the
telecommunications industry since the government-ordered breakup of
the Bell system in 1984.

Among them are whether the seven regional "Baby Bell" companies that
were spun off AT&T into separate enterprises should be allowed to
transmit video signals across their lines, a move that could put them
into direct competition with the TV cable industry.

Another is a current prohibition that allows regional phone companies
to act as a carrier of data services but not as an originator. The
phone companies are challenging those restrictions in the US Court of
Appeals and legislation is pending in Congress that would remove them.

The prohibitions, however, are supported by the newspaper industry,
which has expressed fears that the phone companies would take
advantage of their monopoly position to undercut their advertising
market.

***End of article***

Regards, Will

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 11:39:40 EST
From: Steve Golson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tariff Question


During the "work stoppage" this past fall my home/business line was
out for three weeks. I rented a cellular phone until my line was
repaired, and now I'm trying to get New England Telephone (a NYNEX
Company) to reimburse me for the rental and airtime charges. The
response so far is "our Legal Department will investigate your claim
and contact you regarding this matter."

Does anyone know what the tariff says about reimbursement in a case
like this?  Is there anything concerning "reasonable expenses" or am I
out of luck?


Steve Golson         [e-mail]          [e-mail]
Trilobyte Systems -- 33 Sunset Road -- Carlisle MA 01741 -- 508/369-9669
       (consultant for, but not employed by, Sun Microsystems)
"As the people here grow colder, I turn to my computer..." -- Kate Bush

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

From: [e-mail] (Tony Walton)
Subject: London (England) Telephone Number Prefix Changes
Date: 13 Jan 90 02:12:54 GMT
Organization: British Olivetti Ltd.,AT&T Division, London, England.


Please note that from one minute past midnight BST (01:01 GMT) on 6th
May 1990 (GMT) ALL London (England) phone numbers will change.

The London prefix (+44 1) will disappear and will be replaced by
either +44 71 or +44 81 depending on the next 3 digits of the number
(for instance +44 1 821 XXXX will become +44 71 821 XXXX while +44 1
785 NNNN will become +44 81 785 NNNN).  Please either email me or
contact your local international operator for details of specific
changes.

The change has apparently become necessary because London has run out
of 01 (international +44 1) numbers - 071 (internat +44 71) has been
allocated to "inner London" and 081 (internat +44 81) to "outer
London".


Tony Walton, OEM/VAR Division, British Olivetti Ltd.
154-160 Upper Richmond Rd, LONDON, SW15 2FN.
Tel: [phone] Telefax: ([phone] Telex:27258
Uucp : { ukc!uel | mcvax!olnl1 | ihnp4!cuuxb | iconet | olhqma } !olgb1!olapw
[e-mail]


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Support
Date: 13 Jan 90 03:42:03 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]> writes:

> It's called a "cellular phone".  I use a portable cell phone *all* the
> time (for the last 18 months) to do exactly what you asked for.  But

I have a portable phone as well. And unless you keep that phone on
*all* the time and can guarantee that it will not be out of range or in
a coverage hole, you will put some of your customers off, big time.
Getting the "I'm sorry, the cellular customer you are trying to
reach..." recording is an instant tip off that you are running the
business out of your car. A possible solution is to invoke "no answer
forwarding" which is available from some providers, but then you have
to forward that call *somewhere*.

> most of the time, I'm not paying airtime rates, because I have
> forwarded the call to a landline that I happen to be at.

Well, if you forward a cellular phone on most systems, you pay airtime
for the call regardless where the forward actually terminates.

> I also happen to live in an area
> where prime-time charges are only $0.31/min, and call-forwarded calls
> are only $0.07/min on a $15/month fee.  (Apparently, that's pretty
> low.)

You're damn right that's pretty low. Try $39/mo and $0.45/min as is
the case here.

And then Dave Levenson <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have been involved in a business with similar customer-support
> requirements, for several years.  We have a business number which is
> covered by a full-time answering service.  They have the beeper
> numbers and mobile phone numbers of the customer-contact people.
> The number also rings in my residence.

I have been involved with business ownership ranging from sole
propritorship to a corporation employing twenty people, always service
oriented. I have had terrible luck with answering services. First, they
have tremendous turnover, and are usually understaffed. Customers wait
on hold, or are put on hold numerous times during the conversation. The
mentally deficient people that answer the calls can't spell or even
hear properly.

I recall getting paged repeatedly when the call was for someone else,
or when some salesman called, or even, as I mentioned before, over a
wrong number. I made a routine call to the service only to find
that one of my biggest customers had been off the air for over four
hours. They weren't sure whether they should page me or not! I have
been paged and then called in and put on hold so many times that I
finally gave up. It goes on and on.

Repeated talks with the supervisor netted most sincere apologies and
promises for improvement, and then it would start all over. "But sir,
we have such a turnover that it's hard to keep trained people." My
customers would invariably complain about the answering service (with
justification). The field has consisted of three "computerized"
services, and one no-nonsense cordboard (direct connection) service. It
was all terrible.

> I tried an answering machine with automatic outcalling
> message-notification features.  It works, technically, but suffers
> from the ills that plague a lot of answering machines...people don't
> like to reach it, and often don't leave readable messages.  (A high
> percentage of our callers speak English as a poor second language.)
> The human being at the answering service is a whole lot better at
> prompting an intelligible message out of most callers!

Interesting, but my experience has been exactly the opposite. My
customers have been much happier interacting with my Watson. It is
predictable, dependable, and the bottom line is that they reach me much
more reliably. The "human beings" at the answering service would have
had difficulty being intelligible themselves, much less prompting
anything from anyone. When a customer would try to leave an even
slightly technical message, the result after being filtered through an
answering service pea brain was most humorous. With the Watson, the
caller says his piece and hangs up, confident that his message will be
delivered verbatim, rather than mangled beyond all recognition.

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

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Support
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 17:40:31 GMT

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

>I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather
>tight.  This venture requires that my partner and I provide an
>incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a
>week.  I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem.

Get a PC with some sort of voice mail board (watson, dialogic, etc).
Have it take the call, and then beep you (easy to program).  This
solution worked for me for quite a while.


Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 11:04:26 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Mapping

There is an Iowa prefix (Cedar Lake?) right next door to Omaha,
Nebraska, which can be reached with 2 area codes: 712 (Iowa) or 402
(Nebraska).

Area code 202 goes outside the beltway, too.  However, when you get to
outer fringes like Herndon (Va.) or Laurel (Md.), you are local to DC
but outside of area code 202.  Previous articles in Telecom have
explained that 202 will be restricted to DC, and that local calls in
DC area will become 10 digits when crossing area code boundary, and
that the cases of 11-digit local calls (extended-area from Va. suburbs
to Prince William, and from Bowie-Glenn Dale "foreign" exchanges to
569 in Severn, Md.) may later be reduced to 7 digits.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Most Expensive 900 Call?
Date: 12 Jan 90 11:51:41 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]> writes:

> For one telephone call:  THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS.
> I'm curious to know if other Telecom readers have seen more expensive
> calls.  (Gee, the Jose Canseco hotline seems like a bargain now!)

Gotcha beat. Just last night I started seeing a TV ad for "the private
numbers of beautiful women". Slides of models fade from one to the
next while a voice says "you can have the private numbers of these
beautiful women."

FIFTY DOLLARS PER CALL!!!

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 03:46:09 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question on Automatic Dialing Devices


I agree with Patrick; how is the ordinary Joe supposed to identify
someone who (when calling) only identifies themselves with tones or
a carrier?

It is unreasonable for me (Joe random pots user) to have to borrow a
FAX machine or modem just to cause this disturbance to stop.  There
are procedures in place to handle exactly this situation; why not
use them?

(And yes, I've gotten calls from the phone company because direct
marketing companies have dialed and gotten my modem ... "did you know
that your number 437-xxxx ... ?"  The phone company is in a position
to identify callers; make them work for you ... )


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

[Moderator's Note: It is particularly annoying when someone else takes
it upon themselves to decide your number is out of order and reports
it to repair. A lady once called from a payphone and got my modem. Not
content to lose 25 cents, she dialed *four times* and each time got
the modem; then had the brass bedsprings to call up IBT Repair and
report me out of order -- and ask for a refund of the $1 she 'lost' in
the payphone!! I got a call from the repair supervisor, "Say Pat, you
have a modem on the line, don't you?" I told him yes....he told me the
lady reported it out of order. I asked him if she was calling from the
lobby of the Hotel Screwball; the place where the management asks that
you do not disturb the guests, because they already are.   PT]

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

From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Wrong Numbers
Date: 13 Jan 90 07:01:25 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


Speaking of wrong 800 numbers, today's (1/12/90) San Diego edition
of  the  Los Angeles Times had the following  article  (a  little
background, the San Diego Padres are up for sale by Joan Kroc):

     It  started  with a joking headline on Times  sports  editor
Dave  Distel's column on Thursday: "Have a Credit Card Ready  and
Call Now! 1-800-BUY-PADRES."

     Richard  Cole,  co-owner of Emslee  Products  of  Cleveland,
Ohio,  is not laughing. His company sells sanitary  napkins.  Its
number is 1-800-BUY PADS.

     "Our phone has been ringing all day," Cole said. "My  secre-
tary  can't get any work done, I'm losing orders, I'm paying  12-
cents  per  minute for every call, what in hell  are  you  people
doing out there?"

     Cole hopes people will stop phoning. He spent an  exasperat-
ing day telling callers he's not related to Joan Kroc.

     "I told them, `Listen, I can't sell you a baseball team, but
if you need sanitary napkins, toilet seat covers or diapers,  I'm
your man,'" Cole said. "I didn't make a single sale!"


Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152
Phone:[phone] Internet:[e-mail] UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #27
*****************************










Date:     Sun, 14 Jan 90 14:18:03 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: SIGUCCS Conference
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jan 90 14:00:00 CST   Special: SIGUCCS Conference

Today's Topics:                                  Moderator: Patrick Townson

    SIGUCCS CALL for PARTICIPATION (Amin Shafie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 90 14:13 EST
From: Amin Shafie - Univ of Cincinnati Comp Ctr <[e-mail]>
Subject: SIGUCCS CALL for PARTICIPATION



                 SIGUCCS User Services Conference XVIII
                        Call For Participation

                  New Centerings in Computing Services

                  September 30 through October 3, 1990

                           Westin Hotel
                         Cincinnati, Ohio


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Attention Directors, Managers, Analysts, Consultants, Programmers,
Technical Writers, Trainers, and Librarians!

The higher education computing scene in the 1990s will present exciting
challenges.  To accommodate users' needs, computing service organizations
are now visibly transforming in function and structure.  The widespread
adoption of personal computing by all disciplines, the increasing demand
for desktop access to shared resources, the growth in demand for
supercomputing capabilities, and the proliferation of powerful desktop
workstations exert irresistible forces on central computing services.
In response, the central site grows exponentially in staff and machinery
at one academic institution; at another, the computing center is disbanded
to provide distributed computing!  At some sites increasing specialization
is urged; at others, generalization is required.  Regardless of the
transforming strategy adopted by an individual institution, one fact
seems clear:  the user is the center toward which all computing services
are directed.

SIGUCCS '90 invites you to participate in the examination and discussion
of the myriad challenges facing user services professionals as we enter a
new decade and of the new centerings computing service organizations are
discovering to meet them.  Please join us!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You can Participate

    Presentations

    Papers

    Panel Discussions

    Quick Workshops

    Educational Materials Competition

    Newsletter Competition

    Technical Writing Competition

    Documentation Display

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Important Dates

    March 1, 1990        Presentation proposals due
    April 1, 1990        Notification of proposal acceptance
    May 1, 1990        Final Papers due
    June 1, 1990        Newsletter entries due
    June 1, 1990        Technical writing entries due
    June 15, 1990        Notification of paper/panel acceptance
    September 1, 1990    Deadline for materials for
                documentation display



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Presentation Topic Areas


Information Exchange Technology

Information exchange may well be the most important computing
activity of the 1990s. The infrastructure for information delivery, the
National Research and Academic Network (NREN), is presently being developed.
How do we meet the challenges of a world where the
facilitation of information delivery may be a principal user services
responsibility?  Topics of particular interest include:

    new approaches to information exchange

    campus activity in implementing information exchange
    facilities that comply with emerging international standards

    research and development of computer-mediated information
    exchange methods


Distributed Services

As the role of user services shifts to providing distributed support,
we must create new ways of providing traditional services as well as
designing new services.  Topics of particular interest include:

    providing support staff in departments and colleges

    funding issues

    if and how to charge back for services

    human networking of distributed support staff

    nonlabor-intensive support strategies

    cooperative efforts with other departments



Management Strategies

How do user services managers cooperate with other administrative and
academic units that use or provide computing resources?  How do they
meet the many and diverse demands?  Topics of particular interest include:

    reorganization

    interaction with faculty advisory groups

    delegating and distributing responsibility

    coordinating university computing resources

    staff professional development


Marketing your Services

Changing roles may require changing your services and, often, your image on
campus as you provide new services to new users.  Topics of particular in-
terest include:

    promotional strategies

    conducting market research

    designing services for unique or special audiences



Strategies for Small Schools

How can a small liberal arts college have distributed user services and
centralized user services?  How do distributed and centralized services work
together to provide computing services beyond word processing?  The
sciences have become computer literate; now, how do we reach out  from the
center to the humanities and fine arts?  Are we getting out of the
office and into the trenches?  Are we making too many "house calls"?
Should we make them at all?


Security and Ethics

As electronic mail and conferencing become more popular, computing
systems are widely accessible to more users.  How secure should academic
computing resources be?  What are the ethical guidelines provided for users
of electronic mail and conferencing systems?  Topics of particular interest
include:

    promoting responsible and ethical use of computing resources

    security strategies

    adopting an ethics policy


Serving New Audiences

People from the humanities, the arts, and other traditionally nontechnical
disciplines are discovering that computers can help in areas other than
word processing.  In an increasingly proactive stance in the central
computing facility, what do we do to attract and support these new audi-
ences?  Topics of interest include:

    providing information about off-the-shelf specialized
    programs for music, fine arts, and the humanities

    facilitating technical support of nontraditional areas

    serving the computing beginner who wants to do
    sophisticated tasks


Consulting, Training, and Documentation

Supporting those who use the computing resources that we provide re-
mains an important responsibility of user services organizations.  Topics
of particular interest include:

    new approaches to training

    providing distributed consulting

    documentation distribution services


and/or other topics that would be of interest to your national
and international colleagues


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Submitting Proposals


Submit proposals via electronic mail to:

    [e-mail] or

    [e-mail]

If you do not have access to electronic mail, send a printed copy to:

        Susan Jenkins Saari
        Instruction and Research
        Computer Center
        The Ohio State University
        1971 Neil Avenue
        Columbus, OH 43210

        phone:      [phone]
        fax:      [phone]


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Accepted Proposals


Proposals must be received by March 1, 1990.  Any submisson received
after this date will not be considered by the Program Committee.  You will
be notified of the Program CommitteeUs decision by April 1, 1990.  If your
proposal is accepted, you will be asked to submit a full paper by May 1,
1990.  Any papers received after this date will not be considered.  You will
be notified of the Program Committee decision by June 15, 1990.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


How to Participate


Proposals

For each proposal, include your name, title, affiliation, mailing address,
type of proposal (presentation or panel discussion) and its topic area.
In addition, you must enclose the proper materials from the following
requirements list:

Description

Papers        Papers will be presented in 20-minute intervals, with
        three papers scheduled per 90-minute session. Speakers'
        papers will be published in the conference proceedings.

Panels        Panels will be in-depth treatments of a single topic by
        two to four speakers from at least two different schools,
        coordinated by a moderator.  Allow ample time for audience
        discussion.  Abstracts for panels should be submitted
        as a unit by the person who wishes to act as a moderator.
        Panelists' papers will be published in the conference
        proceedings.

Quick Workshops    Quick workshops provide 90-minute overviews of new technolo-
        gies, innovative applications, and creative strategies
        for addressing the needs of computer users on campus.


Requirements

Papers        A 250- to 300-word abstract of the paper.  Acceptance of
        a proposal does not automatically ensure acceptance
        of a paper for presentation; you must submit a full
        paper to be considered for the conference program.

Panels        A 250- to 300-word description of the panel, including
        each panelist's name, title, affiliation, and presentation
        topic.  Acceptance of a panel description does not
        automatically ensure acceptance of the panel for
        presentation; each panelist must submit a full paper
        to be considered for the conference program.

Quick Workshops    A one- to two-page outline of the presentation and a
        10-minute videotape excerpt from the proposed presentation.
        Acceptance of a proposal does not automatically ensure
        acceptance of a workshop for presentation; you must
        submit a full paper to be considered for the conference
        program.  Only three or four presentations will be a
        ccepted in this category because it is highly competiive.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Other Ways to Participate

Education and Training Materials Competition

Interest in and the importance of user education and training have grown
with each SIGUCCS conference.  The 1990 SIGUCCS Conference offers,
for the first time, competition for user education and training materials for
colleges and universities.*  We invite you to submit no more than two
entries in any or all of the following categories: curriculum catalog, class-
room printed materials, or self-contained printed tutorials.  Although the
first year of this competition includes only printed materials, we would like
to know if there is an interest in expanding our future competitions to
include video, audio, and computer-based tutorials.  Deadline for entry is
June 1, 1990.  For more details and an entry form, or to address the issue
of future competition categories, contact:

        Diane Jung-Gribble
        Indiana University
        750 North State Road 46 Bypass
        Bloomington, IN  47405

        [phone]


        [e-mail]
        [e-mail]

*NOTE:  this competition is not open to commercial materials

Newsletter Competition

Winning an award in the SIGUCCS Newsletter Competition is a mark of
distinction for your institution, and for your editors, writers,artists,and
designers.  You will be asked to submit two consecutive issues published
between June 1989 and May 1990.  Deadline for entry is June 1, 1990.
For more details and an entry form, contact:

        Jess Anderson
        Madison Academic Computing Center
        University of Wisconsin-Madison
        1210 West Dayton Street
        Madison, WI   53706

        [phone]

        [e-mail]
        [e-mail]


Technical Writing Competition

If you have written or published a particularly good article in a computing
newsletter, enter it in the Technical Writing Competition.  Each computing
center may enter one article.  Deadline for entry is June 1,1990.  To obtain
entry forms and more details, contact:

        Donald J. Montabana
        University of Pennsylvania
        Computing Resources Center
        1202 Blockley Hall
        Philadelphia, PA  19104-6021

        [phone]

        [e-mail]



Documentation Display

The documentation room will feature an online system for submitted
documentation.  Conference attendees who have BITNET or INTERNET
access will be able to email documentation to their university or college.
Documentation may be submitted electronically to DOCUMENT@MIAMIU,
by hardcopy, or diskette (IBM or Mac formatted) and must be received
before September 1, 1990.  Direct inquries to:

        Al Kaled
        Academic Computing Services
        Miami University
        Oxford, OH  45056

        [phone]

        AK75STAF@MIAMIU


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


More Information


General Information
Amin Shafie, Conference Chair
University of Cincinnati


        e-mail:        [e-mail]

        phone:        [phone]

        fax:        [phone]


Call for Participation
Susan Jenkins Saari, Program Chair
The Ohio State University

        e-mail:        [e-mail]

        phone:        [phone]

        fax:        [phone]


Registration
Ken Maccarone, Registration Chair
University of Cincinnati

        e-mail:        [e-mail]


        phone:        [phone]
        fax:        [phone]


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


ACM SIGUCCS

The Association of Computing Machinery's (ACM) Special Interest Group
for University and College Computing (SIGUCCS) is one of ACM's
organizational units devoted to the technical activities of its members.
SIGUCCS provides a link for guidance and the interchange of ideas among
computing professionals in the full range of small to large institutions.
Its newsletter, annual conferences, and workshops promote the discussion
of mutual problems. networks, user services, and computer center management.
This SIGUCCS conference emphasizes practical ways to improve services for
those who use university and college computing centers.


Amin Shafie
Assistant Director
Academic Computing Services                UCBEH::SHAFIE
University of Cincinnati                   [e-mail]
Cincinnati, Ohio  45221                    [e-mail]
[phone]


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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: SIGUCCS Conference
*****************************










Date:     Mon, 15 Jan 90 1:10:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #28
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Jan 90 01:10:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Archives Has Relocated (TELECOM Moderator)
    Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested (Curtis E. Reid)
    CLASS Approved in TN & FL (Ken Jongsma)
    FCC Threat Not For Real? (Dag Zalhastra)
    Re: Where Can I Buy a Caller*ID Box Now? (Bill Cerny)
    Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (Paul Sutcliffe)
    Re: Free Local Phone Calls (Tom Napoletano)
    Re: Caller ID (Keith Vitek)
    Re: BBS as a Business (William Degnan)
    Re: Customer Support (Tony Carrato)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 0:32:19 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Archives Has Relocated


The TELECOM Archives has relocated to lcs.mit.edu. This change was
required because the size of the archives was such that Boston
University was no longer able to accomodate us.

The usual ftp rules apply in the new location:

'ftp lcs.mit.edu'
login anonymous; give your name and site as password; i.e. '[e-mail]'.
'cd telecom-archives'
'dir' to see the selections
'get (your selections)'
'bye'

One sad problem was discovered. Over the years, the archives have been
stored at various locations, and the Digest itself has been produced
from various locations; each with different machinery and different
operating systems.

This would pose no problem except that the 'compress' algorythms (we
are now discovering) are not the same, and many cannot work with each
other. What this means is a few of the old files compressed at cs.bu
or maybe rutgers will not uncompress properly at lcs.mit.edu.

I spent most of the day Sunday constructing what I could of the
archives from various sources; archives here at eecs, some from cs.bu,
some from jsol, etc.... and as a result of the corruption in some of
the older files, we only have portions of volumes 1 through 5 at this
time.  We have none of volume 6 yet; all of volume 7; most of volume 8
and all of volumes 9 and 10.

Persons with substantial experience in reconstructing corrupted files
are welcome to go to the archives, to the directory 'oldarc' within
the archives, and take the compressed files therein and see what they
can do. Help will be appreciated. Likewise, if you have complete or
partial sets of volumes 1 through 8 and would not mind sending a copy
to the archives, let me know first, and I will arrange to get them.

Fortunatly, at lcs.mit.edu there is enough space that there is no need
to compress the files -- so eveything is easily accessible. What we
have of the old files available is listed in the directory.

Mike Patton, a system administrator at lcs.mit.edu tells me a mail
server will soon be on line, so that our many non-internet users will
also be able to access the archives files. Watch for news on this when
it is ready to be used.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 10:35 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested


Greetings, Telecom Folks!

        I have searched several TELECOM Digests but I found no
comprehensive listing of PBXs/Key Systems for home use.  I would like
to seek your assistance in compiling this information by replying it
to me.

        The typical configuration and requirements will be:

                Two-story house with Basement
                <= 3 telephone lines
                Six rooms and Basement excluding bathrooms
                   (possible number of extensions: 7 )
                Configurable to include voice, data, and fax. (Either
                   separately or singularly.)
                SMDR, Hold, Forward, Pickup, Toll Restriction, intra calling,
                Memory dialing, Night service (to name a few)
                Reasonably Priced (Affordable)

        What I would like to ask you is to mail me directly the
following information outlined below.  Please try to limit to those
that YOU have used it -- not those that you know about.  For example,
I know about but never used the AT&T Spirit and Merlin systems but I
want to hear from someone who have used it.

                Make:
                Model:
                Price:
                Line/Trunk Capacity:
                Extension Capacity:
                Features:
                Product Reliability:
                Service Quality:
                Support Quality:
                Other:

        I would like to have all the information to me by January 19,
1990 so I can compile it.  I will send the compilation by mail
request.

        Thank you very much for your assistance!!

                Curtis Reid
                [e-mail]
                [e-mail] (Internet)
                [e-mail] (Not Reliable-NYSernet)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: CLASS Approved in TN & FL
Date: Sat, 13-Jan-90 08:11:08 PST


The Florida and Tennessee Public Service Commissions have approved the
implementation of CLASS services, including Caller-ID. No availability
dates or cities were listed in the announcement.

Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dag Zalhastra)
Subject: FCC Threat Not For Real?
Date: 14 Jan 90 14:36:05 GMT


There's been quite a bit of discussion going on about the FCC Modem
use surcharge on the ProLine network..  here's a message I pulled that
might be of interest...

        --- clip here ---

   CS-ID: #210.chat/net@pro-deli 1712 chars
   Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 15:16:44 EST
   From: [e-mail] (Rich Sims)
   Subject: Why things should be checked out!!

I don't usually do the "I told you so!" kind of stuff, but this is a
prime example of what can happen when you see something and simply
assume that because you read it on a computer screen, it must
necessarily be true, without doing even the most rudimentary checking.

This kind of mess may actually wind up doing harm, rather than just
being ignored as "a bunch of idiots who don't know what they're
talking about"....

The following message was transmitted on the usenet
'news.announce.important' newsgroup in an effort to try and correct a
problem that could have been avoided entirely with a bit of thought
and effort....

       ----- forwarded message follows -----

    From: [e-mail] (Chuq Von Rospach)
    Subject: FCC 'chain letter' -- please stop

Recently a message announcing that the FCC is considering a surcharge
on modem users has been showing up on USENET in various groups.
Research has shown that there is no basis for this letter -- it seems
to be an accidental re-release of a 2 year old message. The FCC is not
considering any surcharge of any kind, and they are currently getting
about 200 letters a day on the subject (that they would like to see
stop coming). The Talk Show host mentioned in the letter (Jim Eason of
KGO) has been pestered by a lot of calls (including the FCC) wondering
what was going on, and hasn't been involved in the issue in two years.

Please STOP posting or distributing this message. If you have a copy,
destroy it. It is obsolete and causing problems on networks and BBSes
nationwide. There is no proposal on the docket and none being
considered. We need to wipe this silly thing out before things get
further out of hand.

chuq

     ----- end of forwarded message -----

     --- clip here ---

Dag Zalhastra    Wyomissing, PA    215/777-8032 (pro-deli  login: register)
ProLine: dag@pro-deli      Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: {bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli!dag
ARPANET: {bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!pro-abyss!pro-deli![e-mail]
BITNET: [e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now?
Date: 15 Jan 90 00:36:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> csense![e-mail] (John Boteler)
writes:

>My question: where can I buy any Caller*ID box now!

Software Studios (Annandale, VA [phone]) is supposed to ship a
device called "Clyde" this quarter.  Clyde is a box with an RS-232
interface, and some pc software.  Like thousands of others, I too am
awaiting the product literature that was to be mailed last week.

Btw, Colonial Data Systems (New England somewhere) has announced a
Caller*ID RS-232 box with general availability in 2Q90.

That's two vendors.  Who else has announced a Caller*ID device?


Bill Cerny
[e-mail]    |    attmail: !denwa!bill    |    fax: [phone]


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

Organization: Devon Computer Services, Lancaster, PA
From: "Paul Sutcliffe Jr." <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 90 23:14:14 EST
Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America


Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes:
+---------
| Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification
| of a number as mobile.
+---------

You mean all cellular phones, those in both the A and B systems, in
any given areacode should be 229-xxxx?  That allows no more than 10000
phones.  My "home" system covers less than 1/3 of the geography of the
717 areacode, yet has over 2500 subscribers alone.  I'll leave the
rest of the math to the reader.

- paul

INTERNET:  [e-mail]        |      If life's a bitch, then
UUCP:      ...!rutgers!devon!paul      |      we must be her puppies.

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 90 08:05:07 est
From: [e-mail] (Tom Napoletano)
Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Tom Napoletano)
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine


The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information
calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60
per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212).


[Moderator's Note: Really, I don't see how the telco can get away with
charging the COCOT operator either, since technically the COCOT
operator is the 'user' of the service he in turn is re-selling to his
customer. If telco is required by PUCO to give information for free,
then it has to be given for free to all, no? If the COCOT owners would
push on this, I think they could get it for free also.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90 11:56:58 CST
From: Keith Vitek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID


In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]

Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop
Caller ID was here.  I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking
about...


UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

Keith Vitek              | Voice: 512/852-1841     | I want my NeXT...
5914 LiptonShire         |    or: 512/852-1780     | I want my AmigaUUCP...
Corpus Christi, TX 78415 |  FIDO: 1:160/40         | I want ..........


[Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way
to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing
themselves?  I guess there are some places where possibly the more
sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter'
example.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jan 90  0:38:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BBS as a Business


In an article of <12 Jan 90 08:56:12 GMT>, iiasa![e-mail]
(wolf paul) writes:

 wp>To illustrate their argument, they maintain that when a sysop imposes
 wp>online time limits, but then gives time credit for uploads, that
 wp>actually constitutes a business transaction. He accepts the upload as
 wp>payment for increased online time.

We have yet to test this principle. It has been suggested that we send
in floppies with shareware along with our Southwestern Bell bills --
marked "paid in full".

If SWB would accept this as full payment, they could charge whatever
they want and we would not complain.  :)

Last I knew, they were willing to confine the definition to "requires
monitary compensation". Meaning you could take donations but you
couldn't require pay- for-play and still be classified as a residence
customer.

H o w e v e r ... they are still holding to the arbitrary one-line per
bbs/machine/whatever requirement. You apparently could have 99 machines as
long as they didn't share files with each other and if you couldn't do
interline chats.

One of the major objections to this is that SWB doesn't really
understand what they are trying to control and the only way they could
insure tariff compliance is to come "look". It could get bloody.

I feel that it is SWB's responsibilty to provide dial tone to the
network interface. They have no business looking around on the
customer side of it.  They, considering their traditions, have a
somewhat different opinion.


Regards, Bill

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] ( tony carrato)
Subject: Re: Customer Support
Date: 13 Jan 90 19:28:33 GMT
Reply-To: carrato@.UUCP (mhis - tony carrato)
Organization: Mile-High Information Services, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 24, message 12 of 12

>I am about to embark on a new business venture and money is rather
>tight.  This venture requires that my partner and I provide an
>incredibly high level of customer support for 16 hours a day 7 days a
>week.  I am seeking telecommunications solutions to this problem.

    ... bulk of inquiry deleted but what it asks is how to get
    a call without knowing where you might be at the time...

Two solutions come to my mind, one that I use and one that one of
the folks here uses.

1) There are getting to be a number of voice mail services out that
will also page you.  On your voice mailbox you can leave a greeting
that instructs the caller to leave you a detailed problem report and
tells him that you'll call back shortly.  My experience is that you
get paged withing 5 minutes of the call depending on congestion at the
voice mail services (their computer and phone system mostly).

2) Get a portable, cellular phone and forward your office number to
that.  As long as you are in range you will get the call immediately.
Naturally this assumes you are available to answer it at all times but
you can probably get that phone to forward to voice mail if you don't
answer in four rings.


Tony Carrato
Mile-High Information Services, Inc.
uunet!mhinfo!carrato

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #28
*****************************










Date:     Tue, 16 Jan 90 0:02:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #29
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jan 90 00:00:02 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Nationwide Long-Distance Outage (Rich Kulawiec)
    Who's Using Whom? (John Higdon)
    Hum Filter Needed (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question (Phil Lapsley)
    900 and 976 Blocking (Andy Malis)
    Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Peter Weiss)
    Re: Free Local Phone Calls (John Higdon)
    Re: Customer Support (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight (David Lewis)
    Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible (David Leibold)
    Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Jeff Woolsey)

[Moderator's Note: Our Usenet gateway machine, [e-mail] has
been down for three days, and the Digest is not making it out to the
comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup right now. When accuvax is back in service
the unsent messages will be distributed. Please advise any Usenetters
you may know of the problem. Thanks.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 16:17:29 MST
From: Rich Kulawiec <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nationwide Long-Distance Outage


CNN is reporting that AT&T says that some sort of major disruption of
long-distance service started around 2:30 pm EST today.  I've been
unable to reach area codes 415, 317, 213, and 312; each attempt yields
an "all circuits are busy" recording.  CNN says that AT&T does not
know the source of the trouble.


Rich Kulawiec


[Moderator's Note: As of 10 PM CST Monday night (as I am typing this),
WGN-TV is interviewing an AT&T spokesperson who says the source of the
problem is not yet known, but it is believed to be a software glitch.
The problem is nationwide, resulting in many (most?) calls reaching an
intercept message, 'Your call did not go through' (here in Chicago).
The spokesperson said they are working frantically on the problem, but
may not have service entirely restored before 'sometime Tuesday'.
About half of my calls completed okay Monday evening, the other half
failed.  The network failure has caused considerable congestion on
MCI/Sprint lines; and of course, as Higdon points out in the next
message, some alternate carriers in fact use AT&T circuits for some of
their calls.  PT]

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

Subject: Who's Using Whom?
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 15 Jan 90 14:14:09 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


AT&T long distance has been severely disrupted today in the Bay Area
due to a major cable cut, according to an AT&T operator I talked to.

Why is this of any interest? Well, it seems that Sprint is down as
well. Why? Sprint leases facilities from AT&T. So all of the ballyhoo
about Sprint's fiber optics is, to some degree, actually AT&T's fiber
optics.

Sort of reminds one of the old story about how all gasoline comes from
the same delivery truck. We have all of the advertising about product
differentiation, and it turns out that aspirin is aspirin after all.

So Sprint's advanced fiber optic network is, at least in part, AT&T's
fiber optic network. Well, well. It is amazing what you can learn
about someone when his pants are down!


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

[Moderator's Note: I really think the operator you interviewed spoke
without full knowledge of the circumstances of the outage; that is,
unless by coincidence there was also a major cable problem out there
as well as the nationwide network problem.   PT]

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

Date: Mon 15 Jan 90 20:04:08-PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hum Filter Needed


I have a problem with hum on some of my telephones. This is probably
caused by too long horizontal runs of unshielded "satin" cable (line
cord). (I use that' instead of twisted pair since it is easier to
install). 60hz is supposed to be outside the audible portion of the
phone "spectrum", so can I get a filter (ready-made or I'll build it)
to take care of this problem, or should I bite the bullet and rewire?


Ole

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 09:52:01 PST
From: Phil Lapsley <[e-mail]>
Subject: CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question


Does anybody know what percentage of interoffice trunks now send
signalling information out of band via CCIS?  Before the breakup, Bell
Labs made some comment like it would be 100% CCIS by 1988, but I still
hear those MF tones in the background occasionally.


Phil Lapsley    [e-mail]    ...!ucbvax!phil

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

Subject: 900 and 976 Blocking
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 13:23:20 -0500
From: Andy Malis <[e-mail]>


In their recent phone bills, New England Telephone included
information about Information Delivery Service lines, and offering
free blocking (once you get blocking, you are charged for future
changes).  I just signed up for their comprehensive blocking; it
blocks:

1-900-XXX-XXXX  (general long-distance information programs)
976-XXXX (general local information programs)
940-XXXX (adult local information program)
550-XXXX (group talk lines)

I have a five-year-old at home that's as gullible for TV ads as any
other kid his age.  When, for example, he wanted to call Santa on one
of those 900 numbers advertised during December, we told him our phone
didn't work for that phone number.  Now, I'll be telling him the
truth!

By the way, 940 calls are automatically blocked unless you send a
written request to have it enabled.


Andy Malis <[e-mail]>    UUCP: {harvard,rutgers,uunet}!bbn!malis

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

Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 14 Jan 1990 13:57:15 EST
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>


Found in ALT.PEEVES -

  From: [e-mail] (Bob Calbridge)
  Newsgroups: alt.peeves
  Subject: 1-900 come-on
  Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
  Date: 10 Jan 90 03:56:38 GMT
  Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas

I just saw one of the most disgusting commercials today.  Disgusting
because it seems to say that anyone who falls for the line is a
sucker.  But I'm sure there are a few people who will follow through.
If anyone out there does so plase post the result.

The commercial has some jerk saying that there is a 1-900 number at
the bottom of the screen.  Whatever you do, don't call it.  The guy
jumps up and down repeating this plea.  Finally he says he's getting
down on his knees to plead for you not to call the number.  Another
voice is heard telling you to call the number.  Guy number 1 hollers
"NO!  Don't listen.  This guy is crazy."

There is no mention of what you would hear on the other end.  Of
course, there is a charge for the call.  I think it was about $2.95
for the first minute.

Any takers?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=    More stupid questions available on request from                          =
-     bobc@attctc                     Your humble servant (real humble)       -
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls
Date: 15 Jan 90 11:19:50 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Tom Napoletano) writes:

> The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information
> calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60
> per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212).

Sounds like all the good people of Ohio need to save up all of their
inquiries, walk down to their local COCOT, and make all those DA calls
they were too cheap to make at home. They'll get two benefits for the
price of none.:-)


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

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 15:26:08 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customer Support


I received a lot of traffic on my customer support posting.  Here is a
summary of responses.

90% if the responses and people that I have talked to seem to think
that answering services should be avoided at all costs.  The list of
horror stories could fill an entire digest.

Sony, Panasonic and Phone Mate make answering machines that will call
another number to indicate that a message has come in.

Radio Shack and STARTEL have machines that will do call forwarding if
you have two lines.

You can subscribe to a voice mail service that will activate a beeper
when a message come in.

Many people have recommended using a PC based voice mail system.

After considering all of the above options, the one that seems worth
doing for me seems to be the PC based voice mail system.  (since I
have an old PC clone that I'm not using now for anything else.)

I believe that my requirements are as follows:

  1.  Runs on dedicated 8mhz XT clone with 20mb (slow) hard disk.
  2.  Can call out to a beeper number.
  3.  Has good voice quality.
  4.  Allows calling in to pick up messages
  5.  Allows me to call in remotely and alter programming to some other
      pre-defined program.
  6.  Allows callers to specify the priority or disposition of a call by
      pressing a number on a Touch-Tone phone.
  7.  Security code for remote operations.
  8.  Costs under $1000 for all hardware & software excluding the PC.
  9.  Can answer a call on one line and forward it out on a second line.
  10. Able to do different things based on the time of day.

  Items 1-8 are absolute requirements.  Items 9-10 are highly desireable.

I have been told that the Watson system will do all of this.

Jeff Cochran reported having both the Watson and "The Complete PC".
He reports the Watson is far superior.

Mark Earle recommended "The Complete Answering Machine".  Is this the
same as "The Complete PC"?

I've also been told about a product called BigMouth.

If anyone has other devices to add to the list or experiences with any
of the above devices, please send Email.  I will summarize for the
digest.  Any information about suppliers having good prices on this
type of equipment would also be greatly appreciated.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone User Vows New Fight
Date: 15 Jan 90 15:17:55 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


Sorry, but there are a couple of comments I feel I can't pass up...

In article <[e-mail]>, csense![e-mail] (John Boteler)
writes:

> Excerpted from:
> UPce 01/08 1709  Phone user vows new court fight

>    DIXON, Iowa (UPI)...

>    "The cellular phone, the rich man's phone, is covered, but the
> average man's isn't," Tyler said.

Hmm.  The "average man" is going out and buying $150 cordless phones,
but telcos are still compelled to provide virtually free lifeline
service to low-income households...

>    Cellular phones are entirely broadcast over radio while cordless
> phones are merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit, which
> is plugged into a regular phone jack.

Sorry, UPI.  Cordless phones are *broadcast* from the handset, and the
base unit merely happens to be tuned to the proper frequency to pick
it up.  This "merely transmitted from the headset to the base unit"
implies some sort of directional link...


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

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

Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible in North America
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 90 14:37:06 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (John R. Covert  10-Jan-1990 0822) writes:

> Unlike countries where most telephone service is provided by either
> ancient step-by-step or modern electronic offices, the North American
> Integrated Numbering Plan Area (U.S., Canada, and the 809 Caribbean)
> is chock full of central offices of an intermediate type.  These
> common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number,
> in what is known as an Originating Register.  This is a hardware
> register made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing
> three, seven, or ten digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0"
> was dialled first.

How then would overseas numbers work? I believe the international
standard for those would be 12 digits or so, including country code
(after dialing the 01 or 011), at least the cutoff in dialing after
the 011 here is 12 digits.

Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.;
would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all?

Actually, it might get hard to remember local numbers if they were
more than 7 digits (this might be the reason for the length of tel. #s
in North America). Perhaps 4 digit area codes might be used instead
(take an old Mexico code like 706, and use a 4th digit to make
something like (7064) 555-0000).

Of course, the country code could always be split (11 for Canada, 12
for eastern U.S., and California seems to be its own country :->).
That gets to be a bit much, though.


|| David Leibold      "That's not reality, but that, too, is news"
|| [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Woolsey <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls?
Date: 15 Jan 90 17:55:01 GMT
Organization: NetCom - The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


The moderator missed the point completely in his footnote to the
article about not being able to dial local 1+10D calls in one's home
NPA.  The rest of the world cares very little about which end of the L
platform is in which areacode relative to the issue of why one is
universally prevented from dialing the local area code in North
America.

In the Dialing Instructions article appearing elsewhere in this
newsgroup I noted that the dialing of which I speak was listed as
permissive, yet I know of nowhere that permits it.  This dialing
restriction is a problem for widely distributed communications
programs and other applications that deal with autodialing modems.
(It can be addressed with 800 and 900 numbers which can be dialed the
same way almost everywhere, the leading 1 being the only variant.)  It
is also a problem, crudely handled, for pocket autodialers that
travellers carry.

I hope there's a really good reason and not just some silly technical
problem somewhere, such as old stupid switches immediately handing the
number off to a tandem, if indeed there is any reason at all.


Jeff Woolsey    Microtec Research, Inc    [phone]
 ...!apple!netcom!woolsey    ...!amdcad!sun0!woolsey

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #29
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 17 Jan 90 0:25:27 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #30
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Jan 90 00:25:19 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Reliability (System Administrator)
    Reporting of the AT&T Outage (David Tamkin)
    Reach Out and Touch Someone? (Al Donaldson)
    Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: Who's Using Whom? (John McHarry)
    Re: Who's Using Whom? (John Higdon)
    USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service ([e-mail])
    Comparative Evaluation of Voice, Data Integration Over LANs (M. Yamajako)
    Help! T1 Advice in NYC (Owen Scott Medd)
    Who Owes Whom For 900 Services? (Anthony E. Siegman)
    $outhwe$tern Bell (Jordan Marc Kossack)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives! (Or Does It?) (Bob L.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: AT&T Reliability
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 15 Jan 90 21:45:45 PST (Mon)
From: System Administrator <[e-mail]>


It appears that AT&T has solved their "software" problem, since calls
now go through. Their original statement about a cable cut was
certainly an understatement.

My question is this: what about those 800 customers who were promised
(in all the TV ads) that if for any reason their 800 number went down,
they would bring it up on one of their other lines within one hour.
There are an awful lot of 800 numbers around here that were down all
day without being restored on POTS lines, mainly, of course, because
the entire network was down. Any recouse available to the customers?

This whole mess sure points out the fact that even Mother has her
days!

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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reporting of the AT&T Outage
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 22:16:30 CST


One thing has caught my attention about news reports of Monday's AT&T
outage, whether on radio, on television, or in print: invariably
promotions for upcoming news about it and the first few sentences of
the item itself have talked about "problems for long-distance callers"
or "long-distance troubles."  It's presented as a problem with
long-distance calling and then it segues to "AT&T spokespeople are
saying" or "according to AT&T" as if the two were one in the same.

Longer discussions of it get around to bringing up MCI and Sprint's
situations (being overloaded because AT&T customers were seeking
alternatives, for example), but most do not.  Moreover, none
introduced the item as an AT&T-only problem, nor even as an AT&T
problem.  It is called a long-distance problem with little or no
acknowledgment that "long distance" and "AT&T Long Distance" are not
synonymous these days.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570


[Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Sun-Times} had as their headline in
Tuesday's paper, "Calls Waiting!" and part of the human-interest side
of the story were interviews with business people -- particularly
telemarketing organizations -- who were pretty well out of action
Monday.  The airline and hotel reservation people with their 800
numbers were also pretty hard hit by the events of the day. The
{Chicago Tribune} noted that AT&T spokespeople had *not* ruled out 'a
"computer virus" or act of sabatoge by a phreak unknown...' as the
source of their problem.  PT]

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

From: Al Donaldson <vrdxhq!escom.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Reach Out and Touch Someone?
Date: 16 Jan 90 04:05:48 GMT
Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA


Word tonight that AT&T is having computer problems affecting
phone service nationwide.  I can just see it now:

 "Hello, Phoenix?"
    "No, this is Fiji..."

Maybe they should spend more money on systems and less on advertising.


Al Donaldson
(ATT customer)

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 10:33:37 EST
From: Bill Berbenich <bill@shannon>
Subject: Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage


Does anyone know how AT&T is handling their 800 WATS customers
who are inaccessible as a result of this outage?  I recall a television
ad which said something like 'if you are an AT&T 800 WATS
customer and there is an outage, we GUARANTEE that your service
will be restored within an hour.'


  --Bill Berbenich

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

Date: Tuesday, 16 Jan 1990 18:40:07 EST
From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom?


John Higdon wrote in V10 #29 that US Sprint was unaccessable during
the AT&T outage yesterday due to their leasing facilities from AT&T.

I don't know the specific access arrangements in his area, but I
believe the following to be generally true.  Carriers do lease trunks
to one another; however, these are non-switched services.  I don't
think AT&T has a tariff for switched access carriage for other IECs.
(Not too sure on that one) If that is the case, unless there was
indeed a cable cut, the common mode failure lies elsewhere.  Of
course, this leasing of trunks doesn't obviate US Sprint's claim
regarding an ALL fiber optic network if they lease only fiber optic
trunks.  There doesn't seem to be any claim that other networks don't
have some, or even lots, of fiber trunks.

What may be interesting here is the possibility of a shared BOC-AT&T
switch being in the common path, eg. the access tandem.  Unless I
misread an old copy of Notes on the BOC Intra LATA Networks, or things
have changed in the meantime, there are some switches that are either
BOC owned and used by AT&T or (the interesting case) AT&T owned and
used by the BOC.  These are an artifact of the pre-1984 state of
affairs, and represent cases where the split could not be neatly made
on one side or the other of the switch.  If Mr.  Higdon's LATA is such
a case, then US Sprint could be receiving service from the LEC, but
with an AT&T owned and operated switch in the middle.  In this case it
is the LEC that is providing service by leasing switch capacity from
AT&T.  US Sprint might well be using all their own trunks to the point
of presence.  Beyond that, they have no choice or control.

Of course, to the end user, this is cold comfort.  If there is only
one access tandem, you have no protection from a failure affecting it.
I suppose large users could use direct trunks to two or more IECs,
but, in most cases, that sounds like overkill, especially given the
probablility of the failure being guarded against vs the probablility
of backhoe fade knocking down both trunk groups.

These are only my own speculations, of course, and don't necessarily
reflect the views of anyone else.  If I have erred, I am sure I'll be
corrected.  On second thought, omit the if clause.
***************************************************************
* John McHarry    [phone]             [e-mail] *
***************************************************************

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom?
Date: 16 Jan 90 01:57:09 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


After writing:

> AT&T long distance has been severely disrupted today in the Bay Area
> due to a major cable cut, according to an AT&T operator I talked to.

The Telecom Moderator wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: I really think the operator you interviewed spoke
> without full knowledge of the circumstances of the outage;

That's, of course, an understatement. But it will be interesting to see
over the next few days and weeks how that AT&T PR department will
handle this one. It should also be fascinating to find out what the
*real* problem was, if it ever is to be known by the public.

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

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

Subject: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 06:25:08 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Here are a few quick observations about USA Direct, after using
it for one week from France:

o   About 20% of calls get cut off.

o   Service quality is the worst I've ever experienced.
    ATT must buy their stat-mux equipment from K-Mart.

o   Usually, the callee's voice was cut off for about 20% of
    their words.  It was IMPOSSIBLE to hold a normal conversation.

o   I wonder if the problems are solely with ATT equipment?

o   I asked an ATT operator two questions:
       1.  Why was service so poor?  Answer: it must be the lines. (duh?)
       2.  Is the inability to connect to 800 numbers a technical problem
       or a policy decision.  Answer:  both.


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

From: Mireille Yamajako <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comparative Evaluation of Voice, Data Integration Over LANs
Date: 16 Jan 90 13:52:04 GMT
Organization: INRIA, Rocquencourt, France.


I am interested in experience results and papers on comparative
performance of LANs in data and voice integration.


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

From: Owen Scott Medd <mailrus!umich!oxtrap!ox.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Help! T1 Advice in NYC
Organization: Ocwen Trading, Inc.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 17:52:11 GMT


 From our office in Purchase, NY, we lease voice grade lines to
several locations in nearby New York City.

We have been looking into a NY Tel T1 line to save money while
providing additional capacity for 56Kb data circuits.  However, we do
not have a location in NYC where we could terminate the T1 line.

A "CO mux" has been recommended to us: our own T1 multiplexer in our
Purchase office talking to a NY Tel owned multiplexer in a NY Tel CO,
with analog lines fanning out from the CO.

The problem seems to be that (in its infinite wisdom) NY Tel has
determined that only analog data can be passed through such a
configuration, which kills our idea of 56Kb data circuits.

(Also in its infinite wisdom) NY Tel has offered to accept $1400 for a
"feasibility study" of inserting a digital DS0 card into their CO mux.
If they decide the idea is feasible, they'll then quote a price for
providing us with this "special assembly" (in NY Tel terminology).

Is NY Tel serious about (in these modern times) favoring analog over
digital data?  Are we looking at the right product?

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

From: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who Owes Whom For 900 Services?
Date: 13 Jan 90 23:48:17 GMT
Reply-To: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


Suppose I make (or someone makes on my phone) an expensive 900 call
and the charge shows up on my next phone bill.

As I understand it, my phone company (Pac Tel) is not providing the
"services" involved in this 900 call, merely acting as billing agent
for the provider.  So, if I refuse to pay, except maybe paying Pac Tel
some small amount for the actual phone services involved, does Pac Tel
have any further claim on me?  I never contracted with them for
anything except phone service.

Can they shut off my phone service if I refuse to pay for this
non-phone service that they just happen to be billing agent for?


[Moderator's Note: No, they cannot make you pay, and they cannot cut
your service. Make sure you let them know you are refusing to pay the
900 portion (or whatever AOS you are challenging), so that the payment
you do send them is applied correctly, and not taken as a partial
payment against the whole bill, thus leaving the bill partially unpaid.

Here in Chicago, if you refuse payment on the 900 portion, Illinois
Bell will charge it back uncollectible to the Nine Hundred Service
Corporation, which is the service provider for many or most of those
services here. On notice that you did not pay, the Nine Hundred
Service Corporation will send you a direct bill. They are entitled,
under the tariff, to have your name and address for their records from
the telco, even if you have a non-pub number. When you then refuse to
pay them, in most instances they will place you with a collection
agency; you will ultimatly pay or they will sue you for theft of their
services and get a civil judgment against you. Of course you may
choose to defend the suit. And how far this is carried depends of
course on the size of the bill and how much resistance you offer, your
defenses, etc. But Illinois Bell is out of the picture once you notify
them of your stance. It is no skin off their nose. The same thing has
always been the case with Yellow Pages advertising.  PT]

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

From: Jordan Marc Kossack <[e-mail]>
Subject: $outhwe$tern Bell
Date: 16 Jan 90 21:40:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Students for a Negative Population Growth


Why does Southwestern Bell charge so @*!#-ing much to turn on
telephone service? I could understand the $75- charge if I actually
needed a phone lines to be installed in my apartment, but this is not
the case.  I think that $75- is a wee much to charge for some clerical
type to do the magnetic media work ... uhhh 'paperwork' involved in
setting up an account.

I mean, hey, HL&P didn't charge me to begin service. OK, so they
required a deposit - but I'll be able to transfer that deposit if I
change apartments and if I should move out of town I'll get my deposit
refunded. The same is not true with the SWB 'installation' fee. HA!
Installation?!

They didn't install anything in my apartment!  ow, I guess some bozo
is going to say that I have the option to not pay the HUGE fee and
thus not recieve telephone service. True, but that is not the point.
Why does the gov't allow them to have a _monopoly_ if they insist on
making such huge profits. A case in point follows.
    ...            ...            ...


  053/061 09 Jan 90  19:18:04
  From:   News Desk @ 382/39

NYNEX AUDIT -- When Nynex ... set up a subsidiary to buy supplies for
them, the idea was to save money: The purchasing unit could buy in
volume, and the savings would be passed on to customers.  From the
start, regulators worried that it wouldn't work that way.  Because
profits of the purchasing unit wouldn't be regulated, Nynex might be
tempted to have this unit charge the phone companies inflated prices.
... It was a temptation Nynex apparently couldn't resist.  A year-long
federal audit has concluded that ... Nynex has overcharged its own
companies this way to the tune of $120 million.  The FCC ... may act
against Nynex as early as this week. ... The complex web of intramural
transactions at Nynex ... reminds regulators of the cozy ties that
AT&T's Western Electric unit had with the Bell operating companies, a
relationship that helped prompt the breakup of AT&T.  Since the
breakup, such relationships have become increasingly common with the
... Baby Bells. ... New York Times, A1.
    ...            ...            ...

I'll admit that just because NYNEX is doing this kind of stuff doesn't
mean that Southwestern Bell is too. However, both companies are BOCs
and I wouldn't be surprised if this was something they both learned
from their mother (Ma Bell).  What would surprise me is if this wasn't
being done by SWB.

Disclaimer: This article contains theory, conjecture and opinion in
addition to the occasional fact. You try and figure out which is
which. In fact, this entire article may very well exist only in your
mind; Staring at a CRT for too long can cause you to hallucinate ...
or was that the 'shrooms?

As usual, flames and other forms of communication are welcomed by:

         [e-mail]  (The Master of Sureality)

            - JK

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

From: [e-mail] (System Administrator)
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?)
Date: 16 Jan 90 08:56:22 GMT
Lines: 29


In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]

> I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got
> nowhere.  Also my Sprint line at home will not accept 908 calls.  I
> have the Bellcore letter announcing 908, but it seems to have a LONG
> period of permissive dialling...til June 1991!

> When I called GTE about it, they claimed that there was NO 908 area
> code.  When I read the Bellcore letter, I was passed to a supervisor
> who claimed that New Jersey Bell had decided not to implement it "just
> yet"!

Yes, I also tried to dial several NJ numbers using 908 instead of 201
and got nothing but a fast busy.  I guess that indicates that it's not
hooked up at this time.  Where is the split happening anyway?  Is the
northern part of 201 becoming 908 or is it another area?

 Bob
     _____________ Pro-Graphics BBS  201/469-0049 ______________

InterNet: [e-mail]          |       ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics
    UUCP: ..crash!pro-graphics!bobl          |        CServe: 70347,2344
ARPA/DDN: ..crash!pro-graphics![e-mail] |  Amer. Online: Graphics3D
            Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #30
*****************************










Date:     Wed, 17 Jan 90 22:16:01 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #31
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Jan 90 22:15:10 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Questions and Answers on Network Service (AT&T Public Relations Department)
    Bulletin to Employees, re: Outage (AT&T Public Relations Department)
    AT&T Operator Policy During Outage (Ken Jongsma)
    The AT&T Problem (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Tricky 900 Tactics (John Higdon)
    More on the Panasonic KX-T61610 PBX (Bob Clements)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: AT&T Public Relations via TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 14:12 EST
Subject: Questions and Answers on Network Service


[Moderator's Note: AT&T has provided the following questions and answers
regarding the outage.  Another source of PR is 1-800-2ATT-NOW.   PT]

         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON NETWORK SERVICE ... The following should
         provide answers to any additional questions employees have, and
         also may be useful for salespeople in responding to customers'
         concerns:

         Q.  How does this outage compare with others AT&T has
         experienced?
         A.  This was the first event in which all network switches were
         affected.  Previous outages have been local or regional in nature,
         caused by cable cuts, problems with individual offices, or natural
         disasters.

         Q.  Could this happen to MCI or Sprint?
         A.  AT&T believes all carriers are potentially vulnerable to
         software problems in their networks, and have acknowledged such
         problems at one time or another.

         Q.  How does this outage compare with MCI's recent 800 service
         outage?
         A.  Since AT&T and its competitors do not ordinarily share such
         information, there is no way of comparing the two events.

         Q.  How did this outage affect customers?
         A.  There was a significant impact on customers nationwide on
         their regular long-distance service, as well as business services
         such as 800 and Software Defined Network services, which use
         AT&T's public switched network.  Private-line services were not
         affected.

         Q.  Was AT&T able to honor customers' requests to have their 800
         or other services terminated on another carrier's lines?
         A.  A few requests like this came in.  However, AT&T was unable to
         switch these customers because restoring the entire network to
         normal operation was being given highest priority.

         Q.  Is it accurate that AT&T operators refused to give callers
         access codes for other carriers?
         A.  That was true during the early part of the day.  However,
         authorization to give out codes was given later in the day in the
         spirit of doing whatever was necessary to help customers complete
         their calls.

         Q.  Was AT&T able to meet its service guarantees?
         A.  AT&T will honor its service assurance commitments on 800
         service, even though the warranty doesn't cover this kind of
         network event.

         Q.  Will AT&T adjust bills to help compensate for any
         inconvenience customers may have experienced?
         A.  AT&T plans to file an emergency tariff with the Federal
         Communications Commission that will permit the company to have a
         special day of discounted calling, which will provide some
         compensation for customers.  The exact offer and date have not yet
         been determined.

         Q.  Does AT&T have a liability to compensate customers for losses
         sustained during the network problem?
         A.  No, but the company will honor the 800 service assurance
         guarantee, and will look for other ways to demonstrate to
         customers that it recognizes service expectations held by
         customers and the company were not met during the problem.

         Q.  Does that mean AT&T may compensate individual customers for
         their losses?
         A.  Something like that has to be determined on a case-by-case
         basis.

         Q.  What was done to restore service on Monday?
         A.  A software override was used to stabilize the network, and
         that restored full service by 11:30 p.m. EST on Monday.  The fix
         is working fine and enabling the network to handle full business-
         day volume.

         Q.  What is being done to prevent this from happening again?
         A.  AT&T's most urgent priority is to assure that all AT&T
         customers receive the world's most reliable telecommunications
         service.  Every technical resource available, including Bell Labs
         scientists and engineers, has been devoted to assuring it will not
         occur again.  The chances of a recurrence are small--a problem of
         this magnitude never occurred before.  AT&T's engineers have
         collected an enormous amount of data and are extensively analyzing
         it.

         Q.  Does the outage put the lie to AT&T's claims of having the
         world's most reliable network?
         A.  Not at all.  Despite the fact that AT&T experienced an
         unprecedented, nationwide service problem, millions of calls on
         the network still went through.  All switches continued to
         function, and AT&T's software experts were able to put in fixes
         that brought the network back to normal operation before the day
         was out.  AT&T is confident it has the technological and human
         resources to meet unexpected contingencies.

         Q.  Are there plans for a promotion or advertising campaign to
         reinforce the company's reliability image?
         A.  While something like that may be contemplated in the future,
         the priority now is to ensure full service for all customers, and
         to make sure the problem doesn't occur again.

         Q.  How many calls were completed on the day of the outage?
         A.  On a typical business day, 110 million calls are handled on
         the network, with 80 million to 85 million completed. ("Handled"
         means calls that receive busy signals, that are blocked, that the
         caller decides in mid-call not to complete, etc.).  On Jan. 15,
         148 million calls were handled and 83 million of them were
         completed--a call completion percentage of 56 percent.  Some 35
         million of the 83 million calls were completed during the outage
         period.


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

From: AT&T Public Relations via TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bulletin to Employees, re: Outage
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 14:00:00 EST


Moderator's Note: Following is the full text of an all-employee
bulletin distributed Tuesday.   PT]


         AT&T NETWORK RESTORED AFTER TEMPORARY OUTAGE ... AT&T's public
         switched network is functioning normally again after a suspected
         signalling system problem cut call completion rates across the
         country to slightly more than 50 percent yesterday.

                AT&T Chairman Bob Allen and Network Services Division Senior
         Vice President Ken Garrett held a press conference today from the
         Network Operations Center in Bedminster, N.J., to explain the
         situation.  "Even though it was a one-time 'hit' to the network,
         it was certainly the most far-reaching service problem we've ever
         experienced," said Allen.

                "We didn't live up to our customers' standards of quality,"
         he said.  "It's as simple as that.  That's not acceptable."
         Preliminary indications are that a software problem developed
         about 2:25 EST yesterday in a processor connected to a 4 ESS
         switch in New York City, part of the new Signalling System 7
         network that carries such call completion data as originating and
         destination phone number separate from the call itself.  The
         problem spread rapidly through the network, affecting the regular
         long-distance network, 800 service and the Software Defined
         Network (SDN).  Private lines and special government networks were
         not affected.

                After eliminating a number of suspected causes, software
         overrides applied about 10 p.m. last night finally restored normal
         network capabilities over the next couple hours.  Allen said
         people at AT&T Bell Laboratories and in the Network Engineering
         network capabilities over the next couple hours.  Allen said
         people at AT&T Bell Laboratories and in the Network Engineering
         organization are studying the volumes of data accumulated.  "We
         are confident the root cause will be identified, at which time we
         will take appropriate steps to make certain it doesn't happen
         again."  While he did not want to speculate until all the analysis
         is in, Allen said there is a "growing level of confidence" that no
         computer "virus" was involved.

                Allen said AT&T is talking to major customers affected by the
         outage to explain what happened, and to detail the company's
         response.  And, he said, AT&T will file an emergency petition with
         the Federal Communications Commission calling for a special day of
         discount calling to help compensate both residence and business
         customers who were inconvenienced.  Garrett added that call
         attempts were near normal levels yesterday, despite the holiday,
         and that "there are no indications of any problems today."


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Operator Policy During Outage
Date: Wed, 17-Jan-90 09:57:57 PST


While it will be interesting to find out the actual reason for the
failure (NBC implied it was related to a new software release that
failed under load in New York and propagated through the rest of the
country), it is even more interesting to hear about AT&T "policy".

That is, AT&T operators would not give instructions for using
alternative carriers or even hint that it might be possible to get
through other carriers.

Now, when I go to a Hilton and they are full, they will check with
Ramada and any other area hotels to see if their are rooms available.
I understand the reasons they won't! Once a customer learns how to use
an alternative carrier, they may not go back...


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed 17 Jan 90 13:44:37-PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The AT&T Problem


What amazed me the most about the AT&T outage the other day was
people's inability to live with the situation and use 10xxx dialling.
One business guy interviewed on CNN said he "lost several hours and
lots of money" because of the long distance problems. I have never
figured out why the RBOCs have been so unwilling to teach the public
about 10xxx dialling, there must be at least a dozen carriers
available to the average customer (allright maybe 6, but stilll....)


Ole

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

Subject: Tricky 900 Tactics
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 16 Jan 90 02:11:52 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


For some weeks now, there has been a spot on late night TV that
features Tony Franciosa hawking a "free" booklet on non-surgical
thinning hair prevention methods. He says, "the booklet is free, and
the phone call is free", and an 800 number is displayed at the bottom
of the screen.

A number of us have been speculating concerning the purpose of the
pitch. We figured that the booklet was an advertisement for some
fly-by-night hair scam. Tonight we got the answer. The spot has been
changed slightly. The pitch for the booklet is the same minus any
mention of "free". And then a (you guessed it) 900 number shows up.
Tony says that you can now solve your hair loss problems with a phone
call. And that call now costs you $3.00.

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

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

Subject: More on the Panasonic KX-T61610 PBX
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 13:07:43 -0500
From: [e-mail]


A couple of months ago there was a flurry of messages about the
Panasonic KX-T61610 PBX.  At the time I said that I might attack the
problem of disassembling the code to fix some features.

Well, I've taken a first whack at it and I've learned some interesting
things.  But I'm probably not going to be able to finish the job
unless I can get some more technical info.  I'm working just from the
hex dump itself and the owner's manual.  I have no board schematics,
no pinouts for the custom chips, no protocol spec for the signals on
the lines to the smart phones.  I do have a manual for the
microprocessor (6300 series) and the data sheet for the time-of-day
chip.

So the question for the group is: Is it possible to get schematics for
this thing?  Is there a technical manual?  (What do they do when one
breaks?  Ship the board back to Japan, or do techs in the US have the
info?)

Some things I've found:

    Amazingly, there is no copyright statement on the ROM chip
    or in the code. (At least not in clear text -- all the other
    messages are in clear text.)

    The code is pretty big.  The ROM has 64K bytes, there is
    memory mapping so 32K is always present and the other 32K is
    a pair of 16K overlays.  One overlay has most of the
    feature-programming logic (commands from extension 11) and
    the other has the SMDR accounting generation logic.

    At that, there is not a lot of spare space in the ROM.
    There's a couple hundred bytes which is plenty for minor
    changes, though.

    There are a bunch of factory diagnostics driven by commands
    from the serial port. It's not just a printer port. They are
    enabled by changing one pin on an I/O port, but without a
    schematic I haven't found what drives that pin.  It isn't the
    "program" switch.

    The fact that all programming must be done from extension 11
    is compiled into the code in MANY places.  Too bad -- I hoped
    I could change that easily.

    The undocumented program codes 50 through 53 actually DO affect
    something, but I haven't figured out what.

    More than one guy wrote this.  There are two different but
    equivalent BCD-to-binary routines, for example.

    I've figured out why the manual says you may have to hit the
    reset button a few times to get it to start up:  They have a
    bum value in the power-on reset vector!  It runs some junk
    instructions for a little while and with luck gets a program
    trap which then correctly reinitializes the program.

But I doubt that I'll spend the time to work on this much more unless
I can get some more technical info.  Any help gratefully accepted.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #31
*****************************










Date:     Thu, 18 Jan 90 0:00:27 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #32
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jan 90 00:00:15 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (David Tamkin)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Daniel M. Rosenberg)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Help! T1 Advice in NYC  (David Lesher)
    Re: "Calling" Card Charges (Carl Moore)
    Re: Caller ID (Dave Platt)
    Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible in N. America (J. Higdon)
    No. 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes (John R. Covert)
    Public Watchdog is Asleep (John Higdon)
    NPA 604 Used as NXX in Bay Area (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    TPC (The Phone Company) (Craig Wilson/alt.fax via [e-mail])
    Last Laugh: Steven Wright on Call-Waiting (Victor Schwartz)

[Moderator's Note: The gateway machine to Usenet is still a little
flakey.  We managed to get about fifty backlogged comp.dcom.telecom
messages sent out Wednesday before the machine shut down again. About
twenty more will be sent once accuvax's human attendants come in
Thursday.  PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 17:21:23 CST


On Thursday night, January 4, I tried telephoning a friend in
Piscataway, dialing area code 908.  My 1+ carrier is Telecom*USA.

Apparently my local telco (Central Telephone of Illinois) honored 908,
because the intercept message was from Telecom*USA, not from Centel.
I phoned my friend via MCI and got through.

Afterward I called Telecom*USA's customer service about it.  They
checked into it while I was on the line.  It turned out that when the
representative made a direct call from Cedar Rapids, they accepted
908; when she "placed the call as if it came from Chicago," it was
indeed intercepted as an unrecognized area code.  She apologized and
said it would be fixed later that evening.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?)
Date: 18 Jan 90 01:40:20 GMT
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.


[e-mail] (System Administrator) writes:

>In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]
>> I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got
>> nowhere.  Also my Sprint line at home will not accept 908 calls.  I

>Yes, I also tried to dial several NJ numbers using 908 instead of 201
>and got nothing but a fast busy.  I guess that indicates that it's not

I called grandma today on 908-665-xxxx, and she was fine. No delays,
no fast busy -- just "How's the weather out there?"

This from 415-321.


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

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

Date:     Wed, 17 Jan 90 9:19:01 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?)


I believe the southern and western part of 201 will become 908.  The
urban area in the northeast (Newark, etc.) will stay in 201.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help! T1 Advice in NYC
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 19:49:45 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


|We have been looking into a NY Tel T1 line to save money while
|providing additional capacity for 56Kb data circuits.  However, we do
|not have a location in NYC where we could terminate the T1 line.

Monday I visited the switch of a LD carrier that WAS working.  They
rent rack space, and simple "push the reset button" support to a
customer's term equipment.

Maybe you could do the same.


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:     Wed, 17 Jan 90 14:58:37 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  "Calling" Card Charges


The "local" (in your case, USWest) part of your bill gets intra-LATA
calls, including those within a LATA which does not include your
phone.  I live in Delaware (all of which is in the Philadelphia LATA)
and work in a part of Maryland in the Baltimore LATA, and I wondered
what would happen on a call from my office to Baltimore.  It showed up
in the "local" bill.  (The Philadelphia LATA also covers most of 215.)

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 14:52:57 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA


> Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop
> Caller ID was here.  I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking
> about...

> [Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way
> to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing
> themselves?  I guess there are some places where possibly the more
> sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter'
> example.  PT]

There was a small news-blurb re Caller-ID on the evening news here a
few weeks ago.  A Pacific Bell representative was discussing the
upcoming availability of Caller-ID (sometime late this year or early
next, I believe).

The issue of privacy, ID-hiding, and blocking was discussed.
Apparently, the system as PacBell intends to install it will permit a
caller to request ID-hiding by dialing a specific prefix-sequence
(*67, I believe, but I could well be wrong).  PacBell apparently does
_not_ have plans to allow people to set their lines up to default to
ID-hiding; the caller will have to do it on a call-by-call basis.

My impression is that you'll have to pay a monthly charge to receive
the caller-ID information on incoming calls, but that you will not
need to pay a fee to block the outbound ID if you use the prefix-code
on an individual call.

The PacBell representative interviewed on the report said that they
believed that this compromise is both effective and fair.

I suspect that if PacBell were to take the position that _all_ calls
would send ID, with no option to inhibit ID-sending, then somebody
would probably take them to court based on the California state
constitution's right-to-privacy provisions.  I don't know which way
the courts would rule on this issue... but I can well imagine that
PacBell doesn't want to go to the expense of finding out the hard way.


Dave Platt                                             VOICE: [phone]
  UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt   DOMAIN: [e-mail]
  INTERNET:       coherent![e-mail],  [e-mail]
  USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc.  3350 West Bayshore #205  Palo Alto CA 94303

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Telephone Numbers Are Impossible in North America
Date: 16 Jan 90 02:32:42 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


woody <[e-mail]> writes:

[responding to comments about the limitations of originating registers]
> How then would overseas numbers work? I believe the international
> standard for those would be 12 digits or so, including country code
> (after dialing the 01 or 011), at least the cutoff in dialing after
> the 011 here is 12 digits.

> Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.;
> would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all?

I don't know how other BOCs handle the problem, but the bail-out used
by Pac*Bell so that they could keep their crossbar equipment well into
the next century was CONTAC.

This is a glue-on that uses one channel for each OR in the switch.
Subscriber comes off hook, the diode matrix attracts the attention of
the marker and an OR is seized and connected to the subscriber line.
But instead of sending dialtone to the subscriber direct, the CONTAC
channel for that OR provides dialtone.

The subscriber dials, and CONTAC stores the digits, not the OR. Being
a stored-program device, the incoming digit requirements are
programmable. Let's use as our first example a local call. Subscriber
dials the seven digits. CONTAC sees that the call requires no special
handling and simply repeats the digits to the OR via 2 of 7 and cuts
the audio through. The call proceeds normally.

But if the call requires special handling, such as any long distance
(has to route to appropriate carrier), 10XXX, or international, the
CONTAC takes the necessary action. It signals to OR to have the marker
connect the customer to the correct trunk and the CONTAC signals the
tandem via CCIS. In this manner, virtually any type of call can be
handled by crossbar.

Any CONTAC-equipped crossbar switch could be easily programmed to
handle any amount of digits.

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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 11:37:23 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  16-Jan-1990 1928" <[e-mail]>
Subject: No. 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes

>>These common control offices store the number dialled, the _entire_ number,
>>in what is known as an Originating Register.  This is a hardware register
>>made out of relays, and it has the capability of storing three, seven, or ten
>>digits, plus a flag indicating whether "1" or "0" was dialled first.

>How then would overseas numbers work? I believe the international
>standard for those would be 12 digits or so, including country code

Customers served by No. 5 XBar must place all their overseas calls via
the operator.  Although a couple of C.O.s in Manhattan were converted,
it was determined that it was not worth the cost.  Placing a call
through the operator is fast: You dial "00" (XBars can handle that),
and say "Overseas 49-89-123456" or whatever, and the call goes through
almost as fast as had you dialled it.  The AT&T database knows that
your office can't handle direct dial, and you're given the direct dial
rate.

>Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.;
>would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all?

No. 5 XBars also cannot handle this.

>Perhaps 4 digit area codes might be used instead (take an old Mexico code like
>706, and use a 4th digit to make something like (7064) 555-0000).

Again, the No. 5 XBars cannot handle this.

>Of course, the country code could always be split (11 for Canada, 12 for
>eastern U.S., and California seems to be its own country :->).

Again, the No. 5 XBars cannot handle this.

/john

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Watchdog is Asleep
Date: 17 Jan 90 10:49:43 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


After speaking to one of my Pac*Bell contacts this morning, it is now
obvious that the holdup of CLASS features in this area is the result
of political forces, not technical limitations. Pac*Bell had hoped to
be offering a panoply of advanced features during this quarter. In all
fairness to Pac*Bell, on whose case I have been as of late, there
could be some truth to this. After all, SS#7 signaling (a prerequisite
for CLASS) between Bay Area COs has been commonplace for more than a
year.

Of course, our PUC is the problem here. It is influenced by all of the
usual forces from the common man to prestigious organizations such as
the ACLU. But in all of its efforts to weigh all the issues (while
taking a bloody huge amount of time to do so) it usually screws up. I
give you, as exhibit A, the 976 debacle. California was one of the
last places in the country to have 976, and when it finally arrived it
was one of the worst manifestations of the beast.

So while the rest of the country is enjoying CLASS and ISDN, the CPUC
is drawing cartoon pictures on its desk pads. Or so it seems.

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

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

Date: Wed 17 Jan 90 14:01:57-PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA 604 Used as NXX in Bay Area


Yesterday I tried calling a friend at NASA Ames: 694-xxxx. Got a
recording which said "the number has been changed to 604-xxxx". Great
so I call that number, she's not there. So I figure I'll call her
later from the cellular on my way to the city, and what happens:
"we're sorry, you must first dial a '1' when calling this number,
please hang up and try again".

To amuse myself I dial 1 604-xxxx, and get "your call can not be
completed as dialled" So I call *611 and explain that the switch needs
to have 604 entered in the valid prefix table. (That took at least 10
minutes, but *611 is on *their* penny). Finally, they call me back and
say, "try it again, it should work, it is a new prefix and we entered
it a few days ago". I say: "If you entered it several DAYS ago and you
have not done something magic in the last 10 minutes, it is NOT going
to work".  Needless to say, it did not work, in fact it still does not
work today, and I have given up trying to explain to them what they
need to do. I bet their software is too stupid to parse an NPA as an
NXX. For this we pay lots of money each month....

grrrr

Ole

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

Subject: TPC (The Phone Company)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 11:15:09 -0500
From: [e-mail]


from alt.fax:
 From: [e-mail] (Craig S. Wilson)

So, for awhile at least, be prepared to be satisfied with GIII
capabilities, build a private network, or purchase services from
someone else's network.

 ....

>The telcos view ISDN as a "revenue enhancement" opportunity as opposed to
>a universal service commitment and are acting accordingly.  There are no
>plans afoot to bring this technology to small businesses and small
>communities that I know of.
> Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

Oh, I am sure that they have plans to improve the communications
capabilities of ALL of us.  It will be a matter of when.  The large
markets will be first so that the return on investment will be
highest.  Once the amount of installed equipment reaches a certain
point, the cost to install will drop to a point where they can provide
smaller markets with the new equipment and services.  "Competition"
may speed the installation, but by how much, I do not know.


I must say that I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of a
"telephone" company.  I just use their services.  My opinion of THE
TELEPHONE COMPANY is expressed best in the movie: "The President's
Analyst" with James Colburn.

/craig


[[ I always thought that this movie summed things up rather nicely! -- eli ]]

It sure was a good argument for divestiture!

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

Subject: Last Laugh: Steven Wright on Call-Waiting
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 00:00:00 CST


(I couldn't resist sharing this line from bizarre comedian Steven Wright:)

Steven Wright reports that now that he's had "Call Waiting" installed in
his home, he needs TWO answering machines!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #32
*****************************






From [e-mail] Sat Jan 20 00:50:01 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA01959; Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:49:55 EST
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date:     Thu, 18 Jan 90 23:09:47 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #33
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:51:03 CST
Resent-From: [e-mail]
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jan 90 23:08:45 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Reporting of the AT&T Outage (Mark Robert Smith)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (Otto Miller)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (Bill W. Putney)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (John Higdon)
    Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage (Fangli F. Chang)
    Why Not Republish the 10xxx Listing? (Jamie Hanrahan)
    Light Up My Phone (Alan McKay)
    Delay Times in DDS and T1 Spans (Michael Dorl)
    Info Request -- Sydis Voicestation One (Josh Rovero)
    Special Edition: LONDON Script (TELECOM Moderator)
    3 Digit Zipcode Correlation (Carl Moore)
    Last Laugh! (was: Re: The New Decade) (Dan Schlitt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reporting of the AT&T Outage
Date: 18 Jan 90 14:05:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


In the NYC area, the media did a better job of explaining the
difference between "long-distance service" and "ATT LD Service".  As a
matter of fact, a few stations and newspapers (WABC-TV and The Bergen
Record for certain) gave out instructions for using a carrier code
before the number, and gave out the codes for MCI and Sprint.

Thus, it would seem, NYC area viewers got a clear picture of which
long distance customers were and were not working.


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]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 10:44:57 EST
From: Otto Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem


In TELECOM Digest V10 #31, Ole J. Jacobsen writes:

 >I have never
 >figured out why the RBOCs have been so unwilling to teach the public
 >about 10xxx dialling, there must be at least a dozen carriers
 >available to the average customer (allright maybe 6, but stilll....)

I understand the concept of 10xxx dialling to get to other carriers,
*BUT* don't you need an account with the carrier to do this?  It just
came to mind (what little I have left), do these 'other' carriers just
bill the local service provider based on originating phone number?
For us novices, please explain how!

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

From: "Bill W. Putney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: 18 Jan 90 18:36:20 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 30, message 1 of 12

>My question is this: what about those 800 customers who were promised
>(in all the TV ads) that if for any reason their 800 number went down,
>they would bring it up on one of their other lines within one hour.
>There are an awful lot of 800 numbers around here that were down all
>day without being restored on POTS lines, mainly, of course, because
>the entire network was down. Any recouse available to the customers?

Oops...  A lot of customers got sold this bill of goods.  What the 800
redirect services really do is to back up the local loop from the AT&T
(other carriers have this service too) POP to the destination customer
premise.  The redirect gets done at the serving POP.  This helps a
local loop problem but doesn't do a thing for problems in the
carrier's network.

The recent unpleasntness with AT&T is only one example of where this
doesn't work.  We S.F. Bay area folks had the same problem during the
recent shakin'.  Calls to destinations inside the the area were cut
off from outside even though most of the local lines and CO's were OK.

The only way around this is calling party end redirection.
Unfortunately that would require redirecting calls in every carrier
switch in the country and by the time that got done the problem would
probably have been corrected.

So...  Just sit back and enjoy the quiet. (I know it's not really
funny, but then again there isn't much to be done either.)


- Bill Putney

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: 18 Jan 90 00:31:07 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> That is, AT&T operators would not give instructions for using
> alternative carriers or even hint that it might be possible to get
> through other carriers.

The San Jose Mercury in a scathing editorial blasted AT&T for this
"policy". But at the risk of being landed upon like a thousand of
brick by all and sundry, I really question whether it is AT&T's (or
any other carrier's) responsibility to nursemaid the public concerning
"how to use the telephone". The newspaper pointed out that
communications were society's vital link and that AT&T should have
done whatever was necessary to "get the calls through, even by
directing callers to another carrier" [paraphrased]. I'd like to turn
that around. If communications are that vital (and I don't doubt that
they are), then isn't it "society's" responsibility to learn how to
use them effectively?

There is a double standard here. It hasn't been so long ago that MCI,
Sprint, et al, were about as reliable as a Morris Minor, and their
customer service attitude was best described as "so what, you can
always use AT&T." AT&T, on the other hand, has acknowledged that this
outage was a totally unacceptable breach of faith and service to its
customers, and I seriously doubt if we see anything like it in the
forseeable future. But AT&T is being blasted because it didn't just
say, "oh, well, you can always use MCI".

"Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]> writes:

> What amazed me the most about the AT&T outage the other day was
> people's inability to live with the situation and use 10xxx dialling.

Yes, and I put the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the
public, not AT&T.

> One business guy interviewed on CNN said he "lost several hours and
> lots of money" because of the long distance problems. I have never
> figured out why the RBOCs have been so unwilling to teach the public
> about 10xxx dialling, there must be at least a dozen carriers
> available to the average customer (allright maybe 6, but stilll....)

Spokespersons for Pac*Bell answer this question by saying that a
customer should obtain the code from his or her long distance carrier;
that the telco is not responsible for issuing or revealing these
codes.  When I opened my secondary accounts with Sprint and MCI, the
representatives for both were very careful to tell me what the access
code for their respective service was.

During the day of the outage, spokespeople for Pac*Bell were
interviewed by media. Without mentioning any carriers or codes, they
emphasized that anyone could, by using a code *obtained from the
carrier* dial calls through that carrier without having to have that
carrier as his long distance company. Privately I was told that if
they had given out specfic codes, that could be construed as
recommending a carrier which they consider to be the biggest of
no-nos.

There was one area where casual dialing didn't help, and that was 800
inwats service. Major customers such as Sheraton, Hilton, the
airlines, marketing companies, and even ATTMail suffered big time. I
had material that just "had to go out" via ATTMail, and it sat in my
computer all day, prompting calls from clients the next day. No amount
of 10XXX dialing could get my messages to ATTMail.

One bright spot: the outage didn't even slow down my Hilton wrong
numbers:-)

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

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

From: Fangli F Chang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nationwide Long Distance Outage
Date: 18 Jan 90 16:54:12 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T BL


In article <[e-mail]> bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 30, message 4 of 12

>Does anyone know how AT&T is handling their 800 WATS customers
>who are inaccessible as a result of this outage?  I recall a television
>ad which said something like 'if you are an AT&T 800 WATS
>customer and there is an outage, we GUARANTEE that your service
>will be restored within an hour.'

Last evening, I saw Bob Allen on PBS (WTTW Channel 11 in Chicago).  He
said he'll honor that GUARANTEE.  Which means customer will be
refunded for their 800 charges for up to a month. For other AT&T
business customers, they'll be handled on a case by case basis.  He's
also planning a compensation tariff for all AT&T customer, something
like a one day discounted (or free?) call, if approved by FCC.

BTW, the problem was found,isolated and corrected. It was a bug (what
a costly one), not virus and no sabotage, in the SS7 code. The
internal data shown even after the problem broke out there were 43% of
the call completed nation wide.  It just that a customer not only had
to compete with other user but also had to compete with the bug that
pured numerous control message into the network.


Fangli Chang

Disclaimer: If you want to know the official line, Bob Allen said it
all.  I'm here only to entertain comp.dcom.telecom readers.

attmail!ihlpl!fangli
[phone]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 15:29:48 PST
From: Jamie Hanrahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Not Republish the 10xxx Listing?


Pat,

I have no easy anon. ftp access -- but can do it if absolutely necessary.

Is it possible to receive the 10xxx list which was posted here many
months (years?) ago?  Is this even available in a separate file in the
archives, or do the archives simply contain copies of entire digests?

Thanks...

    --- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA
Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG
Internet:  [e-mail], or if that fails, [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh


[Moderator's Note: I went to look in the archives for the 10xxx
listing, and was unable to find it anywhere! It no doubt got lost
somehow in the move from BU to MIT. In light of the AT&T troubles of
this past week, this might be a very opportune time to republish the
entire list. Will someone please send a copy, and cc: to Jamie at the
same time?  Regards the archives, it contains past issues of the
Digest, but many other articles, essays and features as well.  PT]

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

From: Alan McKay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Light Up My Phone
Reply-To: Alan McKay <[e-mail]>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Acadia Univ., Nova Scotia
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 00:10:28 GMT


It seems that every *damn* time I am on the phone with my computer my
roomate decides to pick up the other bloody line!  Sometimes I think
she does it on purpose!

Anyway, I want to build a little device that I can plug into the phone
jack, then plug the phone into it.  The device will basically be a
little light which will light up (preferably flash) when the line is
in use.  Unfortunately I have not got a clue how to do this.  Could
someone please enlighten me?

Oh, send me email, don't post because I never read this group.  If
there is enough interest I'll post the results.  Thanks in advance.


+ Alan W. McKay       +  VOICE: [phone]                        +
+ Acadia University   +  "Courage my friend, it is not yet too late   +
+ WOLFVILLE, N.S.     +   to make the world a better place."          +
+ [e-mail]  +                    - Tommy Douglas            +

[Moderator's Note: And if you *were* a regular reader here, you'd know
that this topic was covered in depth some time ago....perhaps one of
the readers will send you the messages which described the technical
details of what you wish to accomplish.  PT]

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

From: Michael Dorl - MACC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Delay Times in DDS and T1 Spans
Date: 17 Jan 90 22:20:24 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center


Does anyone know what typical delay times are for short (say 100 mile)
56K DDS and T1 lines?  I'd like to know the delay between the time a
bit goes in one end and the time the same bit comes out the other end.
I assume that the propogation delay is about 0.5 C but I wonder if
there are additional delays introduced by repeaters or other vendor
supplied hardware.

Please respond by E-mail to the following address:

Thanks,

Michael Dorl [phone]    fax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 11:19:55 MST
From: Josh Rovero <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Request -- Sydis Voicestation One


I am looking for technical information on the Sydis Voicestation One,
an integrated terminal/workstation and telephone.  It has connections
for a printer, mouse, telco (not real telco, perhaps a custom pbx
port), and an unidentified 9 pin DB style connector with an
undecipherable icon(all the other ports have semi-decipherable icons,
but no textua labels).

I am interested in using this as a terminal if that is possible.  Your
assistance is greatly appreciated.


Josh Rovero     Internet:       [e-mail]
                Packet Radio:   KK1D@WD4MIZ

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

Date:     Wed, 17 Jan 90 22:33:44 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Special Edition: LONDON Script


Another special edition of the Digest is planned for later this week.
Carl Moore has kindly provided a copy of LONDON Script, and it will be
distributed probably on Friday or Saturday.

LONDON Script is a program which will correct telephone numbers in
London, England following the scheduled division of areas there.
LONDON Script will tell you if a number is in the inner or outer area,
and the proper code to be used.

After distribution to the list, it will be available in the archives
for future retrieval.


Patrick Townson

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

Date:     Thu, 18 Jan 90 9:42:43 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  3 Digit Zipcode Correlation

I could not get a note thru to Tad Cook <[e-mail]>, and I figure
this is of enough general interest to send on to telecom:

Where did you get a list for cross reference of first THREE zipcode
digits to telephone area code?

In this Digest, I previously referred to a book correlating the 5
digit zipcode with telephone area code.  As is the case with your
list, it needs updating for the new 908 area code (and others).

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

From: Dan Schlitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! (was: Re: The New Decade)
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 22:35:45 GMT


It is clear why people are confused about the start of the new decade.
Do you program in C or Fortran?


Dan Schlitt                        Manager, Science Division Computer Facility
[e-mail]              City College of New York
[e-mail]                   New York, NY 10031
[e-mail]                 [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #33
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sat Jan 20 00:50:05 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA01962; Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:49:58 EST
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date:     Fri, 19 Jan 90 0:41:05 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #34
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:51:07 CST
Resent-From: [e-mail]
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Jan 90 00:40:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (William Clare Stewart)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Gregory K Johnson)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Carl Moore)
    Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Ilya Goldberg)
    Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Number 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes (John Higdon)
    Re: Number 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes (Carl Moore)
    Re: Why 8-Digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America (W. T. Sykes)
    Re: Caller ID (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Caller ID (Thomas E Lowe)
    Re: 976 in Massachusetts (Daniel Senie)
    Need Info on E-Mail (Katherine Astels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: William Clare Stewart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance
Date: 19 Jan 90 00:11:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs)
Organization: Conspiracy?  What conspiracy?


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred R.
Goldstein) writes:

]In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John R. Covert)
]>  From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio; forwarded by John R. Covert
]>Syntax 1: "1 for toll"
]>Syntax 2:  Local within area code:  7 digits
]>           Toll within area code:  7 digits
]Or, "1 for area code"
]>Syntax 3:  Local within area code:  7 digits
]>           Toll within area code:  1 + 10 digits
]Or, "1 for area code, but you dial your own for toll calls)

]I don't think so; rather, Syntax 2 is the "standard".  Syntax 3 is
]a hack for people who are so used to "1 for toll" that intra-NPA calls
]must be dialed as inter-NPA.  I think it's a bad idea, and not the

More precisely, Syntax 3 is a hack for area with old step-by-step
local offices that are too dumb for Syntax 2.  The old steppers
couldn't do toll on their own; the "1" routes the call to a toll
switch, and is eaten by the stepper.  Syntax 2 and 3 both use the 1+
to indicate 10 digits.  There was a while that switches commonly used
3-digit translation to tell area codes (NYX) from exchange codes (NNX)
(N:2..9, Y:0,1, X:0..9).  This lets you differentiate between 7-digit
and 10-digit calls after the 1 has been eaten.

The upgrade from NYX-NNX-XXXX to NYX-NXX-XXXX requires every switch in
a given area code to either support 7-digit toll-within-area (Syntax
2) or force 1+NPA (Syntax 3), but doesn't affect other area codes
(which only need to use the NPA, and don't have to care about the
exchange, though it may be more efficient to do 6-digit translation
for neighboring area codes.)  Area codes with number shortages are
generally in large enough areas to have modern equipment anyway.

The change to NXX area codes forces every switch in EVERY area code to
do this, even if their area code is nowhere near running out of
numbers, because you can't tell 1+7 from 1+10 by the first three
digits any more (or at all!)  For the large, sparsely populated states
like Wyoming and Utah, this may be a problem - you have a lot of
small, independent telephone companies that can't cost-justify a
switch upgrade, so you have to force them to use 1+10 dialing within
their own NPA.

Actually, there's a bit of slack that you have before having to do
real upgrades: all the telcos in the NANP work from a common list of
exchange codes, and the first NNX area codes to be assigned are the
last NNX codes on that list.  So if your area code only uses 400 of
the 800 NNXs, you COULD slack off while the first few NNX area codes
get assigned.  But there's a lot of demand for special-applications
NPAs.

                Bill

# Bill Stewart AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs
# ho95c has gone the way of all VAX/785s, so I'm now on erebus.att.com

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

From: Gregory K Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance
Date: 18 Jan 90 06:46:42 GMT
Reply-To: Gregory K Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kent Hauser) writes:

>Syntax U (universal):    1 NPA NXX XXXX
>    Should connect me with the unambiguously specified line.

>For all of you that feel that 1+ dialing is a numbering plan issue &
>not a `toll call' issue, I suggest that you add the lack of `Syntax U'
>to your pet peeves.

As an experiment, I have tried this.  My experience was that dialing
1+NPA NXX XXXX would always connect me with the number I was dialing,
but the call would always be routed to a long distance carrier
regardless of the fact that the number I was calling may have been in
the same LATA, or even in the same central office.

This may have been a result of the fact that, in the area of New
Jersey in which I lived, all out-of-area code calls were inter-LATA
calls.  So, the switch automatically assumed that 1+ dialing meant
inter-LATA, therefore the calls were routed to the long distance
carrier.  Your mileage may vary.


Greg

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 15:23:34 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance


To Greg Monti:  You wrote

> Most places with Syntax 2 now had Syntax 4 up until about 1980
> when the first interchangeable codes were issued as prefixes.

The first N0X/N1X prefix usage dates from July 1973 in area 213 (now
213/818, with 213 to divide again to form 310).  In Nov. 1980, NYC
(area 212, later 212/718) started N0X/N1X prefix usage.

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

From: Ilya Goldberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls?
Date: 18 Jan 90 11:37:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (ilya.goldberg,sf,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The ability to use 1+10 digit dialing of numbers in the same area code
depends on your location.  I know because I have done it.

A few months ago, I got home to find out that NJ Bell was having major
problems with their lines/switches.  When I tried to call my audix at
work, I got a fast busy.  This was unusual since it is a very local
call (next town).  When I tried 611, I got a fast busy.  When I tried
0, I got a fast busy! I was finally able to reach the operator on the
4th or 5th try and he told me that they have just started being
notified of the problem by customers and have no official word of its
extent.  He also got a fast busy when trying to dial a number for me.

I then dialed a long distance (1+10 digits) call and it went through.
So I tried calling the work number again prefixing it with 1-201- at
presto it worked!  The same number dialed using 7 digits still gave a
fast busy.

So not only does 1+10 local dialing works in my 201-740 prefix, but it
also seems to use different routing for the calls.

On a different issue, {NY Times} had a note in Tuesday's business
section that its stock quotes were not the latest due to a disruption
in communication caused by a flooded central office in NY City.  They
made a specific mention that this was not related to the problems
being experienced by AT&T the same day.


-Ilya

[e-mail]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 08:42:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> claris!netcom![e-mail]
(Jeff Woolsey) writes:

>universally prevented from dialing the local area code in North
>America.

>I hope there's a really good reason and not just some silly technical
>problem somewhere, such as old stupid switches immediately handing the
>number off to a tandem, if indeed there is any reason at all.

Well, it's probably a case of extra effort in most of the cases now.
why waste all that extra memory storing many times more routing info
than needed?


Vance Shipley                          uucp:  ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances
SwitchView - Linton Technology         INTERNET:            [e-mail]
tel: [phone]                                      (soon)  [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes
Date: 18 Jan 90 02:10:44 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"John R. Covert  16-Jan-1990 1928" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Customers served by No. 5 XBar must place all their overseas calls via
> the operator.  Although a couple of C.O.s in Manhattan were converted,
> it was determined that it was not worth the cost.  Placing a call
> through the operator is fast:

But extremely hokey. I have to hand it to Pac*Bell: some years ago
they converted virtually all of their crossbar switches to handle FGD
and international calling with CONTAC. I have a line on #5 crossbar
and it handles all "10XXX" and international with the greatest of
ease.

All I can say is if Pac*Bell could see fit to install CONTAC on all of
its crossbar, NYNEX must really be feeding its customers a line of
bull. Somebody recently told me that Pac*Bell had a much higher
percentage of FGD-compliant exchanges than NYNEX; I see now that it
might be true.

> >Also, what about the 10XXX+ dialing for other carriers in the U.S.;
> >would these intermediate switches not have the 10XXX+ dialing at all?

> No. 5 XBars also cannot handle this.

CONTAC-equipped crossbar can.

> >Perhaps 4 digit area codes might be used instead (take an old Mexico
> >code like 706, and use a 4th digit to make something like (7064) 555-0000).

> Again, the No. 5 XBars cannot handle this.

Again, CONTAC-equipped crossbar can, no sweat.

> >Of course, the country code could always be split (11 for Canada, 12 for
> >eastern U.S., and California seems to be its own country :->).

> Again, the No. 5 XBars cannot handle this.

Sounds like NYNEX ought to give Pac*Bell a call and find out how it's
done. While I am furious that Pac*Bell has found such a great
work-around to avoid upgrading its COs, it certainly beats being
deprived of equal access and having to place international calls
through the operator. What hokem...


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

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 10:31:30 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number 5 XBar, Overseas, and Four Digit Area Codes


That "direct-dial rate for overseas calls if your exchange is not equipped
for such" applies unless you need OTHER operator assistance (i.e. aside from
merely placing the call).

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

From: W T Sykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why 8-digit Numbers Are Impossible in North America
Date: 18 Jan 90 14:57:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (wts)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>Daniel O'Callaghan at The University of Melbourne writes:
>| Cellular sevices could all be moved to say 229, allowing easy identification
>| of a number as mobile.

My home phone here in the sprawling metropolis of Burlington, NC is
919-229-XXXX! (The West Davis St. Southern Bell CO also has 222, 226,
227, & 228.->the old CAnal exchange) :-)  Maybe 23X-XXXX for CEllular?
:-).


William T. Sykes   AT&T Federal Systems R&D (AT&T Bell Laboratories)
UUCP: att!winken!wts

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 08:21:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Vitek)
writes:

>[Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way
>to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing
>themselves?  I guess there are some places where possibly the more
>sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter'
>example.  PT]

It seems to me that it is quite likely that people will be able to
make calls without sending a meaningful CLID for quite some time.
Present networks don't have the stuff to send that info around as
calls go on and off their networks.  I'm thinking primarily not of
AT&T, MCI, etc. but of the big corporate networks and smaller OCC's.
They shouldn't be required to obsolete their 3 year old equipement
just to pass info to speed up someone's ACD!

As long as these cases can be pleaded it will be entirely posible for
some one to make money running a phone mail drop just as they do with
the post office!


Vance Shipley                          uucp:  ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!vances
SwitchView - Linton Technology         INTERNET:            [e-mail]
tel: [phone]                                 (soon)      [e-mail]

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

From: Thomas E Lowe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 18 Jan 90 22:01:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (thomas.e.lowe,ho,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop
>Caller ID was here...

>[Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way
>to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing
>themselves?  ...

The way I understand it is that the software in most switches that are
currently offering Caller ID has the ability to allow a subscriber to
disable his ID from going out for a specific call...similar to
disabling call waiting for a specific call.  However, the telephone
companies don't enable this feature for one reason or another.

Maybe I'm wrong, but who really knows!!!  :-)


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: Daniel Senie <uunet!lectroid!pwllheli!dts>
Subject: Re: 976 in Massachusetts
Date: 18 Jan 90 19:06:12 GMT
Reply-To: Daniel Senie <uunet!lectroid!pwllheli!dts>


I just want to see how they are going to program all of the Step
offices in Massachusetts to block anything! Outside the major cities,
a large number of small towns suffer the poor quality and high noise
of poorly maintained step offices.

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

From: Katherine Astels <aucs![e-mail]>
Subject: Need Info on E-Mail
Date: 18 Jan 90 21:07:55 GMT
Organization: Acadia University - School of Computer Science


I am working on a project for a fourth year operation systems course
on the implementation of the e-mail system.  If anyone knows of some
good books or papers on this topic please send me references by
e-mail.

Thanks.

Katherine Astels
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet:   880039a@Acadia
UUCP:     {uunet:watmath:utai}!cs.dal.ca!aucs!880039a

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #34
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sat Jan 20 00:50:10 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA01976; Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:50:05 EST
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date:     Fri, 19 Jan 90 1:36:17 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #35
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:51:11 CST
Resent-From: [e-mail]
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Jan 90 01:33:58 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Who's Using Whom? (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: ISDN Chat Show (Danny Wilson)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Thomas E. Lowe)
    Re: Hum Filter Needed (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.)
    Re: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Free Local Phone Calls (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Dell Ellison)
    That Which is Colored Between Red & Green and Like Leaves (David Kuder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom?
Date: 18 Jan 90 21:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <nsipo.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office


[e-mail] (John McHarry) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 30, message 5 of 12

>John Higdon wrote in V10 #29 that US Sprint was unaccessable during
>the AT&T outage yesterday due to their leasing facilities from AT&T.

>I don't know the specific access arrangements in his area, but I
>believe the following to be generally true.  Carriers do lease trunks
>to one another; however, these are non-switched services........

Don't know about Sprint, but MCI definitely leases switched services
from AT&T (Megacom, to be exact) for overflow or their own outages. I
know, I saw the San Francisco switch configuration, and sure enough,
one of the last route choices was a group of Megacom Wats lines.

>I suppose large users could use direct trunks to two or more IECs,
>but, in most cases, that sounds like overkill, especially given the
>probablility of the failure being guarded against vs the probablility
>of backhoe fade knocking down both trunk groups.

That's not overkill, that's good common sense to big corporate Telcom
managers, and that's exactly what more and more are doing, especially
since Ma Bell bit the big one last week I would assume.

Alert: I heard from good sources that it was AT&T's SS7 STP's (Signal
Transfer Points) that bit the dust this week due to a bad software
load/upgrade. Not nice, since it implies that AT&T took out or
permanantly disabled the old manual routing tables from the 5ESS's, or
the 5ESS's have no way to fall back to those old routing tables if the
SS7 network crashes.

MCI made sure that their old routing tables were kept in the
DMS-250's, since they didn't trust the IBM's that were being used for
the STP's. My sources at MCI have heard zilch, but would you tell your
competitor what went wrong at your place one day???

John, Patrick....you have the good connects. What's up???

| Robert Gutierrez -- NSI Network Ops Center <[e-mail]>|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|       '1997.....United States becomes 47th prefecture of Japan'          |
| ("Psychic Predictions", Tom Toles/The Buffalo News) [Editorial Cartoon]  |


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

From: Danny Wilson <idacom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Chat Show
Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 19:27:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Torsten
Dahlkvist) writes:

> 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.

The NTT "Netmate-64" ISDN phone has been the standard phone for all of
their ISDN subscribers for about 1.5 years now.  The phone itself is
manufactured by two companies (Hitachi&Fujitsu ??)  and depending who
made your own particular phone, each comes with a unique set of bugs.

As for the connectors on the back, a V.24 connector which can run SYN
and ASYN from 200bps to 48kbps as I recall.  Rate adaption is _not_
supported however, most Japanese companies I've talked to are
currently working on V.110.

Dipswitches on the bottom on the phone as well as menus in the LCD
display configure parameters of this port such as speed, parity,
stop-bits, PAD protocol etc.

There is also a 15 pin Dsub connector using V.11 signal levels.  This
connector uses a proprietary pinout to supply raw access to the 64
kbps B-Channels plus clocks and framing etc.


Danny Wilson            [e-mail]
IDACOM Electronics        alberta!idacom!danny
Edmonton, Alberta    X.400    [e-mail]
C A N A D A        Voice    [phone]

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

From: Thomas E Lowe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?)
Date: 18 Jan 90 22:07:03 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (thomas.e.lowe,ho,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>> I tried calling 908 from my office (served by GTE in WA state) and got
>> nowhere.
 ...
>Yes, I also tried to dial several NJ numbers using 908 instead of 201
>and got nothing but a fast busy.  I guess that indicates that it's not
>hooked up at this time.
 ...

I tried calling some places that I know are 908 numbers (I have a list
of them somewhere) from my home (609-698-XXXX) and it worked.  Yet I
tried it from a public (NJ Bell) payphone somewhere in 201 (I forget
where) and it didn't work.  It is up to the administrators of the
local switches to turn on acceptance of 908 area code.  It really is
in place and does exist, but not all switches know that yet.


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: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan 18 14:58:24 1990
Subject: Re: Hum Filter Needed
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> Ole writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 29, message 3 of 11

>I have a problem with hum on some of my telephones. This is probably
>caused by too long horizontal runs of unshielded "satin" cable (line
>cord). (I use that instead of twisted pair since it is easier to
>install). 60hz is supposed to be outside the audible portion of the
>phone "spectrum", so can I get a filter (ready-made or I'll build it)
>to take care of this problem, or should I bite the bullet and rewire?

Sounds like an impedance imbalance to me.  The silver satin base
cord wire you mention is actually tinsel wrapped around a
cotton/polyester core.  It has some very strange electrical
characteristics...among them are: high resistance and longitudinal
imbalance.  Please install twisted pair inside wire, 24 AWG ASAP, and
PLEASE, PLEASE use rounded staples to fasten it down (or plastic wire
clips).  Best is the Arrow T-25 staple gun.  Flat staples pinch the
wire and cause the PVC/plastic to cold flow and ultimately fail...

Now that I think about it...

Do we need to post a basic phone wiring tutorial to the Digest?

(No sarcasm intended here...I am constantly amazed at the poor quality
installation done by -some- non-telephone people.  Particulary
electricians and computer people, it seems.  Should some type of
"how-to" reference article for installation of standard single line
phones be posted?  ....am I unintentionally volunteering myself by
keying in this comment?...)


 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?)

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service
Date: 18 Jan 90 21:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <nsipo.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office


[e-mail] writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 30, message 7 of 12

>Here are a few quick observations about USA Direct, after using
>it for one week from France:

>o   About 20% of calls get cut off.

>o   Service quality is the worst I've ever experienced.
>    ATT must buy their stat-mux equipment from K-Mart.

  "Attention K-Mart shoppers......We have a Blue Light (tm) special
   going on right now.....for a limited time, we have genuine Western
   Electric statistical multiplexers on sale for the low price of
   $9.95.....that riiiight, just $9.95...."

>o   Usually, the callee's voice was cut off for about 20% of
>    their words.  It was IMPOSSIBLE to hold a normal conversation.

>o   I wonder if the problems are solely with ATT equipment?

Doubtful. MCI always got some of the sh*$$yest lines from France's
telco, aside from India....

>o   I asked an ATT operator two questions:
>       1.  Why was service so poor?  Answer: it must be the lines. (duh?)
>       2.  Is the inability to connect to 800 numbers a technical problem
>       or a policy decision.  Answer:  both.

Wrongo. There's no technicial problem (aside from the fact that the
TSPS board knows the line is from outside the country, and WON'T let
the operator position make the 800 call). There is a policy decision,
definitely, because AT&T isn't tarrifed to carry 800 calls over those
lines by both the FCC and the originating country's telco. The problem
is that somebody has to pay for the calls, and with 800, it's the
callee (the destination party), and I doubt the business will want to
pay for that call.

Yes, what if you want to pay for it yourself. Do you?... Really?!?
Most of the time, the caller (originating party) doesn't want to pay
for it after all, he's just looking for a way to call the business for
free. For the few who do want to pay, it's just not good business
sense to re-program the numerous software to accomodate those few.
Read: not cost effective.


| Robert Gutierrez -- NSI Network Ops Center <[e-mail]>|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|       '1997.....United States becomes 47th prefecture of Japan'          |
| ("Psychic Predictions", Tom Toles/The Buffalo News) [Editorial Cartoon]  |


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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan 18 15:16:52 1990
Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> John (telecom-critic-at-large) Higdon writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 29, message 7 of 11

>[e-mail] (Tom Napoletano) writes:

>> The PUCO, public utility commission in Ohio, mandates that information
>> calls be free to the user, however, the telco charges $0.30 to $0.60
>> per call to the cocot operator (1411 vs 5551212).

>Sounds like all the good people of Ohio need to save up all of their
>inquiries, walk down to their local COCOT, and make all those DA calls
>they were too cheap to make at home. They'll get two benefits for the
>price of none.:-)

Yeah, but there are an awful lot of COCOT's in this state that DO
charge for local info calls illegally. Definitely a poor practice that
has helped bias the public against COCOT's...

IMHO, this is another illustration of the Ohio PUC's blatant
favoritism of the telcos...

In Ohio a COCOT is supposed to use a specially tarriffed line, that is
actually MORE expensive than most business lines.  And for this, the
COCOT owner still has to pay for local info calls, while a telco
provided paystation does not have this expense (its actually absorbed
by the all ratepayers, since telco paystations are tarriffed and
regulated).

FYI - its my opinion that most states permit and even endorse this
kind of anti-competitive croos subsidization...because the telcos use
scare tactics ("We gonna take out all the payphones and tell the
public its your fault cause we're losing money" is the common threat)

When and if ALL payphones receive the same service (including answer
supervision!) at the same cost, with a some kind of separation/accounting
in the telco cost accounting, the situation (and level of service to
the public) may become equitable.

Don't even think of getting me started on this issue when it comes to
sales of telephone equipment.... (I tend to foam at the mouth and wave
my arms about when discussing this, too)


 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?)

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

From: Dell Ellison <asuvax!gtephx!phobos![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid
Date: 18 Jan 90 19:14:28 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, lloyd!sunfs3![e-mail]
(Kent Borg) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Dodell)
> writes:
> >Checking with AT&T, the country code to Fuji is 679...

> Wow!  I knew Fuji had their own blimp, and I knew there were a lot of
> big and powerful multinational corportions out there, but this is the
> first time I have heard a company having its own *country* code!

Now, don't be silly!  Of course, he was talking about the mountain in
Japan!

Everyone on the mountain have a country code to themselves!
               (Mt. Fuji)

Great, huh?
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 90 17:04 PST
From: David Kuder <[e-mail]>
Subject: That Which is Colored Between Red & Green and Like Leaves


We just got some Sun gear in with a big yellow sticker on it
that says:

    "Yellow Pages" is a registered trademark in the United Kingdom
    of British Telecommunications plc. and may also be a trademark
    of various telephone companies around the world.  Sun will be
    revising future versions of software and documentation to
    remove references to "Yellow Pages".

I have some questions:

    Looks like a law suit.  Who filed?  Who cared enough to file?
    Did Sun lose?  Concede?  Why did Sun run into this before?

    What will that which is colored between red & green and is like
    leaves of a book be called in future versions?  Just YP?  DDDDBS
    (Dat Dam Distributed DataBase)?


David A. Kuder                                               Now what coach?
415 438-2003  [e-mail]  {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #35
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sat Jan 20 00:50:16 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA01982; Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:50:07 EST
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date:     Fri, 19 Jan 90 22:12:57 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #36
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:51:16 CST
Resent-From: [e-mail]
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Jan 90 22:12:10 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Gilmore)
    Re: Caller ID (David Lewis)
    Re: Caller ID (C. Brent Hyde)
    Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Free Local Phone Calls (John Higdon)
    Re: $outhwe$tern Bell (Doug Davis)
    Re: USA Direct From France -- Terrible Service (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Intercepts When Dialing 703-455 (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 00:57:36 PST
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes


'Tis my sad duty to report to you-all that three folks, Kevin Poulsen,
Mark Lottor ([e-mail]), and Robert Gilligan ([e-mail]) have
been charged by the San Jose US Attorney with nineteen counts (mostly
bogus) of telephone and computer crimes.

I got a copy of the 3-page press release from a friendly newspaper
reporter, as well as the 15-page indictment.  Curiously, the
defendents have not been given a copy of the indictment yet, though it
is being blasted out to the press (the reporter got it by fax!).  The
press release is from the US Attorney's office; you can call Robert R.
Crowe at [phone] to complain about it.  The press seems to
have been taken in by this and is giving it a lot of coverage; one
report was that 20 cameramen showed up at the "scene of the crime"
this morning in an attempt to interview a defendent.

The indictment starts off with a conspiracy charge in a feeble attempt
to tie the three defendents together, then proceeds through a bunch of
separate "counts".  Many of these are completely bogus, e.g.  they are
three separate charges under Title 42, USC 408(g)(2) with:

    "...for the purpose of obtaining telephone service from
    Pacific Bell Telephone under a false name, with intent to
    deceive, falsely represented his social security account
    number to be 549-64-3121, when in fact, such number was not
    his social security number".

There are three other charges under 18 USC 1342 with:

    "...for the purpose of defrauding Pacific Bell Telephone
    Company, used, assumed and requested to be addressed by a
    fictitious, false, and assumed name other than his own
    proper name and received from any post office or authorized
    depository of mail matter a letter addressed to such
    fictitious, false and assumed name other than his own proper
    name, specifically, Robert E. Gilligan assumed, used and
    requested to be addressed and to receive mail in the name of
    John Billings...".

Not all the charges are this much hot air, but it really looks to me
like the prosecuters are more interested in writing press releases
than in serving justice.

In short, the charges are:

  1 count conspiracy
  1 count "possession of access devices", 18 USC 1029(a)(3), (b)(2)
  1 count "ownership of a test circuit pack", 18 USC 2512
  3 counts giving the phone company a fake SS#
  3 counts giving the phone company a fake name
  1 count use of calling cards in fake names, 18 USC 1029(a)(2), (b)(2)
  1 count use of a testset to intercept a call
  1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation
  1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3)
  1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6)
  1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret
          classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641
  2 counts intercepting specific phone calls, 18 USC 2511(1)(a)
  1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of
      PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which
    contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand
    Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641
  1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a
    POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4),
    (b)(3)

In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal
life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company,
not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it),
having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking, and some
fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching an apartment.
I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with
intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI
was doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments...but don't
worry, it's against the law for anyone but Big Brother to listen in on
you.

I'll find a copy of these laws sometime soon and see how bad they are.
18 USC 1029 and 1030 are new laws and are specifically mentioned in
the "press release".  1029, on "access devices", is being used to
charge these folks with possession of keys; use of calling cards
issued under false names; and possession of a POS terminal and
locksmith tools.  Sounds like most modern laws -- broad enough to
charge anybody who they want to "get"...and broad enough to be tacked
on to any other charge to give them more to plea bargain with.  And
the ones on use of an incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"!  Last I
heard, it was not illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about
your SS#, though it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them.  Welcome to
New Amerika!

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 18 Jan 90 17:31:53 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Keith Vitek)
writes:

> In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]
>
> Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop
> Caller ID was here.  I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking
> about...

They're talking about Calling Number Delivery Blocking, which is part
of the Bellcore Requirements for the CLASS feature package.  Available
either on a subscription basis or a per-call basis, it sets a flag in
the SS7 message indicating that the calling number is not to be
delivered to the called party.  The called party gets an indication on
the display that the calling number is being blocked by the calling
party.

As I've said before, the fact that it's in the requirements doesn't
mean it's been implemented; and the fact that it's been implemented
(which, as far as I know, all the major switch vendors implementing
CLASS have) doesn't mean that any telco is offering it or trying to
tariff it.

In other words, the technology's there, but that doesn't mean it's
here, if you know what I mean.


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

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

From: 4036 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 19 Jan 90 20:26:20 GMT
Reply-To: "C. Brent Hyde ISO 5-4036" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. - Advanced Technology Lab - St. Louis


There are some significant public policy issues that must be ironed
out with Caller's ID.  This feature becomes generally available after
your local switching office is converted to ISDN, although there are
some other ways of delivering it using other technologies.

Whose rights are being violated?

The customer who pays for Calling Line ID expects to receive it on
every call.  The customer who paid for an unlisted number doesn't want
his/her number splayed all over zillions of ISDN terminals.  Which
service is more important?

Technically speaking, the serving switch can be translated to prevent
the calling number from being forwarded to the terminating station.
The capability is in the 5ESS and is probably available in the DMS
switches also.

The problem of who gets what rights is the big issue.  Until the
court(s) (sadly enough) rule on the issue you may not be able to
subscribe to a "privacy service".

However, I would still suggest you first contact your local telephone
company and request a "privacy service" which will prevent the calling
number from being forwarded to the terminating station.

If the phone company cannot, or will not provide you with the service,
then contact your state Public Service Commission and make your
opinions known.  If you are not able to get satisfaction that way,
write the chairman of the FCC, Al Sikes.  These organizations are
supposed to exist to protect the best interest of the public, but they
have a difficult time doing it without adequate input.

Good luck!

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Can't I Use 1+10 Dialing For All Calls?
Date: 19 Jan 90 04:33:59 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, claris!netcom![e-mail]
(Jeff Woolsey) writes:

> In the Dialing Instructions article appearing elsewhere in this
> newsgroup I noted that the dialing of which I speak was listed as
> permissive, yet I know of nowhere that permits it.

This probably won't satisfy Mr. Woolsey, but there is at least one
place where permissive 1+10D works for intra-npa calling: most of New
Jersey.  NJ Bell, for at least several years, has allowed me to dial
even an intra-office call as 1+201+xxx-xxxx if I wanted to.  I have
tried this from a number of different central offices of different
kinds, and it appears to work from all that I have tested.  I assume,
therefore, that NJ Bell does this on purpose.


Dave Levenson            Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900
Westmark, Inc.            Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave


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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?)
Date: 19 Jan 90 04:42:02 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (System
Administrator) writes:

> Yes, I also tried to dial several NJ numbers using 908 instead of 201
> and got nothing but a fast busy.  I guess that indicates that it's not
> hooked up at this time.  Where is the split happening anyway?  Is the
> northern part of 201 becoming 908 or is it another area?

The split divides what has been the 201 area into two areas.  The
northern portion will remain 201, while the southern portion is now
becoming 908.  (In other words, southern north New Jersey!)


Dave Levenson            Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900
Westmark, Inc.            Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Free Local Phone Calls
Date: 19 Jan 90 03:20:20 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


fmsystm![e-mail] writes:

> When and if ALL payphones receive the same service (including answer
> supervision!) at the same cost, with a some kind of separation/accounting
> in the telco cost accounting, the situation (and level of service to
> the public) may become equitable.

Well, in California COCOT lines don't get answer supervision, but they
do get a reduced local rate, free intraLATA DA, and international DDD
blocking. And still the COCOT slime charge for DA and commit every
other tariff violation imaginable. While I agree with you that
technical interface between telco and COCOT is a farce and could be
greatly improved, the basic problem with COCOTs is the scum that owns
and operates them. This being the case, improving the nature of COCOT
class of service would be putting lipstick on a pig.

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

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $outhwe$tern Bell
Date: 18 Jan 90 02:35:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


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

>Why does Southwestern Bell charge so @*!#-ing much to turn on
>telephone service? I could understand the $75- charge if I actually
>needed a phone lines to be installed in my apartment, but this is not
>the case.  I think that $75- is a wee much to charge for some clerical
>type to do the magnetic media work ... uhhh 'paperwork' involved in
>setting up an account.

I wouldn't complain, sometimes they have to do much more than just
"throw a switch" When I installed my modem line they had to run a new
cable from the CO 5 miles away!  The cost?  65.00 (this was a couple
of years ago) For some time I was the only person on that trunk.  The
installer and I still keep in touch, he used to read news on this
machine but he hasn't logged in for some time.  Anyway, the last time
I had this conversation with SWB they have the same rate regardless of
who/what or how much work has to go into getting the network interface
box to the house.

Of course, when you are in an apartment it seems really steep but wait
until that second line for your modem requires that they spend two
weeks running cables just to get to you ;-)


Doug Davis/1030 Pleasant Valley Lane/Arlington/Texas/76015/817-467-3740
{texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug
   "Clists? Clists? we don't need no stinken clists!"

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: USA Direct from France -- Terrible Service
Date: 19 Jan 90 20:51:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Here are a few quick observations about USA Direct, after using
> it for one week from France:

> o   About 20% of calls get cut off.
>
> o   Service quality is the worst I've ever experienced.

I have used AT&T Direct from the following countries: UK, France, FR
Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, and Australia.  I
have not noticed a ny difference in quality between operator handled
calls an USA Direct dialed calls when calling from these countries,
and I have been a heavy international traveler for many years.  I have
used it to make data calls fm m many of these countries, which was
difficult when operators were involved.  I have never! been cut off.


Herman Silbiger

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

Date:     Fri, 19 Jan 90 11:29:32 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Intercepts When Dialing 703-455


A recent posting to telecom told of getting intercept when trying to
reach 703-455 in area code 202.  It should always have gotten an
intercept when dialing it that way; 703-455 is Engleside, and does not
have full DC metro local service (only DC and Va. suburbs), and is
outside area code 202.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #36
*****************************


From [e-mail] Sat Jan 20 02:03:19 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA04710; Sat, 20 Jan 90 02:03:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29027;
          20 Jan 90 0:17 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20889;
          19 Jan 90 23:12 CST
Date:     Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:03:09 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: LONDON Script
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Jan 90 23:00:52 CST    Special: LONDON Script

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    LONDON script (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 17 Jan 90 9:09:49 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  LONDON script


Enclosed is the London script, which I did NOT write.


#! /bin/sh
# This is a shell archive, meaning:
# 1. Remove everything above the #! /bin/sh line.
# 2. Save the resulting text in a file.
# 3. Execute the file with /bin/sh (not csh) to create:
#    /staff/pkh/bin/general/london
#    /staff/pkh/telephones/LONDON
# This archive created: Fri May 19 09:20:47 1989
export PATH; PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:$PATH
echo shar: "extracting 'london'" '(1264 characters)'
if test -f 'london'
then
    echo shar: "will not over-write existing file 'london'"
else
sed 's/^X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'london'
X#! /bin/sh
X
XPROG=$0
XDB=/staff/pkh/telephones/LONDON
X
Xerror () { echo "$PROG: $1" 1>&2 ; exit "$2" ; }
X
Xb=`echo $* | sed "s/-/ /g"`
Xset $b
X
Xcase $# in
X    2)    case $1 in
X            0*)    error "Usage [AREA] EXCHANGE NUMBER
X        (space or - separated)" "2" ;;
X            *)    AREA="01" ;;
X        esac ;;
X    3)    AREA=$1;
X        case $AREA in
X            01)    shift;;
X            *)    error "Area code $AREA does not need conversion." 3 ;;
X        esac ;;
X    *)    error "Usage AREA EXCHANGE NUMBER
X        (space or - separated)" "2" ;;
Xesac
X
XEXCHANGE=$1
XNUMBER=$2
Xc=`grep $EXCHANGE $DB | grep -v \#`
X
Xif [ $? -eq 1 ]
X    then    echo "The $EXCHANGE exchange code is outside of the range used in London."
X        exit
Xfi
X
Xset $c
XN_AREA=$2
Xif [ "$N_AREA" = "071" ]
X    then    LOCATION="Inner London"
X    else    LOCATION="Outer London"
Xfi
X
Xcase $N_AREA in
X    U)    echo "The $EXCHANGE exchange code is at present unused in London,
Xthough it is in the range of other codes that will be in the new 071 area." ;;
X    V)    echo "The $EXCHANGE exchange code is at present unused in London,
Xthough it is in the range of other codes that will be in the new 081 area." ;;
X    W)    echo "The $EXCHANGE exchange code is at present unused in London." ;;
X    *)    echo "The new number for London $AREA-$EXCHANGE $NUMBER from Sunday 6th May 1990 will be:
X        $LOCATION $N_AREA-$EXCHANGE $NUMBER" ;;
Xesac
SHAR_EOF
if test 1264 -ne "`wc -c < 'london'`"
then
    echo shar: "error transmitting 'london'" '(should have been 1264 characters)'
fi
chmod +x 'london'
fi
echo shar: "extracting 'LONDON'" '(7683 characters)'
if test -f 'LONDON'
then
    echo shar: "will not over-write existing file 'LONDON'"
else
sed 's/^X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'LONDON'
X# U=Unused exchange code, but in the 071 region of codes.
X# V=Unused exchange code, but in the 081 region of codes.
X# W=Unused exchange code.
X#
X# 20x        081
X200 081
X201 V
X202 081
X203 081
X204 081
X205 081
X206 081
X207 081
X208 081
X209 081
X# 21x        071
X210 071
X211 U
X212 U
X213 U
X214 071
X215 071
X216 U
X217 071
X218 071
X219 071
X# 22x        071
X220 071
X221 071
X222 071
X223 071
X224 071
X225 071
X226 071
X227 071
X228 071
X229 071
X# 23x        071
X230 071
X231 071
X232 071
X233 071
X234 071
X235 071
X236 071
X237 071
X238 071
X239 071
X# 24x        071
X240 071
X241 071
X242 071
X243 071
X244 071
X245 071
X246 071
X247 071
X248 071
X249 071
X# 25x        071
X250 071
X251 071
X252 071
X253 071
X254 071
X255 071
X256 071
X257 071
X258 071
X259 071
X# 26x        071
X260 071
X261 071
X262 071
X263 071
X264 U
X265 071
X266 071
X267 071
X268 071
X269 071
X# 27x        071
X270 071
X271 071
X272 071
X273 071
X274 071
X275 U
X276 071
X277 071
X278 071
X279 071
X# 28x        071
X280 071
X281 071
X282 U
X283 071
X284 071
X285 U
X286 071
X287 071
X288 071
X289 071
X# 29x        081
X290 081
X291 081
X292 V
X293 081
X294 081
X295 081
X296 V
X297 081
X298 081
X299 081
X# 30x        081
X300 081
X301 081
X302 081
X303 081
X304 081
X305 081
X306 V
X307 V
X308 081
X309 081
X# 31x        081
X310 081
X311 081
X312 081
X313 081
X314 081
X315 V
X316 081
X317 081
X318 081
X319 081
X# 32x        071
X320 071
X321 071
X322 071
X323 071
X324 071
X325 071
X326 071
X327 071
X328 071
X329 071
X# 33x        081
X330 081
X331 V
X332 081
X333 V
X334 V
X335 081
X336 081
X337 081
X338 V
X339 081
X# 34x        081
X340 081
X341 081
X342 081
X343 081
X344 V
X345 081
X346 081
X347 081
X348 081
X349 081
X# 35x        071
X350 071
X351 071
X352 071
X353 071
X354 071
X355 071
X356 071
X357 071
X358 071
X359 071
X# 36x        081
X360 081
X361 081
X362 V
X363 081
X364 081
X365 081
X366 081
X367 081
X368 081
X369 V
X# 37x        071
X370 071
X371 071
X372 071
X373 071
X374 071
X375 071
X376 071
X377 071
X378 071
X379 071
X# 38x        071
X380 071
X381 071
X382 071
X383 071
X384 071
X385 071
X386 071
X387 071
X388 071
X389 071
X# 39x        081
X390 081
X391 081
X392 081
X393 081
X394 081
X395 V
X396 V
X397 081
X398 081
X399 081
X# 40x        071
X400 071
X401 071
X402 071
X403 071
X404 071
X405 071
X406 071
X407 071
X408 071
X409 071
X# 41x        Unused
X410 W
X411 W
X412 W
X413 W
X414 W
X415 W
X416 W
X417 W
X418 W
X419 W
X# 42x        081
X420 081
X421 081
X422 081
X423 081
X424 081
X425 V
X426 081
X427 081
X428 081
X429 081
X# 43x        071
X430 071
X431 071
X432 071
X433 071
X434 071
X435 071
X436 071
X437 071
X438 071
X439 071
X# 44x        081
X440 081
X441 081
X442 081
X443 081
X444 081
X445 081
X446 081
X447 081
X448 081
X449 081
X# 45x        081
X450 081
X451 081
X452 081
X453 081
X454 V
X455 081
X456 081
X457 V
X458 081
X459 081
X# 46x        081
X460 081
X461 081
X462 081
X463 081
X464 081
X465 V
X466 081
X467 081
X468 081
X469 081
X# 47x        Mixed
X470 081
X471 081
X472 081
X473 071
X474 071
X475 081
X476 071
X477 W
X478 081
X479 W
X# 48x        071
X480 071
X481 071
X482 071
X483 071
X484 071
X485 071
X486 071
X487 071
X488 071
X489 071
X# 49x        071
X490 071
X491 071
X492 071
X493 071
X494 071
X495 071
X496 071
X497 071
X498 071
X499 071
X# 50x        081
X500 081
X501 081
X502 081
X503 V
X504 081
X505 081
X506 081
X507 081
X508 081
X509 081
X# 51x        Mixed
X510 W
X511 071
X512 071
X513 W
X514 081
X515 071
X516 W
X517 081
X518 081
X519 081
X# 52x        081
X520 081
X521 081
X522 V
X523 081
X524 081
X525 V
X526 081
X527 081
X528 V
X529 081
X# 53x        Mixed
X530 081
X531 081
X532 081
X533 081
X534 081
X535 W
X536 081
X537 071
X538 071
X539 081
X# 54x        081
X540 081
X541 081
X542 081
X543 081
X544 081
X545 081
X546 081
X547 081
X548 V
X549 081
X# 55x        081
X550 081
X551 081
X552 081
X553 081
X554 081
X555 081
X556 081
X557 V
X558 081
X559 081
X# 56x        081
X560 081
X561 081
X562 081
X563 081
X564 081
X565 V
X566 081
X567 081
X568 081
X569 081
X# 57x        081
X570 081
X571 081
X572 081
X573 081
X574 081
X575 081
X576 081
X577 081
X578 081
X579 081
X# 58x        071
X580 071
X581 071
X582 071
X583 071
X584 071
X585 071
X586 071
X587 071
X588 071
X589 071
X# 59x        081
X590 081
X591 081
X592 081
X593 081
X594 081
X595 081
X596 V
X597 081
X598 081
X599 081
X# 60x        071
X600 071
X601 071
X602 071
X603 071
X604 071
X605 071
X606 071
X607 071
X608 071
X609 071
X# 61x        071
X610 U
X611 U
X612 U
X613 U
X614 U
X615 U
X616 U
X617 U
X618 071
X619 U
X# 62x        071
X620 071
X621 071
X622 071
X623 071
X624 071
X625 071
X626 071
X627 071
X628 071
X629 071
X# 63x        071
X630 071
X631 071
X632 071
X633 071
X634 071
X635 071
X636 071
X637 071
X638 071
X639 071
X# 64x        081
X640 081
X641 081
X642 081
X643 081
X644 081
X645 081
X646 081
X647 081
X648 081
X649 V
X# 65x        081
X650 081
X651 081
X652 V
X653 081
X654 081
X655 081
X656 081
X657 081
X658 081
X659 081
X# 66x        081
X660 081
X661 081
X662 V
X663 081
X664 081
X665 081
X666 081
X667 081
X668 081
X669 081
X# 67x        081
X670 081
X671 081
X672 081
X673 081
X674 081
X675 081
X676 081
X677 081
X678 081
X679 081
X# 68x        081
X680 081
X681 081
X682 081
X683 081
X684 081
X685 081
X686 081
X687 081
X688 081
X689 081
X# 69x        081
X690 081
X691 081
X692 081
X693 081
X694 081
X695 081
X696 V
X697 081
X698 081
X699 081
X# 70x        071
X700 071
X701 071
X702 071
X703 071
X704 071
X705 U
X706 071
X707 071
X708 071
X709 071
X# 71x        Unused
X710 U
X711 U
X712 U
X713 U
X714 U
X715 U
X716 U
X717 U
X718 U
X719 U
X# 72x        071
X720 071
X721 071
X722 071
X723 071
X724 071
X725 071
X726 071
X727 071
X728 071
X729 071
X# 73x        071
X730 071
X731 071
X732 071
X733 071
X734 071
X735 071
X736 071
X737 071
X738 071
X739 071
X# 74x        081
X740 081
X741 081
X742 081
X743 081
X744 081
X745 081
X746 081
X747 081
X748 081
X749 081
X# 75x        081
X750 081
X751 081
X752 081
X753 V
X754 081
X755 081
X756 081
X757 V
X758 081
X759 081
X# 76x        081
X760 081
X761 081
X762 V
X763 081
X764 081
X765 V
X766 081
X767 081
X768 081
X769 081
X# 77x        081
X770 081
X771 081
X772 V
X773 081
X774 V
X775 V
X776 081
X777 081
X778 081
X779 V
X# 78x        081
X780 081
X781 V
X782 V
X783 081
X784 V
X785 081
X786 081
X787 V
X788 081
X789 081
X# 79x        071
X790 071
X791 071
X792 071
X793 071
X794 071
X795 U
X796 071
X797 U
X798 071
X799 071
X# 80x        081
X800 081
X801 081
X802 081
X803 081
X804 081
X805 081
X806 081
X807 081
X808 081
X809 081
X# 81x        Unused
X810 W
X811 W
X812 W
X813 W
X814 W
X815 W
X816 W
X817 W
X818 W
X819 W
X# 82x        071
X820 071
X821 071
X822 071
X823 071
X824 071
X825 U
X826 071
X827 U
X828 071
X829 071
X# 83x        071
X830 U
X831 071
X832 071
X833 071
X834 071
X835 071
X836 071
X837 071
X838 U
X839 071
X# 84x        081
X840 081
X841 081
X842 081
X843 081
X844 081
X845 081
X846 081
X847 081
X848 081
X849 V
X# 85x        081
X850 081
X851 081
X852 081
X853 081
X854 081
X855 081
X856 081
X857 081
X858 081
X859 081
X# 86x        081
X860 V
X861 081
X862 V
X863 081
X864 081
X865 V
X866 081
X867 V
X868 081
X869 081
X# 87x        081
X870 081
X871 081
X872 V
X873 V
X874 081
X875 081
X876 081
X877 081
X878 081
X879 081
X# 88x        081
X880 V
X881 081
X882 081
X883 081
X884 081
X885 081
X886 081
X887 V
X888 081
X889 081
X# 89x        081
X890 081
X891 081
X892 081
X893 081
X894 081
X895 V
X896 V
X897 081
X898 081
X899 V
X# 90x        081
X900 081
X901 V
X902 081
X903 081
X904 081
X905 081
X906 081
X907 081
X908 081
X909 081
X# 91x        Unused
X910 W
X911 W
X912 W
X913 W
X914 W
X915 W
X916 W
X917 W
X918 W
X919 W
X# 92x        071
X920 071
X921 071
X922 071
X923 071
X924 071
X925 071
X926 U
X927 071
X928 071
X929 071
X# 93x        071
X930 071
X931 071
X932 071
X933 071
X934 071
X935 071
X936 071
X937 071
X938 071
X939 U
X# 94x        081
X940 081
X941 081
X942 081
X943 081
X944 081
X945 V
X946 081
X947 081
X948 081
X949 081
X# 95x        081
X950 081
X951 081
X952 081
X953 081
X954 081
X955 V
X956 V
X957 V
X958 081
X959 081
X# 96x        081
X960 081
X961 081
X962 V
X963 081
X964 081
X965 081
X966 V
X967 V
X968 081
X969 081
X# 97x        Mixed
X970 W
X971 W
X972 W
X973 W
X974 081
X975 W
X976 071
X977 081
X978 071
X979 081
X# 98x        Mixed
X980 081
X981 081
X982 W
X983 081
X984 081
X985 081
X986 081
X987 071
X988 081
X989 081
X# 99x        081
X990 V
X991 081
X992 081
X993 081
X994 081
X995 081
X996 V
X997 081
X998 081
X#
X# 20x        081
X# 21x - 28x    071
X# 29x - 31x    081
X# 32x        071
X# 33x & 34x    081
X# 35x        071
X# 36x        081
X# 37x & 38x    071
X# 39x        081
X# 40x        071
X# 41x        Unused
X# 42x        081
X# 43x        071
X# 44x - 46x    081
X# 47x        Mixed
X# 48x & 49x    071
X# 50x        081
X# 51x        Mixed
X# 52x        081
X# 53x        Mixed
X# 54x - 57x    081
X# 58x        071
X# 59x        081
X# 60x - 63x    071
X# 64x - 69x    081
X# 70x        071
X# 71x        Unused
X# 72x & 73x    071
X# 74x - 78x    081
X# 79x        071
X# 80x        081
X# 81x        Unused
X# 82x & 83x    071
X# 84x - 90x    081
X# 91x        Unused
X# 92x & 93x    071
X# 94x - 96x    081
X# 97x & 98x    Mixed
X# 99x        081
SHAR_EOF
if test 7683 -ne "`wc -c < 'LONDON'`"
then
    echo shar: "error transmitting 'LONDON'" '(should have been 7683 characters)'
fi
fi
#exit 0
#    End of shell archive

**********************remove all below, including this line******************

[Moderator's Note: My thanks to Carl Moore for sending along the material
for this special issue of the Digest. In Digests on Saturday, the
10xxx table is re-printed in case you missed it the first time; a response
is made to 'More Net Friends', and further information from AT&T regards
the outage, and a compensation day for subscribers.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: LONDON Script
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sat Jan 20 05:47:43 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA12147; Sat, 20 Jan 90 05:47:38 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24609;
          20 Jan 90 4:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23094;
          20 Jan 90 3:18 CST
Date:     Sat, 20 Jan 90 2:27:38 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #37
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Jan 90 02:25:47 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Pat Townson)
    Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe? (C.Seline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 1:37:01 CST
From: Patrick Townson <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes


The purpose of this message is NOT to give an opinion as to the guilt
or innocence of the persons discussed in the original message. Only
the court can rule upon the facts, and detirmine the guilt or
innocence of the defendants. This message is intended ONLY to address
Mr. Gilmore's presentation itself, and discuss what he feels are
frivolous charges.

In volume 9, issue 36 John Gilmore <[e-mail]> writes:

>'Tis my sad duty to report to you-all that three folks, Kevin
>Poulsen, Mark Lottor ([e-mail]), and Robert Gilligan
>([e-mail]) have been charged by the San Jose US Attorney with
>nineteen counts (mostly bogus) of telephone and computer crimes.

>The indictment starts off with a conspiracy charge in a feeble attempt
>to tie the three defendents together, then proceeds through a bunch
>of separate "counts".  Many of these are completely bogus, e.g.
>they are three separate charges under Title 42, USC 408(g)(2) with:

>    "...for the purpose of obtaining telephone service from
>    Pacific Bell Telephone under a false name, with intent to
>    deceive, falsely represented his social security account
>    number to be 549-64-3121, when in fact, such number was not
>    his social security number".

>There are three other charges under 18 USC 1342 with:

>    "...for the purpose of defrauding Pacific Bell Telephone
>    Company, used, assumed and requested to be addressed by a
>    fictitious, false, and assumed name other than his own
>    proper name and received from any post office or authorized
>    depository of mail matter a letter addressed to such
>    fictitious, false and assumed name other than his own proper
>    name, specifically, Robert E. Gilligan assumed, used and
>    requested to be addressed and to receive mail in the name of
>    John Billings...".

When an application is made for an extension of credit, it is illegal
to misrepresent who you are. In this case, telco would be the
creditor.  Credit is not a *right*. It does not have to be given to
anyone. Telco must provide service to all *qualified* applicants, and
in this instance, a qualified applicant is one who has demonstrated an
ability and willingness to pay for the service. More on this later.

>In short, the charges are:

   (list edited, to address only certain issues)

>  3 counts giving the phone company a fake SS#
>  3 counts giving the phone company a fake name
>  1 count use of calling cards in fake names, 18 USC 1029(a)(2), (b)(2)

Here again, the use of a calling card is the use of an extension of
credit given by telco. It is a crime to apply for credit under a fake
name or using fake credentials, period. No actual loss to the creditor
has to occur. The fact is, the creditor is entitled to set whatever
parameters he desires to define 'credit worthy'; this is not an option
left to the subscriber or purchaser of the service. If you
misrepresent who you are for the purpose of obtaining an extension of
credit, you have committed a federal felony. If you place your written
misrepresentation in a US Postal Service receptacle, you have
committed mail fraud as soon as the envelope lands in the basket
inside. If your oral misrepresentation causes the creditor to place
something inside a mail receptacle, i.e. your monthly bill, then
again, *you* have committed mail fraud.

By 'extension of credit' I mean that these gentlemen could have been
obliged by telco to make a sizeable down payment of earnest money --
or deposit against future charges -- before service was established.
Or, they could have been obliged to make calls from pay stations, on a
pay- as-you-go basis.

>  1 count use of a testset to intercept a call
>  1 count intercepting a Pacbell security person's conversation

Interception of calls is illegal, whether it is by a private party or
the government without the permission of a court. If these charges are
proven to be factual, then they are very serious matters. I would ask
Mr. Gilmore if he would like to be the victim of such an intercept.
Even 'security persons' have the right to assume their conversation on
the phone is private.


>  1 count attempted access to US Army MASNET, 18 USC 1030(a)(3)
>  1 count "intent to transfer" MASNET access codes, 18 USC 1030(a)(6)
>  1 count "obtained with intent to convert to his use or gain" Secret
>          classified orders from a Ft Bragg military exercise, 18 USC 641

Another way of phrasing it is a charge of attempted burglary; a charge
of attempted theft; plus a charge of theft by deception. If Mr.
Gilmore feels this is not all that serious, perhaps he will share his
modem phone number and personal passwords with us; or not raise too
much of a fuss if someone finds them and uses them.

>  2 counts intercepting specific phone calls, 18 USC 2511(1)(a)

As above; only a court can authorize a wire; would you want it any
other way?

>  1 count "stole a computer printout which was in the custody of
>  PacBell pursuant to a contract with the FBI and which
>  contained cable/pair assignments and phone numbers of Ferdinand
>  Marcos and others who were target of an FBI investigation" 18 USC 641

So now we have another charge of theft. Yes, that is what it is called
when some sleaze on the subway gets into your pockebook -- why not
call it that when someone rifles an office or a briefcase? Does the
fact that the offender is smart enough he doesn't have to strong-arm
you on the street make a difference in the seriousness of the crime?

>  1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a
>  POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4),
>    (b)(3)

What business does anyone have verifying the credit limits of some
other person lacking some business transaction involving credit? Who
the hell are you -- or anyone -- to verify my credit standing unless
we are transacting business with each other?

>In short, there is little computer crime in here -- mostly the normal
>life of a private person (not giving your name to the phone company,
>not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it),

I would suggest that electronic burglary, i.e. breaking and entering
into the military computers and the theft of the information in the
one computer is a 'computer crime', and a rather serious one at that.
If Mr. Gilmore does not regard breaking and entering into a computer
to be a 'computer crime' what does he consider to be such a crime?

I would suggest that tampering with a communications computer, i.e. a
central office ESS to intercept phone calls is a computer crime, if
indeed the alleged interception was done in that manner.

>mostly the normal life of a private person (not giving your name to the
>phone company, not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal
>need for it.....

Most people do not try to defraud the phone company. Most people do
not give bogus identification to the phone company. Telco will list
(or not) the service under any name desired, within reason. They will
send the bill to any third party. But the person who ultimatly
guarentees the payment *must* be known to telco, like any other
creditor. If these allegations of the government are found to be
factual, then I'd say these fellows have a problem: if they intended
to deal in good faith with telco, their true identities would have
been part of telco's service record.

>not giving out your SS# to people who have no legal need for it.

Legal need is one thing; consideration for an extension of credit is
another; or does Mr. Gilmore assume telco should just take the word of
everyone who comes in that everything will be alright and telco will
get paid?  As stated above, when the creditor *gives consideration to*
your request for credit, he requires something by which to positively
identify yourself and your history of meeting your obligations. It is
a perfectly acceptable trade off: identify yourself to your creditor's
satisfaction and your creditor will give consideration to your request
for credit.

This is something that has confused many people in the past: do you,
or don't you have to produce an SSN on the request of a merchant?  NO,
YOU DO NOT!  But....the merchant is NOT obliged to do business with
you on any basis other than CASH. No checks, no credit cards, no open
account -- just cold hard cash, deposit twenty five cents for the
first minute please.....

You don't like those terms, and want to cash your checks, use your
credit or otherwise pay in a more convenient way? Then meet the
creditor's terms.  And the federal government says if you decieve the
creditor in *any way*, they have a beef with you.

>just like the normal life of a private person...

And as a further example, he gives...

>having an interest in phones, some possible phreaking,

About 95 percent of the public has no idea how phones work, could care
less how they work (until the CO burns down, the employees go on
strike, or the software gets a bug in it), and do not phreak. Most
people do not know anything more than listen for dial tone, dial the
number, talk and hang up. The defendants here are hardly 'normal
living private persons', if their knowledge of telecom is any
indicator.

>some possible phreaking,

Note how casually Mr. Gilmore dismisses this. Instead, substitute the
phrase, 'some possible burglaries; some possible thefts by deception;
possibly some breaking and entering....'

>normal lives of private persons.....

Most people do not burglarize the space of others, be it electronic or
physical in nature. They do not practice theft by deception.

>and some fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching
>an apartment.

Oh! And, uh, if its not asking too much, WHO authorized the searching
of the apartment? If this is shown to be factual, and if no one can be
found who authorized the 'search', then the 'search' becomes a
burglary...this time of a physical place rather than an electronic
one.

But perhaps I mis-read this. Perhaps the defendants had been invited
by someone to come to their home and search through their possessions.

>I find it quite interesting that they are charging these guys with
>intercepting calls when it's clear that that's exactly what the FBI was
>doing with Ferdinand Marcos's cable pair assignments...

The difference is, the one wire was authorized by a court; the other
one was not. I personally find all wires distasteful -- particularly
those committed by unauthorized persons -- but at least the FBI took
the trouble to do it legally I assume.

And if the FBI did not do it legally? None of us here have virgin ears
and eyes; we all know about the stink at Cincinnatti Bell; the Chicago
Police Red Squad of the 1960's; the marginal legality of some aspects
of the 'war on drugs', etc.... but is the writer saying the current
defendants were no more naughty than the FBI, therefore they should
not be punished if they are found guilty?

>but don't worry,
>it's against the law for anyone but Big Brother to listen in on you.

Let's quit playing games and pointing fingers. Yes, it is illegal for
anyone to listen to your private conversations except the government,
and then, only by specific court order. Mr. Gilmore seems to be almost
confessing for the defendants now, by his admission that the alleged
acts were illegal. But that isn't what he meant. He meant since it is
okay for the government to break the law, it should be okay for the
defendants to do so also. I think otherwise.

>use of calling cards issued under
>false names; and possession of a POS terminal and locksmith tools.
>Sounds like most modern laws --

Maybe, but it hardly sounds like the normal life of your average
private person who typically does not carry credit cards with false
names; does not possess a POS terminal unless he is a merchant using
it in his legitimate business; does not have locksmith tools unless he
is a locksmith by trade; and doesn't go around tapping phones,
burglarizing computers and stealing documents.

>broad enough to charge anybody who they want to "get"

Why should the government 'want to get' these chaps? It sounds to me
like the government doesn't need any excuses to 'get' them....if the
claims by the government are factual, then these fellows are hardly
model citizens being persecuted by an evil government.

>And the ones on use of an
>incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"!  Last I heard, it was not
>illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about your SS#, though
>it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them.

It is illegal to deceive anyone for the purpose of obtaining an
extension of credit. If some attorney told you it was not illegal to
deceive your creditor, I suggest you ask for your retainer back and go
find another attorney. Actual loss to the creditor is not required.
The creditor's victimization begins when he grants you credit you
should not (by his standards) be given. He is at risk at that point.
And the feds will back up the creditor *every time* on this. Conduct
business by mail and you can add mail fraud to the rap.

>Welcome to New Amerika!

Isn't that precious..... I'll repeat: quit the game playing and the
role of martyr. If your 'net friends' are found to be guilty, tell
them to quit their belly-aching and take their medicine like a
man-child. A couple years Federal Probation might just hit the spot.
If they follow your line of reasoning, and get too arrogant in court,
that Federal Probation might turn into a couple years in the custody
of the Attorney General or his authorized representative instead.

And if they are not guilty, and all these things the government has
said about them are just damnable lies, by a government 'out to get
them....'

Well then, they can take comfort in the words of Oscar Wilde, who once
said,

     "Injustice? Well I can live with injustice. I've had it heaped
      on me many times...

      But justice.....its justice that stings.....  "



Patrick Townson

**This message was NOT intended to express an opinion about the guilt
or innocence of the defendants. Only the court can detirmine the facts.
It was intended to address tbe recent remarks by Mr. Gilmore.**


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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 00:55 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe?

MCI is now offering service to Europe for $0.59/minute plus a three
dollar monthly surcharge.  I would like to call Bonn West Germany
twice a month for twenty to forty minutes between 3PM and 6PM.

I'm concerned that there must be major drawbacks to a deal that sounds
so good.  Can anyone comment on this?

Please spare the bandwidth and reply directly to me.  I'll summarize
and post in about 10 days.

Thanks in advance,

Christopher Seline
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
bellcore!oberlin!cjs

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #37
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sat Jan 20 14:46:13 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA29920; Sat, 20 Jan 90 14:46:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29275;
          20 Jan 90 13:26 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24559;
          20 Jan 90 12:22 CST
Date:     Sat, 20 Jan 90 11:29:07 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #38
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Jan 90 11:25:42 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Special Discounts on Valentine's Day (Jeffri Frontz)
    Re: Who's Using Whom? (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.)
    SS7 Problems Not Unique to ATT (Steve Elias)
    Re: CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question (David Lewis)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (David Lewis)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 11:49 EST
Subject: AT&T Special Discounts on Valentine's Day


         [Following is the full text of an all-employee bulletin being
         distributed beginning this afternoon.]

AT&T PLANS SPECIAL CALLING DISCOUNTS FOLLOWING SERVICE DISRUPTION To
underscore its commitment to customers in the wake of Monday's service
disruption, AT&T will file a special tariff with the Federal
Communications Commission to offer its residential, business and
international customers special Valentine's Day discounts on
long-distance telephone service.

In its filing, AT&T is asking the FCC for approval to declare
Wednesday, February 14, as an additional day of holiday calling.
Citing the impact of Monday's service disruption, Chairman Bob Allen
said, "We are making this gesture to underscore how much we value our
relationship with our customers, knowing there is no way to make up
for the inconvenience they may have experienced."

AT&T's special holiday prices, discounted on average 33 percent from
regular weekday prices, will apply on all out-of-state, direct-dialed,
long-distance calls made by residence and business customers on AT&T's
public network.  Evening rates will apply to all other out-of-state
switched business services except those that do not have time-of-day
discount schedules, such as 900 Service.  In addition, the economy
rate will apply to all direct-dialed international calls.

AT&T also will extend its 800 Service Assurance Plan to cover this
extraordinary situation.  Under this program, customers of AT&T's 800
Services are eligible to receive a credit on their bills up to the
monthly service charge.  Under the discount plan, a 10-minute,
direct-dialed, coast-to-coast call between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on
Valentine's Day will cost $1.58.  At normal weekday prices between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. that call would usually cost $2.50.  On international
calls, the economy rate will apply all day for calls to all 158
countries and areas that can be dialed directly through the AT&T
network.  For example, a five-minute direct-dialed call from anywhere
in the mainland United States to Japan ordinarily costs $8.01 from 2
p.m. to 8 p.m., $6.51 from 8 p.m. to 3 a.m., and $5.40 from 3 a.m. to
2 p.m.  On Valentine's Day, a five-minute call will cost $5.40 at any
time.

An open letter to customers from Bob Allen (the text of which appears
following this bulletin) will be published tomorrow in 22 cities
across the country.  The following newspapers, among others, will
feature the letter: Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Times,
Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, San
Francisco Chronicle Examiner, Boston Globe, Dallas Morning News,
Detroit Free Press, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, Cleveland
Plain Dealer, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Minneapolis Star Tribune,
St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch, Seattle Times/Post Intelligencer,
Tacoma News Tribune, Miami Herald, Pittsburgh Press, St. Louis Post
Dispatch, Denver Post, Phoenix Republic Gazette and Tampa Tribune.

        =================================================

Text of Bob Allen's Open Letter to Customers

Dear AT&T Customer:

    AT&T had a major service disruption last Monday.  We didn't live
up to our own standards of quality, and we didn't live up to yours.
It's as simple as that.  And that's not acceptable to us.  Or to you.

    Once we discovered the problem, we responded within minutes with
every resource at our disposal.  By late evening, normal service was
restored.  Ironically, the problem resulted from a glitch in software
designed to provide back-up in a new signaling system we were
installing to bring even greater reliability to our network.  It has
now been fixed.

    We understand how much people have come to depend upon AT&T
service, so our AT&T Bell Laboratories scientists and our network
engineers are doing everything possible to guard against a recurrence.
We know there's no way to make up for the inconvenience this problem
may have caused you.  But in an effort to underscore how much we value
our relationship with you, we've filed with the FCC to offer a special
day of calling discounts on Valentine's Day, Wednesday, February 14:

    Discounts all-day for residence and business customers on most
out-of-state calls made on the AT&T public network throughout the
U.S., and on international calls to all 158 direct-dial countries.
We've also extended the provisions of our AT&T 800 Assurance Policy to
cover this extraordinary situation.

    For more than 100 years, we've built our reputation on superior
quality, reliability and technological innovation.  Our goal is to
ensure that you always regard us that way.

Sincerely,

R. E. Allen, Chairman

       ======================================================


CONCERNING AT&T ... Clarification:

The final question-and-answer section in Tuesday's flash edition
contained some figures on network performance that need to be
clarified.  On Monday, Jan.  16, there were 148 million call attempts,
83 million of which were handled by AT&T's long-distance network
("calls handled" means calls that reach their destination, get a busy
signal or are not answered--in other words, calls where the network
did its job).

Approximately 60 million of these attempts resulted in revenue-
producing messages. ... Updating things, the AT&T long-distance
network continues to function normally following Monday's nine- hour
service impairment.

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

From: fmsystm!macy
Date: Thu Jan 18 14:45:08 1990
Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom?
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA

In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 29, message 2 of 11

>AT&T long distance has been severely disrupted today in the Bay Area
  ...
>Why is this of any interest? Well, it seems that Sprint is down as
>well. Why? Sprint leases facilities from AT&T. So all of the ballyhoo
>about Sprint's fiber optics is, to some degree, actually AT&T's fiber
>optics.

Sprint leases T1 and T3 dedicated lines from AT&T and many other
carriers.  They also use switched access services from the BOC's and
local telcos to originate and complete calls.  To the best of my
knowledge, they lease little or no switched serivces from AT&T,
although they do interrconnect with some other carriers (mostly
regionals, and a little bit from MCI).

Unless AT&T's Digital Cross-connects were affected, this seems
unlikely.  The SS7 failure that AT&T had should not affect the DACS.
Sprint did take some heavy surges in traffic when AT&T went down, and
may just have been overloaded.

I have a couple of AT&T Megacom (T1 fed) customers, whose PBX's I have
programmed to use Sprint in cases like this.  For some reason, most of
my customers whose do not use Sprint as a primary carrier specify them
as a secondary "overflow" carrier.  This may explain it, in part.

BTW - in the Cleveland/Akron Ohio area here, my Sprint, MCI, Charter,
and Litel users reported little or no disruption.  Maybe a few of our
legislators who want a return to the days before deregulation should
bear this in mind...

Now, what can we do about this GTE GTD-5 central office I am in that
falls on its face twice a year...Thank goodness I have FX lines and
cellphones or we'd be off the map.  Frankly, local CO's are fast
becoming the weak link in telecom...I've had several major CO failures
in the area this past year, not to mention cable cuts...


 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?)

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

Subject: SS7 Problems Not Unique to ATT
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 08:49:44 -0500
From: [e-mail]


ATT is not the only one to have had problems with SS7 switches.  When
a certain other carrier was installing SS7 switches, software problems
were experienced.  That's all I'll say for now -- I'm trying to avoid
threats of legal action for the beginning of the 1990s, at least.

; Steve Elias
; work phone:  [phone] ;   email:  [e-mail] , [e-mail]
; voice mail:  617 932 5598

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CCIS vs. Inband Signalling Question
Date: 18 Jan 90 17:27:42 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil Lapsley)
writes:

> Does anybody know what percentage of interoffice trunks now send
> signalling information out of band via CCIS?  Before the breakup, Bell
> Labs made some comment like it would be 100% CCIS by 1988, but I still
> hear those MF tones in the background occasionally.

So far as I know, AT&T is 100% CCS (I *think* they've entirely cut
over to Signaling System 7 from Signaling System 6 a.k.a. CCIS).  MCI
and US Sprint, also so far as I know, are 100% SS7 connected.

Local telcos have limited SS7 connectivity and, of course, there's a
wide variance.  In general, they have high SS7 connectivity between
tandem switches and limited connectivity to the end office.  Some LECs
are aagressively deploying SS7 to the end office; others aren't.  When
you consider there are on the order of 10 000 end offices in the USA
(about 5000 in BOCs and 5000 in Non-Bells), it'll take a while...
Especially when you consider that a significant fraction of those
switches are No. 5 Crossbars or older and *can't* handle SS7, and
another significant fraction are 1AESSs which cost on the order of a
million bucks to make SS7-compatible...

The MF you hear are generally EAMF (Equal Access MultiFrequency)
signaling tones going from an end office to an Access Tandem for
handoff to an interexchange carrier, or MF signaling going to a tandem
for further moving around the LEC's network.


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: The AT&T Problem
Date: 18 Jan 90 17:20:11 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


What kind of information have people been able to glean from the
popular press about the AT&T problem?

My information to date consists of:

* A software problem (fact), which occured in New York City (fact),
due to new software (fact) (conjecture -- a new generic).

* A problem in one "computer" (fact) (conjecture -- either a tandem, a
Signaling Transfer Point (STP), or network management system.  I'd put
money on tandem, though.  Question -- back in the days of hierarchical
routing, AT&T Long Lines, now ATT-C, had two "class 1" offices.  Was
one of them in NYC?) which caused congestion to propagate throughout
the network (fact).

* The problem was in (not a direct quote) "the software that
determines where to send calls."  (Conjecture -- the Dynamic
Non-Hierarchical Routing (DNHR) routines in a tandem switch).

Put this all together, and my best guess is that there was a flaw in
the DNHR portion of the new 4ESS generic which didn't appear in system
testing.  This flaw appeared on a large tandem in NYC, preventing that
tandem from routing any calls.  As this tandem was unavailable, other
switches attempted to circumvent the problem and route around it, but
this bogged down the whole network.

Problem with this theory:

* Single failure points shouldn't be sufficient to drag down the whole
network.  (From what I read, approximately 44% of calls on AT&T were
getting intercept or reorder.)  Perhaps the fault appeared in other
tandems as well?

As I said, this is a best guess.  I don't work for AT&T, and they
certainly don't tell *me* what's going on.  Anyone with more accurate
information, please tell us...

Another point of interest: in one of their analysis articles, the NY
Times had a headline with the line "1-800-NOTHING".  I wonder who has
the number 1-800-668-4464 and just how they felt about this...


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

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

From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 90 16:13:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Otto Miller)
writes:

>I understand the concept of 10xxx dialling to get to other carriers,
>*BUT* don't you need an account with the carrier to do this?  It just
>came to mind (what little I have left), do these 'other' carriers just
>bill the local service provider based on originating phone number?

If you make a 10XXX call to a carrier with whom you do not have an
account, they have four choices:

  -- block the call (TDX, now C&W, seems to do this)
  -- have the local telco bill for them on a separate page of the regular
     phone bill (the most common)
  -- use the billing information provided by the local telco and send you
     a bill directly
  -- eat the cost of the call (far less common than it used to be, shucks)


John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
[e-mail], {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl
"Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."

[Moderator's Note: Speaking of which -- 10xxx I mean, not jelly doughnuts --
several people have sent the table which appeared some time ago, and later
today, a Digest will include it for those who have never seen it.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #38
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sat Jan 20 23:59:22 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA20979; Sat, 20 Jan 90 23:59:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04869;
          20 Jan 90 22:31 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30124;
          20 Jan 90 21:27 CST
Date:     Sat, 20 Jan 90 21:01:27 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #39
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Jan 90 21:00:29 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (TELECOM Moderator)
    Sprint Stuff (John Higdon)
    NCN Communications, INC (Bill Huttig)
    Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer? (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Faxnet Info Request (Tad Cook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 11:40:45 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List


In response to my request for a copy of the 10xxx table, several
people responded by sending a copy, and it appears below, for those of
you who have never received a copy. This is your answer to 'what do I
do when my carrier of choice is not operating, etc....'  Not all of
these companies offer originating service in all locations, and many
require an account on their system. To use these (where use is
possible, based on the above stipulations), you would dial 10xxx,
where 'x' is the three digit code shown, followed by 1, then the area
code and number desired. In many cases the bill will come on your
local telco bill; in others, the carrier will bill you separately.

Please note the tariff provides these companies are entitled to
receive your name, address and telephone number from your local telco,
even if your service is non-published.

My thanks to the following who submitted copies of this list as of
Saturday evening:

Robert P. Warnock <[e-mail]>
Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Juan Leon <[e-mail]>
Daniel Senie <uunet!lectroid!pwllheli!djs>
Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Jeffrey M. Schweiger <[e-mail]>

(And others whose copies may be in transit. If you have not sent one, don't!)

If you spot any corrections or updates, please send them along.

001    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
002    AmeriCall LDC
003    RCI Corporation
007    Tel America
011    Metromedia Long Distance
012    Charter Corporation (Tri-J)
013    Access Services
021    Mercury
022    MCI Telecommunications
023    Texnet
024    Petricca Communications Systems
028    Texnet
030    Valu-Line of Wichita Falls
031    Teltec Saving Communications
033    US Sprint
036    Long Distance Savers
039    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
042    First Phone
044    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
053    American Network (Starnet)
056    American Satellite
057    Long Distance Satellite
059    COMNET
060    Valu-Line of West Texas
063    COMNET
069    V/COM
070    National Telephone Exchange
080    AMTEL Systems
084    Long Distance Service (LDS)
085    WesTel
088    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
089    Telephone Systems
090    WesTel
093    Rainbow Communications
095    Southwest Communications
099    AmeriCall
122    RCA Global Communications
137    All America Cables and Radio (ITT)
142    First Phone
146    ARGO Communications
188    Satellite Business Systems
201    PhoneNet
202    ExecuLines
203    Cypress Telecommunications (Cytel)
204    United Telephone Long Distance
206    United Telephone Long Distance
211    RCI
212    Call US
213    Long Distance Telephone Savers
214    Tyler Telecom
215    Star Tel of Abilene
217    Call US
219    Call USA
220    Western Union Telegraph
222    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
223    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
224    American Communications
227    ATH Communications (Call America)
229    Bay Communications
232    Superior Telecom
233    Delta Communications
234    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
237    Inter-Comm Telephone
239    Woof Communications (ACT)
241    American Long Lines
242    Choice Information Systems
244    Automated Communications
245    Taconic Long Distance Service
250    Dial-Net
252    Long Distance/USA
253    Litel Telecommunications
255    All-State Communications
256    American Sharecom
260    Advanced Communications Systems
263    Com Systems (Sun Dial Communications)
268    Compute-A-Call
276    CP National (American Network, Starnet)
284    American Telenet
286    Clark Telecommunications
287    ATS Communications
288    AT&T Communications
298    Thriftline
302    Austin Bestline
303    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
311    SaveNet (American Network, Starnet)
318    Long Distance Savers
321    Southland Systems
322    American Sharecom
324    First Communication
331    Texustel
333    US Sprint
336    Florida Digital Network
338    Midco Communications
339    Communication Cable Laying
343    Communication Cable Laying
345    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
350    Dial-Net
355    US Link
357    Manitowoc Long Distance Service
362    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
363    Tel-Toll (Econ-O-Dial of Bishop)
369    American Satellite
373    Econo-Line Waco
375    Wertern Union Telegraph
385    The Switchboard
393    Execulines of Florida
400    American Sharecom
404    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
412    Penn Telecom
428    Inter-Comm Telephone
432    Lightcall
435    Call-USA
436    Indiana Switch
440    Tex-Net
441    Escondido Telephone
442    First Phone
444    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
455    Telecom Long Distance
456    ARGO Communications
462    American Network Services
464    Houston Network
465    Intelco
466    International Office Networks
469    GMW
472    Hal-Rad Communications
480    Chico Telecom (Call America)
488    United States Transmission Systems (ITT)
505    San Marcos Long Distance
515    Burlington Telephone
529    Southern Oregon Long Distance
532    Long Distance America
533    Long Distance Discount
536    Long Distance Management
550    Valu-Line of Alexandria
551    Pittsburg Communication Systems
552    First Phone
555    TeleSphere Networks
566    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
567    Advanced Marketing Services (Dial Anywhere)
579    Lintel System (Lincoln Telephone LD)
590    Wisconsin Telecommunications Tech
599    Texas Long Distance Conroe
601    Discount Communications Services
606    Biz Tel Long Distance Telephone
622    Metro America Communications
634    Econo-Line Midland
646    Contact America
654    Cincinnati Bell Long Distance
655    Ken-Tel Service
660    Tex-Net
666    Southwest Communications
675    Network Services
680    Midwest Telephone Service
682    Ashland Call America
684    Nacogdoches Telecommunications
687    NTS Communications
700    Tel-America
704    Inter-Exchange Communications
707    Telvue
709    Tel-America
717    Pass Word
726    Procom
727    Conroe-Comtel
735    Marinette-Menominee Lds
737    National Telecommunications
741    ClayDesta
742    Phone America of Carolina
743    Peninsula Long Distance Service
747    Standard Informations Services
755    Sears Communication
757    Pace Long Distance Service
759    Telenet Communication (US Sprint)
760    American Satellite
766    Yavapai Telephone Exchange
771    Telesystems
777    US Sprint
785    Olympia Telecom
786    Shared Use Network Service
787    Star Tel of Abilene
788    ASCI's Telepone Express Network
789    Microtel
792    Southwest Communications
800    Satelco
801    MidAmerican LD (Republic)
827    TCS Network Services
833    Business Telecom
839    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
847    VIP Connections
850    TK Communications
852    Telecommunicatons Systems
859    Valu-Line of Longview
866    Alascom
872    Telecommunications Services
874    Tri-Tel Communications
879    Thriftycall (Lintel Systems)
881    Coastal Telephone
882    Tuck Data Communications
883    TTI Midland-Odessa
884    TTI Midland-Odessa
885    The CommuniGroup
888    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
895    Texas on Line
897    Leslie Hammond (Phone America)
898    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
910    Montgomery Telamarketing Communication
915    Tele Tech
933    North American Communications
936    Rainbow Commuinications
937    Access Long Distance
938    Access Long Distance
951    Transamerica Telecommunications
955    United Communications
960    Access Plus
963    Tenex Communications
969    Dial-Net
985    America Calling
986    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
987    ClayDesta Communications
988    Western Union Telegraph
991    Access Long Distance


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

Subject: Sprint Stuff
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 19 Jan 90 19:16:03 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


While waiting at the vets the other day (don't ask), I decided to kill
time by playing with the Pac*Bell pay phone in the lobby (my vet has
class). I dialed a number in Orange County by using "10333+0+714+NNX+XXXX".
There was the KaBong, so I entered my FO(O)N card number (Sprint's
calling card number). A recording told me that I had entered an
invalid number and an operator came on the line (after much waiting).
I gave the operator my FO(O)N card number and was told that the number
was "unbillable". At this time I was given the number of Sprint
customer service.

I dialed the customer service number and FIFTEEN MINUTES later someone
came on the line. I recited my problem and gave the rep my FO(O)N card
number. I was told that the number was a good, working number, but
that to use it I would have to dial the 800 number that has been
provided for its use. When I hung up, I tried the "10333" sequence
again, only this time I used my AT&T calling card number. This
resulted in, "Thank you for calling on Sprint", and my call went
through.

Is there now some question why AT&T remains the *real* long distance
company? Why can't Sprint accept its own cards on "standard" 0+
dialing, instead of requiring FO(O)N card victims to dial 35 digits
with that silly 800 number that is reminiscent of the old FGA days?

And a question for those who feel that AT&T was a stinker for not
giving out 10XXX codes during its outage: when was the last time you
saw an MCI or Sprint commercial that mentioned "10XXX"? Answer: Never.
They don't want you to know how easy it is to try them out WITHOUT
having to sign up for dial "1" service. Don't blame AT&T when its
competitors are doing a most effective job of shooting themselves in
the foot.

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

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: NCN Communications, INC
Date: 20 Jan 90 05:23:05 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


 I have a friend that just got involved with National Communications
Network, a mult-level marketing organzation selling Long Distence
Service.  They have the typicl MLM idea of everyone you know is a
potential customer.  Anyway, the claim that AT&T provides the service
and they do the billing.  By calling 1-800-525-3413 you get a special
recording that says they are a customer of AT&T and by AT&T Tarrif
they may resell AT&T services.

They claim to be cheaper then AT&T ReachOut Plan and MCI Prime Time,
but do not offer any rate examples. (This is with a quick payment
discount of 10-17.5 percent).  All they offer is a chart of savings vs.
ATT & US Sprint and MCI by percent.  The other strange thing is that
their Travel Card service is through MCI (They give the MCI 950-1022
access number). I believe their office number to be 1-800-442-8600 but
there was no answer this evening.

I would like to find the Carrier Acess Code (PIC) for them as their
signup requires them as a primary. Is there any other info you might
have regarding them or their subsidiary ATF?.


Thanks,
Bill Huttig
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe?
Date: 20 Jan 90 10:52:58 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> I'm concerned that there must be major drawbacks to a deal that sounds
> so good.  Can anyone comment on this?

Why abandon AT&T? Simply dial "10222" + your international access and
number and give it a test drive. If MCI requires that the billing be
handled by them rather than telco, set up a secondary account with
them. A secondary account is exactly like a "dial 1" account (the
billing records look identical) except that the CO does not route
calls to the secondary carrier by default. You consciously direct them
there with "10XXX".

My default has always been AT&T, but if I use "10222" or "10333", the
bill for the call comes from MCI or Sprint directly, just as if I was
one of their "dial 1" customers, with discounts and all. This is one
of the reasons the LD carriers don't make any kind of a big deal about
the customer's ability to dial "10XXX": they don't want the public to
know that callers can casually use LD services without having to be
"locked in" as a "dial 1" customer.

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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 20 Jan 90 13:41:12 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
 ...
>> Well, I saw on 20/20 or some show like that said that the technology to stop
>> Caller ID was here.  I was wondering if anyone knew what they were talking
>> about...

>> [Moderator's Note: Well, it is news to me. Does anyone know of a way
>> to legally (via some application of the tariff) avoid ID'ing
>> themselves?  I guess there are some places where possibly the more
>> sensitive customers may be exempted, i.e. the 'women's shelter'
>> example.  PT]

I think the technology under discussion is the optional CO feature,
not offered to the public in NJ, but under consideration in CA,
allowing the calling party to suppress ID on a call-by-call basis.

> Apparently, the system as PacBell intends to install it will permit a
> caller to request ID-hiding by dialing a specific prefix-sequence
> (*67, I believe, but I could well be wrong).

> My impression is that you'll have to pay a monthly charge to receive
> the caller-ID information on incoming calls, but that you will not
> need to pay a fee to block the outbound ID if you use the prefix-code
> on an individual call.

I don't know how much you'll have to pay in CA for receiving
Caller-ID, but in NJ we pay about $6.00 per month per line.  I'd be a
bit upset if I had to pay for Caller-ID and then found that any
subscriber who wanted to could suppress the service I'm paying for
when he/she calls me.  Can I get credit applied against next month's
Caller-ID surcharge for each ID-Suppressed call I received?  (Just
kidding, of course.  I already know the answer to this one, but I
thought I'd raise the question anyway...)


Dave Levenson            Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900
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: Faxnet Info Request
Date: 20 Jan 90 19:56:02 GMT
Organization: very little


I have been using the FAX feature from MCI Mail to send messages to a
fax machine at CODETEL in the Dominican Republic.  CODETEL is the
local GTE telco there.

One reason that I like to use MCI Mail is that when I use my regular
fax machine, I often get "all circuits busy" or just no ringing.  It
is also easier to take a file and send it to MCI from my desk, rather
than print it out and walk it to the fax machine.

I have been getting rejections from MCI Mail that say that the fax
transmission could not be delivered because of "voice answer".  When I
call the machine on the phone, there is never a voice answer, but
there is often the "all circuits busy" message.  I believe that MCI
Mail should be able to tell the difference, since the all circuits
busy message should not return answer supervision.

I have contacted MCI Mail HELP, but they don't seem to understand what
I am talking about.  They say if the system hears voice, it assumes it
has reached a non-fax number, and dumps an error message back into my
mailbox.  Multiple messages questioning the inability to detect the
difference between network messages and "hola!"  have drawn the same
canned message from them.

Any ideas?  If MCI Mail cannot tell the difference, what happens if I
use MCI long distance telephone service to call internationally?


Tad Cook
[e-mail]
MCI Mail: 328-8544

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #39
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sun Jan 21 12:00:59 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA15406; Sun, 21 Jan 90 12:00:51 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09363;
          21 Jan 90 10:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04839;
          21 Jan 90 9:33 CST
Date:     Sun, 21 Jan 90 9:03:18 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #40
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Jan 90 09:00:24 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Thomas Narten)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (David Tamkin)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Steve Elias)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Higdon)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (D. Smallberg)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Levine)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Kelly Goen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 09:45:35 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>


First, I resent the subject of this message.  I don't personally know
these folks, and considering the charges, "net friends" hardly seems
an appropriate choice of words.  If convicted, the consequences will
hardly be "friendly" to the networking community.

Second, the "bogus"ness of the charges are for the courts to decide,
not us.  Mr. Gilmore's interpretation of the charges cetainly don't
match what I've read in the papers, and quite frankly, I have a lot of
respect for the New York Times.  Overall, they've been right on the
mark in this area before.  I haven't forgotten how quickly they got to
the bottom of the Worm Incident of 1988.  The name "Robert Morris Jr."
appeared on the front page of their paper before it began circulating
around the net.

Third, the charges are serious; among other things, Mr. Poulsen is
charged with obtaining "classified flight orders for a military
exercise in Ft.  Bragg."  This is apparently the first time that
classified information has been obtained by computer trespassers
(though its not clear exactly how the information was obtained).
Regardless of what Mr. Poulsen's intentions were, or the relevence of
the actual information, if the information is (or was at the time)
classified, someone has some explaining to do.  Mr. Paulsen is also
charged with "burglarizing the offices of Pacbell to obtain access
codes and equipment, much if which he stored in an apartment shared
with Mr.  Lotter. He also obtained a computer printout with telephone
numbers and other details related to an inquiry by the FBI into
Ferdinand E.  Marcos, the late Philippine President, and his
associates." Hardly kid stuff.

Finally, Mr. Paulson is apparently no newcomer to this "hacking" game.
The NYT reports that he "has a history as a 'hacker', who began
trespassing in university and Government computers as a teen-ager
using the assumed name Dark Dante, according to a profile in
California magazine in 1984".  Anyone who thinks that such trespassing
is harmless fun & games might want to ask Mr. Morris if his current
legal troubles bolster that view.

The Moderator wrote:

>This is something that has confused many people in the past: do you,
>or don't you have to produce an SSN on the request of a merchant?  NO,
>YOU DO NOT!  But....the merchant is NOT obliged to do business with
>you on any basis other than CASH.

It turns out that for major credit cards (like Visa), a merchant can't
refuse your card if you don't want to give your phone number, SSN,
etc.  The merchant/Visa contract specifies that the merchant cannot
refuse a card request if the customer won't give personal information.
I believe that the only exception to this rule is if the merchant
can't verify (electronically) that the customer is authorized to make
the purchase of the desired amount.

Indeed, a New York state law went into effect this month that
prohibits merchants from requesting such information.  It seems that
few persons (myself incuded) were aware of the above fact.


Thomas Narten

[Moderator's Note: You cloud the issue a little in your last
paragraph. For the major cards, with *already assigned credit limits*, the
merchant is guarenteed his money. Therefore he need not make these inquiries
since he is not holding the paper. But if you ask a merchant for an
open account, or check-cashing privileges, then *if he is expected to
carry the paper* he is entitled to background information on you, i.e.
a credit report.    PT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged with Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 11:28:38 CST


Patrick Townson responded to John Gilmore in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10,
Issue 37:

| >and some fantasies about innocent stuff they found in searching
| >an apartment.
|
| Oh! And, uh, if its not asking too much, WHO authorized the searching
| of the apartment? If this is shown to be factual, and if no one can be
| found who authorized the 'search', then the 'search' becomes a
| burglary...this time of a physical place rather than an electronic
| one.
|
| But perhaps I mis-read this.

Yes, Mr. Townson, perhaps you did.

| Perhaps the defendants had been invited by someone to come
| to their home and search through their possessions.

No, Pat, that isn't the misreading I meant.

When I read John Gilmore's submission I took that phrase to mean "and
some fantasies [in the minds of the prosecutors] about innocent stuff
[the state] found in searching [a defendant's] apartment."  You took
it to mean stuff the defendants stand accused of finding in some other
party's apartment.  I have no idea how you came up with that
interpretation from Gilmore's pronouns.

Note that the indictments did not include burglary, robbery, breaking
and entering, nor anything involving the theft of personalty.
*Possession* of suspect or illegal items was listed, but not the theft
thereof.

| Oh! And, uh, if its not asking too much, WHO authorized the searching
| of the apartment?

Oh, I imagine the state went to the trouble of issuing itself a warrant.

| If this is shown to be factual, and if no one can be found who authorized
| the 'search', then the 'search' becomes a burglary...this time of a
| physical place rather than an electronic one.

Well, yes, if the state went through a defendant's apartment without a
search warrant and took property, you could term it burglary.

Pat, I really believe that the prosecutors have all the zeal they
need.  You disagree with John's opinion that the charges are
insignificant acts which should be perfectly legal, but please stick
to the point and don't heap in unarguably illegal acts that aren't
even on the state's mind.  The defendants aren't under suspicion of
rape, murder, or solicitation for prostitution either.  Let's discuss
the indictments that were actually handed down and not invent any new
ones.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 13:34:54 -0500
From: [e-mail]


I hope it turns out that the San Jose Three are legit.  The
circumstantial evidence in the indictment looks damned strong against
these guys, though.  It doesn't look good for them.

Responsibility goes hand in hand with computer/telecom expertise.
Keep on keeping on, everyone.  Stay *LEGIT*.


; Steve Elias
; work phone:  [phone] ;   email:  [e-mail] , [e-mail]
; voice mail:  617 932 5598


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: 20 Jan 90 12:38:42 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John Gilmore <[e-mail]> writes:

> [details about the arrest of alleged phone phreaks and computer
> hackers]
> Sounds like most modern laws -- broad enough to
> charge anybody who they want to "get"...and broad enough to be tacked
> on to any other charge to give them more to plea bargain with.  And
> the ones on use of an incorrect SS# "with intent to deceive"!  Last I
> heard, it was not illegal to deceive (lie to) private companies about
> your SS#, though it is illegal to defraud (cheat) them.  Welcome to
> New Amerika!

When I first read Mr. Gilmore's post, I was incensed. How dare these
Keystone Kops run around and harrass fellow techno-nerds. But then
some thoughts began to emerge. And here they are:

I have always considered myself to be more than casually interested in
the telephone. To this end, I have cultivated contacts in the telco,
have owned and operated an equipment vending company, done consulting
work for commercial telecommunications customers, been active on
various telecom forums, testified and submitted briefs to the PUC, am
associated with a firm that designs and produces advanced
telecommunications equipment, and have, in general, taken an active
interest in the state of telephony.

I have in my possession a lot of telephone equipment (telephone line
test sets, MF/DTMF analyzers, PBX equipment, computers, etc.) that
could be used for illegal activies. Such equipment was obtained
legitimately and is used in my profession and trade. I have accounts
with a number of LD companies, have ten residential phone lines with
many modems. I could go on and on. But the point is that *never* have
I been disturbed by the local gendarmarie. It occurred to me that
there was a message here.

The key difference: all accounts are in my legal name, with all credit
information correct and up-to-date. I have been completely above-board
with the telco. I do not hide behind psuedonyms, fake SSN numbers, or
engage in federal, state, or local law violations. My home computer
logs into and is called by fifteen other computers, including
Pac*Bell's own VAX many times every day. Now THIS is normal, legal
activity. I am not intercepting conversations, trying to hack my way
into forbidden areas of private or public computer systems, or
masquerading behind clever psuedonyms on sinister-sounding sites. At
some point, everyone grows up.

With the TELECOM Moderator, I agree that the court will have to decide
the guilt or innocence of the defendants. If they are indeed innocent,
then you will find me at the front of the activist line. I know how I
would feel over harrassment by law enforcement for simply having the
artifacts of my trade and hobby. Furthermore, I personally know of
people who have had their computer equipment literally seized in a
raid of their residence when they had committed no violations at all.
It took them a year to regain their property, all the while being told
that they had better not press the issue because of "charges" that
*could* be filed against them. This, of course, is iniquitous.

But, if the defendants are quilty of law violations, you can write off
my support. Laws against phreaking and hacking were written to protect
everyone, not just the government. If someone hacked his way into my
computer, causing me loss or inconvenience, I would demand that the
book be thrown at him.

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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 15:32:40 PST
From: David A Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes


The name Kevin Poulsen is not unfamiliar to some of us at UCLA, since
in 1983 (or '84?), he and Ronald Austin apparently cracked some
accounts with trivial passwords on some machines at UCLA.  [I say
"apparently" for legalistic reasons.  Austin was convicted; Poulsen
was not prosecuted, but with Austin on one stolen account addressing
his friend "Kev" in North Hollywood on another, along with other
evidence, most people here involved with the case are certain of
Poulsen's involvement.]  The crackers of our system did destroy some
files of one of our grad students.

The prosecution of Austin was sensationalized, but the key charges
were justified.  Austin's people tried to project a "computer genius,
good kid, meant no harm" image, but he was convicted and got three (?)
years' probation.  No one here at UCLA would dignify him with the
appellation "genius".  I was never clear on why Poulsen was not
prosecuted, since there seemed to be enough evidence to convict him,
too.

Since Austin also cracked some computers at Stanford, making news in
the S.F.  Bay area, I wonder if SRI knew of Poulsen's apparent
involvement in the case when they hired him?


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

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

Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 20 Jan 90 23:56:29 EST (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick Townson)
writes:

>>  1 count possession of access-device making equipment (including a
>>  POS terminal for verifying credit card limits!), 18 USC 1029(a)(4), (b)(3)

A credit card verification terminal is no more than a microcomputer
with a 300 baud modem, if that's illegal to posess we're all
criminals.  I have programmed PCs to talk the simple ASCII protocol
POS terminals use and submitted literally millions of dollars of
entirely legitimate charges.  It would be more interesting to hear if
they had private access codes, though the merchant's acccount number
used by the terminal is the same one printed on their paper slips, the
security on them is terrible.


Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl

PS: It's spelled "determine."

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

From: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: 20 Jan 90 13:44:39 GMT
Reply-To: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


 Without answering specific points in this posting, I will make one comment
at this time and others at later times as appropriate.

It is quite apparent that Patrick is totally unfamiliar with local (i.e.
Santa Clara County) law enforcement procedures. Well sir, I can assure you
that trumped up charges and false imprisonment are the NORM in this county
with full cooperation along with illegal acts by the FBI.
IN ADDITION it is quite normal given the population in Silicon
Valley to have MANY of the items they were indicted for.

So before you get on your HIGH horse Mr. net.gestapo, I suggest YOU
come out to this area and experience the reality for yourself THEN and
only then will you be familiar with what goes on out here and
qualified to comment on John Gilmores posting. Until then your reply
to John is just so much HOT air by another self-annointed net.lawyer
By the way do you in fact practice or study law???? Somehow I don't
think so!! BTW warrants are rarely obtained out here by law
enforcement prior to monitoring telephone conversations.

You want to espouse your opinion of what happened fine... I suggest
you come out here and experience the reality.

I live in Santa Clara County and have been innocently on the wrong end
of the law myself. After 3 years the JUDGE threw the charges out of
court. My story is by no means unique.

As far as access codes go how many of the readers of this newsgroup
have unknowingly committed exactly that same crime of simple
unauthorized possession of same?

Cheers,
     kelly

Disclaimer: I speak only for myself and release my employers from any
liability for the content of my postings. I am solely responsible for
the content of same!!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #40
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sun Jan 21 13:06:31 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA18208; Sun, 21 Jan 90 13:06:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30276;
          21 Jan 90 11:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09363;
          21 Jan 90 10:38 CST
Date:     Sun, 21 Jan 90 9:36:54 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #41
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Jan 90 09:35:58 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: The AT&T Problem (Steve Bellovin)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (A Reader)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (Thomas Narten)
    Re: Who's Using Whom? (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid (Nicholas J. Simicich)
    Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now? (W. L. "Lance" Ware)
    Disabling Extensions for Modem Use (Stephen Fleming)
    10XXX - A BOC SECRET (William Degnan)
    MCI Mail promotion (Boston Agency)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 17:11:03 EST


Although I do work for Bell Labs, I don't know anything more about
what the problem was than what has been stated elsewhere, that it was
something in the SS7 code.  However, for an example of how a
single-point failure can take out a network, I suggest that folks read
(or reread) the paper in the January '81 issue of Software Engineering
Notes (the ACM SIGSOFT publication) on an ARPANET outage.  I won't try
to summarize it beyond saying that a hardware failure in one node
resulted in the generation of lots of bogus, but correct-seeming,
routing packets that congested every other IMP.

Mind you, I *don't* know that what happened is anything similar.  It's
just an example of what can happen.


        --Steve Bellovin

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90 03:26:33 EST
From: A Reader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem


[ Note to the moderator!!  I mailed this reply to John and cc'ed
  telecom.  If you decide on using any of this in the digest,
  (I realize it's a bit longish) please remove my name/address before
  redistributing -- I might have to deal with these people again :-) ]

[Moderator's Note: I do not usually like to do this. I am making an
exception and printing your anonymous submission because it is an
interesting article. Please do not ask for this favor again. Ordinarily,
an article to be printed anonymously must have a *very good reason*
for the request.  PT]

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

>Spokespersons for Pac*Bell answer this question by saying that a
>customer should obtain the code from his or her long distance carrier;
>that the telco is not responsible for issuing or revealing these
>codes.  [...]

>During the day of the outage, spokespeople for Pac*Bell were
>interviewed by media. Without mentioning any carriers or codes, they
>emphasized that anyone could, by using a code *obtained from the
>carrier* dial calls through that carrier without having to have that
>carrier as his long distance company. Privately I was told that if
>they had given out specfic codes, that could be construed as
>recommending a carrier which they consider to be the biggest of
>no-nos.

Everyone can agree that the (local) telco is not responsible for
issuing the 10xxx codes; that job is probably done on a national scale
(Bellcore?  FCC?).

However...as for *revealing* the carriers or codes, I will disagree
with your Pac*Bell spokespeople.  Now just exactly where are you to
get the names of the carriers that serve your CO ???  Sure, you can
call a long distance company, inquire as to whether they serve your
area and get the 10xxx code; but which long distance companies do you
call in the first place?

An illustration:

I tend to "gypsy dial" (use 10xxx codes) for several reasons: cost,
line-noise, and (I'll admit it) the delayed billing some carriers are
prone to provide.  I have not made any explicit account arrangements
with any long distance companies -- I use those that permit 10xxx
access up front and will figure out how to bill you later.  One day,
armed with the list of 10xxx codes reposted to Telecom by Dave Esan @
MOSCOM, I set out to chart my "equal access" world.  After trying
10xxx-1-700-555-4343 for a few likely candidates, I realized that this
approach had its drawbacks -- first off, my fingers were getting tired
and second, what if "Fred&Harry's Telco" (10xyz) had some really great
deal but I could only access them if I called and made a billing
arrangement?

Why, I could call my local telco, C & P Telephone, couldn't I?  I mean
it's their switch which passes me out to the wonderful world of equal
access, their programming, and occasionally their billing, they could
help me out...Couldn't they???

I called C&P with two simple (I thought) questions:

    1) What are the names of the long distance companies I
          can reach from (301) 854 ?

     2) What long distance companies do their billing through
       C&P ?

Over the course of three weeks I talked to seven C&P "service" reps or
supervisors, some more than once.  I still do not have the answer to
either question.

A typical exchange:

<Me>  [I ask question 1, going into some depth to hopefully show
       the rep I know what I'm talking about ]

<C&P> "Well, you're in an equal access area.  You can choose whatever
       long distance company you like."

<Me>  [At this point it's obvious the rep is stuck on the primary "1+"
       service selection -- I adapt, go with the flow, try to get the
       info I want by asking what are my "1+" choices, but I get the
       "whatever long distance company you like" parroted back again.
       So I try a new tact: ]

       "What if the company I like doesn't serve my exchange?"

<C&P> "Then you can't choose them."

<Me>  "Right!  That's why I called -- you can help me by telling me
       who I can choose."

<C&P> "You can check your genuine C&P Yellow Pages for the numbers of
       your favorite long distance carriers and give them a call; they
       will be able to tell you if they serve your area."

<Me>  "What if a company doesn't advertise in the genuine C&P Yellow
       Pages, or even (heaven forbid) The One Book?  How can I contact
       them?  There are a quite a few companies out there.

<C&P>  "You can call directory assistance."

<Me>   "What use is directory assistance if don't know what the names are??"

<C&P>  "Well, Sir, directory assistance does require a name.  How do you
        expect us to tell you the number if you don't tell us the name?"

By this point I am sure I've discovered another long-lost member of
Monty Python working at C&P, and try asking for a supervisor.  Or give
up and try some other day.

When I do manage to outlast a hold for a supervisor, the results are the
same.

By trying some other C&P business office numbers, I finally talked to
two C&P employees who knew what I was talking about.  Sort of.

The first acknowledged 10xxx dialing existed, but insisted that I
needed to contact the long distance companies before using their
services.  He wasn't going to answer my question anyway calling the
information "C&P proprietary", and he demanded to know where I got the
10xxx list.  I half expect the C&P "phone police" are hot on his tip
about a subversive "Telecom-Digest".

The second 10xxx cognizant employee was wonderful.  I thought I'd
found the Holy Grail in a company of Monty Python players.  She even
admitted to using 10xxx dialing once to call her daughter when she
couldn't get though on her primary carrier. (She diplomatically
omitted the two companies' names).  She did seem relieved when I told
her I only wanted names, not the 10xxx codes.  She made the effort and
dug up a list of companies that served my CO. It took awhile, but the
time on hold allowed me to consider whether I should send flowers or
not.  Finally she got back on line, list in hand, *but* she was told
she could not simply read it to me. If she read the list in a
particular order, that could be construed as favoring one service over
another.

I said, "OK, I'll pick -- how 'bout alphabetical?"

"No can do", came the reply.  She really wanted to help and almost
sounded 'pained' that she wasn't permitted.

She told me that if I mentioned a company's name, she could tell me if
it was on her list, but she admitted this could take some time and I
still might not get them all since the list contained some not very
well known names.

She thought for a few minutes, said she had an idea, but she'd have to
take it through 'channels'.  She took my number and promised to get
back to me.

An hour and a half later, she called my answering machine and left a
victory message -- she could mail me the list, and *I* could read the
names in any order I wanted!

A storybook ending?  Well, not exactly...the list arrived two days
later with company names and contact numbers, all 6.  Two of the
numbers were no longer in service.  Two long distance companies I
gypsy dial with weren't even listed (they even bill through C&P).  How
many others are missing?  I don't know for sure.  I guess I could
always call directory assistance. :-)

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

Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 08:55:23 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>


>* Single failure points shouldn't be sufficient to drag down the whole
>network.  (From what I read, approximately 44% of calls on AT&T were
>getting intercept or reorder.)  Perhaps the fault appeared in other
>tandems as well?

This misconception is common, but incorrect.  In complex software
systems consisting of many interacting parts, "single failures" can
bring down everything.  One such example was an Arpanet failure
documented in Eric Rosen's article in the Jan '81 SIGSOFT Software
Eng. notes.  A combination hardware/software error in *one* machine
brought down the entire network.


Thomas Narten

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom?
Date: 20 Jan 90 13:21:32 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


fmsystm!macy writes:

> Now, what can we do about this GTE GTD-5 central office I am in that
> falls on its face twice a year...Thank goodness I have FX lines and
> cellphones or we'd be off the map.  Frankly, local CO's are fast
> becoming the weak link in telecom...I've had several major CO failures
> in the area this past year, not to mention cable cuts...

Funny you mention that. The EAX1 in Los Gatos went down AGAIN the
other day (Wed, I think). This happens with such regularity that
Pac*Bell has a special recording that they can put up on the Los Gatos
trunks at a moment's notice. I wish it would say, "Due to General
Telephone incompetence...", but it is just a bit more diplomatic.

I can't recall a Pac*Bell CO failure (other than quake overload) in
the rememberable past, not even my CO. I have been told by parties who
would like to remain anonymous that one of the reasons that Los Gatos
GTE is so unreliable is that there are no on-site people who really
know anything about the equipment. It is a GTE "outpost" and when they
experience trouble, someone has to come up from Santa Monica or
Thousand Jokes.

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

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

From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <bywater!scifi![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid
Date: 21 Jan 90 03:39:09 GMT
Reply-To: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <bywater!scifi![e-mail]>
Organization: Nick Simicich, Peekskill, NY


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

>There is no alternate implication.  The caller dials to Phoenix twice
>and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times.  Clearly AT&T's fantasy
>has the carrier at fault.

I don't know whether or not this is a new version of the commercial,
but I heard an extended version of this commercial today (with the
same old Fiji segment, plus a bunch of others) where the caller
clearly says that he misdialed.  I personally can't figure out how,
but that is what they said.

Also, they spoke about trouble with being on endless hold when dealing
with other companies' customer service departments.  Makes me think
that they had been reading Telecom.....


Nick Simicich --- uunet!bywater!scifi!njs --- [e-mail] (Internet)

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

From: W.L. Ware <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Can I Buy A Caller*ID Box Now?
Date: 19 Jan 90 21:34:12 GMT
Reply-To: W.L. Ware <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


I am looking for a simple caller ID box wthout RS232 (for my parents)
and one with RS232 and preferably a DTMF decorder, so you know who calls
in and where calls are made out to.

Lance

************************************************************************
*W.L.Ware                                             LANCEWARE SYSTEMS*
*WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu                    Value Added reseller*
*WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu                          Mac and IBM Access. *


[Moderator's Note: One you can think about is in the 'Hello Direct' Catalog
currently available. Call them at 1-800-HI-HELLO.   PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use
Date: Sat, 20-Jan-90 05:13:39 PST


I just bought one of the 'Phone Slashers' from DAK to plug into my
modem line so my daughter would no longer knock me off line by picking
up an extension.  No good; I'm sending it back.  You can't just plug
one into your modem's wall jack -- you need to plug one into *every
other phone in the house* to prevent disruptions!  At $10 each and 7
extensions, I'll pass.

Now -- my needs are very simple.  Is a product available (or a simple
circuit that I can cobble together at Radio Shack) so that an off-hook
line in one room disables all phones in all other rooms of the house?

    Stephen Fleming


[Moderator's Note: What you have to do is wire it so the incoming feed
from the outside goes *first* to the phone with the modem; then feed
*everything* -- all other extensions -- back out through the thing you
got from DAK. In other words, all phones have to wired in series -- not
parallell -- behind the 'master' phone, which is the one with the modem.
Maybe someone will write a more detailed, technical explanation and
send it in.    PT]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Jan 90  2:31:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10XXX - A BOC SECRET


In an article of <17 Jan 90 21:44:37 GMT>, [e-mail] (Ole J.
Jacobsen) writes:

 OJ>I have never figured out why the RBOCs have been so unwilling to teach  OJ>the public about 10xxx dialling

For the same reason the AT&T operators kept a tight lip.

You can dial intraLATA calls via 10XXX too. With a few possible
exceptions, the IXC's will carry that traffic at a significant saving
over the BOC rates.


Regards, Bill

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
William Degnan                   | [e-mail] !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
Communications Network Solutions | [e-mail]
P.O. Box 9530, Austin, TX 78766  | voice: 512 323-9383
William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31)
UUCP: ...!rpp386!tqc!39!wdegnan
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 05:38 EST
From: Boston Agency <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Mail Promotion

MCI Mail is currently offering a promotion to attract new business
subscribers.  They are waiving the $25 signup fee and up to $100 of
service in the first month of use.

They are calling it a "test drive" of MCI Mail's ability to send
electronic mail, faxes, laser-printed paper mail, and telex.

MCI Mail also interfaces with the Internet, Compuserve, Dialcom,
Telemail, and other mail services.  Many MCI Mail subscribers receive
the Telecom Digest via their MCI Mail accounts.

I can provide more information if you contact me offline.


[Moderator's Note: This might be a good opportunity to get aquainted
with MCI Mail if you are not already, considering the month of free
service. And, as correspondent notes, they are fully connected with
all other networks, including AT&T Mail. I've had an MCI Mail account
equipped with telex for several years, and find it quite satisfactory. PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #41
*****************************

From @delta.eecs.nwu.edu:[e-mail] Mon Jan 22 14:33:04 1990
Received: from MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA02930; Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:32:59 EST
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25960;
          22 Jan 90 4:17 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29816;
          22 Jan 90 2:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29050;
          22 Jan 90 1:45 CST
Date:     Mon, 22 Jan 90 1:22:59 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #42
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Jan 90 01:22:03 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Legal Status of 900 Charges? (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Junk Phone Calls (Steve Kass)
    Has AT&T Caught the "Sprint" Disease? (John R. Covert)
    Information Needed Ahout POCSAG (Walter Doerr)
    Free DA Using Pay Phones (John Clarke)
    911 and Pay Phones (Jay Maynard)
    Sprint & FON Card (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (John Higdon)
    Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (David Tamkin)
    Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (Steve Kass)
    Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (Evelyn C. Leeper)
    Re: $outhwe$tern Bell (David Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 10:05:04 PST
From: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legal Status of 900 Charges?


Two questions re 900 charges:

1) I make an expensive 900 call, the charge shows up on my local
(PacTel) bill, I pay PacTel a buck or two for the telephone toll part
of the call, but refuse (for whatever reason) to pay the rest.

Can PacTel cut off my _phone_ service for not paying this part of the
bill (which is for services _they_ didn't provide)?

When did I enter into a legal agreement with PacTel allowing for this?

2) I hear only part of a radio ad, or see a printed newspaper ad for a
900 service with the existence of charges being an illegible smear in
a bottom corner (not an unusual situation!).  I dial the number, and
get no initial warning of charges in the call itself.

When is a contract (in the legal sense) created for those services?
Can anyone name any other common situation where a contract for
services can be created without the purchaser knowing it's happening?


[Moderator's Note: No, they cannot cut off your service. You must tell
them specifically what portion of the bill you are refusing to pay,
otherwise your entire payment will be applied as a short payment and
you will become delinqent with them. They will reverse, or chargeback
the uncollectible portion to the information provider. Under the
tariff, the 900 service, or information provider, is entitled to have
your name and address, as well as your phone number. They will bill
you direct.  If you do not pay, you will be placed with a collection
agency, then ultimatly sued. But no, your local telco is out of the
picture once you tell them you will not pay. Some of the 900 services
are quite agressive legally in getting their money however.  And if
they told you on the television what the call would cost, then a
contract exists when you dial the number.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 13:05 EDT
From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." <SKASS@beta>
Subject: Junk Phone Calls


Junk phone call - "Jimmy Barnes Satellite Cruises"

  I get the same recorded junk phone call (advertising cruises) about
once a month. After my December call, I managed to get an address,
then a number, by asking the person who answered at 1-800-837-8989,
the number I was supposed to call in 10 minutes to get my prize (after
being hung up on for asking for an address a couple of times first).
I spoke to someone who seemed to be higher up than just a phone
representative, and asked that my number be removed from their
database.  He said "sure thing."

  Well, I just got my January call.  Same outfit, same recorded
message, same 1-800 number.  The associated address is:

Royal American Holidays
311 University Dr., Suite 305
Coral Springs, FL  33065
(305)-753-8305

  Now is this outfit breaking the law, or should I have followed up my
request to be deleted from the database with a letter and recorded the
latest junk call to have a chance to get on their case (I can't
imagine why it could be illegal anywhere to record a recording)?

  What I'm really asking is for someone in the know to post a list of
appropriate steps to take against this sort of thing.  I don't get too
upset over a random, isolated junk call, but when it's a monthly
affair, continuing despite a request to stop, I get riled.  How about
real, legal steps to take, not just games and gags to play with the
people on the phone (which don't work much for recorded junk calls
anyway)?


Steve Kass [ 2014083614, 2015141187, [e-mail] ]
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Drew University
Madison, NJ  07940

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 12:48:18 -0800
From: "John R. Covert  21-Jan-1990 1544" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Has AT&T Caught the "Sprint" Disease?


Since AT&T had a rate change effective 1 January 1990, I decided to
update my information on their rates.

One of the many advantages I have always felt AT&T had over many of
the other carriers was their ability to quote correct rates quickly
and efficiently.  Something seems to have happened.  The table which
follows was quoted to me by AT&T Customer Service (800 222-0300) and
was verified by calling the number from a different part of the
country:

 Mileage        Day            Evening    Night/Weekend
   1-10        .18    .17    .1206    .1139    .1000    .0975
  11-22        .20    .20    .1407    .1340    .1130    .1100
  23-55        .21    .20    .1541    .1474    .1200    .1200
  56-124    .22    .215    .1541    .1474    .1200    .1200
 125-292    .22    .215    .1541    .1541    .1215    .1215
 293-430    .23    .23    .1580    .1541    .1250    .1225
 431-925    .24    .239    .1582    .1582    .1300    .1260
 926-1910    .25    .25    .1582    .1582    .1325    .1300
1911-3000    .25    .25    .1582    .1582    .1350    .1325
3001-4250    .31    .30    .2077    .2010    .1650    .1600
4251-5750    .33    .32    .2211    .2144    .1750    .1700

However, these rates _do_not_ agree with the rates operators are
quoting.  For example, the 1911-3000 band, according to the operators,
is the same in the daytime, but .18/.18 evening and .14/.15
night/weekend.  These quoted differences are large enough that mere
rounding errors cannot account for the discrepancy.

Does anyone know what's really going on?

/john

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

From: Walter Doerr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About POCSAG
Date: 21 Jan 90 16:27:05 GMT
Organization: infodn, Dueren, West Germany


While reading data sheets on paging receivers, I stumbled across the
term POCSAG which apparently describes the protocol/message format
used in paging applications.

A short explanation of what POCSAG is and what parameters it defines
would be very helpful.

I am especially interested in the following items:

    - What Baud/Bitrate is used in transmitting messages?
    - What modulation scheme is used (FSK, PSK etc.)?
    - What type of errordetection/correction is used (if any)?
    - Are messages sent several times to increase the chance of
      being received correctly?
    - Any other parameters (such as message format, message length etc.)
    - Reliability

Thanks.

-Walter

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

From: Stripper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free DA Using Pay Phones
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Date:     Sun, 21 Jan 90 21:06:06 EST


There was some discussion about free directory assistance from COCOTs
(which I assume are non-Bell operated payphones).  Up here in Bell
Canada territory, directory assistance is $0.60 per number, but it is
free if you call from a payphone.  This has always struck me as being
really dumb!  Of course, the assumption is that the pay phone might
not have a phone book, but then again, maybe I don't either!  So every
time I need to look up a number, I just jog out to the pay phone on
the corner, and do it for free!


John Clarke
[e-mail]

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

From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 and Pay Phones
Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 14:03:29 GMT


I found this one in misc.emerg-services, and thought the COCOT
(Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone) experts on comp.dcom.telecom
could address the issue...

In article <[e-mail]> vanembur@
porthos.rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg) writes:

>Something I've noticed that I find completely ridiculous...

>Some of the third party pay phones that you see around nowadays (in
>particular, Intellicall pay phones) won't let you make 911 calls
>without depositing 20 cents!!!  This, I feel, is completely ridiculous
>and unacceptable.  Anybody know if there are any laws on the books
>relating to this?  (If not, there should be!)

>                     Sincerely,
>                     Bill Van Emburg
>                     Rutgers University
>                     ([e-mail])
>                     (...!rutgers!cs.rutgers.edu!vanembur)

I think this one is covered in the COCOT regs, but am not sure of that.
If it is, these are prime candidates for disconnection...

(Followups to misc.emerg-services, please...)


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 +----------------------------------------
   "There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered." - Richard Sexton

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint & FON Card
Date: Sun, 21-Jan-90 09:11:46 PST


For what it's worth, I've had the same experience as John Higdon has
had with my FON card. That is, Sprints' computers don't seem to
recognize the FON card number as a valid 0+ calling card number.

I had a Sprint Operator say that it should work, but it obviously
didn't.  I had also tried it from a RBOC payphone that was
presubscribed to Sprint with no luck. Haven't had the time to call
Sprint and ask why.


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret
Date: 21 Jan 90 11:40:03 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


William Degnan <[e-mail]> writes:

> You can dial intraLATA calls via 10XXX too. With a few possible
> exceptions, the IXC's will carry that traffic at a significant saving
> over the BOC rates.

Not in Pac*Bell land, you can't. If you dial such a call you get, "It
is not necessary to dial a long distance company access code when
calling this number. Please try your call again."

If Pac*Bell can figure out how to block, so can any other company. If
a BOC doesn't want customers to bypass on intraLATA, it would be
better to block than to try to keep a standard Bellcore spec. a
secret, don't you think?

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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10XXX - a BOC Secret
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 23:36:23 CST


William Degnan wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 41:

| You can dial intraLATA calls via 10XXX too. With a few possible
| exceptions, the IXC's will carry that traffic at a significant saving
| over the BOC rates.

About two months ago I tested that out of curiosity, placing 10XXX
calls through each of four carriers.  AT&T and MCI refused to complete
an intra-LATA call; US Sprint and Telecom*USA were perfectly content
to.  I have accounts with MCI, US Sprint, and Telecom*USA; that may
have made differences in the latter two cases, and my not having an
account with AT&T may have made a difference in the first.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 13:34 EDT
From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." <SKASS@beta>
Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret


  Every now and then a list of access codes for long distance carriers
appears here.  What would be more useful would be an annotated list.
Just knowing the name of a company doesn't tell me much.  What I'd
like to know is whether the carrier is going to accept my call without
my having an account, whether I'll be charged $2.50 a minute or
something more reasonable, whether the carrier has different discount
periods than the big three, and so on.

  I'd be happy with a list of 10 or 20 useful carriers with a
paragraph or two about each.  In fact, I'd be happy to summarize (but
not verify) responses. If you have used an obscure long distance
carrier by dialling 10XXX+, let me know what happened and what else
you know about the company.  If anyone out there already feels able
and willing to post an annotated list, go ahead, and I'll add an
addendum from what I get.


Steve Kass              | Telephone:  [phone]
Math. & Comp. Sci. Dept.| Email:      [e-mail]
Drew University         |
Madison, NJ  07940      | "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container"


[Moderator's Note: You're on. Readers! Send your 10xxx information to
Mr.  Kass. A paragraph should be sufficient, and include their 800
number for information if you have it; also the territory they serve,
etc. Mr. Kass, we will be watching for your annotated list in the near
future.  PT]

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

From: Evelyn C Leeper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret
Date: 22 Jan 90 03:28:18 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I will say right up front that I work for AT&T, so I am perhaps not
totally unbiased, but...

Why do people feel that AT&T has an *obligation* to give out the
access codes for its competitors?  Yes, giving them out may be good PR
(consider the film MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET), but if MCI has an outage,
do people think they should be *required* to explain to their
customers how to access AT&T?

If my video store has just rented its last copy of BATMAN, do you
think they're going to tell me where to find another one elsewhere?
Do you think they're obliged to?

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here.  Maybe the readers of this
group agree with me.  (If so, it's the only group I've found where
that's the case. :-) ) But the media and the government certainly seem
to think AT&T is obliged to direct customers to its competitors.


Evelyn C. Leeper  |  [phone]  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  [e-mail]

If I am not for myself, who is for me?  If I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now, when?  --Hillel

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $outhwe$tern Bell
Date: 22 Jan 90 05:26:00 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jordan Marc
Kossack) writes:

> Why does Southwestern Bell charge so @*!#-ing much to turn on
> telephone service? I could understand the $75- charge if I actually
> needed a phone lines to be installed in my apartment, but this is not
> the case.  I think that $75- is a wee much to charge for some clerical
> type to do the magnetic media work ... uhhh 'paperwork' involved in
> setting up an account.

Well, there's also the craftsman going down to the MDF (Main
Distribution Frame) in your local and moving a couple of jumpers...
at IBEW rates, that's probably $50 right there...

But seriously... this topic's been gone over before in the Digest and
some good points were made.  Like...

(1) The $75 is a flat fee, regardless of the amount of work required
to turn up your service.  (Mandated by the PUC, generally -- can't
have discriminatory pricing...)  Whether it's moving a couple of
jumpers in an MDF or installing a digital loop carrier because there's
not enough copper in the local loop to handle another line or, heaven
forbid, running an entirely new cable because your house is out in the
back of beyond but you're still in the Bell's service area, the charge
is $75.  (Generally.)  In other words, you're subsidizing all those
other clowns out there who need more than $75 worth of work, but the
government says it's OK.

(2) There's actually more than just "moving some magnetic media"
around.  There's a lot of information that has to be created, and
setting up the appropriate records all over the place is a very big
job.  (I don't know how many operations systems are involved in
service provisioning -- setting up a new line and account -- but
Bellcore alone has several hundred people developing and supporting
the software.)

I leave other facts to the diligent readers of the Digest...

(and just 'cause I work for Bellcore doesn't mean I always defend the
Bells... hell, I gotta deal with 'em every day.)

(Oops -- gosh, sorry, Mr. Marano, didn't mean to say anything nasty...)


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #42
*****************************

From @delta.eecs.nwu.edu:[e-mail] Mon Jan 22 14:33:24 1990
Received: from MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA02950; Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:33:17 EST
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27921;
          22 Jan 90 5:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05847;
          22 Jan 90 3:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29816;
          22 Jan 90 2:49 CST
Date:     Mon, 22 Jan 90 2:01:45 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #43
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Jan 90 02:00:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: The AT&T Problem (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (Peter Weiss)
    AT&T 800 Guarantee (Ken Jongsma)
    Panasonic VA-8055 Answering Machine (Mike Morris)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Higdon)
    Should One Switch to MCI For Their $0.59/min Rate to Europe (Chris Seline)
    NEEDED: CCD Camera Supplier & Panasonic Door Phone Information (C. Seline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: Sat, 20-Jan-90 14:26:57 PST


This week's {Business Week} has an interesting article with details on
the AT&T network problem. A few of the high points:

  ...A workhorse 4ESS switch in lower Manhattan malfunctioned and sent out
  trouble messages to others across the country. It recovered quickly and
  sent out a burst of backlogged calls. That burst overwhelmed another
  switch, which needlessly shut itself down because of a bug in its'
  software. The second switch then sent out trouble messages, starting the
  cycle all over. Soon, every switch on the network was affected, coming
  back into service, only to be knocked down by a burst from another
  switch.

  It was nearly midnight before engineers stamped out the problem by sending
  overriding software to the switches... The bug... arrived in software that
  was loaded into the company's long distance switches in early December...
  The bug eluded three layers of testing, lying dormant for over a month
  until a confluence of conditions brought it to life.

I didn't find any technical errors in the article, a refreshing change for
a general interest publication.


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 21 Jan 1990 13:08:12 EST
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas Narten) says:

>This misconception is common, but incorrect.  In complex software
>systems consisting of many interacting parts, "single failures" can
>bring down everything.  One such example was an Arpanet failure
>documented in Eric Rosen's article in the Jan '81 SIGSOFT Software
>Eng. notes.  A combination hardware/software error in *one* machine
>brought down the entire network.

Did I miss something?  Single failures _shouldn't_ bring the network
down as opposed to _couldn't_.

I wonder how software engineering will solve this problem in complex
software/hardware systems such as in the Strategic Defense Initative?


Peter M. Weiss                   |  (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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T 800 Guarantee
Date: Sat, 20-Jan-90 14:06:15 PST


I want to preface this by saying that while I don't use AT&T as my
primary carrier, I don't necessarily think they are as bad as some
think they are. Whatever "bad" means...

Something that does bother me regarding their recent problem though
are the statements by AT&T that problems like the ones recently are
not covered under AT&T's 800 service guaranty. I understand that AT&T
has agreed to compensate its' customers for the outage. What I don't
like is the postscript that implies that AT&T is doing this as a
favor.

I opened up a two page ad in this weeks' Insight with text as follows:

 Did you know that if you're not using AT&T and your 800 service
 goes out, it could be down for hours?  If your 800 calls can't get through
 whether it's because of problems with your telephone equipment, your local
 telephone line, *or the AT&T Network*, AT&T will provide alternate service.

Now, I just play a lawyer on the net :) but that sounds pretty clear
cut to me...

Seems to me they should just admit that this was exactly the type of
event they were guaranteeing against, admit they couldn't meet the
terms of their guarantee and get on with it. Want to bet if there
wasn't an escape clause before, there will be in any new contracts?


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic VA-8055 Answering Machine
Date: 20 Jan 90 22:42:51 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Ken Levitt) writes:
>
>I received a lot of traffic on my customer support posting.  Here is a
>summary of responses.

 ...some stuff deleted...

>Sony, Panasonic and Phone Mate make answering machines that will call
>another number to indicate that a message has come in.

I have a Panasonic VA-8055 Answering machine/speakerphone (The VA-8050
is the same except less speakerphone) that is about 6-8 years old.  It
does have a "page" function which dials the number in memory #10 after
it takes a "valid" message.  There is a major bug in the design to
where it is almost useless, and other problems which reduce the
functionality of the whole machine to not much better than a $59.95
special:

1. It has no way to detect that the destination number is busy, even though
   it can detect reorder (and therefore busy) in incoming call (i.e.
   answering machine mode) .
   Hence the outgoing call to the pager is made once, and that's it.

   My paging system has a bank of incoming lines that answer with a
   beep, at which time you enter the beeper number, then the return number.
   This occasionally results in busy signals, which resulted in my missing
   about 1 on 4 messages.  This made the "page" function worthless, and I
   ended up polling the machine hourly.

   Since there was no way to detect the beep, I ended up programming
   memory # 10 with "5-7-9-0-6-3-1-pause-pause-pause-1-4-6-4-6-0"
   which filled all 16 digits, and left me with a "TONE ONLY" readout
   on the pager as the "call home message".  Reducing the pauses (the
   "*" key on the dial) resulted in errors.

2. The reorder/dial tone hangup is disabled for the first 10 seconds of
   record time.  And there is no howler detect.

   On my exchange (818-447, ESS but make/model unknown to me) if the
   caller hangs up on my outgoing message immediately, by the time it
   starts recording the line is feeding dial tone to the machine.  Four to
   five seconds later it drops to a loud, distorted recording: "We're sorry,
   your call did not go through. Please hang up and try your call again.
   This is a recording".  "Ah-ha" the machine thinks - "voice!" The recording
   plays once, then drops to reorder.  The machine hangs up after 4-5 seconds
   of reorder.  Annoying.  When I had a longer outgoing message that gave an
   alternate number for me and another for my roommate, and the calling party
   hung up immediately, the reorder would time out and feed howler to the
   machine.  The first time this happened it filled up the C-30 tape! (the
   machine was set in VOX mode.  It was switched to 1 minute mode immediately!)

3. The machine has a 2-ring/4-ring mode which delays the answering if you
   any "valid" messages waiting.  Note that an abandoned call can result in
   a "valid" message...  Unfortunately I like to leave the machine on all
   the time, and 4 rings isn't always enough time to get to the phone.
   There is no way it can be changed short of reverse engineering the
   firmware in the microprocessor.

4. The machine is cheaply built.  The handset is thin and cannot be held
   by your shoulder at all, and the dial is a rubber membrane that has
   serious key-bounce problems.  Dialing a sequence like  1-800-
   could easily result in getting 11-8000.  This problem has resulted in
   the unit being used almost exclusively as a regular plain-jane answering
   machine, and occasionally an incoming-call speakerphone.
   The handset has one of the microprocessors in it and cannot be replaced
   with a more useable one (assuming you were willing to sacrifice the dial).

 ...other options deleted...

>After considering all of the above options, the one that seems worth
>doing for me seems to be the PC based voice mail system.  (since I
>have an old PC clone that I'm not using now for anything else.)

 ... requirements deleted...  mentions Watson, "The Complete Answering
Machine", the "Complete PC" and "Big Mouth"

>If anyone has other devices to add to the list or experiences with any
>of the above devices, please send Email.  I will summarize for the
>digest.  Any information about suppliers having good prices on this
>type of equipment would also be greatly appreciated.

I'd be interested also, but another couple of items is important:

1. Will it work behind 1A2 (i.e. A and A1 leads)

2. Can it control a couple of external relays?
   I'd like to be able to switch a couple of things on and off remotely.

3. Can it detect calling party hangup?

4. Can it interface with a caller-ID box or will the company offer a
   caller ID option? (Yeah, I know, unlikely...)

Geez - this message ended up getting long, but I thought I'd let
people know that answering machines that page don't always work like
the sales propaganda says, especially if you don't have a direct dial
pager.  And I'll never get another Panasonic machine, unless I can try
it for a weekend first.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: 21 Jan 90 11:25:57 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Kelly Goen <[e-mail]> writes:

> It is quite apparent that Patrick is totally unfamiliar with local (i.e.
> Santa Clara County) law enforcement procedures. Well sir, I can assure you
> that trumped up charges and false imprisonment are the NORM in this county
> with full cooperation along with illegal acts by the FBI.

Oh, really? I have lived in Santa Clara County for thirty-three years
and I hadn't noticed. If all this happens, then it has missed the
papers, which is interesting since this is just the sort of story that
the Mercury loves to cover. Perhaps you could point me to someone who
was arrested in the south bay in recent history on trumped-up "techie"
charges.

> IN ADDITION it is quite normal given the population in Silicon
> Valley to have MANY of the items they were indicted for.

Agreed. I own virually everything mentioned in the news story--minus
the printouts, lock-picking equipment, and credit verification
terminals. BTW, to the person who couldn't understand why a credit
terminal would be a no-no, please remember that a merchant credit
terminal has his *merchant authorization* imbedded in it. Use of that
terminal would be unauthorized access of a computer (unless you were
the merchant).

Anyway, as mentioned in a recent post, the gendarmarie have yet to
come to my door, yet I make no secret about my vocation or avocation.
It is not just the possesion of the things that are in question; it is
the manner in which they were obtained and the use to which they were
put.

> So before you get on your HIGH horse Mr. net.gestapo, I suggest YOU
> come out to this area and experience the reality for yourself THEN and
> only then will you be familiar with what goes on out here and
> qualified to comment on John Gilmores posting. Until then your reply
> to John is just so much HOT air by another self-annointed net.lawyer

Although Patrick can defend himself, the only conclusion that he seems
to draw is that a court of law would ultimately have to decide guilt
and, in essence, whether the charges were trumped up. What would you
suggest--just drop the charges because all "techies" are persecuted?

> BTW warrants are rarely obtained out here by law
> enforcement prior to monitoring telephone conversations.

Do you have hard evidence of that? I have several friends with the
ACLU and I seriously would like to put them on that one immediately.
As a life-long resident of Santa Clara County, one who is active in
political and civic affairs (if you read the paper, you will notice
that I am a frequent contributor to the editorial page as well), and
one who has a vested interest in maintaining and improving the quality
of life in Silicon Valley, I insist that you substantiate your charges
of constitutional violations in my home town so that action can be
taken immediately against the appropriate agencies and individuals.

> As far as access codes go how many of the readers of this newsgroup
> have unknowingly committed exactly that same crime of simple
> unauthorized possession of same?

What???!!! How do you unknowingly steal and use unauthorized access
codes? Every access code in my possession has a purpose known to me
and is legitimate. I would suspect that would be true of the vast
majority of citizens.

I repeat, if you have evidence that the authorities in this area are
engaged in illegal wiretap activities, are obtaining evidence
improperly, or are manufacturing charges and evidence against people,
I can bring considerable influence to bear to help get to the bottom
of this.

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


[Moderator's Note: In an additional follow-up, Mr. Gilmore has written
me a long, very extensive rebuttal to my rebuttal of his article. It
is undergoing some modifications now (with his cooperation) to edit it
somewhat -- it will take a full Digest to print -- and I hope to
present it later this week, perhaps as a special edition.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 02:06 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: SUMMARY: Should One Switch to MCI for their $0.59/min Rate to Europe


     Last week I posted a question about whether I should switch from
AT&T to MCI so I could take advantage of MCI's new $0.59/minute rate
to Europe.

     The problem is that you have to subscribe to MCI's "Call Europe"
calling plan to take advantage of the $0.59/minute rate.  The monthly
plan surcharge is on $3/month so I assume the surcharge exists merely
to dissuade people from staying with their current carrier and using
MCI solely for European connections.

     I'd like to thank everyone for their responses.  To summarize:
"Set up a secondary account with MCI.  The secondary account is
exactly like a "dial 1" account (the billing records look identical)
except that the CO does not route calls to the secondary carrier by
default.  You consciously direct them there with "10XXX".  In fact,
MCI refers to their secondary accounts as "Ten triple-X" accounts.

Thanks again!

cjs

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 02:11 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NEEDED: CCD Camera Supplier & Panasonic Door Phone Information


I realize these questions are not strictly telecom material, however
since telecom readers as a group seem to have a higher tech IQ than
the other groups I thought this might be the best place to ask.

1) I'm interested in getting a hold of a very small CCD camera (for in
house surveillance security).  Can anyone recommend specific
camera/dealers?  The smaller the camera the better.  Black and white
is OK, color would be better.  The over riding concern is small.

2) So far, the only inexpensive ($299) small CCD I can find is the one
embedded in the Panasonic Doorphone Camera Unit.  I was wondering if
anyone knew much about this unit?  How good a chance do I have a
extracting a workable CCD camera from this unit?  What sort of output
(format) does this unit have (i.e.  can I use it purely as a camera)?

Please respond directly and I will summarize and post.

Thanks in advance!


Christopher Seline
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
bellcore!oberlin!cjs

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #43
*****************************

From [e-mail] Tue Jan 23 15:33:40 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA05843; Tue, 23 Jan 90 15:33:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ak13729; 23 Jan 90 14:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23834;
          23 Jan 90 2:02 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11995;
          23 Jan 90 0:56 CST
Date:     Tue, 23 Jan 90 0:01:40 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #44
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Jan 90 00:00:07 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Chairman: "We Will Start Giving Access Codes" (AT&T via Don H. Kemp)
    Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Andy Russo)
    AT&T Network Topology (David Homon)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (David Lewis)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (Scot E Wilcoxon)
    Residence Prevails (John Higdon)
    New Idea For Defeating Caller*ID (Steve Elias)
    Telephone Line Voltage Question (Lawrence D. Sher)
    Auto Out Calling ([e-mail])
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?) (Tad Cook)
    Re: $outwe$tern Bell Charges (Stanley M. Sutton)
    Re: NEEDED: CCD Camera Supplier & Panasonic Door Phone Info (Gary Sanders)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: AT&T Chairman: "We Will Start Giving Access Codes"
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:06:52 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


How they're not going to screw up if it happens again...

FOR RELEASE MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1990

     NEW YORK -- AT&T today announced that in the unlikely event of
another serious service disruption to its long distance network, AT&T
operators will help customers complete calls by providing access
information for other long distance carriers.

     "AT&T's goal has always been to do whatever it takes to satisfy
our customers," said AT&T Chairman Robert Allen.  "We regret that at
the start of last week's service disruption AT&T operators were unable
to help customers because we did not have adequate procedures in place
for such an unprecedented situation."

     At the same time, AT&T said a formal interconnection arrangement
among competitors covering service disruptions in the industry, as
reported in an Associated Press story over the weekend, is
unrealistic.  However, AT&T's operators now have procedures in place
to help customers during times of serious service problems.

     Regarding operator information during service disruptions, the
company said that if a customer requests the access code for a
specific alternative carrier, its operators will provide the code if
they have this information.  Alternatively, they will refer the
customer to their local telephone directory or local directory
assistance for that carrier's phone number.  If the customer does not
request a specific company, the AT&T operator will provide access
information for one of the other major national carriers.

     The company pointed out that it cannot equip its operators with
the more than 700 access codes now in effect for long distance
companies, so they will be provided with a list of codes for the major
national carriers.  Operators will be instructed to give out these
codes within minutes after the company determines that it has a
serious service problem that cannot be quickly repaired.

     "We're doing everything we can to minimize the possibility of a
service disruption like last week's ever happening again," Allen said.
"But we also want additional options in place to ensure that our
customers will always receive the kind of service they have come to
expect from AT&T."

                         # # # # #

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: Mon, 22 Jan 90 11:26:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret


Whether you can use 10XXX to dial an INTRALATA call varies from one
State to another depending upon the policies of the State PUC.  For
example, I believe California has been opposed to intra-LATA
competition.  They have asked the IECs either to block intra-LATA
calls or ruled that they must effectively give all the profits from
intra-LATA calls to the LEC.  Whether the LEC or IEC blocks intra-LATA
calls, or simply pays the penalty may vary.


Marvin Sirbu

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 17:08:23 EST
From: Andy Russo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


    Do you happen to know why there are several listings for
Sprint?  Are these multiple codes results of mergers or something?


Thanks,
Andy

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

From: David Homon <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Network Topology
Date: 22 Jan 90 12:03:01 GMT
Organization: STC Telecoms, London N11 1HB.


There has been recently much comment relating to the sad demise of the
AT&T trunk network last Monday. However, I am a little alarmed that
most informed comment in this group seems only concerned about the
loss of the 0800 service. Nobody seems to be asking the questions:
How did it happen?  Why was the network topology so design such that
simple upgrade or line fault could cause such devastating
results?  Also what lessons should be learnt with regards to system
proving, system trialling etc?  Informed comments welcome.


Dave Homan

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: 22 Jan 90 05:31:07 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Otto Miller)
writes:

> I understand the concept of 10xxx dialling to get to other carriers,
> *BUT* don't you need an account with the carrier to do this?

Nope.  10XXX is for "casual" use.  The LEC routes the call to the
appropriate IC along with the billing ID (your phone #, generally).
The IC creates the billing record and passes it back to the LEC
sometime downstream (not in real-time), so the LEC can put the phone
bill together with all those nifty separate pages for each IC (at
least that's what NJBell does) (someday when I'm feeling particularly
grouchy I think I'm going to place 1-minute calls on about 200
different IC and see if I really do get a 210-page phone bill...)

(Disclaimer: actual billing arrangements are much more complex and
machiavellian, and I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs...)

> It just
> came to mind (what little I have left), do these 'other' carriers just
> bill the local service provider based on originating phone number?
> For us novices, please explain how!

Uh, that's sort of it. Technically, it's all part of the equal access
signaling, like I explained above.  I don't know enough about billing
and AMA (Automatic Message Accounting) do describe it in any more
detail, tho, and I definitely don't know enough about the legal
machinations that surround carrier access billing and revenue
distribution on intercompany interLATA calls and all that.


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

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

Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Organization: Data Progress, Minneapolis, MN
Date: 21 Jan 90 21:38:32 CST (Sun)
From: Scot E Wilcoxon <[e-mail]>


>... Pac*Bell ...
>emphasized that anyone could, by using a code *obtained from the
>carrier* dial calls through that carrier ...

If your call to the carrier won't go through then you can't get the code.


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: Residence Prevails
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 22 Jan 90 11:23:11 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


A friend of mine runs a free voice BBS out of his home. It has at
least eight lines and callers can talk in groups, one-on-one, leave
messages on a bulletin board or in private mail boxes. Being a
gadgeteer, he does this strictly as a hobby and for personal
amusement.

The other day, he got the dreaded letter from Pac*Bell, "It has come
to our attention that your residential phone numbers may be being used
as a business..." Conveniently, the applicable tariff was enclosed. My
friend appointed me as spokesperson, so I made the call this morning.
I am fully aware of the flap going on with SWB, and I had to summon it
up to prepare for what I was sure to be an unpleasant conversation.

After establishing my authority to speak on my friend's behalf, I
explained to the gentleman at Pac*Bell the purpose and intent of the
voice BBS. He said, "Oh, say no more. I've done that sort of thing
myself." He noted "personal BBS" on the file and that was that. He
also told me that the reason the service came into question in the
first place was that some irate person complained that "his daughter
had left her phone number on this thing and was getting a lot of
calls."  The possibility of a business-oriented venture was something
they were obligated to investigate.

The man from Pac*Bell chuckled and said, "Well, what would he expect?"
He then indicated that if the complaitant called in again, he would be
advised to have more control over his daughter leaving the family
phone number posted in public places. All in all, it was a most
satisfactory conversation, and my friend can continue his hobby at
residential rates.

BTW, the CPUC tariff very clearly defines a personal BBS as qualifying
for residental class of service. Apparently Pac*Bell has no problem
with that.

SWB customers: read it and weep!

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

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

Subject: New Idea For Defeating Caller*ID
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 13:55:10 -0500
From: [e-mail]


I think I've got a solution for those who don't want to have their
phone number displayed to caller*id users.  The solution will require
a new sort of answering service -- a "3 way call" distributor.

The paranoid caller could call someone with "3 way calling", that
person could then dial the number that paranoid caller wanted to
reach, and then set the receiver down, or otherwise put the call on
"hold".  Paranoid caller and his intended callee would then be
connected, but the callee would see the third party's phone number on
his Caller*ID box rather than the number of the paranoid caller.  (Of
course, the paranoid caller would have to "trust" the person with "3
way calling" not to divulge his phone number...)


; Steve Elias
; work phone:  [phone] ;   email:  [e-mail] , [e-mail]
; voice mail:  617 932 5598


[Moderator's Note: It sounds like a good idea. I think services like
this will become as popular as remail services are today, for folks
who want to have a 'blind number' just as they use remails for the
'blind address'.  Anyone in New Jersey thinking about starting one?  PT]

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

From: "Lawrence D. Sher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Line Voltage Question
Date: 22 Jan 90 15:14:04 GMT
Reply-To: "Lawrence D. Sher" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA


I have three telephone lines coming into my house.  The patch block for each
looks like
       -------------------
      | O              O  |
      |                   |
      |       O          |
         -------------------
        "A"    "G"    "B"    (which I have named the three terminals)

For each, the center terminal is locally grounded.  The incoming
two-wire line attaches to A and B.  Because I have a new electronic
thing that misbehaves on one (only) of the 3 lines, I was led to
measure the voltages (using a Radio Shack analog VOM).  What I found
(all voltages expressed with respect to G):

     Line 1 or 2:  A -50v DC
               A  110v AC
               B is 0v AC or DC
     Line 3 (which the electronic thing thinks is always ringing):
               A -75v DC
               A 170v AC
               B is 0v AC or DC

Does anyone understand this?  Why am I seeing such big AC voltages --
is it the meter?  None of the lines was ringing when I made these
measurements.  On lines 1 and 3, I had taken the precaution of
disconnecting all local equipment.

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

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 90 22:11:38 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Auto Out Calling


I'm looking for information on equipment that will automatically dial
and leave a message for political calls to action.  It must run on a
IBM clone.  I have seen information from Talking Technologies called
Big Mouth.  I would be interested any other such equipment that can
work from a data base of 50 to 3000 phone numbers.

I'm also interested in information about sources that will update
existing addresses with current phone numbers.


Thanks,
CRL

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives (or does it?)
Date: 22 Jan 90 08:24:36 GMT
Organization: very little


I wanted to follow up on my previous postings about being unable to
use 908 NPA from Redmond (GTE) and Seattle (U S West).

It is working fine now, and I have had no problems using 908.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (Stanley M. Sutton)
Subject: Re: $outhwe$tern Bell Charges
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stanley M. Sutton)
Organization: Ferranti ICC/Hardware Engineering/Hardware Design
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 15:30:33 GMT


When I had my second line installed last year, the charge from SWB was
$65 per quarter hour to install everything up to the telephone plug.
However, there was a minimum quarter hour billing.  If you did the
house wiring yourself, it was the minimum charge.  If you wanted it
installed through the attic with a wall drop, they usually quoted
about an hour and a half (and also suggested it would be much less
expensive to get a contractor).


Stanley M. Sutton, Hardware Design, Ferranti International Controls Corp.
uunet.uu.net!ficc!sms, [e-mail], bigtex!texbell!sugar!sms, (C) 1989
There's no sense being exact about something if you don't even know what
you're talking about... John von Neumann


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

From: [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders)
Subject: Re: NEEDED: CCD Camera Supplier & Panasonic Door Phone Information
Date: 22 Jan 90 20:48:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 43, message 7 of 7
>1) I'm interested in getting a hold of a very small CCD camera (for in
>house surveillance security).  Can anyone recommend specific
>camera/dealers?  The smaller the camera the better.  Black and white
>is OK, color would be better.  The over riding concern is small.


DAK (you know the guy with the best job in the world) has CCD camera
and monvitor for ~$180. The camera puts out nts video.  I purchaced
one over xmas and played with it. It does need a lot of light to work.
in the daylight, outside it worked ok, but inside with room light it
was almost unusable. You might want to look into this unit. DAK has a
moneyback garantee so your not out anything.  The unit is small and
can be held in your hand.

Hope this helps.


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #44
*****************************

From [e-mail] Tue Jan 23 04:43:12 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA08795; Tue, 23 Jan 90 04:42:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12075;
          23 Jan 90 3:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23834;
          23 Jan 90 2:02 CST
Date:     Tue, 23 Jan 90 1:03:32 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #45
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Jan 90 01:02:20 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Find America (Will Martin)
    Globecom 90, What's The Deadline? (Anthony Lee)
    Telenet Rates to Overseas (Hank Nussbacher)
    TYMNET/MCIMail (Pushpendra Mohta)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (John Owens)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (John Bruner)
    Re: That Which is Colored Between Red & Green and Like Leaves (Lang Zerner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:57:39 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  AT&T Find America


The following was in the Business section of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
for Jan. 15, 1990. (Didn't get a chance to type it in until today.)

NEW SERVICE TO REPLACE OPERATOR WITH COMPUTER

By Jerri Stroud of the Post-Dispatch staff

Starting next month, AT&T plans to let businesses get directory
assistance information by computer rather than by calling operators.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will be the first local telephone
company to cooperate with AT&T in the new service, called AT&T Find
America.

If the FCC approves the service, it could start Feb. 1 in SW Bell's
territory, a SW Bell spokesman said. Businesses who subscribe to the
service would have access to more than 15 million listings in
Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, including listings
for customers of independent telephone companies.

What the businesses will see on their computers is the same thing
directory assistance operators see: a screen full of names, addresses,
and telephone numbers. Residential, business, and government listings
will be available, except for unpublished or unlisted numbers.

Bruce Reid, an AT&T spokesman in New Jersey, aid the service will
allow companies to get directory information faster than by dialing a
directory assistance operator. "It now takes 36 seconds to get a
number from directory assistance," said Reid. Getting the information
electronically will take 3.6 seconds. [I assume this means AFTER you
dial up, make the connection, login, etc. -WM]

"It saves the customer a lot of time," said Coral D. Smith, a SW Bell
manager familiar with the service. She said the service will probably
have little impact on customers' use of directory assistance.

Smith said the directory service would be of interest to government
agencies, collection bureaus, hospitals, credit agencies and
telemarketing firms. [What a lovely bunch of potential customers!
Aside from hospitals, we'd all be better off if the organizations
listed lost their telephone service entirely, as opposed to getting
more services tailored especially to their nefarious desires... :-) -WM]
Customers could use the information to update mailing lists, verify
credit applications, and reach customers who have moved.

Businesses will pay plenty to get the information by computer. The
service costs $500 per month plus $100 for a password for each of the
company's locations. Companies also will pay $100 each time they
change a password. [Whatever this is, it doesn't sound UNIX-based.
However, I can see being charged to change a password opens the door
to hackers and surreptitiously-traded passwords, because it
discourages companies from changing them as frequently as they should.
I can also see these high rates encouraging a company to share the use
of one password among a lot of employees; I wonder what controls the
telco has to force this "separate password for each location"
restriction? -WM]

AT&T will charge 35 cents for each screen full of information plus $22
an hour to transmit the information. A screen contains up to 13
listings. [Wow! What prices! People who think *this* way certainly
cannot understand free BBS's and maybe *that* is one reason why SW
Bell has been coming down so hard on BBS's, assuming they are
businesses! -WM]

But AT&T has a special introductory offer. Companies that sign up by
April 16 will get the first password free. The first monthly charge
also will be waived, if that month ends by April 30. Customers who
sign up in April will pay no monthly charges for the rest of that
month. [At those costs per screen for the data, they're not giving up
much! :-) -WM]

AT&T expects to sign agreements soon that will allow access to
listings at the other six regional Bell telephone companies and
possibly for telephone customers in other nations. AT&T would offer
nationwide listings as one package, said James Crackel, an AT&T
spokesman here.

AT&T asked the FCC for permission to offer the service in a filing
Dec.  4. A comment period on the filing ends at midnight Wednesday [17
Jan.].  The company will begin selling the service Thursday if there
are no objections to the offering.

Southwestern Bell also will offer access to its directory information
to other long-distance companies and companies with private telephone
networks for resale to their customers, said Smith. SW Bell calls its
service DirectLine Custom.

***End of item***

I wouldn't be quite so sarcastic about this if I thought the
ridiculous rates would help to reduce *my* personal phone bill, but I
doubt they will do anything except pay for more waste and luxury at
the local SW Bell HQ Building or for AT&T's equivalents.


Regards, Will

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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline?
Date: 22 Jan 90 10:27:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Could someone please post the details regarding Globecom 90 ?
Submission deadline, where it is going to be held etc.


Thanks in advance

Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor)
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651
Internet: [e-mail]        +(61)-7-377-4139 (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 18:26:39 O
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telenet Rates to Overseas


Can anyone supply me with the current rates in dollars for Telenet use
from the USA and Canada to Europe and the Middle East?  2400 baud
dial-up rates for connect time per hour and per kilosegment are what I
need.

Just to thank readers for their help, here is a handy table for your
use (I have other tables comparing other telecommunications services
in Europe such as 64kb/T1 links to the USA, national rates for 64kb
or 2Mb links.  If people ask, I can post them here):

            +-----------------------------------------+
            |  A comparison of X.25 9600 baud rates   |
            |   National, to USA, installation and    |
            |         yearly rental (in ECUs)         |
            |                                         |
            |            Henry Nussbacher             |
            | Israeli InterUniversity Computer Center |
            |             May 12, 1989                |
            +-----------------------------------------+


                +------------------+------------------+---------+--------
                |      NATIONAL    |  TO   U.S.A.     |   ONE   | YEARLY
                |------------------+------------------+  TIME   | RENTAL
                |    per |  per    |   per  |  per    | INSTALL | COSTS
   Country      |   hour |  kilo   |  hour  |  kilo   |  COSTS  |
                |        | segment |        | segment |         |
   -------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+---------+--------
   Austria     *|  1.07  |   1.78  |  8.23  |  8.23   |   549   |  3292
   Belgium     *|   .33  |    .55  |  6.59  |  6.04   |   412   |  2786
   Denmark     *|   .08  |    .77  |  6.14  |  5.76   |   768   |  2559
   Finland     *|   .35  |    .98  |  8.25  |  8.25   |   844   |  1791
   France      *|   .53  |    .95  |  8.68  |  6.22   |   578   |  3334
   Germany     *|   .29  |   1.59  |  4.33  |  6.26   |   192   |  2599
   Iceland      |   .14  |    .43  |  4.57  |  5.07   |   759   |  2030
   Ireland      |   .39  |    .39  | 10.04  |  7.72   |   425   |  3680
   Italy       *|   .32  |   1.42  |  9.17  |  9.17   |   160   |  2987
   Luxemberg    |   .35  |    .58  |  5.54  |  4.62   |   173   |  2771
   Netherlands *|   .64  |   1.06  |  6.90  |  6.82   |   213   |  4346
   Norway       |   .15  |    .79  |  5.35  |  5.09   |  1452   |  2201
   Portugal    *|   .41  |    .52  | 10.14  |  7.36   |   219   |  2065
   Spain       *|   .12  |   3.23  |  6.60  |  9.62   |   192   |  6461
   Sweden      *|   .41  |    .69  |  6.62  |  6.90   |  1104   |  3312
   Switzerland  |   .34  |   1.44  |  8.63  |  8.63   |    49   |  3452
   UK          *|   .40  |    .40  |  7.35  |  7.35   |  1307   |  5391
   -------------+--------+---------+--------+---------+---------+-------
   Europe Avg   |   .37  |   1.03  |  7.24  |  7.01   |   553   |  3239

 Notes:
    1) All rates are in ECUs
    2) These rates are for prime time daytime usage of the X.25 packet
       switching network in each country.
    3) All countries marked with a 'star' (*), provide discounts for
       national traffic during the evening, night and weekends.
       Discounts range from 20%-75%.  Finland is the only country that
       provides discounts also on international traffic.
    4) Source: IOS, Tariffs and Availability of PPSDNs in Europe, Report
       6.1, Sept 1987, Braun & Bauerfeld
    5) These prices include VAT for countries that charge VAT for
       telecommunication services.

[Moderator's Note: Yes, please, send along your other tables.
References such as this are more than welcome in the Digest, but
please try to insure they are up-to-date and as accurate as possible
when you send them in.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 02:17:37 PST
From: Pushpendra Mohta <[e-mail]>
Subject: TYMNET/MCIMail


Hi,

Is it possible to access TYMNET /MCIMail from Internet/Bitnet/Usenet?
Email replies, please.

Thanks
Pushp

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

Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Date: 22 Jan 90 10:59:44 EST (Mon)
From: John Owens <[e-mail]>


> When I hung up, I tried the "10333" sequence again, only this time I
> used my AT&T calling card number. This resulted in, "Thank you for
> calling on Sprint", and my call went through.

> Is there now some question why AT&T remains the *real* long distance
> company?

I wrote a message on this subject a month or so ago....  The number
you used wasn't just your AT&T number, it was your Pac*Bell number.
For 0+ calls from payphones, all the IECs I've tried (including AT&T,
as always) take your BOC card number, and the BOC does the billing.

C&P made a big point about this in literature it sent out recently to
accompany its "new" (fancy graphics) calling cards; their number can
be used from any C&P payphone, regardless of LD carrier.

I'd suspect that one implication of this is that any discount calling
plans, quantity discounts, or MCI "Around Town" calling you have might
not apply to these calls.


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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 14:47:50 CST
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff


John Higdon ([e-mail]) asks

>And a question for those who feel that AT&T was a stinker for not
>giving out 10XXX codes during its outage: when was the last time you
>saw an MCI or Sprint commercial that mentioned "10XXX"? Answer: Never.

I certainly have never seen this.  On the other hand, I've seen a
bunch of advertisements warning me to use 10288 from a payphone to be
certain I'm getting AT&T.

Last week I was visiting my brother in West Lafayette (IN), and I had
occasion to place a collect long-distance call from his home.  I
wasn't too surprised to discover that there was no "ka-bong" when I
dialed 0+NPA+NXX-XXXX -- after all, their home is "served" by GTE.
However, I was surprised that the long-distance operator who came on
the line didn't identify herself.  I didn't realize this during my
first attempt (which failed because the called party wasn't home), but
for my second try I deliberately dialed 10288+0+.  Again, no ID.  I
had to ask "is this AT&T?"  (Yes, it was.)  I'd thought it was AT&T's
policy (in keeping with the above mentioned payphone ads) always to
identify themselves.


John Bruner    Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois
    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: That Which is Colored Between Red & Green and Like Leaves
Date: 22 Jan 90 20:30:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc


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

>We just got some Sun gear in with a big yellow sticker on it
>that says:

>    "Yellow Pages" is a registered trademark in the United Kingdom
>    of British Telecommunications plc. ...
>    Sun will be revising future versions of software and documentation
>    to remove references to "Yellow Pages".

>    Looks like a law suit.  Who filed?  Who cared enough to file?

To the best of my knowledge, the story so far....  As a term of
divestiture, AT&T had to give up certain trademarks such as Touch-Tone
and Yellow Pages.  British Telecom had accelerated its push to
modernize their system, using AT&T's system as a model, and
trademarked the various ex-AT&T marks in the UK.

More recently, Sun's European sales have been increasing a great deal
(50% of total now, I believe).  BT somehow got wind of Sun's use of
their trademark in the UK.  A couple of months ago, BTs lawyers had a
chat with Sun's lawyers.  It didn't go to lawsuit because eventually
Sun agreed to change the name.

>    Did Sun lose?  Concede?  Why did[n't] Sun run into this before?

After considering the impact of a lawsuit, apparently Sun decided it
would cost less to stop using the name.  Rather than keep two editions
of each manual, Sun will be revising all manuals so that they do not
refer to the trademarked term.

Why didn't Sun run into this problem before?  Well, the term is in the
public domain here, and before that was owned by AT&T.  Would AT&T sue
Sun?  I don't know, but it seems to me that it would be
counterproductive, seeing that AT&T has something like a 20% holding
in Sun.

>    What will [Yellow Pages] leaves of a book be called in future
>    versions?  Just YP?  DDDDBS (Dat Dam Distributed DataBase)?

Close.  Sun's lawyers chatted with BT's lawyers about using YP, but
got unenthusiastic response.  Last stable buzzings I've heard say YP
will be positioned as part of the suite of network services including
NFS, and will have a similarly generic name such as NDS (Network
Database Service).


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!"


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #45
*****************************

From @delta.eecs.nwu.edu:[e-mail] Tue Jan 23 13:45:39 1990
Received: from MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA01246; Tue, 23 Jan 90 13:44:59 EST
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14854;
          23 Jan 90 5:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12075;
          23 Jan 90 3:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23834;
          23 Jan 90 2:03 CST
Date:     Tue, 23 Jan 90 1:54:02 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #46
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Jan 90 01:52:32 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (TELECOM Moderator)
    Request For Information on Panasonic Phone Accessory (Jerry Leichter)
    New Telephone Installation Query (Dan)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (David Troup)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (Kelly Goen)
    Re: 900 and 976 Blocking (W. W. Scott)
    Re: Faxnet Info Request (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Dave Horsfall)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 1:22:07 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups


The mudslinging between AT&T and MCI has accelerated again. Now, AT&T
has filed suit (one of several pending?) against MCI charging unfair
and deceptive telemarketing practices in signing up long distance
customers.

Among other charges in the latest action, AT&T claims MCI is moving
AT&T customers to MCI without the customer's consent. AT&T is also
asking the Federal Communications Commission to amend its rules to
protect consumers in their choice of a long-distance company.

"People are being hoodwinked," Merrill Tutton, AT&T Vice President for
Consumer Services said at a press conference recently. "A very
significant number of them (customers who have been switched) have
chosen to come back to AT&T once the truth was known. In fact, a large
number of them have been very irate."

The lawsuit charges that MCI and its telemarketing agent, Pioneer
Teletechnologies, used "misrepresentations of fact to induce AT&T
customers to switch their long-distance service." MCI owns 25 percent
of Pioneer.

AT&T charged that in some cases AT&T customers were told by MCI sales
representatives that AT&T is no longer handling long-distance calls
and in some cases that it had gone or was going out of business.

AT&T said preliminary studies show that from February to November,
1989, between 10-15 percent of monthly conversions of residential
customers to other long-distance companies involved customers who
complained to their local telephone company or AT&T that they had
never been contacted to make the switch, or in some cases had
specifically said they would not switch.....yet found themselves on
MCI.

The lawsuit asks the court to order MCI to stop making false,
misleading or deceptive claims about AT&T; to refrain from switching
AT&T customers to MCI without authorization, and for MCI to help
mitigate damage caused by its actions.

AT&T claims the deceptive practices have resulted in confusion,
inconvenience and expense to consumers, and have cost AT&T tens of
millions of dollars in lost revenue. The suit did not specify the
total amount of compensation AT&T was seeking.

The proposed change in rules at the FCC would require all
long-distance companies to obtain written customer permission before
notifying local telephone companies of a customer selection of
long-distance carrier. This written authorization would have to be
provided on request in the event of a dispute by the customer
regarding who was to handle their calls.

AT&T said they did not plan to sue United Telecommunications, Inc.'s
US Sprint unit at this time, but reserved the option to do so "if the
problem occurs there also."


Patrick Townson


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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 23:41 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Request for Information on Panasonic Phone Accessory


I recently picked up an old Panasonic Easa-phone, model number
KX-T1235D.  (It had been left abandoned in the garbage in an office
about to be re-built.)

 From what I can see, this unit has two functions: It has a 60-number
memory autodialer, and it MAY have a speaker phone.  Instructions for
programming the memory are written on the device, and the rest of what
I've found seems clear.

  a)  Does this device have any other features that I haven't noticed
    yet?

  b)  How do I hook it up?  (This is the interesting question.)  The
    device has a single cord coming out of it, and no jacks.  The
    cord terminates in an 8-pin (RJ-45?) connector.  Inside the
    cord are wires of the following colors:  Gray, orange, black,
    red, green, yellow, blue, brown.  I've opened the device up
    and found that the orange and blue wires are cut short and
    aren't connected; the other six are attached to the printed
    circuit board.

  c)  There are no switches on the device that would indicated that
    it can handle multiple lines, hold, or anything of that sort.

  d)  Any clues as to why this thing was built with this unusual
    jack?  Which lines are likely to be relevant to connecting
    the thing up, will I just have to experiment?

                            -- Jerry

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 01:37:01 EST
From: Dan <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Telephone Installation Query

I'm going to move into an apartment in Queens (in New York City).
There are no phone jacks currently.  We would like two lines that
bounce if the other line is busy. We would also like to get an
answering machine that would answer either/both line(s).

A) Does this kind of service exist from NY Tel, and if so, (roughly)
how much?

B) Is there a way to accomplish this without bothering with NY Tel?
(we are telecom novices)

C) What would we have to do to get the answering machine set up this
way? Is there a specific machine or a special adapter?

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

From: "David C. Troup  -  Skunk Works : 2600hz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: 22 Jan 90 23:21:56 GMT
Reply-To: "David C. Troup  -  Skunk Works : 2600hz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Carroll College Stealth Rock Climbing Club


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David A Smallberg) writes:

>The name Kevin Poulsen is not unfamiliar to some of us at UCLA, since
>in 1983 (or '84?), he and Ronald Austin apparently cracked some
>accounts with trivial passwords on some machines at UCLA.

Also, the public (to my knowledge) was NOT informed that "Kev" and
"Ron" were hacking MILITARY computers through the UCLA connection and
via TELENET. The DA had 4000 (yes, 4000) pages of TELENET logs of these
fellows prior to the actual arrest.

There was quite a bit of information on the DDN (Defense Data Network)
about some site admin looking for info on these hackers (or CRACKERS
if you prefer...)

Just thought you would like to know...


David C. Troup ! SkunkWorks ! 2600 hz           |"Im going to work at an office
       [e-mail]                   | that has no phone, and
    414-524-6809(dorm)7343(work)                | returning home with sandy
The Surf Rat - DC 12 on Neil Pryde and Seatrend | feet."


[Moderator's Note: Later this week in the Digest, as space permits, a
rebuttal by Mr. Gilmore to my comments regarding his original article;
also as space permits, a more detailed look at Kevin Poulsen, the
person; his girlfriend Sean Randol; and the allegations that he tapped
into the Randol family's telephone line and taped all their
conversations without their consent over a two week period two years
ago. These tapes are part of the indictment against him now pending.
Did you know at one time the FBI asked Mr. Poulsen to help *them*, and
he refused?  PT]

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

From: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: 22 Jan 90 06:20:50 GMT
Reply-To: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David A Smallberg) writes:

>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 40, message 5 of 7

>The name Kevin Poulsen is not unfamiliar to some of us at UCLA, since
>in 1983 (or '84?), he and Ronald Austin apparently cracked some
>accounts with trivial passwords on some machines at UCLA.  [I say
>"apparently" for legalistic reasons.  Austin was convicted; Poulsen
>was not prosecuted, but with Austin on one stolen account addressing
>his friend "Kev" in North Hollywood on another, along with other
>evidence, most people here involved with the case are certain of
>Poulsen's involvement.]  The crackers of our system did destroy some
>files of one of our grad students.

>The prosecution of Austin was sensationalized, but the key charges
>were justified.  Austin's people tried to project a "computer genius,
>good kid, meant no harm" image, but he was convicted and got three (?)
>years' probation.  No one here at UCLA would dignify him with the
>appellation "genius".  I was never clear on why Poulsen was not
>prosecuted, since there seemed to be enough evidence to convict him,
>too.

>Since Austin also cracked some computers at Stanford, making news in
>the S.F.  Bay area, I wonder if SRI knew of Poulsen's apparent
>involvement in the case when they hired him?

 Dave, this is indeed interesting to read now that some more facts are
surfacing and MY temper is cooling... IF these individuals are indeed
guily of the offenses mentioned above then they are guilty of one very
major error that of STUPIDITY... by going out and cracking again after
already being caught and having their collective hand slapped...  BTW
I dont condone actions against privately owned computers...  I feel
however that all information held in government computers however
should be freely accessible to citizens...after all WE citizens did
foot the bill for their purchase and programming.....

 But again a jury of their peers will decide the guilt or innocence
and the applicability of the charges against them... the Local news
will be interesting indeed BTW I fully agree with A LOT of John
Gilmore's postings he does seem to have the right attitude at least...


Cheers,

Kelly

Disclaimer:I am not authorized to make representations for MY employers
either overtly or implied...I am fully competant to offer my
own opinions however(and often do!!). I release AMDAHL Corp. from
any legal liability by my postings to the net and in fact accept that
liability myself...

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

From: W W Scott <rruxc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 and 976 Blocking
Date: 22 Jan 90 21:38:06 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Malis) writes:

> In their recent phone bills, New England Telephone included
> information about Information Delivery Service lines, and offering
> free blocking (once you get blocking, you are charged for future
> changes).  I just signed up for their comprehensive blocking; it
> blocks:

Does anyone have any knowledge about how this is implemented (for
example, in the switches, or some adjunct perhaps)?

What about customer capacity?  If everyone in a large metropolitan
area requests this service, will many of them have to be denied
because of a lack of switch capacity?


Wayne Scott

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Faxnet Info Request
Date: 23 Jan 90 03:45:06 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I have been using the FAX feature from MCI Mail to send messages to a
> fax machine at CODETEL in the Dominican Republic.

> I have been getting rejections from MCI Mail that say that the fax
> transmission could not be delivered because of "voice answer".

> Any ideas?  If MCI Mail cannot tell the difference, what happens if I
> use MCI long distance telephone service to call internationally?

For what it's worth, we use the AT&T Mail fax delivery service.
While I have not tried to send to the Dominican Republic, I've sent
fax traffic all over the US without difficulty for about a year now.
Twice in the past year I've gotten a message after about a hour
saying that they're still trying to reach the destination (probably
reaching a busy signal) but the messages always get delivered.


Dave Levenson            Voice: (201 | 908) 647 0900
Westmark, Inc.            Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave


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

From: Dave Horsfall <munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private
Date: 23 Jan 90 00:32:40 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


In article <[e-mail]>,
    [e-mail] (Jim Breen) writes:

| Of course, a ham with a scanner and recorder was listening in, and [...]

| I believe the ham got a bit of a wrist slapping and was told not to do
| it again. No charges were laid.

Excuse me Jim, but it was *NOT* a "ham" (licenced amateur radio
enthusiast).  It was just a listener with a scanner.  I get really
agro when people attribute actions to "hams" merely because a receiver
was involved!

Had it have been an amateur, he would have lost his licence - period.

I daresay there are more non-amateurs with scanners than amateurs...


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel STC Australia,  [e-mail]
[e-mail],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 15:59:18 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance

You write:
> In any case, 7 digits for inter-area is wrong, since you
> have to specify _which_ area code you want.  (NYC has 4, for instance.)

There are some areas which have 7-digit local dialing to 3 area codes.
One is at Hancock, Md. (301-678), which is local to some Md. points
and to: Needmore, Pa. (717-573); Warfordsburg, Pa. (717-294); Berkeley
Springs, W.Va. (304-258).

I think there is another case at Port Jervis, NY (at point where NY,
NJ, and Pa. come together, with local service to those).  And
previously written up in the Digest is the Washington, DC area, where
the days of 7D dialing to 3 area codes are numbered because of prefix
shortage (local calls across NPA lines will become 10 digits).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #46
*****************************

From [e-mail] Wed Jan 24 03:41:36 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA04477; Wed, 24 Jan 90 03:41:31 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26282;
          24 Jan 90 2:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14511;
          24 Jan 90 1:15 CST
Date:     Wed, 24 Jan 90 0:21:17 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #47
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Jan 90 00:20:44 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Morris Found Guilty; Faces Five Years (TELECOM Moderator)
    The AT&T Problem and the Internet Worm Problem (Peter Capek)
    All Info on Gov't. Computers Should Be Public (Wolf Paul)
    ATT Network Outage Explained (Lars J. Poulsen)
    International High-speed Leased Circuit Rates (Hank Nussbacher)
    Computer Supported Telephony Application (Roald Lygre)
    900 and 976 Blocking Questions (W. W. Scott)
    Various Comments (Fred E.J. Linton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 23 Jan 90 23:49:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Morris Found Guilty; Faces Five Years


A jury in Syracuse, NY found Robert T. Morris guilty of federal
computer tampering charges for unleashing a rogue program that
temporarily crippled the Internet in the fall of 1988.

Morris, age 24, faces up to five years in prison, plus a fine of
$250,000. He is the first person brought to trial under the 1986
federal computer computer fraud and abuse law that makes it a felony
to break into a federal computer network. Morris, of Arnold, MD,
testified he wrote the programming code that caused a 'worm' to travel
througout the net, but he said it was an accident. The jury did not
accept his account of the incident. Morris' father said he was
disappointed in the outcome of the trial, but he believed his son had
been treated fairly and given a fair trial.

Imposition of punishment is scheduled for late February in federal court
in Syracuse.


Patrick Townson


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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 21:44:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The AT&T Problem and the Internet Worm Problem


Reading Ken Jongsma's summary of the Business Week summary of AT&T's
problem, it occurs to me that the way in which the error propagated
around the network, including back to nodes which had previously been
hit, sounds a LOT like the way Robert Morris Jr's worm behaved,
reinfecting nodes which had already been infected, with the
concomitant exponential increase in network traffic.  Sounds like the
AT&T one wasn't quite as pronounced (less fanout?), but was very
similar.  Can anyone with more direct knowledge comment on this?

Peter Capek
IBM Research -- Yorktown Heights, NY

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: All Info on Gov't. Computers Should Be Public?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 14:37:38 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


In TELECOM Digest 10:46, Kelly Goen <[e-mail]> writes:

> I dont condone actions against privately owned computers...  I feel
> however that all information held in government computers however
> should be freely accessible to citizens...after all WE citizens did
> foot the bill for their purchase and programming.....

I am afraid I strongly disagree with you. Government computers in many
instances hold information about private individuals, which the gov't
may need (that can be disputed), but which should definitely NOT be
freely accessible to all other citizens.

To mention only a few types of information:

Government computers hold information on my income situation (over at
the IRS), they may hold manufacturers' proprietary information (i.e.
in a summary of competing bids for some purchasing project), they hold
people's educational and health records, etc. -- there is NO WAY that
all of that information should be freely accessible to ALL citizens.


Wolf N. Paul, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
Phone: [43] (2236) 71521-465 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]
UUCP: uunet!tuvie!iiasa!wnp INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT Network Outage Explained
Reply-To: Lars J Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 20:48:44 GMT


An article in the Jan 22 issue of Network World describes the technical
cause of the ATT Network Failure. The following is a summary of this
article, with some additional explanation by me.

The telephone system is hierarchically organized; the local central
office, where the subscriber lines are attached, is a class 5 switch;
the next level up is a class 4 office. The newer class 4 offices are
all equipped with a switch designated as the 4ESS model. All switches
of a particular model normally run identical software, referred to in
telephone parlance as "the Generic" for the particular switch model.

The network contains voice trunks and a separate data network, called
the "Signaling System 7 Net", by which network management
administrative data as well as billing data is transmitted.

The switches keep each other informed about status changes over the
SS7 network. When a switch goes offline, it sends a "going down"
message to its neighbors, so that they can delete it from their
routing tables.  When a switch joins the network, it sends an "OK"
message to indicate that it is available.

During normal operations, the switch software periodically performs
sanity checks, and if certain inconsistencies are found, it takes
itself offline and reboots. The article says a reboot completes in two
seconds.

A new version of the 4ESS generic (identified in the article as
"Generic 44E14 Central Office Switch Software" contained two bugs that
interacted dramatically: (1) On a reboot, it could (sometimes?) send
two "OK" messages, and (2) receiving an "OK" message from an already
up neighbor could (sometimes ?) cause the sanity check to fail, thus
triggering a reboot. It took about 10 minutes for the problem to
cripple the entire network.

Once the problem was identified, the network was restored by reverting
to an older version of the Generic, until a corrected version of the
new code could be distributed.

Users familiar with network troubleshooting will appreciate the
difficulty in locating the failed node, since all nodes in the network
were rippling up and down.


/ Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>    soon to be <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 15:45:45 O
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: International High-speed Leased Circuit Rates


           +-----------------------------------------+
           |    International rates for high speed   |
           |               64kb & 2Mb                |
           |            links to the USA             |
           |     (monthly rental in US dollars)      |
           |                                         |
           |            Henry Nussbacher             |
           | Israeli InterUniversity Computer Center |
           |             May 12, 1989                |
           +-----------------------------------------+


   Country         | 56kb | 1.544Mb | Comments |  Cost in local
                   | 64kb | or 2Mb  |          |    currency
   ----------------+------+---------+----------+-------------------
   France          | 4531 |  45307  | TAT8 T1  |   28000,    280000FF
   UK - Mercury    | 4559 |  50008  | SAT  M1  |    2583,     28333P
   UK - BT         | 5148 |   N/A   | TAT8     |    2917P
   France          | 5501 |  45307  | SAT  T1  |   34000,    280000FF
   UK - BT         | 5810 |  54420  | SAT  M1  |    3292,     30833P
   Switzerland     | 5844 |  58441  | SAT  M1  |    9000,     90000SF
   Netherlands     | 5854 |  57195  | TER  M1  |   12000,    117250DF
   Germany         | 6043 |  55324  | SAT  T1+L|   11180,    102350DM
   Netherlands     | 7560 |  69390  | SAT  M1  |   15500,    142250DF
   Japan           | 9324 |  71383  | SAT  T1+L| 1173000,   8980000Y
   Belgium         | 9449 |  52493  | SAT  M1  |  360000,   2000000BF
   Ireland         | 9600 |   N/A   | SAT      |
   Sweden          |12581 |  99839  | SAT  M1  |   78000,    619000SK
   Italy           |19260 | 128404  | SAT  M1  |25578000, 170520000L
   ----------------+------+---------+----------+
   European Avg    | 7933 |  65626  |          |
   ----------------+------+---------+------------------------------
   Canada          | 4000 |  29761  | only to UK, US, NL, CH, FR
   USA - ITT       | 3950 |  27000  | SAT
   USA - TRT       | 3800 |  28000  | SAT
   USA - FTC       | 3895 |  29925  | SAT
   USA - ATT       | 4500 |  40000  | SAT
   USA - ITT or TRT| 4000 |  40000  | TAT8
   ----------------+------+---------+------------------------------

 Notes:
    1) All rates are rates for connecting to the east coast in the USA.
       Japanese rate is for connecting to West Coast of the USA.
    2) The rates only reflect half of the cost.  The other half is
       the cost for the link from the United States to the stated
       country.  The 2nd part of the table lists costs from
       Canada and USA to European destinations.
    3) All rates are cost per month in US dollars
    4) SAT: Satellite  TAT8: Fiber cable   TER: Terrestial    T1: 1.544Mb
       M1: 2.0Mb       +L: Cost includes additional local national link
    5) Sources: Eurodata Foundation Yearbook 1987-1988,
       Revision of Tariffs, October 1987

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 14:24:45 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Computer Supported Telephony Application


I am a student at the Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH),division
of Computer Science and Telematics in Trondheim, Norway. At present I
am working on my diploma with which the main objective is to evaluate
the concepts of Computer Supported Telephony Application (CSTA) (or
Computer Integrated Telephony(CIT) which is Digital Equipment Corp.'s
name).

CIT is defined as: "The functional integration of end-user applications
with telephone switching."

The idea is to make applications that integrate telephony and
computing without having to buy integrated hardware. This is
accomplished through establishing a link between the computer(s) and
the telephone switch(es).  Switches from several major vendors are
able to communicate with DEC's CIT software. European Computer
Manucaturers Association (ECMA) is working on a standard for
computer-PABX signalling in CSTA/CIT.

Most of what I know about CSTA/CIT I have learned from material
supplied by Digital Equipment Corporation, and I am very interested in
reading about other people and organisations' opinions on CIT/CSTA.

I am seeking the following information:

1. Your opinions about the idea of CIT/CSTA in general.

2. Experiences with developing and/or using CIT/CSTA applications.

3. Have  CIT/CSTA ever been a subject in this or any other newsgroup?,
   (Maybe I can find the article(s) in the archives)

4. References to published works about CSTA/CIT.

5. Anything else about CIT/CSTA that is not mentioned here, that you
   think may be of interest.

Please email or "hardmail" directly to me, or post to the group if you
want to start a discussion about this subject.


Roald Lygre     Adr:     Magnus Den Godes gt 2,7030 Trondheim-Norway
        Phone:   [phone]       Fax:   [phone]
            Email: [e-mail]

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

From: W W Scott <rruxc![e-mail]>
Subject: 900 and 976 Blocking Questions
Date: 23 Jan 90 16:33:53 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


I have a few questions about the article that was posted on the
blocking features from NE Telephone.  Does anyone know if these
features are supported?

>In their recent phone bills, New England Telephone included
>information about Information Delivery Service lines, and offering
>free blocking (once you get blocking, you are charged for future
>changes).  I just signed up for their comprehensive blocking; it
>blocks:

>1-900-XXX-XXXX  (general long-distance information programs)
>976-XXXX (general local information programs)
>940-XXXX (adult local information program)
>550-XXXX (group talk lines)

>By the way, 940 calls are automatically blocked unless you send a
>written request to have it enabled.

Does this service allow selective blocking of numbers, not just the
comprehensive blocking?

Is there any customization allowed for each line?  For example, some
customers may only want selective numbers blocked since the telephone
companies offer some of the services (e.g., 976 numbers for weather
and time)?

Does this service allow blocking of calls to particular NPA-NXXs other
than the 900, 976 types of numbers?

Does the service allow "Mom" or "Dad" to override the blocking when
they want to use the blocked numbers.

Does it allow for time-of-day blocking to allow access to numbers
after "Johnnie" is asleep, as well as PIN override.

Just curious,
Wayne Scott


[Moderator's Note: The version offered by Illinois Bell blocks
everything in the 976 group, the 1-900 group, or both. It does not
allow selective blocking based on the last four digits, or the 900
prefix. There is no override code, and calls from a blocked phone are
unable to get the call completed through an operator. I think this is
pretty customary for all the Bell companies which offer blocking. We
do not have the other special categories here, yet.  The default here
is all numbers are dialable unless a request is made to block. In some
communities with 940 service, on that exchange, the default is calls
are blocked unless a request is made to make the services available.  PT]

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

Date: 23-JAN-1990 03:46:58.61
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Various Comments

Regarding "USA Direct" from France -- I've never been able to get
through to the US operator, always either a busy or a recording (in
French) telling me to try at a later time.  I thought the French PTT
just didn't want the business siphoned off.

Regarding the 10XXX list -- for some time NJ Bell ran radio spots in
the NYC area urging listeners to use the 10-code 10NJB ; yet I see no
10652 in the list.  Is 10NJB no longer a valid 10-code?

Regarding caller-ID boxes: in its most recent catalogue HelloDirect
now lists _two_ such, one with 35-number memory, one with 70-number
memory, both "under" $100.- (though probably over $100.- once you add
tax and S/H).

Another caller-ID remark: in the CBS NightWatch discussion of
caller-ID recently, a rep from a Jersey phone co said minimal
caller-ID boxes could be had for as little as $29.95 or so; anyone
know from what vendor(s)?  [I tried calling his 800 number, but that
proved inaccessible from (203).]

                                    -- Fred

Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06457
ARPA/Internet:  [e-mail]
Bitnet:         FLINTON@WESLEYAN[.bitnet]
on ATT-Mail:    !fejlinton                     ( ...!attmail!fejlinton )
Tel.:           + 1 203 776 2210 (home)  OR  + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #47
*****************************


From [e-mail] Wed Jan 24 03:44:37 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA04590; Wed, 24 Jan 90 03:44:32 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26282;
          24 Jan 90 2:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14511;
          24 Jan 90 1:15 CST
Date:     Wed, 24 Jan 90 1:07:16 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #48
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Jan 90 01:05:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Martin J. Shannon)
    Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (John Cowan)
    Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (David Tamkin)
    Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Tad Cook)
    Re: ISDN Chat Show (Danny Wilson)
    Re: Need Info on E-Mail (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
    Re: 900 and 976 Blocking (John Higdon)
    Re: Auto Out Calling (John Higdon)
    Re: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline? (Greg Hackney)
    Dialing Procedures (Carl Moore)
    ANI on 800 Service (Marc T. Kaufman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Martin J Shannon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List
Date: 24 Jan 90 00:05:05 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] (TELECOM
Moderator) posted the 10xxx table, and made the request:

>If you spot any corrections or updates, please send them along.

Ok, NJBell offers a service from portions of area code 201 to most
(all?)  of the NYC 212 and 718 area codes (and perhaps portions of
914).  In the interests of completeness (since from my phone the equal
access code gets to the NJBell service), 652 (NJB) should be added to
the list.

Are there other OCs that offer similar plans using an equal access
code?  How many of these were in the list just posted?


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.)

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 19:25:53 GMT


Correction to the 10XXX list (moderator, you might want to fix the archive
copy):

488 is now assigned to Metromedia<>ITT, which is a subsidiary of Metromedia
Inc., using the ITT name under license.  Basically, ITT sold USTS to Metro-
media.

[Moderator's Note: This change, plus the one mentioned above will be
edited into the archives copy, along with others which may arrive.  PT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 17:57:51 CST


David Lewis wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 44:

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Otto Miller)
writes:

| > I understand the concept of 10xxx dialling to get to other carriers,
| > *BUT* don't you need an account with the carrier to do this?

| Nope.  10XXX is for "casual" use.  [explanation of how 10XXX calls are
| billed in care of the LEC followed]

More like "yup and nope" than a flat "nope".  The local telco doesn't
need to know which IC's a subscriber has accounts with except for the
primary carrier (to whom the LEC routes 1+ dialing).  But the
long-distance carriers themselves are not compelled to complete a
10XXX call originating from a telephone number not in their customer
databases; if you are not already their customer in some way or
another, they might not place the call for you once the local company
has passed it to them.

You don't have to have them as your primary carrier as well; some will
open an account for 10XXX use or for calling card and 10XXX only.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]    BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List
Date: 23 Jan 90 06:03:48 GMT
Organization: very little


Otto Miller asked if you need an account with a carrier to use
their 10XXX codes.

No, you don't.  I have experimented with alternate carriers, just to
see how the "sound" of the call compared, and the charge always showed
up eventually on my US West bill.

Actually, I'll take that back...I recall trying one service where a
recording came on asking that I contact the them and the telco to set
up an account, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement of the major
carriers.

I helped a friend in an interesting situation using 10XXX codes.

She is living with several roomates, and they had subscribed to AT&T.
She thought it would be nice to get her own separate phone bill for
her interstate toll charges, rather than hash out the calls at the end
of every month.

I told her to call Sprint, give them the phone number, and set up an
account in her name.  Then whenever she called out of the state (I
didn't try to explain LATAs to her!) she would dial 10333 before
dialing 1+ the number.  There was no need to notify the local telco,
as they were not requesting Sprint as their default carrier of choice.
This has worked very well for her, and she likes the sound quality on
the Sprint network.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]

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

From: Danny Wilson <idacom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Chat Show
Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 19:27:26 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Torsten
Dahlkvist) writes:

> 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.

The NTT "Netmate-64" ISDN phone has been the standard phone for all of
their ISDN subscribers for about 1.5 years now.  The phone itself is
manufactured by two companies (Hitachi&Fujitsu ??)  and depending who
made your own particular phone, each comes with a unique set of bugs.

As for the connectors on the back, a V.24 connector which can run SYN
and ASYN from 200bps to 48kbps as I recall.  Rate adaption is _not_
supported however, most Japanese companies I've talked to are
currently working on V.110.

Dipswitches on the bottom on the phone as well as menus in the LCD
display configure parameters of this port such as speed, parity,
stop-bits, PAD protocol etc.

There is also a 15 pin Dsub connector using V.11 signal levels.  This
connector uses a proprietary pinout to supply raw access to the 64
kbps B-Channels plus clocks and framing etc.


Danny Wilson            [e-mail]
IDACOM Electronics        alberta!idacom!danny
Edmonton, Alberta    X.400    [e-mail]
C A N A D A        Voice    [phone]

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Info on E-Mail
Date: 23 Jan 90 17:18:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, aucs![e-mail] (Katherine
Astels) writes:

> If anyone knows of some good books or papers on this topic please
> send me references by e-mail.

(Okay, but I also sent it to the Telecom Digest.)

Andrew S. Tanenbaum, COMPUTER NETWORKS, second edition, Englewood
Cliffs:  Prentice-Hall, 1988, pp. 530-531 and pp. 546-558.

Andrew Huffman (my old boss), "E-Mail -- the Glue to Office
Automation", IEEE Network, volume 1, pp. 4-10 (and other articles in
the same October 1987 issue).

D. Taylor, "The Postman Always Rings Twice:  Electronic Mail in a
Highly Distributed Environment", Proceedings of the Winter USENIX
Conference, 1988, pp. 145-154.

Also, if you're using the UNIX(R) operating system, read the manuals
(start with the mail(1) man page) on locking the mailbox file ($MAIL).


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.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 and 976 Blocking
Date: 23 Jan 90 10:58:57 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


W W Scott <rruxc![e-mail]> writes:

> [concerning 976/900 blocking]
> Does anyone have any knowledge about how this is implemented (for
> example, in the switches, or some adjunct perhaps)?

> What about customer capacity?  If everyone in a large metropolitan
> area requests this service, will many of them have to be denied
> because of a lack of switch capacity?

I am told that blocking is a function of the FGD or equal-access
mechanism. They set up a psuedo carrier that can't handle 976/900
calls and the call is simply rejected. If this is the case, there
would be no limit to the number of subscribers that could request
blocking, just as there would be no limit to the number of subscriber
that could select, for example, MCI as their long distance carrier.

In the case of #5 crossbar, it is the CONTAC adjunct that allows for
blocking (at least here in Pac*Bell). Otherwise, it is just built into
the generic for the particular switch.

There was one glitch here, however. It took Pac*Bell more than a year
after they announced the availability of general blocking to figure
out how to implement it in Commstar II (mini-centrex). I got a letter
when blocking became available that said that I had three choices: do
without blocking; dump my Commstar II and get blocking; or wait
several months to get blocking. As it turned out, it was over a year
before I got another letter proclaiming that blocking was now
available on my Commstar II service.

Since I have motor control in my dialing finger, I opted to pass on
blocking.

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


[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I did not get blocking because I
want the flexibility of using *some* services as desired. I get the
weather from 162.55 on my scanner and I call the Talking Clock when I
get nervous (1-202-653-1800, same difference as 900-410-TIME, but why
pay extra for it?). Or, I may connect on Telenet to the British
Telecom Master Clock expressed in GMT at @C 023421920100605,NAME,PWD.
I don't do this with my PCP account though, not since the day Telenet
Customer Service bawled me out. I gathered together the outlaws who
live in this house and told them mis-use of 900/976 would cost someone
dearly. At our office we had get blocking since some people were
abusing the phones badly.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Auto Out Calling
Date: 23 Jan 90 11:16:08 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


The Watson was obviously designed for outcalling. It will deliver
messages to callers from a list, or for that matter, any interactive
program you chose to create. (Callees can respond with voice or TT.)
Even though I use the Watson for incoming calls, it is obvious that I
am contorting its original design function. The Watson has superb call
progress detection.

It is much more sophisicated than the Big Mouth or the Compleat PC.

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

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

From: Greg Hackney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline?
Date: 23 Jan 90 20:30:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: texbell gateway, dallas


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

>Could someone please post the details regarding Globecom 90 ?
>Submission deadline, where it is going to be held etc.


                Place:  San Diego, California
                Dates:  December 2-5, 1990
                Submission Deadline for Papers:
                        Complete Manuscript Due:        March 15, 1990
                        Notification of Acceptance:     May 30, 1990
                        Camera-Ready Manuscript Due:    August 20, 1990
                 Technical Program Secretary:
                                Dr. Arne Mortensen
                                M/A-COM Government Systems
                                3033 Science Park Road
                                San Diego, CA  92121
                                Phone:  [phone]
                                Telex:  910-337-1277
                                FAX:    [phone]
                Technical Program Chairman:
                                Thomas Seay
                                Thomas Seay, Inc.`
                                982 Santa Florencia
                                Solana Beach, CA  94583
                                Phone: [phone]
                Tech Program Vice-Chairman:
                                Paul Moroney
                                General Instruments
                                6262 Lusk Boulevard
                                San Diego, CA  92121
                                Phone: [phone]
                Asian/Pacific Chairman:
                                Dr. Tetsuya Miki
                                NTT Telecommunication Networks
                                     Laboratories
                                3-9-11 Midori-cho.Musashino-shi
                                Tokyo, 180 Japan
                                Phone: [phone]
                                Telex: [phone] NTTECL J
                                FAX:   [phone]


Greg Hackney  [e-mail]
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Dallas, Texas

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

Date: Mon, 22 Jan 90 15:38:50 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing Procedures


Feedback on notes "as of April 1, 1986" regarding use of N 0/1 X
prefixes: Yes, 718 is using N 0/1 X prefixes.  I don't recall 817 as
using them, but 214 does.  Perhaps 817's dialing procedures match
those of 214 for the sake of area-wide uniformity (also, there are
some N 0/1 X prefixes in 214 which are local to some prefixes in 817).

>"Syntax 3" is the "new standard" for after "Time T".  It is already in
>effect in 404, 919, 703, 202, 301, 214 (and the new 903?) and soon 416.
What about 817 (for the reasons just mentioned)?  And are you saying that
area 704 in North Carolina does NOT now have Syntax 3?  (I know that 804
in Virginia does not, although 703 does due to DC area crunch.)

"Syntax 2" notes include a reference to area 609 in New Jersey.  When
201 prepared for the coming of N 0/1 X prefixes, 609's dialing
instruc- tions also changed (for the sake of statewide uniformity and
for the later case of Toms River getting two N0X prefixes).  However,
it is already noted that 609 has NOT since gotten 1 + 10 digits for
local calls outside NPA.

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI on 800 Service
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 23:41:34 GMT


The following quotes are from an MCI ad in the January 22 issue of
Communications Week:

  "Unlike AT&T, MCI 800 service offers real-time ANI today, using the
standard signalling technology you already have.  So now you can
access a complete customer profile on your terminal before you even
answer the call."

  "And MCI's Call Detail provides the complete phone number of
virtually every call.  Imagine what you could do with that
information."

[OK, as long as ordinary, unresponsible folks can't get the
information... ;-> ]


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #48
*****************************

From [e-mail] Wed Jan 24 04:48:16 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA06741; Wed, 24 Jan 90 04:48:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27438;
          24 Jan 90 3:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26282;
          24 Jan 90 2:21 CST
Date:     Wed, 24 Jan 90 2:07:11 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #49
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Jan 90 02:05:28 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (Louis A. Mamakos)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (Carol Springs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 14:42:07 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen!


[Moderator's Note: We've had various articles on the 'modem tax' here
in the Digest in recent weeks. Levitt first sent an article, and
Digest contributor Fred Goldstein hastened to claim it was a dead
issue. A few other correspondents have said much the same.....but is
it really a dead issue?  Here is another message on the subject,
announcing a *new* docket at the FCC....decide for yourself where this
is going.  PT]


I just found the following information in the FidoNet Law echo.  It
seems to be up-to-date on the latest status of things.  Please don't
reply to me.
==============================================================================

   FCC's Proposed Data Tax

   By JON, Sysop of GLIB, Washington DC., [phone]

   January 13, 1990

   OK ... most of us who read these messages recently have seen the
somewhat hysterical missives warning that the FCC was about to
impose a tax on the use of your modem.  Then, shortly thereafter,
you saw other messages denying that such a proposal existed, along
with a supposed press release by the FCC confirming that fact.

   This morning, I spoke with a knowledgeable source who works for
one of the major national communications services, and this is the
information he provided.  Because I operate a non-profit 501(c)(3)
service, I take no official position whatever on this.  I merely
pass along his information for your enlightenment:

   There was, in fact, a proposal put forth by the FCC to impose a
"modem charge tariff" in 1987.  It was Docket #87-215.  It died an
unceremonious death, largely due to the outcry from those who would
be affected by it.

[Moderator's Note: We have a copy of 87-215 in the Telecom Archives if
anyone wishes to review it.  PT]

   HOWEVER ... On March 30, 1989, the FCC proposed a new surcharge
(read federal tax) via Docket #89-79 covering "ONA Tariffing
Policies".  (In the legalese technospeak of the communications
industry, "ONA" means "Open Network Architecture".)

   Bear in mind that the details of this docket have only been
proposed, and not nailed down.  But essentially it means that your
government and mine, via the FCC, wants more money for data
communications, and they now appear to be attempting to "back door"
the failed docket #87-215 by proposing new "Carrier Switched Access
Charges" (taxes) on ENHANCED SERVICE PROVIDERS (operators of on-line
information services), for "Enhanced Subscriber Services" (anything
other than voice calls).

   Thus, were this to pass, you could apparently wind up indirectly
paying the same tax you would have paid under the failed proposal.
Obviously, any taxes imposed on the suppliers of products and services
you use are going to be passed along to you eventually.

   While it appears that this federal surcharge is aimed primarily
at large corporate dial-up service bureaus such as CompuServe,
Telenet, Tymnet, and others in that size range, the proposal is
sufficiently nebulous at this time that it could be loosely
interpreted to include dedicated private networks and even the small
independent BBS on which you may now be reading this.

   Under this proposal, it would appear that information service
providers would have to pay extra taxes on the phone lines they use
for data communications, merely due to the fact that they are
transmitting data rather than voice.  (Incidentally, information
systems technicians claim that, generally speaking, LESS, not more,
technology is required to transmit data via telephone circuits than is
required for voice transmission.  If this is true, then those of us
who use telephone services for data transmission are actually placing
less of a burden on the telephone system than does your grandmother's
regular Sunday afternoon call.)

   The FCC has historically claimed to foster the growth of enhanced
services, rather than impeding it.  This proposed tax seems to be a
180-degree turnaround from that position, in that it bears little
practical relationship to the actual technology required for data
transmission, but instead primarily addresses increased government
revenue.  Major communications companies of course have filed
pleadings opposing any such surcharge.

   The FCC maintains a public docket reading room in their offices
located at 20th and M Street in Washington DC, where all the
information regarding these issues is open to public inspection.

   Just prior to writing this message, I decided to take a look at
this docket myself, so I went over there.  This docket presently
consists of 6 2-inch binders totalling a foot high.  And there,
attached to volume #6, along with all the documents from AT&T,
Southwestern Bell, Prodigy, Telenet and the others, are those
individual letters from private citizens.  All the letters recently
received concerning the "modem scare" have been filed with Docket
#89-79, even though they apparently refer to the earlier failed
proposal, so that they can be considered as relevant input to that
proposal currently under consideration.  Your letters to them DO
count, and they are routinely made a part of these official
proceedings.  Should you choose to write to them, however, it is very
important that you name the appropriate docket number at the top of
your letter so that they can correctly file it.

   Again, I pass this along as information, and not as any kind of
"call to action".  As a matter of fact, this proposal may die just as
the previous attempt did, and it's passage is NOT expected in the near
future.  It appears to present NO IMMEDIATE THREAT.  Many months of
refinement and review precede any such tariff revision.  This is,
however, for those of us who may be affected by it, an issue worth
watching.

   Jon
=================================================================
  Date:   Sun Jan 21 1990  18:34:31
  From:   Bruce Wilson
  Subj:   FCC "Modem Tax,"

Armed with some specifics, I spent a little time at the Drake law library.
The citations are:

CC Docket No. 89-79, FCC 89-105

Abbreviated Notice of Proposed Rule Making was published in the
Federal Register of Monday, May 15, 1989, Vol. 54, No. 92, at pages
20873 - 20874.

The full Notice of Proposed Rule Making is found in 4 FCC Record No.
10, at pages 3893 - 3994.  Orders granting extensions of time to file
comments are found in 4 FCC Record No. 13 at page 5097 and in 4 FCC
Record No. 19 at page 6812.  The comment period was last extended to
October 11, 1989, for the National Association of Regulatory Utilities
Commissioners (NARUC) and Compuserve.

Of particular interest is the discussion in Divsion IV, Access Charge
Treatment of ESPs, found at 4 FCC Record 3987 - 3989, with footnotes
found at 4 FCC Record 3993 - 3994.  In both the abbreviated and full
Notices, the Commission stated that it *tentatively* had concluded
"that the present enhanced service provider (ESP) exemption should be
retained" but the Commission also said "Nevertheless, we invite
comment on possible alternatives to the present exemption." and
suggested the alternatives of "[1] Exemption from the carrier common
line charge, while continuing to assess traffic sensitive charges for
interstate switched access; and [2] a percentage discount on all
switched access elements."

With respect to comments, the full Notice states that "members of the
public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted except
during the 'Sunshine Agenda' period. ... The Sunshine Agenda period is
the period of time which commences with the public release of a notice
that a matter has been placed on the Sunshine Agenda and terminates
when this Commission (1) releases the text of a decision or Order in
the matter; (2) issues a public notice stating that the matter has
been deleted from the Sunshine Agenda; or (3) issues a public notice
stating that the matter has been returned to the staff for further
consideration, whichever occurs first."  I presume we are now in the
"Sunshine Agenda" period, notwithstanding that the official comment
and reply periods have long since expired.

"Any person who submits a written ex parte presentation must provide
on the same day it is submitted a copy of that presentation to this
Commission's Secretary for inclusion in the public record."  (All such
presentations should naturally refer to the matter by docket number.)
Address: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20554.

"For further information, contact: Regina Harrison, Policy and Program
Planning Divison, Common Carrier Bureau, [phone]."

======================== End of Fidonet Posting ==========================

Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The 'Bruce Wilson' mentioned above as the sender of
the message is known to many of us. His credentials are good. He is an
attorney in Des Moines, IA, and is active in public utility regulation
matters in his state. He is very active in FIDO, and we've chatted via
the Prometheus TBBS/Oak Park, IL on one occassion. If he says there
may be a threat once again, I'm inclined to listen.   PT]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 18:19:29 EST
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Organization: The University of Maryland, College Park


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

>C&P made a big point about this in literature it sent out recently to
>accompany its "new" (fancy graphics) calling cards; their number can
>be used from any C&P payphone, regardless of LD carrier.

I got a new C&P telephone "Intelligent Network" card in the mail too.
Funny that the number is identical to the AT&T card that I already
have.

What I really want, though, is just the reverse.  I want a AT&T
calling card with an account number that *ONLY* works with AT&T.  I
don't want some slime-ball AOS to intercept/ignore the 10288 prefix
and complete the call.  I suppose that I'd have to get AT&T to bill me
directly, and not via the local RBOC.

Anyone heard of such a thing?  I tried asking the marketing dweeb on
the other end of the AT&T 800 number, but (as expected) he said that
such a card didn't exist.


Louis Mamakos


[Moderator's Note: Such a card does in fact exist, although it is not
marketed for the reason you mention; it just works that way. AT&T has
a type of 'institutional credit card', and has had for many years. It
has a fourteen digit number on it, ten of which make up the account
and four of which make up the PIN, like any phone card. They are
sometimes referred to as 'non-subscriber calling cards', from the days
when AT&T and the local Bells were one. They were issued to people on
college campuses and in the military (and others) who did not have
local phone service for billing purposes. Cincinnati Bell handled all
the billing, and I think they still do handle it. Tell the AT&T rep
you want 'a calling card which is billed separately, with a number
other than your phone number.' See if that gets you what you want. Say
nothing about your *true* intent, they won't understand you and it
will only confuse the issue.  PT]

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Date: 24 Jan 90 05:01:18 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


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

>        I dialed a number in Orange County by using "10333+0+714+NNX+XXXX".
>There was the KaBong, so I entered my FO(O)N card number (Sprint's
>calling card number). A recording told me that I had entered an
>invalid number and an operator came on the line (after much waiting).
>I gave the operator my FO(O)N card number and was told that the number
>was "unbillable". At this time I was given the number of Sprint
>customer service.

>I dialed the customer service number and FIFTEEN MINUTES later someone
>came on the line. I recited my problem and gave the rep my FO(O)N card
>number. I was told that the number was a good, working number, but
>that to use it I would have to dial the 800 number that has been
>provided for its use. When I hung up, I tried the "10333" sequence
>again, only this time I used my AT&T calling card number. This
>resulted in, "Thank you for calling on Sprint", and my call went
>through.

>Is there now some question why AT&T remains the *real* long distance
>company? Why can't Sprint accept its own cards on "standard" 0+
>dialing, instead of requiring FO(O)N card victims to dial 35 digits
>with that silly 800 number that is reminiscent of the old FGA days?

The answer lies in how the billing is done.  I had basically the same
problem as you a few weeks ago, using an airport "blue phone" for
which the default carrier was listed as Sprint.  When I entered my
FONCARD number and got the recorded message, I cursed, moved over to a
standard pay phone, and dialed the 1-800 number.  But I could have
used the first phone if I'd wanted--even though I don't have an AT&T
card.

New England Telephone, like (presumably) other NYNEX companies and all
the other Baby Bell companies, offers its own calling cards-- your
phone number followed by a four-digit suffix, like the AT&T card
numbers.  In fact, if you have an AT&T card, the number will be the
same as the "local" card number in all cases.  But the 14-digit number
has become a sort of national default used by all major carriers for
tracking you down and billing you through your local phone company.
Had I used the first phone in the airport, the Sprint charges would
have been billed to me via New England Telephone, and I wouldn't have
got any volume discounts.  (At least, this is the way such things used
to work.  Would the fact that I have a Sprint account mean that Sprint
itself would bill me these days?  On which bill did the charges for
the call you finally completed show up?)

Sure, the 1-800 number is a pain.  But standardization of calling card
access is a way of allowing carriers other than AT&T to handle long
distance calls in situations where the average caller *isn't* signed
up with them.  Have you considered that part of the FONCARD's purpose
may be to keep Sprint from having to publicize 10XXX access, for
reasons that you yourself discuss?  (Also, of course, not everyone has
bothered to get a calling card from his or her local phone company, or
knows that it can be used for interstate calling as well.  And the
Bell companies can't, of course, overtly publicize the fact that
"their" cards will work this way...)

It does seem silly, at first glance, that the operator you got after
the recorded message was incapable of using your FONCARD code as an
alternative.  Are "regular" Sprint operators and "1-800" Sprint
operators segregated groups, or does the problem have to do with the
switching?  Or maybe the operator who came on the line, who referred
you to Sprint's customer service number, wasn't really a Sprint
operator?  Anyone have answers?

        Carol Springs            [e-mail]
   c/o DRI/McGraw-Hill, Inc.     {bbn, uunet!atexnet}!drilex!carols
       24 Hartwell Ave.        Please use one of the above addresses.
     Lexington, MA  02173        ("From" lines may be munged.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #49
*****************************

From [e-mail] Thu Jan 25 01:10:42 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA24681; Thu, 25 Jan 90 01:10:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23089;
          24 Jan 90 23:33 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20678;
          24 Jan 90 22:30 CST
Date:     Wed, 24 Jan 90 21:31:10 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #50
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Jan 90 21:30:37 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Fire Cuts Off St. Louis-area Phone Service (Will Martin)
    Interesting Magazine Article (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.)
    Panasonic KSU Technical Manuals (Macy M. Hallock, Jr.)
    Toronto and Area Running Out of Numbers (C. Harald Koch)
    ISDN S,T Interface Differences (Johnny Zweig)
    ISDN: Any Support From ISODE? (Jose Diaz-Gonzalez)
    Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries (Hank Nussbacher)
    News Articles on DC Area From the Past (Carl Moore)
    Rate Increase? (John Higdon)

[Moderator's Note: This is a *second* transmission of issue 50. The
first issue (stopped midstream, some of you may not have received it)
was flawed, and will not burst/post correctly. It should be dumped.
Sorry for the confusion.   PT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 13:03:58 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fire Cuts Off St. Louis-area Phone Service


The following is paraphrased from news reports on local TV news and
from an article in the St. Louis Sun dated today:

Just before 5 PM Monday, three boys aged 10 - 13 threw a burning
plastic bag on cables that run under a railroad bridge in Pagedale, a
St. Louis suburb. The cables caught fire and the boys first tried to
put them out and then panicked and ran.  The result of the burning
cables was that 70,000 SW Bell customers in St. Charles county (just
next to St. Louis) had their phone service affected in various ways.
About 2200 housholds in Pagedale itself lost phone service for 24
hours; many other regions had sporadic service during the repair
effort.

Problems were reported as far away as Poplar Bluff and Kansas City;
local calls to areas of St. Charles experienced delays and
difficulties.  Many calls from the St. Charles area were rerouted
through cables normally used only for St. Louis, causing telephone
delays, intercept "all lines busy" recordings, or fast busy signals.
911 was affected, but the St. Charles county sheriff's department
stated that SW Bell did a "good job" rerouting emergency calls to
other lines.

An industrial park near the site had no phone service most of Tuesday;
the local TV news reported on a package-delivery service that lost
their communication lines between their office and their dispatching
transmitter site on top a local office building. They moved their
dispatchers to the transmitter location and were able to continue
operations that way (luckily the weather was mild enough that people
could work in the unheated rooftop compartment).

People who were without telephone service for more than 24 hours will
be credited for the loss on next month's bill. The three boys have
been arrested and charged with the crime. (I wonder if SW Bell will
send their parents a bill? :-)


Regards, Will Martin

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Interesting Magazine Article
Date: Wed Jan 24 12:41:06 1990


For those who might be interested:

There is an article in the December 1989 _Unix Review_ entitled "At
Your Telephone Service" describing the use of Unix and internal
network support systems.  It is authored by a member of Bell Labs tech
staff.  This article gives a brief description of many of the computer
support systems used by telephone companies and carriers, with an
emphasis on Unix's role and the use of X.25 /Datakit in this
application.

Certainly not the Bell Lab's _Record_, but worthwhile reading for the
readers of this Digest.  If you are unable to get a copy from a
library or associate, drop me a line and I will try to assist.


  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?)


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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Panasonic KSU Technical Manuals
Date: Tue Jan 23 22:17:32 1990

In article <[e-mail]>:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 31, message 6 of 6

>A couple of months ago there was a flurry of messages about the
>Panasonic KX-T61610 PBX.  At the time I said that I might attack the
>problem of disassembling the code to fix some features.

>....But I'm probably not going to be able to finish the job
>unless I can get some more technical info.

Panasonic does publish a service manual for the KXT308, 616 and 1232.
At one time a single manual covered the entire series, but a new set
of individual manuals is expected soon.

These manuals include a basic circuit description and schematics.
They are intended for hardware repair use.  No signifcant information
on software is included.

As I recall, the cost the the manual was about $50.00.  The manual has
a part number and is supposed to be available to anyone who orders and
pays for one.  In practice, these have been difficult to obtain.  I am
told only a limited number were published, and the supply has been
exhuasted (not an official answer BTW).

I will take it upon myself to look into this in the next few days
with my contacts at Panasonic.

BTW - my tech contacts at Panasonic have hinted at a couple features
in these systems that are intended for non-US use.  I do know that
there are no less that three major revisions of software for the
1232's.  The latest revsion of the 1232 is known by a new part number
to reflect several features and options that have been added,
including DISA, remote maintenace capability, page over busy station
operations (needs third pair), and a type of primitive auto-attendant.
These features are not yet available in the 308 and 616.


  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?)

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

From: "C. Harald Koch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toronto and Area Running Out of Numbers
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 10:13:58 EST


I got this in my latest phone bill from Bell Canada:

             (416) IS FEELING THE SQUEEZE
           SO WE'VE JUST MADE ROOM FOR MORE NUMBERS.

The 416 calling area is one of the fastest growing regions in North
America.  This substantial and rapid growth in demand for residential,
business, and cellular telephones makes it necessary to change dialing
procedures for ling distance calls in the 416 dialing area.

Beginning March 1 it will be necessary to dial 1 then 416, (or 0 then
416 for operator assisted calls) when making a long distance call
within the 416 area.

For Example:
The old way to dial:    1 + 555-6789
The new way to dial:    1 + 416 + 444-6789

This simple change will allow us to use existing area codes such as
505 or 713 as new exchanges.

And of course your long distance charges will in no way be affected by
this change in dialing procedure.

Because if this change it is very important that you remember to
adjust your telephones and business machines: automatic dialers, fax
machines and other equipment that may have pre-programmed telephone
numbers.

Don't forget to tell friends and family about this chage in dialing
procedure, as we want to make sure that getting in touch with loved
ones is as easy as ever.

Get ready for March 1 and get started now! Dial 1 + 416 or 0 + 416
when dialing a long distance number within the 416 area code. Thanks
for making this change and if you have any questions please give us a
call at 1 + 800 + 465-1416.

     Bell

        ====================================

I particularly like the part where they remind you to reprogram all
your autodialers...


C. Harald Koch                        Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada
[e-mail]      [e-mail]      [e-mail]
"There is no problem, no matter how large or how small, that cannot be solved
 by a suitable application of high explosives."               -Leo Graf, 2298


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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN S,T Interface Differences
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 17:29:42 GMT


In looking at a number of books and papers on ISDN I have, there is
mention made in several places of configurations in which the S and T
reference points coincide.  My understanding is that the S interface
is how terminals talk to an NT2 (like a PBX or terminal-concentrator)
and that the T interface is just the raw 2B+D bit-pipe to the network.

So are the physical interfaces the same for S and T?  That is, could I
buy an ISDN terminal and plug the end of the cable that sticks out
straight into my NT1 (or, rather, Illinois Bell's NT1) on Tuesdays and
then plug it into our ISDN PBX's NT2 jack the rest of the week?  Or,
when mention is made of the setup in which S and T coincide, are they
talking about a terminal that just happens to speak T-interface
electrical signals instead of S?

Also, it is still unclear to me if there is supposed to be a single
electrical interface at each of S, T, U or whether these are just
reference points in diagrams -- i.e. my AT&T terminal's S-interface is
totally different from my Fujitsu's S-interface electrically and
mechanically, but they are both S interfaces in the sense that they
both define how a terminal talks to (in this case each respective)
NT2?


-Johnny Doubleplusunclearexplained

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

From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN: Any Support From ISODE?
Date: 24 Jan 90 18:49:47 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


Hello there!

      Here is what I'm looking for: ISDN BRI card for AT bus with
Unix SVR3 drivers (actually I already know about the Motorola, Mitel,
and ICL cards, none of them come with Unix drivers).  Public domain
(or at least commercial versions that normal people can afford to buy)
software written in a "standard" language, e.g. ANSI C, supporting
Q.921, Q.931, and X.25.  Is ISODE of any help here?.  Is there such a
thing as a standard API for these protocols?. Any comments or
suggestions will be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

     -- Jose

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+                     +                    +
+    Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez     +                                +
+    GTE Laboratories, Inc.       +       Tel:   [phone]    +
+    MS-46                          +       email: [e-mail]        +
+    40 Sylvan Rd.             +                    +
+    Waltham, MA 02254         +                    +
+                     +                    +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 15:48:55 O
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries


          Cost comparison of 64kb digital service
              in various countries

                Henry Nussbacher
          Israeli InterUniversity Computer Center
          =======================================


    Country            5km       10km       50km      200km     500km
    ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
    Austria         |  683.8  | 1025.6  |  2136    | 4346.2  |  6141   |
    Belgium         |  372.5  |  683    |  1080    | 1652    |  3304   |
    Denmark         |  174.6  |  293.9  |  1325    | 1770.5  |  2139.8 |
    France          |  614    |  828.8  |  3388    | 5241.8  |  6838.6 |
    Germany         |  795.2  | 1337.3  |  3226    | 8385.5  | 11638.6 |
    Norway          |  242.2  |  242.2  |   516    |  602.5  |   869.6 |
    Spain           | 1507.9  | 2356.5  |  3102    | 4996.9  |  6713.1 |
    Sweden          |  332.2  |  387.6  |  1436    | 2214.8  |  2380.9 |
    Switzerland     |  758.8  | 1523.5  |  1739    | 6604.4  |  8810.3 |
    United Kingdom  |  412.6  |  515.3  |   705    |  824.3  |  1128.5 |
    ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
    Average         |  589.4  |  919.4  |  1865    | 3663.9  |  4996.4 |
    ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+

    Notes:

    1) Rates are in dollars per month.
    2) Sources: a) Report #219, "Tariff Analysis - National Digital Services
           at 64kb and 2Mb, Claude Laurens, La Gaude, France,
           December 14th, 1987
        b) The numbers for 50km are from the Eurodata Foundation
           Yearbook (1987-1988).  All other European numbers are
           from source (a).

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 10:17:45 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: News Articles on DC Area From the Past

These all refer to the Washington Post.  I guess some of the following
were from people not familiar with Md. and Va. beyond the DC area.
June 1973--article appeared at the time of 703/804 split, but 804 does
not come within 50 miles of DC.  I have no problem with the contents.

c. 1976 (President Ford was in office)--a slew of calls intended for
White House (202-456-1414) are received by 703-451-1414; article says
the latter number is in a different area code from DC, and fails to
note that 451 is one of those suburban points reachable via 202.

Aug. 6, 1987, page E1(a), announcing 11-digit long-distance effec-
tive Nov. 1, 1987; only mentions calls from DC area and from Md.
points which are beyond DC area.  "Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.
of Maryland plans to require an 11-digit number for customers dialing
long-distance throughout Maryland, the District and Virginia beginning
Nov. 1."  PROBLEM, as I noted in earlier messages: in Va., 703 was
affected, but not 804.

May 10, 1989, page A1 col. 2, announcing that as of Oct. 1, 1990, will
need area code on local calls in DC area which cross NPA lines.  "C&P
says the move could free up about 4 million numbers in the area.  That
is because under the current system, the three-digit prefixes that
begin local numbers can only be used in one Washington jurisdic- tion.
In the future, C&P will be free to use them in all three.  The 457
exchange, for example, now limited to the District under the 202 area
code, could then be used in Maryland's 301 area code and Virginia's
703 as well."

NO--301-457 is in use in Darlington, in Harford County.  Barring
recent change, there is no 703-457 (804-457 is at Fife, west of
Richmond).

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

Subject: Rate Increase?
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 24 Jan 90 13:53:29 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


According to Pac*Bell's employee news line, the company is going to go
before the CPUC to ask for a basic rate increase. This will not be for
the purpose of making more money (oh, no, of course not) but to offset
the reduction of revenue caused by the future elimination of TT
charges and the supposedly expanded local calling areas. Excuse me?
How kind of them to eliminate TT charges and then turn around and
raise *everyone's* bill to more than make up the difference!

Didn't they agree to "rate freezing" if they could be regulated less?
Well, at least I predicted that the TT charge elimination was a total
scam. And speaking of scams, Pac*Bell has announced that they will be
agreeable to competition within LATAs. The catch? There will be no
"pre-subscription". The customer will have to dial 10XXX for each and
every call that is not to be carried by Pac*Bell.

And we were wondering why Pac*Bell seemed so hesitant to give out
these codes. Now we know. Mark my words: over the next months and
years we will see the real agenda behind the "regulation reduction"
that the press, the CPUC, Pac*Bell, and even some gullible customers
have been raving about.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #50
*****************************