Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss101-150

Text File | 1990-03-07 | 843KB | 20,493 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12980;
          15 Feb 90 0:28 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09178;
          14 Feb 90 22:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13370;
          14 Feb 90 21:29 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Feb 90 20:51:46 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #101
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Feb 90 20:50:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Question on Telephone Jacks (Bernard Mckeever)
    Re: Question on Telephone Jacks (William Degnan)
    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (Andy Malis)
    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (DanehyOakes)
    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (Joel Levin)
    Re: Recordings For Intra-LATA 10xxx Attempts (Paul D. Anderson)
    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Wm Randolph Franklin)
    Re: Thank You For Using Vista-United (Paul Higgins)
    Re: More 900-ish Sleaze (700 == 900?) (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel (Alayne McGregor)
    Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleaze (Kim Greer)
    Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre (Dolf Grunbauer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question on Telephone Jacks
Date: 13 Feb 90 13:00:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (bernard.mckeever,54236,mv,3b045,508 960 6289)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The RJ47S is the universal data jack and requires the 97A type
connecting block. The 97 A type connecting block has a specially keyed
jack for use with data equipment. If the associated switch is in the
wrong posistion for the type of data equipment used the signal will
not reach the line.

If you are using the FLL pad your equipment connects to pins 1&2, if
you use program type data equipment it connects to pins 4&5. If memory
serves me thr RJ11 connects pins 3&4 to the registered equipment.

Hope this helps.


Bernie McKeever

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 20:05:36 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question on Telephone Jacks


In a message of <Feb 11 04:37> Thomas Lapp (1:382/31) writes:

 TL>I recently found out the hard way that a device which is expecting an
 TL>RJ-41S jack will not work with an RJ-11 jack (even though the modular
 TL>plug fits!).

 TL>I'm wondering what is unique about an RJ-41S termination other than
 TL>the fact that it seems to be used for data terminal equipment like
 TL>modems?

 TL>Thanks for any help you can give,

Here it is. I hope _you_ know what do with it.

USOC RJ41S

To      {R___________
Network {T_______   |
                |   |
                |   |
                |   |
    _______ \___!   |   <-----|
    |           |   |         |---[connected only at the
    |   ___ \___|___!   <-----|    "!"s]
   _|___|_      |   |
   |pad  |      |   |       |^^^| <-[programming resistor]
   |_____|      |   |       |   |
    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   [screws -- can't 'ya tell?]
   1|  2|  3|  4|  5|  6|  7|  8|
    ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^

    ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^   ^
   1|  2|  3|  4|  5|  6|  7|  8|  Miniature 8-position plug
    R   T   A   R   T  A1  PR  PC  [To registered terminal equipment]
   /    |   |   |   |   \ (FLL) (FLL)(MI)(P) (P) (MIC)



USOC RJ11C


To        }T_______________
Network   }R__________    |
                     |    |
                     |    |
           0    0    0    0    0    0
          1|   2|   3|   4|   5|   6|
           ^    ^    ^    ^    ^    ^

                ^    ^    ^    ^
               2|   3|   4|   5|
                     |    |
                     R    T
                   \________/
        To Registered Terminal Equipment


Source: Armiger Voice And Data Products Catalog 1987, USOC Cross Reference


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

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 15:28:19 -0500
From: Andy Malis <[e-mail]>


> the WD-40 number to call is: 1-800 FON WD40.

I just signed up (I haven't been a regular user of Sprint before).

Before calling WD-40, I called my New England Telephone business
office to have them flag my account so that only I could request
default carrier changes.

I then called WD-40.  "Just say yes" to the questions.

After I "won", I had to wait on hold for about 10 minutes before the
Sprint rep answered the transferred call.  Let's hear it for Sprint
customer service.

I explicitly asked if this would affect my primary carrier.  The rep
said no, but that was also available if I wished.  I declined the
offer.

So, now I'll be getting a FONcard with 60 free minutes in the mail.
And I'll have yet more plastic for my wallet.


Andy Malis <[e-mail]>    UUCP: {harvard,rutgers,uunet}!bbn!malis

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

From: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
Date: 14 Feb 90 21:36:12 GMT
Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


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

>For those who are interested, the WD-40 number to call is: 1-800 FON WD40.

>[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!

I just called the number, and answered the quiz and, when I got to the
USS office *asked* them about this.  The guy unambiguously denied that
they were changing the default carrier on me, so if they *do* there's
grounds for small claims court -- or class action.

Meanwhile, I got my free hour of LD:*)

Also: Their phone system is screwed up (heeheehee).  I answered the
silly quiz, it "transferred" me to USSprint, then I got music on hold
for a while.  Beep.  Long pause.  Sound of ringing... then I got put
through the quiz again!  (But then it connected me to the US Sprint
office with no particular delay.)

Still, it sounds like a no-lose situation...


    Does anyone really need a billion dollar rocket Does
    anyone need a $60,000 car Does anyone need another
    President Or the sins of Swaggart parts 6,7,8 and 9
    Does anyone need another politician Caught with his
    pants down money sticking in his hole Does anyone need
    another racist preacher Spittin' in the wind can only
    do you harm Strawman, going straight to the devil
    Strawman, going straight to hell
            --Lou Reed


Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 15:11:56 EST


 From: [e-mail]

>[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]

It only takes me five minutes with New England Telephone to fix that.

Maybe I should try it.  Sprint's already my default. :-)

    /JBL

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

From: "Paul D. Anderson" <stiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recordings For Intra-LATA 10xxx Attempts
Date: 14 Feb 90 15:28:07 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Prototype IS the Product..."


[e-mail] (Tom Ace @ PCB x2021) writes:

>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."


Same happens here in Atlanta (404 land).


Paul Anderson * h:404-565-0761 w:841-4000
{mathcs.emory,gatech}.edu!stiatl!pda  ||  [e-mail]

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 14 Feb 90 17:21:37 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin)
writes:

>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!

What is Ma Bell's legal basis for this?  If someone calls me how is it
my responsibility?  Even if they're my minor kid, I'm not responsible
for their debts except for necessities.  The only possible hooks would
seem to be 1) if they got a wiretap order and by listening proved I
was an accomplice, or 2) could identify, and threatened to charge the
other person unless he (or a rich relative) paid up.  However, that
has to be done just right or it's barratry.

Even if I suspected the caller was committing a crime, what am I
supposed to do?  Every day I witness more serious crimes (on the
roads) but am not expected to report them.  In fact some people who
reported crimes have been sued for privacy violation.


           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: Paul Higgins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thank You For Using Vista-United
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Paul Higgins)
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 18:14:15 GMT


I noticed last Friday (9 February 1990) that the payphones at
Disneyland are also owned and operated by Vista-United.  Each of the
phones had an information card with Vista-United's Florida address
(and Mickey's picture, of course).

At Walt Disney World, you can visit an exhibit in EPCOT Center's
Communicore about the infrastructure (sewage, power, phones, etc.)
Disney built and maintains in and around Walt Disney World.  They're
rather proud of the fact that Vista-United was the world's first
all-Touch-Tone phone company.  (They just never installed rotary
phones when they build Walt Disney World.)


Paul Higgins                         [e-mail]
Office of Academic Computing         [e-mail]
University of California, Irvine

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V10 #100
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 15:13:23 EST

>From: [e-mail]

>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
>
>[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]

Looks like a new way to avoid 900 blocking to me.

    /JBL

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 90 00:55:09 EST
From: Alayne McGregor <dciem!gandalf![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: British Telecom Dumps Mitel


In Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 68, message 2 of 11, [e-mail]
(julian macassey) writes:

<  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."

<     Will this leave AT&T as the only surviving US PBX manufacturer?
                                                   ^^
Mitel's head office and research centre is in Ottawa, Canada. It is a
Canadian company. One should not confuse U.S. with North American.

And, no, I don't work for Mitel.

Alayne McGregor
{dciem!nrcaer,dgbt}!gandalf!alayne

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

From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze
Date: 14 Feb 90 11:32:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 96, message 1 of 10

>In comp.dcom.telecom you write:

>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.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^

  WOW! Talk about "reach out and touch someone"!!


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

Organization: Philips Information Systems, P.O. Box 245,
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Noms de Guerre
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 21:23:18 MET
From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>

Apparently they are not so strict in the Netherlands concerning names in
telephone directories. In any city with an university you can find the
most wonderful names listed under the students homes, such as (for
Eindhoven):

beuckingham palace (note: a `beuk' is a tree and the house happens to
be at the beukenlaan), breakfast at noon, crequeouaqueouo, draai's 4 5
4 7 6 3 (meaning `dail 454763' and yes that's there telephone number),
dry martini shake dont stire, he een jongen aan het ontbijt (he, there
is a boy at breakfast), het huis van mevr. roelofs (the home of mw
roelofs, that is a real nice one to ask the telephone operator :-),
langs 219 (meaning: next door to 219, as they live at 217), langs 217
(the neighboors of the previous one), oedipuscomptex, oh oh seven (as
they live in the bondstreet), om 7 uur wordt gegeten (breakfast/dinner
at 7), pink and icecream, probeer morgen nog eens (try again
tomorrow), we hadden graag een katje (we would like to have a kitten),
the white house, wenementochnietop (wedon'tanswerthephone),
xguppoekopperaftottoptbot, 42 b or not 2 b (as there house number is
42b)


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #101
******************************












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14551;
          15 Feb 90 1:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22862;
          14 Feb 90 23:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac09178;
          14 Feb 90 22:35 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Feb 90 21:41:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #102
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Feb 90 21:40:33 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Brief TDD History (Curtis E. Reid)
    Common TDD Terms (Curtis E. Reid)
    TDD Specifications (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: Communications With The Deaf (Fred E. J. Linton)
    Re: Communications With The Deaf (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: Communications With The Deaf (Jody Kravitz)
    Voices Out of the Ether (Ken Dykes)
    305/407 Local Calls and Zipcode Correlation (Carl Moore)
    How to Choose a Quality Cordless Phone? (Joseph Chan)
    Re: Calling Card Numbers (Joel B. Levin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 19:25 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Brief TDD History


           Telephone Devices for Deaf Users: Milestones

Source: _1990 International Telephone Directory for TDD Users_ by
Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc., 814 Thayer Avenue, Silver Spring, MD
20910, Copyright 1989.

1964:

An acoustic coupler modified for Baudot which permitted
teletypewriters to be connected to standard telephones, was invented
by Robert Weitbrecht, a deaf scientist.  Dr. James C. Marsters, a deaf
orthodontist, had sent Weitbrecht a Teletype Model 32ASR with a
request that a system be set up so that Marsters, in Pasadena,
California, could communicate with Weitbrecht in Redwood City.  Unlike
Weitbrecht, Marsters did not have a ham radio license, so they decided
to use the public phone system.

Weitbrecht's acoustic coupler was based on a half duplex operation in
which signals are transmitted one at a time.  Teletypewriters were
Baudot coded.  These machines were available because AT&T, Western
Union and other communications companies were in the process of
conversion to a new telegraphic code.

Weitbrecht's acoustic coupler was first publicly demonstrated at the
1964 biennial meeting of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the
Deaf, Salt Lake City, Utah.

1968:

Approximately 25 teletypewriter stations were in operation for/by the deaf.

1969:

Tax-exempt status was granted to TDI [Telecommunications for the Deaf,
Inc.] by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

1971:

"Scanatype", a digital readout form of the TTY was introduced by ESSCO
Communications.

1979:

Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) was accepted as the
appellation for all TTY-like devices.

1985:

Krown Research introduced dual ASCII/Baudot modems to be used with
dumb terminals.  Audiobionics, Inc. introduced an enhanced version of
a synthesized voice "talking" portable TDD.  Ultratec, Inc. introduced
a low-cost basic TDD.  Other manufacturers discontinued production of
TDDs as competition for lower cost TDDs increased.  Nevada Association
for the Deaf hosted the Sixth TDI Convention.  Distribution of free
TDDs began in many more states such as Florida, Arizona, Nevada,
Wisconsin, Illinois and Massachusetts.

1987:

California opened first state-wide, 24 hour, 7 day a week relay
service operated by AT&T.

1988:

President Ronald Reagan signed the bill to expand federal
telecommunication services for speech and hearing-impaired people;
which was introduced by Representative Steve Gunderson (R-WI) and
Senator John McCain (R-AZ).


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 19:26 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Common TDD Terms


                             Common TDD/TTY Terms

TTY  Teletypewriter
TDD  Telecommunication Device for the Deaf
GA   Go Ahead, your turn to type
SK   Stop Key, meaning end of conversation
CUZ  Because
HD   Hold, please
PLS  Please
OIC  Oh, I see
U    You
UR   Your
CD   Could
Q    Question mark (Also ?)
MTG  Meeting
R    Are
NBR  Number (Also NU or NO)
OPR  Operator
CUL  See you later
SHD  Should
WLD  Would
TMW  Tommorrow (Also TOM)

*  To be effective, punctuations are not used during TDD
   conversations.

*  Please identify yourself while answering TDD calls as it is
   rather difficult to recognize one's voice through printed
   letters.

*  Tap the space bar several times for numbers that use both TDD
   and Voice.


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 19:25 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: TDD Specifications


               Specifications For TDD Data Transmit/Receive

All TDD manufacturers follow these specs but no tolerance level is given:

1.  Acoustic coupling (standard G- and K- type handset)

    Input level: 65 dB SPL minimum / 110 db SPL maximum
                                   -4        2
                 (0 dB SPL = 2 x 10   dyne/cm )

    Output level: 95 dB SPL minimum / 100 dB SPL maximum
                  (acoustic pressure to produce a -9 dBm
                   signal at the telephone set line terminals
                   on an average loop)

2.  Direct modular connection

    Connector:  standard 6-position modular jack

    USOC No.:   RJ11C

    Input level: -50 dBm minimum / 0 dBm maximum

    Output level: -13 dBm minimum / -9 dBm maximum

3.  Modem

    Modulation method:  Frequency Shift Keying

    Mark frequency:  1400 Hz +-5 Hz

    Space frequency:  1800 Hz +-5 Hz

    Signal to noise ratio:  13 dB

    Carrier to data delay:  180 ms

    Carrier to hold time:  156 ms

4.  Protocol

    Code:  Baudot

    Mode:  Half duplex

    Transmissions:  Asynchronous

    Start bit:  1

    Stop bit:   1

    Data bits:  5

    Parity:  None

    Data rate:  45.5 baud (buffered)

Note: The above information is from Plantronics, Inc. (manufacturer of
the Vu-Phone) and is assumed to be consistent with other brands as the
Vu-Phone is compatible with all other TDDUs.

(1985)

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

Date: 14-FEB-1990 02:44:55.14
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Re: Communications With The Deaf


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's been done: The same company that produced the $50.00 Pronto Home
Banking terminal for Chemical Bank, Union Trust Co., et al., has a
two-speed two-window TDD terminal: the company is AT&T; the old
Pronto terminal was their model 1300; the TDD (which operates both at
standard TDD speed and at 300 baud) is the model 1310.

It's a combination of keyboard, answer/originate modem, and
video-display driver (using any TV set, and providing 24 40-character
lines), and it incorporates a serial printer port (fixed at 1200 baud
on the 1300) and a number of other useful details.

It seems not to be marketed very aggressively in the literature that
gets to me -- I saw one series of ads for it in a primary education
computer monthly about a year ago, and nothing else -- but I did have
occasion two years ago or so to learn whom at AT&T to contact for
sales and service on it (I'll spare you the agonizing details of the
merry month-long 800-number chase the AT&T phone-answer-maidens led me
along until I found him): that's

    Anthony (Tony) J. Curreri
    AT&T Information Systems
    Morristown, NJ 07960
    Voice: [phone]
    AT&T Mail:  !curreri    (numeric ID: !2271382)

according to an attmail DIR inquiry I just did, assuming no digits got
garbled in transmission.

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

ARPA/Internet:  [e-mail]
Bitnet:         FLINTON@WESLEYAN[.bitnet]
on ATT-Mail:    !fejlinton                     ( ...!attmail!fejlinton )
Tel.:           + 1 203 776 2210 (home)  OR  + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)
Telex:          <USA> + 15 122 3413   FEJLINTON
and now on MCI-Mail (thanks Paul!):   FEJLINTON  or  [e-mail]


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 10:22 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Communications with the Deaf


In Telecom Digest #99:

>From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <comcon![e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: Communications With The Deaf

>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 :-)

        There are several TDD emulators for PCs and a couple other
personal computers.  It is easy to covert an 8-bit ASCII to 5-bit
BAUDOT.  The other problem is the timing and speed of TDD transmission
as well as hardware constraints.  Some modems can't go below 110 bps.
Macintosh serial ports can't even go that low!

        Several software products are on the market.  But, as I have
said earlier in my prior article, purchase of a TDD is considered
significant to them and a purchase of a personal computer is like
buying a car (so to speak).  The market for TDD emulators in PCs is
weak.  I'm a Macintosh user so I'm not too enthusaistic about
purchasing a PC just to use a TDD.  (Someday that might change. :-))


                        Curtis Reid
                        [e-mail]
                        [e-mail] (Internet)
                        [e-mail] (Not Reliable-NYSernet)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 11:02:21 PST
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Communications With The Deaf


On the issue of "lower connect time rates for TDD calls": The
effective baud rate of a typist is very low.  It would appear that an
interactive connection through a packet-switched network could be
provided at a lower connect time cost. Compare the cost of direct
calling vs. PC Pursuit.

Any of the big "information service" vendors could provide this, along
with E-mail if they wanted to.  The "information service" vendors
should have an incentive: Hearing impaired users might spend the money
they saved on long distance calls on other (more profitable)
information services.


Jody

P.S.    To reply to me          Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
                    uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 90 20:51:30 EST
From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voices Out of the Ether


I found this in alt.sources.wanted, thought perhaps some telecom folks
may find it of interest if they didnt already see it...

   -ken

   From: [e-mail] (Martin Chapman)
   Subject: Re: Voice over Ethernet
   Date: 13 Feb 90 16:12:47 GMT
   Organization: RT511, BT Research Labs, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, UK


In reponse to the following:

 Does anybody out there know of any voice/phone packages that run over ethernet
 (and/or TCP/IP). I am interested in being able to plug in a microphone or
 telephone into my Sun Sparc station, and be able to phone other people on the
 net.

Here are some of the replies.

  >From: [e-mail]
  >
  >Get the audio.shar file from expo.lcs.mit.edu in the contrib
  >directory.  It implements an audio extension to X and allows one to
  >talk with a microphone to any number of other Workstations, sort of a
  >conference call. Pretty slick.  Who needs the telephone company?
  >
  >David Forslund
  >Advanced Computing Laboratory
  >MS B287
  >Los Alamos National Laboratory
  >Los Alamos, NM 87545
  >
  >[phone]
  >([e-mail])

  >From: [e-mail]
  >
  > You could try something like this (check my syntax):
  >
  >   $ rsh remote_machine cat \>/dev/audio </dev/audio
  >
  >this should take whatever you input over the audio port and send
  >it to the remote machine's audio port
  >
  >mike bender
  >sun

  >From: [e-mail]
  >
  >The program "/usr/demo/sound" can be hacked down to do this.
  >Probably the best thing to do is to split it into two programs,
  >one that just plays sounds from standard input, the other records
  >sounds and spits them out on standard output.  Then you can do:
  >
  >   $ mike | rsh hostname speaker
  >   $ rsh hostname mike | speaker
  >
  >and have a two-way audio conduit set
  >    John Gilmore

  >From: [e-mail]2
  >
  >Yes, I have one.
  >
  >Actually it was posted onto the news group 'fj.sources' in
  >JUNET (japan university network). It's called vtalk (voice talk).
  >
  >The author's e-mail address is:
  >
  >    [e-mail]
  >
  >I also have a copy of the source, and I can send it to you.
  >Unfortunately, all documents are written in Japanese.
  >But it would be easy to install since it is a very small (== 1K lines in C)
  >program.
  >
  >-- H. Sakoh
  >
  >                [e-mail]

Thanks for the replies.

Martin Chapman PhD, BSc, SMBCS, B/Tec, GCE, CSE, 11+
British Telecom Research Labs, Martlesham Heath, Suffolk, U.K.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 13:05:42 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 305/407 Local Calls and Zipcode Correlation


How are local calls made across the 305/407 border?

 From a call guide, I notice that:

Boca Raton (area 407) is local to Coral Springs,
     Deerfield Beach, Delray Beach, Pompano Beach
     (and Boca Raton)

Deerfield Beach (area 305) is local to Boca Raton,
     Coral Springs, Delray Beach, Fort Lauderdale,
     Pompano Beach (and Deerfield Beach)--in other
     words, the Boca Raton calling area & Ft.Laud.

How does this look?

327xx (except that part in 904), 328xx, 329xx are in 407.
330xx, 331xx, 332xx, 333xx stay in 305.
334xx is split between 305 and 407.
(349xx is split the same way as 334xx.)

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

From: Joseph Chan <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Choose a Quality Cordless Phone?
Date: 14 Feb 90 21:31:06 GMT
Reply-To: Joseph Chan <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


I am looking to buy a cordless phone in the price range $100 - $200.
Could some one recommend a cordless phone that you are happy with?
The phone is for the home use.  What are the most important features
that you want in a cordless phone?  Intercom between phone set and the
base?  Number of channels?  Security features? Range (distance between
base and phone set) ?

Thank you for any information you may have.


Please send e-mail to
[e-mail],
[e-mail] or
[e-mail]


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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Numbers
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 15:20:17 EST


My first calling card from New England Telephone was of the form

  123 4567 001 H

Where the first seven digits were my real phone number (there might
have been a 617 (NPA) in front also, but my memory is hazy).  Every
year I got a new card, identical to the old one except for the
trailing letter.  I assumed the 001 was in case of conciding numbers
(that's why I think the NPA was left out) or for sub-accounts.  On a
visit to the Boston telco I saw how it worked.  (This was in the early
'70s.)

We walked through the room full of TSPs (the operator positions where
operator-assisted calls -- credit card, collect, person, etc. were
handled).  On top of each console was a little sign.  On the sign was
a list of digit - letter pairs, and the instruction to look at the
(say) fourth digit.  Then if the fourth digit of the credit card
number was 4, the chart showed a corresponding H.  Each year
presumably the table and the particular digit were changed.

How's that for security?

    /JBL

[Moderator's Note: That last group of digits, the '001' in your case,
was known as the RAO Code, or Regional Accounting Office Code. The
numbers increased going west. I think I recall the one in Chicago was
017. There was no area code on the front, since the RAO served more or
less the same function. The code changed annually, with the letter
sometimes relating to either the 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th digit. One year
the fifth digit would be used, with letters assigned to the numbers 0-9
which might appear there. The next year, different letters assigned to
the possible digit, and maybe they used the last digit in the phone
number part of the card. Every January, a group of phreaks would sit
down and (after first promising not to abuse each other's cards) have
a mutual examination of phone numbers and key letters. Any half dozen
reasonably intelligent people could decipher the 'secret formula' by
reviewing what was known about each other's cards.  That system was
discontinued in the late seventies in favor of the present scheme.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #102
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09567;
          16 Feb 90 0:24 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20564;
          15 Feb 90 22:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10674;
          15 Feb 90 21:43 CST
Date:     Thu, 15 Feb 90 21:32:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #103
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Feb 90 21:30:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light (Chuck Huffington)
    Re: Questions About LiTel (Martin L. Schoffstall)
    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Will Martin)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Telephone Number Lengths in the UK (Linc Madison)
    Re: 415-694 Changed to 415-604 (Linc Madison)
    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (Len Levine)
    Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze (David E. Bernholdt)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (K. Blatter)
    Re: How to Choose a Quality Cordless Phone? (Jeff E. Nelson)
    Re: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling (Linc Madison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Huffington)
Subject: Re: Phone Calls at the Speed of Light
Date: 14 Feb 90 22:03:44 GMT
Reply-To: uunet!apex!chuckh
Organization: Apex Computer Co., Redmond  WA


With all the concern about what fraction of c a signal propagates on
various cable types.  I began to wonder what the time delay is to get
through channel banks and time division switches.  Anybody have any
information?

                Chuck Huffington

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

From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About LiTel
Reply-To: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Performance Systems International, Reston, Virginia 22091
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 22:29:07 GMT


I believe the LiTel that you are talking about is owned by Williams
Telecommunications Group (WTG) of Tulsa Oklahoma.  (There are
unfortunately 3 "Telephone Companies" that sound like some spelling of
LiTel in North America).  WTG is famous for running interstate fiber
through gas pipelines owned by its parent: The Williams Company.


Martin L. Schoffstall
Performance Systems Internationl Inc.
Reston Virgina, US
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 8:12:51 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls


>>The telco has a history of charging called numbers in cases of
>>long-distance abuse, like blue boxing and college-student fraud...

>What is Ma Bell's legal basis for this?

Gee, I thought it was the same as Ma Bell's "legal basis" for
*everything* they do ---

"We're THE TELEPHONE COMPANY, and we can do *anything* we want..."
                   :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)


Regards, Will

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 15 Feb 90 04:22:03 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


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

> The latest count shows that more than 50% of telco customers in the LA
> area have unlisted numbers. That figure is growing.

    Yes, I know this is "LA", but 50% of the population are not
rich or famous, maybe 3% are. But every dreary little lawyer you meet
is unlisted. Tired and unattractive secretaries are unlisted. I once
knew a welfare mother and drug fiend who was unlisted. Yet I do know
some real celebs here that are in the book. I wonder what 50% of the
population of LA think they are avoiding. Certainly not the boiler
rooms peddling the LA Times, they dial sequentially.

    In parts of real America that I visit, I notice that everyone
in town is listed. The Doctors even give their home phone numbers.  In
LA you get to talk to an incompetant answering service while you
expire.

    "We must get together soon."


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 came across a case the other day in a small town
where the *Post Office* had a non-pub number. It was a real little
town with one of those dinky post offices which are operated out of
the postmaster's home; and the postmaster pays the phone bill. He did
not want his number listed, so that, as they say, was that.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 00:29:07 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Number Lengths in the UK
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Kevin Hopkins writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 83, message 2 of 8

>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.

>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).

There is one thing that puzzles me, though.  A friend whose phone has
been scheduled to be "modernized" was telling me about the procedure.
She lives in Chester,(0244).  Her home phone is currently 5 digits,
let's say NUMBR.  As of some date in the future, it will be 3NUMBR.
Thus, if the current format is EEXXX, it will become EEEXXX, while
some of the existing 6-digit numbers are EEXXXX.  Subtle difference,
but it can have interesting ramifications.

Also, just as a personal note, I thought it quite quaint when I placed
a call from a phone with a five-digit area code (six, if you include
the 0) and a three-digit local number.  Oh, well; on with progress.


Linc Madison   = [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 01:08:41 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 415-694 Changed to 415-604
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> it is written:
>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.

Small world!  I recently was given a phone message on which the number
to call was miswritten 604-XXXX instead of 644-XXXX.  Since 604 is a
new exchange not listed in the front of even the new phone book, and
since I was calling from the office of a non-profit very concerned
about toll calls, I wanted to know if the number was local.  I called
the operator and asked where that exchange was located and whether it
was local.  I was told Mountain View, and that it was Zone 2.

I was calling from Berkeley, which is roughly 40 miles from Mountain
View; Zone 2 is 8-12 miles.  Unless it's a Mt. View exchange mapped as
downtown San Francisco, there's something screwy afoot.

Fortunately, I realized that the person the message was from couldn't
be in Mountain View, and found the right number with a little
checking.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
Date: 15 Feb 90 16:17:23 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]:
> 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!)

> Has anyone else done this?  Any known snags involved?

I just called them.  Same results.  They did tell me however, that
there is a $0.75 charge for each call made, and that that charge
is independent of the 60 minutes free.

> 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

By the way, I called from my university office, and gave them my office
phone number.  Hope the University does not get its service changed. :-)

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| 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] |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +


[Moderator's Note: I also called, and gave them the number of my voicemail
service. I sure hope Centel Phone Company in Des Plaines, IL does not
get its long distance service changed either!  :)   PT]

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze
Date: 15 Feb 90 17:51:37 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


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

>>What's the situation nowadays @ Atlanta's airport?

In article <[e-mail]> drilex![e-mail] (Carol
Springs) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 96, message 2 of 10

>I ... dialed Sprint's 800 number.  I successfully used my
>FONCARD and was later billed by Sprint for the eight-minute call.

I was through there at the end of January and made numerous calls
through MCI's 950 number.  The bill showed up yesterday with nothing
untoward on it.

I did notice when I was there that some phones didn't seem to like the
950 number, so I just moved to another one.  I didn't see any pattern.


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

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

From: Kevin Blatter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 15 Feb 90 21:52:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


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

> 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.

I have read with amusement over the past few days in this forum
concerning AT&T's "protectionist" attitudes and so I thought I might
throw a few words of my own into the fray.

First of all, I have no control over what AT&T does in the KTS, PBX or
just about any other market that we are involved in.  (They usually do
not bother to consult me before making a move ;-) ).  Secondly, if I
can believe what I read in the press, AT&T's principal competitors in
the KTS or PBX markets manufacture their goods here in the USA or in
Canada (with whom the US has a free trade agreement with anyway, so
that's sort of like the same thing.)  The largest market share that I
could find for any KTS or PBX marketed by a company in the far east
was that of TOSHIBA in the 11-20 station KTS with an 8% share.  The
largest PBX presence was that of Fijitsu with a 7% market share.  Both
figures were for 1988.

Panasonic whom the principal flap is over was not listed separately in
the literature that I have, but was presumably classified under
'other'.  Yes, AT&T's key systems are expensive.  I wish they were
cheaper.  I would love to purchase a Merlin for my house.  Until I can
afford it I will have to settle for a myriad of T&R sets and my Mitel
dialer.  When I've asked about the costliness of the Merlin systems, I
was told that they are for the 'high end'.  I guess that's good enough
for me.

I'm not quite sure why, but there is still an attitude that prevails
that AT&T is 'god' and can dictate to the federal government what it
must do and that everyone must obey.  Hell, if that were true
divestature never would have taken place.

My conclusion on the Anti-dumping case was that, at face value.  The
Japanese aren't interested in playing fair, they're interested in
marketshare and profits.  It they can dump their equipment on the
market for cheaper than what they sell comprable equipment on their
domestic markets to gain marketshare.  You better believe they would.


Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs
Disclaimer - I don't pretend to speak for AT&T, they've never asked
me to and I've never offered.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 06:31:39 PST
From: VAX Debug 15-Feb-1990 0928 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How to Choose a Quality Cordless Phone?


In Telecom Digest V10 N102, you write:

>I am looking to buy a cordless phone in the price range $100 - $200.
>Could some one recommend a cordless phone that you are happy with?

Check out Consumer Reports.  One of last year's issues has a very good
article about cordless phones, and addresses many of the questions you
ask.


Jeff E. Nelson
Digital Equipment Corporation
Internet:  [e-mail]
Affiliation given for identification purposes only

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 00:51:17 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


I have a question about this.  Patrick says that he can answer a call
to him, flash and add a third party, place both calls in a 3-way
conference, and then hang up, leaving the other two parties connected.

Who pays for it?

Suppose I in California call Patrick, who adds to the conversation my
brother in New York.  Patrick hangs up, and my brother and I chat for
another two hours.  Does Patrick continue to pay the cost of the call
to New York, even though he has hung up?  If not, do I?  What if I'm
calling Patrick locally and we arrange this scheme?  Am I now talking
for free to New York?

Even if we're only talking message units for local calls, we could run
into significant money if the conversation lasted for hours.

In short, if the system really does work as described, I'd be
**awfully** careful about whom I trusted to transfer on a call, or how
I let my call be transferred.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The only reason I can do it is because I have
Starline service rather than straight three-way calling. Under normal
three-way calling, the person in the middle has to originate one or
both of the calls to the second and third party. Flashing the first
time, dial third party; flash again, all are joined. Flash again,
third party drops off; simply hang up, and all drop off. Each party
who placed a call pays for his part as long as the connection is up.
Under Starline, there is a specific feature called 'call-transfer',
and at least under Starline (I do not know about all the various
home-centrex variations), 'call-transfer' is not limited to transfers
within your premises. The person who dialed a leg of the call pays for
it. You'd pay for calling me; I would pay for calling the other person.
You (as the person who placed the call to me) would control when the
billing stopped.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #103
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14410;
          16 Feb 90 2:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31663;
          16 Feb 90 0:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09699;
          15 Feb 90 23:48 CST
Date:     Thu, 15 Feb 90 22:45:50 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #104
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Feb 90 22:45:29 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Pacific Bell Response To CPUC Rate Decision (Curtis Galloway)
    Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does? (John Higdon)
    AT&T Valentine's Day Discount: Not Quite-So-Useful (Rich Kulawiec)
    More 800, 900 Curiosities (Linc Madison)
    Material About Videoconferencing Needed (Minna Schrey-Hypp{nen)
    Charges to Pay for 911 Service (Mike Koziol)
    X.25 to 802.3 Gateway (Rick Battle)
    Details on 201/908 Wanted (Douglas Quagliana)
    Is Dialcom Connected to the Internet? (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
    The Perennial Question (Lee Phillips)
    Reader Needs Old Item From Archives ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 14:20:33 PST
Subject: Pacific Bell Response To CPUC Rate Decision


The following is the text of an insert in my Pacific Bell bill this
month.  Perhaps John Higdon will have some comments.  --Curt

               ------------------------------
               Lower Telephone Rates in 1990
               ------------------------------

You began receiving a larger monthly credit on your January 1990
telephone bill.

In recent months, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
has made several decisions affecting telephone rates, and the current
result is a decrease in your rates.  These decisions dealt with issues
such as how much it costs Pacific Bell to provide you with telephone
service and how much profit the company should be allowed to earn.

The rate reduction is reflected as *an increased credit* on your
Pacific Bell charges.  The credit amounts to a reduction of about
$1.15 for the average monthly residential bill of $26.  Business
customers should see similar savings on their bills.

Your credit appears on the "Rate Surcharge" line in the section of
your bill marked "Regulated Monthly Charges and Credits."

               ------------------------------
     Regulation of Local Telephone Companies Has Changed
               ------------------------------

In October, after extensive public debate, the CPUC significantly
changed the way it regulates local telephone companies.  The CPUC
recognized that the telecommunications industry is becoming more
competitive, and that the Commission's traditional approach to
regulating the industry had become a complex, expensive process that
needed change.

  o What did the commission change?

    The CPUC replaced its traditional "cost-of-service" approach to
    regulation with a new approach called "incentive regulation."  The
    idea is to put California's two largest local phone companies --
    Pacific Bell and GTE-California -- in a position similar to other
    businesses with the same types of incentives, risks, and rewards
    that competition produces.  The goal is to encourage new services,
    greater efficiency and lower prices.

    The CPUC's decision is intended to balance the interests of
    customers and shareholders by combining incentives for utilities,
    safeguards for customers who have few if any choices about where
    to buy service, and monitoring by the Commission.  The CPUC's
    revised regulatory process is designed to do a better job of
    updating prices and regulating monopoly profits than traditional
    regulation by encouraging efficiency, technological advance and
    greater use of the network.

  o How will prices be set?

    Instead of determining rates through the "rate case" process, the
    Commission will set rates using formulas designed to protect
    customers and give the companies greater incentive to operate as
    efficiently as possible.

    For example, the CPUC has divided Pacific Bell's services into
    three categories.  The company has varying degrees of pricing
    flexibility for each, depending on how much competition, if any,
    exists for each service:

    1. Monopoly services, such as local and toll calls --
       Prices for these services will be set annually by the CPUC.
       The Commission will use a formula that adjusts prices 4.5
       percent below changes in the cost of living.  For example, in
       1990 if the rate of inflation were 6 percent, 1991 rates could
       increase only 1.5 percent.  However, if the 1990 rate of
       inflation were 4 percent, 1991 rates could decrease by .5
       percent.

    2. Partly competitive services, such as CENTREX features or
       COMMSTAR(sm) Features -- the CPUC-authorized rate will set the
       "cap" on these rates and Pacific Bell may lower the price for
       these services, but not below the cost of providing the
       service, as determined by the CPUC.

    3. Fully competitive services, such as Voice Mail, Inside Wiring
       or Yellow Pages advertising -- The company may raise or lower
       prices for these services as it chooses.

    Prices for monopoly and partly competitive services may also be
    changed to reflect the effect of government action (such as
    changes in tax laws) or to more closely match rates to cost (with
    any increase in some rates fully offset by decreases in other
    rates).  Such changes would occur by CPUC order, with prior notice
    to customers, and would neither increase nor decrease Pacific
    Bell's profits.

  o The telephone network will be improved

    The CPUC decision authorized improvements to our telephone network
    totaling an estimated $400 million over the next few years.  Old
    equipment will be replaced so we can offer additional services,
    such as 976/900 Blocking, COMMSTAR(sm) and Easy Access to long
    distance companies, to customers who are not able to have them
    today.

  o We will share any earnings above a certain level

    Starting next year, we will share with our customers *half of any
    annual earnings* over a 13 percent benchmark rate of return set by
    the CPUC.  If we earn over 16.5 percent, *all earnings over that
    figure* will be returned to our customers in the form of a credit
    on the bill.

    At the end of each year, the CPUC will calculate how much of a
    credit, if any, is due.  For example, a credit for 1990 earnings
    would appear on your bill during 1991.

  o The CPUC will oversee our progress

    In 1992, the CPUC will review our progress on the changes we have
    described to ensure that they are working as intended.


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

Subject: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does?
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 14 Feb 90 11:26:46 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


There is an obvious question (asked in so many words by some): why
does AT&T resort to sleazy tactics when dealing with competitors? I
doubt that many will argue with the statement that all in all, AT&T
offers truly outstanding products. It IS still the best long distance
service money can buy. Its PBXs are certainly first rate, as are its
consumer products. Even the Merlin could hardly be classified as
"junk".

So what is the problem? Apparently, AT&T hasn't yet learned how to
best utilize its competitive strengths. It is perceived by many
(still) to be THE phone company. Many purchasing decisions are
influenced by this perception. But the company hasn't yet learned what
to charge for its hardware. It's overpriced, and not just a little,
either. The Merlin lists for probably three times what it should sell
for to be competitive in the small business market. Since it's made
offshore, it costs no more to manufacture than any of its competitors
wares. Even so, AT&T's competitors are now going to be producing
product domestically at the same prices they were before. Pricing is
probably AT&T's greatest weakness.

If AT&T would actually "compete" and not do end runs around the market
by seeking tariff relief and other non-competitive fixes, they would
be unbeatable.


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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 23:11:00 MST
From: Rich Kulawiec <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Valentine's Day Discount Not Quite-So-Useful


For a couple of hours tonight, while I was trying to take advantage of
the reduced AT&T rates, I continually reached a recording which said
(paraphrased) "Due to heavy Valentine's Day traffic, your call can't
be completed at this time.  AT&T values your business, and invites you
to try your call again later."

Wonder if this was widespread enough to cause AT&T to offer a special
one-time discount on, say, Easter Sunday, in order to make up for the
service difficulties.......nah!

Rsk

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 02:33:35 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: More 800, 900 Curiosities


I recently saw two (N00) numbers advertised on TV which caught my
attention.

First was a 900 number (I don't remember it, and wouldn't grace them
with the free publicity if I did), which was for some sort of Gold
Card, charge $50.00 on your phone bill.  Sounds like one of the
540-XXXX scams in New York a while back.  Isn't there some limit to
what they can charge for a 900 call?  (I know in California there's a
limit of $2 initial charge for 976, for instance.)

The second was Sports Illustrated, with the number to dial for
subscriptions listed as 1-800-950-2288.  Apparently the use of the 950
prefix for non-telcos is happening in 1-800 as well as in "real" NPAs.
I was particularly interested in this one, since it looks rather like
a number AT&T would've wanted to reserve if they ever throw in the
towel and offer an 800 number for use from COCOTs that block 10288.

Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Minna Schrey-Hypp{nen)
Subject: Material About Videoconferencing Needed
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 12:31:36 GMT


Hello!

I am doing my graduation work at the Helsinki University of
Technology, Finland, and my subject is Videoconference as a
telecommunication service. But I have one little problem: it is very
difficult to find any material about this subject. I have found some
articles, but not many.

Now I am asking for help. I would like to get some information about
books and articles which have been written and also conferences which
have been held about videoconferencing. I am especially interested in
videoconferencing in business sector and its influences on business
and people. I am also interested in the educational use of
videoconference.

If you know any studies, research works, articles or books about this
area, I would appreciate very much, if you would give me some pointers
to this material and a possible source of obtaining it. It would
greatly help me to finish my work.


Thank You,
             Minna Schrey-Hypp{nen
             [e-mail]

Helsinki University of Technology                  ! Otakaari 5A
Laboratory of Telecommunication Switching and      ! SF-02150 ESPOO
  Information Technology                           ! Finland, Europe



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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 04:44:12 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charges to Pay for 911 Service


Here in Rochester NY (Monroe County) the county legislature approved a
few months ago a $.35/line/month (up to four lines) charge to be added
to our phone bills sometime in 1990. The money will be used to replace
their aging (mid 70's) PDP1174 computer system. The system got
overworked last August and was down for an 8 day period. The
telecommunicators had to write out a card, give it to a "runner" who
would take it to the dispatcher. If they had a call involving Police,
Fire and EMS the runner would have to make a couple of stops to tell
the appropriate dispatchers. Probably not a fair comparison but a
MacIntosh IIcx computer is able to query the counties geofile and draw
a full map on the screen about 2 seconds before the current 911 system
can complete the query.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 10:05:29 EST
From: Rick <[e-mail]>
Subject: X.25 to 802.3 Gateway


If you have a local area network, 802.3 variety, and you want to
gateway into a packet switch network, X.25, are there any parameter
setting changes that need to be made on the X.25 side to make the
connection work?

Thanks much,

Rick Battle
University of Maryland

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

From: Douglas Quagliana <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu Feb 15 11:18:47 1990
Subject: Details on 201/908 Wanted


   Does anyone know how I can find out if a current 201 phone number
will remain in 201 or if it will be switched to 908?  Does anyone have
a listing by prefixes or zip code of the effected numbers?  Any
details on the actual switch over date??


| Doug Quagliana  KA2UPW  | Postal: POB 1882  |    Like a Micro Sat...   |
| DOMAIN : [e-mail]  | Saint Bonaventure |<* This Space For Rent! *>|
| Compu$erve: 70721,3374  | New York 14778    |                          |

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 11:10 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Is Dialcom Connected to the Internet?


Patrick, do you know off-hand if Dialcom is connected to the Internet?
(You can send your answer to me or two the list if you know it; if you
don't know, could you please forward my question to the list?)


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


[Moderator's Note: Readers, any comments? I don't know the answer.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 11:43:53 EST
From: Lee Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Perennial Question

Is there a number I can dial to get a ringback, to check the ringers on my
phones?  Or do I need to call my buddy and ask him to call me back?


[Moderator's Note: Lee Phillips did not supply a title for the subject here,
so I made one up. :)  The perennial answer:  No one single ringback
code applies everywhere. This is strictly by local convention. I am
sure there is one on your exchange, but only some local telco employee
could tell you what it was. Or, some other person in town with telecom
knowledge, perhaps. Someone ought to petition the Judge to force all
telcos to adhere to a common ringback number. Tell 'em it sure would
make it easier for the Moderator.  :)   PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reader Needs Old Item From Archives
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 21:34:53 EST


Where is an ftp-able archive stored?  I'm looking for one particular
article -- one that gave a circuit that would have a light latch
on if the phone had rung, and reset when the handset was lifted.


[Moderator's Note: I remember the articles (and a schematic someone
sent in), but I don't remember which issues it was in. Would someone
please send a copy to smb from their files?  Thanks.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #104
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21873;
          16 Feb 90 6:38 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06753;
          16 Feb 90 4:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14588;
          16 Feb 90 3:53 CST
Date:     Fri, 16 Feb 90 3:13:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #105
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Feb 90 03:12:50 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Centrex: Brickbats & Bouquets (Jim Breen)
    Sprint Also Playing "Switcheroo" (was Re: MCI Playing) (Yaakov Kayman)
    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Mike Riddle)
    602 Area Code (AZ) News (Guy Finney)
    Re: Dallas Area Code Split (Linc Madison)
    Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!) (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Re: Remote Broadcast Lines (Bill Nickless)
    Re: A Puzzle (Plastic Card "Negative Files") (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
    Re: Calling Card Numbers (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Breen)
Subject: Centrex: Brickbats & Bouquets
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 21:51:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Higdon) blasts
the Centrex alternative to P(A)BXs:

> [......]       The fact is Centrex is rarely a good idea for anyone.

And Patrick, our beloved Moderator, replied:

> [Moderator's Note: Unlike Mr. Higdon, I *love* Centrex. Pure and
> simple.

Following that, many other readers replied with a lot of pro and anti
Centrex arguments and anecdotes.

Readers may be interested to know that there is virtually *no* Centrex
in Australia. Telecom Australia, even in the bad old days when it was
rather like AT&T (Pre-Carterphone), never attempted to offer it as a
service.

An interesting point is that the community of telecommunications users
in Australia, who are generally fairly well aware of what happens in
the US, never asked for a Centrex service. In fact the more perceptive
observers seem to think that Centrex in the US is only being kept
alive by the post-divestiture rules which (I believe) restrain local
telephone companies from selling PABXs.  Any comments on that view?

Well all this might be about to change. Industry scuttlebut is that
Telecom Australia, ever eager for more markets in the cold hard new
world, is about to go live with a Centrex offering. Some observers
opine that unless it is very attractive financially, i.e. much less
than the PABX equivalent, it will be a disaster. Telecom only just
lost its PABX maintenance monopoly, and has also lost its Keysystem
CPE monopoly. It has a small share of the PABX market with the Fujitsu
9600 which it sells in the face of the market leaders NEC's 2400 and
Ericsson's MD110.

Is Centrex just a North American phenomenon, or is a regular offering
by PTTs worldwide?


    _______           Jim Breen ([e-mail]) Dept of Robotics &
   /o\----\\     \O      Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology
  /RDT\   /|\   \/|   -:O____/  PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
 O-----O        _/_\    /\ /\      (ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]


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

Date: Thursday, 15 Feb 1990 12:22:28 EST
From: Yaakov Kayman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Also Playing "Switcheroo" (was Re: MCI Playing)
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


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

>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?

Sprint has done this to me, not only without my knowledge, but against
my explicit instructions that AT&T be my LD carrier of choice. I had
to call both AT&T and NY Telephone to cancel the Sprint account.

What sleazeballs!! I wouldn't use Sprint now on a bet!! :-(-

I would like to know (via e-mail, preferably) what the "can MCI collect?"
outcome is.


Yaakov Kayman      [phone]       City University of New York

BITNET:   YZKCU@CUNYVM        "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: [e-mail]     about whom the wolves complain"

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 04:19:30 EST
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"


In a recent article, John Higdon wrote that in the future we might
have to have everything in writing.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, someone alleging a verbal
contract must be able to prove it.  That might be difficult.  The
concept of "unjust enrichment," however, might still be a problem.

I understand that most states have a "Statute of Frauds" that requires
some evidence of certain contracts be in writing to avoid these kinds
of problems.  Covered contracts might include real estate, duration >
one year, or value > specified amount.

While not a complete answer, the Statute of Frauds might at least help
protect for excessive losses.


 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
[e-mail]

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

From: gaf <asuvax!uucs1![e-mail]>
Subject: 602 Area Code (AZ) News
Date: 15 Feb 90 16:31
Reply-To:  <asuvax!uucs1![e-mail]>
Organization: UUCS inc., Phoenix Az


We've been told this week that 602 is running out of prefixes pretty
quickly, what with the boom in cellular, paging, etc.  US West's
request for a new area code has been denied, so soon we'll get to dial
1-602-xxx-xxxx for all in-state toll calls where we had been dialing
1-xxx-xxxx before.  Sigh.


Guy Finney                    It's that feeling of deja-vu
UUCS inc.   Phoenix, Az                all over again.
ncar!noao!asuvax!hrc!uucs1!gaf    sun!sunburn!gtx!uucs1!gaf

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 90 23:52:40 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dallas Area Code Split
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Doug Davis writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 96, message 7 of 10

>[regarding 214/903 split in Dallas area]
>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).

I'm a bit puzzled as to how it could possibly be an issue: all of
Denton County except a very small bit of the southeast corner is in
Area Code 817.  The only part that is in 214 is all local to Dallas,
and should therefore all be remaining in 214, if I recall correctly.
Or is this something like Lewisville?  (Is it Denton Co.?)

I lived in Dallas 1971 - 1981.

Linc Madison  ([e-mail])

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

From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <comcon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!)
Date: 15 Feb 90 00:48:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska


In article <[e-mail]>, ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!
[e-mail] writes:

> 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.

I haven't studied the break-up too closely, but it would seem this is
an ideal opportunity for a symbiotic service. Couldn't the private
sector produce a company to service this information-processing? And
wouldn't that be seperate from the BOC itself?

> 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.

I'll just bet some commercial concern steps in. Probably with the
spread of ISDN, which has the bandwidth and embedded information to
ease the task, such services will become as attractive a third-party
option as feature-laden third-party equipment is today.

As with any enhanced service, I'm sure there will be the equivalent of
the AOS, as well. Sharks are everywhere in the Matrix. (oops...
cyberpunk pervades me at times ;-) We already know, though, that there
is money to be made brokering information, so you can be sure
_someone_ will market this.

> Conclusions are left as an exercise for the student.

Uh, oh... Err.... How much of my grade is this, anyway? :-)


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: Thu, 15 Feb 90 16:28:18 CST
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Broadcast Lines
Reply-To: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>


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

> It's unfortunate that you can't use cellular phones for 'Remote Broadcast'
> without an STA (Special Temp. Authority).

I listen to WGN here in Chicago, and they seem to do this regularly.
(Patrick: On the "Al and/or Ed show.")  Last December a listener in an
automobile called the show and asked for directions to a restaurant in
downtown Chicago.  The hosts of the talk show determined that the most
efficient route to the restraunt led right past the studios of the
station.  So one of the hosts grabbed the traffic reporter's mobile
cellular phone and waited for the listener to pick him up.  It made
for a very entertaining evening, as the talk show host went in to the
restaurant, on the air, and met the man's wife (who was waiting for
him in the restaurant.)

Then the host had to thumb a ride back to the studios.  Nobody would
pick him up, and it was *cold* outside!  Quite a memorable segment
from this show!

Is this the type of situation where an STA would be needed?


 .signature under construction
detour mail to [e-mail]

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Puzzle (Plastic Card "Negative Files")
Date: 16 Feb 90 05:34:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

< Krasny Oktyabr:  the hunt is on, March 2, 1990 >

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joe Stong) writes:

> I'm sending this to telecom, because I suspect this sort of data keeping
> is liable to be used by the phone companies...

And since I work for what some people consider to be "the phone
company", maybe it's worth mentioning that what I'm about to describe
reflects my experience from when I was a developer for AT&T
Transaction Services, an enhanced network service for plastic card
transactions.  I know virtually nothing about the AT&T Calling Card,
and the discussion below doesn't necessarily reflect anything AT&T
does with its own cards.  (In other words, the relevance to telecom is
growing faint!-)

> 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's only one check digit (the last one).  All VISA cards begin
with the digit 4, so you only need to store fourteen digits.  Since
2^48 == 281,474,976,710,656, which is greater than 10^14, you can just
barely squeeze a VISA card into six bytes.

> Now, a bitmap of a trillion numbers would take 125 GigaBytes.  Since
> the bad numbers are sparse (about 1 in 2500), on the average . . .

 . . . then you should probably use a hash table.  Since the "negative
card file" (the name banks and merchants use) "only" contains about
10^12 (~== 2^40, since 10^3 ~== 2^10, my favorite rule of thumb)
entries, a binary search would take forty comparisons on the average;
too many.  (A bitmap of 10^14 numbers would take 12500 gigabytes!)


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Numbers
Date: 15 Feb 90 22:17:22 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Where the first seven digits were my real phone number (there might
> have been a 617 (NPA) in front also, but my memory is hazy).  Every
> year I got a new card, identical to the old one except for the
> trailing letter.  I assumed the 001 was in case of conciding numbers
> (that's why I think the NPA was left out) or for sub-accounts.  On a
> visit to the Boston telco I saw how it worked.  (This was in the early
> '70s.)

There was one other variable: whether or not a card had actually been
issued on that number. Many years ago, in a galaxy far, far away,
coming up with a card number was child's play. You looked in the
yellow pages, found a mean old nasty business like "Big Corporation,
Inc.", copied their phone number out of the book and added (in the
case of this area) "293". You then had a credit card number -- say
723-5700-293-R. The letter was derived from the current year's
formula.  The only thing you didn't know was whether the card actually
existed.  This was important if you wanted to bury LD charges on
someone's otherwise huge bill -- if the card didn't exist, lots of
flags would go up and you would be busted for sure when they tried to
bill for the numbers you called.

The way people got around that was simple. You used the "talking
computer".  Using a blue box, you entered "KP+213+000+ST". There would
be a sup wink. You then entered a code plus the ten digits of the
credit card in question. There would be one of two responses: "OK" (in
which case you hit the jackpot) or "NEGATIVE--NEGATIVE" and the card
number would be read back to you (in which case you looked for another
phone number to scam.) People all thought the "talking computer" was
the greatest scam tool of all time, but now it's handed to you on a
silver platter.

Anyone not know how you would verify a questionable card number these
days?


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


[Moderator's Note: Anyone wishing to learn how to (ahem!) 'verify'
questionable card numbers -- as if there were any reason to do so
unless you were a telco accepting them for services rendered -- can
consult with JH in other media.  No further discussion here, please.
I have no desire to see eecs.nwu.edu wind up like the late Jolnet,
which it is doubtful will be back on line anytime soon.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #105
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05771;
          17 Feb 90 0:05 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16838;
          16 Feb 90 22:08 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18249;
          16 Feb 90 21:00 CST
Date:     Fri, 16 Feb 90 20:45:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #106
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Feb 90 20:45:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (Fred Linton)
    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (D. Kurtiak)
    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (Albert)
    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (Mike Fetzer)
    Sprint Plus Rebate (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: Sprint Also Playing "Switcheroo" (was Re: MCI Playing) (Ray Spalding)
    Re: Pacific Bell Response To CPUC Rate Decision (John Higdon)
    Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze (John Wheeler)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (John R. Levine)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Bill Huttig)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Miguel Cruz)
    Re: Is Dialcom Connected to the Internet? (John Cowan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16-FEB-1990 04:25:17.44
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)

In <[e-mail]> by [e-mail], the Moderator Notes:

> Yes, but are they then sneaking you over to Sprint
> as default carrier in the process? I'd be surprised if they were not!

I signed up with Sprint for a "FON"-card some years back, shortly
after I had selected MCI for my dial-1 carrier.  At that time Sprint
had a campaign on offering 30 minutes free calling, with no WD-40
tie-in.

Not only did they _not_ sneak me over to Sprint as default carrier,
they actually sent me a card on which the 14 digits (grouped aaa bbb
cccc dddd) bear no resemblance to my or any other phone number (aaa is
not a currently conceivable area code, bbb is not a currently
conceivable exchange!).

I've used the card (or tried to) only when traveling, from payphones.
Half the time I've been successful -- the other half, the Sprint
server machine at 1-800-877-8000 either doesn't answer, or is busy, or
sets me up with a connection that provides no voice contact between me
and the party I'm calling (so yes, connections so quiet I can hear a
pin drop -- if I drop it).

To compensate, Sprint has always (so far) been very good about
crediting out charges for such unusable connections -- but MCI and ATT
seem much more reliable about making connections in the first place,
in my experience.

                                    -- Fred

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

ARPA/Internet:  [e-mail]
Bitnet:         FLINTON@WESLEYAN[.bitnet]
on ATT-Mail:    !fejlinton                     ( ...!attmail!fejlinton )
Tel.:           + 1 203 776 2210 (home)  OR  + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)
 ...and now: MCI-Mail -- 414-2427 ([e-mail] or TLX 6504142427MCI UW)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
Date: Fri, 16-Feb-90 09:13:04 PST


  From: [e-mail]

>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.

>This sounds like 5 minutes well-spent.
>Has anyone else done this?  Any known snags involved?

This offer sounded too good to resist without further inquiry....  I
called and answered the really challenging questions, all correctly I
might add. :-) Upon transfer to US Sprint, and listening to muzak for
about 5 minutes, a rep answered and congratulated me for winning 60
minutes of FONcard usage.  I answered the standard name, address and
phone number questions and then proceeded with a few questions of my
own.

The 60 minutes of use will be credited to your FONcard account at the
>night/weekend< rate.  The credits are applied EXCLUSIVELY to the
transport charge portion of the call and *NOT* to the $.75 surcharge
for each call made.  So, you still have to pay $.75 for each call made
no matter what credit you have just won.  Maybe I misunderstood what
the rep actually meant, but she did explain it to be to this effect.
Guess I'll have to wait 2-4 weeks for the card and read its terms
before I use it.

>[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]

I made sure I asked THIS before I answered any of the standard
questions, and the response was "No sir, this is only for a FONcard
account".  Okay, I buy that....  BUT, after reading all the horror
stories in this forum, I'm not taking any chances.  A quick call to NJ
Bell and tagging my account took care of that.

/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\
| David M. Kurtiak           Standard disclaimers apply....    |
| K1X Computer Solutions     Network email: [e-mail] |
| P.O. Box # 74              Network phone: [phone]  |
| Hampton, NJ 08827-0074     ATTmail: !dkurtiak                |
\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/


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

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 15:13:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab Harvard, Cambridge, MA

 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]:

> 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!)

> Has anyone else done this?  Any known snags involved?

I just called them, and, thanks to your help, "managed" to get both
questions *wrong*.  (I answered no to both questions).  Guess what?  I
still won!  Unfortunately, Sprint isn't interested in me since I
already have a FONcard.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Fetzer)
Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
Date: 14 Feb 90 19:56:41 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet12], Del Mar, CA


I just called the number.  It's definitely a calling card they send,
i.e., they do not ask you to change your default carrier to SPRINT.
The only hook I could see is the amount of info they ask for: name,
address, soc. sec. no., do I own/rent?, how long?, where do I work?,
how long?

I'm not sure why this is worth 60 minutes of free time to them, unless it's
60 minutes local.  :-)


UUCP: uunet!serene!pnet12!rider   or   ucsd!mfetzer
ARPA: crash!pnet12![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]        or   [e-mail]
BITNET:                                fetzerm@sdsc


[Moderator's Note: They didn't ask me all those questions. They asked
only for name, address, phone number. I gave them my PO Box, and my voicemail
phone number. By the way, you don't even have to spend the time
sitting through those recorded test questions. When it answers, just press
'1', wait one second, press '1' again, then after another second press
'1' a third time. They'll congratulate you, and transfer your call.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Plus Rebate
Date: Thu, 15-Feb-90 23:56:24 PST


For those of us that signed up for Sprint Plus last year, it will pay
to examine your January bill very closely. Sprint Plus is the deal
where if you agree to spend at least $8 a month on long distance,
Sprint waives the evening rate and goes right to the night rate after
5PM.

Anyway, last fall Sprint was running a promotion that promised a free
month of long distance if you signed up. Well, not exactly. What you
really were to get was a credit on your January bill for your December
calls, up to a limit of $25.

My bill rolled around and no credit. A polite 10 minute call to Sprint
got me an apology and a promise of the $25 credit on my next bill.  We
shall see...


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

From: Ray Spalding <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Also Playing "Switcheroo" (was Re: MCI Playing)
Date: 16 Feb 90 15:26:13 GMT
Reply-To: Ray Spalding <[e-mail]>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Yaakov Kayman) writes:

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

>>It seems like several telecom readers have had bad experiences with
>>MCI telling the BOC to switch their equal access default carrier. [...]

Lest anyone be spared, I once had my default LD carrier switched
without my knowledge or approval from Allnet to AT&T.  (I was
surprised on my next bill, more psychologically than financially).
This was two or three years ago.  I called the local business office
(Southern Bell) and complained, and was promptly switched back; but
they certainly made no offer to refund any difference in charges.  (It
seems to me that someone should in these cases).

By the way, a year or so later I requested and received the same
change of LD carriers myself.  I received a mailing from AT&T offering
to switch me and to refund any BOC charges; I agreed, and signed, and
the change was made; but I don't remember ever receiving the $5
"change of LD carrier charge" on my bill.

Allnet had made significant rate and billing changes that adversely
affected me.  Unlike many Telecom readers, I would guess, I'm not a
big LD user.  The situation reminds me of that with the Postal
Service, i.e., upstart companies taking the profitable "cream off the
top".  (Of course, the paper-mail upstarts are now suffering from
competition from fax, to the advanatge of the LD carriers).  Yet, I
must admit I enjoy lower rates from AT&T as a result of the
competition.


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]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Response To CPUC Rate Decision
Date: 16 Feb 90 01:04:49 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]> quotes from Pac*Bell Bill Insert:

[in addition to the usual stroking--this:]
>   o We will share any earnings above a certain level

>     Starting next year, we will share with our customers *half of any
>     annual earnings* over a 13 percent benchmark rate of return set by
>     the CPUC.  If we earn over 16.5 percent, *all earnings over that
>     figure* will be returned to our customers in the form of a credit
>     on the bill.

And if you *ever* see Pac*Bell admitting that it earned 16.5, I'll be
watching for the second coming. Before that would happen, they would
hose down the insides of 100 COs with an acid solution, and buy new
equipment from Pacific Telesis at inflated prices. They would be
totally stupid to let Pac*Bell earn that much and have to give it all
away to the suckers, oops, I mean ratepayers.

If you don't think their accounting staff can keep that annual
earnings figure in check, then I have a bridge that stretches from
Fort Mason to the Marin headlands that you might be interested in...


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

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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport and AOS Sleeze
Date: 16 Feb 90 13:29:01 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


>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.

>PS: NEVER but NEVER make a chargeable call from the Atlanta Airport.

Is that really AT&T you get after 10288+0 or not? I made a credit card
call there recently, and the operator said "I certainly AM an AT&T
operator and proud of it!" They even APOLOGIZE for not being able to
read your dialed number. They verbally ask for both your calling card
number AND THE NUMBER YOU ARE CALLING even though you've already
entered them. I better check this bill carefully...


/*  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: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 16 Feb 90 10:24:38 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Apparently the use of the 950 prefix for non-telcos is happening in 1-800
>as well as in "real" NPAs.

There's nothing special about 800-950.  Under the current scheme where
800 numbers are allocated to carriers by prefix, 800-950 belongs to
MCI.  They use 800-950-1022 as a backup calling card access number for
places where plain 950-1022 doesn't work.  There are lots of other
800-950 numbers, and they're no more than regular MCI 800 numbers.


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

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Date: 16 Feb 90 16:43:23 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


The 1-800-950 prefix belongs to MCI and they have been using for a
long time for their customers.

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

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 13:02:26 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities


Linc Madison wrote about a Sports Illustrated number 1-800-950-xxxx...

Actually, 800-950 is just one of MCI's many 800 exchanges, nothing
special.  I'm not exactly sure how MCI got all the good ones (950,
222, 444, etc.), but they, and not AT&T, get to decide what goes where
on 800-950.

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Dialcom Connected to the Internet?
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 18:15:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] asks the above question.
>[Moderator's Note: Readers, any comments? I don't know the answer.  PT]

Dialcom is connected through the Commercial Mail Relay Service, a.k.a.
Intermail.  Contact ISI for information.  The CMRS can only be used
for authorized Internet/DoD business.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #106
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07974;
          17 Feb 90 1:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11486;
          16 Feb 90 23:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16838;
          16 Feb 90 22:08 CST
Date:     Fri, 16 Feb 90 21:30:54 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #107
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Feb 90 21:30:23 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does? (Roy Smith)
    Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does? (Steve Chu)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (John Higdon)
    Answering Machine Advice Needed (A. E. Mossberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does?
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 16:36:38 GMT


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

> AT&T hasn't yet learned how to best utilize its competitive strengths
> [...] the company hasn't yet learned what to charge for its hardware.

    It would also appear that they havn't yet figured out that
they are dealing with customers other than captive local Bell telcos.
Let me tell you a longish story about AT&T marketing.

    We have a System 25 at work.  We also run Farallon PhoneNet
over spare pairs of the existing phone wiring.  With the old wiring,
2-pair runs terminating in RJ-11's, it was easy.  The new wiring is
4-pairs terminating in 103A's which have a spare pair, but not on the
pins PhoneNet hardware expects (i.e. 1/4 on an RJ-11, 2/5 on a 6-pin,
or 3/6 on an 8-pin jack).  No problem, just get an adaptor, right?

    I walk over the my local AT&T phone store, after stopping in
at the Radio Shack just to see (hey, I have to walk past it on the way
to the AT&T store, and every once in a while they just do surprise you
and have what you need, no matter how far-out what you need is).  Not
surprisingly, the AT&T store doesn't have it on display so I ask the
counter guy (see the current rec.autos.tech discussion about counter
guys; it all applies here) if he has what I need.  He sort of freaks
out when I mention System 25, but calms down when I assure him that
what I need might also be used on a Merlin system (Merlins seem to be
consumer items, and Sys25s small business items, and never the twain
shall meet).

He calls over his Merlin expert.  The best he can do is dial a number
on his speaker phone and let me talk to the System 25 tech support
center.  It's a horrible connection (I assume an AT&T store uses AT&T
as their long distance carrier, but who knows?) made worse by the
shitty speakerphone, and I can barely understand the other person.
Eventually we get cut off.  The guy agrees to just give me the 800
number so I can call from my own office (I sort of got the impression
he wasn't really supposed to do that).

    OK, I go back and call AT&T and ask if they have the kind of
adaptor I need.  A lot of waiting on hold, and eventually the nice
lady come back and says she thinks she has what I need, but isn't sure
I can buy it!  We go back and forth a bit making sure it's what I
need, and eventually I just ask for their Premises Distribution System
catalog so I can see for myself what's what.  I'm a bit surprised when
they charge me 3 or 4 bucks for it, but OK, I give them my VISA number
(after semi-jokingly asking if they could just put it on my AT&T
calling card).

It comes.  Sure enough, exactly the adaptor I need is in there, a 400H
T-adapter.  You plug it into a 103A jack and it pulls pins 1-6 out to
1-6 on another 8-position jack (exactly what a Merlinesque set needs)
and pulls 7/8 out to 2/5 on a 6-position jack, exactly what PhoneNet
needs.  I'm a bit suspicious that they list a 12-week delivery time,
it's probably a rare item, perhaps semi-custom.  But I'm in no
particular rush, so that's fine.  Now the scenes from Kafka start.

    I go to call the catalog folks to find out prices (I hate when
there are no prices in catalogs).  But who do I call?  There is not a
single phone number in the catalog, and I looked cover to cover.  Who
ever heard of a catalog without a "call this number to order" section?
So I let my fingers do the walking and just call the local AT&T
business office.  They've never even heard of the catalog I have and
grill me about where I got it from, as if it was something I wasn't
supposed to have.  They have heard of comcodes (which seem to be
AT&T's version of stock numbers) but don't deal with them.

Perhaps if I could give them the names of the items I want?  OK, they
know about the simple stuff like 103A blocks, but havn't heard of the
400H adaptors.  Eventually they give me another 800 number.  They
haven't heard of the catalog either, but do know about comcodes and
give me pricing on most of the items I want, but when I give them the
comcode for the 400H, they say it's an invalid comcode.  The refer me
to the National Parts Center (this sounds promising).  This time, it
at least comes up as a valid comcode, but the part doesn't exist, or
some such.  They refer me to yet another 800 number, for the Main
Business Office, which turns out to be the semi-secret 800 number the
counter guy gave me in the first place.

    OK, back to them.  I explain what I want briefly to whoever
answers the phone, who transfers me to somebody who answers, "Oh
shit!"  Gotta teach these phone types what "open mike" means!  Turns
out to be somebody named Mr. Adams with whom I talk for 5 or 10
minutes about my travails.  He seems very concerned that I don't know
my AT&T account number, and can't do a thing for me until he find my
records, first an unsucessful search on our main phone number (perhaps
they sort by outgoing trunk number, which I don't know offhand?) then
a longer and sucessful search by company name.  He says he needs a bit
of time to work on this, asks for *at least* 24 hours, and assures me
he'll call me back.  He gives me a non-800 (local) number at which I
can reach him directly.

    I call back that afternoon, he's not available.  I call back
the next day, nobody answers at the local number.  The next day, the
same thing, no answer.  I call the 800 number and ask for him by name.
He's busy, but the person offers to take a message.  I ask for a
supervisor.  All the supervisors are in a meeting.  I leave a somewhat
detailed message and ask that a supervisor call me back, which she
does in a few minutes (must have been a short meeting).  Says Mr.
Adams has no recollection of ever having spoken to me, although he
does has a slip of paper on his desk with my name on it.  I get her
name and number, which is the same as Adams's local number.  I explain
that nobody ever answers that number.  She says they were having some
trouble with it, but it's fixed now.  She also has never heard of this
catalog I have, but gives me yet another 800 number to call, AT&T
Catalog Sales.

    These folks have also never heard of my catalog (not only have
all these people never heard of the catalog, but they all seem amazed
that I have it, want to know where I got it from, and can't grok that
it only says "AT&T" on it, with no further identification.  I read
them everthing it says on the (very pretty) cover: "AT&T Premises
Distribution Products Customer Catalog, 1989".  Seems pretty
straight-forward to me.  Anyway, they eventually suggest that I call
Graybar Electronics, and give me an 800 number for them!  OK, I call
that number, which is answered by "What company are you trying to
reach?"  Strangest way to answer a phone I've ever heard, except
possibly for "Oh shit!".  Half expecting to hear John Higdon offering
to make me a hotel reservation, I say, timidly, "Graybar Electric?"
They take my name, address, phone number, etc, and give me the number
for Graybar.  I ask them who I've reached, and all they will say is
it's some kind of referral service.

    OK, I call the (local) number, get Graybar, but they refer me
to Graybar's telecomm division, another local number.  I get to talk
to a very knowledgable person who thinks it perfectly normal that I'm
looking for this kind of stuff, and asks if I have a comcode!  She's
not heard of that particular part, but I offer to fax her the
appropriate pages from the AT&T catalog-from-hell, which she agrees
to.  I do so.

She calls back a little while later to say she's located everything I
need (they turn out to be an AT&T distributor), apologizes that the
400H will take 14 weeks, but has everything else in stock.  She's even
done some research and found another manufacturer who she thinks has
something similar to a 400H and will track that lead down more if I
like.  She asks if we have an account, and when I say I would imagine
so, since we've bought from them before, but I don't know the account
number, she agrees that our respective business offices can worry
about that later.  In short, what you would expect from a company when
you call them up knowing exactly what you need and just want the
price.

    To top it all off, the prices she has are uniformly lower than
the prices AT&T gave me (interestingly enough, different AT&T places
gave me different prices for the same items).  The biggest difference
was on a box of 1000 ft of 4-pair 24 gauge station wire.  AT&T wanted
$140 a box, Graybar wants $47.83!  Somebody recently mentioned that
AT&T overcharges by 3 times on phone hardware.  Had I not priced this
wire, I would have thought he was joking, but now I know he's serious.

    Really makes you wonder how AT&T stays in business.  Maybe
Judge Green was right after all, lack of competition is bad.


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent and interesting article.
How *does* AT&T stay in business? I think its from the sheer momentum
they have obtained over the decades. Some day it will all come to a
screaming halt. Watch and see.  I've said before some of their reps
and operators these days are an embarassment. I guess you agree, huh?  PT]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 14:24:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) writes:

>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:

The original posting stated that a requirement was CPC (Calling Party
Control) on the 2500 (analog single line) ports.  Does the SX switch
do this?  For that matter does the AT&T System 25 really do this?
What this allows is an answering machine to recognize right away when
someone disconnects from a call.  The switch sends a momentary
reversal on the line and the machine hangs up right away instead of
recording lots o' nothing (or lots o' dial tone).  I've never seen
this work on a PBX and would be interested in hearing about one that
worked. Anyone care to comment?  How about you Daniel?


[e-mail]

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

From: Steve Chu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does?
Date: 17 Feb 90 02:05:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Denver


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

> But the company hasn't yet learned what
> to charge for its hardware. It's overpriced, and not just a little,
> either. The Merlin lists for probably three times what it should sell
> for to be competitive in the small business market. Since it's made
> offshore, it costs no more to manufacture than any of its competitors
> wares.

The Merlin(tm) systems are NOT produced offshore.  The factory for the
control unit is located not two miles from where I am sitting.  The
desk units are produced in Louisiana.  These two locations are not
offshore by any means.

The Merlin(tm) systems are high priced.  AT&T also produces a less
feature rich Key System in the Spirit(tm) line.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 16 Feb 90 00:53:35 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Kevin Blatter <[e-mail]> writes:

> My conclusion on the Anti-dumping case was that, at face value.  The
> Japanese aren't interested in playing fair, they're interested in
> marketshare and profits.

Unlike AT&T, which only has the best interests of its customers in
mind.  It would never do anything to increase its profits or
marketshare if it wasn't strictly in the best interests of its valued
customers :-) :-)

> It they can dump their equipment on the
> market for cheaper than what they sell comprable equipment on their
> domestic markets to gain marketshare.  You better believe they would.

Once again, with feeling. The KX-T series has no counterpart for sale
anywhere in the world except North America. Dumping cannot be an issue
when everyone is playing on the same field. The ONLY (O-N-L-Y) place
the KX-T line is sold is here. If they're dumping it or selling it
below cost, what do they have to gain? The hardware and firmware of
the 308, 616, and 1232s was specifically engineered from the ground up
for the US and Canada. Is that clear?

Just because AT&T charges an arm and a leg for Merlin doesn't mean
anything about "cost of production". It just means that AT&T wants to
sell it for that, and if they can bump the competition to protect that
high profit, they will. Let's put to bed at long last all of this PR
garbage about how nasty the Japanese are. Yes, they play hardball, but
other US firms manage to play the game without legal Japan bashing
(including a company that I work with).

Maybe when AT&T gets over the idea that it IS god, it can play the
competition game, and not whine about irrelavancies. Frankly, I'm
weary of the old saw about how the Japanese don't play fair. It should
be obvious to everyone by now that regardless of price, people in this
country tend to buy Japanese simply because the products have quality
and deliver what they promise. If they happen to be cheaper, so much
the better.


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

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

From: "a.e.mossberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine Advice Needed
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Peace Freedom Democracy Unlimited
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 02:23:47 GMT

Hi,

I'm looking to buy an answering machine, and would like to hear any
suggestions as to particular models currently available. I only need
very basic features, even remote playback might be more than I really
need. If you could please mail me your advice, and I'll summarize when
it tapers off.


Thanks,

a.e.mossberg / [e-mail] / [e-mail] /
Pahayokee Bioregion

The best way to get rid of unwanted flying insects is to have strong body odor.
                - David Byrne

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #107
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15264;
          17 Feb 90 4:53 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00245;
          17 Feb 90 3:17 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25572;
          17 Feb 90 2:14 CST
Date:     Sat, 17 Feb 90 1:25:47 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #108
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Feb 90 01:25:40 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    London Code Changes --- Server Now Available (Tim Oldham via Henry Mensch)
    Tokyo is Getting a Four Digit Prefix (Jeff Schriebman)
    Book Review: Stallings: ISDN, An Introduction (Jody Kravitz)
    Local Calls Between NJ, NY State (Carl Moore)
    Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing (Randal Schwartz)
    Modem Review: MAX 2400 FEC (Dan Bachmann)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (John Higdon)
    Re: The Cause of the AT&T Outage (David Lewis)
    Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free) (D. Tamkin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 19:44:06 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: London Code Changes --- Server Now Available
Reply-To: [e-mail]


   (forwarded from Usenet)

   From: [e-mail] (Tim Oldham)
   Newsgroups: bt.general,uk.general,eunet.general,misc.misc
   Subject: London Code Changes --- Server Now Available
   Date: 16 Feb 90 15:19:08 GMT
   Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
   Lines: 79


 From the 6th May 1990, the dialling codes for London UK change. The
old code, 01 (which translates to +44 1 for international calls) is to
be replaced by two different codes, 071 (+44 71) and 081 (+44 81).

Obviously this is going to affect a large number of people. The split
is by geography, so there is no simple rule about what numbers change
from 01 to 071 and which from 01 to 081. However, it is possible to
find out what the new code will be from the first 3 digits of the
telephone number. For example, numbers that began 01 209 will change
to 081 200 while numbers that began 01 210 will change to 071 210.

I have set up a code-change info-server, [e-mail]. This
responds to messages such as
        request 209
with the information
        01 209 -> 081 209

You can thus send a request to this server to find out what all the
numbers that you regularly use will become. You can also ask it for a
complete list of all the new codes by sending a message with a line
saying
        request all

I am appending the full help document that will be sent if you send a
message containing the word 'help' or if your message does not contain
any requests.

        Tim.

How to Use the London Code Change Server

Note: substitute the leading 0 for +44 to change UK internal codes to
their international equivalents.

The address [e-mail] is used to find out what the new code
of London telephone numbers will be from 6th May 1990. From that date,
the 01 code will no longer be valid and will be replaced by 071 or 081
depending on the first three digits of the number. For example, the
number 01 200 0200 will become 081 200 0200 from the 6th May.

Simply send a message contains one or more lines of the form

        request <3 digits> ...

to [e-mail]. Here <3 digits> means the first three digits
of the telephone number. You will be sent a message telling you what
the new code will be.

For example, to find out what 01 200 will become, send

        request 200

to [e-mail].

You may send multiple lines and each line may contain several numbers.
For example, you may send

        request 200 335 383 998
        request 911 512
        request 480

which will send you a message containing all the new codes.

In addition, you can obtain a list of all the new codes by sending a
request of the form

        request all

to [e-mail].

Please *don't* put the request in the ``Subject'' field of your message.

For a full information pack on the code changes, phone *free* 0800 800
873 (free in UK only).


Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. [e-mail] or ...!ukc!axion!its!tjo
``Asking questions is the best way to get answers.'' --- Philip Marlowe.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 11:29:40+0900
From: Jeff Schriebman <jusoft.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Tokyo is Getting a Four Digit Prefix


We recently received a flier in our NTT monthly billing that says that
effective January 1, 1991 at 2:00 AM the Tokyo metropolitan area will
expand its three digit prefix code into a four digit one. The new
extra number which will be prepended to the prefix will be the digit
"3". Tokyo's local code is already a 03 so effective January 1 old
numbers of the form 03-nnn-nnnn will become 03-3nnn-nnnn.


********************************************************************
* Jeff Schriebman       Nippon Unisoft Corporation                 *
* Tel: [phone]    No. 25 Kowa Building, 4th Floor            *
* Fax: [phone]    8-7 Sanbancho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102 JAPAN *
* JUNET: [e-mail]      UUCP: uunet!unisoft!jeff           *
********************************************************************

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

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 19:06:57 PST
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: Stallings: ISDN, An Introduction


I have just read William Stalling's new textbook on ISDN:

    Stallings, W. "ISDN, An Introduction", New York: MacMillan, 1989
    ISBN 0-02-415471-7

There are frequent questions posted to Telecom Digest regarding ISDN,
FAX, and CCITT standards.  I believe "ISDN, An Introduction" will
provide many of the answers readers of the Digest desire.  Stallings
writing style is clear and well organized.  The book is 418 pages
excluding the preface and table of contents.  I have used the book's
bibliography extensively for additional research; it is excellent.  I
would like to share my enthusiasm for this book with others.

The book's preface answers the questions "What is covered in the book?",
and "In what style is it written ?" as carefully and eloquently as the
technical material in the book is presented.  I bought this book
immediately after reading the preface.  I have written to the
publisher for permission to quote the preface to the digest.  If I
receive permission, I will repost this message with the preface
included.


Jody

P.S.    To reply to me          Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
                    uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 15:54:05 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Calls Between NJ, NY State


In a call guide from United Telephone of NJ, I saw the following with
regard to local calls to NY state (NJ area code 201 here-- no
reference yet to 908).

 From Sussex 702 & 875, local call to Unionville, NY (914-726) changed
June 1, 1989 from 7D to 1+914+7D.  I don't know the calling
instructions the other way around, although I do NOT think 914 area
has N0/1X prefixes.  There is no note provided about change in calling
instructions for Montague, NJ (293 prefix) -- notice that its local
service, except for the Montague prefix itself, is all out of state:
754 & 856 in Port Jervis, NY (area 914) 828 in Dingmans Ferry, Pa.
(area 717) 296 in Milford, Pa. (area 717) 686 in Log Tavern, Pa. (area
717) 491 in Matamoras, Pa. (area 717)

And in a NJ Bell prefix list, I see 201-512 for Cragmere.  Isn't that
next door to Suffern, NY?  If so, it's local to that NY point.

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 05:01:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, levin@bbn (Joel B. Levin) writes:

| >104-441-700-TALK-121
| Looks like a new way to avoid 900 blocking to me.

'course, this works only in those areas that have 10XXX (Feature Group D?)
dialing.

Is that everywhere *except* the backwaters of GTE Northwest, now?  Or
are there still many places that don't have 10XXX dialing?

We can do 950-xxxx and "select our default 1+ carrier", but 10XXX is
only for the local Bell-co (US West, or whatever they changed their
name to this week) customers.


Just another telephone "operator",

/=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ==========\
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| [e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |
\=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Bachmann)
Subject: Modem Review: MAX2400 FEC
Date: 16 Feb 90 10:56:22 GMT


I just got a new Maxon MAX2400 BPS modem w/ error corretion. I
expected some old version of MNP but it has FEC (Forward error
correction) instead.  The modem looks cheap, lacks many LEDs, and does
not support EXTENDED Hayes commands, also the manually is poorly
written lacking information about status indicators and error handling
technique. It says that 2400bps modems without error correction get an
error every 50 sec., but this one will get an error only every 9
hours, but.... the FEC error correction will only work when talking to
another Maxon brand MAX2400 modem at 2400bps or at 1200bps.

I guess no other modem in the universe supports FEC, so this feature
is totally useless, yet it is the biggest hype on the box and in the
ads.  Oh well, just expressing myself... I can't complain too much
'cause the modem does work as expected and is a 2400external for under
$100.


 ProLine: danb20@pro-graphics
    UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!danb20
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics![e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Date: 16 Feb 90 00:28:56 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


julian macassey <[e-mail]> writes:

> I wonder what 50% of the
> population of LA think they are avoiding. Certainly not the boiler
> rooms peddling the LA Times, they dial sequentially.

Boy, did you push the right button. Just the other evening, I was
trying to get some work done here and I couldn't help but notice my
modems answering calls that had nothing on the other end. Then my
private line rang. "Are you receiving the San Jose Mercury all right?"
Without thinking, I answered in the affirmative. It even occured to me
that the Mercury always seems to land on the porch and the Chronicle
ends up half way out in the street. I thought, "Why doesn't the
Chronicle call me so I can give them an earfull?"

Anyway, I went back to work and in the back of my mind was the
question of how on earth did they know my private line?  Then the
modems started up again and the phone rang again. "Are you receiving
the San Jose Mercury all right?" "Yes, yes, I am." Then it hit me:
this was a boiler room simply soliciting and to top it all off, they
didn't even have a subscriber list. This approach was their way of
gracefully exiting when they hit a subscriber.

Back to work. Modems again. Mercury again. This time I told the
hapless person on the other end of the line that if I got one more
call on this line this evening, they could STOP the paper. There were
no more calls, but the incident points out the futility of hiding
behind an unlisted number for the purpose of avoiding solicitation
calls.


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

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Cause of the AT&T Outage
Date: 16 Feb 90 22:17:52 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@
uunet.uu.net (Anthony Lee) writes:

> 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 ?

I don't work for AT&T (never have), so I guess my rising to their
defense won't be viewed as an automatic knee-jerk response.  (Although
I suppose it could be viewed as an antitrust violation of the MFJ, but
I guess I'll just have to take my chances...)

Basic answer: Yes, yes, yes.  System test and integration testing are,
I would guess, a larger proportion of the effort than the actual
development.  (Although the line between "development" and "testing"
blurs a tad...)

> 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.?

Like I say, I don't work there, but I would guess the answer is again
yes, yes, yes.

The problem is less one of unit testing than one of integration
testing.  In other words, it's not tough to ensure a single piece of
code works correctly -- but it's very tough to ensure that that single
piece of code works correctly with the five million other pieces of
code floating around the inside of a 4E and the fifty million other
pieces of code floating around the network(s).

The permutations of what can happen get unmanageably large extremely
quickly.  The exact procedures used for integration testing, I know
even less about than I do these basic principles, so I can't say more.
I suspect it's more rigorous than "identify the obvious and pray the
rest is sufficiently unlikely", but I couldn't prove it...


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

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

From: David Tamkin <point![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Makes An Offer You Can't Refuse! (60 Minutes Free)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 90 15:06:08 CST
Reply-To: point![e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issues 98-103, various people express
concern about having their primary long-distance carrier assignment
switched to U S Sprint if they go for the WD40 prize.

My parents' phone numbers have had 10XXX-only service on my U S Sprint
account since 1987.  Until March, 1989, Sprint was my 1+ carrier, so
like the (erroneous when done by MCI but correct when done by Sprint)
marking (that should never, never have been) on my MCI account, my
Sprint account bore an indicator that it included 1+ service.
However, U S Sprint has never attempted to cajole Illinois Bell into
changing my parents' primary carrier from AT&T to Sprint.

In March, 1989, I changed my 1+ carrier to Teleconnect USA (now
Telecom*USA), but at no time since has Sprint asked Central Telephone
to change me back.

So I think that Sprint isn't big on MCI's sleazy ploy.  If it weren't
for Around Town, I'd tell MCI to take a hike.

There is an epilogue to the trouble my parents were having with MCI:
Bill Huttig told me that Southern Bell flagged his account for them
not to accept any carrier's uncorroborated word on the matter.  I
asked Illinois Bell if they had the same provision, and not only could
they do it, but they even had a standard printed form for the
subscriber to sign, saying that IBT may affiliate the line with a new
1+ carrier ONLY at the customer's request.

If they get so many complaints that they have a printed form against
it, why the heck don't they just stop trusting the carriers?


David W. Tamkin    [e-mail]   ...{ddsw1,obdient!vpnet}!point!dattier
BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570 [phone] [phone]
P. O. Box 813  Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813   All other point users disagree.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #108
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22478;
          18 Feb 90 2:06 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25490;
          18 Feb 90 0:34 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09342;
          17 Feb 90 23:27 CST
Date:     Sat, 17 Feb 90 22:49:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #109
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Feb 90 22:47:53 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!) (William Degnan)
    Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!) (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: The Cause of the AT&T Outage (Steve Nuchia)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (David Neill)
    Re: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling (Roger Clark Swann)
    Re: AT&T Sytem 25 Experience Sought (David Daniel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 90 23:56:01 CST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!)


In a message of <Feb 15 03:45> ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal. writes:

 From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
 Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>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.

What if...

Pushing the NO ID code on an outbound call causes the CO to send a
public-key encrypted caller ID which could be decrypted by telco
security. Then everybody is protected for what they want.


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: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!)
Date: 17 Feb 90 18:22:41 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


In article <[e-mail]> ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!
[e-mail] writes:

>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

What you have proposed appears to be "Calling Line Owner ID", not
Calling Party ID.  If you really mean "Calling Party ID", how do you
identify yourself to your home phone differently from your spouse or
son?  How does the phone prevent you from identifying yourself as your
son?  The (un)forgability of the ID goes beyond just technical issues.

I have several objections to Calling Party ID as proposed:

 - Unless the IDs are unique per line (or group of lines at the same
  location) over the entire earth, I can't block JOHN D. SMITH #268, who
  sells insurance, without blocking JOHN D. SMITH #891, my manager.
  ("Blocking" means customer-provided blocking, which may mean reading the
  display and deciding not to answer, or using some fancy CPE computer to
  do the same thing).  Services like Call*Block can't economically handle
  blocking 10% of an entire local calling area of a large city.

 - The name "Calling Party ID" is making claims on which it cannot deliver.
  But some people might believe them.  I can easily imagine a
  jealous husband examining the caller-ID device and beating up on his
  wife because she spends too much time talking to men.  Actually,
  he is observing that there is no room for "MR.& MRS. JOHN D. FINKELHEIMER"
  or "JOHN D. & MARY F. FINKELHEIMER" on the display, so most married couples
  show up as a male name.

 - Some people might consider the ownership-of-the-line information to be
  an invasion of privacy, or embarassing.  For example, some couples living
  together will not appreciate being identified to either set of parents as
  a couple, the wrong member of the couple, or ANONYMOUS, which is a tip-off
  that something funny is going on.  I don't consider suggestions that
  all households should have a line per person to be particularly helpful.

 - The proposal says nothing about pay phones at all.  Is the display
  supposed to say "PAYPHONE SE CORNER OF MAIN AND 7TH, EAST TIMBUCKTU,
  NORTH DAKOTA, USA"?  Or is the user supposed to key in his own or
  someone else's ID?  There is a similar problem with hotel residents
  vs. someone working for the hotel chain.

 - Having the IDs of a group of lines going to the same business be the
  same would probably defeat any attempt to figure out whether it's a
  modem or human based on calling number, so "SOUTHWESTERN BELL" might
  be their Wire Maintenance Telemarketing department or their USENET node.
  Of course, businesses with all their lines behind one PBX will defeat
  this with Caller-ID also.

 - Probably the only way to assure privacy when calling an enemy hotline,
  especially where the enemy has power over your carrier, is to run the call
  through several mutually non-cooperating carriers that are so hostile to
  each other they won't exchange billing information.  (In this instance, why
  would they be willing to carry the call at all?) Calls to the IRS should go
  through China, the Soviet Union, South Africa, Lebanon, bounce off the moon,
  and then on to the Romulins, the Borg, and the Ferengi before going to the
  IRS.  The trouble is, the end-to-end delay on the line would get a little
  long.  Nobody else has a solution to this, either, but a per-call ID disable
  is a good start.

                        Gordon L. Burditt
                        sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: Steve Nuchia <nuchat![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Cause of the AT&T Outage
Date: 17 Feb 90 17:00:30 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Nuchia <nuchat![e-mail]>
Organization: Houston Public Access


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

>In article <[e-mail]>, munnari!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!anthony@
>uunet.uu.net (Anthony Lee) writes:

>> 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.?

>Like I say, I don't work there, but I would guess the answer is again
>yes, yes, yes.

Doesn't really pay to guess about this sort of thing, but if you knew
how 99.9% of working programmers feel about proving code you'd have a
better chance of guessing correctly.  AT&T does have good structured
walkthrough and code review procedures, at least on some projects.
They have a decent film avalilable on it.  But the switching software
doesn't even have a sane architecture, much less provable correctness.
I sincerely doubt there is even a formal specification for the overall
system, and there probably is none for a majority of the component.

Source: conversation with a well-known Bell Labs programmer at the
Usenix software management workshop in New Orleans.  I'm not sure
whether or not he'd mind me using his name.  The software on the
number 5 consists of well over a hundred separate executable images,
one for each combination of features on the calling and called
numbers.  It is all written in low-level C, and none of it is proved
correct.  He said there had been a project to develop a 4GL for
switching applications, and it had been fairly successful, but that
inertia or something like that had prevented its use for the number 5
project.

In other words, the switches are running with 60's (OK, maybe 70's)
programming methodology made to work by brute force.  Like the dancing
bear, the wonder isn't how well it dances, but that it dances at all.

There is also an assertion, the source of which I have forgotten, that
approximately 75% of the code in the number 5 is devoted to audit
functions -- detecting and correcting errors made by the 25% that
tries to do useful work.  If true, this is a great example of the cost
of glueing reliability on rather than building it in.

By the way, Mr. Lewis asks about "proofs of correctness of critical
parts of software".  I'm not sure what he had in mind, but proving
small sections of a large program is very nearly pointless.  It is a
handy technique for getting tricky loops right, but doesn't really say
much about what the program will do.  Particularly in a language like
C, where bad code can change the rules of the game on you.

Of course, proving the program correct doesn't help until the compiler
and hardware are proved correct, and since they are using AT&T C
compilers and Intel CPUs, that could be a problem.


Steve Nuchia          South Coast Computing Services      [phone]
"If the conjecture `You would rather I had not disturbed you
 by sending you this.' is correct, you may add it to the list of
 uncomfortable truths."   - Edsgar Dijkstra

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

From: 4007 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 17 Feb 90 18:45:07 GMT
Reply-To: David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007 <[e-mail]>
Organization: Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. - Advanced Technology Lab - St. Louis


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 107, message 4 of 5

>Kevin Blatter <[e-mail]> writes:

>> My conclusion on the Anti-dumping case was that, at face value.  The
>> Japanese aren't interested in playing fair, they're interested in
>> marketshare and profits.

To which they openly admit.

>Once again, with feeling. The KX-T series has no counterpart for sale
>anywhere in the world except North America. Dumping cannot be an issue
>when everyone is playing on the same field. The ONLY (O-N-L-Y) place
>the KX-T line is sold is here. If they're dumping it or selling it
>below cost, what do they have to gain? The hardware and firmware of
>the 308, 616, and 1232s was specifically engineered from the ground up
>for the US and Canada. Is that clear?

I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. In a capitalistic
market, the "big guys" can sell at a loss for a while, forcing the
"small guys" out.  In this case, we might be talking about big guys
vs. big guys, but the gripe is this:

There are a lot of barriers to U.S companies attempting to penetrate
the Japanese market, placed primarily by the Japanese gov't.  In
general the reverse isn't (or hasn't) been true.  In addition, there
is a significant amount of "partnering" between Japanese companies and
the Japanese gov't.  Can even AT&T compete (or stay in the market)
against a competitor that has the backing of a VERY rich national
government?  Is it fair that AT&T (or any other American company)
should have to compete against companies that can either over-charge a
private (home) market (to which market the American company is denied
access) in order to subsidize low prices here (even if said company
over-prices a different product at home), OR is it fair to the
American company to have to compete with a company that MAY (I do not
know this to be the case) be subsidized by the Japanese gov't?

What difference does it make whether the market for any one particular
item is only U.S. and Canada?  What they stand to gain is a market for
KX-T that has only one supplier (them), and when that happens, do you
suppose that they will still sell the product below cost?  Capitalism
only works to the benefit of consumers when the market is open to
honest and fair competition.  Unfortunately, when organizations grow
large enough to control prices, it seems that many seek to lock up
their markets through various non-competitive practices, rather than
continue to strive for the best price/product/ service/performance
etc..  This is true of many American companies, as well as foreign
companies and governments.


name & address
(this account) -> uunet!swbatl!dwn OR [e-mail]   David Neill
office -> 405-278-4007 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!mktco Mgr - Mktg.(SWBTCo)
home -> 405-749-1141 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!frodo!david

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Transferring a Call With Three-Way Calling
Date: 16 Feb 90 21:50:01 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA


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

> 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]

Note about how Centrex from Pac*Bell did provide transfer deleted...

Note from the Moderator about how later versions of the IBT software
would allow call transfer if the middle man disconnected...
 ...again deleted...

Here in US WEST territory, it works the way Patrick described.  When I
ordered 3-way calling on my line, that is serviced by a 5ESS, the Rep
told me that with the regular 3-way calling ($1.75 per month) under
the plan USWEST calls 'tele-choice', all parties would be disconnected
if the middle man were to hang up.

However, if I were to get the single-line Centrex service called
'Centra-flex' at $2.50 per month, then I, as the middle man could hang
up and the other parties could continue to talk. A friend on the same
CO, that has the cheaper tele-choice version on his line, and with
mine line, the Centra-flex version, checked this out.

A few test calls confirmed what the rep had told me. So, even with the
same hardware, these features seem to be programmed differently
depending upon how much one is willing to pay.


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


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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought
Date: 17 Feb 90 14:53:46 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


Apparently the Mitel switch doesn't do that. However I'm sure there is
more than one way around it. Using the Mitel VX Voice Processing
System would be the best way.  Actually, ANY WAY of avoiding AT&T would
be preferrable to going with there overpriced underteched equipment.
Another way might be to go end-to-end digital via T1, 2, 3, etc.


      "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                      Elvis Costello


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #109
******************************












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29704;
          18 Feb 90 5:20 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15893;
          18 Feb 90 3:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05776;
          18 Feb 90 2:35 CST
Date:     Sun, 18 Feb 90 2:24:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #110
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Feb 90 02:20:10 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Long Distance "Call Aggregation" Conference (TELECOM Moderator)
    Information Needed on AI Traffic Management (Annie Zuraidah Shamsudin)
    Cancel Call Waiting (Joe Stong)
    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does? (Steve Bellovin)
    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does? (Thomas Lapp)
    Book Review: The Matrix - Computer Networks (Paul Wilczynski)
    Toll Free But Not 800 (Ken Levitt)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Dave Levenson)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 1:16:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance "Call Aggregation" Conference


On March 5-6, a conference led by Dr. Robert Self, one the best known
independent long distance experts in the United States, will spotlight
all types of third party marketing programs by long distance
companies.

Many long distance companies now let third-party firms -- consultants,
assocations, brokers and other agents -- market their services.
Executives at major carriers have quit to form their own companies as
third-party long-distance resellers.

MCI, Sprint and others allow you to be an independent sales agent,
broker or rebiller, etc. You either earn commissions or mark up cost
of calls. No telecom equipment, very little capital to get started.

AT&T recently began to allow third parties to 'aggregate' both 800 and
outbound services. Users get lower rates, AT&T does the billing, and
the 'aggregators' do the marketing and take part of the extra customer
savings as their fee. Sprint and MCI are both complaining to the FCC
that AT&T's aggregation is illegal, but since they both do it, as well
as many of their lesser competitors, they are hardly in a position to
complain very much.

With rebilling, sometimes known as 'switchless reselling',
aggregation, and other third-party marketing, you use a carrier's
switch and network.  You sell to customers anywhere in the United
States. You can make a bundle of money, or you can lose your pants.

This sounds like one of the better conferences going on this year. You
might like to investigate further, or plan to attend. If some of you
attend, please get back to us with a report for the Digest afterward.


Name: Long Distance Marketing in 1990
Place: Sheraton World Resort, Orlando, FL  (near Disney World, Epcot Center)
Date: March 5-6, 1990 ( 9 AM - 5 PM both days)
Price: $575 per person; $495 each if two or more in same group. This includes
       lunch and refreshments both days.

Make checks payable to Lexicom, Inc.
2263 West Liberty Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4405

If you have ever met or heard (or read) Bob Self, I think you will
agree his participation alone makes the price very reasonable.

To register: 800-678-0398     FAX: [phone]     Other  Info: 313-994-8600

The Sheraton World Resort is holding a block of rooms for the occasion.
They are $105 each per night. Phone [phone].


Patrick Townson


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

From: Annie Zuraidah Shamsudin <munnari!latcs1.oz.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed On AI Traffic Management
Date: 14 Feb 90 04:12:40 GMT
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia


Hi, I've got 3 basic questions concerining telecommunications and AI:

1. I have been reading a paper 'Adaptive traffic routing in telephone
networks' written by G.Bel et al.  Am I right in summarising that all
the methods he suggested are just variations and extensions of the
basic learning automata that he presented in the first section?  They
all receive input/feedback (some more sophisticated than others?),
perform some algorithm (the reinforcement scheme?), and choose their
output (ie the route) based on the results.  This seems to be the
general definition for Learning Automata.  Can I go so far as to say
that all adaptive routing techniques are learning aumatons with
different feedback and reinforcement schemes, and over different time
intervals?

2. Alistair Mees wrote in 'Simple is best for dynamic routing of
telecommunications' about a new technique called "Dynamic Alternative
Routing' (awaiting patent at the time of article, 1986).  Is this
another form of Learning Automata? And isn't it more of an adaptive
routing rather than dynamic routing?  I've got the defn. of dynamic
routing as having reserved routes planned at the early designing stage
to be used during overloads [Bel at alia as above].

3. Its been suggested to me that two different approaches to Network
traffic managements are expert systems and learning automata.  Is this
generally accepted and are there any others that I can look into?
Where does Linear Programming methods come in?  Is it another learning
scheme?  Would not learning schemes be just a subset of possible
expert system implementations?

I would appreciate suggestions, objections and possible references.

Thanks in advance.

  -annie-


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

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 03:00:30 PST
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cancel Call Waiting


I know about *70 to cancel call waiting before making a call in
Pac*Bell land, but is there any way to turn it off indefinitely?

I've had some upleasant scenes when I was in the middle of remotely
retrieving messages from my answering machine, and someone interrupted
me with another call to my answering machine.  The current reversal
told the answering machine to drop dead, and fortunately this machine
resets resets reasonably, but it did cause me to have to replay about
10 messages.  The other caller rang for a minute or so while the
answering machine rewound itsself, and prepared to take messages
again.

Thus, I'd like to be able to disable call waiting for the time that
the answering machine is the only answerer (when I'm out of the house)
and I'll be happy to manually re-enable it when I'm back.  (Even
better if I could have the infrared motion detector and the RF
signature ID system that detects that I've entered the house send
something to the dialer, but that comes later %-) .)


    Joe Stong    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I suppose if you could have your answering machine
pick up the line for an incoming call; simulate a switchhook flash;
send *70 over the line; flash the hook again, and *then* start its
outgoing announcement to the caller you'd have what you are looking
for.  But typically, cancel call waiting only starts when you dial *70
(or local variation), and ends immediatly when the phone goes back on
hook.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does?
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 08:15:52 EST

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with AT&T; I've had just the
opposite fairly recently, and the folks involved did not even know
that I was an AT&T employee.

I wandered into a phone store to ask some odd questions about A-A1
signalling and some equipment.  I wasn't surprised that they didn't
know what I meant.  They wanted to do more for me -- call some 800
number or other -- but I didn't have the time; I'd wandered in on
impulse on my way elsewhere.  So I took a catalog (that did list an
800 number, for orders or information), and left.

A couple of days later -- the day before Thanksgiving -- I tried that
number.  Of course, the order clerk didn't know what I was talking
about, but she first tried asking everyone else in the room, including
her supervisor.  I tried to beg off, but she insisted on getting my
name and phone number, and promising me a return call the next real
business day (i.e., Monday, not that Friday, which is reasonable -- I
was off on Friday, too, and I assume that many other AT&T employees
are).

Sure enough, I got a phone call Monday.  The woman I spoke to not only
knew exactly what I was talking about, she gave me the answer I
needed, told me that AT&T didn't make the part, told me who did, and
gave me the phone number and price.  She was sufficiently
knowledgeable that she even knew some other vendors that had carried
it in the past.


        --Steve Bellovin

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

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 22:38:04 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does?


 From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
> Let me tell you a longish story about AT&T marketing.

Guess what?  It isn't just customers that have this problem.  Where I
work, we have an AT&T guy assigned to our "account", so when I had a
question about an autocall unit (see earlier digests for that story),
I asked Bob.

He said he didn't know, but we went to his office and I watched as he
made "a few phone calls".  Well, he had the phone numbers to get him
where he wanted to go, but found that one of the people he was trying
to reach wasn't in and he didn't have an up-to-date number for the
other fellow he wanted to reach.  Therein lies the humourous story.
Bob spent the next 1/2 hour or so dialing numbers, asking for this
fellow's number, getting transferred to the wrong phone, wrong people,
and twice to never-never land!  I never did get my answer.  He had to
put it on his to-do list for Monday and will get back to me!

                         - 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: These two messages, which I specifically placed in
juxtaposition with each other illustrate what many of us have believed
for years: AT&T and/or any huge organization are as good and efficient
and concerned as their best, most effecient and most concerned
employees.  They are as clumsy, ineffecient and screwed up as their
most clumsy, inefficient and screwed up employees. The analogy about
the chain being as strong as its weakest links might also apply here.
I've met and worked with many intelligent, very dedicated AT&T people. PT]

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

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 09:30 EST
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: The Matrix - Computer Networks


I came across an interesting book that some readers might be
interested in.

Published by Digital Press, it's called The Matrix - Computer Networks
and Conferencing Systems Worldwide by John S. Quarterman.

A random selection of Contents includes ...

4  Layers and Protocols
   4.1 Layering Models (ISO Reference Model, Internet Reference Model...)
   4.2 Protol Suites (TCP/IP, ISO-OSI ...)
   4.3 Dialup Protocols (UUCP, SAA ...)

5  Management Protocols
   5.1  Connectivity
   5.2  Configuration (Star, Tree ....)
   5.4  Address Spaces (X.121, IP...)

6  Administration

7  History and Features
   7.1  Time-Sharing Services
   7.2  Corporations
   7.3  Researchers
   7.5  Conferencing Systems (PLANET, MAILBOX, PLATO, NOTEPAD ...)
   7.7  Influences (Internets, Host Size ...)

8  Standard Bodies
   8.2  PTTs
   8.3  Governments

10 World-Wide Networks

11 The Internet

12 North America

(chapters for other continents)

Appendix A  Public Data Networks
         B  Computer-Mediated Communication and the Law


It's over 700 pages, and includes a note in the back that they are
developing a computer-accessible database of this information, complete
with address of the person to whom to write.

The book is $49.95.  Further info from 1-800-DIGITAL.


Paul J. Wilczynski
Krislyn Computer Services


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

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 18:35:15 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll Free But Not 800


I just received a beeper with what seems like a rather unique phone
number.  The phone number is 617-230-xxxx.  Calls to this number are
free when dialed from anywhere in the 617 or 508 area codes (except
from COCOTs).  When I first got the phone number, I wanted to confirm
with New England Telephone that this truly was a toll free call.  I
made a call on my local line, but I have to wait a month for my bill
on that.  Then I called the operator and asked about this special
exchange.  She knew nothing about it and told me to call the business
office.  I called the business office for residence subscribers and
was told that I would have to call the business office for business
subscribers.  The second business office took a long time with me on
hold to check this out and finally told me that they could neither
confirm or deny the status of this exchange.  They also were not able
to tell me of any department within N.E.T.  that could provide more
information.

I was finally able to confirm the toll free status of this number by
going to a "real" New England Telephone payphone.  It really worked
without having to deposit any money.  Then I want to a COCOT which
asked me to deposit $1.15 for the first three minutes.

Can anyone tell me if there is any way around the COCOT problem?  Are
COCOT's supposed to take these calls for free?  What if from a COCOT I
used an ATT credit card?  When the bill came in could I refuse to pay
because the number is free?

Why is it that I could not find anyone at N.E.T. who knew about these
special exchanges?  I think that the salesman at the beeper company
called this a "Type 3" number or exchange.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Date: 17 Feb 90 18:50:00 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
writes:

> I recently saw two (N00) numbers advertised on TV which caught my
> attention.

> The second was Sports Illustrated, with the number to dial for
> subscriptions listed as 1-800-950-2288.  Apparently the use of the 950
> prefix for non-telcos is happening in 1-800 as well as in "real" NPAs.


800-950-xxxx belongs to MCI.  Their own access number is 800-950-1022
which looks like their 10222 carrier-selection code, which also looks
like their 950-1022 FG-B access code.


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: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Leibold)
Organization: Contact User Supported BBS
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 02:01:45 GMT


>Actually, 800-950 is just one of MCI's many 800 exchanges, nothing
>special.  I'm not exactly sure how MCI got all the good ones (950,
>222, 444, etc.), but they, and not AT&T, get to decide what goes where
>on 800-950.

Does anyone have a list of all the exchanges that MCI has? Sprint, too?

While on 800 curiosities, I might mention that British Telecom has
their own "800" service, using the 0800 STD code for toll-free calls.
There is also a 0345 code which is used to bill a call at local rates
(which are not toll-free, but the pay-per-call deal as with a local
call).

Mexico also has an "800" code for toll-free numbers, accessed with
their 91+ long distance code.

Any other countries have an "800" or similar service yet (in contrast to
"Zenith" or "Enterprise" type of services where you call an operator
and ask for a special reverse billing number)?


[Moderator's Note: The TELECOM Archives has just what you are looking for.
Please refer to the file there called 'guide.to.area.codes'. One section
of that file is a listing by prefix of who belongs to what 800 prefix, as
of a year ago when the file was created. To reach the archives, use ftp
as follows:  'ftp lcs.mit.edu'; login anonymous; give [e-mail] for
your password; then 'cd telecom-archives'; then 'dir' to see the list of
what is available. 'get INDEX.TO.ARCHIVES' will bring a copy of the
archives directory back to your site.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #110
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00934;
          18 Feb 90 23:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09178;
          18 Feb 90 21:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02596;
          18 Feb 90 20:53 CST
Date:     Sun, 18 Feb 90 20:46:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #111
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Feb 90 20:45:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (Steve Friedl)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (K. Denninger)
    Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought (Dave Levinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Friedl <mtndew![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 18 Feb 90 09:09:22 GMT
Organization: Steve's Barnburner 386


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (4007) writes:

> Can even AT&T compete (or stay in the market) against a competitor
> that has the backing of a VERY rich national government?

This might not be very fun for AT&T, but as a consumer I welcome
it:  Why should I refuse a gift from the Japanese taxpayer?


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone] voice   /   [e-mail]   /   {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

"Winning the Balridge Quality Award is as easy as falling off a horse." - me


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 18 Feb 90 01:29:10 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


4007 <[e-mail]> writes:

> There are a lot of barriers to U.S companies attempting to penetrate
> the Japanese market, placed primarily by the Japanese gov't.  In
> general the reverse isn't (or hasn't) been true.  In addition, there
> is a significant amount of "partnering" between Japanese companies and
> the Japanese gov't.  Can even AT&T compete (or stay in the market)
> against a competitor that has the backing of a VERY rich national
> government?

First, why does it matter what AT&T can or cannot do in Japan in order
to compete in the United States? Second, what evidence is there that
the pricing of the KX-T series equipment is being subsidized by the
Japanese government? Do you take AT&T's word for it? Look at the
hardware. Look at the components it's built from. It's very simple and
from my quarter of a century experience in electronic equipment sales,
design and packaging, I would say that it is priced about right. Now
look at the Merlin. It, too, is simple. From the same experience, I
would say that it sells for about 2 to 3 times what it should.

> Is it fair that AT&T (or any other American company)
> should have to compete against companies that can either over-charge a
> private (home) market (to which market the American company is denied
> access) in order to subsidize low prices here (even if said company
> over-prices a different product at home), OR is it fair to the
> American company to have to compete with a company that MAY (I do not
> know this to be the case) be subsidized by the Japanese gov't?

But if they don't even sell this particular product in their home
market how can they overcharge????? If it's a different product, then
the conversation is moot. How do you know AT&T isn't overcharging on
its long distance service to undercut its products? (I know, at the
prices they charge they couldn't possibly be undercutting; but the
argument is as relevant as yours.) Nothing stops any company from
overcharging in one area in order to undercut in another. Why pick on
the Japanese? Why is AT&T the only company that seems to have so much
trouble? (Hint: they're the only company that seems to be priced so
stratospherically.)

> What difference does it make whether the market for any one particular
> item is only U.S. and Canada?  What they stand to gain is a market for
> KX-T that has only one supplier (them), and when that happens, do you
> suppose that they will still sell the product below cost?  Capitalism
> only works to the benefit of consumers when the market is open to
> honest and fair competition.  Unfortunately, when organizations grow
> large enough to control prices, it seems that many seek to lock up
> their markets through various non-competitive practices, rather than
> continue to strive for the best price/product/ service/performance
> etc..  This is true of many American companies, as well as foreign
> companies and governments.

Since when has anyone suggested that Matsushita will drive away ALL
the competition? Do you know how many companies and products are
available in the US telecom marketplace? Obviously not to make such a
naive statement. Do you realize how small the share of the telecom
market Matsushita has? The big mistake Matsushita made was targeting
customers of the great god AT&T and directly competing against the
Merlin. My friend, Capitalism only works to the benefit of consumers
when the market is open to honest and fair competition (is there an
echo in here?). Pricing a product in the stratosphere and then suing a
competitor who dares to offer a better product at a reasonable price
does not fit my image of honest and fair competition.

BTW, can you give me one single case where a Japanese company has done
what you seem to fear? That is, vulture-priced the competition out of
existence, then raised its prices to the detriment of its customers?
Like VCRs, for example, most of which are made in Japan (none are made
in the US) and have done nothing but drop in price since they were
introduced?

In short, AT&T filed its action because it didn't like competition.
Defenders of AT&T's action have concocted all manner of unproved and
unprovable "what ifs". Having dealt with the Japanese for some time
now (if indirectly), I can say that they do play hardball. But can you
imagine the crap that we American consumers would have foisted upon us
if there hadn't been some competition from outside? What do you
suppose got the US auto industry off its rear end?

Oh, and another thing. US companies having a hard time selling things
in Japan has less to do with the Japanese government regulations and
more to do with not making anything the Japanese consumer wants to buy
than you may realize. Where, for instance, Matsushita carefully sized
up the North American market when designing the KX-T series equipment,
most US firms put no effort into analyzing the Japanese market for
their goods.  "Hey, if it's good enough for Americans...." 'Nuff
said...


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

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

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: Sun, 18 Feb 90 19:33:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> David Neill-OKCy Mktg 405-278-4007
<[e-mail]> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 109, message 4 of 6

>In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 107, message 4 of 5

>>Kevin Blatter <[e-mail]> writes:

>>> My conclusion on the Anti-dumping case was that, at face value.  The
>>> Japanese aren't interested in playing fair, they're interested in
>>> marketshare and profits.

>To which they openly admit.

What's wrong with marketshare and profits?  Note that they are
interested in BOTH.  You don't get profits by selling under your cost
of production; you go broke!  Obviously, since Panasonic has been
making this kind of gear for many years (and is still doing so), they
aren't going broke.  Nor are they driving others from the market --
except for those with overpriced technology (ie: AT&T)

>>Once again, with feeling. The KX-T series has no counterpart for sale
>>anywhere in the world except North America. Dumping cannot be an issue
>>when everyone is playing on the same field. The ONLY (O-N-L-Y) place
>>the KX-T line is sold is here. If they're dumping it or selling it
>>below cost, what do they have to gain? The hardware and firmware of
>>the 308, 616, and 1232s was specifically engineered from the ground up
>>for the US and Canada. Is that clear?

>I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. In a capitalistic
>market, the "big guys" can sell at a loss for a while, forcing the
>"small guys" out.  In this case, we might be talking about big guys
>vs. big guys, but the gripe is this:

>There are a lot of barriers to U.S companies attempting to penetrate
>the Japanese market, placed primarily by the Japanese gov't.  In
>general the reverse isn't (or hasn't) been true.  In addition, there
>is a significant amount of "partnering" between Japanese companies and
>the Japanese gov't.  Can even AT&T compete (or stay in the market)
>against a competitor that has the backing of a VERY rich national
>government?  Is it fair that AT&T (or any other American company)
>should have to compete against companies that can either over-charge a
>private (home) market (to which market the American company is denied
>access) in order to subsidize low prices here (even if said company
>over-prices a different product at home), OR is it fair to the
>American company to have to compete with a company that MAY (I do not
>know this to be the case) be subsidized by the Japanese gov't?

The problem is how do you determine whether this is taking place?  You
speak of a home market with restrictions (the Japanese market).  Have
you done any research there lately?  Do you know what you're talking
about, or are you playing knee-jerk reactionary because they're the
"big bad Japanese"?

I wonder about AT&T's argument.  I can tell you how well I suspect
their Merlin systems (modified for Japanese telephone switching
systems) would sell against the Japanese systems (Panasonic
equivalent) given the current pricing of those very same Merlin's
here!  They wouldn't sell a single unit!

Then again, look at what Panasonic and everyone else is doing to get
around the bogus tariffs.  They're opening plants in the US, using US
workers, and STILL SELLING AT A LOWER PRICE.  Of course now they're
exempt from those tariffs since the products aren't imported anymore.
And you know what?  Those US plants are making a profit for the parent
company, and slaughtering their US counterparts who are still working
on the basis that they can charge whatever they want for their
products instead of producing quality materials at a fair cost.  So
much for the dumping argument.

Next we'll see AT&T and others try to put a tariff on the products
being produced inside the US by these companies on the grounds that
they are "dumping", even though it's clear from the filings of these
firms that they're selling at well over the cost of production (in
other words, they're making a nice healthy profit).

>What difference does it make whether the market for any one particular
>item is only U.S. and Canada?  What they stand to gain is a market for
>KX-T that has only one supplier (them), and when that happens, do you
>suppose that they will still sell the product below cost?  Capitalism
>only works to the benefit of consumers when the market is open to
>honest and fair competition.  Unfortunately, when organizations grow
>large enough to control prices, it seems that many seek to lock up
>their markets through various non-competitive practices, rather than
>continue to strive for the best price/product/ service/performance
>etc..  This is true of many American companies, as well as foreign
>companies and governments.

Oh right, which is why the Southwestern Bell key system (which your
company produces) is less expensive than the KXT line, even WITHOUT
the tariffs.  Of course (IMHO) it's shoddily manufactured, not as
full-featured, and has a number of "features" you can't disable, in
addition to not having a provision for the use of standard extensions.

I used to work for a small (REAL SMALL) maker of control systems which
were similar in complexity to the Panasonic Keyset switches (KXT
line).  They were single-board based, and controlled high power
microwave equipment.  The cost of a single board, to the CUSTOMER, was
about $1k.  This was on a quantity of production of oh, roughly 10-20
units per year, with all MANUAL assembly and testing!

We did some investigation into reducing costs, and found that if we
could sell 500-1000 of these units a year we could justify a insertion
machine (no more hand assembly) and a wave soldering machine, as well
as automated test equipment.  The cost of the boards (blanks) would
also drop appreciably at that level as well (cost of a blank at Q20
pricing was some $200 a blank; at Q100 pricing that same blank was
well under $100!).

In short, the economies of scale would have permitted a sale price of
under $500 per unit had there been a market for 1000 units per year.
There wasn't (and isn't), so it didn't happen, but it was an
interesting exercise, and one which I remember well.

>(this account) -> uunet!swbatl!dwn OR [e-mail]   David Neill
>office -> 405-278-4007 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!mktco Mgr - Mktg.(SWBTCo)
>home -> 405-749-1141 -> uunet!swbatl!oktext!frodo!david

This is from the same Southwestern Bell, I assume, that is currently
trying to force people who provide a free BBS on their personal
telephone lines to pay business rates, even though they aren't a
business.


Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [[phone]], Voice: [[phone]]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.        "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"


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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought
Date: 18 Feb 90 14:26:04 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vance Shipley) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel) writes:

> >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:

> The original posting stated that a requirement was CPC (Calling Party
> Control) on the 2500 (analog single line) ports.  Does the SX switch
> do this?  For that matter does the AT&T System 25 really do this?

The original answer, as I once posted before, is that the System 25
does, in fact, generate a 500 msec open loop toward a tip/ring station
when it is disconnecting a call.  This occurs within a second or so
after the forward disconnect is received from the CO on incoming trunk
calls.  How soon the CO sends this signal after the calling party
disconnects depends upon the type of CO and the type of trunk circuit
used.

The Mitel SX200 does not pass this signal through to tip/ring
stations.


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 #111
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02895;
          19 Feb 90 0:41 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31278;
          18 Feb 90 23:03 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09178;
          18 Feb 90 21:58 CST
Date:     Sun, 18 Feb 90 21:30:39 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #112
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Feb 90 21:30:16 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does? (John Higdon)
    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Details on 201/908 Wanted (Dave Levenson)
    Re: 602 Area Code News (David Tamkin)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Bob Hofkin)
    Re: Toll-Free But Not 800 (Robert Kaplan)
    Re: Book Review: Stallings: ISDN, An Introduction (David Daniel)
    Re: London Area Code Split (Scott Fybush)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does?
Date: 18 Feb 90 03:55:54 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> I'm sorry you had a bad experience with AT&T; I've had just the
> opposite fairly recently, and the folks involved did not even know
> that I was an AT&T employee.

As the one who started latest manifestation of the AT&T war, let me
clear the air. I have not in the past nor am I likely in the future to
engage in a general bash of AT&T. They are my primary long distance
carrier. My gateway computer (zygot.ati.com) is gold-plate AT&T. I
have recommended AT&T computers to clients. I own an AT&T 5500
cordless telephone. AT&T's service is the standard of the world, and
they have the resources to *really* take care of customers. And I have
never meant to imply that their telecom products were anything but
first-rate, both in quality and in the manner that they are supported
by their vendor.

But in the matter of the tariff relief sought against various other
manufacturers, I feel that AT&T was wrong. No, not really wrong, but
consistent with the actions of a firm that was not used to the world
of competition. AT&T is an unbeliveably vast corporation, and its
directors are used to getting their corporate way in any manner
possible. If that means capitalizing on the current anti-Japanese mood
circulating in our government agencies, then so be it.

AT&T exists to make a profit and to enrich its stockholders, not to
look after the welfare of its customers, potential and actual. Seeking
tariff relief was an option deemed beneficial to the company's profit
structure and was not made with considerations as to the possible harm
or benefit of the market in general. It is amusing that those who
defend this course of action tend to prop up their position by
pointing out that long term harm would come to the market, customers
and vendors alike, if AT&T had not taken this action. The reality is
that AT&T did whatever it thought best to benefit AT&T, nothing more,
nothing less.

My belief is that in time, AT&T will become a real player in the
telecom market. It will learn how to compete and will give the
industry a run for its money. This will come about as those in charge
learn that tricks such as the tariff thing bring temporary relief at
best. (What fancy maneuver will AT&T try when its off-shore competitors
start producing wares in the US? Import duties and tariffs won't
work!) I'm hoping that its next bombshell will be a killer product at
an affordable price. Now wouldn't that be innovation!


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does?
Date: 18 Feb 90 14:23:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

>     It would also appear that they havn't yet figured out that
> they are dealing with customers other than captive local Bell telcos.
> Let me tell you a longish story about AT&T marketing.

What followed was a long but to me, very believable, story about Roy's
attempt to buy a piece of telephone hardware from AT&T.

> ...  No problem, just get an adaptor, right?

>     Really makes you wonder how AT&T stays in business.  Maybe
> Judge Green was right after all, lack of competition is bad.

I recently had a similar experience trying to buy from AT&T.  This
article probably belongs in another newsgroup, but Roy's story sounds
so similar, I thought I'd relate it here.

I bought a PC and I wanted software for it.  The PC is a '386 and the
software I wanted was UNIX System V/386!  Why did I want to buy it
from AT&T?  I don't know... the folks at Interactive and at SCO keep
sending me advertisements and special offers for their software.
Problem is that I have a significant investment in StarLAN hardware,
so I want AT&T UNIX with the StarGROUP package that supports this
network.

I called the AT&T Data Systems hotline (the number comes with the
manuals that come with their computer systems) to ask about ordering
UNIX.  They can't tell me the price or the comcode, but they can give
me a PEC (price element code).  There are several variations, but the
one we eventually agree on represents the foundation set for 16 users,
packaged with the software development set, on 5.25" diskette media.

National Parts Sales Center can't look it up by PEC and wants comcode
numbers.  They refer me to another number where they translate PEC
numbers into comcode numbers.  The PEC for UNIX turns into five or so
comcodes (one for manuals, one for diskettes, one for another set of
diskettes, etc).  The PEC for StarGROUP turns into another comcode.

Back to National Parts Sales, now armed with comcodes.  They tell me
that the comcode I've requested is not available.  (The number you
have dialed is not in service?)  They want to know where I got if
from.  I tell the NPSC representative how I got the comcodes, and they
tell me I wasn't supposed to get it that way.  They now ask for the
PEC and begin some kind of a database search.

Eventually they tell me they've found what I'm after.  The number is a
new one, the description is "UNIX System V", and the price is $20.  I
tell them I don't think it's what I want, but they have no further
descriptive information available.  (UNIX should cost about $600 or so
without the development set.)

Parts then refers me back to the data systems hotline (which is where
I came in).  A different person there listens to my story and gives me
the UNIX hotline number.  The folks at this hotline turn out to be the
folks who sell a source license to folks who want to port UNIX to a
new hardware platform.  When they discover that I only want to run it
on an already-supported hardware product, they're not interested, but
provide another 800 number.

At this number, they ask for my zip-code.  They provide the names of
three AT&T computer dealers in nearby places.

One dealer's telephone is answered by a machine.  It's been over six
weeks, and he hasn't returned either of my two calls.

A second dealer tells me that they mostly only sell AT&T products to
Bell Labs, but they _think_ they're allowed to sell to the public, if
I know exactly what I want!  I offer them comcodes and PECs and
they'll get back to me.

A third dealer tells me that the guy who knows about UNIX left, and
that they have a special this week on IBM PS/2 equipment...

The second dealer (a retail computer store in a nearby shopping
center) gets back to me, and tells me that they'll order the software
if I give them a deposit.  I dropped by the store, and gave the man a
check.

A week later, they call me to say the order has arrived.  They handed
me a little box.  I told them that UNIX includes several cubic feet of
manuals, and some diskettes.  They point to the PEC, scribbled on the
outside of the box in magic-marker, and tell me that it's what I
ordered.  When I protest, they call their distributor.  He rattles off
a list of the five comcodes I had gotten weeks ago from the hotline I
wasn't supposed to call.  The box turns out to be one of them.  I
refuse the delivery.

Finally, last week, the order arrived.  Eight weeks since the initial
call.


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: Sat, 17 Feb 90 14:37:51 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Be Charged to Have My Number Not Listed?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>"Are you receiving
>the San Jose Mercury all right?" "Yes, yes, I am." Then it hit me:
>this was a boiler room simply soliciting and to top it all off, they
>didn't even have a subscriber list. This approach was their way of
>gracefully exiting when they hit a subscriber.

Yes, this is quite a common way for newspapers to solicit.  Since I
figured this out a few years ago, I always answer "yes", even if it's
a paper I don't take - nobody has ever questioned this.

My favorite story is when the Sacramento Bee (a *morning* paper)
called one *evening* and asked "Are you currently receiving The Bee?".
My answer: "No, but I get it in the mornings..."

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Details on 201/908 Wanted
Date: 18 Feb 90 00:01:24 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Douglas Quagliana) writes:

>    Does anyone know how I can find out if a current 201 phone number
> will remain in 201 or if it will be switched to 908?  Does anyone have
> a listing by prefixes or zip code of the effected numbers?

    You can probably try dialing the 908 number now.  If your call
goes through, then the destination is being switched to 908.  If it
doesn't, it will probably remain in 201.  This experiment should
probably be run after confirming that some 908 numbers can be reached
from wherever you're calling from.  908-647 is known to be valid.  I'm
not sure the line coincides with zip-code boundaries.

> Any details on the actual switch over date??

    Permissive dialing, allowing both 201 and 908 into the
affected areas is available now.  Publication of the change is
scheduled for June 1990, with the published "effective date" to be
stated as 1/1/91.  Calls into the affected area will continue to be
completed using 201 until June of 1991.


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: David Tamkin <point![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 602 Area Code News
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 90 18:51:58 CST
Reply-To: point![e-mail]


Guy Finney announces in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 105:

| We've been told this week that 602 is running out of prefixes pretty
| quickly, what with the boom in cellular, paging, etc.  US West's
| request for a new area code has been denied, so soon we'll get to dial
| 1-602-xxx-xxxx for all in-state toll calls where we had been dialing
| 1-xxx-xxxx before.  Sigh.

Is the implication that N0X and N1X will now be used in Arizona?  In
1988 Colorado and Massachusetts (and perhaps Florida) had splits
without giving up NNX.

I have visited Arizona twice in my life, both times to visit friends
in Mesa (a suburb to the east of Phoenix).  In February, 1987, a call
to Glendale (a western suburb of Phoenix) required seven digits.  The
following November it was necessary to dial 1-NNX-XXXX to reach
Glendale.

Truly a leap backward.  As long as 1+ is required on calls to other
area codes, one would think that all in-state calling, toll or not,
could be seven digits unambiguously.


David W. Tamkin    [e-mail]   ...{ddsw1,obdient!vpnet}!point!dattier
BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570 [phone] [phone]
P. O. Box 813  Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813   All other point users disagree.

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

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 01:06 EST
From: Bob Hofkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities


Media General Cable just set up a "special 6-digit phone number" to
order pay-per-view movies in my area.  The number is given as 103-800.
There's a DTMF response unit on the other end.

I've experimented a little.  If I dial a phone number (either
10380-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX or 10380-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX), I get a recording that
"the long distance company you have selected is unable to complete
your call at this time."  They have an exception for
10380-1-800-555-1212, which gets an intercept "your call cannot be
completed with the access code you dialed."

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

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 15:11:35 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll-Free But Not 800


Not only won't 617-230 work (apparently) from COCOTs, but Brandeis
University has no idea that the exchange exists...dialing 9+230-xxxx
produces a recorded message...and there's no other way to direct-dial
the number from here.  Since it's Sunday, there are no Brandeis
operators to talk to, either.  I'm trying to find out what other
exchanges make our phone system do that.

(I suppose 9+1-508-230-xxxx+access code *might* work, but I'm not
going to wait a month to find out.)


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: Book Review: Stallings: ISDN, An Introduction
Date: 18 Feb 90 21:05:24 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


This book is also available from Telecom Library, Inc.
12 West 21st St.
NY, NY, 10010
1-800-LIBRARY
$45.95 plus shipping

I have it on order now, and am glad to hear it'd the kind of book I
was looking for.


"What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                 Elvis Costello


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

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 15:17:19 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London Area Code Split

With the 071/081 split only a few months away, there hasn't been much
publicity about it in England.  A friend who is at Oxford just wrote
to me that he has seen nothing about it in the eight months he's been
there, and that in fact he wouldn't have known it was happening if I
hadn't told him.  That sounds pretty incredible, especially given that
the split will take place with no grace period at all!  There will be
a lot of very confused British people one morning in May...not to
mention international dialers the morning after the switch takes place.


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion.


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell's recent 708/312 split comes to mind.
For how many ever months and years prior to the event Illinois Bell
promoted the event, they might as well have done nothing at all. They
had a contest, awarding $708 (first prize) or $312 (second prize).
They had full page newspaper announcements daily for a month before.
They had notices in every telephone bill for a year. There were at
least a dozen newspaper stories during the year before the split. Yet --
yet, they were swamped with calls the Monday following the weekend cutover
from customers who claimed *they had never even heard about it!*. How
could the fools have missed it? It blared from every radio and
television for weeks before. A major department store in Chicago with
branch stores scattered throughout 708-land had their credit bureau
terminals off line all day that Saturday and the following Monday
because no one bothered to re-program them to dial *1-312* before the
number of the credit bureau....and that, after a period of months in
which permissive dialing would have permitted ease in programming. So
the Monday following, none of us who can read and write English and
listen to the radio at least once a day could reach the operator for
anything else: all operator positions -- including a hundred operators
brought in on their day off -- were busy telling people the same thing
the recorded intercept was telling them: You must dial 1-708 (1-312) first!
Never underestimated the stupidity of people.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #112
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08910;
          19 Feb 90 3:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02973;
          19 Feb 90 2:08 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11083;
          19 Feb 90 1:04 CST
Date:     Mon, 19 Feb 90 0:59:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #113
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Feb 90 00:59:03 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    "Sorry, We Show No Matamoros in Mexico." (Paul Fuqua)
    Modem Protocol Information (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
    ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC (Steve Huff)
    EDI Information (John Bryant)
    Collecting Info About Physician Networks Worldwide (Donald Parsons)
    Re: Caller ID (NOT another flame!) (Robert Kaplan)
    Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!) (David Lewis)
    Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth (Kim Greer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90  16:44:14 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Sorry, We Show No Matamoros in Mexico."


     In the February 8 issue of the Dallas Morning News, columnist Bob
St. John tells some stories about his telephonic adventures while
staying on South Padre Island.  (For the geographically ignorant,
that's on the far southern tip of Texas.  Nearby cities are
Brownsville, Texas, and Matamoros, Mexico, across the river from each
other.)

     In the first story, he calls the operator from South Padre to
help him find the number of a restaurant in Matamoros.  He spells out
the name of the city, and the operator informs that she has no
Matamoros listed and asks what large city it is near.  Only thing is,
Matamoros has maybe 240,000 people, and cities are near it, not the
other way around.  Neither a supervisor nor a foreign operator was
able to find a listing for Matamoros, not even when Mr. St. John
called later.

     Another time, he tried 13 times over one week to call numbers in
Irving, a suburb of Dallas, but the calls never went through, and
again no one could figure out the problem.  Eventually, he settled for
calling a friend in Dallas, who would call the person in Irving, who
would call South Padre on Mr. St. John's phone card.

     For a finale, there was a period of a couple of weeks where his
phone card would be valid one day and invalid the next, and his
American Express card would be accepted for phone charges one day but
not the next.  Sometimes the valid/invalid interval would be less than
an hour.

     One good thing, though: an operator came on after the card was
rejected, and she knew where Matamoros was.


Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail]
                               {smu,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,rice}!ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center
PO Box 655474 MS 238, Dallas, Texas 75265

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

From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Protocol Information
Date: 19 Feb 90 01:23:23 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


In conjuction with a class in Computer Networks that I'm taking, I'm
researching protocols used with modems.  I have a couple of questions
that I thought that readers of Telecom Digest might be able to help
with:

1.  Can someone point me in the right direction for the technical
specifications for the various modem protocols in common use over
phone lines (i.e., Bell 103 for 300bps, Bell 212A for 1200bps, CCITT
V.22 for 1200bps, V.22bis for 2400bps, V.32, V.42, etc).  I'm
interested in the description of what modulation/keying is used, as
well as carrier frequency, and encoding method.

2.  I've seen it mentioned that the max data rate over voice grade
line is basically capable of is 2400 baud, but have not found a
reference for how this number is determined.  A pointer to an
appropriate reference here would also be appreciated, along with
similar references for what the various grades of telecommunications
lines are (T1, etc.).

I've browsed through the Telecom Archives a couple of times, so if the
information I'm looking for is there, I've managed to miss it and
probably could use specific directions :-)


*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger      CompuServe:  74236,1645    Standard Disclaimer
ARPAnet (Defense Data Network):                [e-mail]
*******************************************************************************

[Moderator's Note: Actually, what we have regarding modems in the
archives is very skimpy; the reason being 'comp.dcom.modems' is a more
likely place to seek this sort of information, and I believe there is
a Digest publication which accompanies that newsgroup just as there is
here in comp.dcom.telecom. I don't know if there is a 'modem archives'
or not. I'm sure if someone here can answer your question they will,
but you might also post in comp.dcom.modems asking for more details.  PT]

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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC
Date: 18 Feb 90 21:02:51 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Years ago I had a phone number in NYC that allowed you to listen to
the feed from ABC TV.  Does anybody know if this number still exists,
and more importantly, what it is?  Thanks.

Please reply via e-mail.

Anybody for biz.entrepreneur?

Steve Huff
Internet:  [e-mail]
Bitnet:    [e-mail]
EmCon:     K1TR  or  KW02   (If you have access, please say so!)

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

From: John Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: EDI Information
Date: 17 Feb 90 16:50:47 GMT
Organization: The Black Cat's Shack, Gaithersburg, MD  301-590-3994


  There is a massive problem underway at the NIST (the old Bur. of
Standards in Washington DC).  You may wish to call them about EDI.
Also, there is a very fine "industry group" called the EDI Association
in Washingtion DC that specializes in EDI issues, lobbying, education
events, and consulting.  I have used them.  They are good.  At this
minutes, I do not have their phone number, but you can get it by
calling Washington area information and asking for phone number of
EDIA either in DC or VA.  They also help and discuss the international
issues of EDIFACT standards.


    John Bryant at The Black Cat's Shack (Fidonet 1:109/401)
    Internet:  [e-mail]
    UUCP:      ...!uunet!blkcat!John.Bryant


[Moderator's Note: What is the exact nature of the 'massive problem'?
Can you give us more details?  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 09:00:14 EST
From: Donald Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Collecting Info About Physician Networks Worldwide


   A group of us a preparing a recommendation on a US physicians
consulting network.  Any info about existing operations will be
appreciated. Send replies not only to this list but a copy to me (if
you dont mind). Thanks DFP


Donald F. Parsons MD. PhD, Wadsworth Center Labs. & Res., NY State Dept Health,
Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12201. [phone].
150 Mosher Rd, Delmar, NY 12054.      [phone].
Bitnet: dfp10@albnyvm1. Internet: [e-mail]. Compuserve:71777,212
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ************** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 02:51:11 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID (NOT another flame!)


Maybe I'm just not as suspicious as the average Digest reader, but I
think that if I had caller ID in whatever form, I'd still find it
nearly useless.  After all, if the screen shows a number [or a name,
or whatever] that I don't know, it's as likely to be someone calling
me from a payphone somewhere as it is a life-insurance salesman.  In
other words, I'll answer my phone no matter who may be calling.

The one practical use I can think of is preventing me from answering
calls for my roommate, or vice versa.  Nevertheless, I suspect that as
caller ID comes into broader use, we'll find that it's not as useful
as we think it will be.  (And of course it'll never appear here at
Brandeis anyway :-)...)


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion.

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!)
Date: 18 Feb 90 17:20:44 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, comcon![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!
> [e-mail] writes:

> > Why aren't the BOCs rushing to offer this (calling name delivery)
> > 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.

> I haven't studied the break-up too closely, but it would seem this is
> an ideal opportunity for a symbiotic service. Couldn't the private
> sector produce a company to service this information-processing? And
> wouldn't that be seperate from the BOC itself?

Yes, but...  Consider a telco which decides to do this.  First of all,
it's not clear that a telco could enter into contractual arrangements
with a single information provider to provide this service.  If Telco
XYZ signs a contract with company A to provide this information
service, you can bet that companies B, C, and D will be appealing to
the Court, the DOJ, and the FCC that this is in contravention of the
MFJ, Computer Inquiry 3, and probably the seventh Commandment.

But, let's say for the sake of argument that the various governmental
bodies allow this to take place in some way.  You now have a situation
where the telco, in the course of call setup, is sending a query to a
third party and receiving back information which it will send during
call setup.

This is not a thing telcos like to do.  Once a connection is
established you can play around however you like -- but letting some
other party have a potential impact on call setup makes telco execs
and engineers very, very nervous.

(note -- we're talking basic intra-LATA calls for now.  Inter-LATA
calls are a slightly different case -- but the fact still holds to a
great deal; once the call comes into the telco's hands, they want to
keep all the factors affecting call setup in their control.)

Imagine what happens if the third party database goes down, or is
overloaded, or (heaven forbid) is inaccurate.  The service no longer
works as advertised, and if it's not designed to gracefully handle the
failure of a query, POTS no longer works quite right...

And this doesn't even get into the point I raised up top about
exclusivity of information providers.  Chances are awfully good IMHO
that a telco would *not* be permitted to enter into an exclusive
contract with an information provider to provide this service -- which
means there would be potentially multiple information providers, all
of whom can have an impact on call setup.  The telco would be
obligated to provide the calling party ID on an open interface and
accept back the calling party name on an open interface.  (In fact, I
haven't checked out any Regional Company's ONA (Open Network
Architecture) filings lately, but I suspect one or more may have this
in there -- and if they don't, I strongly suspect information
providers want it.)

Then you get into things like information provider selection -- whose
database gets queried on a given call, one I subscribe to, one my
caller subscribes to, or some other choice -- billing for information,
charging for information...

Gosh, I love this industry.  It promises such a high level of
employment for engineers, lawyers, policy analysts...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Subject: Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth
Date: 18 Feb 90 12:12:27 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Will Martin)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 98, message 1 of 8

>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.

>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.

  Why don't you ask Robert Morris if he had "access" to the 6000
computers he has been convicted of crashing on the Internet.  This bit
of trashing was done through software.  Maybe there is not a way for
someone to interact with the computers, except through the legitimate
operators.  Maybe there is.  With computers so inter-connected these
days, there may very well be back doors into the "911 computer".
These could easily be mail (again, ask Robert Morris about this one)
ethernet links or serial connections between the machines.  I would
 not like to think there are geeks with an 11 year old mentality (with
apologies to sensible 11 year olds) going around trying to disrupt
systems on which peoples lives and property depend.

>system, knowing about the details of the controlling software doesn't
>help you "take over" the system.

  Knowing how to make bombs that explode and kill people doesn't imply
that a person with that knowledge is going to make a bomb...but it
sure does raise a flag.  But, you say, this example is too far removed
from the 911 software theft.  Ok, instead of a 911 system, consider a
hospital information system, on which data is stored for current and
past patients.  Changing a few numbers or words here and there could
result in a disaster for some sick person.  Change an xray report from
"Summary: tumor in right upper lobe" to "Summary: normal" and you may
cost someone their life, unless the "error" is caught in time.  And
then there are lab reports, where one is dealing with hundreds of
values over a weeks time, just waiting to be changed.  "Ah yes, Mr.
Jones, your blood pressure is back to normal, you can go home now".

  While this post of mine has strayed from telecom somewhat, and is
probably more appropriate for comp.risks, I don't think anyone should
just ignore this 911 tampering (or rather, theft, since thats what it
was).  Curiosity is a good thing in my opinion.  But we must remember
that there are some things which do not "belong" to us (the software
in this case).  We, the general public have no right to play around
with other peoples things (computers or telephones or whatever) just
to satisfy our curiosity.  And certainly no right to use this
knowledge to putz around with systems where lives are literally in the
balance.


Kim Greer
Duke University Medical Center
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for raising this point in response to Mr.
Martin's original comments. I'm sure there are many people -- less
than honorable citizens to be sure -- who would *love* to be able to
manipulate 911 to meet their requirements. If I were a rapist, a
burglar, a home-invader or whatever, it would warm my heart to know
that if you caught me and dialed 911, you'd reach some phreak playing
with his telephone instead of the police. If I knew that could be
done, I'd probably bribe some phreak to turn off 911 in your
neighborhood before I set out for my nightly prowls. Yes Kim, 911
software must be kept secure and unmolested. The fellows charged with
the theft, if they are guilty -- and the Court will rule, not the
Moderator, should have the proverbial book thrown at them.  It was a
serious offense.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #113
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01303;
          20 Feb 90 4:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09096;
          20 Feb 90 2:23 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04562;
          20 Feb 90 1:17 CST
Date:     Tue, 20 Feb 90 1:11:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #114
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Feb 90 01:105:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T Valentine's Day Discount Not Quite-So-Useful (Bryan Richardson)
    Re: Dallas Area Code Split (Doug Davis)
    Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing (David Tamkin)
    Re: Cancel Call Waiting (Danial Hamilton)
    Re: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC (Blake Farenthold)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (David Leibold)
    Re: Recordings For Intra-LATA 10xxx Attempts (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: London 071 081 Split (Mike Warrington)
    Re: London 071 081 Split (John Pettitt)
    Re: The Perennial Question (Edward S. Sachs)
    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way They Do? (David Lesher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "bryan.m.richardson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Valentine's Day Discount Not Quite-So-Useful
Date: 19 Feb 90 19:17:11 GMT
Reply-To: "bryan.m.richardson,ih," <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Kulawiec)
writes:

>For a couple of hours tonight, while I was trying to take advantage of
>the reduced AT&T rates, I continually reached a recording which said
>(paraphrased) "Due to heavy Valentine's Day traffic, your call can't
>be completed at this time.  AT&T values your business, and invites you
>to try your call again later."

Internal AT&T network information indicates that traffic over
Valentine's day was 1% higher than normal (The preceeding Wednesday).
The network is engineered, however, for the business day, and not the
evening traffic, which is perhaps why you had problems getting
through.


Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dallas Area Code Split
Date: 19 Feb 90 04:15:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


>I'm a bit puzzled as to how it could possibly be an issue: all of
>Denton County except a very small bit of the southeast corner is in
>Area Code 817.

That is mostly correct.

>The only part that is in 214 is all local to Dallas,
>and should therefore all be remaining in 214, if I recall correctly.

Yes & No. Enough of it isn't "local to Dallas" that will be effected
by the 214/903 split for GTE. At the time I was dealing with this it
was "under discussion".

>Or is this something like Lewisville?  (Is it Denton Co.?)

Yes, Yes.

I haven't been able to get a firm answer from anyone at SWB or GTE
about the border line between 214 & 903. When I do I will let the
Digest know.


Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug
"Well, that was a piece of cake, eh K-9?"
"Piece of cake, Master?  Radial slice of baked confection ...
coefficient of relevance to Key of Time: zero."

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

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 19:18 CST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: point![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX


In article <[e-mail]> Joel B. Levin wrote:

| >104-441-700-TALK-121
| Looks like a new way to avoid 900 blocking to me.

Nothing new about it.  Allnet has been advertising this talk line
since 1987.  The number used to be 10444-1-700-777-7777; their
commercials said to dial "one oh four, four forty-one, seven hundred,
and seven sevens" in those days.


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: Danial Hamilton <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cancel Call Waiting
Date: 19 Feb 90 21:53:37 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Joe Stong) writes:

>I know about *70 to cancel call waiting before making a call in
>Pac*Bell land, but is there any way to turn it off indefinitely?

>[Moderator's Note: I suppose if you could have your answering machine
>pick up the line for an incoming call; simulate a switchhook flash;
>send *70 over the line; flash the hook again, and *then* start its
>outgoing announcement to the caller you'd have what you are looking
>for. ... PT]

Will this really work?  I always preface my outward dialing from my PC
with *70, but have often wondered how to disable call waiting when the
PC is set up to receive incoming calls.  What the moderator describes
sounds like something a smart modem could be told to do.


[Moderator's Note: The only way you can suspend call waiting on an incoming
call (or a call in progress in either direction) is if you have three way
calling in addition to call waiting. Three way gives you a legitimate reason
for flashing in the middle of a call; use the dial tone thus recovered to
dial *70 rather than a new third number. It should click in and immediatly
return you to the (one) call in progress.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 20:18:42 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC


[e-mail] (Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence) Writes:

>Years ago I had a phone number in NYC that allowed you to listen to
>the feed from ABC TV.  Does anybody know if this number still exists,
>and more importantly, what it is?  Thanks.

I don't know about the ABC number but back when (late 70's) my
step-father worked at the CBS Affiliate here in Corpus Christi (How
many TELECOM readers have heard about channel 10 in Corpus? Its rather
infamous around Texas), they had a number to dial up audio for CBS.  I
remember their using it when the audio portion of their microwave feed
died.

Several radio stations I worked for had numbers to dial into the ABC
Radio network feed when our "broadcast quality" leased line died.

It seems like most radio and TV networks would have this sort of thing
as a backup and I doubt they'd want the numbers to get out to non-
affiliates who would busy out the lines when they are most needed.

Lots of radio stations also have numbers you can dial into and hear
what they have on the air.  Several stations I worked for had a line
the stations national "programming consultant" could call into to hear
what was on the air.

When I was DJing I'd go lift the pair off of the punch board in the
phone room.. I never liked radio consultants, especially when they
were checking up on me.

Many years ago one of the radio trades published some stations
numbers.  I ran up several hundred dollars of phone bills listining to
the biggies.

Audio feeds from the networks (or from major market stations) seem
like a cheap source of programming for a 1-900 number...  If you
decide to do it I want 10% as the idea man.

>Please reply via e-mail.

Oooops.. Well I thought other readers might be interested ... or the
"ham" in me is re-surfacing after 5 years out of radio.


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

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


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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Date: 20 Feb 90 05:06:40 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Linc Madison) writes:

> I recently saw two (N00) numbers advertised on TV which caught my
> attention.

> The second was Sports Illustrated, with the number to dial for
> subscriptions listed as 1-800-950-2288.  Apparently the use of the 950
> prefix for non-telcos is happening in 1-800 as well as in "real" NPAs.

800-950 'belongs' to MCI. This is one of their assigned 800 prefixes
until the national 800-database-routing plan is implemented.

It's intresting in that 800-950 was only going to be used for MCI's
accesses to switches (as in calling cards) since it was a '950'
prefix, but they soon ran out of 800 numbers to assign, and had to
start using the 950 prefix for 'regular' 800 numbers. My 800 number at
my desk (at MCI) started with 800-950.


   Robert Gutierrez - NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
   Moffett Field, California
   "Home of the first N0X prefix in the Bay Area (604)."


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

Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 20:38:54 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


A while ago, I called an 800 number that told me that the number could
not be called, but suggested I try 1 800 888.1800 for assistance.
(This was dialed from 416 area code, and I think it worked from 519 as
well).

Well, I would try 1 800 888.1800 only to get the recording (from MCI
presumably) that the call could not be completed. The recording then
suggested for assistance that 1 800 888.1800 be dialed for further
assistance.

Something of an infinite loop here :-) In the wrong hands, trying this
out could cause a network jam... This recursive recording is no more,
alas.


|| David Leibold//[e-mail]//(backup: [e-mail])
|| "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse" - Bruce Cockburn


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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recordings For Intra-LATA 10xxx Attempts
Date: 20 Feb 90 04:41:03 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


stiatl![e-mail] (Paul D. Anderson) writes:

> [e-mail] (Tom Ace @ PCB x2021) writes:

> >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."

> Same happens here in Atlanta (404 land).

This recently was a sore point for Pacific Kill....err...Pacific Bell
in the Bay Area. Seems that a lot of customers had discovered that
10XXX+ Intra-lata-number worked from a lot of C.O.'s, and avoided the
rip-off rates Pac Bell charged. Trying it from my C.O. (according to
MCI's list, it was supposedly a 1AESS), it seemed that I had to use a
10XXX+ NPA-NXX-XXXX combination, but a 10XXX+NXX-XXXX combination did
not work.  Since the San Francisco LATA encompasses 3 area codes (415,
and parts of 707 & 408), I could skip past Pac Bell only outside of
415 since also, the 10XXX+415-NXX-XXXX combo didn't work either.

Doing a call search on the local MCI switch in Hayward (which was
about 40 feet from my desk there) showed the same pattern for incoming
FGD trunks from the C.O.'s, and FGB's from the Oakland tandem
(re-routed FGD calls that we did not have FGD directs from the actual
C.O.) Of course, FGB Calling Card calls can do this within the same
area code since they (MCI) didn't know where the call was originating
from, or cared.

Well, Pac Bell got the Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco to
issue an order 'stopping' the use of 10XXX dialling within the LATA,
Pac Bell updated the routing tables appropriately in their switches to
route to (the above) recording. For MCI customers, it was just an
irritant since they now had to use their Calling Cards (though
Customer Service was always instructed that they could not do this,
but the MCI switches cared less) courtesy of the 'Around Town' feature
(which allowed MCI customers to use their calling card in their local
calling area without a surcharge added on the call), but for Sprint
customers, it was bad since they do surcharge their calling cards.

Anyway, with my employee discount ($25) plus an 'Internal' calling
card to boot, the only charges I saw on my Pac Bell bill were the line
charges and that was it. I do miss that, though.


     Robert Gutierrez - NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
     Moffett Feild, California


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

Date: Mon, 19 FEB 90 09:39:55 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: London 071 081 Split


In a recent digest, Scott Fybush writes:

> With the 071/081 split only a few months away, there hasn't been much
> publicity about it in England.  A friend who is at Oxford just wrote
> to me that he has seen nothing about it in the eight months he's been
> there, and that in fact he wouldn't have known it was happening if I
> hadn't told him.  That sounds pretty incredible, especially given that
> the split will take place with no grace period at all!  There will be
> a lot of very confused British people one morning in May...not to
> mention international dialers the morning after the switch takes place.

BT (and Mercury) have been advertising the London area code split for
some time now.  I suspect that people haven't heard of it since most
people are not in the habit of reading full page advertisements by BT,
especially when they contain a long list of numbers. In any case, area
codes and telephone numbers have been changed before over here and I
don't think that people will be very confused when after dialing a
number such as 01-XYZ 9876 (where XYZ is a valid London prefix) they
hear a message along the lines....

 The number you have dialed has been changed.  London numbers beginning
 with XYZ should now be prefixed with 071 instead of 01.  For example,
 01-XYZ 1234 should now be dialed as 071-XYZ 1234.

Maybe I over-estimate people's understanding of such messages, but I've
not met anyone who hasn't understood one yet (there is always a first
time, I suppose!).

Mike Warrington.

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

From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 14:12:15 GMT
Organization: Specialix International
Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split


The new London area codes that come into full use on May 1st
work now!

Calling 081 941 2564 (my office) works just fine.  If I dial 071 941
2564 I get "Please re-dial omitting the 071, this is test announcment
three".


John Pettitt
Specialix International
[e-mail]


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

From: Edward S Sachs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Perennial Question
Date: 19 Feb 90 13:32:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lee Phillips)
writes:

> Is there a number I can dial to get a ringback, to check the ringers on my
> phones?  Or do I need to call my buddy and ask him to call me back?

One number that seems to always work for this purpose is 00.  Just ask
the operator to ring you back so that you can test the ringer on your
phone.  They always oblige, quite willingly, and without charge.  I've
used this service numerous times in various cities throughout the US.


            Ed Sachs
            AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
            att!ihlpb!essachs, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'd suggest '0' is a better choice than '00' if you
want to go about it that way. If '00' is MCI or Sprint, for example, their
'operators' are not so likely to assist in this way. Your local telco
operator probably would do it, though.  PT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way They Do?
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 19:14:24 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


I wanted to buy a directory sheet for my Touch-a-Matic 32.  That's the
thing you pencil the numbers {you program into the memory buttons}
onto so you see "SAM" when you want Sam.  It says,

    DIRECTORY SHEET SET 840393672

on it. The instruction book comes with 1-800-247-7000.  I will say no
more, because my story is so close to Roy's that he could sue me for
plagiarism and win. What jury would believe me?

Can we start a TELECOM Archive file on ATT_800_#s_to_nowhere?

Anybody got any directory sheets?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #114
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02635;
          20 Feb 90 4:57 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13486;
          20 Feb 90 3:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09096;
          20 Feb 90 2:23 CST
Date:     Tue, 20 Feb 90 2:05:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #115
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Feb 90 02:05:19 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Torn-Tape Relay (Stuart Friedberg)
    COCOTs and Long Distance (John Higdon)
    Why Does It Take So Long to Have a Number Dial? (Doug Davis)
    Rude Directory Assistance (Robert M. Hamer)
    Phone Line Noise (Donald Parsons)
    Interesting Listing (Dean Sirakides)
    Use RJ-14's With Modems (was: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook?) (M. Morris)
    Centrex and 9xxx Numbers (David Leibold)
    Caller ID Debate in Canada (David Leibold)
    Information Needed on Panasonic KX-T616 (James Smith)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Bill Huttig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Stuart Friedberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Torn-Tape Relay
Date: 19 Feb 90 04:07:04 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


The TTD stuff brought back memories of some other 50's technology
still in use today (or at least the 80's), so I thought I'd stir up
the pot.

The recent discussion of operational signals used in TTD reminded me
of the Z-signals we used at a military installation with Model 28
TeleTypes in the ops room.  This was as recently as 1979, and that
unit may still be equipped with low-speed, electromechanical
terminals.  More high-tech outfits used Model 40's at the time,
replacing torn-tape relay with torn-cassette (but that's another
story.)

I once saw a massive book with "all known" Z- and K- signals, there
must have been thousands, but we used shorthand similar to the TTD,
plus a small set of additional signals:

  ZAG     - transmit
  ZIF      - message, usually as "ziffer"
  ZUJ     - wait, usually as "zuj one"
  ZRJZUF - I probably mis-remember this one, but this sequence of
           two signals activated the audible alarm at the other
           terminal, if so equipped.
  CIP     - come in please, usually repeated ad nauseum "cipcipcipcipcip..."
           until the operator at the other end got around to responding.
           It made a very distinctive noise, which one rapidly learned
           to detect above the roar of all the TTY's running full blast.

There was an occasional British influence, as well.  Operators
addressed each other as "MATE", never "DUDE", "GUY", or "MAN".  We'd
type things like:

a)  CIPCIPCIPCIPCIPCIPCIPCIPCIPCIPCIP
b)  GAGAGAGAGAGAGA
a)  MATE  PLS RELAY ZIFFER RAMSTEIN FM HAHN
b)  OK MATE ZUJ ONE   ...  GAGA ZAG
a)  (flip the switch on the tape feed)
b)  LOOKS OK   ZIF TO RAMS MATE
a)  RGR

Operators who could type quickly (which was *not* very many given the
nature of the keyboard and the line speed) would spell out more words
and add punctuation.  To get punctuation (or digits) on a Mod 28, you
have to hit special shift-in/shift-out (NUMS/LETS) keys to escape all
letters mode, so commas, periods, and question marks, were a strain.
(Three keystrokes instead of one.)

A common communication problem was the loss of a shift-in or shift-out
code, so that text became (trivially) enciphered as a mess of
punctuation and digits.  The receiving operator would note this and
type "uppers uppers uppers" until the sender noticed and banged the
LETS key a few times.  Unfortunately, the Mod 40's have "normal"
keyboards, without NUMS and LETS keys.  When interoperating with Mod
28's, you had to go through some unintuitive contortions at the Mod 40
to generate a shift back into letters.  Since the Mod 40 thought you
were already *in* letters mode, the easiest solution was to type an
unnecessary number then go back to letters.  Thank God the shift was
not a matter of parity (one code to signal both transitions), or we
never could have gotten synchronized!

Also, Mod 28's (and Model 33's) were built like tanks, and required a
lot of finger strength to operate, while Mod 40's have keyboards like
inexpensive personal computers.  Operators with Mod 28 experience
destroyed the space bar on the Mod 40's within a matter of weeks.  A
maintenance technician told me the mean time between space bar
failures as his site was around 12 days.  I left the service before
this chronic problem got fixed.


Stu Friedberg  ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Memories are made of this....stories such as yours
are always welcome in the Digest; so many readers here have little or
no knowledge of the pre-1960's era in telephony. The lessons are
important.   PT]

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

Subject: COCOTs and Long Distance
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 18 Feb 90 21:14:12 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Went to my local Tower Records this afternoon and there, lo and
behold, much to my dismay the old beat-up Pac*Bell pay phone in front
of the store had been replaced by a you-know-what. It's better than
average: wants $.25 for local (utility==$.20), passes 800, 950 without
charge, pad works after call is dialed. But it did not honor "10XXX".
"This is not a valid number..."

Previously, I had complained about all the various ways one had to
learn to dial for long distance. But now, after discovering that there
was absolutely no way to access AT&T from this telephone, I would
suggest that AT&T offer, in addition to its usual "0+", an 800 or 950
number for use from COCOTS to get around the AOS. I had no trouble
making an MCI or Sprint call from this phone, but there was no way on
earth to make an AT&T call. The scumball AOS refused to connect me to
AT&T and the phone had every known customer way blocked.


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


[Moderator's Note: If AT&T did install an 800 number for this, once
the COCOT proprietors found out about it, they would probably figure
out a way to block it also, rotten unethical types they are.  PT]

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Does It Take So Long To Have a Number Dial?
Date: 19 Feb 90 04:25:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


Here's a question for those in the know. I just moved into a new area
214-270-XXXX is the area code and prefix.  What I would like to know
is why it takes so long for my exchange to "make" a connect.

Dial tone is available immediately from my phone. When I dial the
number there is a delay after dialing of 10-45 seconds before the
number is connected.  During this time there are no audible clicks to
be heard (like the call was being routed) Just an very long delay,
then the clicks are heard, then the call is connected.

Normally this wouldn't be a problem except that the delay sometimes
lasts longer than my modems timeout waiting for either a remote ring,
or a busy.  When using direct dial 10282 (Action) there was always a
20-30 second delay, now with the two delays added together it is
sometimes longer than the maximum timeout my modem allows (60 seconds)
before the call is completed.

Any ideas? The local telco people (Southwestern Bell) have been less
than helpful.


Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun, motown!sys1, uiucuxc!sys1 lawnet, attctc, texbell} letni!doug
"Well, that was a piece of cake, eh K-9?"
"Piece of cake, Master?  Radial slice of baked confection ...
coefficient of relevance to Key of Time: zero."

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

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 08:36 EST
From: "ROBERT M. HAMER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rude Directory Assistance


Friday, February 16, I had an unusual interaction with a Directory
Assistance operator, and am wondering about the ability of C & P Bell
Atlantic to follow through (if, indeed, it was a C & P Bell Atlantic
operator).

I dialed (from a phone in Richmond, VA) 1-555-1212, for a phone number
in a smaller city 30 miles away from Richmond (Petersburg).  The
number I wanted is a company whose name is "Lisa Victoria Brass Beds."
I asked the operator for the number and she claimed no listing.  Now,
I just bought a nice brass bed from those folks, and at home, I have
their literature, with phone number.  I have been to their showroom /
factory.  I know they exist, and that they have a phone, and that it
would be stupid for a retail business to have an unlisted /
nonpublished number.  Besides, if they did, the correct response would
have been that the number was unlisted / nonpublished, not that it did
not exist.

Trying to be helpful (you will have to take my word for it that I was
polite and nonabusive) I asked, "Did you look under 'L' or 'V'?"  She
responded, "Lisa starts with 'L,' doesn't it," and hung up on me.

I thought about it for a few seconds, and dialed 1-555-1212 again, and
asked to speak to a supervisor.  I explained what had happened to the
supervisor, who found the phone number with no problem, apologised
profusely, and said that given the fact that I had just called, they
stood a reasonable chance of finding out who I had talked with, and
that hanging up on me was grounds for firing her.  (I have absolutely
no problem with firing a telephone operator who hangs up on a customer
who is being non-abusive and polite.)

My questions are, do you think they really can figure out who it was,
and will they really fire her?

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

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 05:06:36 EST
From: Donald Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Line Noise


On my home line often the first connection to the local computer
center for Bitnet has noise on it - I have to abort and dial up a
second time and then it is OK - it happens with two types of 2400B
modems- it never happens on contacting Compuserve (nor on accessing
the computer center from work). Diagnosis and cure anyone?


Thanks, Don


[Moderator's Note: You should watch me connect at 2400 baud with the
terminal servers at eecs.nwu.edu sometime!  1200 is never a problem,
but as often as not, I've got to try three or four times to get a
clean, manageable line when I use 2400. If I leave my terminal on line
during the call setup, the garbage blown back at me totally confuses
the terminal, and a total power-down/up is needed to restore my
configuration. If I dial (and its a local dialup!), take the terminal
offline, watch only the modem lights and put the terminal back online
when the dust settles, I am okay. The fact that Northwestern's own
phone switch is in there probably doesn't help me.   PT]

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

From: Dean Sirakides <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Listing
Date: 19 Feb 90 16:26:23 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I was looking something up in my Illinois Bell Business White Pages
(c. 1989) when I ran across this listing:

     Cullen Co-
         Toll free from Telephs designated
         272-291-498-564  Call Opr-Ask
         for.............ENTERPRISE-4072

I seem to remember "Enterprise" numbers were some sort of collect call
arrangement, right? Is this still available?  Wouldn't an 800 number
be cheaper (and encouraged by the CO)?

I scanned several other pages, but could not spot any similar
listings.

Anyone know any of the history here?


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


[Moderator's Note: See the Telecom Archives file on Enterprise
numbers for some background.  Use 'ftp 18.26.0.36' (lcs.mit.edu) to
get there. Enterprise (and Zenith) numbers pre-dated 800 service. That
service is now discontinued I believe, and grandfathered to existing
customers only. They functioned the same as 800, and calls could be
limited as to place of origin.  You'll not find many in the book.  PT]

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Use RJ-14's With Modems (was Re: Light Showing Phone is Off Hook?)
Date: 19 Feb 90 05:10:51 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>>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....

At least until you figure it out...

>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!

My residence line needs it ! (I have a 1A2 keysystem in the house!) :-)

There is one easy way: The last time I was in the local radio shack I
saw 2-conductor modular cords for $5 or so.  Overpriced, but ...  Also
RJ-14 to dual RJ-11 adapters (differently wired Y-adapters) for $5.00.

The real Hayes modems have ATJ0/1 (or something like that, my manual
is at work) to enable/disable that feature.  Some others (USR, I
think) have an internal jumper block.  Most of the real cheapie clones
don't bother using a double pole relay, so don't have that option.  My
friend's Avatex has a 2-wire cord on it.

>Grrrrr...

Agreed.


Mike Morris                      Internet:  [e-mail]
                                 Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     Bellnet:   818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     Radionet:  WA6ILQ

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

Subject: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 20:40:41 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


Several years ago, the University of Toronto used a Centrex that took
up most of the 978 exchange. However, since extensions couldn't start
with 9 (dial 9 to get local dial tone), there was a gap in the 978
exchange that was used for automatic mobile phone service (ie.
978-9xxx numbers).  With cellular telephone service, this eventually
went out of service.

Perhaps there are other examples of the -9xxx gap where Centrex, or
other direct-dial extension systems are used out there...


|| David Leibold//[e-mail]//(backup: [e-mail])
|| "Why should the devil have all the good music?" - Larry Norman

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

Subject: Caller ID Debate in Canada
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 90 20:43:14 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


Caller ID (referred to as "Call Display" in the Great White North) was
discussed on a recent Bell Canada Telenews hotline.

They dealt with the negative publicity given to the service (much of
it coming from some "civil liberties" groups in Quebec from what i've
heard so far).

The discussion began by mentioning that a balance was needed for the
control of a conversation between the caller and callee, likening the
Call Display situation to having a front door window where you could
see the visitor before opening the door.

U.S. Caller ID service was mentioned, and it was reported that privacy
concerns, etc. turned out to be somewhat exaggerated. A mention was
made that a life was saved via the Call Display feature, adding that
many U.S. fire and police services are supporting Caller ID. The Call
Display trial in Peterborough, Ontario was said to reduce the number
of obscene phone calls.

Of course, there would be the other services spun off by the CCS7
technology such as the call screening (prohibit calls from certain
numbers), or call trace (send a message to the phone company as to who
dialed, so that police can be notified of obscene calls, etc).


|| David Leibold//[e-mail]//(backup: [e-mail])
|| "Art is anything you can get away with" - Marshall McLuhan


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

Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 10:14:12 EST
From: James Smith  x5227 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on Panasonic KX-T616


I am considering a Panasonic KX-T616 system for installation in a home
I am building.  I would appreciate the opinions of anyone familiar
with this system.

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Date: 17 Feb 90 18:29:43 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 106, message 11 of 12

>special.  I'm not exactly sure how MCI got all the good ones (950,
>222, 444, etc.), but they, and not AT&T, get to decide what goes where
>on 800-950.

222 is not MCI's prefix.  That one is AT&T.  If I remember correctly
MCI was the first OCC to get 800 numbers of their own.


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #115
******************************

ISSUES 116-117-118 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 118 IS NEXT,
THEN ISSUE 117 FOLLOWS, AND 116 IS LAST IN THIS GROUP OF THREE.













Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12711;
          21 Feb 90 14:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ai21183; 21 Feb 90 13:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03170;
          21 Feb 90 3:54 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac15250;
          21 Feb 90 2:47 CST
Date:     Wed, 21 Feb 90 2:27:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #118
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 21 Feb 90 02:27:07 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Phone "Crackers" (John Higdon)
    Jolnet Trouble (Gordon Meyer)
    Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth (Eric Bloodaxe, LOD)
    Pentagon Prefixes (Greg Monti via John R. Covert)
    Groveton/Alexandria, Virginia (Greg Monti via John R. Covert)
    Do Country Codes Ever Get Changed? (Bob Goudreau)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Phone "Crackers"
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 19 Feb 90 23:42:54 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Today's San Jose Merkier carried an article in the business section
about voice mail and the people who break in to voice mail systems. It
was pointed out that a common "hacker" activity today was to break in
and commandier blocks of voice mail boxes for such things as drug
sales and other illegal activities. Also, those interested in
espionage will break in to active mail boxes and find out surprising
things.

The long and the short of the message was to users of voice mail: use
the security built in to your system. Don't leave unused boxes in the
system activated. Don't use weenie security codes for boxes (like four
digits) or particularly for the system administrator's password.
Examine the activity reports, particularly the activity in the late
afternoon (when kids get out of school) and in the evenings. Have
mailboxes lockout after a small number of unsuccessful access
attempts.  Use ANI on your 800 numbers (if used on your system) to
track abusers.

The article pointed out that major users of voice mail are now using
all of these anti-hacker techniques, but smaller users don't seem to
feel the need. This would also apply to answering machines. Most of
the current crop have "security" that is laughable. Two digits would
hardly deter even the most casual hacker. The real annoyance is when
the hacker changes your outgoing announcement.

One would hope that answering machines would start appearing on the
market that have some measure of real security for the user.


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


[Moderator's Note: I use Voicemail from Centel, the little suburban
telco here. And I certainly agree with you that their 'security' is
laughable.  All unassigned boxes have the same default four digit
passcode, pending the box being sold to someone. Really, anyone with
some knowledge of how these things work could take over many idle
boxes -- maybe this has already been done. And their knowledge of how
to program the system, i.e. partition the boxes for people who have a
'front end' and several branch-boxes is poor. The documentation they
sent me was skimpy and I learned it mostly from trial and error. David
Tamkin also uses this system (he introduced me to it), and perhaps he
will comment.  The prices are okay. For five bucks a month, anyone out
there want a voicemail box in area 708? Centel will set it up with a
miscellaneous billing account. Phone [phone] for details.  PT]

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

Date: 20 Feb 90 20:46:46 EST
From: GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jolnet Trouble


Could someone post a summary of what "troubles" Jolnet has seen
because of this LoD/e991 flap?  Was it closed down, and by what agency
and under what charges?  From my understanding it merely acted as a
conduit of the information and closing it down would be akin to
shutting down CompuServe if somone sent a copy of WordPerfect to my
mail box.


Gordon Meyer
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well again, I have to involve Tamkin here. He was
on line when the raid took place that Saturday afternoon and the
system went down. He lost unread mail as a result. *If* the operator
was only a common carrier, passing mail, etc, then he got a raw deal.
*If* on the other hand, he was knowledgeable of how the system was
being used, harboring or accomodating that type of user, then the
legalities change. I don't know what his role was. Apparently very few
people, if anyone, have been in touch with him by voice since that day
to get the specifics. Would it have happened if the same files got
stashed on Compuserve? No, because CIS has high-priced mouthpieces and
they don't operate out of a spare bedroom in the owner's home. In the
case of Jolnet, a fellow and his two sons ran it as a hobby from home.
When the feds raided him, he had the chance of the proverbial iceberg
in hell....really, its whatever you can convince the Judge to go along
with.  David, give us a little more background here please.

In the next message today, a cracker tells his side of the story about
the Event.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 05:16 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth

               <<< SYS$ANCILLARY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]GENERAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< General Discussion >-
==============================================================================
Note 155.6                 the MENTOR of the tree tops                  6 of 6
SWT::RR02026 "Ray Renteria [ F L A T L I N E ] "   89 lines  20-FEB-1990 00:18
                         -< Life, The Universe, & LOD >-


To set the record straight, a member of LOD who is a student in Austin
and who has had his computer account at UT subpoenaed by the DA out of
Chicago because of dealings with the above happenings:

My name is Chris, but to the computer world, I am Erik Bloodaxe.  I
have been a member of the group known as Legion of Doom since its
creation, and admittedly I have not been the most legitimate computer
user around, but when people start hinting at my supposed
Communist-backed actions, and say that I am involved in a world-wide
consipracy to destroy the nations computer and/or 911 network, I have
to speak up and hope that people will take what I have to say
seriously.

Frank, Rob and Adam were all definately into really hairy systems.
They had basically total control of a packet-switched network owned by
Southern Bell (SBDN)...through this network they had access to every
computer Southern Bell owned...this ranging from COSMOS terminals up
to LMOS front ends.  Southern Bell had not been smart enough to
disallow connections from one public pad to another, thus allowing
anyone who desired to do so, the ability to connect to, and seize
information from anyone else who was using the network...thus they
ended up with accounts and passwords to a great deal of systems.

This was where the 911 system came into play.  I don't know if this
system actually controlled the whole Southern Bell 911 network, or if
it was just a site where the software was being developed, as I was
never on it.  In any case, one of the trio ended up pulling files off
of it for them to look at.  This is usually standard proceedure: you
get on a system, look around for interesting text, buffer it, and
maybe print it out for posterity.  No member of LOD has ever (to my
knowledge) broken into another system and used any information gained
from it for personal gain of any kind...with the exception of maybe a
big boost in his reputation around the underground.  Rob took the
documentation to the system and wrote a file about it.  There are
actually two files, one is an overview, the other is a glossary.  (Ray
has the issue of PHRACK that has the files) The information is hardly
something anyone could possibly gain anything from except knowledge
about how a certain aspect of the telephone company works.

The Legion of Doom used to publish an electronic magazine called the
LOD Technical Journal.  This publication was kind of abandoned due to
laziness on our part.  PHRACK was another publication of this sort,
sent to several hundred people over the Internet, and distributed
widely on bulletin boards around the US.  Rob sent the files to PHRACK
for the information to be read.  One of PHRACK's editors, Craig,
happened to be the one who received the files.  If Rob had sent the
files to one address higher, Randy would have been the one who would
probably be in trouble.  In anycase, Craig, although he may have
suspected, really had no way to know that the files were propriatary
information and were stolen from a Southern Bell computer.

The three Atlanta people were busted after having voice and data taps
on their lines for 6 months.  The Phrack people were not busted, only
questioned, and Craig was indicted later.

What I don't understand is why Rob and Craig are singled out more
often than any other people.  Both of them were on probation for other
incidents and will probably end up in jail due to probation violations
now.  Frank and Adam still don't know what is going on with their
cases, as of the last time I spoke with them.

The whole bust stemmed from another person being raided and rolling
over on the biggest names he could think of to lighten his burden.
Since that time, Mr. William Cook, the DA in Chicago, has made it his
life's goal to rid the world of the scourge of LOD.  The three Atlanta
busts, two more LOD busts in New York, and now, my Subpoena.

People just can't seem to grasp the fact that a group of 20 year old
kids just might know a little more than they do, and rather than make
good use of us, they would rather just lock us away and keep on
letting things pass by them.  I've said this before, you cant stop
burglars from robbing you when you leave the doors unlocked and merely
bash them in the head with baseball bats when they walk in.  You need
to lock the door.  But when you leave the doors open, but lock up the
people who can close them for you another burglar will just walk right
in.

If anyone really wants to know anything about what is going on or just
wants to offer any opinions about all this directly to me, I'm

[e-mail]

but my account is being monitored so don't ask anything too explicit.

->ME

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 11:58:15 PST
From: "John R. Covert  20-Feb-1990 1455" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pentagon Prefixes

   Fr:  Greg Monti
   Dt:  14 February 1990
   Re:  Pentagon Prefixes

"Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>  writes:

> 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.

Well, this is a fine mess that DoD, FTS and/or C&P have created....
According to the C&P Northern Virginia January 1990 directory, there
is no 602 prefix in area code 202.  It's in 703 in the
Alexandria-Arlington Rate Area.  With the current ten-digit-optional
dialing on cross-NPA local calls dialing plan in Northern Virginia,
202-602-XXXX "cannot be completed as dialed."  602-XXXX goes through.
So 602 is in 703...I think.

True Pentagon prefixes like 692 are in 202.  But *they also* cannot be
reached by dialing 202-692-XXXX from Northern Virginia.  That could be
an error in programming at my central office or it could have been
done on purpose to allow Virginians to dial another Northern Virginia
local number - albeit in 202 - without dialing an area code or
requiring an explanation of why the Pentagon is in Virginia but has a
DC area code.

Or 602 and 692 may both be true Pentagon prefixes (both in 202 to the
outside world, both dialable only as 7 digits from nearby 703) and the
C&P Virginia book could be in error.  Or maybe the CO programming for
the 10-digit local dialing plan is not complete yet.  Or maybe it is
complete and the Pentagon will always be a cross-NPA oddity.

> 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.

The reason some phones may have been split off into 602 prefix is that
they are *not* physically located in the Pentagon or on the pieces of
DoD property which are immediatley contiguous to it (Arlington
National Cemetery and the Defense Communication Agency).


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]


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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 11:58:15 PST
From: "John R. Covert  20-Feb-1990 1455" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Groveton/Alexandria, Virginia


   From:  Greg Monti
   Dt:  14 February 1990
   Re:  Groveton/Alexandria, Virginia

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

> 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.

By my reckoning there is a CO in between Old Town and 765: Burgundy
Road, which is about 2 blocks south of the Alexandria City line (i.e.,
I-95) and 1 block west of US-1. Place Name for Burgundy Road may be
"Groveton."  Burgundy Road prefixes are (703) 329, 960.  It's a pretty
large building for only 2 prefixes.  Perhaps more have been added
since I last updated my list.

> Fort Belvoir and Mount Vernon have
> since split off from the Groveton exchange, 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.

My list shows Mount Vernon prefixes are (703) 355, 360, 660, 765, 768,
780, 799.  All are Metro prefixes in Alexandria-Arlington Rate Area.

Fort Belvoir's central phone system is (703) 664, which is a metro
prefix, apparently foreign-exchange-hacked since Fort Belvoir is
outside the met.  Phones not on Fort Belvoir switchboard and in the
tiny town of Accotink, which is completely surrounded by the fort, are
in (703) 781 which is part of the Engleside Rate Area which is outside
the metro.  I don't know which CO serves 781.  It could be Mount
Vernon (yes, the same CO can serve two Rate Areas) or Fort Belvoir
(assuming it has a CO).


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 20:12:09 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Do Country Codes Ever Get Changed?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


I'm curious about the telephonic dimension of the impending
reunification of Germany.  I've read that the Deutsche Bundepost (the
West German PTT) has started planning ways to bring the East German
telephone system into the late twentieth century.  Does this mean that
the East German system (country code +37) will simply be modernized,
or are we in fact going to see the absorption of East Germany into the
existing West German system (country code +49)?

If not, we'll be confronted with the (as far as I know) unprecedented
situation of one country being split among multiple country codes!
Conceivably, this might also be an issue someday for other divided
countries such as the Yemens, the Koreas, or China/Hong Kong/Taiwan.

There are some new candidates for the opposite condition too (multiple
countries sharing the *same* country code).  Currently, this only
applies to +1 (US, Canada, parts of Caribbean), +21 (several North
African countries), and a few of the "microstates" which are for all
intents & purposes part of the country whose code they use (Vatican
City, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco).  But in the next
few years both Yugoslavia (+38) and the Soviet Union (+7) might break
up (or at least spin off some independent countries).  Would such new
countries as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia want to remain in an
"integrated numbering plan area +7" with the Soviet Union?  Or would
they prefer to be assigned their own codes?

Finally, consider the interesting case of the Moldavian SSR, which was
sliced off from Romania (+40) and forcibly annexed into the Soviet
Union by the same Nazi-Soviet pact that consigned the Baltic states to
their fate.  If Moldavia is rejoined to Romania with its present
numbering system intact, it will fall into yet a third category:
*parts* of countries that use *parts* of other countries' number
spaces.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #118
******************************

ISSUES 116-117-118 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 117 IS NEXT AND
116 FOLLOWS THAT.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12841;
          21 Feb 90 14:25 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ah21183; 21 Feb 90 13:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15250;
          21 Feb 90 2:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16742;
          21 Feb 90 1:31 CST
Date:     Wed, 21 Feb 90 1:17:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #117
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 21 Feb 90 00:15:07 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Pacific Bell REsponse To CPUC Rate Decision (Curtis Galloway)
    Re: London Code Changes --- Server Now Available (Piet van Oostrum)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Modem Protocol Information (Jon Sreekanth)
    Re: Phone Line Noise (R. Steve Walker)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (Bob Clements)
    Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought (Bob Clements)
    Zip Code Correlations and 312/708 Prefix Correction (David W. Tamkin)
    10-NJB: Cross-Hudson Long Distance (John Cowan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 16:52:09 PST
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Response To CPUC Rate Decision


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>Curtis Galloway <[e-mail]> quotes from Pac*Bell Bill Insert:

>[in addition to the usual stroking--this:]
>>   o We will share any earnings above a certain level

>And if you *ever* see Pac*Bell admitting that it earned 16.5, I'll be
>watching for the second coming. Before that would happen, they would
>hose down the insides of 100 COs with an acid solution, and buy new
>equipment from Pacific Telesis at inflated prices. They would be
>totally stupid to let Pac*Bell earn that much and have to give it all
>away to the suckers, oops, I mean ratepayers.

OK, I can see that.  But as a standard residential customer, does the
CPUC decision really change the bills I will pay?  Monopoly service
rates are still regulated by the CPUC.  If I never buy Centrex or
yellow pages ads, I won't notice much of a difference.  Right?  (Of
course, if Pac Bell ends up inflating prices for business users, we
all pay for it.)

By the way -- wasn't part of the agreement for Pacific Bell to
eliminate the touch-tone fee on local bills?  As of January, I was
still being billed for it.


Curt

``Dangerous'' is the word Miss Manners would use about doilies.
            --Judith Martin


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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London Code Changes --- Server Now Available
Date: 20 Feb 90 10:29:27 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]>, henry@garp (Henry Mensch) writes:

 `   From: [e-mail] (Tim Oldham)
 `   Subject: London Code Changes --- Server Now Available
 `   Date: 16 Feb 90 15:19:08 GMT

 `From the 6th May 1990, the dialling codes for London UK change. The
 `old code, 01 (which translates to +44 1 for international calls) is to
 `be replaced by two different codes, 071 (+44 71) and 081 (+44 81).

 `Obviously this is going to affect a large number of people. The split
 `is by geography, so there is no simple rule about what numbers change
 `from 01 to 071 and which from 01 to 081. However, it is possible to
 `find out what the new code will be from the first 3 digits of the
 `telephone number. For example, numbers that began 01 209 will change
 `to 081 200 while numbers that began 01 210 will change to 071 210.

Here is a perl script to do the conversion:

#! /local/bin/perl

#Usage london telnr
#where telnr = nnn-pppp | 01-nnn-pppp | +44-1-nnn-pppp
#       (pppp optional)

$table =
    "8-888888887-7777-777777777777777777777777777777777" .
    "77777777777777-77777777777777777-77-777788-8-8-888" .
    "88888878888888878888777777777787877888788888-88888" .
    "777777777788-888888-77777777777777777777888888-888" .
    "77777777777777777778888887888877777777778888888888" .
    "88887887888888878888888778778877777777777777777777" .
    "8888888888777787788888788788-888888887788888888878" .
    "8888888888888888888888888888887777777777888888-888" .
    "77777777777777-7--7777777777777777777777888888888-" .
    "88-888888888-8888888888888888888888888888888887888" .
    "77777-77777777777-77777777777777777777778888888888" .
    "888788878888-88-8888887877888788888888887777777-77" .
    "8888888888-8------7777777-7777-7777777778888888888" .
    "888888888888888887888877888888-888888-8888888--888" .
    "8788888888-77887777-777777-777777777777788888-8888" .
    "8888877788887888-888-7778-787888-8888788-88888-88-" ;

die "Usage: london telnr\n" if $#ARGV < 0;

foreach $telnr (@ARGV) {
$result = '';
    if ( $telnr =~ /^(\d\d\d)|^01\D*(\d\d\d)|^\+44\D*1\D*(\d\d\d)/) {
        $nnn = $+; $pppp = $';
        if ($nnn >= 200 && $pppp =~ /^\D*$|\D*\d\d\d\d\D*$/) {
            $digit = substr ($table, $nnn-200, 1);
            if ($digit != '-') {
                $result = $telnr;
                $result =~ s/^0/0$digit/ ||
                $result =~ s/^\+44\D*/$&$digit/ ||
                $result =~ s/^/0${digit}1-/;
            }
        }
    }

    if ($result) {print "$telnr => $result\n";}
    else {print "Invalid phone number $telnr\n";}
}

Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: [phone]   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   [phone]   Internet:  [e-mail]   (*`Pete')

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Date: 21 Feb 90 01:29:28 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (woody) writes:

> A while ago, I called an 800 number that told me that the number could
> not be called, but suggested I try 1 800 888.1800 for assistance.
> (This was dialed from 416 area code, and I think it worked from 519 as
> well).

> Well, I would try 1 800 888.1800 only to get the recording (from MCI
> presumably) that the call could not be completed. The recording then
> suggested for assistance that 1 800 888.1800 be dialed for further
> assistance.

You got timed out while the local MCI switch was polling the 2 VAX's
they use for 800 number lookup.

What happens is that the switches have dedicated data lines to 2
VAX's, one in West Orange, NJ and the other in Richardson, TX. The
switch has a 'primary' VAX to poll, and if there is no response, then
the other VAX is polled. What has happened in the past is that one VAX
has crashed, and the other VAX has to take up slack, but the response
time is so slow that the switch polling it just times out the call and
routes it to that recording.

And then there was this one time when both VAX's died for 45 minutes....

Oh yes, 800-888-1800 routes to Customer Service most of the time.


   Robert Gutierrez - NASA Science Internet Network Operations.

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Protocol Information
Date: 21 Feb 90 01:53:13 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey M.
Schweiger) writes...

>1.  Can someone point me in the right direction for the technical
>specifications for the various modem protocols in common use over
>phone lines (i.e., Bell 103 for 300bps, Bell 212A for 1200bps, CCITT
>V.22 for 1200bps, V.22bis for 2400bps, V.32, V.42, etc).  I'm

I'm not sure about the Bell Standards. For CCITT, you'll need one of
the fascicles of the Blue Book (it's really called that), Fascicle
VIII.1, "Data communication over the telephone network, Series V
recommendations". The entire set of volumes is expensive, so try the
larger university libraries, or order from the United Nations
bookstore in NYC, at 212-963-7680. About $50 for each fascicle.

>2.  I've seen it mentioned that the max data rate over voice grade
>line is basically capable of is 2400 baud, but have not found a
>reference for how this number is determined.  A pointer to an
>appropriate reference here would also be appreciated, along with
>similar references for what the various grades of telecommunications
>lines are (T1, etc.).

Just browse through the telecommunication/digital communication
sections of any large university library. From my dim recollection,
the standard telephone line is guaranteed from 300Hz to 3000Hz, and
there is a requirement (deriving from someone's theorem) that the
signalling rate should be less than the bandwidth.

The important point here is the difference between baud and bits per
second. The two terms are often confused, but baud refers to the
number of symbols you can send per second, which is limited to about
3000; but each symbol can consist of several bits. For example 4800
bps or 9600 bps modems (incorrectly called 4800 baud or 9600 baud) put
2bits or 4 bits per symbol, encoding each symbol by a different
amplitude and phase. The limit, of course, is imposed by the
sensitivity of the receiver in distinguishing between the various
encodings.


Jon Sreekanth

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

From: "R. Steve Walker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Line Noise
Date: 21 Feb 90 04:42:59 GMT
Reply-To: "R. Steve Walker" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donald
Parsons) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 115, message 5 of 11

>On my home line often the first connection to the local computer
>center for Bitnet has noise on it - I have to abort and dial up a
>second time and then it is OK - it happens with two types of 2400B
>modems - it never happens on contacting Compuserve (nor on accessing
>the computer center from work). Diagnosis and cure anyone?

You might try contacting BallCo at [404] 979-5900.  I've been very
successful using their noise eliminator/surge suppressor model.  It
saves me an awful lot of aggravation from bad connections.

  ~~
  ~~
  ~~


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

Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 15:20:30 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Another point on the Panasonic KX-T61610 phone system.  It appears
that they do significant redesigns frequently, presumably for cost
savings.

I just got back from vacation and found the Technical/Service manuals
for the KX-T61610 waiting for me in the pile of mail.  (Thanks to
those who gave me pointers to order it.  The price was a mere $7 + tax
+ S/H.)

The manual describes what must be an earlier version of the unit.  No,
not the 616, but an earlier KX-T61610 than the one I have.

The manual describes a unit with an additional CPU in it which handles
a pair of custom chips that talk to the smart phone sets for the
lights/LCDs/buttons.  Adding that CPU required an additional UART and
BRG on the master CPU to talk to both the slave CPU and the SMDR port.
My unit has moved that logic into the main CPU, saving a custom
8048-class chip, an 8251 and an 8254.

Also, the unit in the manual has two 32K-byte ROMs where mine has one
64K-byte ROM and no second socket.  And the I/O address assignments
have been shuffled around to make more RAM space available.
(Determined by looking at the firmware.)

No need to go on about this in any more detail.  I bring it up because
I was surprised to see such a significant change in what was a pretty
new unit.  The KX-T61610 replaced the 616 fairly recently and yet
here's a new rev already.  (I got my unit in December.)

And to add to Karl D's comments about hooking up extensions around the
house: My two Unix-PCs and my 386 each have their own extension.  They
talk to each other directly without having to dial "9".  The analog
crossbar does fine with Trailblazers, both to other extensions and to
the outside.  [Yes, it does sound like I've gone a little overboard,
doesn't it?  But it's fun.]


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: AT&T System 25 Experience Sought
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 20:40:41 -0500
From: [e-mail]

In Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 107, message 2 of 5,
[e-mail] writes:

>The original posting stated that a requirement was CPC (Calling Party
>Control) on the 2500 (analog single line) ports. [... e.g., to cut off an
>answering machine...]
>Anyone care to comment?
>
>[e-mail]

Just another data point on this.  I commented a while back that
I wanted the same thing on the Panasonic KX-T61610 and that I wanted
a command from a smart-phone to force this action.  Now that the
tech manual has come in, I looked at the circuit for the station
interface and there is no capability to do this in the hardware.
The station is always powered from either the talk-battery generator
or the ring generator, both of which supply DC.  No way to generate
a CPC pulse.  Too bad.  (You can flash the CO lines, but not the inside
stations.)

Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Zip Code Correlations and 312/708 prefix correction
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 90 23:55:12 CST


The zip code correlations of recent and imminent area code splits
having been under discussion of late, here is more about the 312/708
effect on zip codes than you wanted to know:

All 601xx and 605xx addresses that were in 312 are now in 708; those
that were in 815 are still in 815.

All 602xx and 603xx zips are in 708.

Small pieces of 60007, 60018, and possibly 60459 are in 312; otherwise
any 600xx or 604xx address that was in 312 is now in 708; any that was
in 815 is still in 815.

60650 and 60658 are entirely in 708.  60642 and 60648 are mostly in
708 with small pieces in 312.

60627, 60633, 60634, 60635, 60638, 60643, 60645, 60646, 60655, and
60656 have significant portions in both 312 and 708.

Small strips or pieces of 60630, 60631, 60652, and 60659 are in 708,
but those zips are mostly in 312.

[What makes nine of the divided zips "small part in one, mostly in the
other" and the other ten "significantly in both" is strictly my very
subjective evaluation.]

All other 606xx zips are entirely in 312.

Note, however, that it is quite possible for a mailing address and a
telephone site to be in different places: mail addresses can lead to
different branch, a private postal facility, or a post office box, and
telephone numbers can ring at a different branch, an answering
service, or voice mail.  For cellular numbers and foreign exchange
lines, all bets are off.  All in all, zip-phone correlations have more
curiosity value than practical reliability.

On related items, prefix (312) 309, incorrectly publicized as staying
in 312, is now in fact (708) 309.  There was some confusion between
Ameritech Mobile and Illinois Bell on that one.


David Tamkin  P O Box 813   [e-mail]  {ddsw1,obdient}!vpnet!dattier
Rosemont Illinois  60018-0813   No other vpnet user shares any of my opinions.
708-518-6769  312-693-0591   BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10-NJB: Cross-Hudson Long Distance
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 16:56:15 GMT


I understand that there is some kind of exception to the MFJ that
allows New York Telephone and New Jersey Bell to pass calls from their
own LATAs to a limited set of prefixes in the LATA of the other party.
New Jersey Bell uses the prefix 10-NJB and advertises heavily.  New
York Telephone, OTOH, doesn't say how they do this; 10-NYT gets
intercepted, and the usual marketing droids didn't know how it's done.

Since I suspect that NYT charges AT&T rates for this, and I wish to be
sure of using my alternative LD service, how can I make it so?  Does
anyone connected with NYT (or not) have definitive information?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #117
******************************

ISSUE 116-117-118 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 118 APPEARS
BEFORE 117, AND 116 APPEARS AFTER 117.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17950;
          21 Feb 90 16:20 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag21183; 21 Feb 90 13:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15250;
          21 Feb 90 2:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16742;
          21 Feb 90 1:31 CST
Date:     Wed, 21 Feb 90 0:50:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #116
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Feb 90 00:49:08 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC (John Wheeler)
    Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers (Scott Fybush)
    Re: Rude Directory Assistance (Kevin Blatter)
    Re: Rude Directory Assistance (Steve Huff)
    Re: Questions About LiTel (Stephen Fleming)
    Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell ([e-mail])
    Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing (John Cowan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC
Date: 20 Feb 90 07:20:30 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Bill Nickless) writes:

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

> > It's unfortunate that you can't use cellular phones for 'Remote Broadcast'
> > without an STA (Special Temp. Authority).

> I listen to WGN here in Chicago, and they seem to do this regularly.
> (Patrick: On the "Al and/or Ed show.")  Last December a listener in an
> automobile called the show and asked for directions to a restaurant in
> downtown Chicago.....

> Is this the type of situation where an STA would be needed?

Technically, if you follow the letter of the FCC reg in question, yes,
but this was a call-in talk show, and it is understood that these are
semi-unsolicited calls via cellular, and it's not a point the FCC would
(or even could???) enforce.

It seems that as far as the FCC is concerned, you need a license if
your remote broadcast is 'in the air' between the announcer and the
commercial transmitting site (I can't remember the exact regulation
unfortunately). Why the FCC made a point of enforcing celluar remote-
broadcast transmissions is beyond me. Protecting somebody's
intrests???  The problem is that licensing such on a regular basis
requires filing forms listing all the celluar frequencies (along with
transmitting sites, power, etc.) and specific permission of the
permanant holder of the celluar license in question (and they'd rather
you use their more expensive land voice circuts). There's got to be
something wrong here.

I certanly hope that the Ku-band satellite links become more popular
especially since they're getting smaller (just like TV news remotes),
Then the telco-celluar monopoly will all of a sudden ask the FCC to
revise that part of the regulation so that they can use celluar phones
to do remote-broadcasts.

Some stations could care less about regulations anyway, and are doing
news stories via headphone-equipped Novatel handheld celluar phones,
since you can't tell on the air anyway where they're talking from...
They just keep the phone tucked in their jacket pocket.


   Robert Gutierrez - NASA Science Internet Network Operations
   Moffett Field, California.
   "Home of the first N0X prefix in the Bay Area (604)."


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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC
Date: 20 Feb 90 20:58:39 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Huff,
U. of Kansas, Lawrence) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 113, message 3 of 8

>Years ago I had a phone number in NYC that allowed you to listen to
>the feed from ABC TV.  Does anybody know if this number still exists,
>and more importantly, what it is?  Thanks.

No idea on the number, but the use is, probably, an IFB. That allows
remote field crews to call in and get the feed that winds up in the
ear of the talent...with a catch...it's interruptable by the director
in the control room to give cues. Also, if they're far enough away
that the incoming feed is by satellite, the IFB is dialed up (usually
via US Sprint these days to assure fiber-optics) so that the feed
going into the talent's ear is in real-time, that is, without the
262ms delay caused by a satellite feed.

Most networks and large TV operations have a bank of automatically
answered IFB feeds available. The crew calls, and then sets up on
another line.


 *  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"  *


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

Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 11:50:42 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers

Funny you should ask.  Brandeis University uses [phone] to
736-8999.  Both "0" and "9" are used for other purposes from campus
phones ("1" is unused for any other purpose, but is presumably
available.)  Just the other night I tried some random numbers of the
form 736-0xxx, 736-1xxx, and 736-9xxx.

0xxx and 1xxx returned "not in service messages," as did 90xx-93xx and
95xx-99xx. (at least the ones I tried).  Any number of the form
736-94xx connected me with the Xerox Voice Exchange System, apparently
some sort of internal voicemail.  Anyone know what that is?

Something similar was in use in Rochester NY a few years ago.  The
University of Rochester used (716)275 2xxx-8xxx.  0xxx, 1xxx, and 9xxx
were available to customers in the town of Brighton.  About 1982, the
university began moving to 5-digit dialing on campus, and the addition
of the 277 exchange.  That allowed use of [27]5-0xxx, 1xxx, and 9xxx.
The non-university customers on those numbers were moved to the 461
exchange; so WWWG radio (275-9212) became 461-9212, for example.
Incredibly, at least according to someone I know who had a 275-9xxx
number, the change took place with *no notice whatsoever* to the
subscriber!

BTW, the phone # here for campus police [I just noticed this] is
PEnnsylvania 6-5000! :-)

A few other examples in NY State are:

The Rochester Institute of Technology uses just part of (716) 475; I
*think* from 475-2000 to 475-6999 (?).  The rest of the exchange is
used in the northern part of the town of Henrietta [the part served by
the "Rochester" exchange {272, 424, 427 #s} and not the "Henrietta"
exchange {334, 359}].

SUNY Brockport uses (716) 395-xxxx; although they do not use all of
the numbers possible, there are no other users of that exchange -- other
Brockport customers get (716) 637-xxxx.

SUNY Geneseo uses (716) 245-xxxx; same situation there -- other Geneseo
customers get (716) 243-xxxx.

Cornell University uses (315) 787-xxxx for its agricultural
experimentation center in Geneva NY; as far as I know there is no one
else on 787 but them, although they do not use the whole exchange.
Other Geneva customers are 781- and 789-.  Cornell also maintains
leased lines and allows toll-free calling between the experiment
station in Geneva and the main campus in Ithaca.

Most other Centrex users in Rochester Telephone land use parts of the
following "Rochester" exchanges: 222, 238, 253, 258, 263, 274, 292, 424,
427, 588, 722, 724, 726, 777, 781, 955, and 987.  253, 477, 588, 722,
and 781 are exclusively for Eastman Kodak's mammoth phone system,
which also uses large chunks of 722, 724, and 726.

777 is at present used only by Roch Tel itself; they just moved their
office phone #s there from 955 in 1988.  222 is the high-volume one
for the radio stations and such.  The 1990 Roch Tel book also lists
255, 429, 957, and 959, which I suspect are Centrex exchanges as well.
428-xxxx is used exclusively by city and county government.  Again,
they do not use 428-0xxx, 1xxx, or 9xxx.  As far as I know, nobody
does.

One somewhat related question: It seems every year Roch Tel adds at least
5 new exchanges.  If NYNEX is doing the same in its (Buffalo LATA) part
of 716, how far is 716 from an area code split?  And will the Rochester
LATA get a NNX NPA?  Yecch!

I'm getting nostalgic for 716 and it's not even gone yet!

There are no N1/0X exchanges in 716 yet, and dialing toll calls within
the area code is 1+7 digits.  Last time I tried, Roch Tel wouldn't
allow 1+716+7 digits.


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not even be my own opinion.

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

From: Kevin Blatter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rude Directory Assistance
Date: 20 Feb 90 19:40:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


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

> My questions are, do you think they really can figure out who it was,
> and will they really fire her?

My wife had a somewhat similar experience a few months ago.  MCI was
telephone soliciting to get people to sign up for their Primetime
service.  They called my house and at first she did not hear the phone
ring and the answering machine picked up the call.  She then picked up
the phone and he started into his dialogue.  The answering machine was
recording the call and the solicitor knew it.

When he explained that he was from MCI and what he wanted, she
politely stopped him short and explained that her husband worked for
AT&T and therefore she would not be interested.  When she finished
explaining, he retorted, "Well then, hey ma'am how's your bladder?"
and then started snickering....making reference to my last name, which
incidentally rhymes with water, not bladder.  It really pissed her off
and having recorded the whole conversation on tape, she called
customer service number for MCI.  They were very apologetic and gave
her another number to call.  She called the other number and she
played the tape for them.  They took down all of the information about
the call, ie. number, time, date, etc.

They told her that it would be very easy to track down the offender
and that he would definitely be fired.

She started feeling guilty about it afterwards, making the guy lose
his job and such.  (She gets pissed off when people innocently
mis-pronounce her last name!)  I told her that as much as I hated MCI,
you were probably doing them a favor.


Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs
Lincroft, NJ

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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rude Directory Assistance
Date: 20 Feb 90 14:36:30 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


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

> My questions are, do you think they really can figure out who it was,
> and will they really fire her?

How's this for an answer: It depends on their technology.  At the
customer service center I work at, using ACD/Teknekron equipment, we
can determine who was using the phone at what time.  Although we can't
tell what number they were talking to when the call is inbound, we
look at all transactions from the terminals of the operators at that
time.  This identifies the operator almost every time, and also
provides information indicating who was performing what transaction.
Talk about Big Brother!


Steve Huff

Internet:  [e-mail]
Bitnet:    [e-mail]
EmCon:     K1TR  or  KW02   (If you have access, please say so!)

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Questions About LiTel
Date: Mon, 19-Feb-90 08:00:04 PST

>[e-mail] (Martin L. Schoffstall) writes:

>I believe the LiTel that you are talking about is owned by Williams
>Telecommunications Group (WTG) of Tulsa Oklahoma.

A common misconception, but no.  WilTel bought LightNet (based in
Rockville, Maryland) to complete its nationwide network.  LiTel is
independent and based in Columbus, Ohio.  LiTel, WilTel, and several
other companies have a cooperative effort known as NTN (National
Telecommunications Network) to allow nationwide marketing and single
point-of-contact for customers.  Financially, LiTel and WilTel are
completely separate.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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]
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand
Subject: Re: Latest Charge by Southwestern Bell
Date: Tue, 20-Feb-90 08:00:04 GMT


) 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.

Perhaps they should.  In Volusia County, the installation tax has gone
away, but the $0.30/line monthly tax will surely never go down.  It
applies, of course, not only to voice lines but also to modems which
can't usefully dial 911.  Installation started in `83, at which time
everyone was assigned house numbers.

) After that they should be able to determine the ongoing costs of
) maintaining the system and paying PSAP operators.

The costs are fairly impressive.  In Volusia County (pop 350,000),
they expect 46900 calls this year, 20000 of which will be wrong
numbers (non-emergency calls).  They budget $861466 for this; divided
by the total number of calls, it works out to be $18.36/call.  Divided
by the number of emergency calls, it works out to be $32.02/call.

Are you SURE that the government is auditing the cost of this
service?

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

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 16:27:14 GMT


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

>Is that everywhere *except* the backwaters of GTE Northwest, now?  Or
>are there still many places that don't have 10XXX dialing?

>We can do 950-xxxx and "select our default 1+ carrier", but 10XXX is
>only for the local Bell-co (US West, or whatever they changed their
>name to this week) customers.

As I understand it, only Bell (ex-AT&T) telcos plus GTE must offer
this service, and lots of local independent telcos don't.  Taconic
Telephone, for example, the first all-digital local telco in the
country, has no plans to offer any LD carrier except AT&T.

(I suppose that GTE comes under the terms of the MFJ because it owns
Sprint.  True or false?)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #116
******************************


ISSUES 116-117-118 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 118 COMES AFTER 115
THREE ISSUES ABOVE. THEN COMES 117, AND LAST COMES 116. THE NEXT ISSUE
IN LINE HERE WILL BE 120. THEN ISSUE 119, FOLLOWED BY 121 HOPEFULY.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26446;
          23 Feb 90 2:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08558;
          23 Feb 90 0:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04181;
          22 Feb 90 23:49 CST
Date:     Thu, 22 Feb 90 22:47:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #120
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 22 Feb 90 22:45:49 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does? (Eric L. Schott)
    Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers (Dan Ross)
    Re: A Puzzle (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Richard R. Wessman)
    Re: Why Does It Take So Long To Have a Number Dial? (Thomas J. Roberts)
    Need Advice on Choosing PBX System (Lynn Gale)
    Request For Summary of CO Types (John Boteler)
    Books Wanted onn the Phone System (David Barts)
    Directories Query (John McHarry)
    Info Needed on Text-to-Speech Synthesizers (Gideon Yuval)
    So Long, and Thanks For the Fish! (Peggy Shambo)
    Xerox Voice Message Exchange (Lee C. Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Eric L. Schott" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way It Does?
Date: 21 Feb 90 12:09:29 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

>     I go to call the catalog folks to find out prices (I hate when
> there are no prices in catalogs).  But who do I call?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] Moderator
notes:

> [Moderator's Note: ...
> AT&T and/or any huge organization are as good and efficient
> and concerned as their best, most effecient and most concerned
> employees.  They are as clumsy, ineffecient and screwed up as their
> most clumsy, inefficient and screwed up employees. The analogy about
> the chain being as strong as its weakest links might also apply here.
> I've met and worked with many intelligent, very dedicated AT&T people. PT]

I have found Digital Equipment Corporation's catalogs to have widely
varying prices.  This coupled with the question, "Just what items are
discounted?" often left me unsure of a price.  Then came DIGITAL's
Electronic Stores where I can find the latest price with the company
discount.  I have not yet selected the "Would you like to place an
order option" yet. How nice if AT&T has such a system.


Eric L. Schott, HRB Systems, Inc.   814/238-4311
  Internet: [e-mail]
  Bitnet:   [e-mail]
  UUCP:     ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!els

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

From: Dan "the Man with the Plan" Ross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers
Date: 22 Feb 90 08:00:38 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (woody) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 115, message 8 of 11

>Several years ago, the University of Toronto used a Centrex that took
>up most of the 978 exchange. However, since extensions couldn't start
>with 9 (dial 9 to get local dial tone), there was a gap in the 978
>exchange that was used for automatic mobile phone service (ie.

The University of Texas at Austin uses the entire 471 exchange for
on-campus offices and departments.  The student dorms, however, are on
part of the 495 exchange.  Intracampus calls are made by the last _5_
digits, so there are numbers of the form 471-9XXX.  The dorm
"exchange" includes 495-5XXX and 495-3XXX and possibly more.  The gap
here is more due to not that many student dorm rooms than technical
reasons.

Many departments have internal systems which allow 4- or 3-digit
numbers (which usually, but not always, are the XXXX).  The off-campus
research labs are tucked away in a north Austin exchange.

The campus phone system includes call waiting (which you CAN'T turn
off--solution was to "forward" calls to a nonexistent 5-XXXX number,
say, 5-8XXX, which gave caller a fast busy signal), 3-way calling, and
call forwarding on dorm lines, and more on office lines.

The fun arises when you dial a number 495-XXXX from on campus; unless
you know someone lives in the dorm, you just have to try it:
9-495-XXXX or 5-XXXX.  (There are state and city offices, as well as a
cookie store (!) on 495-XXXX.)  And the wrong one will not work!

However, the "Please check the number and dial again" recording had
been read in a most lengthy and dramatic manner by a woman with a
British accent, so it was quite pleasant to just sit there and listen
to her repeat it over and over.  8-)


Dan Ross                    [e-mail]

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Puzzle
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 22 Feb 90 23:51:05 GMT


There is a way to store a sparse list of long numbers or words in less
space than it would take to list them, if you allow some false
positives.  Hence it would be better to store the valid numbers, else
people would be falsely accused of using bad cards.

Let N = number of numbers/words to store.

Set M = 20M (20 is a user parameter)

Allocate B[1:M] a long bit string, initially 0.  So our total storage
req is 20 bits/number, INDEPENDENT of the numbers' lengths, which may
be much less than needed to store the numbers.

Define 10 hash functions from numbers to bit locations: Hi(n) -> l
where i says which hash function, n is the number to be hashed, and l
is the output bit number.

Now, to store number n, set the 10 bits B[H1(n)], ..., B[H10(n)].
Repeat for all the card numbers to be stored.  This will set somewhat
less than half of all the bits in B (because of some bits being set
several times).

To check whether a number is valid, compute the 10 hash functions and
check the 10 bits.  If any bit is 0, that is definitely an invalid
number.  On the other hand if the number is invalid there is less than
a 1/1024 = 0.1% chance that this scheme gives a false positive.  Note
that the error rate is a function of 10 and 20.

This is also an excellent method to store a spelling dictionary.

Does anyone know if this is actuallu used for calling or credit cards?


           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: "Richard R. Wessman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Date: 22 Feb 90 20:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: ccird5![e-mail]
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY


In article <[e-mail]> Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail].
nasa.gov writes:

>What happens is that the switches have dedicated data lines to 2
>VAX's, one in West Orange, NJ and the other in Richardson, TX. The
>switch has a 'primary' VAX to poll, and if there is no response, then
>the other VAX is polled. What has happened in the past is that one VAX
>has crashed, and the other VAX has to take up slack, but the response
>time is so slow that the switch polling it just times out the call and
>routes it to that recording.

A minor point (if you don't work for CCI), the machines at the DAP's
in New Jersey and Texas are not VAXes. They are POWER 6/32 FT's, which
are fault-tolerant versions of POWER 6/32's.

For the lawyers: POWER 6/32 and POWER 6/32FT are registered trademarks
of Computer Consoles, Incorporated.

                          Rick Wessman
                           cci632!rrw

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

From: Thomas J Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Does It Take So Long To Have a Number Dial?
Date: 21 Feb 90 15:04:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Doug Davis):

> Here's a question for those in the know. I just moved into a new area
> 214-270-XXXX is the area code and prefix.  What I would like to know
> is why it takes so long for my exchange to "make" a connect.

In many (most?) end offices, typing a # after the number will avoid
any post-dial delay. Some systems cannot determine when dialing is
completed by looking at the dialed digits, so they simply wait for
several (8-10) seconds of silence, and assume that signals the end of
dialing. Most will accept a # to also signal end of dialing. If you
are using dial-pulse (instead of DTMF), I believe you are out of luck.
Most modern end offices determine end-of-dialing by examining the
dialed digits, UNLESS THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY INHERENT IN THE DIALING
PLAN. Note that you may not be aware of the ambiguity.

There are many other causes of post-dial delay. The above paragraph
describes the only portion that you, the subscriber, can do anything
about (short of moving to another end office, or changing your
long-distance company).


Tom Roberts
AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!ihlpl!tjrob

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

From: Lynn Gale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Advice on Choosing PBX System
Date: 22 Feb 90 19:22:27 GMT
Reply-To: Lynn Gale <[e-mail]>
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences


In the midst of planning for a LAN we also need to make some decisions
about a new phone system.  In the case of digital phone systems, I
take it that data and voice will even share the same wires, given the
appropriate equipment.  Hence it seems important to integrate plans
for computers and phones.

The question is: where does one go for information, reviews, and
comparisons of the many phone systems available?  And in particular
their possible interactions with data networks?  What are the trade
magazines of interest (understandable to the non-expert in
communications)?  Are there relevant b-boards?  Anyone know how to
locate good advice or a helpful consultant?

The Yellow Pages reveal an overwhelming number of companies ready to
install this or that particular phone system at one's site.  But where
does one go to get the broad view of choices / contingencies (minus
the sales pitches)?

Anybody have favorable experience with a PBX suitable for a mid-size
site with little or no expansion needs (approx. 76 stations, 24
lines)?  Any positive or negative impressions regarding particular
telecommunications companies in the Silicon Valley area?


Thanks in advance.
Lynn
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Request For Summary of CO Types
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 4:33:09 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


In all my experience with various small scale telephony projects, I
have never really assimilated the various switch types used in central
offices through the years.

Perhaps Larry Lippman ( @kitty ) or Bernard McKeever or other who has
had experience in this area could provide a summary of the various CO
switches, the dates of their prominance, and the common applications
they found themselves in (big cities, toll centers, etc).

For instance, most #2 ESS offices seem to serve a smaller number of
customers and operate more slowly than, say #1 ESS. Any insight into
these issues would be appreciated.

Thanx!


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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 00:50:43 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Books Wanted on the Phone System


Can anyone recommend some good references on the internals of the
phone system.  By internals I am referring to things like ringback
numbers, test circuits, types of exchanges and their capabilities (and
vulnerabilities), etc.  Info in various types of hardware would also
be interesting.

Also another thing that I have been wondering about is the three
irritating tones you hear before the "We are sorry, the number you
have dialed. . ." recording.  I would guess they have something to do
with automatic refunding of toll charges, because the times I've
botched a number on a pay phone and got the recording, the phone spits
back the money I put in it right after the three tones.  In this case,
what would there be to stop me from playing the tones every time I get
or make a phone call?  I'd assume there would be some mechanism to
thwart this kind of theft.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

Date: Thursday, 22 Feb 1990 13:34:32 EST
From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Directories Query


Several issues back TELECOM Digest referred to criss cross (eg.
Haines) and to NXX-zip code directories.  I would like to know the
names, addresses, and costs of some of these directories.  The
information might be of general enough interest to post.  Thanks.

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


[Moderator's Note: I am familiar with a few: Haines, R. L. Polk,
Donnelly, City Publishing Co., Dresser's. Most of them only lease
their book for a year at a time, and require its return when the new
edition is printed.  Donnelly is located in Chicago; Haines has sales
offices in many cities, with their principal office in Canton, OH I
believe. City Publishing Co. is in Independence, KS; they seem to
concentrate on Florida and the southeastern states. Haines has a lot
of coverage in the midwest and the southern states. At least Haines is
also available onn microfiche. None of them are inexpensive. If you
lease at least one Haines book for your own region, they allow you the
free use of their telephone lookup service for all other cities they
cover.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gideon YUVAL)
Subject: Info Needed on Text-to-Speech Synthesizers
Date: 22 Feb 90 22:18:12 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gideon YUVAL)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


Which companies make text-to-speech synthesizers? what price ranges
and quality do they have?

Thanks,

Gideon Yuval, [e-mail], 206-882-8080 (fax:[phone];TWX:160520)


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

From: Peggy Shambo <[e-mail]>
Subject: So Long and Thanks For The Fish!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peggy Shambo)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 12:34:45 GMT


Today is the day the movers come to gather up many of my belongings.
That includes the computer.  *sniff*

So, I hope to meet up with you folks once I am settled and am able to
long on from the "other side of the pond".

It has really been fun and I'm gonna miss all of ya.


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


[Moderator's Note: And we are going to miss you also! Please let us
all hear from you as soon as you are established in your new
home....and tell us all the details of the phone system there!  PT]

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

Date: 21 Feb 90 07:27:36 PST (Wednesday)
Subject: Xerox Voice Message Exchange
From: [e-mail]
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Robert Kaplan asked about the Xerox Voice Message Exchange.

Xerox re-sells voicemail systems from VMX, Inc.  Originally, Xerox
also had a XVMX system for internal use only.  More recently, Xerox
set up a national voice mail service for external customers.  It's
national in the sense that regional VMX systems can exchange messages
with each other.  Mr. Kaplan apparently stumbled on the system in
Lexington, Mass.


Lee Moore -- Xerox Webster Research Center -- [phone]
UUCP:        {allegra, cornell, decvax, rutgers}!rochester!rocksanne!lee
Arpa Internet:    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #120
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00718;
          23 Feb 90 3:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13996;
          23 Feb 90 1:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08558;
          23 Feb 90 0:53 CST
Date:     Thu, 22 Feb 90 23:50:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #121
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 22 Feb 90 23:50:36 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Caller ID Goodies (James Van Houten)
    Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!) (Michael Sonnier)
    Southern Bell Pushes CLID Too Far (Kenneth Jongsma)
    The Purpose and Intent of the Legion of Doom (The Mentor - Legion of Doom)
    Murder By Phone  (John Boteler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 90 20:59:30 EST
From: "James Van Houten, Exec VP" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Goodies


I would like to share some experiences that I have had with Caller*ID.
I live in Maryland and am served by C&P Telephone Company (Bell
Atlantic).  I am serviced by a 5ESS switch and use a San-Bar Model 30F
Display Unit.  The feature is of great value to me as I use it for
personal and Business purposes.  I do not answer my phone with the
number the caller is calling from and in fact do not read there number
back to them.  I have found that people are angered and confused if
you know their number before they give it to you.  I have also had
problems with wrong numbers.  These calls have been reduced
substantially.

Now for a little technical info.  I have found on a 5ESS switch if a
caller hangs up before the end of the first ring the display will not
show the number in which the call originated, but there is a way to do
this: First you call a local number like weather or time, dial a
prayer, etc then flash (provided you have three way calling).  When
your phone rings back it will display the number of the caller who
hung up on you.

This is a very neat feature for one being plagued by a high-tech
prankster and I must admit it stops them in their tracks.  From what I
have learned people served by 1ESS or 1AESS do not have this luxury
but I may be wrong.  If you are on a 1 or 1AESS please try it and let
me know.

Another advantage to Caller*ID: If you have repeat call and have
several numbers in queue the Caller*ID display will give you the
number that is about to ring when you pick up your phone.  This is
great.  When I am calling clients and get a busy I just hit *66 and
put them in queue.

All in all Caller*ID is a plus.  I am not for getting rid of Caller*ID
and I do not even know if the Block Caller*ID feature is even
warranted.  After all if you want to call someone with Caller*ID then
just dial 950-1022 and punch in your MCI pin number and off you go.
At least in the DC Metro area the call comes up OUT OF AREA.

I have one question.  Is Caller*ID suppose to work with LATA to LATA
calls?  My mother in law lives in Bell of Pennsylvania and from time
to time her number displays on my box.  I thought that it was real
strange that it does not do it all the time.


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:James Van Houten                  HAM: KA3TTU@N4QQ                          :
:P.O. Box 502                      CI$: 72067,316                            :
:Temple Hills, MD  20757                [e-mail]             :
:[phone]                                                              :
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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

From: Michael Sonnier <nvuxg![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID (NOT Another Flame!)
Date: 22 Feb 90 22:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: 23185-Michael Sonnier <nvuxg![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell Communications Research


In article <[e-mail]>, comcon![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!
> [e-mail] writes:

> > Why aren't the BOCs rushing to offer this (calling name delivery)
> > 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.

> I haven't studied the break-up too closely, but it would seem this is
> an ideal opportunity for a symbiotic service. Couldn't the private
> sector produce a company to service this information-processing? And
> wouldn't that be seperate from the BOC itself?

Independent of who provides the database lookup, there are very real
network performance issues (read $$$s) to be considered.  Considering
simply the volume of queries to this database that are likely, the
amount of processor time sucked up on switching systems could be huge.

A few moments reflection leads me to believe there are (at least) 4
major alternative ways to provide such a service (Labeled A1, A2, B1,
and B2):

A> Do the lookup at the originating end of the call, and pass the information
   in the SS7 call setup message (Initial Address Message)

   This has the advantage that the data can be somewhat localized.  The big
   disadvantage is that it must be done on every call (or at least every
   inter-switch call) since it is not known whether the terminating party
   subscribes to the feature.

   A1> Store the data on the switch, and have the switch do the lookup

       There is a clear impact on the memory requirements as well as processor
       real time of the switch.  The memory to store the ID strings, as well
       as indexing information to aid in rapid lookup, is huge, especially
       relative to some of the older technology electronic switching products
       that exist (and will continue to exist for a LONG time) in the network.
       In addition, the per call addition to average processor time used could
       be quite significant.

   A2> Store the data on a database accessed by the switch

       There is still some impact on the switch processor real time used,
       though likely smaller than case A1.  However, some delay is added to
       the processing of each call (and remember that 100ms is considered
       large when dealing in Initial Response Time for call setup), causing
       both a degradation of service for customers, but also increasing the
       holding time of every call at the switch resulting in increased usage
       of switch resources (e.g., either need to pay for more resources or
       decrease the capacity of the switch).

   Cases A1 and A2 are especially painful since they must be processed on
   (almost) every call in the network.  This makes these alternatives
   essentially infeasible, since the marginal cost will be quite high,
   especially if few people subscribe to the service.

B> Do the lookup at the terminating end of the call:  This has the advantage
   that you only need the lookup if the terminating party subscribes to the
   feature.

   B1>  Store the data on the switch

    All of the same concerns as case A1 apply, with the magnification
    that the database for all network users, not just those served by
    this switch, must be stored at each switch.  Clearly not a feasible
    approach!

   B2>  Store the data on a database accessed by the switch

    Again, either the data will need to be copied many places in the
    network (i.e., near each switch) or these data queries will involve
    lengthy distances.  In the first case, data must still be duplicated,
    which is very costly both in terms of equipment and overhead to
    populate and maintain the many copies of the data in a coordinated
    fashion.  The second case is similar to case A2, except the cost per
    query will be much higher, consuming more resources due to the
    distance.  In addition, the anticipated delay in call processing will
    probably be larger due to the distance.

   Again, the cost in terms of network capacity could be large for alternatives
   B1 and B2.  Though there is an order of magnitude decrease in the number
   of data lookups to be perfomed over the A cases, the cost per lookup
   and the delay resulting are larger.

And I haven't even gotten into the difficulties where inter-LATA calls
are involved!  (Yes, I know that calling number display doesn't apply
today on inter-LATA calls, but that doesn't mean it won't ever.)

The prospect of some third party providing the data lookup for the
TelCo is very scary.  Not only do all of the above concerns exist, but
there are many significant new concerns: the delay properties of the
network, service reliability, and quality of the network provided
service are largely out of the TelCo's control.  Who are you going to
call when the service doesn't work properly?  Who's going to get
flamed when call setup takes longer?

I must point out that I have not studied this area in any depth.  I do
not mean to suggest that such a service cannot or will not be offered,
or even that such a service is not under consideration.  Frankly, I
don't work on this, and just don't know whether or not that is the
case.  My only purpose in writing this is to point out that there are
significant technical hurdles to providing such a service, and that
such a service MAY potentially be very costly.  How much would YOU be
willing to pay for such a service?

SPECIAL DISCAIMER: This is presented solely as my opinion, and has no
connection in any manner whatsoever to the opinions of my employer.  I
make no claim as to the accuracy or quality of the opinions presented,
nor to their relationship to anything, or anyone.  Any similarity to
persons, places, things, or ideas living or dead is purely
coincidental.


Michael J. Sonnier @ Bellcore; Navesink Research & Engineering Center
Logical: [...]!bellcore!nvuxg!mjs1   |   Audible: [phone]
Physical: 331 Newman Springs Rd #2Z419; Red Bank, NJ 07701

"Trust us; we're the phone company and we're here to help you;
                 WE know what's best!" ;-)

Disclaimer:  How can you infer this is the opinion of my employer?
             I don't even know if it's mine yet!

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Southern Bell Pushes CLID Too Far
Date: Wed, 21-Feb-90 06:14:51 PST


I was sound asleep when the clock radio went off this morning, but in
the fog of waking up, I heard an interesting story re: Caller ID and
Southern Bell.

It seems that the North Carolina Attorney General is a little ticked
off at Southern Bell. Apparently, he came into possesion of a Southern
Bell memo, directing Southern Bell employees to write to the state
Public Utilities Commision to lobby in favor of Caller ID. This in
itself was not the largest problem, but rather that the employees were
instructed to hide their work affiliation and use a ficticious
occupation.

The example in the memo was an owner of a pizza parlor writing to say
how much Caller ID would help cut down on phony orders.

Interesting, no? I think this is the first time an RBOC has been so
blatent in trying to pressure the PUC.


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

From: Legion of Doom  <anytown![e-mail]>
Subject: The Purpose and Intent of the Legion of Doom
Date: 22 Feb 90 04:42:04 GMT
Organization: Anytown USA


[Moderator's Note: This anonymous message came in the mail today.  PT]

Well, I had to speak up. There has been a lot of frothing (mostly by
people who believe everything that they read in the paper) about
Legion of Doom. I have been involved in the group since 1987, and
dislike seeing irresponsible press concerning our "plot to crash 911"
or our "links to organized crime."

LOD was formed to bring together the best minds from the computer
underground - not to do any damage or for personal profit, but to
share experiences and discuss computing. The group has *always*
maintained the highest ethical standards of hacker (or "cracker," as
you prefer) ethics.  On many occasions, we have acted to prevent abuse
of systems that were *dangerous* to be out - from government systems
to Easter Seals systems.  I have known the people involved in this 911
case for many years, and there was *absolutely* no intent to interfere
with or molest the 911 system in any manner. While we have
occasionally entered a computer that we weren't supposed to be in, it
is grounds for expulsion from the group and social ostracism to do any
damage to a system or to attempt to commit fraud for personal profit.

The biggest crime that has been committed is that of curiosity. Kim,
your 911 system is safe (from us, at least). We have been instrumental
in closing many security holes in the past, and had hoped to continue
to do so in the future. The list of computer security people who count
us as allies is long, but must remain anonymous. If any of them choose
to identify themselves, we would appreciate the support.

I am among the people who no longer count themselves as "active"
members of the group. I have been "retired" for well over a year. But
I continue to talk to active members daily, and support the group
through this network feed, which is mail-routed to other LODers, both
active and accessible.

Anyone who has any questions is welcome to mail us - you'll find us
friendly, although a bit wary. We will also be glad to talk voice with
anyone if they wish to arrange a time to call.  In spite of all the
media garbage, we consider ourselves an ethical, positive force in
computing and computer security. We hope others will as well.


The Mentor/Legion of Doom
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: As an 'ethical, positive force in computing', why
can't you sign your name to messages such as the above?  Usually I
don't even consider anonymous messages for publication in the Digest;
but your organization has a perfect right to tell your side of the
story, and I am derelict if I don't print it. Real names and addresses
go a long way toward closing credibility gaps here.  PT]

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

Subject: Murder By Phone
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 2:48:25 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>

Anyone who wants a good kick on a rainy day should at least thrice in
his life view the movie "Murder By Phone", which was re-released under
the title "Bells".

The plot (?) concerns a madman who conducts his trade by placing a
phone call to the victim, then pulsing energy down the line until the
earpiece explodes.

The real fun is all the bogus dialog: "Goddamit, I started as a
lineman, I know how long it takes to trace a call!!!" spoken by the
president of The Telephone Company; the scenes of selectors and test
sets in a Stepper office, dubbed 'ESS' in the movie!

A MUST for anyone in the business. Most video rental stores have this
one; ask for it.


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


[Moderator's Note: This appeared first in print under the title
'Tandem Rush' about fifteen years ago. The villian, when finally
identified, turns out to be a surprise, (and to me at least) the least
expected one of the bunch.  Obviously the dude would not be a fan of
Caller-ID. Something tells me The Mentor and other members of the
Legion of Doom don't like Caller-ID very much either.  :) PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #121
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08324;
          23 Feb 90 6:10 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04134;
          23 Feb 90 4:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16635;
          23 Feb 90 3:03 CST
Date:     Fri, 23 Feb 90 2:01:03 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #123
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Feb 90 02:00:35 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Communications with the Deaf (Ken Harrenstien)
    The Wrong End of the Telescope (John Higdon)
    AT&T/Japan (Joe Talbot)
    AT&T Bug (from RISKS) (John Owens)
    Questions About SONET (Henning Schulzrinne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 15:29:11 PST
From: Ken Harrenstien <[e-mail]>
Subject: Communications with the Deaf


Naturally, as soon as I get bored and look away for a couple weeks,
something interesting finally pops up!  I see that the basic points
have been covered pretty well by Curtis Reid (howdy!) and others, so I
just have some more-or-less scattered comments to make.

Regarding:
  [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]

I would have to respectfully disagree, particularly where the "Bell
Companies" are concerned.  In most cases that I'm aware of, the telcos
had to be dragged kicking and screaming into providing handicapped
services (let's see, is that "services for the handicapped" or
"services that are handicapped"?).  You just don't hear about that
part because the instigators don't have an advertising budget.  After
the fact, of course, the existence of these services is always good
copy.

The 800/855-1155 TDD operator service is STRICTLY an operator service.
They do not relay calls, and as far as I know, no one is currently
providing an interstate relay service, which is a source of great
frustration as I personally must make a lot of voice calls out of
state (how many of you do this daily?).  Without access to
interpreters at work, I would have no recourse other than to ask
friends to make the calls for me, which has a greasy feeling akin to
begging for quarters in the street.  The California Relay Service here
is reportedly working with the telcos and LD carriers to figure out
how they can incorporate interstate LD charges into their billing
system.  It's obviously not a new idea, but no one knows when it will
finally happen.

So AT&T spends *a lot* of money on 800/855-1155?  So what?  I pay AT&T
*a lot* of money for my toll calls.  Remember that they spend *many
megalots* of money on everything else, and at any rate the connections
between services and charges have historically been exceedingly
tenuous (a famous example is LD subsidized by local calls).

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

Hmmmm.  Anyway, about TDDs themselves.  There is no shortage of ideas
for them, but the big problem is the lack of a market, or rather the
perception thereof.  At SRI International in 1977-78 we (primarily
Wolfram & Fylstra) developed a portable TDD, about a handset-breadth
wide and a third that in depth, which could handle both Baudot/Weitbrecht
and ASCII/103 (the latter at either 110 or 300 baud) -- they used an
ingenious trick to fool a single modem chip into supporting both.
This even included a tiny integral printer cannibalized from a HP
calculator, and unlike many "modern" TDDs it could generate and
represent the complete ASCII character set.  Four working prototypes
were built.

This development was funded by a HEW grant, and the main idea was to
come up with something useful enough to the commercial world that the
device could be mass-produced in enough quantity to be available at
low cost to deaf users.  A secondary motivation was to start shifting
the TDD standard from Baudot/Weitbrecht to conventional datacomm
protocols as soon as possible; I trust the reasons are obvious.
Unfortunately, not one company in the US or abroad, including TDD
manufacturers, was interested in producing it.  Why?  Many piddly
reasons, but basically, no one was convinced that a "sufficient"
market existed for that particular device.  (SRI does non-profit R&D
only, by the way.)

It wasn't until some clever people slipped bills through state
legislatures forcing the telcos to provide TDDs to hearing-impaired
subscribers (and collect the money from other rate-payers) that
manufacturers suddenly sat up and saw dollar signs.  In California, at
least, there are very good reasons to suspect that one struggling TDD
manufacturer was responsible for the original bill, in hopes that the
company would reap a windfall in telco orders.  Ironically, they're
long gone by now, while their good deed (such as it was) has survived
and been propagated to a number of other states.

But you (being a technically literate group) wouldn't believe what
kinds of nonsense the telcos, and even some TDD manufacturers, trotted
out at the PUC hearings over the issue of just what a "free" TDD
should consist of.  At the time all this happened (ca 1980) I sent
long reports of the proceedings to, let's see, I think it was
HUMAN-NETS at the time; I don't think TELECOM existed that far back.

Basically the groups were divided into two camps: in one, the minions
of Evil (Pacific Bell, GTE, Plantronics, others) opined that Baudot
was "good enough for 'em", and in the other, the forces of Good (deaf
organizations, Novation, SRI, others) argued for requiring
dual-capability devices.  At the time, the ability to someday access
VANs (Value-Added Network) was an important issue, as this would
permit TDD users to pay for LD-like services on a data rather than
time basis, and we were already heavily engaged in experiments with
"Deafnet" (e-mail services accessible via either standard).

To simplify a complicated story, the final outcome was a flawed
compromise which resulted in a small selection of TDDs that advertise
a poorly defined "ASCII capability", more or less useless for anything
but talking to other TDDs.  Meanwhile, Baudot-only TDDs are still
being churned out and sold.  All of the few manufacturers left really
and truly believe that this is what the market wants -- simplified,
3-row, rock-bottom Baudot/Weitbrecht TDDs.  If adding ASCII/103
capabilities means just one more key, or just one more chip, or even
just one more diode, they won't do it because it would be "too
expensive".  If not that, then it's "too complicated".  The depressing
thing is that, for the most part, the market appears to agree with
them.

There's an interesting backflow effect of technological advance here.
It's true that better technology and a broader market has made it much
easier and cheaper to use ASCII/103 standards in TDDs.  However, it
has also made it just as easy and cheap to perpetuate the Baudot/
Weitbrecht standard, whether or not it makes sense!  A truly delicious
example of this, which ranks right up there with narrow-necked ketchup
bottles and stinging antiseptics, is the LETS/FIGS shift keys.

Because the original TDDs were actually discarded Baudot TTYs (I used
to have a Model 28 -- an amazing beast) with LETS and FIGS shifts as
described by a recent message, they were much more awkward to use than
a regular typewriter, even for (especially for?) anyone with some
typing skills.  You'd think that the advent of electronic TDDs would
mean that the little CPU inside could take care of the LETS/FIGS shift
state, right?  Right.  But, as you must have guessed by now, that's
not what they did.  For a long time the great majority of new TDDs
persisted in retaining a LETS/FIGS key pair, sometimes disguised as
"upshift" and "downshift".  I no longer keep close track of the TDD
market, but I'm sure you can still find many TDDs still being made
with this amazing tribute to backwards user compatibility.

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

One last thing.  How relevant is any of this to most readers?  Well,
let me toss in one final statistic for your consideration: the median
age of the hearing-impaired population is over 60.  How long do you
plan to live?


Ken


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Wrong End of the Telescope
Date: 21 Feb 90 19:54:49 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In TELECOM Digest  Volume 10 : Issue 118 you write:

> People just can't seem to grasp the fact that a group of 20 year old
> kids just might know a little more than they do, and rather than make
> good use of us, they would rather just lock us away and keep on
> letting things pass by them.  I've said this before, you cant stop
> burglars from robbing you when you leave the doors unlocked and merely
> bash them in the head with baseball bats when they walk in.  You need
> to lock the door.  But when you leave the doors open, but lock up the
> people who can close them for you another burglar will just walk right
> in.

I heartily agree. The standard mode is to develop new technology, or
new uses for existing technology and give little or no thought how you
keep it secure for the users. In the early days of any new procedure,
the security rests in the reality that few people even know that such
a thing exists. But this form of "security" is fleeting, since it
takes little time for the curious to discover it and to find its
weaknesses.

Then phase two of the standard mode kicks in, and the developers and
users manage to convince law enforcement authorities that criminal
minds are at work when their technology is breached. Can you imagine
the indignation and anger of someone who has discovered that his small
business is being answered after hours by an outgoing announcement on
the machine that is full of obscenities? The business owner would
certainly be thinking to himself, "There ought to be a law...". But
what he should be reflecting upon is the silliness of relying on
two-digit "security" code to protect him from such pranking.

This applies to computers, telephone systems, in fact everything.
Those who leave their systems "open" to the public should expect the
curious to enter and look around. Banks don't keep their negotiable
instruments in a closet secured with a hasp and padlock, then expect
the police to go after everyone that makes off with the goods. They
use concrete and steel vaults secured with sophisticated time locks.
Sure, even these can be broken into, but it requires the resources
beyond the casual criminal. Likewise, there are computer systems that
are, indeed, relatively secure, and entry to these systems is beyond
the means of the average hacker.

I don't for one minute think that any hacker would be interested in
any of my stuff, but I take reasonable precautions to prevent casual
entry.  My client's DISA is protected with a seven-digit code that
allows one attempt and then hangs up if unsuccessful. Likewise my
Watson is protected with a long code. I review the logins on my
computers daily and change the root passwords regularly.

For any commercial or government entity to do less is in itself
criminal. To then go after "hackers" for simply walking in the
relatively open door and prosecute them is an offense.

A little story: A few years ago, I was dialing around in the "test
number" area looking for interesting test numbers and happen to
stumble on one that returned this message: "Your number has been
recorded and you will be billed for this call. Also, your parents will
be notified."  I didn't stop laughing for a week.


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

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T/Japan
Date: 21 Feb 90 12:59:23 GMT
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


Who determines "fair market value"? The Merlin is a very basic key
system, yet AT&T's prices are the highest in the industry, including
Comdial (a US based manufacturer).

I have no problem with AT&T charging what they think the system is
worth, but I DO have a problem with them telling everyone else what
their own stuff ought to be worth.

Perhaps the reason Matshushita/Panasonic got the worst of all the
garbage was because the KX-T series hybrids were the most serious
threat. Most of the others, are not a threat and are, in fact largely
garbage. The Panasonic sets are up to what I would consider the old
bell system standard as far as sound quality, reliability and
intuitive operation.

It appears that Panasonic did a really complete job of researching the
american marketplace before creating this system, if only AT&T would
have done the same! Everyone I know HATES the stupid toy handset and I
find it difficult to understand the four pair cabling when everyone
else seems content to use two pairs. After a few years of people
complaining about the membrane "keys", it looks like they've changed
that to real buttons (wow). Even the taiwaneese garbaphones don't have
membrane keys. And throw in the "service" and parts prices/availability
for when you finally give up and try to do it yourself and FORGET IT!
I've been working with the Japaneese over the last few weeks and I
will tell you that they are VERY competive and not always honest
(especially with us foreign folks) but this dumping stuff is pretty
silly.

I must congratulate the AT&T folks who have been quite restrained in
this matter. Please note that this is not an invitation to flame. I'm
typing this on an AT&T computer, in front of me are 4 AT&T 6386wgs
computers.  I use AT&T long distance. And I just ordered a case of
2500 sets because I CAN'T STAND THE TOY PHONES they have here
(exclusively). They will of course be plugged into the KX-T61610
coming with them.


Stranded in Japan
Joe Talbot    "What am I doing here?"        Voice Mail 011-813-944-6221
                        After the prompt: 824 2424

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

Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership
Subject: AT&T Bug (from RISKS)
Date: 21 Feb 90 15:04:35 EST (Wed)
From: John Owens <[e-mail]>


[If you haven't already seen this, here's the bug in the CCS7 software.]

  From: [e-mail], via [e-mail], via RISKS
  Subject: AT&T Bug
  Date: Fri Jan 19 12:18:33 1990

This is the bug that cause the AT&T breakdown
the other day (no, it wasn't an MCI virus):

In the switching software (written in C), there was a long
"do . . . while" construct, which contained
   a "switch" statement, which contained
      an "if" clause, which contained a
         "break," which was intended for
      the "if" clause, but instead broke from
   the "switch" statement.

["break" never breaks an "if", only "switch"es, "do"s, and "while"s.]


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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 16:17 EST
From: Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About SONET


I have a number of questions regarding SONET, the Bellcore-standard
Synchronous Optical NETwork.

1. Are there any readily accessible papers (i.e., not just some
standard) containing details on SONET, beyond the paper in the March
1989 issue of the IEEE Communications Magazine? I am especially
interested in motivations of certain design decisions, not just
"that's how it is and there is nothing you can do about it".

2. Why was the row size set to 90 bytes? As it is, ATM packets will
have to be broken across rows.

3. How do ATM and SONET interact? What gets switched where?

4. What is the advantage of interleaving ``header'' information
throughout the frame, rather than concentrating it at the beginning of
a frame? Why are the payload pointers put a number of rows after the
beginning of the frame, so that I have to wait until I can determine
where the payload begins?

5. Why was the path overhead made part of the payload rather than the
header?

6. What is the implementation status of SONET?

Thanks for any help or pointers to people who might know.  If there is
enough interest, I will summarize to the Digest.


Henning Schulzrinne  ([e-mail])
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: [phone] (EST); FAX: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #123
******************************













Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03018;
          23 Feb 90 13:45 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04181;
          22 Feb 90 23:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23567;
          22 Feb 90 22:42 CST
Date:     Thu, 22 Feb 90 21:51:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #119
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 22 Feb 90 21:50:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Dial A Lawyer (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems? (Jim Gottlieb)
    Re: Sprint Plus Rebate (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Toll Free But Not 800 (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing (David Barts)
    Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing (Bill Huttig)
    Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing (Randal Schwartz)
    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Jerry Leichter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 2:39:56 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial A Lawyer


Michael Berch wrote an article to the Digest Wednesday discussing a
new telephone legal service where a group a lawyers man a bank of 900
phone lines and give legal advice for $3 per minute.

Unfortunatly, due to a mechanical error here at delta.eecs the message
was lost. I hope the author will resubmit it.

Fortunatly, that was the only message lost. The queue had been flushed
and his message came in just as I was finishing up for the night.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Behind Blocking of Japanese Business Phone Systems?
Date: 22 Feb 90 11:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>Oh, and another thing. US companies having a hard time selling things
>in Japan has less to do with the Japanese government regulations and
>more to do with not making anything the Japanese consumer wants to buy
>than you may realize. Where, for instance, Matsushita carefully sized
>up the North American market when designing the KX-T series equipment,
>most US firms put no effort into analyzing the Japanese market for
>their goods.  "Hey, if it's good enough for Americans...."

Seeing Japanese key systems in the U.S., one might assume that they
just send us the same models they sell at home (except for the KX
people who are not allowed to sell at home).  But after spending the
last six months here in the telecom industry and using phones quite
often, I see that this is clearly not the case.

Most of the systems shipped to the U.S. are quite different from what
is sold here at home.  Following are the differences I have noticed:

    Key telephone sets in Japan allow the user to adjust the
    receive volume.  This is actually quite handy when talking in
    very crowded, very noisy Japanese offices.  This is done
    without raising sidetone volume.

    I have never seen a key system here with voice announce or
    paging capabilities.  Again, this is probably due to the fact
    that a typical one-person office in the U.S. would have up to
    ten people in it here.

    The systems they export allow the connection of an external
    music-on-hold source.  All systems here have IC-generated
    "Greensleeves" or "Home On The Range" with no ability to change
    this.  Similarly, key system sets can be programmed to play
    melodies (again, public-domain ones) when the phone rings.
    Interestingly, the original KX-T616 came with Greensleeves, but
    also allowed one to substitute an external source.  The MOH
    chip was eliminated in the 61610 upgrade.

    I have not yet seen a system here that will let the user
    generate touch-tones of user-desired length.

    Key systems here do not allow the user to conference two
    outside lines.  And until very recently, they did not include
    the ability to flash the outside trunks.

    Domestic-use systems look for a reversal on outside trunks to
    indicate supervision.  This then starts a timer on the display.
    Many systems can also be equipped with a rate chip, which
    allows the cost of the current call to be displayed.

    There is far too much use of pulse dialing on outside trunks
    due to NTT's ripoff touch-tone charges.  Therefore, many people
    still use pulse and Japanese key systems reflect this in their
    ability to switch between 10 or 20 pulses-per-second.  Most
    single-line sets here have a button one pushes to switch to
    tone-dialing in the middle of a call so that it is easy to dial
    out with pulse and then enter tones to an interactive service.

    The tone plant is different.  In Japan, 400Hz tones are used
    for dial tone, busy, and ringing.  Many internal dial tones
    here sound like a "reorder" (120ipm) to me.

    Here one dials "0" to access an outside line.  The systems they
    ship to the U.S. use "9".


On the other hand, the building we rent space in has shared-tenant
service served off of a Mitsubishi Melstar, aka IBM ROLM 9751.  The
only changes they made for this market were the tone plant and dial
"0" for outside.  The sets are the same ones they use in the U.S. and
have not been adapted at all to the Japanese market.  They _do_ have a
volume control for instance, but raising the receive volume also
boosts the sidetone making it useless in a noisy room.  The sets are
the usual lousy-in-any-country ROLMphones.  I _HATE_ them.  I am
embarrassed that we ship them such a monster.  But that's another
story.  Or is it?


Jim Gottlieb                     Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: (011)[phone]            Voice Mail: (011)[phone]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Plus Rebate
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 09:54:40 EST


  From: [e-mail]

>For those of us that signed up for Sprint Plus last year, it will pay
>to examine your January bill very closely. . . .

>Anyway, last fall Sprint was running a promotion that promised a free
>month of long distance if you signed up. Well, not exactly. What you
>really were to get was a credit on your January bill for your December
>calls, up to a limit of $25.

>My bill rolled around and no credit. A polite 10 minute call to Sprint
>got me an apology and a promise of the $25 credit on my next bill.  We
>shall see...

The fine print in the promotional material stated that the maximum
credit would be $25.  I had no problem with that, or the $8 minimum,
as our interstate bill typically exceeds $60.  The $25 rebate
obviously more than made up for the $5 changeover fee (which I paid
for once :-)).

I received the credit on schedule.

There is a separate program whereby you sign up and get 10 points for
every dollar you spend; no extra cost, just an added promotion to
persuade you to use Sprint. The "prizes" are not impressive.

    /JBL

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 13:42:16 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>You got timed out while the local MCI switch was polling the 2 VAX's
>they use for 800 number lookup.

>And then there was this one time when both VAX's died for 45 minutes....

If it is true that just 2 VAXes (or the leased lines going to them) going
down can bring down the entire MCI 800 system, perhaps AT&T's promise of
1 hour service restoration for downed 800 lines isn't all that half-baked...


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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Free But Not 800
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 10:16:48 EST


   From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>

>I just received a beeper with what seems like a rather unique phone
>number.  The phone number is 617-230-xxxx.  Calls to this number are
>free when dialed from anywhere in the 617 or 508 area codes (except
>from COCOTs).  When I first got the phone number, I wanted to confirm
>with New England Telephone that this truly was a toll free call.
>   . . .I called the operator and asked about this special
>exchange.  She knew nothing about it and told me to call the business
>office.  . . .

>I was finally able to confirm the toll free status of this number by
>going to a "real" New England Telephone payphone.  It really worked
>without having to deposit any money.  . . .

NET has a number of special exchanges they play games on.  In
Massachusetts, there was a special number (on 525?  Isn't that
currently the equivalent of 976 elsewhere?) when the lottery started
where one could find out the previous day's number for $.25 a throw.

There are the reserved MEridian-7 and WEather-6 which give time and
weather regardless of the last four digits dialled (regular charges
applied, however).

In the '70s both NET and AT&T Long Lines (for instance) could be
reached at the SHerwood-3 exchange, supposedly toll free (though I
never was sure about that).

There was a free number (no message units) for dialling the mobile or
marine operator (I forget which); it turned out that its NNX was
completely equivalent to another NNX which, however, cost message
units; the exchanges were interchangeable regardless of the last four
digits and the free exchange could be used to call other numbers on
the equivalent exchange for free.

Finally, in New Hampshire, the telco business office for residence
service throughout the state is reached at 1-645-3700 but is toll
free.  I just found some funny business about the numbers for business
service in the phone book, but the details are too messy to go into.
(If you call the above number from out of state you are supposed to
call it collect.  If it is answered by machine at a busy time, the
recording starts out with an instruction to long distance operators
that the call will be accepted.  I don't suppose that will help much
if you call from one of the NET pay phones with the new automated
collect calling service (-: ).

    /JBL

[e-mail]  |  "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
...!bbn!levin  |  bureau that morning.  Wide-eyed and distraught, she
[phone]  |  stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 00:26:25 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing


Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]> writes:

> 'course, this works only in those areas that have 10XXX (Feature Group D?)
> dialing.

> Is that everywhere *except* the backwaters of GTE Northwest, now?  Or
> are there still many places that don't have 10XXX dialing?

When I lived in Richland, WA two years ago, their exchange was GTE
and the 10xxx codes worked.  In fact, GTE being GTE, I *had* to use
10xxx for several months until I got 1+ service connected.

David Barts            Pacer Corporation
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing
Date: 21 Feb 90 16:57:47 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <zach![e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> John Cowan <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 116, message 8 of 8

>(I suppose that GTE comes under the terms of the MFJ because it owns
>Sprint.  True or false?)

GTE only owns a small part of US Sprint < 20% United Telephone owns
the rest.  If the MFJ applied to GTE it should also apply to United.


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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 17:05:30 GMT


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

| As I understand it, only Bell (ex-AT&T) telcos plus GTE must offer
| this service, and lots of local independent telcos don't.  Taconic
| Telephone, for example, the first all-digital local telco in the
| country, has no plans to offer any LD carrier except AT&T.

| (I suppose that GTE comes under the terms of the MFJ because it owns
| Sprint.  True or false?)

But that's what *I* asked about!  This *is* GTE, and they are *not*
providing 10XXX service in this area.  (I can get three-way calling,
cancel call waiting, and all sorts of other electronic features, but I
still have to call 950-xxxx to get to the alternate LD services.)

So, what percentage of the customers are never going to have the
choice for each phone call?

'course, what am I griping about... at least I get a dialtone most of
the time. :-)

Just another name in the phone book (many, many times!),


/=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ==========\
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| [e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |
\=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"
Date: 17 Feb 90 14:42:03 EST
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)


Having spent a lot of time among lawyers, I'll comment on this:

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Mike Riddle) writes:

> In a recent article, John Higdon wrote that in the future we might
> have to have everything in writing.

> I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, someone alleging a verbal
> contract must be able to prove it.  That might be difficult.

Absolutely.  As a general principle in the law, verbal contracts are
valid.  (There are exceptions, but they are in very specific
circumstances and usually by statute.)  Non-lawyers often make the
mistake of assuming that there is some inherent connection between
VALIDITY and USEFULNESS.  Yes, a verbal contract is valid - once you
can prove what was agreed to.  And "prove" means "convince a court".
The burden of finding a way to convince the court is entirely up to
you.

In many cases, both sides agree that something was agreed to, but
disagree on the details.  I suppose cases arise in which one side or
another just plain denies that an agreement was ever reached.

On the surface, such cases come down to one side's word against the
other.  However, there is often evidence available.  If I claim we
reached an agree- ment for me to paint your house, and I show up with
paint, that's at least some evidence that I believed it.  If you
covered all your furniture with tarps, that's some evidence that you
also believed it.  We present all of our bits of evidence, and the
court decides which of us it believes.

> The concept of "unjust enrichment," however, might still be a problem.
> I understand that most states have a "Statute of Frauds" that requires
> some evidence of certain contracts be in writing to avoid these kinds
> of problems.  Covered contracts might include real estate, duration
> one year, or value specified amount.

The Statute of Frauds is a very old part of the Common Law which says
that verbal contracts for future performance in the amount of more
than $1000 are not enforceable.  Essentially, the Statute says that
when you are dealing with something that may remain intangible for a
while (future performance) and the amount is large enough to be worth
worrying about (the Statute goes back hundreds of years; the original
amount must have been in pounds.  $1000 200 years ago was a LOT of
money) then put the damn thing on paper.

BTW, the Statute of Frauds is not a statute - it was created, like
most of the Common Law, by judicial precedent - and, as you can see,
has nothing much to do with frauds!

As a result of the bizarre history of the Common Law, real estate is
not transfered by contract but by registration of a deed.  Hence, it
is inherently impossible to have a verbal transfer of real estate.
You CAN have a contract in which you agree to transfer a deed later,
and in fact that is the way most real estate deals work.  Such a
contract would almost certainly fall under the Statute of Frauds, even
if not otherwise regulated.

BTW, the law of 49 of the United States is based on Common Law.
Louisiana law, on the other hand, is based on the Napoleanic Codes.
There are a LOT of differences - one very obvious difference is that
under the Napoleanic Codes a criminal defendant is GUILTY until proven
INNOCENT.  I doubt this particular difference has survived in
Louisiana, but a lot of others have.

> While not a complete answer, the Statute of Frauds might at least help
> protect for excessive losses.

            -- Jerry

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #119
******************************

ISSUES 116 THROUGH 123 ARRIVED SCRAMBLED IN ORDER, BUT ALL ARE
PRESENT. 122  IS NEXT.












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25342;
          23 Feb 90 18:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16635;
          23 Feb 90 3:03 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13996;
          23 Feb 90 1:58 CST
Date:     Fri, 23 Feb 90 0:56:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #122
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Feb 90 00:55:57 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    DCL Procedure for London Area Code Split (John R. Covert)
    London Code Changes (Mark Brader)
    CLI in CA (Rick Farris)
    Does 976 Know Who You Are? (Rick Farris)
    Cellular Stuff (David Leibold)
    Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers (Curtis E. Reid)
    Foreign Companies in the US (Rajeev B. Patil)
    MCI and Imaginary Calling Card Numbers (Nutsy Fagen)
    Introducing the $6 Answering Machine from New England Telephone (H. Mensch)
    Another Irresistable Deal From Sprint? (Wayne Hamilton)
    Information Needed on ROLMPhones (Bill Darden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 07:10:35 PST
From: "John R. Covert  21-Feb-1990 0950" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DCL Procedure for London Area Code Split


 $!
 $! London.com -- determine new area code for London numbers
 $!
 $! usage is @london exchange, e.g. @london 264
 $!
 $ on error then goto usage
 $ on warning then goto usage
 $ exch = 0'p1'
 $ if exch .lt. 200 .or. exch .gt. 999 then goto usage
 $!
 $ l2 =    "8-888888887-7777-777777777777777777777777777777777" +-
    "77777777777777-77777777777777777-77-777788-8-8-888"
 $ l3 =    "88888878888888878888777777777787877888788888-88888" +-
    "777777777788-888888-77777777777777777777888888-888"
 $ l4 =    "77777777777777777778888887888877777777778888888888" +-
    "88887887888888878888888778778877777777777777777777"
 $ l5 =    "8888888888777787788888788788-888888887788888888878" +-
    "8888888888888888888888888888887777777777888888-888"
 $ l6 =    "77777777777777-7--7777777777777777777777888888888-" +-
    "88-888888888-8888888888888888888888888888888887888"
 $ l7 =    "77777-77777777777-77777777777777777777778888888888" +-
    "888788878888-88-8888887877888788888888887777777-77"
 $ l8 =    "8888888888-8------7777777-7777-7777777778888888888" +-
    "888888888888888887888877888888-888888-8888888--888"
 $ l9 =    "8788888888-77887777-777777-777777777777788888-8888" +-
    "8888877788887888-888-7778-787888-8888788-88888-88-"
 $!
 $ exchhi = exch/100
 $ digit = F$extract(exch-(exchhi*100),1,l'exchhi')
 $ if digit .eqs. "-"
 $then
 $ write sys$output "Exchange ",exch," is invalid."
 $else
 $ write sys$output "0",digit,"1-",exch
 $endif
 $ exit
 $usage:
 $ write sys$output "Usage of this procedure is as follows:"
 $ write sys$output ""
 $ write sys$output "  @london exchange"
 $ write sys$output ""
 $ write sys$output "  Where exchange is the first three digits of a valid"+-
             " London number."
 $ write sys$output "  Exchanges range from 2xx through 9xx."
 $ exit


[Moderator's Note: See also issue 117 for a perl script doing the same thing
if you prefer that instead.  PT]

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: London Code Changes
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 90 16:26:00 EST


Here's the same information that Peter Collinson kindly posted, but
reformatted in a form more convenient for people who have to deal with
only a few London numbers and would rather just look them up manually
or grep in this article.

The following London prefixes change on May 6, 1990, from dialing
code 01 (international +44 1) to 071 (international +44 71):

(71)   210 212 213 214 215 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227
(71)   228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243
(71)   244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259
(71)   260 261 262 263 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276
(71)   277 278 279 280 281 283 284 286 287 288 289 306 315 320 321 322
(71)   323 324 325 326 327 328 329 331 333 334 338 350 351 352 353 354
(71)   355 356 357 358 359 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
(71)   381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 400 401 402 403 404 405 406
(71)   407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 425 430 431 432
(71)   433 434 435 436 437 438 439 454 457 465 473 474 476 477 480 481
(71)   482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497
(71)   498 499 510 511 512 513 515 516 522 525 537 538 548 580 581 582
(71)   583 584 585 586 587 588 589 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608
(71)   609 610 611 612 613 615 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
(71)   628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 696 700 701 702
(71)   703 704 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 718 719 720
(71)   721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736
(71)   737 738 739 753 757 772 774 775 779 790 791 792 793 794 795 796
(71)   798 799 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 826 827 828 829 831 832 833
(71)   834 835 836 837 838 839 867 872 873 901 911 912 915 916 917 918
(71)   920 921 922 923 924 925 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936
(71)   937 938 939 955 956 957 962 971 972 973 976 978 987

And the following London prefixes change on May 6, 1990, from dialing
code 01 (international +44 1) to 081 (international +44 81):

(81)   200 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 290 291 293 295 297 298 299
(81)   300 301 302 303 304 305 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 316 317
(81)   318 319 330 332 335 336 337 339 340 341 342 343 345 346 347 348
(81)   349 360 361 363 364 365 366 367 368 390 391 392 393 394 395 397
(81)   398 399 419 420 421 422 423 424 426 427 428 429 440 441 442 443
(81)   444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 455 456 458 459 460 461
(81)   462 463 464 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 475 478 479 500 501 502
(81)   503 504 505 506 507 508 509 514 517 518 519 520 521 523 524 526
(81)   527 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 539 540 541 542 543 544 545
(81)   546 547 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562
(81)   563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578
(81)   579 590 591 592 593 594 595 597 598 599 640 641 642 643 644 645
(81)   646 647 648 650 651 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 663 664
(81)   665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680
(81)   681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 697
(81)   698 699 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 754
(81)   755 756 758 759 760 761 763 764 766 767 768 769 770 771 773 776
(81)   777 778 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 800 801 802 803
(81)   804 805 806 807 808 809 811 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848
(81)   849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864
(81)   865 866 868 869 870 871 874 875 876 877 878 879 881 882 883 884
(81)   885 886 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 897 898 899 900 902 903 904
(81)   905 906 907 908 909 913 914 940 941 942 943 944 946 947 948 949
(81)   950 951 952 953 954 958 959 960 961 963 964 965 967 968 969 974
(81)   977 979 980 981 983 984 985 986 988 989 991 992 993 994 995 997
(81)   998


Mark Brader, Toronto        "The singular of 'data' is not 'anecdote.'"
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                -- Jeff Goldberg

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Subject: CLI in CA
Date: 20 Feb 90 21:51:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California


There is a rumor floating around out here in California that CNN aired
a special on Caller ID this weekend, claiming that CLI was going to be
in California this year, and probably the first half of this year.

The last I heard on the subject here on c.d.t, Pac*Bell was waiting
for constitutionality issues to be resolved elsewhere before bringing
CLI into California.

Does anyone have the straight skinny on CLI in CA?


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


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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Subject: Does 976 Know Who You Are?
Date: 21 Feb 90 03:08:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California


I was defending CLI by pointing out that the big commercial services
(800 number providers, Amex, etc) already receive information on who
calls them, and that CLI would simply give us "little guys" the same
privileges as the big guys.

The question came up as to whether the Dial-a-Porn 976 providers
receive info on their callers.  Does anyone know?

Is it possible for a Dial-a-Porn provider to call up someone and say,
"Ahh, we see you made 6 calls to our kinky sex line last month; if you
don't make at least 6 calls this month we're going to tell your wife"?


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


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

Subject: Cellular Stuff
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 08:59:30 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


Does the cellular telephone system have a provision for Caller ID
transmissions? Might it even be built into the cellular phones
already, just waiting to go, or will there have to be a new generation
of cell phones to handle Caller ID (if it can be handled at all)...

Also, a note of news, Bell Cellular in Ontario and Quebec claims to
have the longest continuous cell coverage in the world, with 1800 km
from Windsor to the New Brunswick/Quebec border. Newsgroup readers are
invited to see if there are examples which beat this 1800 km figure.


|| "Canadian radio ain't it grand/You can listen to music from another land"
|| David Leibold ([e-mail]) /////    ^^- Stompin' Tom Connors


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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 09:57 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers


>TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Feb 90 00:49:08 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 116

>The Rochester Institute of Technology uses just part of (716) 475; I
>*think* from 475-2000 to 475-6999 (?).  The rest of the exchange is
>used in the northern part of the town of Henrietta [the part served by
>the "Rochester" exchange {272, 424, 427 #s} and not the "Henrietta"
>exchange {334, 359}].

        RIT uses from 475-2000 to 475-7999 now since RIT switched over
from Centrex to AT&T System 85 a couple years back.  RIT still uses
scores of 475-1xxx lines for private direct connections while the rest
goes to business customers.

        Henrietta is an extremely large suburban town.  It has three
post offices that serves it: Main Rochester P.O., Henrietta and West
Henrietta.  Therefore, Henrietta has two C.O.s.  The exchanges you
mentioned above serves on one C.O. and the other exchanges you
mentioned serves the other C.O.

        For tax purpose, we are Henrietta but that's where the line
draws.  Some addresses have Rochester as the city, other areas have
Henrietta and my area has West Henrietta.


                        Curtis Reid
                        [e-mail]
                        [e-mail] (Internet)
                        [e-mail] (Not Reliable-NYSernet)

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

From: Rajeev B Patil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Foreign Companies in the US
Date: 21 Feb 90 20:16:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Having followed the AT&T vs. Japanese companies debate, I found the
following article very interesting.

The New York Times Feb 18, 1990  Page 1
"IRS Investigating Foreign Companies For Tax Cheating"

Excerpts from the article:

"...Federal tax officials are investigating many American subsidiaries
of Japanese companies on the suspicion that they have underpaid
corporate income taxes by billions of dollars."

" As foreign-owned assets in the United States more than tripled in a
decade to $1.8 trillion, the gross income ... more than doubled.  But
the total taxes they paid hardly changed ..."

" Tax officials assert that some subsidiaries understate income, thus
minimizing tax liability, by manipulating transactions with parent
company."

No wonder the Japanese products are cheaper !!!!


Rajeev

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 19:42 EST
From: Nutsy Fagen <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI and Imaginary Calling Card Numbers


Several months ago, I ordered an MCI calling card in relation to a
frequent-flyer promotion.  Since I am a college student, I wanted a
calling card ONLY, preferably with no link to my parent's real phone.
(Like my imaginary 677-xxx-xxxx ATT calling card).

This simple request, however, blew away at least three MCI operators,
as well as got me bounced around several times before I gave in and
relinquished my parent's number 'for reference purposes only'.

When the card came, sure enough, it was my home phone number with a
PIN thrown on.  It also had my name spelled wrong :)

A quick call to MCI corrected the name problem, although I neglected
to mention that I wanted an imaginary card.  However, when my new
cards came, one was based on the real number, and the other was
completely new, based (I assume) on an imaginary 335-458-xxxx number.
An interesting note is that my home phone number is 315-458-yyyy.

Further, I called MCI back and requested they cancel the 'real number'
based card (based on recent horror stories of them automatically
switching unsuspecting victims over).

I will be sure to have my father check his next few bills, just to be safe.


Mike

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:27:33 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Introducing the $6 Answering Machine From New England Telephone"
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I received brochures in today's mail which announce New England
telephone's residence call answering service (presumably some
voice-mail look-alike) for $6/month, with a $12.37 installation fee
which can be paid over up to four months.

New England Telephone customers who want to know more can phone this
toll-free number for more information: 800 922 8383 x639


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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 23:24:32 -0600
From: Wayne Hamilton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Irresistable Deal From Sprint?


I recently checked into the "personal WATS" deals available from AT&T,
MCI, and Sprint.  Sprint's program has no monthly charge, and they are
waiving the installation fee til the end of March.  It sounds like I
can have my own 800 number with no cost until I actually "use" it.
Besides Sprint's bad accounting reputation, is there something else to
worry about here?


    wayne hamilton
    U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL
UUCP:    {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!osiris!hamilton
I'net:    [e-mail]
Lowtek:    Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801; [phone](voice), -4311(BBS)

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

From: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed On ROLMPhones
Date: 22 Feb 90 15:16:06 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA


I have a number of ROLMPhones (RP120, RP240 & PR400's) that are broken
and I would greatly appreciate service info (schematics, etc.)  or the
phone number of a person who fixs them.

Thanks,

BiLL.....

[phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #122
******************************






ISSUES 116 THROUGH 123 ARRIVED OUT OF ORDER. 123 APPEARS EARLIER IN
THIS FILE ALONG WITH 119-120-121.












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16596;
          23 Feb 90 23:12 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06075;
          23 Feb 90 21:16 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15145;
          23 Feb 90 20:11 CST
Date:     Fri, 23 Feb 90 19:40:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #124
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Feb 90 19:40:36 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Two Special Issues This Weekend (TELECOM Moderator)
    ISDN-Modem Interworking Question (Joe Hingston)
    Re: Questions About SONET (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Ameritech PSN->Telenet (Randy Miller)
    Question About Feature Groups (Tad Cook)
    Re: Envoy 100 (Rob Warnock)
    Book on Telephone Switching (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Quiet Lines (Richard Pavelle)
    Sprint 800 service (Steve Elias)
    VMX Voice Mail Lawsuits (Steve Elias)
    Sprint Plus (Steve Elias)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 19:09:36 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Special Issues This Weekend


Two special issues of TELECOM Digest are planned for this weekend.

  WITHER JOLNET?  will be a detailed report by David Tamkin of the
  troubles facing the system administrator of this suburban Chicago
  public access system; and ramifications for another Chicago area
  site as a result.  Miscellaneous comments by other readers will
  be included.


  CPID/ANI DEVELOPMENTS  will present a memo written by Vic Toth, an
  attorney specializing in regulatory affairs for the STC.

Distribution on both will be sometime Saturday afternoon most likely.


Patrick Townson


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

From: Joe Hingston <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN-Modem Interworking Question
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1990 14:36:18 PST
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc


What is going to be the common (and/or correct) way to interwork ISDN
terminals with services that are modem based?  I am thinking of
personal computers with ISDN as a built in feature, or with an ISDN
add-in card.

I can think of a couple of obvious ways, but do not know which will be
used, or indeed if some totally different means will be used.

1) The ISDN terminal will have a standard modem sitting behind a
codec.  As far as the network and the service provider are concerned
ISDN does not need to exist.

2) The ISDN terminal will use some form of rate adaptation, similar to
V.110.  But then who converts the rate adapted bit stream to modem
tones? The phone company?  A third party?

3) Almost the same as 2), but instead of bit rate adaptation data is
sent as HDLC frames.  This raises the same questions as to who
converts the frames to tones.

Are the RBOCs allowed to do the rate adaption, or does it fall into
the category of protocol conversion?  Will there be pools of Rate
Adaptors, similar to the modem pools that currently exist?

I hope these questions make sense, if not please feel free to suggest
new questions.


A screaming comes across the sky"  T. Pynchon
These statements in no way reflect Apple opinions.
Joe Hingston ([e-mail])

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About SONET
Date: 23 Feb 90 17:17:20 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henning Schulzrinne)
writes...

>1. Are there any readily accessible papers (i.e., not just some
>standard) containing details on SONET, beyond the paper in the March
>1989 issue of the IEEE Communications Magazine? I am especially
>interested in motivations of certain design decisions, not just
>"that's how it is and there is nothing you can do about it".

>2. Why was the row size set to 90 bytes? As it is, ATM packets will
>have to be broken across rows.

You have to remember that SONET and ATM are only distantly related.
SONET predates ATM; it did not anticipate ATM.  ATM does not require
SONET; the B-ISDN crowd simply took pieces that the ATM fanatics
wanted and pieces that the SONET fanatics wanted and glommed them
together.  They don't fit together particularly well.

>3. How do ATM and SONET interact? What gets switched where?

SONET is simply the physical medium that carries ATM (or other
things).  It's synchronous.  The row size is based on a compromise
between the US and Europe.  Originally the US ran 50.02 Mbps (I think)
STS-1 with 13 rows, but that's meaningless to the Europeans (whose
hierarchy is different) so the compromise was to "meet" at STS-3
(STM-1 to CCITT), with 270 columns and 9 rows.  The compromise fit
together that way.

ATM cell size is controversial.  The Aussies pushing DQDB (802.6) had
69-octet cell silicon and the Americans agreed with that size (64
octet payload, 5 octet header).  The French did the Prelude experiment
in '82 using 18 octet (16+2) cells, and figured that they could go as
high as 32 octet payloads without needing echo cancellers for voice.
(Echo cancellers are needed if your packetization and propagation
delays are excessive.  In a country the size of the US, 32 octets of
packetization delay, or 4 milliseconds, would have been excessive.  So
we Gringos are pretty much resigned to using echo cancellers over
ATM.)

CCITT struck a compromise last summer that nobody really liked: Split
the difference and have a 48-octet payload (48+5 cell).  Dividing 53
octets into the 260-column STM-1 (after 10 columns of overhead are
subtracted) does not leave an integer, but you can hardly blame SONET
for that!

>4. What is the advantage of interleaving ``header'' information
>throughout the frame, rather than concentrating it at the beginning of
>a frame? Why are the payload pointers put a number of rows after the
>beginning of the frame, so that I have to wait until I can determine
>where the payload begins?

In practice, I think you'll have to buffer a frame anyway; putting the
overhead throughout the frame (actually, in the first columns) allows
the rest of the columns to be used as virtual tributaries,
undisturbed.  It makes sense to me.

>5. Why was the path overhead made part of the payload rather than the
>header?

SONET is layered.  It requires a section layer overhead.  The path is
layered above section, as a path may run over many concatenated
sections.

      fred (ANSI T1S1 rep)

Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone.  sharing requires permission.

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

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 10:34:13 CST
From: Randy Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ameritech PSN->Telenet


I am currently considering putting up a BBS system in Rural Walworth
county Wisconsin.  However, the nearest PC-Pursuit node is in
Janesville (which is a long distance call, since it is in a different
LATA).  I have, for several months, been trying to talk to Ameritech
Packet Switching in Milwaukee to find out if there is a local node in
Delevan, so I could gateway through to Telenet.  (Telenet says they
have cleared their security problem with PC-Pursuit, and the gateway
is now possible).

However, I am getting nothing but the royal shaft from Ameritech.  I
have made several calls, have talked to a consultant at the American
Library Association convention in Chicago this past January, but I
NEVER get as much as a call back!  Does anyone have any information
(or what buzzwords I need to use with their supposed customer service
department) on how I can accomplish this gateway.

Thank you.

Randy Miller
rs.miller@pro-harvest  fsc@pro-harvest
GEnie:rs.miller  America Online:rsmiller

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Question About Feature Groups
Date: 23 Feb 90 06:58:38 GMT
Organization: very little


Several years ago I remember hearing some discussion about the
different classes of connections that a long distance carrier could
get at the called party office.  Some of them gave answer supervision,
and because some didn't, the carriers had to use funny voice detection
and timing schemes.  What were these connections called?


Tad Cook
[e-mail]


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

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 04:42:52 PST
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Envoy 100
Reply-To: "Robert P. Warnock" <rigden![e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

+---------------
| 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?
+---------------

It's just a commercial e-mail service. Happens to be run (indirectly)
by the Canadian government. Fees are charged for connect time,
kilocharacters sent/read, disk storage, and monthly service fee. It's
not cheap. It has a rather primitive command/help system, and a very
primitive editor for composing messages. (Nothing at all approximating
"termcap", nor indeed any screen-oriented functions. Strictly glass TTY.)

It is partitioned up into disjoint user groups (although there is a
syntax for talking to people in other groups); that's because it's
largely marketed as private (closed) e-mail for companies/groups that
don't already have computer-based e-mail.  It provides a
tree-structure of bulletin-boards within a given user community for
posting USENET-style (you send mail to a BBS "user name"), plus normal
user-to-user unicast mail. You get notification of new mail on login
for yourself and for any BBS's in your user group.

It can be accessed in Canada by direct dial (various numbers), or in
Canada via Datapac, or in the US via Telenet (0302039400100). Has
automatic password aging, which makes for fun if you're trying to run
a "gateway" (well, a program to poll a couple of accounts for their
mail). Has a tiny bit of support for "batched" input, presumably for
those who compose their messages offline on a PC.

However, it *does* seem to be plugged into most of the X.400-like
gateways, and with the right magic you can (they say -- I've never
gotten it to work) send a message to, say, AT&T Mail, or some of the
other commercial nets. And the administration of a user community can
be pretty much delegated to your group's designated net administrator,
who can add/modify/delete individual accounts within the group,
add/delete/rearrange the bulletin-board structure, and who gets all
the bills.

The biggest "gotchas" to watch out for are the overall costs (they can
mount up fast if a sudden flurry of traffic occurs some month), the
delayed billing cycle (you don't see what you've spent for several
months), and the fact that messages are *not* automatically deleted
after you read them unless you say "PURGE UNFILED", which leaves a
gathering pile of *very* expensive disk bits.

You can also rack up connect time if you read stuff on-line, with the
built-in "---more---" prompts. Fortunately, you can say "READ!" which
will dump all your new messages out with no paginator (hopefully to be
captured in your terminal emulator's log file), and log off quickly
(*after* remembering to "PURGE UNFILED"). Composing on-line can be
expensive iff you are a bad typist and need to spend a lot of time in
their editor.

But all in all, not terrible, and certainly usable by people with
nothing but a dumb terminal. (But then, so are ATTmail and MCImail.) I
use it *only* because a group of which I'm a member happened to pick
it as an "interim solution" to staying in touch -- "interim" for
several years now. (Yes, we should switch to UUCP-based news, but a
goodly number of the members are still terminal-only users scattered
in fairly isolated locations. Telenet's "local" access ports are a
winner for this population.)


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

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

Date: Fri 23 Feb 90 09:56:02-PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book on Telephone Switching


The book "Introduction to Telephone Switching" by Bruce E. Briley of
Bell Labs, published by Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-11246-9 has
(amongst other things) a very comprehensive overview of the various
generations of switches from Step-by-Step and Panel via Crossbar and
the whole family of ESSs (1-5).

(It also contains an amusing "typo"; the photograph of a Crossbar
Switch Bay on page 45 is flipped 90 degrees so the racks appear
*horizontal*.  Now here in Earthquake land this may not be so
uncommon, but...)


Ole

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

From: Richard Pavelle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quiet Lines
Date: 23 Feb 90 12:36:27 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA


New England Telephone had a quiet line number (exchange-9917).  This
has been changed since the last time I needed it. Does anyone know
what it now is?

Thanks.


Richard Pavelle         UUCP: ...ll-xn!rp
                        ARPANET: [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint 800 Service
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 15:37:05 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


A previous article mentioned that Sprint's residence 800 service has
no monthly charge.  This is not correct.  There is a $10 per month
charge, plus 14 cents (or so) per minute for calls, billed in 6 second
increments.  The prices for residence and business Fonline 800 service
are the same.  It is possible to get Sprint to waive the installation
charge, though...


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


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

Subject: VMX Voice Mail Lawsuits
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 10:17:52 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Speaking of VMX...  Readers might be interested to know that VMX holds
a (dubious) patent on voice mail systems.  They sue just about
everyone who makes voice mail and demands payment.  Most companies
don't have the legal weight to fight them in court...  VMX is an
enormous company.  Strangely enough, VMX chose not to sue IBM/Rolm
over voice mail years ago...  (Not that I'm aware of, at least.)


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


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

Subject: Sprint Plus
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 10:11:58 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Is everyone talking about the same thing with regard to Sprint Plus?
I'm not aware of any rebates or credits which are available under the
program.

Sprint Plus gives the subscriber a minimum bill of $8.00 per month,
but it gives them nighttime rates starting at 5PM, skipping evening
rates completely.  It's a good deal for long distance fiends who don't
like to call people after 11PM on weeknights...  I just signed up for
it this week.  I'll keep everyone informed as to the inevitable
billing fiascos this causes.  At best, it will cause me to get two
bills in one month...


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #124
******************************













Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20425;
          24 Feb 90 0:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11011;
          23 Feb 90 22:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06075;
          23 Feb 90 21:16 CST
Date:     Fri, 23 Feb 90 20:15:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #125
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Feb 90 20:15:13 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Prevalence of 10XXX Dialing (David Tamkin)
    Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing (Kent Borg)
    GTE & MFJ (was Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing) (David Lewis)
    Re: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC (Anthony Stone)
    Re: Foreign Companies in the US (John Higdon)
    Why Is Everyone Dumping on AT&T? (Daniel A. Margolis)
    911 Abuses (David Leibold)
    Cellular and Caller*ID (Joseph C. Pistritto)
    Re: CLI in CA (John Higdon)
    Re: Does 976 Know Who You Are? (John Higdon)
    *TONE-BLOCK* (Daniel A. Margolis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <point![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prevalence of 10XXX Dialing
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 10:59:35 CST
Reply-To: point![e-mail]


John Cowan wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 116:

| As I understand it, only Bell (ex-AT&T) telcos plus GTE must offer
| [10XXX], and lots of local independent telcos don't.  Taconic
| Telephone, for example, the first all-digital local telco in the
| country, has no plans to offer any LD carrier except AT&T.

Centel offers 10XXX, but the selection of carriers who will accept my
10XXX dialing is different from the selection offered to Illinois Bell
customers across the street.  (For one thing, I can use 10721 for
Centel Net and they can't; for another, there was a long stretch when
MCI would offer them Around Town calling but told me I wasn't
eligible, even though they advertised that it was available throughout
the city of Chicago: they reserved the right to define Chicago their
own way regardless of what the City Council said.)

| (I suppose that GTE comes under the terms of the MFJ because it owns
| Sprint.  True or false?)

But GTE no longer owns Sprint.  On July 1, 1986, GTE and United
Telecommunications merged their packet nets (GTE Telenet and Uninet)
into Telenet (soon to be renamed SprintNet) and their long-distance
carriers (Sprint and U S Tel) into U S Sprint.  About two years later
GTE pulled out of the partnership, leaving Telenet and U S Sprint
entirely in United Tel's hands.

And now that Central Telephone's corporate parent owns a long-distance
carrier, they continue renting and selling telephone equipment to
residential customers, so that hasn't put them under MFJ rules.


David W. Tamkin    [e-mail]   ...{ddsw1,obdient!vpnet}!point!dattier
BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570 [phone] [phone]
P. O. Box 813  Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813   All other point users disagree.

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

From: Kent Borg <lloyd!sunfs3![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing
Date: 23 Feb 90 21:29:48 GMT
Reply-To: Kent Borg <[e-mail]>
Organization: Camex, Inc., Boston, Mass USA


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

>'course, this works only in those areas that have 10XXX (Feature Group D?)
>dialing.

>Is that everywhere *except* the backwaters of GTE Northwest, now?  Or
>are there still many places that don't have 10XXX dialing?

>We can do 950-xxxx and "select our default 1+ carrier", but 10XXX is
>only for the local Bell-co (US West, or whatever they changed their
>name to this week) customers.

I know that when I was visiting my parents over Christmas I tried
10222 and didn't get far.  I asked the operator whether the line had
equal access and was told no.

I did get through with 950-1022.

This was 20 miles west of Minneapolis in Mound (where Tonka Toys used
to live), I think served by Continental.  Was always a step-by-step
when I was growing up, but that changed a few years ago, it sounds
electronic now.


Kent Borg                lloyd![e-mail]  or  ...!husc6!lloyd!kent
MacNet: kentborg                              H:[phone]  W:[phone]
"So simple minded.  Kindergarten level with no content, but it's beautifully
landscaped, and the architecture is interesting."    -my mother on Epcot Center

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: GTE & MFJ (was Re: Prevalence of 10xxx Dialing)
Date: 22 Feb 90 20:58:54 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> (I suppose that GTE comes under the terms of the MFJ because it owns
> Sprint.  True or false?)

False.  Only AT&T and the AT&T-divested Regional Operating Companies
(the famous seven) are subject to terms of the MFJ.

GTE has, however, submitted itself/been submitted to similar
constraints.  I believe this was due to another DOJ antitrust suit,
but I could be mistaken.


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

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

From: Anthony Stone <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ABC TV Feed Via Phone Number in NYC
Date: 22 Feb 90 20:41:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Anthony Stone)
Organization: NBC Computer Imaging, New York


Steve Huff mentions a phone number in New York which answers with ABC
TV program audio. This is most certainly one of their many IFB
(Interruptible FoldBack) lines which are used so that talent and
interview guests can hear questions being posed to them during remote
[live] broadcasts.  Producers can also interrupt the audio with cues
like "the tape isn't ready, go on to the next story."

If the interview is via satellite, then "mix-minus" audio is sent.
This is an output of the audio board which includes all audio sources
except the satellite feed. Otherwise the person being interviewed
would hear his voice in his earphone a half second later. Very
disconcerting, believe me! (You can simulate this with a 3-head audio
tape recorder.  Listen to the playback head while recording into a
microphone.)

No, I won't give out our IFB numbers!  :-)


Anthony Stone            NBC News Graphics, New York, NY
[e-mail]        212-664-2206

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Foreign Companies in the US
Date: 23 Feb 90 10:26:12 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Rajeev B Patil <[e-mail]> writes:

> " Tax officials assert that some subsidiaries understate income, thus
                  ^^^^^^
> minimizing tax liability, by manipulating transactions with parent
> company."

> No wonder the Japanese products are cheaper !!!!

Until all this is proven somewhere, I wouldn't "ah-HA" too much.
Remember, the popular Japan-bashing is as much rampant in the
government as it is in companies like AT&T. Just as AT&T defenders
have gone off foaming at the mouth without doing any actual
investigating of reality, so too have our trusty government officials.

Besides, even if true, it doesn't explain why Japanese products are
*better*. I think that has been explained adequately in other posts.


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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 19:35:27 EST
From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Is Everyone Dumping On AT&T?


I guess it's time to come out of the woodwork.  There have been enough
flames about the dumping claim that I almost dislike reading this
newsgroup.  I am an AT&T employee and I do work for General Business
Systems.  I am an engineer, not a PR-person or a lawyer, and
everything I know about the dumping claim is public knowledge, and
does not necessarily represent the opinion of AT&T.  There - how's
that for a disclaimer?

I want to set a few things straight.  First of all, as far as I know,
there are only two American manufacturers of the specified systems:
AT&T and Comdial.  The claim was filed jointly by both companies.
Furthermore, the claim was thoroughly investigated by two commissions
(ITC and someone else).  If they found in favor of the American
companies, then there was sufficient evidence.  I doubt that General
Business Systems has any undo influence in such matters.  They just
presented facts and knowledgeable witnesses.

It does not matter whether the company accused of dumping has designed
a product specifically for the US.  What does matter is that they have
been found to be subsidizing their US products with their Japanese
profits.  This can be seen as taking advantage of the fact that the US
market is much more open than the Japanese market.  Right now,
Japanese consumers are paying for our "below cost" prices, and each
Japanese company has a small amount of market share, but with a little
collusion, the Japanese companies can control the market.  Then, we
will find that American consumers will pay the full burden and more.
Of course, if the Japanese companies manufacture in the US, they can
do the same thing and get away with it (perhaps a weakness in the law).

For the person who made the point that SW Bell's system is cheaper
than the MERLIN system, you are assuming that SW Bell's system is US
made.  None of the RBOCs is permitted to manufacture.  They take
someone else's product and put their logo on it.  It could quite
possibly be one of the dumped systems.

For those people who compare Merlin to Panasonic's 16-station key
system, you are comparing the wrong things.  AT&T's basic key system
is the SPIRIT system.  The MERLIN PLUS system is larger and it is a
feature-rich luxury model with voice prompting and such.  The MERLIN
II system is a 54-trunk by 120 station system, much larger than the
Panasonic to which you are comparing it.  All three are manufactured
in the USA.  If you were/are looking for a small/cheap/basic key
system, you should be looking at the SPIRIT system, not either of the
MERLIN systems.

On another note I dislike the fact that the average consumer cannot
tell the difference between products sold by Bell and products
Manufactured by AT&T.  At a reunion I mentioned that I worked for AT&T
and I was told that my old fraternity house just recently bought a
phone system from us and hated it.  Actually, they had bought a system
from NYNEX, manufactured (dumped?) by TIE.  Name recognition just
isn't what it used to be.


Dan Margolis


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent rebuttal and contribution
to the Digest.   PT]

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

Subject: 911 Abuses
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 17:52:57 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


George Gamester's column in the _Toronto_Star_ on Tuesday 20th
February discussed some of the things 911 operators have to put up
with.

There was a mention of someone who wanted his flight to be extra-safe,
so he called in a bomb report on his flight. Needless to say, he was
not too knowledgeable about ANI, so he got two years in jail (more
than what many rapists and muggers get).

It is reported that only 10% of Toronto's 911 calls are actual
emergencies.  The rest sometimes go like this:

"Ten-four. I'm calling from my mobile phone. A litterer in the car in
front of me just threw a candy wrapper out the window. I will remain
in pursuit of the perpetrator and attempt citizen's arrest."

Of course, many false alarms are due to pre-programming of the 911
number in some phones (the wrong button gets pressed).


|| David Leibold ([e-mail])
|| "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse" - Bruce Cockburn

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

Date: 23 Feb 90 14:04:18+0100
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular and Caller*ID


        There's no reason (none at all), why cellular phones shouldn't
generate Caller*ID (eg. the person being called FROM a cellular phone
would get correct Caller*ID displayed on his box), as the 'switch'
part of a cellular system is pretty much a standard model.  All the
interesting stuff happens between that switch and the user.  Each
cellular customer has the virtual equivalent of a local loop, (in the
early systems, I think there was actually a physical local loop),
which has an assigned phone number.  So the switch generates Caller*ID
information when placing the outbound call into the network.

        Further, I'm sure the cellular switch RECEIVES the Caller*ID
info just fine as well.  The problem is getting it onto the display in
the cellular mobile.  I don't think there's any provision in the
cellular standard for text information to be passed to the remote
during call setup.  (I could be wrong here, it's been a couple years
since I saw the relevant documents).  In any event, as far as I know,
older phones couldn't support any change to implement this.

                                        -jcp-

======================================================================
Joseph C. Pistritto  HB9NBB N3CKF
                    'Think of it as Evolution in Action' (J.Pournelle)
  Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002 Basel, Switzerland
  Internet: [e-mail]                  Phone: [phone]
  Bitnet:   [e-mail]   Fax:   [phone]
  From US:  cgch![e-mail]


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLI in CA
Date: 23 Feb 90 10:08:50 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Rick Farris) writes:

> There is a rumor floating around out here in California that CNN aired
> a special on Caller ID this weekend, claiming that CLI was going to be
> in California this year, and probably the first half of this year.

My inside sources tell me that CLASS features will not appear in
Pac*Bell territory until at least last quarter 1990 or maybe first
quarter 1991.

In any event, you can be assured that the features will appear in
southern California long before they are offered elsewhere in the
state. I don't expect to see any of it here for a few more years.

> The last I heard on the subject here on c.d.t, Pac*Bell was waiting
> for constitutionality issues to be resolved elsewhere before bringing
> CLI into California.

They are trying to get the issues resolved with the CPUC and the
courts and civil liberties organizations before they actually make the
offerings.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does 976 Know Who You Are?
Date: 23 Feb 90 10:13:11 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Rick Farris) writes:

> The question came up as to whether the Dial-a-Porn 976 providers
> receive info on their callers.  Does anyone know?

I don't know about other states, but 976 service is provided on
ordinary ground or loop start incoming-only trunks. There is no
Caller-ID available in California.


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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 19:40:41 EST
From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: *TONE-BLOCK*

The ability to suspend Call Waiting is called *TONE-BLOCK* here in New
Jersey Bell land, but here's the catch - you have to subscribe to it.
You have to pay 50 cents extra per month to use it.

Dan Margolis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #125
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27410;
          24 Feb 90 13:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32355;
          24 Feb 90 11:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17385;
          24 Feb 90 10:22 CST
Date:     Sat, 24 Feb 90 9:48:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #126
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 24 Feb 90 09:48:24 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: MCI and Imaginary Calling Card Numbers (David Tamkin)
    Re: Computerized Collect Calls (Mike Riddle)
    Re: Questions About SONET (John Ellson)
    Re: Text-to-Speech Synthesizers (Lou Judice)
    Re: Need Advice on Choosing PBX System (David Daniel)
    Sleazy 1-976 Scheme (Kim Fosbe)
    Unlisted Charges (John Ranney)
    Multi Message Answering Machine (Mike Koziol)
    The Facts about Cellular and Caller ID (John R. Covert)
    Two Special Issues Later Today (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Murder By Phone (Randal L. Schwartz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI and Imaginary Calling Card Numbers
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 14:51:48 CST


Nutsy Fagen wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 122:

| When the card came, sure enough, it was my home phone number with a
| PIN thrown on.  It also had my name spelled wrong :)

When I ordered a card from MCI, they miraculously got my name right
(the fruit list helps) but also based the card number on my home
number.  It was 1989, for Cthulhu's sake, and it hadn't occurred to me
that any carrier would still be doing such a stupid thing.  I phoned
back and ordered what U S Sprint had once called "a scrambled PIN."

| However, when my new
| cards came, one was based on the real number, and the other was
| completely new, based (I assume) on an imaginary 335-458-xxxx number.
| An interesting note is that my home phone number is 315-458-yyyy.

A *very* interesting note!  My home number is in area code 312, and
the scrambled number MCI sent me begins 332 plus my home prefix!


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, 23 Feb 90 22:35:25 EST
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a recent message, Wm Randolph Franklin writes:

(inquiring as to AT&T's basis for charging the called party when the
caller refuses to pay or is unable.)

>Anyone know what the legal basis for this is?

AT&T undoubtedly is using some theory of unjust enrichment.  The
called party, in a case where numerous calls of lengthy duration are
in question, received some benefit and therefore should pay.  While it
might not seem fair, in that the called party did not, on the record,
ask for the call, AT&T certainly did not ask for it either (except
through all the advertising?  and then they expected payment!).

Between the "innocent" third party provider (AT&T) or the two parties
to the call, AT&T should be the last to pay for it.

That would be the theory anyway.  I expect a lot of us could structure
an argument that "getting stiffed is part of the cost of doing
business."  Then we'd hightail it down to the PUC and lobby against
rate increases.

Rambling off.

{standard disclaimer:  not even *I* take my advice, why should you?}

   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.1
   Origin: [1:285/666.6@fidonet]   The Inns of Court         (285/666.6)
   Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
   [e-mail]

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

From: ames!mailrus!uunet!stsusa.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Questions About SONET
Date: 23 Feb 90 23:32:15 GMT
Organization: Siemens Transmission Systems, Albuquerque, NM


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henning Schulzrinne)
writes:

> I have a number of questions regarding SONET, the Bellcore-standard
> Synchronous Optical NETwork.

> 1. Are there any readily accessible papers (i.e., not just some
> standard) containing details on SONET, beyond the paper in the March
> 1989 issue of the IEEE Communications Magazine? I am especially
> interested in motivations of certain design decisions, not just
> "that's how it is and there is nothing you can do about it".

As a long-time contributor to the development of the Sonet standard I
can probably answer your questions as far as the technical motivations
behind the design decisions in Sonet.

> 2. Why was the row size set to 90 bytes? As it is, ATM packets will
> have to be broken across rows.

ATM was not a consideration when the 9 by 90 frame structure of the
Sonet STS-1 signal was decided, in fact the ATM cell size was not
agreed upon until well after the first release of Sonet.

The 9 row structure was chosen to best accomodate both US and CEPT
digital hierarchies.  3 columns (27 bytes) carries a 1.544Mb signal
and 4 columns (36 bytes) carries a 2.048 Mb signal.

The 90 byte row in the STS-1 signal is sized such that the 9 by 90
frame carries the next major signal in the US hierarchy, the DS3 at
44.736Mb.  The CCITT STM-1 signal, which is equivalent to 3 times the
STS-1, carries the next major signal in the CEPT hierarchy at
139.264Mb (also DS4-NA in the US).

Sonet was designed to reasonably accomodate the all existing digital
hierarchies so that Sonet equipment could be introduced, globally, in
an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary manner.  ATM is expected to
be the first global payload application of Sonet.

The ATM mapping uses the H4 byte to contain an offset indicator to the
next ATM header.  This allows ATM cell alignment to be obtained within
125us of aquiring Sonet frame.  This mechanism would have worked for
any ATM cell size.  I suspect that the availability of this mechanism
was a factor in finally reaching agreement on the cell size; because
the ability of Sonet to carry a particular size was not a factor.

The bytes of the ATM cells arrive sequentially even though they are
broken across rows and frames.  An ATM demapper would simply use a
gapped clock to clock the cell bytes into an ATM queue buffer.

> 3. How do ATM and SONET interact? What gets switched where?

Sonet is a circuit switching format, ATM is packet switching.  The ATM
mapping in Sonet permits ATM nodes to be interconnected using
facilities that are shared with the existing digital network.  Sonet
makes extensive provisions for the maintenance of those facilities
thus relieving ATM of the responsibility.

> 4. What is the advantage of interleaving ``header'' information
> throughout the frame, rather than concentrating it at the beginning of
> a frame? Why are the payload pointers put a number of rows after the
> beginning of the frame, so that I have to wait until I can determine
> where the payload begins?

I am not quite sure which "header" information you are refering to.

The ATM cell headers are associated with each cell so that each can be
routed independently.  Remember that adjacent cells may belong to
completely different virtual circuits.

The Section, Line, Path overhead is distributed to minimize the gaps
in the recovered payload clocks that must be smoothed out with
buffering, at least for DS1 and DS3 signals.  (Some would say that the
overhead was not distibuted enough!)

> 5. Why was the path overhead made part of the payload rather than the
> header?

The path overhead is not part of the payload, it belongs to the
container that carries the payload end-to-end.  Path overhead is
responsible for ensuring that the payload is succesfully carried
end-to-end across the circuit switched network.  Conversely, Line
overhead only monitors the signal node-to-node, where a node is a
cross-connect or a multiplexer.

In the case of ATM, a Sonet "Path" corresponds to a circuit between
adjacent ATM nodes.

> 6. What is the implementation status of SONET?

Sonet equipment is available now from a number of manufacturers.


John Ellson   //   [e-mail]   //    602-395-5281
Siemens Transmission Systems, 8620 N 22nd Ave, Phoenix AZ 8502


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

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 18:32:41 PST
From: "Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Text-to-Speech Synthesizers


Just a small plug for my employer - DEC - here. Digital has a line of
single line and multiline text to speech synthesizers with integrated
telephone features (dialing, answering). I've used them extensively
with applications such as remote alerting of systems personnel, and am
very pleased.

For a demo, just call 1-800-DECTALK, or your local DEC sales rep.


Lou Judice
Digital Equipment Corp.
20 Corp Place So.
Piscataway, NJ 08855
(201/908) 562-4103

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

From: [e-mail] (David Daniel)
Subject: Re: Need Advice on Choosing PBX System
Date: 24 Feb 90 04:25:06 GMT
Reply-To: tronix@.UUCP (David Daniel)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


If you're sure that you want a digital PBX and you'll need 24 trunks
and 76 phones, you're farther along than most customers are.

In you plan on installing a LAN there likely isn't any need for
simultaneous voice/data. That feature is normally used by companies
that have computers located throughout their location that need to
occaisionally communicate with each other.  If you know you'll be
putting in a LAN then you're best bet is to keep voic and data wiring
separate.

You may want to survey your present staff to determine what they like
about your present phone system and what they don't like. Put a
wish-list together that includes all features desired, even if you're
not sure if they're possible.  This list will allow a seller to
determine the best make and model of equipment for your needs and
wants.

To get familiar with makers and applications I suggest you read
Teleconnect Magazine. Your local library should have it.

As for the makers I suggest you look into: Mitel - The 200 series with
Generic 217 or above software.

The Mitel SX-50 would also fit well, but if you have 24 trunks you may
want to look into T1 service. The 200 series with 1003 software would
work well and likely save you money using T1.

The Fujitsu Focus series is also worth a look, tho with the tariffs,
this equipment may be hard to get or more expensive than it should be.


        "What's so funny 'bout peace, love & understanding?"
                          Elvis Costello

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

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 22:43:51 EST
From: Kim Fosbe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sleazy 1-976 Scheme
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


    Here in Omaha, they are in the midst of a massive TV ad campaign
to get people calling 1-976-TIME for time and temperature. Of course,
in teeny-tiny print so small that you can barely read it they say that
the call will cost you 60 cents. That's very expensive time, when you
consider that one of the Omaha banks has the same thing at 342-TIME
except they give you a 5-second or so commercial about "auto loans" or
such as well.  Of course, the bank time number is a free call.

    Now I know how much TV time costs and these people are on the air
all night every night. They are going to have to sell a lot of "time"
just to pay for the ad campaign. What I don't see is how they expect
to make money unless they think that us "yokels" in Omaha are nothing
but a bunch of suckers.

"Time is money", they say.
                                                         KRF

  Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

  Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 22:47:18 EST
From: John Ranney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unlisted Charges
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


If you don't want to be charged for an unlisted number but don't want
the general public to have immediate access to you number, change the
name listed in the phone book from your real name to a fictional name.
You can use any name you like for the number listed in the phone book.
At least this is true in the US West books.  I know because I have had
this done.  When you choose a name to be used, pick a common name that
will be hard to distinguish from others such as, Smith, Jones, Brown,
etc.


   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
   Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)
   Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 03:10:50 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multi Message Answering Machine


Our university has expressed an interest in having an information line
with several pre-rcorded messages. When the person calls he would be
given a list of things he could get information on and then be
instructed to use the appropriate tiuch tone to get their desired
recording. To sum it up a "talking phone book" concept only much
smaller (6 recorded messages). I know there is some IBM compatible
software in existence that will run on a pc. Anything else?

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 05:04:58 PST
From: "John R. Covert  24-Feb-1990 0754" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Facts about Cellular and Caller ID


>There's no reason (none at all), why cellular phones shouldn't
>generate Caller*ID (eg. the person being called FROM a cellular phone
>would get correct Caller*ID displayed on his box), as the 'switch'
>part of a cellular system is pretty much a standard model.

Dead wrong.

Every cellular switch in the U.S. is connected to the local network
just like a PBX.  No phone company is currently offering SS7 (the
prerequisite for Caller ID) as a method of connection for PBXs.  This
means that where there is Caller ID, the number which will appear is
_not_ the cellular number, but rather the number assigned to one of
the DoD trunks.  In fact, when I call the New England Telephone
operator in Boston from a NYNEX or Southwestern Bell cellular phone,
the operator doesn't have the cellular number.

>Further, I'm sure the cellular switch RECEIVES the Caller*ID
>info just fine as well.

Nope.  Sorry.  Again, cellular switches are connected without the
benefit of SS7, and have no way to receive Caller ID info, which can
_only_ be passed on lines (not trunks).

>I don't think there's any provision in the cellular standard for text
>information to be passed to the remote during call setup.

Correct, and it probably won't be added to the standard.

/john

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 8:59:59 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Special Issues Later Today

Later today (Saturday), two special issues of the Digest will be
transmitted to you:

  WITHER JOLNET?  will be a report from David Tamkin about the problems
  facing the administrator of this public-access Unix system following
  the raid a few weeks ago on his home after cracker/phreak messages were
  found on his machine. Some assorted comments from other users will
  be included, including a couple rebuttals to the Legion of Doom.

  CPID/ANI DEVELOPMENTS  will be a memo written by Vic Toth, an
  attorney specializing in regulatory matters.

Most of you will get these delivered Saturday afternoon or evening.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Murder By Phone
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 19:14:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, csense!bote@uunet (John Boteler) writes:

| The plot (?) concerns a madman who conducts his trade by placing a
| phone call to the victim, then pulsing energy down the line until the
| earpiece explodes.

That'd be a whole new twist on "Remote Execution", eh?

Just another phone user and Unix hacker,

 /=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ==========\
 | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
 | [e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |
 \=Cute Quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon, home of the California Raisins!"=/

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #126
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00915;
          24 Feb 90 14:17 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11019;
          24 Feb 90 12:31 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32355;
          24 Feb 90 11:27 CST
Date:     Sat, 24 Feb 90 11:02:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Wither Jolnet?
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 24 Feb 90 11:00:00 CST    Special: Wither Jolnet?

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Fate of Jolnet (David Svoboda)
    What Happened To Jolnet? (David Tamkin)
    Ramifications of Jolnet's Trouble (Bill Kuykendall via David Tamkin)
    Re: The Purpose and Intent of the Legion of Doom (Thomas Narten)
    Re: The Purpose and Intent of the Legion of Doom (Milo S. Medin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 10:04:49 CST
From: David Svoboda <motcid!violet![e-mail]>
Subject: Fate of Jolnet
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]


Moderator said, at sometime or other:

   >[Moderator's Note: ...  No further discussion here, please.
   >I have no desire to see eecs.nwu.edu wind up like the late Jolnet,
   >which it is doubtful will be back on line anytime soon.  PT]

What exactly happened to Jolnet?  I have not been able to read any
netnews for a while, so I may have missed it.


Dave Svoboda, Motorola CID, RTSG, 1510 W Shure Dr., Arlington Heights, IL
uucp =>     {uunet|mcdchd|gatech|att}!motcid!svoboda                60004
internet => motcid![e-mail]
    Don't listen to me, I'm just a puppet of individuality.


[Moderator's Note: What happened was the feds cracked down on Jolnet when
they discovered cracker/phreak messages in the files there. They shut him
down and seized all the equipment; quite rudely, I might add, based on
David Tamkin's report which follows. David was on line at Jolnet when
the feds raided the Andrews' home and pulled the plug.   PT]

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

From: David Tamkin <point![e-mail]>
Subject: What Happened To Jolnet?
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 10:44:45 CST


Gordon Meyer wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 118:

| Could someone post a summary of what "troubles" Jolnet has seen
| because of this LoD/e991 flap?  Was it closed down, and by what agency
| and under what charges?  From my understanding it merely acted as a
| conduit of the information and closing it down would be akin to
| shutting down CompuServe if somone sent a copy of WordPerfect to my
| mail box.

That is what the rest of us understand as well: that Rich Andrews (the
system administrator of Jolnet) has not been charged, but that his
equipment has been seized as evidence.  Jolnet served as a news and
mail feed for several downstream sites, including a junior college, so
those have had to do without links to the rest of the net or had to
find new feeds.

I was logged into Jolnet on the afternoon of February 3, reading
netnews with rn.  The article selection prompt began to show "(Mail)"
but I kept reading news, figuring that I'd check mail when I was done.
I was starting to display a new article, and after its header I
pressed the space bar to see the first page.  Before any text of the
article came through there was a system message that the box was
coming down in two minutes and that we should log off immediately to
prevent corruption of files; that was followed by the first page of
the netnews article, the pager prompt, and NO CARRIER.  So I have
unread mail there as well as some personally important files; I'll
probably never see either.

Jolnet has a Lockport mailing address but an Orland Park telephone
number, so it probably is in Homer Township of Will County.  I have
been under the impression that its location is the Andrews' home.
Rich pretty much ran it alone, with some assistance from two of his
sons.  I'd been a user there since January 29, 1989, and I had met
Rich once, that being June 10, 1989, at the home of another local
public site administrator.

Rich was always a person who stayed out of controversies; he got along
just fine with people who were at each other's throats.  Other site
administrators I have known love to jump into the fray or to forment
the trouble in the first place, so it's rather sadly ironic that it
was a nice, easygoing fellow like Rich who got burned.  It's hard to
say that it was his very lack of interference that got him in trouble,
since all the illegally disseminated information appears to have been
spread via email.

Jolnet's login lines have gone unanswered since February 3, 1990.
There is a contact phone number in its map entry, but I have not tried
it yet.  It looks like a business number in form, and I have the
feeling that it, too, would ring without answer now.  The Andrews'
home telephone number is unlisted, and I don't know it.  It's probably
the only line still operating at Jolnet's location.

On Sunday, February 4, there started to be news about the 911 break-in
with references to "a Lockport, Illinois, bulletin board system."
When Jolnet had been down for several days I started to wonder whether
there was a connection, since after all, Jolnet's mailing address was
in Lockport.  By that Thursday there was talk about it on Chinet (a
public site on the Northwest Side of Chicago), stating that Jolnet had
been closed by federal agents because of its involvement.

Jolnet was an AKCSNet site, but only a handful of AKCS posts came from
there, mostly from three or four of us.  Few people posted to Usenet
 from there either, at least as far as I could see in the groups I
read.  (In fact, except for control messages from Rich, test messages,
and chi.forsale and chi.wanted [Chicago area groups], I cannot
remember the last time I saw a Usenet article from Jolnet that I
didn't write.)

A large part of its usage came from silent readers, from uucp
connections, from people who were writing, compiling, and testing
code, and from people playing games like nethack and yahtzee on line.
I had the impression that a significant group of the gaming crowd were
friends of the Andrews' boys, but I never really knew.  Others PCP'ed
to Jolnet (it was dialable from ILCHI) from across the country and
there were a few accounts with addresses in other countries.  In
total, there were 5% of the users of whom I could say that I knew what
they used Jolnet for.  If someone had asked me whether kracking and
phreaking information was being exchanged there, I'd have said, "Not
that I know; maybe in email but certainly not in public postings."
Now I'd have to change that to "So I heard after it shut down but not
that I ever saw while it was still running."

Jolnet was my net.home; I'm now reading TELECOM Digest on Point and
netnews on Gagme.  I've decided to write to Rich Andrews on paper and
ask what is going on with his family and his legal situation, but I
cannot guarantee when or whether he will respond.

Bill Kuykendall (pronounced "Kirk'ndall"), administrator of The Point
(point.UUCP, from which I am submitting this), put up a system news
item about how Jolnet's problems will affect The Point.  He's given me
permission to send it to the Digest, but this submission is already
getting very long, so I am sending it under separate cover.


David W. Tamkin    [e-mail]   ...{ddsw1,obdient!vpnet}!point!dattier
BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570 [phone] [phone]
P. O. Box 813  Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813   Other point users may disagree.

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

From: David Tamkin <point![e-mail]>
Subject: Ramifications of Jolnet's Trouble
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 11:11:07 CST
Reply-To: point![e-mail]


The Point is a public access AKCS and UNIX site in Chicago, Illinois.
On Wednesday, February 21, 1990, its administrator, Bill Kuykendall,
posted the following as a system news item in the wake of the seizure
of jolnet.  With his permission I am submitting it to TELECOM Digest.

Mr. Kuykendall requests copies of any responses.  He is reachable at
[e-mail] or ddsw1!point!wek.

    ----------------- text of announcement follows ---------------------

                      New Restrictions at The Point
                      -----------------------------

By now you may already be aware that 'Jolnet', one of The Point's
sister systems on Usenet, has been seized as evidence in a prosecution
of one or more users of the system.  As far as I know, no allegations
of wrongdoing have been made against Rich Andrews, Jolnet's owner, at
this time.  Nevertheless, Rich is without his computer until the
authorities see fit to give it back to him.

They may of course, opt to press some charge against him as an
accomplice to the crimes of the guy they're really after.  There is no
guarantee that Rich's life will return to normal any time in the near
future.  We all wish him the best, believing that he's done nothing
wrong -- except perhaps in being too generous with his personal
computing resources, and trusting that appreciative users would use
his system for the purposes he offered it for.

Today, there is no law or precedent which affords me, as owner and
system administrator of The Point, the same legal rights that other
common carriers have against prosecution should some other party (you)
use my property (The Point) for illegal activities.  That worries me.

By comparison, AT&T cannot be held liable should someone use their
phone lines to transmit military secrets to an enemy.  Likewise, Acme
Trucking is not vulnerable to drug trafficking charges should they
pull a sealed trailer of cocaine to some destination unknowingly.  Yet
somehow, I am presumed to be cognizant of the contents of every public
message, mailed message, and file upload that passes through this
public access system.  On a system this size, that may be nearly a
gigabyte (1+ Billion characters!) of information a year.

I fully intend to explore the legal questions raised here.  In my
opinion, the rights to free assembly and free speech would be
threatened if the owners of public meeting places were charged with
the responsibility of policing all conversations held in the hallways
and lavatories of their facilities for references to illegal
activities.

Under such laws, all privately owned meeting places would be forced
out of existence, and the right to meet and speak freely would vanish
with them.  The common sense of this reasoning has not yet been
applied to electronic meeting places by the legislature.  This issue
must be forced, or electronic bulletin boards will cease to exist.

In the meantime, I intend to continue to operate The Point, with as
little risk to myself as possible.  Therefore, I am implementing a few
new policies:

  o No user will be allowed to post any message, public or private, until
    his name and address has been adequately verified.  Most users in the
    metropolitan Chicago area have already been validated through the
    telephone number directory service provided by Illinois Bell.  Those of
    you who received validation notices stating that your information had
    not been checked due to a lack of time on my part will now have to
    wait until I get time before being allowed to post.

    Out of state addresses cannot be validated in the manner above.  I am
    considering a U.S. Mail registration scheme, but I am skeptical about
    the amount of additional work involved, and the potential ways to beat
    the system.  The short term solution for users outside of the Chicago
    area is to find a system closer to home than The Point.

  o Some of the planned enhancements to The Point are simply not going to
    happen until the legal issues are resolved.  There will be no shell
    access and no file upload/download facility for now.

The philosophy behind these changes is simple.  I cannot (and would
not want to) censor the content of all users' messages on The Point.
I can encourage self-censorship, and introduce another level of
accountability by removing the anonymity of the author.  Shell access
and file transfer would afford other opportunities for abuse of the
system, and I would prefer to put any time that might be spent
policing users' directories toward obtaining common carrier status for
The Point, and other systems like it.

My apologies to all who feel inconvenienced by these policies, but
under the circumstances, I think your complaints would be most
effective if made to your state and federal legislators.  Please do
so!  Thanks.

                                       Bill Kuykendall
                                       [e-mail]

            --------------  end of text  --------------------

Submitted to Telecom Digest by

David W. Tamkin    [e-mail]   ...{ddsw1,obdient!vpnet}!point!dattier
BIX: dattier  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570 [phone] [phone]
P. O. Box 813  Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813   All other point users disagree.

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

Subject: Re: The Purpose and Intent of the Legion of Doom
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 07:12:51 EST
From: Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>


>Well, I had to speak up. There has been a lot of frothing (mostly by
>people who believe everything that they read in the paper) about
>Legion of Doom.

>LOD was formed to bring together the best minds from the computer
>underground - not to do any damage or for personal profit, but to
>share experiences and discuss computing. The group has *always*
>maintained the highest ethical standards of hacker (or "cracker," as
>you prefer) ethics. [...etc,etc.]

Give me a break. Let me get this straight: the LOD's high ethical
standards include hiding behind a shield of anonymity?  Next you'll
equate "setting the record straight" with the high ethical standards
of the whistle blowers at Morton Thiokel (who risked their careers by
taking a public stand).

Thomas Narten

PS to Moderator: Anonymous postings are a waste of everybody's time.
If they want to tell their side of the story, let them accept full
responsibility for it.


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, I have very mixed reactions to anonymous
postings. Most of them are tossed out. Now and then (as with LoD) I
use them, but with reservations.  PT]

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

From: "Milo S. Medin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Purpose and Intent of the Legion of Doom
Date: 24 Feb 90 07:29:45 GMT
Reply-To: "Milo S. Medin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office


Funny, if you guys are not out to do damage or mischief, and always
maintain the highest professional standards, then why do the PHRACK
newsletters and email we confiscated on a compromised system indicate
so much childish nonsense and information on how to crack computers in
many phone companies and various bad things like building explosive
devices and other wholesome youthful activities?

What about crazy parties at conferences that included drug use and a
blatent disregard for the law? Or maybe the information that came from
a BBS system that was run by LOD members wasn't representative of the
great things your organization strives for?

Doesn't strike me as being very cool.

                    Thanks,
                        Milo

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Wither Jolnet?
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08374;
          24 Feb 90 21:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12077;
          24 Feb 90 19:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15626;
          24 Feb 90 18:35 CST
Date:     Sat, 24 Feb 90 17:47:01 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: CPID/ANI Developments
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 24 Feb 90 17:45:00 CST  Special: CPID/ANI Developments

Today's Topics:                                 Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Revised Memo: CPID/ANI Developments (Vic Toth via Don H. Kemp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Revised Memo: CPID/ANI Developments (V. Toth) (fwd)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 13:35:01 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


Forwarded message:

 Patrick:

 Appended is a memo sent to all members of the STC by Vic Toth, who
 is the STC counsel for regulatory affairs.  It presents yet
 another point of view on the CLID/ANI issue.

 Don

        ----------------- Text of Memorandum ----------------

The introduction of calling number identification and delivery
services over the past two years, first by the interexchange carriers
and now the LECs, have not been the only developments to provoke
concern over telecommunications-related privacy issues.  Growth in the
use of analog wireless services and, of course, the burst in "junk
calling" made economical by recent long distance rate reductions are
certainly also factors.  But the new Caller*ID and ANI delivery
services share primary responsibility for the unprecedented level of
state and federal legislative and regulatory activity seeking to
strengthen all forms of privacy protection.  Because of the ease of
public access to state regulatory forums and the high profile
currently enjoyed by telecommunications generally, the telephone
industry -- much more so than, for example, the direct mailers, the
credit/collection industries, or other personal data manupulators --
has become the focal point of public criticism concerning issues
affecting perceived personal privacy.  This is, without question, a
good and healthy development, perhaps even long overdue.

The telcos' recent cavalier attempts to introduce new caller
identification services as though "nothing has changed" now face
hostile challenges, even adverse backlash, with potential technical
and disappointing economic consequences.  For example, network
technology and new revenue generating applications are being
threatened by popular but naive state and federal proposals which
would mandate calling number blocking at the caller's option while
refusing to recognize that this solution is not technically feasible
with most forms of CPID delivery -- not even with the most
sophisticated ISDN-based delivery methods.  (ISDN protocol allows for
the insertion of a "privacy code" in the data stream, but nevertheless
delivers the private data across the network on the presumption that
the receipient will honor the "code".)

Although Caller*ID and other similar Calling Party Identification
(CPID) services so far have been approved in more jurisdictions than
have turned them down, it is apparent that momentum is building
against their deployment, at least in their intended mode -- that is,
on a universal, nonoptional basis without number blocking.  The
proponents of ubiquitous CPID delivery appear to be at a loss to come
up with a publicly acceptable yet cost effective technical or
alternative service solution to the publics' privacy concerns which
would not also substantially undermine CPID functionality and its
commercial and private utility.

Specifically, the public's privacy concerns seem to have settled on
the three obviious: (1) protection of the caller's need or desire
under particular calling circumstances not to disclose the number from
which his/her call is originating; (2) a perceived telephone company
duty to avoid all forms of unwarranted number disclosure on behalf of
those who have subscribed to and rely on nonpublished and unlisted
telephone number service; and (3) control over the use and
dissemination of CPID information delivered over the network.

But despite its best intentions, to date CPID proponents have been
able to agree only on the following meager suggestions: (1) promotion
of the use of telephones, calling card and local operator services as
means by which callers can avoid disclosing their telephone number;
and (2) help agencies and institutions requiring protection against
number disclosure or unwanted "call backs" should order service from a
designated local exchange set aside by the LEC to guarantee number
anonymity, or subscribe to so-called outward-only exchange services.
(While the US West operating companies have acquiesed to requiring
nondisclosure agreements from noncarrier recipients of CPID
information as a method of containing abuse, this practice is far from
considered acceptable by the carrier industry generally.)

The first set of alternatives leaves an impression of arrogance and
insensitivity to the practical needs and circumstances of callers
desiring number anonymity.  The second alternatives are not
universally available and will involve added line costs to the help
agencies.  As for controls limiting re-use and resale of network
generated information, the CPID providers fear that these would
undermine the usefulness of CPID information to a large segment of the
potential commercial market.

Calling number blocking is surfacing as everyone's suggested answer to
the number anonymity problem.  While both selective call-by-call or
calling line number blocking on all calls are technically feasible,
they tend to deminish the utility of CPID services for present and
planned applications.  However, CPID proponents appear willing to
accept very limited blocking provided it is extended only to certain
categories of customers and call-based help services, such as hot
lines.  But this solution could prove impossible to administer and
might even be unlawfully discriminatory under existing regulatory
statutes.

The lack of significant progress after nearly two years of wrestling
with the CPID privacy issues suggests the need to exhaust and possibly
mandate nontechnical approaches.  These might include the following:

First, there should be strict institutional controls limiting the use
of CPID and other telephone generated data and information, and
restricting telemarketing call practices.  Such controls could be
industry self-administered or, if this proves to be ineffective, they
could be prescribed by regulators and set forth in the telcos'
exchange tariffs.  In either case, consensus on specific conduct
guidelines will not be reached among industry participants alone
without the intervention of either legislators or regulators.  Thus,
it behooves the CPID advocates -- both providers and potential users --
to move in this direction and embrace outside intervention in
developing a code of conduct quickly, before short-sighted technical
restraints or other absolute prohibitions are immposed and become
irreversible.

Second, there should be a widespread CPID public awareness campaign
sponsored by CPID providers and supported by all commercial users of
such services and those who manufacture or sell products capable of
receiving or capturing CPID data.

Third, the industry should adopt a simple, universally recognisible
symbol (such as the asterick) which can be printed in association with
the publication or other promotion of any telephone number which is
equipped to capture CPID information.  The purpose of this symbol
would be to alert callers that their number or other network
identifiable information might be captured or recognized by the called
party.  It would appear in directories and in all ads or other
promotions involving display of numbers equipped to receive CPID
information.

Finally, if and where CPID blocking is prescribed, it should be
offered only to existing subscribers and only for a reasonable
transitional period.  Blocking should not be offered to new or changed
subscribers, and should be phasessd out for grandfathered subscribers
after a reasonable period has been allowed for all customers to become
familiar with the fact that new and evolving telecommunications
capabilities and services can no longer assure number anonymity.  (New
and relocating subscribers would be informed that there can no longer
be an automatic expectation of caller anonymity with normal uses of
the telephone network.)

Meanwhile, the publicity evoked by Caller*ID has had a multiplier
effect.  It has stimulated public policy debate, first at the state
and now the federal level, on telecommuications privacy issues
extending beyond just the original question of caller anonymity.
This, in turn, has resulted in an unprecedented number of legislative
and regulatory proposals and even judicial proceedings which , if not
effectively addressed by knowledgeable and interested parties, could
lead to a patch quilt of unworkable or ineffective new laws and
regulations which fall short of satisfying either sides' best
interests and which could have unintended and disappointing results.

The most recent step targeted at curbing the spread of CPID/ANI
deployment without controls was the introduction of Senate Bill S.
2030 by Senator Kohl (D.WI) referred to as the "Telephone Privacy Act
of 1990".  This bill would amend The Electronic Privacy Act of l986 to
require that any provider of telephone services which include a caller
identification delivery capability must also furnish, at no additional
charge, the capability for the caller to prevent the "dissemination of
their telephone numbers to persons of their choosing."  Civil remedies
would be made available to persons aggrieved by violations of the new
law.  According to Senator Kohl, the purpose of the bill is not to
curb technology, but to open debate on telecommunications-related
privacy issues generally.

Moving in this same direction, Dr. Bonnie Guiton, Special Advisor to
the President on Consumer Affairs, has convened a task force of
industry representatives, known as the Privacy in Telecommunications
Working Group, to make recommendations to how to proceed in this
emerging privacy area.  (I have been invited as a member of the task
group).  While the Kohl Bill and CPID/ANI issues generally fall within
the scope of the task force assignment, it will address all areas of
telecommunications privacy-related matters.

      ----------  end of text of memoradum ------------

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


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for supplying a copy of this to the Digest.
It will be filed in the Archives under the title of this issue.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: CPID/ANI Developments
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05292;
          26 Feb 90 12:07 EST
Date:     Sun, 25 Feb 90 1:58:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #127
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Sun, 25 Feb 90 10:17:09 CST
Resent-From:  [e-mail]
Resent-To:  [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 25 Feb 90 01:58:01 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Jolnet's Troubles (John Higdon)
    AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (TELECOM Moderator)
    Poor Design of Telephone System (Thomas Lapp)
    ISDN on University Campus (David Klur)
    Two CLASS Calling Services Questions (Lou Judice)
    Re: 900 Services (Lou Judice)
    Re: Tone Block (Tom Lowe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Jolnet's Troubles
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 24 Feb 90 21:08:23 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


There were a number of concerns not addressed or even mentioned in the
special issue on the seizure of Jolnet.

How did the authorities learn of cracker/phreak messages in the files?
Did they login as users and look around? Were there *really*
clandestine messages there or is that just the official line? Did they
just seize the machine assuming they could find something
incriminating?

As administrator for zygot, should I start reading my users' mail to
make sure they aren't saying anything naughty? Should I snoop thorough
all the files to make sure everyone is being good? I have no idea what
gets posted directly to USENET, since I have better things to do than
monitor the inews log. Could this be a problem?

This whole affair is rather chilling. Bill Kuykendall is absolutely
correct when he urges people to contact their legislators and get some
of these issues resolved. I remember the bad old days that anyone who
seemed to have technical knowledge about the telephone network was
viewed with a great deal of suspicion. I would rather not see the day
come that anyone with a networked computer is one step away from
arrest.

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


[Moderator's Note: More news has arrived here since the issue on Jolnet
was released yesterday. It appears the 911 software problem was the tip
of the iceberg. When the feds went to visit Andrews, all sorts of
worms started coming out the can. Read the next message today.....   PT]

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 19:54:19 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison!


The news on the street is that there is more to the Jolnet stink than
has been previously revealed --

We're told by a deep-throat type that AT&T is on the war path about
their software, and that 3b2 people in particular are targeted for
'counseling' and whatever corrective action is deemed necessary by
'the authorities'.

So the story on the street goes, another prominent netter was arrested
just recently by the same friendly folks who shut down Jolnet not long
ago. Like jolnet, netsys went down abruptly, with *everything*
confiscated, including a box of old busted up circuit boards in the
basement which hadn't been looked at in years. Now comes news that
attcdc, formerly known as killer went off line in a hurry.....

When 'the authorities' come a-calling, with warrant in hand, and their
credentials in order, they start looking for Mother's source code; 3b2
stuff and the like, and they keep looking until they find it.

You say they won't come knocking at your door?  You say you'll take it
all off line and store it on a reel of tape stashed in the back of the
bottom drawer of an old file cabinet somewhere?  They *will* find it.
And when they find it, your choices will be:

     1) You stole this from AT&T. You are a cracker. You'll go to jail.

     2) If you didn't steal it from AT&T, then someone gave it to you.
        Tell us who.... if you won't tell us, then go back to choice 1.

        If you will snitch, and tell us who gave you this code, then
        the Court will be lenient and show mercy upon you -- but we
        won't put that in writing of course! :)

Faced with these two options, of course everyone selects choice 2. And
with the new information gleaned from the visit, another site is
scheduled for downtime.

Consider Rich Andrews of Jolnet: Our deep-throat says Rich was first
confronted in the 911 software caper, then the feds found other
goodies.  Could it be the feds started squeezing in a private place
and Rich started singing the tune they wanted to hear? Do crackers
stick together when times get tough or do they turn on each other?

You just never know about these things. Some people have been saying
the only safe thing to do at this point is 'rm illegal.software'; go
wash their hands and be done with it, but far be it from me to suggest
such a thing.  That could be construed as an obstruction of justice in
what appears now to be an on-going investigation in our net community
of people whose systems are dirty....

Jolnet ===> netsys ===> attcdc (killer) ===>  your 3b2 site name here.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 20:56:42 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Poor Design of Telephone System
Reply-To: [e-mail]


>From: Dan "the Man with the Plan" Ross <[e-mail]>
>Subject: Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers
>Date: 22 Feb 90 08:00:38 GMT
>Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept

>part of the 495 exchange.  Intracampus calls are made by the last _5_
>digits, so there are numbers of the form 471-9XXX.  The dorm
>"exchange" includes 495-5XXX and 495-3XXX and possibly more.  The gap

>The fun arises when you dial a number 495-XXXX from on campus; unless
>you know someone lives in the dorm, you just have to try it:
>9-495-XXXX or 5-XXXX.  (There are state and city offices, as well as a
>cookie store (!) on 495-XXXX.)  And the wrong one will not work!

This brings to mind the sad story of the installation of a new phone
switch by West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. to service their
brand new hospital.

The background: The old hospital was associated with the University
and thus was part of the university-owned Centrex system.  All
university numbers are of the form 293-xxxx.  When dialing within the
Centrex, only the last 4 digits are needed.  However, when the new
hospital was built, it was (and is) owned by WVUH, Inc, which is a
private company.  They decided that they would install their very own
Rolm switch and also leased?  the 598-4xxx from the local phone
company.  This meant that if you are in the community, you can dial
someone's hospital room with 598-4xxx.

Now here is where the poor planning comes into play.  They found that
1000 numbers wasn't enough for the hospital, and so they added the
3xxx series to the Rolm switch.  However, they did not get this group
from the local phone company, which means that 598-3xxx is guaranteed
to not be a number at the hospital.  So from within the hospital there
are a bunch of internal-only telephone numbers (mostly nurses stations
and numbers that people outside the hospital really shouldn't need to
call).

But the problem gets worse.  Many of the doctors do not have offices
in the new hospital, but still have their offices in the old building
which is served by the Centrex system.  Due to cost and probably
politics, it was decided that they would keep their old phones and not
receive service off of the Rolm switch.  But doctors ARE one community
that would have a need to access the 3xxx internal-only numbers in the
new building.  Beginning to see the problems?

One solution might be that a system be set up so that when they dial
3xxx or 4xxx from their Centrex phone, that it go to the Rolm switch
and be routed correctly.  However, that was out since 3xxx and 4xxx
are already assigned numbers elsewhere on campus on the Centrex.  So
the solution was to put a 'key' in front of the number in order to
force the call to be routed from Centrex to Rolm or vice-versa.  The
third thing wrong here was that Rolm and the Centrex can't use the
same prefix on numbers.

So if you are calling from Centrex to Rolm, you preface the number
with "*1" and if going the other way you have to preface with "11".  A
most undesirable solution, since it requires that you know where you
are and where you are trying to get to and you have to memorize two
methods of calling.

The last item does not relate directly to the telephone switches
themselves but do relate.  Some years ago, the hospital migrated from
voice pagers to digital pagers which display four digits in sequence
using one LED digit.  That was fine when it was installed.  When 4095
showed up, you dialed 4095 and it went through.  However, now that
there are two sets of 3xxx and 4xxx, there is no way to tell if you
are being paged for 293-4095 or 598-4095 when 4095 shows up in the
display.  So the bright folks in administration decided that numbers
in the new hospital are to be paged as 5xxx and 6xxx (ie. take number,
add 2000 to it, then enter that as the page).  This is nice if you
remember to do this.  Or remember that it is the new building which
has to have 2000 added rather than the old building.

Voice paging over the two building intercom system gets kind of funny
too.  "Dr. Weiser, please call 4565 in Ruby" or "Dr. Jones, please
call 4354 Health Sciences" (Ruby = Ruby Memorial = Rolm; Health
Sciences = Centrex).  Oh the joys of being able to operate your very
own phone company.  Looks like the learning curve for some people is
going to be pretty steep.

I guess the obvious solution in this case would be to install 5 digit
dialing for extensions within either system.  But I guess since the
University did not want to have to change the way the ENTIRE
university dialed extensions, they did not go this route.

                         - 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: This reminds me of a department store in downtown
Chicago which had centrex for how many ever years. ROLM sold them a
bill of goods, so they dumped centrex for a ROLM switch. They kept all
the numbers they had under centrex and set them up as DID to ring
straight through to the extensions they had always been on. But like
your case, they needed more extensions so they installed a bunch on
the ROLM that do *not* relate back to the identical CO number. Only
they never bothered to explain all this to the employees with the new
style extension numbers who assumed they too could receive calls from
their personal friends all day without going through the store
operator.  For almost a month, Chicago City Colleges (the people with
the CO numbers like the new extensions at the store) wondered why they
got all those wrong numbers. Talk about Dumb with a capital /D/.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 17:05:58 EST
From: "David Klur @earth.mlkwy.u" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN on University Campus


I'm doing research on the inplementation of an ISDN at the University
of Pennsylvania.  I was wondering if anyone knew of current ISDN
trials at other Universities, or where I could get some more
information on this subject.

Thanks in advance...

                                        _
                                       | \  __   . _|
                                       |_/ (_|~\/|(_)`

                    David Klur
                    [e-mail]
                    University of Pennsylvania


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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 20:31:33 PST
From: "Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two CLASS Calling Services Questions...


How exactly does the Caller*ID box behave when calls are received from
outside the area code and/or exchanges that do not transmit the ANI
information? Eventually, will Caller*ID work across area codes???

For those states with per-call Caller*ID blocking, is the Caller*ID
box display disabled or is the ANI not transmitted at all? Ie., is
Call*Trace and Return*Call disabled as well???  [If not, then it would
seem easy to get the caller's # by returning their call, and checking
the number on your next bill.]

Ooops, more than two questions!


Thanks,
Lou Judice
Digital Equipment Corp.
Piscataway, NJ
(201 | 908) 562-4103


[Moderator's Note: Also please note the special issue Saturday on
CPID/ANI.  Although sending a blocking code can be done, as Vic Toth
points out, you are assuming one telco will *honor* the blocking code
sent by another telco. And the word we are getting from Illinois Bell
is that (once CLASS is implemented later this year) if the number is
otherwise unavailable then attempts to 'return call' will fail.  You
will be able to store it in your list of numbers you won't accept
calls from, but when you review the file of same, while other numbers
will be spoken to you, those that had blocked ID will be termed
'private entry'.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 24 Feb 90 20:26:22 PST
From: "Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Services


I was really surprised while watching a travel program on WNYC (a NYC
Public TV station) to see an ad for the Nice, France tourist board -
and a 900 (!!!) number to call, at 50 cents/minute for travel
information!

What happened to FREE information?

/ljj


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

Subject: Re: Tone Block
Date: 24 Feb 90 10:43:51 EST (Sat)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>

> From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>

> The ability to suspend Call Waiting is called *TONE-BLOCK* here in New
> Jersey Bell land, but here's the catch - you have to subscribe to it.
> You have to pay 50 cents extra per month to use it.

Not necessarily true...I have it and I don't pay 50 cents per month
for it.  It was never mentioned to me when I signed up and it not on
the list of features I subscribed to.  I suspect that if you don't
have three way calling and you want to disable call waiting on inbound
calls, you may have to pay the 50 cents to give you the ability to
flash hook to get secondary dial tone and dial your *70.  I have three way
calling, so I can do that already.

Does anyone out there in Bell Atlantic country pay for this fifty
cents/month Tone Block Feature?  If I remember, I'll give the business
office a call next week and ask them some questions.


Tom Lowe
AT&T Bell Labs
Holmdel, NJ
[e-mail]
201-949-0428


[Moderator's Note: But for that fifty cents per month for the right to
interim dial tone, what prevents you from dialing whatever you want against
that dial tone, i.e. a complete number of another party?  I don't
think you are correct on this.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #127
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23231;
          26 Feb 90 18:13 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21277;
          26 Feb 90 2:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25467;
          26 Feb 90 0:55 CST
Date:     Mon, 26 Feb 90 0:18:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #128
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 26 Feb 90 00:17:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Dial L for Lawyer (Michael C. Berch)
    Speaking of Security Codes (John G. Dobnick)
    Pentagon (et. al.) Prefix Mapping (John Boteler)
    MCI and Fictitious Calling Card Numbers (Edward Greenberg)
    Telco For Sale (TELECOM Moderator)
    Gov't Confiscation of Bulletin Boards (Don Alvarez)
    Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Envoy 100 (Stuart Lynne)
    Re: *TONE-BLOCK* (John Higdon)
    Re: *TONE-BLOCK* (Steve Forrette)
    Re: The Facts about Cellular and Caller ID (Bob Sherman)
    Re: The Facts about Cellular and Caller ID (Steve Forrette)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 01:05:34 -0800
From: "Michael C. Berch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial L for Lawyer


(This is from CALIFORNIA LAWYER, January 1990)

"HUNTINGTON BEACH--  His friends were always bugging Michael Cane for
free legal advice.  So Cane decided to make every utterance pay.

Since October he has been running what he says is the nation's first
call-in lawyer hotline.  Five days a week, 12 hours a day, Cane and
five other attorneys work the phones dispensing legal pointers at
'Tele-Lawyer.'  The cost: $3 a minute, charged to the caller's phone
bill or credit card. 'This is preventive law,' says Cane, sitting in
his office waiting for calls on the 900-line service. 'We handle the
small questions before they become big problems.'  [...]

Officials at the State Bar and the American Bar Association say they
are unaware of any similar telephone services in the country.  For
now, the State Bar says it will treat the services as just another
law firm.  Cane says he consulted with bar officials before opening
for business.

Although the idea of a legal phone service had bounced around in
Cane's head for a long time, he took action only last year.  He has
invested about $500,000 in the project and is already thinking about
expansion.  'It's a needed service, he says. 'I don't people realize
how much it is needed.'"

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

My comment:  "Only in California..."

Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb

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

From: John G Dobnick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speaking of Security Codes
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 3:09:36 CDT


John Higdon says:

>                                  ... the silliness of relying on
> two-digit "security" code to protect ...

I recently received a Panasonic (Matsushita) Easa-Phone Auto-logic
answering machine (the KX-T1470 model).  It allows remote access to
all its functions (including "room monitor"!), but has only a 2-digit
"security code".  Now, being in the computer game, it is obvious to me
that two-character passwords are less than sufficient.  However, what
really concerns me is that there seems to be no way to disable this
remote access.

My question to you good folks on this list is: Can remote access be
totally supressed on this beastie?  I see no way to do so.  If this
_is_ mentioned in the manual, it isn't obvious to me.

Thank you,

John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: [e-mail]
UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire

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

Subject: Pentagon (et. al.) Prefix Mapping
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 90 16:51:10 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>

>Fr:  Greg Monti
>Re:  Pentagon Prefixes

>Well, this is a fine mess that DoD, FTS and/or C&P have created....
>According to the C&P Northern Virginia January 1990 directory, there
>is no 602 prefix in area code 202.  It's in 703 in the
>Alexandria-Arlington Rate Area....

>True Pentagon prefixes like 692 are in 202.  But they also cannot be
>reached by dialing 202-692-XXXX from Northern Virginia.  That could be
>an error in programming at my central office...

>The reason some phones may have been split off into 602 prefix is that
>they are *not* physically located in the Pentagon or on the pieces of
>DoD property which are immediatley contiguous to it (Arlington
>National Cemetery and the Defense Communication Agency)....

The telephone network is complex, to be sure, but not so much so that
we mere mortals cannot understand it.

I am currently building a project using a home-brew crosspoint switch,
and am struggling to find a method for programming the logic map that
will control it. My decisions on how the switch responds to input
addresses are good for me, but maybe not the next guy who comes along
and copies my design. No problem, he simply uses a different map, and
implements it by programming his own EPROM.

Same applies to the telephone network in concept.

The maps which guide your call through the switches are presently
programmed to send 202-602-9969 to an intercept, and 703-602-9969 to a
working station.  They could just as easily be programmed for the
reverse, or for both numbers to connect to the same working station.
The routing information is nothing more than a database, subject to
frequent change in this new-exchange-a-week world we live in.

Rule 1. Never trust the CO listings in the front of the C&P phone books;
  they are notoriously inaccurate. The names listed are the calling zones,
  not the CO names, and are worthless for pinpointing anyone.

Rule 2. Don't worry, be happy about the mappings as they stand--they
  will change soon enough, causing you more consternation if you care
  to follow them.

Rule 3. The Telephone Company(TM) may be omnipotent (that's POTENT with
  omni in front) but there is always somebody bigger around--Uncle Sam;
  if U.S. wants DoD in 202, then, dammit, they get it in 202!


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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 06:19 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI and Fictitious Calling Card Numbers


I got an MCI calling card number too...  Unlike most of you, I WANTED my
phone number plus 4 digits, since I felt that four digits were
sufficient.  Since I had once, a long time ago, had an MCI card with my
own phone number on it, I was told I could never have one again.

Since all the numbers are dead, I can tell them...

The phone number was 415-459-7862.

The Calling card was 475-459-8439-xxxx (I don't remember the pin.)

Seems that this numbering scheme on fictitions calling cards is (was?)
universal to MCI.
                                 -edg

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

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 10:09:06 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco For Sale


Puerto Rico governor Rafael Hernandez Colon has announced that the
Puerto Rico Telephone Company is for sale. He wants a minimum of $2
billion for the company, or best offer above that point. The money
will be used to pay for education reforms and development on the
Caribbean island.

Acccording to the governor, Puerto Rico Telephone is the only company
on the island which 'has enough value' to generate the money needed to
revamp Puerto Rico's school system and the island's infrastructure.

Long ago, the telephone company there had been privately owned; the
government bought it for $165 million in 1974 when it had been almost
totally abandoned and was in disarray with only 300,000 working
telephone lines.

By careful nurturing, the company grew, and prospered. PR Telephone
made $70 million in net income in 1989, and now accounts for 1 million
telephones in this U.S. Commonwealth of 3.3 million people.

Thus far, no one has shown an active interest in purchasing Puerto
Rico Telephone, but the offer is still open. For more information, or
to make an offer, contact the governor's office.


Patrick Townson


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

From: Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gov't Confiscation of Bulletin Boards
Date: 25 Feb 90 19:01:24 GMT
Reply-To: Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
Organization: Princeton University


With all this discussion of Gov't confiscations of electronic bulletin
boards, it would certainly be worthwhile for anyone who operates a
bulletin board to bop on down to their local library and do a little
reading.

Two sections that I highly recommend are The Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (PL 99-508, HR 4952) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
(USC title 18 section 1030).

They are short, readable by ordinary humans, and your reference
librarian should have no trouble helping you locate them.  Anyone who
operates an electronic bulletin board really owes it to themself to
have at least some idea where they and the law stand.  There are a
number of interesting twists to the ECPA worth knowing about.

A year or so ago, I typed in the text to the (then under discussion in
the House) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  It might be a little
outdated or incorrect now, but it is in electronic form, and I'll send
a copy of it separately to the moderator.  If he doesn't feel like
posting it, you can drop me a line and ask me to send you a copy.
Unfortunately, the one you folks really want to read is probably the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and I don't know have an
electronic copy of that (anyone feel like doing a little typing?)


Don


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for the copy you sent. It has been filed in
the TELECOM Archives under the title 'computer.fraud.abuse.act' for
anyone who wants a copy. The archives are available via ftp from
lcs.mit.edu in the telecom-archives directory.  PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers
Date: 23 Feb 90 02:10:51 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Several years ago, the University of Toronto used a Centrex that took
> up most of the 978 exchange. However, since extensions couldn't start
> with 9 (dial 9 to get local dial tone), there was a gap in the 978

> Perhaps there are other examples of the -9xxx gap where Centrex, or
> other direct-dial extension systems are used out there...

Most Centrex groups use less than a full 10,000 numbers, and so there
are ordinary subscriber lines with numbers having the same prefix.
The 0xxx and 9xxx groups are generally not assigned to centrex, so as
to provide attendant and 'outside' access.  Sometimes there are other
centrex groups with the same prefix, but members of one group must
dial 9+ 7 digits to reach members of the other.  Remember, a centrex
is generally not a physical switch, it's a software-defined group of
lines (with a group of numbers) which subscribe to a special group of
features.


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] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Envoy 100
Date: 26 Feb 90 02:00:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


In article <[e-mail]> "Robert P. Warnock" <rigden![e-mail].
edu> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 124, Message 6 of 11

>| hooking them up to a system called "Envoy 100".  (It's a billable

>It's just a commercial e-mail service. Happens to be run (indirectly)
>by the Canadian government. Fees are charged for connect time,

Very indirectly. It's run by a company called Telecom Canada. Which in
turn is owned by the government. The Canadian Telco's are involved as
well.

Telecom Canada is apparantly being put on the block by the government
(as of last Tuesday's federal budget).

>in fairly isolated locations. Telenet's "local" access ports are a
>winner for this population.

Envoy was originally a clone of Telenet's Telemail. I havn't used it
in a number of years, but don't imagine they have re-implemented it
from scratch. I did use both it and Telemail from 1982 to about 1985.
It was ok but pricey.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *TONE-BLOCK*
Date: 25 Feb 90 09:06:51 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

> [Moderator's Note: But for that fifty cents per month for the right to
> interim dial tone, what prevents you from dialing whatever you want against
> that dial tone, i.e. a complete number of another party?  I don't
> think you are correct on this.   PT]

There is dial tone on my statewide 800 number. You might ask, "What
would prevent someone from making calls on that line (for which it is
not tariffed)?" If you dial anything other than an intercom code, you
get a recording. The reason for the dial tone in the first place is so
that the line can access the Commstar features, and calls can be
transferred.

Maybe the "Tone Block" interim dial tone is so restricted if the
customer doesn't have three way calling.


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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 19:20:50 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *TONE-BLOCK*
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>The ability to suspend Call Waiting is called *TONE-BLOCK* here in New
>Jersey Bell land, but here's the catch - you have to subscribe to it.
>You have to pay 50 cents extra per month to use it.

The same thing was true last year when I lived in GTE land in
Washington State.  Maybe SWB should give everyone call waiting for
free, then charge $10/month for cancel call waiting - then they would
effectively have their modem surcharge! :-)


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

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Facts about Cellular and Caller ID
Organization: U of Miami Dept. of Math. and Computer Science, Coral Gables, FL
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 00:27:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> it is written:

>>There's no reason (none at all), why cellular phones shouldn't
>>generate Caller*ID (eg. the person being called FROM a cellular phone
>>would get correct Caller*ID displayed on his box), as the 'switch'
>>part of a cellular system is pretty much a standard model.

Upon checking here in the Miami, Florida area, where caller ID is
currently under consideration by the PSC, I am told there will be NO
caller ID available on calls made FROM cellular phones or Pay phones.


     [e-mail] | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL: BSHERMAN
 >>  Miami's Big Apple - 305-948-8000 - 24 hours - 300/1200 - PCP'able  <<
 >>  Oldest Apple support board in Southeast. Now in it's ninth year.   <<

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

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 19:33:01 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Facts About Cellular and Caller ID
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>>I don't think there's any provision in the cellular standard for text
>>information to be passed to the remote during call setup.

>Correct, and it probably won't be added to the standard.

>/john

It's also been my experience that ANI is not available for calls FROM
a cellular phone.  Not even 911 knows who you are.  I once was having
problems dialing a long distance call, and the AT&T operator said that
they can't provide call completion assistance for direct dial calls
from cellular since they don't know who you are.

There was a posting in the Digest a couple of months ago that
mentioned that one of the new Motorola hand-helds had a Caller ID
display built into it.  I'm not sure I understand how this would work,
considering the current protocols and MTSO-BOC connections.  Anyone
know?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #128
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19331;
          27 Feb 90 4:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31177;
          27 Feb 90 2:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02092;
          27 Feb 90 1:46 CST
Date:     Tue, 27 Feb 90 1:28:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #129
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 27 Feb 90 01:25:14 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: MCI and Imaginary Calling Card Numbers (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo" (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Sprint Plus (Carol Springs)
    Re: CPID/ANI Developments (John R. Levine)
    Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Speaking of Security Codes (John Higdon)
    Caller*ID to RS-232 (Michael Scott Baldwin)
    Bargain Canadian Telephone Rates? (Fred Fierling)
    Mother's Source Code = ?? (Thomas Lapp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI and Imaginary Calling Card Numbers
Date: 26 Feb 90 07:41:10 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Nutsy Fagen) writes:

> Several months ago, I ordered an MCI calling card in relation to a
> frequent-flyer promotion.  Since I am a college student, I wanted a
> calling card ONLY, preferably with no link to my parent's real phone.
> (Like my imaginary 677-xxx-xxxx ATT calling card).

> This simple request, however, blew away at least three MCI operators,
> as well as got me bounced around several times before I gave in and
> relinquished my parent's number 'for reference purposes only'.

This type of account with MCI is called a "Stand Alone Card Account",
which might help anybody else who gets one from MCI in the future.

The problem is they need to verify anybody who gets one. MCI use to
set up such accounts about 2-3 years ago to just *anybody* who called
in, and usually took about 30 seconds of typing into the computer to
do. Needless to say, this was found out in the 'phraker' community,
and after they took a good 3 month beating, went to verification. The
last time I was at Customer Service, the verification was either a
phone in your name (verified by CNA) or a relative's phone in their
name. Also, no P.O. box only accounts allowed, you had to provide a
street address.

> When the card came, sure enough, it was my home phone number with a
> PIN thrown on.  It also had my name spelled wrong :)

Looks like you didn't have your own phone # to provide them, and MCI's
computer (called OCIS [pronounced OH-sys] - "On Line Information
System", a CICS application running under MVS) needs a phone number to
attach to an account. No way to open an account in OCIS unless a phone
number is typed in. Also, OCIS *always* assigns the phone number as
the first card, but uses the XXX-NXX-XXXX-???? combo for subsequent
cards. Also, a lot of CSR's get mixed up when you ask for additional
cards, since you can type in the number of duplicates for an existing
card or a number of new cards. (Somebody typed in 10 new cards and 10
copies once, and the customer got a box of 100 MCI cards one day....).

> A quick call to MCI corrected the name problem, although I neglected
> to mention that I wanted an imaginary card.  However, when my new
> cards came, one was based on the real number, and the other was
> completely new, based (I assume) on an imaginary 335-458-xxxx number.
> An interesting note is that my home phone number is 315-458-yyyy.

There is a phone number in San Luis Obispo (California) that is an OPX
(Off Premise eXtension) for the Army, which had over 100 accounts
based on that phone number. How far off was the OPX.....try Guam!

> I will be sure to have my father check his next few bills, just to be safe.

Depends how new the CSR is. Usually he/she has only been there about a
week or so.

P.S.: Don't call on Holloween to Customer Service in California and
expect an answer fast.......The office is in San Francisco, and you
all know Holloween is a National Holiday in San Francisco. Especially
in MCI's Customer Service center there........


   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Network Operations
   Moffett Feild, California.

     ".....and you know the public's perception of the phone company....
                  We're the most hated people around."
                                Pat Harrington, "The Presidents Analyst"


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

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 13:15:54 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Playing "Switcheroo"
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


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

> Absolutely.  As a general principle in the law, verbal contracts are
> valid.  (There are exceptions, but they are in very specific
> circumstances and usually by statute.)  Non-lawyers often make the
> mistake of assuming that there is some inherent connection between
> VALIDITY and USEFULNESS.  Yes, a verbal contract is valid - once you
> can prove what was agreed to.  And "prove" means "convince a court".
> The burden of finding a way to convince the court is entirely up to
> you.

Umm -- presumably you're talking about *oral* contracts and their
differences from *written* ones.  Pretty much all contracts, both
written and oral, are verbal (composed of words).


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

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Plus
Date: 25 Feb 90 19:30:25 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


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

>Is everyone talking about the same thing with regard to Sprint Plus?
>I'm not aware of any rebates or credits which are available under the
>program.

Apparently the $25 rebate was a one-shot available to people who
subscribed last year.  Someone also mentioned the separate program of
frequent-caller points that Sprint just started offering.  This
program has the unfortunate name "Callers' Plus."

>Sprint Plus gives the subscriber a minimum bill of $8.00 per month,
>but it gives them nighttime rates starting at 5PM, skipping evening
>rates completely.  It's a good deal for long distance fiends who don't
>like to call people after 11PM on weeknights...  I just signed up for
>it this week.

Me too.  I'd seen Sprint Plus referred to occasionally in fine-print
sections of Sprint's literature, but I never knew what the program was
until reading about it in this group.  And this confuses me.  I read
Sprint's little promotional brochures that come with the bill each
month.  Sprint Plus sounds like an opportunity I'd've jumped at if
only I'd seen it advertised.  Exactly when was the program instituted?
Any other Sprint subscribers out there, who scan their mailings
reasonably carefully, who nevertheless did *not know* about Sprint
Plus until recently?


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 90 20:11:04 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


>  Appended is a memo sent to all members of the STC by Vic Toth, who
>  is the STC counsel for regulatory affairs.

So what is the STC, anyway?

Although this piece was quite coherent and reasonable, it did have a
strong internal assumption that universal unblockable CPID is a good
idea.

I also have to wonder at his suggestions, first that the way to make
opposition to CPID go away is public education campaigns to tell
people that every time they make a call, the recipient might receive
the calling number, and second that CPID blocking be offered only to
existing subscribers, not to new or changed ones, as though people who
move somehow have fewer privacy rights than people who don't.  Sheesh.

Regards,

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

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More 800, 900 Curiosities
Date: 26 Feb 90 07:12:57 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> >You got timed out while the local MCI switch was polling the 2 VAX's
> >they use for 800 number lookup.

> >And then there was this one time when both VAX's died for 45 minutes....

> If it is true that just 2 VAXes (or the leased lines going to them) going
> down can bring down the entire MCI 800 system, perhaps AT&T's promise of
> 1 hour service restoration for downed 800 lines isn't all that half-baked...

In another article, Rick Wessman correctly points out that these
computers are CCI Power 6/32-FT's. These are fault-tolerant computers,
and as such, they are less prone to 'go down'. But, as was proved in
AT&T's fiasco, just because the computer has double back-ups, that
doesn't mean the code loaded into them can't go bad. If I remember
correctly, that was the problem in MCI's 45 minute 'outage'.

MCI, almost one year ago, upgraded the DAP's ("Data Access Point") to do
number-table updates every 15 minutes instead of every night, so that
emergency rerouting could be offered to their customers. If a customer
is having a local problem, and has a pre-defined emergency plan
submitted, he or she can call MCI and give a password, and can have
that emergency plan implemented within 15 minutes (the next update to
the DAP's). The software to do this was apparently very tricky, since
updates and lookups were being done almost the same time now. Also,
the software upgrade was to do call-restriction down to the NPA-NXX
level, as opposed to just the State level before that.  Also, it was
the beta test of calling-number delivery.

As with the switches, the hardware may be excellent, but the software
sometimes can have problems....especially if you have 1E+32 patches to
it.....

   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Network Operations
   Moffett Feild, California.

     "You know, all of my patients had one thing in common......
            ....They all hated the phone company."
                          James Coburn, "The Presidents Analyst".

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Security Codes
Date: 26 Feb 90 19:33:03 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John G Dobnick <[e-mail]> writes:

> My question to you good folks on this list is: Can remote access be
> totally supressed on this beastie?  I see no way to do so.  If this
> _is_ mentioned in the manual, it isn't obvious to me.

There is no way, short of tampering with the unit's firmware, to
defeat the remote feature. This is a major shortcoming with this
otherwise good product. The only suggestion would be to change the
code daily :-)


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

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

From: Michael Scott Baldwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID to RS-232
Date: 26 Feb 90 14:40:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Does anyone know where to get a box that converts the Caller*ID bytes
to RS-232?  There is/was something called "Clyde" by Software Studios
in Virginia, but the person seems to have curtailed his efforts, and
I'm not sure any Clydes were actually made and shipped.

Apparently, at some consumer electronics show earlier this year (in
Las Vegas?) there were some of these things displayed.  Does anybody
have names of companies or other contacts?

I'm not interested in the really complicated, all-in-one boxes for
$300 or so.  Clyde was $60, I think.  Where would these companies
advertise, anyway?


[e-mail] (bell laboratories)

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

Subject: Bargain Canadian Telephone Rates?
From: Fred Fierling <van-bc!mplex![e-mail]>
Date: 26 Feb 90 19:32:45 GMT
Organization: Microplex Systems Ltd


Included with our latest telephone bill is a pamphlet that has an
article titled "B.C. Residents get bargain rates compared to U.S.".  I
was astonished to see this and eagerly read the article.
Unfortunately there is nothing in the article to back up their claim.
What they do say is that overall phone rates in the U.S. have
increased by 17 per cent from 1984 to 1988 while B.C. Tel rates
*decreased* by 15 per cent in the same period.  This doesn't prove we
are getting a bargain now, it might mean that we where paying far too
much in 1984.

What follows are some charges for phone service here in Vancouver.
Could someone post similar figures for equivalent service in a U.S.
west coast city (like Seattle) so that I can decide for myself if I'm
getting a bargain?

 Business individual access line (w/ touch tone)          CDN$ 50.80 /month
 Residence individual access line (w/ touch tone)              14.90 /month

 Direct Dial long distance rates:
 Vancouver (West Coast) to Halifax (East Coast)                 0.59 /min
 Vancouver (West Coast) to New York (East Coast)                0.63 /min

Note: - rates taken from January and February 1990 bills
      - figures are in Canadian dollars, CDN $1.00 = US $0.83
      - combined Federal and Provincial taxes of 17.66% *not* included.


Fred Fierling   uunet!van-bc!mplex!fff    Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
Microplex Systems Ltd   265 East 1st Avenue   Vancouver, BC   V5T 1A7,  Canada

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

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 20:35:11 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mother's Source Code = ??


In the Digest on Monday (V10n127), you write:

> We're told by a deep-throat type that AT&T is on the war path about
> their software, and that 3b2 people in particular are targeted for
> 'counseling' and whatever corrective action is deemed necessary by
> 'the authorities'.
> [...]
> When 'the authorities' come a-calling, with warrant in hand, and their
> credentials in order, they start looking for Mother's source code; 3b2
> stuff and the like, and they keep looking until they find it.

Exactly what are we talking about here, when one says "source code".
I've worked on a 3B2-300 in grad school, and there was a lot of AT&T
copyrighted stuff which came with the system.  Mostly shell scripts
and the like, but AT&T nonetheless.  Does this mean that authorities
are looking for 3B2 systems with AT&T Unix running on them?  That
seems a bit outlandish to me.  ("sorry son, that PC Compatible has
MS-DOS on it.  I'm going to have to take it away from you").  I've
been looking at UUCP maps lately to find out how many systems list
MS-DOS as the operating system, but have run across a lot of 3B2
systems listed as home machines.  That's a pretty big population to
threaten.

Or am I missing something here.  Might we be talking about things like
Unix source code in 'C' for utilities, etc. rather than just run-time
images?  That would seem more likely, but I thought AT&T also licenses
that as well ('course if it were on your machine and you didn't have a
license agreement with AT&T for it....)

                         - 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: We are discussing people who do not have license
agreements; people who, instead of procurring the software in the
legitimate way have obtained it illicitly over the years.  I started
to say 'in the normal way' above; then I realized that to some people
at AT&T, 'normal' these days = 'rip us off'.  Let's face it: pirated
software, AT&T's or otherwise, has been a scandal for years. I guess
AT&T finally got fed-up with it.  Coincidentally, I got a message
tonight in email from someone saying Mike Andrews wants to talk to me
on the phone, to 'clear up some misunderstandings'....I'll try to
catch up with him Tuesday or Wednesday, and report it here ASAP
afterward.  A few other personal replies have come in on this topic
also; one told me I had unmitigated nerve; two others asking me why
I did not tell 'the complete story'..... meanwhile, Deep-Throat's
original correspondence remains in my files should someone figure they
can put me in the trick-bag somehow.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #129
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06385;
          28 Feb 90 12:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21454;
          28 Feb 90 2:06 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05926;
          28 Feb 90 0:58 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Feb 90 0:39:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #130
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Feb 90 00:38:56 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    News From 919 (Gregory G. Woodbury)
    Telecom Canada (was Re: Envoy 100) (Paul Durham)
    Portable Office Phones (Leonard P. Levine)
    A Few ISDN Questions (Lynn Gale)
    WD-40 Sprint FONCARD (Andy Malis)
    Is 990 a Special 'Exchange' in Area Code 508? (Henry Mensch)
    Re: Does 976 Know Who You Are? (Keith Henson)
    Re: Two CLASS Calling Services Questions (David Lewis)
    Sprint's Direct Marketing Tactics (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: News From 919
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 06:16:27 GMT


Greetings from the 919 GTE satrapy!

Here is a submission with a variety of notes about what's happening in
the Durham and North Carolina area (telecom related).

EXPANSION OF NUMBERING PLAN IN 919

All "long distance" calling in 919 will require access+10 digits
starting sometime in March, 1990.  The consumers have lots of lead
time on this one!  2 weeks ago, a few articles appeared in a few
newspapers around the state revealing that the phone companies are
running out of exchange numbers in the 919 area code, and soon we will
have to start dialing all non-local calls with the full 10 digits.
The selected start date for this new dialing scheme is at midnight
following Friday, March 2nd, 1990.  Southern Bell is coordinating the
cutover with all 919 carriers.


NC PUC CATCHES SBT IN LETTER CAMPAIGN

The NC Public Utilities Commission is considering rules for the
offering of CPID/ANI in the state.  Several consumer advocacy and
privacy watchdogs have intervened in the case to prevent the
introduction of the service without some form of protection for
certain classes of businesses and individuals.  SBT management sent a
memorandum to its employees encouraging them to send letters
supporting CPID/ANI to the PUC and informing the employees doing so
that they should not reveal that they are SBT employees and providing
several example letters.

The scheme was discovered by PUC staff noticing that they were getting
a lot of identical letters mentioning the same business and situation
(i.e.  a pizza delivery service wanting ANI to help eliminate prank
pizza orders).  The number of letters received with this situation was
more than double the number of pizza delivery services operating in
the areas were the persons writing letters were located.

PUC Investigators unearthed copies of the SBT memo and are reviewing
all letters received for more duplicity.


ORANGE COUNTY AND TOWNS INVESTIGATE MUNICIPAL BBS

Inspired by the Santa Monica (California) PEN municipal BBS, a group
of citizens in Orange County (Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Hillsboro are
the major municipalities) have approached the county and municipal
governments for funding and equipment to establish a similar system
for the county and municipalities.

Access to the system will be dial-up from home computers and a variety
of terminals in public locations.  Functions included feature email,
community info databases and netnews-like discussion forums.  The
software for the project is being developed locally by the group.


DUKE UNIVERSITY TO INSTALL FIRST DEPARTMENTAL ISDN SITUATION

Duke University, featured as an ISDN test site in several AT&T switch
ads in various publications is planning to completely rewire on of the
departmental buildings on campus with full ISDN capable equipment in
the spring of 1990.  The Sociology department (the largest consumer of
university computing resources on campus - outside of CS [which has
their own equipment]) has been in desperate need of more lines in its
building for several years, but there is no space in the existing
plant to add more traditional circuits.  To solve the problem, the
Duke Telecom division has announced its plans to implement full ISDN
in the department.


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: Paul Durham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Canada (was Re: Envoy 100)
Date: 27 Feb 90 20:44:26 GMT
Reply-To: Paul Durham <handel![e-mail]>
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> "Robert P. Warnock" <rigden![e-mail].
>edu> writes:

>>It's just a commercial e-mail service. Happens to be run (indirectly)
>>by the Canadian government. Fees are charged for connect time,

>Very indirectly. It's run by a company called Telecom Canada. Which in
>turn is owned by the government. The Canadian Telco's are involved as
>well.

>Telecom Canada is apparantly being put on the block by the government
>(as of last Tuesday's federal budget).

OK folks, let's set this one straight. I quote from a Telecom Canada
brochure:

"Telecom Canada is composed of Canada's major telecommunications
companies. Together, these companies provide a fully-integrated voice,
data, and image network".

I.E., the long distance system, Datapac (X.25), Envoy 100, and other
such services.  It was called the Trans-Canada Telephone System up to
a few years ago.

They're being a bit subjective with the "major" label. In fact the
members are simply Canada's telephone companies. They are not
interested in admitting interlopers such as CNCP or the cable
companies. Apart from the network services, Telecom Canada's other
function is to produce propaganda and intervene legally for the
telephone companies (fighting alternate long distance carriers, for
example).

By far the largest member of Telecom Canada is Bell Canada (Ontario
and Quebec) which is bigger than all the others put together.

_Telesat_ Canada (which provides satellite services) is the one that
is owned by the gov't. It's a member of Telecom Canada, to add to the
confusion.


P. Durham

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Portable Office Phones
Date: 27 Feb 90 21:16:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


ATT is currently marketing a portable office phone that connects with
their Merlin system.  Does anyone know if there are ANY security
features available with that phone?

It seems to me that listening for messages on home phones is just a
dumb game, but listening in for messages on a busy office phone might
well be considered a worthwhile job to some.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| 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: Lynn Gale <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Few ISDN Questions
Date: 28 Feb 90 01:05:06 GMT
Reply-To: Lynn Gale <[e-mail]>
Organization: Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences


Is it known at this point in time what medium ISDN will run on?  In
particular, what number of wire pairs are necessary and do they need
to be shielded or unshielded?  (Thinking about wiring decisions with
the future in mind...)

If it takes, say, 4 pairs, what function(s) do each of the pairs
perform?

Will ISDN incorporate Fax functions?  RS-232?  What else besides
voice?


Thanks in advance.
Lynn
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Subject: WD-40 Sprint FONCARD
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 11:25:28 -0500
From: Andy Malis <[e-mail]>


I just got my WD-40 Sprint FONCARD in the mail.  It has a random
14-digit number on the card, rather than my home phone number (ever
hear of area code 673?).

There was no mention of either WD-40 or the free 60 minutes in the
enclosed literature.  I did receive a folding "POCKET GUIDE", and,
interestingly, "FONCARD INFORMATION FOR BUSINESS CUSTOMERS", which was
written to be distributed with employee FONCARDs.

I checked my home phone, and it has not been switched to Sprint.

Andy

[Moderator's Note: Mine arrive Monday also. They sent me two cards,
with the same 'information for business customers' literature. The two
cards had numbers not even closely resembling each other, and only on
one of the two were the first three digits twenty plus my area code
(728).  And the promised free hour of calling?  She told me it would
come in the form of a credit of a few dollars on my *third* bill.....
how's that for somewhat deceptive marketing. And with a seventy-five
cent surcharge per call, this card is going to be sort of expensive.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 19:56:06 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is 990 a Special 'Exchange' in Area Code 508?


Inquiring minds are curious.


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

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Does 976 Know Who You Are?
Date: Tue, 27-Feb-90 00:10:28 PST


John Higdon notes "There is no Caller-ID available in California."

I know that 911 calls read out the address of the calling location, is
this a different service?

This feature is a pain in the neck sometimes.  You report a domestic
violence case, and the cops beat on *your* door first, and then wonder
over to the disturbance, making it clear who called them.  After one
dose of this, I will wait till the blood is runing out the door before
I call them directly again.  I had a friend across town call in the
last one, but it certainly delayed things to have to do it that way.


Keith Henson

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two CLASS Calling Services Questions
Date: 26 Feb 90 15:09:24 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lou Judice
@KYO  DTN 323-4103) writes:

> How exactly does the Caller*ID box behave when calls are received from
> outside the area code and/or exchanges that do not transmit the ANI
> information?

Lessee... a little background.

For the uninitiated, the pertinent geographic division is a LATA, a
Local Access and Transport Area.  Within LATAs, local exchange
carriers (LECs) are permitted to carry and switch calls; across LATA
boundaries (with some minor exceptions), calls must be routed through
an interexchange carrier (IC).

Therefore, the signaling information, which includes the calling party
number used by the CLASS features, must also be routed through an IC
for inter-LATA calls.

Currently, there is no implemented common channel signaling
interconnection between LECs and ICs (although I just read of a trial
down in SWBT/BellSouth lands).  Therefore, any interLATA call will not
have available the calling party number, and the box displays a code
which means "calling party number unavailable".

> Eventually, will Caller*ID work across area codes???

Again, the pertinent area is really "across LATAs", and the answer is
"yes, eventually".  Technical requirements and possibly standards for
common channel signaling interconnection need to be worked out, and a
whole slew of business arrangements have to be negotiated.

> For those states with per-call Caller*ID blocking, is the Caller*ID
> box display disabled or is the ANI not transmitted at all? Ie., is
> Call*Trace and Return*Call disabled as well???  [If not, then it would
> seem easy to get the caller's # by returning their call, and checking
> the number on your next bill.]

As far as I know, the blocking feature (as the moderator stated) sets
a privacy indicator in the common channel signaling message.  The
calling party number is still sent.  If the terminating end office
sees the privacy indicator sent, it doesn't send the calling party
number to the CPE.  It does, however, still have the number, and call
trace and call return should work.  Yes, you could return the call and
note the number on your next bill, provided it's an itemized call and
not an unlimited usage call or a message unit call.

> [Moderator's Note: ...  And the word we are getting from Illinois Bell
> is that (once CLASS is implemented later this year) if the number is
> otherwise unavailable then attempts to 'return call' will fail.]

If the calling party number is not sent to the terminating end office,
yes (as seems obvious), you won't be able to use "return call" or
"call trace".  If the calling party number is sent, but the privacy
indication is set, I believe you can still return and trace calls, but
I'm not certain.


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

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

Subject: Sprint's Direct Marketing Tactics
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 27 Feb 90 21:30:15 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


While over at my little office picking up some things, the phone rang.
The caller asked to speak to the "business owner". I said, "You got
him." It was a Sprint salesman who wanted to make sure I knew how much
I could save by using Sprint.

I told him that my office long distance bill was so small that it
would not make any difference. Then he launched into a major diatribe
about how "the reason AT&T failed during the earthquake was due to
their antiquated network." Oh, did AT&T fail during the quake? I was
unaware of that. I told him that I knew that AT&T was doing
considerable network management to assure outgoing calling capability,
but I was unaware that they had "failed".

He told me that, no, indeed, Sprint did a much better job at handling
traffic than AT&T did during the emergency. Then he asked me if I
would rather have my business able to make calls during the next
emergency.  At this point I thanked him for the call and assured him
that during the next quake I would be sure to dial "10333". Then I
hung up!

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #130
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06634;
          28 Feb 90 12:17 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06347;
          28 Feb 90 3:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21454;
          28 Feb 90 2:06 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Feb 90 1:32:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #131
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Feb 90 01:31:47 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Rich Andrews, Jolnet, Netsys, Len, Charlie, attctc, etc (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Jonathan Krueger)
    Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Bill Huttig)
    Re: Jolnet's Troubles (Kevin Henson)
    Re: Special: CPID/ANI Developments (Jeremy Grodberg)
    Re: Tone Block (Allen Hom)
    Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers (Donald L. Ritchey)
    Re: Local Calls Between NJ, NY State (George L. Sicherman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 0:49:17 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rich Andrews, Jolnet, Netsys, Len, Charlie, attctc, etc


Tuesday evening, David Tamkin and I had a chance to interview Rich
Andrews, the proprietor of Jolnet at some length. He had several
things of interest to tell us, including some additional background on
his role in the investigation now going on.

Before printing a summary of that interview in the Digest, I told Rich
I would make further inquiries, and clarify a couple more points with
him, probably sometime Wednesday. If this has been completed in time,
an article will appear in the Digest on Thursday; else Friday morning.

In the meantime, here today are a few other messages received in recent
mail.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 09:05:23 -0500
From: Jon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison!


In comp.dcom.telecom you write:

>When 'the authorities' come a-calling, with warrant in hand, and their
>credentials in order, they start looking for Mother's source code; 3b2
>stuff and the like, and they keep looking until they find it.

I've always said that possession (use, sale, distribution) of AT&T
software should be a crime.  Now it appears that someone agrees with
me, but it's a bit of a surprise that it's AT&T itself.  Hmmm, maybe
AT&T knows something we don't?

Well, here's to liberating Mach, and the fine work from the FSF.  The
time is coming when the arriving AT&T folks will be laughed at, and
invited to look for stolen copies of the periodic table too.  You
know, the one that's trademark AT&T, copyright Apple, patent IBM?

AT&T certainly has a right to protect its interests.  But the passion
it's showing in defense of its rights to yesterday's software would be
better directed toward developing the software that will sell
tomorrow.  Of course, given the ratio of programmers to lawyers in the
boardroom, I realize that this will be hard to explain to management.


Jonathan Krueger    [e-mail]   uunet!dgis!jkrueger
The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest
and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 15:52:22 EST
From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison!
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I thought killer was already closed down for the AT&T source code thing a
couple years back. When it came back online it became attcdc.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: You thought correctly, however it is down again, as
of a few days ago. Wondering why?  Maybe I will have some answers, in
the form of comments by Mike Andrews in a day or so.   PT]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Jolnet's Troubles
Date: Tue, 27-Feb-90 00:33:51 PST

 From what I have noted with respect to Jolnet, there was a serious
crime committed there -- by the FBI.  If they busted a system with email
on it, the Electronic Communication Privacy Act comes into play.
Everyone who had email dated less than 180 days old on the system is
entitled to sue each of the people involve in the seizure for at least
$1000 plus legal fees and court cost.  Unless, of course, the FBI did
it by the book, and got warrants to interfere with the email of all
who had accounts on the systems.

If they did, there are strict limits on how long they have to inform
the users.  A case of this type has been filed (just under the two
year limit) in Los Angeles Federal Court.  I have hard copy, will try
to get it typed in and see about posting it.

Incidentally, the entire text of the ECPA is on Portal.  The section
you want to look at is 2701-2707.  Keith Henson


[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: From what I have heard, there were serious crimes
committed there alright.... and the feds had their papers in order.
I'm rather sure they will observe the law.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 90 20:19:38 PST
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


In his article on CPID/ANI Developments, Mr. Toth mentions several
possibilities for maintaining the calling party's privacy under a
calling-party-id system, and explains why none of them are attractive.

What he did not discuss is the idea which I have heard (perhaps even
read in this forum?) which makes the most sense to me.  I would like
to hear what problems there are with the following scheme:

The phone company assigns a fictitious id# to those subscribers who
request one.  This would typically be people who have unlisted phone
numbers. These fictitious id#s would be known to the subscriber, so
that s/he could give them out to whoever s/he wanted.  When calls are
placed from the subscribers phone, the fictitious id# is displayed
instead of the real phone number.  Since this number is tied to a
phone number, it serves the same identification purpose: A receipient
who is familiar with the number knows what phone a call is coming
from, if they are familiar with the number displayed.

However, to ensure the privacy of the caller, the fictitious id# would
not be able to be used to call back the caller, nor would the phone
companies be allowed to reveal who a given id# belongs to, except
under court order.  Some method would be used to enable people to
recognize the difference between real phone numbers and fictitious
id#s, the simplest of which is that real phone numbers could show up
as 1+Real Area Code + Real Phone Number, and fictitious id#s would be
2+Real Area Code + Fake Phone Number.  (I am not familiar with how the
numbers are actually stored and displayed, so there is probably a
better way, but nothing I have read so far makes me think that it
would be difficult to implement the fictitious id# so that it would be
easy to tell it from a real phone number).

This scheme has the following advantages:

1) People who receive calls always know what phone a call is coming
from, even if they don't know that phone's number.  Thus people
receiving crank calls can tell the authorities where the calls are
coming from, and people getting calls from their psychiatrist know who
the call is from, without being able to call the psychatrist at home
(the psychiatrist could print his or her id# on his or her business
card).  This protects the person receiving the calls, as the service
is designed to.  It also allows businesses to access individual
callers accounts by id#, if they want to establish such service.

2) It seems, to my outsider's eye, that this is completely feasible.
While it would require some extra record-keeping by the phone company
to keep track of people's fictitious id#s, it is a small extra piece
if information to add to all the other stuff they already keep track
of (like name, address, calling card #'s, etc.).  Also, the fictitious
id#s could be handled like real phone numbers by all of the equipment
involved with providing and displaying the calling-party ID.  The only
problem I can forsee is that of supplying the fictitious id# at the
originating switch: since I don't know how the real phone number is
supplied, I can't say how much harder it would be to supply a
fictitious one. I am guessing it is a relatively simple matter to
replace one string with another, but I'm sure I could be wrong.

3) There is very little breach of the caller's privacy, although there
is some.  What little breach there is may well be justifiable, like
taking pictures of anyone who walks into a bank (no flames for a bad
analogy, please).  A user of a phone with a fictitious id# can call
anyone he or she wants, and all the recipient of the call will know is
if it is someone who called before, unless the caller previously gave
the call recipient further information, or unless the call recipient
can convince the police that the caller has done something illegal.

For those who are truely paranoid about having someone find them, such
as people who might call a suicide prevention hot-line, they are
already worried that the phone company can trace their call, and I
don't think fictitious id#s will make matters much worse.  The most
innocent problem I can think of under this scheme is that a person
might do business with a company which maintains customer records
based on the recieved id#, and so even someone with a fictitious id#
would not be able to make an anonymous call to such a business, from
the phone they normally use.  This is at most an inconvenience, not a
breach of privacy.

Another version of this scheme would assign fictitious id#s to ALL
phones.  Unlisted phones would always send the fictitious id#, but
listed phones could substitiute the fictitious one by keying a privacy
code when dialing.  This even solves the problem (for listed phones)
of making anonymous calls to a buisness with which the caller has
established a relationship.


I submit this for discussion, because I am a big fan of CPID, and
would very much like to have it work.  It won't be useful to me,
though, if anyone who wants to keep me from seeing who is calling can,
and the only way people can avoid giving out their phone numbers is to
remove all useful information about who is calling.  I may not really
like the idea that with CPID I might not be able to get away with
calling my friends and playing jokes on them, but I do like even more
that they won't be able to play jokes on me.

If there are no problems with this system, perhaps someone can suggest
it to the powers that be, and we can really have it.  If there are
problems, perhaps we can work them out though this forum.


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

From: allen hom <rruxff![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tone Block
Date: 27 Feb 90 12:51:41 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Lowe) writes:

> > From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>

> > The ability to suspend Call Waiting is called *TONE-BLOCK* here in New
> > Jersey Bell land, but here's the catch - you have to subscribe to it.
> > You have to pay 50 cents extra per month to use it.

> Not necessarily true...I have it and I don't pay 50 cents per month
> for it.

> Does anyone out there in Bell Atlantic country pay for this fifty
> cents/month Tone Block Feature?  If I remember, I'll give the business
> office a call next week and ask them some questions.

I have tone block (as well as other CLASS services).  When I had
signed up for the services, the "salesperson" did mention the $0.50
extra charge for this service, and I see that charge monthly on my
phone bill.  Well worth the service, especially when you dial into
work from home.


Allen Hom
Bellcore
[e-mail]

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

From: Donald L Ritchey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Centrex and 9xxx Numbers
Date: 27 Feb 90 16:20:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, Il.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
says:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 128, Message 7 of 12

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

>> Perhaps there are other examples of the -9xxx gap where Centrex, or
>> other direct-dial extension systems are used out there...

> Most Centrex groups use less than a full 10,000 numbers, and so there
> are ordinary subscriber lines with numbers having the same prefix.
> The 0xxx and 9xxx groups are generally not assigned to centrex, so as
> to provide attendant and 'outside' access.  Sometimes there are other
> centrex groups with the same prefix, but members of one group must
> dial 9+ 7 digits to reach members of the other.

Here at Bell Labs in Indian Hill, Naperville, our CENTREX groups use
all 10,000 numbers in the 708-979-xxxx range (my number is in there)
as well as part of 708-713-xxxx, but we use prefix codes to
distinguish between the extensions and the services that seem to
conflict.

For extensions, we dial 3xxxx or 9xxxx.

For operator, we dial *0 (versus just 0) [left over from the days when
we only had 4-digit dialing and one prefix].

For outside line, we dial *9 (versus just 9)  [see previous comment].

Since most CENTREX services are based on modern digitally controlled
switches, the dialing plan used for CENTREX is usually customized to
some extent based on the needs of the customer.  The customer can
specify the needs of the application, and someone from the Telco
business office gets the task of making it work.

 - You want 4-digit extension dialing, if you have less than 10,000
lines, you can get it.

 - You want 4-digit extension dialing, and you have more than 10,000
lines, then something has to give.  Either you can't dial everyone
with extension dialing (make outside calls to the other lines not on
the same prefix (NXX)) or you go to 5-digit extensions.  We did the
later here.

All of CENTREX is a compromise between what the customer wants done
(usually pretty standard to minimize learning curves of new users) and
what the Central Office switch can handle.  Some switches are more
flexible than others, but someone with experience in comparing
different vendors offerings will have to assess which switch is
"best".  That is not something for the casual observer.

#include <std/disclaimer.h>

Don Ritchey       [e-mail] or [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Labs, Room IH 1D-409, Naperville, IL 60566, [phone]
:-)    The advice you get here is worth all that you paid for it.    :-)

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

From: George L Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Calls Between NJ, NY State
Date: 27 Feb 90 19:48:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>  From Sussex 702 & 875, local call to Unionville, NY (914-726) changed
> June 1, 1989 from 7D to 1+914+7D.

> service, except for the Montague prefix itself, is all out of state:
> 754 & 856 in Port Jervis, NY (area 914) 828 in Dingmans Ferry, Pa.
> (area 717) 296 in Milford, Pa. (area 717) 686 in Log Tavern, Pa. (area
> 717) 491 in Matamoras, Pa. (area 717)

> And in a NJ Bell prefix list, I see 201-512 for Cragmere.  Isn't that
> next door to Suffern, NY?  If so, it's local to that NY point.

Right.  I know of no other local calls across the state line, but I'm
not sure about Upper Greenwood Lake, N.J.  The lake itself spans the
line.  Can you get hold of a directory for Upper Greenwood Lake?

I've noticed that N.J. Bell's directories do not list all the 201
exchanges.

-:-
    "Wherever you go, there you are ... except that when
     you're on the phone you're nowhere."
                             --Ollaroo MacNoonzai

Col. G. L. Sicherman
[e-mail]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #131
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11890;
          1 Mar 90 1:06 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17471;
          28 Feb 90 23:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15289;
          28 Feb 90 22:14 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Feb 90 22:11:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #132
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Feb 90 22:10:56 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Envoy 100 (Stuart Lynne)
    Re: Envoy 100 (Kevin Chapman)
    Re: Is 990 a Special 'Exchange' in Area Code 508? (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Is 990 a Special 'Exchange' in Area Code 508? (Robert Kaplan)
    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way They Do? (Mike Morris)
    Re: Speaking of Security Codes (John Debert)
    Re: Southern Bell Pushes CLID Too Far (Lyle Seaman)
    Re: Two CLASS Calling Services Questions (John H. Haller)
    Re: *TONE-BLOCK* (Tom Lowe)
    Re: Dallas Area Code Split (Carl Moore)
    Re: Local Calls Across NJ, NY State Line (Robert Kaplan)
    Re: COCOTs and Long Distance (Evan Eickmeyer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Envoy 100
Date: 28 Feb 90 09:54:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 128, Message 8 of 12

}>It's just a commercial e-mail service. Happens to be run (indirectly)
}>by the Canadian government. Fees are charged for connect time,

}Very indirectly. It's run by a company called Telecom Canada. Which in
}turn is owned by the government. The Canadian Telco's are involved as
}well.

}Telecom Canada is apparantly being put on the block by the government
}(as of last Tuesday's federal budget).

Who is this guy anyway, was he asleep at the keyboard again?

To set the record straight, Telecom Canada is not owned by the
Canadian Government; but is jointly owned by all of the Canadian
Telco's: Alberta Government Telephones, BC Tel, Bell Canada, Island
Tel, Manitoba Telephone System, Maritime Tel&Tel, NBTel, Newfoundland
Telephone, SaskTel and Telesat Canada [from the back of my Datapac
Directory, 1984].

The company that *is* owned by the Government is Telesat Canada, and
it is being put on the block, no details yet.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532 (voice)    604-939-4768 (fax)

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

From: Kevin Chapman <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Envoy 100
Date: 28 Feb 90 15:12:27 GMT
Reply-To:  <bnrgate!bcarh13![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes:

!In article <[e-mail]> "Robert P. Warnock" <rigden![e-mail].
!edu> writes:

!!| hooking them up to a system called "Envoy 100".  (It's a billable

!! It's just a commercial e-mail service. Happens to be run (indirectly)
!! by the Canadian government. Fees are charged for connect time,

! Very indirectly. It's run by a company called Telecom Canada. Which in
! turn is owned by the government. The Canadian Telco's are involved as
! well.

Telecom Canada is owned by Canada's telcos, and NOT the federal government.

! Telecom Canada is apparantly being put on the block by the government
! (as of last Tuesday's federal budget).

The government is selling its 49.99% share of TeleSAT Canada...

FYI, the remaining shareholders of TeleSat are:
    Alberta Gov't Tel        4.66%    *
    Bell Canada            24.59    *
    BC Telephone            5.49    *
    Canadian National Railway    3.74
    Canadian Pacific        3.74
    Island Tel            0.79    *
    Manitoba Telephone System    1.66    *
    Maritime Telephone/Telegraph    1.22    *
    New Brunswick Telephone        1.32    *
    Newfoundland Telephone        0.49    *
    Ontario Northland         0.24
    Quebec Telephone        0.99    *
    Sask Tel            1.66    *

        (* = member of Telecom Canada)

I obtained these figures from TeleSat's PR office this morning.  By
the way, I was told about 32% of the shares are owned by Telecom
Canada member companies (but not Telecom Canada itself), but that
figure doesn't seem right - it should be more like 42%.


Toodles,

 Kevin Chapman
 [phone]
  uunet!bnrgate!bcarh13!calwa

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is 990 a Special 'Exchange' in Area Code 508?
Date: 28 Feb 90 17:12:51 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Mensch) writes...

That depends.  Do you consider New Bedford to be "Special"?  (I
suppose it is if you're a fisherman, or have a linguica addition.)  At
least that's where my phone book says 990 is, and has been for years.

However, 508-391 appears to be special; that's the one now used for
beepers that used to use 800 numbers.  I think it's local from the
whole LATA.  A previous article mentioned the corresponding 617
prefix.


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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 04:12:49 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is 990 a Special 'Exchange' in Area Code 508?


The 1990 NET white pages [for Boston] list 990 as being a regular New
Bedford exchange; I don't have the New Bedford phone book immediately
handy, but I seem to recall that it is just an ordinary exchange.  New
Bedford uses all of (508)99x.  So far no 99x numbers have been
assigned in the shrunken 617 NPA.


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 23:24:57 PST
From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way They Do?

 [e-mail] writes:

% I wanted to buy a directory sheet for my Touch-a-Matic 32.  That's the
% thing you pencil the numbers {you program into the memory buttons}
% onto so you see "SAM" when you want Sam.  It says,

%     DIRECTORY SHEET SET 840393672

% on it. The instruction book comes with 1-800-247-7000.  I will say no
% more, because my story is so close to Roy's that he could sue me for
% plagiarism and win. What jury would believe me?

Several years ago I tried to find a replacement battery for the unit.
I didn't have a book.  I gave up after 20 calls across 3 days.  Later
I was given 2 more.  One had a good battery.  I disassembled the bad
battery (with a saw blade in a dremel moto-tool).  Replacement cells
can be had from Alexander Battery Co.  Unfortunately the pack no
longer fits in the pocket in the bottom of the phone, but there are
enough unused pairs in the cable....

% Can we start a TELECOM Archive file on ATT_800_#s_to_nowhere?

Maybe Patrick can sell it to AT&T phone store counter clerks?  Or
supply it to 800- information?

% Anybody got any directory sheets?

I have three of those phones.  Not only do I need sheets, but two
legitimate memory backup batteries (10v, center tapped! i.e. +5v and
-5v), and a couple of housing parts (top cover, bottom plate, etc).  I
once saw a 9-line version of the Touch-a-matic, with a 16-button
Autovon pad.  Now that would be unusual to have in your house!


Mike Morris                      Internet:  [e-mail]
                                 Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     Bellnet:   818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     Radionet:  WA6ILQ

[Moderator's Note: Listen, as we have found out, you can read them
their very own part numbers and they will still defy you, and tell you
you don't know what you are talking about. You want to hear another laugh?
Try calling 800 Directory and asking for 'AT&T Mail'... they will give
you some strange number in New Jersey which is answered 'hello', and
after you explain that you are trying to reach AT&T Mail Customer Service
they will (maybe) transfer you correctly to some other number. Try 201
Directory; they've never heard of AT&T Mail either, and finally they will
give you the Corporate switchboard and let her try to figure it out.  PT]

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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Security Codes
Date: 28 Feb 90 04:32:40 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Higdon) says:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 129, Message 6 of 9

> John G Dobnick <[e-mail]> writes:

>> My question to you good folks on this list is: Can remote access be
>> totally supressed on this beastie?  I see no way to do so.  If this
>> _is_ mentioned in the manual, it isn't obvious to me.

> There is no way, short of tampering with the unit's firmware, to
> defeat the remote feature. This is a major shortcoming with this
> otherwise good product. The only suggestion would be to change the
> code daily :-)

This is reference to an answering machine, no?

One way is to open it up and remove the tone decoder chip - whichever
one is used in your particular machine.

I've noted a comment in misc.security about the ability to make an
answering machine make "untraceable" calls. I tried this on my machine
without success. It mutes all DTMF tones.


jd
[e-mail]

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

From: Lyle Seaman <sununix!comm.WANG.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southern Bell Pushes CLID Too Far
Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 18:11:24 GMT

[e-mail] writes:

>It seems that the North Carolina Attorney General is a little ticked
>off at Southern Bell. Apparently, he came into possesion of a Southern
>Bell memo, directing Southern Bell employees to write to the state
>Public Utilities Commision to lobby in favor of Caller ID. This in

Anyone willing to bet that a Southern Bell employee sent him the memo?
I think if my employer pulled such a low stunt, I'd be mad enough to
lobby against.


Lyle
[e-mail]

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

From: "john.h.haller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two CLASS Calling Services Questions
Date: 28 Feb 90 19:52:57 GMT
Reply-To: "john.h.haller,ih," <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I do not know what carriers will tariff, but I have a copy of the 5ESS
Switch Feature Handbook, AT&T select code 235-390-500.  The version I
am looking at is copyright 1988, so there may be a more recent
publication.  In the 5E6 generic, which is described as information
for planning purposes, not commitment to deliver any particular
features, there is a feature that allows selecting the caller ID
displayed to be either ANI (billing number) or calling party number,
either as the preferred or exclusive choice.  Note that 5E6 has not
been released yet.  Also listed under this feature is the capability
to block originating information on a per-call or per-subscriber basis
(for at least ISDN origination, it was not clear if both options are
supported on non-ISDN lines).

In order to have inter-LATA calling line ID, the end to end signalling
must be Signalling System 7.  For local calls to have calling # ID,
SS7 must be deployed locally.  I do not know how many, if any, local
switches are connected to long distance companies, which would prevent
inter-LATA Call ID.


John Haller [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: *TONE-BLOCK*
Date: 28 Feb 90 08:12:02 EST (Wed)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Lowe) writes:

> > > The ability to suspend Call Waiting is called *TONE-BLOCK* here in New
> > > Jersey Bell land, but here's the catch - you have to subscribe to it.
> > > You have to pay 50 cents extra per month to use it.

> > Not necessarily true...I have it and I don't pay 50 cents per month
> > for it.
> > Does anyone out there in Bell Atlantic country pay for this fifty
> > cents/month Tone Block Feature?  If I remember, I'll give the business
> > office a call next week and ask them some questions.

> Allen Hom at [e-mail] replied:
> I have tone block (as well as other CLASS services).  When I had
> signed up for the services, the "salesperson" did mention the $0.50
> extra charge for this service, and I see that charge monthly on my
> phone bill.  Well worth the service, especially when you dial into
> work from home.

I did call the business office to ask about Tone Block.  They informed
me that it is not available in my area.  I told them that I use it and
it works and they informed me that I don't use it and it doesn't work.
Well, I use it all the time and it works.  That explains why I don't
pay 50 cents a month for it.

I agree that 50 cents would be worth it if I had to pay.  This wasn't
the first time I had a hard time getting a logical answer from the
business office.  It's frustrating living in a place where the telco
doesn't even know what their switches can and can't do.


Tom Lowe
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Why don't you take a copy of this message, find out
who is the manager of the business office where you called, and send
him a copy of it. Advise him that you do indeed use Tone Block, a/k/a
Cancel (Suspend) Call-Waiting; i.e. *70, 1170, 70# or whatever your
switch requires, and add a note saying, "would you please only allow
employees who have been trained to work with subscribers and answer
their questions to take customer calls in the future." And mail it to
him by name at the street address of that business office.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 9:57:29 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dallas Area Code Split


As I recall hearing earlier, Dallas and nearby suburbs are to stay in
214, with the rest of the present 214 area becoming 903.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 17:50:43 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Calls Across NJ, NY State Line


One other example involving NYTel (but *not* NJB) is on the NY-PA line
near Binghamton NY.  Sayre PA (717-888) is not only local to many
points on the NY side, but if my recollection serves correctly, it is
in the Binghamton NY LATA.  I *think* it is an independent telco; it's
been a while since I've been in the area.


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinion.

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

From: Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs and Long Distance
Date: 28 Feb 90 23:58:23 GMT
Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California


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

>Went to my local Tower Records this afternoon and there, lo and
>behold, much to my dismay the old beat-up Pac*Bell pay phone in front
>of the store had been replaced by a you-know-what. It's better than
>average: wants $.25 for local (utility==$.20), passes 800, 950 without
>charge, pad works after call is dialed. But it did not honor "10XXX".
>"This is not a valid number..."

I have had the same problem with COCOTs not accepting 10288 when I
have wanted to use AT&T.  I thought of a solution that works -- if the
COCOT accepts incoming calls, and, unfortunately, many do not.  If you
are an AT&T customer, dial their residential customer service at
800-222-0300.

Explain that you are at a COCOT and cannot reach an AT&T operator.
Give them the telephone number you are at, and ask them to have an
AT&T operator call you.  They have always been polite, sympathetic,
and understanding -- not to mention wanting my business.  Hang up, and
about 30 seconds later the phone will ring with an AT&T operator.

Remind them that you are having trouble from a COCOT and you will not
be charged for an operator assist.  I assume that this will work with
other long-distance companies that have 800 customer service numbers.


           "I can't complain, but sometimes I still do" -- Joe Walsh
Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer               University of Southern California
[e-mail]                                  Los Angeles, California

[Moderator's Note: Of course you are making an assumption that the
no-good sleezebag of a COCOT owner doesn't disallow (or make a
surcharge for) 800 calls. Some of them are such deadbeats they charge
for that also. They would charge to call 911 (or cut it off) if the
law did not make them give it for free.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #132
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14357;
          1 Mar 90 2:12 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24566;
          1 Mar 90 0:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17471;
          28 Feb 90 23:21 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Feb 90 23:01:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #133
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Feb 90 11:00:47 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: A Few ISDN Questions (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: A Few ISDN Questions (Johnny Zweig)
    Looking For DTMF Generation Software & Phone Interface Info (Bernie Roehl)
    Exclusion Modules (Reversed) (Kevin P. Kleinfelter)
    The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A. (John R. Covert)
    New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging (Lenny Tropiano)
    National Telephone Service, Inc. (Carl Moore)
    New York City in 1980 (Carl Moore)
    10xxx/950-xxxx Mapping? (Hokey)
    Re: Portable Office Phones (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions
Date: 28 Feb 90 17:06:51 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lynn Gale)
writes...

>Is it known at this point in time what medium ISDN will run on?  In
>particular, what number of wire pairs are necessary and do they need
>to be shielded or unshielded?  (Thinking about wiring decisions with
>the future in mind...)

The ISDN Basic Rate ("2B+D") interface at Reference Point U (Network
Interface, in the US) is 2-wires, copper.  At Reference Points S and T
(intended for inside wiring), it's 4-wire copper.  The two pairs are
send and receive (balanced).  Unshielded twisted pair is all you need.
NOT quad, and no need to use fancy shielded wire.

The Primary Rate Interface ("23B+D") is based on good old fashioned T1
(North America/Japan) and E1 (rest of Earth).  That runs on two
twisted pairs too.

>Will ISDN incorporate Fax functions?  RS-232?  What else besides
>voice?

ISDN ships bits.  It allows the bits to be handled raw (64 kbps
circuit switched, and some multiples of that), or as X.25 packets, or
as digitized voice (A-law and mu-law, with conversion as appropriate).
FAX may be supported over the 64 kbps service, for which Group 4 was
designed, although Group 3 can also use it.  RS-232 is a physical
layer not part of ISDN, though you can certainly have a Terminal
Adapter (ISDNese for "modem function") that has RS-232 on one side and
ISDN on the other.  Essentially you can do with the 64 kbps as your
imagination allows.


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

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 20:43:15 GMT


[e-mail] (Lynn Gale) writes:

>Will ISDN incorporate Fax functions?  RS-232?  What else besides voice?

ISDN is lower level than Fax -- it's higher level than rs-232; think
of it about the level of complexity of ethernet.  Basically a way of
moving bits.  Fax will certainly be one of the first available
applications since that involves moving many bits quickly.

>Is it known at this point in time what medium ISDN will run on?  In
>particular, what number of wire pairs are necessary and do they need
>to be shielded or unshielded?  (Thinking about wiring decisions with
>the future in mind...)
>If it takes, say, 4 pairs, what function(s) do each of the pairs
>perform?

It's complicated.  There are a couple of "reference points" which
serve different points of your house/business.  At the U-reference
point which is where the phone-company's wires/fibers/whatever come
into the building there are standards for 2- and 4-wires and for fiber
(the 2-wire one would be most common for ISDN to your house since most
houses only have one twisted pair in).

At the S- and T-reference points, there are 4 wires used for balanced
data transmission in each direction, with a dc-imbalance between the
average voltages in each direction, so you can tap the centers of the
send and receive transformers to get DC to power the equipment ==
extremely hip.  Unshielded twisted pair pairs (i.e.  ordinary telco
4-color cable) should be hip for that, at least according to this book
I have.


Johnny  -- not-an-Electrical-Engineer-but-I-play-one-on-the-Net

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

From: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for DTMF Generation Software and Phone Interface Info
Date: 1 Mar 90 02:06:34 GMT
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario


We're looking for a routine for doing DTMF synthesis on a TSP50C44 (a
speech chip from TI).  If anyone out there has done this, or has code
for any other chip to do the same thing, we'd love to hear from you!

(And if you can tell us how to do DTMF *decoding* in software without
a DSP, you'll have our undying gratitude!)

We're also trying to figure out how to safely, reliably interface some
computer equipment to the telephone line.  What we want is something
that will attach to the line (meeting all CRTC and FCC specs) and give
us audio in, audio out, ring detect and hook control (i.e. we want the
computer to detect when the phone is ringing, be able to answer it,
and be able to listen to and speak to the line).

Any ideas/suggestions/comments would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.


    Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept
    Mail: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
    BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watserv1!broehl
    Voice:  [phone] [home]  [phone] x 2607 [work]

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

From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b![e-mail]>
Subject: Exclusion Modules (Reversed)
Date: 28 Feb 90 17:15:24 GMT
Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA


In a recent article, Tad Cook posted a description of exclusion
modules.  These devices allow multiple phones to use the same line,
but not at the same time (i.e. when one is off-hook, the other gets an
open circuit).

What I want is the reverse (inverse?) of this. Assume that I have two
single-line phone lines coming into my house.  I want to have one
single-line phone answer calls on both lines.  When one line is in
use, the other line should be busied-out.

I do NOT want a service from the phone company that sends two lines
over one line.  I do NOT want a "ring-no-answer" on one line when the
other is in use.

(The actual problem is more involved than the above, but it can be
reduced to the above.)

Any info in this area would be appreciated.


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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 05:25:31 PST
From: "John R. Covert  28-Feb-1990 0811" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A.


Last November/December, in V9#5xx, there was a discussion of
International Directory Assistance.  Patrick made the eminently
reasonable suggestion that International D.A. be directly diallable,
as D.A. here in the U.S. and Canada is.  Though I agreed with him in
principle, I pointed out several technical and cultural problems with
his suggestion.

Well, there are more than technical and cultural problems.  Quoting
from CCITT Recommendation E.115 Section 3 "General principles
applicable to the various methods of obtaining information":

In any relation, Administrations should abide by the following general
principles:

a) Inquiries from customers concerning foreign subscribers' numbers should
   normally be addressed to operators in the country of origin who will obtain
   the required information; it may be useful to keep the customer on line
   while this information is being sought.

b) In order to give operators in the country of origin ready access to the
   international telephone inquiry service in other countries, it is desirable
   that Administrations, in conformity with Recommendation E.149, provide
   common routing codes or abbreviated access numbers to the foreign computer-
   ized or manual telephone inquiry services.

c) Technical arrangements should, as far as practicable, prevent access by a
   subscriber of one country to an operator of the telephone information
   service of another country.  Administrations should not communicate
   access numbers of telephone information services in foreign countries
   to their subscribers.

d) Exceptionally, however, subscribers in one country may be permitted to have
   access to the information service in another country subject to bilateral
   agreement between the Administrations concerned.

/john


[Moderator's Note: In response, in (a) if that is what they think is a
good idea, then god-bless 'em. Personally I think it only adds
additional confusion, given the relative lack of training AT&T is
providing for their operators these days. If they want the US Operator
to stumble through the call when it would take me thirty seconds to
query the distant point, then its their nickle, not mine. Regards (b)
'common routing codes' of the form 555-1212 work fine here; some
variant -- but as standard as possible -- would work on international
calls. In point (c), nothing currently prevents me from dialing
international DA direct *if* I know the number assigned for the
purpose in the country being called; that is, the number being called
by the operator presently.  And in (d), here in the United States we
already do this: We call direct for Canadian DA; along with any number
of countries (or telephone administrations) in the 809 area. Why
shouldn't we do it when calling the UK or West Germany?  As per point
(d), how do we rate all the exceptions where 809 is concerned?  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 14:50:52 EST
From: Lenny Tropiano <think!ames!icus.ICUS.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging


Information Week Magazine, February 26, 1990, page 63.

Phone Fun

   "Hi, it's me.  Sorry to call so early, but my flight's been
changed, and I need you to pick me up sooner.  (mmmmphrrrrw, whoisthis
mmmmfffrrmm).  Honey, wake up.  Hello?  Hello?"

   Have you ever phoned the West Coast from New York to convey a
change of flight plans and woken up your wife/husband/faithful friend
at 4 a.m.?  AT&T's VoiceMark allows you to let sleeping spouses
lie -- and still not get stranded at the airport.

   Voice Mark Messaging Service lets callers record and send messages
to any telephone, whether it's across town or across the world, at any
hour.  Karen Antonucci, VoiceMark marketing manager, says, "You no
longer have to endure the frustration and time delays associated with
friends and associates who aren't at home or time zone differences."

   There are no sign-up fees or monthly charges.  Customers dial
1-800-562-6275, follow the instructions and leave a one minute
personal recording.  Messages can be scheduled for delivery
immediately or up to one week later, and recipients can record a
one-minute reply at no extra charge.

   Voice Mark costs, $1.75 for automated delivery; the fee for
person-to-person delivery, in which an attendant personally introduces
the message to the specified person, is $2.50.  There are no toll
charges -- the distance the message travels does not affect the price.


[Moderator's Note: Does anyone know if they are still incapable of
accepting their own (AT&T) credit card for these calls from other than
the Atlanta area?  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 9:50:37 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Telephone Services, Inc.


I vaguely recall seeing NTS (National Telephone Services Inc.) listed
with respect to some COCOTs, but I also vaguely recall NTS being
listed as the default long-distance carrier on some pay phones
maintained by the former "baby Bell" companies. Anyone know about it?

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 11:51:44 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: New York City in 1980


These New York Times articles refer to the then-new
1+ requirement in front of area code (year is 1980):

Sept. 23, p. 1 col. 4
Nov. 22, p. 26 col. 1
Nov. 24, part II, p. 3 col. 4

The Sept. 23 (1980) article said there were 650 (sic) prefixes in use
in NYC (I believe there are only 640 NNX prefixes).  All 3 articles
said that, according to New York Telephone, the change would make 152
new prefixes available, for 1.5 million new phone numbers, a 25-year
supply.  (Recall that this was only 4 years before the 212/718 split.)

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

From: Hokey <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10xxx/950-xxxx Mapping?
Date: 1 Mar 90 01:02:41 GMT
Organization: Plus Five Computer Services


I've seen lists of the various 10xxx long distance companies.

I occasionally end up at a telephone which says I can use either 10xxx
or 950-xxxx to get to alternative carriers.  If a 10xxx call fails or
is blocked, I'd like to try a 950-xxxx instead, but I have not seen a
list of 950-xxxx long-distance companies, nor have I seen a "mapping
algorithm".

So, is there an easy mapping between the two?

If not, how can I find out the 950-xxxx numbers for various
long-distance companies?

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones
Date: 28 Feb 90 19:45:08 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

> ATT is currently marketing a portable office phone that connects with
> their Merlin system.  Does anyone know if there are ANY security
> features available with that phone?

I'm so glad someone else opened this worm can. The only difference
between the Merlin phone and their ordinary cordless is the signaling
required to access the Merlin features and the displays to show
status.  There is no "scrambling".

Thoughts occur. The TV ads talk about the "cords that bind and hold
your business back." That's silly. How many office situations are you
aware of that require a person talking on the phone to dance around
the office during the conversation? Even those businesses with PBXs
that can effectively use an ordinary cordless phone don't.

I'm going to give that phone a couple of months to catch on. Remember,
it won't be the riffraff who get one of those, but the boss -- the big
executive. The conversations on those cordless phones should be the
juciest ones being made on the company's phone system. Now that the
courts have so ruled, I can cruise the industrial parks of Santa Clara
and Sunnyvale with the old ICOM and see what great gossip I can pick
up with impunity.

Who knows, maybe the next big Silicon Valley bombshell will be
revealed first on this group thanks to the popularity of the Merlin
cordless :-)


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


[Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as
cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned,
under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat
what you have heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Rules of
the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for
yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have
heard for your personal gain.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #133
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22112;
          1 Mar 90 5:18 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24827;
          1 Mar 90 3:33 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29667;
          1 Mar 90 2:29 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Mar 90 1:42:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #134
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Mar 90 01:40:17 CST     Volume 10 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Alcor Files Suit Over Electronic Mail Seizure (Keith Henson)
    Six Digit Phone Numbers (Richard Rosenthal)
    Rochester Telephone and Caller*ID (W. L. Ware)
    MCI Mail Numbering Scheme (Carl Moore)
    Re: The Wrong End of the Telescope (Kim Greer)
    Re: Does 976 Know Who You Are? (John Higdon)
    Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T Voicemark Messaging ([e-mail])
    Special Issue: Another London Split Table Program (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Bill Wisner)
    Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth (Carl Moore)
    Autoreply Back In Service (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Alcor Files Suit Over Electronic Mail Seizure
Date: Wed, 28-Feb-90 09:24:37 PST


 From _The Press-Enterprise_ Saturday, Feb 24, 1990

(Posted by Alcor member Keith Henson)

ALCOR FILES SUIT OVER ELECTRONIC MAIL SEIZURE

By David Bloom, The Press-Enterprise

   Another legal battle has erupted between Alcor Life Extension
Foundation and the law, this time with a federal lawsuit filed by
Alcor over the seizure more than two years ago of computerized
"electronic mail" during a search of the group`s Riverside
headquarters.

   Alcor members pay up to $100,000 for the privilege of have their
bodies put in cryonic suspension, frozen at temperatures hundreds of
degrees below zero, after their death.  The members hope developing
medical technology will one day enable the to be revived and cured.

  The group ran afoul of local law enforcement officials, however,
after the cryonic suspension of the head of Dora Kent in December
1987.

   The Riverside County coroner's Office accused Alcor members of
hastening along Kent's death with a lethal dose of barbiturates in
preparation for freezing.  The group has denied the accusation, saying
they provided only "care and comfort" to the 83 year-old Kent in her
last two days.

   Law enforcement officers raided the Alcor headquarters on
Riverside's southwest edge in January 1988, searching for computer
equipment, software and related material, and for Kent's body parts,
and any illegal drugs.

   They found the equipment, but not Kent, whose head had been
secreted away, or any illegal drugs.

   The most recent lawsuit was filed last month in U.S. District court
in Los Angeles.  It accuses a dozen Riverside City and County law
enforcement officials of violating the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act of 1986.

   The suit says police illegally seized the electronic mail of 14
Alcor members when it seized the computer equipment.  A copy of the
search warrant included as an exhibit in the suit does not mention
electronic mail.

   The suit asked for at least $10,000 for each of the Alcor members
who filed the suit.  Most to the same members filed a claim against
the city 11 months ago, but the city allowed the claim to expire
without response after 45 days, said attorney John Porter, who is
representing the city and two policemen named in the suit.

   "This lawsuit was filed in federal court," Porter said.  "It should
have been filed in the Twilight Zone."

    The attorney for Alcor could not be reach for comment late
yesterday.


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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 14:10:43 -0500
From: Richard Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Six Digit Phone Numbers


I live in Fairfax County, Virginia just outside D.C.  Our cable TV
operator (Media General) now offers the following:

      Introducing instant pay-per-view ordering!

      No need to talk with an operator ... all you need
      is you home touch-tone phone and the channel number
      of the event you want to see.

      Easy as 1-2-3!

      - Select the feature you wish to view
      - Call 103-800 (special 6 digit number!)
        Enter the feature's Channel #
      - Relax and enjoy the show!

I dialed (touched) the 6 digit phone number and with no ring I was
connected to a recording that said to enter the channel number of the
show I wanted to watch.  Well, I didn't want to order a show so I hung
up.

Question:  What is the story with 6 digit phone numbers?  How do
they work?  I would like to know more.

I guess that they work something like the way equal access to long
distance works.  I know that I dial 102-221 (usually written 10-222-1)
to dial direct with MCI.  Any relation here?

Thanks for the info.

/s/ Rich Rosenthal
    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It appears your local cable company has convinced
your local telco they should be allowed to use an 'equal access' 10xxx
code as though they were a telco. Although it sounds like a clever
idea, I can't help but object in principle to this mis-use of the
numbering scheme. I wonder if Bellcore or anyone else in authority is
even aware of it, or gave permission for it.  PT]

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

From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Rochester Telephone and Caller*ID
Date: 28 Feb 90 20:50:44 GMT
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


Does anyone know if Rochester Tel has Caller *ID set up yet?

If they do, (general question to all netters) where can I get a Caller
*ID box? And what are my alternatives?


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'd think if they had it available, they would
hawking it in the press and telling everyone how to get a box. In the
event they have it but are not advertising it or selling boxes, you
can shop the mail order catalogs. One good example is 'Hello Direct' at
1-800-HI-HELLO.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 9:53:08 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Mail Numbering Scheme


I have seen MCI mail numbers listed in the same format as 7-digit
telephone numbers.  Is there any meaning to this?


[Moderator's Note: No particular meaning applies, except that the
lower the box number, the longer the person has been a user. Boxes
numbered 1xx-xxxx up to about 2xx-xxxx have been on MCI Mail for
several years. The folks with 4xx-xxxx are newer users from the past
six or eight months.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Subject: Re: The Wrong End of the Telescope
Date: 28 Feb 90 11:49:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 123, Message 2 of 5

>In TELECOM Digest  Volume 10 : Issue 118 you write:

>> People just can't seem to grasp the fact that a group of 20 year old
>> kids just might know a little more than they do, and rather than make

>For any commercial or government entity to do less is in itself
>criminal. To then go after "hackers" for simply walking in the
>relatively open door and prosecute them is an offense.

  Dumb - maybe.  Negligent - yeah, ok.  Criminal ?  I don't think so.

Obligatory net analogy: If I sit a briefcase down on the sidewalk
while I fumble with keys to unlock a car door, and some jerk heists
the brief- case, then you are telling me _I'm_ the criminal?  Get
real.  I'm fed up with lame excuses and garbaged reasoning from these
idiots (crackers or whatever name they want to call themselves - I'm
not referring to you, John) to somehow justify their illegal deeds.
They have no right or privilege bestowed upon them to legitiately do
their childish, though dangerous (in several categories - property,
lives, copyrights, and yes, maybe even national security) "pranks".

  Its an offense to prosecute someone because the victim had a
"relatively open door"??  Tell me that same thing should one ever bust
into one of your systems.  I won't hold my breath.


K. Greer
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I am tired of hearing the notion
that *I* must be restricted and/or inconvenienced because *they* never
learned to respect the private property of others. Its all too common
these days, isn't it: the victim is made into the guilty party, and
the guilty party becomes a folk hero persecuted by a government out to
get him. The best thing in the world that could have been done for
some of the crackers would have been for their parents to slap the
fire out of them a little more often.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does 976 Know Who You Are?
Date: 28 Feb 90 19:57:40 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail] (Keith
Henson) writes:

> I know that 911 calls read out the address of the calling location, is
> this a different service?

This is ancient technology. In fact, word has it that Santa Clara
county's system runs in a PDP-11! (Telephonically speaking, we always
try to remain on the cutting edge of technology--there's some
disagreement about which edge :-)

Anyway, this system is simply sent the ANI data from each CO in the
area covered. This information is then fed to a lookup table and the
name and address of the customer appear on the screen of the
dispatcher.

> This feature is a pain in the neck sometimes.  You report a domestic
> violence case, and the cops beat on *your* door first, and then wonder
> over to the disturbance, making it clear who called them.

If, for any reason, you don't want your address and number to be
revealed, simply call the POTS emergency number listed in the front of
your phone book. If there isn't one listed, dial the "0" operator and
ask to be connected to the appropriate agency (assuming you have an
emergency).


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

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

Subject: Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T Voicemark Messaging
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 23:10:12 PST
From: [e-mail]


>[Moderator's Note: Does anyone know if they are still incapable of accepting
>their own (AT&T) credit card for these calls from other than the Atlanta area?

Yup, I just called, entered my PacBell card, and got shuttled to a
human attendant, who wanted my VISA card number.

    ^

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 23:13:56 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: Another London Split Table Program


Andrew Yeomans has provided me with still another version of the
London Split Table. This one is a shar file, and he makes some
corrections to previous files printed here on the subject, including
some exchanges which 'belong to' Mercury.

It is a large file, and will be transmitted as a special issue later
this week. You can file it with the others, and review them all to see
which is correct; which need changes, etc.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 00:45:17 AST
From: Bill Wisner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison!


>I thought killer was already closed down for the AT&T source code thing a
>couple years back. When it came back online it became attcdc.

attctc. WITH A T!!


Bill Wisner <[e-mail]> Gryphon Gang Fairbanks AK 99775
"Put a cork in it, Wisner." -- Karl Kleinpaste <[e-mail]>

[Moderator's Note: I know, I know! That's one typo (in two places
yet!) that got passed me and embarasses me still.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 90 10:05:21 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hacker Group Accused of Scheme Against BellSouth


[Moderator's Note: Carl sends along a copy of a letter he wrote
someone.  PT]

Notice the mention of Jolnet.  There were some earlier messages about it
being shut down?

  ----- Forwarded message # 1 [excerpt only]:

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).

  ----- End of forwarded messages

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 0:47:54 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Autoreply Back In Service


For about two weeks more or less, the autoreply message was not going
out to people writing to the Digest. The software was broken. It is
now back in order, and autoreplies will again be sent in most
instances.

The purpose of the autoreply is to let you know your submission has
arrived here safely, on the date and at the time indicated on the
receipt.  There are still a few bugs in it which prevent it from being
issued to some readers; and the 'iffy' nature of mail itself sometimes
causes the autoreply message to bounce back to me despite the sender's
good address.

But about 95% of you should get this automatic response each time you
write to [e-mail] or one of our forwarding addresses from
other networks and sites, etc.


Patrick Townson

(PS: Due to the work I had to do on this problem tonight, I was
delayed in getting the rest of the article on Rich Andrews, et al
finished.  I will try to have it in a Digest on Friday -- maybe even
late Thursday.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #134
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21226;
          2 Mar 90 3:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04932;
          2 Mar 90 1:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00451;
          2 Mar 90 0:38 CST
Date:     Fri, 2 Mar 90 0:00:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #135
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Mar 90 00:00:09 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging (Tom Lowe)
    Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T Voicemark Messaging (John R. Levine)
    Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T Voicemark Messaging (Ken Rossen)
    Re: The Wrong End of the Telescope (John Higdon)
    Re: National Telephone Services, Inc. (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: Exclusion Modules (Reverse) (Ken Dykes)
    Re: ISDN-Modem Interworking Question (John Gilmore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging
Date: 1 Mar 90 08:48:58 EST (Thu)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


A few weeks ago, an item was posted announcing the new AT&T
VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service where you can call 800-562-6275 and
record a one minute message in your own voice that will be delivered
according to your instructions.  There were several questions asked
about the service which I am just now getting around to answering.

I am on the project team for VoiceMark(sm).  These are MY answers, not
official statements from AT&T.  If anyone wants official statements or
answers, please send me email and I will try to put you in touch with
appropriate people.

I would love to hear from anyone who has used the service and hear
your experiences with it, good or bad.  I will pass any comments and
suggestions to the decision makers up above.  This is your chance to
get your voice heard in the development of an up-and-coming service.

If anyone has any ideas for other voice related services such as this
one, please let me know.  We are always looking for new ideas for
services and many of the ones that we are working on now were
suggested by people like yourselves.

>Article about AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Deleted...

>it seems funny that they would offer an operator assisted service.
>Thought AT&T was trying to reduce live operators.

When they say "Operator Assisted", what they really mean is Introduced
by a real live person (attendant) who will ask for a specific person
or a message taker if specified.  The recipient won't hear any
automation until after the attendant introduces the call and
acknowledges that the appropriate person answered.

>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.

Since this is a non-subscription service, it is not possible to assign
a new PIN to each user.  Therefore, it is basically up to the
individual to prevent unauthorized people from using his or her Card
Number, the same way unauthorized use of ATT Cards is done now.  There
are also several security features built into the system to prevent,
report, and trace potential and actual abuse.

>Unfortunately, the 800 number given was not working from
>Western Michigan as of tonight, so I wasn't able to try it out.

As far as I know, the 800 number should be working across the country.
If anyone has any problems, please call the hotline listed below.

>[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]

You are very correct.  It is not considered a Voice Mail system.  It
is a store and forward service.  There are other vendors of this type
of service, but few offer it to the general public from any phone
nationwide, including rotary dial.  Some are actually built-in to
specific payphones. Most are 100% automatic, and all the ones I have
heard about charge whether the message is delivered or not.  Also,
most don't give the oportunity to call back and get status or cancel a
message.

I would very much like to hear details about any other store and
forward services that are out there, including, if possible, access
numbers, etc.

Calling Cards are restricted to Southern Bell and South Central Bell
area because that is the official market introduction area and other
technical reasons that are being worked on at this moment.  Other
regions of the country will be added in the future.  However, anyone
in the country is welcome to use the service using their MasterCard or
VISA and eventually American Express (still under development).

Answers can be posted to the TELECOM Digest or sent directly to me.  I
will do my best to reply as quickly as possible.


Tom Lowe
Room 2E637A
AT&T Bell Labs
Crawfords Corner Road
Holmdel, NJ  08005

Voice: 201-949-0428    FAX: [phone]
email:  [e-mail]   or attmail!tlowe

VoiceMark(sm) Service: 1-800-562-MARK   (Have your ATT/VISA/MasterCard ready)
                                (6275)
VoiceMark(sm) Hotline: [phone]   (Call this for literature/information)

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

Subject: Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T Voicemark Messaging
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 1 Mar 90 11:27:57 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>>[Moderator's Note: Does anyone know if they are still incapable of accepting
>>their own (AT&T) credit card for these calls from other than the Atlanta
>>area?

>Yup, I just called, entered my PacBell card, and got shuttled to a
>human attendant, who wanted my VISA card number.

That's funny, I just called, entered my AT&T Card number which is the
same as my NET card, and after about three seconds it went ahead and
asked for the number that I wanted to call.


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

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

From: Ken Rossen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T Voicemark Messaging
Date: 1 Mar 90 18:28:54 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Rossen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Don't Push Snow Over Here


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] responds to 10:134,
Message 7,  as follows:

>>[Moderator's Note: Does anyone know if they are still incapable of accepting
>>their own (AT&T) credit card for these calls from other than the Atlanta
>>area?

>Yup, I just called, entered my PacBell card, and got shuttled to a
>human attendant, who wanted my VISA card number.

On the other hand, I just called, entered my AT&T card number, and it
worked.


[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Wrong End of the Telescope
Date: 1 Mar 90 09:11:07 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Kim Greer) writes:

> Obligatory net analogy: If I sit a briefcase down on the sidewalk
> while I fumble with keys to unlock a car door, and some jerk heists
> the brief- case, then you are telling me _I'm_ the criminal?  Get
> real.  I'm fed up with lame excuses and garbaged reasoning from these
> idiots (crackers or whatever name they want to call themselves - I'm
> not referring to you, John) to somehow justify their illegal deeds.

Just so there is no doubt, let me be absolutely clear concerning which
side of the aisle I'm on. Not long ago, I blasted a post from some
hacker which netted me some "warnings"--nay, threats from inhabitants
of the the "darkside", etc. Never in any of my writings have I
justified hacking now or in my other life of a distant past. The
rational for phreaking and hacking was lame then and it's lame now and
given the potential harm should not be tolerated. Are you with me so
far?

>   Its an offense to prosecute someone because the victim had a
> "relatively open door"??  Tell me that same thing should one ever bust
> into one of your systems.  I won't hold my breath.

I would be mightily outraged if one broke into one of my systems.
However, we are at some disagreement as to prevention techniques. You
seem to feel (and I don't want to put words into your mouth) that it
is more effective to run around and try to put all the hackers in jail
rather than simply making the systems secure. As I said in my post, I
have taken some rudimentary precautions to keep the casually curious
out of my various computer and telephone systems. If everyone did the
same, we might have less of a "hacker" problem to begin with.

Don't you feel that it is "criminal" to be easier to hack into a
system such as a telco RMAC than say someone's home UNIX computer?
This was my point of the post. If security at critical systems is "au
casual", then my ire is directed at the administrators of those
systems, not the hackers.

> [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I am tired of hearing the notion
> that *I* must be restricted and/or inconvenienced because *they* never
> learned to respect the private property of others.

When I leave my house, I have to lock the door. I also set the alarm.
It really is an inconvenience. I really shouldn't have to do that.
People should just know that my stuff is mine. And I live in a
virtually crimeless neighborhood.

> Its all too common
> these days, isn't it: the victim is made into the guilty party, and
> the guilty party becomes a folk hero persecuted by a government out to
> get him. The best thing in the world that could have been done for
> some of the crackers would have been for their parents to slap the
> fire out of them a little more often.  PT]

Like you, I am infuriated with the folk hero status of some of these
creeps. And I also agree that some of them should have been slapped
around a little as kids (figuratively, at least). But the idea here is
to prevent the breach of systems and to really accomplish something,
isn't it? So rather than rail about how society *should* be and how
people *should* act, why not face reality and design systems that are
somewhat more resistant to intruders?


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

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: National Telephone Services, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 17:30:09 EST


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

>I vaguely recall seeing NTS (National Telephone Services Inc.) listed
>with respect to some COCOTs, but I also vaguely recall NTS being
>listed as the default long-distance carrier on some pay phones
>maintained by the former "baby Bell" companies. Anyone know about it?

When I was "down Maine" (in Kennebunkport) last summer I played with
the phones.  We had a nearby N.E.Tel payphone which had two default LD
carriers listed: AT&T for 1+ calls and someone else ("First
Telecommunications" maybe?) for 0+ calls.  I noticed this after I
tried a call and got a funny "thank you for using" after the Bong and
the N.E.Tel card number.  I went ahead and placed a call.

The bill came in with some name at the top of the page (different from
what the card on the phone said, though probably there's a mother /
daughter company relationship in there somewhere).  It could have been
NTS on the bill.  There was no logo (as is provided for Sprint, MCI,
or AT&T).  The charge was reasonable.

As I say, this was a real N.E.Telco phone.  10XXX worked properly, too.


    /JBL

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

From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exclusion Modules (Reverse)
Date: 2 Mar 90 04:02:23 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo


In article <[e-mail]> msa3b![e-mail] (Kevin P.
Kleinfelter) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 133, Message 4 of 10

>single-line phone lines coming into my house.  I want to have one
>single-line phone answer calls on both lines.  When one line is in
>use, the other line should be busied-out.

>I do NOT want a service from the phone company that sends two lines
>over one line.  I do NOT want a "ring-no-answer" on one line when the
>other is in use.

Perhaps what I did may be of use or the seed of an idea:

  When I got my 2nd line (mostly for modem) I was too cheap to fork
out $$$$ for a real 2-line phone, I saw something in Radio Shack:

  "Make one answering machine answer two lines"

Well, I reason, ans-machines are mechanical phone users, or phone users
are bioligical answer-machines... so I bought one, and put my single line
phone where the machine would go.

The device detects which line has a ring signal on it, and internaly
switches to that line.  The switch stays on the "last line used" until
the other line ever rings, so your outgoing calls are stuck to the
line you last answered (unless you have a bypass, or plug-unplug
motivation).

My 2nd line is also unlisted and only about 4 of my closest friends
know the number -- ie: I tend to ignore my listed line if I dont feel
like being social.  So, I have this problem of not knowing which one
is REALLY ringing...

I used one of those outboard "warehouse" ringers on my 2nd line too,
can't miss calls on that one now!! (You could simply plug in another
phone(s) in various combinations on your two lines and get unique
ringing sounds, assuming your phones are old fasioned enough to allow
(re)wiring to whichever line you want them on).

[I already owned the outboard ringer from years ago, even a real
two-line phone has the problem of not knowing which one is ringing
without looking at the flashing light -- perhaps there are models with
distinctive ringing but not common.]

The device lists in the RS catalog for about cdn$29.95 cdn-part# 43-383.

Hummm, looking at the catalog, I see another outboard toy:

"Hold/status Box" - "allows you to place a call on hold, LED indicator"

               cdn$14.95 part#43-8002

Oh yes, another trick I did when I got the 2nd line (and owned a cheap
sealed phone I couldn't rewire easily) was buy one of those RJ-14(?)
female-female adapter plugs, carefully separated the plastic halves,
carefully removed the pins on one half and reinserted them with the
logical lines reversed, *poof* instant line 1/2 adapter for cheap
phones and modems that can't be wired directly!  (I couldn't do this
with normal male-female cord because those modular ends are TOO sealed
up, the female-female device had a natural seam to it).


   - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W]
          [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]
          [e-mail]      [e-mail]     watmath!kgdykes
          [e-mail]           B8 s+ f+ w t e m r

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 03:24:24 PST
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN-Modem Interworking Question


[e-mail] (Joe Hingston) wrote:

> 1) The ISDN terminal will have a standard modem sitting behind a
> codec.  As far as the network and the service provider are concerned
> ISDN does not need to exist.

Even better -- the ISDN terminal can have a SOFTWARE modem implementation
and a SOFTWARE codec.  Why add hardware just to talk to old equipment?
Certainly a low speed (<= 2400 baud) modem should be doable on today's
CPUs.  If you have a DSP, the whole ball of wax up through Telebits is
no problem.

Actually the ISDN end will be aware that ISDN exists.  But it will
dial into a 'voice' line on the other end that happens to have an old
style modem attached to it, in the same way that an ISDN voicemail
system might call a voice phone to forward a call to you.  The other
end will just think it's talking to a standard modem.

No phone company politics, 'rate adaptation', etc needed.

Of course, anyone with the right computers could offer such a service
to the public -- e.g. you phone me with ISDN protocols, I phone
somebody else with old-modem protocols and relay the data.  It could
even be done in its spare time by your IBM PC on a single phone line
(since a single ISDN line has two 64kbit data channels that work
independently).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #135
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24508;
          2 Mar 90 4:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30077;
          2 Mar 90 2:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04932;
          2 Mar 90 1:43 CST
Date:     Fri, 2 Mar 90 0:51:50 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #136
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Mar 90 00:50:50 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: COCOTs and Long Distance (David Tamkin)
    Re: COCOTs and Long Distance (Mike Morris)
    Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A. (Joseph C. Pistritto)
    Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A. (Brian Kantor)
    Re: A Few ISDN Questions (Thomas J. Roberts)
    Re: Portable Office Phones (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Portable Office Phones ([e-mail])
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs and Long Distance
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 11:13:24 CST


For in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 132, Evan Eickmeyer wrote:

| I thought of a solution that works -- if the
| COCOT accepts incoming calls, and, unfortunately, many do not.  If you
| are an AT&T customer, dial their residential customer service at
| 800-222-0300.

| Explain that you are at a COCOT and cannot reach an AT&T operator.
| Give them the telephone number you are at, and ask them to have an
| AT&T operator call you.

And lo, Patrick Townson did respond:

| [Moderator's Note: Of course you are making an assumption that the
| no-good sleezebag of a COCOT owner doesn't disallow (or make a
| surcharge for) 800 calls. Some of them are such deadbeats they charge
| for that also. They would charge to call 911 (or cut it off) if the
| law did not make them give it for free.  PT]

Mr. Eickmeyer (or his alter ego, Mr. Henderson) is also making the
assumption that the COCOT has its own telephone number on its face.
Around Chicago that is the exception more than the rule.  COCOT
owners, being in general the no-good sleazebags as which Mr. Townson
characterizes them, are so jealous of every second of the telephone's
use that they do not want it tied up with incoming calls; however,
most of them are too cheap in their cheapness to disable incoming
calls or shut off the ringer; they simply remove the printed telephone
number from the front of the phone and figure no one can get make a
call to it.


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 Mar 90 21:24:49 PST
From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs and Long Distance

>I have had the same problem with COCOTs not accepting 10288 when I
>have wanted to use AT&T.  I thought of a solution that works -- if the
>COCOT accepts incoming calls, and, unfortunately, many do not.  If you

I've found out why - I think.  When the local supermarket replaced
their WeCo with a overpriced COCOT, I noticed the top of the dialing
info card said: "This phone does not accept incoming calls".  Well, I
noted the number of the phone and called it from my house: answered on
the 1st ring, but dead silence.  Hmmmmm - I fired up my XT and called
it with my 2400 baud modem in reverse mode (i.e. sending tones).
Ring, Ring, <click> and the pay fone responded with tones!  I got a
handshake and 16 characters of 80h (128 decimal).  I'm not that up on
protocols, but I think that's a file transfer request in one of the
popular protocols....

Maybe one of the more knowledgeable people will take this info and
have some fun....  oops - I mean perform a public service and correct
some of the mis-programmed phones - enable 800-, 10288-, etc...


Mike Morris                      Internet:  [e-mail]
                                 Misslenet: 34.12 N, 118.02 W
#Include quote.cute.standard     Bellnet:   818-447-7052
#Include disclaimer.standard     Radionet:  WA6ILQ

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

Date: 01 Mar 90 11:11:31+0100
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A.


        Living in Europe, let me tell you its a PITA that I can't
access directory assistance in the US...  (Yes, even 555 1212 is
blocked from over here in Switzerland).  Until USA Direct service came
to Switzerland (about 18 months ago), I had to impose on friends in
the US to call DA over there for me.  Usually did this with folks with
3 way calling.  Really freaked a few operators out...

        This was in fact, the major reason I subscribed to USA Direct
(they issue 'imaginary number' calling cards, as I no longer have a US
valid phone number).  Is it possible that the CCITT directives
mentioned before are the reason they WON'T give a calling card to
someone who isn't a US citizen, by the way?  (It's worth noting that
over here they bill your calling card calls to your American Express
or Visa card ONLY, direct billing is *NOT* allowed.  I would think
that by having your verified credit card number would be enough of a
credit verfication, they wouldn't need my US passport number as
well...)  Besides, I don't think the State Department collects bad
debts, or is that a new service...  (maybe that's the REAL story with
Noriega... :-) )

                                                -jcp-

======================================================================
Joseph C. Pistritto  HB9NBB N3CKF
                    'Think of it as Evolution in Action' (J.Pournelle)
  Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002 Basel, Switzerland
  Internet: [e-mail]                       Phone: [phone]
  Bitnet:   [e-mail]   Fax:   [phone]
  Also:     cgch![e-mail]


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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The CCITT Recommendations on International D.A.
Date: 1 Mar 90 16:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I found when trying to find a friend's number in the UK that if I
dialed UK Directory Enquiries directly, I was charged for it, but if I
called my AT&T operator, there was no charge.  Bizarre.


Brian

[Moderator's Note: Its not really bizarre. Its just a case where the
operator calls the same number, but standing instructions are to not
bill you for the call.  PT]

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

From: Thomas J Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions
Date: 1 Mar 90 15:47:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Lynn Gale):

> Is it known at this point in time what medium ISDN will run on?  In
> particular, what number of wire pairs are necessary and do they need
> to be shielded or unshielded?  (Thinking about wiring decisions with
> the future in mind...)

ISDN is considerably more complicated than traditional analog phone
service. This is reflected in its wiring.

The following describes wiring for the ISDN Basic Rate Interface,
which carries 2 Bearer (64 kb/s) and one Delta (16 kb/s signaling)
channels (i.e. it can carry 2 simultaneous voice or data calls and up
to 15 packet data calls aggregating 16 kilobits per second).  This is
the ISDN equivalent to the analog loop.

Between the telco office and the subscriber's location, the U
interface carries bidirectional digital data on 1 (unshielded) twisted
pair.  If no loading coils are present, existing wires can be used.
Most Central Office switches can support the U interface up to 20,000
 - 25,000 cable feet without repeaters (various equipments can be used
to extend this, I don't know the details).

Within the subscriber's building, the NT1 unit converts the 1-pair U
interface into the (unshielded) 2-pair S interface, which carries
unidirectional digital data on each pair. Most NT1s can support up to
about 1000 cable feet. Note that because the S interface has very
little protection (e.g. lightning), it is unsuitable to use between
buildings.

Unlike traditional analog service, ISDN cannot provide power to the
station set (or the NT1) over the same wiring as the signaling and
data. Most AT&T installations use 4-pair wiring within the building,
with 2 pairs carrying the S interface signaling, 1 pair carrying power
to the station set, and 1 pair is spare. In a typical (large office
building) installation, on each floor a wiring closet is used to hold
the NT1s and battery-supported power supplies for the NT1s and the
station sets on the floor.

The ISDN set uses a larger modular plug than traditional analog sets
(it needs 4 pairs, not just 2 pairs). If you wire the building using 4
pairs between the wiring closet(s) and the station set locations, and
use the larger modular jacks, you can still plug in the smaller analog
plugs, using the middle two pairs (that is, the 2-pair plug will
physically connect to the 4-pair jack, but will only connect to 2 of
the pairs). When (if) you convert to ISDN, you will then only need to
rewire the wiring closet(s), not the individual station wiring.  I
don't know part numbers for the various connectors.


Tom Roberts
AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!ihlpl!tjrob

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 17:20:43 GMT


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

  >Who knows, maybe the next big Silicon Valley bombshell will be
  >revealed first on this group thanks to the popularity of the Merlin
  >cordless :-)

Ant the Moderator replies:
  >[Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as
  >cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned,
  >under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat
  >what you have heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Rules of
  >the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for
  >yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have
  >heard for your personal gain.  PT]

Sure.  And Mac The Knife only prints official press releases from Apple....

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

[Auntie Moderator Notes a great deal of confusion on this point, as
per the next message, whose author neglects an important distinction.  PT

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 1990 4:28:39 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones

> [Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as
> cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned,
> under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat
> what you have heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Rules of
> the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for
> yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have
> heard for your personal gain.  PT]


 From "The Wall Street Journal" Wednesday, November 29, 1989, pp. B1:


    "Callers on Cordless Phones Surrender Privacy Rights"

If Scott C. Tyler had confined his phone conversations to conventional
 - instead of cordless - telephones, he might have avoided prison.

Instead, in 1984 he was sentenced to 10 years for conspiracy and
theft, and served four months before being released on probation.

The Scott County, Iowa, sheriff's office says its investigation was
prompted by information obtained in nine months' monitoring of the
Tyler family's cordless phone.  The local police department was
investigating Mr. Tyler separately.

In a lawsuit brought in 1986, the Tylers have claimed that the
sheriff's office's eavesdropping violated their constitutional right
of privacy.  The Dixon, Iowa, family, is seeking $53 million in
damages from the sheriff's office and a neighboorhood couple that
picked up and recorded the conversations.  Thought the sheriff's
office didn't have a warrant, it says it broke no laws.

The Tyler's suit illustrates an unusual legal loophole created by
technological advancement.  The lower courts that have heard the case
have ruled that the government is free to listen if calls are made on
cordless phones.

Now the Tylers have asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Fourth
Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures
should be extended to calls on cordless phones.  The issues has never
been considered by the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide by
mid-December whether it will hear Mr.  Tyler's appeal.

Privacy-rights advocates say lower-court precedents run against the
Tylers.  Since the early 1980s, the courts have ruled in at least a
half-dozen cases that private citizens talking on cordless phones
don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore aren't
covered by the Fourth Amendment.

Constitutional lawyers say the courts' interpretation is particularly
significant in light of a 1986 congressional amendment to the federal
wiretap statute, which didn't include cordless phones in a list of
electronic communications protected from surveillance without consent.
Cellular or wireless telephones, which use more sophisticated
technology than cordless phones, are protected under the legislation.
 ...

In the Tyler's case, the family assumed that calls they made on the
cordless phone were private, says Mr. Tyler, who ran a wholesale food
business at the time.  But a neighboring couple could pick up the
conversations on their own cordless phone.

In mid-1983, the neighbors mistakenly thought they overhead Mr. Tyler
discussing a drug deal, he says.  They contacted the sheriff's office,
which told them to continue monitoring the calls, according to Mr.
Tyler's suit, originally filed in federal district court in Davenport,
Iowa.  Mr. Tyler was convicted in 1984 on conspiracy and theft charges
unrelated to narcotics.  The tapes weren't admitted as evidence at the
trial.

Lawyers say the courts haven't yet directly considered the rights of
the person on the other end of a cordless telephone conversation.  But
judges have indicated in releated decisions that if someone using a
conventional phone knows the other party to a call is using a cordless
phone, neither end of the discussion will be protected, says Michael
Goldsmith, a professor at Brigham Young University's law school.
 ...

In light of this, Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor, says he
now warns clients when he is speaking on a cordless telephone. ...
 ...


[Moderator's Note: With cellular phones, the present law is you may
not listen to the conversation, period. You may not tune your radio to
a frequency used by celluar phones, period. You may not sell a radio
which has the capability of tuning to these frequencies, with certain
exceptions. You may not even be in possession of a radio thus enabled.

With *cordless* phones, there is no prohibition against *listening*,
or tuning your radio to receive these signals. There still remain the
usual FCC prohibitions against *using or acknowledging* the
transmissions overheard. Just as the government can be equipped with a
court order permitting the interception of your *cordless* phone
conversations for whatever use they wish to make of the information
obtained, they can be equipped with a court order permitting
interception of your cellular conversation. The information obtained
from either media can be used against you if the proper papers have
been obtained; likewise it cannot be used without having obtained
consent from a court to gather it in the first place. But you, as a
private citizen, can at least listen to the one at will, but not the
other. Assuredly, neither is a secure media for things you don't want
overheard, but neither is a landline for that matter.  AMD and others
seem to be forgetting the court rulings have not overturned or mooted
other pre-exisiting FCC regs on the subject, but have merely addressed
specific cases.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #136
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26050;
          2 Mar 90 5:28 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20394;
          2 Mar 90 3:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30077;
          2 Mar 90 2:49 CST
Date:     Fri, 2 Mar 90 1:52:28 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #137
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Mar 90 01:50:30 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Name That Undersea Cable (John R. Levine)
    RINGMATE from New England Telephone ([e-mail])
    Perversions of Equal Access (Cellular Phones) (Bill Nickless)
    Subsidizing One Product With Revenues From Another is Common (John Gilmore)
    Long Distance Calls to Take More Dialing in NC (News & Record via W. Sykes)
    One Phone, Two Lines (Ken Jongsma)
    Query: Cordless Portable Hand-free Telephone Set (Arthur Axelrod)
    Society of Telecommunications Consultants (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Public Coin Operated TTD Phone (Scott D. Green)
    Rumors of Death of Enterprise Are Greatly Exaggerated (Scott D. Green)
    The Jolnet Scandal (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Name That Undersea Cable
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 2:05:14 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


I have a beach house in Harvey Cedars NJ, a small town on a barrier
island about 30 miles north of Atlantic City.  Two blocks south of my
house, at each end of the street (east and west ends, that is) there
are large AT&T signs warning us that there is a buried transcontinental
cable and awful things will happen to anyone who digs without talking
to them first.  Since the only thing to the east is the ocean, I
presume this is one of the transatlantic cables.  Anybody have an idea
which one?  It's not TAT-8, that leaves from Tuckerton which is about
10 miles south.  The mainland town across from us where the cable
makes landfall is Barnegat, if that's any help.  There's an old VLF
antenna array nearby.

Speaking of TAT-8, there's an article in the current Data
Communications describing all of the trouble they're having with it.
TAT-8 is the first fiber-optic transoceanic cable.  When they were
doing the trials, they had incredible shark problems, for some reason
sharks found fiber cable delicious.  Perhaps they used it as dental
floss.  They finally fixed that by wrapping it in something that
tastes awful, and laid the thing all the way across the ocean.  The
western end, as noted above, is in Tuckerton, the eastern end forks
underwater and goes to Penmarch, France and Widemouth, England.

The problem is that the French branch for some reason keeps being
accidentally cut by fishing trawlers.  Evidently it's not buried as
well as it should be.  There are 108 repeaters every 70 km powered by
a 7 KV circuit.  Unfortunately, anytime they do any work on the cable,
they have to power down the whole thing to avoid electrocuting the
repairmen, which means that each time they fish up and fix the French
branch, the undamaged English branch is turned off, and the repair
process takes several days.  Backup satellite circuits are offered,
but customers are not pleased.


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

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 1990 4:50:05 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RINGMATE from New England Telephone


Some areas served by New England Telephone can now sign up for their new
RINGMATE(sm) service.

Now you can know who's calling you - or who a call is for - by the way
the phone rings!

The new RINGMATE(sm) Ring Identification Service lets you have up to
three different telephone numbers on your existing telephone line -
but each telephone number has its own distinct pattern of ringing.

If you have Call Waiting, the Call Waiting tone will "beep" in the
pattern of the number being called.

Each number can be individually forwarded if you have Call Forwarding.

RINGMATE Service costs $3/month for one additional telephone number
and $5/month for two numbers.

The additional number(s) can be listed or unlisted.

To order RINGMATE, call 800.922.8383 x319 (M-F 9-8, Sa 9-4).

NET used 555-xxxx numbers to demonstrate this service at the recent home show.

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 12:08:17 CST
From: Bill   B40417 2-7390 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Perversions of Equal Access (Cellular Phones)


In TELECOM Digest Volume 10 issue 134 Patrick Townson writes:

> [Moderator's Note:  It appears your local cable company has convinced
> your local telco they should be allowed to use an 'equal access' 10xxx
> code as though they were a telco.  Although it sounds like a clever
> idea, I can't help but object in principle to this mis-use of the numbering
> scheme.  I wonder if Bellcore or anyone else in authority is even aware
> of it, or gave permission for it.  PT]

I wish that cellular phone companies would use the equal access 10xxx
for "roaming" within LATA's.  It would seem a cleaner interface than
the current "roaming" number you have to prefix your calls with.

If you knew a person was in your LATA and what their cellular phone
number was, you could dial it by 10xxx-1-xxx-xxx-xxxx rather than
having to dial a 926-ROAM, wait for dialtone, then 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx.

A specific advantage of this would be telephone subscribers who don't
have DTMF service or capability.  Let the CO handle the digitization
of the pulse dialing and hand it off to the cellular customer.

Another advantage is that cellular companies could avoid having to
return call supervision until the cellular phone called answered.
Often the "roaming" numbers aren't local exchanges, even within a LATA
(causing a charge for an uncompleted call.)  Also, the cellular
companies could charge the airtime for a call to a roaming cellular
phone back to the call originator, rather than having to deal with
out-of-state billing.

If there are multiple cellular companies within a LATA, each could be
assigned a particular 10xxx, even if the different cellular companies
handled different geographical regions.

How bad are the technical/political problems with this scheme?  After
all, in some senses cellular companies *are* telephone companies.
Roaming cellular phones have unique numbers under the NANP, and
cellular companies provide service to telephones which have numbers
not assigned in the local LATA.


 .signature under construction
detour mail to [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 03:39:17 PST
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Subsidizing One Product With Revenues From Another is Common


[e-mail] (Daniel A Margolis) wrote:

> It does not matter whether the company accused of dumping has designed
> a product specifically for the US.  What does matter is that they have
> been found to be subsidizing their US products with their Japanese
> profits.

Isn't this what AT&T did for years -- subsidize local access with long
distance revenues?  Why is it good when the FCC orders AT&T to do it
and bad when a company (that happens to be from Japan) does it?

> Of course, if the Japanese companies manufacture in the US, they can
> do the same thing and get away with it (perhaps a weakness in the law).

The weakness in the law is the idea that you can regulate cross-
subsidization within a company or a market.  Let's say you "fixed"
this "weakness in the law" so that a wholly owned US company was
unable to "dump" products in the US.  Are you going to force each
product that every company sells to have the same margin?  Suppose Sun
Microsystems *wants* to buy market share at the expense of short term
profits, by selling lots of cheap workstations?  That's exactly what
they are doing, by the way...but I don't hear anybody screaming about
dumping.

Suppose the desktop PC clones market is very competitive but laptops
are still rare.  Should a company that builds both be permitted to
subsidize their desktop machines with their laptop revenues?  Suppose
they only make a dollar profit per desktop PC?  Suppose they lose a
dollar per desktop PC but the cross-support enables them to stay in
the market in the hope of better times?  How does this differ from the
Japanese selling PBX's at low prices to get into a market?

Should Hershey be allowed to sell Hershey bars at 5c even if it costs
them 6c to produce?  Assuming they can stay in business, why not?

The US government spends more than a cent in making pennies, but I
hear no cries of penny dumping.

> [Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent rebuttal and contribution
> to the Digest.   PT]

I don't count a rebuttal as excellent if I can kick a hole this big in it.


[Moderator's Note: The flaw in your analogy between AT&T/Bell System
subsidies to local service from long distance revenues and the
Japanese thing is that AT&T started doing it at a time when we were
striving for universal service -- phones in each household, etc.
Keeping the price of local service artificially low at the expense of
long distance revenues was one way to help spur universal service. And
with phone service, unlike other utilities, or perhaps the electronic
appliances in your home, it takes two to tango, so to speak. That is,
my own phone service is worth more or less depending on many others of
you have service also. If you and I were the only people in the USA to
have phones, chances are we would not bother having them either.

So phone service overall was improved by the cross subsidy since the
low rates for local service prompted more people to get phones, thus
increasing the value of my phone and service.  This is true only of
phone *connections* -- not phone *instruments*. If your instrument
meets certain minimal standards imposed by the FCC, we can communicate
with each other. The Panasonic or AT&T label on it matters not.  PT

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

From: W T Sykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long-distance Calls to Take More Dialing in NC
Date: 1 Mar 90 15:02:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Research and Development - Burlington, NC


Reprinted from the Greensboro (NC) News & Record,
March 1, 1990:

"LONG-DISTANCE CALLS TO TAKE MORE DIALING"
by Paul Nowell, The Associated Press

"CHARLOTTE (NC) - The thousands of new telephone numbers being
absorbed by such laborsaving devices as facsimile machines, pagers and
cellular phones are partly to blame making all North Carolinians work
a little bit harder when dialing.

    Starting Friday, people who dial long distance within their
own area codes will have to include the three-digit code.  The change
will make it possible to use 1.5 million new telephone numbers in both
the 704 and 919 calling areas.

    "This small change in our dialing habits is a response to the
tremendous growth that North Carolina has experienced in the last
several years," said Joseph P. Lacher, Southern Bell vice president.
"We are simply running out of numbers."

    The new system will give the state a previously untapped
supply of "prefix codes" - the first three digits of a local phone
number.

    The new prefix codes will be combinations that had previously
been reserved for area codes.  For example, a 213 prefix - which is
the area code for part of Los Angeles - will now be available for use
in both North Carolina area codes.

    "But it also means we must use the 10-digit-dialing for all
long-distance calls," Lacher said. "If we did not require the use of
area codes on all long-distance calls, the (computer) switch would be
unable to process the call."

    The alternative to 10-digit-dialing is a new area code for the
state.  But Southern Bell officials say of the original 152 area
codes, only eight remain available.

    Bellcore - the research and engineering arm of the Bell
operating companies that allocates area codes - is stingy with the
remaining supply until their is no other solution.

    Other solutions are not always possible.  Los Angeles will get
its third area code in 1992, less than 10 years after getting its
second. This past fall, Chicago got a second area code.  In January,
New Jersey's 201 area code was split.

    Those areas first went to 10-digit-dialing to handle growth
before getting a new area code, said Southern Bell spokesman Clifton
Metcalf.

    By the mid-1990's, Bellcore is expected to start a new system
that will expand the number of area codes from 152 to 792, he said."

                           --  30  --

William T. Sykes AT&T Federal Systems Research and Development
Burlington, NC UUCP:att!winken!wts

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: One Phone, Two Lines
Date: Thu,  1-Mar-90 05:34:34 PST


In a recent Digest, Kevin asked if there was a way of having one
single line phone answer two distinct lines.

In the most recent Hello Direct catalog (1-800-444-3556), there is a
device that looks like it might work. It is sold for allowing one
answering machine to handle several lines, but looks like it would
work for what he needs.


[e-mail]

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

Date: 1 Mar 90 13:06:49 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Query: Cordless Portable Hand-free Telephone Set
From: [e-mail]


Does anyone know a source for a cordless portable hand-free telephone
set?  That is, a cordless portable telephone that has a
headset-microphone rig rather than the usual handheld unit, and with a
base unit that plugs into a standard POTS line, rather than cellular
or anything exotic.

Thanks.

Art Axelrod
Xerox Webster Research Center
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 23:35 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Society of Telecommunications Consultants


 ..Here is my attempt to answer John Levine's question of 2/25/90,

"So what is the STC, anyway?"

The Society of Telecommunications Consultants is a professional
society of a particularly _unusual_ breed of telecom cat.  Here's its
stated definition of what constitutes a Professional Telecommunications
Consultant:



        STC DEFINITION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT



A.  A person who by training, education and/or experience is
    proficient in applying the knowledge and skills of
    telecommunications consulting; and

B.  A person who is actively employed in the profession of
    telecommunications consulting and

C.  A person who is financially and organizationally independent of
    any organization which manufactures, distributes or sells any
    telecommunications equipment, device or transmission service.


As you can see, fitting such a description honestly (and STC _does_
check out its applicants) weeds out the many "Joe Isuzus" out there
who call themselves "Telecommunications Consultant."

(Yes, Virginia, there are some _honest_ ones!)

For those who are interested, either to find an honest one, or to join
the honest ones, call (800) STC-7670 during business hours!


Donald E. Kimberlin, Principal Consultant
Telecommunications Network Architects
Safety Harbor, FL
AT&TMail !dkimberlin; MCI Mail dkimberlin

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 11:49 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Coin Operated TTD Phone


Sacramento, CA's airport provides a public TTD phone, consisting of a standard
armored pay phone and a secured TTD device.  Apparently, one places the call
normally and then couples, acoustically.  I do not know how the various
"operator" messages are handled.

  -scott

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 11:49 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rumors of Death of Enterprise Are Greatly Exaggerated


In Austin, TX, in a fairly new (< 10 yrs) community, SW Bell's "Call Before
You Dig" boxes along the streets all provide a "Call Operator and ask for
Enterprise-9000" message.  Rumors of Enterprise (and Zenith) Service's demise
seems to be greatly exaggerated.

  -scott

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 0:57:03 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Jolnet Scandal


I had planned on putting an article in the Digest today based on the
recent interview with Mr. Andrews...

But, I had a long conversation with him on the phone Thursday, and he
said he did have net access, so he sent a lengthy article of his own,
telling his side of the affair. I want to wait and add my remarks (if
they are not redundant to his) at the same time.

I told him if his article showed up here anytime before about midnight
I would manage to get it in on Friday... it still is not here as of
1:45 AM.  Maybe it will arrive in time for tomorrow..... and if not,
then I will print my article anyway, with or without his.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #137
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13997;
          2 Mar 90 12:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20394;
          2 Mar 90 3:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30077;
          2 Mar 90 2:49 CST
Date:     Fri, 2 Mar 90 2:31:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #138
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Mar 90 02:30:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Bill Vajk)
    CPID/ANI Fictitious ID's Versus Digital Pseudonyms (John Gilmore)
    Re: *TONE-BLOCK* (John Higdon)
    Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging (Dennis Brophy)
    When Telco Employees Impersonate Pizza Restaurant Owners (Steve Sidner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bill Vajk)
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison!
Date: 1 Mar 90 16:28:57 GMT
Organization: Igloo, Public access Unix, Northbrook IL


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

> AT&T certainly has a right to protect its interests.  But the passion
> it's showing in defense of its rights to yesterday's software would be
> better directed toward developing the software that will sell
> tomorrow.  Of course, given the ratio of programmers to lawyers in the
> boardroom, I realize that this will be hard to explain to management.

There is never any justification for theft. On the other hand, I know
less than a handful of people who have legally purchased every bit of
software on their computers, and I know a lot of folks with computers.

If a friend comes over one night, has just purchased a great new game,
and you and he plug it into your machine to play it, are you going to
erase it from the harddrive when he goes home taking the floppies with
him? In fact, have you erased it yet?

Generally, the answer is no.

Is it likely that the software house is going to come calling to
investigate your machine? No.

Many of us date back to CPM days, when sharing was the way things were
done in a hobbyist fashion. A 3b2-300 cost what, perhaps 30,000
dollars or some ridiculous amount back then? And out comes Osborne
with bundled software, a great deal for everyone. And precludes the
necessity to purchase any additional essentials in terms of software.
And Saint Ward Christensen gives his code to the world, all except
CBBS which costs $50 to help support the first BBS. Want to copy
software? Just join the usergroup of your choice.  Lots of machines
and software available at the monthly meetings. CFOG used to cost 15
bux a year. Bring your machine, and lots of blank floppies.

The sanctity and priesthood of the mainframe and mini have eroded
away. Today a 3b2-300 is advertised on the net for under $2000. We,
the hobbyists, have invaded the world previously the feudal realm of
big bux, and have brought our hobbyist mentality into the world of
power computing. By today's standards, a 3b2-300 is hardly a
powerhouse. Most 80386 machines will run circles around it. But we're
in the realm of AT&T software, and the feudal mentality.

Given that Unix is now some 21 years old, and most of the source is
pretty much compatable up and down the line over that time period,
there is simply no way for AT&T to track all the source it has
licensed. Indeed, Unix source has become much like the gun issue.
Every gun manufactured, ever, was originally sold legitimately. Yet
how many are illegally posessed today?

Two cases in particular befit this discussion. I don't have the
details, but some company in Wisconsin went bankrupt in the past
couple of years. Among the goods auctioned off by the sheriff was a
computer system WITH a Unix source license. This is was a legal sale,
and no non-disclosure agreement was completed between the purchaser
and AT&T. The source code license, whether AT&T likes it or not, was
listed as an asset by the bankrupt company, and as such, there existed
a legal requirement that the sheriff sell it at auction.

The only protection I see for AT&T was to be present at the auction
and purchase the source license back themselves. And if you have to
buy it back, who really owns it? This case really begs the
intellectual property rights question. When yacc source code was
published on the net a few years back, someone from AT&T made the
suggestion that anyone who saved it should destroy it. When asked
directly if this had indeed been AT&T source code, plaintiff respondeth
not.

The other case, of which I have some first hand knowledge, is a
company we all know and love, A. B. Dick. They usually stuck to the
business of duplicating machines, but following the miswisdom of
others in the pre-desktop-IBM days made a forray into the world of
computers. They came out with a Unix based machine. Slow and
cumbersome, a terrible thing. Sounded like a jet plane winding up when
you flipped the switch. And in a home, you need no furnace in the
wintertime. When they saturated their little market, they shoved their
machines used for development into the back of their warehouse on
Touhy Avenue in Chicago. Eventually, these refrigerator sized boxes
were disposed of, a few at a time, to hobbyists. No self respecting
business would accept one as a gift. No guessing how many such boxes
were shipped out the back door, nor how many had full source code on
them.

I don't advocate theft. I can't justify posession of software I didn't
pay for. Do I have any, personally? Like most folks I know, I have a
few for my IBM clone. And how about the ones I bought from a
legitimate dealer which are stamped "Demo only -- NOT FOR RESALE."

AT&T has been known, historically, for their strange view of the real
world.  As soon as there is another OS available, with good stability
and multi-user and UUCPish capabilities, I'll switch. I worked for
Western Electric once upon a time. And I have some neat stories about
11 character per inch typewriters.....the standards are 10 and 12.
They sure knew how to live in a protected environment.

The determinations of ownership of source code aren't as nicely
cleancut as prosecuting attorneys would like to have one believe. But
there's something to be said for the clout associated with the driving
force behind these prosecutions, and the expense of defending against
them.


Bill Vajk  |  It is the greatest good to the greatest number
           |  which is the measure of right or wrong. - Jeremy Bentham [Works]


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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 04:43:09 PST
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: CPID/ANI Fictitious ID's Versus Digital Pseudonyms


[e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg) wrote:

> When calls are
> placed from the subscribers phone, the fictitious id# is displayed
> instead of the real phone number.  Since this number is tied to a
> phone number, it serves the same identification purpose: A receipient
> who is familiar with the number knows what phone a call is coming
> from, if they are familiar with the number displayed.

The flaw in this scheme is that it assumes that called parties will
not cooperate to exchange information about you.  Since the fictitious
id is the same every time you make a call, anybody could look up your
fictitious ID in the TRW credit database and immediately get access to
your full address, credit history, and true phone number.  All it
takes for your fictitious ID to be entered in the TRW database is for
you to phone up Sears or Amex from your phone and during the course of
your conversation, identify yourself to them in some other way (e.g.
by name and address to ship something to).  Sears would have a two-way
agreement with TRW that they will provide info as well as looking up
info (that's how all the current credit reporting works).  The
anonymity you fought so hard for in the "great CPID debates" would be
gone a month after they installed the system.

To really provide privacy to the caller, a different random fictitious
ID could be provided to each callee.  This would permit each callee to
determine that they are being called from the same phone as previous
calls, but not let two callees correlate information about the caller.

Note the two parts of that: You could tell that someone in Joe's house
is calling since it always displays 1234567 when that house calls you.
(Of course, you have no idea if Joe is calling you or not -- it could
be the plumber or pizza delivery driver phoning from Joe's.  That
wouldn't stop businesses from assuming that such a person was
authorized to transact business for Joe, but that's off the topic.)

The second part is that various people who are called from Joe's house
would not be able to cross-correlate to determine that they are both
being called by Joe or his plumber.  Imagine the TRW database again.
Under the randomizing scheme, only a company to whom you had provided
other identification (such as your name, credit card number, etc)
would be able to look you up -- though they can pull up your info from
your CPID on subsequent calls.  But if you tell Sears this info, and
Sears tells TRW, Amex will still not be able to use it, since Amex
will not see your CPID as 1234567 the same way Sears does.

David Chaum wrote a paper on this which explains it better than I can.
He calls these randomized identifiers "digital pseudonyms" and the
intent is that you use a different one with everyone you do business
with.  He has built cryptosystems that implement this securely in
smart cards.  It's called "Security without Identification: Card
Computers to make Big Brother Obsolete".  Copies are available from
him at [e-mail].  An earlier version of the paper was in CACM, Oct
1985.

I would much rather that the telcos started selling phones and pay
phones with a slot for a cryptographically secure smart card to
establish credentials (like identification or creditworthiness) or do
small data transfers.  But that would be a lot more work than forcing
CPID on the public.  So what if it would provide both real security
and real privacy?  Businesses and government would rather have your
life history in front of them, and most individuals don't care enough
to object or propose better things.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *TONE-BLOCK*
Date: 1 Mar 90 23:21:25 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Tom Lowe <[e-mail]> writes:

> I agree that 50 cents would be worth it if I had to pay.  This wasn't
> the first time I had a hard time getting a logical answer from the
> business office.  It's frustrating living in a place where the telco
> doesn't even know what their switches can and can't do.

Just this past week, a Digest reader contacted me for help because
Pac*Bell insisted upon charging him for an unlisted phone even though
he has listed service at the same address in his name. The rep
insisted that this didn't matter and that he would have to pay for at
least one unlisted line, but that subsequent lines would be unlisted
at no charge.

I kept telling him to go back and ask for supervisors, etc., but
numerous calls to the business office netted the same answer.  No one
would budge on this point. Finally I reached a contact of mine at PB
who gave me chapter and verse from the handbook that confirms the
policy of not charging for unlisted "second" service. Had it not been
for that information, this person would probably still be unfairly
charged for an unlisted line.

It's bad enough that the customer has to educate the reps on correct
procedure, but it's even worse that the initial reps wouldn't even
take the trouble to look up the applicable sections in the handbook.
How many people do you suppose are out there paying for things they
need not pay for, or worse, paying for things they don't even have?


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


[Moderator's Note: Smart consultants earn a good part of their living by
cutting a deal with their clients where they audit the phone bill for
a period of several months past. Then they take a percentage of whatever
they save their client. Incorrect billing by local telcos due to changes
in equipment and service never recorded correctly is a scandal. Illinois
Bell has had cases where they were forced to refund over a million dollars
to a single customer based on errors in a single year alone.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 15:59:18 PST
From: Dennis Brophy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging
Organization: /etc/organization


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

>[Moderator's Note: Does anyone know if they are still incapable of
>accepting their own (AT&T) credit card for these calls from other than
>the Atlanta area?  PT]

Not only do you need to have an AT&T calling in the Southern Bell
billing area (or use MasterCard/Visa), but they cannot handle their
own corporate calling card clients.  Even thought the return address
for AT&T billing is in Orlando, FL the statement of charges is always
sent from Cincinnati, OH.

A nice note: they do plan on offering a USA-Direct version for when
you are out of the country and your time zone is off by 1/2 a day from
US locations.


Dennis Brophy  [e-mail]
Mentor Graphics Corp. - 8500 SW Creekside Pl - Beaverton, OR 97005-7191
telephone [phone]


[Moderator's Note: And yet, see two items in a Digest earlier today
from readers who used Bell telco cards from New England and California
without any hassle.  What gives here?  Is the VoiceMark man reading
this?  PT]

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

Date: 1 Mar 90 15:57:00 CST
From: STEVE SIDNER <[e-mail]>
Subject: When Telco Employees Impersonate Pizza Restaurant Owners


When reading about RBOC employees lobbying for CALLER*ID by posing as
pizza stores, I chuckle to think that was there something like
CALLER*ID on the U.S. Post, they might hesitate to send such letters.

Caller*ID is a potent concept!


Steve Sidner
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #138
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25243;
          3 Mar 90 3:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27085;
          3 Mar 90 2:08 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20041;
          3 Mar 90 1:02 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Mar 90 0:18:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #139
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Mar 90 00:18:03 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging (Bernie Roehl)
    Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging (John R. Levine)
    Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service (Tom Lowe)
    Re: 10xxx/950-xxxx Mapping? (Paul Guthrie)
    Re: 10xxx/950-xxxx Mapping? (David Lewis)
    Re: National Telephone Services, Inc. (Jon Allen)
    Re: A Few ISDN Questions (Jason Zions)
    Re: MCI Mail Numbering Scheme (Paul Wilczynski)
    Re: Exclusion Modules (Reverse) (Robert Kaplan)
    Re: Groveton/Alexandria, Virginia (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging
Date: 2 Mar 90 15:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Lowe) writes:

>>Unfortunately, the 800 number given was not working from
>>Western Michigan as of tonight, so I wasn't able to try it out.

>As far as I know, the 800 number should be working across the country.
>If anyone has any problems, please call the hotline listed below.

What about Canada?  I know some U.S. 800 numbers are available from
here, others aren't.  I have a MasterCard, a Bell CallingCard and a
desire to try out the service.  Where do I go from here?

>>Another number to call for information and
>>literature between 7 AM and 11 PM daily is 1-800-662-2588.   PT]

Sigh.  That one doesn't work from Canada.  ("I'm sorry, your number
cannot be completed as dialed...")

>VoiceMark(sm) Service: 1-800-562-MARK (Have your ATT/VISA/MasterCard
>ready)                          (6275)

Also not available here in Canada.

>If anyone has any ideas for other voice related services such as this
>one, please let me know.  We are always looking for new ideas for
>services and many of the ones that we are working on now were
>suggested by people like yourselves.

Hmm.  Our university switchboard gives us ring-again (call a number,
get a busy signal, push link+111 and hang up.  When the person you're
calling hangs up from their call, you get a series of short rings;
pick up the phone and it rings at their end.  Very, very handy).

Also, a way of distinguishing personal calls from work-related toll
calls would be handy for those who work out of their homes.  Our
university switchboard lets you dial 115 plus a four digit "research
grant number" before the phone number, and that research grant number
shows up on your campus bill.

How about making the grant number mandatory on customer request?
Students often share phones and argue about who called what... a grant
number would make it easy to sort out monthly telephone bills.  You
could even have the bills printed sorted by grant number (with
subtotals, of course).

My home phone has call forwarding.  I'd like to be able to reprogram
it from the number I'm forwarded to, to tell it where I'll be next.

A slight modification to the VoiceMark system... a wakeup call
service.  (Actually, the existing VoiceMark could probably be used for
that.  Never mind).

An enhancement to VoiceMark... allow the user to specify a list of
numbers instead of just one (perhaps the existing VoiceMark does this
already -- I don't know, since I can't reach it)... that way if I have
to announce a change in meeting time to everyone on a committee (for
example) I don't have to make a lot of individual phone calls.


    Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept
    Mail: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
    BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watserv1!broehl
    Voice:  [phone] [home]  [phone] x 2607 [work]

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

Subject: Re: New AT&T Service -- AT&T VoiceMark Messaging
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 2 Mar 90 12:30:09 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>[Moderator's Note: And yet, see two items in a Digest earlier today
>from readers who used Bell telco cards from New England and California
>without any hassle.  What gives here?  Is the VoiceMark man reading
>this?  PT]

I smell badly written software.  The VoiceMark man mentioned that only
BellSouth calling cards would work.  As it happens, my NET card has a
scrambled number which starts with 601, and 601 is the area code for
Mississippi, which is BellSouth territory.  It looks like they're just
looking at the first three digits to guess who issued the card.  Gee,
I should make a call or two and see what shows up on what bill.


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

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

Subject: Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service
Date: 2 Mar 90 09:49:30 EST (Fri)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


> >[Moderator's Note: Does anyone know if they are still incapable of
> >accepting their own (AT&T) credit card for these calls from other than
> >the Atlanta area?  PT]

> Not only do you need to have an AT&T calling in the Southern Bell
> billing area (or use MasterCard/Visa), but they cannot handle their
> own corporate calling card clients.  Even thought the return address
> for AT&T billing is in Orlando, FL the statement of charges is always
> sent from Cincinnati, OH.

> [Moderator's Note: And yet, see two items in a Digest earlier today
> from readers who used Bell telco cards from New England and California
> without any hassle.  What gives here?  Is the VoiceMark man reading
> this?  PT]

I'm here!

Actually, both were from New England as far as I could tell.

The deal is, AT&T doesn't handle their own billing yet.  All billing
is dished out to the RBOCS.  We only have a contract with Bell South
to do VoiceMark billing at this moment in time because that's where
our initial offering is.  "For competitive reasons" I can't say when
other areas will be available.

We will accept certain corporate cards (or RAO Cards as we call them)
(RAO = Regional Accounting Office) if the first three digits (Area
Code) belong to Bell South.  There are also RAO Cards where the first
three digits do not correspond to an Area Code.  Instead, they are
specific RAO Offices that pass their billing to a certain RBOC.  For
example, RAO Cards beginning with 694 get billed by New Jersey Bell.
We will not yet accept these cards for several reasons.

The only call I found around the time Ken Rossen made his call that
had anything to do with New England was was a call to a 617 number
using an RAO card from the Bell South Area.

I didn't have enough information to track down John Levine's call, so
I'm not sure why it worked.

If either Ken or John would like more information about their specific
call, please email me the destination number of your call and the
approximate time/date of the call.  The same goes for anyone who has a
problem or question.


Enjoy!

Tom Lowe
[e-mail]
201-949-0428
VoiceMark:  1-800-562-MARK

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10xxx/950-xxxx Mapping?
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 22:44:07 GMT


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

>So, is there an easy mapping between the two? (10xxx and 950xxxx)
>If not, how can I find out the 950-xxxx numbers for various
>long-distance companies?

The CIC (Carrier Identification Codes) are the last three digits in
both 10XXX and 950-{0,1}XXX.  Each carrier got to chose if they wanted
a 0 or a 1 preceding their CIC for feature group B (or 950) access.
The list for this comes as a file with Bellcore's V&H tape. (It lists
each CIC and whether 0 or 1 is used for FGBs).  So, if you have the
list from the archives for 10xxx's, you have the list for 950s, but it
may take you two calls (if you guess wrong first) to get there.  One
additional point that should be made is that not all carriers support
FGB anymore..... it is quite inefficient.


Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul or [e-mail] or attmail!balr!pdg

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10xxx/950-xxxx Mapping?
Date: 2 Mar 90 15:39:34 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> I've seen lists of the various 10xxx long distance companies.

> I occasionally end up at a telephone which says I can use either 10xxx
> or 950-xxxx to get to alternative carriers.  If a 10xxx call fails or
> is blocked, I'd like to try a 950-xxxx instead, but I have not seen a
> list of 950-xxxx long-distance companies, nor have I seen a "mapping
> algorithm".

> So, is there an easy mapping between the two?

Yep.  Consider the XXX in 10XXX to be the Carrier Access Code.  The
appropriate number to call using the 950- format is 950-0/1XXX.  (Or
for those of you who prefer a more comp sci-ish syntax, 950-[0|1]XXX.)

Either 0 or 1 as the first digit of the "extension" should work.

Of course, 950-0/1XXX doesn't always work for all carriers, just as
10XXX doesn't always work for all phones.  But I'm not going to get
into the complexities of feature group B and feature group D and so on
here...


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

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

From: Jon Allen <devildog![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: National Telephone Services, Inc.
Date: 2 Mar 90 12:31:17 GMT
Reply-To: Jon Allen <devildog![e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T IMS - Piscataway, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 133, Message 7 of 10

>with respect to some COCOTs, but I also vaguely recall NTS being
>listed as the default long-distance carrier on some pay phones
>maintained by the former "baby Bell" companies. Anyone know about it?

Yup, I used several pay phones in Iowa during Christmas and one of the
companies was NTS - National Telephone Services.  They were the
default carrier on many phones in Iowa, I wasn't able to reach AT&T
from them, and the call was pretty pricey.


Jon
att!acpy01!jrallen

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

Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions
Organization: Hewlett Packard,     Information Networks Group
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 90 13:08:12 MST
From: Jason Zions <[e-mail]>


Okay, so a B channel is raw 64kb/s. Is there any way to signal,
end-to-end, the higher-level meaning imposed on those bits? For
example, if I attach a Fax machine to an ISDN line and place a call,
can the receiving end get some indication on the D channel that the
incoming call is facsimile?

If I place a call through ISDN, I understand that the dialing
information goes across the D channel to do call setup and all that
other junk. Is it possible to send other setup information end-to-end
through D channel? The idea would be that the 2B+D line gets plugged
into a really smart box. When a call comes in, the smart box knows
what data is about to come in on the B channel; fax, voice, data, slow
video, etc. It then connect the B channel to the appropriate device
(if present) or rejects the call (if there's no such device present).


Jazz

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 17:24 EST
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Numbering Scheme


In issue # 134, Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes ...

> I have seen MCI mail numbers listed in the same format as 7-digit
> telephone numbers.  Is there any meaning to this?

> [Moderator's Note: No particular meaning applies, except that the
> lower the box number, the longer the person has been a user. Boxes
> numbered 1xx-xxxx up to about 2xx-xxxx have been on MCI Mail for
> several years. The folks with 4xx-xxxx are newer users from the past
> six or eight months.  PT]

Patrick is right in a general sense, but 'the lower the box number, the
longer the person has been a member' is not true in an absolute sense.

MCI ID (mailbox) numbers appear to be assigned in groups.  Mailboxes
which are assigned in sequence may have a pattern similar to the
following ...

410-0001
411-0002
412-0003
413-0004
 ...
419-0010
410-0011
411-0012

etc.

Additionally, there is some sort of check-digit mechanism built into
mailbox numbers so that not every sequential number is used.


Paul Wilczynski
Krislyn Computer Services
Authorized MCI Mail Agency

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 04:30:54 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exclusion Modules (Reverse)


We got a second line installed here a month ago.  Line 1 now runs to
the answering machine/phone, which also serves as the dedicated ringer
for that line.  Line 2 goes to the modem and to a phone with a
nonworking tone pad, which serves only as a ringer for line 2.  We
also took apart a cheapie Radio Shack phone, ran line 1 on the inside
pair and line 2 on the outside pair to it, and then ran each line
through a DPDT switch to the phone chassis itself.

Results: 1) Distinctive ring for each line.  2) Can answer either line
on the cheapie phone.  3) Cost under $10 [you know, the impoverished
college student bit ... of course we could have bought a real 2 line
phone for $50 ... but this way is more fun].

Disadvantages: You still have to think about which line is ringing and
answer the right one ... it won't do it automatically.  Ditto for
calling out.

[And of course turning both lines on at the cheapie phone yields
pseudo-conference-call ... albeit down 6dB at each end ... but loads
cheaper than paying Brandeis Telecommunications thru the nose ... :-)]

This probably doesn't answer the original question, which seems much
more complex.  I've never heard of a setup like that...


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: If Brandeis Telecommunications asks...I have no phone.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 16:32:27 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Groveton/Alexandria, Virginia


[Moderator's Note: Carl shares parts of a letter to John Covert.  PT]

According to 1987 zipcode directory, Burgundy Road is in zip code
22303, also used for Jefferson Manor Branch (in Fairfax County) of the
Alexandria P.O.

Are you saying that 329 and 960 occur only in that Burgundy Road
building?  (If so, you might lump it in with the surrounding area as I
noted with Crystal City/Columbia Pike area further north, in
Arlington.)  Yes, it is possible in my travels that I might miss
making note of an exchange hitting a major road.  Consider this recent
case elsewhere in 703: 825 is in the town of Culpeper 547 is also a
Culpeper exchange, apparently serving Leon, which is a little inside
Madison County (this is heading toward Charlottesville on U.S. 29)

948 is in the town of Madison, further down U.S. 29 and then I
recently stopped in Brightwood, which is between Leon and Madison (see
above).  I already knew the Brightwood P.O. was on the 543 exchange,
but when I was in Brightwood just now, I found a pay phone on 543.

(825 and 547 are listed as Culpeper; 543 and 948 are listed as
Madison.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #139
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27544;
          3 Mar 90 4:51 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08123;
          3 Mar 90 3:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27085;
          3 Mar 90 2:08 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Mar 90 1:11:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #140
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Mar 90 01:10:37 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Portable Office Phones (Lou Judice)
    Re: Portable Office Phones (Leonard P. Levine)
    Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A. (Matthias Urlichs)
    Alternate Long Distance Carrier Info Sought (Steve Kass)
    Cable Company's 10xxx (Blake Farenthold)
    CPID/ANI And Privacy Research? (Bridger Mitchell)
    Groan, CALLER-ID Again?? (David Lesher)
    Re: Long-distance Calls to Take More Dialing in NC (Charles Buckley)
    Tokyo Postal Code 180 (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 13:36:02 PST
From: "Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones


I believe that the good moderator is in error when he states that it
is in anyway illegal to possess or sell a receiver capable of
receiving cellular telephone calls.

Scanners and more advanced monitoring receivers that are fully capable
of receiving cellular transmissions are absolutely legal to use, own
and sell - by anyone. Period.

It is illegal to listen to cellular communications, as well as a
couple of other classes of communications, namely broadcast studio to
remote location links and certain other "press" communications. I
believe this was slipped into the law to sooth the media industry
during the ECPA introduction.


/ljj

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones
Date: 2 Mar 90 19:31:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Neither John Higdon nor I meant to steal informaton via the portable
phones.  Thus the moderator's comments below:

> [Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as
> cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned,
> under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat
> what you have heard, or acknowledge that you heard anything. Rules of
> the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for
> yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have
> heard for your personal gain.  PT]

Really do not apply to us.  We are the "good guys" after all.

I am sure, however, that there are others....

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| 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: [e-mail] (Matthias Urlichs)
Subject: Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A.
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 15:20:21 GMT


In comp.dcom.telecom, article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (John R. Covert  28-Feb-1990 0811) writes:

< In any relation, Administrations should abide by the following general
< principles:

< a) Inquiries from customers concerning foreign subscribers' numbers should
<    normally be addressed to operators in the country of origin who will
>    obtain the required information; it may be useful to keep the customer
>    on line while this information is being sought.

Last time I was in the US, I had to get a number in Nuernberg
(Nuremberg to you), West Germany.

I had lots of fun convincing first the International D.A. and then the
operator to place the call (no intl dialing...) that the area code of
Nuernberg is in fact valid -- it's 911, which seems to be used for a
quite different purpose in the US...

On the other hand, I was astonished that there are still corners in
the US (it was somewhere near Philadelphia, in fact) where one still
couldn't dial international calls directly, or (once in Boston) where
the public phone where I dialled 011-49-911-... seemed to have
overlooked the first five digits, and the call was free. :-)


Matthias Urlichs

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 13:57 EDT
From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternate Long Distance Carriers


Information on long distance carriers

        A while back, I offered to collect information on long
distance carriers: rates, area of service, quality, billing, 950-xxxx
access, etc.  and post a summary here.  Here is what I found out:

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                                                          |
 |                                                                          |
 |                                                                          |
 |                                                                          |
 |                                                                          |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That's right: nothing.  I, and surely other Telecom Digest
readers, are still interested in information about the scores of
carriers besides the big three, AT&T, Sprint and MCI.  We've seen
lists of access codes, and I'm sure some of you out there know more
about these companies.  The offer is still open.  If you have any
information about alternate carrier, let me know, and I'll post a
summary.  Maybe the bottom line is that no one but sleazy hotels and
COCOT owners has any use for them.  What do you know?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: 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 ::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 14:38:21 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable Company's 10xxx


[e-mail] (Richard Rosenthal) wrote the digest about 6 digit PPV
(pay per view) ordering from his cable & phone company and asked,

>Question:  What is the story with 6 digit phone numbers?  How do
>they work?  I would like to know more.

>I guess that they work something like the way equal access to long
>distance works.  I know that I dial 102-221 (usually written 10-222-1)
>to dial direct with MCI.  Any relation here?

I'm almost certain that's how the system works.  It's interesting on
two points.. first.. I wouldn't think the phone company would WANT to
do this for your cable company.  I attended a CLE (continuing legal
education) seminar at last years NAB (National Association of
Broadcasters) convention in Las Vegas and one of the hot topics was
cable company phone company competition (regulatory framework
primarily) but with a broadband coax coming into your home,
technologically the cable company could start providing phone/data
service delivery/transmission.

The cable companies on the other hand are scared to death that the
phone companies will win approval to start bring in (and/or taking
out) video services.  If you get a fiber optic phone cable to your
house it has the capacity to carry lotsa television stations.

Clearly the phone company has the money to destroy most "mom and pop"
cable companies.  Personally, I'd probably rather get my cable company
from a baby Bell. At least the phones work when it rains. The cable
however....

The other issue is weather or not a 10xxx number was the only/easiest
way to get ANI information to your cable company.  My Cable company
stores my records by phone number so with ANI all I'd have to do is
dial 10xxx-0-channel and presto I'd have the PPV show on and the cable
company would know which converter to address to activate the program
and who to bill.  The use of ANI also prevents my calling up and
ordering every pay per view event offered for an unsuspecting "friend".


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

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


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

Subject: CPID/ANI and Privacy Research?
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 90 17:42:20 PST
From: Bridger Mitchell <[e-mail]>


The program committee for this year's Telecommunications Policy
Research Conference (Sept. 30-Oct. 2, Airlie VA) is interested in
including a session dealing with privacy issues.  The conference
emphasizes the presentation and discussion of new research related to
telecommunications policy.

Caller ID has generated a lot of discussion, but I am unaware of many
more substantive contributions.  I wonder if you know of people doing
actual research in this area that would be at a presentation stage by
the end of the summer?

Some specific areas would be:

    Consumer demand for privacy features -- numbers and growth
rates of subscribers to particular CLASS service offerings, pricing
and marketing; consumer surveys measuring interest in services and
expressed willingness to pay for them.

    Cutting-edge technological developments for providing privacy,
with attention to cost, regulatory, and competitive implications.

    Legislative and legal proposals and developments that could
improve technologies for providing privacy.


    Assessments of secondary effects of CLASS services -- on
telemarketing, abusive calling, answering machines and voice mail
service.

I will forward a general call for papers to the moderator separately,
but would appreciate any leads you might have to researchers on this
specific topic.


Bridger Mitchell
Economics Department
The RAND Corporation


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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Groan, CALLER-ID Again??
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 19:57:46 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


I caught the NPR Morning Edition report on CID on the 19th, I think.
All was normal, until I heard the C+P mouthpiece. She quoted the usual
'miss of mass information' including the emergency services one. (It
*would* be interesting to get a list of these 'emergency services'
that have CID, not 911 service)

Then she stated statistics on annoying calls in the prior quarter and
it hit me.

Folks, Ma's kids don't just want Caller-ID for the revenue it
generates directly. THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF HELPING YOU ON
ANNOYING CALLS. Look, as it stands now, if Mary Sue (or for that
matter Joe Bob) calls up and says "this creep calls me at all hours
and swears at me," Ma's kids try to get you to ignore it, but if it
continues, they put {whatever today's CO version of} CallTrace {is} on
your pair, and then call the Phone_police etc.

When they have CID, they can say:
    "Don't call us; call your rep, pay for CID, and THEN
    give the cops the number."

Bang. Instant out for the LEC. Now, it's YOUR problem.  Anyone want to
wager a 400H adapter, or a directory sheet (;-}) against me on this
one???


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: Fri, 2 Mar 90 20:02:25 PST
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long-distance Calls to Take More Dialing in NC


       Starting Friday, people who dial long distance within their
own area codes will have to include the three-digit code.  The change
will make it possible to use 1.5 million new telephone numbers in both
the 704 and 919 calling areas.

Excuse me asking a dumb question, but what happened to uniformly
prefixing other area codes by an access code (like 1, as done here).

The Tarheel 10-digit scheme, in addition to being more ungainly,
doesn't work as well, since would still not let, say 213, be used as
an exchange prefix, as the 1+ scheme does.  Unless you have to dial 1
as well to use different area codes, in which case the 10 digits are
superflous.

       "But it also means we must use the 10-digit-dialing for all
long-distance calls," Lacher said. "If we did not require the use of
area codes on all long-distance calls, the (computer) switch would be
unable to process the call."

Sounds like an informed individual.

       LA and other A/C split] areas first went to
10-digit-dialing to handle growth before getting a new area code,
said Southern Bell spokesman Clifton Metcalf.

Not true: they used and still use the 1+area code schemes, like here
in 415.

My first thoughts were I think this is a form of blackmail, making
people uncomfortable so they storm Bellcore for a new area code.
Typical of NC politics.

But after thinking about it longer I concluded that Southern Bell
services only a small part of NC with local phone service, with the
rest covered somewhat by GTE, but mainly by independents (like
Carolina Telephone).  However, chiefly due to its former membership is
Bell system, Southern Bell carries most of the intra-LATA long
distance.

Independents can't afford fancy CO switches which can distinguish
between local and long distance exchanges, so to handle "the long
distance problem", they simply hand off all calls prefixed by 1 to
Southern Bell.  Since 1 prefixing is used to mean something else, it
can't be used to signal an area code.

Therefore, the lowest impact solution may well be to insist on 10
(really 11) digit dialling.  Not pretty, though.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 11:55:05 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tokyo Postal Code 180


At least part of the postal zone Tokyo (Japan) 180 is
in the area using (telephone) city code 422 for Mitaka,
rather than 3 for Tokyo.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #140
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17763;
          3 Mar 90 14:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30957;
          3 Mar 90 13:18 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03420;
          3 Mar 90 12:14 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Mar 90 11:23:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #141
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Mar 90 11:23:12 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Mike Coleman)
    How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (Christopher Seline)
    Lineman's Handset's With `Data' Feature -- Who Makes Them? (Chris Seline)
    Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A. (John R. Covert)
    Acceptance of Calling Cards by AT&T VoiceMark Messaging (John R. Covert)
    Help! (C. D. Covington)
    Two Special Issues Later Today (TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 22:05:03 PST
From: Mike Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have

Here is a proposal for the "Answering Machine I'd Love to Have":

Motivation

Over half the phone calls I get are "junk".  They're from people I
don't want to talk to: sales droids, wrong numbers, "you've just
won...", etc.  Unfortunately, in our modern world, a phone is a
necessity, so I can't just have mine disconnected.  Like many other
people, I sometimes "rudely" use my answering machine to screen my
calls, but I feel that this is an annoyance put upon me and People I
Wish To Talk To by People I Don't Wish To Talk To.

Solution

My proposed answering machine would work like this:

1)  Caller rings.

2)  Answering machine picks up.  Plays user message: "You have the
Froboz household.  Please enter your password now.  If you don't have
one and you really need to talk to us, you may stay on the line for 90
seconds, after which you may leave a message with your number and we
will call back as soon as possible."

3)  If caller enters a password (i.e., a touch-tone string), answering
machine takes a user-specified action dependent on the password:

    a) For good password, goto 5 or 6.
    b) For bad password, goto 4, 6, or 7.

4)  If caller doesn't enter a password, play elevator music (or
whatever) for 90 seconds (or some user-specified interval).  Then,
goto step 6.

5)  Ring the users phone in some manner.  This might just be the normal
bell, or it might include a preprogrammed announcement corresponding
to the password (e.g., "It's your Mother.").  Delay 5 (or some
user-specified interval) seconds here.

6)  Take a message.  Depending upon the password entered (or not
entered) the message may be "screened" (i.e., played through a
speaker) allowing user to pick up.  Hang up when done.

7)  Possibly play another message ("Let me tell you how I feel about
obscene callers/telemarketers/child molesters/etc....").  Then hang
up.

This allows people I give passwords to to reach me quickly, and I know
who they are when they call.  Recognition is based on who they are (or
at least, what they know) rather than the specific phone number they
are calling from (if your wife is calling from the airport, for
instance).

People who(m) I may want to talk to, but who don't have passwords,
such as the police, or my bank, may get through to me if they really
have the need (or at least if they are willing to wait 90 seconds to
leave a message).

Obscene callers will probably not wait 90 seconds, and if they do
habitually, this gives me a good head start on a trace.

Sales droids are quite unlikely to wait, and I'm willing to put up
with an occasional message skip on playback.  I can give out my phone
number to banks, etc., without worrying what torrent of sales calls
that might unleash.

Those F!@#$ing autodialers are completely defeated, I think.  Perhaps
I should require the caller to dial 1 at the beginning to indicate
that they are a real person?  (Sound familiar?)

As long as the system has reasonably long passwords and doesn't allow
remote playback or programming, it's pretty secure.

The machine belongs to and is operated by me, rather than the phone
company.  We all know that centralized authority is the root of all
evil.  :-)

I suppose this device would be about as complicated and expensive to
build (and about as easy to use :-( ) as a typical (programmable) VCR.
Still, I'd buy one in a minute.

Any comments?  Does something like this already exist?  Could I
home-brew one with a PC and some magic card?  Is there anything
illegal about this?

[Sidebar: In one of Heinlein's novels, there is a character with a
very interesting "doorbell".  Essentially, it's something like "Insert
$20 into the bill changer to talk to me.  If I decide your visit is
worthwhile, I'll return your money."  In this spirit, would it be
possible (or reasonable) to get a 976 number as a home phone number?
:-) ]


Mike

"The opinions above are strictly my own."
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 01:09 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions?

        I'm currently writing a short article on phone line security
for Computer Security Managers.

        In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap the phone
system at microwave towers.  I was wondering if this is really true?

        Just how hard is it for someone to do?  Does the complexity
and expense of the equipment to demultiplex time division and/or
digital multiplexing put this sort of ELINT out of range of amateurs?
What about phone employees?  How easy is it to borrow a microwave
receiver and a demultiplexor?

Thanks in advance,

Christopher Seline
[e-mail]

p.s. The USENET propogation time for my node is nine days.  Therefore,
I'd prefer if any responces were sent both to me and the digest.  :->

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

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 01:17 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Lineman's Handset's With `Data' Feature -- Who Makes Them?


Mr. Townson,

I have a follow up questions to the one I just sent in.  I think the
question is easy enough that you can probably answer it directly.  I
have heard that there are lineman's handsets with a 'data' feature.
That is, the handset has the demodulator part of a modem built into
it.  I'd like to make references to these in a footnote.  I was
wondering if they really exist, and who makes them?  I'd like to
contact the company and get the specs.

Thanks in advance,

Christopher Seline
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: I don't know the answer. There are a few mail order
catalogs around with test equipment in them. Probably one of these
would have what you are looking for. Anyone know the catalog names and
ordering addresses?   PT]

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

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 05:53:10 PST
From: "John R. Covert  03-Mar-1990 0837" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A.


Matthias Urlichs writes:

>Last time I was in the US, I had to get a number in Nuernberg
>(Nuremberg to you), West Germany.

>I had lots of fun convincing first the International D.A. and then the
>operator to place the call (no intl dialing...) that the area code of
>Nuernberg is in fact valid -- it's 911, which seems to be used for a
>quite different purpose in the US...

The problem here was that you probably "said too much."  To call D.A.
in Germany, an operator just presses the "Overseas" button and dials
49-1188.  (In accordance with the CCITT recommendation, this doesn't
work for us mere mortals.)

You should have simply said "please get me Directory Assistance for
Nuernberg, Germany."  She would have looked up the location in the
routing guide and dialled what it told her to dial.  Incoming
International D.A. for all of Germany is handled in Ffm, and your
providing the area code only confused matters.

An exception to the above is D.A. for U.S., Canadian, and British
Military.  The routing guide lists all the military prefixes, and AT&T
will call the U.S. military PBX information operators as a free D.A.
call, dialling the same number you could have dialled for a fee.  This
is why, when you say "D.A.  for Nuernberg, please," the operator will
often ask "is that military."

>On the other hand, I was astonished that there are still corners in
>the US (it was somewhere near Philadelphia, in fact) where one still
>couldn't dial international calls directly,

This has been discussed before -- No. 5 XBar offices in most of the
country (PacTel apparently being an exception) do not have the
register capacity to handle the long numbers.

>or (once in Boston) where the public phone where I dialled 011-49-911-...
>seemed to have overlooked the first five digits, and the call was free. :-)

I suspect if you had tried any other international number it might
have been free as well.  There is a fairly common No. 1 ESS C.O.
programming error which makes all 011+ calls free.  If undiscovered by
the masses, the bug may hang around for years.  If the location of the
misprogrammed phones gets published and people start using them, the
phone company will often try to have the police catch some of the
offenders before fixing the problem.

/john

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

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 06:13:56 PST
From: "John R. Covert  03-Mar-1990 0856" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Acceptance of Calling Cards by AT&T VoiceMark Messaging

>We will accept certain corporate cards (or RAO Cards as we call them)
>(RAO = Regional Accounting Office) if the first three digits (Area
>Code) belong to Bell South.  There are also RAO Cards where the first
>three digits do not correspond to an Area Code.  Instead, they are
>specific RAO Offices that pass their billing to a certain RBOC.  For
>example, RAO Cards beginning with 694 get billed by New Jersey Bell.
>We will not yet accept these cards for several reasons.

VoiceMark will not accept my AT&T card which has the South Central
Bell RAO 654 as the first three digits.  I was shunted to an operator
who told me that the card was "out of area" even though it really
wasn't.

And since it has been pointed out that VoiceMark does accept cards
with the N.E.T. RAO 601, it looks like the VoiceMark programmers
misinterpreted the spec for calling cards.

It used to be that all RAO cards started with zero or one.  In fact,
the actual RAOs involved are 054 and 001 for the examples above.  When
automated calling cards were introduced, it was necessary to add 600
to the RAO on the card, since an initial digit of zero brings up the
operator and an initial digit of one was reserved for future services
(such as the recently implemented automatic collect calls).  The
actual RAO number didn't change.

RAO cards are still unique in one respect (which is why it is possible
to have an RAO card from N.E.T. begin with 601, a South Central Bell
area code).  The exchange prefix on RAO cards will always start with a
"1" (or maybe a zero as well), never with 2-9.  This is how you can
tell whether a card beginning with 601 is from SCB or from NET.

BTW, calling RAO cards "Corporate Cards" is a misnomer.  RAO cards can
be issued to residential customers who ask for a second card number,
and those calls will be itemized separately from the calls for other
calling cards billed to the same billing number.

I'd suggest that the VoiceMark programmers modify their algorithm to
look at the first digit of the exchange.  Until this is done, I
suspect that callers using those 601 N.E.T. cards are getting a free
ride (or they may just have their billing delayed until AT&T gets
around to establishing contracts with other RBOCS).

/john

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 14:13:04 -0500
From: "C. D. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help!

Patrick,

  I'm looking for some general assistance as a new telecom consultant.
Let me get right to the point.  I have been a professor here at the
University of Arkansas for the last five years but am not making
tenure.  I grew up here in Fayetteville and would really like to stay
here with my family, so I have looked to telecommunications and
business computing as possible career paths.  I can stay until May
1991, so I have adequate time to contemplate a career transition.

  I did have several telecom courses under Dr. John Bellamy while I
was at SMU and have recently renewed acquaintance with him.  I will
also be at Interface '90 Plus in Dallas next week.  Perhaps when you
respond, I will not be here to see it immediately.

  Well, all this to say that I need guidance from any and all sources
as to the approach I should take to establish myself as a telecom
consultant.  I have contacted major local companies with nominal
initial success (promise of small retainer).  I have ordered about
$500 worth of stuff from Telecom Library.  I have made friends with a
fellow involved in selling SDN.  I'm learning alot about LANs, WANs,
etc.  I have been reading this newsgroup intensively for about 2
months.

  My past experience has been in speech recognition, speech synthesis,
general digital signal processing, etc.  I have attended ICASSP
(Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing) since 1983, but will shift
to telecom conferences now.  I know theory cold, I'm learning
product/service knowledge, but I know very little about starting a
telecom consulting effort from zero.

  What is your advice to me and/or what resources should I turn to
that I have not already identified?

  Thanks for listening to me ramble on so.


C. David Covington (WA5TGF)                       INTERNET [e-mail]
Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering  [phone] campus office
University of Arkansas                            575-5379 research office
Fayetteville, AR 72701                            575-3041 research lab


[Moderator's Note: How did the story go about the man standing on the
street corner in New York City with a violin in a case? I think
someone walked up to him and said "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?".
The man answered, "Practice. Practice hard. That's the only way."
There is a goldmine waiting for consultants who not only know *what*
to sell, but also *how* to sell it and to whom. I put your message
here in the hope that some of the successful consultants among our
readers will reply to you, and the Digest with tips. Maybe some of you
will write and explain how you got in this business, and what you have
done to succeed and develop a client base.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 10:55:50 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Special Issues Later Today


Lenny Tropiano has sent along a report on AT&T 900 Service. This
report gives pricing, terms and conditions to install/maintain/benefit
from AT&T 900 service. I will include some comments about another 900
supplier here in the Chicago area (although they provide 900 service
nationally).

Then, we have another London Split Table; this one with some changes
from the one previously published. Compare them, and make whatever
corrections and changes are required.

These will both be transmitted sometime Saturday afternoon/evening.

Finally, on Jolnet: I specifically withheld publishing my article on
the interview with Mr. Andrews because I spoke with him at length a
second time the next day on the phone, and he assured me an article
was on the way from himself. I thought, and still think it would be
preferable to use his own words, etc in any collection of articles.
His article did not arrive Thursday night; nor Friday night; nor
Saturday morning. I do have some comments by Charlie Boykin however,
and others. This will also come out to you sometime Saturday.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #141
******************************

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16380;
          4 Mar 90 3:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27342;
          4 Mar 90 1:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16134;
          4 Mar 90 0:35 CST
Date:     Sun, 4 Mar 90 0:25:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #142
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Mar 90 00:24:14 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Portable Office Phones (John Higdon)
    Re: Portable Office Phones (Will Martin)
    Re: Alternate Long Distance Carriers (John Higdon)
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Jon Solomon)
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (John Higdon)
    Re: Groan, CALLER-ID Again?? (Mark Robert Smith)
    Re: News From 919 (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Will Martin)
    Towns Split by LATA Lines (John Braden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones
Date: 3 Mar 90 10:36:15 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>









"Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I believe that the good moderator is in error when he states that it
> is in anyway illegal to possess or sell a receiver capable of
> receiving cellular telephone calls.

So do I. Within thirty feet of where I'm sitting there are at least
four radios capable of tuning both RPU and cellular bands. No one has
ever notified me that posession of these instruments was in violation
of some law. I have seen no provisions requiring them to be disabled,
destroyed, or turned in somewhere.

I would also like to see chapter and verse of any law preventing me
from selling any or all of these radios should I desire to do so.


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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 13:52:18 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones


>[Moderator's Note: With cellular phones, the present law is you may
>not listen to the conversation, period. You may not tune your radio to
>a frequency used by celluar phones, period. You may not sell a radio
>which has the capability of tuning to these frequencies, with certain
>exceptions. You may not even be in possession of a radio thus enabled.

I think the last two points are not quite right, but I may be wrong. I
thought it was that the only actual receiving devices that are banned
by the ECPA were ones that tuned *only* cellular-phone frequencies.
Others, that happened to tune cell-phone channels in addition to other
frequencies, were not restricted in any way. Thus the last point would
be incorrect; otherwise everyone with an older TV that tuned UHF
channels up to 83 would be in violation.

The question of legal issues regarding removing cellular-frequency-
tuning blocks that were built into a radio by the manufacturer has not
yet really been addressed by the courts, I believe. Bob Grove, of
Grove Enterprises, was pressured by Federal agents to stop advertising
the service of restoring cellular coverage on scanners that had those
frequencies blocked (the modification is usually a trivial diode snip
or install, which controls the programming of the inboard
microprocessor as to what frequencies it will accept for reception).

He also stopped offering the mod to people who bought such scanners
from his firm. But the *information* as to how to perform that mod is
freely publishable and distributable. Bob did not fight the issue in
court because of the cost and time involved, so the Feds won de facto,
but the issue still can be raised by anyone with the resources and
fortitude to fight the good fight and feed the lawyer-parasites that
will profit from such an effort.

The "you may not tune your radio to a frequency used by cellular
phones" also needs a caveat. I believe the wording is actually that
you are prohibited from *intentionally* tuning a cellular-phone
conversation.  Tuning across one while going from one end of the band
to the other is not prohibited.

[I was trying to retrieve the ECPA.1986 file from the Telecom archives
before sending this, in order to be sure I get my facts straight, but
I can't get any response from the archive system.]


Regards, Will


[Moderator's Note: Radio Shack also got a lot of pressure to make changes
in the scanners they sell. You and John are correct in a couple of points:
Old equipment on hand is not illegal. The manufacturing of new stuff is
controlled. You no longer see a channel 83 spot on new televisions, for
example. Older radios which can coincidentally tune cellular are okay, but
newer radios have to be blocked. I don't think strictly speaking you are
allowed to sell the older units, for the same reason Grove and Radio Shack
are no longer allowed to sell them if they receive cellular.   PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternate Long Distance Carriers
Date: 3 Mar 90 09:14:04 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." <[e-mail]>
writes:

>         A while back, I offered to collect information on long
> distance carriers: rates, area of service, quality, billing, 950-xxxx
> access, etc.  and post a summary here.  Here is what I found out:
>         That's right: nothing.

Information such as you describe changes hourly. Any "comprehensive"
listing of LD carriers would be obsolete before it hit Patrick's hands
for publication, let alone before it was distributed.

I have actually been in the middle of writing a post flaming some LD
company or another, reached for the phone just to do a last-minute
confirmation of my annoyance, and presto-chango the problem was gone.
It it might have been something that had been going on for months, but
at the last minute my expose had to be dumped in the bit bucket.

This particularly applies to rates. I've personally given up trying to
keep a handle on who charges what for which. LD prices definately
belong on the commodity sheets along with gold, silver, and soybeans.

All of the majors are constantly upgrading, so trying to define
service level or connection quality is hopeless. And on and on. I'm
sorry to throw cold water on your admirable project, but its useful
lifespan would make the whole exercise less than practical. It is for
this reason that I no longer entertain LD salestypes. Since all the
carriers seesaw up and down against each other, it is rather
meaningless to listen to a pitch that is exploiting the rate
difference between carriers that will in reality have a three day
window.

Where would you start to do a comprehensive listing of all carriers
available in every metropolitan area? How far down the list do you
want to go? Top ten? Top twenty? Top fifty markets?

I'm not trying to be mean, but which info would you like? Yesterday's,
today's, or the applied-for rates to go into effect next week?


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

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

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 16:00:11 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have


To the person who wishes not to be disturbed, may I recommend the
voice-mail system with a beeper. True, you will be beeped every time
someone calls, but they can't directly bother you because you have to
call everyone back, no matter what. The beeper gives you access to
your messages anytime they get left.

It's not exactly what you want, but it is available in most areas now
for a cheap price.

jsol


[Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon (jsol) was the founder and former
moderator of TELECOM Digest.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 3 Mar 90 14:17:53 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Mike Coleman <[e-mail]> writes:

[Detailed description of screening-type answering machine]

> Any comments?  Does something like this already exist?  Could I
> home-brew one with a PC and some magic card?  Is there anything
> illegal about this?

Sure does. It's called a Watson (I'm beginning to feel like a Watson
shill, but it really is a useful device). Using one of these in
conjunction with either a PBX such as a Panasonic or home Centrex such
as Commstar II, you can have any combination of message taking, call
screening, code-access, or whatever you desire. The limitations are
your imagination. If there's anything illegal about it, I have been
breaking the law for years.

> [Sidebar: In one of Heinlein's novels, there is a character with a
> very interesting "doorbell".  Essentially, it's something like "Insert
> $20 into the bill changer to talk to me.  If I decide your visit is
> worthwhile, I'll return your money."  In this spirit, would it be
> possible (or reasonable) to get a 976 number as a home phone number?

I've worked out a way to have a Watson take major credit cards. You
could have someone enter his Visa or Mastercard number and collect the
twenty dollars that way. Actually, for giving me such a great idea, I
might share with you MY scheme :-) I will definately consider putting
something on mine as a gag if nothing else.


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

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Groan, CALLER-ID Again??
Date: 3 Mar 90 23:14:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


A quick reminder:

The areas that support Caller*ID also support Call*Trace, which
doesn't require Caller*ID.  Here's how it works.

In NJ, Call*Trace is enabled on every line where CLASS services are
enabled.  To trace a call, you type *57 (or 1157 from a dial phone)
immediately after hanging up from the annoying/threatening call.  It
costs you $1/trace.  NJ Bell won't give the results to you - they need
to be given to a "proper authority".

In most cases, this means you need to call your local police, press
charges, and give them your number, the time and date of the trace.
Then, they call the "Harassment Department" or whatever it's called of
NJ Bell, and NJ Bell gives them the number.  They can then press a
criminal charge on the owner of that line if you and they desire.
Note that it's probably just a kid, in which case the police will
scare the bejeezus out of him/her and ask you to drop the charges.

I got Caller*ID to prevent crank calls.  I have not had the
opportunity to use Call*Trace, however, as I won't bug the police
until the caller bothers me a few times.  I have found that by reading
the crank his phone number, and then CALLING BACK to ask why he was
harassing me generally prevents future calls.  (Yes, I did this once,
and the kid never bugged me again.  He sounded really sheepish when I
called him back.)


Mark Smith, KNJ2LH                All Rights Reserved
RPO 1604               You may redistribute this article only if those who
P.O. Box 5063                 receive it may do so freely.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063              [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 16:01:15 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: News From 919
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, wolves.uucp![e-mail] (Gregory
G. Woodbury) writes:

> Greetings from the 919 GTE satrapy!

> EXPANSION OF NUMBERING PLAN IN 919

> All "long distance" calling in 919 will require access+10 digits
> starting sometime in March, 1990.  The consumers have lots of lead
> time on this one!  2 weeks ago, a few articles appeared in a few
> newspapers around the state revealing that the phone companies are
> running out of exchange numbers in the 919 area code, and soon we will
> have to start dialing all non-local calls with the full 10 digits.
> The selected start date for this new dialing scheme is at midnight
> following Friday, March 2nd, 1990.  Southern Bell is coordinating the
> cutover with all 919 carriers.

It wasn't that much of a surprise.  The _News_and_Observer_ (of
Raleigh) carried an article *last fall* about the coming change.  The
most recent set of Southern Bell phone directories carry big warning
messages about it right on the cover.  The Chapel Hill/Carrboro
directory, for example, came out in December, thus giving its
subscribers at least three months advance notice.  (In contrast, the
Durham directory from GTE (dated January 1990) makes no mention at all
about there being a change -- you have to read the fine print in the
dialing instructions on page 15.)  Also, my phone bill from a couple
of months ago had an insert describing the change.  (Note however,
that I live in Cary, which is in Southern-Bell-land as opposed to the
GTE Satrapy.)

Incidentally, the new 11-digit dialing scheme applies to *both* NPAs
in North Carolina: 919 and 704.  It's not specific to 919.


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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 14:31:11 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison!

>I worked for Western Electric once upon a time. And I have some neat
>stories about 11 character per inch typewriters.....the standards are
>10 and 12.  They sure knew how to live in a protected environment.

That sure rings a bell! We had some UNIX training here by contract
with Western Electric back many years ago. We still have the special
WE-unique *4-ring* binders and *4-hole-punched* paper they provided to
us as part of the training materials. Designed specifically to be
incompatible with ordinary 3-hole-punched standard paper and 3-ring
binders, these look ordinary from the outside, but are sure different
inside! The instructor mumbled something about it being a way to
prevent employees from stealing supplies to use at home or give to
their kids at school. Somehow I think the extra costs of having
special products designed and produced for WE would far exceed the
amount lost through employee petty theft if they used ordinary
commercial products... :-)

Please post your 11-cpi-typewriter tales!


Regards, Will

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

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 90 18:31:14 EST
From: John Braden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Towns Split by LATA Lines


The town of New Braintree in Massachusetts has most of its telephones
listed with a North Brookfield exchange (508)867-XXXX, but another
part of the town which uses a Gilbertville (413)477-XXXX exchange.
These are not only separate area codes, but are also separate LATA's.
Although both area codes are served by New England Telephone (part of
NYNEX), town officials have been unsuccessful in getting the company
to do anything about unifying the town's phones into a single area
code. I guess NYNEX feels they should be grateful to have dial
service instead of hand cranks :-)

Since my brother lives there and doesn't have access to the net, I
thought I'd ask for some help from your collective wisdom.  Is this a
common situation nationally?  What work would typically be required to
fix such a problem?  I assume it would be a pre-requisite to being
able to provide things like 911 service to the town.  How is the
timetable for such service upgrades established, and what would help
to bring more attention to the matter?  You may reply via email or
follow up to the moderator if you feel it's of general interest.
Thanks!

                        John Braden

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #142
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08505;
          5 Mar 90 3:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25646;
          5 Mar 90 1:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11473;
          5 Mar 90 0:42 CST
Date:     Mon, 5 Mar 90 0:40:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #143
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Mar 90 00:40:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Austin, TX BBS Shut Down From Joinet Bust Fallout (Bob Mosley III)
    Seizures Spreading (David Tamkin)
    Keeping Copies of Illegal Things (was Re: Jolnet, Again) (Bernie Cosell)
    Re: Jolnet, Again (David Lesher)
    ALEX Service Starting in Toronto, Montreal (David Leibold)
    An AT&T/VISA Card? (J. Stephen Reed)
    Dialing U.S. 800 Numbers From Japan (Erin M. Karp)
    Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS) (Ted Schroeder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Mosley III <[e-mail]>
Subject: Austin, TX BBS Shut Down From Joinet Bust Fallout
Date: 4 Mar 90 17:22:26 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society, Austin, TX


This hit most BBS's in the Austin area on Thursday. It's believed
the bust came down Wednesday morning. In a nutshell, here's what
happened:

Wednesday morning, Feb. 28, the offices of Steve Jackson Games, inc.,
were raided by FBI and Secret Service officials. The establishment was
shit down, and all computer systems, including the Illuminati BBS,
were confiscated.

At that time, a 'retired' member of the LoD, who was identified as
'The Mentor' was arrested. The charges reportedly are related to the
recent 911 bust that has shut down joinet and attatc (or whatever
Killerused to be called). His home system was confiscated, complete
with an entire collection of "Phrack" issues and related paraphanalia.

As of this writing, the Mentor is reportedly out on bail, sans system
and network connection. The Illuminati BBS is still down, although SJ
Games is back in operation, and no charges have been filed against any
of the employees other than The Mentor. The systems owned by SJ Games
have not been returned as of this writing.

Finally, rumors were trickling in early this morning (Saturday, 3/4)
that two BBS's in Dallas, three in Houston, and one in San Antonio
were busted by the same authorites in relation to the same case.

[in light of the Mentor's posted defense of the LoD, I kinda thought
you'd like to see this one! - OM]


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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seizures Spreading
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 23:55:20 CST


News is that Illuminati BBS, a system run by a company named Steve
Jackson Games somewhere in Texas, was also shut down and its equipment
seized by the federal government because two suspected Legion of Doom
members were among its users.


[Moderator's Note: And I suspect the raids will continue during the
next week or two. I wonder which sites will be next?  Each place they
raid, the local crackers point their fingers at each other like
naughty children, and to make themselves seem like the good guys they
say, "Have you talked to so-and-so yet?". Let's see now: netsys,
jolnet, attctc, illuminati, (your name here?)... Apparently even
getting rid of incriminating evidence won't work any longer, if
someone upstream of you tattled.  PT]

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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping Copies of Illegal Things (was Re: Jolnet, Again)
Date: 4 Mar 90 04:36:50 GMT


}TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Mar 90 20:45:00 CST    Special: Jolnet, Again

This isn't misc.legal, and this isn't the time to be excessively picky
and critical, but:

}Here is how he told the tale of the '911 software':

}The software showed up on his system one day, almost two years ago. It
}came to him from netsys, where Len Rose was the sysadmin. According to
}Andrews, when he saw this file, and realized what it was, he knew the
}thing to do was to 'get it to the proper authorities as soon as
}possible',...

}ME> "After you passed it along to Boykin, did you then destroy the
}file and get it off your site?"

}RA> "Well, no... I kept a copy also."

It strikes me that this is a KEY faux pas, regardless of good
intentions or not.

}But then, said Andrews, a funny thing happened several months later.
}The folks at AT&T, instead of being grateful for the return of their
}software came back to Andrews to (in his words) 'ask for it again.'
}Somehow, they either never got it the first time; got it but suspected
}there were still copies of it out; or were just plain confused.

Just so, and if RA *supplied* another copy, I suspect they'd interpret
that as pretty convincing evidence that it WAS further distributed,
and with RA's knowledge.  I know that they didn't actually contact him
and ask/tell him to expunge all copies of the stuff, but his actions
clearly demonstrated his knowledge of just what it was he was messing
with, and I think they could easily show that he incurred an
obligation to act prudently with it, or else [just guessing now] he
could be liable to being an accessory after the fact.

}So he was contacted by the feds about a year ago, and it was at that
}point he decided it was in his best interest to cooperate with any
}investigation going on.

Perhaps his sudden cooperation was less out of pangs of conscience
that it might have appeared...  [not to besmirch his motives here,
only to point out that a call from the FBI pointing out that while you
may not have really DONE anything, your actions _could_ end up landing
you in court with some serious potential badness going down (and none
of this untested cheesiness about the the technicalities of bbs's and
such...  nice mainstream legal liability), could be pretty persuasive
at converting a concerned, but out-of-the-loop, citizen into an active
helper].

  /Bernie\

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

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 90 10:52:17 EST
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jolnet, Again
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>

> From other sources we know that Len Rose of netsys was in deep
>trouble with the law *before* this latest scandal.  How deep? Like he
>was ready to leave the country and go to the other side of the world
>maybe?  Like he was in his car driving on the expressway when they
>pulled him over, stopped the car and placed him under arrest?  Deep

Patrick, you complained about the party who did not wish to give his
name. But you then proceed to AGAIN slam Len Rose WITHOUT giving the
slightest bit of supporting evidence. Who are these "other sources" ?
Were you a witness? Can you prove any of the above facts? Was Len
convicted of any crime? When? What is the docket number? I am not
saying the Len {has,has not} committed a crime. I don't know. But you
seem to be trying him by rumor, and innuendo--a tactic of very dubious
value in the United States, and one that tells you more about the
attacker than the attacked.

(Unlike Chip, I have met Len. When netsys was running in the DC metro
calling area, I had an account on it. I got all KINDS of highly
confidential information off of it: rec.humor, talk.bizzare and
comp.dcom.telecom to name some.)


A host is a host & from coast to [e-mail]
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335


[Moderator's Note: What, pray tell, is so 'highly confidential' about
comp.dcom.telecom and the jokes? Or were you speaking tongue in cheek?
Most people by now know about the Len Rose situation; why don't you
ask Chip Rosenthal; he looked into the matter this past week after some
correspondence with me. And finally, please don't confuse me with my
competitor, {The New York Times}.   PT]

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

Subject: ALEX Service Starting in Toronto, Montreal
Date:    Sat, 3 Mar 90 22:55:56 EST
From:    woody <[e-mail]>


Bell Canada expects to start the Alex system up in Toronto at the end
of April. This is basically a line that can be called via modem to
access a variety of "service providers" that are online. It works with
the NAPLPS videotext format to transmit data and diagrams.

It all started with a market trial in Montreal, where 20 000
subscribers were expected during the two-year trial period. They
reached 20,000 in six months, although the turnover (they call it
"churn") was quite high.

Services such as banking, home shopping could be provided through the
Alex system. Bell plans to put its white pages on line (yellow pages
cannot be provided because of some technicalities with the act under
which Bell Canada was incorporated; the CRTC denied them a modem
"yellow pages" service).

Alex will work on a number of service levels. These are:

1) Customer gets service for free. The service provider pays 10c/min for
   a subscriber's on line time.

2) Customer and service provider each pay 5c/min

3) Service provider pays 10c for the first three minutes. After that,
   it's the customer who pays the 10c/min. [This level will be used for the
   "white pages" service; that is, get the first three minutes of white
   pages for free.]

4) Customer pays 10c/min. The service provider may bill separately,
   however (ie. if you pay for extra service using a credit card or
   whatever).

5) Customer pays 15c/min, while service provider pays 10c/min. There is a
   10% of customer charge levied for an Accounts Receivable Management
   (presumably a way to bill the customer further through the Alex service).

6) Customer pays 20c/min. Service provider pays as in 5).

7) Variable. Customer will pay at least 25c/min (cost will be a multiple
   of 5c/min). This is Alex's version of 976 service.

Bell will rent an ALEXTEL video terminal for $7.95/month for residence
customers. There will also be PC software that can connect to Alex
(though this would be determined by other manufacturers and market
demand.

Access will be through a single number (in the Montreal test, separate
numbers were used for each level of Alex service). Login will be by
userid and password. Initial registration is expected to be done via
an 800 number where name, address, other details are collected before
account access is given.

Bell has promoted the upcoming service by placing "smart alex" ads in
various places (without reference to Bell, or what the Alex product is
about). They consist of pictures of people that have fluorescent
features written over their faces (glasses, beards, etc). The service
should be ready to go on 30th April according to their timetable (in
Toronto and Montreal). Other localities will eventually have service,
but Bell is secretive about that for some reason what with their
timetable of implementation showing a big whited-out gap below the
mention of Toronto and Montreal.

There are also plans to link up with other data services like Datapac
or Dataroute and that in the future.


|| David Leibold      "Morals are one thing. Ratings are everything."
|| [e-mail]                - from _Max_Headroom_ TV series


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

Date: Sun, 4 Mar 90 22:29 EST
From: "J. Stephen Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: An AT&T/VISA Card?


A colleague of mine at work (National Association of Realtors)
participated in a market research survey last week conducted on behalf
of AT&T.  The proposed product was a combined AT&T/VISA credit card.
What he could remember of the possible details included:

* Use as both AT&T and VISA card.  (Whether AT&T calls and services
could go on a VISA account was not clear.)

* No separate PIN for AT&T use.  (I would see this as being dangerous
on its face.  Any carelessly discarded carbon would open up the phone
network on one's own tab.  Not that this isn't a VISA or MasterCard
danger now, but does AT&T have the necessary fraud controls?  After
reading TELECOM Digest for three months, I am skeptical of this.)

* Approximately 13.5 percent APR.  (An excellent rate in today's
market.)

My colleague Chuck found this appealing and said that the small group
in which he was surveyed liked it as well.  About six in ten already
used AT&T.  About four in ten used AT&T cards.  Some asked about
availability and were told that this was not yet being test marketed --
this is a preliminary survey.

Such a card is appealing and I would appreciate hearing from anyone
else with reactions or more information.

[Personal aside: This is my first posting to the TELECOM Digest and I
am glad I have something at last to put up alongside all the more
technical data.  Of course, not all of it is tech copy by any means,
and that is what makes it interesting to this nonspecialist.  I have
known Pat Townson for some years now, and I can assure you all -- he
has many, many more fascinating anecdotes on the phone network.  It's
amazing to talk to him.  The Digest is a fascinating enterprise as
well, and you are fortunate to have Pat moderating it.  I am glad my
alma mater, Northwestern U, is also being generous in providing
facilities for assembling the Digest.]

* * *

Steve Reed -- Liberty Network, Ltd. -- P.O. Box 11296, Chicago, IL 60611
MCI Mail: 290-9785 ([e-mail])
CompuServe: 74766,347 ([e-mail])

"I do not believe in democracy, but I am perfectly willing to admit
that it provides the only really amusing form of government ever
endured by mankind."  -- H.L. Mencken

* * *

[Moderator's Note:  Blush. Thanks, Steve.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 90 13:09:45 JST
From: "Erin M. Karp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing U.S. 800 Numbers From Japan


This is my first submission to this group, although I've been lurking
for a while. I finally decided it was time to put my two cents, uh yen
in. I know there was some discussion a while back about being able to
call 1-800 numbers from outside the U.S., and the general agreement
was that it can't be done. I ran across the following article in the
letters to the editor section of the Tokyo Journal (an English
publication in Japan). It was apparently in response to a commment in
an article that said that 1-800 numbers can't be dialed from Japan.
The relevant part of the letter reads:

     "That information is in error. It is true that Wide Area Telephone
      Service (WATS)(1-800) numbers are not toll-free when called from
      Japan. They _will_ cost you. However, if you're willing to pay the
      charge, you _can_ call them. The procedure is:

        1) Dial 003-1121-800

        2) When the operator answers, give her a charge card number (Visa,
           MasterCard, or American Express), and

        3) The telephone number you wish to call.

      The operator will then connect you with the phone number, even a WATS
      number, and will bill the call to your charge card. It _isn't_ free, but
      it is a way to call 1-800 numbers from Japan."

I haven't checked this out (not having the funds to pay overseas phone
bills for no reason), but if someone else over here wants to give it a
try... Just a note is that phone numbers starting with 00 are always
either NTT numbers or overseas carriers (KDD, IDC, etc.).

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

From: Ted Schroeder <ames!ultra!![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS)
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90 02:21:04 GMT


[e-mail] (John Owens) writes:

>[If you haven't already seen this, here's the bug in the CCS7 software.]

>This is the bug that cause the AT&T breakdown
>the other day (no, it wasn't an MCI virus):

>In the switching software (written in C), there was a long
>"do . . . while" construct, which contained
>   a "switch" statement, which contained
>      an "if" clause, which contained a
>         "break," which was intended for
>      the "if" clause, but instead broke from
>   the "switch" statement.

>["break" never breaks an "if", only "switch"es, "do"s, and "while"s.]

If this is the real bug did anyone else notice that lint would have
caught it?  I guess we know what AT&T thinks about "proving programs
correct" if they don't even lint their code, eh?

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

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #143
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10970;
          5 Mar 90 4:32 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26723;
          5 Mar 90 2:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25646;
          5 Mar 90 1:48 CST
Date:     Mon, 5 Mar 90 1:15:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #144
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Mar 90 01:15:01 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Exclusion Modules (Reverse) (David Tamkin)
    Re: RINGMATE from New England Telephone (System Administrator)
    Re: Cable Company's 10xxx (John R. Levine)
    Re: COCOTs and Long Distance (Michael Katzmann)
    Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Jerry Leichter)
    Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hand-free Telephone Set (Tad Cook)
    Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A. (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A. (Matthias Urlichs)
    Re: Communications With the Deaf (claris!wet!epsilon>
    Re: Towns Split By LATA Lines (Mark Robert Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exclusion Modules (Reverse)
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 13:53:05 CST


Ken Dykes wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 135:

| Oh yes, another trick I did when I got the 2nd line (and owned a cheap
| sealed phone I couldn't rewire easily) was buy one of those RJ-14(?)
| female-female adapter plugs, carefully separated the plastic halves,
| carefully removed the pins on one half and reinserted them with the
| logical lines reversed, *poof* instant line 1/2 adapter for cheap
| phones and modems that can't be wired directly!

Radio Shack (and perhaps other places) sell an already-wired adapter.
It has a single modular plug and three jacks: one jack carries the
inner pair, one carries the outer pair from the wall jack to its own
inner pair, and the third jack carries through both pairs from the
wall.  One can plug two single-line devices into the first two jacks
to have one use each line.

Yes, they are a little more expensive than the in-line coupler that
Ken Dykes modified, but they don't need all the rewiring work.


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: Sat, 3 Mar 90 23:26:32 EST
From: System Administrator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RINGMATE from New England Telephone

   From: [e-mail] (Unknown User)
   Subject: RINGMATE from New England Telephone

>Some areas served by New England Telephone can now sign up for their new
>RINGMATE(sm) service.

>Now you can know who's calling you - or who a call is for - by the way
>the phone rings!

Southern Bell has been offering this service for some time now.  While
I can't recall what they call the service (either Ringmaster or
Linebacker), you have the same capabilities as the RINGMATE Service.

As mentioned earlier, the numbers may be listed or unlisted.  In
addition, they asked me if I wanted my Call-Forwarding to extend to
the additional numbers.  You could have the capability to have your
regular number forwarded, but your additional number(s) could ring
through.

The charges from Southern Bell are similar to what NET charges.

This is a GREAT feature for my wife and I.....we give our respective
employers one of the additional numbers, we give family and friends
the other additional number, and the bill collectors, riff-raff, et al
get the regular number.  By listening to the ring, we know who (in
general) is calling before we answer the phone.  Similarly, if I hear
the double-ring (the number we gave my office) at 3:00am, I know darn
well I better answer it!


Shawn

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

Subject: Re: Cable Company's 10xxx
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 3 Mar 90 23:58:54 EST (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>The other issue is weather or not a 10xxx number was the only/easiest
>way to get ANI information to your cable company. ...

AT&T did an experiment with an 800 number for PPV.  You call the 800
number, then AT&T passes the ANI info to the cable company which does
whatever it has to do, a recorded voice confirms that the movie is
ordered and it hangs up, all in a few seconds.  It was written up in
the AT&T Technical Journal (the new name for the tarted up BSTJ) about
a year ago.

I'd think that a FG B 950-1XXX number would be cheaper than 10XXX, but
if there were more than one movie to order it would be hard to make it
work for subscribers with click phones, since it won't automatically
pass extra digits.


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

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

Date: 3 Mar 90 18:34:13 GMT
From: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs and Long Distance
Reply-To: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Morris) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 136, Message 2 of 7

 .....  Calling up a COCOT (Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephone) from home

   >Hmmmmm - I fired up my XT and called
   >it with my 2400 baud modem in reverse mode (i.e. sending tones).
   >Ring, Ring, <click> and the pay fone responded with tones!  I got a
   >handshake and 16 characters of 80h (128 decimal).  I'm not that up on
   >protocols, but I think that's a file transfer request in one of the
   >popular protocols....

   >Maybe one of the more knowledgeable people will take this info and
   >have some fun....  oops - I mean perform a public service and correct
   >some of the mis-programmed phones - enable 800-, 10288-, etc...

Yes most of these things have a telemetry mode. The phone I have can
do it in either voice (via a stored voice) or by a modem. In either
case you need an correct access code.  The phone will answer an
incomming call by itself if no one answers the call after 5 rings
(programmable).  If the phone is programmed not to accept customer's
incomming calls this value may, of course be one.

By the way, the phone cam be programmed to call home if it's coin box
is getting full, if no calls have been made for a period of time
(indicating a fault) or if the phone is being vanalized (there are
some switches inside the box).


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Date: 1 Mar 90 07:59:00 EST
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)


I recently ran into another instance where Caller ID would be
problematical.  Since it wasn't implemented in the area where this
happened, it's just a theoretical issue, but as I haven't seen anyone
suggest this before...

Generally, the problems discussed so far have had to do with Caller ID
revealing WHO you are, when you might not want that revealed.  There
can also be cases in which it reveals WHERE you are, when you might
not want to reveal THAT.  Example: I have two customers, A and B.  For
various reasons, I have a close relationship with A, but it would be
bad policy for me to reveal to B that I also work with A.  I'm
visiting A, check my answering machine, and find an urgent message
from B.  A has no objection to my calling B on their line, and I'm
really not concerned about A finding out about B.

With Caller ID, if I call B, I've just given away that I'm at A.

If A is the only significant business in my field in a small town, it
might even reveal too much for me to call B from a nearby pay phone -
i.e., there are perfectly reasonable cases in which a Caller ID system
that sent only area code and prefix revealed too much.  (Note that in
the case of a call from a phone booth, you don't even need to posit my
close relationship with A.)

Now, you can say that all my relationships should be open and above
board, so that I SHOULD have no objection to letting anyone know where
I am.  But let's be real here - that same argument can be - and is -
made with respect to just about every violation of privacy.  (Why
should you object to the police searching your house if you have
nothing to hide?)

It's this "living in a fishbowl" potential of Caller ID that is so worrysome.


                -- Jerry

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hand-free Telephone Set
Date: 5 Mar 90 00:12:20 GMT
Organization: very little


Art Axelrod asked if there is a cordless portable headset type phone
that plugs into a regular POTS line.

I am using one at work.  It was made by Plantronics, then
discontinued.  I bought it from the DAK catalog.  It was cheap!

It works on the regular 46/49 MHz cordless phone frequencies.  My boss
and I got a pair on different channels, and hooked them up in parallel
with the phones on our PBX extensions.  The PBX is compatible with
regular POTS phones.

One thing to watch out for...computer RFI.  You may have to get some
ferrite beads and conductive paint to tone down the noise from PCs and
terminals in the area.

We find these very handy for roaming around the plant, so we can still
answer calls quickly.  It is very handy if I have to run down the hall
to look up something in a file.  I can keep talking to the customer
all the way.

Another handy use is just as a remote ringer.  Sometimes the RFI is
bad enough in the office that I can't have a really clear call when I
am a long distance away, but the ringer still works.  So on our ROLM
PBX, I just walk over to any extension and dial the call pickup code,
followed by my extension number.

I confess....being a ham I could not resist modifying mine.  The
antenna is typical for a cordless phone....short.  A quarter wave
groundplane seemed like a good idea.  A quarter wavelength antenna in
the 46/49 MHz region is about 5 feet (quarter wave at 46.8 MHz).  I
opened up the housing of the base unit, disconnected the external
antenna, and ran a five foot wire out that I taped vertically to the
wall (used the same color wire that matched the paint!).  Then I
located the ground plane on the circuit board, and attached an
external ground radial system.  These are also 1/4 wave (5 feet) long.

The base unit is on top of a metal file cabinet, next to the wall.  I
ran two radials, one in each direction, horizontally along the wall.
Then two more ran out at angles across the file cabinet, with the ends
taped down the opposite corners.  This gives good ground coupling to
the radial system, and makes for an efficient low-angle radiator.  It
also violates the FCC type acceptance.

The range on this is incredibly good.  The downside is that when the
secretary in the next office turns on her computer, which is located
directly on the other side of the wall from my base unit, it gets VERY
noisy, unless I am withing 60 feet or so.  The first day I had this
arrangement, I took a walk way out into the woods, lay down in the
sun, and took a few customer calls!

Remember that cordless phone calls are NOT private!

DAK still had the cordless LiteSet in their latest catalog.

Have fun!


Tad
[e-mail]
 ...uw-beaver!amc-gw!ssc!tad

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A.
Date: 5 Mar 90 00:26:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The full title of Rec. E.115 is "Computerizedd Information Service for
Telephone Subscriber Numbers in Foreign Countries (Directory Assistance),
Reserved for Operators".

This Rec. contains not only the rules for operating the service, but
also the format of the messages, and the protocols to be used.  There
is also a format definition of directory messages in ASN.1.

This Rec. has only been implemented in a limited number of European
countries.  There is general thatt the future for this kind of system
lies with the use of F.500 and X.500 based systems.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: Matthias Urlichs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The CCITT Recommendation on International D.A.
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 90 11:12:43 GMT


In comp.dcom.telecom, article <[e-mail]>,
 [e-mail] (John R. Covert  03-Mar-1990 0837) writes:

< Matthias Urlichs writes:
< > I had lots of fun convincing first the International D.A. and then the
< > operator to place the call (no intl dialing...) that the area code of
< > Nuernberg is in fact valid -- it's 911, which seems to be used for a
< > quite different purpose in the US...

< The problem here was that you probably "said too much."  To call D.A.
< in Germany, an operator just presses the "Overseas" button and dials
< 49-1188.  (In accordance with the CCITT recommendation, this doesn't
< work for us mere mortals.)

Thinking back, it was somewhat more complicated. German DA was
switching their number from 118 to 1188 at that time. The old number,
understandably, did not seem to do anything. Major confusion resulted. :-)

I managed to persuade the D.A. operator to at least _try_ 1188 (seemed
to be very astonished when it actually worked) -- then when she
started reading back that number (didn't let me in on the call) she
stopped halfway and exclaimed "Sorry, but that can't be correct". Me:
"Yes it is, please give me the rest of the number." You can probably
think of the next few exchanges yourself...

< [...] I suspect if you had tried any other international number it might
< have been free as well.  There is a fairly common No. 1 ESS C.O.
< programming error which makes all 011+ calls free.  [...]

This seems to be a somewhat better ;-) explanation than my conjecture. Thanks.


Matthias Urlichs

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

From: claris!wet!epsilon
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 90 22:57:42 PST
Subject: Re: Communications With The Deaf
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco


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

>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 :-)

I found a public-domain program that does exactly this in the
WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL archives as PD2:<MSDOS2.MODEM>TDD56.ARC.  I
know you don't have FTP access, ask the friendly folks at UUNET to
uucp it to you (about 36KB).  BTW, this file's over two years old,
there may be a newer/better version from its submitter (Handicapped
Education Exchange).

                    -=EPS=-

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines
Date: 4 Mar 90 19:16:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


With the coming 201/908 split looming, several NJ legislators (or
maybe it was the US congress?) have either introduced or threatened to
introduce legislation which would require that every municipality be
entirely in a single area code.

This came as a response to several NJ townships being split by the
201/908 boundary.


Mark Smith, KNJ2LH                All Rights Reserved
RPO 1604               You may redistribute this article only if those who
P.O. Box 5063                 receive it may do so freely.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063              [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #144
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12971;
          5 Mar 90 5:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01022;
          5 Mar 90 3:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26723;
          5 Mar 90 2:53 CST
Date:     Mon, 5 Mar 90 1:59:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #145
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Mar 90 01:59:27 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: The Wrong End of the Telescope (Kim Greer)
    Re: Subsidizing One Product With Revenues From Another is Common (D. Lewis)
    Re: Portable Office Phones (Robert Gutierrez)
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love To Have (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
    Re: MCI Mail Numbering Scheme (Robert Gutierrez)
    CBS News Special Report - "The Busting of the Mentor" (Bob Mosley III)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Subject: Re: The Wrong End of the Telescope
Date: 4 Mar 90 14:50:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 135, Message 4 of 7

>Just so there is no doubt, let me be absolutely clear concerning which
>side of the aisle I'm on. Not long ago, I blasted a post from some
>hacker which netted me some "warnings"--nay, threats from inhabitants
>of the the "darkside", etc. Never in any of my writings have I
>justified hacking now or in my other life of a distant past. The
>rational for phreaking and hacking was lame then and it's lame now and
>given the potential harm should not be tolerated. Are you with me so
>far?

  I'm glad we agree on this.  My intention never has been to begin a
war about this kind of stuff.  It's sort of funny how a common "enemy"
can sometimes turn like-minded (for the most part) people against each
other.

>I would be mightily outraged if one broke into one of my systems.
>However, we are at some disagreement as to prevention techniques. You
>seem to feel (and I don't want to put words into your mouth) that it
>is more effective to run around and try to put all the hackers in jail
>rather than simply making the systems secure.

  I think it is more effective to have the laws applied to them than
to NOT have the laws applied, when laws are broken and things are
stolen.

>rather than simply making the systems secure.

  That sounds ok to me, but what _do_ you do with people who insist on
the "challenge" of getting into systems that _are_ secure?  There are
some who get a bigger charge out of the "tough" systems - after all,
"any weenie can get in the insecure computers.  What I'm doing is
_real_ hacking.  See how great I am?"  Its an ego thing.  The same
challenge is what prompts video game makers to build in higher and
higher degrees of difficulty.

>rather than simply making the systems secure.
             ^^^^^^
  What is simple for one person is far beyond the imagination of
others.  I think that there is no simple way to make most systems
secure.  I also think that most administrators, including myself,
really have no uniform way of making a system secure.  I cite the
Robert Morris example.  I would wager that most sys-adms had no idea
such a loophole existed.  Like most other people, I will do whatever I
can, but how can anyone protect against every possible method of
attack by an unknown number of intruders-to-be?

>Don't you feel that it is "criminal" to be easier to hack into a
>system such as a telco RMAC than say someone's home UNIX computer?
>This was my point of the post. If security at critical systems is "au
>casual", then my ire is directed at the administrators of those
>systems, not the hackers.

  I agree to the point of it being dumb and negligent to some degree.
I started to say that I might even go so far as to say they got what
was coming to them, but ... nah.  I think we are both saying sort of
the same thing - security should be carried out to best of one's
ability (or through the use of someone who may be more knowledgeable
of such matters).


Kim Greer
[e-mail]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Subsidizing One Product With Revenues From Another is Common
Date: 4 Mar 90 17:10:28 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> [e-mail] (Daniel A Margolis) wrote:

> > It does not matter whether the company accused of dumping has designed
> > a product specifically for the US.  What does matter is that they have
> > been found to be subsidizing their US products with their Japanese
> > profits.

> Isn't this what AT&T did for years -- subsidize local access with long
> distance revenues?  Why is it good when the FCC orders AT&T to do it
> and bad when a company (that happens to be from Japan) does it?

> [Moderator's Note: The flaw in your analogy between AT&T/Bell System
> subsidies to local service from long distance revenues and the
> Japanese thing is that AT&T started doing it at a time when we were
> striving for universal service -- phones in each household, etc.
> Keeping the price of local service artificially low at the expense of
> long distance revenues was one way to help spur universal service.]

If promotion of universal service were the only reason for the
FCC-mandated cross-subsidy between local and long distance, you might
have a point.  But guess what -- universal service has been achieved,
and we still have a cross-subsidy between local and long distance.
Except now, instead of just being a bookkeeping move by AT&T, it's
actual money changing hands from ICs to LECs.

The fact of the matter is that the government is still promoting the
long-distance subsidy of local usage.  The reason is no longer to spur
universal service; instead, it's a "public interest" issue -- the
public is viewed, in a lot of places, as having a "right" to
inexpensive local phone service.  So we levy an access charge, we sock
the ICs for exchange access, and we subsidize local service.

Of course, time passes, technology advances, and the market will have
its way sooner or later.  There will always be users who cost less to
provide service to, and users who cost more to provide service to, and
entrepeneurs who discover that they can undercut the government-approved
price in some areas and take the monopoly to the cleaners.

Established interests call it "cream-skimming"; others would call it
"the free market".  Just ask NYTel how they're doing in the financial
district in Manhattan.


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

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones
Date: 5 Mar 90 06:04:24 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes in V10, Iss. 133, Message 10 of 10:

> Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

> > ATT is currently marketing a portable office phone that connects with
> > their Merlin system.  Does anyone know if there are ANY security
> > features available with that phone?

> I'm so glad someone else opened this worm can. The only difference
> between the Merlin phone and their ordinary cordless is the signaling
> required to access the Merlin features and the displays to show
> status.  There is no "scrambling".
   [...]
> [Moderator's Note: Even though cordless phones are not treated as
> cellular phones where the prohibition against listening is concerned,
> under FCC regulations you still do not have the lawful right to repeat
> what you have heard,........

Exactly right. And for the casual listener, like me, that is crystal-clear.

But for the company spy, there are no such things as "FCC Regulations".
With his white unmarked van, scanner, Diamond D-77 antenna, and VHS
HiFi portable VCR (with an 8 hour tape, using the HiFi tracks only)
parked near the comapny in question, it 'provides' a wealth of
information that he could not get otherwise. And in today's atmosphere
of "Wall Street" ethics, as long as he isn't caught........

I'm sure AT&T has no plans of trying to submit this add-on as a
contract proposal to any govt agency...as soon as they found out how
secure-less it is, they'd be laughed right out of the room (more like
kicked out). This is just outright dangerous.

As soon as any good company spy saw the AT&T commercial and the
antenna protruding from the phone, I'm sure they would have been
cheering AT&T for making their job sooooo much easier. No more having
to listen to 13 year old girls talking about their first
boyfriend....now they can get the inside scoop on the next merger The
Hot Comapny is going to make, and it's off to Drexel-Burnham to buy
the stock....(oops, they just went under, didn't they)

> [.......... Rules of
> the FCC pertaining to overhearing radio transmissions not intended for
> yourself still apply, including the part about not using what you have
> heard for your personal gain.  PT]

This is NOT a flame, personal or otherwise, but if the company spy
could have that line printed on toilet paper, we'd probably know what
he would do with it.


   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
   Moffett Feild, California.

   "I'm not a spy....but I play one on TV..."

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

From: Gil Kloepfer, Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gil Kloepfer Jr.)
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, NY


X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 141, Message 1 of 7

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Coleman) writes:

>Here is a proposal for the "Answering Machine I'd Love to Have":
   [...]
>Over half the phone calls I get are "junk".  [...]
>2)  Answering machine picks up.  Plays user message: "You have the
>Froboz household.  Please enter your password now.  If you don't have
>one and you really need to talk to us, you may stay on the line for 90
>seconds, after which you may leave a message with your number and we
>will call back as soon as possible."

I have a similar problem, which I plan on solving in the near future
with an AT&T Voice Power card in a 3B1 computer.

I currently use the Voice Power board and computer as my answering
machine-- I wrote a software program which effectively simulates a
Phone Mate answering machine, with a few extra features.  I'm
considering updating the software to handle calls using the following
scenario:

1.  Phone rings

2.  Message is played, "You have reached the Widget residence.  If you
are calling from a touch tone telephone, press the '1' key now."

3.  If '1' is pressed now or during step 4, go to step # 7

4.  "We do not accept any calls from solicitors or sales people of any
kind.  If you are one of these individuals, please hang up now.  If
you are not a solicitor and still wish to contact me, please say 'YES'
now."

5.  If 'YES' is detected by voice recognition software within 10 seconds,
go to step # 10

6.  Hang up on caller (no valid response)

7.  "We do not accept any calls from solicitors or sales people of any
kind.  If you are one of these individuals, please hang up now.  If
you are not a solicitor and still wish to contact me enter your code
number or press the '9' key on your phone now"

8.  If the '9' key is pressed within 10 seconds, go to step # 10
    If a password is entered, handle it as a special case of '9', or
    with some kind of voice mail.

9.  Hang up on caller (no response)

10. If 'at home' flag is set on the computer system, signal a 'ring' in
    some undetermined way (note- the 3B1 has no means of providing ring
    voltage, so something will have to be hacked-up to do this)

11. If 'at home' flag is not set, take a standard answering machine message
in the usual way.

If a solicitor or salesperson does complete the call, you may take
down information about the person or yell obscenities at him/her for
being stupid or inconsiderate.

This is only a preliminary dialogue, by the way .. it seems a bit on
the cumbersome side to me, and I'll probably trim it down, but this
one gets the general idea across.

If I do make the software, I will post the program in unix-pc.general.
Those interested in the 'plain 'ole answering machine' program should
note that I'm planning to post the source in unix-pc.general in the
next week or so.


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.  ...!ames!limbic!gil  |  [e-mail]
ICUS Software Systems -- Western Development Center
P.O. Box 1    Islip Terrace, NY  11752

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Numbering Scheme
Date: 5 Mar 90 06:34:02 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Krislyn Companies) writes in V10, I-139, Msg 8 of 10

> In issue # 134, Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes ...
> > I have seen MCI mail numbers listed in the same format as 7-digit
> > telephone numbers.  Is there any meaning to this?

> > [Moderator's Note: No particular meaning applies, except that the
> > lower the box number, the longer the person has been a user.....

> Patrick is right in a general sense, but 'the lower the box number, the
> longer the person has been a member' is not true in an absolute sense.

Don't forget that MCI Mailbox numbers are assigned on a 10 digit
basis.  Right now, only the last 7 digits are being used, and the
first 3 are defaulted to 000. That means Krislyn Companies is actually
000-229-3637.  This is obviously for expansion capabilities.

Don't forget, you can use the person's name to address the MCI Mail,
and if there is more than one person, you can use their orginization
also. Case in point: There are two Alan Smiths in the MCI Mail
directory.  They both work for MCI Telecommuncations. If I don't have
their MCI Mail numbers, but don't want a bounced message telling me
there are more than one Alan Smith, then I can address it down to the
orginization like so:

   alan_smith/[e-mail]

or the other Alan:

   alan_smith/[e-mail]

or just type out the line up to the character which differentiates the
2 Alan's, like so:

   alan_smith/[e-mail]

Of course, if there were two Alan Smith's in MCI's Southeastern division,
then I need his actual mailbox number....but if they were in different
'locations', then I can address down to the location:

   alan_smith/mcit_s/[e-mail]
But, if you were suicidal, you could just mail to '[e-mail]',
and wade (literally) through all the Smiths to find the right
one.........

   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
   Moffett Feild, California.

   "TPC....*THE* Telephone Company...."   ('The President's Analyst', 1968)

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

From: Bob Mosley III <[e-mail]>
Subject: CBS News Special Report - "The Busting of The Mentor"
Date: 5 Mar 90 06:11:49 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society, Austin, TX


...I've just gotten a new update on the Mentor's recent apprehension by
the Feds. Thought you might like to hear something as close to as direct
from the Mentor as possible under the circumstances.

   From: Daneel Olivaw #96 @5283
   Date: Sun Mar 04 19:55:28 1990

I'll have to play the Mentor for now (with permission granted).

If you haven't heard the rumors, here is the truth.

The Mentor was awakened at 6:30am on Thursday (3/1/90) with the gun of
a Secret Service agent pointed at his head.  The SS proceded to search
and seize for the next 4 1/2 hours.  Things taken include an AT with
80mb HD, HP LaserJet II, various documents, and other thing.  They
then proceded to raid his office at work, and sieze the computer and
laser printer there.  Lost in the shuffle was a complete novel (being
written and due in 2 weeks), and various other things.

Across town: Those of you who know Erik Bloodaxe, he was also
awakened, and his house searched.

Neither have been charged with anything, but they expect to at least
be called as witnesses at the case of the Phrack Boys (Knight
Lightning and Tarren King) in Chicago April 15.

Apparently, they did a shoddy job, as they tagged a book that Mentor
had borrowed from me (Quarterman's "The Matrix"), and then forgot to
take it, oh well....

It ain't lookin so lovely.  Also the UT computer systes are under
*VERY* close watch, as they were/are being hacked on by hackers around
the world, including some in Australia, and England.


                            OM

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #145
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13533;
          6 Mar 90 12:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id af16015; 6 Mar 90 11:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27335;
          6 Mar 90 3:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24923;
          6 Mar 90 2:04 CST
Date:     Tue, 6 Mar 90 1:11:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #146
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>



TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Mar 90 01:10:14 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service (Tom Lowe)
    Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hand-free Telephone Set ([e-mail])
    Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way They Do? (Leonard A. Jaffe)
    Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines (Carl Moore)
    Re: Groan, CALLER-ID Again ?? (Stan M. Krieger)
    Re: Groan, CALLER-ID Again ?? (Peter da Silva)
    Re: CPID/ANI Developments (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Peter da Silva)
    Re: How Easy Is It To 'Tap' Microwave Transmissions (Thomas J. Roberts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service
Date: 5 Mar 90 11:46:51 EST (Mon)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


Me again!

I have received several messages and I saw a couple in the Digest
regarding VoiceMark(sm).  I thought I would reply to these...

1.  RAO Cards.  Seems information we were given by a couple sources
regarding RAO Cards and the first 3 digits may be partially incorrect.
We were told to accept RAO Cards where the first 3 digits corresponded
to an Area Code in Bell South territory because they were Bell South
RAO's.  That is apparently wrong.  My thanks to those people who
pointed that out.  By the way, You won't be getting a free ride if you
use a 601 RAO Card, we will bill eventually.

2.  Someone asked about sending a message to multiple locations.  We
have that feature.  After you have finished recording your first
message and entered the options, you are given the opportunity to
record another message.  If you select to do so, You will be prompted
for another set of options, the same as for the first message.  When
you come to the Message Record portion, enter a "*T" (Star T for
Transfer) to copy your first message.  I'm not sure why they selected
T for transfer, but that's what they did.  I personally would have
selected *C for copy, but that's life.  You can now finish the rest of
your options.  You can do this for up to 10 messages in a single phone
call.

3.  Someone else also suggested using the service as a greeting card:
"While the ads I've seen suggest using voice-mark in special
situations such as alerting (sleeping) family of your travel plan
changes, etc., it may also be marketed as a voice-greeting-card-type
service.  The service is price competitive with a card and stamp and
suited for it.  With point-to-multipoint features (suggested in one of
the netnews replies), the service also competes with seasonal greeting
cards and is much more attractive from the point of view of amount of
user effort." AJE

4.  There was some question about access from Canada.  Canada is
considered International and as such, can't be accessed through the
800-562-MARK number.  This is not because of 800 routing restrictions,
but because of billing for VoiceMark.  International access costs more
than domestic access and as such will probably cost more to record a
message from Canada for delivery in the United States.  I'm looking
into more details regarding Canadian access and will post more info
when available.  By the way, if you send a message to Canada, you will
be paying an international rate.

Thanks for the replies and suggestions.  Keep 'em coming.  It's input
like this that makes a difference!


Tom Lowe
AT&T
[e-mail]
201-949-0428
VoiceMark(sm) Service:  1-800-562-MARK


P.S.   What would YOU like to see in a Voice Mail System?
for example:
       features,
       access methods (900 number, 800 number, 700 number, local number, etc)
       reasons for use,
       preferred pricing (flat rate, usage sensitive, etc),
       etc.  Anything that's on your mind.

       We are trying to come up with some requirements for a Voice Mail system
       and I figured what better place to get opinions that from all of you!

       Post or email...makes no difference to me.  I'll post summaries.

Thanks!


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hand-free Telephone Set
Date: 5 Mar 90 20:33:55 PST
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA


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

> (complimentary things about the Plantronics cordless headset phone
> sold by DAK)

I have one too and I agree with everything Tad said.  I did have
trouble at first keeping the ear unit in my ear; the weight of the
cord tended to pull it out, and furthermore tended to rotate the mic
"boom" so it pointed too far downward for good voice pickup.  I solved
that by simply looping the cord over the top and back of the ear unit
instead of just letting it hang; now the weight of the cord tends to
rotate the boom up, where it belongs.

Just one complaint: The hookswitch ("on/off" button) on the remote
unit does not operate fast enough to allow a "hookflash", so I can't
access most of our PBX system's fancy features.

But for handling those long customer calls that involve lots of
terminal use, reference to manuals, etc., it's great!

And Tad is right about using it as a "remote ringer".  I haven't
modified the antenna on mine, and it can still punch through well over
100 feet worth of modern office interior space (many partitions built
with aluminum 2x4s, lots of tall metal desk and file cabinet units,
etc.) and ring the ringer on the remote *when I'm in the restroom
surrounded on three sides by double-layer metal partitions*.

Not bad at all, considering that DAK is selling these for $70 (less
than the cost of a conventional cordless phone, and less than the cost
of the same ear unit set up as a *wired* headset from Hello Direct!),
and that DAK has a 30-day no-questions-asked return-for-full-refund
policy.

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

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


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

From: "Leonard A. Jaffe" <telotech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why DOES AT&T Behave The Way They Do?
Organization: Telotech, Inc.
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 90 20:53:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mike Morris) writes:

[A lot of lines removed.]

>[Moderator's Note: Listen, as we have found out, you can read them
>their very own part numbers and they will still defy you, and tell you
>you don't know what you are talking about. You want to hear another laugh?
>Try calling 800 Directory and asking for 'AT&T Mail'... they will give
>you some strange number in New Jersey which is answered 'hello', and
>after you explain that you are trying to reach AT&T Mail Customer Service
>they will (maybe) transfer you correctly to some other number. Try 201
>Directory; they've never heard of AT&T Mail either, and finally they will
>give you the Corporate switchboard and let her try to figure it out.  PT]

I read the above a day before I was put in charge of gettting info about
AT&T Mail.  I contacted a person who I figured would know and he gave me
the name and number of his contact:
              Jim Kwock     [phone]

I spoke to a very nice lady who I assume was Mr. Kwock's receptionist and
she said that she would send me the literature that I desired.  So thanx
for the tip, it sounds like you saved me a lot of cross country phone calls,
and aggravation.


==============================================================
 Leonard A.  Jaffe         || "Who needs information?"
 Telotech, Inc.            /\      - Roger Waters
 23775 Commerce Park Rd.   \/ "It ain't easy being cheesey."
 Beachwood, Ohio  44122    ||     - Chester Cheetah

 Uucp:    ...!uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!telotech!lenj
 Phone:    [phone]
 I don't speak for Telotech and They'll probably never let me.

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

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 90 10:33:01 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines


I recall hearing of adjustments being made in the then-proposed
213/818 border to avoid splitting communities.  Notice that 201/908 is
currently still future.  But the situation you write of in
Massachusetts was on the 413/617 boundary (right?), until that part of
617 went into 508.

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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: Groan, CALLER-ID Again??
Date: 5 Mar 90 15:37:47 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ


> Folks, Ma's kids don't just want Caller-ID for the revenue it
> generates directly. THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF HELPING YOU ON
> ANNOYING CALLS.

> When they have CID, they can say:
>     "Don't call us; call your rep, pay for CID, and THEN
>     give the cops the number."

I have opposed Caller ID from the moment NJ Bell announced it, and
even wrote a letter to the president of the company forbidding him
from presenting my number to anyone but the local police department,
fire department, and rescue squad.  A few weeks later, a trained
propagandist from NJ Bell called me and tried to convince me how
wonderful the service was; he didn't.

As far as I am concerned, the only people/groups who NEED caller ID
are:

     1.    Police Department
     2.    Fire Department
     3.    Ambulance/Rescue/First Aid squad
     4.    Businesses that take phone orders (like a pizzaria).

As far as the big non-argument that the Baby Bells use; specifically,
it will cut down on annoying calls by identifying the caller, the
technology to track down such calls (do they call it "Call Trace"?)
exists separate from, although obviously related to, the Caller ID
feature; this alone negates the entire "prank call" reason as a NEED
for Caller ID.  The bottom line is that private residences do not NEED
Caller ID.

Now, for those of you who say that you want to know who's calling so
you can "screen" calls, as if you can decide merely from seeing an
incoming phone number which calls are "important", "beneficial", or
"meaningful" to you, all I can say is "Aren't you special?" (use a
Dana Carvey Church Lady voice as you read this last quoted item).

Since the "prank call" reason just doesn't exist as a justification
for Caller ID, the only other reason people would like Caller ID is to
"avoid" certain callers, and I'm sure in most cases, the callers they
want to "avoid" are those they owe money to.  And if that's the reason
anyone thinks they need Caller ID, it's probably the best
justification for not letting them have it.

Finally, and this point hasn't even been discussed, has anyone noticed
that as soon as Caller ID was announced, there were already phones
available to display the information?  Obviously this means that the
Baby Bells had a whole sales and propaganda campaign already set up
well before they went to their first public utility commission with
this great "new" service idea.


Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Groan, CALLER-ID Again??
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 01:53:04 GMT


> Folks, Ma's kids don't just want Caller-ID for the revenue it
> generates directly. THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF HELPING YOU ON
> ANNOYING CALLS.

Since they DON'T HELP YOU ON ANNOYING CALLS ANYWAY, who cares?

Like you say, they give you the runaround. Even after you get the
extra CLASS services short of Caller*ID, they'll still give you the
runaround.  What good is Call*Trace if no action is ever taken? I just
want the tools to solve my own bloody problem. And according to that
same NPR segment, it's working. I wish SWBell would quit trying to
scam extra bucks out of BBS operators to subsidise their truely awful
videotex service (which they just dropped out of, anyway), and get to
work on something that'll actually do us some good.


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


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Date: 5 Mar 90 03:01:42 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> [about how he doesn't want B to know that he associates with A]

> With Caller ID, if I call B, I've just given away that I'm at A.

Suggestions:

1. Wait until you are out of the area to call B. If this information
(that you associate with A) is so sensitive, then maybe the return call
can wait.

2. Use a portable cellular phone to call B.

3. Call your office and have them relay the call (via conferencing or
three-way).

4. Use one of A's unlisted numbers.

(Gee, maybe I ought to set up a practice. "Living with Caller-ID --
Consultations"  The doctor is IN.)

That'll be one dollah, please!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 02:19:32 GMT


> WE-unique *4-ring* binders and *4-hole-punched* paper they provided to
> us as part of the training materials. Designed specifically to be
> incompatible with ordinary 3-hole-punched standard paper and 3-ring
> binders, ...

Four ring binders are standard in many parts of the world. I have a
bunch of stuff on 4-ring paper. In fact when I was in Australia this
excuse was given to me as an explanation of why the Honeywell Level 6
documents were pubbed in (USA) 3-ring binders. I'd think it'd be
pretty easy for them to get as much of the 4-ring kind as they want.


 _--_|\  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: Thomas J Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions?
Date: 5 Mar 90 16:21:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]:
>         In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap the phone
> system at microwave towers.  I was wondering if this is really true?
>         Just how hard is it for someone to do?

There are two major impediments to tapping microwave systems that
usually outweigh technical considerations.

1) The cost of obtaining space in the line of the microwave beam.

2) The risk of being caught, and the potential penalties (civil and
criminal) that result.

Note that (2) makes it very difficult for a business to pay for (1),
as an audit of the books will show it. As such tapping is illegal, any
officers of a corporation that knew about such tapping activities
would be individually liable, something most boardroom members avoid
like the plague.

    Note that for foriegn embassies/consulates that happen to be
    located within the beam, these considerations probably do not
    apply [in most countries, the GOVERNMENT can legally tap the
    phones, as long as the GOVERNMENT gives its permission - this
    includes the USA].

If these impediments are overcome (or ignored), then it is not really
very difficult to tap many microwave signals - I would guess that
$10,000-$20,000 of equipment would suffice in most cases.  Note that
it is not easy to reduce the class of monitored calls to just those of
interest, but it can often be done.

Some microwave links have been strengthened to make such monitoring
very difficult or impossible. Two techniques are used, both on digital
time-multiplex radios:

    a) The timeslots are shuffled every frame, according to a
       known, but difficult to figure out, algorithm. The shuffle
       is changed every frame, making it impractical to follow any
       given conversation.
    b) The data in each frame is encrypted.

These links would probably require millions (or billions) of dollars
of equipment to sort out (or a direct link to the NSA :-).


Tom Roberts
AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!ihlpl!tjrob

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #146
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27644;
          7 Mar 90 12:02 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27335;
          6 Mar 90 3:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24923;
          6 Mar 90 2:05 CST
Date:     Tue, 6 Mar 90 1:56:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #147
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Mar 90 01:55:33 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Portable Office Phones (Tad Cook)
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Dave Armbrust)
    Real Useability of Applications Over Slower Communications (Dave Price)
    Greetings Messages By FAX (Australian Stamp Bulletin via Allen Nigel)
    FAX Store and Forward (Steve Elias)
    Sprint & Working Assets (Carol Springs)
    Sprint Plus (Carol Springs)
    900 Service Gets Listed in the Government Listings (David Gast)
    Jolnet Location (Carl Moore)
    More "I Want My ANI" (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Portable Office Phones
Date: 5 Mar 90 06:07:19 GMT
Organization: very little


Interesting thing I have noticed about radio receivers with blocked
cellular coverage.  The cheap ones are easy to modify (like my Radio
Shack PRO2005....just clip a diode), but the expen$ive ones, like the
ICOM ($1K+) don't block cellular coverage at all!  I have the feeling
that the blocking on the Tandy unit may have had more to do with the
fact that Radio Shack also markets celluar phones, rather than any
part of the ECPA.

I just pulled out my copy of the ECPA, and it seems to say that
manufacture, advertising, distribution, etc of devices that are
EXPRESSLY designed for eavesdropping on the forbidden communications
are prohibited.  Maybe this is where Grove Enterprises got in trouble
with the feds....they were advertising that they would remove the
blocking of cellular coverage on the radios that they sell.


Tad Cook
Seattle, WA
Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544
Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad
or, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Armbrust)
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 6 Mar 90 01:40:47 GMT
Organization: PC Software Systems Corp.


I just purchased an Panasonic Answering Machine that works similar to
what was suggested it is called privacy ring.  There is a password (up
to 3 numeric didgets) that you program.  You then inform your friends,
ect. what the password is.  When they call and get your outgoing
message (OGM) they enter the password and the answering machine will
ring for 30 seconds to give you a chance to answer (You now know it is
someone that you gave the code to).  If you do not answer in 30
seconds it will then give the OGM again they can then leave a message
or enter to password again and continue to ring the answering machine.

It also has many other great features. Includes speaker phone and
conventional phone, speed-dial of 24 numbers, date and time stamp each
message, digital stored OGM, memo message, automatic transfer (calls
another number or beeper with your messages), compact in size, full
voice menu beeper-less control with separate password. Toll saver
(answers after 4 rings first call 2 rings all other calls, when you
call remotely and it doesn't answer after 2 rings you know you have no
messages and hang up thus saving the toll charge).  Memo phone number
(as you are receiving a phone number from information or other party
you may key it in with out you or the other party hearing the tones
and then dial the number with single key stoke after you hang up).
Re-dial last number dialed, flash hook button, combination tone and
pulse dialing.  Wall mountable.

Callers can skip OGM by pressing * and start recording their message
for you.  As you monitor incoming calls you don't hear your OGM just
their message to you.  Auto answer (you can tell it to automatically
activate speaker phone when phone ring.  You can also remotely turn on
speaker phone (great if your family never answers the phone but you
want your own calls to be answered, they have no choice).  Voice
activated (VOX).  Remote turn-on/turn-off.

And I am still discovering features!  If you want more features then
what this machine offers now you are dreaming!  I do not have the
model number with me but will provide it if anyone is interested.
Cost?  (not cheap I paid $179.97)


Dave Armbrust               |     uunet!pcssc!dma
PC Software Systems         |     Phone: [phone]
2121 Cornell Street         |
Sarasota, FL 34237          |


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

From: Dave Price <[e-mail]>
Subject: Real Useability of Applications over Slower Communications
Date: 4 Mar 90 13:20:42 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Price <[e-mail]>
Organization: UCW,Aberystwyth,WALES,UK


I am interested in gathering experiences/references of people's
reactions of the useability of applications over slower networks. In
particular I wish to consider the types of applications we all happily
use over fast LANs, but running over (say) 4800 bits/sec through 64 K
bits/sec upto a couple of megabits/sec.

For instance, we know we can use file access protocols,(e.g. Sun NFS)
over SLIP. What data is available though concerning how really useable
it is ??  For instance, a compiler on a PC might pick up its source
files over a 9600 line.  The compiler only reads source for a small
proportion of its execution and so that might give very acceptable
performance.

I am really trying to think forward(?) to the emerging ISDN facilities
that are becoming available. What will really make sense on 64
Kbits/sec lines ??

I am trying to collect data myself. I am running some applications
over varying speed SLIP lines and recording the results. I am
considering coding a 'packet driver' that will run between two MITEL
ISDN cards that I have (I also have student projects designing and
building cards, simple exchange, terminal adaptors etc).

Anyway, all input that people have will be very gratefully
received....

Thanks Folks,

    Dave Price


UUCP : { ENGLAND or WALES }!ukc!aber-cs!dap
JANET: [e-mail]           PHONE:    [phone]
Post: University College of Wales, Penglais, Aberystwyth, UK, SY23 3BZ.

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

Date: Fri, 2 Mar 90  5:49:00 EST
From: canremote![e-mail]
Subject: Greetings Messages By FAX


(from  Australian Stamp Bulletin, January-March 1990)

      In February 1990, Australia Post's Electronic Postal Services
will be introducing a greetings option for customers sending
Lettergram or Faxpost social messages.  The concept is a card/envelope
in different designs to suit specific occasions such as weddings,
birthdays, engagements and more.

     The card/envelope will be handled as pre-paid postal item and
will only be available by sending a "Greetings" Lettergram of Faxpost
message.

     Customers wishing to view the range of designs, or who require
any further information concerning this new service, should contact
their local post office, or phone 1291, after February.

[Note from NDA: Years ago, telegraph companies in North America had
special "greetings" telegrams. This appears to be a resurrection of
the same idea.]


MaS Relayer v1.00.00
Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP:     ...tmsoft!masnet!canremote!nigel.allen

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: FAX Store and Forward
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 90 12:49:43 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


This month's {Teleconnect Magazine} has a new product blurb about a
fairly nifty looking fax device.  It's a fax store & forward box that
you plug between your fax machine and the CO line.  It enables you to
forward your faxes to another location automatically, among other
things.  (Possibly screening junk faxes, as well.)  It also allows you
to have separate "fax mailboxes" for different people, as long as the
incoming caller first uses her touch tone phone to specify a recipient
before turning on her fax machine.  The box can then redial a specific
fax machine and route the fax according to recipient...


/* Steve Elias, [e-mail], 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556 */
/* "I did not see Elvis." -- Bart Simpson                    */

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint & Working Assets
Date: 5 Mar 90 15:47:51 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


I've been seeing ads lately for Working Assets Long Distance, which
"uses the fiber optic network of U.S. Sprint."  (Their periods on US,
not mine.)  The ads claim that "one percent of your phone charges will
go to groups that protect and restore the environment, at no cost to
you."

Somehow I suspect that the "no cost to you" part doesn't actually mean
that the rates charged through Working Assets aren't any higher than
those charged by Sprint itself.

Anyone know about Working Assets Long Distance?  Their number is
800-877-2100, but I haven't called because I'm not really interested
in changing my service at this point.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Plus
Date: 5 Mar 90 15:40:04 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


I asked how well-publicized Sprint Plus had been to existing
subscribers.  I've received no responses, but I have my own
speculations.

Sprint Plus is clearly a response to AT&T's Reach Out America
option--or is it vice versa?  I think Reach Out America was first,
although the television ad saturation is just now hitting.  (I've seen
no corresponding Sprint Plus TV ads.)  Both companies are offering
night/ weekend rates after 5:00 p.m. to subscribers in exchange for
customers' paying a minimum every month.  Judging from the fine print
on the bottom of the TV screen, AT&T offers these rates from 5:00 p.m.
to 10:00 p.m.; Sprint offers them during the 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
period also (I think).  Sprint Plus's minimum monthly charge is $8 and
I don't know what AT&T's is.  MCI probably offers a similar service.

To the extent that Sprint Plus has been advertised, I suspect the
campaign has been geared to those who aren't yet subscribers.  There
is no advantage to Sprint if a customer like me, who already makes
lots of evening calls, switches to Sprint Plus--unless, of course, I
start making many more evening calls than I did in the past.  They're
not likely to gain new revenue from my switching.  I can see Sprint
also targeting customers whose billing history reflects lots of, say,
weekend calls and few evening calls, on the assumption that these
people will start calling more friends during the evenings if it's
cheaper.

So I'll ask the people who heard about Sprint Plus from Sprint itself:
Were you already a Sprint customer?  If so, was the option described
in a brochure with your regular monthly mailing, or what?  Anyone know
if AT&T is sending out Reach Out America brochures directly to its
customers?  (Not that it needs to, given the massive ad campaign...)

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

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 90 16:09:44 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Service Gets Listed in the Government Listings


A 900 service has placed listings in with the government listings of
telephone books across the company.  GTE said it got the listings from
Pac Bell and merely printed it.  Pac Bell said they do not permit non
government listings in that area and did not know how it happened.
The company said that they did it around the country and only NE Tel
(as I recall) objected.

The 900 service which uses (or will use) AT&T says that for $2.00 per
minute, they will leave a message with a congressman, senator, or
pres.  They will deliver these messages on cassettes twice per day.

The firm was listed between two congressmen in the GTE phone book that
just came out.

Now why would someone pay $2.00 per minute to get a message delivered
when one can call the congressman directly and pay around $.25 per
minute?

Given that a commercial interest has obtained a listing in the
government services listings, it seems appropriate to disconnect it.
Otherwise, every lobby critter will be listed in the government
listings.


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

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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 1:00:53 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jolnet Location


I checked out the earlier note about Jolnet having a Lockport mailing
address but an Orland Park tel. no. (so that, according to that note,
it's probably in Homer Twp. in Will County)nu.  This indicates that
the Orland Park exchange (which I do NOT think uses the word "Park"),
in what is now 708, is next door to the 815 area.


[Moderator's Note: Actually, where Jolnet is/was located is just a
very short distance from the 708/815 line. Maybe a few city blocks at
best. The line between the two is sort of ragged, and runs through
some open fields, then gradually moves in a southeastern direction,
until it hits the Indiana state line at a 45 degree angle several miles
to the southeast. I think the people in Beecher, IL get parts of three
area codes in their local calling (219/708/815).   PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: More "I Want My ANI"
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 01:24:21 GMT


I would loved to have had ANI the other night. Some bozo started
calling us and 3-way calling to random third parties, so we pick up
the phone and had it ring through to someone else's residence. The
operator, of course, couldn't help us... even when *we* had 3-way
called her while the bozo was still on the other line. We had to
ignore calls all night (and annoy another dozen or so innocent parties
who got our answering machine). I really wish I had a Caller*ID box
sitting by the phone right then.

And of course this particular scam wouldn't have worked from a
payphone: they don't (yet) provide 3-way calling.

Yeh, I know i could have gone through some rigamarole with Call*Trace
and Call*Return or some other Call*Bogosity to get them to shut up,
but it's just not flexible enough. My wife, for example, dislikes
making phone calls in the normal case, calling a harasser back is
pretty distressing...  she needs to be able to call me at the office
and ask me to call such-and-such a number and get on their case.

Why not direct your efforts to some real problems, like the massive
abuse of RICO that's going on with hardly a whisper in the press?


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


[Moderator's Note: Have you seen the Bell-Atlantic commercial for Caller*ID?
It shows a lady receiving an obscene call (or hints at it -- the words are
not stated on the television commercial).  The lady recoils in horror, and
frightens away the obscene caller by pressing a button on her
Caller*ID read out, then reading the fellow's number back to him.  We see
him humiliated by being exposed and identified.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #147
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01160;
          7 Mar 90 15:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00818; 7 Mar 90 13:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25346;
          7 Mar 90 2:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18927;
          7 Mar 90 1:02 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Mar 90 0:56:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #148
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Mar 90 00:55:22 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Is X.25 The Last Word on OSI CONS Over LANS?  (Paul Bandler)
    Re: A Few ISDN Questions (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (John Wheeler)
    Aspen vs. AUDIX (Dennis Aebersold)
    Modifying Cordless Phones (Steck Thomas)
    Integrated Phone + Call*ID Set (Dave Levenson)
    Modifying Cordless Phones (Steck Thomas)
    Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (J. Stephen Reed)
    Re: Jolnet location (Carl Moore)
    Re: Exclusion Modules (Reverse) (Roy M. Silvernail)
    The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Paul Bandler)
Subject: Is X.25 The Last Word on OSI CONS Over LANS
Date: 7 Mar 90 00:00:00 GMT
Organization: The Australian Centre for Unisys Software


[Moderator's Note: Original date of 2/28 change to avoid early
expiration.  PT]

I've recently been studying the current developments of Additional
Packet Mode Bearer Services, particularly Frame Relaying, that are
occuring within the CCITT and probably other national standards
bodies.

It seems that it is envisaged that packet switching services of the
future over ISDN such as Frame Relaying are expected to support OSI
CONS by the user using an enhanced version of LAPD, LAPD+, in
conjuntion with out of band call setup with Q.931.  This will provide
a lean and mean OSI WAN CONS.

Now for LAN/WAN OSI CONS relays today you have to run X.25 over both
the LAN and the WAN connection.  Now if in the future we're going to
see WAN CONS provided over LAPD+ then it would seem a bit strange to
me to have to go 'up' to a full X.25/LLC[2|1] stack to get the CONS
across the LAN.

So the question for the group then is, does anyone know if there is
any work being done, or is planned, to look at supporting LAN CONS
across a similarly enhanced LLC2+?


Paul Bandler - Australian Centre for Unisys Software.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions
Date: 6 Mar 90 16:54:03 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jason Zions) writes...

>Okay, so a B channel is raw 64kb/s. Is there any way to signal,
>end-to-end, the higher-level meaning imposed on those bits? For
>example, if I attach a Fax machine to an ISDN line and place a call,
>can the receiving end get some indication on the D channel that the
>incoming call is facsimile?

>If I place a call through ISDN, I understand that the dialing
>information goes across the D channel to do call setup and all that
>other junk. Is it possible to send other setup information end-to-end
>through D channel? The idea would be that the 2B+D line gets plugged
>into a really smart box. When a call comes in, the smart box knows
>what data is about to come in on the B channel; fax, voice, data, slow
>video, etc. It then connect the B channel to the appropriate device
>(if present) or rejects the call (if there's no such device present).

Yes and no.  A considerable amount of information is delivered with
ISDN calls.  All calls typically include a Bearer Capability element,
which is looked at by the network and used in setting up the call.
Things like layer 1 protocol, speed, voice coding, and packet layer
2-3 parameters may all go here.

Another element, Low Layer Compatibility, is passed transparently
across the network to enable compatibilty checking.  It includes some
of the same stuff as B.C. above, but is not looked at by the net.  You
get to tell the other side that you're using a certain rate
adaptations speed, etc.  A third element, High Layer Compatibilty, is
also passed end to end; it allows fax, MHS, OSI, etc., to be
mentioned.  HOWEVER HLC is NOT blessed in the US; it is tolerated in
US signaling only for international compatibility.  This is political
but important; while the net isn't supposed to look at HLC, certain
European administrations are suspected of "peeking" and getting really
obnoxious about how customers use networks, and might "enforce proper
behavior" in HLC.  Note the counter-threat: Since it's passed
end-to-end, you get a few bytes of "free" information that you don't
even pay for, if the call is rejected or not answered.  Said
administrations use that as an excuse...

There are other available tools.  Subaddresses are passed end-to-end.
You can also have multiple phone numbers on a line (DDI/DID service).
Etc.  Given the "passive bus" configuration, devices are expected to
know when to answer a call and when not to.  The bus, however, has its
own pitfalls...


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

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

From: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions?
Date: 6 Mar 90 17:00:38 GMT
Reply-To: John Wheeler <techwood![e-mail]>
Organization: Turner Entertainment Networks Library; Atlanta


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

>        In the article I claim that it is fairly hard to tap the phone
>system at microwave towers.  I was wondering if this is really true?

Well, having installed several dozen home satellite TV systems in the
East Tennessee/Southwest Virginia area, I can tell you that there are
places it's hard NOT to "tap" the microwave transmissions, even when
you're wanting to get rid of them. Microwave transmissions are very
powerful compared to the tiny, tiny signal strength received from a
satellite. Any satellite receiver's LNA, even remotely in a
transmission's path, can easily be SATURATED by the transmission.

You're trying to tune in some TV show and instead get HUNDREDS of
phone calls and routing bleep-bloops, deet-deets, and broings.  The
transmissions take place in exactly the same bands, and all that's
needed is any general-coverage (read shortwave) radio connected to the
receiver's baseband output.  Obviously, you never know what frequency
any specific call will wind up on, as it's allocated on the fly as the
next frequency is available.  For that matter, the same technique can
be used to receive most common satellite-sent calls. The thinking is
still, of course, that these are privately-owned transmission paths,
designed before such receivers were widely available to consumers.  As
digital transmissions are more widely used, the "overhearing" of
analog audio will no doubt go away, but be replaced with the whine of
data whirring by.


* John Wheeler - Unix/C Systems
* Designer/Programmer/Administrator/etc...                         *
* Turner Entertainment Networks * Superstation TBS * TNT * Turner Production *
* "the opinions expressed in this program are not necessarily those of TBS"  *


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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 08:15 EDT
From: Dennis Aebersold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Aspen vs. AUDIX

We have a system 85 and are looking to add voice mail.  The campus has
2,000 students and about 500 faculty/staff.  We've talked to two
vendors, ATT and Octel.  One vendor claims 18 ports is plenty the
other says it won't work with less than 32.  Now that's a pretty big
difference.  A consultant claims that system integration is the key
and you should never put another vendors product on an ATT switch.
That sounds more than strange!  Can anyone point me in the right
direction?  Does anyone have Octel on an 85?  How does one properly
size a voice mail system?


Dennis Aebersold
Gettysburg College
[e-mail]


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

From: Steck Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modifying Cordless Phones
Date: 5 Mar 90 18:39:06 GMT
Reply-To: Steck Thomas <[e-mail]>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University


I am the owner of a Uniden cordless phone.  Unfortunately, there seem
to be some nasty RF sources in my house, causing lots of interference
on both channels of the phone.

My question is this - how hard is it to install an external antenna of
some sort to boost the reception?


Thanks

Tom Steck

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Integrated Phone + Call*ID Set
Date: 5 Mar 90 04:39:15 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Several people have asked about an integrated telehpone set and
Caller*ID display unit.  Last week, I saw the Maestro by Northern
Telecom.  This is a single-line set with a display, a call-in-absence
lamp, and a set of 10 or so programmable buttons.  It is sold for use
behind Centrex.  The programmable buttons can be set to generate
switchhook-flash and touch-tone sequences, so that they become centrex
"feature buttons".  Presumably, they can also be used as
repertory-dialer buttons.

A red lamp lights when the phone rings.  It is extinguished when the
phone is answered.  If you come home and it's on, then you got a call
while you were out.  Sort of a message-waiting lamp.

The display shows the calling number, if the CO line offers Caller*ID
service.  The phone has the usual buttons to scroll back through the
stored incoming caller numbers.  There is also a RECALL button, which
dials the number in the display.  You can scroll back to the number of
someone who called, and push the RECALL button to return their call.

The phone connects to a single Tip/Ring CO line, which may be Centrex
or POTS.  There is also a REDIAL button, a HOLD button, and a lamp
that indicates when another bridged station is off-hook.


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: Steck Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modifying Cordless Phones
Date: 5 Mar 90 18:39:06 GMT
Reply-To: Steck Thomas <[e-mail]>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University


I am the owner of a Uniden cordless phone.  Unfortunately, there seem
to be some nasty RF sources in my house, causing lots of interference
on both channels of the phone.

My question is this - how hard is it to install an external antenna of
some sort to boost the reception?


Thanks

Tom Steck

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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 02:12 EST
From: "J. Stephen Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card?


Peter Weiss noted, "It's not clear to me how this differs from the
AT&T phones [that I have seen] where you can insert a VISA, MC, or
AmEx card into the phone."

 From the report I got on the market survey session, this is a VISA
card that has the AT&T logo on it as well, and accesses both a VISA
card (through what bank, I don't know) and an AT&T card account.
Whether the AT&T charges can be put on the VISA credit line, I was
unable to find out.

One less plastic demon to keep track of ... the bane of my existence,
or at least less of one than it used to be.  Thus some of its appeal
to me.  Not to mention 13.5% APR -- how does AT&T manage that these
days?


Steve Reed -- Liberty Network, Ltd. -- P.O. Box 11296, Chicago, IL 60611
MCI Mail: 290-9785 ([e-mail])
CompuServe: 74766,347 ([e-mail])

"I do not believe in democracy, but I am perfectly willing to admit that it
provides the only really amusing form of government ever endured by mankind."
-- H.L. Mencken


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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 15:12:09 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Jolnet location


So this exercise in Jolnet's location shows that Orland (formerly in
312, now in 708) and Lockport (in 815) are neighboring exchanges, and
I haven't even been to the Chicago area.  Also, Orland exchange
apparently crosses a county line (I've heard of that many times
elsewhere).

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

From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <comcon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exclusion Modules (Reverse)
Date: 5 Mar 90 14:30:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Tamkin)
writes:

> Radio Shack (and perhaps other places) sell an already-wired adapter.
> It has a single modular plug and three jacks: one jack carries the
> inner pair, one carries the outer pair from the wall jack to its own
> inner pair, and the third jack carries through both pairs from the
> wall.  One can plug two single-line devices into the first two jacks
> to have one use each line.

And I wouldn't be without a few! Having moved from apartment to
apartment, my inside plant tends to be somewhat temporary. (the most
permanent plant was in an apartment I only occupied for 6 months...
sigh... all that lovely crawlspace work... but I digress) I have 2
lines (voice and bbs), and I wire everything RJ-14, so I can pick off
either line with one of those little jewels.

It works everywhere but in the bedroom, because my bedside phone is an
old (and I mean *old*) ITT trimline. I modified it for modular, and
routed the AC for the dial light on the A-A1 pair. This just means I
can't have a 2-line jack for that one, but I don't answer the bbs line
much anyway. [I have a computer for that task ;-)]

> Yes, they are a little more expensive than the in-line coupler that
> Ken Dykes modified, but they don't need all the rewiring work.

A bit more convenient, too. Ken's modification only converts a single
connection. (That's not a flame, Ken... I built one of those myself
before I discovered the Radio Shack adaptors)

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!>

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

Subject: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 6 Mar 90 11:43:15 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


There is a particular breed of telephone user that I would greatly
like to see exterminated. It is the Dedicated Wrong Number Caller.
This pest will call and ask to speak to someone who does not reside at
your number (say "Sue"). You say, "I'm sorry there is no 'Sue' at this
number." The caller hangs up. Phone rings again. Same caller. You say,
"What number are you trying to reach?"

Caller recites your number. You say, "You must have gotten a wrong
number since there is no 'Sue' here." Caller hangs up. Phone rings
again. Caller says, "May I speak to Sue, it's very important." This
time, losing your patience, you invite the caller to not call again.
Caller asks how long you have had this number. More than twenty years.
Caller hangs up.

Then, apparently in the belief that if the matter is laid to rest for
about twenty minutes everything will straighten itself out, the caller
tries again, this time with a Pac*Bell operator in tow. Phone is
answered and the voice on the other end says, "This is the Pacific
Bell operator. Have I reached 723-XXXX?"

"Yes, you have."

"Is there a Sue at this number?"

"No, there isn't and never has been."

"Did you recently get this number?"

"I have had this number since the exchange was created. In other words
no one has ever had this number other than myself."

Operator to caller, "I'm sorry, the party you are trying to reach does
not seem to be at this number." Disconnect.

Just when you think that it's over, you get a call from Pac*Bell repair
asking what sort of trouble you are having on the line. A caller
reported the line out of order because he kept getting the wrong party
for the number he was dialing!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #148
******************************












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23984;
          8 Mar 90 0:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05268;
          7 Mar 90 22:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14095;
          7 Mar 90 21:40 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Mar 90 21:16:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #149
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Mar 90 21:15:49 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Long-distance Calls to Take More Dialing in NC (Stephen Tell)
    Proposed Triangle Area Toll-Free Calling Plan (Stephen Tell)
    Re: Long-distance Calls to Take More Dialing in NC (Bob Goudreau)
    Is a Split of the 919 Area Code Planned? (Kevin Clayton)
    Re: Towns Split By LATA Lines (Jeff Carroll)
    Re: Towns Split By LATA Lines (Carl Moore)
    Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set (Tad Cook)
    How to Hookup Phone <-> Stereo? (Alan Millar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Long-distance Calls to Take More Dialing in NC
Date: 5 Mar 90 06:27:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Buckley)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 140, Message 8 of 9

>       Starting Friday, people who dial long distance within their
>own area codes will have to include the three-digit code.
 ...
>Excuse me asking a dumb question, but what happened to uniformly
>prefixing other area codes by an access code (like 1, as done here).

Sounds like a good question to me.

>The Tarheel 10-digit scheme, in addition to being more ungainly,
>doesn't work as well, since would still not let, say 213, be used as
>an exchange prefix, as the 1+ scheme does.  Unless you have to dial 1
>as well to use different area codes, in which case the 10 digits are
>superflous.

One must actually dial 1+919, or 1+704, so its really 11-digit, as you
note below.  Newspaper articles explained "Anywhere you used to dial
1+NXX-XXXX, you now dial 1+NPA-NXX-XXXX."
 ...
>       LA and other A/C split] areas first went to
>10-digit-dialing to handle growth before getting a new area code,
>said Southern Bell spokesman Clifton Metcalf.

>Not true: they used and still use the 1+area code schemes, like here
>in 415.

I believe that A/C 201, in New Jersey, uses "1 means area code follows" also.
 ...
>But after thinking about it longer I concluded that Southern Bell
>services only a small part of NC with local phone service, with the
>rest covered somewhat by GTE, but mainly by independents (like
>Carolina Telephone).

>Independents can't afford fancy CO switches which can distinguish
>between local and long distance exchanges, so to handle "the long
>distance problem", they simply hand off all calls prefixed by 1 to
>Southern Bell.  Since 1 prefixing is used to mean something else, it
>can't be used to signal an area code.

>Therefore, the lowest impact solution may well be to insist on 10
>(really 11) digit dialling.  Not pretty, though.

A recent insert in my Southern Bell bill claims that SB has now
converted all of its equipment to "stored program control."  I take
this to mean switches or switch front-ends that are intelligent enough
to make the meaning of "1+" a software issue. (and enable them to
offer CLASS and other nifty features as well).

It seems reasonable that the only way to keep the dialing plan uniform
across the state is to use 11-digit for all long distance.  I would
have suggested using 7-digit where possible, or perhaps when enhanced
features are available.  It seems slightly less confusing to the
general public if all of these features (CLASS, 7-digit intra-npa
dialing) went together.  Gives the unfortunate ones added incentive to
pester their telco to upgrate their equipment.

Friday, March 2 was changeover day, but interestingly enough I can
still successfully dial Durham with 1+NXX-XXXX.  I've called both Duke
University (their own exchange, 3 prefixes) and the surrounding GTE
territory.  People at Duke mentioned to me that they had to dial
1+919; I forgot to ask my friends off campus to try calling me.  It
may have somthing to do with the fact that I have a special calling
plan to Durham; my first 30 minutes are a flat rate (somthing like
$3.35), additional minutes are billed at a (slight) discount.  If in
the course of some additional experimentation I discover anything
interesting, I will report to the Digest.

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Proposed Triangle Area Toll-Free Calling Plan
Date: 5 Mar 90 06:27:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


"Toll-Free Calling Plan Outlined"
 From The Durham Morning Herald, Friday March 2, page 1.

[Since its a Durham paper, it focuses mostly on how GTE folks there
would be mostly left out -sgt]

"Most GTE customers in Durham County would be unable to place
toll-free calls to Wake County under an extended-area service plan to
be recommended next month to the NC Utilities Commission.

"The plan, by the commission's Public Staff, allows for toll-free
service between Durham County, Pittsboro, Creedmoor, and most of
Orange County, according to an outline presented Wednesday to the
Triangle J Council of Governments.

"A portion of the Durham exchange in Research Triangle Park also would
be able to place toll-free calls to Clayton, Fuquay-Varina, and
Wake-Forest.

"Toll-free calls from Durham County to Raleigh and most of Wake County
were omitted to avoid a disproportionately high increase in the basic
rate for GTE customers, said Hugh L. Gerringer, an engineer with the
Public Staff's communications division.

"`After the [phone companies] estimates came in,' Gerringer said, `it
appeared that the increases suggested for the Durham exhange were on a
level that would not be supported by Durham Customers.'

"The charges the Public Staff will propose are not yet firm.  However,
based on figures available Thursday, GTE's residential customers would
pay about 99 cents more per month for basic service.  That would
increase the average monthly charge to $13.64 to $12.65.

"GTE initialy suggested a hike of $4.21 to provide Trianglewide,
toll-free calling....

"Estimated monthly charges in other parts of the Triangle would range
from a low of $12.85 for Southern Bell's customers in Wake County to a
high of $15.42 for the company's customers in Chapel Hill, based on
the Public Staff's preliminary plan....  [My current bill in Carrboro,
right next to Chapel Hill and often lumped together with them lists
$14.97.  Not a bad increase if its really only $0.45 here. -sgt]

"The proposal gives all 15 Triangle exchanges an expanded calling area
and toll rate relief.  All the exchanges will have toll-free calling
to Research Triangle Park and Raleigh-Durham International Airport.
Wake County and most of Orange County will have countywide toll-free
service and toll-free calling between communities.
 ....[text deleted]

   --------------------------End of newspaper quote-----------------------

And now, some questions:

Nowhere does the article mention the motivation behind the variation
in rate increases.  Why might this be?  What are the costs to the
various telcos in implementing this wide-area calling, and how if at
all is this cost related to the rate hikes?  Why would it cost GTE
customers some $4.16 for this?

No mention of how this plan would impact how these calls are dialed,
or if they would they become simply 7 digits or remain the full 11
digits.


Steve Tell                    [e-mail]
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.        919-968-1792
Former chief engineer, Duke Union Community Television, Durham, NC.


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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 16:34:05 est
Subject: Re: Long-distance Calls to Take More Dialing in NC
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Charles Buckley)
writes:

>        Starting Friday, people who dial long distance within their
> own area codes will have to include the three-digit code.  The change
> will make it possible to use 1.5 million new telephone numbers in both
> the 704 and 919 calling areas.

> Excuse me asking a dumb question, but what happened to uniformly
> prefixing other area codes by an access code (like 1, as done here).

Nothing happened to it; it's still required.

> The Tarheel 10-digit scheme, in addition to being more ungainly,
> doesn't work as well, since would still not let, say 213, be used as
> an exchange prefix, as the 1+ scheme does.  Unless you have to dial 1
> as well to use different area codes, in which case the 10 digits are
> superflous.

I think you're confused about how numbers are dialed in NC.  The new
scheme is NOT a change from 7-digit to 10-digit dialing; it's really a
change from 8-digit (1+7 digits) to 11-digit (1+10 digits) dialing.
(At least this is the case for Southern Bell and GTE territory; I
don't know for sure about Carolina Telephone, but I believe it's the
same).

Here are both the old (pre-March) rules (as usual, the "1-" prefix
is replaced by "0-" in the case of operator-assisted calls):

Local:        NNX-XXXX
Intra-NPA LD:    1-NNX-XXXX
Inter-NPA LD:    1-NYX-NXX-XXXX

(Note that N = {2, ..., 9},  Y = {0, 1},  X = {0, ..., 9} )


The new rules are simpler, since all LD calls are now dialed the same
way:

Local:        NXX-XXXX
Intra-NPA LD:    1-NXX-NXX-XXXX
Inter-NPA LD:    1-NXX-NXX-XXXX


I don't see what's particularly "ungainly" about it.  It in fact seems
one of the two right ways to do it, the other possibility being:

Local:        NXX-XXXX
Intra-NPA LD:    NXX-XXXX
Inter-NPA LD:    1-NXX-NXX-XXXX


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

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

From: clayton <bbt![e-mail]>
Subject: Is a Split of the 919 Area Code Planned?
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 11:26:42 EDT
Reply-To: bbt![e-mail]


I have some questions for the area code experts.

I live in the Raleigh/Durham NC area, and Southern Bell is
educating us (print and tv ads) as to how we in the 919 area code
are running out of numbers.

They say in order to provide new numbers we must now dial the area
code for LD calls w/i the area code.

Now, just dialing the area code won't make new numbers so my
questions are:

    Aren't they really planning a split of the 919 area code ?
    If so, when will it take place, what is the new area code, and
       who gets it?
    If they really are planning a split - why not say so up front ?
    (None the ads ever mention anything about an area code split)

Thanks for the info.

Kevin Clayton
[e-mail]

BroadBand Technologies, INC., Research Triangle Park, NC

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines
Date: 6 Mar 90 20:05:10 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

>The town of New Braintree in Massachusetts has most of its telephones
>listed with a North Brookfield exchange (508)867-XXXX, but another
>part of the town which uses a Gilbertville (413)477-XXXX exchange.
>These are not only separate area codes, but are also separate LATA's.

    Clearly this must be a problem in Kansas City, but I don't
know how they handle it. One occurence of this problem on a much
smaller scale (and thus presumably more manageable), however, is in
Union City, Indiana/Ohio, which is centered precisely on the state
line. Here two parts of the same town are not only in different LATAs,
but in different area codes (actually, I believe there is a distinct
municipality on each side of the line, but that's hardly relevant.)

    The post office is in Indiana (if I remember correctly), but
it serves both sides of the line. The telephones map geographically
into the proper area code, and each side was served by the proper BOC,
but Indiana to Ohio is a local call, and vice versa. (At least it was
in 1975.)

    I don't have any details of how they did it, but it worked -
between two different operating companies, even.

    I'd guess that the nearest Usenet site to Union City is at
Ball State University in Muncie, or possibly in Richmond. Maybe
someone else has more info about how this works.


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 10:47:56 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines


Mail from me to John Braden <[e-mail]> failed.  I
am responding to the note about area code boundary (Massachusetts,
between 413 and what used to be 617).

It occurs to me, having driven in a bit of rural New York state, that
towns as defined there go way out into the countryside.  What is it
like in Massachusetts?  Remember that if you go out on a rural route
(U.S. Postal Service) from a town "proper", you may cross into a
different telephone exchange from that serving the town "proper".
When you go northwest along rural routes from Oxford or Nottingham
(both in Pa.), the next exchange is also in the next area code; these
towns proper are served by 215-932 Oxford, and if you go northwest
from them, you cross into 717-529 Kirkwood.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set
Date: 7 Mar 90 21:58:35 GMT
Organization: very little


Jamie Hanrahan mentioned that the Plantronics LiteSet from DAK cannot
do hookflash.  With our units here, we HAVE been able to do hooflash,
but it is risky...there is a funny de-bounce timing on the switch, and
it takes practice.


Tad Cook
Seattle, WA
Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544
Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad
or, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: How to Hookup Phone <-> Stereo?
Date: Wed,  7-Mar-90 10:57:12 PST
X-Possible-Reply-Path: [e-mail]
X-Possible-Reply-Path: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!AMillar


Can anyone tell me how to hookup my phone to my stereo?  I'd like to
be able to play the stereo into the phone, and record a phone call on
my stereo's cassette deck.

On the stereo side, I'd like to use the standard headphone and
microphone jacks.  I can hack up an old phone to do whatever is needed
on that side.

Can someone tell me what I need in the way of components,
transformers, etc?  Or, if there is a cheap commercial thing to do
this, that's OK too.

Email replies to me and I'll post a summary.  Thanks!


Alan Millar   [e-mail]       ...uunet!cup.portal.com!AMillar

P.S.  I know I must inform someone that I'm taping their conversation; no
      flames on that please.  :-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #149
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26795;
          8 Mar 90 1:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24761;
          7 Mar 90 23:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05268;
          7 Mar 90 22:45 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Mar 90 22:16:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #150
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Mar 90 22:15:03 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Illuminati BBS Bust - An Official Statement From SJ Games (Bob Mosley III)
    Jolnet's 'Reward' For Cooperation (Ron Bean)
    Charlie Boykin, et al (John Boteler)
    Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Peter da Silva)
    Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Jerry Leichter)
    Re: Groan, CALLER-ID Again?? (Steven King)
    Re: More "I Want My ANI" (Mark Robert Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Mosley III <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illuminati BBS Bust - An Official Statement From SJ Games
Date: 6 Mar 90 17:34:26 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society, Austin, TX


 ...This was buffered from the Illuminati BBS this morning. Those of
you keeping up with the case against joinet/attctc/the Mentor should
find this interesting.

(Just a side note: The theme of the board may sound like it's set up
just for all sorts of evil work in mind. However, it's a board run by
a role-playing game manufacturer, which is probably just as evil, but
I won't get into that now.:-) :-) So don't be put off by the setting.
Many BBS's are established on rather wierd themes.  My BBS's previous
incarnation was that of a strip joint, for example...)

                            OM

            ------- start of text from Illuminati BBS -------

 NOTE! WE RECOMMEND YOU OPEN YOUR CAPTURE BUFFER AS YOU READ THE
 FOLLOWING INFORMATION, OR AT LEAST BE READY TO USE ^S AND ^Q TO
 STOP THE SCROLLING AS YOU READ.

 PRESS RETURN:


   GREETINGS, MORTAL! YOU HAVE ENTERED
      THE SECRET COMPUTER SYSTEM OF


                   /\
                  /  \
                 / () \
                / ____ \
               / /    \ \
              /__________\


              THE ILLUMINATI
      FRONTED BY STEVE JACKSON GAMES
 INCORPORATED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. FNORD

 NOTE! AT THE MOMENT ILLUMINATI IS AN READ-ONLY SYSTEM. READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW TO FIND OUT WHY. USING THE SPACE BAR WILL LOG YOU
OFF. YOU CAN STOP THE SCROLLING AT ANY TIME WITH A CONTROL-S.
CONTROL-Q WILL RESUME THE SCROLLING.

YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT OUR CORPORATE MASCOT, WHO USUALLY GREETS OUR
CALLERS WITH A CHEERFUL SMILE, IS FROWNING TODAY. I THINK YOU'LL AGREE
HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO.

BEFORE THE START OF WORK ON MARCH 1, STEVE JACKSON GAMES WAS VISITED
BY AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE. THEY SEARCHED THE
BUILDING THOROUGHLY, TORE OPEN SEVERAL BOXES IN THE WAREHOUSE, BROKE A
FEW LOCKS AND DAMAGED A COUPLE OF FILING CABINETS (WHICH WE WOULD
GLADLY HAVE LET THEM EXAMINE, HAD THEY LET US INTO THE BUILDING),
ANSWERED THE PHONE DISCOURTEOUSLY AT BEST, PROBABLY ATE A FEW OF THE
ORANGE SLICES THAT WERE ON FEARLESS LEADER'S DESK (WHICH THEY WERE
WELCOME TO, BY THE WAY), AND CONFISCATED SOME COMPUTER EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING THE COMPUTER THAT THE BBS WAS RUNNING ON AT THE TIME.

SO FAR WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE SECRET
SERVICE WAS LOOKING FOR, WHAT THEY EXPECTED TO FIND, OR MUCH OF
ANYTHING ELSE. WE ARE FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT STEVE JACKSON GAMES IS NOT
THE TARGET OF WHATEVER INVESTIGATION IS BEING CONDUCTED; IN ANY
CASE, WE HAVE DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL AND HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO
HIDE. HOWEVER, THE EQUIPMENT THAT WAS SEIZED IS APPARENTLY CONSIDERED
TO BE EVIDENCE IN WHATEVER THEY'RE INVESTIGATING, SO WE AREN'T LIKELY
TO GET IT BACK ANY TIME SOON. IT COULD BE A MONTH, IT COULD BE NEVER.

IN THE MEANTIME, FEARLESS HAS LOANED STEVE JACKSON GAMES THE APPLE SYSTEM
THE BBS RAN ON BACK IN THE OLD DAYS BEFORE JOLNET. TO MINIMIZE THE POSSI-
BILITY THAT THIS SJSTEM WILL BE CONFISCATED AS WELL, WE HAVE SET IT UP TO
DISPLAY THIS BULLETIN, AND THAT'S ALL. THERE IS NO MESSAGE BASE AT PRESENT.
WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE, AND WE WISH WE DARED DO MORE THAN
THIS. HOWEVER, WE AGONIZED LONG AND HARD, AND DECIDED IT WAS A COURTESY TO
OUR CALLERS TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

AT THIS POINT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THE BBS WILL BE BACK UP FOR REAL. IF
YOU HAVE IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR US, SUCH AS PLAYTEST NOTES, YOU CAN
MAIL THEM TO US (YEAH, I KNOW, ECCH) OR IF IT'S SOMETHING TRULY
IMPORTANT, YOU CAN REACH US AT OUR VOICE NUMBER (512-447-7866). IN THE
MEANTIME, FEARLESS WILL BE CHECKING IN ON A REGULAR BASIS ON SMOF
(512-UFO-SMOF) AND RED OCTOBER (512-834-2548).

IN PARTICULAR, IF YOU HAVE DOWNLOADED THE GURPS CYBERPUNK PLAYTEST
MATERIAL THAT WAS ON THE BOARD, PLEASE LET US KNOW RIGHT AWAY SO WE
CAN ARRANGE TO GET A COPY. SOME OF THAT MATERIAL WAS NOT EASILY
REPLACABLE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GET COPIES - IT WOULD MAKE GETTING
GURPS CYBERPUNK OUT MUCH, MUCH EASIER (AND IT WOULD COME OUT THAT MUCH
SOONER). PLEASE CALL US AND ASK TO TALK TO CREEDE OR LOYD FOR
ARRANGEMENTS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING, AND THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO HAS GIVEN
US WORDS OF ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT. WE HOPE WE'LL BE BACK ON LINE,
FULL TIME, VERY SOON.

 -- STEVE JACKSON GAMES AND
    THE SYSOPS OF THE ILLUMINATI BBS

            ------- end of text from Illuminati BBS -------

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

Subject: Jolnet's 'Reward' For Cooperation
Date: Tue Mar  6 03:55:35 1990
From: gargoyle!spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod (Ron Bean)


   If he really was "cooperating" with various authorities, it would
appear someone does not want to encourage that kind of cooperation.
Interestingly, the FAA has been in a similar situation ever since they
were forced into a "zero tolerance" policy. Pilots, who in the past
have had a cooperative relationship with the FAA in the interests of
safety, are now warned not to say anything before consulting a lawyer,
even if they made an honest mistake or even if they don't think they
were at fault. They hope this will change with the new administration,
but so far it hasn't.

==================
[e-mail] (Ron Bean)
{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod
                           {decvax|att}!

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

Subject: Charlie Boykin, et al
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 19:36:04 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Oh. Another Chip Rosenthal flame-fest.

Relax Chip. I know of Charlie Boykin's reputation indirectly through a
friend who has met him.

However, I am not so cynical that I (mis)interpreted disparaging
inferences in Mr. Townson's note. I read it for what it was: an
indication of AT&T going off half-cocked, making a mountain out of a
molehill.

'killer' went down a couple years ago reputedly because some
proprietary code was in a publicly accessible area. I have made a
similar mistake on my personal UNIX system: nobody is perfect.

The management of attctc recently demanded Mr. Boykin to show cause as
to why the system should remain a public access system: he fought with
us to keep it open. It is clear the culprit is not Charlie Boykin.

I enjoy reading a little human inflection in netnews from time to time
when the computer nerds will allow it! Continue, Mr. Moderator.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 13:01:10 GMT


> Example: I have two customers, A and B.  For
> various reasons, I have a close relationship with A, but it would be
> bad policy for me to reveal to B that I also work with A.  I'm
> visiting A, check my answering machine, and find an urgent message
> from B.  A has no objection to my calling B on their line, and I'm
> really not concerned about A finding out about B.

> With Caller ID, if I call B, I've just given away that I'm at A.

Well, I hope that A and B don't read TELECOM Digest.

Call a friend with 3-way calling, and get them to serve as a bridge.
If you have Class services, surely you have 3-way. In fact, I could
imagine some of those operator services companies doing that.

Or call through your AT&T/Sprint/MCI/pick-your-carrier long distance.

And after all that illicit sneaking around you can still be
compromised by background noises. Hey, how do you feel about
picture-phones?

Now that I think of it, how do any of the anti-CLID folks feel about
the idea of realtime videophones? Eventually you'll have to deal with
them, too.

 _--_|\  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: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Date: 7 Mar 90 08:04:50 EST
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)


> [I wrote:]
>> [about how he doesn't want B to know that he associates with A]

>> With Caller ID, if I call B, I've just given away that I'm at A.

> [John Higdon replies:]  Suggestions:

> 1. Wait until you are out of the area to call B. If this information
> (that you associate with A) is so sensitive, then maybe the return call
> can wait.

This may be very inconvenient.  One very nice thing about telephones
is their universal availability; this work-around takes that away.

Of COURSE, it's just an inconvenience.  Then again, Caller ID is just
a CONVENIENCE.  When it's the same person who ends up with both
convenience and inconvenience, each person can make their own
trade-off.  When, as here, it is different people who get the benefits
and pay the costs, it's a very different story.  From my personal
perspective, Caller ID is all costs and no benefits - if it were
available in my area, I wouldn't be willing to pay for having it on my
line, as none of the advantages I've seen cited are worth much to me.

> 2. Use a portable cellular phone to call B.

a) Extremely expensive, unless you can justify having a cellular phone
for other reasons.  I can't.  I'm sure the Telco's will love you for
suggesting it, however! :-)

b) This is a technology-specific solution.  What would be your
response if someone proposed that cellular calls include a "calling
party location" id?  Give me a couple of hours and I can certainly
come up with some good uses for such a featur - and it is certainly
implementable, given sufficient demand.

> 3. Call your office and have them relay the call (via conferencing or
> three-way).

a)  This assumes I have an office available to do this kind of forwarding.

b) Again, it's a great way to rack up phone charges.  Isn't this the
same John Higdon who has argued that Caller ID just makes available to
the little guy what the big guys always had?  How about making
PROTECTION from this feature available to the little guy, too?

> 4. Use one of A's unlisted numbers.

a)  Why do you think A has any?

b) In general, it's easy to identify the business that owns a number -
just call it.  You should have little trouble determining what
business you have reached, since businesses, unlike individuals,
rarely have any reason to NOT want to be located.

c) This - and the "use a nearby payphone" solution - ignore the more
general problem where I don't want to reveal that I'm in, say,
Maynard, Mass.  Now, I wonder who I might be talking to in Maynard?

                             -- Jerry

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Groan, CALLER-ID Again??
Date: 7 Mar 90 16:03:31 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Krieger) writes:

[stuff deleted]
>As far as I am concerned, the only people/groups who NEED caller ID are:

>     1.    Police Department
>     2.    Fire Department
>     3.    Ambulance/Rescue/First Aid squad
>     4.    Businesses that take phone orders (like a pizzaria).

>[more stuff deleted]

So not everyone NEEDS Caller*ID.  So what?  Not everyone NEEDS call
waiting.  Not everyone NEEDS the other myraid features available these
days.  But some people LIKE them.  It's a free marketplace, and
businesses make money by selling people things they merely LIKE.
While I myself can't see the usefulness of having a Caller*ID box, I
can see where other people would find it convenient.

Actually, I do know of one use for the thing.  Computer bulletin board
systems.  I ran a BBS for a while, and I plan on doing so again.  I
*despise* "validation" procedures.  There are a LOT of 13 year old
weenies out there.  Many BBSs require a period of time before a new
user is given full access to the system, or restrict access altogether
until the sysop gets around to calling the new user and making sure
that he's really who he says he is.

With Caller*ID (and an interface to the computer) I could give all
callers immediate full access to the system.  If a user shows himself
to be a true jerk, and if he doesn't shape up after a friendly warning
or two, his number goes in the Caller*ID kill file.  He's history,
unless he changes his phone number.

So, there actually ARE uses for this thing.


It doesn't matter how good a computer it is, it    | Steve King  [phone]
can't multitask running anything and being turned  |   ...uunet!motcid!king
off.                                               |   ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, Caller*ID six or seven years ago, when
BBS'ing was first gaining in popularity would have changed the
complexion of that pasttime in wonderful ways. As a sysop for several
years, I know what it is like to be plagued by phreaks and twits of
all descriptions. Many a decent board was ruined by Morons and
Vandals.  I think many of the complaints about Caller*ID come from
people who themselves abuse the telephone service of others, and from
those folks who simply do not realize how destructive crackers and
phreaks can be when they get a grudge against someone.  PT]

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More "I Want My ANI"
Date: 7 Mar 90 17:53:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


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

> [Moderator's Note: Have you seen the Bell-Atlantic commercial for Caller*ID?
> It shows a lady receiving an obscene call (or hints at it -- the words are
> not stated on the television commercial).  The lady recoils in horror, and
> frightens away the obscene caller by pressing a button on her
> Caller*ID read out, then reading the fellow's number back to him.  We see
> him humiliated by being exposed and identified.   PT]

I've done this.  It works.  The kid never called me back.  However, I
was quite pissed about the calls, so I took the number and got a
reverse listing from the local library in his town.  I called his
mother to report that he was making the calls.  She said "Oh, no, it
couldn't be him.  He was asleep at the time (about 2am)."  I let it go
after that.  If he had called again, I would have used Call Trace and
called the police (who are the Rutgers Campus Police - they are quite
responsive to this sort of thing and are have full police powers).


Mark Smith, KNJ2LH                All Rights Reserved
RPO 1604               You may redistribute this article only if those who
P.O. Box 5063                 receive it may do so freely.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063              [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #150
******************************