Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss051-100

Internet Message Format | 1990-02-14 | 821KB

From [e-mail] Thu Jan 25 02:01:34 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA26700; Thu, 25 Jan 90 02:01:24 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07123;
          25 Jan 90 0:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23089;
          24 Jan 90 23:33 CST
Date:     Wed, 24 Jan 90 22:31:02 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #51
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Jan 90 22:30:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Who's Using Whom? (John McHarry)
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Jim Breen)
    Re: Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Scott D. Green)
    Re: Area Code 908 Lives (Dave Esan)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (John Higdon)
    Re: The AT&T Problem ([e-mail])
    Re: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline? (Greg Hackney)
    0+ in Area 213 (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tuesday, 23 Jan 1990 18:18:01 EST
From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom?


Robert Gutierrez wrote in v10 #35 that, contrary to what I had said in
v10 #30, some IEC trunk groups do overflow to trunks into another
IEC's network.  Unfortunately he has committed the fallacy of
listening to what I said rather than to what I meant.  All I meant to
assert was that access to one IEC's network is not obtained via
another IEC's switched facilities (with the interesting exception I
discussed).  Thus one would not access network A via switched service
provided as part of network B, although there might be an arrangement
whereby one would spill over into B if A could not offer service,
rather than be blocked entirely.  In this case, the call would be
carried entirely by network B.

Switched access via AT&T seemed to be the original theory of why
Higdon could not access US Sprint during the AT&T incident last MLK
Day.  (Actually, even that isn't quite true: He had been told there
was a cable cut.)  No one has yet commented on the likelihood of my
theory that there may have been an AT&T operated switch acting as part
of the LEC's network, perhaps acting as the access tandem.

Lest I get corrected yet again: Of course one accesses international
networks via an IEC's switched network, in a sense.  Also, one can
sometimes connect through one network into a gateway into another
network.  I guess this is what PBX access ports could be viewed as
doing for private networks.

Regarding Gutierrez' other comment on my comment that separate direct
trunks to two different carriers would be overkill: I agree that it
might well be a good idea to split the traffic between two carriers at
the point of presence (POP), but the larger threat is probably a cable
cut between the customer premises and the POP.  To guard against that
would require diverse routing of the cables, probably to the extent of
running them out different sides of the building, as is done with
STPs.  How one would maintain diverse routing to the POP, I do not
know offhand.  Surely these would also have to be 'bypass' trunks, or
either the serving CO or access tandem (where used) could knock both
groups off the air, as has been demonstrated.  Having gotten all this
in place, somebody will, no doubt, trip over the extension cord and
unplug the PBX.  That is not to say that the job cannot be done for
really vital needs like national security or ordering pizza, just that
it's not all that cheap.

This is only my humble opinion.  It hasn't been reviewed, approved, or
billed for.

***************************************************************
* John McHarry    [phone]             [e-mail] *
***************************************************************

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 90 23:38:39 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU![e-mail]
(Dave Horsfall) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>,
>     [e-mail] (Jim Breen) writes:

> | Of course, a ham with a scanner and recorder was listening in, and [...]

> 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!

Sorry Dave (combing the scorched bits from his beard). I aso had a
blast from another of the de-dah-dah-dit brigade.

Phil Clark ([e-mail]) complained about an earlier posting
of mine in the following e-mail to me:

< Jim, I saw your posting to the above about cordless phones and I was a little
< dismayed about one particular part of your comment. As I understand (and I
< could be wrong), the scanner eavedropper on the Peacock telephone call was
< NOT a ham (i.e. amateur) operator. Amateurs (hams) in Australia are
< generally very careful about abiding by both the Radiocommunications
< Act and the Telecommunications Act due to the conditions of their licences.

OK. Maybe I was loose in my terminology in equating ham with anyone
who owned a scanner. My Concise Oxford has 'operator of an amateur
radio station' as one of the meanings of 'ham'. Since this would
include owners of CB sets, it is pretty loose in itself. If you want
to maintain a tighter definition, e.g a *licenced* amateur radio
station operator, I would agree that the eavesdropper was not a "ham".

< As a matter of interest, it is the Telecommunications Act that prohibits the
< interception of ANY telehone conversation by ANY means. This means that it is
< a breach of the Act to listen to a telephone call even if you can hear it on
< an ordinary radio receiver. (Of course the above does not include any party
< for which the call is intended). Further, as I understand the act, it is
< illegal for any person, including the originator and receiver(s) of a call
< to record it.

On the first point, I quite agree. Some argue, however, that there is
a conflict between the Telecomm. Act and the Act covering ownership
and operation of radio receivers. As I said, I don't think this has
been sorted out in court yet. Apropos recording calls, this *is*
permitted with the mutual consent of both parties. Hence all those
radio reporters who conduct quick interviews over the 'phone, and the
radio talk-back shows with their "Now, Mr Legree, I would like you to
hear what Mrs. Bloggs said yesterday".

< As a responsible amateur myself, I would very much appreciate it if you would
< set the record straight to the world if a ham (amateur) was not involved
< in the incident you mentioned.

I will post your letter and my reply to the newsgroup.

    _______           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]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 09:15 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home PBX/KSU Info. Requested


Two weeks ago, I asked for information on Home PBX/KSU Systems and
requested that you send me information based on your experience.
Well, I have the results in:

        ONLY ONE OF YOU ACTUALLY GAVE ME THE INFO!

The rest are requests to receive the compilation.  So, I decided to
give you another chance.  So, I'm repeating the information below and
I changed the date to January 31, 1990.

        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 31,
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)

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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 10:04 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Various Comments


Fred Linton writes:

>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?

Apparently Bell of PA and NJ Bell are allowed to compete with the LD
carriers for interstate service in the Phila. metropolitan area.  I
believe the same arrangement is true between NY Tel and NJ Bell.

 From Phila., dial 10BPA to let Bell carry the call; from NJ dial
10NJB.  It gets billed on the same page as the rest of the intra-LATA
calls.

-scott

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 908 Lives
Date: 24 Jan 90 19:01:10 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


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.

According to previous articles 908 will not be activated until 1/1/91.
And yet the most recent V&H masters I have received from BellCore
include 908.

Has the timing been changed?  Isn't 903 in Dallas supposed to be
implemented this July?  And 510 in October?


Thanks.

 -->        David Esan                rochester!moscom!de


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Date: 24 Jan 90 12:20:56 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

> [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.

Both my Sprint FONCARD and my Pac*Bell calling card have numbers that
bear no resemblance to mine or anyone else's phone number. In the case
of Sprint, the card was obtained long before the FON business from US
Telecom, which Sprint continued to honor after the merger. My Pac*Bell
card was issued without an imbedded phone number at my request. It, of
course, works perfectly with AT&T.

The amusing thing about this is that up until recently, when keying in
my Pac*Bell card to an AOS, they would generally reject the call
saying that my card number was "invalid". (It had no phone number that
they could sleaze casual billing to.) Lately, however, I am noticing
that they seem to be able to verify the number, and if I change one
digit in the "PIN", they reject it. This means that they either have
access to the great calling card database in the sky, or they are
sleazing some sort of "test call" that uses the number and "listens"
for a Pac*Bell or AT&T rejection. (Didn't some AOS get sued by AT&T
for this?) From the length of time it takes these AOSs to complete
calls, I would suspect the "test call" maneuver.


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

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

From: "<[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: 24 Jan 90 18:45:36 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Oceanport,NJ


Here's a brillant thought.  Why don't the BOC's list all the access
codes in the phone book.  In my NJ Bell phone book, it justs states
that a list of them is available from NJ Bell!  Considering everything
else that's in there (stadium seating charts, etc.) a list of long
distance access codes doesn't seem too far out of line.


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

From: Greg Hackney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Globecom 90, What's the Deadline?
Date: 25 Jan 90 01:23:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: texbell gateway, dallas


Here's a correction from Carl Moore ([e-mail]) on my previous posting:

Greg

The following was in telecom from you; in addition to the minor point of
"`" which I have edited out, the zipcode is wrong.  94583 is San Ramon,
near Oakland.  Solana Beach, near San Diego, is 92075.

                Technical Program Chairman:
                       Thomas Seay
                       Thomas Seay, Inc.
                       982 Santa Florencia
                       Solana Beach, CA  94583   <--  s/b 92075
                       Phone: [phone]


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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 9:45:03 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 0+ In Area 213


Years ago (c. 1981 or 1982) I was wondering about 0+7D in area code
213 (L.A. area, using NXX prefixes and not yet split to form 818), and
was told that timeout was used to distinguish, say, 0-413-2345 from
0-413-234-5678.  Now I just discovered that 0+7D is not in the August
1989-90 Pacific Bell White Pages, Greater Los Angeles.  On page A67
(high page # due to divestiture?) there, it has: Pacific Bell Calling
Card Service: "How to Use Your Calling Card with Touch-Tone Phone with
Touch-Tone Service"; also, "With Rotary Dial Phones", and both of them
start with: "Within and outside your Area Code, dial a. "0", b. Area
Code, c. Phone Number

I did this little exercise because I was wondering (again?) if input
starting with 0NN there would enable the timeout to be skipped (this
is with 0+7D, not 0+213+7D).  (No NNX area codes at this writing;
"Time T" projected for 1995.)

Forgot to ask about LA-area pay phones -- does someone have access to
them?  Preferably GTE or PacBell or AT&T.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #51
*****************************


From [e-mail] Thu Jan 25 03:10:55 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA29728; Thu, 25 Jan 90 03:10:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15256;
          25 Jan 90 1:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07123;
          25 Jan 90 0:36 CST
Date:     Thu, 25 Jan 90 0:01:05 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #52
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Jan 90 00:00:30 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Errata Notice: Update to Last Posting on FCC (Ken Levitt)
    Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (Chris Johnson)
    Various Things (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen!
Date: 24 Jan 90 15:39:11 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
writes...

>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.

>   By JON, Sysop of GLIB, Washington DC., [phone]
>   January 13, 1990

Since I'm playing Rumor Control Central these days, I cracked out my
file on the matter to see what gives. Alas, our Fidonet friend is
wrong.  The threat is not credible at this time, as I will explain.

>   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

No, it's not a tax; the feds wouldn't get it, local telcos would.

>Policies".  (In the legalese technospeak of the communications
>industry, "ONA" means "Open Network Architecture".)

The reason this is bogus is because March 30, 1989 belongs to an
earlier, terminated, historical era in the FCC's history.  That was
BEFORE new chairman Alf Sikes took the reins.  Indeed, on March 30,
there was still a feeling at the FCC that what they couldn't win the
first time around, they might win by the ONA "back door" approach.
But that's dead.

Here's some background.  Former FCC chair "Mad Monk Mark" Fowler had
this idea that the local BOCs monopoly could be made irrelevant if
they had to disaggregate their tariffs into "basic service elements"
and provide them at some cost-based or regulated basis.  The overall
idea was "Open Network Architecture", where "Enhanced Service
Providers" (ESPs) would be able to buy specific services or tailored
packages, to provide the appropriate (for their needs) level of access
to the BOC networks.  The seven RBOCs were asked for their inputs; all
came out with very different ideas of what ONA could or should be.
Indeed they even differed on what was a) currently provided and b)
technically feasible.  (I point this out to demonstrate how vague the
whole business was.  It didn't have any basis in technical differences
between the regional networks; they all use the same CO generics.  ONA
is still an open issue.)

When the FCC came up with the separate matter of reclassifying ESPs as
carriers instead of as users (and thus subject to the higher charge,
about $5/hr), they drew a big outcry.  So Fowler's successor, Dennis
Patrick (a slightly less confrontational ideologue of similar
persuasion), left open the idea of using the ONA proceeding as a way
to get ESP surcharges.  If you want ONA, he implied, you might have to
PAY for it.  This was where things stood in March, 1989.

>   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).

Actually, the definition of Enhanced Subscriber Services wasn't a
voice/data dichotomy, but that's neither hither nor thither.  The now-
operative words are newer than 89-79's admittedly inflammatory words.
They are these words from the November 6, 1989 issue of Congressional
Record, and a related press release from Rep. Markey.  First, the
Congressional Record quotes Rep. Matthew Rinaldo:

    Finally, I want to mention my concerns on one issue that
    has been a source of controversy between the Telecommunications
    Subcommittee and the FCC.  The Telecommunications
    Subcommittee members are in agreement that the Commission
    should not impose access charges on information service
    providers.

    Twice, the Subcommittee Chairman and I have fought the FCC
    on this issue.  The subcommittee believes strongly that
    access charges are inappropriate and would drive up the
    public's cost in getting information services.  We didn't
    make these views explicit in the committee report only
    because FCC Chairman Sikes pledged during our authorization
    hearing not to impose these fees.  We expect the Commission
    to live up to that pledge and work to make information
    services widely available for all our citizens.
        [135CR154]

Mr. Markey's remarks include the following text:

    For over two years, I and many of my colleagues on the
    Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance
    have been concerned about the potentially harmful impact that
    access charges levied on enhanced service providers (ESPs) might
    have on the development of the information services industry and
    the consumers and institutions they serve.

    As has been articulated on numerous occasions through
    Subcommittee hearings and correspondence, my colleagues and I are
    convinced that requiring ESPs, as users of the network, to pay
    carrier access charges would seriously injure the enhanced
    services industry, render advanced information services
    unaffordable for many residential and small business consumers,
    and impede America's competitiveness.

    In the past, the [FCC] has raised, rejected, and raised
    once again the idea of assessing ESP access charges.  Each time,
    the cacaphony of voices, both public and private, opposed to such
    a fee has drowned out the few supporting the idea.  If the US is
    going to have information services develop to its fullest
    potential -- with affordable access to all those who need it --
    there needs to be in place a regulatory commitment to ensuring
    these goals.  Let us, therefore, lay this matter to rest once and
    for all.  The ESP access charge issue should not be resurrected
    again.  ESPs should not be forced to pay usage-sensitive access
    charges for access to the interstate network either directly or by
    "backdoor" devices such as a precondition to obtaining any of the
    Open Network Architecture services.

    During the Subcommittee's September 14, 1989 FCC
    Authorization hearing, Chairman Sikes stated that he does not
    intend to require ESPs to pay carrier access charges in order to
    obtain access to the interstate telephone network.  Because of the
    clarity of the Chairman's statement, and the good faith assurances
    we have received from the Commission since then, this issue was
    not addressed in the accompanying legislation.  The commission
    appears to understand the strength of our concern on this matter.
    Nonetheless, I intend to conduct active oversight of this issue
    and, if the Commission varies from these expxressed concerns, we
    intend to take appropriate and prompt action.
        [Extensions of Remarks, Nov. 7, 1989]


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
Standard Disclaimer:  These remarks are those of the author, at best.
No company in its right mind would agree with me, let alone my employer.

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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 00:27:42 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Errata Notice: Update to Last Posting on FCC


==================== Posted from the FidoNet Law Echo ===================
   Date:   Mon Jan 22 1990  16:52:45
   From:   Bruce Wilson
   Subj:   Re: FCC "Modem Tax,"  Typos

Errata Notice:

 BW> The full Notice of Proposed Rule Making is found in 4 FCC
 BW> Record No. 10, at pages 3893 - 3994.

Should read:

pages 3983 - 3994.

 BW> we are now in the "Sunshine Agenda" period, notwithstanding

Should read:

we are not in the 'Sunshine Agenda' period and that public comments can
be made, notwithstanding
============================ End of FidoNet Posting ========================

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

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups
Date: 24 Jan 90 17:23:41 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN, USA


It's extremely interesting to me that AT&T decided to sue MCI over
"stealing" customers away because after my experience a couple years
ago, I thought about writing a letter to AT&T complaining about that
very practice.  I never did write the letter but here's what happened:

Back when Equal Access was first being implemented by Northwestern
Bell, I had two phone lines in my house.  This seemed to give me a
good opportunity to get the best of both worlds in a sense, so I chose
AT&T (old tried and true) as my primary carrier for one line, and SBS
Skyline (then the cheapest nationwide LD carrier with reputable
quality) for my other line.

Time passes, and MCI buys out SBS Skyline.  I wasn't real happy with
that since I had specifically chosen not to go with MCI as they didn't
seem to offer anything over AT&T.

More time passes, and now MCI as well as other LD carriers are doing
big marketing pushses to get people to choose them as their 1+ LD
carriers.  I must have been getting 1 or 2 calls a month from MCI
alone asking me to try their service.  One night, a lady from MCI
calls with the usual pitch and I respond, as always, "I'm already an
MCI customer, thank you."

At this, she gets confused.  Her records don't show me as an MCI
customer.  She asks me to dial a special number which will tell me my
LD carrier for the phone dialing the number.  I do so, it says "MCI"
and I report back to her on the other phone (the one with AT&T).  She
gets more confused, says thanks, and rings off.

I forgot about it since that was the extent of the call.  Until I got
my next Northwestern Bell phone bill, which not only indicated that
they had changed my LD carrier from AT&T on the one line, but were
billing me a service charge for doing so!

Well, I was more than a little peeved, especially since NWBell had
been gouging its customers for years with ridiculously high rates.
(That was just solved a couple months ago, after 6 to 8 years of
ripping us off, the state attorney general filed a lawsuit against the
phone company, and now they have to pay their customers back something
on the order of $31 million.  Yay!).  I called NWBell's
billing/service people and said I had not by any means requested a
change from AT&T to MCI and why did they change it and bill me?  They
checked and responded that the request to make the change had come
from MCI!  I asked if that was legit, and they said yes, I must have
given MCI the request.  I said no, what do I do now?  They said call
MCI.

So I called MCI.  This was about 2 years ago.  They said they would
change it back and credit my account, although they seemed very
unhappy to do so.  The following month it was changed back to AT&T as
a result of my call to NWBell, for which I was billed again a service
charge.  MCI was supposed to credit me for both of these charges, and
said they would.  A couple months ago, they finally did.  It only took
them 2 years.  Sheesh.

Not that MCI has bad service for their customers who want to be
customers.  I am in fact, an MCI customer now, but not a 1+ customer.
I have an MCI calling card that also gets me mileage in a frequent
flyer club.  Heh.

It seems like MCI's marketing/sales people got a little carried away.
They did it to me, and it's no surprise they did it to others.  I
always like to see people get what they deserve, so it is with great
pleasure I read the news of AT&T's lawsuit against MCI.

"Too bad ignorance and injustice aren't always painful."


Chris Johnson                  DOMAIN:  [e-mail]
Com Squared Systems, Inc.         ATT:  [phone]
Mendota Heights, MN  USA          FAX:  [phone]

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

Subject: Various Things
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 17:38:29 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


1) re: Caller ID and privacy: I read about some company (GTE?) somewhere
   which proposed that those who don't want their number sent out over
   Caller ID could have a special reference code (an undialiable number)
   sent over instead. That way, the caller can maintain privacy if
   necessary, while the callee can have the number traced if trouble occurs.

2) David Lewis wrote about 1 800 NOTHING (668.4464). That number will
   be in the 416 area (668 exchange). From within 416, the number
   "cannot be completed as dialed", though it might be valid if dialed
   outside of 416... perhaps 1 800 NOWHERE (669.4373)???

3) The 668 prefix in 800 works well with the Ontario provincial government's
   tourist office. You can dial 1 800 ONTARIO (668.2746) for Great White
   North tourist info.

4) On a similar note, there is a 1 800 COUNTRY (268.6879) in the 416 area.
   It is used by a TV/phone-order company to sell country music albums.

5) There was an incident some years back with a 1 800 MICHAEL number.
   Seems that Michael Jackson fans thought they could get in touch with
   their hero this way, but turns out that someone else named Michael
   had the number.

6) I had an earlier request for a list of 800 and 900 exchange prefixes;
   I haven't seen it in the net.mail yet, so if someone has anything,
   please send it on down ([e-mail]).

   I do have a list for 800 prefixes used for Canadian numbers only if
   anyone is interested in that (that's how the 1 800 NOTHING location
   would be identified). I don't have much info for the States, though.

7) When interchangeable area codes come on line in the next few years,
   I understand that the first ones to be assigned will be of the form
   NN0 (eg. 220, 560, 990 etc). It seems that this could allow some
   rural-based or uncrowded NPAs to retain their 1+7D dialing, provided
   that they're not using any conflicting NN0 codes (thus, NPAs will be
   of the form N(0/1)X, plus NN0).

   There was even an ordering of how these NN0 area codes are to be
   assigned, while NN0 exchanges within an NPA are to be assigned in
   the reverse order... perhaps this ordering could be posted or
   mailed if available somewhere.

8) Re: London split: London's 01 code will split to 071 and 081. I don't
   know if this subject has been beaten to death here, but one wonders
   why London didn't keep 01 for the central area and use 071 for the
   split-up outer area. This seems less disruptive than scrapping 01
   altogether.

9) New area codes: I have a list of upcoming code splits. I'm surprised
   that codes like 310 and 510 would be used before something like 909
   and 917. It's understandable to hold off reassigning old Mexico
   codes 706 and 905 too soon, though...

|| David Leibold              "Ask not for whom the Bell tolls - the Bell tolls
|| [e-mail]           for free." - Alexander Graham Donne
|| [e-mail]          (from preface to _Toll-Free_Canada_)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #52
*****************************

From [e-mail] Fri Jan 26 04:17:54 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA03090; Fri, 26 Jan 90 04:17:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27849;
          26 Jan 90 2:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27258;
          26 Jan 90 1:44 CST
Date:     Fri, 26 Jan 90 0:45:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #53
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Jan 90 00:45:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Crunch Is Here! (John Draper)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (John Draper)
    Telephone Redialer (Elisei Unteanu)
    Computerized Collect Calls (Adam M. Gaffin)
    Hard Mail Services (Axel Dunkel)
    Want Info on Text to Speech Units (Kenneth East)
    Those Wrong Numbers (John Higdon)
    Fax Group IV Specs (Sharon Lynne Fisher)
    Microcom AX9612c For Sale (Bob Lindabury)
    ISDN and V.35 Board For Buses AT and VME (Alfredo Villalobos)
    London Split (Carl Moore)
    Re: Delay Times in DDS and T1 Spans (Chip Rosenthal)
    Last Laugh! ISDN = ? (Ron Higgins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Draper <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Crunch Is Here!
Date: 13 Jan 90 14:03:09 GMT
Reply-To: John Draper <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


Hello,

   Usually, I don't have time to read ALL the newsgroups on UseNet.
There are too many of them.  But every now and then, someone sends me
Email when they hear people mentioning me.  So, when I just got back
from Germany, I got a ton of Email about discussions in this
newsgroup, so I just HAD to pop on here and see whats up.  I can't say
I've been here before (I think I have, my .newsrc tells me so).  So
now that I've stepped up here on stage, I guess I should say that I
*AM* the Cap'n Crunch, alive and well here in Alameda, recovering from
Jet lag and trying to get accustommed to speaking English again.  I
know John Higdon from the Radio days when I used to work for KSJO.  We
would go up to each others transmitter site and hike around the hills.
John worked at KOME at the time.

So Moderator, please pass this on so I can have a chance to respond to
those people talking about me.

Re: Largest toll free area...  It would have to be the big island of
Hawaii.  It's a local call to anywhere on the island.  At least it WAS
that way in 1984 when I lived there.

And Bernie McKeever.... I can also vouch for "HiRise Joe".  I met him
in Memphis in 1974.  All of us OLD-TIMERS know him very well.

To Higdon... So THIS is where you've been hiding out on USenet...

Gabe.. Re: USSR Phone system.  Yes, I WAS in the USSR in Oct 1988, and
while I was there, they had direct dial, but not to everywhere.  For
instance, while in Leningrad, I think it was possible to call Moscow,
but in Tbilisi (Soviet Georgia) they have NO direct dial to other
Soviet areas.  While in Moscow, I could cal Vilnius, Lithuania by
prefixing a (0222) in front of the number (IF it was 8 digits), or use
(0227) if it was 7 digit number.  There appears to be NO pattern
associated with their area codes, and it often means that city codes
also depend from WHERE you are calling, (similar with the early UK
system).

East Germany also has a hodge podge number assignment.  For instance,
when I call from East Berlin into West berlin, it's treated as an
international call, and I have to dial 8 + 49 + (number - without
berlin code).  Normally, I gut a busy by just dialing the 8.  I was
not able to COMPLETE the call of course, because lines are always
busy.  The 8 is for international calls.  However, calling from the
WEST to EAST Berlin, is treated as a LOCAL call and an International
call.  You can dial:

 00 - International
 37 - Country code for DDR (East Germany)
  2 - for East Berlin
 (number)

But, it's also possible to dial (037) and treat it like calling
another city.  There are about 3 times more lines going from West to
East than from East to West.  West to East rates (just to East Berlin)
are treated like a local call.  By mid summer, they expect to get 1000
more lines.  Gee!! perhaps it would take me just 9 hours instead of 12
hours to get through.

I just returned from Berlin where I was consulting with a few WEST
German Macintosh companies.  I was standing on the wall on new years
eve partying with 500,000 east and west Germans.  Berlin was the place
to be on New Years eve.  And for all my friends out there, I have
pieces of the Berlin wall for you!!  Just don't all call me at
once....  :-).

And Andrei...  A big fat hello to you and all your friends in
Moscow....

Re: COCOT's - Avoid the payphone at the Standard station in Kingman,
Az.  they will NOT allow you to select ATT.

Re: Direct dial to Moscow...  ATT service to Moscow is new (only 6
months or so).  I suspect that service to Moscow only is temporary.
Their equipment is so funkey that ATT (And other carriers) are having
compatability and beurocratic problems.

More later, perhaps I can be pursuaded to talk a little about the
German phone system (It's funkier than you think!!).....


Crunch
UUCP:  [e-mail]

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

From: John Draper <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: 25 Jan 90 10:59:17 GMT
Reply-To: John Draper <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


  I have heard that the indictments for these 3 people were handed
down over a year ago but they were sealed.  It seems awfully strange
to me that they were officially handed out a week after the ATT
outage.

  I guess the potential jurers will now have more sympathy towards the
phone Companies.  Any comments on this??  Is it Really true that the
case is over 2 years old??  I remember hearing it from somewhere,
perhaps a TV Newscast.


John D.

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

From: [e-mail] (Elisei Unteanu)
Subject: Telephone Redialer
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 18:30:48 GMT


When I call overseas, usually a recording answers, saying "all the
circuits are busy in the country you are calling," or "your call
cannot be completed at this time," etc. Sometimes it takes hours to
get through. So I would like to have a device to redial automatically.
I have investigated the usual commercially available devices, and none
of them is satisfactory. They are designed to detect a busy signal. I
need something which will hang up and redial when a recording answers.

Has anyone heard of, or designed or built, such a device?

   Elisei Unteanu
   Mentor Graphics
   626-7000 x 2339
   [e-mail]


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

Date: Wed, 24 Jan 90 21:37:10 EST
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Computerized Collect Calls


On Jan. 7, New England Telephone began switching over to a new
computerized system for handling collect calls from touch-tone pay
phones. Instead of an operator, you get a computerized voice telling
you to punch "one one" for a collect call. Then you say your name, the
computer dials the other number, tells the person it's a collect call
and then plays you back as you state your name.

Just one problem. One of the reporters where I work was negotiating a
sensitive interview and needed to talk to the editor-in-chief. He
didn't have any change, so he tried calling collect. Another editor
picked up the phone, thought it was one of those "goddamned computer
telemarketing things" and promptly hung up.


Adam Gaffin
Middlesex News ("MetroWest's Hometown Newspaper, but you knew that!")

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

From: Axel Dunkel <cat![e-mail]>
Subject: Hard Mail Services
Date: 22 Jan 90 20:43:04 GMT
Organization: C.A.T. Kommunikations-System, W.Germany


Hello!

I'd like to know which (e-mail) services offer to convert e-mails into
"hard" paper mails. Does anyone know?

Please mail, I'll summarize!

Thank you!

                      Axel Dunkel ([e-mail])
                C.A.T. Kommunikations-System, West Germany

[Moderator's Note: Here in the United States, almost all email
services offer that option. MCI Mail, Telemail and AT&T Mail all offer
to send hard copies through the Postal Service to someone who is not a
subscriber to an email service. Further, the services here mostly all
interconnect with each other; that is, a subscriber on MCI Mail can
send email to someone on AT&T, etc....  Care to write an article for
us about the Tele-Box Mail service in your country?  PT]

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

From: Kenneth East <[e-mail]>
Subject: Want Info on Text to Speech Units
Date: 25 Jan 90 19:44:01 GMT
Reply-To: Kenneth East <[e-mail]>
Organization: Boston University


I'd like pointers to makers of text-to-speech devices similar to DEC's
Dectalk (which, as I understand, is no longer being made)

What I'm looking for is something that can
    1) vocalize an arbitrary chunk of ascii text sent to
       it via an RS-232 port.
    2) act as an interface between the telephone line
       and an RS-232 port, and
    3) decode incoming DTMF signals, and pass the identity
       of the key pressed out the RS-232 port.

I'm primarily interested in stand alone devices (i.e. devices that do
not require a slot in a computer).  Any info will be greatfully
appreciated.  Please mail responses.  I will summarize to the net if
there's any interest.


Thanks,
Kenneth East
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Those Wrong Numbers
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 25 Jan 90 12:57:57 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Pac*Bell has just graciously changed my 800 number at no charge. Now I
can reveal just what idiocy was out there by talking actual numbers.

My old number was 800 445-8886. The two top wrong number attempts by
the dweebs out there were 800 445-8667 (Hilton) and 800 445-8880 (Red
and White Fleet). For the life of me, I can't understand how I got
those Hilton calls. But I finally found out the mechanism for all the
Red and White calls.

Last Monday, a woman insisted that I give her information about the
Richmond ferries. It seemed impossible to dissuade her. I answered the
phone, "Wrong Number", and then when she persisted I told her to try
again. She called right back. I told her to dial 800 445-8880. She
hung up and called right back again. I said, "Madam, what will it take
to get you to dial the correct number?"

She tried again. This time I was losing my patience. Suddenly the
woman asked, "Do you think that maybe I should use the oh on the
"Operator" button rather than the oh on the "6"?" That did it. It
became crystal clear that I would never be rid of the Red and White
fleet wrong numbers as long as I kept my current 800 assignment. I had
overestimated the intelligence of the dialing public out there and
that proved to be a major mistake.

When I related this story to my Pac*Bell rep, she agreed to a free
number change, which took effect this morning. I can't wait to see who
calls now!

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

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

From: Sharon Lynne Fisher <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Fax Group IV Specs
Date: 23 Jan 90 05:39:30 GMT


Can anybody point me to people who can talk to me about fax Group IV
specs and how they differ from Group III?

Also, I'd be interested in pointers to any other "new and nifty
things" under development for fax technology.

Thanks!

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Lindabury)
Subject: Microcom AX9612c For Sale
Date: 25 Jan 90 09:56:25 GMT


                     MICROCOM AX9612c Modem for Sale

The AX9612c is the highest-performing member of the Microcom AX family
of error correcting modems along with the AX9624c.  The AX family
combines the Microcom SX and the Hayes Smartmodem AT command sets,
with enhancements for maximum flexibility.  The AX family achieves new
levels of error-free performance through the Microcom Networking
Protocol (MNP) class 5 data compression, and MNP Class 6 service.

Features:

        o       Speeds from 110 to 9600 bps (skipping 2400).
        o       Bell 212A and 103, CCITT V.22 bis and asyncrhronous, and
                V.29 synchronous standards.
        o       MNP Class 6 for high-speed reliable connections at port
                speeds up to 19200 bps.
        o       MNP Class 5 compression, for effective throughput during MNP
                connections of up to 19200 bps.
        o       Universal Link Negotiation lets the modem automatically
                connect wi8th other MNP modems at the highest common speed.
        o       Many other features, can be upgraded to AX9624c at costs from
                $50 to $150 depending on dealer.

This is a great modem and it listed new for $1495.00.  It is in
perfect working condition in the original box complete with manual and
power supply.  This modem can easily be upgraded to the AX9624c
(allowing 2400 bps connections) with the change of a ROM chip.

I am letting this modem go for the low price of $500.00.  If you are
interested you may either call my home phone [phone] or my work
number 201/271-8878 or you can leave me email or call my BBS.  Info
for those are in my signature below.


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

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

From: Alfredo Villalobos <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN and V.35 Board For Buses AT and VME
Date: 25 Jan 90 18:26:16 GMT
Reply-To: Alfredo Villalobos <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept. Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos, dit, upm, Madrid, Spain


We are looking for ISDN (Primary and basic rate) and V.35 (64 kb/s)
boards for buses AT and VME. Drivers for UNIX Sys V Rel 3.2 and UNIX
BSD 4.3 are of interest too.

Any help would be appreciated.


Alfredo Villalobos
[e-mail]

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

Date:     Thu, 25 Jan 90 14:03:06 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  London Split


Yes, it has previously been written in the Digest that some
people wonder why it will be this:

071 inner London
081 outer London

instead of this:

01 inner London (i.e. no change)
071 or 081  outer London

I did visit England recently.  The only guess I could make would
possibly be standardization of number lengths.  But I wonder how
Gatwick (noticed numbers of varying lengths on pay phones at that
airport) would fit into such a scheme. (Gatwick city code is 0293.)

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Delay Times in DDS and T1 Spans
Date: 26 Jan 90 00:55:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Dallas


[e-mail] (Michael Dorl - MACC) writes:

>Does anyone know what typical delay times are for short (say 100 mile)
>56K DDS and T1 lines?

AT&T TR62411 [Dec88] says, "ACCUNET T1.5 circuits will experience one
way absolute delay of no more than 60ms end-to-end."  This does not
include the delay in the CPE (i.e. the boxes you hang on the wires).
I don't have the DDS pubs handy, so I can't help there.

Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Unicom Systems Development


[Moderator's Note: Chip Rosenthal was formerly the Usenet gateway
manager for comp.dcom.telecom.   PT]

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

From: Ron Higgins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! ISDN = ?
Date: 26 Jan 90 01:37:09 GMT
Reply-To: Ron Higgins <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lightning Systems, Inc.


Here's another one to add to your collection:

ISDN = I Smell Dollars Now!


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #53
*****************************

From [e-mail] Fri Jan 26 04:21:45 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA03225; Fri, 26 Jan 90 04:21:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27849;
          26 Jan 90 2:51 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27258;
          26 Jan 90 1:44 CST
Date:     Fri, 26 Jan 90 1:44:08 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #54
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Jan 90 01:43:49 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (John Stanley)
    Re: 911 and Pay Phones (Dan Lance)
    Re: Caller ID (Peter Marshall)
    Re: Caller ID (Steve Vance)
    Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Min (Steve Vance)
    Re: How to Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTS Are Better) (S. Vance)
    Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes (D. Smallberg)
    Re: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries (Jim Breen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 10:38:22 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Breen) writes:

> ... My Concise Oxford has 'operator of an amateur
>radio station' as one of the meanings of 'ham'. Since this would
>include owners of CB sets, it is pretty loose in itself. If you want
>to maintain a tighter definition, e.g a *licenced* amateur radio
>station operator, I would agree that the eavesdropper was not a "ham".

 Sorry, but CB ownership does not make a person a ham. The definition
of amateur radio station is spelled out in the FCC regs, and most
certainly does not include CB. I.e., you are mis-parsing the phrase
"amateur radio station" as (amateur) (radio station), where it is
really (amateur radio) (station).

 To be a member of the amateur radio service, you must be licensed. If
you are not licensed, you are not a member, and thus not a ham. If you
are attempting to operate an unlicensed amateur radio station, there
is a different word for it. Pirate. Or maybe Clandestine. Or, Illegal.
If you are operating under the rules for the Citizen's Radio Service
(CB) then you are a CB'er.

 There is even a question if a CB station is an "amateur
radio-station".  Radio station operators (both professional and
amateur) may fix/tune/modify/build their own equipment, as long as it
perorms within certain technical limitations which the operators are
required to know.  CB station owners are required to purchase only
type-accepted equipment built by a manufacturer who has proven to the
FCC that it operates within those technical limits, and is prohibited
from modifying it in any way. They may perform only those adjustments
certified by the manufacturer to not cause operation outside the
technical limits. They must take a defective CB to a licensed
technician for any repairs.

 For those who are not hams and are confused by the distinction
"licensed amateur radio operator" (ham) and "licensed amateur radio
station", a brief explanation. The amateur radio license (FCC Form
660) licenses both the operator and a fixed station at a specified
address. The ham may operate from non-fixed stations (car, boat,
plane, bicycle, etc.) as well.

 The only differences between ham and non-ham pertinent to the subject
are 1) hams are supposed to know the rules regarding what they can do
with intercepted traffic (nothing except have a private chuckle) while
Joe Populace might not, and 2) hams have a license and investment in
radio gear to protect and so should have less tendency to break the
law by revealing the contents of intercepted traffic.

>OK. Maybe I was loose in my terminology in equating ham with anyone
>who owned a scanner.

 Yes. But I think the Concise Oxford was a mite concise in not
specifying how to parse the definition. In the same vein, I might
wonder why you are looking in a brief shoe for word definitions (-; .

   (Smiley upside down for easier viewing from the bottom of the planet).


       nn    m m   RRR   i    John Stanley      N8GFO
      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
    #include <disclaimer.h>   [e-mail]


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

From: Dan Lance <corpane![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 and Pay Phones
Date: 22 Jan 90 17:15:23 GMT
Reply-To: Dan Lance <corpane![e-mail]>
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.


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!)

One of the new "innovations" in US telephony are COCOTs ("Customer
Owned Coin Operated Telephones"), which are owned by private
individuals or businesses rather than telcos (short for "telephone
company", for those of you who aren't telecommunications junkies).
They are usually leased or sold to business owners.  These phones are
rapidly replacing telco payphones in some parts of the country.

The big problem with COCOTs is that the private companies which sell
and maintain them do not always program them in compliance with local
laws and regulations -- many operators use them to run out-and-out
scams, such as charging for 911 calls, preventing equal access to long
distance carriers and operators, or overcharging for calls.  Public
Utility Commissions (PUCs) do not always adequately regulate these
firms.  Note that the owner of the business which houses the offending
COCOT may not even be aware of the scams being done by the COCOT
operator -- or he or she just may not care.

If you find a phone which doesn't allow free 911 access, let the
phone's owner know about it.  (COCOTs are required to have the name of
the owner on them.  Some do not, though, in which case you should talk
to the business owner instead.)  Give them a few days to correct the
problem -- the problem may be due to an honest mistake -- before
taking any further action.

If the phone or business owner gives you the runaround, or doesn't fix
the problem within a short time, call or write your local Public
Utility Commission and make a formal complaint.  Better yet, get your
department to make an official complaint.  Usually, this will get
results.

Comp.dcom.telecom has been carrying a discussion on COCOTs for some
time.  I've crossposted this reply there -- hopefully the telecom
wizards there will have something additional to say on the subject.

>                     Bill Van Emburg
>                     Rutgers University
>                     ([e-mail])
>                     (...!rutgers!cs.rutgers.edu!vanembur)


Dan Lance            [e-mail]             corpane![e-mail]
Corpane Industries   Middletown Fire Department   Anchorage Rescue Squad
Louisville, KY       Middletown, KY               Anchorage, KY


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

From: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 13 Jan 90 17:14:12 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


David Lewis' 1/10 post re: CNI with 800, omits that same is also the
case with 900 services. Mr. Lewis and others may also wish to acquaint
themselves with prior Bellcore activity in the area of telecom privacy
as an "emerging issue," particularly the work of Dr. James Katz. In
any case, we are not talking only about ISDN and 800 in this context.

Re: John Higdon: Would appear that there is more than PacBell's
prudence and responsiveness at work here. Try, for instance, the
"Eaves" blocking bill passed by the CA Legislature. Try, for instance,
PacBell's prior experience in getting burned by public reaction to
company proposals at the PUC which were seen as privacy-invasive or
intrusive.

Re: Dave Levenson's 1/20 post on this topic, the technology you refer
to is generally called "blocking." Apparently, relevant
Bellcore-designed software had such capacity built in, according to a
Bellcore witness in the PA Caller ID case; and re: blocking in CA,
this is addressed in the so-called "Eaves" bill passed by that
legislature.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499)
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 25 Jan 90 17:35:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499)
Organization: Qantel Corp, Hayward, CA


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

>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.

I think the concept is that you can tell if someone is blocking their
number to you before you answer the phone.  If you don't want to
receive calls from people who are blocking their numbers, then you
don't answer those calls.


Steve Vance
{hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!qantel!stv
qantel![e-mail]
Qantel Business Computers, Hayward, CA


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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499)
Subject: Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe?
Date: 23 Jan 90 23:06:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499)
Organization: Qantel Corp, Hayward, CA


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

>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

Sprint is 10777, n'est pas?  777=SPR for Sprint.


Steve Vance
{hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!qantel!stv
qantel![e-mail]
Qantel Business Computers, Hayward, CA


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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499)
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better)
Date: 25 Jan 90 02:40:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499)
Organization: Qantel Corp, Hayward, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kent Hauser) writes:

>Syntax U (universal):    1 NPA NXX XXXX
>    Should connect me with the unambiguously specified line.

YES!  This is a GOOD IDEA!

Speaking of good ideas, there's one thing that a COCOT can do better
than a "Real" pay phone, at least in this part of the country: if you
dial a number that is a local call WITHOUT having inserted any money,
it says, "Please deposit 20 cents for the first 15 minutes".  When you
do so, your call goes thru.  When you try the same thing on a Pac*Bell
pay phone, it says "The call you have dialed requires a 20 cent
deposit."  You have to hang up, deposit .20, and REDIAL.  This is the
same sort of nuisance as "1 + your local areacode + local number" not
working!


Steve Vance
{hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!qantel!stv
qantel![e-mail]
Qantel Business Computers, Hayward, CA


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

From: David Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Net Friends Charged With Telephone/Computer Crimes
Date: 26 Jan 90 02:23:56 GMT
Reply-To: David Smallberg <lanai![e-mail]>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


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

>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.

>... IF these individuals are indeed
>guilty 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

I'll go along with "stupidity".  They were first detected at UCLA when
someone noticed someone logged into an otherwise unused
special-purpose account rummaging through the password file.  The next
day, a faculty member who never logs in was logged in.  "talk"ing to
him and asking questions (e.g. how was the conference you were just
at?) revealed that the person on the account was clearly not the
faculty member, and a phone call to the faculty member confirmed this
(and the faculty member said his password was just his first name).

Now if I were the cracker, at this point I'd be outta there *real*
fast.  Not these guys!  The transcripts of the on-line conversations
between "Kev" and "Ron" reveal that they considered that maybe they've
been detected and that they'd better lay low; but then they
immediately dropped the topic and went on to talk about something
else.

Their UNIX expertise was not high.  According to Brian Reid's account
of how he detected the breakin at Stanford, the cracker's attempt at
squirreling away setuid shells caused logins to take a noticeably
longer time than usual.  They apparently didn't think anyone would
notice.

I got the feeling these were guys not used to thinking in terms of
multiuser systems, not being alert to the fact that "who"s and "ps"s
casually invoked by someone else could expose them.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 02:17:25 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hank Nussbacher)
writes:

>           Cost comparison of 64kb digital service
>               in various countries
>

Thank you Hank. Very interesting. The readers might like to see
the Aus equivalents. (I state them in $US at $US0.75 = $A1.00)

>     Country            5km       10km       50km      200km     500km
>     ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
>     Average         |  589.4  |  919.4  |  1865    | 3663.9  |  4996.4 |
>     ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
>
      Australia(ISDN)    173       173        385       677      834
               (DDS)     812       812        812(*)    1261(*)  2250(*)

In the above I have included $60 pm which is about the rental of the
BRI service. The low price of ISDN here is accentuated when it is
compared with the 48k Digital Data Service, with which it will
compete. Note that the ISDN rate is for a single circuit. There is a
progressive discount as you get more lines so that 10 circuits cost
about 7 times as much as 1 circuit.

(*) difficult to make comparisons because DDS effectively has a
three-step transmission charge which is zero for intra-city and then
breaks at the 1200km mark. It also depends on whether it is a big city
or a small one. I guess that in most of the countries Hank listed 1200
km would see you over the border.

Frankly I think the Aus. prices are amazing. Telecom here ia often
regarded as very expensive, some say second only to Bundespost. Things
appear to be changing.

    _______           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]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #54
*****************************

From [e-mail] Fri Jan 26 05:18:02 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA05137; Fri, 26 Jan 90 05:17:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05753;
          26 Jan 90 3:54 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27849;
          26 Jan 90 2:51 CST
Date:     Fri, 26 Jan 90 2:40:24 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #55
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Jan 90 02:38:43 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Special Issues This Weekend; Mail Overflow (TELECOM Moderator)
    GTE - Making Money the Sleazy Way (Chip Rosenthal)
    Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges....) (David Lewis)
    Re: The Big PUC Give-Away (Peter Marshall)
    Re: New Sleazy 900 Service (Peter Marshall)
    Re: ISDN S,T Interface Differences (Jim Breen)
    Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (Bob Langford)
    Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List (David Tamkin)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 26 Jan 90 1:53:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Special Issues This Weekend; Mail Overflow


Special issues of the Digest planned for this weekend include a
rebuttal by Mr. Gilmore to my reply on his posting of 'computer
friends'; a two-part special mailing with a reference listing of all
telephone companies in the United States; and a more detailed look at
Mr.  Paulsen, one of the 'computer friends' defendants.

Which brings me to my next point: Right now, the inbound queue is
*jammed* with unprinted mail. There is about a two day backlog -- not
including the lengthy special issues mentioned above -- of items for
publication.

Most of what is here now which has not yet appeared will be
distributed by the end of the weekend, at the latest.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE - Making Money the Sleazy Way
Date: 26 Jan 90 00:31:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Dallas


Now I'm beginning to understand why the Texas PUC tried to beat down
GTE's rates and force customer refunds during the last review.  These
folks are sleazy.

Called yesterday to disconnect my service in preparation for my move
from Dallas to Austin.  I asked them to place a recording on my number
directing folks to my new number.  They said they would be glad to.
For the tidy sum of $11.20 a month.

My jaw hit the counter.  In all the states I've lived in and telcos
I've dealt with, I have never seen such a thing.  To do a quick
reality check, I called down the road to SWB to see about their
policy.  They do not charge.

I called back the GTE office to get the poop on this.  They claim that
the Texas General Exchange Tariff section 13 [June 20, 1985]
authorizes this charge.  Tomorrow, I'm going to have to swing by their
business office and check this out.  I wonder who the weasel is that
sold the PUC on this.

I did contact the Texas PUC shortly afterwards, and will be following
up with a letter.  I got the impression that they receive a lot of
complaints about GTE's service connect charges.

Anyway, I learned my lesson.  I will never again live in an area
serviced by GTE.


Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Unicom Systems Development


[Moderator's Note: Chip Rosenthal was formerly the Usenet gateway manager
for comp.dcom.telecom.   PT]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges....)
Date: 25 Jan 90 19:19:17 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> (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 phrase "... generally speaking, less technology is required to
transmit data via telephone circuits..." is sufficiently vague and
nebulous as to be semantically null...  The relevent factors are what
are the traffic engineering impacts of data traffic versus voice
traffic.

What do you mean by "telephone circuits", what do you mean by "less
technology", and what do you mean by "transmit data"?  If a "telephone
circuit" means everything between and including two 2500 sets, then
you clearly need more hardware to transmit data -- you have to put an
acoustic coupler on each end.  Does that mean more "technology"?  On
the other end of the spectrum, if by "telephone circuits" you mean a
twisted pair, you need some amount of hardware to send either voice or
data.  Which needs "more technology" -- the one that requires more $$?
The one that needs higher tech equipment?  The sentence could mean
anything.

The hypothesis that any "data surcharge" using traffic engineering
theory is based on is that calls carrying data traffic have
statistically significantly different traffic engineering
characteristics than do calls carrying voice traffic.

The PSTN is engineered for certain traffic parameters.  These
parameters include number of call attempts per hour, percentage of
call attempts abandoned, percentage of call attempts with no called
party response, and (most significantly for this case) average holding
time (and if you want to get fancy, distribution of holding time).

The hypothesis goes that calls carrying data traffic have a longer
mean holding time, and are generally have a distribution more skewed
towards long holding times, than do calls carrying voice traffic.  In
addition, there may be less call attempts abandoned (your modem is
less likely to get frustrated over five rings and hang up) and a
higher percentage of call completions (the answering computer isn't
likely to be in the shower).

While a single call carrying data traffic with a 1-hour holding time
is admittedly the same as a single call carrying voice traffic with a
1-hour holding time, the hypothesis is that the presence of a
significantly different class of traffic can require re-engineering of
the network to handle the additional service demands which would not
otherwise exist.  Therefore, there is effectively a new class of
service which should support the cost of this re-engineering.

There are a couple of problems with this hypothesis.  FIrst of all,
there have been very few attempts to experimentally verify it.  The
data really aren't there to confirm or deny whether data traffic
exists as a statistically significantly different class of traffic
from voice traffic.  So attempts to bill differently are really (in my
view) based on an intuitive notion that calls carrying data traffic
"must be" different than calls carrying voice traffic.

The second problem is that the hypothesis is about five years behind
the times.  The characteristics of data traffic are changing as the
characteristics of computing change.  While ten years ago it may have
been true that the vast majority of calls carrying data traffic were
long holding time interactive terminal sessions, the trend is to more
and more true "distributed systems" where the data communication tends
to be more high-speed, off-peak bulk transfers.  A whole bunch of
five-minute data calls between 1 and 4 AM, face it, aren't going to
impose an unmanageable load on the PSTN...


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

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

From: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Big PUC Give-Away
Date: 26 Jan 90 15:02:41 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


Thanks to John Higdon for risking "curmudgeon" status here. Obviously,
what he describes can be generalized beyond PacBell.  TURN, BTW, seems
to have been not invisible. Perhaps a more interesting question would
relate to the CA Legislature's visibility or lack thereof, however.

Nevertheless, the "incentive regulation" gospel spreads. In the
allegedly populist Northwest, the WA PUC is expected to issue an order
likely approving a US West version of "incentive regulation"
imminently; and meanwhile, back in CA, the PUC Chair was apparently
quoted in a recent Business Week piece to the effect that the CA PUC's
approval of "incentive regulation" for PacBell and GTE-CA would do
good things for profits.

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

From: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Sleazy 900 Service
Date: 12 Jan 90 14:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


More re: Edward Greenberg's post on 900 Service: Similar uses of 900
are cropping up recently. Example: a Seattle TV station recently
carried a documentary on the Iran hostage situation with a so- called
"900 spot," inserted, inviting viewers to call in their opinions,
which would then be compiled and forwarded to "policy-makers."

To further develop Mr. Greenberg's point, it should be noted that such
900 applications appear often to use ANI; a fact that is not typically
pointed out to the caller, whose number is disclosed. When this
dimension was pointed out to the general manager of the Seattle TV
station noted above, he directed his sales reps to ask syndicators of
programming including 900 spots(and 800)if the 900 applications
included such uses of ANI features; and if they did, to indicate the
station would not carry the material.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Breen)
Subject: Re: ISDN S,T Interface Differences
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 01:46:01 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Johnny Zweig) writes:

> 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.

Crudely put, but basically correct.

> 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?

The physical (i.e. Layer 1) interfaces for S and T are identical.
(I.430/I.431). Whether your ISDN terminal would work depends on the
other layers. If it can handle full LAP-D, get the TEIs and SAPIs
right and carry out the full I.451 dialogue with your exchange, all
should be OK. In Australia at least, I believe Telecom will be
certifying that whatever connects to the T can do this before it is
allowed to connect.

> 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?

There sure is supposed to be, well for S & T any way. U is quite
another matter. I.430 section 8 is quite comprehensive in its
definition of the electrical aspects. It specifies ISO DIS 8877
(Connector and Contact Assignments for ISDN Basic Access Interface at
Reference Points S and T) for the plug.

    _______           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]


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

Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 13:34 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List


Just as a test, I called C7P Telephone here in Richmond to see what
info they could/would provide.  I called the residential
customer-service number in the phone book, and asked which long
distance companies served my home.  The rep. asked for my phone
number, and after a couple of minutes, gave me the list of six
companies.  She gave me no hassle about which ones come before others,
as others on the net have told about.  The list came in no obvious
order that I could see.  The rep. was unable (she said) to give me the
access codes for these carriers, but did have their phone numbers.
All but one of them is listed in the local white-pages phone book.

In spite of the above success, there is a definite trend towards
hiding this kind of information from the public.  After a careful
reading of the new phone book (December 1989), there is only ONE
SENTENCE about how to make a long-distance call outside the local LATA
(although they don't use the term LATA).  The one sentence that
appears in on the page about ordering new service, NOT a section about
long-distance, because there isn't one!  (Except for two pages showing
an area code map and area codes for some cities [not the new code in
New Jersey, though!]).  I'm really getting steamed about this; I may
write a letter to the local editorial page this weekend.


     Bob Langford, Medical College of Virginia
     [e-mail]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial an OCC: 10xxx List
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 19:48:05 CST


The forenameless <[e-mail]> wrote in Telecom Digest,
Volume 10, Issue 51:

| Here's a brillant thought.  Why don't the BOC's list all the access
| codes in the phone book.  In my NJ Bell phone book, it justs states
| that a list of them is available from NJ Bell!  Considering everything
| else that's in there (stadium seating charts, etc.) a list of long
| distance access codes doesn't seem too far out of line.

Here in Chicago, Illinois Bell (a subsidiary of an RBOC as its name
implies) does not mention 10XXX dialing in its directories at all.
Central Telephone (an independent) gives a partial list of available
1+ carriers, with their contact numbers and with the 10XXX codes for
those who want their 10XXX codes showing.  From the 1987 book to the
1988 book AT&T, Allnet, and ITT had their codes pulled: the companies
are still listed, but there are just hyphens where 10288, 10444, or
10488 would be printed.  Litel pulled its code as of the 1989 book; as
of 1987 Tri-Tel's code was already unlisted.


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] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 19:26:37 GMT


Since the FONCARD numbers and the AT&T numbers are drawn from separate
pools with no protection against duplications I would be disturbed if
they *were* interchangable.

Now my FONcard is not *currently* based on a legal phone number, but one
day after we run out of N(1/0)X area codes it may well be.

SPRINT's just planning ahead.


 _--_|\  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?" `-_-'

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #55
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sun Jan 28 02:31:29 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA16122; Sun, 28 Jan 90 02:31:22 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30025;
          28 Jan 90 1:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14347;
          28 Jan 90 0:00 CST
Date:     Sat, 27 Jan 90 23:25:32 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #56
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Jan 90 23:25:17 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    MCI Reaffiliation Tactics (David Tamkin)
    RSVP = Residential Centrex for C&P (John Boteler)
    Caller ID Tech Specs (Joseph Jesson)
    Zip/area Code Directory (Carl Moore (VLD)
    Annenberg/CPB Initiative to go Forward ([e-mail])
    Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) (David Tamkin)
    Miscellanea -- Choices of Areacodes, Prefixes (Carl Moore)
    Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute? (John Higdon)
    Re: Hum Filter Needed (Kelly Pearce)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 21:31:26 CST


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 52, Chris Johnson complained about
MCI's telling telcos to change a customer's primary carrier to MCI and
a customer's not hearing about it until the reaffiliation charge
appears on the local telco's bill.

MCI is truly rotten about that.  Here is my story with that problem:

At the end of December, 1988, Telenet announced the surprise PCP rate
increase, pulling that holiday weekend trick, doing all the other
nasty things we discussed here at the time.  A number of us were so
p.o.'ed at United Telecommunications that we stopped using US Sprint
as well.

Reach Out America was impractical for me, so I took a pass on AT&T and
opened 10XXX accounts with both MCI and Teleconnect in January, 1989.
(Teleconnect is now part of Telecom*USA and is my primary carrier
now.)  On both I registered my two lines and my parents' two lines.
My primary carrier had been US Sprint; my parents' has been AT&T all
along.

Now that works fine with Telecom*USA: I dial 1+ or 10835+ or my
parents dial 10835+ and it all gets billed to my Telecom*USA account;
all our calls together count toward making the $5 monthly minimum, for
example.

That's the way it was supposed to work with MCI.  (The MCI account has
no minimum, but it does have volume discounts.) I repeat: "supposed
to".

On my parents' May 19, 1989, bill from Illinois Bell were two $5
reaffiliation fees.  My mother called me when the bill came and asked
me what that was about.  I asked her to dial 1-700-555-4141 from both
lines and to let me know what she heard.  Both went to MCI's
recording.  I phoned Illinois Bell about it.

Illinois Bell said that the order came from MCI.  "You honor whatever
the carriers say and charge the customer for it?"  "The carriers would
never lie to us."  Uh huh.  Illinois Bell switched my parents' lines
back to AT&T and credited them for the reaffiliation charges.

I called MCI.  They apologized but couldn't figure out HOW such a
thing had happened; there was *nothing* on the account, they assured
me, that indicated I wanted 1+ service on any of the four telephone
numbers on it.  The account was just as I had ordered it: four
telephone numbers for 10222 dialing and two calling cards.  OK...

I had occasion in late June to make a long-distance call from my
parents'.  I placed it via MCI so that it would appear on a bill I
would be paying anyway instead of the AT&T pages from their Illinois
Bell bill.  10222+1+NPA-NNX-XXXX.  But it doesn't get billed to my MCI
account; it shows up on an MCI page of their July 19 Illinois Bell
bill!

I called MCI.  They couldn't have phone numbers at different addresses
on the same account, so the account could not stay the way I ordered
it, so they had to take my parents' numbers off my MCI account.
Still, they figured that my parents must want MCI, so they had sent
Illinois Bell the reaffiliation order.  They apologized for not having
explained.

So it's settled, I figure.  Then in August Central Telephone called
me.  They had received notice from MCI to change my primary carrier to
them.  It was dated the previous May, but they had just received it.
"No way, no way at all, but thank you very much for checking with me
first."  Then I told them what Illinois Bell did to my parents.

I called MCI.  I yelled at them.  They apologized, saying again that
they didn't know HOW such a thing could have happened.  Yeah, yeah ...

A while later, I placed a 10222 call from my own home.  It shows up
not on my MCI bill but on an MCI page of my September 4 Centel bill.
What??

This time MCI told me that after the July call, they had taken my
numbers off the account and put my parents' numbers on it, which I had
said were supposed to be on it for 10222 dialing.  They had tried
putting my numbers onto a 1+ account, but I couldn't use it because I
told Centel not to reaffiliate me.  That left my numbers unknown to
MCI, so when I dialed 10222 they had to bill me through my telco.

Sigh.  Well, come mid-October I get another call from Centel.  MCI had
notified them to reaffiliate me and they wanted to check with me
first.  Grrr (at MCI, not at Centel).

So I phoned MCI.  Finally a rep there admitted that my account had
been coded for 1+ service, and that was what was generating all the
requests to Illinois Bell and to Centel to reaffiliate our numbers.
He went through the whole history with me, and it turned out that the
only part of my account that MCI staff hadn't played games with was
the two calling cards.  He swore to me that the coding was removed,
and at least I know that nothing has gone wrong for the last three
months.


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: RSVP = Residential Centrex for C&P
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 2:44:46 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


An acquaintance of mine couldn't sit still the other day, so he bugged
the C&P Business Office all day. One of the morsels of info he came up
with:

R.S.V.P. Service Offering is C&P Tephone Cumpny's name for Residential
Centrex.

Details are sketchy until the literature comes in, but we know that:

1. The package includes Speed*Calling, Call*Waiting (UGH!),
    Call*Forwarding, Call*Transfer, Call*Forwarding Variable;
    you know, the usual Centrex stuff. Preliminary info
    said this package costs an additional $8/month.

2. For an additional $3.50/month 3-Way*Calling may be added to
    the package.

3. [Empty]

Those in the Lesser Washington Area might be interested in this
service; I know I should demand a cut for this since their
overwhelming marketing effort has left this a secret service!

Happy dialing!


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

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

From: Joseph Jesson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Tech Specs
Date: 21 Jan 90 04:02:18 GMT
Organization: Jolnet, Public access Unix, Orland Park (Joliet) IL


Been taping my telephone's initial ring signal to see if any in-band
signaling (Caller ID in particular) is occuring before the first (?) or
after the first ring signal. I heard the teles were testing caller id
in the Chicago area, but, so far, have not heard any in-band tone
sequence being forwarding yet in my switch's area.

Does anyone know the code used? Is it a DTMF sequence AFTER the first
ring?  I want to build a phase lock loop decoder...

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

Date:     Fri, 26 Jan 90 9:43:49 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Zip/area Code Directory


As I am notifying Paul Cook, here is the reference to the zip/area
code directory I was talking about:

The Zip/Area Code Directory, compiled by Ruthie Marks, Jan. 1986
edition, ISBM 0-08576-083-X, 48 pages, price $3.50 printed on cover
(subject to change)

Publisher: Pilot Books, 103 Cooper St., Babylon, NY 11702
Phone [phone]


[Moderator's Note: But isn't this sort of old and outdated? We know of
several area code changes since 1986, and there have been zip code
changes as well.....does Ruthie have plans to update her book?   PT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 15:41:59 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Annenberg/CPB Initiative to go Forward


The Project seeks proposals from a 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.  Funds of up to $150,000
are available for individual colleges, and up to $300,000 for groups
of colleges.

The Initiative, "New Pathways to a Degree: Using Technologies to Open
the College," will also help the winning colleges work together on
policy issues, evaluation, and dissemination.

As you may have heard, the Annenberg Foundation, which has aided the
Annenberg/CPB Project in the past, has indicated its intention to
suspend support due to a change in the Foundation's tax status.  This
change does not affect the Initiative, however, since funds are
already in hand to carry out the Initiative and other activities.

If you need a copy of the guidelines, write or call:

The Annenberg/CPB Project
1111 Sixteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]

or send electronic mail to  [e-mail]

Remember, the submission deadline is May 15, 1990.

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 19:41:25 CST


John Higdon wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 51:

| Both my Sprint FONCARD and my Pac*Bell calling card have numbers that
| bear no resemblance to mine or anyone else's phone number. In the case
| of Sprint, the card was obtained long before the FON business from US
| Telecom, which Sprint continued to honor after the merger. My Pac*Bell
| card was issued without an imbedded phone number at my request. It, of
| course, works perfectly with AT&T.

When the old GTE Sprint and U.S.Tel merged, US Sprint replaced the old
nine-digit, no-surcharge travel codes with the fourteen-digit
surcharged FONcard numbers.  Naturally, they sent me a number
including my telephone number.  I phoned them screaming: it's bad
enough that they stick us with a surcharge they never seemed to need
before, but to reduce my security from nine digits to four was
unthinkable.

The automaton on the telephone gave the preprogrammed speech that, few
as the hacks of nine-digit codes were, there had never been any
fourteen-digit codes broken.  I informed it that they didn't give me a
fourteen-digit code, they gave me a FOUR-digit code.  It has four
digits' security but requires the punching effort of fourteen: the
worst of both worlds.  "And if you tell me, `But it's so easy to
remember,' I'll cancel my Sprint service right now," I added.
Suddenly the customer service droid was able to offer me a "scrambled
PIN" as it called it and to disable the one that contained my
telephone number.

When I first ordered a card from MCI, they too did me the honor of
assuming numbers scare me and sent me one with my telephone number
plus four more digits.  I phoned them immediately, but it was two
years later than the US Sprint incident, and their rep knew what I was
objecting to.

When we go to NNX area codes the first ten digits of any calling card
number will match a potential local telephone number, but that's
unavoidable, and it shouldn't be the local phone number of the person
whose name is on the card.

Come to think of it, why are our names embossed on the cards?  For the
PR value of making us feel important?  So that after everyone at a
party tosses his or her calling card into a pile, we know which card
goes back home with whom?


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, 26 Jan 90 14:58:36 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Miscellanea -- Choices of Areacodes, Prefixes


Someone asked why use N10 for 2 upcoming area codes in California.
(510, splitting from 415 and getting East Bay area; and 310,
splitting from 213 and getting the coastal part of L.A. area.)
I'll summarize from memory from at least 2 previous Digest postings:

510 area: 903 had already been chosen for area to split from 214 in
Texas (why, I don't know), 909 looked too much like 707, and 917 was
only one digit off from 916.  (707 and 916 both border what will be
510).

310 area: 210 and 310 were left after eliminating what's now in use
as prefixes in 213 (at or since 213/818 split?).  310 was chosen
because it was easier to distinguish from 213.

2 recently-chosen prefixes on the East Coast raised my eyebrows:
earlier messages (in telecom?) wondered about choice of 638 for Bel
Air, Md. (area 301) where 836 and 838 were already in use, and this
month I discovered, in the Wilmington (Del.) directory, references in
the call guide to 215-558 (Chester Heights, Pa., which already has 358
and 459).  Your first choice for a new prefix would be something
sharing the 1st 2 digits with an existing prefix in the same service
area.  Thus, 301-392 was put in in Elkton, Md. back around 1980; the
existing prefix there was 398.  But more recently, North East, Md.,
which already had 301-287, got 920 because no other 28x was available.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Should I Abandon AT&T For MCI's Offer of $0.59/Minute to Europe?
Date: 26 Jan 90 03:22:25 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499) writes:

> Sprint is 10777, n'est pas?  777=SPR for Sprint.

Ah, but you ignore the wonderful world of mergers and takeovers. In
the (almost) beginning there was US Telecom (10333) and SPC, then
later, GTE Sprint. Then there was one--US Sprint, who adopted 10333 as
the access code while 10777 was (and still is being) phased out. I
notice that calls will go through on 10777, but my Sprint rep (and who
could doubt his Sprint rep) tells me to use 10333.

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

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

From: Kelly Pearce <dsac!dsachg1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hum Filter Needed
Date: 26 Jan 90 22:13:21 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Ogden, UT


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

> Do we need to post a basic phone wiring tutorial to the Digest?

> phones be posted?  ....am I unintentionally volunteering myself by

>  Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

Yes, I think it is a good idea and you most definitely,
unintentionally volunteered. |^)


Kelly M. Pearce, DLA Systems Automation Center, [phone], AV 790-0549
UUCP:      ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!dsac!dsachg1!kpearce
INTERNET:  [e-mail]
* Opinions are still mine, but the gov't has a claim on everything else. :^)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #56
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sun Jan 28 03:42:09 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA18520; Sun, 28 Jan 90 03:42:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25662;
          28 Jan 90 2:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30025;
          28 Jan 90 1:05 CST
Date:     Sun, 28 Jan 90 0:10:47 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #57
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Jan 90 00:10:21 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: 0+ in Area 213 (and 312/708) (David Tamkin)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (Carol Springs)
    Re: Who's Using Whom? (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (John Higdon)
    Re: London Split (Jeremy Barker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 0+ in Area 213 (and 312/708)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 90 19:43:46 CST


Carl Moore wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 51:

| Years ago (c. 1981 or 1982) I was wondering about 0+7D in area code
| 213 (L.A. area, using NXX prefixes and not yet split to form 818), and
| was told that timeout was used to distinguish, say, 0-413-2345 from
| 0-413-234-5678.  Now I just discovered that 0+7D is not in the August
| 1989-90 Pacific Bell White Pages, Greater Los Angeles.  On page A67
| (high page # due to divestiture?) there, it has: Pacific Bell Calling
| Card Service: "How to Use Your Calling Card with Touch-Tone Phone with
| Touch-Tone Service"; also, "With Rotary Dial Phones", and both of them
| start with: "Within and outside your Area Code, dial a. "0", b. Area
| Code, c. Phone Number

When the Chicago area prepared for NXX, Illinois Bell announced that
along with requiring 1+10D for calling outside 312, 0+312+7D would be
necessary for assisted calls within 312.  Centel continued to accept
0+7D (plus timeout, I imagine), per their instructions up through the
August, 1989, directory.  I moved to Centel territory in 1987 but have
never tried 0+7D, using 0+312+ 7D instead, which has worked just fine.
With the recent area code split, 0+708+7D or 0+312+7D will certainly
be required for operator-assisted calling across the new NPA boundary.


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: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Organization: The World
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 04:01:39 GMT


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

>Both my Sprint FONCARD and my Pac*Bell calling card have numbers that
>bear no resemblance to mine or anyone else's phone number.

                                [....]

>The amusing thing about this is that up until recently, when keying in
>my Pac*Bell card to an AOS, they would generally reject the call
>saying that my card number was "invalid". (It had no phone number that
>they could sleaze casual billing to.) Lately, however, I am noticing
>that they seem to be able to verify the number, and if I change one
>digit in the "PIN", they reject it. This means that they either have
>access to the great calling card database in the sky, or they are
>sleazing some sort of "test call" that uses the number and "listens"
>for a Pac*Bell or AT&T rejection. (Didn't some AOS get sued by AT&T
>for this?)

Excuse, please, I'm new to this Digest and have deliberately avoided
trying the standard jargon lest I misuse it.  But I'm curious about
John's use of the term "sleaze" here.  I'm moderately familiar with
terms like phone phreaking, but this is a piece of slang I haven't
come across before.  Is it part of the vernacular, or just an example
of John's use of irony?  Do most people consider the "casual billing"
of one's local phone company sleazy?  Is that because AOSes have been
known to do this without checking the PIN--and that's where the casual
part comes in?  I would readily agree that "test calls" of the number
with some other carrier are inherently sleazy--let's hope it's just
that the databases are getting better.


[e-mail]         Carol Springs

[Moderator's Note: In most of the discussion here over the past couple
of months, 'sleaze' has been used to describe the content of the
programming on many, perhaps most 900/976 numbers. Casual billing is
not a sleazy tactic; actually it is a great service, and allows
flexibility in the use of 'casual' (or non-one-plus) long distance
carriers.  But the practice some AOS' use of making a 'test call' over
AT&T to validate a card (rather than subscribe to some expensive and
probably unavailable validation service is a 'sleazy' technique. PT]

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who's Using Whom?
Date: 26 Jan 90 20:22:14 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John McHarry) writes:
(X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 51, message 1 of 9)

> Robert Gutierrez wrote in v10 #35 that, contrary to what I had said in
> v10 #30, some IEC trunk groups do overflow to trunks into another
> IEC's network.  Unfortunately he has committed the fallacy of
> listening to what I said rather than to what I meant.  All I meant to
> assert was that access to one IEC's network is not obtained via
> another IEC's switched facilities (with the interesting exception I
> discussed)...........

Ah, yes. Humble apologies for that error......

 ....but,

[...]
> Switched access via AT&T seemed to be the original theory of why
> Higdon could not access US Sprint during the AT&T incident last MLK
> Day.  (Actually, even that isn't quite true: He had been told there
> was a cable cut.)  No one has yet commented on the likelihood of my
> theory that there may have been an AT&T operated switch acting as part
> of the LEC's network, perhaps acting as the access tandem.

If AT&T did offer such a 'switched' service, is it in fact, dedicated
service to the customer's site using switched facilities???

Yes, it is.

But, there are no tariffs for such an *OUTBOUND* service, at least here
in California.

I perceive 'switched' service as a service providing access to the
Telephone Network using the Local carrier's switches, as opposed to a
dedicated line which would run through the local carrier's switch (or
at least, patch-bay), but dial-tone would provided by the L.D.
carrier. Now, if the 'switched' service was offered to a potential
customer, I.E.: dial-tone provided by the local telco, then the local
telco *cannot* prevent equal access unless requested by the customer.

But what if AT&T actually rented the local loop, then re-sold it to
the customer, thereby becoming the 'customer' of the line in
question??? Yes, then the above theory would be reality, but AT&T
would not be using their 'equipment' for the local loop, just renting
it from the local telco. But again, this type of tariff does not
exisit in California for outbound customers. Remember, AT&T cannot
'use' their switches to provide 'local' dial-tone or tandem switching
to the LEC, this would be in violation of seperation of church and
state....errr....  the Baby Bells from Ma Bell.

But it DOES exist for inbound services, notably 800 services. The
major L.D.  carriers do indeed offer three types of 800 services:

     1) Dedicated.   Line runs directly to your location. Does not pass
Go, does not collect $200.

     2) Switched.    Calls come in via a POTS number, but POTS number is
rented by, and serviced by the 800 carrier itself. The POTS number has no
outgoing dial-tone, and no published number.

     3) Customer Provided.    Customer Provides POTS number. 800 carrier
simply routes 800 calls to that POTS number.

So, 'Outgoing Switched' is different than 'Incoming Switched'
services.  Why this is, I have no idea. That is a very good point that
maybe somebody else can comment on....???

> Lest I get corrected yet again: Of course one accesses international
> networks via an IEC's switched network,.........

I don't understand this one. I think I lost the meaning of this line.

>........Also, one can
> sometimes connect through one network into a gateway into another
> network.  I guess this is what PBX access ports could be viewed as
> doing for private networks.

This is a *very* sensitive issue for all the carriers, as they do not
like these 'leaky' PBX's, since the private companies are not
'tariffed' to provide long distance calls, which is essentially what
happens when an employee uses their PBX for that purpose (of being a
'gateway'). In Other Words: the LEC/IEC's lose revenue.

> Regarding Gutierrez' other comment on my comment that separate direct
> trunks to two different carriers would be overkill: I agree that it
> might well be a good idea to split the traffic between two carriers at
> the point of presence (POP), but the larger threat is probably a cable
> cut between the customer premises and the POP...........

That is true, of course, but how often does that happen as opposed to
Your Friend And Mine: The Backhoe chomping away at a 810 megabit fiber
line at some highway construction site.

> To guard against that would require diverse routing of the cables,
> probably to the extent of running them out different sides of the
> building.........

I am not saying this is for everybody. It's like saying that I should
have a cluster of 10 Sun Sparcstations at home just in case....I have
no need for such overkill, but you original article quoted 'corporate'
telcom managers. In a corporate world, it would NOT be overkill since
it would no doubt be vital to maintain communcation outside their
business. And in a corporate world, they (should) have the technicial
expertise and the equipment to set up such diverse routing in their
switches.

> This is only my humble opinion.  It hasn't been reviewed, approved, or
> billed for.

Same here.

Ja ne.   Robert Gutierrez/NASA Ames Research Center/NSI Operations.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges)
Date: 26 Jan 90 12:33:11 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]> writes:

> > (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.

> The phrase "... generally speaking, less technology is required to
> transmit data via telephone circuits..." is sufficiently vague and
> nebulous as to be semantically null...  The relevent factors are what
> are the traffic engineering impacts of data traffic versus voice
> traffic.
[...]
> While a single call carrying data traffic with a 1-hour holding time
> is admittedly the same as a single call carrying voice traffic with a
> 1-hour holding time, the hypothesis is that the presence of a
> significantly different class of traffic can require re-engineering of
> the network to handle the additional service demands which would not
> otherwise exist.  Therefore, there is effectively a new class of
> service which should support the cost of this re-engineering.

Talk about vague and nebulous. So a call carrying date is the same as
a call carrying voice traffic but it isn't? What is a "significantly
different class of traffic"? How is it different?

And where do you get this 1-hour holding time? If my computer carried
on a one hour conversation with another (at PEP rates--9600+ bps), I
would suspect that someone had mistakenly sent _War and Peace_ or some
such. Try one or two minutes unless news is being fed and then it is
something like ten minutes MAXIMUM holding time. And that's usually
between 00:00 and 06:00, hardly a time of stress for the telco.

Also, the fact that call completion rates are higher is a plus for the
telcos. While call attempts are not billed, completed calls are and if
the percentage of completions is higher for modem calls, then revenue
production will be greater for a given amount of facility usage. And
while you or I will continually try a busy number (using facilities,
of course), a computer will try once or twice and then wait some
amount of time before the next attempt. (In the case of HDB, the
communications software that a lot of us use, those attempts get
further and further apart until the number is tried only once a day.)

> So attempts to bill differently are really (in my
> view) based on an intuitive notion that calls carrying data traffic
> "must be" different than calls carrying voice traffic.

So why, in the absence of demonstrable need, have the telcos, the FCC,
and congresscritters jumped on this "modem surcharge" bandwagon? I'll
answer that question. It has been my observation that proposed (and
enacted) charges by telcos rarely have any basis in reality. They are
a means of protecting the rate base.

One of the best examples is the charge for Touch Tone. As has been
pointed out, TT subscribers actually put less of a load on switching
facilities by holding input registers for less time. So those who pay
for TT not only subsidize the rotary customers with money but tax the
equipment less. If this were truly a cost-sensitive issue, rotary
customers would pay more. But what have some telcos done? They have
*raised* TT charges. Makes sense to me.

> The second problem is that the hypothesis is about five years behind
> the times.

I agree. And one would think that if the telcos managed to get through
all that old fashioned interactive traffic without surcharges (being
content to just bill the calls at regular rates) that this matter
could be put to bed at long last.

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

[Moderator's Note: I think the 'one hour holding time' could be
explained thus: many of us sit on line to do our work. For example, I
am connected to a local dialup here for two hours each day minimum
while working on the Digest. And what of the numerous people who spend
their entire lives on Compuserve CB (or it would seem like it! :) )...
Data is data is data.....and there are far more casual BBS users and
modem chatters out there than you realize, staying on line for an hour
or more at a time. What I can communicate vocally in fifteen seconds
takes a minute or more of interactive chat to type, transmit and read
does it not?  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 07:11:03 PST
From: "Jeremy Barker, DEC, Reading, UK" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London Split


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> Yes, it has previously been written in the Digest that some
> people wonder why it will be this:

> 071 inner London
> 081 outer London

> instead of this:

> 01 inner London (i.e. no change)
> 071 or 081  outer London

> I did visit England recently.  The only guess I could make would
> possibly be standardization of number lengths.  But I wonder how
> Gatwick (noticed numbers of varying lengths on pay phones at that
> airport) would fit into such a scheme. (Gatwick city code is 0293.)

This interpretation is correct.  There is a medium term plan to move
all numbers to being the same length (in preparation for a much bigger
change to all numbers in the late 1990s).

Larger cities have area codes (what you may think of as "city code",
BT now calls "area codes") of 0N1 and other places 0NYX, where Y is
not 1 (in both cases the leading zero is omitted for international
calls).  The numbers in 0N1 areas are 7-digit and all others will
become 6-digit.  Right now there are still a lot of 3, 4 and 5-digit
numbers.

One nasty thing about the changes in London (compared with similar
changes in the US) is that there is *NO* period where either number
can be dialled and the call completed.  After the change people
dialling an 01 (or +44 1) number will get a recording with the correct
code (071 or 081) and will have to call again.  The plan is that this
will be continued until the number of calls to 01 is very small.  No
duplicated exchange numbers will be used until about 1992/3, and they
will be "carefully chosen" according to a BT publication I have.


Jeremy Barker                   [e-mail] or
Digital Equipment Company       [e-mail]
Reading, UK                     voice: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #57
*****************************

From [e-mail] Sun Jan 28 13:51:40 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA09019; Sun, 28 Jan 90 13:51:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25758;
          28 Jan 90 12:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20124;
          28 Jan 90 11:10 CST
Date:     Sun, 28 Jan 90 10:56:32 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #58
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Jan 90 10:55:12 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    New ISDN Technology (Anybody Using It?) Comments (Barton A. Fisk)
    Re: ISDN and V.35 Board For Buses AT and VME (Vance Shipley)
    New GTD-5 Went Online in Los Gatos CO Saturday (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: The AT&T Problem (Tad Cook)
    Re: COCOT Carrier Access (Carl Moore)
    Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret ([e-mail])
    Re: Sprint Stuff (John G. De Armond)
    Novel New 900 Number In Use (Louis A. Mamakos)
    Special Issues Will Follow (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton A. Fisk" <holston![e-mail]>
Subject: New ISDN Technology (Anybody Using It?) Comments?
Date: 25 Jan 90 17:08:32 GMT
Organization: Barton A. Fisk & Co.


Is anybody using the new ISDN technology for connecting
computers/lans? Would you give us your comments and experiences?

Is anyone using the ISDN telephones? Comments?  If you would like to
email I'll summarize.


Barton A. Fisk          | UUCP: {attctc,texbell}vector!holston!barton
PO Box 1781             | (PSEUDO) DOMAIN: [e-mail]
Lake Charles, La. 70602 | ----------------------------------------
318-439-5984            | "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"-JC


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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN and V.35 Board For Buses AT and VME
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 90 17:54:30 GMT


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

>We are looking for ISDN (Primary and basic rate) and V.35 (64 kb/s)
>boards for buses AT and VME. Drivers for UNIX Sys V Rel 3.2 and UNIX
>BSD 4.3 are of interest too.

I have a brochure from a company called "Meridian Networx" who have
ISDN boards for PC's, unix drivers and other stuff.

They seem to be getting the stuff from France, a company called "SCII".

Company info as listed:

Meridian Networx
14044 Ventura Blvd. suite #303
Sherman Oakes, CA 91423
tel[phone]
fax[phone]

I had trouble parsing this one so here's how it appears exactly:

SCII Europe 11, BIS RUE DE PRESBOURG, 75116 PARIS, FRANCE/TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

                     _______ Disclaimer _______

I have no connection with these people nor have I used their products; I only
have a brochure!

Vance Shipley                                               [e-mail]
SwitchView - Linton Technology                 ... uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances
[phone]

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: New GTD-5 Went Online in Los Gatos CO Saturday
Date: 26 Jan 90 17:30:57 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


(X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 41, message 4 of 9)

> > 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)............

You DO know that a GTD-5 is scheduled to go online in the Los Gatos
C.O.  TOMORROW?!? (1/27).

The letter was sent to the customers on 1/5 by a Bill McNeer, District
Manager:

     "The new GTD-5 switching unit will use the most advanced digital
      technology to complete a greater volume of telephone calls at a
      faster speed and more accurately than before."

Aside from the terrible sentence structure, is he trying to say that
customers won't experience more than 1 crash per day, as opposed
to 3-4 crashes per day????  :-(

I got the letter from one of my co-workers, who is a victim....errr....
customer of GTE-Los Gatos.

Los Gatos is a small town almost next to San Jose, California, for those
of you reading this outside the Bay Area.

> 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.

But you have to remember that Pac*Hell....errr...Pac*Bell replaced
their switchpersons....uhhh....I mean, their switches with 5ESS's or
DMS-100's which they can monitor and fix from their San Ramon Network
Management Center, all automated. And you wonder why they're getting
rid of (what was it.....???) around 14,000 employees???

  Robert Gutierrez.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: The AT&T Problem
Date: 27 Jan 90 20:18:12 GMT
Organization: very little


Someone posted a long and interesting saga about frustrations of
trying to get a list of LD carriers from C&P Telco that served a
particular C.O.

After my local switch converted to equal access, I had no trouble at
all getting this info from US West.  The customer service person sent
me a photocopy of a list of all carriers serving my C.O., and it
included the 10XXX codes.  Some of them were pretty obscure, like
"Long Distance Savers of Redmond".  I think the list even included
phone numbers for each carrier.  The list was copied from a computer
prinout that didn't look like anything that would normally be
distributed to the public.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]
MCI Mail: 328-8544


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

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 15:34:28 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOT Carrier Access

Oh, where do you complain if you can't use 10xxx from a COCOT?  You
write of that problem occurring at a Standard station in Kingman,
Arizona, and I recently ran across that at at restaurant near Mount
Vernon, Va., with no identification available as to whose payphone it
was.

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 01:39:48 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand
Subject: Re: 10XXX - A BOC Secret


) 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.

Would that it were!  No, here in God's Own Country, you can TRY to
dial intra-LATA calls via 10xxx.  Depending on the phase of the moon,
you get either an intercept message or a fast busy.  It's a shame,
too, because the AT&T rates for short distances are a bit lower.
Compare Sou Bell: Daytona is ~30 miles away, 20/12; New Smyrna is
about 25 miles away, 30/20.  Costs in pennies for first/next minutes.

Don't get the idea that AT&T rates are all comprehensible, though.  I
find that Florida is not part of "America" as in "Reach Out &".  If
you want to call AT&T-reacable places in Florida, you have to
subscribe for an initial hour/month of Florida service.  That initial
hour costs more than the hour to "America".  The incremental time
after the first hour is also more expensive in Florida than America.

(Not being impressed at having left America, I threw the Florida
business back to someone else.  No flames please from Canada or
Mexico over term "America".)

 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra attctc bpa uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner


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

From: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Date: 28 Jan 90 09:56:22 GMT
Reply-To: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car
 and gun works facility)


>The amusing thing about this is that up until recently, when keying in
>my Pac*Bell card to an AOS, they would generally reject the call
>saying that my card number was "invalid". (It had no phone number that
>they could sleaze casual billing to.) Lately, however, I am noticing
>that they seem to be able to verify the number, and if I change one
>digit in the "PIN", they reject it. This means that they either have
>access to the great calling card database in the sky, or they are
>sleazing some sort of "test call" that uses the number and "listens"
>for a Pac*Bell or AT&T rejection. (Didn't some AOS get sued by AT&T
>for this?)

The reason for this is simple.  All visa/MC/Amex type and the phone
company credit cards ("phone company" means most BOC or AT&T) follow a
published standard of checksuming the digits of the card.  The last
digit is a derived value based a computation of a sum-of-the-digits
algorithm.  This algorithm is not a simple add-the-digits routine but
I don't have the specifics handy.

One of 2 things has happened.  Either Pac*Bell has changed to a
standard algorithm or they've published the one they use so the AOS's
can verify.  I suspect the later.  For the AOS's I'm familiar with,
the algorithmic check is ALL they do.  They don't subscribe to or use
a credit database.

Another interesting fact concerns the insecurity of PINs.  We already
know that the last digit is computed.  On most AT&T/BOC cards, the PIN
starts with a "2".  (Please don't clog the group here telling me that
yours is different.  I make my statement based on some pretty reliable
statistics we collected when I was working with an AOS.)  This leaves
only 2 numbers to "guess" if you are trying to figure out a PIN.  This
is something you might want to keep in mind as you review your phone
charges.


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


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

Subject: Novel New 900 Number In Use
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 18:24:30 EST
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <[e-mail]>

I saw this in a glossy that I picked up at USENIX.  Finally, a non sleaze
900 number!

            Anonymous Access to
              UUNET's Source Archives

              1 900 GOT SRCS

    UUNET now provides access to its extensive collection of UNIX
related sources to non-subscribers.  By calling 1-900-468-7727 and
using the login "uucp" with no password, anyone may uucp any of
UUNET's on line source collection.  Callers will be charged 40 cents
per minute.  The charges will appear on their next telephone bill.

    The file uunet!~ls-lR.Z contains a complete list of the files
available.  uunet!~ls-lRt.Z contains the same list, but sorted by
modification time.  These files are updated daily.  Files ending in
.Z, such as these, are {\it compressed} to save transfer time.  These
must be uncompressed before used.  The file uunet!~/compress.tar is a
tar archive containing the C sources for the uncompress program.

    This service provides a cost effective way of obtaining
current releases of sources without having to maintain accounts with
UUNET or some other service. All modes connected to the 900 number are
Telebit T2500 modems.  These modems support all standard modem speeds
including PEP, V.32 (9600), V.22bis (2400), Bell 212a (1200), and Bell
103 (300).  Using PEP or V.32, a 1.5 megabyte file such as the GNU C
compiler would cost $10 in connect charges.  The entire 55 megabyte X
Window system V11 R4 would cost only $370 in connect time.  These
costs are less than the official tape distribution fees and the are
available {\bf now} via modem.

            UUNET Communications Service
             3110 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 570
               Falls Church, VA 22042
              [phone] (voice)
              [phone] (fax)
                 [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 10:27:09 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issues Will Follow

Throughout the day Sunday several special issues of the Digest will
follow. A two-part (because of its size) special will include a
complete list of all telephone companies in the United States. Another
special will be a rebuttal by Mr. Gilmore on my 'Net Friends' reply. A
fourth special will be some background information on Kevin Poulsen.

Patrick Townson


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #58
*****************************

From [e-mail] Mon Jan 29 03:00:58 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA08145; Mon, 29 Jan 90 03:00:51 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00613;
          29 Jan 90 1:42 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19268;
          29 Jan 90 0:37 CST
Date:     Mon, 29 Jan 90 0:33:56 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #59
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Jan 90 00:33:09 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report (Don H. Kemp)
    AT&T Outage (Jeff Wasilko)
    Disabling Extensions for Modem Use (Tad Cook)
    Re: New GTD-5 Went Online in Los Gatos CO Saturday (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 12:24:48 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


Here's AT&T's _official_ report on the Martin Luther King day network
problems, courtesy of the AT&T Consultant Liason Program.


Don

=========================================================

Technical background on AT&T's network slowdown,
January 15, 1990

                             *  *  *

At approximately 2:30 p.m. EST on Monday, January 15, one of AT&T's
4ESS toll switching systems in New York City experienced a minor
hardware problem which activated normal fault recovery routines within
the switch.  This required the switch to briefly suspend new call
processing until it completed its fault recovery action -- a
four-to-six second procedure.  Such a suspension is a typical
maintenance procedure, and is normally invisible to the calling
public.

As part of our network management procedures, messages were
automatically sent to connecting 4ESS switches requesting that no new
calls be sent to this New York switch during this routine recovery
interval.  The switches receiving this message made a notation in
their programs to show that the New York switch was temporarily out of
service.

When the New York switch in question was ready to resume call
processing a few seconds later, it sent out call attempts (known as
IAMs - Initial Address Messages) to its connecting switches.  When
these switches started seeing call attempts from New York, they
started making adjustments to their programs to recognize that New
York was once again up-and-running, and therefore able to receive new
calls.

A processor in the 4ESS switch which links that switch to the CCS7
network holds the status information mentioned above.  When this
processor (called a Direct Link Node, or DLN) in a connecting switch
received the first call attempt (IAM) from the previously
out-of-service New York switch, it initiated a process to update its
status map.  As the result of a software flaw, this DLN processor was
left vulnerable to disruption for several seconds.  During this
vulnerable time, the receipt of two call attempts from the New York
switch -- within an interval of 1/100th of a second -- caused some
data to become damaged.  The DLN processor was then taken out of
service to be reinitialized.

Since the DLN processor is duplicated, its mate took over the traffic
load.  However, a second couplet of closely spaced new call messages
from the New York 4ESS switch hit the mate processor during the
vulnerable period, causing it to be removed from service and
temporarily isolating the switch from the CCS7 signaling network.  The
effect cascaded through the network as DLN processors in other
switches similarly went out of service.  The unstable condition
continued because of the random nature of the failures and the
constant pressure of the traffic load in the network providing the
call-message triggers.

The software flaw was inadvertently introduced into all the 4ESS
switches in the AT&T network as part of a mid-December software
update.  This update was intended to significantly improve the
network's performance by making it possible for switching systems to
access a backup signaling network more quickly in case of problems
with the main CCS7 signaling network.  While the software had been
rigorously tested in laboratory environments before it was introduced,
the unique combination of events that led to this problem couldn't be
predicted.

To troubleshoot the problem, AT&T engineers first tried an array of
standard procedures to reestablish the integrity of the signaling
network.  In the past, these have been more than adequate to regain
call processing.  In this case, they proved inadequate.  So we knew
very early on we had a problem we'd never seen before.

At the same time, we were looking at the pattern of error messages and
trying to understand what they were telling us about this condition.
We have a technical support facility that deals with network problems,
and they became involved immediately.  Bell Labs people in Illinois,
Ohio and New Jersey joined in moments later.  Since we didn't
understand the mechanism we were dealing with, we had to infer what
was happening by looking at the signaling messages that were being
passed, as well as looking at individual switches.  We were able to
stabilize the network by temporarily suspending signaling traffic on
our backup links, which helped cut the load of messages to the
affected DLN processors.  At 11:30 p.m. EST on Monday, we had the last
link in the network cleared.

On Tuesday, we took the faulty program update out of the switches and
temporarily switched back to the previous program.  We then started
examining the faulty program with a fine-toothed comb, found the
suspicious software, took it into the laboratory, and were able to
reproduce the problem.  We have since corrected the flaw, tested the
change and restored the backup signaling links.

We believe the software design, development and testing processes we
use are based on solid, quality foundations.  All future releases of
software will continue to be rigorously tested.  We will use the
experience we've gained through this problem to further improve our
procedures.

It is important to note that Monday's calling volume was not unusual;
in fact, it was less than a normal Monday, and the network handled
normal loads on previous weekdays.  Although nothing can be guaranteed
100% of the time, what happened Monday was a series of events that had
never occurred before.  With ongoing improvements to our design and
delivery processes, we will continue to drive the probability of this
type of incident occuring towards zero.

                              # # #

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: Sun, 28 Jan 90 15:28:40 EST
From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Outage


I found this is the comp.risks.digest, and haven't seen it here yet, so
here it is:

>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 14:24:30 PST
>From: "Peter G. Neumann" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Cause of AT&T network failure

>From Telephony, Jan 22, 1990 p11:

    "The fault was in the code" of the new software that AT&T loaded
    into front-end processors of all 114 of its 4ESS switching systems
    in mid-December, said Larry Seese, AT&T's director of technology
    development. In detail:

    The problem began the afternoon of Jan 15 when a piece of trunk
    interface equipment developed internal problems for reasons that
    have yet to be determined. The equipment told the 4ESS switch
    in New York that it was having problems and couldn't correct the
    fault. "The recovery code is written so that the processor will run
    corrective initialization on the equipment. That takes four to six
    seconds. At the same time, new calls are stopped from coming into the
    switch." Seese said.

    The New York switch sent a message to all the other 4ESS switches
    it is linked with that it was not accepting additional traffic.
    Seese referred to that message as a "congestion signal."  After
    the switch successfully completed the reintialization, the New York
    switch went back in service and began processing calls.
    That is when the fault in the new software reared its ugly head.
    Under the previous system, switch A would send out a message that
    it was working again, and swithc B would double-check that switch
    A was back in service. With the new software, switch A begins
    processing calls and sends out call routing signals. The reappearance
    of traffic from switch A is supposed to tell switch B that A is
    working again.

    "We made an improvement in the way we react to those messages so
    we can react more quickly. The first common channel signaling system
    7 initial address message (caused by a call attempt) that switch B
    receives from swithc A alerts B that A is back in service. Switch B
    then resets its internal logic to indicate that A is back in service,"
    said Seese.

    The problem occured when switch B got a second call-attempt message
    from A while it was in the process of resetting its internal logic.
    "[The message] confused the software. it tried to execute an instruction
    that didn't make any sense. The software told switch B `My CCS7 processor
    is insane'", so switch B shut itself down to avoid spreading the problem,
    Seese explained.

    Unfortunately, switch B then sent a message to other switches that it
    was out of service and wasn't accepting additional traffic. Once switch
    B reset itself and began operating again, it sent out call processing
    messages via the CCS7 link. That caused identical failures around the
    nation as other 4ESS switches got second messages from switch B while
    they were in the process of resetting their internal logic to indicate
    switch B was working again.

    "It was a chain reaction. Any switch that was connected to B was put
    into the same condition."

    "The event just repeated itself in every [4ESS] switch over and over
    again. If the switches hadn't gotten a second message while resetting,
    there would have been no problem. If the messages had been received
    farther apart, it would not have triggered the problem."

    AT&T solved the problem by reducing the messaging load of the CCS7
    network. That allowed the switches to rest themselves and the network
    to stabilize.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use
Date: 28 Jan 90 20:06:43 GMT
Organization: very little


In response to a posting about a device that was suppposed to prevent
interruptions to modem transmissions, the moderator asked for a piece
on this general class of device.  These are called exclusion modules.

There are a couple of types.  The kind that the questioner bought from
DAK is probably an unbalanced voltage sensitive type.  You put it in
series with a phone, and it prevents that phone from interrupting or
intruding on any other extension that is already using the line.  It
senses voltage, and if it sees normal 48 vdc when you go off hook, it
lets you in.  If it sees less than about 32 vdc, it opens up, and you
are excluded.  It sits in series with one side of the line.  You could
take one and put it in series with all of the extensions in the house,
with the modem only wired to the telco side, but it may cause a slight
imbalance on the line.

Another class of exclusion module is the group exclusion.  It has an
imput side wired to the incoming telco line, and it divides the line
into two groups.  Whenever a device wired to one side is using the
line, the devices wired to the other side are excluded.  Some group
exclusion modules have a priority side, which means that devices
hooked to that side always have access, even when the line is being
used by someone on the other side.

Graybar, North Supply, and other distributors should be able to get
these.  One manufacturer who has been making them for 20 years
is Proctor & Associates.

Here are their part numbers:

41403  Balanced single line exclusion         $20.70
41404  Balanced Group Exclusion, 1 side has priority   $35.00
41405  Unbalanced single line exclusion       $12.50
41434  Like 41405, but modular. All above are hardwired  $15.30
oops!  That part number above SHOULD BE 41412!

41434  Balanced Modular Group Exclusion, like 41404, but
modular, and MUTUALLY exclusive.           $59.95

A cheap but messy way around all this is to use the extra jack on your
modem marked TELEPHONE.  Cut your phone line before it goes to all the
extensions, and run the incoming side to the modem.  Run a line from
the "phone" side of the modem back to the wires feeding all the other
jacks in the house.  This will preven interruptions, but it also means
that the modem CUTS OFF ANYONE USING THE LINE when it goes off hook.
Best put an extension phone next to the computer so you can check the
line first.

Proctor and Associates is at 206-881-7000.  Their minimum
order requirement is $50.00.

Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New GTD-5 Went Online in Los Gatos CO Saturday
Date: 28 Jan 90 13:00:38 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>

> You DO know that a GTD-5 is scheduled to go online in the Los Gatos
> C.O.  TOMORROW?!? (1/27).

No, I didn't. But right you are; I just dialed my 354 phone there and
sure enough it is GTD-5. I guess I was asleep at the switch (sorry).

>      "The new GTD-5 switching unit will use the most advanced digital
>       technology to complete a greater volume of telephone calls at a
>       faster speed and more accurately than before."

I remember when the EAX when in some years ago. They used almost the
same wording on the letter then. They went to great length to tell
subscribers how much more advanced the equipment was than any other in
the area. I guess they were talking about the directorized SXS that
they still had on 356 at the time.

LG customers should be thrilled; they can finally get three-way
calling.

> But you have to remember that Pac*Hell....errr...Pac*Bell replaced
> their switchpersons....uhhh....I mean, their switches with 5ESS's or
> DMS-100's which they can monitor and fix from their San Ramon Network
> Management Center, all automated. And you wonder why they're getting
> rid of (what was it.....???) around 14,000 employees???

Not in my CO they haven't. It is still #5 crossbar. How do you suppose
they will remote that to San Ramon :-) I drive past my CO whenever I
make a left turn out of my driveway, and it is oh, so comforting to
see the batallion of cars parked in the lot. I can just imagine how
much spray solvent is being consumed in there! Not to mention CONTAC
cleaner.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #59
*****************************

From [e-mail] Mon Jan 29 04:05:13 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA10318; Mon, 29 Jan 90 04:05:07 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07974;
          29 Jan 90 2:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00613;
          29 Jan 90 1:42 CST
Date:     Mon, 29 Jan 90 1:20:36 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #60
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Jan 90 01:20:07 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Telecom Archives Index (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (Gregory G. Woodbury)
    Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (Tad Cook)
    Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (Tad Cook)
    From the Archives: The Day TAT-8 Went Into Service (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 17:30:29 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Archives Index


It occurred to me today that many readers have seen frequent mentions
here of the Telecom Archives, but because they are not on an Internet
site, they have no way of reviewing/retrieving material from that
repository of back issues and other articles.

Having never seen it, they can't really begin to imagine how large it
is, and the amount and type of files stored. Below is a picture of the
directory for the archives as of today (it changes daily, of course),
and I submit it with an invitation to use it regularly.

If you *can* use it, you probably know *how* to use it: 'ftp
lcs.mit.edu' then login anonymous; use your [e-mail] for a
password, 'cd telecom-archives' and make your picks.

total 15236
drwxrwxr-x  3 telecom      2560 Jan 28 18:13 .
drwxr-xr-x 17 root          512 Jan  9 13:32 ..
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson      718 Jan 27 17:33 1981.Intro.to.archives
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    94485 Jan 14 22:32 1981.vol1.iss004-020
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    33063 Jan 20 19:29 1982.vol2.iss001-003
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   382277 Jan 14 22:09 1982.vol2.iss089-141
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   191518 Jan 20 17:59 1983.vol3.iss001-021
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    63880 Jan 14 22:53 1983.vol3.iss083-095
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    16811 Jan 15 01:08 1984.vol4.iss001-002
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   121389 Jan 15 01:04 1984.vol4.iss076-093
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   180604 Jan 20 18:29 1985.vol4.iss155-184
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson      658 Jan 27 17:23 1985.vol5.READ-ME-FIRST
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   623292 Jan 27 17:08 1985.vol5.iss001-076
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   861286 Jan 27 18:05 1986.vol5.iss077-161
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   639112 Jan 26 03:07 1987.vol6.most.issues
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   274580 Jan 20 16:09 1987.vol7.complete.set
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    21596 Jan 20 16:06 1987.vol8.iss003-004
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   137265 Jan 20 15:36 1988.vol8.iss070-083
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   724832 Aug  1 20:53 1988.vol8.iss140-189
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   227589 Aug  1 20:53 1988.vol8.iss190-213
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   577173 Jan 15 00:01 1989.vol9.iss001-049
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   564262 Jan 14 23:28 1989.vol9.iss050-100
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   653097 Jan 14 21:32 1989.vol9.iss101-150
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   637611 Jan 15 00:24 1989.vol9.iss151-200
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   744800 Jan 14 21:33 1989.vol9.iss201-250
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   787166 Jan 14 21:35 1989.vol9.iss251-300
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   805328 Jan 14 21:54 1989.vol9.iss301-350
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   780366 Jan 15 00:08 1989.vol9.iss351-400
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   784366 Jan 15 00:09 1989.vol9.iss401-450
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   758330 Jan 15 00:09 1989.vol9.iss451-500
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   794183 Jan 14 16:44 1989.vol9.iss501-550
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   856691 Jan 14 16:48 1989.vol9.iss551-603
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson   861272 Jan 28 18:03 1990.vol10.iss001-050
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson        0 Jan 28 18:13 INDEX
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson      968 Jan 20 20:39 READ.ME.FIRST
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      8147 Aug  1 21:00 areacode.program.in.c
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     18937 Aug  1 21:00 auto.coin.collection
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     15141 Aug  1 21:00 cellular.sieve
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     23944 Aug  1 21:00 computer.state
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      9151 Aug  1 21:00 country.code.list
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    39319 Aug  1 21:00 docket.87-215
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     3422 Jan 20 19:52 early.digital.ESS
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    62602 Aug  1 21:00 ecpa.1986
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     8504 Jan 27 18:47 enterprise-funny-numbers
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     33239 Aug  1 21:00 fcc.policy
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     19378 Aug  1 21:00 fcc.threat
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson      484 Jan 14 17:02 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      9052 Aug  1 21:00 find.pair
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     47203 Aug  1 21:00 fire.in.chgo.5-88
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     1998 Jan 27 18:25 fire.in.st-louis.1-90
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson      377 Jan 27 18:40 fires.elsewhere.in.past
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     1280 Jan 14 17:33 first.issue.cover
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     8397 Jan 14 16:57 glossary.acronyms
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    67113 Jan 14 16:56 glossary.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     32645 Aug  1 21:00 guide.to.areacodes
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     2337 Jan 27 19:00 history.of.digest
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    43365 Jan 28 17:59 kevin.poulsen.comp.crimes
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      4816 Aug  1 21:00 lauren.song
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom       801 Aug  1 21:00 ldisc.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      2271 Aug  1 21:00 ldnotes.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     13675 Aug  1 21:00 ldrates.txt
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    12260 Jan 20 00:43 london.ac.script
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    15604 Aug  1 21:00 mass.lines
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom       463 Aug  1 21:00 measured-service
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    36641 Aug  1 21:00 mnp.protocol
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     2450 Jan 20 19:47 modems.and.call-waiting
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     11197 Aug  1 21:00 named.exchanges
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      3014 Jan 27 18:56 newuser.letter
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     9886 Jan 23 23:37 occ.10xxx.access.codes
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     8350 Jan 28 10:57 occ.10xxx.notes.updates
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     8504 Jan 27 18:43 old.fashioned.coinphones
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      2756 Jan 27 18:52 old.hello.msg
drwxrwxr-x  2 jsol         1024 Jan 27 17:50 oldarc
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    70153 Aug  1 21:01 pc.pursuit
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      5492 Aug  1 21:01 pearl.harbor.phones
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    42188 Jan 14 16:58 phrack.acronyms
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    38772 Aug  1 21:01 pizza.auto.nmbr.id
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    17950 Jan 14 16:51 rotenberg.privacy.speech
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson     9764 Jan 20 19:50 starline.features
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    46738 Jan 18 22:29 starlink.vrs.pcp
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      3857 Aug  1 21:01 tat-8.fiber.optic
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    31487 Jan 28 18:11 telco.name.listing
-rw-rw-rw-  1 ptownson   127125 Jan 28 17:03 telecom-recent
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom     11752 Aug  1 21:01 telstar.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom       298 Aug  1 21:01 west.german.cellular
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    37947 Aug  1 21:01 wire-it-yourself
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom      4101 Aug  1 21:01 wiring.diagram
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson    24541 Aug  1 21:01 zum.debate

Enjoy!

Patrick Townson


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

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges....)
Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 00:12:00 GMT


In article Telecom v10i55m3/9 (David Lewis) writes:

>The hypothesis that any "data surcharge" using traffic engineering
>theory is based on is that calls carrying data traffic have
>statistically significantly different traffic engineering
>characteristics than do calls carrying voice traffic.
    :
    :
>There are a couple of problems with this hypothesis.  FIrst of all,
>there have been very few attempts to experimentally verify it.  The
>data really aren't there to confirm or deny whether data traffic
>exists as a statistically significantly different class of traffic
>from voice traffic.  So attempts to bill differently are really (in my
>view) based on an intuitive notion that calls carrying data traffic
>"must be" different than calls carrying voice traffic.

>The second problem is that the hypothesis is about five years behind
>the times.  The characteristics of data traffic are changing as the
>characteristics of computing change.  While ten years ago it may have
>been true that the vast majority of calls carrying data traffic were
>long holding time interactive terminal sessions, the trend is to more
>and more true "distributed systems" where the data communication tends
>to be more high-speed, off-peak bulk transfers.  A whole bunch of
>five-minute data calls between 1 and 4 AM, face it, aren't going to
>impose an unmanageable load on the PSTN...

    I have good reason to believe that some of the telcos (and
especially Bell Labs) do have some good statistical data on the
parameters of data calling.  At the Holmdel and Piscataway labs
(pre-divestiture) and (I think) at Murray Hill, they had Dimension
PBX's for all the internal traffic.  They also knew which lines were
dedicated to voice and which lines were pure data and which lines were
used for both.  The RMATS (Remote Maintenance, Administration and
Traffic System) for Dimension and Horizon PBX's had the ability to
group the information gathered in several different ways and one of
the flags in the database indicated the expected usage
(voice,data,both and other) of the line.

    The RMATS development group (at Holmdel) collected the
statistics from the Holmdel PBX's over a few years (around 1981) and
played with it.  I don't recall if they ever released any of the
analyses but I would guess that the data is still available internally
if someone wanted it.  Unfortunately, I don't remember any of the
relevant statistics, I was busy doing System Admin and Testing and
only noticed the other activities of the project subliminally.

    About 1981 was an interesting time at the Labs.  One of the
sites at Holmdel (vax136) was a major netnews node with connections
all over the country and the lab.  For internal connectivity the lab
didn't like running extra cables and encouraged/required the use of
dial-up connections as much as possible.


Gregory G. Woodbury
Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...dukeac!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] (Home)  [phone] (Work)
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>


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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail
Date: 28 Jan 90 20:22:07 GMT
Organization: very little


Darn it, there IS a way to get to MCI Mail addresses from USENET, and
vice-versa, but I LOST the article from PC WEEK on how to do it!
Anyone having the info, please post.

Tad Cook
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: To get *to* MCI Mail from the internet, your mail
can be addressed like this: I am writing to box 123-4567 so the
internet address would be [e-mail]. In other words, add
three zeros to the left, drop out the dash, and add @mcimail.com.
Simplicity itself!  Now from MCI back to here is a bit more of a task,
but full documentation is on line at MCI Mail.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen!
Date: 28 Jan 90 20:33:18 GMT
Organization: very little


One thing caught my attention on the posting about ONA access
charges (modem tax).  It looks like this is an attempt to end an
EXEMPTION for networks like MCI Mail, Tymnet, etc, rather than
impose a new tax that the voice networks don't pay.

Am I confused on this?

Tad Cook
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You are only confused in the sense that, according
to Fred Goldstein, the whole matter has been mooted out by the change
of personnel at the FCC, and the attitude of some congress-creatures
right now. Yes, there was a 'second time around', as per messages in
the Digest last week, and it was worded differently but would have
accomplished much the same thing. But the whole thing is dead now, we
are told. If it is dead, I wonder why they (FCC) don't actually close
the docket, which is still open....maybe they are waiting quietly
until next year.  Eternal vigilance is required, if you ask me.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 1:06:27 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: From the Archives: The Day TAT-8 Went Into Service


The item which follows originally appeared thirteen months ago in the
Digest, and if you've made any international calls lately, you've
probably used this gem:

(Also appears in Telecom Digest V8 issue 202 12/16/88)

         FIRST LASER PHONE CALL ZIPS ACROSS THE ATLANTIC!
          ISAAC ASIMOV DEDICATES TAT-8; MAKES FIRST CALL
         ------------------------------------------------

A shark-proof undersea cable began carrying laser beam phone calls
across the Atlantic Ocean Wednesday as the first leg of a network
designed to revolutionize service on three continents.

AT&T, British Telecom and France Telecom, the three principal owners
of the cable asked well known author Isaac Asimov to dedicate the new
cable and place the first call.

In his remarks, Asimov said, "Welcome everyone to this historic
trans-Atlantic crossing -- this maiden voyage across the sea on a beam
of light..." He noted, "...our world has grown small, and this cable,
which can carry 40,000 calls at one time is a sign of the voracious
demand for communications today.......the clarity is in striking
contrast to the crackling first telephone message from Alex Bell to
his assistant Thomas A. Watson 113 years ago..."

Mr. Asimov was the first speaker of several in a video conference in
New York that was transmitted to Paris and London by the new cable.

The fiber-optic cable, which is thinner than a child's wrist, is able
to handle double the capacity of all the trans-Atlantic copper-cable
predecessors combined. It took seven years to design, build and
install. The total cost was $361 million, but the people involved
insist that in the long run, it will mean a continued decline in the
price of overseas phone calls.

Ordinary television broadcasts will continue to be carried by
satellite because they would take up too much room on TAT-8. But the
cable will be used for video conferences on a regular basis between
the United States and Europe, using a method to compress the signals
and take up very little bandwidth.

American Telephone & Telegraph Company, which will operate TAT-8, said
1988 is the first year it will handle more than one billion
international calls.  Commenting on Asimov's remarks of '...a
voracious demand for communications..'  an AT&T spokesperson noted
that even this new cable will start running out of room late in 1991.
The fourth quarter, 1991 is when a new fiber-optic cable with nearly
double the new cable's capacity is scheduled to begin operation.

Fiber-optic service to Japan and the far east will start in the second
quarter of 1989 under the name PTAT, and fiber-optic links to the
Caribbean and the Mediterranean will open in 1991 or 1992.

Lasers have revolutionized phone networks by making it possible to
transmit information in the form of rapid pulsesof laser light through
hair thin strands of glass. The lasers transmit information in digital
form coded into a series of ones and zeros. Most long distance calls
within the United States are already carried on optic fibers.

Ownership of TAT-8 is as follows --

      American Telephone and Telegraph, 34 percent
      British Telecommunications      , 15.5 percent
      France Telecom                  , 10 percent

The remaining 40.5 percent is divided among 26 partners, some of whom
own up to two percent interest; while others own less than one percent
interest. The principal partners are --

   Sprint Communications, MCI, Western Union and Northern Telecom.

Will overseas telephone rates go down in the next few years? AT&T says
they will. The exact amount is anyone's guess, but a spokesperson from
AT&T said "....I think within a few years the rates will be *less than
half* of what they are now..."

Wednesday, December 14, 1988: An historic day in telecommunications
history, and one I believe is only third to the invention of the
telephone itself; the second most historic occassion being the
completion of the cable which connected the east and west coasts of
the United States in the early 1920's.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #60
*****************************

From [e-mail] Tue Jan 30 03:19:15 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA04976; Tue, 30 Jan 90 03:19:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08011;
          30 Jan 90 1:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05575;
          30 Jan 90 0:51 CST
Date:     Tue, 30 Jan 90 0:46:40 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #61
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Jan 90 00:45:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    London Phone Network Jammed (Kevin Hopkins)
    Another Free the BOCs Bill? (William Degnan)
    Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (W. L. Ware)
    12.928 Mb/s Transmission (Stephen Fleming)
    56/64kb Link to Norway Trouble (Jason Venner)
    AT&T Voicemail Service (Ken Jongsma)
    Them Wrong Numbers (John Boteler)
    "Sleaze" (Robert M. Hamer)
    Honolulu Phone Number in 1961 (Carl Moore)
    Phone Credit Cards (Mark Earle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: London Phone Network Jammed
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 90 09:36:29 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


The London (UK) phone network was reported to have jammed yesterday
afternoon, Thursday 25.01.90, due a 100% increase in traffic. A storm
hit the South, South West and Midlands of England and the South of
Wales during Thursday with winds of 60mph to 80mph, gusting to 100mph.
Over 40 people were killed by the storm.

The increase in telephone traffic can most likely be attributed to
people checking that relatives were OK in the storm stricken areas.
No trunk lines were available out of London at one time during the
afternoon, but the rest of the UK's phone network survived. Some parts
of the country might still be without phone service today but that
will only be because of some overhead lines in rural districts still
being down after being hit by the storm.

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Jan 90 14:51:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Free the BOCs Bill?


I have read that Sen. Ernest Holllings, D-S.C., has introduced a bill
to remove MFJ bans on the BOCs to permit them to "conduct research on,
design, develop, manufacture and market telecommunications equipment."

Is anyone familiar with this? Does anybody know the specifics?

And, does anybody have the text of the MFJ available in some
electronic form?


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: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 27 Jan 90 22:50:23 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 just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per
month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I
be charged for privacy? My question is can the phone company legally
charge for my unlisted phone number? And monthly at that?


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: You bet! Listed numbers are the default, and the
theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the operator
because of the people, who not finding it in the book, call to argue
with the operator about it; particularly when he can't find it to give
out either. Charges for non-pub service are part of tariffs in every
state.  PT]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: 12.928 Mb/s Transmission
Date: Mon, 29-Jan-90 07:48:10 PST


In several government documents lately, I have seen reference to a
digital bit rate of 12.928 Mb/s -- is anyone familiar with this?  It's
a little more than two DS-2s ... maybe someone invented DS-2C while I
wasn't looking?

If anyone has more information or a relevant reference, I'd be most
grateful.  Thanks very much.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stephen Fleming                 |  Internet: [e-mail]   |
| Director, Technology Marketing  |  Voice:    [phone]           |
| Northern Telecom                +-------------------------------------|
| Eastern Region  / Federal Ntwks |    Opinions expressed do not        |
| McLean, Virginia  22102-4203    |    represent Northern Telecom.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

From: "Jason Venner;;;4155252989;ZU34" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  56/64kb Link to Norway Trouble
Organization: To Secret To Say
Date: 29 Jan 90 08:52:16


I ordered a 56kb dds to Norway from AT&T in October, for turn on Jan.
1.  Well, it didn't happen, and may not happen till March or later. I
still need a circuit.  Any suggestions on how to get one ASAP?  I can
spend up to 10K per month on the thing.

I need it to work int cicsco routers with V.35 interfaces.
I have or can get 56kb modems.


Jason

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Voicemail Service
Date: Mon, 29-Jan-90 16:28:33 PST


 From this weeks' Communications Week:

AT&T last week pulled the wraps off a voice messaging service that
lets callers, through a specific toll-free number, record and send
messages worldwide.

Called AT&T Voicemark Messaging Service, this latest offering made its
marketing debut in the Atlanta area. Callers there would dial
800-562-6275 and follow the prompts to send messages to recipients.
Now any caller can use the service, but only those in Atlanta can pay
for it using an AT&T calling card.

Voicemark Messaging Service users can charge their calls to their
calling cards or to a credit card, said an AT&T spokesman. ...for the
time being, the credit card option is the only one available to the
public.

After dialing... and providing information for payment, callers can
record a one minute message, which they can send immediately or
schedule to be sent within one week. The caller can also request the
recipient to reply, at no cost. If a reply is requested, the caller
would need to check with the service.

 ...delivery options... come in two forms. Priced at $1.75 per call,
the automated version will attempt to send the message for up to two
hours.  With the person to person option, which is priced at $2.50, an
AT&T operator will try to contact the intended recipient for up to 4
hours...

If the calls go unanswered, the caller will not be billed. Callers can
access the system for a status check.

Prices on international calls vary by country.

(End of Article)

I think this is a great service. I can think of many times where it
would be useful. The delay option on international calls is perfect
for time zone mismatches. Pricing actually sounds reasonable, though
it seems funny that they would offer an operator assisted service.
Thought AT&T was trying to reduce live operators.

A lot of questions were not answered in the article. Primarily
relating to how AT&T plans on handling security for the status calls
and replies.  Unfortunately, the 800 number given was not working from
Western Michigan as of tonight, so I wasn't able to try it out.


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Are they calling this 'voicemail'? Actually, a more
appropriate name would be 'store and forward'; a service offering
Illinois Bell has thought about a couple times but gone nowhere with.
The lady at Voicemark I spoke to this evening said only Southern Bell
and South Central Bell Calling Cards could be used (of course, those
are AT&T cards as well.) Another number to call for information and
literature between 7 AM and 11 PM daily is 1-800-662-2588.   PT]

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

Subject: Them Wrong Numbers
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 5:46:38 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


John Higdon writes in <[e-mail]>:

>Pac*Bell has just graciously changed my 800 number at no charge...

>My old number was 800 445-8886. The two top wrong number attempts by
>the dweebs out there were 800 445-8667 (Hilton) and 800 445-8880 (Red
>and White Fleet). For the life of me, I can't understand how I got
>those Hilton calls.

You not only overestimated the intelligence of the dialing public,
you also overestimated the quality of today's telecomm gear.

Guess what happens if I pres the '8' button one time on a Touch-Tone
pad with bouncy keys? That's right, I get more than one '8'. Add the
'6' at the end and you answer, of all folks.

With the less than mediocre equipment available at low, low prices
today, it is a wonder you didn't receive more of the same!


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

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 10:44 EST
From: "ROBERT M. HAMER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Sleaze"


[e-mail]         Carol Springs writes:

>Excuse, please, I'm new to this Digest and have deliberately avoided
>trying the standard jargon lest I misuse it.  But I'm curious about
>John's use of the term "sleaze" here.  I'm moderately familiar with

and the moderator noted:

>programming on many, perhaps most 900/976 numbers. Casual billing is
>not a sleazy tactic; actually it is a great service, and allows
>flexibility in the use of 'casual' (or non-one-plus) long distance
>carriers.  But the practice some AOS' use of making a 'test call' over

Actually, I don't want my Sprint Foncard number to be used by anyone
else but Sprint, not ATT, not some AOS, etc.  When I got a Sprint card
it was because I decided Sprint was the LD service I wanted to use.  I
don't want some hotel (I travel a lot) to intercept my call to
800-etc-etc, connect me with the LD service of their choice, and bill
me some outrageous amount via my Sprint Foncard number.

Similarly, as hard as I find this to grasp, most Americans (I don't
mean to single out my own countrypersons; I suspect the same would
hold the world over) can't seen to use anything but the simplest
dialing procedures.  The idea of dialing 10xxx seems too difficult.
My wife, a business executive, whose IQ I have never measured, but
which I would predict confidently is above average, and who uses a
variety of computer systems, and runs a small division of a major
pharmaceutical company, seems to have decided without deciding that
anything other than 1+ dialing (or dialing via some other method IF I
POST INSTRUCTIONS NEXT TO THE PHONE) is just too complicated.  And you
can forget my teenage kids.  My daughter has one of those ATT "Call
Home" or "Call me" or "Call whatever" cards, that should allow her to
call only our home phone number.  However, when she forgets to carry
it around with her, she is stuck (or we are if it is sufficiently
urgent that we accept the collect call) because she can't seem to
memorize the number from the card...  I don't want her or anyone using
the number on the "Call me/home/whatever" card via some other LD
company to call some other number, and have it show up on my bill.

As another thread, I just (well, recently) moved from Chesterfield
county, VA, to Richmond, VA (from the suburbs to the city), and
noticed that all other charges aside, the TAX on my phone bill
increased drastically.  Upon investigation, I discovered that
Chesterfield county, where I used to live, had a local phone tax of a
couple of percent, up to a maximum of $2.00.  The city of Richmond
seems to have a local tax of 25 percent!  And that is on top of a .22
"911 tax."  And on top of that they stick a 9 percent tax surcharge,
making my total local tax about 34 percent, or over 1/3!  I'd like to
see some detail on other people's phone bills, to see how they
compare.

To start, here's mine (exclusive of Sprint charges, which arrive as a
separate bill, and I don't have any complaint with them)

Local service:            $14.47
Fed subs line charge        3.50
C & P short-haul long dist  3.09
Local Tax                   4.60
Fed Tax                      .64
Local Tax surcharge          .41
911 Tax                      .22

Thus, I am paying about 17.56 for phone service, 3.50 for federal line
subsciber charge (you can decide if that is a tax or not), and about
5.87 in other taxes.  This is worse than the tax on booze!

Another thread: C & P has a .50 (or .75?) per month charge to maintain
your inside wiring.  I maintain my own inside wiring.  It seems to me
that periodically, that charge reappears on my phone bill and I have
to call them up and tell them to take it off.  I would call that
sleazy behavior -- they keep sticking on a charge for an optional
service that I don't want and I have to keep telling them to take it
off.

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

Date:     Mon, 29 Jan 90 10:42:27 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Honolulu Phone Number in 1961

3 days ago, I saw an Elvis Presley exhibit with an April, 1961 letter
from Pacific War Memorial Commission, P.O. Box 3801, Honolulu, Hawaii.
The phone number was given as "510-715".

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 20:29:59 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Credit Cards


I recently received a Southwestern Bell Select card. It had the same
number as my AT&T card. It also had *someone else's* card in the
envelope. I had *not* asked for a SWB card. I sent both cards back,
along with a letter. In the letter, my concerns about their stuffing
machine giving me another card...and Also, that I thought SWB should
not have access to AT&T's data base to the point of getting the pin.
SWB's reply was:

"Regarding how we select the last four digits on your SelectCard,
these digits are selected at random unless our customer prefers to
select his own. In reply to SWB and AT&T sharing information over the
database, even though we are separate comapnies, because we are a
billing agent and have a contract with AT&T, long distance calls do
appear on our records in order to answer customer inquiries."

Fine! But this still does not answer why they share PINS. I feel
the less folks having access to the PINS the better.

SWB also conveniently (?) put my street address on the select card! I
suggested that it was a poor practice to put addresses on any thing
resembling a credit card, in the event of loss or theft, and also vis
a vis single women who may be exploited if they lost their card...

"Also let me address your concern referring to your address being
printed on your card. Because we area service oriented comapny and the
service is provided at your addres, our records include our customer's
naem, address, and telephone number on the card".

I know they have my address!!! I just disagreed with them printing it
on the card.  My card went back to 'em, along with the other joker's.
They are lucky, I couldhave run up his bill a bunch for a month or so
from pay phones (not cocots of course :-) but was being nice....

Mark Earle @ whereever this comes from

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #61
*****************************

From [e-mail] Tue Jan 30 16:08:43 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA03879; Tue, 30 Jan 90 16:08:38 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac09969; 30 Jan 90 14:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14868;
          30 Jan 90 3:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08011;
          30 Jan 90 1:56 CST
Date:     Tue, 30 Jan 90 1:37:24 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #62
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 Jan 90 01:35:02 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Caller ID Tech Specs (Al Varney)
    Re: Caller ID Tech Specs (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Novel New 900 Number In Use (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (Paul Wilczynski)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (John Higdon)
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Tad Cook)
    Re: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Zip/area Code Directory (Carl Moore)
    Sprint Access Trouble?? (Steve Elias)
    Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain (Jim Olsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Al Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Tech Specs
Date: 29 Jan 90 17:31:13 GMT
Reply-To: Al Varney <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph Jesson) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 56, message 3 of 9

>Been taping my telephone's initial ring signal to see if any in-band
>signaling (Caller ID in particular) is occuring before the first (?) or
>after the first ring signal. I heard the teles were testing caller id
>in the Chicago area, but, so far, have not heard any in-band tone
>sequence being forwarding yet in my switch's area.

     And you won't until you pay for it...

>Does anyone know the code used? Is it a DTMF sequence AFTER the first
>ring?  I want to build a phase lock loop decoder...

     The code is sent in a 3-second "quiet" interval after the first
ring.  The interface isn't TOO complex, but I would encourage anyone
who's really interested to order TR-TSY-000030, "SPCS/Customer
Premises Equipment Data Interface", by Bellcore.  The last number I
had for them was [phone] and they have always gladly taken
AMEX cards.

     Since the signals are useless (and maybe even cause problems?) on
lines not equipped with the correct equipment, they are only
transmitted on lines that have activated delivery (Usage-sensitive) or
have permanently subscribed to the service.  I believe some switches
may even allow permanent lines to temporarily "suspend" delivery, but
Bellcore doesn't require this capability.

     Wish I got a commission for recommending Bellcore's TRs....


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
Affiliation for ID purposes only, AT&T neither approved nor encouraged this.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Tech Specs
Date: 29 Jan 90 16:25:31 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joseph Jesson) writes:

> Been taping my telephone's initial ring signal to see if any in-band
> signaling (Caller ID in particular) is occuring before the first (?) or
> after the first ring signal. I heard the teles were testing caller id
> in the Chicago area, but, so far, have not heard any in-band tone
> sequence being forwarding yet in my switch's area.

> Does anyone know the code used? Is it a DTMF sequence AFTER the first
> ring?  I want to build a phase lock loop decoder...


It is modem-style AFSK, not DTMF.  It is sent at 1200 bps, using
modulation similar to (but not compatible with) the old 202-series
half-duplex modems.  It is sent after the first full ring, and lasts
for about two seconds.  In NJ, it is only sent if you subscribe to the
service.  Subscription, for residence users, is $6.00 per month.


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: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Novel New 900 Number In Use
Date: 29 Jan 90 17:41:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Dallas


[e-mail] (Louis A. Mamakos) writes:

>UUNET now provides access to its extensive collection of UNIX
>related sources to non-subscribers.  By calling 1-900-468-7727 and
>using the login "uucp" with no password, anyone may uucp any of
>UUNET's on line source collection.

This doesn't seem to be totally setup yet.  Although the 900 line is
active and gets you the uunet login prompt, the Permissions file is
not setup to allow anonymous uucp.  That is, I received a "you are
unknown to me" message and was thrown off.  This is an excellent idea,
and I hope it really does get implemented.


Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Unicom Systems Development
*** Chinacat will go down 31 Jan for relocation.
*** Mail to me will be delayed approximately one week during this time.


[Moderator's Note: However, I tried it via 'ftp uunet.uu.net' and it
was willing to accept an anonymous login. This was late Sunday evening.
Maybe it is working now.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 16:26 EST
From: Boston Agency <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail


| [Moderator's Note: To get *to* MCI Mail from the internet, your mail
| can be addressed like this: I am writing to box 123-4567 so the
| internet address would be [e-mail]. In other words, add
| three zeros to the left, drop out the dash, and add @mcimail.com.

You don't have to add the 3 zeros on the left.


Paul Wilczynski
Krislyn Computer Services
Authorized MCI Mail Agency

[Moderator's Note: Maybe you don't *have* to insert the three leading zeros,
but every piece of mail I have received at an internet address
originating at MCI Mail had 'em on there, including your letter to me,
as per the 'from' line above. I assumed they were required.   PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Date: 28 Jan 90 23:47:45 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]> writes:

> On most AT&T/BOC cards, the PIN
> starts with a "2".  (Please don't clog the group here telling me that
> yours is different.  I make my statement based on some pretty reliable
> statistics we collected when I was working with an AOS.)

I don't mean to be a pill, but I have five (5) separate BOC calling
cards on completely separate accounts. The PINs start with "1", "3",
"4", "5", and "9". Trust me; I'm sitting here looking at them all
lined up in a row.

Now that's hardly a scientific cross section, but zero out of five
would tend to discount the statement that "2" is some magic number,
wouldn't you say?

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


[Moderator's Note: Speaking of same, I just checked out my Illinois
Bell Calling Card (which I prefer over the AT&T card with the same
number, because the graphics on the IBT card are nicer). My PIN starts
with a '3'. I have a copy of my parent's AT&T card (they are serviced
by Southwestern Bell, but use the actual AT&T plastic), and it begins
with a '5'. Maybe he meant to say most do NOT start with '2'. :)  On
the other hand, maybe he was illustrating how reliable most <A>sinine
<O>perator <S>ervices in verifying who they bill.   PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private
Date: 30 Jan 90 01:53:44 GMT
Organization: very little


Another comment to Jim Breem on the missuse of the word "ham", often
applied to anyone with a radio.

Jim says that since the Oxford Dictionary defines a ham as an operator
of an amateur radio station, he contends that this could also apply to
operators in the CB radio service.

The CB radio service is in no way connected to the amateur radio
service, any more than it is connected with the cellular service.  One
might imagine a cellular licensee complaining because a news report
said that a cellular licensee was eavesdropping on cordless phone
calls, just as hams might object if a news report claimed that amateur
radio operators were doing the same.

I'm sure to non-hams this seems nit-picky, but licensed amateur radio
operators have always been quick to point out the distinctions between
themselves, and other radio services.

Tad Cook,  KT7H
[e-mail]


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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 04:50:40 GMT


Some modems provide a jack to plug a telset into.  Often this jack is
arranged to be disconnected while the modem is in use (Hayes 2400 do
this for one).  This provides a built in exclusion device, one that
isn't based on questionable telephonic principles as some discussed
here earlier.

You must still wire the other telsets in after this unit.  If your
modem doesn't have the other jack, you're still ok.  You probably have
an extra relay for A & A1 control, a signaling circuit for 1A2 key
systems of yesteryear.  Check your DIP switch's, one may be for
"single or multiline" use depending on the setting (Hayes are this
way). The second pair of the line (BLK & YLW) is shorted when the
modem is in use.  Use this to drive an external relay and switch the
other side off.


Vance Shipley
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 9:36:47 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zip/area Code Directory


(Oops, that should have been ISBN, not ISBM, in my message.)

Yes, I am aware that the latest area code split making it into that
1986 edition was 212/718 in NYC in 1984.  I have sent a number of
corrections to the publisher on Long Island since getting my own copy
of it (among these are that Bronx is is 212, not 718); and a future
mailing will include notes on 923xx (which is split between areas 714
and 619, instead of being all in 714), and a list of area code splits
after 212/718.  I don't know what plans there are to update it.

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

Subject: Sprint Access Trouble??
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 09:17:23 -0500
From: [e-mail]


I started having great difficult accessing Sprint, my default carrier,
as of about 4 days ago.  About 10% of calls get through, the rest get
an "all carrier circuits busy" message.  I've reported this to both
Sprint and the local telco.  Neither organization is aware of any
problems.  Has anyone else out there had trouble accessing Sprint in
the last week?

By the way, as soon as I reported the access problem to Sprint, they
recommended that I try using casual use code 10222:  MCI !!!!


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


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

From: Jim Olsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 14:25:40 EST


Well, I finally found out how to complain about those blasted
call-blocking COCOT's.  Last week, I had a few hours to kill in the
West Palm Beach airport, which is filled with shiny, new, computerized
COCOT's.  I wanted to call back to Massachusetts, but, as you might
guess, they all force you to use a slimy AOS (ITI in this case).

I called the ATT 800-number and they commiserated with me, agreeing
that "they're not supposed to do that."  I asked them how to complain
to the FCC, and the nice lady rummaged around for a few minutes and
gave me the (long!)  FCC address for complaints (see below).  Please
complain to the FCC when you encounter call blocking!  It's one way to
get the FCC moving.

Here is the letter I wrote:

Mr. Gregory J. Vogt
Chief, Informal Complaints and Inquiries Bureau
Enforcement Division
Common Carrier Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
2025 M Street NW, Room 6206
Washington, DC  20554

Dear Mr. Vogt:

I write to complain that International Telecharge, Inc., in violation
of the Commisssion's Order of February 24, 1989 (DA 89-237), is still
engaging in the practice of ``call blocking,'' i.e., blocking access
to other long distance telephone companies.

On January 21 of this year, I was in the terminal of the Palm Beach
International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, and I attempted to
place a long-distance call to area code 617 via ATT, charged to my
telephone credit card.  All public phones in this terminal are
computerized, with alphanumeric displays, and carry the name:

    Carey Communications Corp.
    185 NW Spanish River Blvd., Suite 130
    Boca Raton, FL  33431

Dialing 0+617+number connected me to an ITI operator.  Upon inquiring
of ITI and ATT, I learned that my call would cost $3.83 via ITI, and
$0.98 via ATT.  There is no reason whatsoever that I would choose ITI
over ATT for this call, if I were allowed to choose.

When I tried dialing 10288+0+617+number (to access ATT), I got a
visual message ``INVALID NUMBER'', and a voice message saying ``The
number you have dialed is an invalid number.''  Both messages started
as soon as I dialed 10288+0+6.  The telephone was obviously programmed
to block such calls.  I then tried dialing ``00''.  This produced the
voice message ``One moment for the ITI operator,'' and about a minute
later the ITI operator answered.  I asked to be transferred to the ATT
operator.  After I insisted, he then `attempted' to transfer me, and
announced that he could not.  I tried this a total of eight times,
from eight different phones (telephone numbers 407-640-3735, 3786,
3925, 3926, 4860, 4930, 4958, and 4991) and got precisely the same
results every time.

On the last call, I asked to speak with a supervisor, who eventually told me

    - ITI could not transfer calls to ATT
    - I should dial ``00'' to get the ATT operator

When I told him that ``00'' connected me to ITI, he said that the
phone must be `malfunctioning'.  When I informed him that all the
phones worked that way, and that call blocking is illegal, he said
that he had informed me how to access ATT, and that was all he was
legally required to do.

As you are probably aware, ``call blocking'' is becoming a standard
practice in transportation terminals and elsewhere.  I do hope the the
FCC will take some enforcement action to curb this practice.  In
default of such action, I fear that the Commission's Order (DA 89-237)
is rapidly becoming a dead letter.


Very Truly Yours,

James J. Olsen


[Moderator's Note: Intrigued by your article, I just now called Boca
DA to find the number for 'Carey Communications'... there was nothing
listed for that name at all in Boca. I think this calls for some
investigation, and on Tuesday I shall review the matter in my office
with one of my associates. Watch for a message Wednesday morning if
possible discussing this organization in detail.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #62
*****************************












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18537;
          31 Jan 90 3:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15731;
          31 Jan 90 2:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24642;
          31 Jan 90 1:00 CST
Date:     Wed, 31 Jan 90 0:41:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #63
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 Jan 90 00:40:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Text-To-Speech Question (Steve Hoffman)
    CHILL Language (David M. Karr)
    Questions About Country Code File in Archives (Carl Moore)
    Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Steve Elias)
    Caller ID in New Jersey (Don Alvarez)
    Southwestern Bell Freedom Phones (W. W. Scott)
    Re: Zip/area Code Directory (Tad Cook)
    Paperless FAX Server Using a Digital PBX (Stacey M. Singel)
    10XXX List From LEC (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (Peter Marshall)
    Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (Paul Wilczynski)
    Re: Novel New 900 Number In Use (Chip Rosenthal)
    More Misdialed Numbers (Robert Kaplan)
    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Adam M. Gaffin)
    Checksum Algorithms (David Tamkin)
    Re: Caller ID Tech Specs (Allen Nogee)
    Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (Gordon Burditt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 10:45:29 PST
From: "Steve, MLO3-1, 223-7186" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Text-To-Speech Question


In TELECOM V10 #53, Kenneth East <[e-mail]> incorrectly
indicated that DEC was no longer selling DECtalk voice synthesizer
devices -- we most certainly are still selling both the DECtalk I
standalone unit and the DECtalk III rackmount unit.  [And we just
ECO'd a DECtalk ROM!]

Call 508-493-0645 for the DECtalk demo, or call -1923 or -8255 for the
DECvoice demo (DECvoice is a large superset of DECtalk, it is a quad
Q-bus module for BA23 or BA123 enclosure microVAX/VAXstation/VAXserver
systems.)


Steve Hoffman
DEC Voice Products Group

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

From: "David M. Karr" <ttrnds![e-mail]>
Subject: CHILL Language
Date: 30 Jan 90 16:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: "David M. Karr" <ttrnds!amc-gw.AMC.com!dave@ttrnds>
Organization: Teltrend, Inc., Kirkland, WA


In the February, 1990 (V25, #2) issue of SIGPLAN, there is a notice
about a conference on the CHILL language, which is specifically
designed for implementation of telecommunications systems.  It is
endorsed by CCITT.  Where can I get more information on this language?
If CCITT has endorsed it already, there should be papers published by
now.


David Karr    [e-mail]  or  ...amc-gw!ttrnds!dave
Teltrend Corp., 12034 115th Ave. NE, Kirkland, WA 98034 [phone]
"The above statements do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer."

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

Date:     Tue, 30 Jan 90 10:26:27 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Questions About Country Code File in Archives


I have some questions about country.code.list in the archives.  It has
Zaire as +24 but I have it as +243 .  Could someone resolve this?  I
am sticking with 243 for now.

Re: City Code for Valparaiso, Chile: I have 31, but country.codes.list
has 32.  Please check.

Re: City Code for Cuenca, Ecuador: I have 4 for both Cuenca and
Guayaquil, but the archives file has 7 and 4 respectively. Which is
correct?


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

Subject: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 22:14:21 -0500
From: [e-mail]


The speed of light in fiber is actually slower than the speed of light
in coax cable...  (.72 to .76, or some such).  Does anyone know the
propagation speed for light in copper phone wire, or whatever else is
used for long lines??

Have I just happened upon a PR coup for the backwards long lines
companies, like ATT and MCI???

(gotta love that long distance carrier loyalty, eh, folks?)

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


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

From: Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID in New Jersey
Date: 30 Jan 90 16:12:48 GMT
Reply-To: Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
Organization: Princeton University


I keep reading that New Jersey has Caller ID.  Does anyone know if it
is available in the 609-924-xxxx area (Princeton)?


Thanks
Don

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

From: W W Scott <rruxc![e-mail]>
Subject: Southwestern Bell Freedom Phones
Date: 31 Jan 90 02:22:28 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


My brother-in-law is having trouble finding a store that sells the SWB
FF cordless phones in Baltimore.  Can anybody suggest a store that
carries them?


Thank you,
Wayne Scott

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Zip/area Code Directory
Date: 31 Jan 90 03:12:18 GMT
Organization: very little


In response to the moderator's questions about the posting on the
Ruthie Marks book on ZIP Codes and Area Codes, yes, they have had
several editions since the 1986 on mentioned.  I talked to them on the
phone yesterday, and they will have a new one out in March.  It is
still under 4 bucks, and a dollar for shipping.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Date: TUE JAN 30, 1990 08.19.52 EST
From: "Stacey M. Singel, X85004" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Paperless FAX Server Using a Digital PBX


Lehigh University is currently developing a paperless fax server on
campus using a digital PBX, the Intecom IBX S/80, an applications
processor and a fax server computer.

To process incoming faxes, each user will be assigned his own fax
number on the PBX.  These numbers will forward to one of several
actual fax machines, which will convert the signal to digital and pass
it along to a computer for storage, using the original fax number.
The user will be notified via phone (ring, light) that a fax has been
received and they in turn will dial in to retrieve it.

For outgoing faxes, the user will create a document in a word
processor or scan (via scanner) an existing document and send it to
the fax server computer.  The computer will send the document when a
fax machine is available and the user will be notified that the
document has been successfully transmitted.

Do you know of anyone currently working on this type of solution?
Lehigh would appreciate any shareable information on this subject.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 10XXX List From LEC
Date: Tue, 30-Jan-90 15:07:38 PST

Just out of curiosity, I called Michigan Bell to see if they would tell
me what 10xxx carriers were available in my area. The rep said he would
be glad to mail a list to me.

Today I received a preprinted flyer with 16 companies listed as serving
Michigan. About half of them were checked as serving my exchange with
3 additional ones hand written in.

There were no codes listed for each company, but there was an 800
number listed for each one.

It appears that the 10XXX list that was recirculated here recently is
somewhat out of date, as about half of the companies on the list from
Michigan Bell were not on the 10XXX list. I'm sure there would be a
lot of interest if someone that access to a newer version would pass
it along.

In any case, it would seem that Ameritech (Michigan Bell) has no
problems with providing a list of carriers.

Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

From: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen!
Date: 30 Jan 90 17:22:21 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA



Further re: Tad Cook's post re: FCC and Modem Charges, and Patrick's
note: Patrick's observation that "eternal vigilance" is required seems
pretty appropriate, as does his querying why the FCC doesn't close the
docket in question. As to Tad's comments, there may still be some
residual confusion here:

The subject in question is not a "modem tax," as has been pointed out
previously here, I believe. Further, it is hard to construe the
current state of this affair as an attempt to end the present ESP
exemption.

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 19:54 EST
From: Boston Agency <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail

| [Moderator's Note: Maybe you don't *have* to insert the three leading zeros,
| but every piece of mail I have received at an internet address
| originating at MCI Mail had 'em on there, including your letter to me,
| as per the 'from' line above. I assumed they were required.   PT]

Actually, those leading zeros are inserted by MCI Mail upon sending
the message out to the Internet.

In fact, you don't even have to use to the MCI ID (mailbox number).
You can use the Formal Name or Username as long as it's unique.

For example, I tested a message to myself using ....

        boston [e-mail]

and it worked fine.


Paul Wilczynski
Krislyn Computer Services
Authorized MCI Mail Agency

[Moderator's Note: But that only works provided you are *certain* the
user name is unique. Unlike actually being on MCI Mail, internetters
don't get the option of making a selection from a menu of John Smiths.
That's why the numerical address method is preferred. Take no chances,
and insure your mail gets to the right party.  PT]

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

Subject: Re:  Novel New 900 Number In Use
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 15:42:15 CST
From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>

> I was able to log on uunet.uu.net as anonymous just now.

Yep.  It appears that they have fixed their Permissions file for anon uucp.


Chip Rosenthal / [e-mail] / Unicom Systems Development
*** Chinacat will go down 31 Jan for relocation.
*** Mail to me will be delayed approximately one week during this time.

[Moderator's Note: And a message from Carl Moore said the same thing.  PT]
------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 14:26:46 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Misdialed Numbers

My telephone number at home is 442-8737.  The Rochester Public
Library's recorded message giving the hours it is open is 428-7376.
All it takes is a little bounce and a cheap phone to repeat the
initial "4."  Needless to say, I frequently received calls there
asking when I was open (but I never worked up the nerve to give silly
answers).


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer:  This may not even be my own opinion.


[Moderator's Note: I used to work at a place where my internal
extension was 7262. The first four digits of the restaurant in the
lobby of the building was RANdolph-6 (726)-2xxx. I can't tell you how
many times my phone would ring at noontime; I would answer, and the
voice on the other end would say 'wrong number' and hang up....they
forgot to dial the '9' required before placing the outside call.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 20:46:23 EST
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls

When you place a collect call at one of those NE Tel pay phones that
uses a computer to make such calls, the computer tells the person on
the other end that he has a call from {your name here} and then tells
him to say either "yes" or "no" to accepting the call. If the person
says "no," the computer tells him or her to hang up (I don't know what
happens when you answer "maybe," my girlfriend thought I was crazy
enough to try it just once!).

A NE Tel spokeswoman says, by the way, that no operators will lose
their jobs because of the new system, but that some may have their
hours reduced.

Adam Gaffin
Middlesex News ("MetroWest's hometown paper, but you knew that!")


[Moderator's Note: And this is also a new source for fraud, as people
are learning that their name can be anything at all, i.e. 'I will be
home in an hour'; 'meet me at 5:00 PM at the airport', etc....to which
the called party responds 'no', and disconnects. No charge for the
call, yet a message delivered quite well. At least a live operator
knows it is unlikely your name will be 'call me back at abc-wxyz'; the
computer knows from zilch.  PT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Checksum Algorithms
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 22:29:02 CST


From John De Armond in Telecom Digest, Volume 10, Issue 58:

| The reason for this is simple.  All visa/MC/Amex type and the phone
| company credit cards ("phone company" means most BOC or AT&T) follow a
| published standard of checksuming the digits of the card.  The last
| digit is a derived value based a computation of a sum-of-the-digits
| algorithm.  This algorithm is not a simple add-the-digits routine but
| I don't have the specifics handy.

The algorithm for credit cards worked on only one of my calling cards,
but then none of them are from AT&T nor a BOC.


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: Allen Nogee <asuvax!gtephx!hw-4h625![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Tech Specs
Date: 29 Jan 90 16:11:48 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joseph Jesson) writes:

> Does anyone know the code used? Is it a DTMF sequence AFTER the first
> ring?  I want to build a phase lock loop decoder...

It is 1200 baud FSK 1/2 second AFTER the first ring.

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups
Date: 28 Jan 90 23:25:30 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


>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.

Sigh.  If they are going to fix the rules, why can't they do it right:

Require all customers to obtain written permission from long-distance
companies (unless said carriers issue blanket approval that they'll
accept anyone) before customers notify local telephone companies of a
customer selection of long-distance carrier.  This written
authorization would have to be provided on request by the customer in
the event of a dispute by the long-distance company as to whether they
would accept the customer.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #63
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20778;
          31 Jan 90 4:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26266;
          31 Jan 90 3:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15731;
          31 Jan 90 2:04 CST
Date:     Wed, 31 Jan 90 1:22:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #64
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 Jan 90 01:20:53 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    The Late 10-SPR (David Tamkin)
    Why 10222+ Doesn't Take MCI Calling Card Numbers (David A. Cantor)
    Re: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries (Simon Poole)
    Re: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics (Tad Cook)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Ken Dykes)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (John Higdon)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Anthony E. Siegman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Late 10-SPR
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 90 1:13:45 CST


Steve Vance wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 54:

| In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
|
| >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
|
| Sprint is 10777, n'est pas?  777=SPR for Sprint.

Friday morning I was ready to answer Mr. Vance's question like this:

* When U.S.Tel and GTE merged their long distance carriers (and their
* packet nets) on July 1, 1986, US Sprint inherited U.S.Telecom's 10333
* code and GTE Sprint's 10777.  Both codes work.
*
* US Sprint publicizes 10333; I imagine that's because it is shorter to
* pulse dial.  Sometimes a listing of carriers allows room for only one
* 10XXX code per company, and moreover, printing two codes would puzzle
* people.  I can easily picture this conversation: "But which should
* I use?"  "Either one, whichever you like."  "But which is *better*?"
*
* On the other hand, the mnemonic value if 10SPR is worth something, so I
* doubt that they'll abandon 10777.  They can't let ATT, ITT, and
* Telecom*USA outdo them on this score, after all.

But as I was typing that on the morning of January 26, I decided to
try 10777-1-700-555-4141 from my voice line.  My telco (Central
Telephone of Illinois) intercepted it after the 700, whereas a call to
10333-1-700-555-4141 went through to US Sprint's ID recording.  It was
Centel's rejection recording, not US Sprint's, that I heard the first
time.

It surprised me that they would give up the mnemonic code, since they
were so hot to get assignment of the (800) 877 prefix [as in U S
S(print)].

Accordingly, I phoned US Sprint Customer Service.  The rep told me
that they normally give out only 10333, but both 10333 and 10777
should work.  She said rather unsurely that in some areas only one or
the other might function.  Nonetheless, as far as she knew,
10XXX-1-700-555-4141 was *never* supposed to work, because the purpose
of 1-700-555-4141 is to learn who is a line's primary carrier.
Forcing it to a specific 10XXX code would make it useless.  When I
said that people call 10XXX-1-700-555-4141 to hear what each carrier's
recording sounds like, she said that it might satisfy phone buffs'
curiosity but wasn't really a necessary function.  She did allow that
it could be of value for determining to which carrier a particular
10XXX code connects.

I said I'd wait until night rates were in effect Friday night or
Saturday and try placing a call to an actual number with 10777.  I
did; as with 10777-1-700-555-4141, my telco rejected it after
10777-1-NPA.

Since then a Digest has come out in which John Higdon said that US
Sprint is phasing 10777 out.  I truly am surprised.

On Sunday I tried 10777 from an Illinois Bell phone (at my parents'
home in another neighborhood of Chicago).  10777-1-700-555-4141 was
interrupted after the 700 with "The number you have dialed cannot be
reached with the carrier code you used.  Please check the code and
dial again or call your carrier for assistance."  They assume that
10XXX will not be accidentally dialed by someone who has no idea what
a carrier is (yeah, it's someone who has a disease and can give it to
other people but doesn't get sick from it).  10777-1+ a real phone
number was intercepted with the same message only after I dialed all
sixteen digits, however.

Today I can try asking both local companies why they have disabled
10777, but I doubt that I'd get any better response than "You don't
need it; you can get US Sprint with 10333," or "Sprint asked us to."


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: Tue, 30 Jan 90 06:30:44 PST
From: "David A. Cantor 30-Jan-1990 0914" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why 10222+ Doesn't Take MCI Calling Card Numbers


In the confusion of moving, getting two new phone lines, separated by
several months, having MCI Expressphone service based on a now-unused
local telephone number from my own residence, and establishing MCI
Expressphone service based on my second, newly-installed local line,
I've had to call MCI Expressphone several times to get everything
resolved.  I won't go into details here yet, as the issue is not yet
fully resolved, and I believe MCI will get it right this time.

But last night, I needed to call customer service yet again, and I was
tired of getting differing stories from different customer service
representatives, so I asked to speak to a supervisor immediately when
a representative answered my call.  The representative, of course,
wanted to handle the problem herself (without knowing what the problem
was), but I insisted, and after a two-minute wait, a supervisor
answered the phone and identified herself.

She was very patient and listened to my whole horror story, and she
and I worked out a solution.  It yet remains to be seen whether it
works.  I'll report the details and the results when I'm satisfied
that everything is final.

But as long as I had her on the line, I asked her about 10222+ dialing
from payphones.  I elaborated that some COCOT operators don't allow
950-1022, and some divert 1-800-950-1022, and some let the 800-number
through, but disconnect on use of the keypad.

She said that 10222+0+10d is supposed to work, but that you cannot use
the MCI calling card.  10222+0 will get an MCI operator that can
complete the call, but has no way of charging the call to an MCI
calling card.

(Well, I find that to be ludicrous, but, hey, that's apparently MCI's
official rule.  In actuality, I've reached an MCI operator through
10222+0 who did try to complete a call and charg it to my MCI account,
but perhaps I just got an obliging operator.  Maybe they're not
supposed to do that.  (Unfortunately, the call wasn't answered, so I
don't know if the billing would have been correct if the call were
completed.))

Anyway, the supervisor I was speaking to said that if I find the
keypad blocked, call either 950-1022 or 1-800-950-1022 again and wait
for a timeout, and an operator will pick up.  This operator will then
complete the connection and charge the call to an MCI calling card
number.  I didn't remember to ask if it would be charged at dial rates
or operator-handled rates. The 75 cent surcharge does apply, though.


Dave C.

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

From: Simon Poole <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tariffs For 64kb National Service in European Countries
Reply-To: Simon Poole <[e-mail]>
Organization: SWITCH Zuerich, Switzerland
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 09:57:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hank Nussbacher) writes:
 .....
>    Country            5km       10km       50km      200km     500km
>    ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
 .....
>    Switzerland     |  758.8  | 1523.5  |  1739    | 6604.4  |  8810.3 |

These numbers seem to be rather wrong (ignoring the 500km bit, which
is a joke). According to my copy of the Swiss PTT tariffs the numbers
would be more like:
            820       920       2460      3901

These are the worst case costs. Particularly if you are inside the same
"Taxkreis" it's somewhat cheaper:

                 5km        10km

"Einfachbenutzung"    167+14           333+14
"Mehrfachbenutzung"   167+67           334+67

All of the fees are split into a "Abonnementsgebuehr" and into a
"Regal- gebuehr", the "Regalgebuehr" is classifed into three
categories:

    a) "Einfachbenutzung"  ("simple use") (don't ask me what this is)
    b) "Mehrfachbenutzung" ("multiple use") inside the same company
    c) "Mehrfachbenutzung" with any other end points

With the exception of lines inside the same "Taxkreis", the fee for a)
is multiplied with a factor of 1.8 to get b) and with a factor of 3 to
get c).

The breakdown of the costs I gave above is:

        "Abbonnementsgebuehr"   "Regalgebuehr"

    5 km        100             240
       10 km        200             240
       50 km            900             520
      200 km           1900             667


            Simon Poole
[e-mail]/[e-mail]/mcsun!cernvax!chx400!poole

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics
Date: 31 Jan 90 03:08:14 GMT
Organization: very little


David Tamkin had an AMAZING story about trying to use MCI as a
secondary carrier, and all the problems he had with MCI, IL Bell, and
Centel when they kept assigning MCI as the primary carrier against his
wishes.

I am happy to report that we tried such as scheme with Sprint, and did
not have this kind of problem.  A female friend is sharing a phone
with several roomates, and wanted separate billing for her long
distance calls.  Their equal access carrier of choice is AT&T, and so
she just called sprint, and asked for an account in her name and gave
them the shared phone number, which is not in her name.  Then I told
her how to dial 10333 before making toll calls, and it has worked just
great.

She likes the sound quality on Sprint, she gets separate billing for
calls that she knows are hers, and her roomates probably think she
doesn't make any toll calls!  I use a similar scheme for a certain
class of call at my house.  We have 2 line Centrex service, with MCI
on one line and Sprint on the other.  For some reason when it comes
time to claim long distance calls, I have the most trouble remembering
the intra-LATA calls around the 206 area.  For these, I dial a cheapo
reseller, Call U.S. (10212).  The calls are cheaper than the intra
LATA service from US West, and I always know that those calls are
mine.

Call US doesnt have any trouble with billing calls from both our lines
on one account.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 08:02:45 EST
From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo


In article <[e-mail]> it was written:

>I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per
>month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I

>[Moderator's Note: You bet! Listed numbers are the default, and the
>theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the operator
>because of the people, who not finding it in the book, call to argue
>with the operator about it; particularly when he can't find it to give
>out either. Charges for non-pub service are part of tariffs in every
>state.  PT]

As a form of confirmation to this theory, I relate my experience with
Bell Canada.

 I went to have a 2nd line (mostly modem) ordered from the Phone
Centre, and on the "form" was actually a space asking how I wanted "it
listed" as opposed to the question of who is paying for it.

Well, I wanted unlisted, but didnt want to pay for unlisting, so I
used OLD TRICK NUMBER 5123443 and put in a name different than my own.
(K.Dijkstra instead of K. Dykes, original eh? :-) :-)

When the paperwork got to the real clerical type within Bell, I got a
phone call "to confirm your order and details", she went on to ask why
I wanted it listed under a different name, I told the truth "I don't
want to pay for unlisted". Her response was "Oh! you don't have to, as
long as you have at least one listed under your real name."

And come to think of it, since I DO have one listed already, it would be
cheaper not to put in the fake listing; after all each line printed also
costs money, the 1st line is "worth it", the rest are COSTS to them.

I sure have a rough life here in Southern Ontario, basic unlimited
local service, quite a large calling area (population wise) for about
cdn$13.00/month ie: both lines together are $26.00 and I hear there
are places you can pay almost that much for *ONE* line!?!??  But we do
pay extra for touchtone, there are traditions to uphold... :-(


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 30 Jan 90 11:06:25 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
writes:

> I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per
> month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I
> be charged for privacy? My question is can the phone company legally
> charge for my unlisted phone number? And monthly at that?

In California, you can short circuit that charge if you are willing to
have one of your lines listed. The tarrif provides that if you have
listed service in your name at a particular address, then subsequent
unlisted lines are not billed as unpublished numbers. That's the way
it's done at my home--there are ten lines billed under four accounts;
one number is listed and all the rest are unlisted for free.

Check it out in your area. Sometimes you have to point out the obvious
to the reps. Every time I add a line they mention the "non-pub" charge
and then I remind them of the rules.


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


[Moderator's Note: Likewise here in Chicago, either at least one line
listed OR payment of one non-pub fee is sufficient. In other words, I
am non-pub in entirety; but I pay for it on one line only; the other
one has a 'free' (non)-listing.  However, in our final message for
this issue, Mr. Siegman tells us the *real reason* this charge is
imposed on subscribers. Read on.... and smile!  PT]

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

From: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 30 Jan 90 18:56:01 GMT
Reply-To: "Anthony E. Siegman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stanford University


>> the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the
>> operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book,
>> call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he
>> can't find it either.

No, no!!  Tom Lehrer (or was it Mort Sahl) explained this years ago.
It's because, when they take your number out of the phone book, they
have to move all the subsequent numbers up one.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #64
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22516;
          31 Jan 90 5:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16277;
          31 Jan 90 4:13 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26266;
          31 Jan 90 3:09 CST
Date:     Wed, 31 Jan 90 2:57:00 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #65
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 Jan 90 02:55:17 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    What's Up With Carey Communications (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) (John Higdon)
    Voice Dialing (Carol Springs)
    The Cause of the AT&T Outage (Will Martin)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Julian Macassey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 2:16:10 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's Up With Carey Communications


In the Digest on Tuesday, Jim Olsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

  Subject: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain

>Well, I finally found out how to complain about those blasted
>call-blocking COCOT's.  Last week, I had a few hours to kill in the
>West Palm Beach airport, which is filled with shiny, new, computerized
>COCOT's.  I wanted to call back to Massachusetts, but, as you might
>guess, they all force you to use a slimy AOS (ITI in this case).
  .....
>On January 21 of this year, I was in the terminal of the Palm Beach
>International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, and I attempted to
>place a long-distance call to area code 617 via ATT, charged to my
>telephone credit card.  All public phones in this terminal are
>computerized, with alphanumeric displays, and carry the name:

>    Carey Communications Corp.
>    185 NW Spanish River Blvd., Suite 130
>    Boca Raton, FL  33431

>Dialing 0+617+number connected me to an ITI operator.  Upon inquiring

>When I tried dialing 10288+0+617+number (to access ATT), I got a
>visual message ``INVALID NUMBER'', and a voice message saying ``The
>number you have dialed is an invalid number.''  Both messages started
>as soon as I dialed 10288+0+6.  The telephone was obviously programmed
>to block such calls.  I then tried dialing ``00''.  This produced the
>voice message ``One moment for the ITI operator,'' and about a minute
>later the ITI operator answered.  I asked to be transferred to the ATT
>operator.  After I insisted, he then `attempted' to transfer me, and
>announced that he could not.  I tried this a total of eight times,
>from eight different phones (telephone numbers 407-640-3735, 3786,
>3925, 3926, 4860, 4930, 4958, and 4991) and got precisely the same
>results every time.
 .....
>When I told him that ``00'' connected me to ITI, he said that the
>phone must be `malfunctioning'.  When I informed him that all the
>phones worked that way, and that call blocking is illegal, he said
>that he had informed me how to access ATT, and that was all he was
>legally required to do.

On Tuesday, I asked an associate in my office to try and locate Carey
Communications and give us a little background on the organization,
and the owner(s).....you may recall that no listed number for the
company appears in Boca Raton, FL, despite the sign on each COCOT
giving 185 Northwest Spanish River Blvd., Suite 250, Boca Raton as the
company's address.

A call to the Florida Secretary of State Corporate Records Lookups
Office (904-488-9000; wait on hold from two to five minutes) produced
this information:

      Carey Communications Corporation is in bad standing with the
      Florida Secretary of State as of 10-13-89, for failure to file
      their annual corporate report. They have a year, until 10-13-90
      to cure this deficiency.

      A Director of the corporation, and Registered Agent (the person
      upon whom legal service would be made) is Michael Carey. Another
      Director is T. Patrick Boggs. They are the only two corporate
      officers listed.

      The corporate address and the address of the Registered Agent
      was shown as 185 N.W. Spanish River Blvd.. Suite 250, Boca Raton,
      FL.

Since there was no listing with 407-DA for the firm, we next consulted
our criss-cross for Boca....and the criss-cross, with a 'corrected
to:' date of November 1, 1989 showed the address to be an office
building called "Spanish River Executive Place". In the listings
within that caption, we found both "Carey Communications at
407-392-3778 and a second listing for "Carey Company" at 407-367-9147.
The listing for "Carey Company" noted the firm engaged in real estate
development.

Both numbers were found to be disconnected; both were intercepted and
referred to 407-835-0335, a West Palm Beach number. Using the
'telokey' portion of the West Palm Beach criss-cross (we had used the
'addressokey' section earlier) we found nothing for the numbers, again
in a book corrected to mid-November, 1989. Therefore we concluded the
company had apparently moved in the recent past -- sometime in the
past two months -- to their new location.

A call to 407-DA for West Palm Beach confirmed the phone number was
listed to Carey Communications, at 3030 South Dixie Highway in West
Palm Beach, FL 33405. The criss-cross referred to this address as the
"Vincent Building", and noted another tenant there was the City of
West Palm Beach Employees' Credit Union.

My associate spoke at some length with Michael Carey about the
payphones in the airport, and asked what, if anything, had been done
or was being done to comply with FCC regs. Mr. Carey was candid in
admitting there had been 'a recent FCC complaint answered', and that
he had personally visited the airport, and tested several phones at
random to insure they worked 'correctly'. He said that henceforth,
dialing '10288-0' would connect to an AT&T operator; the calling card
could not be entered on the pad, but would have to be passed to the
operator manually.

He went on to note that until several months ago, AT&T had been the
default carrier at the airport; that is, '00' went to AT&T instead of
ITI as it does now. Why the change? Carey claims *the airport
management made him do it* !! He said to our interviewer that the
airport complained about the 'poor revenue and commissions THEY (the
airport) was getting, and demanded something different.....so ITI was
brought in.

Mr. Carey complained about the terms of his contract with the airport,
and the difficulty he had and was having in meeting the terms while
making a profit for himself; indeed, even breaking even on his
investment.  He said the old airport had 90 payphones; the new
facility has 201 (of his phones) on the premises. This is more than
double what had been there before, yet the total call volume per month
averages only about fifteen percent higher than at the old facility.
He'd prefer to have fewer phones there -- possibly reducing the number
by one-third or more -- but the airport won't allow it. He pointed out
that line charges from the local Bell alone are many thousands of
dollars per month, and that some of his COCOTS produce less than $5
per *month* in the coin box.

It was pointed out to Mr. Carey that in all likelyhood, {TELECOM
Digest} readers passing through the airport in the future might very
well audit the COCOTS for compliance with FCC regs. Mr. Carey
responded that was 'okay with him', and that all the phones now would
accept 10288-0 as a valid dialing sequence.

He also said in his defense that he had had conversations with AT&T
about getting a code from them -- 'an 800 number' -- which could be
programmed into a speed dial combination on the phones; and that AT&T
promised to get back to him, but never did so. Mr. Carey claims he
would prefer to have AT&T there, and would prefer to allow his
customers the ease of 'speed-dialing' into AT&T, but thus far it just
hasn't worked out for him.

He was asked if he had any electronic mail address, on any system we
interconnect with, i.e. MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, Compuserve, etc...so a
copy of this message and the original message could be sent to him. He
said he did not have, but asked if he could receive a copy. He was
told a copy would be sent by US Mail to his attention.

Perhaps one or more of you will favor Mr. Carey with a printed copy of
yesterday's Digest, and this follow up. It should be made clear to him
that knowledgeable and sophisticated users of the phone network know
the rules very well, and will assist in their enforcement when needed.


Patrick Townson

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

Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 29 Jan 90 22:51:03 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499) writes:

>Speaking of good ideas, there's one thing that a COCOT can do better
>than a "Real" pay phone, at least in this part of the country: if you
>dial a number that is a local call WITHOUT having inserted any money,
>it says, "Please deposit 20 cents for the first 15 minutes".  When you
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
>do so, your call goes thru.  When you try the same thing on a Pac*Bell
>pay phone, it says "The call you have dialed requires a 20 cent
>deposit."  You have to hang up, deposit .20, and REDIAL.  This is the
>same sort of nuisance as "1 + your local areacode + local number" not
>working!

SOME COCOTs will do that. But more important, you failed to mention
the downside of that little difference. With a Pac*Bell phone you may
have to hang up and place your call again after dropping in your
twenty cents, but then you can talk *as long as you like*, not just
for fifteen minutes.

This fifteen minutes business seems to also be applied to "free"
calls.  A friend of mine called from out of the area on my INWATS from
a COCOT and presto-chango after we had been on the phone for about 15
minutes--click! This is convenience? No, this is garbage. Oh, I know,
the COCOT owner would lose money if you could talk all day and tie up
his phone. That's his problem, not John Q. Public's problem. Or at
least it shouldn't be.

No, the only advantage to some COCOTs is the ability to outsmart the
"smart" phone and make calls at the owner's expense, enabling the
caller to save up to 100%.

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

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Dialing
Date: 30 Jan 90 17:45:22 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


The following AP article appeared in the Boston Herald on
Tuesday, January 30:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- US Sprint said yesterday some customers will be
able to place long-distance calls with their voices by summer in what
would be the first voice-activated dialing offered by a long-distance
company.

Sprint said the new service, targeted toward business travelers, would
allow a caller to use a spoken password instead of a standard
long-distance travel card, which requires callers to punch in as many
as many as 24 digits.

In addition, a caller could speed-dial certain pre-registered numbers
by saying passwords such as "call home" into a phone.

The company said the new system would provide greater security against
unauthorized use of calling cards by ensuring the caller's voice
matched a pre-registered voice pattern.

"These are the features the traveling public tells us they want," said
Syd Courson, a spokesman for Kansas City-based Sprint, the nation's
third-largest long-distance company.

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. said it has the technology to offer
similar voice-activated services and is testing to determine which
features are in demand.


Carol Springs                [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 13:53:17 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: The cause of the AT&T Outage

What still seems unclear to me, even after reading the "official" AT&T
technical explanation for the 15 Jan network problems and the other
info that has been on the net and in the media, is just why it was
triggered at the time it happened. If the new software had been in
place since mid-December, and its failure was triggered by a "minor
hardware problem" (as per the AT&T statement) or unspecified "internal
problems" (as per Telephony), does this mean that all during the
preceeding month there were NO hardware difficulties amongst all the
114 4ESS switches in the network? Or did the failure have to occur in
a really busy switch during a busy time (like mid-afternoon in New
York) in order to trigger the particular breakdown that then rippled
out thru the network? If the latter, then other similar failures could
have happened at random times to random 4ESSs and not triggered the
bug.

Since AT&T stated they were able to reproduce the problem in the lab,
they now know at least one set of precise conditions that trigger the
bug.  Have they published that info? (Its not like to do so would open
them to vulnerabilities; not only have they fixed the software to
prevent a reoccurence, but, if a hostile party had sufficient intimate
access to the network to create the trigger conditions, they would
also have enough access to be able to do a lot more damage than just
this clogging condition.)


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 31 Jan 90 05:02:35 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu!
[e-mail] (W.L. Ware) writes:

> I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per
> month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I
> be charged for privacy? My question is can the phone company legally
> charge for my unlisted phone number? And monthly at that?

    Why you people with unlisted numbers are such complainers I
will never know. Unlisted numbers are for the rich and famous.
Obviously they can afford to pay a pittance so Robin Leach won't call
at 1 AM while they are ravishing the chamber maid.

    If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great
unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful
solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the
telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or
Jim Bakker. For free they will also not put in a street address. Not
only is this free, but now you can tell those really important people
how to reach you. You say: "I am listed as Ivan Boesky". So if they
are out for the evening and have left their Filofax in the Mercedes,
they can call Information and ask for Ivan Boesky.

    Of course, if privacy is what you really crave, stop submitting
to net news and disconnect the phone. Direct all communications to your
bailiff.


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


[Moderator's Note: I guess he told us where we stand, huh?  He may not
know what size britches we wear, but obviously he thinks we are too
big for them.  Good day....see you again tomorrow!  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #65
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12283;
          1 Feb 90 4:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01319;
          1 Feb 90 2:29 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16527;
          1 Feb 90 1:19 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Feb 90 1:10:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #67
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Feb 90 01:10:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (William Degnan)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Pushpendra Mohta)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (The Blade)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Colin Plumb)
    Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Don Alvarez)
    Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (A. R. White)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
    Re: Faxnet Info Request (David Daniel)
    Re: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use (Mary Winters)
    Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (Jim Budler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90  0:36:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?


 WW>I just noticed that on my phone bill I am being charged $0.94 per
 WW>month per phone line to be unlisted! This is rediculous, why should I
 WW>be charged for privacy? My question is can the phone company legally
 WW>charge for my unlisted phone number? And monthly at that?
 WW>Lance
 WW>*W.L.Ware

In a FidoNet echo (partly in jest), I discussed the use of "other"
names as the listed name as an alternate to unlisted/non published
service.

In a call to the business office:

"Yes, I want to order a telephone line for my son 'Data' -- named him
for the guy on the TV show."

Anyhow, I think people might actually be doing this stuff. :)

I have seen cases where people list their phones in their dog's name
or other more interesting pseudonyns.

I do not recommend it -- merely report the activity.


Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock
(and in this case, it is still not advice).
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: Wed, 31 Jan 90 03:42:00 PST
From: Pushpendra Mohta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?


You can pay all you want ( or don't want ) for unlisting your number
and yet there is no defence against your friendly area carpet cleaning
agency who dials a few randomly selected numbers in your local calling
zone. Much like recieving Junk Mail addressed to "Current Resident".

And one would think adding your name to the phone book would make the
phone company move everything one down too. No ? :-)


Pushpendra Mohta

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

Subject: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
From: The Blade <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 13:06:28 PST
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM


Maybe you can answer this question.  I have heard in the past that
there is some way (legally) that one can get unpublished numbers.
Ive seen it advertised is a book, but never bought it.  Any help?


Blade

[Moderator's Note: In the event of a dire emergency, or occassionally
some other non-frivilous reason, the person with the non-pub will be
notified of your desire to be connected. You pass your initial request
to the supervisor; the supervisor in turn tells the Group Chief
Operator; the GCO will call the keepers of the non-pub records and
tell them of the problem. They will contact the subscriber and advise
them that you have claimed there is an emergency and that immediate
contact is required. Does the subscriber wish for them to give you the
number, or would the subscriber care to take the caller's number and
deal with it themselves? In any event, you won't be holding on the
line waiting for an answer from Directory Assistance. You will have
disconnected; and in due course you will be called back by a
responsible employee of telco; you'll identify yourself to their
satisfaction and they will notify you of the callee's decision in the
matter. Police/Fire and other emergency service agencies can short-cut
this *somewhat* by calling direct to their contact at telco; but even
then, only selected executives at these agencies know *who* and
*where* to call at telco; that information is available only on a
'need-to-know' basis. Most Bell telcos are very dedicated to
protecting the privacy of their subscribers who have requested it.  PT]

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 1 Feb 90 04:03:16 GMT
Reply-To: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


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

>I sure have a rough life here in Southern Ontario, basic unlimited
>local service, quite a large calling area (population wise) for about
>cdn$13.00/month ie: both lines together are $26.00 and I hear there
>are places you can pay almost that much for *ONE* line!?!??  But we do
>pay extra for touchtone, there are traditions to uphold... :-(

Gee, you seem to be paying too much... I forget how much local service
costs me exactly, but it's $8.xx a month for pulse POTS.  Add rental
of two of the classic indestructible telephones (they were called
something 500's by some TELECOM people, I think) at $1.75 a month and
a bit of tax, and my total local phone bill is about $13.

Of course, I can add $100/month long-distance for myself and almost
the same for my housemates combined and local service is trivial.
Anyone know how to get a really low rate (I've got it to $7.14/hr
using after-11 and a 15% discount plan) to *one number* in Toronto for
a great many hours a month?  I wish I could pay them $100/month to add
Toronto to my local dialling area.  It's only an hour and a half
drive, after all.

    -Colin

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

From: Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light
Date: 31 Jan 90 15:08:25 GMT
Reply-To: Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
Organization: Princeton University


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

>The speed of light in fiber is actually slower than the speed of light
>in coax cable...  (.72 to .76, or some such).  Does anyone know the
>propagation speed for light in copper phone wire, or whatever else is
>used for long lines??

 From the Reference Data for Radio Engineers, published by the Federal
Telephone and Radio Corporation (an associate of the International
Telephone and Telegraph Corporation) Copyright 1943.

        Telephone Transmission Line Data
Characteristics of Standard Types of Aerial Wire Telephone Circuits
            At 1000 Cycles Per Second

Type of Circuit        Gauge    Spacing    Velocity
            (mils)    (in.)    (miles/s)
Non-Pole Pair Physical    165    8    179,000
Non-Pole Pair Side    165    12    179,500
Pole Pair Side        165    18    178,000
Non-Pole Pair Phantom    165    12    177,500
Non-Pole Pair Physical    128    8    178,000
Non-Pole Pair Side    128    12    178,500
Pole Pair Side        128    18    177,000
Non-Pole Pair Phantom    128    12    177,000
Non-Pole Pair Physical    104    8    175,500
Non-Pole Pair Side    104    12    177,000
Pole Pair Side        104    18    175,500
Non-Pole Pair Phantom    104    12    176,000

Notes:    (1) All values are for dry weather conditions and 20Degrees C
    (2) All capacity values assume a line carrying 40 wires
    (3) DP (double petticoat) Insulators assumed for all 12" and 18"
        spaced wires - CS (Special Glass with Steel Pin) Insulators
        assumed for all 8" spaced wires.

Since the slowest speed listed here is about 94% C, and one can only
assume wires have gotten better, not worse in the last 47 years, we
clearly should all drop our fiber optic lines and go back to copper.
(God, how I hate waiting for those 20ms delays!)

-don

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

Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 11:30:50 PST
From: [e-mail]


> ... Does anyone know the propagation speed for light in copper phone wire,
> or whatever else is used for long lines??

   Yep:  0 km/sec.  Sorry; I couldn't resist.


A. R. White
nomdenet @ ISI.edu

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 22:50:54 PST
From: "Robert P. Warnock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better)
Reply-To: "Robert P. Warnock" <rigden![e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Vance@ex2499) writes:
+---------------
| Speaking of good ideas, there's one thing that a COCOT can do better
| than a "Real" pay phone, at least in this part of the country: if you
| dial a number that is a local call WITHOUT having inserted any money,
| it says, "Please deposit 20 cents for the first 15 minutes".  When you
| do so, your call goes thru.  When you try the same thing on a Pac*Bell
| pay phone, it says "The call you have dialed requires a 20 cent
| deposit."  You have to hang up, deposit .20, and REDIAL.  This is the
| same sort of nuisance as "1 + your local areacode + local number" not
| working!
+---------------

To make matters more confusing and frustrating, you *can* dial the
number first on the Pac*Bell pay phone if the number is not "local",
that is, will cost more than 20 cents for the call. (Many, many
"nearby" calls in the Bay Area are not "local".) In that case, you get
a message like, "Please deposit 35 cents for the first three minutes."
If you do, the call goes through.

Why they can't do that for a *true* local call is a mystery indeed!


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

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

Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls
Reply-To: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <think!ames!limbic.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, NY
Date: 31 Jan 90 22:53:13 EST (Wed)
From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <think!ames!limbic.UUCP![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adam M Gaffin) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 63, message 14 of 17

>When you place a collect call at one of those NE Tel pay phones that
>uses a computer to make such calls, the computer tells the person on
>the other end that he has a call from {your name here} and then tells
>him to say either "yes" or "no" to accepting the call.

Problem #2 with this:  When this 'neat' thing calls my answering
machine, as it has once already, it keeps on asking my answering
machine whether it wishes to accept the call.  In fact, the
voice-response announcement got rather angry sounding when it
continued to get no response from the answering machine!

Although I like the idea of these automated things...and yes, they do
have some interesting (though illegal I guess) side-effects of
allowing free 'message' passing capability, I see an increasing
problem with these automated devices clogging my answering machine to
wazoo.  The automated sleeze (sales) machines also do a number on the
machine.

An interesting thread to start here would be how the newer answering
machines should detect such things?  Should, perhaps, a certain amount
of call type-code signals be sent on the line?  Should automated
answering devices send a code so that a sending device can see that
they're also talking to a machine?


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.
...!ames!limbic!gil | [e-mail] ICUS Software
Systems -- Western Development Center P.O. Box 1 Islip Terrace, NY
11752

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: Faxnet Info Request
Date: 31 Jan 90 08:37:18 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


Your problem could be at the receiving end of the FAX transmission. If
the receiving FAX is looking for a Calling Tone ( a pulse that
identifies itself to the other FAX) and there isn't one, it could
assume the answer is voice. The opposite is true also. If YOUR machine
wants a Calling Tone and doesn't get it, it could assume that it was a
voice answer.

         --- "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                              Elvis Costello

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

From: [e-mail] (Mary Winters)
Subject: Re: Disabling Extensions for Modem Use
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mary Winters)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 21:20:48 GMT


I, too, have trouble with people picking up the phone while I'm on the
line with my modem.

In the Winter 90 issue of the DAK catalog (on the back of the postage
paid order envelope) is an ad for the "Phone Slasher". From the
outside, it looks just like a standard RJ11 "Y" adapter (one plug, two
jacks) like you can buy for $5 at Radio Shack, with the exception of
two colored LEDs sticking out of the top. The ad copy claims that by
plugging your phone into one side and your answering machine into the
other, simply picking up your phone will cut the answering machine off
completely. It also mentions that by plugging a modem into one side
and the phone into the other, it will no longer be possible for
someone to pick up an extension and screw up your modem communications.

My questions on this device are these: Is it safe? Is it legal? Is it
worth the $9.90 DAK is asking for it? All the circuitry fits
comfortably into a space less than 1 inch square - it can't be too
difficult or costly to make. Does anyone have a schematic for a
similar device that they would be willing to share?

Many thanks.


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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., DFE, Santa Clara, CA.
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 16:26:44 GMT


[e-mail] (Gordon Burditt) writes:

[...]
} Sigh.  If they are going to fix the rules, why can't they do it right:

} Require all customers to obtain written permission from long-distance
[...]
} authorization would have to be provided on request by the customer in
} the event of a dispute by the long-distance company as to whether they
[...]

I'm afraid I fail to see the logic which makes this more "right". In
fact it appears to protect the phone company as opposed to protecting
the consumer. Since the original change was being made to protect the
the consumer from piratical actions by sleezy phone companies. I don't
see how your proposal would do that.

In addition, your proposal would add to the government mandated
records which *I* would be required to maintain.  Something which is
less than desirable.


Jim Budler    [e-mail]    ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim
compuserve: 72415,1200     applelink: D4619
voice: [phone]     fax: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #67
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12448;
          1 Feb 90 4:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01319;
          1 Feb 90 2:26 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16527;
          1 Feb 90 1:19 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Feb 90 0:25:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #66
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Feb 90 00:25:32 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (Chris Johnson)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid (David Tamkin)
    Re: Sprint Stuff (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen! (David Daniel)
    Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain (Doug Claar)
    Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (John R. Levine)
    Re: TYMNET/MCIMail (John Cowan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges)
Date: 30 Jan 90 17:14:06 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN



>[Moderator's Note: I think the 'one hour holding time' could be
>explained thus: many of us sit on line to do our work. For example, I
>am connected to a local dialup here for two hours each day minimum
>while working on the Digest. And what of the numerous people who spend
>their entire lives on Compuserve CB (or it would seem like it! :) )...
>Data is data is data.....and there are far more casual BBS users and
>modem chatters out there than you realize, staying on line for an hour
>or more at a time. What I can communicate vocally in fifteen seconds
>takes a minute or more of interactive chat to type, transmit and read
>does it not?  PT]

Then the obvious thing to do is to charge by actual usage of
equipment.  Ho!  What an idea!  If hold times longer than XX minutes
tend to put a bigger demand on the equipment, then charge more for
them.  I wouldn't object to a flat rate for as many calls as I like as
long as they are less than 30 minutes or something, and then pay an
incremental fee for longer periods.  Or maybe just a larger flat rate
to have unlimited connect/hold times, or pay a lower monthly phone
rate to have my calls limited to 15 minutes, after which they
automatically disconnect me.  Or based on time of day.  As someone
mentioned, there is hardly a lack of facilities between 0000 and 0600,
which is when most modem usage probably takes place.

Even Compuserve CB is probably busier then than it is earlier in the
day.  It does not make any sense nor is it fair to charge more to
modem users just because some/many of them have long holding times.
Have you ever seen one end of a couple of pining separated lovers make
a phone call?  Hours.  I even knew one woman in college who would call
her boyfriend when she went to bed, talk for an hour, then fall
asleep, having a "holding time" of all night.  Like 8 hours.  Hell,
when I call home and talk to my family, it's usually over an hour and
sometimes my brother and I can go on for a couple hours.  Maybe we
should charge higher rates to people who call their parents?  It makes
about as much sense as classing all modem users together.  This sounds
like the kind of assinine intelligence the insurance industry uses.

And this doesn't say a thing about the good arguments for reducing
telephone rates, since most telephone companies are making obscene
profits.  As a regulated utility which should make profits adequate to
insure continued investor support to the extent that such is necessary
for expansion and rennovation of their facitilities, they need not be
the record profit-making enterprises that other companies are.  But in
the "upper Midwest", the region consisting of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Iowa, North and South Dakota, guess which companies are in the Top 10
most profitable corporation list, year after year?  Uh huh -- all of
the regulated utilties: Northwestern Bell, Northern States Power, etc.
Something is definitely fishy with that situation.


Chris Johnson                  DOMAIN:  [e-mail]
Com Squared Systems, Inc.         ATT:  [phone]
Mendota Heights, MN  USA          FAX:  [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 90 23:21 CST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement Is Stupid
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX


I quoted Joel Levin in Volume 10, Issue 25:

JL> Of course that's the point of the ad; what we complain about is the
JL> ludicrous strawman they set up, that someone might confuse calling
JL> Fiji with calling Phoenix.  And of course the alternate implications,
JL> that the ordinary user is stupid enough to make that mistake, or that
JL> the alternate long distance carrier would make that mistake.

I responded, in part:

DT> There is no alternate implication.  The caller dials to Phoenix twice
DT> and reaches the same phone in Fiji both times.  Clearly AT&T's fantasy
DT> has the carrier at fault.

There is a new version out, part of a longer commercial where everyone
else complains that the other carriers didn't save them any money, so
they switched back.  In this one, Mr. Laurance (I think it's Matthew,
but it might be Mitchell: they are twins after all) was hired back to
redo his own voice-over.  He dials only once and, in the new
narration, admits to the listening audience that it was his own
mistake.

The claim has changed from "other carriers misroute you" to "other
carriers give you dialing instructions that are too difficult for our
pea-brained heads."  Again, he gets p.o.'ed because he has to wait for
his next bill to arrive before he can request credit instead of having
it done immediately.  Poor thing has to *read* his phone bill when it
comes, or he'll forget about requesting the credit.  If he can't ask
for it while it is fresh in his mind, he'll end up paying.  (More
carriers are offering immediate credit now, from what I've heard in
their commercials and read in their ads.)

The actor looks like Mitchell but sounds like Matthew.  The whole
campaign looks, sounds, and smells like bullsoup.


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: "Roy M. Silvernail" <comcon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Stuff
Date: 31 Jan 90 01:57:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska


In article <[e-mail]>, rsiatl![e-mail] (John G. De Armond)
writes:

> The reason for this is simple.  All Visa/MC/Amex type and the phone
> company credit cards ("phone company" means most BOC or AT&T) follow a
> published standard of checksuming the digits of the card.  The last
> digit is a derived value based a computation of a sum-of-the-digits
> algorithm.  This algorithm is not a simple add-the-digits routine but
> I don't have the specifics handy.

This is interesting... a short time ago, I had the bad luck to
transmit my calling-card number on a multi-line BBS here in Anchorage.
Even though the chances of the other participants recognizing it was
very small, I'm a security-concious kinda guy, so I immediately called
Alascom to cancel my card. (as an aside, it took about 12 minutes and
3 supervisors to unearth the US-West 800 number I was to call. The 800
gave me a recording, and asked me to leave a message with the
requisite CC data).

The following Tuedsay (as this happened on Friday night), I got a call
from Anchorage Telephone Utility, asking if I would like the card
re-issued with a new PIN. I agreed, and my new card was sent out.  The
new card number is _exactly_ the same as the old one, save for the
4-digit PIN at the end.

> Another interesting fact concerns the insecurity of PINs.  We already
> know that the last digit is computed.  On most AT&T/BOC cards, the PIN
> starts with a "2".

Alaska PINs don't seem to start with '2', and both of my 4-digit PINs
have different beginning digits.

Does this mean that if I were to compute a 'logically correct'
14-digit CC number, I could slip it by the AOS sleazeballs? (not that
I'm planning it, but.....:-)


Roy M. Silvernail  | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy  |  "Every race must arrive at this
#include <opinions.h>;#define opinions MINE  |   point in its history"
SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage,       |   ........Mr. Slippery
Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc.      |  <Ono-Sendai: the right choice!>

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: FCC & Modem Charges: It *Might* Still Happen!
Date: 31 Jan 90 08:53:45 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


The above attempt by the FCC is simply a rehash of Amendment to Part
69 of the Commision's Rules Relating to Enhanced Service Providers
(Federal Register July 1987 Vol. 52 page 28317) authored by Ruth
Milkman of the FCC Common Carrier Bureau, Tarrifs Division.  The FCC
granted a surcharge waiver to GTE to establish Telenet. Now the FCC
wants their money and the above actions are how they feel it's best to
go about it.

I'm guessing that if enough screaming, gnashing of teeth and breast
beating occurs, the FCC will get their money direct from GTE and then
GTE will get a rate increase and life on Earth will continue as
before.


"What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                 Elvis Costello


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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 22:12:47 GMT


Note that AT&T is still allowed to perform call-blocking (and in fact
does at LA International Airport (LAX)). When will this be changed?


 _--_|\  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?" `-_-'


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

Subject: Re: Call-Blocking COCOT's: Here's How to Complain
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 17:30:41 PST
From: Doug Claar <[e-mail]>


Well, I had my token unpleasant experience with a COCOT. Not
remembering what the current law was like, I called the California
PUC. They said that current state law required that motels and hotels
MUST allow access to alternate long distance carriers; access from
other phones to alternate carriers OR to 800 numbers was not currently
required.

There was a requirement (a tariff, I believe) that no payphone charge
more than $.10 over PacBell intra-lata, and no more than $.10 over ATT
inter-lata, in state.

There is currently something before the commission to require
"standardized" access from all payphones that would require access to
alternate carriers and 800 numbers.

I also talked to AT&T, and they said that if I couldn't dial 10288-0
to get to them, it was a blocking phone, and that was that.

I'd really like to present the facts to the place where the COCOTs
are.  Does FCC order DA 89-237 override state setups? Is it really
illegal to block access? (If so, why don't the state PUC and AT&T know
about it?!?!?! Never mind, I don't want to know!)


Thanks,
Doug Claar

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

Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 31 Jan 90 08:10:35 EST (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>In fact, you don't even have to use to the MCI ID (mailbox number).
>You can use the Formal Name or Username as long as it's unique.
>
>[Moderator's Note: But that only works provided you are *certain* the
>user name is unique. Unlike actually being on MCI Mail, internetters
>don't get the option of making a selection from a menu of John Smiths.

If you send a message to a name that isn't unique, the gateway will bounce it
back to you, showing you in the bounce message all of the names and IDs that
match the address that you gave.  It's true, the only guaranteed way to send
a message is to the seven digit user number (beats me why they pad it with
zeros, maybe they're planning area codes) but user names are also reasonable,
particularly for those of use whose user names are not the default first
initial and last name.  The implementation of the gateway is really
excellent, my congratulations to whoever did it.

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

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TYMNET/MCIMail
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 15:52:59 GMT

The Telecom Digest moderator writes:
>[Using the full name when sending to mcimail.com]
>only works provided you are *certain* the
>user name is unique. Unlike actually being on MCI Mail, internetters
>don't get the option of making a selection from a menu of John Smiths.
>That's why the numerical address method is preferred. Take no chances,
>and insure your mail gets to the right party.


Actually, you do get this menu, in a funny kind of way.  I sent mail to
[e-mail] and got the following bounce message:

 From hombre!nri.reston.va.us!mmdf Wed Jan 24 08:22:38 1990
Return-Path: <hombre!nri.reston.va.us!mmdf>
Received: by marob.masa.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7)
    id <[e-mail]>; Wed, 24 Jan 90 08:22 EST
Received: by hombre.MASA.COM (smail2.5)
    id AA00389; 24 Jan 90 08:19:48 EST (Wed)
Received: from NRI.RESTON.VA.US by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.3/3.05)
    id AA22079; Tue, 23 Jan 90 16:52:24 EST
Date:     Tue, 23 Jan 90 16:37:13 EST
From: nri.reston.va.us!Postmaster
Sender: nri.reston.va.us!mmdf
Subject:  MCI Mail rejected a message.
To: marob.masa.com!cowan
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Status: R

The following mail message could not be forwarded
to MCI Mail for the following Recipients:
        To: Steve Manes <Steve [e-mail]>

MCI Mail stated the message could not be sent because:
At least one problem with envelope
608 More than 1 MCI Mail user matches recipient information
           MCI ID   Name                       Organization    Location
           258-3059 Steve Manes                Magpie          New York, NY
           360-8470 Steve Manes                PC Mag Column   Seattle WA
TO:        Steve Manes
           EMS: MCI Mail
           MBX: Steve Manes

615 Message must include at least one TO:  recipient


Your message follows:

[My message appeared here.]

I then resent to the appropriate Steve Manes using the MCI ID, and all was
well.  BTW, the message took about three days to make it through the
Internet side to MCI Mail.  I don't have the details, unfortunately;
does anybody know the response time of the gateway itself?  How often does
it poll MCI Mail?


[Moderator's Note: There are about a dozen readers of TELECOM Digest
who receive their copies through MCI Mail, and one with who I am
personally acquainted (we've known each other for years) says his
copies are always there in the morning, a few hours after they leave
here each day.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #66
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14396;
          1 Feb 90 5:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15335;
          1 Feb 90 3:34 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01319;
          1 Feb 90 2:29 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Feb 90 1:55:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #68
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Feb 90 01:55:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    California Senate Passes Area Code Bill (Evan Eickmeyer via Mark R. Smith)
    British Telecom Dumps Mitel (Julian Macassey)
    Telco Advertising (John Higdon)
    Telephone Number Lengths in UK (Carl Moore)
    Sprint's Other Tenex Code (*Hobbit*)
    Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? (Jesse W. Asher)
    Re: Caller ID in New Jersey (Louis J. Judice)
    Re: Caller ID (David Lewis)
    Re: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics (David Tamkin)
    Special Issues This Weekend (TELECOM Moderator)
    Laughter is Good For You... (Ron Higgins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 18:05:04 EST
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill"


 Originally appeared in misc.consumers, and passed to TELECOM Digest
 From [e-mail] (Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer)
 Subject: CA Area Code Bill
 Date: 31 Jan 90 06:18:44 GMT
 Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California


The following article is from the Los Angeles Times, Friday, January
26, 1990, page B4.

Senate Passes Bill Limiting Area Codes

 From A Times Staff Writer

     SACRAMENTO -- Prompted by complaints over a new area code for Los
Angeles, legislation requiring telephone companies to respect city
boundaries when new area codes are created was unanimously passed by
the Senate on Thursday and sent to the Assembly.

     Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Energy
and Public Utilities Committee, authored the legislation to force
changes in the area covered by Los Angeles' proposed 310 area code.

     An aide to Rosenthal, Paul Fadelli, said the bill would not undo
the 310 area code but it could alter the present configuration.  The
bill would require Pacific Bell and GTE-California to adhere as
closely as technically possible to existing city boundaries when
planning and implementing the new area code.

     As proposed now, the new area code would split such communities
as Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Culver City, Bell Gardens, South
Gate, Inglewood, the City of Commerce and Hawthorne.  It is scheduled
to take effect in 1992 and become Los Angeles' third area code.

     Rosenthal and Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los
Angeles) deplored what they termed the disruptive imposition of the
proposed area code.

     They said that neighbors living opposite each other on La Cienega
Boulevard, for instance, would have different area codes and that
confusion would occur for both local and long distance callers.

     If an entire city could not be included in a proposed new area
code, the bill would require the telephone companies to consider an
area's geography, "community of interests," cohesiveness, integrity
and compactness of territory.

     Additionally, telephone companies would be required to notify
their customers within a reasonable period of the proposed change.

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Telecom Dumps Mitel
Date: 1 Feb 90 01:41:44 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


 From The Economist January 27 1990:

    "British Telecom is selling its 51% stake in Mitel, the
Canadian maker of computerised telephone switchboards. The most likely
bidders are Japan's NEC and Fijitsu, Siemens, France's Alcatel and
American Telephone and Telegraph."

    So now you have a definition for a PBX: computerized telephone
switchboard.

    Will this leave AT&T as the only surviving US PBX manufacturer?

Yours with an SX-5 still hanging on the wall,


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

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

Subject: Telco Advertising
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 31 Jan 90 00:06:39 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Pac*Bell is currently involved in a saturation compaign to promote its
Centrex. There are very expensive-looking television spots, radio
spots, double-page newspaper ads, not to mention the direct mailings.
This represents an unbeliveable amount of money. And for what purpose?
To convince the public that they should forsake the interconnect
industry and allow their kindly phone company to "provide it all".

This is all very disturbing. In the old days, the utility was allowed
to do "informational" or "institutional" advertising to get people to
wait for the dial tone, or to dial correctly (hee-hee), or to not
leave their phone off the hook. In many cases it was required that
this advertising be paid for by stockholders rather than ratepayers.

Now we have the mighty force of a giant public utility that is
guaranteed a rate of return from customers that can't go anywhere else
using its muscle to compete against an industry that itself requires
the services of that utility. So now the ratepayers foot the campaign
to compete against the equipment vendors.

As if that wasn't enough, a frightening mechanism exists to pull shady
and unscrupulous tricks to nudge customers over to Centrex. Since the
company that is pushing Centrex is the same entity that supplies
dialtone to all those vendor-provided phone systems out there, it
might be just a little bit to someone's advantage to provide less than
adequate service to those CPE customers. "Oh, they wouldn't do that",
you say.

They not only would; they do. I have several documented cases where
Pac*Bell has had problem after problem with trunks to customers and
causes are never really pinned down. What does happen, however, is
that Pac*Bell personnel call the customer to "assure" him that the
problem must be in his equipment, while acknowledging to the vendor
that there is some CO problem that they "will look into". And then
SURPRISE! Guess who shows up at the door? You got it--the Centrex
salesperson.  I have personally been called out to customers locations
and have been able to vindicate the CPE. Meanwhile the trunk problems
continue, the customer is told that "the phone company" isn't at
fault, and the vendor is led down the garden path.

A friend of mine in the interconnect business found out about
Pac*Bell's "revisionism". One of his customers had trunks that
wouldn't pull dialtone on an intermittant basis.  After many days of
on-site time and effort, it was determined that the problem was eleven
originating registers out of spec for loop current. When these
registers were repaired or replaced, the problems went away. Months
later, when the customer was being beat upon by a Centrex salesperson,
the 611 service records were trotted out. Somehow, magically, the bad
CO ORs had turned into "trouble in the CPE". The customer, being
somewhat knowledgeable, threw the Centrex person out. But how many
people would be well enough informed to see through those tactics?

I am steadfastly against using equipment (central office switch gear)
simultaneously for regulated monopoly purposes and a competitive
business, such as Centrex. There is no way the public's interests can
be protected properly either by regulatory bodies or by the public
itself.

For the record, numerous letters have gone to the CPUC concerning this
matter and I have yet to receive any intelligent response. That's
probably asking too much.


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

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 11:52:09 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Number Lengths in the UK


Uncertainty over the city code here; phone number copied from pay
phone at Daventry service area (on motorway between Liverpool and
London): (03272) 78284 (Elsewhere, I saw city code as 0327 and even as
032?  03272 seems to be indicated, for the length standardization.)

I could not find a phone book for Gatwick, only for London.
Pay phones at Gatwick (city code 0293); note the differing
lengths:

34352  31633 (these two were in gate 17)
511453     512600     519582     22241     30250     30620     35295
512770     511452     519581     517907    17906     517905    517908
511641

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 00:20:17 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint's Other Tenex Code


Sprint has *long since* phased out 10777 here in central NJ.

_H*

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

From: "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys![e-mail]>
Subject: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook?
Date: 31 Jan 90 14:35:13 GMT
Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys![e-mail]>
Organization: Dynasys:  Consulting for the Future.


I don't know much about phones, so I thought I post a message to see
what I could find out.  Here's the scenerio: I've got an internal
modem without a speaker.  I'd like to know when the modem is using the
line without picking up the receiver to check (wouldn't want to do
that, would we?).  So, can anyone tell me how I can set it up so that
I have a light or LED on when the modem has the line (of course it
will be on when anyone's on line - I think)?  This way I can tell
exactly what is going on.

I'd also like to know if there is anyway you could rig a setup so that
lights can be displayed for an internal modem in the same manner as an
external modem.  I like to be able to see whats going on.  Thanx in
advance.


Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - [phone]       Internet: [e-mail]
6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134     UUCP: uunet!dynasys!jessea

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 06:56:49 PST
From: "Louis J. Judice  31-Jan-1990 0954" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID in New Jersey


Your local telephone business office has a list of CO's with Caller*ID
and a list of when it will be available in the rest of the state.

/ljj

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 31 Jan 90 16:48:17 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, well!rocke@
lll-crg.llnl.gov (Peter Marshall) writes:

> Re: Dave Levenson's 1/20 post on this topic, the technology you refer
> to is generally called "blocking." Apparently, relevant
> Bellcore-designed software had such capacity built in, according to a
> Bellcore witness in the PA Caller ID case;

Whoa.  There is no Bellcore-designed caller ID software; please don't
go misquoting Elena Worrall (who, I believe, is the Bellcore witness
to whom you're referring).  Bellcore wrote generic requirements for
Calling Number Delivery, as well as for the other CLASS (SM) features,
including Calling Number Delivery Blocking.  Software designed and
developed by, among others, AT&T and NTI may or may not have the
capability built in.  (Offhand, I think they both do, but I wouldn't
swear to it.)  But we didn't design the software; we wrote generic
requirements and other folks designed the software.

Regarding the fact that the calling number can be delivered when
calling a 900 number as well as an 800 number, I was unaware that
anyone was offering this service.  Technically it's clearly feasible;
I wasn't aware that any IC was offering to do it, though.  MCI, it
should be noted, will be offering ("real soon now") in-band delivery
of ANI.  This essentially means that any call carried via MCI (or, by
extension, by any IC who choses to implement the same technology and
offer the same service) could result in the billing number being
delivered to the called party.  There is no current way to block this
from the originating end.

Explanation for the "no current way to block this..." statement:  The
billing number is sent by the originating local exchange carrier to the
IC via Equal Access MF signaling.  The originating LEC is obligated to
send this information to the IC as part of the Equal Access
arrangements; the caller can not specify that this not be sent to the IC
because the IC would then have no billing information.  Once the IC has
the billing number, the calling party is out of the loop.

It is technically feasible, I suppose, to add a special sequence to
the MF signaling "protocol" meaning "caller requests billing number
privacy", but that doesn't exist currently and it's not clear it would
go over that well -- performance impacts and all that.}


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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Reaffiliation Tactics
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 10:43:05 CST


Also sprach Tad Cook in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 64:

| David Tamkin had an AMAZING story about trying to use MCI as a
| secondary carrier, and all the problems he had with MCI, IL Bell, and
| Centel when they kept assigning MCI as the primary carrier against his
| wishes.

You are easy to amaze, Mr. Cook; Illinois Bell did it only once and
Centel didn't do it at all (though MCI asked them twice).

| I am happy to report that we tried such as scheme with Sprint, and did
| not have this kind of problem.

Nor have I.  US Sprint and Telecom*USA are each very amenable to
having my parents' numbers and mine all on my account.  (Telecom*USA
is my 1+ carrier but 10XXX for my parents; the US Sprint account is
10XXX on all four phone numbers.)  Only MCI have been troublemakers.

Another response came in email.  Bill Huttig, who I hope will not mind
my repeating this, told me that after MCI did that to him once, he got
his local BOC to flag his account not to accept any reaffiliation
orders that come from carriers rather than from him.  He suggested I
ask Illinois Bell if they would mark my parents' account accordingly.
I asked.  They marked.  MCI hasn't tried it again, so perhaps this
extra caution will turn out superfluous in the long run.


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: Thu, 1 Feb 90 1:16:29 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issues This Weekend


More special reference issues are planned for this weekend. I have a
prefix table for two Canadian area codes which will be distributed;
and I have a revised and up to date Country Code Listing, for
international calls.

These will be distributed  probably Friday night or sometime Saturday.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Ron Higgins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Laughter is Good for You
Date: 1 Feb 90 02:39:42 GMT
Reply-To: Ron Higgins <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lightning Systems, Inc.


[From a cartoon.  Publisher-Unknown  Author-John Reed]

Person #1:
    Boy!  This Signaling System 7 - frequently known as common channel
    signaling 7 or CCITT #7, - debuted in 1980.  Using up to 64 kbps
    links to interconnect stored program control switches, SS7 is the
    first truly digital signaling network.  Its advent makes possible
    the use of special and general purpose computers and information
    data bases and brings a myriad of new network features and
    services to the public-switched network.  Among SS7's key
    characteristics are true interactive out of band signaling, a
    feature rich protocol based on OSI standard mold, the capability
    to support a wide range of information services driven by network
    data bases and ISDN compatibility.

Person #2:

    Yeah, but is it ground start or loop start?


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #68
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20417;
          2 Feb 90 0:25 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26375;
          1 Feb 90 22:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13674;
          1 Feb 90 21:36 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Feb 90 20:47:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #69
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Feb 90 20:45:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: "Sleaze" (Carol Springs)
    Re: 64kb National Tariffs (Hank Nussbacher)
    Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Dana Paxson)
    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (William C. DenBesten)
    Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report (Bob Munck)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (John Owens)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (J. Philip Miller)
    Noms de Guerre (Steve Kass)
    Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Jim Shankland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Sleaze"
Date: 1 Feb 90 06:14:16 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


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

>Another thread: C & P has a .50 (or .75?) per month charge to maintain
>your inside wiring.  I maintain my own inside wiring.  It seems to me
>that periodically, that charge reappears on my phone bill and I have
>to call them up and tell them to take it off.  I would call that
>sleazy behavior -- they keep sticking on a charge for an optional
>service that I don't want and I have to keep telling them to take it
>off.

At New England Telephone, the charge is $.45/month and is called
Telesure-Basic.  On a recent Saturday morning, I got a call from New
England Telephone hyping a great new service called "Telesure-Plus."
If I chose this wonder-option, then not only could I pay (some $
amount I quickly forgot) every month from now on, but I would be
protected from getting billed $55/hour for service in my home if the
problem turned out to be in my phone equipment rather than in the
inside wiring.  In addition, New England Telephone would lend me,
"free of [additional] charge," a telephone to use in place of my
faulty phone, until I could get around to getting the old phone
repaired or replaced!  Wow!

Now, I realize that not everyone has spare phones around to check
these things out, and that to some people the idea of borrowing a
friend's phone is somehow inconceivable. Also, some folks probably
just don't bother (even when cautioned to do so by the repair people
themselves) and then get angry when they're hit with a huge bill for
the service call.  But "insurance" like this, by whatever name, is
still gouging.  I've had to call repair at New England Telephone a
couple of times because of a dead line.  The first time was after my
second line was installed but never came up.  The second time was a
network problem, nothing to do with inside wiring (or, of course, my
phone) at all--but I got the Telesure-Plus hype call a week or two
after I'd reported the problem.  Could be coincidence, I suppose.

The real point is, the folks staffing the repair line *do* tell you to
try another phone in the jack, and caution you that you'll be hit up
for big bux if the problem turns out to be in the phone.  Offering
insurance against an easily-checkable possibility contributes to the
illusion that customers are helpless and must be protected from the
exorbitant expenses that can arise from their own telephobias.  And
how does one protect against large expenses?  With a little bit every
month, of course.

(Please don't bother telling me that I'm probably wasting my money on
the $.45/mo. Telesure-Basic, or basic inside wire maintenance, that I
mentioned.  I knew that even when I signed up for it.)


Carol Springs                          [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 01 Feb 90 15:09:27 O
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 64kb National Tariffs


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hank Nussbacher) writes:

>>    Country            5km       10km       50km      200km     500km
>>    ----------------+---------+---------+----------+---------+---------+
> .....
>>    Switzerland     |  758.8  | 1523.5  |  1739    | 6604.4  |  8810.3 |

Simon Poole responded:

>These numbers seem to be rather wrong (ignoring the 500km bit, which
>is a joke). According to my copy of the Swiss PTT tariffs the numbers
>would be more like:
>                        820       920       2460      3901

Thanks for correcting the numbers but I hope you noticed that my
numbers were based on documents from Dec 1987 and the Eurodata
Handbook from 1987-1988.  Tariffs have a tendency to change over time
and it appears that in Switzerland the prices have changed somewhat.


Hank Nussbacher

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

Date: Thu,  1 Feb 90 10:36:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges)


Chris Johnson <[e-mail]> writes:

> And this doesn't say a thing about the good arguments for reducing
> telephone rates, since most telephone companies are making obscene
> profits.  As a regulated utility which should make profits adequate to
> insure continued investor support to the extent that such is necessary
> for expansion and rennovation of their facitilities, they need not be
> the record profit-making enterprises that other companies are.  But in
> the "upper Midwest", the region consisting of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
> Iowa, North and South Dakota, guess which companies are in the Top 10
> most profitable corporation list, year after year?  Uh huh -- all of
> the regulated utilties: Northwestern Bell, Northern States Power, etc.
> Something is definitely fishy with that situation.

If you put $100 million on deposit in a bank and only earned $ 1
million per year in interest, you would think that was a lousy deal.
After all, you should get more than 1% interest on your money.  Yet
someone else might say "a million dollars a year is plenty of income
for anyone -- you don't 'deserve' to earn any more."  U.S. West -- which
serves the "upper Midwest" -- has at least $20 billion of invested
capital in telephone plant.  If you want investors to continue to put
up money, you have to "pay" them at least what they can earn in
comparable investments, or about $2 - 2.5 billion per year.  The total
amount of profits is not the right measure of whether the phone
companies are earning too much: it's the rate of return on the
invested capital which you want to look at.  I don't know what U.S.
West's rate of return is, and I won't defend it, but it's absurd to
say any company is earning "too much" money simply by looking at their
total profits.  You can't tell whether it's too much until you look at
how much the investors had to put up in order to earn those profits.
Typical utility profits are 12 - 14% return on equity.  Microsoft
makes at least twice that, and IBM traditionally has earned 19-20%.


Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University
internet:  [e-mail]
bitnet:    ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 08:51:22 EST
From: Dana Paxson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY


On the subject of phone credit cards/calling cards:

Why is the PIN emblazoned on the AT&T calling card, right there for
everyone to see?  I've worked on computer password management, and one
thing my cohorts and I kept telling people was: Don't put your
password in a visible place in written form.  I've used bank cards at
ATMs, and the banks I have cards for have been uniform in their
refusal to put the PIN on the card.  But I use the phone card, and Lo!
there is my complete access authentication, for anyone to read over my
shoulder, or use if the card is found lying somewhere.

Bad enough it is, that the PIN is so short and so structured (see the
recent articles on this subject); but why make matters worse by
displaying it?

BTW, I once got two bank ATM cards from two different banks, having
two different account numbers -- but the identical four-digit PIN!  I
speculated that maybe the banks bought the passwords (or the
algorithm) from the same guy ...

My input: Get the PINs off the cards.  If people can't deal with that,
they can't deal with bank ATMs either.  Furthermore, don't put the
PINs IN the cards (magnetically) either.  For secure communications,
the data channel and the authentication channel should be separate.


Dana Paxson
Systems Architecture

Disclaimer:  the opinions expressed above are my very own.


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

From: "William C. DenBesten" <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls
Date: 1 Feb 90 18:25:48 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Adam M Gaffin) writes:

> When you place a collect call at one of those NE Tel pay phones that
> uses a computer to make such calls, the computer tells the person on
> the other end that he has a call from {your name here} and then tells
> him to say either "yes" or "no" to accepting the call.

 From article <[e-mail]>, by think!ames!limbic.UUCP!gil@eddie.
mit.edu (Gil Kloepfer Jr.):

> Problem #2 with this:  When this 'neat' thing calls my answering
> machine, as it has once already, it keeps on asking my answering
> machine whether it wishes to accept the call.

How about a message on your answering machine similar to:

     There is NO one able to take your call...

Maybe it will pick up on the NO.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 90 13:43:02 -0500
From: Bob Munck <[e-mail]>


 From Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 59 and Risks Digest: 9.63

> Here's AT&T's _official_ report on the Martin Luther King day network
> problems, courtesy of the AT&T Consultant Liason Program.
> ...
> While the software had been rigorously tested in laboratory
> environments before it was introduced, the unique combination of
> events that led to this problem   couldn't be   predicted.
                                    ^^^^^^^^ ^^
Don't they mean "wasn't"?  The rest of the report seems (to me) to be
reasonably detailed, well explained, and apparently honest, but this
one little dissemblance ruins the whole thing.  Is there any
justification for the assertion that the prediction was (and is)
_impossible_ in these circumstances?

                         -- Bob Munck, MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

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

Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 1 Feb 90 09:23:17 EST (Thu)
From: John Owens <[e-mail]>


These messages about non-published number charges remind me of how
silly it is that I'm charged extra for a second listing.  I have two
phone lines, and two listings, one for myself, and one for my wife
(who has a different last name).  If I had each name listed with a
different number, there would be no extra charge, but since I needed
both names with the same number, I'm charged extra.  At least, as
mentioned here in other messages, I don't get charged for the second
line being unlisted as well!


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

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 1 Feb 90 18:10:21 GMT
Reply-To: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Washington University (St. Louis)


>.... Police/Fire and other emergency service agencies can short-cut
>this *somewhat* by calling direct to their contact at telco; but even
>then, only selected executives at these agencies know *who* and
>*where* to call at telco; that information is available only on a
>'need-to-know' basis. Most Bell telcos are very dedicated to
>protecting the privacy of their subscribers who have requested it.  PT]

I was under the impression that for some 911 services, that there was
a direct connection of the calling phone number with a database which
immediately provided the address of that phone.  I had assumed that
the content of that database came from the phone company.  In fact, in
an area like St. Louis, with almost 100 different cities in the
city/county 911 area, this type of database is necessary in order to
know how to route the incoming phone call.  Thus it appears to me that
the information is [at least in theory] readily available for the
Police/Fire folk.  Can someone in the know describe how this works in
greater detail?


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
[e-mail] - Internet  [phone]   [e-mail] - bitnet
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil-UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet


[Moderator's Note: Under E-911 service (the 'E' means enhanced), the
name, address and telephone number of the caller are available to the
emergency services dispatcher on a terminal in most cases. Coin phones
are indicated as such. Calls passed by the operator do not display the
information, but the operator is supposed to stay on the line and pass
calling number verbally to the dispatcher. But this information only
shows up on *incoming* calls. If the emergency services dispatcher
needs to locate someone for an *outgoing* call, it becomes a bit
harder.

For example, the store catches on fire at 2:00 AM....the owner has to
be called at home; but his number is non-pub. Another example: you are
taken to the hospital in an emergency; the identification in your
purse says to call a relative (by name, but no number), and the number
is non-pub. Telco will pass messages like this in an effort to help.   PT]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 17:15 EDT
From: SKASS@beta
Subject: Noms de Guerre


julian macassey <[e-mail]> writes:

>           If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great
>   unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful
>   solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the
>   telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or
>   Jim Bakker. For free they will also not put in a street address. Not
>   only is this free, but now you can tell those really important people
>   how to reach you. You say: "I am listed as Ivan Boesky". So if they
>   are out for the evening and have left their Filofax in the Mercedes,
>   they can call Information and ask for Ivan Boesky.

Seriously, will the telco do this for you?  About 10 years ago, my
roommate and I tried to get a listing as "A" with no address.  We
wanted to be able to give our number as "the first number in the phone
book." We were refused because we were unable to produce a piece of
identification with that name on it.  The last time I visited Madison,
WI, I noticed that there were dozens of listings for "A" with no
address.  What's the law say about this?  Does anyone in Madison want
to call "A" and investigate?


Steve Kass [[e-mail], 2014083614, 2015141187]
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Drew University
Madison, NJ  07940

"An amount in this box means the fishing boat operator considers you
 self-employed."  Reproduced without permission from my Form 1099.


[Moderator's Note: Business subscribers have more flexibility in their
choice of listings than residence subscribers. The listings you are
referring to are invariably business subscribers. And the only
guarentee of A with no street address being first is if the telephone
number printed is (when taken as a whole number) of lesser value than
some other subscriber who wants to be listed the same way. In other
words, A (no address) ...221-0001 would be listed ahead of A (no
address) with 997-9000 as the phone number. The final entry for many
years in Chicago has been "Zzyzx, Isidore R.  genl merchandise, 1706
S. Halsted, 942-1695"  PT]

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

From: Jim Shankland <rtech!llama.rtech.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: 1 Feb 90 18:36:23 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Shankland <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Eddie Group


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (julian macassey) writes:

>    If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great
>unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful
>solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the
>telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or
>Jim Bakker....

Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first
for both):

    Wheldone Rumproast IV
    Wong Numba

jas


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #69
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26687;
          2 Feb 90 3:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26105;
          2 Feb 90 1:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08249;
          2 Feb 90 0:42 CST
Date:     Fri, 2 Feb 90 0:14:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #70
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Feb 90 00:14:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    PSI Signs Agreement With RCI (John Eldredge via Henry Mensch)
    AOSs, the Carey Saga, and the Like (Will Martin)
    Call Waiting Question (Jeff Wasilko)
    Calling Card Numbers (was Re: Sprint Stuff) (John G. De Armond)
    Fax Group IV (Danny Wilson)
    Need Correlation of (Zip or Area Code) to Local Sales Tax (David McKallip)
    How To Dial Locally (John R. Levine)
    Satellite Conferences (Janos Posfai)
    On Learning That a Number is Unlisted (Carl Moore)
    301-950 Exchange (Velu Sinha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 17:22:44 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: PSI Signs Agreement With RCI
Reply-To: [e-mail]


>     Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 09:52:27 -0500
>     From: [e-mail] (John Eldredge)
>     To: [e-mail]
>     Subject: PRESS RELEASE
>     Cc: [e-mail]


            FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


            CONTACT:        Martin L. Schoffstall
                                Vice President
                                Performance Systems
                                 International, Inc.
                                P.O. Box 3850
                                Reston, VA   22091
                                703.620.6651
                                [e-mail]



PSI ANNOUNCES NEW, STRATEGIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS AGREEMENT WITH RCI


Reston, VA, February 1, 1990 - The signing of a five-year contract
detailing a strategic business relationship between Performance
Systems International, Inc. (PSI), a value-added computer network
service provider, and Rochester Communications Incorporated (RCI), a
telecommunications facility provider, was announced today.  This pact
incorporates T1 (1.544Mbps) circuit delivery by RCI for PSI throughout
the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states.

This agreement represents the second major telecommunications vendor
with a special working relationship with PSI to provide major portions
of the backbone for PSI's CAPNet(SM) and NYSERNet(SM) networks. This
agreement differs from the relationship PSI has with a larger number
of vendors offering circuits alone. Through this accord, customers of
the PSI backbone will benefit by enhanced reliability produced through
redundant telecommunications service providers.

An important aspect of this new contract is the co-location of PSI
data communications equipment in the RCI points of presence (POP's)
throughout much of PSI's current service areas, such as Boston, New
York City and Washington, D.C.  PSI customers will see the immediate
advantages of more serviceable core network equipment and reduced
costs for maintaining the backbone infrastructure.

Martin Schoffstall, Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer for PSI
commented, "This is a major step toward the reliable expansion of the
CAPNet(SM) and NYSERNet(SM) systems.  Our customers will enjoy
immediate advantages, such as greater serviceability, economy and
technologies such as Extended Super Frame (ESF) network management to
insure greater reliability.  At the same time, we better position
ourselves to support imminent needs, such as T3 and fiber data
transmission facilities."

Services currently provided by PSI include their "Standard Connection
Service," integrating customer Local Area Networks (LAN's) into the
PSI wide area networks (WANs).  This premier service puts
organizations in touch with millions of other individual users from
thousands of sites globally taking advantage of interactive network
applications, such as transferring files and remotely accessing
distant computers.

PSI also offers "Host Mail" and "USENET/NEWS" services for entry level
electronic business communications. In addition, PSI customers have
grown increasingly dependent on individual "Dialup Services" to the
PSI networks and "WhitePages Directories" to locate other network
users.

PSI's corporate offices are located in Reston, Virginia.  PSI network
operations is centered in their Albany, New York facility.

                  - 30 -

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 9:51:51 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: AOSs, the Carey Saga, and the Like

Perhaps the solution to the myriad AOS problems that have been
discussed here is to give the general populace some direct
encouragement to act against AOSs that violate the regs. The IRS seems
to have been successful in getting individuals to report other people
and companies for tax fraud, by paying the tipster a percentage of the
gains from the successful imposition of fines, penalties, and back
taxes.

What is needed is for the FCC to both begin more vigorously imposing
fines on AOS companies that violate the regulations, without giving
them long leadtimes to correct reported violations (they've been given
enough grace periods by now; they ought to know the rules if they are
in the business!), and to also pay a percentage of that fine to the
individuals who report the violations.


Regards, Will

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 18:57:53 EST
From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Waiting Question


I am trying to find out how call waiting will affect a MNP class 5
reliable connection.

What I am trying to do is set up call forward-on-busy to my cellular
number from my landline number (by manually forwarding calls to my
cellular number before making a data call), so that when I am on the modem for
extended periods of time I can still receive calls.

After calling Rochester Telephone (lack of) Customer Service, I am
told that call forwarding will only forward a call when the line
rings. If the line is busy, the caller will receive a busy signal.
Their solution is for me to get call waiting, so that the caller will
not receive a busy signal. I am concerned that the call-waiting beep
may drop my connection even though it is a reliable connection.

Note: This is a better alternative for me than getting a second line
installed since I work for Cellular One and get all my local airtime
free :-). RochTel doesn't offer forward on busy or residential
centrex, and hunting to a cellular number isn't possible.

Note 2: Our rates in Rochester are probably the lowest in the country:
$10/month, .175/min for peak periods. (-:   (-:


Jeff

| RIT VAX/VMS Systems: |     Jeff Wasilko     |     RIT Ultrix Systems:     |
|BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:[e-mail]|
|UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:[e-mail]____+
|INTERNET: [e-mail]                |'claimer: No one cares.      |


[Moderator's Note: I *think* the rep led you astray. I have call
forwarding on a line which does not have call waiting. When the line
is free, a forwarded call is signaled with a single ring. When the
line is busy, the call simply forwards. What the rep may have meant
was only one call can forward at a time (true in some CO's). If the
line is busy (becase a call is presently forwarded through it
elsewhere), then subsequent calls will receive a busy. I think you
should double check this yourself with a confederate and a second
phone line. While the line is on forwarding and busy with an *outgoing*
call, have the confederate dial it and see what happens, etc. I think
the rep also led you astray telling you you had to have call waiting
to make it work: how could you possibly have a phone forwarding and
still get a call waiting signal at the same time?   PT]

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

From: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Numbers (was Re: Sprint Stuff)
Date: 1 Feb 90 19:45:17 GMT
Reply-To: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and
 gun works facility)


In article <[e-mail]> comcon![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
writes:

>> Another interesting fact concerns the insecurity of PINs.  We already
>> know that the last digit is computed.  On most AT&T/BOC cards, the PIN
>> starts with a "2".

>Alaska PINs don't seem to start with '2', and both of my 4-digit PINs
>have different beginning digits.

I've gotten several comments on this subject.  My comments regarding
the pin starting with "2" is as a result of looking at perhaps 50,000
transactions in the 1988 timeframe.  The AOS I was contracted to
served primarily Georgia and Tennessee.  The overwhelming majority of
pins from this area started with "2".  I'd like to think that the fact
that peoples' pins are different now means that someone woke up and
realized the exposure.

>Does this mean that if I were to compute a 'logically correct'
>14-digit CC number, I could slip it by the AOS sleazeballs? (not that
>I'm planning it, but.....:-)

Yep, sure does.  At least with the AOS operators I'm familiar with,
they do NOT rent a subscriber database from a carrier or access it.
The trick that some have used of placing a test call to AT&T is now
clearly not permitted so the algorithm verification is probably all
they do.


John De Armond, WD4OQC  | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress-
Radiation Systems, Inc. | men than we can prostitution on pimps.  Both simply
Atlanta, Ga             | provide broker services for their customers.
emory!rsiatl!jgd        |  - Dr. W Williams |                **I am the NRA**


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

From: Danny Wilson <idacom![e-mail]>
Subject: Fax Group IV
Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd.
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 20:36:39 GMT


>From: well![e-mail] (Sharon Lynne Fisher)

>Can anybody point me to people who can talk to me about fax Group IV
>specs and how they differ from Group III?

>Also, I'd be interested in pointers to any other "new and nifty
>things" under development for fax technology.

Since IDACOM is now developing a comprehensive test bed for doing
Conformance Testing for all layers of the GIV Fax protocol, there are
several people in our organization that know about this.

Also, Ricoh, Canon, and Panasonic are all using our equipment for the
development of their new GIV fax machines (I've seen them), so I hope
that we can help you out.


Danny Wilson            [e-mail]
IDACOM Electronics        alberta!idacom!danny
Edmonton, Alberta    X.400    [e-mail]
C A N A D A        Voice    [phone]

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

From: David McKallip <walt.cc.utexas.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Need Correlation of (Zip or Area Code) to Local Sales Tax
Date: 1 Feb 90 12:05:16 GMT
Reply-To: David McKallip <walt.cc.utexas.edu![e-mail]>


Please help.  I am trying to find something that will tell me the
local sales tax of an area (total of state,county,city) if I can
supply area code and/or zip code.

Any suggestions for ways to obtain this info are greatly appreciated.

This is my first posting from this account so if mail bounces I can be
reached at 512-250-3600 (if no answer, leave message at 250-2083).


Dave McKallip                         My employer doesn't know I exist, so how
Internet: [e-mail]     could I have an opinion?

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

From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Locally
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 23:07:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA


Re complaints about whether you put in the money before or after
you dial:

It is a local call from West Lebanon NH to Woodstock VT, even though
they are in different states and different LATAs.  Maine, New Hampshire,
and Vermont are each one NPA and one LATA, very tidy.

So I was at the mall in West Leb and I wanted to call my wife in
Woodstock.  I discovered that if I just dial the local number
457-xxxx, I have to deposit a dime first.  (Seven digit local dialing
is universal, none of the NPAs are very full.)  On the other hand, if
I dial 1-802-457-xxxx, it gives me back the dime if I deposited one,
the nice lady asks me to "please ... deposit ...  ten ... cents," and
when I do so, thanks me for using AT&T.  Now that's confusing.

Also, in Harvard Square I came across one of these Call America COCOTs
that offers a flat rate of 25 cents/minute anywhere in the continental
U.S., and states that you get AT&T calling card or collect rates
otherwise.  The phone didn't work, of course, but if it did it's the
first decent COCOT ever.


John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, [phone]
[e-mail], {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl
"Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 17:41:22 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Satellite Conferences


I would like to learn about satellite television courses and
conferences in the following areas: general science, molecular
biology, biotechnology, computational biology, neurobiology, neural
nets, artificial intelligence. What programs exist in Europe? What are
the access rights? What are the technical requirements to hook to such
programs? Have the regular dishes this capability? Is somewhere an
address or a node to mail to, or a phone number to call? TV Guide is
not good.

Thanks in advance for any advice.


Janos Posfai

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 10:00:03 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: On Learning That a Number is Unlisted


Somebody wrote:

>> the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the
>> operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book,
>> call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he
>> can't find it either.

Some phone books have this common-courtesy reminder: When you are told
that a number is unlisted (or, merely using a different way of saying
the same thing, non-published), please do NOT persist in trying to get
it; it is not available, period.


[Moderator's Note: Not only that, but over sixty years ago, the cover
of the Chicago Telephone Company (predecessor of IBT) alphabetical
directory printed this admonition to subscribers: "We ask that our
subscribers extend the same courteous speech to our operators that
they wish to hear in return. Our operators are not required by the
Company to remain connected with, or listen to a subscriber who uses
profane language in addressing them."  Like what is it 'they' say?
Trying to bail out the ocean using a one gallon bucket.....  Operators
are terribly mistreated by some crude, belligerent customers.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 08:58:04 -0500
From: Velu Sinha <[e-mail]>
Subject: 301-950 Exchange


C&P has recently created numbers within 301-950 for reaching the MD
State Motor Vehicle Administration ... I set out this morning to reach
the MVA, and found that I was unable to reach the number (a fast busy
when dialing 7 digits, and a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed"
message when dialing 1+10 digits).

I checked with the operator and she told me that the number was
flagged in their system as being some sort of virtual number, and that
apparently lots of people were having trouble reaching the exchange.
The operator could not dial the call for me, as all 950 numbers dialed
from her console flag into different access codes (?)! She said that
she had standing instruction to connect me to repair ... she did, and
they've started looking into the problem ... but they don't seem to
know that a 950 even exists!  I called up the DA people again (the
folks who I got the number from in the first place!), and told them
that the number they gave me was unreachable, could I please get MVA
old 800 number (which use to be valid state wide) ... she refused,
saying that they only had one listing for MVA now, and it was valid
all over the state ... the 950 number!

Anyway, if anyone wants to see if they can reach the number from
out-of-state, it is 301-950-1682.  If you get through, perhaps you can
ask them how I get a replacement registration card for my car (;-) !!

These folks really should check the numbers before they give them to
the DA folks to give out!  The DA folks are rarely particularly swift,
and at tens of cents per call, regardless if the number they give you
is correct or not, the charges add up!

- Velu

ps. Anyone know what this 950 service for MVA really does?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #70
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28550;
          2 Feb 90 4:32 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00557;
          2 Feb 90 2:51 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26105;
          2 Feb 90 1:48 CST
Date:     Fri, 2 Feb 90 1:36:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #71
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Feb 90 01:35:14 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    A Letter From the Chairman (Robert E. Allen, via TELECOM Moderator)
    Things.. (Mark Earle)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private (Jeff Woolsey)
    Revised Country Code List (Chris Johnston)
    New Archives Exhibits (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 0:37:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Letter From the Chairman


Some time back, a discussion in the Digest centered around the
difficulty encountered when placing international calls to difficult
to reach places such as India and other mid-east countries. Messages
included comments about the methods by which AT&T operators handled
the calls and responded to customer inquiries.

Those messages were brought to the personal attention of Robert E.
Allen, Chairman of the Board of American Telephone & Telegraph
Company. In a personal letter to me, dated January 15, Mr. Allen
discussed the problems described in the articles which appeared in the
Digest. His letter to me, via US Mail, follows:


                                            January 15, 1990

Mr. Patrick A. Townson
Post Office Box 1570
Chicago, IL 60690-1570


Dear Mr. Townson:

    The articles appearing in TELECOM Digest concerning AT&T
operator handling of International Directory Assistance was brought to
my attention. I would like to respond personally and apologize for the
difficulties you have experienced.

    I want to assure you that we have addressed the problems you
described and are confident that the service you receive in the future
will meet the professional standards you expect.

    However, should an occassion ever arise when you encounter
difficulties attempting to place international calls after hours,
please call 412-227-7333, collect if you wish, and request the
supervisor. This will enable us to assist you immediatly and ensure
that you continue to receive the quality of service to which we at
AT&T are dedicated.

    We appreciate the time you spent to bring your concerns
forward and will strive very diligently to restore your confidence in AT&T.


Sincerely,

R. E. Allen

AT&T
550 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212-644-1000

============================================================================

My thanks to Mr. Allen for writing, and sharing his thoughts with us.
I hope we will hear from him regularly.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 20:06:22 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Things..


A Digest poster wondered about 1-700-555-4141. I dialed it from here
(Southwestern Bell) and got:  ..."thank you for choosing Metromedia.
Your service is now activated".

This implies that just by dialing that number, I now had
Metromedia/LDS (note they *are* my default 1+ carrier on this line).

I then tried 10288-1-700-555-4141. An AT&T recording (much nicer audio
quality than LDS) thanked me for choosing AT&T Long Distance.  Again,
the implication was that I've somehow managed to select something new.
I didn't try other 10xxx codes, but apparently HERE it at least is
useful to find out which 10xxx does what. Hmmm, I may try it some
Saturday, and see, if I don't get billed for each call, how many of
the recent 10xxx in the Digest work from here.

Also: Someone asked what different folks pay for basic services.
Here's mine: (note-2 lines, residential, first listed, second
unlisted, at no cost, as per tariff). These amounts are for *both*
lines, this is how it comes on my bill).

Monthly charge Jan 07 thru Feb 06 20.70 US tax .84 St/loc tax 1.96 for
a total of 23.50.

Special municipal charge   .42
FCC approved customer line charge   7.00
911 service fee                     1.00 (it notes that 911 is not yet
avail in my area, even though it is!)

The total, 28.12 is subject to sales tax, which is .83 (we have a
7.125% state sales tax) Aparently this is on top of the St/loc tax of
1.96 above. Weird, huh?!

I enjoy telecom immensely -- guess I'm more than casually interested
in the phone network/system...as a professional I do computer
hardware/software, pc to mainframe level (75% hardware 10% software
rest misc.) and am just getting into Unix/Xenix from a
user/administrator viewpoint .. anyhow, keep up the good work and I'll
keep on reading.......


Mark Earle

[Moderator's Note: Thank you for writing. Keep on reading, and writing.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 90 19:51:59 GMT


> "Yes, I want to order a telephone line for my son 'Data' -- named him
> for the guy on the TV show."

Well, in Houston at least such shenanigans seem to be unnecessary. I
just called SWBell and spoke to the service-entity:

    Me: "can I change the name my number is listed under?"

    SWB: "Yes, but it won't show up until the next phone book. We
can change directory assistance now if you like."

    Me: "Is there any restriction on the name: does it have to
match my billing name?"

    SWB: "No."

    Me: "Is there any charge for this service?"

    SWB: "No."

    Me: "Can I get a list of alternative long-distance carriers and
    10xxx access codes?"

    SWB: "If you give me your phone number we will mail it to your
address"

    Me: "Is there any charge for this service?"

    SWB: "No, but there is a $5 charge for changing your LD carrier"

    Me: "Why isn't this information listed in the phone book?"

    SWB: "The available carriers vary too much at different exchanges"

I declined to comment further on that.


 _--_|\  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: Jeff Woolsey <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Rules Cordless Phones Not Private
Date: 2 Feb 90 04:56:09 GMT
Organization: NetCom


I saw an article in the SF Chronicle (from the NYT, I think) on
January 31, about how IBM and Motorola are joining forces to promote
digital radio for remote data access for field personnel.  A few
paragraphs into the article (on the back page of the section in the
Chron), the amazing statement is made that (paraphrasing) "radio waves
can penetrate into buildings where cellular telephone waves cannot".
I kid you not.  I wish I were.


Jeff Woolsey    Microtec Research, Inc    [phone]
 ...!apple!netcom!woolsey    ...!amdcad!sun0!woolsey


[Moderator's Note: I've never really expected a lot from the {San
Fransisco Chronicle} in the way of accuracy, but I'm amazed my
competitor, the {New York Times}, would have let that get past them.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 18:28:39 199
From: Chris Johnston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Revised Country Code List


[Moderator's Note: I was going to run this as a special edition this
weekend, but there was enough space left over in this issue that I
decided to send it through normal distribution. If you save it, please
delete *last year's* version, and substitute this one.   PT]


Patrick,

    Here is an updated version of the country code list submitted
to Telecom Digest last year by Mike Grant.  I've checked it against
AT&T's International Telecommunications booklet, MCI's wallet card,
and some other sources I found.

cj

  From: [e-mail] (Michael Grant)
  Date: Fri, 1 Dec 89 16:32:16 EDT

Here you go.  I haven't really updated it since last year, but I don't
think much has changed.  Some eastern-block countries were added, but
I don't know their codes yet.  When I say grepable, I mean that all
things concerning a country are on a single line.  I have a program
which parses this file and breaks things up into the way I think I
posted it to telecom, but it's real messy, so I hesatate to give out
because I don't really want to support it if it breaks.

A * means no city-code required.  All-Points xx, means that you have
to use the city-code xx for everywhere in that country.  The + is just
the way people have been writing int'l numbers.  In this country it
expands to 011-.  I hope this is what you're looking for.  If you find
any errors or know any more, please let me know.

-Mike

The format for an int'l phone number is + country-code city-code
local-number The + is just the way people have been writing int'l
numbers.  In the USA + expands to 011.  In much of Europe + expands to
00.  in UK 010, France 19 wait for dial tone, etc.  When dialing into
many European countries you must strip the leading zero from the
city-code.  A * means no city-code required.  All-Points xx, means
that you have to use the city-code xx for everywhere in that country.

Algeria            +213; All Points *
American Samoa        +684; All Points *
Andorra            +33; All cities 628
Anguilla                +1; All Points 809
Antigua                 +1; All Points 809
Argentina        +54; Buenos Aires 1; Cordoba 51
Aruba                   +297; All Points *
Ascension Island    +247; All Points *
Australia        +61; Melborne 3; Perth 9; Sydney 2
Austria            +43; Vienna 222
Bahamas                 +1; All Points 809
Bahrain            +973; All Points *
Bangladesh        +880
Barbados        +1; All Points 809
Belgium            +32
Belize            +501; Belize City *
Benin            +229; All Points *
Bermuda                 +1; All Points 809
Bolivia            +591; La Paz 2; Santa Cruze 33;
Botswana                +267
Brazil            +55; Rio de Janeiro 21; Sao Paulo 11
British Virgin Islands  +1; All Points 809
Brunei            +673
Bulgaria        +359
Burma            None?
Cameroon        +237; All Points *
Canada                  +1; Then Area Code and number
Cape Verdi              +238; All Points *
Cayman Islands          +1; All Points 809
Chile            +56; Santiago 2; Valparaiso 32
China            +86
Colombia        +57; Bogota 1; Cali 23
Congo                   +242
Costa Rica        +506; All Points *
Cuba            +53
Cyprus            +357; Nicosia 21
Czechoslovakia        +42; Ostrava 69; Prague 2
Denmark                 +45; Aalborg 8; Aarhus 6; Copenhagen 1,2
Dominica                +1; All Points 809
Dominican Republic      +1; All Points 809
Ecuador            +593; Cuenca 7; Guayaquil 4
Egypt            +20; Alexandria 3; Cairo 2
El Salvador        +503; All Points *
England                 +44
Ethiopia        +251; Addis Ababa 1; Awassa 6
Faeroe Islands (MCI)    +45
Faeroe Islands (AT&T)   +298
Fiji            +679
Finland            +358; Helsinki 0
France            +33; Marseille 91; Nice 93; Paris 1
French Antilles         +596; All Points * (Martinique,St.Barthelemy,St.Martin)
French Guiana        +594; All Points *
French Polynesia    +689; All Points *
Gabon            +241; All Points *
Gambia            +220; All Points *
Germany (East)        +37; Berlin 2; Leipzig 41
Germany (West)        +49; Berlin 30; Munich 89
Ghana                   +233
Gibraltar        +350; All Points *
Greece            +30; Athens 1
Greenland               +299
Grenada                 +1; All Points 809
Guadaloupe              +590; All Points *
Guam            +671; All Points *
Guantanamo Bay        +53; All Points 99
Guatemala        +502; Antigua 9; Guatemala City 2
Guinea                  +224
Guyana            +592; Georgetown 2
Haiti            +509; Port Au Prince 1
Honduras        +504; All Points *
Hong Kong        +852; Hong Kong 5
Hungary            +36; Budapest 1; Gyor 96
Iceland            +354; Reykjavik 1
India            +91; Bombay 22; Calcutta 33; New Delhi 11
Indonesia        +62; Jakarta 21
Iran            +98; Teheran 21
Iraq            +964; Baghdad 1
Ireland            +353; Dublin 1; Waterford 51
Israel            +972; Jerusalem 2; Tel Aviv 3
Italy            +39; Florence 55; Naples 81; Rome 6
Ivory Coast        +225; All Points *
Jamaica                 +1; All Points 809
Japan            +81; Kyoto 75; Tokyo 3; Yokohama 45
Jordan            +962; Amman 6; Irbib 2
Kenya            +254; Mombasa 11; Nairobi 2
Kiribati                +686
Korea (South?)        +82; Pusan 51; Seoul 2
Kuwait            +965; All Points *
Lebanon            None?
Lesotho            +266; Leribe 3; Roma 21
Liberia            +231; All Points *
Libya            +218; Tripoli 21
Liechtenstein        +41; All Points 75
Luxembourg        +352; All Points *
Macao            +853; All Points *
Malawi            +265
Malaysia        +60; Kuala Lumpur 3
Maldives                +960
Malta                   +356; All Points *
Marshall Islands        +692
Mauritius               +230
Mexico                  +52; Mexico City 5; Tijuana 66
Mexico (Mexico City)    +1 905 (USA only)
Mexico (Tijuana)        +1 706 (USA only)
Micronesia              +691
Miquelon        +508
Monaco            +33; All Points 93
Montserrat              +1; All Points 809
Morocco            +212; Casablanca *; El Jadida 34
Namibia            +264; Grootfontein 673;
Nauru                   +674
Nepal                   +977; All Points *
Netherlands        +31; Amsterdam 20; The Hague 70
Netherlands (Antilles)    +599; Aruba 8; Curacao 9; Sint Maarten 5
Nevis                   +1; All Points 809
New Caledonia        +687; All Points *
New Zealand        +64; Auckland 9
Nicaragua        +505; Managua 2
Niger Republic          +227; All Points *
Nigeria            +234; Lagos 1
North America        +1 (Includes Canada, Caribbean, and United States)
Northern Ireland        +44
Norway            +47; Bergen 5; Oslo 2
Oman            +968; All Points *
Pakistan        +92; Islamabad 51
Panama            +507; All Points *
Papua New Guinea    +675; All Points *
Paraguay        +595; Asuncion 21
Peru            +51; Arequipa 54; Lima 14
Phillippines        +63; Manila 2
Poland            +48; Gdansk 58; Warsaw 22
Portugal        +351; Lisbon 1
Puerto Rico        +1; All Points 809
Qatar            +974; All Points *
Romania            +40; Burcharest 0
Rwanda                  +250
Saint Kitts             +1; All Points 809
Saint Lucia             +1; All Points 809
Saint Pierre         +508; All Points *
Saint Vincent           +1; All Points 809
Saipan            +670
San Marino        +39; All Points 549
Saudi Arabia        +966; Riyadh 1
Scotland                +44
Senegal            +221; All Points *
Seychelles Islands      +248
Ships at Sea            +871; Atlantic Ocean
Ships at Sea            +872; Pacific Ocean
Ships at Sea            +873; Indian Ocean
Singapore        +65; All Points *
South Africa        +27; Cape Town 21; Johannesburg 11
Spain            +34; Barcelona 3; Madrid 1
Sri Lanka        +94; Kandy 8
Suriname        +597
Swaziland        +268
Sweden            +46; Stockholm 8
Switzerland        +41; Berne 31; Burgdorf 34; Geneva 22; Zurich 1;
Syria            None?
Tahiti (Fr. Polynesia)    +689
Taiwan            +886; Tainan 6; Taipei 2
Tanzania        +255; Dar Es Salaam 51; Tanga 53
Thailand        +66; Bangkok 2
Togo                    +228; All Points *
Tonga                   +676
Trinidad & Tobago       +1; All Points 809
Tunisia            +216; Tunis 1
Turkey            +90; Istanbul 1; Ismir 51
Turks & Caicos          +1; All Points 809
Uganda            +256; Entebbe 42
United Arab Emirates    +971; Abu Dhabi 2; Ajman 6
United Kingdom        +44; Belfast 232; Glasgow 41; London 1
United States        +1; then Area Code and number
USSR            +7;
Uruguay            +598; Montevideo 2
Vatican City        +39; All Points 6
Venezuela        +58; Caracas 2; Valencia 41
Wales                   +44
Yemen Arab Republic    +967; Taiz 4
Yugoslavia        +38; Belgrad 11; Sarajevo 71
Zaire            +243
Zambia            +260;
Zimbabwe        +263; Mutare 20


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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 0:53:41 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Archives Exhibits


Two recent additions to Telecom Archives --

1. "High Performance Computing and Networking" -- a background paper
from the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. Steve Cisler kindly
sent along Chapter 3 (Networking) which he prepared with an optical
scanner.

2. "Ontario Area Codes/Exchange Names List" -- several files are
devoted to a correlation between exchanges and geographic names in
Ontario. The files are named 'npa.xxx.exchanges', where xxx is the
area code in Ontario. These files were sent in by Woody <[e-mail]>.

When I first thought Woody was going to send *one* area code file, I
intended to run it as a special edition. When he sent several, for the
various area codes in Ontario, I simply moved them to the archives.

The report submitted by Steve Cisler is over 60,000 bytes -- far too
long for inclusion in a digest or multiple digests.

My thanks to both.


Patrick Townson


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #71
*****************************










Date:     Fri, 2 Feb 90 21:26:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #72
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Feb 90 21:25:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (John Higdon)
    Re: Satellite Conferences (Bill Darden)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Rich Zellich)
    Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill" (Carl Moore)
    Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Call Waiting Question (David Daniel)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Tad Cook)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Brian Gordon)
    Re: Noms de Guerre (Rich Zellich)
    Re: 301-950 Exchange (Ken Jongsma)
    Calling India: Mixed Experiences (Pushpendra Mohta)
    Sun Sparcstation as a Phone (Franck Boissiere)
    NYNEX Offering 'Local' 800 Numbers (Steve Elias)
    415/510 Split Affects Zip Code Correlation (Carl Moore)
    Groveton Area Near Alexandria, Va. (Carl Moore)
    T3 CSU/DSU (Mike Tharenos)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges)
Date: 1 Feb 90 23:04:01 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]> writes:

> Typical utility profits are 12 - 14% return on equity.  Microsoft
> makes at least twice that, and IBM traditionally has earned 19-20%.

But don't overlook that that humble 12-14% is guaranteed. No matter
what happens, the company will make that return on equity. And, of
course, this doesn't take into account some of the creative paperwork
the accounting departments at the various utilities (see previous
posts) can generate.

Microsoft, on the other hand, could lose its (investors') shirt
tomorrow, and not one PUC would step in to save it. To some people,
that security is worth many points of return.


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

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

From: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Satellite Conferences
Date: 2 Feb 90 15:55:50 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA


You will want to contact:

National Technological University
c/o  Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
[phone]

National University Teleconferencing University
c/o Oklahoma State University
Stillwater, OK
[phone]

Good luck,

BiLL.....

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 8:17:45 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards


Dana Paxson wants to get the PIN off the calling card, for security
reasons.

It seems to me, that for the great unwashed, who have their real
telephone number (as opposed to a billing-only made-up number, as some
of the Telecom subscribers do), that the card is the only thing they
get that has the PIN.  What they really need to do for these people is
take their name and phone number off the card, leaving just the
corporate name/logo and the PIN - hopefully these people can remember
their own name and number.

Since there would then be more room on the front of the card, the
calling instructions could be put on the front, in larger type than
what is on the back (or the litle card that originally came with my
first AT&T calling card).

If someone finds a PIN-only card, they would have no way of knowing
what number it belonged to, and with no name couldn't look it up,
either.  If a purse or wallet is stolen, the name would be known, but
so many people put their various PINs on a slip of paper in their
wallet somewhere anyway, that it probably wouldn't matter.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 9:58:53 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill"


What constitutes notice of the area code change?  The insertions in
people's phone bills?  The notices in this Digest are very early
(213/310 notice reached me Dec. 15, 1989, 2 years and 1 1/2 months
before it takes effect) but this is a small and scattered audience
compared to the people getting the new area code.  This problem of
splitting communities occurred with 213/818 split, as I recall
reading.

As is the case in New York City, you have to dial the area code even
on local calls across NPA boundary.  Notice that 212/718 split is
along borough lines and is along waterways, and I am not sure that
even the 213/818 split was along "natural" borders -- certainly not
waterways.


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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel
Date: 3 Feb 90 01:24:00 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (julian macassey) writes:
 ...
>  From The Economist January 27 1990:

>     "British Telecom is selling its 51% stake in Mitel...
 ...
>     Will this leave AT&T as the only surviving US PBX manufacturer?
 ...
> Yours with an SX-5 still hanging on the wall...

My SX-5 indicates that it was made in Canada.  Mitel is not a US PBX
manufacturer.

Also, it is not clear that Mitel is not surviving.

(Our SX-5 is sitting on the floor!)


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] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question
Date: 2 Feb 90 20:00:27 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


Just in case you DO need Call Waiting to set up your forward-on-busy
arrangement you need to do this:

Change the value of register S9 Carrier Detect Time from the default
of 7 (.7 seconds) to 15.

This increases the time between loss of carrier and modem disconnect.
Of course the host modem will need to be on an eqivalent setting as
well.

    ---- "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                        Elvis Costello

[Moderator's Note: As you point out, the other end needs the same
change in its register. Its unlikely the typical user will have access
to the modems on the other end (terminal servers, BBS lines, email and
other commercial services), thus for all practical purposes, this
really won't make any difference. Also, depending on how important
your data is (or difficult to decipher/read if binary code, etc), you
will lose data and gain garbage in its place during that interim.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 2 Feb 90 20:21:09 GMT
Organization: very little


As a followup to Ken Dykes' story about the charge for unlisted
numbers, I ran into an interesting situation when we got the new 5ESS
service at my home, and I decided to "link" my two phone lines with
residential Centrex.  I told them that I wanted the second number
unlisted, as I wanted all incoming calls to originate on "line 1".
Originally they were going to charge me for the unlisted number.  At
my prodding, either they changed their mind, or they found a feature
in Centrex tarrifs that did not charge for having unlisted numbers on
all but the main Centrex number.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 11:11:22 PST
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?


Having recently read in this Digest that, at least in CA, "The Phone
Company" does not charge for having a second line unlisted if the
first line (same name/address) is listed, I called Pacific Bell to
tell them to stop charging me $0.30/month for the "service".

The service representative tells me I've got it backwards -- if your
first line is unlisted (for a monthly fee) and you want a second line
also unlisted, THEN the second line is free.  Thus, according to one
PacBell spokesperson, the first unlisted line (out of any number) is
charged, and subsequent ones are not.

Who is correct?  Specifically, if I read the Digest properly and the
second line should not be charged (first line listed normally), does
someone have the suitable PUC directive/ruling/regulation/whatever
reference to cite in my letter to PacBell?

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian G. Gordon    [e-mail] (if you trust exotic mailers)     |
|            ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself)          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

[Moderator's Note: I believe the rule is (as it is here in IBT-land)
that one paid-for non-pub OR one free listing by default is
satisfactory for the purpose of waiving further non-pub fees. That is,
if there is *some number* for DA to give out for you, then you have
met the requirements, since the 'aggravation factor', as we used to
call it is mitigated. DA has something positive to tell callers about
you.  Likewise, if you pay once to be non-pub, then there are no
further charges; after all, is DA supposed to tell the caller you are
non-pub at two numbers or more numbers? If they insist on charging for
non-pub when you are listed at least once, then insist to them that
each time someone calls DA, you want *two recitations*; one giving
your number and the second announcing "at the customer's request, the
number is not part of our records, etc..."   PT]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 8:25:48 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Noms de Guerre


Unless it's been changed recently, I'm pretty sure that Southwestern
Bell, here in Missouri, will list you under any name you want - this
is specifically offered as a security feature, I believe.  Also, you
are entitled to TWO listings for each phone number - so you can list
both husband and wife separately, for instance, but some people use
"cute"/"trick" entries for their second listing (those few people who
know they can get one, anyway...  it's not exactly a heavily-advertised
feature).

Actually, I suspect the telco might balk at any listing name that might
appear to be an attempt to defraud - listing yourself as "Southwestern
Bell Telephone", for instance.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 301-950 Exchange
Date: Fri,  2-Feb-90 06:05:21 PST


I can't believe a telco would use 950 for anything! 950 was a pseudo
exchange used prior to Dial 1 access to Long Distance carriers other
than AT&T.


Ken

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 03:28:07 PST
From: Pushpendra Mohta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling India: Mixed Experiences


India seems to have come up a lot recently as an example of difficult
to call places.

I suppose it really depends *where* you call in India.  In the last
three years I have been calling New Delhi using AT&T, I only remember
two occassions when I had to dial more than once to get a connection.
(The quality of connections [echo, noise] seems to vary a lot though).

On the other hand my ex-roommate who calls a not so well developed
city can hardly hold a connection for more than two minutes, assuming
he can get connected to the correct number in the first place.  Under
Indian conditions antique CrossBar Exchanges actually become
CrossConnect.

Funny thing is when he was experimenting with MCI and could not get
through, a well-meaning MCI rep told him that during peak hours there
was only a * 15 percent * chance that calls to India and Pakistan
would connect through MCI and suggested calling through AT&T!

My problems with AT&T:

* Significantly higher calling rates to India (compared to
neighbouring countries).

* Inaccurate information provided by operators.  (As part of its
recent restructuring of tarrifs, AT&T actually reversed the standard
and economy calling time slots to India!  What was standard became
economy and vice-versa.  Many operators knew not of the change and
advised callers incorrectly resulting in huge surprises in subsequent
bills.)

Pushpendra Mohta

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

From: [e-mail] (franck boissiere)
Subject: Sun Sparcstation as a Phone
Date: 2 Feb 90 12:32:27 GMT
Organization: IRISA, Rennes (Fr)


I am willing to use a Sparcstation 1 as a multimedia office system.
For that purpose I want to communicate with the outside world using
voice/data/fax ...  transfers. From what I understand the audio chip
can digitize and replay sounds.  It can also generate DTMF signalling
tones. Considering these facts I thought about hooking the SS1
directly to a phone line in order to include some telephony
functionality into an integrated office system.

Has this been done already? Any ideas about what may be troublesome
with this idea? (is it possible to hang-on the line, to detect
ringing?)

I read in the Sun Sparcstation 1 documentation that the audio chip has
ISDN capabilities. I don't really know what this means. Does anynoe
know about the capablitites of this chip.

I'd appreciate this information and I will summarize to the net.

Thanks in advance.


Franck BOISSIERE                        [e-mail]
Prototyping Lab Manager                 [e-mail]
C.C.E.T.T.   B.P. 59                    [e-mail]
35512 CESSON SEVIGNE CEDEX  FRANCE

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

Subject: NYNEX Offering 'Local' 800 Numbers
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 90 09:14:10 -0500
From: [e-mail]


My recent NETel bill contained an ad for a new 800 service available
around here.  Apparently, the number is only good from the New England
area...  I thought that 800 numbers were either within 1 state, or
countrywide...  Has something changed?


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


[Moderator's Note: Just as there was always 'banded WATS', so there
was 'banded in-WATS', allowing calls from everywhere in the USA, (Band
6), all places except Alaska and Hawaii (Band 5), various combinations
of nearby and further away states (Bands 1,2,3,4), and intrastate
only, known as Band 8. Bands 1 through 4 are rarely ordered these days
since they just are not cost-efficient. It could be NYNEX has set up
something along these lines.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 10:06:39 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 415/510 Split Affects Zip Code Correlation

Because the notices in TELECOM Digest have pointed out that split as
occuring along the Bay, I am able to offer the following regarding the
zipcodes in what is now 415:

415/510 split: Area east of San Francisco Bay goes into 510, while
San Francisco, the peninsula leading north into it, and Marin County stay
in 415.

940xx (except for that portion in 408), 941xx, 943xx, 944xx stay in 415.
945xx (except for that portion in 707), 946xx, 947xx, 948xx go into 510.
949xx (except for that portion in 707) stays in 415.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 13:10:06 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Groveton Area Near Alexandria, Va.


I looked up some 1965 listings just now and see 703-SO5 (765)
appearing at Fort Belvoir and Mount Vernon.  Notes made much later
which I have seen say that 765 is an Alexandria exchange in the
Groveton area, which is the next exchange down U.S. 1 and the Potomac
River from old-town Alexandria.  Fort Belvoir and Mount Vernon have
since split off from the Groveton ex- change, and a new exchange area,
south of the now-reduced Groveton exchange area, was set up.  I know
that 360 and 780 serve the Mount Vernon area, with some 781
(Engleside, the next exchange to the south, and which is toll to Md.)
mixed in; 664 is at Fort Belvoir, and I don't know what is on the pay
phones at Fort Belvoir.

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

From: Mike Tharenos <[e-mail]>
Subject: T3 CSU/DSU
Date: 3 Feb 90 00:26:21 GMT


A friend asked me to inquire if anyone who reads this list knows of a
supplier of CSU and/or DSU products for the T3 (44.736 bps) AT&T
Accunet T45 service or equivalent. Ideally, what is desired is a box
which meets the carrier T3 Network Interface on one side and produces
and accepts clock and data on the other.


Michael Tharenos
Networking and Communications Systems
Stanford University
415-725-1392

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #72
*****************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05025;
          3 Feb 90 15:02 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28946;
          3 Feb 90 13:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03351;
          3 Feb 90 12:06 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Feb 90 11:07:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #73
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Feb 90 11:05:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Some Messages Lost (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook (Tad Cook)
    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Stan M. Krieger)
    Re: Revised Country Code List (John R. Levine)
    Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (John Stanley)
    Re: More Misdialed Numbers (Edward S. Sachs)
    Re: More Misdialed Numbers (Mike Koziol)
    Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report (Rick Farris)
    Re: How To Dial Locally (John Higdon)
    Re: Noms de Guerre (David Tamkin)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Tad Cook)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Sam Drake)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (John Stanley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 22:09:46 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Messages Lost

Due to an unfortunate circumstance, about six messages in the holding
queue were lost Friday night at 10:00 PM. If you have an auto-reply
from prior to 10 PM Friday, and if your message is not in this issue,
then it is lost, and you will have to resubmit it.

I am sorry that a mechanical error here caused this to occur, and it
is quite rare that it happens.

Some messages known to be lost were one from Daniel Senie about
calling here from France and one from John Hidgon. Also, a couple
messages from Steve (?), one of which dealt with COCOT 10xxx blocking
in California. I *do* have a message from Gordon Burditt which came in
late Friday night; there was no room for it in this issue.

In other news: Our correspondent 'woody' from Canada has sent several
more NPA tables for the various area codes in Canada. These are all in
the Telecom-Archives file.

It looks like the weekend is off to a great start for me!


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook?
Date: 3 Feb 90 01:09:01 GMT
Organization: very little


Jesse Asher asked how to rig up a light that would illuminate when his
modem was on-line.

Many modems have an A and A1 lead, which are on the outside pair (the
black and yellow leads on a modular connector) on the RJ11 telephone
line jack.  The A and A1 leads short together when the modem is on
line.  You may have to check your modem manual and option switches to
turn this feature on.

Just wire up a light and a battery in series with these leads, and you
will have your "modem busy" lamp.

Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls
Date: 2 Feb 90 19:37:57 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ


> [Moderator's Note: And this is also a new source for fraud, as people
> are learning that their name can be anything at all, i.e. 'I will be
> home in an hour'; 'meet me at 5:00 PM at the airport', etc....to which
> the called party responds 'no', and disconnects. No charge for the
> call, yet a message delivered quite well. At least a live operator
> knows it is unlikely your name will be 'call me back at abc-wxyz'; the
> computer knows from zilch.  PT]


I don't know if I read this in this group or somewhere else, but such
fraudulent usage can clearly be traced.  Obviously, the voice
recordings can be kept; all the telco or AOS needs to do is listen to
each day's recordings and if a message appears where the person's name
should've been, they can assume the call was made, completed, and
accepted, and bill the receiving phone anyway.  I'm sure the
technology exists, or can easily be developed, to allow a playback of
only the rejected calls, so it's a lot less listening.

True, someone may try to "prank" someone else by using an automated
collect phone to leave such a "message", but clearly how many people
who really did try to leave a message instead of their name would do
it again if they were caught?


Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

Subject: Re: Revised Country Code List
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 2 Feb 90 18:25:41 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>France        +33; Marseille 91; Nice 93; Paris 1

France has changed the way that they write the numbers so that outside
of the Paris region, the entire eight-digit number is considered to be
the local number, e.g. a number in Nice that used to be (93) 22-33-44
is now written 93-22-33-44, and there's no city code.  From outside
France they are dialed the same way, as before.  Numbers inside the
Paris region are (1) 44-55-66-77, you dial the 1 from outside the
country.

>French Antilles       +596; All Points * (Martinique,St.Barthelemy,St.Martin)
>Guadaloupe            +590; All Points *

St. Barts and the French part of St. Martin are admistratively part of
Guadeloupe, and I believe that they share its code 590.

>Guantanamo Bay        +53; All Points 99

The country code for all of Cuba is 53.  I realize that it's not dialable
from the U.S. except via a 700 number in Florida that rarely works.  Can
you dial, say, Havana from other places via [phone] or some such?


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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 08:43:23 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light


 In article <[e-mail]> Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 67, message 5 of 11

> [lots of numbers deleted]

 Plain copper wire has always had a good velocity factor.
Unfortunatley, the coax variant can range anywhere from 95%c to 60%c.
Even within the same type from the same manufacturer. This causes
great havoc when trying to make resonant feedlines (Hmmm, is this the
 .6c RG-58 or the .78c RG-58?)


       nn    m m   RRR   i    John Stanley   N8GFO
      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
    #include <disclaimer.h>   [e-mail]

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

From: Edward S Sachs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Misdialed Numbers
Date: 2 Feb 90 22:09:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


This is a true story, it happened to a friend of my wife.

This person's home phone, in the Chicago area, was apparently
frequently confused with that of a local hospital, and thus received
numerous wrong numbers.

The friend moved to Boston, but for a period retained the Chicago area
apartment (and phone) for use in fairly frequent trips back here.  On
that phone, they left an answering machine, with a message like:

    You have reached xxx-xxxx.  We are no longer at this number,
    but you may reach us at 617-xxx-xxxx.

I don't recall how many calls for the Chicago area hospital were
dialed to Boston (it was more than one).


            Ed Sachs
            AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
            att!ihlpb!essachs, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 03 Feb 90 08:49:42 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Misdialed Numbers


Here at the Rochester Institute of Technology we had a staff member
complaining of receiving many annoying phone calls where no one would
speak. We placed a "bridge" on the line so the calls would also appear
on the ani display at the security office to see where the offending
calls were coming from. They appeared to be mostly in the evenings and
from numerous dormitory rooms. We finally came up with the answer to
the problem after visiting a few rooms and questioning the occupants.
All the callers were hearing-impaired and were trying to call a local
pizza franchise using their TDD's (Telecommunication Device for the
Deaf) and didn't know they should dial 9 first. So as a result they
were getting extension 2442 instead of 244-2400. I had the misfortune
of working during the Super Bowl and didn't even have to listen to the
radio to know when half-time was, the "bridge" just went crazy. I
answered a few calls and told the callers how to call correctly and
may even have taken an order or two. :)

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Subject: Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report
Date: 3 Feb 90 07:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California


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

> > While the software had been rigorously tested in laboratory
> > environments before it was introduced, the unique combination of
> > events that led to this problem   couldn't be   predicted.
                                      ^^^^^^^^ ^^
> Is there any justification for the assertion that the prediction was
> (and is) _impossible_ in these circumstances?

Yes.

At least it is impossible in the same sense that it is impossible for
a computer to play a perfect game of chess.  There's just too many
possible combinations of subsystems to delineate (let alone test) them
rigorously.


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


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Locally
Date: 3 Feb 90 02:26:48 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"John R. Levine" <[e-mail]> writes:

> On the other hand, if
> I dial 1-802-457-xxxx, it gives me back the dime if I deposited one,
> the nice lady asks me to "please ... deposit ...  ten ... cents," and
> when I do so, thanks me for using AT&T.  Now that's confusing.

A few years ago, the coin phones in one of the San Jose COs were still
served by #1 crossbar. A call to Mountain View from San Jose is local.
However, it crosses an area code boundary. So using one of those coin
phones went something like this:

You deposit $.20, dial 415-969-1234 (or whatever). Immediately, your
money is returned, as if you have dialed a toll call. Then the snotty
automated voice comes on (the one used for intraLATA toll calls) and
says, "Twenty cents, please. Please deposit twenty cents FOR THIS
CALL." In goes your money that you retrieved from the coin return and
your call goes through.

When they cut these phones to ESS, this charming exercise went away.

> Also, in Harvard Square I came across one of these Call America COCOTs
> that offers a flat rate of 25 cents/minute anywhere in the continental
> U.S., and states that you get AT&T calling card or collect rates
> otherwise.  The phone didn't work, of course, but if it did it's the
> first decent COCOT ever.

I have heard of these. And every time someone mentions one, they also
mention that it doesn't work. Do you suppose there is the possibility
that they are dummy phones planted to try to prop up the sagging image
of COCOTs? Anyone run across one that does indeed function?


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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Noms de Guerre
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 23:26:10 CST
Organization: Chinet Puppy Pound


And it came to pass in Volume 10, Issue 69, that Jim Shankland wrote:

| Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first
| for both):
|
|     Wheldone Rumproast IV
|     Wong Numba

An acquaintance of mine had a spare line listed in his dog's name
rather than paying for nonpublished service.  He lives in a quite
well-to-do area.  The billing records are in his own name but the
directory listing is in the name of his pampered pooch.

Nonetheless, the lucky canine, whose sole economic presence is a
telephone listing in a posh zip code, receives mail with offers of
credit cards, solicitations from brokerage houses, and such.  It's a
dog's life.


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: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 3 Feb 90 01:19:42 GMT
Organization: very little


William Degnan mentioned funny name listings as an alternative to
unlisted numbers.

Recently, just for fun, I got an additional listing on my home phone
for my HAM RADIO CALL LETTERS!  They were suscpicious, thinking that I
was trying to list a business on a residential line.  I told tham that
KT7H is my roomates name.  It took a lot of talking and a few threats,
but they did it.


Tad Cook
KT7H
[e-mail]

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

From: Sam Drake <ibmarc!ks!sd2.almaden.ibm.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 2 Feb 90 08:06:06 GMT
Reply-To: Sam Drake <ibmarc!ks!ibmarc.uucp![e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose


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

>Well, I wanted unlisted, but didnt want to pay for unlisting, so I
>used OLD TRICK NUMBER 5123443 and put in a name different than my own.
>(K.Dijkstra instead of K. Dykes, original eh? :-) :-)

A friend of mine got away with a similar trick one year; he listed his
2nd (modem) phone line as belonging to Mr. T. T. Y. Glass.  Naturally
this was listed as "Glass TTY ......345-6789" in the white pages.  I
think this only lasted a year.


Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center
Internet:  [e-mail]            BITNET:  DRAKE at ALMADEN
Usenet:    ...!uunet!ibmarc!drake   Phone:   [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 08:35:46 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pushpendra Mohta) writes:

>And one would think adding your name to the phone book would make the
>phone company move everything one down too. No ? :-)

   Why do you think it costs so much to get a line installed?


       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
    #include <disclaimer.h>   [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Remember, IF you have an auto-reply from prior to
10 PM Friday night, and IF your message has not appeared in this or
prior issues, then it is lost. (There were only about six in total,
and above I named the ones I remembered.)   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #73
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16160;
          3 Feb 90 20:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27847;
          3 Feb 90 18:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24006;
          3 Feb 90 17:13 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Feb 90 16:49:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #74
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Feb 90 14:48:42 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    All Those Acronyms and Abbreviations (Chris Johnson)
    Explain the Logic of Long Distance Rates (David J. Farber)
    Re: 301-950 Exchange (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: 301-950 Exchange (Chris Johnson)
    Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: "Sleaze" (Chris Schmandt)
    Re: On Learning That a Number is Unlisted (Chris Johnson)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Ben Ullrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: All Those Acronyms and Abbreviations
Date: 3 Feb 90 01:41:42 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN, USA


I've been reading comp.dcom.telecom for over a month now, and right
from the start, writers used acronyms and abbreviations that I'd never
seen before, as well as a few terms that were not self-evident.  But
since most moderated groups have a period posting that usually answers
the commonly asked questions to reduce the noise level, I thought I'd
just wait to see if most of my questions would be answered.  In the
mean time, I did my best from the context, have managed to figure out
a lot of the cryptic abbreviations that pass through here.

However, there are still a number of them that I just don't have a
clue on.  So, I'd like to suggest a posting of a compact but fairly
complete glossary of these terms.  Would that be possible?

For example, just what do AOS, POP, LEC, CO, COCOT, LATA, and LDC
stand for?


Chris Johnson                  DOMAIN:  [e-mail]
Com Squared Systems, Inc.         ATT:  [phone]
Mendota Heights, MN  USA          FAX:  [phone]

[Moderator's Note: Here's a few: AOS = Alternate Operator Service; LEC
= Local Exchange Carrier; CO = Central Office (a telco switching
station); COCOT = Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone; LDC = Long
Distance Carrier. You can find the others in some files in the Telecom
Archives.  Look for the files 'glossary.txt' and 'phrack.acronymns'.
You can use ftp to reach the archives at lcs.mit.edu. Advise if you
need more help.  PT]

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

From: "David J. Farber" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Explain the Logic of Long Distance Rates
Date: 3 Feb 90 17:22:32 GMT
Reply-To: "David J. Farber" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I just asked ATT for the evening rates from Landenberg Pa to Ithaca NY
direct dialed. They were .15 for the first minute and .16 for each
additional minute.

It used to be that the first minute was much more to "pay for the call
setup" and additional minutes were cheap. Was this an attempt to play
the PR with MCI?


David Farber; Prof. of CIS and EE, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389 Tele:
215-898-9508(off); 215-274-8292 (home); FAX: [phone];  Cellular:  302-740-
1198 "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the
sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- R. P. Feynman

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 301-950 Exchange
Date: 2 Feb 90 14:41:49 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Velu Sinha) writes...

>C&P has recently created numbers within 301-950 for reaching the MD
>State Motor Vehicle Administration ... I set out this morning to reach
>the MVA, and found that I was unable to reach the number (a fast busy
>when dialing 7 digits, and a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed"
>message when dialing 1+10 digits)....
>Anyway, if anyone wants to see if they can reach the number from
>out-of-state, it is 301-950-1682.  If you get through, perhaps you can
>ask them how I get a replacement registration card for my car (;-) !!
>ps. Anyone know what this 950 service for MVA really does?

Very strange.  950, of course, is the access code for "Feature Group
B" carrier facilities.  MCI's 950-1022 is probably the best known in
these parts (the Digest).  And each 950 number indeed translates to a
different access code, since it points to a carrier just as 10xxx
does.

950-1MVA thus implies that MVA got a Feature Group B access
arrangement from C&P.  That requires special trunks, etc.  Why would
they do this?  (Remember, too, that 950 numbers are unique
nationwide.)  I can only speculate that in-state 800 Service may have
cost more per minute than FGB access calls.  So MVA may have declared
itself to be a "carrier", its telephone agents to be "operators", and
now they have the same arrangement as real telephone carriers'
operators.  They thus have toll-free dialing for a fraction of the
price of an 800 number.  (If I recall, FGB usage is under a nickel a
minute.)

That's my guess.  Anyone know the real story?  BTW, if it's true, we're
due to exhaust carrier access codes VERY quickly.


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

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 301-950 Exchange
Date: 3 Feb 90 01:24:40 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Velu Sinha) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 70, message 10 of 10

>C&P has recently created numbers within 301-950 for reaching the MD
>State Motor Vehicle Administration ... I set out this morning to reach
>the MVA, and found that I was unable to reach the number (a fast busy
>when dialing 7 digits, and a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed"
>message when dialing 1+10 digits).

>Anyway, if anyone wants to see if they can reach the number from
>out-of-state, it is 301-950-1682.  If you get through, perhaps you can
>ask them how I get a replacement registration card for my car (;-) !!

I tried this just now for fun.  It rang twice, then I got a recorded
message saying "my call could not be completed as dial, please check
the number and dial again, or call 800-888-1800 for assistance.
Two-Eee-Dee".

The 800 number is for MCI customer service.  My long distance carrier
is MCI, obviously.  I called them, and they said the "950-1682" number
was invalid for area code 301.


Chris Johnson                  DOMAIN:  [e-mail]
Com Squared Systems, Inc.         ATT:  [phone]
Mendota Heights, MN  USA          FAX:  [phone]

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sues MCI Over Sign-ups
Date: 2 Feb 90 06:33:31 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Budler) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gordon Burditt) writes:

>[...]
>} Sigh.  If they are going to fix the rules, why can't they do it right:
 ...
>} Require all customers to obtain written permission from long-distance
>[...]
 ...
>I'm afraid I fail to see the logic which makes this more "right". In
>fact it appears to protect the phone company as opposed to protecting
>the consumer. Since the original change was being made to protect the
>the consumer from piratical actions by sleezy phone companies. I don't
>see how your proposal would do that.

I suppose I should have included some more context in this discussion.

Problem:  Carriers keep screwing up people's default carrier.

My solution: Deny carriers permission to change anyone's default
carrier for any reason.  Also deny them permission to know anyone's
default carrier, or to know who has *THEM* as a default carrier.

Objection: Carriers have a right to refuse customers, for insufficient
credit among other reasons.

Me: (grumble) They won't take them as a default carrier, but they will
take them as a 10XXX casual caller?  This seems somewhat pointless.
Deadbeats can't dial 5 extra digits?  Ok, if they MUST have this, then
have the customers get a note from the carrier and pass it on to the
local phone company, NOT have the carrier get a note from the customer
and pass it on to the local phone company.

>In addition, your proposal would add to the government mandated
>records which *I* would be required to maintain.  Something which is
>less than desirable.

I expect AT&T would immediately say "We'll take anyone".  Others would
probably follow suit, but even if they didn't, all that would be
needed would be an indication that an account had been set up for
those carriers that insist on this.

Southwestern Bell allows you to request that they only honor requests
from you, directly, for carrier changes.  (This should be the
default).  I don't know if it's ever been tested - I suspect they will
not honor my request to "prosecute first and ask questions later"
anyone who tries.  It also takes lots of talking, but they will allow
"null" as a default carrier selection.  (No, this does not cut off all
access to long distance.  That is a different option, and costs $$ per
month.)

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

[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell will also allow 'none' as the default
1+ carrier, meaning one plus anything other than 1-700, 1-800 and
1-900 are intercepted and given re-order tone. Likewise, '00' is
busied out. People with 'none' must dial 10xxx on every LD call.  They will
also completely toll-restrict the line if requested. These days it is
no skin off their nose.  PT]

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

From: Chris Schmandt <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Sleaze"
Date: 3 Feb 90 16:55:35 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Schmandt <mit-amt![e-mail]>
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> drilex![e-mail]
(Carol Springs) writes:

>At New England Telephone, the charge is $.45/month and is called
>Telesure-Basic.  On a recent Saturday morning, I got a call from New
>England Telephone hyping a great new service called "Telesure-Plus."
>If I chose this wonder-option, then not only could I pay (some $
>amount I quickly forgot) every month from now on, but I would be
>protected from getting billed $55/hour for service in my home if the
>problem turned out to be in my phone equipment rather than in the
>inside wiring. ...

>...I got the Telesure-Plus hype call a week or two
>after I'd reported the problem.  Could be coincidence, I suppose.

I just had one of my lines fixed.  It was clearly an external wiring
problem, so I disconnected by hodge-podge of phones, modems, fax, etc.
and called it in.  The repair order person started asking the usual
questions; when I explained that I had a phone jacked directly into my
network interface (and the line noise was audible to both of us) she
said "sounds like our problem, we'll fix it by 6 PM Saturday".

The line got fixed the next day.  That evening we got a call from the
NET telemarketing folks, which confused my wife as she interpreted it
as a subtle threat to bill us $55/hr to fix the line.  She was
annoyed!

Anyway, a question.  The telemarketer seemed to imply that if someone
came out to fix a problem, and it turned out to be on our side of the
network interface, that we *had* to let them fix it on the spot at
$55/hr.  I had always assumed that you would have the option of
telling them thanks but I'll do it myself.  Does anyone know if you
have a choice to refuse service on your own wiring if someone on the
spot claims it is your wiring in response to your service call?


chris

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Learning That a Number is Unlisted
Date: 3 Feb 90 01:16:33 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 70, message 9 of 10

>Somebody wrote:

>>> the theory goes that non-pubs cause extra aggravation for the
>>> operator because of the people, who not finding it in the book,
>>> call to argue with the operator about it; particularly when he
>>> can't find it either.

>Some phone books have this common-courtesy reminder: When you are told
>that a number is unlisted (or, merely using a different way of saying
>the same thing, non-published), please do NOT persist in trying to get
>it; it is not available, period.

Would this half-baked idea make any sense: What if the unlisted (which
at least here in Minneapolis and in Denver means just not in the phone
book but available via Information) and the unpublished (you can't get
it at all) person's names were listed in the phone book, but instead
of a phone number, it just said "Unlisted" or "Unpublished", as the
case may be?

The first argument against that is it would give away that the person
in question _did_ have a telephone.  But you can usually glean that
from calling information and asking for their number, anyway.  Sure,
the information operators might give the same "I'm sorry, that number
is not published" answer for a non-existant telephone subscriber/customer,
but _I've_ never had them do that.  I always come away from calling
information with either the number I want, or the knowledge that
either the person does not have a phone in their name, or the phone
company just is not going to give it to me.

Any other arguments?  It seems to me it would reduce information calls
to some extent, but would it be a significant amount?


Chris Johnson                  DOMAIN:  [e-mail]
Com Squared Systems, Inc.         ATT:  [phone]
Mendota Heights, MN  USA          FAX:  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Here, the theory is you can sit all day and brouse
through the directory, looking for names, addresses, etc; where
calling DA requires you to have a *name and address to start with*.
And DA won't fool around chatting with you for more than a few
seconds. They won't do your brousing for you. By brousing the directory
you can (if your idea was implemented) learn of the *existence* of
people and addresses who wish to maintain their privacy. It is unlikely
you would gain this much knowledge from a call to DA.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Organization: sybase, inc., emeryville, ca.
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 90 10:20:13 -0800
From: ben ullrich <[e-mail]>


I think your original premise (and Patrick's explanation in the footer
of your article) are correct: as long as you have something listed,
subsequent lines at the same address may be unlisted for $0.00 .

I know this is the case, even for Pac*Bell, because this is the setup
I have at my home in San Francisco: my modem line is unlisted because
my voice line is listed. (Maybe it should be the other way around?..
or under a different name ??! (;-) ).

Unless they've changed things at Pac*Bell, I'd say your service rep is
mistaken.  Ask to speak to a supervisor, or just be adamant and
logical with them about the rules as we've described them here.  Many
reps will get nervous and put you on hold, looking for someone else in
their group to explain things, so they can tell you you are correct
and put the order in.  I often had to do that when managing telecom at
my company. You'd be surprised to discover how little Pac*Bell service
reps know about the services they sell.


ben ullrich            only i do the talking here -- not my employer.
sybase, inc., emeryville, ca
[e-mail]                   {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben


[Moderator's Note: I wouldn't be amazed by it at all. I talk to
business service reps frequently (as opposed to residence service
reps) at Illinois Bell and sometimes, frankly, I am embarassed for
them.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #74
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07397;
          4 Feb 90 6:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30022;
          4 Feb 90 4:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25954;
          4 Feb 90 3:41 CST
Date:     Sun, 4 Feb 90 3:11:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #75
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Feb 90 03:10:28 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill" (David Lewis)
    Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) (Linc Madison)
    Re: Miscellanea -- Choices of Areacodes, Prefixes (Linc Madison)
    Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel (David Daniel)
    Re: Call Waiting Question (David Daniel)
    Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Stephen Tell)
    Senate Bill: If ID Available, Must Offer Blocking (Jerry Leichter)
    Re: 301-950 Exchange (Steve Forrette)
    Checksum on Calling Cards (Steve Forrette)
    California PUC Okays Intrastate Carrier Blocking? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Steve Forrette)
    COCOTS and 10XXX-0 (Michael Katzman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill"
Date: 3 Feb 90 18:44:29 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


[reference to a California bill requiring telephone companies to respect
municipal boundaries when creating new area codes deleted.]

I wonder if the telcos could ignore this (or sue the state of
California over it) claiming that California does not have
jurisdiction?

The logic is something like this:

The telcos are adhering to an NPA split approved by Bellcore.

Bellcore is the administrator of the North American Numbering Plan,
responsible to Committee T1 of the American National Standards
Institute.

ANSI is, I believe, a subsidiary of the Department of Commerce.
(We're getting into rather deep bureaucratic waters that I'm not
familiar with here; if I'm mistaken, I'm confident someone will
correct me...)

The Department of Commerce is an executive branch department of the
federal government, giving (by long, convoluted reasoning) the federal
government jurisdiction over area codes...


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

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

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 14:11:42 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> David Tamkin writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 56, message 6 of 9

>John Higdon wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 51:

>| Both my Sprint FONCARD and my Pac*Bell calling card have numbers that
>| bear no resemblance to mine or anyone else's phone number.

>When the old GTE Sprint and U.S.Tel merged, US Sprint replaced the old
>nine-digit, no-surcharge travel codes with the fourteen-digit
>surcharged FONcard numbers.  Naturally, they sent me a number
>including my telephone number.  I phoned them screaming: it's bad
>enough that they stick us with a surcharge they never seemed to need
>before, but to reduce my security from nine digits to four was
>unthinkable.

Well, I suppose I have the best of both worlds -- my MCI card number
is based upon a real phone number which I remember very easily, but it
is a phone number now no longer in service.  (I'm not defrauding
anyone -- MCI bills me separately; the base phone number was simply a
convenient device for arriving at a card number.)

Also, there *will* be one way to make sure that calling card numbers
don't match anyone's phone number, even after NNX area codes.  My old
fictitious-number calling cards, from SW Bell, Pac Bell, and US
Sprint, were all of the form NNN-1/0XX-XXXX-XXXX.  This format will
still guarantee a no-match to any phone number.  It also greatly
simplified things for Pac Bell, because your account number with them
is just your phone number, so they had to give me an impossible phone
number for my special card.  Thus, I was (415) 158-XXXX.  For further
security, they replaced "415" with a different NNN on the card number.


   Linc Madison    =    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 14:19:37 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Miscellanea -- Choices of Areacodes, Prefixes
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Wow -- I live in California and hadn't yet heard about 310 for L.A.
(I've been off the network for a few weeks, but I didn't figure I'd
missed *that* much.)

One more general question: we had a long period of relative stability
in the Numbering Plan, but then experienced considerable pent-up
demand as we delayed the inevitable expansion.  Anyone care to
speculate when the current spate of area code splits will settle down?
Or are we going to have an area code or two added every year for the
foreseeable future?  Just glancing at the chart someone (sorry, I
forget who) posted recently of prefixes-in-use per NPA, I spotted over
a dozen area codes that look ripe for a split.


   Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]
   soon to be in Area Code 510....

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel
Date: 3 Feb 90 22:37:24 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


Mitel is indeed a Canadian based firm, however much of their product
is made in Texas and Florida.  They were the ONLY PBX mfg. to post a
profit for calendar year 1989.  BT isn't dumping Mitel per se. They
are however VERY restricted to the amount of Mitel equipment they can
sell in the UK.  They feel at this point that the capital they can get
from the sale of their 51% can be better utilized in providing telco
services.  I consider Mitel equipment to be the best on the market as
do many users.


    "What's so funny 'bout peace, love &  understanding?"
                     Elvis Costello


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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question
Date: 3 Feb 90 22:40:33 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


Our moderator's note as regards data loss and trash induced by Call
Waiting is valid. However any error-correcting protocol would simply
resend the effected block as the checksum would not vailidate.


        "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                         Elvis Costello


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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 3 Feb 90 23:54:20 GMT


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

>        Telephone Transmission Line Data
>Characteristics of Standard Types of Aerial Wire Telephone Circuits

>            At 1000 Cycles Per Second

>Type of Circuit    Gauge    Spacing    Velocity
>            (mils)    (in.)    (miles/s)
>Non-Pole Pair Physical    165    8    179,000
>Non-Pole Pair Side    165    12    179,500
                                ==
 (etc)

However, 8" or 12" spacing in the air is somewhat different from 0.05"
spacing in a twisted pair.  I thought that those signals traveled at
about 2/3 c.  Actually what we really want is the speed in a coax.


Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: [e-mail] (or @cs.rpi.edu)    Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: [phone];  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: [phone]
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Date: 4 Feb 90 03:35:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


The original poster (sorry, lost the reference) suggested that calling
cards not include the PIN for obvious security reasons.

My Southern Bell (new this past August) card has only my phone number
on the front, and a roughened rectangle on the back.  The instructions
with it suggest writing your PIN in pencil, and then erasing it after
you've memorized it.

It seems that security concerns have been addressed in a small but
growing number of the places that we comp.dcom.telecom/comp.risks/etc
types have been discussing over the years.

Disclaimer: I'm just a satisfied customer.  That isn't hard, I used to live
in GTE-land.


Steve

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

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 23:19 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Senate Bill: If ID Available, Must Offer Blocking


Earlier this week - Monday or Tuesday - the {New York Times} ran an
article about a bill submitted to the Senate that would require all
phone companies that supply Caller*ID to also supply caller blocking.
As I recall, it was introduced by a senator from Wisconsin.

I meant to type it in but forgot, and the paper has now vanished.

Just thought you'd like to know.

                            -- Jerry
------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 19:54:41 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 301-950 Exchange


Regarding the recent postings about 950 prefix numbers, I don't think
that they are for the exclusive use of long distance carriers.  Here
in California, Citibank has a 950 number for their credit card
customer service.  This just started sometime in 1989.  It must be
substantially cheaper than the 800 service it replaced, otherwise they
probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble to install the dedicated
trunks.  The customer service center that answers the call is located
near Las Vegas, and I don't know how the calls get to there from their
point of presence here.

Also, I don't believe that it's valid to dial a 950 number from
outside its area code on any carrier.  The numbers are also "magic" in
the sense that they don't run up message units for those with measured
service, and they are free from a payphone.

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

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 19:54:59 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Checksum on Calling Cards


When I requested a calling card from U S West about a year ago, I was
told that I was free to choose my own PIN, as long as it didn't start
with a 0 or a 1.  This being the case, I don't see how there could
possibly a checksum scheme.  When I got the card, it indeed had my 10
digit number followed by my chosen PIN.

As far as PIN sharing goes, here's what I've determined from talking
to AT&T and BOC representatives: When you request a card from AT&T,
they send a request to your BOC for your PIN.  If you already have a
BOC card, its PIN is given to AT&T.  If you don't, the BOC generates a
PIN for AT&T, but doesn't issue you a card themselves.  If you later
request a BOC card, they use the PIN that they previously generated
for AT&T.  So, it doesn't seem like you have control over PIN sharing.
Possibly the exception is when you request from AT&T a card that's not
related to your phone number.

Stupid Customer (Dis)Service Quote of the Month: When I couldn't think
of a good PIN for my one-number card, the U S West rep suggested that
I use the same PIN as my unrestricted card, so it would be easier to
remember!

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

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 19:55:13 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: California PUC Okays Intrastate Carrier Blocking?


I had the occasion to call the Pacific Bell COCOT office to complain
about a phone that was blocking 10xxx dialing, and they said that the
Calif PUC had ruled that it was *okay* for them to block carriers
other than their own!  Can you believe this?  Considering the recent
postings of others regarding the restructuring of regular service
rates, I have serious doubts as to just whose interest the PUC is
looking after.

Since the CPUC can only regulate in-state calls, and since the FCC
commissioner's order on blocking is still in effect, I assume that
COCOT's still must allow 10xxx dialing for out-of-state calls, but I'd
be willing to bet that the ones that block don't make that
distinction.

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

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 90 19:55:23 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Numbner Not Listed?


I just had two lines installed by Pacific Bell, one for voice and one
for data.  Since I wanted the data one unlisted, the rep told me that
there would be a monthly charge for this.  Not knowing any better, I
agreed.  Based on John Higdon's recent posting, I called the business
office on Friday, and the rep said that indeed a second line at the
same address in the same name can be unlisted for no charge, and that
he would remove the charges from my bill.  Since the last time I had
two lines I was paying for the service, it seems like it's Pacific
Bell's policy not to mention the "freeness" exception until you ask
about it.

I told the rep that I thought that was a rather nasty policy, and he
said "Well, it wouldn't matter in the long run anyway.  Since the
maximum profits we make are determined by the PUC, the extra revenue
would end up being returned to the ratepayers anyway."  What a crock!

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

Date: 3 Feb 90 19:56:07 GMT
From: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Subject: COCOTS and 10XXX-0
Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home


It seems unfortunate but almost every COCOT I've seen in this area
(Annapolis - Washington - Baltimore), stops you dialing 10XXX numbers.
The reason, given in a bullitin from one company who make COCOTS is as
follows:

10XXX DIALING AND NO SCREENING.

Dialing 10XXX to an IXC (Inter-Exchange Carrier) bypasses screening at
the LEC if the IXC operator becomes involved. Payphone patron dialing
of 10XXX-1+ must be blocked at the payphone. However, it may be
necessary for the payphone to dial 10XXX-1+ to access the IXC for
lowest cost routing of calls. In this case, the IXC should provide
international call screening. Dialing 10XXX-0+ appears to be a weak
link. If the caller dials 10288-0+ and waits for the operator, it is
very easy to bill the call to the payphone. Test calls must be made to
ensure the correct Telco screening is being accepted.

Screening can be provided by the LEC and to some extent the IXC.  Not
all locations or IXCs provide the same level of screening. The
simplest test is to dial an 0+ call. When the operator asks, "How
would you like to pay for this call?" Say "Bill it to this number".
The operator will instruct the caller to dial 1 next time, however,
the call is put through. Proper screening will stop this.

It seems that a desire to stop fraud rather than a wish to maximize
revenue is the reason that 10XXX calls are blocked. This is far from
satisfactory and highlights the need for the phone companies to
provide a more comprhensive service to the COCOT operators so that a
level of service comprable to that provided by the RBOC's payphones
are available on the COCOTs.


(N.B. This is not an incitment to commit fraud!)

email to
UUCP:       uunet!mimsy!{arinc,fe203}!vk2bea!michael
                          _ _ _                    _
     Amateur    |    VK2BEA    (Australia)      ' ) ) )      /           //
     Radio    |    G4NYV    (United Kingdom)  / / / o _. /_  __.  _  //
    Stations|    NV3Z    (United States)     / ' (_<_(__/ /_(_/|_</_</_

Michael Katzmann
Broadcast Sports Technology.
2135 Espey Ct. #4
Crofton Md. 21114 USA

Ph: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #75
*****************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29433;
          8 Feb 90 23:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10953;
          8 Feb 90 21:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06184;
          8 Feb 90 20:23 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Feb 90 20:02:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #76
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

 



Date:     Mon, 5 Feb 90 0:36:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #76
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Feb 90 00:35:04 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Touch-tone Toggle (Was Re: Call Waiting Question) (Warren Gish)
    Re: Call Waiting Question (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: Call Waiting Question (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed (Randy Bush)
    Re: "Sleaze" (Colin Plumb)
    Re: California Passes "Area Code Bill" (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: California PUC Okays Intrastate Carrier Blocking? (John Higdon)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? (PETER MURRAY)
    Don't Leave Home Without the Voicemark Messaging Service #. (G. Goodfellow)
    Another Blatant Error of MCI (Gary Crum)
    Telco Security? (John Higdon)
    At Last, An Honest Answering Machine (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Warren Gish)
Subject: Touch-tone Toggle (Was Re: Call Waiting Question)
Date: 3 Feb 90 19:54:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Warren Gish)
Organization: National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Md.


Perhaps over a year ago, someone mentioned a couple of touch-tone
sequences that would toggle on-and-off the Call Waiting feature.  I
have an interest in this as well.  Does anyone know what these
touch-tone sequences are?


Many thanks,
Warren Gish
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Surely. Preface the number you dial with *70, and
call waiting will be suspended until you replace the receiver. Any
calls arriving during the time that call is in progress will receive a
busy signal (or hunt, if you have that feature). If you have three way
calling, then you may also enter *70 to suspend call waiting on an
incoming call, or at any point during a call in either direction. When
you flash, dial *70, and you'll be returned to the call in progess.
In some places it varies: try 70*, #70 and 70# also; one of the four
should work, however a warning: not all CO's run the same generics,
and here and there, suspend call waiting is not available.  Call
forwarding overrides call waiting.   PT]

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

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 16:07:12 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question


In Digest 10.75, David Daniel said something to the effect that Call
Waiting would not cause problems with protocol file transfers because
the checksums would not match and the packet would simply be resent
following the call waiting burst.

The problem with this is that many modems, especially on long distance
calls, simply drop carrier and hang up while the call waiting tone is
obscuring the far-end carrier.  Even if you set your modem to wait a
long time before dropping carrier, there is no guarantee that the
remote modem has been similarly adjusted.

So, the protocol's ability to recover is largely a moot point, as the
two modems will more likely that not have disconnected by the time the
call waiting tone's over.

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 21:27:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) writes:

[discussion of call waiting on modem lines...]

>Change the value of register S9 Carrier Detect Time from the default
>of 7 (.7 seconds) to 15.

>This increases the time between loss of carrier and modem disconnect.
>Of course the host modem will need to be on an eqivalent setting as
>well.

Actually, most offices do not pass the call waiting indication tone to
the far end.  Some will blank out the tone (to prevent the wrong party
from thinking they have a call waiting). In this case the far modem
will need to be as forgiving ablout carrier loss.  Others (mine) do
not give any indication at all, the modem would continue to send
carrier.  In any case it would be dependent on your CO so it will work
the same way for all calls.


Vance Shipley
SwitchView - Linton Technology                       [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: In a digital CO, the other end hears *nothing at all*.
The only way you know the other person has a call waiting (as opposed
to the click you hear while the other person hears tone in older systems)
is if they are talking, you hear their voice drop out for a half second.
If you are talking at that instant, you detect nothing.  PT]

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

From: Randy Bush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 00:00:00 GMT


[e-mail] (William Degnan) writes:

>In a FidoNet echo (partly in jest), I discussed the use of "other"
>names as the listed name as an alternate to unlisted/non published
>service.

I have been doing this for years.  It is amusing to get junque mail
for Modem Bush.


 ..!uunet!m2xenix!randy   [e-mail]   (Randy Bush)


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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Sleaze"
Date: 5 Feb 90 04:08:03 GMT
Reply-To: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


In article <[e-mail]> Chris Schmandt <mit-amt!geek@media-lab.
media.mit.edu> writes:

> Anyway, a question.  The telemarketer seemed to imply that if someone
> came out to fix a problem, and it turned out to be on our side of the
> network interface, that we *had* to let them fix it on the spot at
> $55/hr.  I had always assumed that you would have the option of
> telling them thanks but I'll do it myself.  Does anyone know if you
> have a choice to refuse service on your own wiring if someone on the
> spot claims it is your wiring in response to your service call?

No; you can tell him no thanks (you can tell him to get off your
property, simple as that), *but* the repairman can bill you for the
time he took to determine that it was your fault, and probably
something for travel.  You're gonna end up paying something.

By the way, does anyone know if residential 800 is available in
Canada?  The marketing droid I talked to hadn't heard of it, but I
didn't trust her knowledge of the more obscure features.

    -Colin

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

Date: Sun,  4 Feb 90 12:59:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Senate Passes "Area Code Bill"


The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private
non-profit association with no official government status.


Marvin Sirbu
CMU

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California PUC Okays Intrastate Carrier Blocking?
Date: 4 Feb 90 11:27:19 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> I had the occasion to call the Pacific Bell COCOT office to complain
> about a phone that was blocking 10xxx dialing, and they said that the
> Calif PUC had ruled that it was *okay* for them to block carriers
> other than their own!

Was that the 811-4646 number? Those people are incredibily uninformed
and ineffective. It took me three months working with them to get some
Pac*Bell pay phones programmed correctly, and then it only happened
because I invoked a little upstairs muscle. Can anyone confirm that
PUC attitude from an independent source?

> Since the CPUC can only regulate in-state calls, and since the FCC
> commissioner's order on blocking is still in effect, I assume that
> COCOT's still must allow 10xxx dialing for out-of-state calls, but I'd
> be willing to bet that the ones that block don't make that
> distinction.

The only reason COCOTs have to be allowed in the first place (and why
states can't prohibit them) is because of the terms of the MFJ. Since
the whole point of divestiture is to foster and encourage competition
in the communications industry, how can a lack of choice (of LDCs)
further that end? That's just replacing one Hobson's choice (AT&T)
with another (a slimy, overpriced AOS).

To my shame, I haven't been monitoring the CPUC lately. If they have
slipped something like this through in addition to the "incentive
regulation" abortion, then we can kiss decent regulation goodbye in
the Golden State.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Date: 3 Feb 90 14:48:45 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dana Paxson) writes:
 ...
> On the subject of phone credit cards/calling cards:
 ...
> My input: Get the PINs off the cards.  If people can't deal with that,
> they can't deal with bank ATMs either.  Furthermore, don't put the
> PINs IN the cards (magnetically) either...


Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN
magnetically encoded on the card.  It is nice of the banks, however,
to have thought of not printing it in a human-readable place on the
card.


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


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

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 19:28 EST
From: PETER MURRAY <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook?


>I don't know much about phones, so I thought I post a message to see
>what I could find out.  Here's the scenerio: I've got an internal
>modem without a speaker.  I'd like to know when the modem is using the
>line without picking up the receiver to check (wouldn't want to do
>that, would we?).  So, can anyone tell me how I can set it up so that
>I have a light or LED on when the modem has the line (of course it
>will be on when anyone's on line - I think)?  This way I can tell
>exactly what is going on.

I would also be interested in this info.  I live in an apartment with
3 other compu-nerds with modems, and someone is always picking up the
phone on someone else.  Any technical advice or schematics or ideas
are welcome.  Thanks.


Peter Murray                                    [e-mail]
205 Hepburn Hall                                        [e-mail]
Miami University                                        [e-mail]
513/529-4944                                     [e-mail]


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

Subject: Don't Leave Home Without the AT&T Voicemark Messaging Service #.
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 90 18:02:12 PST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


Not knowing where I might be or what I might have in the way of a
pocket telephone number rolodex on me, I decided to "check ahead" with
AT&T 800 information to see if they would have the toll free number
for AT&T's Voicemark Messaging Service.  Knowing full well the number
is 800-562-6275, a call to 800-555-1212, much to my surprise, was not
able to yield a result.

The information operator was so eager to please, that after trying to
look up "AT&T Voicemark" or just plain "Voicemark" (the closest they
could match being Voicemail International) i was transferred, without
requesting it, to the supervisor who tried the same queries in vain.
The best 800 information could provide was the AT&T business office 800 #.

I'm a bit surprised that AT&T doesn't bother to list their new
Voicemark Messaging Service with their toll free information service!
Could having an "unlisted number" be a marketing ploy of some sort
(like the Ma Maison restaurant in LA area) to have Voicemark Messaging
be a highly coveted or exclusive service that you only hear about
through friends??


Geoff Goodfellow, Anterior Technology, Menlo Park, CA.


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

From: Gary Crum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Blatant Error of MCI
Date: 4 Feb 90 17:44:39 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California


Well, it happened it me.  About two weeks ago I called MCI (102220,
then transferred to customer service) to ask if calls I make using
10222 need any special account setup.  The respresentative told me no,
and also told me that their calling card was free.  I ordered a
calling card, and explicitly told her not to have my 1+ long distance
carrier switched from AT&T to MCI.  She accepted after asking
questions like "Why would you not want to have MCI as your long
distance carrier?"

Now, my long distance carrier is MCI, as revealed by 1-700-555-4141.

I will call MCI and USWest as necessary to switch back to AT&T, but
can anyone tell me how I can do more, e.g. report the MCI error to the
Public Utilities Commission or help AT&T with their suit against MCI?


Thanks,
Gary


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

Subject: Telco Security?
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 4 Feb 90 11:41:06 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


My residence CO is just down the street. This building has been there
since the mid-50s and is your typical windowless telco-functional
design. To the side there is a large parking lot.

This last week, they have put a fence around the whole compound with
motorized gates (not parking lot arms, but full gates) at the parking
lot entrances. The appearance of the project would lead one to suspect
that they are preparing for some seige. This is a quiet, residential
neighorhood, fairly upscale, and not a place where anyone would
suspect that there would be a phyical security problem. In twenty-two
years, I have yet to have anything, car or house, broken into.

Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid?


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

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

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 90 21:06:23 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: At Last, An Honest Answering Machine

The Jeff MacNelly "Shoe" comic for Sunday, February 4:

The picture is of a telephone and an answering machine. The machine is
operating, and speaking to a caller:

"Hi! You've reached Perfesser Cosmo Fishhawk....

I can't come to the phone right now.....

Because I'm listening intently to this machine....

To see if you're someone I want to talk with.

So, after the beep, start talking......

If I want to talk with you, I'll probably come on the phone with some
lame excuse.....

Such as, "I was just on the way out the door when I heard the phone."

If you make it all the way through your message and I don't pick up,

It's because I don't want to talk to you...."

And the final picture shows the owl seated at his desk saying, "At
last, an honest answering machine."


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #76










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20822;
          6 Feb 90 3:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22781;
          6 Feb 90 1:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00027;
          6 Feb 90 0:45 CST
Date:     Tue, 6 Feb 90 0:10:27 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #77
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Feb 90 00:10:37 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Peculiar Service Entrance Circuit - On Hook 24 VDC ? (Jody Kravitz)
    Mu-Law Encoding/Decoding (Scott Lee)
    Modem Hookup For Earth Day - Need Help (Gary Trujillo)
    Breaking the Dial Tone (Gordon Meyer)
    Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Leland F. Derbenwick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jody Kravitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Peculiar Service Entrance Circuit - On Hook 24 VDC ?
Date: 5 Feb 90 16:04:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


Recently I had a second, and then a third phone line installed.  The
original service was provided to my house by a five pair underground
cable terminating on a four post carbon block protector.  Only one
pair was attatched.  Activiating the second line required tieing down
a second pair onto the unused posts of the protector block at the
house, and also connecting that pair at the pole, about 600 feet from
my house, to the appropriate cable pair.

When the thrid line was installed, the simple protector block at my
house was replaced with a modular box with "my side" which I can open
and "their side" which can be opened only with a special tool. Their
side has the underground cable termination, ground termination, and
the protector blocks. My side has screw posts for each line and an
RJ-11 connector for each line which I can unplug for testing.  There
is a "potted" circuit board underneath each RJ-11 jack.

Our first line has always had a speakerphone (GTE model 08821) in the
kitchen. The phone has an indicator light, "in use", which blinks when
another phone on that line is off hook.  Shortly after the
installation of the third line, my wife noticed that the "in use"
light on the speakerphone often blinked, even when I wasn't home.  A
quick check proved that neither the dog nor the two cats were making
phone calls.

I replaced the battery in the phone to no avail.  I then measured the
line voltage with a Fluke 77 DMM.  The meter read 24 (+/- 0.1) volts.
Everything I know about phones tells me it should be 48 volts.
Measuring the second line gets wildly varying voltages, starting at
about 40 volts when you first hang up, and fluctuating down to as low
as 30 volts as time passes.

Some questions:

    1) Why is the open-circuit voltage on line 1 24 volts ?

    2) Why does the second line's voltage vary so much ?

    3) Can I fix my speakerphone to think 24 volts is on-hook ?

    4) Would the readers be interested to have the schematic of the
       circuit board under the RJ-11 jack posted ?

I derived this schematic by inspection:

Line   O-----------------------o---------o-----o
                               |         |     |
                               |         |     |
                               |         |    (+)
                               /         |    Cap
                             |/         (o)   (-)
                  o-----o----|(trans)   Res    |
                  |     |    |\         (o)   (-)
                  |     |      \         |    Cap
                 (-)   (+)      |        |    (+)
                Diode Diode     |        |     |
                 (+)   (-)      |        o-----o
                  |     |       |        |
                  |     |       |       (o)
                  o-----o-------o       Res
                                |       (o)
                                |        |
                                |        |
                                o--------o
                                         |
                                         o-----------------O  To Phones
                                         |
                                        (+)
                                        Cap
                                        (-)
                                         |
                                         |
                                        (+)
                                       Diode
                                        (-)
                                         |
                                        (o)
                                        Res
                                        (o)
                                         |
                                         o-----------------O  To Phones
                                         |
                                o--------o
                                |        |
                                |        |
                                |       (o)
                  o-----o-------o       Res
                  |     |       |       (o)
                  |     |       |        |
                 (+)   (-)      |        o-----o
                Diode Diode     |        |     |
                 (-)   (+)      |        |    (+)
                  |     |      /         |    Cap
                  |     |    |/         (o)   (-)
                  o-----o----|(trans)   Res    |
                             |\         (o)   (-)
                               \         |    Cap
                               |         |    (+)
                               |         |     |
                               |         |     |
Line   O-----------------------o---------o-----o


I'm sorry, but I don't have any values to report for the components.  I also
do not know anything about the semiconductors.

The installer claimed that from the central office they could use this
circuit to determine:

    1) Is there continuity on the line all the way to my house ? (A phone
       does not need to be connected for this test to work)

    2) If there is a line-to-line short, which side of the circuit
       is the short on ?

    3) If there is a line-to-ground short, which side of the circuit
       is the short on ?

Does anyone know how this works or what prerequisite equipment must be
in the CO ?


   Jody Kravitz

P.S.    To reply to me          Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
                    uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Scott Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mu-Law Encoding/Decoding
Date: 5 Feb 90 21:02:46 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta


I need to fiddle with some u-Law encoded numbers (12-bit, 8000/sec,
encoded into 8-bit). This is supposed to be standard phone company
stuff. I have a couple of FINE, FINE references that describe the
stuff and promptly give examples that have the sign switched from each
other. Could someone please give me some examples (and tell me which
sign value is correct for positive values after they are encoded). I
just want to write a program that generates the lookup tables and I'd
like to get it correct to avoid any distortion.  Also, if you happen
to be in "that sort of mood," could you drop some stuff on A-law,
also?


Thanks,

Jeff Lee                AudioFAX, Inc.    / Suite 220
[e-mail]            2000 Powers Ferry Rd.
emory!audfax!jeff            Marietta, GA. 30067

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

From: Gary Trujillo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Hookup For Earth Day - Need Help
Date: 5 Feb 90 18:38:37 GMT
Reply-To: "Gary S. Trujillo" <[e-mail]>
Organization: gst's 3B1 - Somerville, Massachusetts


I am trying to provide technical assistance to the Boston Earth Day
organizing office, and have run into a snag.  I would like to make it
possible for these folks to get hooked up to EcoNet.  The problem is
that they have a Merlin phone system, and their New England Telephone
Company rep tells them that they need a dedicated line for the
purpose.  When I questioned them further about tapping off of one line
of their multi-line phone system, I was told that the problem is that
these lines are in a hunt-sequence.  I believe this fact to represent
a non-problem, given that all they want to do is to call out for maybe
an hour every couple of days, and the hunt gizmo would just hunt
around the line being used with a modem, just like it would if the
line were busy for a voice call.  When pressed further, they say that
well, yeah, there is some way of using an individual line off of the
Merlin system, but it requires special equipment, and that costs
money, which they aren't willing to spend.

I'm having a hard time believing the problem to be this difficult.
There must be some easy way to use an individual line for a modem
short of paying an arm-and-a-leg for some Merlin-to-RJ11 adapter, or
whatever it is.

Any suggestions?


Gary S. Trujillo                  [e-mail]
Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst

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

Date: 05 Feb 90 22:35:26 EST
From: GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Breaking the Dial Tone


I have a re-occurring "problem" on my home phone line that I can't
quite figure out.  I use my modem to dial out nightly. At least once a
night (but often 2 or 4 times a night) I have a problem with the
disable call waiting feature (accessed by dialing #70 in my service
area (Centel, suburban Chicago)).  What happens is that my modem will
dial using a #70wXXXXXXX command which is supposed to wait for a
second dial tone before dialing the full number, this way call-waiting
is suspended.  The problem is that sometimes it dials the #70, the
phone gives three short beeps (there's probably a name for this signal
but I'm sort of new to telephony) then a short period of silence until
the second dial tone kicks in.

Now all is expected so far, but when my modem dials the rest of the
string the dial tone continues.  In other words, it's as if the switch
is now deaf to the rest of sequence.  If I try again it usually works
fine...but then later that same night the problem may occur again.

I suppose it could be the modem (a Supra 2400) but I've never had a
problem like this at other locations.  I don't try to disable call
waiting on voice calls so I'm not sure if the same thing happens when
using the phone.  I've reported the problem to Centel but they say
they can't duplicate the problem. (BTW - I reported this a 6:30 pm
Friday night; a repairman called my back at 7 pm to get some more info
from me, and then called me again Sunday morning at 7 am (*#*$#!) to
tell me nothing was found!)

Any suggestions or comments from Telecom readers?

GRM
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like occassionally the CO is
sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. In the past, when there was very
little they could do about it, everyone could use touch tone, whether
they paid for it or not. Now they can give you dial tone from one
place or another, depending on what you are paying for. Assuming you
are in fact paying for touch tone service, one of the paths extended
to you for your call is either faulty, misprogrammed, or belongs to
rotary dial customers. I will answer in detail later on; but if you
have a second physical line there, I'd suggest next time it happens
you put the line on hold, call Repair and get them to trace it. I'd
venture a guess if someone in the CO can get their hands on it in
time, before it drops, they'll find this to be the case. This is very
definitly a CO problem, and nothing to do with your modem. To prove
this, next time it happens, go off hook with your phone and try your
own touch tone pad. They won't work either! The tones will sound, but
the CO will, as you put it, be 'deaf'.  PT]

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

From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light
Date: 6 Feb 90 01:44:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Alvarez)
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >The speed of light in fiber is actually slower than the speed of light
> >in coax cable...  (.72 to .76, or some such).  Does anyone know the
> >propagation speed for light in copper phone wire, or whatever else is
> >used for long lines??

> [reference data for a bunch of open-wire lines,
> showing velocity factors about .94 or better]

> Since the slowest speed listed here is about 94% C, and one can only
> assume wires have gotten better, not worse in the last 47 years, we
> clearly should all drop our fiber optic lines and go back to copper.

This is hardly news: open-wire lines always had much better velocity
factors than coax or anything else with a non-air dielectric.  (Basic
EE, or physics if you prefer.)  Of course, open-wire lines have noise
problems and they tend to take up a little more space than you'd
like.

And since the time difference for a 3000 mile span is something less
than 8 ms, who's going to notice?

But the real question is, why does anyone think this is relevant to
current long-distance service?  Yes, once upon a time, when you asked
the operator for a long distance connection, you got a pair of wires
(two pairs?) just for your call.  But it's 1990 now...  Trunk lines
have been _at least_ T1 running over twisted pair for years.  A "long
lines" connection involves a route via some or all of fiber, digital
radio, satellite, or DS3 over coax.  And most of the delay is in the
conversions and regeneration, not in the transmission.  [Except of
course for satellite, which is just a tad more distant.  :-) ]

 -- Speaking strictly for myself,
 --   Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ
 --   [e-mail]  or  <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd
 -- (and no, I have nothing to do with "long lines", except to use them!)

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

From: Thomas J Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light
Date: 5 Feb 90 15:42:54 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Don Alvarez):

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>  [table of signal velocity characteristics in wire deleted]
> Since the slowest speed listed here is about 94% C, and one can only
> assume wires have gotten better, not worse in the last 47 years, we
> clearly should all drop our fiber optic lines and go back to copper.
> (God, how I hate waiting for those 20ms delays!)

> -don

Of course, the delay in the wire is only a small part of the total
delay.  Every modem (digital communication only) adds >1000
microseconds of delay.  Every analog amplifier adds several to many
microseconds of delay.  Every analog Frequency Division Multiplexor
adds several to many microseconds delay.  Every digital regenerator
adds up to a microsecond of delay.

Every Analog->Digital or Digital->Analog conversion adds up to 125
microseconds of delay. Every time-slot-interchange within a digital
switching system adds 125 microseconds of delay. Every satellite hop
adds >100,000 microseconds of delay (but most of us don't have to
worry about this). After you add all of these up, you then get to
double the delay if you're concerned about the round-trip delay (and
normally that's what is of interest).

Fiber is very different, as the regenerators add only a few to many
nanoseconds of delay, and they are spaced further apart. But the
signal propagation in the fiber is slower than that of a wire or of a
radio channel.

The analysis of round-trip delay on a telecommunications channel is
VERY complicated, and is extremely route dependent. If your path
traverses a packet network, things can get downright bizarre.  Note
that signal delay is only a minor consideration when telcos engineer a
transmission path (cost is the major factor, capacity, ease of
maintenance, and reliability overwhelm delay considerations).


Tom Roberts
att!ihlpl!tjrob

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #77
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23047;
          6 Feb 90 4:29 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04598;
          6 Feb 90 2:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22781;
          6 Feb 90 1:50 CST
Date:     Tue, 6 Feb 90 0:51:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #78
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Feb 90 00:51:36 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Telco Security (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Tony Olekshy)
    Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff) (Michael Weiland)
    Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell (Clayton Cramer)
    Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better) (Linc Madison)
    Re: Touch-tone Toggle (Was Re: Call Waiting Question) (Peter Weiss)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (K. M. Peterson)
    Sprint Advertises "No Major System Outage" (Steve Elias)
    Dialing Procedures From Prince William Area (Carl Moore)
    Re: Revised Country Code List (David E. A. Wilson)
    Re: Noms de Guerre (Jody Kravitz)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Clayton Cramer)
    Wheldone Rumproast IV (Edward Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 06:39:25 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco Security?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>My residence CO is just down the street. This building has been there
>since the mid-50s and is your typical windowless telco-functional
>design. To the side there is a large parking lot.

>This last week, they have put a fence around the whole compound with
>motorized gates (not parking lot arms, but full gates) at the parking
>lot entrances. The appearance of the project would lead one to suspect

>Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid?

Perhaps for liability reasons.  When that CO burnt down a year or so
ago (was it Oak Brook, IL?) they were without service for at least a
couple of weeks.  I read in Insight that several of the larger
businesses served by that CO sued Illinois Bell for interruption/loss
of business.  Apparently, someone thought that the fire alarm was a
falsy and ignored it.  I'm not sure who prevailed in the court case,
but I would imagine that if a CO got taken out by vandals/special-
interest-group-needing-attention and that adequate measures had not
been taken, that Pacific Bell could be held liable.

As an aside, I remember overhearing a conversation between two
Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputies on a scanner where one was
complaining that he had need to talk to someone who happened to work
inside a CO in relation to some case he was working on.  When he
knocked or rang the bell or whatever, they said that there was *no*
admittance to CO's by unauthorized personnel, and that a police
officer was not considered "authorized" by Pacific Bell unless (s)he
had a warrant.  Needless to say, the cop wasn't too happy about this.
I guess Pacific Bell is paranoid about something.

Perhaps they are worried about a "ratepayer riot" over their pricing
policies?  :-)  Seriously, considering just how important a single CO
is to the tens of thousands of people and businesses it serves, I
don't think they can be too careful.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tony Olekshy)
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 3 Feb 90 22:51:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
    (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:

> No, no!!  Tom Lehrer (or was it Mort Sahl) explained this years ago.
> It's because, when they take your number out of the phone book, they
> have to move all the subsequent numbers up one.

You see, a phone company makes money off publishing your phone number,
just as others make money off advertising.  Actually, your phone bill
would be about $1/month higher if they didn't do this.  So, if you
don't let them list it, they have to get that $1/month back from you!


Yours, etc., Tony Olekshy (...!alberta!oha!tony or [e-mail]).

"Its a Joke", D. Letterman.


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

From: Michael Weiland <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was Sprint Stuff)
Date: 5 Feb 90 20:07:43 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


When I lived in Chicago, I had a U.S.Sprint FONcard, whose number was
my home number plus a PIN.  I moved (to a suburb) two years ago, and
was surprised that although I had a new number, my FONcard number
remained the same (containing my old number).  Since then, of course,
312 and 708 have split, so the number on my FON card is a different
area code as well as different number.

It's just as well -- as has been pointed out here, why have a phone
number as part of the account number.


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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell
Date: 5 Feb 90 18:07:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


I've had two phone lines into the house for a couple of years, one a
residence phone, the other the business line for my software business.
Because the volume of software business hasn't exactly been
overwhelming, I've wanted to disconnect that service, and save the
$17/month minimum service charge.  At the same time, it's convenient
to have business calls for my various side businesses separate from my
personal phone bill, so I've been reluctant to discontinue service on
the business line.

I called Pacific Bell, and they have a service called "fictious
account numbers" which allows one phone number to have several credit
card numbers, each of which is subtotalled separately on your phone
bill, making it easy for me to keep the expenses of the firearms
business, the software consulting business, and the writing business,
separate for tax purposes.

They have no problem giving several such account numbers on one phone
line.  (Of course, if you are dialing from home, you'll need to do
credit card billing using the fictious numbers, but that's a small
nuisance).

This would seem like an ideal way to handle the traditional "end of
the month roommates figuring out the bill" problem.



Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Democracy is freedom only when the majority are tolerant -- which is never.
===============================================================================
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 17:00:11 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Long Distance (AND: Where COCOTs Are Better)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>To make matters more confusing and frustrating, you *can* dial the
>number first on the Pac*Bell pay phone if the number is not "local",
>that is, will cost more than 20 cents for the call.

Yup, Pac*Bell pay phones have a fun and exciting algorithm.

(1) Local (Zone 1 -- within 8 miles) call
    a. Listen for dial tone
    b. Deposit 20c
    c. Dial number
    d. If you did (c) before (b), you must hang up and return to (a)

(2) Non-local (all other calls)
    a. Listen for dial tone
    b. Dial number
    c. If you inserted any change (even the exact amount) before
       dialing, it will be returned to you.
    d. Listen for recording telling you how much money to insert
    e. Insert three pocketfuls of change

Thus, you can walk up, insert 55c, dial your number, have your change
returned to you, and then be told to insert 55c.  What a system!

       -- Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Touch-tone Toggle (Was Re: Call Waiting Question)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 5 Feb 1990 08:29:26 EST
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Warren Gish) says:

>[Moderator's Note: Surely. Preface the number you dial with *70, and
>call waiting will be suspended until you replace the receiver. Any
>calls arriving during the time that call is in progress will receive a
>busy signal (or hunt, if you have that feature). If you have three way
>calling, then you may also enter *70 to suspend call waiting on an
>incoming call, or at any point during a call in either direction.


Additionally, some COs have it and don't have it i.e., we at PSU are
served by the same Bell of PA CO as the adjacent community.  There are
at least 2 swtiches: one has Tone*Block (part of the Bell Atlantic (r)
I.Q. (sm) Services Family), and one doesn't.  Residential customers
can specify that they want the T*B feature (no additional charge) and
get assigned to the _right_ switch.


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

[Moderator's Note: "Tone*Block" ?? Is that another name for suspend
call waiting?  PT]

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

Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid
From: [e-mail]
Date: 05 Feb 90 16:03:04 EST


Place this under the heading of "Sprint Advertisement is Stupid".

Sprint began to run a new series of ads billing itself as the "most
reliable long-distance telephone company in the world", with the
standard asterisk pointing to "Based on no major outage".  Two
questions:

1)  Will MCI reconsider their decision not to kick AT&T while it was
    down?

2)  Has MCI had a major outage that would justify the tag on Sprint's
    ads, e. g., is there any reason to think Sprint more reliable than
    AT&T?

K. M. Peterson  <[e-mail]> [phone] x3667 Prime Computer, Inc
(K. M. Peterson solely responsible for opinions expressed in this posting).

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

Subject: Sprint Advertises "No Major System Outage"
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 90 12:35:18 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Sure enough, Sprint is slamming ATT by advertising that Sprint has
never had a major system outage, in some of their new ads.


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


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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 14:05:11 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing Procedures From Prince William Area


This is from a trip I took recently to Virginia.  Pentagon (offices
physically in Va. but using area code 202 -- does not apply to pay
phones there) appears in extended calling area from these 703-area
points:

Quantico 640
Triangle-Dumfries 221
Woodbridge-Occoquan 490,491,494,497
Arcola 327
Dale City 590,670,680,878
Independent Hill 791
Haymarket 754
Nokesville 594
Manassas 257,330,335,361,367,368,369
dial SEVEN digits for such calls to the Pentagon?
(That's what the call guide said, from Contel.)

 From Dulles Metro 260 and Lorton Metro 643:

"Dial ten digits (area code 703 plus seven digit number) for calls
from 260 and 643 to an extended calling area."  I assume this reduces
to 7 digits sometime after the dust settles from implementing NPA+7D
for local calls across DC-area NPA borders.

Dulles 661, local to DC but not to Md., has no extended-calling area
indicated.  [ the above is from Manassas Nov. 1989 directory ]

While at Stone Bridge area along U.S. 29 at Fairfax-Prince William
county line, I walked a very short distance to pay phones on 703-830
(these are C&P phones on the Braddock exchange) on the Fairfax side.
335-xxxx "cannot be completed as dialed"; 1-703-335-xxxx "requires a
25 cent deposit before dialing", and I assume this can reduce to 7
digits as above.  Notice, however, that 830, like 661, is local to DC
but not to Md.


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

From: "David E. A. Wilson" <munnari!wolfen.cc.uow.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Revised Country Code List
Date: 5 Feb 90 07:04:41 GMT
Organization: Uni of Wollongong, NSW, Australia


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

> Australia        +61; Melborne 3; Perth 9; Sydney 2

The area codes for the Australian capitals are:

    Adelaide    8
    Brisbane    7
    Canberra    62  soon to be 6 with the 2 prepended to the exchange
    Darwin        89
    Hobart        02
    Melbourne    3
    Perth        9
    Sydney        2


David Wilson

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

From: Jody Kravitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Noms de Guerre
Date: 5 Feb 90 14:50:31 GMT
Reply-To: Jody Kravitz <[e-mail]>
Organization: U.C. San Diego


> Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first
> for both):

>     Wheldone Rumproast IV
>     Wong Numba

A few years ago, when I lived in a residential neighborhood next to
the University of Illinois campus, a friend of mine pointed out two
unusual phone listings at a single address about a block from me:

    R. E. Sident

    O. C. Cupant

I was very tempted to forward all my third class mail to them.


Jody Kravitz
(decvax|ucbvax|ihnp4)!sdcsvax!net1!kravitz    ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: 5 Feb 90 17:55:51 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, rtech!llama.rtech.UUCP![e-mail] (Jim
Shankland) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (julian macassey) writes:

# #    If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great
# #unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful
# #solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the
# #telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or
# #Jim Bakker....

# Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first
# for both):

#     Wheldone Rumproast IV
#     Wong Numba

This is California.  Those may not be pseudonyms -- they could be
their legal names.  (It's even possible those are the names on their
birth certificates -- you should see some of the acid-induced names
from the 1960s out here).


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Democracy is freedom only when the majority are tolerant -- which is never.
===============================================================================
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 08:42 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wheldone Rumproast IV

>     Wheldone Rumproast IV

A moderately reliable source tells me that Wheldone Rumproast IV is
actually Melvin Belli's dog.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #78
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25257;
          6 Feb 90 5:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19646;
          6 Feb 90 3:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04598;
          6 Feb 90 2:55 CST
Date:     Tue, 6 Feb 90 1:57:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #79
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Feb 90 01:55:17 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    No State Jurisdiction Over Gateways? (William Degnan)
    MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Steve Forrette)
    Centrex, Everyone? (John Higdon)
    Bad Experiences While Traveling (Robert Kaplan)
    900 Crossword Sacrilege! (Bruce E. Howells)
    Wiring Maintainence Fee (Thomas Lapp)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (John R. Levine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 90  0:43:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: No State Jurisdiction Over Gateways?


Is anyone familiar with details where a LEC has claimed (with or
without success) that state regulators have no juristiction over
Gateway Services -- once permission to provide the service has been
granted?

It was suggested that PacTel had taken the position that it was an
interstate service offering and therefore outside CPUC's jurisdiction.

Has anybody heard anything like this? What's the story?


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: Mon, 5 Feb 90 07:55:53 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"


It seems like several telecom readers have had bad experiences with
MCI telling the BOC to switch their equal access default carrier.  It
would seem to me that unless the customer requested the change, that
the customer is using MCI (or whatever it got changed to) without his
or her knowledge.  This being the case, can MCI enforce payment.

1) The customer did not know that they were using MCI.

2) By billing the customer for the calls, MCI is in effect generating
business through an illegal act (I assume that telling the BOC that
the customer has requested a change when this is not the case is
illegal).  Isn't it a general principle of law that you can't enforce
payment on a debt resulting from an illegal act?


[Moderator's Note: But the point is, you did make the call, so you
have to pay *someone*. To not pay at all based on your line of
reasoning would be an unjust enrichment for yourself. There are also
laws again you you profiting from an 'illegal act', which is what you
would be doing if you did not pay. I'd say however it would be fair to
pay MCI only the amount you anticipated you would be paying had the
call been routed per your original instructions.  PT

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

Subject: Centrex, Everyone?
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 4 Feb 90 21:20:13 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Last Sunday, during a Superbowl party, one of the many Pac*Bell
Centrex commercials appeared on the screen. One of those present
proclaimed, "I would never buy a PBX. Centrex is the ONLY way to go."
The guy was so forceful and opinionated that is became obvious that
the Pac*Bell spots are obviously hitting their mark.

This fellow, however, revealed a little telephonic naivety with his
pronouncement. The fact is Centrex is rarely a good idea for anyone.
Unlike a PBX, Centrex does not offer "user friendly" feature phones;
those with soft keys, visual confirmation, and multiple lines. Display
phones are not available with Centrex. Just the simple (for a PBX)
feature of having the callers name appear in the display would require
some permutation of Caller-ID through the CO! How do you access
features on Centrex? You flash the hookswitch, dial the code, hope it
works. There is no visual confirmation.

Music on Hold? No problem. Just send the program of your choice back
to the CO on a pair (which you pay for) and they will handle it. Need
to add a phone? Just place your order and they will do it on their
schedule, as is the case with any configuration change. Most PBXs
allow the customer to go to a terminal and type in his own
configuration change. Adding a phone is usually no more complex than
plugging in an instrument and typing in the change to the switch.

The only customer that could logically benefit from Centrex is one
that has a clear and pressing need to transfer outside callers from
one office location to another. With short-haul microwave, the
inexpensiveness of T1 and other technology, this is becoming easier
and cheaper to do with multi-node PBXs. Centrex is an outside plant
hog. It soaks up massive amounts of cable pairs and is conceptually
inefficient.

Ah, but with Centrex you don't have to invest in equipment, right?
Well let's put it this way: you spend as much or more in installation
and service charges as if you were buying or leasing equipment, but
you have nothing to show for it, except for possibly a "termination
clause". A termination clause provides that if you, for any reason,
discontinue your Centrex service before a certain amount of time has
elapsed, you are liable for some specified amount of money. And unlike
having equipment which you could sell, there is no way to avoid paying
those "termination charges" without being sued.

Add to this the fact that Centrex customers are served out of the same
equipment that provides regulated, monopoly dialtone to us, the
unwashed masses. When I call 611 these days, I am tempted to begin by
saying, "I realize that I am not a priority Centrex customer...".

They must be making a killing on Centrex to be able to afford all that
high-priced advertising. Or it's coming out of our ratepayer pockets.


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


[Moderator's Note: Unlike Mr. Higdon, I *love* Centrex. Pure and
simple.  I have it on my home phones. I used to have a PBX and would
not go back.  The PBX only cost me about a thousand dollars (in 1981),
but I can get a lot of centrex rental for that. And, Mr. Higdon is
wrong about making configuration changes. Illinois Bell has a service
called 'Centrex-Mate' which allows subscribers to reconfigure their
own lines; in effect act as their own service reps. The changes take
effect within a few hours, although there is a charge for making them.

They also have a system for large centrex accounts where they don't
literally run a thousand pairs if the subscriber has a thousand
extensions. They run maybe two hundred pairs, and use a few pairs as
control lines. Those, plus a relatively small (much smaller than a PBX
serving that many lines) gizmo at the subscriber's premises handle
everything. The control pair zips ahead of the call with a message for
the gizmo saying 'the call arriving on pair 96 is really someone who
dialed extension 2037' or similar. Likewise the gizmo takes outgoing
calls, finds a pair, and on the control line tells the CO 'the call I
am giving you on pair 127 came from extension 2481. Very clever and
effecient.  While CPE is fine for some people, centrex is great for
the rest of us.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 13:51:17 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bad Experiences While Traveling


This weekend, I took a road trip from Boston to Ithaca, NY.  It was a
good trip, but I had two extremely frustrating experiences with coin
phones: First, I had to call Binghamton (607-797) from a phone outside
Cooperstown, using my ATT card.  I dialed 10288-0-607-797-xxxx.  "Your
call cannot be completed as dialed, please check the number..."  The
NYTel phone said the default carrier was ATT, so I tried again using
just 0-607-797-xxxx.  Another intercept.

Finally it occurred to me to look at the number I was calling from.
Aha!  607 area code, Binghamton LATA.  Out of curiosity I tried
10288-0-797-xxxx, but got the same intercept, so I gave up and dialed
0-797-xxxx.  Another reason for universal 10-digit dialing!  Second
experience: Marshall Street, Syracuse NY.

After a bit of hunting, I couldn't find a NYTel phone, and all I
needed to make was a (I thought) local call to 315-682 (Manlius
NY)B.  So I used a COCOT marked "Millicom Inc."  No number listed
for repair service.  Dropped my two dimes and the nickel, got a dial
tone, dialed 682-xxxx, and the DIAL TONE CAME RIGHT BACK!  I hung up
and it returned my coins.  I should have stopped there, of course, but
I tried again.  After I dialed, the dial tone returned, the coins came
back, and so I tried dropping them again.  Still dial tone, and I
couldn't even get my money back.

Anyway, I made an immediate vow that no matter how desperate I get
(except in life-threating emergencies), I will never again utilize
COCOTs.  They're not worth the trouble.  I might also have some of
those "OUT OF ORDER -- Misprogrammed Phone" stickers printed up :-)
BTW, not all NET coin phones have the newfangled "record your name"
style collect call feature; I used one in Lee MA (413-243 exchange)
that went right to an operator.


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 01:11:08 EST
From: "Bruce E. Howells" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Crossword Sacrilege!


900-sleaze I can deal with...  900 and $35 on next month's phone bill I can
deal with...  But ---

In this Sunday's _New_York_Times_ - right next to the crossword, no
less - the following notice, quoted without permission:

"Answers to any three clues in this puzzle are available by touch-tone
phone: [phone]-CLUE (75c first minute, 50c each extra minute)...."

What is the world coming to???

(although I take my crosswords quite seriously, this should be read with a
thorough sprinkling of :-), as needed.)

Even more interesting was a New York PBS channel (WNET-13) advertising
900's for donations: one each for $5, $10, and $15.  I wonder if the
overhead of the 900-provider's fee is comparable to what it costs them
to process conventional pledges?  And what if I'm at work, and decide
that my employer should be generous and support WNET?  Hmmm...


Take care-
Bruce Howells,  engnbsu@buacca (BITNet),  [e-mail]
  just a random Engineering undergrad...


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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 20:48:12 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wiring Maintainence Fee


I've seen a few messages recently talking about the charges that the
telephone companies levy for "insurance" against a problem with
in-house wiring.

As many people do, I live in an apartment building which has been
pre-wired for at least one pair.  Since the phone co.'s service ends
at the enterance point to the building (an assumption), and I do not
have access to the internal wiring of the building, who is responsible
if there is a problem between the point the pair enters the building
and the outlet jack in my apartment?  The landlord?  Me?  The other
question deals with the wire maintenance charge.  Does it make sense
at all for me to sign up for inside wiring maintenance since I don't
really have control over the wiring within the building?

And, no, I haven't checked with my landlord about this (yet!).  I'll
let you know what the landlord's policy is when I find out.

                         - 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: One of the dumbest parts of divestiture was this
problem of who handles the wire beyond what point. In large older
urban areas like Chicago, we have hundreds of old (1920-30-ish) high
rise buildings, formerly hotels with switchboards, with jumbles of
wire coming in from the street. Multiples abound; a pair terminating
in my building not in use will show up in the basement of the building
down the block. The cable opens up three or four places, and I can go
in the basement of my building and get on fifty different pairs all in
use either in my building or the buildings across the street.  You
don't want to pay IBT to install, so your boyfriend says he can do the
job; or maybe its the building janitor....then tomorrow my second line
does not work. Fist fights have broken out in Chicago between people
who accused each other of stealing their pairs and their service. But
the judge, in his wisdom, and all that rot.... well, you know the
story.  Illinois Bell now handles the wiring literally to the front
door of your apartment. They take care of the apartment building
basements and the internal house-pair boxes; but at first, they
literally stopped where the wires went in the building, until it got
too ridiculous.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 5 Feb 90 23:48:22 EST (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>

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

>Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN
>magnetically encoded on the card.

Although that was true for some early ATMs, it's not generally true
any more.  The number from your card along with the PIN you enter are
sent along to the issuing bank for validation.  My bank sends out
cards with no PIN, then you have to appear in person at the bank once
with ID, swipe in your card, then enter your PIN twice and they store
it for future use.  The way they pass the number and PIN back to the
issuer is similar in concept but not in execution to the way that
telco calling cards are done.

By the way, there is no pattern to calling card PINs.  Each operating
company makes them up any way they want.  My cousin who runs the
family telco in Vermont used to run a random number generator on his
IBM Sys/32.  Each time you enter a calling card number, it is
validated in the giant distributed calling card data base.  My cousin
once explained to me how he gets his numbers into the giant data base;
for his tiny telco it's a complicated multi-stage process involving a
service bureau run, I believe, by the USITA that actually fields the
validation requests.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #79
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03516;
          7 Feb 90 23:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05110;
          7 Feb 90 21:16 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06534;
          7 Feb 90 20:11 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Feb 90 19:26:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #80
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Feb 90 19:25:32 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Steve Forrette)
    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Will Martin)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (J. Deters)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (John Wheeler)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards ([e-mail])
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: Fictious Account Numbers: Useful Service of Pacific Bell (Bill Huttig)
    Re: Fictious Account Numbers: Useful Service of Pacific Bell (W. DenBesten)
    AT&T "Non-Subscriber" Card (was: Sprint Stuff) (Richard Duffy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 11:38:42 PST
From: Steve Forrette <cory.berkeley.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


>[Moderator's Note: But the point is, you did make the call, so you
>have to pay *someone*. To not pay at all based on your line of
>reasoning would be an unjust enrichment for yourself. There are also
>laws again you you profiting from an 'illegal act', which is what you
>would be doing if you did not pay. I'd say however it would be fair to
>pay MCI only the amount you anticipated you would be paying had the
>call been routed per your original instructions.  PT

I agree that the caller should not get away with a free ride, but at
the same time I don't think it "fair" (whatever that means) for MCI to
profit from their misdeeds.  There has to be more punishment to the
misbehaving carriers than increased revenue.

BTW, I called Pacific Bell to have them flag my account to ignore
requests from the long distance carriers, but no such capability
exists in their system (of course, the rep said their "hands were
tied" by the PUC to accept instructions from the long distance
carriers, which seems to be Pacific Bell's response to any customer
complaint over pricing or policies).  He also said that he's had to
deal with *many* problems in which customers' default carrier was
changed without their permission (of course, he couldn't identify them
by name, but they know who they are!).


[Moderator's Note: What you do is, you pay for the calls you made, and
you sue the carrier for misrepresenting themselves and taking
unauthorized action on your account.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 10:21:30 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"


>Moderator's Note: But the point is, you did make the call, so you
>have to pay *someone*. To not pay at all based on your line of
>reasoning would be an unjust enrichment for yourself.

What about equating an unauthorized carrier-initiated switching of
your default LD carrier with the long-established legal rules
regarding unordered merchandise? If someone sends you unordered goods
and then tries to bill you for them, you not only have no obligation
to pay for them, but you have a perfect legal right to keep them. If
they want the goods back, the sender has to bear all the costs and
effort of getting them back.

If MCI causes the telco to switch your default carrier to their firm
WITHOUT YOUR AUTHORIZING IT, they are giving you a *gift* of their LD
service! You don't owe them a cent, and have no obligation to pay for
this *unordered service*. You can make all the LD calls you want for
free, until they have the sense to terminate your LD service and stop
throwing their resources away.

As soon as a legal ruling in a couple jurisdictions established this
principle, we'd see those LD companies being *very* careful about
getting written authorization that will hold up in court as legal
documents before doing any carrier-switching!


Regards, Will

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Date: 7 Feb 90 04:22:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Sorry, this is straying a little off topic.

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

> Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN
> magnetically encoded on the card.  It is nice of the banks, however,
> to have thought of not printing it in a human-readable place on the
> card.

The PIN (personal identification number; the "password", so to speak,
as compared with the personal account number or PAN, the "login ID")
is *NOT* stored on ATM or debit cards, not even in encrypted form.  I
think a checksum *is* stored, to allow for some off-network
validation.

One of the problems banks have with PINs is that people can't remember
them . . . so they write them on the card!  Great security, huh?

My favorite story about PINs involves Al Brown, a plastic card pioneer
who recently retired from AT&T.  He went to Japan, where they showed
him a plastic card, and proudly told him that the PIN was stored on
the card.  Al pulled a loop reader out of his pocket, a little gizmo
with a sheet of magnetic bubbles (or some such) that make magnetic
fields visible.  He ran it over the card, passed the card back, and
told his hosts what the PIN was!  The engineers conferred in a side
office, returned after a few minutes, and announced their solution:
"Don't give cards to tricky Americans!"


Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I've never been involved with AT&T Calling cards, and I'm *definitely*
not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

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

Date: 7 Feb 90 11:19:04 CST (Wed)
From: "J. Deters" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Reply-To: [e-mail] (J. Deters)
Organization: Dayton-Hudson Dept Store Co.


> Article <[e-mail]> From: [e-mail]
(John R. Levine)

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

>>Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN
>>magnetically encoded on the card.

>Although that was true for some early ATMs, it's not generally true
>any more.  The number from your card along with the PIN you enter are
>sent along to the issuing bank for validation.  My bank sends out

It is definitely no longer true.  I program the Point-Of-Sale
equipment for Dayton-Hudson Dept. Stores Co., and have had to do an
awful lot with MSR cards these days!  With the advent of Electronic
Funds Transfer at the point of sale, security became a huge issue (we
currently have no plans to implement EFT in the near future, but the
latest release of IBM software has it coded.)  At the Point Of Sale,
IBM sells a special customer 10-key pad and Mag Stripe Reader that
encrypts the PIN prior to transmission to the terminal.  At no time is
the data (PIN) transmitted in the clear (not even to the base unit of
the cash register.)

It's a shame that this isn't more widely known.  I think that more
people might be inclined to trust a system like that iff they knew
that their data was secure.  Of course, 95% of the people don't care
one whit if their PIN is secure, because they're unaware of the
consequences of losing it :-).

Oh, as to selecting PINs: My banker just asked me for a number when I
signed up for the card.  I said, "Just some random number, please."
He asked me "How about 6677?"  I sighed and got out my pocket
calculator (with the random number generator) and gave him four
digits.  He just gave me this funny look...


J. Deters
INTERNET:  [e-mail]    .\ /.    "Smile -- Cthulu loathes you!"
UUCP:  ...!bungia!dayton!jad         \_____/
ICBM:  44^58'36"N by 93^16'12"W

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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Date: 7 Feb 90 17:21:21 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


Realizing that this is NOT comp.banking.pins:

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

>My bank sends out cards with no PIN, then you have to appear in person
>at the bank once with ID, swipe in your card, then enter your PIN twice
>and they store it for future use.

Yeah, but the most unusual I've dealt with, since my bank is
out-of-state, is that the bank sends the card out with no PIN, then
you are called at home (at NIGHT) by the bank, and you are connected
to an automated PIN-select system. You enter up to 10 digits as your
PIN, using touch-tones(R).  My PIN was usable instantly at the ATM
down the street.


/*  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"  */

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

Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 90 13:38:43 +0000
From: [e-mail]


Hi..
    Can I ask a simple question ?
    What exactly are these calling cards from MCI etc.. ?
    Are they like credit cards? Cards that store numbers ????

    I don't think that these kind of cards are in use in England,
    the closest thing, I guess, we have are the phone cards.
    These just give you a set amount of units. ie. a 40 unit phone
    card, costing 4 pounds, will give you that many units in phone
    use. This was done to stop the vandalism of the pay phones
    whereby people would try and access the money paid into it.

       Thanks

             Chris

( [e-mail] )


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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 13:52:01 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dana Paxson) writes:
>Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN
>magnetically encoded on the card.  It is nice of the banks, however,
>to have thought of not printing it in a human-readable place on the
>card.

While in the past, (ten years ago), banks have put the PIN on the
card, presently most banks do not.  It is indeed a database lookup.
The interbank switching system (Cirrus, Plus, etc.) do indeed pass
encrypted messages for verifying accounts and PINs.  Those banks that
do put the PIN on the back, for use by off line machines, usually now
encrypt it.

It is considered too much of a security risk to put the PIN on the
card, and also too much trouble to change it, if the customer requests
a change.

=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd            FAX:   [phone]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell
Date: 6 Feb 90 16:37:49 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> optilink![e-mail]
(Clayton Cramer) writes:

>They have no problem giving several such account numbers on one phone
>line.  (Of course, if you are dialing from home, you'll need to do
>credit card billing using the fictious numbers, but that's a small
>nuisance).

>This would seem like an ideal way to handle the traditional "end of
>the month roommates figuring out the bill" problem.

AT&T offers a service called call manager where you place your call kind of
like a calling card call and your bill is sorted by the 2 digit codes you
picked.


Bill

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

From: "William C. DenBesten" <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell
Date: 6 Feb 90 19:33:37 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by optilink![e-mail]
(Clayton Cramer):

> I called Pacific Bell, and they have a service called "fictious
> account numbers" which allows one phone number to have several credit
> card numbers, each of which is subtotalled separately on your phone
> bill....

> This would seem like an ideal way to handle the traditional "end of
> the month roommates figuring out the bill" problem.

Yes, except for one small detail.  I would like to be able to disable
long distance calling without the use of a credit card.  This way if
someone tries to call 1-900-pay-cash, their mom in attu, alaska or
anything else that would cost me money, it would fail unless they put
it on their credit card.

BTW, the only phone on attu is in the coast guard station, and no moms
work there.

--
William C. DenBesten   is   [e-mail]  or   [e-mail]

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

Subject: AT&T "Non-Subscriber" Card (was: Sprint Stuff)
Organization: U. Chicago Dept. of Mathematics
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 90 11:28:28 -0600
From: Richard Duffy <[e-mail]>


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

>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.

I wish there were a way to deal with uninformed marketing dweebs; the
service does indeed still exist, as described in Patrick's note at the
end of your post.

I live in a graduate residence affiliated with (but not officially
part of) the University of Chicago; each resident has her/his own
telephone and receives a bill just as any ordinary Illinois Bell
customer would.  However, each person's account is in the name of
"Univ. of Chicago, International House, Room ___" and does not mention
the person's name.

Nonetheless, I originally asked AT&T for their usual type of calling
card for my phone here (the kind which is actually issued through the
local telco).  They said it would take up to 5 weeks.  When it got to
be 7 weeks, still no card, I called back and they said they had no
record of such a request, but would put through a new one.

Many weeks and phone calls down the road, they were *finally* able to
confirm that I was not authorized to request a card for this phone
since it is not in my name.  (In most ways I have the highest regard
for AT&T, but this was a little ridiculous.)  So they told be to call
1-800-CALLATT and ask to apply for a "non-subscriber calling card,"
which would be *billed separately by AT&T* and is not linked to any
particular telephone number I may have.

I'm happy to report that, despite a somewhat disconcerting amount of
information required in the application (including parents' names and
phone numbers!), I got the card fairly promptly.  Best of all, it
seems to be a genuinely AT&T-only card: neither MCI nor Sprint will
bill calls to it.  (The MCI response to this card number is an
amusingly pert "Please dial a *valid* card number now.")  I haven't
tried it on an AOS phone, however.

Perhaps the very best thing about it is that I can keep it no matter
where I move to in the future, and not have to worry about hassles
with getting new numbers for each new local telco I might become a
customer of.  (This presupposes that I'm willing to use AT&T for all
my card-billed inter-LATA calls; that's perfectly fine with me, as
long as I can always gain access to AT&T.  As we know, some outfits
will do their nasty best to deny you such access.  It goes without
saying that I have no official connection whatever to AT&T.)

I only hope they don't discontinue the service; it certainly *is* kept
very low-profile.

...............................................................................
Richard Duffy                |  ((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x)))
Internet: [e-mail]     (quote (lambda (x)
Voicenet: 312-753-0441       |               (list x (list (quote quote) x)))))

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #80
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05735;
          7 Feb 90 23:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17792;
          7 Feb 90 22:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05110;
          7 Feb 90 21:17 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Feb 90 20:35:14 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #81
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Feb 90 20:35:06 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Will Martin)
    Re: How To Dial Locally (Daniel A Margolis)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (John G. De Armond)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (John Higdon)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Telco Security? (Bill Darden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 12:26:22 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls


>From: [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)

> ...such fraudulent usage can clearly be traced.  Obviously, the voice
>recordings can be kept; all the telco or AOS needs to do is listen to
>each day's recordings and if a message appears where the person's name
>should've been, they can assume the call was made, completed, and
>accepted, and bill the receiving phone anyway.  I'm sure the
>technology exists, or can easily be developed, to allow a playback of
>only the rejected calls, so it's a lot less listening.

>True, someone may try to "prank" someone else by using an automated
>collect phone to leave such a "message", but clearly how many people
>who really did try to leave a message instead of their name would do
>it again if they were caught?

I agree that a consistent pattern of repeated abuse of the "record-a-
'name'" computerized collect-call process would result in the parties
being caught and eventually forced to pay for the calls. However, I
think it is highly unlikely that random or rare indulgers in this
would ever be caught.

1) Given the telco's increasing push for automation, I think it is
unlikely they would ever assign a human the task of listening to these
recordings, assuming they are actually kept for any length of time. (I
really would guess they are recorded on disk or solid-state digital
memory and written over again as soon as they are used.) To keep track
of the recorded voice along with the billing info would be possible,
but would it be considered cost-effective? [What is needed here is the
NSA's fabled "monitor all call contents" voice-content-recognition AI
program. :-)]

2) They could intermix the automated collect-call processing with a
random and rare actual human operator. You'd never know *for sure*
that you are talking to a computer or a person (especially as
synthezsized voices get better); if you gave a human "I'll be home at
8" as your name, they could then flag the called phone (and the
calling one, if not a payphone or hotel phone) for surveillance of the
collect-call patterns.  They could also give you a severe
tongue-lashing, which would take you aback if all you expected was a
computerized standard response! :-) However, given point 1, this seems
unlikely, unless they assign a human to handle calls from a region of
high abuse (airports, train stations, etc.). Since those areas are
also ones of high volume, which is what they'd want the computer to
handle, it still seems unlikely.

3) There are some legal issues here. Could the telco legally use an
accumulation of such recordings, if they *did* keep them, as
evidence?  Wouldn't they have to get a wiretap authorization and only
use such recordings gathered after such a warrant was issued, in order
to use these as evidence in a legal case? This starts to sound
expensive, and not worth the possible monies that could be recovered.

4) Wrong numbers are not at all unlikely. This acts against BOTH the
abuser and the possible telco methods of detecting such abuse. That is
one reason I distinguished between occasional vs. repeated use. If I
try pulling this trick, and misdial the number, some stranger hears
"Will you accept the charges for a collect call from 'I'll be home at
8'?"  They are going to say "no" or hang up (unless they are totally
crazed).  My message to my household did NOT get through, but I don't
know this.  All I know is the call didn't complete, which is what I
expected. In order to have some reasonable chance of assurance that
the message REALLY made it to my home, I have to play this game twice,
at least.  This starts eating up enough time that it might be cheaper
in real terms to just pay for the stupid call!

On the other side, if the telco tries to stick me with a charge for a
call based on their having a recording of a call from a payphone to my
number, which I rejected, and where the text was "I'll be home at 8",
all I need say is that it was a wrong number. Unless they can show a
repeated pattern of such calls, or start playing high-tech games like
voiceprinting the message and comparing that voiceprint with those of
voices on my line or making calls from my number, there's no way they
can claim this is not an isolated instance. After all, the called
party did nothing illicit or contra-tarriffs; they just said "no" or
hung up!  Only the caller can be charged with anything.

The telco has a history of charging called numbers in cases of
long-distance abuse, like blue boxing and college-student fraud, but
there are major differences between billing the called party in cases
where the evidence is many many-minute-long calls all to that number,
versus cases in which the called party didn't do anything but
explicitly reject a call, or just hung up!

In short, I don't think the telco will make much effort to counteract
this fraud, at least until it can build in enough AI to its computers
so that they can make some guess as to what is a "name" versus what is
a "message". (And how would they handle foreign languages?) It just
isn't likely to repay the effort involved.


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue,  6 Feb 90 10:20:47 EST
From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Dial Locally
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


John Levine writes:

>Also, in Harvard Square I came across one of these Call America COCOTs
>that offers a flat rate of 25 cents/minute anywhere in the continental
>U.S., and states that you get AT&T calling card or collect rates
>otherwise.  The phone didn't work, of course, but if it did it's the
>first decent COCOT ever.

This doesn't seem so decent when you consider that you can make the
same call for 11.5 cents/minute on nights or weekends with Reach Out
America.  MCI's Prime Time is probably similar.  I would think that
most people in Harvard Square (students) make enough calls (at night)
to warrant a calling plan.


Dan Margolis
[e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I don't have anything to do with long distance, except that I
             pay a bill each month.

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

From: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Date: 6 Feb 90 17:36:12 GMT
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun
 works facility)


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>This fellow, however, revealed a little telephonic naivety with his
>pronouncement. The fact is Centrex is rarely a good idea for anyone.
>Unlike a PBX, Centrex does not offer "user friendly" feature phones;

I'm with John on this one.  A recent ex-employer of mine left a nice
SRX-based PBX and bit the Centrex hook.  What we got in return was:

a) Very ugly and large phones
b) No ability to reconfigure
c) Voice mail that answers after X seconds instead of X rings
d) No distinctive ring for outside calls (available for large extra fee)
e) Extension numbers no longer followed phone sets as in SRX system.
f) Disconnecting the phone even for a few minutes (as when one HAS to get
   some work done.) results in killing the line and dropping a trouble
   report.  We did this a lot :-)
g) GREATLY reduced reliability.  Every contractor who decided to target
   the trunk for the day took us out.
h) A new and large bureauracy to work through to get anything done.
i) No call-waiting beep (available for large extra fee.).  Callers
   get dumped to voice mail.  (I HATE voice mail.)

To me, Centrex violates one of the most basic business principles -
never entrust a strategic resource to an outside concern.  You are
courting disaster if you do.  Small example - whereas with the SRX
system, a trunk outage would kill outside lines only, with Centrex,
even intra-company calls are killed.  This creates a general level of
chaos.

BTW, I spent some time talking to the Southern Bell installers while
they destroyed a perfectly good system, er, I mean, installed the
Centrex wiring.  They did NOT install any mux or control equipment.
They ran a fiber-optic cable from the CO to our building and simply
piled all the lines onto it.  Centrex may be OK for Pat's house but it
really sucks for businesses.


John De Armond, WD4OQC  | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress-
Radiation Systems, Inc. | men than we can prostitution on pimps.  Both simply
Atlanta, Ga             | provide broker services for their customers.
emory!rsiatl!jgd        |  - Dr. W Williams |                **I am the NRA**

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Date: 6 Feb 90 09:50:48 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
[big flames about Centrex]

> [Moderator's Note: Unlike Mr. Higdon, I *love* Centrex.

How did I know this was coming? :-)

> Mr. Higdon is
> wrong about making configuration changes. Illinois Bell has a service
> called 'Centrex-Mate' which allows subscribers to reconfigure their
> own lines; in effect act as their own service reps. The changes take
> effect within a few hours, although there is a charge for making them.

That's fine for IBT customers, but it's Pac*Bell that has those
ubiquitous ads. To my knowledge Pac*Bell has no such service and if
they do, it is only for their gigantic customers, you know, the ones
that could buy and sell their own phone company anyway, and don't need
Centrex.

> The control pair zips ahead of the call with a message for
> the gizmo saying 'the call arriving on pair 96 is really someone who
> dialed extension 2037' or similar. Likewise the gizmo takes outgoing
> calls, finds a pair, and on the control line tells the CO 'the call I
> am giving you on pair 127 came from extension 2481. Very clever and
> effecient.

Gee, that sounds like DID. But what about the "best part of Centrex"
(as the Pac*Bell ads trumpet) is that *all* of the equipment is in
Pacific Bell's office? If you are going to have a (switch?) piece of
equipment at your own location that isn't CPE, then it sounds like the
days of "call the phone company and have a phone system put in here."

I have a client with an ITT3100. It has been long since paid for. It
has given them no trouble. I can make config changes all day long at
no charge (I'm on retainer for their broadcast facility and throw in
phones as a bonus.) The switch does ARS, DID, is perfectly expandable,
and completely reliable. All trouble calls have involved a bad trunk
(Centrex *never* fails -- sure, it's nothing but trunks!) and have
required a call to Pac*Bell, anyway.

> While CPE is fine for some people, centrex is great for
> the rest of us.  PT]

I have Commstar II on all of my residence lines, for the record. And
behind that is my KX-T1232. The "Centrex" is more for toy value than
anything else. I have 16 phones in the house; I would never dream of
having that many lines (nor would I probably be able to get them).


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

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 06:49:57 GMT


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

>The fact is Centrex is rarely a good idea for anyone.
>Unlike a PBX, Centrex does not offer "user friendly" feature phones;
>those with soft keys, visual confirmation, and multiple lines. Display
>phones are not available with Centrex. Just the simple (for a PBX)
>feature of having the callers name appear in the display would require
>some permutation of Caller-ID through the CO! How do you access
>features on Centrex? You flash the hookswitch, dial the code, hope it
>works. There is no visual confirmation.

This will probably not be the first response to point out that Centrex
can and does (Northern Telecom DMS at least) allow for ALL these
features and many, many more!

>[Moderator's Note: Unlike Mr. Higdon, I *love* Centrex. Pure and
>...
>wrong about making configuration changes. Illinois Bell has a service
>called 'Centrex-Mate' which allows subscribers to reconfigure their
>own lines; in effect act as their own service reps. The changes take
>effect within a few hours, although there is a charge for making them.

This is very interesting.  Do you have any more details?

    - why does it take "a few hours" to effect changes?

    - is it really an automated order entry, one that recieves priority
      scheduling (gets typed into the switch by a human based on your
      requests)?

    - is it a feature of the switch?

    - or is it a "front end" application that provides a user interface
      on one side and programs the switch on the other?

Does any one know of the availability of Call Detail Recording on
Centrex?  If so how does it work?  Is it batched or real time?


Vance Shipley


[Moderator's Note: The service order changes handled via Centrex Mate
are batched with all other changes, and put into effect sometime
around three in the morning when all other changes for the day are
done. Its like when you call the service rep now: the order is taken
and you are told it will be 'turned on sometime tomorrow', but almost
invariably is on when you wake up the next day. The rep types it in,
but it does not literally start at that point. Centrex Mate works with
a terminal and a modem; the customer dials an extension on his
premises which really is an OPX, or off premises extension which
terminates in the CO itself. Admittedly, Centrex Mate is only used by
very, very, very large Centrex customers. Did you know Amoco Oil
Company, which is headquartered here, gets billings from Illinois Bell
for about one million dollars *per month* on local service and
equipment only? Its an 8000-line Centrex; the CO (Chicago-Lakeshore)
is in the third sub-basement of the Amoco Building itself.  PT]

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

From: "Bill Darden" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco Security?
Date: 6 Feb 90 23:14:37 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA


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

>Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid?>

Hinsdale!  Besides, it's on your nickle, so why not.


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #81
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08059;
          8 Feb 90 0:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26330;
          7 Feb 90 23:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17792;
          7 Feb 90 22:21 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Feb 90 21:26:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #82
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Feb 90 21:25:45 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller ID in Canada (Blake McCraw)
    AT&T System 25 Experience Sought (Jim Gottlieb)
    Question About AT&T Dimension 2000 Telephone Set (Brian Reid)
    X12 and EDI (Howard P. Marvel)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (David Daniel)
    Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges) (Chris Johnson)
    Telco Inside Wire Insurance (Tad Cook)
    Apartments and Inside Wiring (Hobbit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Caller ID in Canada
Date:    Wed, 7 Feb 90 00:23:21 EST
From:    Blake Mccraw <[e-mail]>


I know that you didn't want to hear much about Caller-ID, but there
hasn't been much information regarding the situation on this topic in
Canada.

I was at a seminar type of thing at the Inn on the Park last night.
There was a meeting of all the major (?) customers of a computer
distributor named Ingram.  There was a guy from Bell Canada there who
gave a speech about the future of Bell's so-called digital platform
technology.  I am presuming that this means fibre optics and all the
nifty computer-based gadgetry that it entails.  He spoke of ISDN and a
system similar to the old Telidon terminals called ALEX that has
already been implemented in Montreal and/or Ottawa.

After having a few of the ol' vino's, I cornered the guy and quizzed
him about Caller-ID (which in Canada will fall under the title of
"Call Management").  Either he was very good at being evasive or he
really didn't know what the situation was.  More likely, he was victim
of a condition of Bell Canada of which he was not too pleased to be
informed: the compartmentalization of information that is essential
for any conglomorate of its size in order to maintain its operational
level of consumer misinformation.  He did however confirm to me that
there were no plans to provide any mechanism by which one could
curtail the distribution of one's telephone number just by placing an
outgoing call.

I didn't press him for details regarding any possible public hearings
or even soliciting the public's opinion on the topic for fear of
totally wearing out what little welcome I had left with which to
question the fellow.

He had no idea whether Northern Telecom would be distributing any
devices other than the basic phone that would display the incoming
number.  I also surveyed the representatives of the various modem
manufacturers: none had any idea of any plans for a device for
intercepting digitally the incoming phone number.  If I was any way
energetic I would figure out how to make and manufacture one myself.


blake@xrtll                        Clascom Computers, 80 Richmond St. W.
                                   Toronto, Ontario       M5H 2A4
                             Voice: [phone]     Fax: [phone]


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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought
Date: 7 Feb 90 07:59:22 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


In looking for a PBX that offers CPC on analog ports and the ability
to send long touch-tones from electronic sets, I find that I am left
looking at only one switch for my application: the AT&T System 25.

But I feel funny about buying a switch that I have never used, since a
lot of the look-and-feel of using a particular PBX can not be conveyed
in a brochure.  The un-shoulderable handset bothers me for instance.

So I am looking for any experiences, good or bad, from an end-user or
administrative point of view.  Thanks...


P.S.  AT&T, in another display of their marketing savvy, has not returned
    any of my calls regarding the purchase of this switch.

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

From: Brian Reid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About AT&T Dimension 2000 Telephone Set
Date: 6 Feb 90 21:25:59 GMT
Organization: DEC Western Research


I'd like to ask a fairly detailed technical question about the
operation of the AT&T Dimension 2000 telephone system that I see for
sale in my local AT&T store. I see no reason to clutter the bandwidth
of this newsgroup with the question and its answer. Is there anybody
out there who would be willing to answer for me (via private
electronic mail) a question about the technology of this instrument?


Brian Reid
[e-mail]

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

From: Howard P Marvel <[e-mail]>
Subject: X12 and EDI
Date: 7 Feb 90 02:10:48 GMT
Reply-To: Howard P Marvel <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science


I am looking for information on the content of the X12 standard for
Business Data Interchange and the extent of the use of EDI (Electronic
Data Interchange for business transactions) in the U.S. and elsewhere.
I am particularly interesting in information about the relative
importance of EDI in Japanese business as opposed to U.S. business and
whether Japanese EDI uses a standard such as ANSI X12.

The reason for the posting on comp.dcom.telecom is that the policy
issues associated with EDI seem similar to those arising with
throughout the telecommunications swamp.  Some examples: When two
business partners wish to communicate but are subscribers to different
carriers, apparently each must pay a fee to its own carrier as if the
entire transaction took place on a single carrier.  We have the access
charge problem.  There is the natural monopoly problem.  And so on.
At a minimum, can anyone point me to the newsgroups appropriate for
such queries? Thanks in advance.


Howard P. Marvel
Professor of Economics
The Ohio State University
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Date: 7 Feb 90 08:24:19 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


Both Mr. Higdon and our Moderator make excellent points re: CPE vrs.
Centrex. The make or break point is the customer taking the time to
fully delineate and understand his needs before choosing between the
two. As a telecomm sales rep, I'm perfectly willing to explore either
scenario with a client or prospect.

Tone Commander makes a nice piece of equipment (the name of which has
just scaped me!) that is designed to be a full featured Centrex
console. It received good reviews in The Jan. '90 issue of TELECONNECT.
Customer education is the key to the proper decision.

(but ain't that the way it's ALWAYS been?).


"What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                 Elvis Costello

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Moving Information (was Re: FCC & Modem Charges)
Date: 5 Feb 90 17:11:21 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin Sirbu) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 69, message 3 of 10

> _I_  <[e-mail]> write:

>> And this doesn't say a thing about the good arguments for reducing
>> telephone rates, since most telephone companies are making obscene
>> profits.  As a regulated utility which should make profits adequate to
>> insure continued investor support to the extent that such is necessary
>> for expansion and rennovation of their facitilities, they need not be
>> the record profit-making enterprises that other companies are.  But in
>> the "upper Midwest", the region consisting of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
>> Iowa, North and South Dakota, guess which companies are in the Top 10
>> most profitable corporation list, year after year?  Uh huh -- all of
>> the regulated utilties: Northwestern Bell, Northern States Power, etc.
>> Something is definitely fishy with that situation.

>for anyone -- you don't 'deserve' to earn any more."  U.S. West -- which
>serves the "upper Midwest" -- has at least $20 billion of invested
>capital in telephone plant.  If you want investors to continue to put
>up money, you have to "pay" them at least what they can earn in
>comparable investments, or about $2 - 2.5 billion per year.  The total
>amount of profits is not the right measure of whether the phone
>companies are earning too much: it's the rate of return on the
>invested capital which you want to look at.  I don't know what U.S.
>West's rate of return is, and I won't defend it, but it's absurd to
>say any company is earning "too much" money simply by looking at their
>total profits.  You can't tell whether it's too much until you look at
>how much the investors had to put up in order to earn those profits.

Well, I could, I suppose, be generous and assume your comments were
meant for other readers who you might suspect as being financially
naive when it comes to the corporate world.  But I'm in a rather nasty
mood, so I'll point out that not only was I well aware of what return
on investment is and its importance, but that the people who did the
ranking for the Upper Midwest companies were even more aware of it.

After all, that's their exact business.  It ought to have been
obvious, although I suppose I could have stated it more clearly by
assuming their were people who might not know better, that the ranking
was not by pure dollars of profit.  That would make it pretty hard for
any but the largest companies to ever make the list.  No, as is
typical for such lists, the ranking was determined by both profit
returned per share of stock, and by percentage of gross revenues.

Now, it's true that neither is an exact correlation to return on
capital equipment, but that's irrelevant to the investors who bought
the stock, since all they care about is the return on the money they
spent on that stock.  And the first measure I mentioned does that
quite nicely.

Furthermore, getting into the return on capital equipment argument is
just opening a whole 'nother can of worms: many investor-owned
regulated utilities engage in a practive of over-building, of
over-investing in capital equipment purely for the reason of forcing
the regulating body for the state to allow them to raise their rates.
Now, I rather doubt that Northern States Power has gotten away with
much of this, since their rates are among the lowest in the nation,
although they do have a pair of very expensive nuclear power plants.
But I know for a fact that an Illinois power company just recently
spent some time (in court, perhaps) defending itself against such
charges.  They've built way over needed capacity.  To say nothing of
cost over-runs on actual needed capacity that just about any utility
could probably get away with.

I really don't know the specifics of Northwestern Bell nee U.S.  West
with regards to how much capital equipment they own and how much they
really need.  But, they have been involved in a lot of accusations of
bribery and conflict of interest lobbying with the Public Utilities
Comission.  Furthermore, the State Attorney General of Minnesota just
won a class action suit against them for excessive rates, and they now
have to pay the consumers back something on the order of $30 million.

Obviously, and it damn well ought to be obvious, if a U.S. West unit
was guilty of that size of fraud, they are not as pure as the driven
snow.  And it's been pretty obvious to me as a consumer: when I moved
here in 1979, my basic monthly rate was something like $7.97 a month.
Within a month or two, it changed to $9.xx a month.  There after,
every year or two, it went up another $2.5x+, until my basic rate,
even though I live in a cheaper zone (one tier closer to downtown), is
presently about $21.xx a month.  Inflation has not been double-digit
the last 10 years, by any means!

Meanwhile, friends and family in other US West areas, like Mountain
Bell, continued to have much lower rates.

It's hard for me to generate much sympathy for regulated monopolies.
If the businesses don't like the restraints on their trade, rates,
profits, whatever, then they can get the hell out of the regulated
monopoly and into a "free" market.  They are regulated precisely
because society has decided that those services are critical
necessities in our culture to which everyone is entitled at as low a
cost as is feasible.  Investor owned utilities are only one way of
providing that service, but through their power, money and lobbying,
they've gotten most people convinced that they are the only way and
thus have been also able to get away with making large fortunes at it.

Having once been a member of a consumer owned utility (often called
coops), I know it does not have to be that way.  Do a little reading
on the Rural Electrification Act.  Read about Lyndon Johnson and the
Sad Irons to get an idea what rural life was like before they were
allowed to have electricity like the city-folk.  Uh huh, those
investor owned utilities did not want to run their lines out into the
country, were the number of customers per mile of wire made it a lot
less lucrative.

The point is, I don't think it's wise for the consumer public to trust
their regulated utilities any further than they have to.  They need to
ride herd on them all the time, question all their investments, plans,
rates and other financials.  We've seen ample evidence in this
newsgroup alone of lots of underhanded schemes designed to bilk the
consumers of money to gain large profits.  I'm not saying they are all
corrupt to the core, nor am I saying they are all doing a lousy job.
But to be complacent is to be stupid.


Chris Johnson                  DOMAIN:  [e-mail]
Com Squared Systems, Inc.         ATT:  [phone]
Mendota Heights, MN  USA          FAX:  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Telco Inside Wire Insurance
Date: 6 Feb 90 06:43:41 GMT
Organization: very little


I can't make a call to US West for a network problem anymore without
getting the "Line Backer" pitch first.  Even on trouble with my
residential Centrex service that is obviously a CO problem, they
always try to sell me their sleazy insurance first.  It is hyped with
all kinds of scare talk about how the problem might be in my phone,
and if it is, they will charge me big bucks unless I buy their
insurance now!

I have even had them try to sell it to ME when I am reporting a
problem for SOMEONE ELSE, where I have gone to their protector and
verified that there is not voltage on the incoming line with the
inside wire disconnected!  Calls to the PUC brought a lot less
response than I have gotten with COCOT complaints....I was told to
complain to the telco repair rep's supervisor (!), as if the rep was
somehow NOT following company policy!


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 20:57:05 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apartments and Inside Wiring


When NJB here first started letting customers shoulder the burden of
inside wire maintenance, I was just moving into an apartment building.
An afternoon of running around with a butt set allowed me to tell them
"I'll maintain it", but with crawling around in the basement and the
attic it was a bit of a pain.  I like to do that sort of thing, so it
would have been a much *grander* pain for most other folks.  Not to
mention that some buildings really do keep their phone closets locked.

It was a two-story affair, and the wiring took the form of six pairs
looped from the box up through one wall shared by the upstairs and
downstairs, down through another shared wall, and everything
terminated in the *attic*, under the fiberglass, with those horrible
little white crimp-on connectors.  At least they left sufficient room
for expansion, because my roomie and I had three pairs between us.

_H*

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #82
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08385;
          8 Feb 90 1:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26330;
          7 Feb 90 23:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac17792;
          7 Feb 90 22:21 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Feb 90 22:11:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #83
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Feb 90 22:10:14 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? (Ken Thompson)
    Re: Telephone Number Lengths in the UK (Kevin Hopkins)
    Re: Mu-Law Encoding/Decoding (Chip Rosenthal)
    Re: Breaking the Dial Tone (John Higdon)
    Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (John McHarry)
    Re: "Sleaze" (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Kelly Goen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook?
Date: 7 Feb 90 16:02:41 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


Here is a circuit that works to indicate a phone line is on hook.
Mount the led that lights in a conveniently visible location.

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

This is for information only.  No one is encouraged to actually use
the circuit.

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

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


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

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

Subject: Re: Telephone Number Lengths in the UK
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 90 18:22:18 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


In v10i68 Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> said:

-> Uncertainty over the city code here; phone number copied from pay
-> phone at Daventry service area (on motorway between Liverpool and
-> London): (03272) 78284 (Elsewhere, I saw city code as 0327 and even as
-> 032?  03272 seems to be indicated, for the length standardization.)

UK area codes are currently of varying length. Here is a list of the
area code/subscriber number combinations. In the following N=2..9;
M=0,2..9 (no digit 1); X=0..9. EEE=NXX, EE=NX.

i)    The major metropolitan areas have codes of the form 0N1 (except 01
      which becomes 071/081 in May 1990). The complete number is then given
      as 0N1-EEE XXXX (e.g. 061-434 0000 could be a Manchester number)
      where EEE is the exchange (CO) number. 434 is a Withington exchange.

ii)   All the other areas have area codes of the form 0NMX. The complete
      number is 0NMX-EEXXXX (e.g. 0602-810000 could be a Nottingham number)
      where EE is the exchange number. 81 is a West Bridgford exchange.

Those two are the main form of UK 'phone numbers. Some of the
exchanges have not be modernised, though, and this gives rise to two
sub-classes of class ii) numbers:

iii)  Some numbers have the normal class ii) length area code and a shorter
      subscriber number (usually 5 digits instead of 6).

iv)   Other numbers have a longer area code and a shorter subscriber
      number. Thus the exchange part of the number is actually included in
      the area code, and can be 1 or 2 digits (I think). This leads to area
      code lengths of 5 or 6 digits and they are not normally written as
      one string of digits but as three digits and then the rest,
      e.g. 032 733, 029 12 (Chepstow). This leads to some multiple area
      codes like 0327 (Daventry), 032 733 (Paulerspury) and 032 736
      (Preston Capes) which are actually exchanges 33 and 36 of 0327. These
      last two codes only apply to 3 figure subscriber codes and the full 6
      digit numbers are now part of the Daventry code. This is the way
      numbers are changed into 4 figure area codes when the exchanges are
      modernised.

-> I could not find a phone book for Gatwick, only for London.
-> Pay phones at Gatwick (city code 0293); note the differing
-> lengths:

-> 34352  31633 (these two were in gate 17)
-> 511453     512600     519582     22241     30250     30620     35295
-> 512770     511452     519581     517907    17906     517905    517908
-> 511641

(17906 is an invalid number so I presume it is actually 517906)

Using the above explanation this means that 51 exchange has been
modernised but the 22, 30, 31, 34 and 35 exchanges are still of the
older variety.  This, of course, being within the Crawley area code
(0293) which also serves Gatwick Airport.

I hope that clears things up.

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


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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mu-Law Encoding/Decoding
Date: 7 Feb 90 23:51:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 77, message 2 of 5

>I need to fiddle with some u-Law encoded numbers [...]  I have a couple of
>FINE, FINE references that describe the stuff and promptly give examples that
>have the sign switched from each other.

I think I know what the confusion might be over.  In the theoretical
mu-law companding system, there is an inversion at the very end.
Therefore, in the encoding sequence, you use 0 for positive and 1 for
negative, but just before transmission you invert the whole thing.
For example, the maximum positive value will be encoded as 0111 1111.
After inversion this becomes 1000 0000.  If you are generating digital
data to pump into a codec/filter combo (or similar) circuit, then you
would want to perform the inversion and make sure the MSB ends up 1
for positive and 0 for negative values.

A-law gets even wierder, because you invert every other bit.

Personally, my favorite reference is |Digital Telephony| by Bellamy.
However, if you want the nuts-n-bolts, I suggest you get a databook
from somebody who makes codec's and take a gander at that.  I happen
to have National Semiconductor and Motorola books on my shelf, but
there are a gadzillion other folks who make them as well.


Chip Rosenthal                            |  Yes, you're a happy man and you're
[e-mail]                |  a lucky man, but are you a smart
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  man?  -David Bromberg

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Breaking the Dial Tone
Date: 6 Feb 90 02:08:14 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]> writes:

> phone gives three short beeps (there's probably a name for this signal
> but I'm sort of new to telephony) then a short period of silence until
> the second dial tone kicks in.

It's called "stutter dial tone". Some systems give this signal when
you pick up the phone to make a call if something is programmed into
the phone, such as call forwarding. The new GTD-5 in Los Gatos does
this.

> Now all is expected so far, but when my modem dials the rest of the
> string the dial tone continues.  In other words, it's as if the switch
> is now deaf to the rest of sequence.  If I try again it usually works
> fine...but then later that same night the problem may occur again.

"Cancel Call Waiting" is what is known as a "temporary Class of
Service change". Telephone switches have class of service tables to
define each and every conceivable type of service provided. The
features you have, the type of local billing (measured or unmeasured),
even the definition of your local calling area are components of the
class of service table entry.

When you pick up the phone, your class of service is fetched before
you even receive dialtone. When you dial #70 you are saying, "Get
another class of service." The one you get is just like your regular
one except that "call waiting" is denied. Now it is possible that for
some reason, in your switch the COS tables are corrupt. The COS you
get when dialing #70 also denies touchtone. If this is sporadic, then
there could be some real programming difficulties in your switch.
These are the worst to get corrected since they usually fall outside
the normal trouble shooting procedures and will ultimately require the
attention of a "real" switchman, or maybe even a programmer.

This COS change on demand can be very powerful. I have a WATS line
that is accessable from all my lines. To invoke it, I dial *14. The
dialtone immediately returns. What has happened is this: not only has
the COS changed, but the phone number as well! It becomes the POTS
number for the Full State Outwats. I have confirmed this by dialing
*14 and then the readback.

> Any suggestions or comments from Telecom readers?

To get this corrected, you will have to be persistent. You will
frequently be told that no trouble was found, mainly because most of
them don't even know what to look for. If you attempt to give them the
explanation above, you will get the telephone equivalent of a blank
stare.

Good luck!


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

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

Date: Tuesday, 6 Feb 1990 18:11:21 EST
From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light


Tom Roberts wrote in V10 #77 that '...signal delay is only a minor
consideration when telcos engineer a transmission path...'.  While
delay in the cable or fiber may, indeed, be overwhelmed by the other
delay modes he mentioned, the total delay is not a minor
consideration.  It is at the heart of the 'via net loss plan', to
which I am sure he can find a couple references in his company's
library.

Very roughly, the aggravation caused by echo is affected by the round
trip delay.  To partially circumvent this, more loss must be added on
long paths than on short ones.  Also, there are 'cross office delay'
specs on switching equipment to ensure that it doesn't mess up the
scheme.  Sometimes echo suppressors or echo cancellers are required on
very long delay paths.

And that's the news from the bottom of the rain barrel, where no one
has reviewed this but me and my echo...echo...echo...

***************************************************************
* John McHarry    [phone]             [e-mail] *
***************************************************************

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Sleaze"
Date: 8 Feb 90 01:36:39 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, mit-amt![e-mail]
(Chris Schmandt) writes:
 ...
> Anyway, a question.  The telemarketer seemed to imply that if someone
> came out to fix a problem, and it turned out to be on our side of the
> network interface, that we *had* to let them fix it on the spot at
> $55/hr.  I had always assumed that you would have the option of
> telling them thanks but I'll do it myself.  Does anyone know if you
> have a choice to refuse service on your own wiring if someone on the
> spot claims it is your wiring in response to your service call?

In New Jersey, the policy is that if they dispatch craft to a
customer's premises and the trouble turns out to be in customer owned
and maintained equipment, the customer is billed for the time spent in
the service call, and that no repairs are actually made by NJ Bell
personnel.  The hourly rate is different (do I remember $45 per
fifteen minutes?) but it applies to the time spent traveling,
diagnosing, etc, but not fixing it.


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: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Date: 6 Feb 90 22:36:14 JST (Tue)
From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>


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

>Pac*Bell is currently involved in a saturation compaign to promote its
>Centrex. There are very expensive-looking television spots, radio
>spots, double-page newspaper ads, not to mention the direct mailings.

And the funny thing is... When I tried calling the number listed in
the ad to get more information on some of Centrex's capabilities a few
months ago, I got the usual runaround and the "We're not trained to
handle that.  Someone will get back to you within a week."  Followed
by no return call.

If they are going to spend our money on expensive ads, they at least
should be prepared to deal with the responses they generate.

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

From: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: 6 Feb 90 13:09:54 GMT
Reply-To: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


Well this one got me interested. For complete privacy I went and
had my phones unlisted with noms de guerre out of a book by John
Brunner (you figure out which one). They tried to talk me out of it but
eventually took the order when I insisted upon it.

Cheers,

Kelly

PS: Unlisted under a pseudonym... now that's real privacy....  hope
the Haines people have fun!!


[Moderator's Note: A phreak phriend here in Chicago told me he does
the same thing. He has non-pub service under the name of an
author/anthropologist who has been dead a few years. No, not Margaret
Meade!  You ask DA for that name, the response is it is non-pub. You
ask for his name, there is no record at all! He's had it that way for
a dozen years with the same number. He pointed out that if/when anyone
comes to his door asking for that person, its an immediate tip-off the
visitor is up to no good. (wink! wink! smirk!). He says he has been
able to avoid Haines since 1971.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #83
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10171;
          8 Feb 90 2:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24944;
          8 Feb 90 0:33 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26330;
          7 Feb 90 23:28 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Feb 90 23:11:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #84
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Feb 90 23:10:11 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Checksum On Calling Cards (John Kennedy)
    Re: Wiring Maintainence Fee (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Call Waiting Question (Jeremy Grodberg)
    Re: Sprint Advertises "No Major System Outage" (John Higdon)
    Re: Telco Security? (John Higdon)
    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Doug Faunt)
    Re: Breaking the Dial Tone (Vance Shipley)
    Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling (Vance Shipley)
    415-694 Changes to 415-604 (Carl Moore)
    Another Reason to Run A Second Line to Your Bathroom (Will Martin)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Julian Macassey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Checksum On Calling Cards
Date: 6 Feb 90 12:32:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Kennedy)
Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD


My belief in calling card algorithms is gone, now that I've specified
the same 4-digit PIN for three different phone lines. (AT&T)

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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 11:56:18 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring Maintainence Fee
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>if there is a problem between the point the pair enters the building
>and the outlet jack in my apartment?  The landlord?  Me?

At least in U S West territory, the wiring plan includes the wiring in
the apartment building up to and including your jacks.  At least
that's the response I got when aquiring service in the Seattle area
about a year ago.  Then again, they charge $1.55/month for their
wiring plan!  And people are saying that Pacific Bell's 50 cents/month
is high.

Where I live now, there is a great tendency for people to "move" their
service themselves when they change rooms.  The punchdown block is a
mess as a result.  Often, someone else's service is knocked off
inadvertantly.  It is for this reason I decided to pay for the wiring
plan, even though I am perfectly capable of doing it myself.  If my
line goes dead (which it probably will in the next 6 months), calling
611 is just a lot easier (especially if I'm not home and need to be
able to have messages left on my machine)

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 14:32:58 PST
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Waiting Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)
Organization: Applied Biosystems Inc, Foster City, CA


In my experience, the default MNP settings are good enough to keep the
modem from hanging up when a call-waiting tone is recieved. The block
of data being transmitted is trashed by the tone, but the error
correction retransmits it and no data is lost.  In fact, I had to go
to pains to get my modem to hang up when it got the call waiting tone
(so incoming calls would have priority over modem calls, unless I
turned off call waiting).

I used to live in Rochester, and I have had no shortage of incorrect
information from RochTel.  The are certainly the worst phone company I
have worked with.  Even their special services department, which is
usually the sharpest group at the phone company, gave me bogus advice
about ordering special event lines.  So I would triple check thier
assertion that call forwarding won't work if the phone is off the
hook.


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]

"Beware: free advice is often overpriced!"

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Advertises "No Major System Outage"
Date: 6 Feb 90 19:35:20 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Steve Elias) writes:

> Sure enough, Sprint is slamming ATT by advertising that Sprint has
> never had a major system outage, in some of their new ads.

No, Sprint just has tons of local outages, screwy billing problems,
and other troubles over the years with a completely cavalier attitude.
At least AT&T copped to their problem and declared it to be
unacceptable.  Sprint always says, "what problem?"


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco Security?
Date: 6 Feb 90 19:41:47 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

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

> >Anybody have any clue as to why Pac*Bell would suddenly become paranoid?

> Perhaps for liability reasons.

Well, the mystery may be solved. I have received numerous pieces of
mail, including some from people at Pac*Bell, who have informed me
that there is construction about to go on at that office. The twelve
prefixes of crossbar are about to become 5ESS. From what I know about
5ESS, I'm not too sure that's much of an improvement, but at least it
tends to answer the question concerning the fence. They need the
parking lot as an unloading and staging area.


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

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 19:59:02 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"


How about the money for the calls that you make on a carrier that
deceitfully switches you to them being paid by you to the carrier of
YOUR CHOICE?

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Breaking the Dial Tone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 06:11:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>[e-mail] (GORDON MEYER)
writes:

>Now all is expected so far, but when my modem dials the rest of the
>string the dial tone continues.  In other words, it's as if the switch
>is now deaf to the rest of sequence.  If I try again it usually works
>fine...but then later that same night the problem may occur again.

Touchtone recognition problems can be caused by the terminal (modem here)
sending too loud a signal.  If the CO is too close, or the equipment is not
to spec, the signals can be distorted by shear loudness.

>[Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like occassionally the CO is
>sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. ...

>one of the paths extended to you for your call is either faulty,
>misprogrammed, or belongs to rotary dial customers.

>I'd suggest next time it happens you put the line on hold, call Repair
>and get them to trace it.

Maybe the second dial tone source is more critical than the first,
not recognizing the tones due to distortion.

Regarding getting a trace from the phone company, wouldn't the dial
tone (and consequently the circuit) be dropped long before you could
explain what you wanted?  Say in 15 seconds?


Vance Shipley

[Moderator's Note: Yes, it probably would be. I suppose if he had a
rotary dial phone on the line, he could grab it, and dial a digit or
two to cut the dial tone; that would buy him some time, but not much.  PT]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 07:06:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Warren Gish) writes:

>Perhaps over a year ago, someone mentioned a couple of touch-tone
>sequences that would toggle on-and-off the Call Waiting feature.  I
>have an interest in this as well.  Does anyone know what these
>touch-tone sequences are?

>[Moderator's Note: Surely. Preface the number you dial with *70, and
>call waiting will be suspended until you replace the receiver. Any

This is great!  I just tried it here and it works.  I am constantly
amazed at the intelligence level Bell Canada assumes I have.  They
have carefully hid this VERY useful feature from me to avoid confusing
me!

Actually, on second thought, they probably couldn't find a way to
tariff it separately! :)

On a similiar subject, does anyone know if you can TRANSFER a call
with "three way calling"?  (defined as: A calls B, B puts A "on hold"
and calls C, B disconnects any time after dialling C, A is connected
to C).  I'm particularly interested in Bell Canada's version of this
feature, but I'd like to know how others work.

Vance Shipley

[Moderator's Note: So far as I have seen, it cannot be done EXCEPT
under Starline/Intellidial/Centrex by whatever name. Ooops! This is a
family Digest; I shouldn't have said that nasty word, should I, JH?  I
can do what you are asking on my lines here with Starline, but under
regular three way calling, when the middle-man disconnects, all drop
off.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 0:37:48 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 415-694 Changed to 415-604


I have heard that (in 415 area) 694 at Moffett Field (it's a Mountain
View exchange) they ran out of numbers, and thus Moffett Field
converted to 604 on 15 January.  A bit more eyebrow-raising?  How much
do 9 and 0 get confused with each other because of sloppy handwriting?

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 8:30:01 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Reason to Run A Second Line to Your Bathroom

The following may appear to be unrelated to Telecom, but Trust Me;
there is a Telecom tie-in further on down...  Ah, the wonders of
modern science...

The following is on page 89 of the Jan '90 issue of Audio/Video
International, a consumer-electronics trade journal:

INFRARED REMOTE HIGHLIGHTS NEW, AUTOMATED TOILETS  by Robert Angus

Toilets normally aren't part of the professional interest of consumer
electronics retailers. But then, two new models from Toto, Japan's
largest manufacturer of such products, aren't your ordinary
run-of-the-mill models. For a mere $1725, the Toto GX II (didn't know
that toilets carry model numbers these days, did you?) can be yours,
complete with infrared remote control and digital clock-timer built
in. If you can manage without the timer, you may be interested in the
GX I, a bargain at $992.

The GX I and GX II are the latest in a fast-growing field of
electronic toilets which includes Panasonic and Sanyo, among others.
Panasonic recetly introduced its line in Germany and talks about
making the equipment available in the United States in 1990.

Actually, there are two types of electronic toilets available: the
Toto, Sanyo, and Panasonic models, whose primary features are oriented
toward user comfort and convenience, and a *diagnostic* model marketed
as part of a complete house by Misawa Homes, Japan's leading
manufacturer of modular housing. The Misawa model offers many of the
same features as the others (heated seat, retractable douche
adjustable for men and women, etc.) but performs some unique health
tests such as urinalysis. The toilet is connected directly to the home
phone line; if it finds any medical problem, it dials the family
physician immediately and files a report. [See, I TOLD you there was a
Telecom tie-in! :-) -WM]

But let's go back to the top of the line, which this year is the GX
II.  Its features include automatic lifting of both seats by an
infrared remote control or the touch of a button on the remote control
panel, a heating coil in the padded seat which can be preset with the
aid of the clock/timer, the retractable (and adjustable) douche/water
jet cleaner (not only the focus of the stream, but also its strength
and intensity are adjustable from a fine mist to a strong jet. The
water temperature, of course, is controlled as well). When pressure is
removed from the seat and the water jet has accomplished its task, a
soothing (and drying) blast of warm air emanates from under the seat,
and with it, a spray of disinfectant/deoderant. In order to keep
children from watering the bathroom floor when playing with the remote
control, there's a clear plastic shield which allows the
water-squirting nozzle to do its thing harmlessly, in plain view.

***End of item***

My wife accuses me of having the seat wired in the batroom, because
the phone tends to ring just when she sits down. Now I can do it for
real! :-) I can just program it to call our own number instead of the
doctor's...

We were discussing the large cost difference between the GX I and GX
II; it seems too much to just be a timer. Maybe the II is a
two-seater? (The item does mention "both seats" -- don't know Japanese
toilet design so maybe there are not two seats on top of each other
there... :-) Also I find the idea of needing to control the toilet
from far enough away to have to use a remote control to be intriguing,
to say the least. There are some porn stars that might need that
feature, maybe...

Technology marches on...

Regards, Will

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: 7 Feb 90 14:30:13 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


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

> julian macassey <[e-mail]> writes:

> >           If you really think that you are so wonderful that the great
> >   unwashed should not be able to call you, there is a cheap and useful
> >   solution: List your phone under a nom de guerre. Yes, just tell the
> >   telco that you want the name in the phone book to be Ivan Boesky or
> >   Jim Bakker.

> Seriously, will the telco do this for you?

    Yes, the telco does this for me on a residential line. It does
it for my girlfriend who has a residential line. Some "Nom de Guerres"
are creative and some are dreary and unimaginative things like
mother's maiden name. I personally use the name of an obscure African
dictator. And worse is yet to come, see below:

In article <[e-mail]>, rtech!llama.rtech.UUCP![e-mail]
(Jim Shankland) writes:

> Two such entries from the San Francisco white pages (last name first
> for both):

>     Wheldone Rumproast IV
>     Wong Numba


    In the 818 area code (La Canada neighborhood) phone book are
the folowing entries (last name first for both):

    Black Jesus
    White Jesus

    Yup, they are listed so if you don't believe me, you can call
information -:)

Yours,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #84
*****************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12826;
          8 Feb 90 3:13 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13065;
          8 Feb 90 1:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24944;
          8 Feb 90 0:33 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Feb 90 0:15:54 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #85
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Feb 90 00:15:00 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Official Country Codes List, Based On CCITT Blue Book (1989) (J. Covert)
    IDDD Codes (John R. Covert)
    Re: Revised Country Code List (Dolf Grunbauer)
    Re: Ficticious Account Numbers: Useful Service of Pacific Bell (J. Wasilko)
    Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was: Sprint Stuff) (Alan P. Curtis)
    NYNEX Fast Track Digital Directory (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 21:28:31 PST
From: "John R. Covert  07-Feb-1990 0025" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Official Country Codes List, Based on the CCITT Blue Book (1989)


    World Numbering Zone 1 (Integrated Numbering Area)
1    Canada, USA including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,
    Jamaica, Barbados, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Cayman Islands,
    British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Dominican
    Republic, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Christopher and Nevis,
    St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Bequia, Mustique,
    Prune (Palm) Island, Union Island), Trinidad and Tobago*

    Note: Mexico locations with Zone 1 style area codes are a hack
    for use from the U.S. and Canada *only* and are not official.

    *Trinidad and Tobago has been assigned code 296.  Cutover date unknown.

    World Numbering Zone 2:  Africa, Greenland, Faroe Islands, Aruba
20    Egypt
21    Integrated Numbering Area:
    Morocco (212 in service, also has 210, 211 assigned, but not used)
    Algeria (213 in service, also has 214, 215 assigned, but not used)
    Tunisia (216 in service, also has 217 assigned, but not used)
    Libya    (218 in service, also has 219 assigned, but not used)
220    The Gambia
221    Senegal
222    Mauritania
223    Mali
224    Guinea
225    Ivory Coast
226    Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
227    Niger
228    Togolese Republic
229    Benin
230    Mauritius
231    Liberia
232    Sierra Leone
233    Ghana
234    Nigeria
235    Chad
236    Central African Republic
237    Cameroon
238    Cape Verde
239    Sao Tome and Principe
240    Equatorial Guinea
241    Gabonese Republic
242    Congo
243    Zaire
244    Angola
245    Guinea-Bissau
246    Diego Garcia
247    Ascension Island
248    Seychelles
249    Sudan
250    Rwanda
251    Ethiopia
252    Somalia
253    Djibouti
254    Kenya
255    Tanzania including Zanzibar
256    Uganda
257    Burundi
258    Mozambique
259    Zanzibar (this code is assigned in E.163, but use Tanzania, 255 54)
260    Zambia
261    Madagascar
262    Reunion (France)
263    Zimbabwe
264    Namibia
265    Malawi
266    Lesotho
267    Botswana
268    Swaziland
269    Comoros and Mayotte
27    South Africa
295    San Marino (to be moving out of Italy)
296    Trinidad and Tobago (to be moving out of +1 809)
297    Aruba (Autonomous from the Netherlands Antilles as of 1 Jan 86)
298    Faroe Islands (Denmark)
299    Greenland
Spare:    28, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294

    World Numbering Zones 3 & 4: Europe except Soviet Union
30    Greece
31    Netherlands
32    Belgium
33    France
33 628    Andorra
33 93    Monaco
34    Spain
350    Gibraltar
351    Portugal
352    Luxembourg
353    Ireland
354    Iceland
355    Albania
356    Malta
357    Cyprus
358    Finland
359    Bulgaria
36    Hungary
37    German Democratic Republic (East)
38    Yugoslavia
39    Italy
39 541    San Marino (moving to code +295, cutover date unknown)
3966982    Vatican City
40    Romania
41    Switzerland
41 75    Liechtenstein
42    Czechoslovakia
43    Austria
44    United Kingdom
45    Denmark
46    Sweden
47    Norway
48    Poland
49    Federal Republic of Germany (West)

    World Numbering Zone 5: Mexico, Central and South America
                + St. Pierre & Miquelon
500    Falkland Islands
501    Belize
502    Guatemala
503    El Salvador
504    Honduras
505    Nicaragua
506    Costa Rica
507    Panama
508    St. Pierre et Miquelon (France)
509    Haiti
51    Peru
52    Mexico
53    Cuba
53 99    Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base (located on Cuba, dialable only from U.S.)
54    Argentina
55    Brazil
56    Chile
57    Colombia
58    Venezuela
590    French Antilles (St. Barthelemy, St. Martin, Guadeloupe)
591    Bolivia
592    Guyana
593    Ecuador
594    French Guiana
595    Paraguay
596    Martinique
597    Suriname
598    Uruguay
599    Netherlands Antilles (Saint Maarten, Saba, Statia, Curacao, Bonaire)

    World Numbering Zone 6: Pacific
60    Malaysia
61    Australia
62    Indonesia
63    Philippines
64    New Zealand
65    Singapore
66    Thailand
670    Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan)
671    Guam
672    Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, Christmas I. Cocos I.)
673    Brunei
674    Nauru
675    Papua New Guinea
676    Tonga
677    Solomon Islands
678    Vanuatu (New Hebrides)
679    Fiji
680    Palau
681    Wallis and Futuna
682    Cook Islands
683    Niue
684    American Samoa
685    Western Samoa
686    Kiribati Republic (Gilbert Islands)
687    New Caledonia
688    Tuvalu (Ellice Islands)
689    French Polynesia
690    Tokelan
691    Micronesia
692    Marshall Islands
Spare:    693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699

    World Numbering Zone 7
7    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

    World Numbering Zone 8: East Asia + Marisat
81    Japan
82    Korea (Republic of) (South)
84    Viet Nam
850    Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North)
852    Hong Kong
853    Macao
855    Khmer Republic
856    Laos
86    China (People's Republic)
871    Marisat, Atlantic Ocean
872    Marisat, Pacific Ocean
873    Marisat, Indian Ocean
880    Bangladesh
886    Taiwan
Spare:    80, 83, 851, 854, 857, 858, 859
    881, 882, 883, 884, 885, 887, 888, 889, 89

    Note: 886 is not assigned to Taiwan by the CCITT.  The CCITT notes that
    the People's Republic of China has assigned 866 to Taiwan.  88x codes
    are not to be assigned until all the other 8xx codes are gone.
    All the 87x codes are assigned to the Maritime Mobile Service.

    World Numbering Zone 9: Middle East, Indian Subcontinent
90    Turkey
91    India
92    Pakistan
93    Afghanistan
94    Sri Lanka
95    Burma
960    Maldives
961    Lebanon
962    Jordan
963    Syria
964    Iraq
965    Kuwait
966    Saudi Arabia
967    Yemen Arab Republic
968    Oman
969    Yemen (People's Democratic Republic of) (Aden)
971    United Arab Emirates
972    Israel
973    Bahrain
974    Qatar
976    Mongolia
977    Nepal
98    Iran
Spare:    970, 975, 978, 979, 99

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 22:25:07 PST
From: "John R. Covert  07-Feb-1990 0105" <[e-mail]>
Subject: IDDD Codes


John Levine points out some errors in the country code list posted by
Chris Johnston.  In a separate posting I have re-posted the correct
list based on the latest CCITT Blue Book.

The following comments apply to John Levine's posting:

>St. Barts and the French part of St. Martin are admistratively part of
>Guadeloupe, and I believe that they share its code 590.

This is correct.  596 is now _only_ Martinique.  Up until about five
years ago the entire French Antilles was 596, at which point
Guadeloupe (including French St. Martin and St. Barts) was split off
to 590.

>>Guantanamo Bay        +53; All Points 99

>The country code for all of Cuba is 53.  I realize that it's not dialable
>from the U.S. except via a 700 number in Florida that rarely works.  Can
>you dial, say, Havana from other places via [phone] or some such?

Yes.  Cuba is dialable from Canada, the U.K., Switzerland, and other
places.  The city code for Havana is 7.  A 1986 Reading, England,
phone book indicates that Havana is/was the only city served.

Guantanamo Bay can _only_ be reached from the U.S.  When dialling 011
53 99 xxxx from the U.S. you can hear dialtone from the PBX at
Guantanamo Base just before the four digit extension is dialled.  0xxx
(zero followed by anything) gets you the base operator.


/john

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

Organization: Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems,
Subject: Re: Revised Country Code List
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 13:27:11 MET
From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>

Patrick,

    I compare the list of Chris Johnston, which he obtained using the
list supplied by Mike Grant, with our coutry code list showing the
following differences and updates. Here are the results:

I found the following deviation (mostly spelling differences and
adding of some cities):

> Antigua        +1; All Points 809
Antigua and Barbuda    +1; All Points 809

> Aruba            +297; All Points *
Aruba            +297; All Points 8

> Austria        +43; Vienna 222
Austria            +43; Vienna 1 or 222

> Bangladesh        +880
Bangladesh        +880; Dhaka 2

> Belgium        +32
Belgium            +32; Brussel 2

> Brunei        +673
Brunei Darussalam    +673

> Burma            None?
See at end of article

> China            +86
China Peoples Republic    +86; Beijing 1; Shanghai 21

> Cuba            +53
Cuba            +53; Havana 7

> England        +44
I wonder whether the name England is still appropriate. See United Kingdom

> Faeroe Islands (MCI)    +45
> Faeroe Islands (AT&T)    +298
Faeroe Is        +298; All Points *
(from our point of view)

> Fiji            +679
Fiji            +679; All Points *

> Greenland        +299
Greenland        +299; All Points *

> French Antilles    +596; All Points * (Martinique,S.Barthelemy,S.Martin)
Netherlands (Antilles)    +599; Saba 4; Bonaire 7; Curacao 9; Sint Maarten 5

> Guadaloupe        +590; All Points *
Guadaloupe incl. S. Martin    +590; All Points *

Hmm, are we talking about the same S. Martin ?  I know the French and
the Dutch share this island (and use a different country code), but is
there another S. Martin ??

> Korea (South?)    +82; Pusan 51; Seoul 2
Korea (South)        +82; Pusan 51; Seoul 2

> Lebanon        None?
See at end of article

> Malawi        +265
Malawi            +265; All Points *

> Nepal            +977; All Points *
Nepal            +977; Kathmandu 1; Pokhara 61; Birgunj: 51

> Netherlands (Antilles)+599; Aruba 8; Curacao 9; Sint Maarten 5
Netherlands (Antilles)    +599; Saba 4; Bonaire 7; Curacao 9; Sint Maarten 5

> Nevis            +1; All Points 809
S. Christopher-Nevis    +1; All Points 809

> Portugal        +351; Lisbon 1
Portugal, Azoren, Madeira  +351; Lisbon 1

> Saint Pierre        +508; All Points *
Saint Pierre en Miquelon+508; All Points *

> Saint Vincent        +1; All Points 809
Saint Vincent en Grenadinen    +1; All Points 809

> Saipan        +670
Mariana Is        +670
Is Saipan another name of Mariana Is ?

> Suriname        +597
Suriname        +597; All Points *

> Switzerland        +41; Berne 31; Burgdorf 34; Geneva 22; Zurich 1;
Switzerland & Liechtenstein   +41; Berne 31; Burgdorf 34; Geneva 22; Zurich 1

> Syria            None?
See at end of article

> USSR            +7;
USSR            +7; Moscow 095; Kiev 044; Leningrad 812

> Yemen Arab Republic    +967; Taiz 4
Yemen (North)        +967; Taiz 4

> Zambia        +260;
Zambia            +260; Lusaka 1; Mdola 2

Besides the above differences our telephone book contained these
coutries which were not given in the original list:

American Virgin Is    +1; All Points 809
Angola            +244; Luanda 2
Reunion            +262; All Points *

 From Danile O'Callagham (University of Melbourne) I have got these codes:

Solomon Is        +677
Palau Is        +689
Cook Is            +682
Western Samoa        +685
Christmas Is, Cocos Is, Norfolk Is    +672


Just out of curiosity I called the telephone information number
(which is 008 in the Netherlands) and asked the lady whether they also
supply country codes. She answered: "Of course, which countries do you
want to know ?".  After unsuccesfull attempts of two of the countries
below she stated that she did not have the numbers of these countries
and gave a special number instead (which is 06-0418).

The reason is that these countries cannot be dialed directly (no
automatic calls) but calls to these countries should be requested on a
special number (which is 06-0410). The lady on the special foreign
telephone numbers could supply me some country codes (note that this
is the situation from the Netherlands, the `via' means that when
asking for a telephone connection to the involved country the Dutch
operator has to call this country/city):

Albania            unknown, calls go via Rome, Italy
Burma            +95
Falkland        +500 (?); calls go via London, UK
Jemen (South)        unknown, calls go via London, UK
Korea (North)        +862
Lebanon            +961
Mongolia        unknown, calls go via USSR
Syria            +963
Vietnam            +84


Dolf Grunbauer          Tel: [phone]  Internet [e-mail]
Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems  UUCP ....!mcvax!philapd!dolf
Dept. SSP, P.O. Box 245, 7300 AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands         n   n   n
It's a pity my .signature is too small to show you my solution of  a + b = c

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 23:21:40 EST
From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fictitious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell


Sprint offers call-accounting codes.

When you dial a long-distance, after 11 digits you get a second
dialtone where you dial any two digits. The bill splits up all calls
according to the two digit accounting code.

My roomates and I love it since we don't have to pay the surcharge for
calling card dialed calls, and it avoids the 'who made the call to
Alaska' syndrome.

Also, I finally got a straight answer from the droids at Rochester Tel
(after talking to 5 [count 'em, five] people). They offer call
forwarding on busy to a fixed number (i.e., the number can only be
changed from the CO). I can't belive that only one out of five reps
knew about this service.


Jeff

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

From: Alan P Curtis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fourteen-Digit PINs (was: Sprint Stuff)
Date: 7 Feb 90 19:48:18 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Alan P. Curtis,55212,cb,1j313e,6148604749)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Michael Weiland) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 78, message 3 of 13

}... so the number on my FON card is a different
}area code as well as different number.

}It's just as well -- as has been pointed out here, why have a phone
}number as part of the account number.

I wonder what happens when the person WITH that phone number goes and
gets a FON card???


Alan P. Curtis | AT&T Bell Labs | [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 23:43:49 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX Fast Track Digital Directory


NYNEX is now offering their published telephone listings on compact
disk.  They say their compact disk will provide nearly instant access
to the ten million published listings from virtually every white pages
directory in the six-state region covered by NYNEX: Maine, New
Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and part of
Connecticut.

All you need, they say in their ads, is a Fast Track disc and
software, an IBM or IBM-compatible PC and a CD-ROM reader.

NYNEX updates the Fast Track CD monthly. If you subscribe to this
service, each month you will receive a completely new disk with
approximatly 600,000 changes from the prior issue. Obviously, using
Fast Track instead of conventional Directory Assistance you get the
listings you want in a fraction of the time you would spend doing a
manual lookup or to make a Directory Assistance call. The information
I got from NYNEX -- no prices quoted in the introductory mailing --
does not specify at what point the *cost* per lookup becomes less than
the cost of a call to DA.

The material from NYNEX also discusses the use of a LAN package so
that an entire network of PC's can share the Fast Track database.

They are directing their marketing efforts for this new product toward
credit processing centers, collection agencies, and government
agencies, but invite any business person who makes heavy use of DA in
the NYNEX region to investigate the product.

You can receive a free Fast Track demo diskette by calling 1-800-338-0646.
I suggest you may wish to have them send it to your company, by name,
at your business address. I doubt they are interested in individuals
who are curiosity-seekers.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #85
*****************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02034;
          9 Feb 90 0:42 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14595;
          8 Feb 90 22:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10953;
          8 Feb 90 21:27 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Feb 90 20:45:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #86
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Feb 90 20:45:27 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (Karl Denninger)
    Telecommunication Troubleshooting, Data Lines  (Phillip A. Remaker)
    Thank You For Using Vista United (John Bruner)
    Rochester Telephone 10xxx Listings (Robert Kaplan)
    Local and Long Distance Dialling in the UK (Kevin Hopkins)
    How Do WATS Lines Work? (Steve Huff)
    Re: 415-694 Changed to 415-604 (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
    Re: Another Blatant Error of MCI (David C. Troup)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 90 16:41:54 GMT


We're in an interesting situation here.

We'd love to buy a Panasonic Key-set system (6 line X 16 station).

We can't find them.

Why not?  SOMEONE has managed to convince the Commerce Department that
it would be a good idea to cause trouble for these people -- in the
form of import restrictions.

Needless to say, this has us horribly pissed off.  The US-made gear is
available, sure, but it's (1) inferior, and (2) a LOT more expensive.

Who's behind this complaint?  Is it AT&T?  Does anyone know, factually,
who started this nonsense?

Whoever did this, they just lost all of our business (if we do any work
with them now, or if we buy any of their goods/services).

Why can't American companies decide to compete by providing a better
product and service, instead of slapping input duties on things.....
it's beyond me.


Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [[phone]], Voice: [[phone]]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.        "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 22:11:34 PST
From: "Phillip A. Remaker" <pepsi![e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunication Troubleshooting, Data Lines
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA


I am in need of a Data Line analyzer that will BERT leased lines at up
to t1 speeds, and provide data decoding from HDLC, DDCMP, and X.25
format.  I was looking at the Network Communications Corporation model
7100 which runs about $15k and does MUCH more than we'll ever need.

Has anyone had experience on this model?  Would you care to comment?

Can you suggest another analyzer to meet my line needs?  We use this
until to troubleshoot our WAN lines that attach our ethernets and this
unit may be overkill.

Reviews of the producat and suggestions are welcome.


Phillip A. Remaker A.M.D. M/S 167 P.O. Box 3453 Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3000
[e-mail]  Cutting Edge Networking...Close to the Jugular...
"It's only work if someone makes you do it."  -Calvin


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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 08:57:38 CST
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thank You For Using Vista United


Last week my (new) wife and I were at Disney World in Florida.  Disney
apparently has their own telephone company.  On a couple of occasions
I placed some long-distance calls from our hotel room.  There was no
mention of their long-distance carrier in any hotel literature, so I
dialed 0+NPA+NXX-XXXX.  There was a ringing tone, which was "answered"
by a "ka-bong", to which I entered my calling card number.  After a
pause, it said "thank you for using Vista United."  At this point I
hung up and tried 10288+0+, but that gave me a fast busy, so I
called the front desk and asked what the long distance carrier was.

They told me it was AT&T, so I asked them why it mentioned Vista
United.  "Oh, that's the company which provides local service, just
like Illinois Bell."  I was somewhat dubious of this, but I decided to
go for it anyway.  By next month I should know whether I really had
AT&T or whether an unpleasant surprise will be lurking in a future
bill.

I suppose that I should have placed the long-distance calls from the
AT&T exhibit in Epcot Center.


John Bruner    Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois
    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 02:40:28 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rochester Telephone 10xxx Listings


Yes, RochTel may not be the greatest of phone companies, but I'll say
this for them: they *do* list right in the white pages the LD
companies accessible with 10XXX dialing *and* even the 10XXX numbers:

(from p.32, 1990 White Pages)

ACC Long Distance...............10234
AT&T............................10288
ITT.............................10488
MCI.............................10222
RCI Corp-A Rochester Tel. Co....10211
Teleconnect USA.................10835
US Sprint Dial 1 Svc............10333

Note they that they are open enough that they don't even list their
own company first.  They also provide a page each of information from
ATT and RCI.  (Apparently the others didn't provide any).  ATT's says
nothing about 10288.

Anyone know of other independent phone companies that list 10XXX codes
right in the white pages?


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion.


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

Subject: Local and Long Distance Dialling in the UK
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 90 15:19:43 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


Some time ago people were complaining that in the States they had to
remember which form of a phone number to dial depending on whether the
call was local, long distance, or long distance within the same area
code. Well over here it seems that you can dial the same form of a
number from within the whole of the UK.

It used to be the case that you dialled the whole phone number (area
code + subscribers number) from the whole of the UK, except when
within the same area code when you *had* to leave off the area code. A
recording used to intercept saying "061 not needed when dialling
within Manchester", for example. Now it seems that you can dial the
area code even when within the same area code. I presume that the
billing is local. Well at least this works within 0602 area code
(tried in exchanges 48, 51, 58 and 81).

I think this must be one of the benefits of having a privatised
UK-wide monopoly (BT) :-) All we need now is equal access to the one
allowed alternate long distance carrier.

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

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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Do WATS Lines Work?
Date: 8 Feb 90 15:04:10 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Can somebody tell me if there is a TECHNICAL reason that, generally
speaking, you can't dial an 800 number in your own area code?  Is this
due to tariffs, or is there another reason?


E-mail please; I'll post if there's enough interest.


Steve Huff
Internet:  [e-mail]
Bitnet:    [e-mail]
EmCon:     K1TR  or  KW02   (If you have access, please say so!)


[Moderator's Note: More and more often now, you can dial an 800 number
in your own area code, and even your own community. I frequently use
my 800 number from within Chicago to call home rather than feed some
coins into a COCOT, or risk a huge charge if I accidentally use an AOS
with my Illinois Bell card. Maybe other readers have some additional
background on this.  PT]

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

From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 415-694 Changed to 415-604
Date: 8 Feb 90 21:29:54 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 84, message 9 of 11

>I have heard that (in 415 area) 694 at Moffett Field (it's a Mountain
>View exchange) they ran out of numbers, and thus Moffett Field
>converted to 604 on 15 January.  A bit more eyebrow-raising?  How much
>do 9 and 0 get confused with each other because of sloppy handwriting?

It appears that this isn't the only Department of Defense (DoD)
installation with an exchange conversion like this.  Looking at the
new, December 1989, edition of the DoD phone directory for the
Washington, DC area shows that a bunch of the numbers that were
previously 202-692-xxxx are now 202-602-xxxx.  What will make life
even more interesting is that, in this phone book, only _some_, but
_not_ all, of the 692-xxxx numbers were converted over to 602-xxxx.

The Autovon exchange for these former 692-xxxx numbers has also
changed from 222-xxxx to 332-xxxx.  As 692- is a DoD only exchange,
this appears to be the addition of a new DoD exchange, with an already
installed, and now somewhat confused, user base.

*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger      CompuServe:  74236,1645    Standard Disclaimer
ARPAnet (Defense Data Network):                [e-mail]
*******************************************************************************

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

From: "David C. Troup  -  Skunk Works : 2600hz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Blatant Error of MCI
Date: 7 Feb 90 22:01:30 GMT
Reply-To: "David C. Troup  -  Skunk Works : 2600hz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Carroll College Stealth Rock Climbing Club


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Crum)
writes:

>Now, my long distance carrier is MCI, as revealed by 1-700-555-4141.

>I will call MCI and USWest as necessary to switch back to AT&T, but
>can anyone tell me how I can do more, e.g. report the MCI error to the
>Public Utilities Commission or help AT&T with their suit against MCI?

I know the feeling. My girlfriend (who lives in a dorm), needed a
calling card for her room mate's calls home. She got the MCI free
calling card, and explicitly explained to MCI that she did NOT want
MCI and her long distance carrier (after a little coaching from me! :-).

All went fine, and she received her card. I was over to her room a
week later, and noticed her room mate making a couple of calls. I
asked what they're service charge was for using the card itself, and
they didnt know there was one. So I examined ALL of MCI's information
that they sent her, and nowhere was an explanation of the service
charge on card usage.

I called MCI immediatly, and talked to the service representative.
Upon asking her what the card surcharge was, she said she didn't know
if MCI had one! (also, it took me 4 minutes of SILENCE to get an MCI
representative...nice service MCI!) So the Rep transfered me to her
supervisor, and I asked him the same question. He nicely explained the
inter-lata, and long distance rates to me. I kindly asked the
Supervisor to stop beating-around the bush and tell me what their card
surcharge was. He had to look it up!! He finally told me it was 75
cents for EACH call using the card.

Later that night, I wanted to go online with my portable computer, and
I tried to reach Sprint's 800 port on her line. After 3 minutes, I hung
up and dialed again. This time, I waited almost 5 minutes. Thinking
that there was a line problem, I called a TSPS operator to see if she
could place a call for me. "Hello, MCI may I help you?" WHAT!?!?! I
replied, "Excuse me, but what are YOU doing on this line?". "You
selected MCI as your long distance carrier sir." I couldn't believe
what I was hearing! After we ASKED them NOT to be our long distance
carrier.

Well, that was October, it's now Febuary, and my girlfriend just
received ANOTHER bill from MCI. They are threating to take her to
court for not paying her bill. That night, I told the supervisor to
get MCI off of our line as the carrier, and he said it would be done
by next morning. MCI continued to provide long distance service until
January 11th when we had the line disconnected.

So, what can we do?


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."

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Date: 7 Feb 90 23:34:16 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Vance Shipley <[e-mail]> writes:

> [In response to my statement that there are no feature phones]
> This will probably not be the first response to point out that Centrex
> can and does (Northern Telecom DMS at least) allow for ALL these
> features and many, many more!

You're right; I have received considerable mail pointing this out. I
already know about that. But Pac*Bell doesn't offer any of this, and
my entire diatribe was a response to all of those expensive Pac*Bell
commercials. I have been told that "feature phones" will become
available with ISDN.

A friend of mine pointed out that Pac*Bell would probably impose a
corkage charge if I showed up with my own CO switch when ordering
Centrex :-)  Read my lips: Pac*Bell only offers vanilla,
single-line-style Centrex.

BTW, more spots have emerged, each one proclaiming a different
"exclusive" feature of Centrex. The latest laugh is the one that shows
a power outage. The split screen shows the hapless PBX user slamming
his phone down (presumably because it doesn't work) and the Centrex
user calling someone, and then saying, "Oh, the power's out here...".
I'm sure with his computers down, his lights out, etc., he's going to
get a lot of work done! But it's all moot: battery backup is quite
common in PBX these days. Particularly in radio stations.

> [Moderator's Note: The service order changes handled via Centrex Mate
> are batched with all other changes, and put into effect sometime
> around three in the morning when all other changes for the day are
> done.

How handy. Changes I type into the maintenance port of the ITT switch
take effect immediately, at no charge.

> Did you know Amoco Oil
> Company, which is headquartered here, gets billings from Illinois Bell
> for about one million dollars *per month* on local service and
> equipment only? Its an 8000-line Centrex; the CO (Chicago-Lakeshore)
> is in the third sub-basement of the Amoco Building itself.  PT]

Sounds like a bargain to me. Why don't they just call it rental of
telco provided equipment? Or would that be a violation of the MFJ? Do
you suppose Centrex is a very sneaky way to get around the
proscription against telcos providing equipment?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #86
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04093;
          9 Feb 90 1:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19079;
          8 Feb 90 23:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14595;
          8 Feb 90 22:32 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Feb 90 21:56:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #87
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Feb 90 21:55:51 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: NYNEX Fast Track Digital Directory (Dave Pridgen)
    Re: Breaking The Dial Tone (Gordon Meyer)
    Re: Breaking the Dial Tone (Dave Pridgen)
    Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Wiring Maintainence Fee (Bill Darden)
    Re: 14-digit PINs (was: Sprint Stuff) (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Douglas Mason)
    Re: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Peggy Shambo)
    Re: Noms de Guerre (Carl A. Pick)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Leonard P Levine)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Bryan Stearns)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Travis Lee Winfrey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Pridgen <dsac!dsachg1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Fast Track Digital Directory
Date: 8 Feb 90 21:31:58 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Ogden, UT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(TELECOM Moderator):

> NYNEX is now offering their published telephone listings on compact
> disk.  They say their compact disk will provide nearly instant access
> to the ten million published listings from virtually every white pages
> directory in the six-state region covered by NYNEX: Maine, New
> Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and part of
> Connecticut.

US West has had this service for almost a year now.  I used it at the
last company I worked for.  Their disk has over 12 million listings
from the fourteen Northwestern state that they cover.  The service is
quite nice offering amazingly fast lookup by city, state, name, phone
number, or street address.

The program, which also only requires a CD-ROM drive and a IBM-PC has
many options including the ability to screen out listings by
residential or business (all the listings have a flag which tell
whether they are residential or business), various sorting options,
eg. name, city, zip, etc., and numerous print options allowing you to
print to a file or printer (giving you a lot of parameters you can
change).

The service, called Locator Plus is available by monthly, quarterly,
half yearly or annual updates.  I believe the service runs from about
4000 to 14,000 dollars per year depending on how many updates you
contract for.


David Pridgen
Unify Corp
Site Consultant


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

Date: 08 Feb 90 20:52:47 EST
From: GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Breaking The Dial Tone


Thanks to those who have replied to my message about a "deaf" switch
after suspending call-waiting.  I'll take the ammo you have given me
and call the repair service again.  I'll let you know if I get
anywhere with them.

It's been suggested that if the CO is sending me a "rotary only" dial
tone that I could, provided I am quick enough (very quick!), contact
the repair office and get them to trace the line. Well, it occurs to
me that if I have been handed a "rotary only" line I ought to be able
to dial out on that line (via pulse dialing of course). So if it
happens again during business hours I'll run out to the kitchen, put
my GTE phone on pulse, and dial the repair service and tell them that
the line I am currently using has a problem.  Well, it's worth a shot
anyway. :)


GRM

[e-mail] / GEnie and DELPHI: GRMEYER

[Moderator's Note: But the part that gives the dial tone does not
stick around for the entire call; if it did, it would be a breeze to
trace it. The dial tone does its thing, then leaves.  PT]

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

From: Dave Pridgen <dsac!dsachg1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Breaking the Dial Tone
Date: 8 Feb 90 21:12:35 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Ogden, UT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Vance Shipley):

>>[Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like occassionally the CO is
>>sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. ...

> [Moderator's Note: Yes, it probably would be. I suppose if he had a
> rotary dial phone on the line, he could grab it, and dial a digit or
> two to cut the dial tone; that would buy him some time, but not much.  PT]

If he had a rotary dial phone on the line he could call service on it then
the line would be open and they could test it while he was talking to them.

David Pridgen
Unify Corp.
Site Consultant


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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Advertisement is Stupid
Date: 9 Feb 90 02:23:50 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] writes:

> Place this under the heading of "Sprint Advertisement is Stupid".
> 1)  Will MCI reconsider their decision not to kick AT&T while it was
>     down?

Well, not that they're suing the s$!t out of each other, I'm sure marketing
has those ads waiting to be let loose.

> 2)  Has MCI had a major outage that would justify the tag on Sprint's
>     ads, e. g., is there any reason to think Sprint more reliable than
>     AT&T?

Yep. About 1 year ago, in Illinois (no, *NOT* Hinsdale). Some tornado
came down on a microwave repeater tower in a corn feild, and where
once was a mighty tall tower was reduced to something resembling what
a spider web looks like when you smash it with a fly swatter.

Seems that's where MCI's upper region backbone came barrelling
through, like 24 DS/3 channels. The lower U.S. 'backbone' (Ha! An
uncompleted fiber right-of-way and about 6 DS/3 ckts.) had a hard
time, and the blockage went up to 65 percent at one point (one swich
made it to the 80 percent mark for a few minutes once). MCI has 5
levels of outages...1 through 4, and the 5th is called catostrophic.
Well, this was officially the 5th level. Took them about 3 days to get
a replacement tower put up. Not very pretty from where I was at
(Western Network Management in Hayward, CA.).

Anyway, that's why MCI hasn't pulled the 'No Major Outage' ads out.

     Robert Gutierrez/NASA Ames Research/NSI Project Network Operations.

[Moderator's Note: Would you believe Hinsdale was nearly *two* years
ago?  Time flies.  PT]

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

From: "Bill Darden" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring Maintainence Fee
Date: 8 Feb 90 19:02:51 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA


Don't waste your money unless you are remodeling; whichcase, cancel
after you are through.

BiLL.....

[Moderator's Note: But in the case of Illinois Bell at least, you have
to subscribe for a minimum period *before* using the inside wiring
service; for some minimum period of time in total; and like any
insurance policy, they reserve the right to not pay off (or in this
case, bill you) for deliberate damage.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 16:52:45 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 14-digit PINs (was: Sprint stuff)


When I first got my Sprint FON card, I was disappointed that it was so
long and not related to my real phone number.  (I don't want to carry
the stupid card around, both because of the hassle and the security
risk).  I called and asked for one like AT&T that had my phone number
plus a 4 digit PIN.  They said that they couldn't do that - for
security reasons.  But someone on the net has such a beast?  It
doesn't matter much now; I've got it memorized now, and come to think
of it, everyone does know I have a calling card, so 4 digits isn't
very good security.


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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 21:19:25 GMT


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

>Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN
>magnetically encoded on the card.  It is nice of the banks, however,
>to have thought of not printing it in a human-readable place on the
>card.

Actually, my understanding is that ATM cards do NOT contain the pin
number on it for obvious reasons.

I'm not concrete on this because I can't cite my source offhand, but
it seems to me that the ATM user enters the PIN number, which is sent
downline (encrypted) and a binary (1/0) response is sent back as to if
it was correct or not.  The system never sends downline anything to
the effect of "The PIN number is NOT xxxx, it is yyyy".

One of the reasons I belive this is that when I use my American
Express card in the bank machines, or my Citibank Visa, I can enter a
PIN number that was set by me LONG after I had the cards in my
possession.  ie: there was no way that they could have encoded the pin
number I selected BEFORE I received the cards!

Again, I can't really justify this, but it seems logical...


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 16:44:29 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>[Moderator's Note: So far as I have seen, it cannot be done EXCEPT
>under Starline/Intellidial/Centrex by whatever name. Ooops! This is a
>family Digest; I shouldn't have said that nasty word, should I, JH? I
>can do what you are asking on my lines here with Starline, but under
>regular three way calling, when the middle-man disconnects, all drop
>off.  PT]

About 5 years ago, I had residential Centrex from Pacific Bell (then
called Premiere 2/6 (it's now Commstar II, John?)).  It did NOT
provide call transfer.  If you invoked 3 way calling and then hung up,
all parties would be disconnected.  I don't know if there was a
difference just because it was residential service, though.

[Moderator's Note: And the first version of IBT's Starline likewise
did not offer this, but the later version allows transfer of a call to
anywhere -- on your premises or off-premises.   PT]

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

From: Peggy Shambo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peggy Shambo)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 02:18:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William
Degnan) writes:

>In a FidoNet echo (partly in jest), I discussed the use of "other"
>names as the listed name as an alternate to unlisted/non published
>service.

'Way back when I lived in Schenectady NY and was serviced by NY
Tel/NYNEX, I had an interesting chat with one of the business office
representives.  She told me I could put my phone *listing* in any name
I desire.. it didn't even have to be my own.  I asked her "You mean I
could use my deceased grandfather's name?" (thinking that a male name
would be safer than a female name).  "Yes", she replied.


Peg Shambo           | Scheduled date of departure for England:
[e-mail]  | March 1, arriving at LHR March 2... Yay!!!
             | I am now an Irish Citizen, awaiting Passport

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

From: "Carl A. Pick" <grc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Noms de Guerre
Date: 8 Feb 90 06:15:09 GMT
Reply-To: "Carl A. Pick" <grc![e-mail]>
Organization: GENROCO, Inc., Slinger, WI


Our home number is in my wife's maiden name. Besides being a free
unlisted number, it has the benefit that if someone calls asking for
Barbara [maiden-name], I know it's probably someone trying to sell us
something.

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: 8 Feb 90 17:17:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (julian macassey):
>>     Wheldone Rumproast IV
>>     Wong Numba

>     Black Jesus
>     White Jesus

>     Yup, they are listed so if you don't believe me, you can call
> information -:)

For years we had our phone listed under our cat's name, Mehitabel
DeCatte.

We got mail for her, a playboy card, and many phone calls.  When she
was called, we would always say that Mehitable was out on the lawn,
chasing mice.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Leonard P. Levine                  e-mail [e-mail] |
| Professor, Computer Science             Office [phone] |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   [phone] |
| Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              FAX    [phone] |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

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

From: Bryan Stearns <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: 8 Feb 90 18:39:17 GMT
Organization: Apple


I used to be listed under my name spelled backwards ("Snraets,
Nayrb"), but when I moved, the friendly phone company folks refused to
let me keep such a "frivolous" listing. So I asked to speak to a
supervisor, who refused to let me keep such a "frivolous" listing. So
I called the CPUC, who said that they don't have jurisdiction over the
white pages, and the phone company can refuse any listing they don't
like.

 ..........................................................................
Bryan Stearns                                           Apple Computer, Inc.
Macintosh Finder Group                    10500 North DeAnza Blvd, M/S 27-AJ
[e-mail]                                        Cupertino, CA 95014
{nsc,sun,ucbvax!mtxinu}!apple!stearns     "Laugh while you can, monkey boy!"

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 17:17:45 EST
From: Travis Lee Winfrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Organization: Columbia University


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

>He pointed out that if/when anyone comes to his door asking for that
>person, its an immediate tip-off the visitor is up to no good. (wink!
>wink! smirk!). He says he has been able to avoid Haines since 1971.
>PT]

Who or what is "Haines"??

Arpa:    [e-mail]    Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis


[Moderator's Note: 'Haines' is the Haines Directory Company, a/k/a the
'criss-cross book'. Haines, along with other similar publishers such
as Dressler's, R.L. Polk, Donnelly, and the City Publishing Company of
Independence, KS publishes cross reference directories which are just
telephone books arranged in street number order or telephone number
order rather than alphabetical. So walking down the street, I wonder
who lives in that nice house next door....the local criss-cross book
'addressokey' section tells me that 1234 Any Street is occupied by the
Smith family, and the phone number is 123-4567.  Or, I have a message
to call Mr. Smith at the number 123-4567. I never heard of him; who is
he? Before I call, I consult the 'telokey' portion of the criss-cross:
123-4567 is listed as the Smith Collection Agency, 1234 Any Street.

Very useful books, the criss-cross directories, although I don't like
being listed in them myself.... :)     PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #87
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18294;
          9 Feb 90 9:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08127;
          9 Feb 90 7:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07338;
          9 Feb 90 6:50 CST
Date:     Fri, 9 Feb 90 6:00:54 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #88
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 9 Feb 90 06:00:00 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (John Higdon)
    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Will Martin)
    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Jerry Leichter)
    Re: Thank You For Using Vista United (David Daniel)
    Re: How Do WATS Lines Work? (David Daniel)
    Re: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling (John Higdon)
    Penetrating the Difference: Radio Waves and Cellular Phones (A. Gariepy)
    Quick Summary of Actions Taken at FCC Meeting, 8 Feb 90 (Robert Horvitz)
    More AOS Sleaze at Brandeis University (Robert Kaplan)
    Reformatted List of All Telcos (John Cowan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"
Date: 7 Feb 90 22:41:49 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Will Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

> As soon as a legal ruling in a couple jurisdictions established this
> principle, we'd see those LD companies being *very* careful about
> getting written authorization that will hold up in court as legal
> documents before doing any carrier-switching!

This matter of written authorization is an interesting problem in the
Long Distance field.

Several years ago I was a principal in a sizeable interconnect
business (7th largest in San Jose). Unfortunately, for reasons I won't
go into, we were forced to close our doors. The corporation left a
number of unpaid bills including a $1,000 WATS bill from AT&T. Some
months after the bankruptcy was filed I started getting calls at home
from a collection agency in Houston who claimed to be representing
AT&T for the purpose of collecting that WATS balance. As I had done
with many of the creditors, I referred the gentleman to the bankruptcy
attorney.

A couple of weeks later, this guy called back and asked when I was
going to "clear up" the outstanding balance. Once again, I referred
him to the attorney. He then told me that my name was on the account
in addition to the business name and that they could come after me,
personally, for the money. When I asked him to send me a copy of the
contract or personal guarantee that I would have had to sign for that
to be the case, he laughed and said, "You know perfectly well that
AT&T doesn't have to have any signatures or contracts to collect its
money.  You can either send a check today, or when we sue you it will
cost you much more."

I told him to put it where the "sun don't shine" and then called my
personal attorney. She said that this was a blatantly transparent scam
to try to circumvent the corporate veil by intimidating me, and that
she would give the character a call. That was the last I heard about
that.

But his comment raised an interesting point. We do an awful lot of
"telephone" business (contracting for service, etc.) over the phone
without benefit of written confirmation. In the case of the WATS, I
never even personally had anything to do with the transaction; the
general manager or some such would have ordered the lines. There would
have been no reason to even mention my name (I was president) since
the corporation at that time had sterling credit. How did my name get
on the bill? It was probably added after the fact by either AT&T or
the collection agency. Principals of corporations are a matter of
public record.

In view of the potential for abuse in the ordering of service, we may
eventually have to have everything confirmed in writing.


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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 10:36:42 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"


In response to Doug Faunt's comment on the user paying their choice of
carrier instead of the deceitful unauthorized-switching one:

No, the only way the idea would work is if all the following are in
place:

1) The carrier has an active disincentive to illicitly switch, in that
they will get no revenue and still expend resources.

2) The individual has an incentive (free LD service) to actively punish
the deceitful carrier.

3) The industry as a whole loses; there is NO income to any LD carrier
when one defrauds -- this gives the carrier community an incentive to
police its own ranks.

4) The local telco gets out of the LD billing business entirely.
Otherwise you are playing games with your own local phone bill and
involving what really should be independent and disinterested third
parties. Unfortunately, this will be the hardest part to implement.
There still is too much of a "we" mentality among the BOC's and LD
companies (especially the spun-off BOCs and AT&T). The BOCs should
adopt a more distant and hostile "them" attitude toward the LD
companies, and be a "we" with the local consumer against the LD
carriers.


Regards, Will

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls
Date: 9 Feb 90 00:16:46 EST
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)


I suspect a telco would have a lot of trouble obtaining a conviction
of someone who "misused" the automated collect call system.  It would
take rather a stretch of the law to make it a crime.  The fact that
the INTENT of the service was to pass my name on isn't likely to be
binding on me, absent some specific agreement on my part, ahead of
time, that all I will ever use the system for is to pass my rightful
name.

Post cards are cheaper because they aren't private, but nothing
prevents me from encrypting my message (or, as a practical expedient
available to some people, writing it in a language few who are likely
to see it will be able to understand).  Post cards are also smaller,
but again I can write as small as I like.

Continuing the analogy, people who send out business-reply envelopes
do so with a very specific purpose in mind.  If I use such an envelope
to send something the sender didn't have in mind - well, he still gets
to pay for it.  I could even make it a policy to take every
business-reply envelope I receive and promptly seal it and send it
back empty.  I'd be rather astonished if this was a crime.  (So,
astonish me....)

Yes, "message passing" would probably contravene telco regulations -
as do many other abuses that are not illegal.  The usual recourse a
telco has is to cut off your service for such abuse.  That would be a
lot tougher to make stick in this case - after all, the abuser is the
caller, who it would be almost impossible to track down and even
harder to PROVE was really involved, not the callee, who you could act
against easily if you wished.

                            -- Jerry

[Moderator's Note: Actually, the mis-use of Business Reply Envelopes
is a violation of Postal Service regulations. What constitutes the
proper use of same is spelled out in the regulations. Essentially, the
old tricks of deliberatly sending them back empty, or in large
quantities, or with other than an ounce or less of printed matter
pertaining to the business at hand is prohibited.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: Thank You For Using Vista United
Date: 9 Feb 90 09:00:26 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


It may very well be that thr person you spoke to at the hotel was half
right.  It's possible that the Ka-bong was produced by a CPE box
designed just for that purpose. Disney very likely has alot of CPE
wire and switching equipment handling internal and local calls. Their
Ka-bonger (aka "Bong Box") could read your digits and access the
appropriate carrier.  Mitel makes a lot of dialers, one of which
supplies a bong tone and is highly programmable.


"What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                 Elvis Costello

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: How Do WATS Lines Work?
Date: 9 Feb 90 09:03:51 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


As I understand it, the only thing that would prevent using an 800
number locally is if it is excluded from band 1.


"What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                 Elvis Costello


[Moderator's Note: If your theory is correct, I think it should read
'excluded from Band 8'. Band 8 is intra-state, thus your own area.
Band 1 is the states which touch yours on all sides.   PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling
Date: 8 Feb 90 23:59:24 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> About 5 years ago, I had residential Centrex from Pacific Bell (then
> called Premiere 2/6 (it's now Commstar II, John?)).  It did NOT
> provide call transfer.  If you invoked 3 way calling and then hung up,
> all parties would be disconnected.  I don't know if there was a
> difference just because it was residential service, though.

It's a little embarrasing since I have Commstar II (formerly Premiere
2/6). This is an ultraweenie permutation of Centrex. It was created by
setting up little Centrex subgroups in the regular Centrex ports of
the switch. It is more expensive than regular Centrex, but can be
applied to residential lines (as opposed to regular Centrex which is
strictly business).

Pac*Bell's inferior (well, what would you expect?) manifestation of
this beast only allows transferring calls between "extensions", not to
numbers outside the group. To enforce this, you must transfer using
the "intercom" code. For instance, if I want to transfer you to
another line in the house, I flash the hook switch, dial #26, then
hang up. If I used the directory number of the line rather than that
intercom code, the connection would drop.

In some switches, it is possible to fool the CO into thinking all
numbers in the switch are intercom numbers, thereby enabling
transferring of calls to any number in the immediate local area that
are served by the same switch as the Commstar user. Da phone company
would rather you not know about that, however.

> [Moderator's Note: And the first version of IBT's Starline likewise
> did not offer this, but the later version allows transfer of a call to
> anywhere -- on your premises or off-premises.   PT]

I understand this will be an offering bundled with the CLASS features
that will be offered to Pac*Bell subscribers somewhere around Stardate
6077.


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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 00:33:41 -0500
From: microsoft![e-mail]
Subject: Penetrating the Difference: Radio Waves and Cellular Phones


> the amazing statement is made that (paraphrasing) "radio waves
> can penetrate into buildings where cellular telephone waves cannot".
> I kid you not.  I wish I were.

I think you are being overly picky here.  This statement can be made
perfectly accurate by inserting the word "some" before "radio waves".
The interpretation is clear.  Sound can be deafening, whispers cannot.
Not a very balanced sentence, but it is to the average headline, as
Hyperion to a satyr.


Alonzo Gariepy
alonzo@microsoft


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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 15:32:56 pst
From: Robert Horvitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quick Summary of Actions Taken at FCC Meeting, 8 Feb 90


Here's a quick summary of the actions taken at this morning's meeting
of the Federal Communications Commission.  Check the "Airwaves"
conference's file library in Capital OnLine (1-202-833-1591; 8/N/1)
for more information.

1) The Commissioners approved four policy changes designed to speed up
the processing of construction permits and new station applications
for commercial FM broadcasters.

2) The Commissioners voted to adopt a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making"
to facilitate the use of various microwave channels for "wireless
cable TV" services, as a "competitive alternative" to traditional
wire-based cable TV systems.

3) The Commissioners voted to adopt a "Report and Order" concerning
private point-to-multipoint microwave systems.  Included in the action
is a rule-change allowing the use of "multiple low-power transmitters
instead of one high-power transmitter" in the 18 GHz band.  This is
intended to support the development of "wireless local area networks"
for computers.

4) The Commissioners approved a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" to
create a new license category for amateur radio operators that would
not require a test of Morse code proficiency.  This is expected to
remove a major obstacle stopping many people from participating in the
Amateur service.

5) The Commissioners approved a "Notice of Proposed Rule Making" to
allocate an additional 33 MHz of spectrum for mobile satellite
services.

6) The Commissioners adopted a "Memorandum Opinion and Order" creating
a new coordination procedure for sharing the 900 MHz channels
allocated to both federal government and nongovernmental systems.

Finally, FCC Chairman Alfred Sikes announced that the Commission would
hold a "field hearing" next Monday (12 February 1990) in Los Angeles
at City Hall.  This is the first such formal meeting outside of
Washington "in living memory," Sikes said, and it reflects the
Commission's interest in hearing "points of view that wouldn't
necessarily be represented here in Washington."  Additional meetings
will be held in Orlando, Florida and St. Louis, Missouri (no dates
given).

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 23:28:01 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: More AOS Sleaze at Brandeis University


Here at Brandeis University, the campus phone system blocks 9-10XXX to
reach LD operators.  Using 9-0-NPA-number, followed by the six-digit
student billing code, yields an AOS operator (they never say the name
clearly enough that I've understood it).  The AOS operator will
connect if you ask her to AT&T, but *not* to MCI, Sprint, etc.  Oddly,
9-950-XXXX works as a local call (but of course you can't get ATT that
way).  Is this a tariff violation?  or just *really really* annoying?

(Fortunately there are a few gen-yoo-wine NET pay phones around that
connect directly to ATT -- and not a COCOT for miles around :-))


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer:  This may not even be my own opinion.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 14:03 EST
From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reformatted List of All Telcos


The following list is a reformatted version of the recently published
Bellcore list of all telephone companies.  Feel free to archive and/or
distribute this.  The following changes have been made:

1) One telco per line.

2) Alphabetical order.

3) Upper and lower case.

4) Duplicate names removed.

John Cowan


[Moderator's Note: Your revised (and much more readable) list has been
forwarded to the archives, where it resides as 'list.of.telcos.formatted'.
Thanks for sending it along.  PT]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #88
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26104;
          10 Feb 90 3:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01910;
          10 Feb 90 1:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03687;
          10 Feb 90 0:39 CST
Date:     Sat, 10 Feb 90 0:00:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #89
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Feb 90 00:00:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    708 Starts Today! Use It! (TELECOM Moderator)
    RSVP = Home Fried Centrex (John Boteler)
    Good ol' Days (John Boteler)
    Rochester Telephone: Only a Monopoly Could Survive This Way (J. Grodberg)
    Recordings For Intra-LATA 10xxx Attempts (Tom Ace)
    Deaf Dial Tone (Edward Greenberg)
    Make Busy Device (Roger Fajman)
    Calling Cards From Netherland Antilles (David Lesher)
    Aquatic Area Codes (Gordon Meyer)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (Louis E. Miller)
    Re: Quick Summary of Actions Taken at FCC Meeting, 8 Feb 90 (David Daniel)
    Re: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell (Dan Veditz)
    Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook? (Leonard Erickson)
    Some Chicago 606xx Now in 708? (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 23:10:31 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: 708 Starts Today! Use It!


Effective today, calls to northern Illinois *must* use the proper area
code or they will be rejected. Chicago proper is area 312. All other
points which had been 312 are now 708.

Roughly, places with 606xx zip codes are Chicago. (not absolutely!)
Places with 600xx, 601xx, 602xx, 604xx are mostly in the new 708 area.

Suburban points which had been 815 remain as such.

According to Illinois Bell statistics, as of last week, only twenty
percent of all inter-area calls were being dialed 'correctly'; that
is, with the proper area code. Some people will be in for a rude
awakening over the weekend, or when they get to their office on
Monday.

But YOU will be prepared....I know you will.


Patrick Townson


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

Subject: RSVP = Home Fried Centrex
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 11:39:10 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Here is a summary of each RSVP offering, C&P's name for residential
Centrex. Note that these features are mostly identical to business
Centrex, except for Transfer, which only works within the pickup
group. The names were changed by C&P to protect the business office.

Standard Features
-----------------
Call Pickup
Call Hold
User Transfer
Three-Way Calling
Interline Calling
Automatic Call Transfer

Optional Features
-----------------
Call Waiting
Call Forwarding
Speed Calling 30

Call Pickup: Flash, *78 to hold first call, *79 to pickup incoming.

User Transfer: Flash, dial intercom code of destination station, then
  either talk privately or hang up. This only works within the Centrex
  group; calls may not be transferred to outside numbers.

Interline Calling: Centrex intercom; # + station code.

Automatic Call Transfer,
  busy or 3 rings; programmed by C&P; Call Forwarding overrides.

Three-Way Calling, Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, Call Hold, and Speed
Calling 30: S.O.S., unless you can talk them into Speed Calling 38!

[Poster's Note: Yes, Tone*Block is C&P's service mark for Call Waiting
disable.]

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

Subject: Good ol' Days
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 11:39:40 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


An interesting twist on the Calling Line ID fracas:

A friend who works for the Tephone Cumpny reports that in the good ol
days, cordboard operators would report the name of the calling party
to the recipient of the call, since they clearly had the information
available, both in the form of the label on the cord and the sound of
the caller's voice.

When the new-fangled automatic switching equipment invented by Mr.
Strowger was installed, many subscribers were infuriated that their
privacy was being invaded by not being provided the previous level of
information. They filed suit against the Tephone Cumpny.

Funny how times change, isn't it?


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

This space left blank for
[Moderator's Note:     **And it will stay blank. No comment.**    PT]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 21:24:20 PST
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rochester Telephone: Only a Monopoly Could Survive This Way
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
writes:

>Also, I finally got a straight answer from the droids at Rochester Tel
>(after talking to 5 [count 'em, five] people). They offer call
>forwarding on busy to a fixed number (i.e., the number can only be
>changed from the CO). I can't belive that only one out of five reps
>knew about this service.

See, I told you Roch Tel was worthless.  I've gotten much better
information about the Roch Tel's service options from AT&T Long
Distance Special Services than I have from anyone at Roch Tel.  When I
wanted a long distance special event line (a radio-broadcast quality
line to carry coverage of a basketball tournament) AT&T told me they
could set it up in 3 days anywhere in the country, but that wouldn't
do me much good, because Roch Tel would take a week to connect AT&T's
long line to my phone.

Roch Tel confirmed this, and we had to cancel plans to cover the
tournament, since we would only have 3-5 days notice of where the next
game would be (depending on who won in each round), and we couldn't
afford to have lines installed everywhere.

There oughta be a law about this....


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]    "Beware: free advice is often overpriced!"

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 09:30:00 PST
From: "Tom Ace @ PCB x2021" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Recordings For Intra-LATA 10xxx Attempts


Here in 408 land, if I try to specify a particular carrier for an
intra-LATA call with 10xxx, the wording of the recording I get is
curious:

    "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a long distance company
    access code for the number you have dialed.  Please hang up and try
    your call again."

Sorry as hell, I'm sure, especially when Pac*Bell gets more for a
70-mile intra-LATA call than AT&T charges for calling coast-to-coast.

The "it is not necessary" wording is true enough but is beside the
point that it simply is disallowed.

I'd be interested to hear about what messages are given when
intra-LATA 10xxx calls are attempted in other areas.


Tom Ace
[e-mail]
 ...{uunet|uiucuxc}!mntgfx!sje!tom


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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 06:59 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Deaf Dial Tone

If the question is, "is it deaf, or is it rotary," (and I'm not sure
which is worse :-) why not reprogram the modem to dial in rotary and
see if the calls start working?  ATDP instead of ATDT should do it.

On properly compatible hayes modems, the P and T can be inserted in
the number, such that "ATDT9,P311-555-2368" would TONE out the 9, then
pause, then PULSE the number.

                                -edg

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 90  19:01:10 EST
Subject: Make Busy Device


I have a BBS running on a 10 line rotary, which is most of a small
Centrex.  In order to minimize the consequences of a hung port, it has
Uniform Call Distribution (aka circular hunt).  This is very
important, as the system runs unattended most of the time.  Thus
there's no one there to reset a port that doesn't answer.

For various reasons, I occasionally want to make either all or some of
the lines busy.  Right now, each for each line there is make busy
switch provided by the telco (C&P of Maryland).  Each switch has a
circuit of its own going back to the central office, which is fairly
expensive.

What I would like to know is if there is a device I can get that will
provide the same make busy capability without the circuit to the
central office?  If there is a call in progress, I want it to be
allowed to complete.  I would prefer to buy something rather than
build, but it can't be too expensive or I won't save money.

I'm also interested in alternatives to Centrex that could do this job,
including the circular hunt as well as the make busy.

I am aware that a modem using the Hayes command set can be told to
take a line off hook, but this does not work in there is no modem
connected.  It also requires cooperation of the BBS software if a call
is in progress -- the software must take the line off hook at the end
of the call.  In my configuration, that is possible, but not very
convenient.


Roger Fajman
RAF@NIHCU  (BITNET)
[e-mail]  (Internet)


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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Cards in the Netherland Antilles
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 20:30:00 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Landsradio, the {or one of the} carriers in the Netherland Antilles
lists an International Telephone Credit Card with a 10+4pin number in a
recent ad. The card also has a 3 digit/letter/10 digit number. It says
MCI in large letters right next to Landsradio. Note this is NOT a
prepay BT style card.

BTW, as one of the country code lists posted pointed out, Aruba is no
longer part of the the N.A. I asked a local yesterday if they would
take one of the six birds off the famous sculpture to match the
revised number of islands. He just scowled.


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: 09 Feb 90 21:23:41 EST
From: GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aquatic Area Codes


A phreaker phriend of mine recently told me about the following area codes:

   871 - Atlantic, Caribbean, and Mediter. Sea.
   872 - Pacific Ocean
   873 - Indian Ocean

Has anyone heard of these before or was he pulling my leg?  He said
they were used, for example, to reach oil rigs and so on.


GRM
[e-mail] /  GEnie & Delphi: GRMEYER


[Moderator's Note: Those are the 'country codes' for ships on the high
seas. They are linked into radio circuits, and used to reach ships in
transit from one place to another.   PT]

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

From: Louis E Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Date: 9 Feb 90 17:20:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (louis.e.miller,mt,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


It was mentioned by a fellow poster that Centrex has dull,
unimaginative phones.  That is not always true.  I just got a new ISDN
Centrex phone on my desk.  Among other things it has: conference ,
drop, transfer, hold buttons; speed calling, call forward, and
automatic callback buttons; redial, mute buttons.  It also has a
built-in speaker phone, date/clock/call timer, message waiting lamp,
and 2 line LCD display.  The display can be used for incoming call
identification or directory lookup via keypad.  It also has a choice
of 8 selectable ring patterns.

I may be biased since it is an AT&T product and I work there.
However, I doubt if anyone would call this a dull, unimaginative
phone.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: Quick Summary of Actions Taken at FCC Meeting, 8 Feb 90
Date: 10 Feb 90 02:42:50 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


Point #2 caught my interest.

I had wondered if the cable franchise (read: Monopoly) would be
addressed within my lifetime.  I had thought that the easiest way to
allow the consumer a choice in cable providers would be for each
franchize to encode their signals to proprietary boxes and to
interconnect all cable systens within a region.  The FCC porposal
sounds like the same thing, only different.  I wonder if the customer
box in that proposal would be receiving the transmission directly or
what.

     --- "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                       Elvis Costello

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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 11:46:04 PST
From: Dan Veditz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fictious Account Numbers: A Useful Service of Pacific Bell
Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale, Calif.


William C. DenBesten (bgsuvax![e-mail]) writes:
>  From article <[e-mail]>, by optilink![e-mail]
>  (Clayton Cramer):
>>   [..."fictious account numbers"...]
>>   This would seem like an ideal way to handle the traditional "end of
>>   the month roommates figuring out the bill" problem.

>  Yes, except for one small detail.  I would like to be able to disable
>  long distance calling without the use of a credit card.  This way if
>  someone tries to call 1-900-pay-cash, their mom in attu, alaska or
>  anything else that would cost me money, it would fail unless they put
>  it on their credit card.

This can be done to an extent.  I once had an unemployed roommate who
ran up large LD phone bills he couldn't pay (the worse his job hunt
got, the more he called home!).

I called PacBell and explained the situation, and they were able to
turn off LD completely.  My other roommate and I could use our credit
cards just fine.

Caveats: This blocked long distance, but not all toll calls.  1+area code
still worked within our LATA, and 1+800, 1+900 etc. also worked (but some
of those can be blocked separately).  They also charged their LD connect
fee ($5) to disconnect, and again to connect after the roommate moved out
(but it was worth it).  I don't know if 10xxx calling still worked, but
I'd imagine so...


-Dan Veditz      {uunet,cepu}!ashtate!dveditz
         [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: To the several of you who have mentioned it, yes I
know the word is 'ficticious', not 'fictious' in the subject header. I
have avoided changing it (after it got past me the first time) in
order to prevent breaking the message thread in comp.dcom.telecom. But
its starting to bug me too.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 23:05:58 PST
From: Leonard Erickson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook?


>Many modems have an A and A1 lead, which are on the outside pair (the
>black and yellow leads on a modular connector) on the RJ11 telephone
>line jack.  The A and A1 leads short together when the modem is on
>line.  You may have to check your modem manual and option switches to
>turn this feature on.

This "feature" is a royal pain if you have RJ-14 jacks. It clobbers
the second line every time you use the modem....

Many modems do not allow you to disable this. And *none* of the
manuals mention the possible problems of not disabling it on a
residence line!

Grrrrr...


Leonard Erickson        ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short

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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 9:54:27 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Chicago 606xx Now In 708?

The following phone prefixes are taken from 1982 notes for area code
312, and they are now in area 708 (except that I cannot find 494).
The place names are those of branches of the Chicago post office
(recall that a branch is outside the city, and that a station is
within the city).

Cicero--494,652,656,780,863
Niles--647
Riverdale--841,849


[Moderator's Note: Actually, Carl, what we have are a few suburbs
which touch the city, and they are served from the Chicago Post
Office. They will be 708. And as for 494 which you cannot locate; you
don't want to know about it; trust me. Its outrageously boring. If you
do want to know, ask David Tamkin.  And everyone should remember that
as of now, 708 *must* be used on suburban Chicago calls. 312 is only
for Chicago. The cutover is 12:01 AM Saturday morning.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #89
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01751;
          10 Feb 90 23:57 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26559;
          10 Feb 90 21:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04088;
          10 Feb 90 20:47 CST
Date:     Sat, 10 Feb 90 19:56:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #90
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Feb 90 19:55:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (John Higdon)
    Re: Aquatic Area Codes (Otis Brown)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Fax Group IV (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (David Lesher)
    Re: Another Reason to Run A Second Line to Your Bathroom (William Degnan)
    Business Week Telecom Articles (Carol Springs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 8 Feb 90 23:11:59 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Karl Denninger <[e-mail]> writes:

> Who's behind this complaint?  Is it AT&T?  Does anyone know, factually,
> who started this nonsense?

You bet it's AT&T. This was in the news a few months ago. There was
quite a flame fest here in the Digest over it. Specifically, AT&T
claims that the Panasonic 308, 616, and 1232 systems are being dumped
here and asked for governmental relief, which was granted. They found
it quite difficult to sell their grossly overpriced Merlins against
those clever little hybrids. (I have a 1232 in my home -- it's great.)

I pointed out in one article that the charge of dumping is laughable.
The Panasonic systems were specifically designed and engineered for
the US telecom market and are sold nowhere else in the world. They are
not even sold in Japan. So how can they be dumping? If they are
selling below cost, why would they bother?

> Why can't American companies decide to compete by providing a better
> product and service, instead of slapping input duties on things.....
> it's beyond me.

Watch the Digest; I'm sure AT&T employees will come out of the
woodwork to tell us how the big bad Japanese are cheating against the
poor downtrodden AT&T.


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

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

From: otis brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Aquatic Area Codes
Date: 10 Feb 90 17:30:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (GORDON MEYER)
says:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 89, message 9 of 14

> A phreaker phriend of mine recently told me about the following area codes:

>    871 - Atlantic, Caribbean, and Mediter. Sea.
>    872 - Pacific Ocean
>    873 - Indian Ocean

The moderator replied...

> [Moderator's Note: Those are the 'country codes' for ships on the high
> seas. They are linked into radio circuits, and used to reach ships in
> transit from one place to another.   PT]

    These are the INMARSAT "Area Codes" for international high seas
    satellite mediated telephony [radio in a way].

    Each ocean basin has specific INMARSAT satellites assigned to it
    so that when you prefix your call with that oceans' prefix, the
    system looks for response in that basin.

    As a side note there are several sites in Antarctica with INMARSAT
    ground stations and you have to know which satellite the site is
    using to call them.


Otis Brown                         Inet: [e-mail] [129.171.0.4]
SPAN:     miami::otis [3074::otis] UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!miami!otis
Telemail: O.Brown/OMNET            PSDN: PSI%31103210303502::otis

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Date: 10 Feb 90 05:12:09 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Our moderator writes, as part of the on-going discussion of PBX vs
Centrex service:

> ... Did you know Amoco Oil
> Company, which is headquartered here, gets billings from Illinois Bell
> for about one million dollars *per month* on local service and
> equipment only? Its an 8000-line Centrex; the CO (Chicago-Lakeshore)
> is in the third sub-basement of the Amoco Building itself.  PT]

I couldn't help noticing the obvious irony.  If the CO is on the
customer's premises, the difference between Centrex and PBX becomes
more blurred than ever!

Centrex is recommended for short-term service.  PBX is less expensive
in the long term, as it eventually gets amortized.  My residential
service consists of two trunks feeding an 8-station key system.  The
monthly charge for an 8-line centrex would probably pay for the key
system in six months or so; my KSU has been in service for six years.

As for feature-phones, the ISDN Centrex will someday be and answer to
that one.  Anybody know what it'll cost?


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


[Moderator's Note: Strictly speaking, the CO is not on the customer's
premises. It is in the same building as the customer's premises, and
Illinois Bell rents space from the customer for the CO. While Amoco is
the main tenant in the Amoco Building, they only occupy about sixty
percent of the total floor space; the other forty percent being
occupied by a variety of tenants, including of course, IBT. The CO in
the basement serves the entire building, plus a couple other office
buildings in the vicinity. 312-856 is mostly Amoco; 856-0xxx and 9xxx
are other tenants in the building. Plus the CO has a couple other
prefixes in it; I forget which ones off hand.  PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought
Date: 10 Feb 90 14:41:19 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
writes:

> In looking for a PBX that offers CPC on analog ports and the ability
> to send long touch-tones from electronic sets, I find that I am left
> looking at only one switch for my application: the AT&T System 25.

> But I feel funny about buying a switch that I have never used, since a
> lot of the look-and-feel of using a particular PBX can not be conveyed
> in a brochure.  The un-shoulderable handset bothers me for instance.

> So I am looking for any experiences, good or bad, from an end-user or
> administrative point of view.  Thanks...

System 25's voice features evolved from those of the Horizon(tm)
system, AT&T's original electronic PBX for small business.

It supports Tip/Ring as well as proprietary multi-button electronic
sets.  These are the same sets that are supported by the Merlin(tm)
systems.  (They are different from the similarly-packaged digital sets
supported by Systems 75 and 85).

The handset's receiver is the same size as that of the 2500 set.  Only
the mouthpiece is smaller.  Shouldering the handset shouldn't be any
harder than it was with 2500 sets.  Headsets are also offered for
these sets.

Enhancements beyond Horizon include the ability to switch data at 9600
bps, the ability to interconnect with the Starlan network, and the
Integrated Solution(tm) - an external applications processor that
looks a lot like a UNIX-PC, and provides voicemail, automated
attendant, advanced switch administration, and a call-accounting
application.

As far as I know, the touch-tones sent by the multi-button electronic
sets, like those generated by Merlin with the same sets, are
fixed-length, about 100 msec.  The duration and inter-character
interval are administerable, but do not depend upon how long the user
holds down the dial pad key.  (This last may not apply to all versions
of the product.)


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] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: Fax Group IV
Date: 10 Feb 90 17:32:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Regrading the request for information on Group 4 fax standards, I will
list them below:

There are actually three types of G4 machines defined, Classes I, II,
and III.

Class I transmits on a line by line basis, has a standard resolution
of 200x200 pels/inch (optional: 240x240, 300x300, 400x400).

Class III transmits on a page basis, has a standard resolution of
300x300, the others optional, and has mixed-mode as a standard, i.e..
it can transmit and receive pages with character coded and raster
graphics coded information intermixed on the same page.

Class II is like class III, but can only receive mixed-mode, not send
it.

Class I machines cannot directly interwork with class II and III
machines, since they use different protocol stacks.

G4 machines also cannot directly interwork with G3 machines, although
many current machines have G3 capability included as a separate board.

G4 Recommendations:

T.412  Document Structures
T.415  Open Document Interchange Format
T.417  Raster Graphics Content Architectures
T.431  Document Transfer and Manipulation - Service Definition
T.432  Document Transfer and Manipulation - Protocol Specification
T.501  Document Application Profile for the Interchange of Formatted Mixed
    Mode Documents (for Class II and III)
T.503  Document Application Profile for the Interchange of Group 4 Facsimile
    Documents (for Class I)
T.521  Communication Application Profile BT0 for Document Bulk Transfer Using
    the Session Service Defined in Rec. T.62bis (for Class I)
T.522  Communication Application Profile BT1 for Document Bulk Transfer (for
    Class II and III, uses session service defined in X.225)
T.561  Terminal Characteristics for Mixed Mode of Operation MM (for Cl II &
        III)
T.563  Terminal Characteristics for Group 4 Facsimile Apparatus

Image coding for G4 follows Rec. T.6.

Work is currently under study in CCITT for enhancing Group 3 to add
higher resolutions (to 400x400), T.6 encoding, and an ISDN interface,
while maintaing full compatibility with existing G3 equipment.
Currently, only G4 is available with a 64 Kb/s interface.

Equipment conforming to ODA profiles level 2 and 3 also have the
capability of sending raster graphics image pages.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"
Date: 10 Feb 90 17:45:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Will Martin)
writes:

> your default LD carrier with the long-established legal rules
> regarding unordered merchandise? If someone sends you unordered goods
> and then tries to bill you for them, you not only have no obligation
> to pay for them, but you have a perfect legal right to keep them. If
> they want the goods back, the sender has to bear all the costs and
> effort of getting them back.

> If MCI causes the telco to switch your default carrier to their firm
> WITHOUT YOUR AUTHORIZING IT, they are giving you a *gift* of their LD
> service! You don't owe them a cent, and have no obligation to pay for
> this *unordered service*. You can make all the LD calls you want for
> free, until they have the sense to terminate your LD service and stop
> throwing their resources away.

As you point out, if you are sent unordered merchandise, you don't
have to pay for it.  You are under an obligation to keep it for a
reasonable amount of time, and if the sender agrees to pay for
returning it, to return it.  You are only allowed to use it after a
reasonable amount of time has passed, and the owner has not claimed
it.

In analogy, if MCI gives you an account, you may keep it, take good
care of it, and if they want it back, as long as they reimburse you
for your costs, you give it back.  Therfore, you will have to pay for
any use of MCI.

Now if you make a call from someplace, charge it to your own card, but
get billed by some other carrier, you could claim that you did not
order the service from that other xcarrier, and pay only what it would
have cost you on your own carrier.  You still got a service, and
should pay for it.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 20:18:33 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


>>Who or what is "Haines"??

>[Moderator's Note: 'Haines' is the Haines Directory Company, a/k/a the
>'criss-cross book'...
>Very useful books, the criss-cross directories, although I don't like
>being listed in them myself.... :)     PT]

Gee, Patrick, as a bill collector I thought you would LOVE Haines, not
try to subvert it..

I have several cures to the problem.  The first is a non_pub
*address*.  I have yet to be charged extra for this service by any
(BOC or IOC) company. With such, the upside_down books seem to ignore
me, even in the number section. The second is of course the old alias
question. For many years I was listed as Ernst Stavro Blofelt. Prior
to that, I used Bela Oknyx. My current one? Well, let's say that's
left as an exercise for the student... If you do find out, enjoy it.


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: Sat, 10 Feb 90  0:21:00 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Reason to Run A Second Line to Your Bathroom


In a message of <Feb 10 00:12> Will Martin writes:

 WM>The toilet is connected directly to the home
 WM>phone line; if it finds any medical problem, it dials the family
 WM>physician immediately and files a report. [See, I TOLD you there was a
 WM>Telecom tie-in! :-) -WM]

Yeah, but as they asked about ISDN, is it loop-start or ground-start?

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: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Business Week Telecom Articles
Date: 10 Feb 90 02:58:17 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


The February 19 issue of _Business Week_ contains a couple of features
of interest to telecom folks.  On page 124, we have "The Tangle of
Problems Hanging Up Nynex."  On page 132 is a short entitled "A New
Pack of Giant Slayers?  (How Teleport and other upstarts are tapping
into the phone market)."  Teleport is a private network competing with
New York Telephone.

See also "Bits & Bytes" on page 122C for a couple of paragraphs on
Intellicall pay phones that do voice messaging.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #90
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03209;
          11 Feb 90 0:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08239;
          10 Feb 90 22:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26559;
          10 Feb 90 21:52 CST
Date:     Sat, 10 Feb 90 20:57:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #91
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Feb 90 20:57:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    FCC Supporting Radio LAN Development (Capitol Online via Robert Horvitz)
    My First Cut Over (TELECOM Moderator)
    "One System, One Policy, Universal Service" (Edward Greenberg)
    Question on Telephone Jacks (Thomas Lapp)
    Wanted: Area Code Directory (Steve Huff)
    News From Bell Canada (David Leibold)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: The Cause of the AT&T Outage (Anthony Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 17:38:35 pst
From: Robert Horvitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Supporting Radio LAN Development


FCC AMENDS PRIVATE OPERATIONAL FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICE RULES
                   TO FOSTER RADIO LANS

   8 February 1990                      PR Docket 88-191

The Federal Communications Commission has amended its rules governing
the use of the 10.6 and 18 GHz bands by licensees in the Private
Operational Fixed Microwave Service (POFMS).

Among the changes intended to promote more use of these channels, the
FCC decided to allow 18 GHz licensees to operate multiple low-power
transmitters (radio LANs), instead of one high-power transmitter
serving a number of remote stations, within their defined coverage
areas; removed the "digital only" restriction from the 10.6 and 18 GHz
bands (however, "video entertainment" can't be distributed in the 18
GHz channels); changed the application procedure so licenses can be
issued on a "first come, first served" basis; set a 35 mile separation
standard for co-channel systems (instead of 50 miles as before); and
eliminated the need for detailed interference analyses as part of most
POFMS applications.  Under the new rules, applicants must notify the
operators of nearby systems assigned to the adjacent channels and
prepare an interference analysis only if one of them objects to the
proposed facility.

Under the new rules for radio LANs, a licensee would specify a
coordinate as the geographic center of the proposed network, with the
right to put multiple low-power devices within a certain radius from
that reference point without the need for additional coordination.
The 35-mile standard would apply to the central coordinates of radio
LANs operating in the same channel.  According to an FCC news release,
"the 35 miles separation standard would provide an adequate service
area of approximately 12 miles and will better accommodate new station
entry."

During the question period, FCC Commissioner Marshall asked Ralph
Haller, chief of the Private Radio Bureau, if he expected a lot of
people to apply for 18 GHz radio LAN licenses.  "I certainly do expect
that the band may be widely used for that, and there has been some
expression of interest already in that kind of operation," he replied.

News media contact:  Patricia A. Chew (202-632-5050)
Private Radio Bureau contact:  Michael Lewis (202-632-6940)

[This posting from Capital OnLine's "Airwaves Conference."

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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 90 0:36:19 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: My First Cut Over


The first memory I have of a phone cut over, or change in calling
procedure was when I was 8 years old. Our manual exchange was
converted to dial, as of 2:00 AM that day, and I was very eager to see
what the difference would be when the conversion was finished.

The phone man had visited our house, with many others in the
neighborhood during the three month period prior, to install a rotary
dial on the formerly dial-less phone. But the dial would not work
until the conversion was complete, we were told. I found that rotary
dial to be fascinating, and would spin it, but if I did it when the
receiver was off-hook, the operator would come on and yell at me,
since this created fast clicking and a rapid flashing on the light on
the switchboard.

Finally came the night of the change. When completed, we would begin
dialing all other parts of Chicago which were dialable; we would dial
'711' for northside points not yet dialable; '811' for southside
points not yet dialable, and '911' for Whiting, Indiana, a place in
our local (far south side of Chicago) calling zone. Whiting would
remain manual for nearly another decade, until 1959.

The only number I knew for sure I could call and get an answer without
waking anyone was the recorded message for the Hoosier Auditorium
Theatre in Whiting. They played a one minute message of coming
attractions on the number 'Whiting 1234'. That, or I could call my
dad's office at the Standard Oil Whiting Refinery, 'Whiting 3111', but
someone would answer there, no matter the hour. That, by the way, was
the main PBX number for Whiting Refinery; my father had a private line
in his office, 'Whiting 9'.

I think I called the coming attractions number ten times over a
fifteen minute period, 1:50 AM to 2:05 AM.....Right up to 1:59 when I
lifted the receiver, the operator would come on in a second or two,
and I'd ask for Whiting 1234; then at 2:00 AM on the dot, by the best
of my time calcuations, I went off hook, and no operator....no
nothing.  I waiting fifteen or twenty seconds, and the operator did
not answer.  I hung up, went off hook again about ten seconds later,
and heard dial tone. Ah! My chance to see how the funny round gizmo on
the phone would work. I dialed '911' and waited a few seconds; a lady
answered saying "Whiting!" and I asked for 1234, and listened to the
coming attractions message for about the seventh time. I remember
being so excited by it I called a friend to talk, and his mother got
on the extension at their house and bawled me out for calling at 2:15
AM.

Everything left in Chicago was converted within the next six months or
so, and all that was left was '911', which continued to get the manual
switchboard in Whiting for about another eight or nine years.

Then Whiting cut over to 219-659, at 2:00 AM one morning, and I made a
point of being the person to make the last manual call on the old
system. At 1:59 AM that morning I called....you guessed it, Whiting
1234.  I think I was the first person to make a call on the dial
system also, because two minutes later I dialed 659-1234 and the call
went through without the weirdness of the day before when I had tried
it: When dialing it the day before, it did ring, and the theatre did
answer -- but when the theatre answered, within a couple seconds the
Whiting operator would pick up, asking *them* 'what number, please?'
I thought this was quite funny at the time, because the theatre box
office clerk (who answered when the theatre was open) said "operator,
you rang us!". I tried it two or three times, each time getting a
laugh out of the resulting confusion. Once the cut was complete the
next day, no more operator coming on line to answer a signal I had
caused to happen by dialing prematurely, a day before the official cut.

And now 12:30 AM, Saturday, February 10, 1990: I tried two minutes ago,
and Evanston was still seven digits to me. As I dial it now, my call
gets intercepted after dialing 491... I guess I was one of the last,
and one of the first again.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Edward Greenberg <netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: "One System, One Policy, Universal Service"
Date: Sat Feb 10 12:01:30 1990

An old advertisement.  No date given:

Two men, 1000 miles apart talk to each other by telephone without
leaving their desks.

Two wires of copper form a track over which the talk travels from
point to point throughout a continent.

Moving along one railroad track at the same time are scores of trains
carrying thousands of passengers.  The telephone track must be checked
from end to end to carry the voice of one customer.

The Bell System has more than ten million miles of wire that reaches
over five million telephones.  This system is operated by a force of
100,000 people and making seven billion connections a year, twenty
million "clear tracks" a day for the local and the long distance
communications of the American people.

The efficiency of the Bell System depends upon "One System, One
Policy, and Universal Service."

                      -- American Telephone and Telegraph Company and
                         Associated Companies.


[Moderator's Note: What memories! That ad first appeared in 1935, and
was used for more than twenty years. Does anyone remember the ad of
the old lady in the rocking chair with a contented look on her face?
She was an AT&T stockholder in the depression years. The text pointed
out that AT&T stockholders were a happy bunch, since not a single
quarter passed without a generous dividend from Mother.   PT]

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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 22:27:41 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question on Telephone Jacks


I recently found out the hard way that a device which is expecting an
RJ-41S jack will not work with an RJ-11 jack (even though the modular
plug fits!).

I'm wondering what is unique about an RJ-41S termination other than
the fact that it seems to be used for data terminal equipment like
modems?

Thanks for any help you can give,

                         - 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?


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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Area Code Directory
Date: 10 Feb 90 12:21:07 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Does anybody hae a directory listing area codes and their major cities
& vice versa?  I work at a telecom center in Kansas City, and haven't
been able to pull this out of our vax.


Thanks!
Steve

[Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives has just what you are looking
for.  A file there can be retrieved which (after compilation at your
site) allows the user to enter 'area code xxx', and get back the
geographical location of that code and the main cities therein. It
needs a little updating to account for recent additions. It was
donated to the archives by Carl Moore some time ago. Use regular ftp
commands to retrieve it; i.e. 'ftp lcs.mit.edu','cd telecom-archives'. PT]

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

Subject: News From Bell Canada
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 90 11:08:39 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>

1) Bell Canada hopes to replace practically all its mechanical switches
   in Ontario with the Northern Telecom DMS digital technology by the
   year 2000. Hundreds of thousands of lines will be cut over each year
   to this end. In fact, there are no longer step-by-step offices in
   Toronto or Hamilton (though a few crossbar exchanges are still hanging
   on, as are a few SP-1 electronic switches).

2) With the cutover to full digital service, CCS7 networks are being
   developed. Pending regulatory approval from the CRTC, Bell could be
   introducing the Caller ID and other CCS7-based features this spring
   in Ottawa and Quebec City, with other cities to follow after that.

3) The 9 February 1990 _Montreal_Gazette_ had an editorial that did not
   approve of the Caller ID service proposal. The basic arguments it had
   against it were that it was more beneficial to businesses than to
   residents; that some people who need to be anonymous (social workers,
   doctors, etc) could have their lives made more difficult, etc.

|| David Leibold   [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Date: 10 Feb 90 04:56:19 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> >>Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN
> >>magnetically encoded on the card.
>
> >Although that was true for some early ATMs, it's not generally true
> >any more.  The number from your card along with the PIN you enter are
> >sent along to the issuing bank for validation.  My bank sends out
>
> It is definitely no longer true.  I program the Point-Of-Sale
> equipment for Dayton-Hudson Dept. Stores Co., and have had to do an
> awful lot with MSR cards these days! ...



Perhaps it is not true today, but less than a year ago when I was
issued a new card, they put it into a machine and handed me a
keyboard, telling me to select and enter a PIN.  After I did so, the
machine apparently updated the mag stripe on the card.  In any case,
the only external connection to that machine was its power-cord.  If
it didn't communicate the PIN to anyplace, it must have written it
on the card (perhaps encrypted, like the password field in /etc/passwd?)

--
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] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Date: 10 Feb 90 17:50:24 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Oh, as to selecting PINs: My banker just asked me for a number when I
> signed up for the card.  I said, "Just some random number, please."
> He asked me "How about 6677?"  I sighed and got out my pocket
> calculator (with the random number generator) and gave him four
> digits.  He just gave me this funny look...

That is a very clever solution.  Now, if you forget your PIN, all you
have to do is get out your calculator, run your random number
generator, and there it is :-).

Herman Silbiger


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

From: Anthony Lee <munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Cause of the AT&T Outage
Date: 10 Feb 90 12:50:18 GMT
Reply-To: munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au![e-mail]


In the offical explanation of the AT&T outage, the following was
written about the software flaw.

>with the main CCS7 signaling network.  While the software had been
>rigorously tested in laboratory environments before it was introduced,
>the unique combination of events that led to this problem couldn't be
>predicted.

I would really like to know if AT&T does rigorously test their
software as they claim.  Can anyone confirm that ?

Furthermore does a company like AT&T use any of the modern software
engineering techniques for their software development ?  e.g. Formal
Specifications, Proofs of correctness of critical parts of software
etc.?

The point is that the FAA required that proofs of correctness of
flight control software be provided so why aren't there similar
requirements for critical software within the 4ESS ?

If the financial communities in the US are so dependent on the AT&T
network then shouldn't they have satisfaction of knowing that they can
relied on the fact that the software in the 4ESS to work correctly?

That is, if a passenger on a modern jetliner places his life in the
hands of an engineer who wrote the flight control software of the
jetliner and that engineer has to prove his software is correct then
what permits an engineer at AT&T to write some code for the 4ESS
without proving the correctness of that code ?  I don't know if they
do program correctness proofs at AT&T but if they do, then my
apologies.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #91
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25492;
          11 Feb 90 14:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30395;
          11 Feb 90 12:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12858;
          11 Feb 90 11:15 CST
Date:     Sun, 11 Feb 90 10:55:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #92
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 11 Feb 90 10:55:17 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Remote Broadcast Lines (was: Rochester Telephone) (Robert Gutierrez)
    Various Items (David Leibold)
    New Archives File: How Numbers Are Assigned (TELECOM Moderator)
    Is There a Way to Intercept and Report Call Waiting? (Sugih Jamin)
    Dallas Area Code Split (Mike Wommack)
    Another PIN Problem, Specific to Southern Bell (Dr. T. Andrews)
    Satellite TV Question (Steve Kass)
    Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought (David Daniel)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (John Higdon)
    Special Issue: The Birth of the NSA (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote Broadcast Lines (was: Rochester Telephone).
Date: 11 Feb 90 03:38:15 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg) writes in Vol 10, Iss. 89, message 4 of 14
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
> writes:

> Roch Tel confirmed this, and we had to cancel plans to cover the
> tournament, since we would only have 3-5 days notice of where the next
> game would be (depending on who won in each round), and we couldn't
> afford to have lines installed everywhere.

> There oughta be a law about this....

No law, just alternate ways of getting around this.

It's unfortunate that you can't use celluar phones for 'Remote
Broadcast' without an STA (Special Temp. Authority) (does the FCC plan
on changing it's mind about this soon???), but you can use some device
made by Wenger (or was it Cetec?) that basically companded an audio
line, 'split' it in 1/2, and used 2 normal voice grade telco lines
(read: regular telephone calls), and provided 7.5khz of bandwidth at
the distant end.  Mutual used this for remote Larry King shows. the
only problem was disconnections of the phone line (I seem to remember
Mutual using 4 lines, the other 'pair' being a backup). All you needed
was 2 POTS lines at the remote site.

But in your case, Blockhead-Tel....err...Rochester Tel probably still
needed 3-4 days lead for the POTS lines also, unless there was some
pay phones near by that had accessable demarcs or even some exposed
drops.....naaaahhhh, that's 'illegal'.........

There's also satellite flight-packs that come in about 3 large suitcases
and a small dish (3-4 feet), and then you can shoot up a 15khz SCPC line into
the sky onto a Ku bird. 'Wolfman' Jack did that for XTRA-AM in Baja California
for a while.

The point being made here is that there ARE alternatives nowadays, and
the telcos need to be made aware that people can and WILL use them if
they keep this type of attitude. I will readly admit that the lead
times for ordering and installation of long-line audio circuts has
dropped, but not fast enough to keep up with technology.

   Robert Gutierrez  -  NASA Ames Research/NSI Network Operations.

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

Subject: Various Items
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 90 11:06:54 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


1) Northern Telecom recently unveiled its Meridian 1 PBX line, designed
   for 30 to 60 000 lines, relying on modular design for flexibility.

   Incidentally, British Telecom is the exclusive distributor of the
   new Meridian 1 switch in the UK. This is at the same time as BT's
   intent to sell its share of Mitel, but we're not supposed to connect
   the two events of course... :-&

2) Carl Moore wondered about Zaire country code; it should be 243,
   according to the best sources available... (there are other 24x
   countries, so just 24 won't do).

3) In the previous discussion about new dialing procedures, and that many
   areas would have to go 1 + 10 digits, even for intra-area calls, one
   possible method that seems forgotten in any of the stuff i've read is
   to use (for touch tone) 1 + 7 digits (within NPA) + '#' (octothorpe).
   This is a variant on the timeout scheme where one waits after dialing
   7 digits.

   Incidentally, many overseas dialings can be terminated with '#' on
   a tone fone. Bell Canada doesn't publicise this too much, since not
   all exchanges will let you finish overseas calls with a '#'.

4) Don't miss out on one of the hardest-hitting pieces of telecom literature,
   namely Bellcore document TR-620-23352-84-03, Wasp and Hornet Spray Issue 1
   Aug 1984. For only $17.25, you can find "the chemical, electrical,
   regulatory and corresponding test methods for comparing the product
   against the generic requirements. The test methods specified are intended
   to reflect a composite picture of actual operating conditions."

5) As area codes like 310 and 510 are assigned, is TWX now officially dead
   (the technology has long been obsolete since Kansas City Standard (ie.
   300 baud), but maybe some people still use TWX somewhere)?


|| David Leibold     "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse"
|| [e-mail]                                 - Bruce Cockburn
|| (backup address: [e-mail])


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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 90 21:40:41 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Archives File: How Numbers Are Assigned


Our correspondent David Leibold, who has favored us with so many new
archives files in recent weeks has supplied yet another one:

"How Numbers Are Assigned" is a detailed look at the way area codes
and other numbers we dial are assigned, and the meaning of many such
code numbers. This is an excellent file for someone new to the group.
It also contains a numerical list of area codes, among other things.

To use the Telecom Archives:

    1.    ftp lcs.mit.edu
    2.    Login: anonymous   give [e-mail] for password
    3.    cd telecom-archives
    4.    dir    (to view the selections)
    5.    get INDEX.TO.ARCHIVES  (to have a copy in your directory of the
          archives main directory, for your future reference.)


Thanks to Mr. Leibold for another excellent submission.

Patrick Townson

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

From: Sugih Jamin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is There a Way to Intercept and Report Call Waiting?
Date: 11 Feb 90 06:02:55 GMT
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Hello,

When using my modem for dialup, I don't want to disable my call
waiting with *71 because I do want the incoming call to get through.
But I am not very happy with the call waiting cutting my modem
connection either.  Is there a way that I can intercept the call
waiting signal, recognize it, and notify myself that there is a call
waiting?  Further, if such is possible, can I toggle between the call
and my modem connection?  Is there any communications device out there
that does this?

Please respond by e-mail, I'll summarize.  Thanks.


sugih


[Moderator's Note: Yes. Its called having two lines in hunt. You have
a second physical line, or wire from the CO. When a second call comes
in, the CO puts it on the second line. You 'toggle' between the two
lines by using a second instrument to answer the second line with the
new call. Or, you use a hold button, perhaps.  No call waiting signal
will be involved. In effect, the CO will 'intercept' the call for you
and park it on the second line, and 'notify' you by ringing the bell
on that phone. This is probably NOT the answer you wanted; its the only
one I know of.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 90 23:07 EST
From: Mike Wommack <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dallas Area Code Split


I saw an item couple of weeks ago mentioing that Dallas was going to
have its own area code. Anyone have any details on this?


Mike Wommack      Inet: [e-mail]
                 BITnet: taxman@drycas
                 UUCP: uunet!drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu!taxman
                 CCNet: DRYCAS::TAXMAN


[Moderator's Note: Area code 903 will be formed from part of the
existing Dallas area code 214 later this year. I don't know if Dallas
is going to stay in 214 while surrounding areas are moved to 903, or
the other way around. We had a brief discussion of this in the Digest
several months ago, but nothing recently. Do any readers have
up-to-date info on this?  PT]

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

Subject: Another PIN Problem, Specific to Southern Bell
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 90 18:27:18 EST
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Organization: CompuData, Inc. (DeLand)


It happens that Southern Bell has a service which allows you to call
an "800" number and arrange to disconnect or suspend your own phone
service.  They also have a tendency to print the "how-to-use"
information on each phone bill, along with the text:

        Your security code is XXXX.  Please protect it."

A call or two, and one word picture later -- (Suppose that one throws
away the phone bill, and a dog gets into the garbage.  Suppose that
this happens near a high school) -- the representative discovered that
she could flag the account so that this information does not appear on
the bill.

It turned out not to be necessary to talk to phone company security.


 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra attctc bpa uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner


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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 90 11:43 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite TV Question


This is a bit off the lines of the Telecom Digest, but I'm hoping some
of you out there can help.  I'm living in a new condo complex wired
for cable TV, but the local cable company doesn't seem eager to wire
us up.  Enough of us are willing to chip in to make a satellite dish
worthwhile.  I've seen satellites serving hotels and such, so I'm
guessing that a dish, some hardware, and a wire over to the cable box
on the side of the building will do.  Any suggestions,
recommendations, cautions, legal advice or other newsgroups to post to
would be welcomed.  Save Patrick some trouble and respond directly to
me.  Thanks.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Steve Kass                                "An amount in this box means   ::
:: Department of Math & Computer Science      the fishing boat operator     ::
:: Drew University                            considers you self-employed." ::
:: Madison, NJ  07940            /\/                         -IRS Form 1099 ::
::                                                           :::::::::::::::::
:: [e-mail]         201-408-3614 (work, voice mail) ::
:: [e-mail]            201-514-1187 (home) ::::::::::::::
:: rutgers!njin!drew!skass ::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought
Date: 11 Feb 90 12:52:19 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


For that matter you'd do well to look into the SX-200 by Mitel which
gives you all that the System 25 does and more:

ISDN compatible. Greater expansion. The choice of proprietary Voice
Mail/Auto Attendant of a good 3rd party manufacturer like Active Voice's
Repartee. Also the choice of a more full featured call accounting
system at a better price.  When it comes right down to it, it's not
too difficult to do better than AT&T, but it's not so easy to do
better than Mitel.

    --- "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                          Elvis Costello


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: 10 Feb 90 22:58:48 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have several cures to the problem.  The first is a non_pub
> *address*.  I have yet to be charged extra for this service by any
> (BOC or IOC) company. With such, the upside_down books seem to ignore
> me, even in the number section.

Not only the upside down books seem to ignore me with no address
listed, but so do the "neighborhood" books published by GTE and
others.  The Willow Glen/South San Jose Neighborhood Phone Book has
never had my name in it, yet I live squarely in the area covered by
the publication and have for twenty-two years with a listed telephone.
I have never been charged for the lack of address in the listing, nor
for any of the unlisted numbers at my residence.


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

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

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 10:10:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: The Birth of the NSA


Over the weekend, I received an interesting article from
[e-mail] which is a copy of the order by President Harry S
Truman authorizing the National Security Agency.

Until not too long ago, this was a classified document; it is now
available under the Freedom of Information Act.

Because of its size, I am sending it as a special issue later today. I
hope you will enjoy reading it.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #92
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26680;
          11 Feb 90 14:57 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12433;
          11 Feb 90 13:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30395;
          11 Feb 90 12:20 CST
Date:     Sun, 11 Feb 90 11:36:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Birth of NSA
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 11 Feb 90 11:35:18 CST    Special: Birth of NSA

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    FOIA Jewel: Original Charter of the National Security Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 00:03 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FOIA Jewel: Original Charter of the National Security Agency


    At  12:01 ON the  morning of November 4,  1952, a new federal
agency was born.  Unlike other such bureaucratic births, however,
this one arrived in silence.   No news coverage, no congressional
debate, no press announcement,  not even the whisper of  a rumor.
Nor could any  mention of  the new organization  be found in  the
Government Organization  Manual of  the Federal  Register or  the
Congressional Record.   Equally invisible  were the new  agency's
director, its numerous buildings, and its ten thousand employees.

    Eleven days earlier,  on October 24, President Harry S Truman
scratched  his   signature  on   the  bottom   of  a   seven-page
presidential memorandum addressed  to secretary of State  Dean G.
Acheson  and Secretary of  Defense Robert A.  Lovett.  Classified
top  secret  and  stamped  with  a  code  word  that  was  itself
classified, the  order directed the establishment of an agency to
be  known as  the National  Security Agency.    It was  the birth
certificate  for  America's  newest and  most  secret  agency, so
secret in  fact that only  a handful  in the government  would be
permitted to know of its existence.

    -James Bamford, The Puzzle Palace (1982) at 15.

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

                                        A 20707 5/4/54/OSO
                                        NSA TS CONTL. NO 73-00405
                                        COPY: D321

                                        Oct 24 1952

MEMORANDUM FOR:     The Secretary of State
                    The Secretary of Defense

SUBJECT:  Communications Intelligence Activities

    The  communications intelligence  (COMINT) activities  of the
United States are  a national  responsibility.  They  must be  so
organized and managed as to exploit  to the maximum the available
resources in all  participating departments  and agencies and  to
satisfy  the legitimate  intelligence  requirements  of all  such
departments and agencies.

    I  therefore designate  the Secretaries of  State and Defense
as  a Special  Committee  of the  National  Security Council  for
COMINT,  which  Committee  shall,  with  the  assistance  of  the
Director of  Central Intelligence,  establish policies  governing
COMINT  activities. and keep me advised  of such policies through
the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council.

    I  further designate  the Department of  Defense as executive
agent  of   the  Government,   for  the   production  of   COMINT
information.

    I  direct  this  Special  Committee  to  prepare   and  issue
directives which shall include the provisions set forth below and
such other provisions  as the Special Committee  may determine to
be necessary.

    1.    A   directive  to   the  United   States  Communication
Intelligence  Board  (USCIB).  This  directive will  replace the
National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 9, and shall
prescribe   USCIB's   new   composition,   responsibilities   and
procedures in the  COMINT fields.   This directive shall  include
the following provisions.

a. USCIB  shall be reconstituted  as a body  acting for
    and  under  the  Special  Committee,  and  shall  operate  in
    accordance with the  provisions of  the new directive.   Only
    those  departments  or  agencies  represented  in  USCIB  are
    authorized to engage in COMINT activities.

b.  The  Board  shall  be  composed  of  the  following
    members:
     (1) The  Director  of  Central Intelligence,  who shall be
         the Chairman of the Board.
     (2) A representative of the Secretary of State.
     (3) A representative of the Secretary of Defense
     (4) A representative of the Director of the Federal
         Bureau of Investigation.
     (5) The Director of the National Security Agency.
     (6) A representative of the Department of the Army.
     (7) A representative of the Department of the Navy.
     (8) A representative of the Department of the Air Force.
     (9) A representative of the Central Intelligence Agency.

c. The Board shall have a  staff headed by an executive
    secretary who  shall be  appointed by the  Chairman with  the
    approval of the majority of the Board.

d. It shall be the duty of the Board to advise and make
    recommendations to the  Secretary of  Defense, in  accordance
    with  the  following procedure,  with respect  to  any matter
    relating  to communications  intelligence which  falls within
    the jurisdiction of the Director of the NSA.
     (1) The Board shall reach its decision by majority
     vote.  Each  member of  the Board shall  have one  vote
     except the  representatives of  the Secretary  of State
     and of the  Central Intelligence Agency who  shall each
     have two votes.  The  Director of Central Intelligence,
     as Chairman, will have no vote.  In the event  that the
     Board  votes  and reaches  a  decision,  any dissenting
     member  of  the  Board may  appeal  from  such decision
     within 7 days of  the Special Committee.  In  the event
     that the Board votes but fails to reach a decision, any
     member of the  Board may  appeal within 7  days to  the
     Special  Committee.    In   either  event  the  Special
     Committee   shall   review    the   matter,   and   its
     determination thereon shall  be final.  Appeals  by the
     Director  of NSA  and/or  the  representatives  of  the
     Military  Departments  shall  only  be  filed with  the
     approval of the Secretary of Defense.
     (2) If any matter is voted on by the Board but -
      (a)  no decision  is reached  and any  member
      files an appeal;
      (b)  a  decision  is  reached  in  which  the
      representative  of the  Secretary of  Defense does
      not concur and files an appeal;
     no action  shall be taken  with respect to  the subject
     matter until the  appeal is decided, provided  that, if
     the Secretary of Defense determines, after consultation
     with the Secretary  of State,  that the subject  matter
     presents a problem of an  emergency nature and requires
     immediate action,  his decision  shall govern,  pending
     the  result  of  the  appeal.   In  such  an  emergency
     situation  the  appeal  may be  taken  directly  to the
     President.
     (3)  Recommendations  of  the  Board  adopted   in
     accordance  with  the  foregoing  procedures  shall  be
     binding on the Secretary of Defense.   Except on matter
     which have been voted on by  the Board, the Director of
     NSA shall discharge  his responsibilities in accordance
     with his own  judgment, subject to the direction of the
     Secretary of Defense.
     (4) The Director  of NSA  shall make such  reports
     and furnish  such information from time to  time to the
     Board,  either orally  or in  writing, as the  Board my
     request, and shall bring to  the attention of the Board
     either in such reports or  otherwise any major policies
     or programs in advance of their adoption by him.
e. It  shall  also be  the duty  of  the Board  as to
    matters not falling within the jurisdiction of NSA;
    (1) To coordinate the  communications intelligence
    activities   among   all   departments   and   agencies
    authorized by the President to participate therein;
    (2) To initiate, to formulate policies concerning,
    and  subject  to  the  provision of  NSCID  No.  5,  to
    supervise all arrangements with  foreign governments in
    the field of communications intelligence; and
    (3)   to   consider   and   make   recommendations
    concerning   policies   relating    to   communications
    intelligence of common interest  to the departments and
    agencies, including security  standards and  practices,
    and, for  this purpose,  to investigate  and study  the
    standards  and   practices  of  such   departments  and
    agencies   in   utilizing    and   protecting    COMINT
    information.
f. Any recommendation of the Board with respect  to the
    matters  described in paragraph e above shall  be binding on
    all  departments  or  agencies of  the  Government  if  it is
    adopted  by the  unanimous vote of the  members of the Board.
    Recommendations  approved by  the majority,  but not  all, of
    the  members of the Board  shall be transmitted by  it to the
    Special  Committee for  such action as  the Special Committee
    may see fit to take.
g. The Board will meet monthly,  or oftener at the call
    of  the Chairman  or any member, and  shall determine its own
    procedures.

    2. A directive to  the Secretary of Defense.   This
    directive shall include the following provisions:

a. Subject   to  the  specific   provisions  of   this
    directive, the Secretary of  Defense may delegate in whole of
    in  part  authority  over the  Director  of  NSA  within  his
    department as he sees fit.

b. The COMINT  mission of the National  Security Agency
    (NSA) shall be to provide an effective,  unified organization
    and control of the communications  intelligence activities of
    the United States  conducted against foreign  governments, to
    provide for  integrated operational  policies and  procedures
    pertaining thereto.   As  used in  this directive,  the terms
    "communications intelligence"  or "COMINT" shall be construed
    to mean all  procedures and methods used in  the interception
    of communications  other  than foreign  press and  propaganda
    broadcasts  and  the  obtaining  of   information  from  such
    communications by other  than intended recipients,  but shall
    exclude censorship  and the  production and dissemination  of
    finished intelligence.

c. NSA shall be administered  by a Director, designated
    by  the  Secretary of  Defense  after  consultation with  the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff, who shall serve for a  minimum term of
    4  years and  who shall be  eligible for  reappointment.  The
    Director shall be a career commissioned officer of  the armed
    services  on active or reactivated status, and shall enjoy at
    least 3-star rank during the period of his incumbency.

d. Under the  Secretary of  Defense, and in  accordance
    with approved  policies of USCIB,  the Director of NSA  shall
    be responsible  for accomplishing  the mission  of NSA.   For
    this purpose all  COMINT collection and production  resources
    of  the United States  are placed  under his  operational and
    technical  control.    When  action  by  the  Chiefs  of  the
    operating  agencies of the  Services or  civilian departments
    or  agencies is  required, the Director  shall normally issue
    instruction  pertaining to  COMINT operations  through  them.
    However,  due  to the  unique technical  character  of COMINT
    operations,  the Director  is authorized  to issue  direct to
    any  operating elements  under  his operational  control task
    assignments and pertinent  instructions which are within  the
    capacity of such elements to accomplish.  He  shall also have
    direct   access  to,  and   direct  communication  with,  any
    elements  of the  Service or civilian  COMINT agencies on any
    other  matters of operational and technical control as may be
    necessary,  and he  is authorized to  obtain such information
    and intelligence material from  them as he may require.   All
    instruction  issued  by  the  Director  under  the  authority
    provided in this paragraph  shall be mandatory, subject  only
    to  appeal  to  the Secretary  of  Defense  by the  Chief  of
    Service or head of civilian department of agency concerned.
e. Specific  responsibilities  of the  Director of  NSA
    include the following:
     (1)  Formulating  necessary operational  plans and
     policies for the conduct of the U.S. COMINT activities.
     (2)   Conducting   COMINT   activities,  including
     research and development, as required to meet the needs
     of the  departments and agencies  which  are authorized
     to receive the products of COMINT.
     (3)  Determining,  and  submitting to  appropriate
     authorities, requirements for  logistic support for the
     conduct of  COMINT activities,  together with  specific
     recommendations  as  to  what each  of  the responsible
     departments  and  agencies  of  the  Government  should
     supply.
     (4) Within  NSA's field  of authorized  operations
     prescribing  requisite  security  regulations  covering
     operating   practices,   including   the  transmission,
     handling and distribution of COMINT material within and
     among  the COMINT  elements  under  his  operations  or
     technical   control;   and  exercising   the  necessary
     monitoring   and    supervisory   control,    including
     inspections if necessary, to ensure compliance with the
     regulations.
     (5)  Subject   to  the  authorities   granted  the
     Director  Central  Intelligence   under  NSCID  No.  5,
     conducting all liaison on  COMINT matters with  foreign
     governmental communications intelligence agencies.
f. To  the extent he  deems feasible and  in consonance
    with  the aims  of maximum over-all  efficiency, economy, and
    effectiveness, the Director  shall centralize  or consolidate
    the  performance  of  COMINT   functions  for  which  he   is
    responsible.  It is recognized that in  certain circumstances
    elements of the Armed Forces and other  agencies being served
    will require close COMINT support.  Where necessary for  this
    close  support,  direct  operational  control  of   specified
    COMINT  facilities  and resources  will be  delegated  by the
    Director,  during such  periods  and for  such tasks  as  are
    determined  by him,  to military commanders  or to the Chiefs
    of other agencies supported.
g. The  Director  shall exercise  such  administrative
    control  over COMINT activities as he  deems necessary to the
    effective   performance   of   his   mission.      Otherwise,
    administrative  control  of  personnel  and  facilities  will
    remain with the departments and agencies providing them.
h. The Director shall make provision for participation
    by  representatives of  each of the  departments and agencies
    eligible to receive COMINT  products in those offices of  NSA
    where  priorities  of  intercept and  processing  are finally
    planned.
i. The  Director shall  have  a civilian  deputy whose
    primary responsibility  shall be  to ensure the  mobilization
    and  effective  employment of  the best  available  human and
    scientific  resources in the  field of cryptographic research
    and development.
j. Nothing  in  this  directive  shall contravene  the
    responsibilities  of the  individual departments and agencies
    for  the  final   evaluation  of   COMINT  information,   its
    synthesis  with  information  from  other  sources,  and  the
    dissemination of finished intelligence to users.

    3. The  special nature of  COMINT actives requires that  they
    be treated  in all  respects as  being outside  the framework  of
    other  or general  intelligence  activities.   Order, directives,
    policies, or recommendations  of any  authority of the  Executive
    Branch   relating  to   the  collection,   production,  security,
    handling, dissemination, or  utilization of intelligence,  and/or
    classified material, shall  not be applicable to  COMINT actives,
    unless  specifically   so   stated  and   issued   by   competent
    departmental of agency authority represented on the Board.  Other
    National Security Council Intelligence Directive to the  Director
    of  Central  Intelligence  and  related  implementing  directives
    issued by the Director of Central Intelligence shall be construed
    as  non-applicable  to  COMINT  activities, unless  the  National
    Security Council has made  its directive specifically  applicable
    to COMINT.

     /s/ HARRY S TRUMAN


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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Birth of NSA
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19725;
          12 Feb 90 3:13 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23536;
          12 Feb 90 1:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02425;
          12 Feb 90 0:26 CST
Date:     Mon, 12 Feb 90 0:20:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #93
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Feb 90 00:20:05 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Packet Modem Communications (Ian Boardman)
    ISDN Conformance Testing (Danny Wilson)
    Reminiscences of an Old Phone System (Robert Kaplan)
    Communications With The Deaf (Lee Henderson)
    Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze (David Lesher)
    Re: Phone Credit Cards
    Re: Phone Credit Cards (David Tamkin)
    Re: Make Busy Device (Dave Levenson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ian Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Packet Modem Communications
Date: 11 Feb 90 21:52:50 GMT
Organization: Boston University Center for Adaptive Systems


[I am forwarding this message for a friend. Please reply to her
directly via e-mail to [e-mail]. Thanks.]

from:Computer Science School in Nicaragua
     Section of Communications

We have a project here to install a PAD connected to the Costa Rican
packet switched service RACSAPAC. We want to identify as quickly as we
can suitable equipment to purchase.

Could you possibly help us to obtain information on:

        * Technical specification - the more detailed the better.

        * Price

        * Delivery

        * Information on repair and spares. Will they provide a
          service manual and circuit diagram.

        * Blockade problems - will they supply Nicaragua direct or
          via a third party.

concerning the following equipment:

1) PAD X3 (Packet Assembler Disassembler)
For connection to RACSAPAC in Costa Rica. We plan to use 4 MODEMs and
use the other ports for system management and connections to
university networks.

X25 port capable of 2400 and 4800 baud, preferably 9600 as well.  8
serial ports RS232 (or 4 extendable to 8) at least 1200 baud,
preferably 2400 as well.

We understand that some PADs are stand alone units and some are plug
in cards for PCs and compatables. We would like information about both
sorts but we are especially interested in the latter because we would
like to be able to run software that would connect the caller either
to RACSAPAC via the PAD or to some other system of our own via a RS232
port, e.g. a local BBS or packet radio gateway.

2) MODEM "A"
Synchronous modem for the X25 link. At least 4800 baud, preferably
9600 too.

3) MODEM "B"
Bell standard modem for the incoming calls. Bell 212A is suitable.
We'd like to know how much extra a MNP (class 5?)  facility would be.

4) MODEM "C"
An economical Bell standards, Hayes compatable modem capable of 1200
duplex, for re-sale to our customers.

We will be grateful for anything you can find out or any other advice/
comments.

The best way to send stuff to us varies. Our address is given below
but ordinary post would be very slow:

        Teresa Ortega
        Escuela de Computacion
        Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria
        Apartado 5595
        Managua, Nicaragua.

        Telephone: 673709 (UNI direct) e-mail:[e-mail]
                   678008 (my home)


(passed to Telecom by -- Do NOT reply to)
Ian Boardman
Center for Adaptive Systems
Boston Univ.
[e-mail]

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

From: Danny Wilson <idacom![e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Conformance Testing
Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd.
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 21:29:47 GMT


Right now the NIUF (North American ISDN User's Forum) has a committee
formulating the standard set of conformance tests for the North
American ISDN standard.  The tests they will end up with are known as
the ACT23, or [North] American Conformance Tests for layer 2 and 3.

I know that most of the carriers and vendors are members of this
organization and that the final standard they arrive at will be
adopted as the standard set of tests for both COS (Corporation for
Open Systems) and US GOSIP.

However, there are some points unclear.  Bellcore already has an ISDN
conformance testing standard from _several_ years ago.  As I
understand it, it is suffciently out of date so that it does not apply
to either the 1984 or the 1988 version of ISDN.

Can anyone out there comment on whether Bellcore and/or AT&T will be
moving towards the ACT23 conformance tests, thus replacing the current
Bellcore tests?

It would seem to be inevitable regarding the necessity of meeting
GOSIP and the increasing importance of standards and conformance
testing in general.


Danny Wilson            [e-mail]
IDACOM Electronics        alberta!idacom!danny
Edmonton, Alberta    X.400    [e-mail]
C A N A D A        Voice    [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 22:53:34 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reminiscences of an Old Phone System


I was reading the archives file of volume 9 a few minutes ago, when I
came across a posting from "Bruce Hamilton," describing the
difficulties he had been having in reaching "Deep Springs Toll Station
#2" near Bishop, Cal.  I lived at Deep Springs for a year, and much
has changed.  In 1987, the old toll-station wire line, which ran over
the White Mountains for some 50 miles from Bishop, was replaced at our
end by a UHF radio link, which used 462 and 467-MHz to send the audio
to a repeater in the Whites and then back down to Bishop.

When that was installed (by Deep Springs College, *NOT* by Contel),
the college finally had a phone number: (714)--later [phone].
The audio was about as bad as it gets, and I imagine data would have
been impossible (although I am told someone once sent 300 baud over
it).

Those who were there before the cutover told me that for a year or
two, Contel allowed local dialing from Deep Springs to Bishop and Big
Pine, but LD still had to go through an operator.  The wire line
stands to this day, as there are two people who live on another ranch
in the valley and still get phone service from Contel as "Deep Springs
#1."  The poles have been taken down for the mile or so from their
ranch to the college, though.

When 872-2000 was connected, the college shelled out for a Panasonic
616. Before that, the intercom among the various ranch buildings
was a system that dated from the school's founding in 1917: big wooden
boxes on the walls with *cranks* and a mouthpiece on the box.  To call
someone else, you would crank the appropriate series of dots and
dashes! :-)  [The irony is, it was probably more reliable than the
'616, which would crash whenever there was a storm nearby.]  Anyway, I
thought I'd share some details of a truly out-of-the-way phone system.


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion.

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

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 16:27:25 -0500
From: Lee Henderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Communications With The Deaf


It is ironic that one of the reasons for the invention of the
telephone was to improve communication among the deaf.  The telephone
now stands as one of the greatest barriers to communication with the
deaf today.  By some estimates there are perhaps two million deaf
people that can't use the phone directly.  One relatively recent
improvement is the use of Telephone Devices for the Deaf (TDDs).

These are basically dumb terminals with a single display line of 40
fluorescent anphanumeric characters.  The connection to the telephone
is by means of an acoustic coupler and proceeds by means of 45 baud, 5
bit baudot, carrierless FSK.  Believe it or not this is adequate for
interactive conversations at about 60 words per minute.  New devices
built to this standard are being built and sold today.  There is
little incentive to change to higher baud rates because 60 wpm is
perfectly adequate for private conversations and there is already a
large base of installed TDDs.

I have occasion to talk to a deaf person on the opposite coast for
several hours a month.  The usual long-distance charges mount up
quickly.  While long distance discounts are available to deaf people,
I am curious if even more cost-effective methods exist.  Now my
question to the group is this: Are there less expensive
sub-voice-grade lines available or does Telex or TWX still exist for
long-distance communication?


[Moderator's Note: Actually, TDD's go back many years. The very early
ones were simply telex-like devices; bulky and cumbersome, and they
printed out on paper rather than LED's. AT&T's commitment to deaf
people has a long history, beginning as you noted with Alex Bell, who
was a teacher of deaf students. On the fiftieth anniversary of Alex's
passing, Charles Brown, then chairman of Illinois Bell (and later
chairman of AT&T) noted their continuing commitment by opening
800-855-1155; an operator-attended service where hearing-impaired
persons may relay messages via their machines to operators for relay
to people who can hear, for the price of what the call would cost
otherwise. The service is still in operation; the operators answer
with a TDD machine. Illinois Bell and most Bell Companies still
provide 'special solutions' for handicapped people at no charge;
devices such as flashing lights, special relays and toggle switches,
etc. are constructed and/or donated by the Telephone Pioneers.
Additionally, a local seven-digit number here connects to an Illinois
Bell operator with a TDD who provides directory assistance, emergency
call assistance and other operator functions.  PT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 14:57:14 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


What's the situation nowadays @ Atlanta's airport? While there, I
tried the one armed bandits out. I seemed to be able to get through to
MA and MCI via 950-xxxx, but when I dialed, the handset muted and I
could hear DTMF faintly as it forwarded the call somewhere. I did not
make any chargeable calls.


A host is a host & from coast to [e-mail]
no one will talk to a host that's close..............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Date: 12 Feb 90 00:20:18 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 91, message 7 of 9

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

>> >>Note: Bank ATM cards, like telco cards, _do_ have your PIN
>> >>magnetically encoded on the card.

>> >Although that was true for some early ATMs, it's not generally true
>> >any more.  ...
>> It is definitely no longer true.  ....

>Perhaps it is not true today, but less than a year ago when I was
>issued a new card, they put it into a machine and handed me a
>keyboard, telling me to select and enter a PIN.  After I did so, the
>machine apparently updated the mag stripe on the card.  In any case,
>the only external connection to that machine was its power-cord.  If
>it didn't communicate the PIN to anyplace, it must have written it
>on the card (perhaps encrypted, like the password field in /etc/passwd?)


I think encryption is the key (sorry 'bout the pun).  Many years ago,
my father worked at a bank and as they were installing ATM's and such
explained to me that the PIN and account number were dropped toghether
through a trap-door algorithm and the result encoded on the card along
with the account number.  When you enter your PIN, the same algorithm
is applied, and the results compared.  Sounds just like /etc/passwd to
me.

I won't mention the name of the bank, since he just left the company
under a complex set of circumstances.  It was, however, in New Jersey,
and so might be the bank Dave mentioned.

This has wandered a bit from telecom, but since the answer is relevant
to phone cards as well, I thought I would add my $0.02.

Additional telecom trivia: I recently called my parents in NJ on
908-464-XXXX successfully; until then they didn't know which side of
the 201/908 split they were on.


Steve Tell                    [e-mail]
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.        919-968-1792
Former chief engineer, Duke Union Community Television, Durham, NC.



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

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 12:39 CST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Credit Cards
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX


Dave Levenson wrote in <[e-mail]> of Volume 10, Issue 91:

| Perhaps it is not true today, but less than a year ago when I was
| issued a new card, they put it into a machine and handed me a
| keyboard, telling me to select and enter a PIN.  After I did so, the
| machine apparently updated the mag stripe on the card.  In any case,
| the only external connection to that machine was its power-cord.  If
| it didn't communicate the PIN to anyplace, it must have written it
| on the card (perhaps encrypted, like the password field in /etc/passwd?)

I've been through that same procedure.  The S&L said that the card
would be valid in two to three business days.  (My family has several
accounts with that institution, and I helped my parents go through the
procedure as well, so I did this about three times at the same place.)
If the PIN was encoded onto the card, even encrypted, it should have
been valid immediately.  I got the impression that each days' PIN
selections from each branch were uploaded to the institution's
database at the end of the day and later the institution batched them
and uploaded them to the network's database.


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: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Busy Device
Date: 11 Feb 90 23:50:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger Fajman) writes:

> For various reasons, I occasionally want to make either all or some of
> the lines busy.  Right now, each for each line there is make busy
> switch provided by the telco (C&P of Maryland).  Each switch has a
> circuit of its own going back to the central office, which is fairly
> expensive.

You can make a line busy by taking it off-hook.  The telco will send
you ROH tone, and may get annoyed if you do it a lot, however.  If
you use a switch that connects a resistor of about 600 ohms between
Tip and Ring, it probably won't affect a call in progress (may drop
the audio level a bit).  When the call ends, the line will appear to
remain off-hook, and the CO will just hunt around it.


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


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #93
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23111;
          12 Feb 90 5:13 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27252;
          12 Feb 90 3:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13799;
          12 Feb 90 2:32 CST
Date:     Mon, 12 Feb 90 1:40:55 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #94
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Feb 90 01:40:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Coping in a World Where Information is King (TELECOM Moderator)
    Who Is Vista-United? (TELECOM Moderator)
    Latest charge by Southwestern Bell (Dewey Henize)
    Re: Question on Telephone Jacks (John R. Levine)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Mark Brader)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 1:02:13 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Coping in a World Where Information is King


Alfred C. Sikes, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission was
in Chicago two weeks ago, speaking to communications industry
executives in our town. Here are excerpts from his comments:

"Alvin Toffler observed in his 1970 book, 'Future Shock,' that the
pace of societal change was increasingly beyond our ability to adapt.
Changing employment relations, frequent family moves and an assortment
of other things caused Toffler to worry that many Americans would
simply be unable to cope with the future.

"As Toffler prepared the world for future shock, global thinkers
pronounced the Industrial Age dead and hailed the Information Age as
the wave of the future. Many pundits define the Information Age by
listing the numerous new services available to consumers, such as
computerized shopping, electronic banking, and Nintendo. Others talk
about the ubiquity of the telephone or the importance of the
television.

"To me, the Information Age tends to be characterized by two facts: First,
the value of information is rapidly becoming greater than the value of
things. Second, the irrepressibility od information will undermine
efforts to control people or markets.

"I am convinced that while Mikhail Gorbachev and Solidarity were both
powerful forces behind the revolutionary changes in Europem it was the
ubiquity of video information, chronicling the advantages of freedom,
that lead to the upheaval. In addition, reports of a revolution in one
part of the Eastern bloc motivated people in other parts.

"In the Industrial Age, wealth or power often resulted from
manufacturing techniques buttressed by cheap labor, bountiful natural
resources and favorable location. In the Information Age, power and
wealth are increasingly available only to those who can select (or
obtain) and effectively use information, regardless of the labor
costs, resource availability or physical location of their company.

"Just seven years ago, four firms offered most of the information
services in our consumer-driven economy:  AT&T, CBS, NBC, and ABC. The
Federal Communications Commission was then referred to as a
'communications gatekeeper.' The scope of FCC responsibilities has
changed significantly since then.

"For decades, General Motors, AT&T and IBM were among the behemoths of
U.S. industry. In 1970, GM's share of the U.S. auto market was about
sixty percent, but now in 1990, the share had slipped below 34 percent.
In 1970, AT&T controlled about 97 percent of the U.S. long-distance
phone call market; today its share is about 68 percent. In 1970, IBM
was the pre-eminent computer company -- and today? Only about 30
percent of the volatile and growing personal computer market belongs
to IBM.

"There are many reasons why the dominance of these companies has
diminished. But the factor that stands out is the power of
information. Its wider availability, the revolutionary new techniques
for using informatin in research, development, manufacturing and
marketing -- plus access to persuasive new video advertising
techniques -- offer new entrepreneurial opportunities, and make it
more difficult for dominant companies to maintain market shares.

"The changes in information technology are nothing short of astounding.
Fiber technologies were in the laboratories just eight or nine years
ago. Now we have about 80,000 miles of fiber optic cables throughout
the United States. The technology we know as the fax machine has been
around for decades, but only in the last few years has its application
and use become widespread. Changes to come will be equally dramatic.
In the Information Age, future shock will not ebb, it will flow on and
on.

"The Federal Communications Commission faces one of the most difficult
challenges of this new age. When law and tradition say you are a
regulatory agency, how can you at the same time be a leader and
facilitator?  Regulators don't lead, they regulate, conduct, or
provide access to -- and use of -- scarce resources.  But if the FCC
is merely reactive, chances are good the government will retard
progress, either wittingly or unwittingly.

"The FCC will continue to have authority over prices, earnings and
investment. As it exercises this authority, it is essential that the
agency understand the impact of its decisions on modernization.
Yesterday's universal telephone service policies were intended solely
to advance the nationwide deployment of voice service.  I look forward
to expanding the definition of universal telephone service. Widely
deployed broadband and multimedia capabilities are essential to our
continuing prosperity and global leadership.

"Past policies have served us well. The perpetuation of the unified
Bell System, the extensive use of internal cross-subsidies,
rate-of-return regulation and the like helped produce the world's
leading telecommunications network. Many of those policies, however,
are as obsolete as yesterday's black rotary dial phone.  What we will
have in the future will be much more capable than what we have today.
I am convinced that this vast improvement will, for the most part, not
have to be subsidized; will be provided by dozens, if not hundreds, of
companies; will be multimedia in configuration; and will improve
significantly the society we live in."


================   end of text  =========================


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 1:17:25 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who Is Vista-United?


In an article in the Digest a few issues ago, a reader commented on a
visit to Walt Disney World, and having long distance calls from his
hotel room routed through a service called 'Vista-United'. I did some
checking to see exactly who/what this company is.

It turns out that Walt Disney World does own its own telephone
company.  They actually became one of thirteen regulated telcos in
Florida by buying 51 percent of a small local carrier.  United
Telephone owns the other 49 percent.

The main facility of Vista-United Telecommunications is quite
impressive. General Manager Joe Hegerty tells about growing from a 300
line system to one with over 25,000 lines since the company was
founded 20 years ago. Much, perhaps most of the growth was due of
course to the renowned vacation resort which started there several
years ago we know as Walt Disney World.

Among the array of communications equipment serving the 40-square-mile
complex are Northern Telecom's DMS, SL-1, and ISDN switches, as well
as 800 miles of fiber-optic cable. Vista-United was one of the first
telcos to start using fiber about eight years ago.

Hegerty's domain also includes several hundred pay telephones,
long-distance operators, and Centrex service to some of the hotels and
businesses operating at Walt Disney World.  He sold a 3000-line
Northern Telecom ISDN PBX to the new Walt Disney Swan Hotel, which is
operated by Westin Hotels & Resorts.

The Walt Disney management has always advertised quality control, and
it would appear owning their own telco is one way of assuring
themselves of quality communications on the grounds of the resort.

Probably other TELECOM Digest readers like myself will be interested
in hearing again from our correspondent when he has received his phone
bill. We'll see if call pricing in a way to please consumers is also
part of Walt Disney's scheme of things.

I just thought other readers might be curious about Vista-United.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Dewey Henize <cedar![e-mail]>
Subject: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 22:46:40 CDT


First the quote from the flyer included in the bill:

"Beginning this month, a 911 service fee is included in your bill.  It
appears on the Southwestern Bell detail of charges under the listing
911 service fee.  This fee is collected for your regional planning
commission for use in extending the territory and enhancing the 911
system.  Currently, not all areas of the county have access to the 911
service.  This fee will make 911 service available in those areas at a
future date."

The first thing that comes to mind is the great quote "We're from the
government and we're here to help you."

The fee appears to be $0.50 per line, I guess, since the bill is for
eight lines and the charge is four dollars.  Although I read this
group on the Usenet side and I try to keep up with what I can hear
about locally, this was quite a surprise.

I like the part <sarcasm for the weak minded> about 'at a future
date'.  Talk about an open ended deal!  Sure is good for the
collectors - make a few mods to an accounting program and start raking
in money.  No promise of when this money will be used (for someone
else, note), just 'at a future date'.  With a deadline of that, wanta
bet they never have enough stashed away (like it goes into different
coffers or something - HAH) to get things done just the way they think
they should be?  Of course meanwhile we all get to fund a bunch of
people who brought us such wonders as the attempts to unilaterally
change all private BBSs business rates.

Does anyone have any figures on how hard it really is to add 911
service to a part of a county?  Assume the worst, that its only in the
more remote areas, and so on.  What's the basis for a deal like this?
Hell, $6.00 per line per year in a primarily metro area is a LOT of
dollars, especially since I have to doubt that it involves something
like modifying customer phones and lines - I mean, surely this is only
in the exchanges and COs.

Maybe this is why they fortify those buildings so strongly - to get a
place to hide when they come up with something like this...


Dewey Henize                                       Execucom Systems Corp
[phone]                                     108 Wild Basin Rd
Network Administrator                              Austin, Tx 78746
 ...{cs.utexas.edu | uunet}!execu!dewey    or       [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We here in IBT-land got stuck with a 911 surcharge
starting last month. We pay 95 cents per line; it will be used to
improve our existing 911 service, which is about fifteen years old.
PT]

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

Subject: Re: Question on Telephone Jacks
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 11 Feb 90 14:36:39 EST (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>I'm wondering what is unique about an RJ-41S termination other than
>the fact that it seems to be used for data terminal equipment like modems?

The RJ-41S is a general purpose data jack.  It contains three
different things: the first is the regular tip and ring, the second is
a FLL pad that provides a signal suitable for equipment expecting a
fixed loss loop, the third is a programming resistor (chosen at
installation time) for equipment that has an internal FLL pad.  (Note
that this "pad" is unrelated to an X.25 PAD, I don't know what it
stands for in this case.)  An RJ-41S jack has a switch to flip between
regular tip/ring and FLL tip/ring.

Your RJ-41S equipment probably depends on the FLL pad so if all you
have is an RJ-11, you're out of luck.  If it just needed the
programming resistor, it could use the simpler RJ-45S jack with the
resistor but no pad.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Date: 11 Feb 90 23:56:00 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Louis E Miller)
writes:

> It was mentioned by a fellow poster that Centrex has dull,
> unimaginative phones.  That is not always true.  I just got a new ISDN
> Centrex phone on my desk.

> I may be biased since it is an AT&T product and I work there.
> However, I doubt if anyone would call this a dull, unimaginative
> phone.

As long as we are comparing Centrex with CPE equivalents, the obvious
question comes down to price.  Do you know what one pays for ISDN
Centrex service?  Also, Louis, from what telco, and in what state is
this service available?

I think the major incentive for the RBOCs to offer ISDN is to that
they can offer Centrex that competes with CPE PBX and KEY equipment in
features.  What you described certainly seems to do that.  We seem to
know what PBX and KEY equipment cost.  The price comparison ought to
be very interesting.


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: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 01:17:19 EST


It is in the telephone companies' interest if it is as easy as
possible for its customers to telephone as many people as possible.
Then, more people will want to have phones, and they will make more
calls.

But unlisted* numbers make it harder for people to phone people,
because they have to get, and keep track of, the number themselves.
So it is not in the phone companies' interest for there to be many
unlisted numbers.  (As an extreme case consider life in a country
where telephone directories and Directory Assistance do not exist at
all, as I've heard is/was true in at least some Communist countries.
And if true, will this now be changing?)

For this reason alone, a charge for having an unlisted number is
reasonable.  Indeed, this reason seems to me to make much more sense
than the "exception processing" argument more often cited.

In my opinion the phone companies' interest here happens to coincide
with the public interest; if I was making the rules, numbers listed
under fictitious names would be illegal and unlisted numbers would
require approval (granted if there was harassment or the likelihood of
it).

Here, this term implies also that Directory Assistance people will not
give out the number, or even know that it exists.  Usage elsewhere may
differ.


Mark Brader         "I can direct dial today a man my parents warred with.
Toronto              They wanted to kill him, I want to sell software to him."
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                -- Brad Templeton

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #94
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07929;
          13 Feb 90 2:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29107;
          13 Feb 90 0:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31673;
          12 Feb 90 23:43 CST
Date:     Mon, 12 Feb 90 23:38:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #95
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Feb 90 23:36:53 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Guide to Inmarsat (David Leibold)
    CCITT Blue Book (Kevin Hopkins)
    Receiver-Originated FAX (Johnny Zweig)
    A Puzzle (Joe Stong)
    Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab) (David Gast)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Guide to Inmarsat
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 19:55:24 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


[as always, corrections and additions are welcome; this info is determined
by groups such as ITU and WARC, under international agreement]

Inmarsat Codes - Maritime Satellite Service (11 February 1990)

The International Maritime Satellite (Inmarsat) organisation provides
satellite-based communication to ships at sea and ports. Special
country codes have been established for use with overseas dialing
systems to allow calls to be placed to maritime phone facilities.
There may also be uses for portable or mobile services via satellite
as well, apart from maritime usage.


Country Codes used:

All country codes beginning with 87 are reserved for maritime usage
(that is, country codes 870 to 879).

871 - Atlantic Ocean
872 - Pacific Ocean
873 - Indian Ocean

878 and 879 are reserved for national purposes (ie. within a country)
and are left unused in the general overseas dialing system.


Telephone numbers

Each phone in the system will have a unique number, and that same
number may be carried around to various coverage areas (ie. the
various oceans).  The same number will be used, even though the
country code will change.

The system uses nine-digit address numbers which are used in the
system.  For overseas calling purposes, though, seven of the nine are
presently used in the dialing, with the last two digits of the address
number set to zero by the Inmarsat equipment.


(2) Inmarsat Codes

Address Number formats are:

* for a standard ship/port number:
       MMMXXXXZZ - where MMM is a country prefix
                         XXXX is the number of the ship within the country
                         ZZ is reserved for expansion of digits; currently
                            these would be set to zeroes by the equipment
                            calling the Inmarsat service address, and is
                            not visible to the calling party

The following address numbers are not necessarily for use through the
public dialing network. These are generally numbers transmitted
internally within the Inmarsat network to allow for special features
such as group calling.

* for a national group call:
       0MMM00000 - where 0 represents the first digit
                         MMM is a country prefix
                         00000 is the final part of the 9-digit address

* for a fleet group call:
       0MMMFFFFF - where 0 represents the first digit
                         MMM is a country prefix
                         FFFFF is the fleet code for selected ships

* for a coast station:
       00MMMXXXX - where 00 represents the first two digits of the number
                         MMM is a country prefix
                         XXXX is the number within the country

* for a selected group call:
       000SSSSSS - where 000 represents the first three digits of the number
                         SSSSSS is a group number

* for an area call:
       0000AAAAA - where 0000 represents the first four digits of the number
                         AAAAA is an area designation code



(3) Inmarsat Codes

Maritime Identifiers (Prefixes)

The first three digits of a typical Inmarsat number will represent the
country to which that ship or facility belongs. These first three
digits, and the countries represented are as follows:

2XX - EUROPE
============
201 - Albania              230 - Finland             255 - Madeira
202 - Andorra              231 - Faroe Islands       256 - Malta
203 - Austria              232 - United Kingdom      257 - Norway
204 - Azores               236 - Gibraltar           261 - Poland
205 - Belgium              237 - Greece              263 - Portugal
206 - Bielorussian SSR     242 - Morocco             264 - Romania
207 - Bulgaria             243 - Hungary             265 - Sweden
208 - Vatican City         244 - Netherlands         268 - San Marino
209 - Cyprus               247 - Italy               269 - Switzerland
211 - West Germany (FR)    250 - Ireland             270 - Czechoslovakia
218 - East Germany (DR)    251 - Iceland             271 - Turkey
219 - Denmark              252 - Liechtenstein       272 - Ukraine SSR
224 - Spain                253 - Luxembourg          273 - USSR
227 - France               254 - Monaco              279 - Yugoslavia


3XX - NORTH/CENTRAL AMERICA
===========================
301 - Anguilla             327 - Dominican Republic  348 - Montserrat
303 - Alaska               329 - Guadeloupe          350 - Nicaragua
304 - Antigua/Barbuda      330 - Grenada             352 - Panama
306 - Netherlands Antilles 331 - Greenland           358 - Puerto Rico
308 - Bahamas              332 - Guatemala           359 - El Salvador
310 - Bermuda              334 - Honduras            361 - St Pierre & Miquelon
312 - Belize               336 - Haiti               362 - Trinidad and Tobago
314 - Barbados             338 - Hawaii              364 - Turks and Caicos
316 - Canada               339 - Jamaica             366 - USA
319 - Cayman Islands       341 - St Kitts and Nevis  376 - St Vincent and
321 - Costa Rica           343 - St Lucia                       Grenadines
323 - Cuba                 345 - Mexico              378 - British Virgin Isls
325 - Dominica             347 - Martinique          379 - US Virgin Islands


4XX - MIDDLE EAST/ASIA
======================
401 - Afghanistan          428 - Israel              459 - Nepal
403 - Saudi Arabia         431 - Japan               461 - Oman
405 - Bangladesh           438 - Jordan              463 - Pakistan
408 - Bahrain              440 - Korea               466 - Qatar
410 - Bhutan               445 - Korea (Dem)         468 - Syria
412 - China                447 - Kuwait              470 - United Arab Emirates
417 - Sri Lanka            450 - Lebanon             473 - Yemen (Arab Rep)
419 - India                453 - Macao               475 - Yemen (P Dem Rep)
422 - Iran                 455 - Maldives            477 - Hong Kong
425 - Iraq                 457 - Mongolia


(4) Inmarsat Codes

5XX - SOUTHEAST ASIA/OCEANIA
============================
501 - Adene Land           529 - Kiribati            555 - Pitcairn Island
503 - Australia            531 - Laos                557 - Solomon Island
506 - Burma                533 - Malaysia            559 - American Samoa
508 - Brunei Darussalm     536 - Marianna Island     561 - Western Samoa
510 - Caroline Islands     538 - Marshall Islands    563 - Singapore
512 - New Zealand          540 - New Caledonia &     567 - Thailand
514 - Kampuchea (Dem)                dependencies    570 - Tonga
516 - Christmas Island     542 - Niue Island         572 - Tuvalu
518 - Cook Islands         544 - Nauru               574 - Vietname (Soc Rep)
520 - Fiji                 546 - French Polynesia    576 - Vanuatu
523 - Cocos/Keeling Is     548 - Philippines         578 - Wallis and Fortuna
525 - Indonesia            553 - Papua New Guinea


6XX - AFRICA
============
601 - South Africa         626 - Gabonese Republic   659 - Namibia
603 - Angola               627 - Ghana               660 - Reunion
605 - Algeria              629 - Gambia              661 - Rwanda
607 - St Paul and          630 - Guinea-Bissau       662 - Sudan
          Amsterdam Isls   631 - Equitorial Guinea   663 - Senegal
608 - Ascension Island     632 - Guinea              664 - Seychelles
609 - Burundi              633 - Upper Volta         665 - St Helena
610 - Benin                634 - Kenya               666 - Somalia
611 - Botswana             635 - Kerguelen Islands   667 - Sierra Leone
612 - Central African      636 - Liberia             668 - Sao Tome & Principe
          Republic         642 - Libya               669 - Swaziland
613 - Cameroon             644 - Lesotho             670 - Chad
615 - Congo                645 - Mauritius           671 - Togolese Republic
616 - Comoros              647 - Madagascar          672 - Tunisia
617 - Cape Verde           649 - Mali                674 - Tanzania
618 - Crozet Archipelago   650 - Mozambique          675 - Uganda
619 - Ivory Coast          654 - Mauritania          676 - Zaire
621 - Djibouti             655 - Malawi              677 - Zanzibar
622 - Egypt                656 - Niger               678 - Zambia
624 - Ethiopia             657 - Nigeria             679 - Zimbabwe


7XX - SOUTH AMERICA
===================
701 - Argentina            735 - Ecuador             760 - Peru
710 - Brazil               740 - Falkland Islands    765 - Suriname
720 - Bolivia              745 - French Guiana       770 - Uruguay
725 - Chile                750 - Guyana              775 - Venezuela
730 - Colombia             755 - Paraguay


Prefixes in the 8XX and 9XX series are reseved for future or special uses.

The following prefixes are not available for assignment at this time:
100-200, 280-300, 380-400, 480-500, 580-600, 680-700, 780-999

Other prefix numbers not mentioned here are assignable, but likely
vacant at this time.


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

Subject: CCITT Blue Book
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 18:33:07 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


In v10i85 John R. Covert notes that his Official Country Codes List is
based on the CCITT Blue Book (1989). What other information does it
contain and does it have an ISBN so that our library can track it
down? I presume that "Blue Book" is not its offical title, so what is
its full title?

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


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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Receiver-Originated FAX
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 20:35:15 GMT


I was just thinking that a really hip service for someone to sell
would be a 1-900-number that you could have your fax machine dial and
get pictures downloaded (the idea was inspired by an article int he
latest Playboy, but one could envision all sorts of visual data people
would like to download).


But not being familiar with typical office fax-machines (I am much
more interested in the transmission protocols than what knobs the
silly things have on them), I don't know if it is common for a fax
machine to have the ability to place an outgoing call and then receive
data -- I know it is usually the caller who is sending pictures.

The alternative would be a 1-900 number you call and give your fax
number and it would call you back to send the data, but that would
mean disclosing your fax number to a bunch of degenerates.

Anyone know about faxes?


Johnny Download

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 20:33:30 PST
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Puzzle
Organization: UCSF Medical Center


I'm sending this to telecom, because I suspect this sort of data keeping
is liable to be used by the phone companies...

I was asked recently how much disk space would be needed to keep
VISA's bad card list: I was told it had 400 million numbers.  It is my
understanding that VISA numbers have 12 digits, and 4 check digits.
(Is this right?), thus 10^12 or a trillion numbers.  Raw storage of
these numbers would require 40 bits per number, or 5 TeraBytes.

Now, a bitmap of a trillion numbers would take 125 GigaBytes.  Since
the bad numbers are sparse (about 1 in 2500), on the average, the
distance between bad numbers could be kept, on the AVERAGE, as a 12
bit quantity (sometimes more, sometimes less, using a
bit-level-escaping technique), so, assuming 12 bits * 4 million gives
600 megabytes, (maybe double that to account for the encoding
overhead, and indexing to make the lookups fast).

Is this realistic?  Does anyone know of any better techniques for
storing the numbers?  Does the phone company do any compression on the
tables of who has what features in an ESS office, or in the systems
that they use to do billing accounting?

Anyone know of any pointers to material dealing with large number
storage problems?

Send me mail please, or post and send mail, and I'll post a summary of
responses.  I have trouble keeping up with the volume of NetNews.

P.S.:

I didn't promise a summary about the X.25 encapsulation question, but
many replies suggested that vendors are typically using HDLC packets
without an acknowledgement mecanism to carry TCP-IP packets for
transmission on T1 lines.  I have a friend who "thinks the whole
world" is doing what he is doing, which is systems that encapsulate
TCP-IP in X.25 packets on T1's for a mostly DOD network.  It appears
that he doesn't have the big picture.

    Joe Stong    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 20:29:12 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Services (was Re: PacTelesis Power Grab)


From nvuxr![e-mail] 16 Dec 89 18:46:33 GMT
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:

>> What PacTel isn't allowed to do is sell the
>> information.  They can sell the access to third parties who provide
>> the information.  But Bells are common carriers, who carry information
>> for a price, and not information providers.  The court has ruled, in
>> effect, that if they were to be both, they'd have too much clout to
>> compete with other information providers.

>The problem with this "neat" breakdown -- telcos are information
>common carriers, therefore they can't be information providers -- is
>that the telcos also "own" information that they could potentially
>"sell".  (Of course, the question of who really owns information is
>still very thorny...)

As you point out, the question of who owns the information is very
thorny.  It is my belief that information about the subscriber,
customer, or bill payer should belong to the subscriber, customer or
bill payer, not the service provider.  (I would not make teleco the
exception either).

>Should you restrict the telcos from selling,
>say, online white pages service?  If you do, the service is never
>going to be available -- no one else has the information to offer it.
>Should you make the telco give the service away?  It costs money to
>provide it -- where does this money come from?

Why should teleco get money for selling my name and information about
me?  If anyone should get the money, I should.  Then people can pay
the service provider if they want the service.


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



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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #95
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09961;
          13 Feb 90 3:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07526;
          13 Feb 90 1:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29107;
          13 Feb 90 0:49 CST
Date:     Tue, 13 Feb 90 0:25:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #96
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Feb 90 00:25:13 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze (John De Armond)
    Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze (Carol Springs)
    Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell (Paul Fuqua)
    Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell (John Higdon)
    Re: Remote Broadcast Lines (was: Rochester Telephone) (Bob Izenberg)
    Re: Communications With The Deaf (John R. Levine)
    Re: Dallas Area Code Split (Doug Davis)
    Re: Thank You For Using Vista-United (Daniel Senie)
    Correction Re: Amoco Phone System (George S. Thurman)
    AT&T "Reach Out" Calling Card Plan (Douglas S. Reuben)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 11:51:35 EST
Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze


In comp.dcom.telecom you write:

>What's the situation nowadays @ Atlanta's airport? While there, I
>tried the one armed bandits out. I seemed to be able to get through to
>MA and MCI via 950-xxxx, but when I dialed, the handset muted and I
>could hear DTMF faintly as it forwarded the call somewhere. I did not
>make any chargeable calls.

This fine service is brought to you via the fine services of the
National Telephone Services AOS.  I wrote the software that runs their
switch.  I currently have a lawsuit pending against them for, among
other things, fraud, kidnapping, assault, RICO violations and so on.
Need I say more?

PS: NEVER but NEVER make a chargeable call from the Atlanta Airport.
If you do, expect to see >$5.00 for the first minute.  Also expect to
see an extra minute or two added to your call.  If that happens, the
Attorney General of Tennessee would probably like to talk to you.


John De Armond, WD4OQC  | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress-
Radiation Systems, Inc. | men than we can prostitution on pimps.  Both simply
Atlanta, Ga             | provide broker services for their customers.
emory!rsiatl!jgd        |  - Dr. W Williams |                **I am the NRA**


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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze
Date: 13 Feb 90 03:54:53 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


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

>What's the situation nowadays @ Atlanta's airport? While there, I
>tried the one armed bandits out. I seemed to be able to get through to
>MA and MCI via 950-xxxx, but when I dialed, the handset muted and I
>could hear DTMF faintly as it forwarded the call somewhere. I did not
>make any chargeable calls.

When I had to phone my boss's house in Massachusetts from the Atlanta
airport on December 23, I decided to use my work-account NET calling
card for billing convenience.  After a couple of rings, I heard on the
line something resembling a whisper from several yards away.  After
determining (by hello-helloing) that there was no way I could make out
any words, I apologized to the silence just in case, moved to the next
phone over, and dialed Sprint's 800 number.  I successfully used my
FONCARD and was later billed by Sprint for the eight-minute call.

When the first call showed up (of course) on my local phone bill, the
charge was $2.38 for one minute (on a Saturday morning), courtesy of
National Telephone Services, Inc.  I phoned their 800 number to have
the charge credited, which the nervous-sounding NTS employee was able
to do within a few minutes.  I was being very polite, but she was
breathing heavily and sounded almost frightened -- new hire, perhaps.
She explained to me that I had probably let the phone ring a little
too long; I explained to her that this wasn't the problem; everything
was settled with a minimum of fuss and entirely too much trouble for
the silly two bucks.  This was, believe it or not, my first first-hand
experience with a bad AOS charge.  With any luck it will be my last.

Anyhow, in answer to David Lesher's question, Sprint 800 calls work
with no rerouting on Atlanta airport phones, or at least those phones
whose default long-distance "service" is listed as NTS.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90  13:55:31 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell

    Date: Sunday, February 11, 1990  9:46pm (CST)
    From: cedar!dewey at execu.uucp (Dewey Henize)
    Subject: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell

    The fee appears to be $0.50 per line, I guess, since the bill is for
    eight lines and the charge is four dollars.

It's about the same in Dallas.

    Does anyone have any figures on how hard it really is to add 911
    service to a part of a county?  Assume the worst, that its only in the
    more remote areas, and so on.  What's the basis for a deal like this?

In this area, Tarrant County (Fort Worth) got it first, a couple of
years back (three?  four?).  They managed to get the whole county
operational at once, but the biggest obstacle was assigning street
addresses (and street names!) to upwards of 7000 households that
received mail via RFD and the like.

Dallas County isn't quite completely covered, either, but at least
they had the clumsiness to start the service on April 1 (1988 or
1989).


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell
Date: 12 Feb 90 09:31:36 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dewey Henize <cedar![e-mail]> writes:

> First the quote from the flyer included in the bill:

> "Beginning this month, a 911 service fee is included in your bill.  It

> [Moderator's Note: We here in IBT-land got stuck with a 911 surcharge
> starting last month. We pay 95 cents per line; it will be used to
> improve our existing 911 service, which is about fifteen years old.

Sounds like you people need to get with the program! While 911 has
only worked from my telephone for about five years (at the most),
there has been a "911" surcharge for at least ten years. I remember
calling someone early in 1984 and asking when 911 would become
available and the answer was, "Sometime after the LA Olympics. We need
to get it working there right away for obvious reasons."

Pacific Bell: First to charge; last to provide the service.


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

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

From: "Bob.Izenberg" <puzzle![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Broadcast Lines (was: Rochester Telephone)
Date: 12 Feb 90 07:24:55 GMT
Reply-To: "Bob.Izenberg" <puzzle![e-mail]>
Organization: Somewhere in Austin, Texas



In article <[e-mail]> Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail].
gov> writes:

>It's unfortunate that you can't use celluar phones for 'Remote
>Broadcast' without an STA (Special Temp. Authority) (does the FCC plan
>on changing it's mind about this soon???), but you can use some device
>made by Wenger (or was it Cetec?) that basically companded an audio
>line, 'split' it in 1/2, and used 2 normal voice grade telco lines
>(read: regular telephone calls), and provided 7.5khz of bandwidth at
>the distant end.

Back in 1982, Comrex had a frequency extender that got 5khz flat
response, more or less, out of a regular voice grade line.  There were
a couple of models, but each was basically an audio mixer for three or
five inputs, for a few mics and a cart machine.  I'm sure that it's
old hat by now.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Bob Izenberg [ ] attctc,rpp386,cs.utexas.edu!puzzle!bei
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Subject: Re: Communications With The Deaf
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 12 Feb 90 10:44:33 EST (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>While long distance discounts are available to deaf people, I am curious if
>even more cost-effective methods exist.  Now my question to the group is
>this: Are there less expensive sub-voice-grade lines available or does Telex
>or TWX still exist for long-distance communication?

The good thing about TDD is that it is very cheap, since it uses
technology from about 1950.  The bad thing is that it is totally out
of the data communication mainstream since it uses technology from
about 1950.

Telex and TWX are both quite alive and widely used for international
messaging, although in the US hard-wired Telex terminals are
disappearing in favor of store and forward services and hybrids that
use dial-up phone lines between the customer and the Telex carrier.
Telex per minute charges are not particularly attractive compared to
long distance phone charges, and Western Union is widely reviled for
the poor service now provided to Telex customers.

Then there's things like Telenet's PC Pursuit and the Tymnet
equivalent (Starlink?), which cost two to three cents per minute at
off-peak hours.  The various RBOCs offer intra-lata networks (ours is
called Infopath) that technically, at least, should be able to offer
similar low-priced service.  Unfortunately, TDD users can't take
advantage of any of them because they only support ASCII 300 baud and
up, not the old telex scheme that TDD uses.

One possibility would be to lobby Telenet and Tymnet to put some TDD
modems at their Pursuit and Starlink concentrators.  Probably more
productive would be to produce a second generation of TDD terminals
that handle both the old Telex signalling and 300 baud 103 signalling.
It shouldn't be too expensive; the guts of a 103 modem are now
available in commodity chips and the code conversion between baudot
and ASCII is easily handled by an 8051 or other controller chip.
Perhaps someone can persuade a public-spirited chip vendor to make a
chip or two that combine the keyboard scanner, display controller, and
modem of a TDD II.


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

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dallas Area Code Split
Date: 12 Feb 90 15:28:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Wommack)
writes:

>I saw an item couple of weeks ago mentioing that Dallas was going to
>have its own area code. Anyone have any details on this?

Depending on how you look at it, Dallas already has it's own area
code, it's all the suburbs that don't ;-)

Actually a farly large portion of North Texas is covered under the
current 214 area code. This includes several sizable towns Sherman,
Tyler, etc, that are geographicly a considerable distance from Dallas.
Also over the past few years the busniess population in Dallas has
swelled causing SWB (South Western Bell) to worry about a NXX
shortage.  Given SWB's description 903 Could be considered everything
east of Fort Worth, That isn't Dallas county. Matter of course except
where GTE is concerned everything outside of Dallas county will become
903.  Now the last I heard was that GTE and SWB were arguing about the
border location in Denton County (GTE Territory).

IMHHBO, GTE has a bunch of really archaic equipment in Denton that
they don't want to re-program.

I'll call some people in SWB today and see if I can get a list of the
boundery areas and pass them along to the Digest.


doug

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

From: Daniel Senie <xait!think!ames!mailrus!uunet!lectroid!pwllheli!dts
Subject: Re: Thank You For Using Vista-United
Date: 10 Feb 90 06:13:10 GMT
Reply-To: Daniel Senie <xait!think!ames!mailrus!uunet!lectroid!pwllheli!dts


Disney really does use AT&T, and the rates seem to be the AT&T rates.
I ran in to this when at Disney in October. They run the phones
themselves: the infomration cards even have Mickey Mouse on them.

AT&T is one of the advertisers at Disney, as is American Express. They
always use the services of their advertisers.


Daniel Senie               UUCP: uunet!lectroid!dts
Stratus Computer, Inc.     ARPA: [e-mail]
55 Fairbanks Blvd.         CSRV: 74176,1347
Marlboro, MA 01752         TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 12:56 EST
From: George S Thurman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction Re: Amoco Phone System


Pat..

Just a note to bring you up to date.  You mentioned that AMOCO OIL has
a 8000 line CENTREX system.  Well they do not have that anymore.  They
replaced that sometime ago with somekind of ultra-modern PBX.  The
phone numbers remained the same.


George Thurman
MCI Mail I.D  405-6081

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

Date: 12-FEB-1990 18:22:52.20
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T "Reach Out" Calling Card Plan


Hi!

In case this wasn't mentioned in the Digest already (it's hard to
keep up!), AT&T now considers ALL out-of-state Calling Card calls,
made after 10PM or on weekends,to be part of their "Reach Out America"
program.

This means that after 10PM or on weekends, if you make an AT&T Calling
Card call (using AT&T of course) to an out-of-state location, you
don't have to pay the $.80 calling card surcharge, and the calls are
billed to your Reach Out plan. If you are on your first hour of
calling, this comes to about $.14 per minute, and on your second (or
more) hours, $.11.5 per minute.  Compare this to the 80 cents plus 17
cents it would cost for a 1 minute Coast-to-Coast call, and it seems
like a pretty good deal. (Although as the call gets longer the
difference becomes less, of course...)

Previously, you could only take advantage of this is you called the
phone number which your plan was under. So I would only save if I were
out of my home state and called back during the plan's hours. AT&T
told me they started "testing" the new program in California over the
summer, and that this year they adopted it nationwide (perhaps to
compete, indirectly, with MCI's "Around Town" feature?)

I doubt this will work on calls to/from Canada, or even between
Provinces while I'm up there...Oh well, wishful thinking! :-)

Interestingly, I can use this new feature on my Cell Phone during
Off-Peak (and AT&T plan) hours to save money. My cellular company
charges 14 cents per minute night rate, while AT&T would cost only
11.5 cents! Of course I have to pay if I don't connect since the cell
company starts billing when I connect to AT&T's Calling Card system
(or even before that!), but if I'm pretty sure to get through it's
worth it...

Please note that the $.14 off-peak vs. 11.5 cent off-peak rate
mentioned for cell phone calls is ONLY for land-charges, of course.

IE, I still get billed $.20 per minute airtime no matter what, it's
just that with AT&T's plan I can get a lower land-line rate and thus
save money over the somewhat higher land-rate which my Cell Co.
charges.

(Yeah, I know you can't charge airtime to an AT&T card, but just in
case someone read my post got suddenly excited and wanted to move to
Connecticut for our "low" rates, well, sorry...! :-) )


Doug

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #96
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12117;
          13 Feb 90 4:29 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02926;
          13 Feb 90 2:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07526;
          13 Feb 90 1:53 CST
Date:     Tue, 13 Feb 90 1:05:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #97
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Feb 90 01:05:27 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth (Vogon, via J. Nelson)
    FCC Rules Against NYNEX (Jeff E. Nelson)
    Brandeis University Switch Needs Update (Robert Kaplan)
    Tour of #5 Crossbar in Grade School (Jody Kravitz)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (K. Denninger)
    Abuse of Business Reply Mail (Dr. T. Andrews)
    Re: "One System, One Policy, Universal Service" (Paul Krzyzanowski)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 07:43:05 PST
From: VAX Debug 12-Feb-1990 1040 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth


The following is extracted from the "Vogon News Service," VNS Computer News
section, edited by Tracy Talcott.  VNS enjoys a worldwide readership of over
7800 Digital employees.

 Hackers - Accused of scheme against BellSouth. Legion of Doom Group.

Federal grand juries in Chicago and Atlanta indicted four alleged
computer hackers in what authorities called a fraud scheme that could
potentially disrupt emergency "911" telephone service throughout nine
Southern states. The men, alleged to be part of a closely knit cadre
of computer hackers known as the Legion of Doom, gained access to the
computer system controlling telephone emergency service of BellSouth
Corp., the Atlanta-based telecommunications giant.

The Chicago indictment said members of the Legion of Doom are engaged
in disrupting telephone service by entering a telephone company's
computers and changing the routing of telephone calls. The hackers in
the group also fraudulently obtain money from companies by altering
information in their computers, the indictment said.

The hackers transferred stolen telephone-computer information from
BellSouth to what prosecutors termed a "computer bulletin board
system" in Lockport, Ill. In turn, the men planned to publish the
computer data in a hacker's magazine, the grand jury charged.


    -Jeff E. Nelson
    -Digital Equipment Corporation
    -Internet:  [e-mail]
    -Affiliation given for identification purposes only.


[Moderator's Note: Do you, or do any readers have the names of the
chaps who were indicted?  What BBS were they using?   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 08:14:34 PST
From: VAX Debug 12-Feb-1990 1041 <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Rules Against NYNEX


While driving home last night [8 Feb 1990], I heard the following on the news.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has levied a $1.4 million
fine -- the maximum allowable -- against NYNEX and ordered the return
of $35 million to customers.  The FCC ruling is in response to an
alleged scheme in which, between 1984 and 1988, NYNEX purchased
equipment from its subsidiaries at inflated prices in order to
increase the profits of the parent company.  NYNEX has 30 days to
respond to the ruling.


    -Jeff E. Nelson
    -Digital Equipment Corporation
    -Internet:  [e-mail]
    -Affiliation given for identification purposes only.


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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 21:00:27 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Brandeis University Switch Needs Update


Here at Brandeis University, 9+1+an unused NPA (e.g. 909) triggers a
recorded message saying this number cannon be reached.  I just tried
9+1+908, and the same message was triggered.  Obviously, nobody at the
telecommunications department is aware of the 201/908 split yet.  I
suppose I'll call in the morning and tell someone about it, but it
might be interesting to see how long it takes them to figure it out on
their own.  BTW, when is the official cutover date for 201/908?  [510
and 903 don't work either] The system also triggers that message on
9+1+700!  I guess I'll never know what our default carrier is, huh?
Doesn't matter if you can't dial 10XXX anyway.


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer:  This may not even be my own opinion.

[Moderator's Note: I am confused about why this comes from the account
of Robert Kaplan, yet is signed 'Scott Fybush'.   PT

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

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 11:29:08 PST
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Tour of #5 Crossbar in Grade School


   I really enjoyed your article "My First Cutover".  My first tour of
a phone office was the brand new #5 crossbar office in Park Forest, IL
when I was in grade school.  Many things from that tour left indelible
impressions in my mind.  The busbars in the battery room in the
basement, the rotary dial combination lock at the employee entrance,
the paper tape punch for saving toll records, the trouble-report card
punch at the test board, and the sounds.

As we walked through the electro-mechanical "computer" designed to
last 40 years (John Higdon points out with the application of a lot of
contact cleaner), the clicking of the relays throbbed in waves which
seemed to receed to infinty.


   Jody

P.S.    To reply to me          Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
                    uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 05:26:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 90, message 1 of 9

>Karl Denninger <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Who's behind this complaint?  Is it AT&T?  Does anyone know, factually,
>> who started this nonsense?

>You bet it's AT&T. This was in the news a few months ago. There was
>quite a flame fest here in the Digest over it. Specifically, AT&T
>claims that the Panasonic 308, 616, and 1232 systems are being dumped
>here and asked for governmental relief, which was granted. They found
>it quite difficult to sell their grossly overpriced Merlins against
>those clever little hybrids. (I have a 1232 in my home -- it's great.)

You're not kidding it's great.  Even WITH the tarriffs, and the
"relief", it's still the best system on the market for the money.

Some items for the unknowing -- it works with standard phones (dial 9
to get outside access, other codes to do other things), so items like
your standard fax machine work as an extension -- or with "custom"
feature phones that have an alphanumeric display, key buttons, the
works.  It also is programmable from the "11" extension, individual
stations have their own programming (which is both wild and pretty
unique) -- with no hassles.  You want auto-CO hunt?  Dial a code on
your extension -- you got it.  You want forwarding, 4-zone paging
(plus external), call pickup, executive override, music when your
extension is idle, etc?  Key a code, and it works.  Toll restriction?
It's in there (nice for an extension in your customer waiting area).
Automatic night-line switching on time basis?  It's in there.  Call
detail recording?  Plug in a serial printer and turn it on.  Every
reasonable feature you could want is in there, ALL in the base unit.
No extra costs -- full 6CO X 16Ext capability, music on hold, display
phone features, "power failure" mode (so you don't end up with a
completely dead system when the juice goes off), etc.  If you want
full functionality during power outages a $300 add-on box will provide
that too -- for a full 4 hours.

In fact, we haven't found a feature or item we >don't< like.  And it
worked right out of the box; use 4-wire RJ11 connections (2-wire for
standard desk sets) and plug it in.

The 1232 can even do the automated "call director" thing you hear with
computerized voice announce and instructions at some companies -- on
two channels! (This does require an extra module or two :-) And the
1232 is about half the cost of most "comparable" systems; same goes
for the 616.

The "proprietary" phones are nice and solid, have an excellent
speakerphone (one of the very few speakerphones I consider usable),
and are well-designed from a human-engineering point of view.
Fantastic gear.  Not a single complaint at our office.

>The Panasonic systems were specifically designed and engineered for
>the US telecom market and are sold nowhere else in the world. They are
>not even sold in Japan. So how can they be dumping? If they are
>selling below cost, why would they bother?

No kidding.  The idea that these systems could be dumped is laughable,
given that they aren't sold anywhere else!  I'd like to know how the
Commerce Department came to that conclusion; did they use "cost of
Merlin production" or some such to justify the tarriffs?

Our Commerce Department would be funny if it wasn't for their playing
patsy to American Industry and sinking it at the same time.

>> Why can't American companies decide to compete by providing a better
>> product and service, instead of slapping input duties on things.....
>> it's beyond me.

>Watch the Digest; I'm sure AT&T employees will come out of the
>woodwork to tell us how the big bad Japanese are cheating against the
>poor downtrodden AT&T.

AT&T, or any other American Company, should be able to produce a
superior product at a reasonable price.

They haven't done so -- we looked at the Merlin systems, and the
Southwestern Bell.  The SWB system was cheesy, and nickled and dimed
you to death (not to mention having a number of features you couldn't
disable; cut off callers in 4 minutes on hold?  Bah!).  The Merlin was
outrageously priced and had all these "options" (extra cost, of
course).  Siemens and Lanier?  More of the same.  Overpriced and
unable to do things the Panasonic system can, at least at a reasonable
cost.

So, the 616 is not all digital (voice path is analog).  BIG DEAL!
It's a better mousetrap (just try to implement power-failure bypass in
a full digital system).  For AT&T (or anyone else out there with a
full digital system) to complain that the hybrids are being "dumped"
on that basis is way out of line -- the technology and construction
aren't even the same!

Ok, I can't pass raw data through it.  But I CAN put a standard modem
on any extension, or a fax, or an answering machine (nice for evening
answering).  All with no "extra costs".  Plug and play is the name of
the game, and play it does.

We paid a good amount under $2,000 for our system with 4 proprietary
extensions.  We have connected at the moment those 4 plus 2 standard
devices.  It all works great; no complaints.  The 308 (3 CO lines, 8
extension) system is quite a bit cheaper; it's inexpensive enough that
it makes sense even in some homes!

Folks, I remember when "Made in Japan" was synonymous with cheap junk.
It wasn't very long ago.  Now "Made in Japan" is a mark of quality; a
highly respected mark indeed.  It's "Made in the USA" that now gets
the "trashy" label, and that really is too bad.

"Protection" from imaginary evils, or from honest competition won't
change this.  Only the hard realities of the marketplace will -- if
consumers refuse to deal with firms that engage in these practices.

Americans have two choices.  We can either allow this kind of crap to
go on, and pander to the American companies, or we can say "build it
better and cheaper or die as you deserve to".  The choice is ours.
The first option will lead to financial ruin for America in the end;
remember, the European Common Market opens up in just a couple of
years, and when it does it will dwarf us here!  THOSE countries won't
be terribly interested in our idea of protectionism, especially when
it means that our market is effectively closed to their products.
They'll retaliate, that is certain, and in the end we will lose.
American industry must compete, not legislate, for in legislating we
lose in the long term.

We at MCS have spoken with our wallets, to the point that we're going
to sell the Panasonic systems.  We like it that much.  If you want one
call me; we'll be happy to take care of you.

The American companies?  Build a better, less expensive mousetrap.
THEN we'll be interested.  Legislating away your competition doesn't
make us happy at all, and will only hurt all of us in the long run.


Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [[phone]], Voice: [[phone]]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.        "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"


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

Subject: Abuse of Business Reply Mail
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 90 11:48:23 EST
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Organization: CompuData, Inc. (DeLand)


With Re: that moderator note saying that mis-use of business reply
mail is a violation of postal regulations, I would say a few words.

First: I obtained a copy of the regulations from the local post office
when I expressed interest in dealing with business reply mail.  There
is no mention that such use is against regulations.  A verifiable
citation of the relevant regulations would be appreciated.

Second: while you are (at least effectively; see a lawyer) free to
mis-use Business Reply Mail, there are limits on what it accomplishes.
In particular, the Post Office is NOT obligated to deliver "bricks
for Jerry" or other large objects unless the business reply form says
"Business Reply Label" (note that last word: that's the thing that is
checked).  Delivery fails if the intended recipient refuses to pay
for the shipment, and he is entitled to refuse without penalty.

Third: It is also possible for the recipient to restrict in advance
use of business reply forms by weight: if the item is endorsed for
weight up to <n>, the post office doesn't have to even attempt
delivery of overweight items.

Special endorsements on labels also appear possible, to request a
lower class of service for certain merchandise returns.

 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra attctc bpa uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner


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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Krzyzanowski)
Subject: Re: "One System, One Policy, Universal Service"
Date: 12 Feb 90 17:26:57 GMT
Posted: Mon Feb 12 12:26:57 1990
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ


The Bell System had a lot of great ads.  One of my favorites is
"Weaving the World of Speech", which appeared in 1933:

  "Daily, as upon a magic loom, the world is bound together
  by telephone.  There, in a tapestry of words, is woven the
  story of many lives and the pattern of countless activities.

  In and out of the switchboard move the cords that intertwine
  the voices of communities and continents.  Swiftly, skilfully,
  the operator picks up the thread of speech and guides it
  across the miles.

  She moves a hand and your voice is carried over high mountains
  and desert sands, to moving ships, or to lands across the
  seas.  London, Paris, Berlin -- Madrid, Rome, Bucharest --
  Capetown, Manila, Sydney -- Lima, Rio Janeiro and Buenos Aires --
  these and many other cities overseas are brought close to you
  by telephone.  .... ...."

"Of all the things you buy, probably none gives so much
 for so little as the telephone."  (1931)

They don't write them like that anymore.


    -Paul Krzyzanowski
     [e-mail]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #97
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28830;
          14 Feb 90 3:52 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27089;
          14 Feb 90 2:06 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10719;
          14 Feb 90 1:02 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Feb 90 0:38:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #98
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Feb 90 00:37:48 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth (Will Martin)
    Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth (Ray Spalding)
    Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth (Gordon Meyer)
    Re: A Puzzle (Ted Ede)
    Re: A Puzzle (John R. Levine)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (John Higdon)
    Re: Wiring Maintainence Fee (Thomas Lapp)
    Re: Centrex, Everyone? (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 10:26:50 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth

>[Moderator's Note: Do you, or do any readers have the names of the
>chaps who were indicted?  What BBS were they using?   PT]

This was in the local St. Louis papers also, because one of the
indicted was from a St. Louis suburb. I had been meaning to post some
information from local newspaper articles on this but haven't had
time.

The following is extracted from articles in the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch and the St. Louis Sun, both of Wednesday, 7 Feb 90:

These articles only mention *two* defendants -- 1) Robert J Riggs, 20,
of Decatur, GA, cited as being a member of "a closely-knit group of
computer hackers known as the Legion of Doom, whose members are
involved in numerous illegal activities" according to US Attorney Ira
H. Raphaelson.  2) Craig M. Niedorf, 19, of Chesterfield, MO, a
sophomore at the U of Missouri at Columbia, studying political
science, a member of Zeta Beta Tau who lives at the fraternity house
on campus. He is accused of transferring the data to "his computer" at
the university and editing it for a computer hacker publication known
as PHRACK.

Riggs is accused of stealing the 911 control and maintenance program
and publishing it on an otherwise-unspecified "hackers' computer
bulletin board in Lockport, IL." The pair are charged with interstate
transportation of stolen property, wire fraud and violation of the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

"Raphaelson said the 911 data was valued at nearly $80,000, but would
not say whether there was some way a hacker who stole the data could
profit from it other than by selling the information to others." He
declined to suggest a motive and would not say if the hackers had
disrupted any emergency calls or caused any damage to the 911 network.

"Riggs, if convicted on all charges, could be sentenced to a maximum
of 32 years in prison and fined $222,000. Neidorf could be sentenced
to a maximum 31 years and fined $122,000 on conviction."

***End of newspaper info***

What struck me when I first heard about this was confusion -- what
good is and why would anybody be interested in the software that runs
the 911 system, and what is so bad about having that software
published? Unless you have access to the computers that run the 911
system, knowing about the details of the controlling software doesn't
help you "take over" the system. And if you have access to the
computers, all the security is compromised anyway. Maybe I'm just not
nefarious enough, but I can't figure out what is going on except that
these people got ahold of a copy of this software package, which
should be fairly uninteresting in and of itself. The "$80,000" value
would probably be some guesstimate of what the programming and design
effort was to have coded this stuff in the first place. (Or do the
BOCs buy a canned "911" package from some other source?) But what
value is this to anyone who isn't a telephone company?

The only thing I can think of is that looking at the source code for
software running some telco task like a 911 system would give a
malicious hacker insights into how the computers connect to and run
the actual signal-switching and line-controlling actions in the actual
network. But isn't this all written up in the manuals the telco
programmers have to study and reference to write this software in the
first place? I would think that info could be bought -- after all,
anybody who wants to can start a telco, so they would have to be able
to buy the computers and training as to how to use them!

I hope someone finds a description of this in some more technical
publication and will post the details on just what was done and what
was taken and what the danger is or was. I can't figure it out from
the info I've seen. Since the prosecutor would NOT cite a motive or
reference any actual damage, this strikes me as a lot of noise about
not very much real ill effect. Maybe there really is more to it, but
dire consequences have not been demonstrated yet.


Will Martin

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

From: Ray Spalding <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth
Date: 14 Feb 90 00:16:42 GMT
Reply-To: Ray Spalding <[e-mail]>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


According to the Atlanta newspapers, there were three Atlanta members
of a computer hacker group known as the "Legion of Doom" indicted on
federal charges relating to a scheme to defraud Southern Bell and
disrupt telephone service.  They are Robert J. Riggs, 21, aka "The
Prophet"; Franklin E. Darden Jr., 23, aka "The Leftist"; and Adam E.
Grant, 22, aka "Necron 99" or "The Urvile".

The paper quotes U.S. Attorney Rimantas Rukstele as saying the three
men were charged with conspiracy to commit computer fraud, wire fraud,
access code fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property.
If convicted, they each face a maximum 40 years in prison and a $2
million fine.


Ray Spalding, Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0275
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!cc100aa
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Feb 90 21:50:13 EST
From: Gordon Meyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth


Actually, four hackers were indicted last week for allegedly breaking
into the BellSouth E911 system.  The two that seem to have gotten the
most publicity are Craig Neidorf, aka Knight Lightning, a 19 year old
student at U of Missouri and Robert Riggs, aka The Prophet, a 20 year
old student at DeVry in Atlanta.  Two other Atlanta-based hackers were
indicted on lesser charges. The charges are wire fraud, interstate
transport of stolen property and computer fraud and abuse.

I've seen several of the newspaper accounts of this announcement and
they don't all agree (naturally).  I'll give a summary of the
situation as I understand it from several sources, none in the media,
and then briefly discuss the variances found in the press.

What has allegedly gone on is Riggs broke into a system containing
operating information for the 911 system.  He captured this
information and prepared a "phile" on it for publication in PHRACK
magazine (a phreak/hackers electronic journal published every couple
of months).  This file was tranferred to Neidorf via an account on
Jolnet (a public access net-site in Lockport, Illinois).  This
material was never actually published in PHRACK by the way.  Anyway,
evidently the act of transferring the propietary information from
Georgia, to Missouri..via Illinois.. is evidently enough to get the
"interstate transport of stolen goods" charge, with Neidorf being
charged because the file was sent to him.

Now for some of the things that I believe the media has stated
incorrectly.  1) Riggs did not send the actual 911 software to PHRACK,
only a text file describing how it works.  2) Not all of the parties
involved are members of the Legion of Doom/Hackers.  3) The LoD/H does
not, to the best of my knowledge, have ties to foriegn governments, is
not connected to organized crime, nor does it require an act of
computer sabotage as a membership requirement.  4). Defining Jolnet as
a "computer bulletin board" is, as _we_ all know, inaccurate.

If anyone is interested in discussing this matter via email drop me a
line.  This probably isn't the place for an extended debate over the
subject.

I am in the process of obtaining a copy of the indictment, should I
discover any details of interest to Digest readers I'll pass them
along.


    Gordon Meyer
    [e-mail]


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

Subject: Re: A Puzzle
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 10:01:27 EST
From: Ted Ede <[e-mail]>


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

>I was asked recently how much disk space would be needed to keep
>VISA's bad card list: I was told it had 400 million numbers.  It is my
>understanding that VISA numbers have 12 digits, and 4 check digits.
>(Is this right?), thus 10^12 or a trillion numbers.  Raw storage of
>these numbers would require 40 bits per number, or 5 TeraBytes.

It probably has 400 million digits.  If there was 400 million bad
*cards*, everyone in the US over the age of 18 would have to have two
bad accounts with VISA.  Stored inefficiently in BCD, it would take
200 megabytes.

Assuming that VISA stores all 16 digits, they would have 25 million
bad cards.  I doubt if VISA has that many accounts.


|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: A Puzzle
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 13 Feb 90 22:26:04 EST (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>I was asked recently how much disk space would be needed to keep
>VISA's bad card list: I was told it had 400 million numbers.  It is my
>understanding that VISA numbers have 12 digits, and 4 check digits.
>(Is this right?), thus 10^12 or a trillion numbers.

There are only about 200 milion Visa cards, it's hard to believe that
there are 400 million bad ones.  4 million perhaps.  Visa card numbers
are 13 or 16 digits.  The first digit is always 4, the next 5 digits
identify the issuing bank, the next 6 or 9 digits are the account
number, and the last digit is a check digit computed using the Luhn
algorithm.  Since some banks issue a lot more cards than others, the
density of possible numbers is quite lumpy and I suspect that the most
effective way to encode the bad numbers would be to take advantage of
this lumpiness to give a two-level lookup, first for bank number, to
get the possible number range for that bank, then some sort of bit map
for those numbers.

This probably has no bearing at all on how the Giant Calling Card
Database (the one used by the local telcos and/or AT&T) works, since
most but not all of the numbers have some relation to a phone number
and the PINs are totally random.  How is the number space handed out.
I note that my New England Tel calling card starts with 601 1xx, how
does BellSouth feel about that since NPA 601 is theirs?  Do they get
617 1xx, or is it more arcane than that?  Are there replicated copies
of the whole data base or are validation queries switched off based on
the first few digits?  And is it true that all of the validation
systems run some version of Unix?


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 12 Feb 90 09:46:12 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Mark Brader <[e-mail]> writes:

> In my opinion the phone companies' interest here happens to coincide
> with the public interest; if I was making the rules, numbers listed
> under fictitious names would be illegal and unlisted numbers would
> require approval (granted if there was harassment or the likelihood of
> it).

Well, if that isn't privacy for the rich, I don't know what is. To get
around that, one merely gets two lines. The first is listed under the
customer's name (per your rules) and either goes to an empty jack, or
to a machine, or to an answering service. The second (unlisted) line
would then be used as the customer has intended: as a private
telephone.

The only way to prevent that would be a requirement that *all* lines
be listed. In my case, there would be ten listings in the book, most
of which would give the caller a sore ear, since they're modems. In
the case of a client of mine, there would be almost a column of
listings including modems, fax machines, several PBX hunt groups,
monitor lines, maintenance lines; in all, over seventy listings.

The latest count shows that more than 50% of telco customers in the LA
area have unlisted numbers. That figure is growing.


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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 22:32:22 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring Maintainence Fee
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I wrote:

> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 20:48:12 est
> From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Wiring Maintainence Fee

> And, no, I haven't checked with my landlord about this (yet!).  I'll
> let you know what the landlord's policy is when I find out.


I talked to my landlord and their policy is to try to work with the
renters to work out any problems or permissions.  As for the wiring in
the building, they said that they felt that the telephone co.  was
responsible for it up to the point where it ends in the jack in the
apartment.  However, they were very kind about the whole thing and
said that if the phone co. wouldn't take care of it, they would (they
have a maint. staff, so they do have that ability).

While I was at it, I asked about putting in second lines (ie. for
modems).  They said that they have received more than one request to
add a second line in an apartment -- and allow it.  They are willing
to provide permissions or whatever to allow the phone co. to install
more wiring or whatever.  Very amiable bunch, they.

                         - 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?

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Centrex, Everyone?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 12:28:12 GMT


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

> a power outage. The split screen shows the hapless PBX user slamming
> his phone down (presumably because it doesn't work) and the Centrex
> user calling someone, and then saying, "Oh, the power's out here...".

We have a PBX at Ferranti, but we also have half a dozen phones with direct
lines to the outside spotted around the place. Get the best of both worlds.


 _--_|\  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?" `-_-'

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #98
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00628;
          14 Feb 90 4:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20697;
          14 Feb 90 3:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27089;
          14 Feb 90 2:06 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Feb 90 1:15:31 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #99
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Feb 90 01:15:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Communications With The Deaf (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Re: Communications With The Deaf (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (R Silvernail)
    Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell (William Degnan)
    Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell (Tad Cook)
    Re: Receiver-Originated Fax (Steve Elias)
    Re: T3 CSU/DSU (Martin L. Schoffstall)
    Re: Robert Kaplan/Scott Fybush (Robert Kaplan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <comcon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Communications With The Deaf
Date: 13 Feb 90 12:29:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska


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

> Probably more
> productive would be to produce a second generation of TDD terminals
> that handle both the old Telex signalling and 300 baud 103 signalling.
> It shouldn't be too expensive; the guts of a 103 modem are now
> available in commodity chips[...]

The modem-chip idea is good, but why hold it to 300 bps? Companies
like Silicon Systems have chipsets that handle 2400 on down, and these
are downright cheap! (OEM <$50, I think)

What *I* would like to see is a terminal emulator (such as for a PC)
that will do TDD. A 45 baud signal should be trivial to do in the
300-bps section of an ordinary modem, I would think. (course, I have
been mistaken before. I'm sure I'll find out soon if this really *is*
as easy as I think :-)


Roy M. Silvernail  | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy  |  "Every race must arrive at this
#include <opinions.h>;#define opinions MINE  |   point in its history"
SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage,       |   ........Mr. Slippery
Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc.      |  <Ono-Sendai: the right choice!>

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 10:38 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Communications With The Deaf


I am responding to your recent article in Telecom Digest #93 regarding
the Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, commonly known as TDD or
TTY.  I am hearing-impaired and I rely on a TDD for all my telephone
communication.

You quoted: "These are basically dumb terminals with a single display
line of 40...characters....There is little incentive to change to
higher baud rates because 60 wpm is perfectly adequate for private
conversation and there is already a large base of installed TDDs."

Many TDDs today are now very sophisicated and verstaile.  Most have
ROMs and RAMs installed in it and some with permanent computer program
installed into ROM.  Most TDDs can handle both ASCII (at 300 bps) and
BAUDOT.  You can program a greeting message that plays back when you
answer an incoming call.  Some have direct connect answering machine
that answers in TDD.  They are getting highly sophisicated as time
goes by.

The reason why the deaf community in the United States are reluctant
to upgrade to higher speeds is because of the costs.  Please keep in
mind that the deaf people have low income; therefore, they cannot
afford many of the basics we consider today (i.e. personal computers,
memory telephone sets, etc.).  For many, purchase of a TDD is
considered significant for them.  And, the large base of installed
TDDs is another factor, too.

You asked if there are other cost-effective methods for communicating
via TDDs.  Long Distance discounts offered by A.T.&T. is the only
thing.  I do not believe other carriers offers discounts equally that
A.T.&T. does.  A.T.&T. offers TDD operators via the 800-855-1155 for
all operator-related services.  MCI & Sprint does not offer this.

Now, many states offer what is called "third-party relay services."
These services are similar to having interpreters interpret for you in
person but rather via telephone.  You call this service via a TDD.
The telephone interpreter answers your call on a TDD and requests the
number of the party you wanted to reach.  The telephone interpreter
will call the party by voice and announce something to this effect
"This is the relay operator.  I have a call for Mr. X from Mr. Y....."
Then, both of you converse as if you would converse with another
person.  The telephone interpreter is simply a facilitator.

I depend on this service for my contacts with hearing people.  Many
hearing people are quite uncomfortable with using the relay services
because they don't like having their conversation known to a
third-person.  The telephone interpreters sign a code of ethics
protecting the confidentiality of your conversations.

A.T.&T. has a special needs service center that caters to all kinds of
handicapped/disabled customers.  It has both voice and TDD numbers to
handle your telephone problems, etc.

I have been fantically loyal to A.T.&T. because they are responsive to
the needs of its deaf customers.  My experiences with MCI and Sprint
has shown to be rather ...umm... in need of improvement.

I will see if I can find a history of TDDs that dates back to 1960's
and how it evolved to what it is today.  When I do, I will send it to
you.


                        Curtis Reid
                        [e-mail]
                        [e-mail] (Internet)
                        [e-mail] (Not Reliable-NYSernet)


[Moderator's Note: Your comments about AT&T pretty well sum up what I
said earlier: Both AT&T and the Bell Companies have always been very
responsive to the needs of their handicapped customers. Neither MCI or
Sprint seem concerned at all. AT&T spends *a lot* of money staffing
and maintaining 800-855-1155 around the clock 365 days per year.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 13 Feb 90 10:01:12 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Karl Denninger <[e-mail]> writes:

> "Protection" from imaginary evils, or from honest competition won't
> change this.  Only the hard realities of the marketplace will -- if
> consumers refuse to deal with firms that engage in these practices.

AT&T may have shot itself in the foot on this one. When the tariffs
when into effect, Matsushita immediately stopped shipping product and
focused its attention on equipping its Great Britain plant to produce
the Panasonic KX-T line. Systems shipped from Great Britain are not
subject to the AT&T protection racket.

What this means is that you can now, once again, buy the Panasonic at
reasonable prices from the usual outlets. But now the Japanese and
others have been alerted to how AT&T plays the game (talk about unfair
competition!) and will not let that happen again. Most of your major
offshore telecom firms are now concentrating on producing their
superior, lower cost wares right here in the US.

So if AT&T thought it could sweep away competition with a wave of the
hand, it was sadly mistaken. It will now be faced with leaner, meaner,
competition that is producing product right here. How will its friends
in the government protect it now? Maybe, just maybe, AT&T will be
forced to join the real world of the marketplace. Too bad competition
is a four-letter word to AT&T.


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

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

From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <comcon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 13 Feb 90 12:41:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:

> You're not kidding it's great.  Even WITH the tarriffs, and the
> "relief", it's still the best system on the market for the money.

Although this doesn't relate directly, I recently went off in search
of a 2-line feature phone. (got tired of needing 2 instruments, and I
wanted to keep easy access to the bbs line) After looking over all the
available units in Anchorage, I settled on a Panasonic KX T-3145. This
little jewel has more memory dialling capacity than I am likely to use
in the next 5 years, speakerphone, hold, conferencing, and the dialler
will learn from thr redial memory.

Panasonic has consistantly produced excellent phone gear. (My previous
phone was a single-line Uniden, and I believe I _gave it away_ when I
bought the Panasonic... the Uniden really stank, except for redial
speed)

I can see why AT&T is scared....


Roy M. Silvernail  | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy  |  "Every race must arrive at this
#include <opinions.h>;#define opinions MINE  |   point in its history"
SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage,       |   ........Mr. Slippery
Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc.      |  <Ono-Sendai: the right choice!>

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 00:43:40 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell


In a message of <Feb 12 06:19> Dewey Henize (1:382/31) writes:

 DH>From: cedar![e-mail] (Dewey Henize)
 DH>Date: 12 Feb 90 03:46:40 GMT
 DH>Organization: TELECOM Digest
 DH>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 DH>Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom

 DH>First the quote from the flyer included in the bill:

 DH>"Beginning this month, a 911 service fee is included in your bill.  It
 DH>appears on the Southwestern Bell detail of charges under the listing
 DH>911 service fee.

Where do you live? Cedar Park? I believe "Taco Bell" just started
collecting 911 surcharge there.

Here is a message received in the Fidonet MDF echo from one of your neighbors:

   Date:   Mon Feb 05 1990  20:32:40
   From:   Jim Parkhurst
   To:     News Desk
   Subj:   SWBT Now collects 911 Equalization Charges!?
   Attr:
   MDF             -------------------------------

Without fanfare, I read the following from my Jan-15-90 SWBT phone
bill (which came sometime and my wife just showed it to me):

"Effective January, 1990, you are being assessed a 911 equalization
surcharge in the amount of two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) each month
on all long-distance services within Texas.  The surcharge was
authorized by the Texas legislature (passage of House Bill 911) in
1987 as a means of financing regional 911 emergency telephone service
in Texas. The surcharge is listed on a separate line on your bill.

In addition to regular long-distance calls within Texas, the surcharge
also applies to any telephone service used in lieu of long-distance,
for example, intrastate WATS, private-line or data-circuit service in
the state.

The telephone companies collecting the surcharge will remit it to the
Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications, the group
responsible for implementing House Bill 911, for distribution to the
regional 911 systems.

9-1-1 emergency service is coming to you in the future, although the
exact date is not yet certain. Beginning this month a 9-1-1 fee is
included in your bill. It appears on the Southwestern Bell Detail of
Charges under the listing '911 Service Fee'. This fee is collected for
the Williamson County Capital Area PC for use in establishing and
maintaining the 9-1-1 system.  This network will enable you to call
for emergency help by dialing the universal 9-1-1 code."

Interesting. SWBT, like Ma, waits for the "right time" before
"initiating" a "standing" authorization!

Later!
        JimP

            ===============================

If memory serves, it is about 1% of your monthly toll charges.

And 911 costs BIG bucks. I'll see if I can dig up the tariff while I'm
over at the PUC, Wednesday.

Have your machine call my machine. We'll do lunch.


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: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell
Date: 14 Feb 90 02:17:02 GMT
Organization: very little


Dewey Hineze asked how much it costs to add 911 service to a telephone
system.

Adding 911 trunks is fairly cheap.  Even adding ANI, so that the PSAP
(Public Safety Answering Point) can see the calling party telephone
number, is not too expensive if you use gear from anyone else but
AT&T.

What is expensive is starting, de-bugging and maintaining an ALI
(Automatic Location Identification) database, which is used to
automatically cross reference the phone number to a physical location
that shows up on the 911 operators screen.

Another thing that is expensive is setting up the system so that it
will selectively route calls.  For instance, telco central office
boundaries do not always follow political boundaries or lines between
different municipalities or fire districts.  So it becomes a rather
painful process to, as the 911 call is received at your local C.O.,
send the call to a tandem office, recieive the ANI in MF format, put
the number out on a data line to a database (which may be in another
state!) so that the number can be id's to a location, then route the
call acording to the location in the database to the end office and
then to the PSAP.

The 50 cents per line per month sounds about minimum compared to what
other areas are paying.

If your local govt is doing it's job, they are auditing the costs of
providing this service, and should have it set up so that it is not
just 50 cents in perpetuity, but for some limited period.  After that
they should be able to determine the ongoing costs of maintaining the
system and paying PSAP operators.


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Subject: Re: Receiver-Originated Fax
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 09:39:51 -0500
From: [e-mail]


There are plenty of services like this.  Some of them have a voice
response number which you call with a touchtone phone and select the
fax you want.  You then enter your fax number and a computerfax will
fax the documentation you requested.  Other systems are set up such
that you put your fax machine into 'manual poll mode' after you make
your selection via touchtone.  This method saves phone charges for the
vendor -- he can just put the system on a single phone line, and do no
outdialling.


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


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

From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: T3 CSU/DSU
Reply-To: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Performance Systems International, Reston, Virginia 22091
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 23:37:32 GMT


Contact Digital Link at 408.745.6200. They are an agressive company
with some of the hottest T1/T3 products around.


Martin L. Schoffstall
Performance Systems Internationl Inc.
Reston Virgina, US
[e-mail]


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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 18:35:02 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Robert Kaplan/Scott Fybush


Sorry to confuse you.  Brandeis University is a bit stingy about
giving out accounts on CHAOS.  Therefore my roommate [Robert Kaplan]
lets me use his account to access Telecom Digest, since I don't have
an account of my own.  OK?


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not even represent my own opinion.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #99
*****************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01980;
          14 Feb 90 5:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14880;
          14 Feb 90 4:16 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20697;
          14 Feb 90 3:06 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Feb 90 2:06:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #100
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Feb 90 02:05:04 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Valentine's Day Discounts (TELECOM Moderator)
    Sprint Makes an Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (Schwartz)
    Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!) (Stephen Fleming)
    Research Paper on Telecommunications in China (Peter Geary)
    The CCITT Blue Book (John R. Covert)
    British Telecom Calling (Credit) Cards (Kevin Hopkins)
    More 900-ish Sleaze (700 == 900?) (Gary Ansok)
    Envoy 100 (Colin Plumb)
    If ATT is the Best, Why Must They Cheat in Order to Compete? (Steve Elias)
    Questions About LiTel (John Matthew Riegert)
    E911 Systems (David Brightbill)
    Autovon --> DSN (Carl Moore)
    Session Link to Tymnet or Telenet Wanted (Steve Huff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 1:18:20 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Valentine's Day Discounts


Remember, as a one time special tariff, to offset inconvenience caused
customers by the outage in January, AT&T is treating February 14 as a
holiday for the purpose of billing discounts.

You'll want to route as much of your traffic as possible via AT&T today.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: 13 Feb 90 08:09:52 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
From: [e-mail]


I recently purchased a can of WD-40 spray lubricant and found a
promotional offer attached to the neck of the can:

Call WD-40's toll-free number, answer a simple quiz (see below), and
"win" a U.S. Sprint FON card, with 60 minutes of long-distance calling
pre-credited.

I called the 800 number and "managed" to answer the questions
correctly.  (Question #1: Will WD-40 remove adhesives from surfaces?
Question #2: Will WD-40 remove tar from your car?  End-of-quiz!)

At that point I was transferred to the U.S. Sprint business office,
where an operator promptly took my name and mailing address, promising
to send a FON card with the pre-credited 60 minutes of long-distance
calling.

This sounds like 5 minutes well-spent.

Has anyone else done this?  Any known snags involved?

For those who are interested, the WD-40 number to call is: 1-800 FON
WD40.  Don't try on weekends, because after you finish the quiz they
will transfer you to the U.S. Sprint office so that you can hear a
recording informing you that U.S. Sprint's business office is CLOSED
on weekends!


[Moderator's Note: Yes, but are they then sneaking you over to Sprint
as default carrier in the process? I'd be surprised if they were not!
Find out first -- not next month when telco's bill announces your new
default carrier!  If you have to pay $5 to change it back, or spend an
hour on the phone arguing with Sprint, it isn't worth it.  PT]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!)
Date: Tue, 13-Feb-90 10:31:08 PST


I have been observing the recent debates over Caller ID services.  The
major arguments seem to boil down to these:

    The pro-Caller-ID people want an "electronic peephole" so they can
    see who's calling and screen out junk calls.

    Some anti-Caller-ID people are upset about losing the privacy of their
    unlisted telephone numbers.

    Other anti people are worried about the public refusing to call help
    hotlines (drugs, battered women, IRS, etc.) if they believe their
    call may be traced.

All good arguments.  Well, technology got us into this problem; let's
see if technology can get us out.  (Technical fixes are more appealing
than legal, political, or societal-behavior fixes since they can, at
least in theory, explored and tested rationally.)

Electronic peephole -- compare the following two calls given Calling
Line ID and its more sophisticated cousin, Calling *Party* ID:

             Calling Line ID        Calling Party ID
              (number only)          (ASCII string)
          +-------------------------------------------
Call #1   |   703-847-1234          ABC CARPET SALES
Call #2   |   703-847-5678          VA. STATE PATROL

Given the ASCII identifiers, which call would you take if you're
sitting down to dinner and your daughter is an hour late?  What about
if you're given only the numbers?  Clearly, the "electronic peephole"
is of limited value with unfamiliar callers if only the Line ID is
provided.

Unlisted phone numbers -- my impression is that these users don't
particularly want to keep their identity secret to the called party...
they just don't want their phone to start ringing with junk calls.
Given Calling *Party* ID (rather than Calling Line ID), they should be
happy.  For example, I don't care if the recipient's box lights up
with STEPHEN FLEMING as long as it *doesn't* light up with
703-847-8186.

Hotline privacy -- probably the strongest of all the arguments, in my book.
 I don't buy the position that hotlines could advertise their refusal
to use Caller ID... a suicide hotline I might trust, but the IRS I
would not.  But these are a *small* percentage of all calls.  A
per-call disabling feature (e.g., a three-button sequence before
placing the call) could cause the recipient's box to light up
ANONYMOUS.  If I got a display like this at home, I would refuse it...
but a cocaine hotline or a newspaper reporter could choose to accept
the call.

So... I don't claim to have followed all the religious wars last year,
but it seems to me that a combination of Calling Party ID and per-call
disabling solve most of the problems relative to Caller*ID.  In
addition, it provides a more attractive (read: higher revenue) service
to the 99% of humanity who don't think of people in terms of phone
numbers.  Why aren't the BOCs rushing to offer this as a solution?

Simple... Judge Greene won't let them.  Running a phone number through
a database and flashing an associated ASCII string onto your screen
qualifies as an information-processing service, and that's a no-no.
Sure, there are technical problems -- you'd have to have databases
that lots of people can access quickly enough not to delay call setup --
but the technical problems will never be solved if there's not a
market for the solution.  Conversely, if the BOCs were to start
developing the technical means to support Calling Party ID, solutions
could be available in short order.

Conclusions are left as an exercise for the student.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stephen Fleming                 |  Internet: [e-mail]   |
| Director, Technology Marketing  |  Voice:    [phone]           |
| Northern Telecom                +-------------------------------------|
| Eastern Region  / Federal Ntwks |    Opinions expressed do not        |
| McLean, Virginia  22102-4203    |    represent Northern Telecom.      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 13 Feb 90 22:28 -0600
Subject: Research Paper on Telecommunications in China


Hello World,

I am currently writing a research paper on Telecommunications in
China. In particular I am looking for information on technology
transfer existing communication facilities, planned facilities and
problems encountered in programming switches etc. I am also interested
in cultural differences in business practice.

If you know of any primary or secondary sources which would assist me
in this paper I would appreciate email.

Please send all responses to
[e-mail]

Thanks Muchly,

 Peter


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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 05:24:33 PST
From: "john r. covert  13-feb-1990 0803" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The CCITT Blue Book


>In v10i85 John R. Covert notes that his Official Country Codes List is
>based on the CCITT Blue Book (1989). What other information does it
>contain and does it have an ISBN so that our library can track it
>down? I presume that "Blue Book" is not its offical title, so what is
>its full title?
>K.Hopkins

"Blue Book" is, indeed, its official title.  Your library can track it down
under ISBN 92-61-03261-3.  In ten volumes (with each volume bound in 1-10
fascicles, a total some 61 separate books), it contains all of the CCITT
recommendations on telephony, telegraphy, modems, packet switching, message
services, etc.  If a standard is of the form x.n, where x is a letter and
n is an integer, e.g.: E.163 (numbering plans), Q.23 (Touch-Tone), V.32
(modems), X.25 (packet switching), X.400 (messaging), you'll find it in
the Blue Book.

The full title page of the fascicle containing the official country code list
is:
    ITU    International Telecommunication Union
        CCITT
        The International
        Telegraph and Telephone
        Consultative Committee

        Blue Book

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

        Volume II -- Fascicle II.2

        Telephone, Network, and ISDN --
        Operation, Numbering, Routing
        and Mobile Service

        Recommendations E.100-E.333

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

        CCITT  IXth Plenary Assembly
               Melbourne, 14-25 November 1988

        Geneva 1989

        ISBN 92-61-03261-3

Your library must be prepared to spend several thousand dollars for the full
set -- even the individual fascicles are quite expensive.

/john

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

Subject: British Telecom Calling (Credit) Card
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 18:42:16 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


In v10i80 of the digest Chris ([e-mail]) says

[ MCI, AT&T cards, etc ]
->     I don't think that these kind of cards are in use in England,
->     the closest thing, I guess, we have are the phone cards.

As well as the prepaid phone cards which are generally available in
Post Offices, BT Shops, Newsagents, etc. BT also has a Credit Card for
use with ordinary phones. I think it operates like the American phone
cards but generates a separate bill every quarter. BT doesn't seem to
heavily advertise it but the cards are noted in the tariff as
generating a 25p surcharge per call ($0.42 at $1.68/pound). Check with
your BT Shop.

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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 10:31:55 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: More 900-ish Sleaze (700 == 900?)


I only saw this commercial once, and could not swear in court that
this is what I saw.  I have been watching to see if I can catch the
commercial again, but haven't seen it in several days.  I haven't
tried calling the number to find out if it works (aside from not
wanting to pay the money, I don't want to support them on principle).
But I thought if this is what's happening, TELECOM readers might be
interested.

I was watching a local TV station the other day, and was not paying
much attention to the commercials when one of them (I think it was for
a teenage "chat line") flashed a very interesting phone number on the
screen:

104-441-700-TALK-121

Yes, that was how it was presented to the viewer (444 is Allnet,
according to the recent 10xxx listing).  I'm fairly sure that the area
code was 700, not 900.  I haven't called to check it out, since I
object to paying $1.99 / min.  I watched the same station a couple of
times later in the week, but didn't see the commercial again.

This is the first I have seen a 700 area code, except for the
recording to find out who your LDC is.  Is the 700 area code just used
for any carrier-specific purpose?  Are there any other number
sequences to watch out for?  So far we have 900, 976, 940 (in at least
one place), and now maybe 700 (of course, 011 for international calls
can run your bill up rather fast, too).


    Gary Ansok
    ansok@stsci.{edu,bitnet}


[Moderator's Note: Some of the OCC's have their own methods of
fleecing the public; Allnet and their talk lines being one example.
What you saw advertised is just another 900-like service.  PT]

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Envoy 100
Date: 13 Feb 90 16:06:37 GMT
Reply-To: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


Some people I know are doing some work for Bell Canada and Bell is
hooking them up to a system called "Envoy 100".  (It's a billable
expense and Bell wants it very much, so whether it's useful isn't an
issue.)  When I first heard of it, I thought it was just a voice mail
system, but apparenly you can use it to send mail or couriered
messages and do all sorts of neat tricks.  The user needs a modem.

The odds are good I'm going to be taching them something about how to
use it.  Has anyone on TELECOM had any experience with this thing?
What exactly is it/are there any gotchas?

Thanks for any information.

    -Colin

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

Subject: If ATT is the Best, Why Must They Cheat in Order to Compete?
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 10:01:52 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Was ATT really behind the tariffs on the Panasonic keysystems?  I find
this very easy to believe, given the fact that ATT and the FCC are
still in bed together.  What is the legal status of the lawsuits
against ATT for giving switching equipment away in order to win bids?
(we all know the moral status of that practice: SLEAZE.)


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


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 02:18:58 -0500 (EST)
From: John Matthew Riegert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About LiTel

   I just moved into a new apartment, and the tenants before used a
long distance company named LiTel. I have never heard of it.  Does
anybody have any info. on this company?  I believe it comes out of
Ohio.


   John Riegert

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 11:24:30 -0500
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: E911 Systems


In a recent article, a question was raised about the cost and utility
of enhanced 911 systems.  I have had a small degree of involvement in
teh establishment of an E911 system for our county.  It is a complex
and time consuming process.  You have to locate folks and decide which
agency should be informed of the call.  Directions to an individual
address in our county can involve making 4 or five turns on unmarked
dirt roads.  Some of our agencies had incorrect data in their CAD
systems regarding their jurisdiction.  At least one agency sees it as
a turf intrusion.  ("you can install that thing but we will do our own
address lookup").  I'm looking forward to seeing how the thing will
actually work.  Right now we are having folks go door-to-door checking
addresses.  I'll post an occasional update as things progress.


David B.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 14:15:43 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Autovon --> DSN


DSN is to replace AUTOVON.  I have received this explanation:

DSN is Defense Switched Network.  The DSN handles data transmission as
well as voice.  It includes the old Automatic Voice Network (AUTOVON),
but a DSN call could be made without actually using any AUTOVON
circuits.

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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Session Link to Tymnet or Telenet Wanted
Date: 14 Feb 90 00:15:52 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Does anybody know of a way to establish a session link with either
Telenet or Tymnet through Bitnet or Internet?  I am trying to reach
Dow Jones News Retrieval from kuhub.

Thanks in advance.


Steve
[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't think it can be done at this time. The
easiest way to do it is to get an account on MCI Mail.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #100
******************************