Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss151-200

Text File | 1990-03-24 | 855KB | 20,855 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28963;
          8 Mar 90 2:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26234;
          8 Mar 90 0:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24761;
          7 Mar 90 23:53 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Mar 90 23:06:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #151
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Mar 90 23:05:13 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: A Few ISDN Questions (Torsten Lif)
    ISDN Courses/Training Questions (Jose Diaz-Gonzalez)
    Re: Real Useability of Applications Over Slower Communications (Merriman)
    Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS) (Jeffri H. Frontz)
    Re: ALEX Service Starting in Toronto, Montreal (Peter da Silva)
    Strange Charges on Bill (Jesse W. Asher)
    The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo (Henry Mensch)
    Wroooong Number (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Torsten Lif <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions
Date: 7 Mar 90 09:10:53 GMT
Reply-To: Torsten Lif <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden


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?

Yes.

"Bearer capability" and other signal elements tell the CO and the
receiving party what the nature of this call is. The CO needs to know
so that it can choose an appropriate link and/or conversion (phone
calls *may* be routed via analog trunks, datacomm may *not*. Phone
connections *may* need a-law-u-law conversion [if international],
datacomm should not be converted). The receiving party needs to know
so that only compatible equipment responds to the call.

For datacomm with rate adaption the two sets of end equipment can even
"negotiate" to find a "common denominator" - a speed and/or standard
which they can both handle.

>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?

Yes.

You have "user-user info", a signal element alolowing you to send data
to the other party over the D-channel during setup *and* during the
call.

You can also have D-channel connections for low-speed data without
using any B-channel. For low-volume long-time connections this is an
excellent feature. Your burglar alarm can have a *permanent* link to
the security company. A few bytes when appropriate will tell them when
a window has been broken. If the link goes down they get an alert and
if they can't bring it up again within a certain time they go out to
see what's wrong.  Not fool-proof, certainly, but quite possibly
better than what's available today.

Actually, with ISDN, the problem is no longer "how to get the info
through" but "how to handle all the info that comes". You get
litterally swamped in information and the hard part is to know in
which order to process it to choose the appropriate actions and what
can be safely ignored because of what you already know. What is
redundant for this type of call and what only *seems* to be redundant
but carries some additional meaning which only applies once every
alternate leap year but nevertheless must be taken into consideration?

>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).

That's not quite the intention of the designers (I think) but it would
work if you wanted to build it.

The intent of the design (as I see it) is that every ISDN device has
its' own protocol handling and communicates with the CO independently
of all others.  The device (phone, terminal adapter ["modem"] or
whatever) knows what capabilities it has and responds to calls
matching that. Other (non-compatible) devices on the same line remain
silent.

A phone would only respond to calls indicating "voice" or "phone".
Depending on if the phone is multi- or single- standard it may be able
to handle both a-law and u-law or just the one of them.

A TA (Terminal Adapter) is really a sort of temporary solution to
replace your modem until all computers have plug-in ISDN cards. Until
then you may have TAs of different "flavours" for different purposes
and they may be more or less "smart" and thus able to handle calls
differently.

Anything a TA can do, an ISDN-adapted computer (or other
end-equipment) can do better, except possibly that your TA might have
several output connections and choose which one of them to use
depending on the type of call, in which case we have your "smart box".
This is still a temporary solution as I see it, since the protocol
handling is "just" silicon and will soon be cheap enough to put in all
equipment. Otherwise your "smart box" would have to be able to handle
*both* B-channels and all the various D- channel connections with all
combinations and variations of "busy" depending on which devices are
already in use. This is normally handled by the "setup" conversation
carried on directly between the end device and the CO. A "smart box"
acting between them would have to be *very* smart to avoid being a
bottleneck and impede communications instead of helping them.

Your fax will in the future plug directly into the ISDN line and will
respond by itself to incoming calls saying "fax". If you have a PC or
workstation with ISDN interface and many emulation programmes it can
recognize the type of incoming call and act accordingly. A fax call
would go to the fax emulation software which stores it on your disk
and/or dumps it to the printer. A "vanilla" data connection might get
a pseudo-tty and "login:" prompt. For more secure data links the CNI
feature may be used for auto- call-back if the caller belongs to the
internal list of allowed users. The possibilities of plugging ISDN
straight into a multi-processing computer are staggering and with a
"large" number of pseudo-devices you don't have to worry about running
out of cables. :-)


 Torsten Lif (formerly Dahlkvist)
 ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories
 P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25  ALVSJO, SWEDEN
 Tel: [phone]

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

From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Courses/Training Questions
Date: 7 Mar 90 16:30:23 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


Hi there!

    A few people in my department are looking at training
alternatives on ISDN.  Our background is primarily on software
engineering research, and we are interested in the data communications
programming aspects of ISDN.  So far, we have found information on a
couple of courses, described below:

  o    Introduction to ISDN, Learning Tree International (800)
        421-8166, Gordon Beattie (instructor), 4 days; and

  o    An Intensive Introduction to ISDN, Data-Tech Institute,
        [phone], Jim Davis (instructor), 2 days.

The questions are: is anyone aware of any other alternatives?  Has
anyone in the net taken any of the courses above?  If so, what is
your opinion about the course contents, as well as the proficiency of
the instructor?  Please reply be email.  Thanks.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+                     +                    +
+    Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez     +                                +
+    GTE Laboratories, Inc.       +       Tel:   [phone]    +
+    MS-46                          +       email: [e-mail]        +
+    40 Sylvan Rd.             +                    +
+    Waltham, MA 02254         +                    +
+                     +                    +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Real Useability of Applications over Slower Communications
Date: 7 Mar 90 17:19:11 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> 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.

In the VAX/VMS/DECnet world, I have had no trouble working between
systems connected by slow, flakey circuits. Applications include file
transfer, message switching, remote login, etc. I remember working the
1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul for a US client where we had three
circuits back to New York: a 56kb (or maybe 64kb) satellite circuit, a
9600 bps synchronous circuit via a new lease circuit and a 2400 bps
asynchronous circuit, via all kinds of old multiplexor circuits,
through Japan, the Middle East and eastern Europe, already part of the
clients permanent network. The most reliable of the lot was the 2400
async circuit! The satellite circuit was practically useless.

The only thing I found troublesome is using full-screen editors via
remote login. It is usually better to run an editing session on a
local system and have the editor open the file remotely.

Five or six years ago I was working on a job that had about 10 remote
PDP-11 traffic concentrators around the U. S. running RSX-11/S. They
booted fine from the home office over 1200bps (and even 300 bps dial
backup) circuits.

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

Date: Wed,  7 Mar 90 15:54:23 EST
From: Jeffri H Frontz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Bug (from RISKS)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio


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

>>["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?

Which version of lint?  The four versions that I tried (UTS 5.2.6b
lint, 5ESS's nlint, Pyramid's bsd lint, and Pyramid's att lint) said
nothing about potential problems resulting from a break within an
"if".


Jeff Frontz                                              Work:  [phone]
AT&T-Bell Labs (CB 1C-356)                               Cornet:       353-2797
att!jeff.frontz                                             [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: ALEX Service Starting in Toronto, Montreal
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 12:52:32 GMT


> 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.

Sounds like SourceLine, which is a service Southwestern Bell tried to
make a go of down here in Houston. Remember the stuff a while back
about SWBell versus BBS operators? That was Ma trying to kill off her
competition. They just gave up on SourceLine and left the field to
U.S.Videotel. Whether any of their associated lawsuits and rate change
stuff with the PUC follow it into the bit-bucket is another question.


 _--_|\  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: "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys![e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Charges on Bill
Date: 4 Mar 90 23:48:38 GMT
Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys![e-mail]>
Organization: Dynasys:  Consulting for the Future.


I know this is going to sound strange, but I can never get a straight
answer from the phone company.  Can anyone tell me what the "Federal
Communications Commission Toll Access Charge" is and why I have to pay
it?

Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"?  I'm tired
of not knowing what I'm paying for and why.  Thanks in advance to
anyone that can answer these mysterious questions.  :-)


Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - [phone]     Evening: [phone]
6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134
UUCP: {uunet,fedeva,rayo}!dynasys!jessea


[Moderator's Note: The FCC charge is made to compensate your local telco
for revenue lost when the long-distance 'separations and settlements'
method of compensation from AT&T was discontinued. For many decades, the
charges for long distance calls were kept higher than necessary, with
much of the revenue going back to subsidize local phone service. AT&T
paid this to the local telco each month.  It was decided that long
distance callers should not have to subsidize the local telcos, so AT&T
quit paying 'settlements' to the telcos, and eventually the cost of
long distance calls came down. In the meantime, the local telcos
complained they were losing money on the 'free rides' people got
between the local central office and the nearest long distance office
of the chosen carrier.  This charge you question, mandated by law, is
to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long
distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of
divestiture does; but them's the breaks.

The "Inside Wire Maintainence Charge" you do not have to pay. Its like
an insurance policy which says when anything goes wrong with the wires
inside your house once every fifty years or so, the local telco will
repair it for free. If you do not pay this, then if anything goes
wrong with the wire once it enters your premises, YOU have to fix it.
Again, this is a product of divestiture and modern ideas about how to
run a telephone company. You should be able to call the business
office and tell them you don't want this 'protection'. Generally
speaking, you can ignore the horror stories they will use to convince
you to keep it.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 15:22:10 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Reply-To: [e-mail]

   From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

   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!

One-upmanship: I've gotten phone calls from Noo Ingland Telebozo
because some telemarketer called my modem line and didn't think there
should be a modem at the other end of the number they called at
random.

# Henry Mensch    /   <[e-mail]>   /   E40-379 MIT,  Cambridge, MA
# <[e-mail]-relay> / <[e-mail]> / <[e-mail]>

[Moderator's Note: I had a lady turn me in once for giving her a modem
tone when she was trying to call Ruthie's Restaurant, a defunct
business place which did not pay its bills. My second line is their
old number from years ago. For people like her, I'd *love* to have
Caller*ID so I could demonstrate what getting your number polluted
beyond further use is all about. :) What evil lurks in the heart of
the Moderator? Only the Shadow Knows! har har har! PT]

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

From: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wroooong Number
Date: 7 Mar 90 22:26:40 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


John Higdon wrote about the Dedicated Wrong Number Telephone User.
(I'm glad to know you get dedicated ones, mine all seem to be
timeshared.)

Check out a magazine called RE/SEARCH.  They recently did an issue on
practical jokes, and one of the interviewees explained what to do when
you get a wrong number caller...

"Never waste a wrong number," he said.  When the party at the other
end asks for someone you've never heard of -- say, Rapoport -- here's
what you do.

    "Hi, is Rapoport there?"
    "I'll go check.  May I ask who's calling?"
    "Tufnertz."
    "Okay, just a minute."

Put the phone down and walk away.  Let your footsteps be heard walking
off.  Then walk back.

    "Hey, listen, Rapoport won't come to the phone.  He says he's still
very mad at you and doesn't want to talk about it."

 ...It works like a charm.  I've tried this several times now, and
I've *never* had one of these guys call me back!


            When are you
            Cosmic cowboys
            gonna get it through your head?
            I'll be mellow when I'm dead!
            I'll be mellow when I'm dead!
            I'll be mellow when I'm dead!
                -- Al Yankovic

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #151
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01580;
          8 Mar 90 3:38 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13262;
          8 Mar 90 2:02 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26234;
          8 Mar 90 0:57 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Mar 90 0:31:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #152
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Mar 90 00:30:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Cable Companies Versus Telcos (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison! (Edward S. Sachs)
    Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set (Gary W. Sanders)
    Re: Aspen vs. AUDIX (Cathy Kearns)
    Vista United Followup (John Bruner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm  EST
From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373
Subject: Cable Companies Versus Telcos


Commenting in part on the message from:
"Bill   B40417 2-7390 <[e-mail]>"
(BTW, just WHAT Federal Penitentiary is that address from, Bill?)

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]

In fact, you can expect your local cable TV company to become another
of the interlopers on the "monopoly" of your 'friendly neighborhood
phone company.' Today, in _every_ local cable system passing your
house, the vast majority of the spectrum below 50 megahertz is unused.
That capacity is enough for upwards of 30,000 plain old dial phone
lines passing every house in town.  The technology to use it is not
difficult to figure out, and even though your local Cable TV "expert,"
either the one with the chino trousers and toolbelt or the IROC (Idiot
Right Out of College) in the local office understands their function
only to be purveyors of prurient rock videos to the masses, you can
bet the HQ of the Cable TV Empire knows it.  (Think there aren't Cable
TV Empires? Learn about the cable TV acronym "MSO." It stands for
"Multi-System Operator." About a half-dozen of them own hundreds of
Cable TV systems all over the nation.  They pay upwards of $3,000 per
subscriber to buy cable systems, when the going price for a Telco is
about $1,700 per subscriber, with far more capital plant investment
and real current revenue in a Telco.They _must_ be buying to do
_something_ more than sell you 30 or 60 channels of TV for $35 a
month!

What is that "something?" It's coming clear it will be a dial tone
imported from a local Telco outside the territory of your current one.
The groundwork is already laid, clear through Federal Appeals courts
in which Arco Oil just outside Dallas imports the dial tone of
Southwestern Bell from Dallas into GTE of Texas territory. You can
betcha when Arco put those channels on a private microwave out of
frustration with GTE, SWBT even joined in the action to "protect the
franchise area" of its apparent 'brother of the cloth', GTE. But, Arco
took up the cudgel in the courts, arguing that dial tone gets used to
make _interstate_ connections, thus its provision and use in such ways
is _beyond_ the purview of state regulation. Next stop, if any: the
Supreme Court, and it is doubtful the Telcos want Tom Brokaw to tell
you about their certain loss if they take it there.

Reason: Somehow, the message of the FCC commissioners, that was even
printed by some, saying that now they had broken the interstate
monopoly, it was time to break the local monopoly, has been buried.
It is _no_real_secret_ that the Feds want you to have a _number_ of
choices in local telecommunications.

What do we see happening? Add up all the bits you have seen and notice
it as part of that big picture:

1.)  The Cable TV potential to give you a dial tone;

2.)  The FCC mandating both a "wireline" _and_ a "non-wireline"
     cellular company in every area;

3.)  The attempt of the FCC to foster opening of "Digital Termin-
     ation Services" (DTS) and "Digital Electronic Messaging
     Services" (DEMS) that went begging for use, so the FCC gave
     the frequencies away (a premature attempt on the part of
     Government to encourage "bypass" of the local Telco);

4.)  The emergence of "Alternative Access Carriers" (AACs) as
     characterized by the duplicate actions of Metropolitan
     Fiber Optics and Teleport in 20+ cities, as well as lesser
     know ones like Intermedia in Florida, building fiber in
     the streets, subway tunnels and other innovative rights-
     of way ... now demanding the local Telco be ordered by
     the Feds to interconnect with them and even let _them_
     be the bearers of dial tone to your premises;

5.)  The boom in VSATs, with no real minimum distance limit
     or restriction against being used across town;

6.)  The looming flood of PCNs, CLANs, "Telepoints" and such,
     all clamoring for scarce 900 Mhz spectrum space just now;
     and

7.)  NASA's work in PASS -Personal Access Satellite Systems - a
     technology to use the (present) upper reaches of the radio
     spectrum 30 gigahertz for you to get a dial tone directly
     from 23,000 miles in space.

All of these represent cracks in the monopoly of your "local telephone
monopoly" that the Feds have used or will use to give you more
choices.  They will _all_ need a "10xxx code" some day.

What shows that _some_ understand this is discussions now underway
to find a way to expand the "10xxx" numbering system past its present
999 number limit.

So, Cable TV getting "10xxx codes"? Sure, and probably plenty of
others, too.

(The preceding is Chapter 22 from an upcoming book tentatively titled,
"Things your local Mom Telco will never tell you."  Anybody out there
ready to front me the advance money on it ... or is it still too Jules
Verne-like for you to believe it could ever happen? The difference is:
It is _already_ happening! Just open your view and connect all the
events together!)

Readressing the end of the issue raised:

>I wonder if Bellcore or anyone else in authority is even aware
>of it, or gave permission for it. - PT

You betcha, Pat. It couldn't happen otherwise, because Bellcore is the
Official Keeper of the Book of 10xxx Codes.  If you take one and they
don't agree, they can issue it to somebody they recognize and get all
the Telcos in the nation to route your traffic to whomever Bellcore
decides to give that code to. For all we might castigate common
carriers for, stupidity of that level is not something I would accuse
them of.

Now, to address Bill's question about the non-participation
of the cellular companies in all this:

>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."

You're quite right, Bill. It is extremely logical. However, that is
the flaw. Logic does _not_ guide the highly-political way in which
these various technologies get employed.  The beaurocrats said that
the "10xxx" scheme was intended for INTER-Lata calling, and since the
cellular business is of course, INTR-Lata common carriage, they are
not privileged to be part of that numbering scheme.  No, rather, we
have an entirely separate complex that employs a different group of
IROCs to enter into "negotiations" for business deals for roamers
around the country. It's made a better form of full employment than
FDR could ever have dreamed up in the National Reconstruction Act
(have to be sure people understand _which_ NRA we talk about here)
era.  After all, why use a logical piece of technology when you can
confound the whole matter with "finanz-politik" as I imagine the
Germans would say it.

<Now getting down off soapbox and folding hair shirt away.>


Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, *fl
MCIMail dkimberlin; ATTMail !dkimberlin


[Moderator's Note: Quite coincidentally, most cable in Chicago is
provided by Group W. And they are losing money badly ... like a
million dollars *per month*. They want to sell out, and they actually
have a buyer. Guess who!  Pacific Telesis, that's who! Yes, one of the
first, or maybe the first excursion by a telco into cable TV will
happen right here in Chicago sometime later this spring, pending His
Honor signing off on it and the Chicago City Council getting properly
greased and oiled. They wanted to close the deal April 1, but that
will be impossible. We now expect a June 1 cutover. A subsidiary of
PacTel is being created to run things here.  PT]


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

From: Edward S Sachs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcecode: Poison!
Date: 6 Mar 90 13:47:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL


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

> 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... :-)

Just to bring times up to date a bit -- AT&T went to standard 3-ring
binders about 8 years ago (I guess the special order 4 ring jobs were
getting too expensive).  However, for many years, we ordered special
paper punched with seven (count-em, 7) holes, to fit both the old and
the new binders.  About a year or so ago, apparently because of the
difficulties in procuring the special order 7-hole paper, it exists no
more, and we now get the standard issue three hole stuff.  I've had to
discard many serviceable 4 ring binders and replace them with 3
ringers because it was too much trouble to repunch papers.  I still
have my 7-hole punch (a 3 hole job to which I added four additional
punch heads -- they used to stock the extra punch heads along with the
punches in the stockroom).

            Ed Sachs
            AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
            att!ihlpb!essachs, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders)
Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set
Date: 7 Mar 90 18:37:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders,51236,cb,3D246C,6148605965)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9

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

>> (complimentary things about the Plantronics cordless headset phone
>> sold by DAK)

Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that
you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid
the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard
Walkman type headset is what I need.  I already have a Plantronics
headset, but it is not cordless; it works great but I would like a
little more mobility.


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

Subject: Re: Aspen vs. AUDIX
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 16:08:37 PST
From: Cathy Kearns <[e-mail]>
Organization: Octel Communications, Milpitas, California


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 148, Message 4 of 11

>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?

Yes, it does seem strange that two quotes for voice mail systems are
off by 14 ports.  To answer the question "How does one properly size a
voice mail system? " I'd say start off with erlang tables.  Erlang
tables are an industry standard that uses traffic to size needs for
PBXs, ACD systems, Voice Processing systems, and determining trunking
requirements.  You should ask both vendors to show what numbers they
used to come up with those port quotes.  Perhaps one vendor was using
actual traffic statistics, and the other was guessing at them.

Your consultant is correct when saying system integration is the key,
however Octel systems DO integrate with System 85s.  Sales Engineering
informs me (I'm a development programer) that we have over 100 systems
in the field integrated to ATT System 85.  This means yes, the Octel
system answers your phone if you are not available and gives the
caller your personal greeting and allows him or her to leave a
message.

This means yes, if you have messages the message waiting light on your
phone will be lit or if your phone does not have a message waiting
light you will get stutter dial tone when you take your phone off
hook.  This means yes, if you dial into the system from your phone it
will not ask you to enter your extension (or mailbox number.) These
are just a few of the features that come with an integrated system.

We use a System 85 in our engineering lab to test integrations with
new features, I've seen it work. You should ask your Octel sales
person to get you a list of customers with Octel systems integrated
with System 85s.

All that work and at least one consultant hasn't noticed!

                Cathy Kearns
                Software Engineer
                Octel Communications
                cathy@octel


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

Date: Tue, 6 Mar 90 21:44:46 CST
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vista United Followup


Last month I described my encounter with "Vista United" while I was
staying onsite at Disney World in Florida.  When I dialed
0+NPA+NXX-XXXX there was a ringing tone, followed by a ka-bong, and I
was told "Thank you for using Vista United."  I called the hotel desk
and was assured that Vista United was their local exchange company and
they really did use AT&T for long distance.

They did not.

My telephone bill this month includes charges from Telecom*USA for the
calls I placed from Disney World.  I was not surprised to find that
the calls cost me more.  As I suspected at the time, I should have
avoided the Mickey Mouse telephones (on which 10288 did not work) and
placed my calls from the AT&T exhibit in Epcot's Communicore.

(I also note that Disney is raising their ticket prices and justifying
it not on the basis of expenses, but because they believe they are
providing enough value to warrant charging more.  Is this what Walt
would have wanted?)

John

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #152
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04056;
          8 Mar 90 4:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22067;
          8 Mar 90 3:06 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13262;
          8 Mar 90 2:02 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Mar 90 1:16:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #153
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Mar 90 01:15:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: How Easy Is It To 'Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (John Debert)
    Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Bob Sherman)
    Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
    Installing a Second Line in Apartment (Raymond Koverzin)
    Re: Name That Undersea Cable (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Jody Kravitz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm  EST
From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373
Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To 'Tap' Microwave Transmissions?


Respnding to: <[e-mail]>, Sat, 3 Mar 90

>        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?

Not as difficult as the mostly out-of-date textbooks would make you
think, Christopher.  The advances that gave you all the horsepower of
a PC and hand-held cellular radios have been applied to the test
equipment, too. This means complex processes that once would have
taken a van full of cranky analog test gear now are available in a
single box, albeit an expensive one. You could rent it for perhaps
$200 for a week, though.

For good old analog stuff, few people properly understand just how
much stuff the antennae splatter out "off axis," out of their main
lobe. (Somehow they can't relate that it's the same stuff that sets
off their radar detector when they pass one a mile or so away.)  It
means in that case that a smart tech with a home satellite TV
downconverter and a shortwave radio with a Beat Frequency Oscillator
(BFO) can even scan what's on them.

This sort of analog interception has been of enough concern that our
people intervened in London when the GPO (now British Telecom) built
their tower in the center of London, asking them to relocate some
microwave beams that would wind up passing over the Russian Embassy
there. It ain't THAT hard to do.

The question in both cases is: How much effort do you want to put
forth, and is there an easier way?

My answer is: There are a number of other vulnerabilities all those
phone lines have and easier ways to do it.

Problem is: If I told you here how amazingly simple it is to use far
less elegant methods and how they could (and have been) accomplished,
I would be 1.) Giving away some of my stock in trade that buys me
groceries for the kiddies (by counseling communications and DP
managers for a living), and 2.) Probably opening myself for
prosecution, if not at least getting on a subversive list someplace.

Suffice it to say that crooks are lazy people, and they have easier
ways than the Russians had to use in London.


Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL
MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin


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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions?
Date: 8 Mar 90 04:43:47 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas J Roberts) says:

> 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.

Why can't one aim their dish at the antenna they wish and pick up the
signal bouncing off it?  I hear that the Russians have been doing it
this way for some time.

> 2) The risk of being caught, and the potential penalties (civil and
> criminal) that result.

Is the risk really very high? How likely is it that someone doing this
will be noticed, let alone caught at it?

>     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].

Embassies & consulates are legally foreign soil and are not subject to
the laws of the host country. As for the latter part of this statement -
do you mean that the government can give itself permission? It's not
really clear what you mean.

You seem to think that it's nearly impossible to intercept links'
signals. I rather suspect that you would be speechless were you to
discover how easily and cheaply it could be done.


jd
[e-mail]

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

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Organization: U of Miami Dept. of Math. and Computer Science, Coral Gables, FL
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 06:27:57 GMT


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

>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.

Sorry to disappoint you. But when going through call forwarding or 3
way calling, the phone number of the phone YOU are using will be the
first number in the datastream, and will still be the number displayed
on the CPID display. You could go through the telco operator console
however, in which case her position code will show up, not your
number, however you will be charged operator assist charges.


 [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.   <<

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail
Date: 7 Mar 90 16:08:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> [Moderator's Note:  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]

Well, it's not quite *that* bad.  What you get is the Technical
Support Center.  What you want is the AT&T Mail Customer Assistance
Center, 1-800-MAIL-672 (1-800-624-5672); outside the U.S.A., call
201-668-6548.  If you have access to AT&T Mail, you can also send a
message to !atthelp on the service.  (The TSC was able to give me the
right number, and apologized for the confusion.)

In article <[e-mail]>, telotech![e-mail]
(Leonard A. Jaffe) writes:

> I read the above a day before I was put in charge of getting 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:

I've worked with the person Leonard mentions.  He's a very nice guy,
and I'm extremely grateful that he (or his secretary) helped you out.
But he's a systems engineer, not a customer support type; yes, he can
answer your questions, but not as easily as the CAC, and he's not
doing his "real" job when he's doing that.

>Leonard A. Jaffe, ...!uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!telotech!lenj

The obvious next question is, "How can I get to AT&T Mail from the
Internet?"  The answer is, for the moment, you can't.  Technically,
it's easy, since AT&T Mail supports uucp.  The problem is, any system
that set itself up as a gateway would be billed for messages it passes
on to the service, and wouldn't be able to charge its clients back.
AT&T management knows this is a limitation, knows that the competition
talks to the Internet, and knows that an Internet connection would be
a Good Thing.  If something develops, I'll let you know.


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

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

From: Raymond Koverzin <ntmtv![e-mail]>
Subject: Installing a Second Line in Apartment
Date: 7 Mar 90 19:07:11 GMT
Organization: Northern Telecom, Mtn. View, CA


I want to install a second phone line in my aparment.  I called Pac
Bell and they stated that can provide the second line "up to the wall
of the apartment building" for the basic service activation charge.

I talked to the landlord and he stated that he does not know if the
apartments are properly wired for a second line.  He said that I would
have to get a Pac Bell service person in to check into it.

I have checked behind the phone outlet and there are two twisted pairs
connected to the outlet.  How can I be sure that the second pair is
hooked up to the local CO and that all I need is service activation?
Is it likely that the second line has to be connected at the pedestal
at the front entrance to the apartment complex, thus I will need to
get a service technician to make the connection AND verify that the
line is good inside my apartment.

If that is the case, then I don't consider the second line is "wired
up to the wall of the apartment building."  It is only up to the
pedestal.

How much should I expect to pay for a Pac Bell service tech?  I don't
want to pay for having him install a second outlet; I can do that
myself.

The apartment complex, I believe, is about 5 years old.

Please post your replies because I think a lot of people would be
interested in the replies.  But if you prefer, you can email me
directly.

Thanks.

Ray

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

Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm  EST
From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373
Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable


Responding to John R. Levine's question, "Name That Undersea Cable,"
posted Thu, 1 Mar 90:

>.." 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?"

Doubtful it is one of the transoceanic cables, John. Those are usually
_very_well_ protected in conduits running pretty directly from the
shore station toward the shoreline. That is _not_ to say the route is
in a straght line, but it's usually in the streets of the town where
the cable station is, not 30 miles up the shore.

As to just _what_ you find there, the operative word on the sign is
"transcontinental."  That's one of the forms of several signs used by
AT&T over the years for coaxial cable routes across the country.  In
an area like the Jersey Shore, it could in fact be the coaxial route
from Tuckerton carrying its circuits into New York for termination on
a switching machine, or even a coaxial route between AT&T facilities
along the shore.  You know, Ocean Gate is where AT&T has one of its
shortwave stations that is still partially operative, for the ships at
sea on shortwave radio.  In the era that Ocean Gate was built, coaxial
would have been the medium of choice to carry its circuits back to NYC
for interconnection to the domestic network.

As to transoceanic cables in general, many people would be sur- prised
to know just how many there have been, dating in telegraphy from
_long_ before the era of undersea telephone cables. One statistic I
have in my library is that Cable & Wireless alone had 155,000
_nautical_miles_ (the LONG miles) of telegraph cables still in use in
the 1950's.  I personally had involvement in the restoration of a
telegraph cable running from Havana to Key West in 1968, when it
finally failed from a cut. Even later in the early 1970's that
_same_old_cable_ was put back into service using a custom-built FSK
system (get this: 250 Watts of low-frequency audio on 80 miles of DC
telegraph cable under the Straits of Florida.  Bet some environmentalists
will find a reason to protest that one now that I've revealed it!).

Other cables are (or were) in surprising places. One I know of was
Western Union's cable station simply called "Rockaway."  It is located
just inshore of Rockaway Beach at Brooklyn, where WUTCo terminated
telegraphic cable circuits to a _major,_ _multinational_ telegraphic
interchange point on the island of Horta in the Azores. (Cables of
American, English, Italian and German interests all landed on Horta,
crossing paths between Europe and both North and South America.
Anyhow, the workers at Rockaway were good old New York City boys who
lived in Brooklyn and even rode the subway to work!

(I was privileged to work with some of these heroes of what I call
"megalithic telecommunications" in their later years; the major lesson
I learned from them was that there _was_ life before Bell Labs and
Cliff Robertson! Someday, somehow, all of this _has_ to get into a
book _and_ the curricula of the courses now being foisted as learning
a "proper appreciation" of the technology of telecommunications!

How about it?  Any takers out there? I have an extensive source of
telecommunications history that exists only in mostly lost company
publications and personal archives of some of those giants I was
privileged to work with.


Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL
MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin


[Moderator's Note: Please do share some of that history with us. From
at least a few of the messages I get here, I think some readers
believe the telephone was invented circa 1980.   PT]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Mar 90 21:58:04 PST
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller

>There is a particular breed of telephone user that I would greatly
>like to see exterminated. It is the Dedicated Wrong Number Caller.
    .
    .

I live in rural San Diego County.  The former owner of my
phone number was a Mexican who tanned hides.  This was his home
number, but he must have given his home number to lots of people.
Many of the callers did not speak English. Their persistance would
lead me to believe he owed them money.

When I lived on the University of Illinois campus, I shared the first
floor of an old "mansion" with 3 other guys.  I was the only one who
was employed, so I had the only phone in the house.  I programmed
computers, and worked weird hours.  I had call forwarding.  In order
to get any sleep, I would routinely forward my calls to the time &
temperature lady when I was tired.

One night I get this call from repair service.  "Is anything wrong
with your phone ?"  "No", I respond, sleepily.  Well, it seems that my
roommates's friend had hassled the operator to tears trying to get her
to put his call through to my roomate.  The operator had never heard
of call forwarding.  The guy at repair service seemed amused when I
explained to him that my phone really was working fine, and that
forwrding was how I expressed my aggrevation at my roommate's friends
using my phone.

The next day, it was no longer possible to forward calls to the time &
temperature lady.


Jody

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #153
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11904;
          9 Mar 90 0:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18231;
          8 Mar 90 22:16 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09473;
          8 Mar 90 21:09 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:22:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #154
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:21:53 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    A History of Telco Cross-Subsidies (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Re: Modifying Cordless Phones (John Higdon)
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Michael Morrell)
    Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions? (Patrick L. Reilly)
    Re: Proposed Triangle Area Toll-Free Calling Plan (Robert E. Zabloudil)
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill (Andrew Payne)
    Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Will Martin)
    Re: London 071, 081 Split (Kevin Hopkins)
    Re: Name That Undersea Cable (Tom Lowe)
    Re: COCOTs and Long Distance (Jim Rees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm  EST
From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373
Subject: A History of Telco Cross-Subsidies


A bit of syncophancy (check THAT one in your thesaurus!) with
our moderator on the issue of cross-subsidy:

>[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.

>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]

Right on, Pat!  It seems the history has been _so_completely_ obscured
that people _do_not_ comprehend the "deal" that AT&T concocted with
the Feds in 1913.  PLEASE, EVERYBODY, AFTER ME: It was a pure, plain,
simple Anti-Trust Consent Decree that the Bell interests sent a
relatively minor VP named Kingsbury down to Washington to sign.  Then,
as now, you _never_ expose your King to the opposing Army, and AT&T
knew how to play chess in 1913, you betcha.  They sent Kingsbury with
instructions, and to every demand he was exposed to, he had to "check
with HQ" to get approval.

What the Feds did do in 1913 was to craft a pretty neat deal to get
the latest in (1913) technology spread out to all of us, without
requiring Government funding; getting us all to pay for it, while
creating an industry that employed millions and expanded the economy.
Some pretty smart work in retrospect, because for a lot of decades, it
accomplished something we all wanted that _did_ benefit us all.  The
monopoly on the rental of the terminal equipment was one Bell grabbed
off state-by-state, and it wasn't so bad at the outset as it helped to
fund the whole project.

For those who _really_ want to understand this point, read some of the
state-by-state history of the Feds breaking up the terminal monopoly.
North Carolina may have been the most ridiculous approach suggested.
Their PUC even for a while mandated you could own your own phone for
use _only_ on a _second_line you rented for INTERstate calls, but you
had to have a "primary" line with a Telco-rented phone for LOCAL and
INTRAstate calls!  That's how silly the politicians can get with this
simple, buggy-whip-era (think about that!) technology.

je regret, mes amis, qui votre lecteurs n'compris pas l'hist- oire de
le Systeme Bell vraiment.  Ils sont present seule- ment l'version de
Cliff Robertson.  Suivant, nous avons beau- coup de les IROCs (Idiots
Right Out of College) pursuivant les affaires du telecommunications
aujourd'hui.

et maintenant, notre moderateur:


Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL
MCIMail dkimberlin;  AT&TMail !dkimberlin


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modifying Cordless Phones
Date: 7 Mar 90 18:45:37 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steck Thomas <[e-mail]> writes:

> I am the owner of a Uniden cordless phone.
> [...]
> My question is this - how hard is it to install an external antenna of
> some sort to boost the reception?

Not very hard, but not very effective, either. Also, probably not very
legal. If you are experiencing interference, then simply installing a
bigger antenna will bring in more noise along with signal and your net
gain will be zero. Also, cordless phones operate under a section of
the rules that are very strict regarding antenna size in addition to
transmitter power. Tampering in any way with the RF section (including
antenna) of a cordless phone voids FCC type acceptance.

You probably ought to look into a cordless model that can better deal
with the interference. Take a serious look at the AT&T 5500.


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

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

From: Michael Morrell <hplabs!hpda![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 7 Mar 90 21:44:16 GMT
Organization: HP System Architecture Lab, Cupertino


>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).

Do others think this is a bad feature?  I understand you can save
money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the
phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing
(i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything).  Also,
for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine,
they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4).
This feature should be illegal.


   Michael


[Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or
would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages
waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to
cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message. Years ago, telco
security people referred to schemes involving letting the phone ring a
certain number of times, hanging up and dialing over as 'constructive
messages'; meaning telco believed a message had been delivered,
regardless of no voice on the line. When I saw AT&T answering machines
with 'Toll Saver' as a feature *they* were marketing, I gave up my
campaign.  PT]

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

From: "Patrick L. Reilly" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Easy Is It To `Tap' Microwave Transmissions?
Date: 8 Mar 90 16:50:38 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


techwood![e-mail] (John Wheeler) writes:

>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.....

In a previous life as a toll center engineer we would insert tones in
a microwave channel in order to trace performance. A similiar practice
is used to "tap" microwave lines.

I cannot tell you how to do it (and it is easy despite what you may
here from this group) since it is ILLEGAL. Also a tad expensive, say
about $50K for the equipment.

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposed Triangle Area Toll-Free Calling Plan
Date: 8 Mar 90 19:08:57 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Tell) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 149, Message 2 of 8

>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?

As I recall reading somewhere, at least back in the Iowa/Illinois
area, your basic local rate is based to a degree on how many phones
you can reach toll-free.  Thus, by expanding your toll-free area, you
can call more phones "free", making your basic service more valuable,
so the phone company can charge you more.  If you make a lot of calls
to the "fringe" areas, you'll probably come out ahead; if you're a
little old lady only calling your friend across the street, you may
lose a little on the deal.


Bob Zabloudil
Opinions my own, etc.

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

From: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Date: 8 Mar 90 20:30:34 GMT
Reply-To: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


In article <[e-mail]> "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys!jessea@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

>I know this is going to sound strange, but I can never get a straight
>answer from the phone company.  Can anyone tell me what the "Federal
>Communications Commission Toll Access Charge" is and why I have to pay
>it?

>Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"?  I'm tired
>of not knowing what I'm paying for and why.  Thanks in advance to
>anyone that can answer these mysterious questions.  :-)

    On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond
a certain distance from the CO.  I don't recall the name of the charge
or the amount.

    Anyone know the basis for this charge?  What is the distance
beyond which the charge applies?  (My parents are less than 1.5 miles
from the CO, and the phone lines follow the shortest road to the CO
(e.g. they are about 1.5 miles long too).  Also, my parents are one of
the closer ones: A friend if mine is more than 25 miles from the
exchange.)

=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =
Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI        UUCP:  ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne
                          INTERNET:  [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: This is indeed very strange. Are you sure this is
how the charge is described? Could it be a 'foreign exchange' (or FX)
charge for being served (at their request) from a CO other than the
one intended to serve them?  Can you give more specifics?   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 14:53:07 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card?


What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what
motivation the consumer has to get it. The usual "affiliate" type
credit cards which have an organization logo or symbol on them either
provide some benefit to the organization (a charity or
political-lobbying group gets some income based on the amount charged
on the cards with its logo), or the consumer gets some sort of benefit --
for example, each $100 charged on the card gets the cardholder a $1
credit that can be used for merchandise from a catalog from the
sponsoring organization, like a sports team.

Somehow I don't think AT&T can convince people that it deserves
charitable contributions, so I think the former motivation is out... :-)

So is this AT&T card giving the cardholder credits against his AT&T
bills at some percentage of the amount charged? Or does charging $1000
get you a T-shirt with the AT&T Deathstar on it? :-)


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 90 18:41:17 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


In v10i114 John Pettitt <[e-mail]> reported:

-> 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".

I tried this from outside London (Nottingham - 0602), unlike John, and
it also works. If you get the correct code the call completes put if
you get the wrong one a recorded message is played saying:

"Sorry, you have used the wrong code. Please redial replacing 071 with
081.  British Telecom have not charged for this call." The 071/081 are
obviously reversed for the other new area code.

BT must have informed large institutions/companies of the change, and
especially their telephone people, as the new codes work from behind
the PBX here at work. The new codes were blocked a couple of months
ago when I last tried.

The little leaflet I acquired from BT also gave the new international
codes for London from Eire to the UK after 6th May 1990. The will be
03 071 and 03 081 respectively.  This does not fit into scheme used
for major metropolitan areas, such as Birmingham and Manchester, but
into the scheme used for the rest of the UK. Thus from Eire:

031        London (until 6th May)        STD code 01
032        Birmingham            STD code 021
033        Edinburgh            STD code 031
034        Glasgow                STD code 041
035        Liverpool            STD code 051
036        Manchester            STD code 061
03 + STD code*    Other areas

* including leading zero

            Kev.

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

Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable
Date: 8 Mar 90 19:18:39 EST (Thu)
From: Tom Lowe <[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.

 From an AT&T Cable Location Map that was supplied by AT&T to a Consulting
Engineering firm where my wife is an engineer:

The cable that John is asking about is the 'Bermuda "A" Cable'.  It
starts from a building located on Beach Avenue in Manahawkin, NJ.
Manahawkin is a mainland town located across the bay from Long Beach
Island, on which is the little town of Harvey Cedars.  I think the
antenna array John is talking about is at this same location.  I do
believe that this location is where they communicate to Ships at sea
for AT&T's High Seas service.

Down in Tuckerton, which is about 6 miles south of Manahawkin and is
also a mainland town across the bay from Long Beach Island (which is
18 miles long, north to south) is another AT&T Office from which
TAT#4, TAT#7, TAT#8 start.  These three cables run under Little Egg
Harbor and run across Long Beach Island through a little town called
Beach Haven.

Those are the only cables on the map I have, which is for Ocean County,
New Jersey.


Tom Lowe
AT&T Bell Labs
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: COCOTs and Long Distance
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:22:34 GMT


> 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.

The latest AT&T business equipment catalog, which I got in the mail
yesterday, lists a monthly service whereby the latest rate information
is automatically downloaded to your customer-owned payphone once a
month.

The catalog is a marvel of marketing hype and techno gobbledy-gook.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #154
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13799;
          9 Mar 90 1:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29250;
          8 Mar 90 23:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad18231;
          8 Mar 90 22:16 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:45:49 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #155
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:45:18 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: CPID/ANI Developments (Chris Johnson)
    Re: CPID/ANI and Privacy Research (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Re: More "I Want My ANI" (Tom Lowe)
    Re: More "I Want My ANI" (John Owens)
    Wanted: CCS7 Specs (Lester Hiraki)
    Caller*ID Complaints, Again (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Alternate Long Distance Carriers (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Data Feed over Cable TV (Brian Kantor)
    Changing to MCI Long Distance (Paul Wilczynski)
    508/617 Being in the Same LATA (Jon Solomon)
    Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Larry Campbell)
    Re: Wroooong Number (Jerry Leichter)
    Special Issue This Weekend: ECPA Lawsuit (TELECOM Moderator)
    AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Insight Magazine via J. Lockhard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI Developments
Date: 6 Mar 90 23:15:17 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN


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

And other suggestions, mostly for the business world.  My warped mind,
however, immediately jumped to the more personal world.

This will make it a lot harder to cheat on a spouse when your home has
Caller ID.  Or a significant other.

Gee, even folks who are friends of yours but enemies of each other could
take advantage(?) of Caller ID:

"You called me last night from Nancy's house!  How could you?  She's an
egotistical bitch and I can't stand the sight of her.  You'd rather
spend time with that snot then watch TV with me?"

I guess the answer has to be: prepare thyself for a new generation of
telecommunications.  No more anonymity at the whim of the moment.

Who has never made a crank call?  *cough*


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

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

Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm  EST
From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373
Subject: Re: CPID/ANI and Privacy Research


Responding to Bridger Mitchell's inquiry about papers:

>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?"

I would suggest contact with Vic Toth, Principal of V.J.Toth, P.C. in
Reston, VA. Vic is on a Presidential advisory council in Washington
and pretty deeply into issues of Caller ID, looking into what
legislative action should be taken at the Federal level. He can be
E-Mailed on MCIMail under the imposing username of "The Law Offices of
Victor Toth."


Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL
MCIMail: dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin

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

Subject: Re: More "I Want My ANI"
Date: 8 Mar 90 08:21:33 EST (Thu)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


> [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]

We don't have Caller*ID in our exchange yet (609-698), but I was able to take
advantage of Caller*ID technology indirectly.  One night we started getting
calls where the caller would say nothing.  The first two times I stayed on
3 or 4 minutes before hanging up.  The third time, I waited about 30 seconds
then said "This New Caller*ID we just signed up for sure is handy.  The police
will be giving you a call tomorrow"   at which point I heard a "CLICK" from
the other end.  Never heard from him again!


Tom Lowe
AT&T Bell Labs
[e-mail]

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

Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership
Subject: Re: More "I Want My ANI"
Date: 8 Mar 90 16:46:08 EST (Thu)
From: John Owens <[e-mail]>


> [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 haven't seen that one, but I've seen two others.  One involves two
kids left alone; the older brother is trying to explain to the younger
brother only to answer the phone if the display shows mom or dad's
work number, but the younger brother doesn't pay any attention to him.
I didn't think it was very effective, and don't remember it well.

The other has three boys of "wonder years" age making a prank phone
call to a young woman (possibly their school teacher?).  One deepens
his voice and tries to arrange a date with the woman.  She figures it
out, smiles a sly smile, and checks her Caller*ID box.  (I'm not sure
if she recognizes the number or not.)  She says she'll have to think
about it and asks if she can call him back.  The kid says "I don't
give out my number."  She says "that's ok" and reads his number back
to him.  She also asks if his mother is home.  The kid is left staring
at the receiver with an astonished look on his face.

They're trying very hard....


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

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

From: Lester Hiraki <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: CCS7 Specs
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 13:24:51 EST


I am looking for the technical specifications on Signalling System #7,
the protocol which carries the notorious Caller*ID information
discussed at great length here.

Who publishes this?  How can I get a copy?  Where can I obtain one?
As I am in Canada, I would prefer a local source.  Are you Canadians
out there?!

Thanks in advance.

Sorry, no sig - but email to:

[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 2:09:32 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Complaints Again


Once again the Caller*ID discussion has gotten away from the technical
aspects of the service and into the politics involved. We went through
all this last December, and you may recall one of my New Year's
Resolutions was no more Caller*ID messages.

Well, admittedly we have slipped away from that admirable goal. Once again
we will cut the topic off and ask that further mention be in a technical
perspective only. No more 'it is good, or it is bad'. I admit I am guilty
of this also... and it is a tempting subject .. one that could produce
many, many more Digests.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm  EST
From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373
Subject: Re: Alternate Long Distance Carriers


Responding to Steve Kass' <[e-mail]> post of 2 Mar 90

>       "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."

And Steve went on to say the cupboard was bare.  Well, Steve, there IS
a place to find it all.  It goes by the name COMPTEL - the Competitive
Telecommunications Association, based in Washington, DC.  COMPTEL has
about 350 members, has just completed a convention near Miami that
rated an FCC Commissioner adressing it, and I think your inquiry to them
will bear some fruit.  It might cost 15 or 25 bucks for some paper they
want to sell you, but it will be pretty authoritative.


Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL
MCIMail dkimberlin; AT&TMail !dkimberlin


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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data Feed over Cable TV
Date: 8 Mar 90 16:34:32 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


In this month's bill for Southwestern Cable TV in San Diego there
arrived a number of glossy inserts.  One is quite interesting:

A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are
being offered starting April 1.  The latter distributes IBM-PClone
games for children and others over the cable system, two per week.

According to the glossy, X-PRESS is a "constant stream of news and
information from around the world, plus sports, weather,
entertainment, and lifestyle reports.  It's used in over 2,500 schools
nationwide as a classroom teaching aid."  (and on and on)

It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic
box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser
interface.  My GUESS is it's a simple subcarrier modem, probably
picking up 4800 bps SCA data transmissions on one of the many FM-band
transmissions on the cable (our cable system runs many of the
subscription-TV services' audio as cable-FM stations, as well as the
BBC world service, NOAA weather, and suchlike).

It would seem that the above services are offered for $10 a month.
However, to attract the money-grubbing capitalists, for an additional
$20 a month, "X*PRESS Executive" offers stock market quotes and
analysis, apparently compatable with some of the popular PC
financial/get-rich-quick programs.

Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to
leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in
electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup).

The glossy credits this whole scheme to "X*PRESS, 4643 S Ulster
Street, Suite 340, Denver CO 80237", on 800-772-6397.  That number was
busy the one time I tried to call it.

I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service
isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on
the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio.

As if 10MB/day of USENET wasn't enough incoming information overload
already.

    - Brian

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 11:56 EST
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Changing to MCI Long Distance


I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them.

They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business
office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us
anymore".

Interesting.


Paul Wilczynski

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 12:46:12 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: 508/617 Being in the Same LATA


They are. Calls from 508-XXX and 617-XXX are handled by New England
Telephone.

However, the same argument (that some towns are split by lata
boundries) applies to towns on the 413/508 boundry. In that case, NET
leases intteroffice trunks from ATT and provides local calling for the
towns in question.  All of this is specifically tarriffed.


jsol

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller
Date: 8 Mar 90 02:41:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.


Even worse, one of my roommates once took a call that went like this:

Caller (male):  "Is Kathy there?"

John: "No, there's no one here by that name."

Caller (angrily): "Yeah, right.  I *know* she's there.  You tell her
to get her butt on the phone!"

John: "What?  Really, there's no one here by that name!  You must have the
wrong number!"

Caller (shouting): "Wrong number my ass, I know she's hiding out there, so
get her on the phone right NOW before I hafta HURT somebody!"

[At which point John gives the guy a few choice words and hangs up.  The
guy called back three or four times before he finally either popped an artery
or found Kathy through other means.]


Larry Campbell                          The Boston Software Works, Inc.
[e-mail]                 120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell                   Boston, MA 02109


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wroooong Number
Date: 8 Mar 90 07:39:00 EST
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)


Speaking of ways to deal with persistent wrong numbers ... Years back,
a friend of mine had a number that differed by one digit from the
local Catholic Church.  He got many calls for them: he describes the
typical one as "What time is 6AM Mass?"

After being awakened once too often - he was on one of those typical
graduate student schedules, sleeping from 3AM to 11AM - he once claims
to have responded to the question, "Can I speak to Father O'neil
please" with "Oh, I'm sorry, the Father is really MUCH too drunk to
come to the phone right now.  Would you like to leave a message?"

                -- Jerry

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:46:31 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue This Weekend: ECPA Lawsuit


Mr. Henson has kindly provided a copy of the lawsuit his organization
filed against the municipal government in his town relevant to
violations of federal law pertaining to electronic mail. I will send
out a special issue over the weekend -- probably Saturday sometime --
with this file.


Patrick Townson

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

From: John Lockard  <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:46:31 CST

     AT&T is expanding its translation services to make it easier for
consumers and businesses to communicate with non-English-speeking
people.

     The company's Langauge Line Service, providing access to
telephone interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects, is
already available to businesses, which pay a one-time subscription fee
of $1,000 to $1,500, monthly charges of $25 to $50, and a per minute
charge of $1.94 to $2.75.  Later this year, AT&T plans to introduce a
non-subscription service that will allow occasional customers to use
and interpreter for $3.50 per minute with the charges added to their
phone bill.

     Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is
reached by dialing a toll-free number.  An operator determines the
language needed and connects the caller to the appropriate
interpreter, who then translates for the parties in a three-way
conference call.  Overseas travelers in countries that allow
international toll-free dialing would also have access to the service.

 From Insight, March 12, 1990.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #155
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19516;
          9 Mar 90 4:18 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12965;
          9 Mar 90 2:26 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22617;
          9 Mar 90 1:22 CST
Date:     Fri, 9 Mar 90 1:19:50 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #156
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 9 Mar 90 01:19:07 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Trying to Call Dabo Singkep (Jim Rees)
    Switch Applications (Bernard Mckeever)
    ISDN Tariffed in California (John Gilmore)
    TCP/IP <-> ISDN Interoperation Mailing-List (Johnny Zweig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed Mar 07, 1990 11:32 pm  EST
From: Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373
Subject: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted


Commenting on W T Sykes' <[e-mail]> post of the AP story
about 10-digit-dialing in NC to avoid a new area code:

>        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 there is no other solution.

Oh, what a tangled web of technology we weave ... and then refuse to
let go of. As if the Bell Labs-induced way of establishing the
"Numbering Plan Area" system was cast in concrete by some previous
generation of moguls. In fact, at the time, our U.S. Bell System had
been caught with its drawers down about subscriber-dialed intercity
calls.

Then-Chairman of AT&T, Fred Kappel, took a plane trip to "one of those
funny little countries over there" called Sweden to see for himself
that the rumor was true about telephone subscribers dialing their own
calls between cities.  It was true. A "funny little company" named L.
M. Ericsson (are you beginning to notice that name here, now, insular
fellow Americans?) had indeed supplied its PTT with subscriber-dialed
long distance equipment, and they were, in fact, selling it to other
"funny little countries out there."

Kappel came back with a mandate: "We're gonna do it, too (sic)."  He
set Bell Labs to task: Do we make it or buy the Ericsson technology?
Well, if you were ever around at that point in time, you _knew_ the
answer, commonly called "NIH, Not Invented Here."  Yep, we _had_ to be
like Frank Sinatra and do it _our_way_.

That included some clever proofs that we could economize on the
(then-mechanical relay-tree) logic and have a finite number of digits
for any valid number, 7 local, 10 long distance.

The "inefficiency" of the "Ericsson Plan" was that it was open-ended,
and could have any number of digits (up to about 31). In that era, the
only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was to time
and wait to see if any more digits followed.  It was therefore widely
dubbed (in American circles) as foolishly uneconomical.  As could be
expected, decades of telephone employees were taught a Superior
American Way had been invented.

In fact, the reason Ericsson did that was that even then, they had a
"World View" we Americans still do not have. They left their plan
open-ended so it could accommodate almost any numbering scheme the
world might evolve to.

What Ericsson did was to take their plan to the CCITT (another "funny
little bunch of people over there") and it ultimately became the CCITT
World Numbering Plan, which, of course, the insular Americans could
care less about.

And now, we have run out of Area Codes, while the rest of the world
has for 40 years grown up with a system that has almost limitless
variations and flexibility.

Which raises the question: Who was really right back then 40 years
ago?  Could we EVER admit that Bell Labs just _might_ have been
short-sighted once?  Or does it hurt too much to admit that
possibility?


Donald E. Kimberlin, Safety Harbor, FL
MCIMail: dkimberlin;  AT&TMail !dkimberlin


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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Trying to Call Dabo Singkep
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 18:17:33 GMT


For the last two weeks I've been trying to telephone a friend in Dabo
Singkep, Riau, Indonesia.  This place is pretty isolated.  It's on an
island off the north coast of Sumatra, several days by small, leaky
inter-island boat from either Singapore or Jambi in Sumatra.  The
phone I'm trying to call is one of a handful on the island.  It's in
the hotel.  It has a hand crank and a two-digit number.

My first try, I called the AT&T operator and asked for the city code
for Dabo Singkep.  She typed away at her computer, asked me to spell
it for her several times, then called the operator in Indonesia.  The
operator in Indonesia told her it couldn't be dialled direct.  She
said she would have to ring up the operator in Pekanbaru, which she
did, but that operator couldn't get through to Dabo (she didn't say
why not).

I've tried several times since.  Often the Indonesian operator simply
doesn't answer.  Sometimes she does, but can't reach the operator in
Pekanbaru.  Once the Pekanbaru operator claimed she had got to the
phone line but it was busy.

Seems to me that in the old days, before IDD, when you called overseas
you would first call the operator (there was only one back then), give
her the number, then she would do whatever necessary to put the call
through then call you back.  They don't seem to want to do that any
more.  Half the time I don't even get through to the operator in
Indonesia, because the AT&T operator is only willing to stay on the
line for about a minute trying to reach Indonesia.

Should I give up?

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

From: Bernard Mckeever <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switch Applications
Date: 8 Mar 90 14:39:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In an earlier posting the following was asked:

>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 prominence, 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

Well I have to apologize for taking so long with a reply but I have
been out of town for a few weeks on business and just got caught up on
the news in this group. I am in the middle of a transfer to Denver so
this reply may be a little short.

Switching systems come in two basic flavors, LOCAL and TANDEM. Now of
course the LOCAL TANDEM switch does a little of both. The local switch
connects lines to lines and lines to LOCAL TRUNKS [interoffice/
intraexchange].  The TANDEM switch connects TOLL TRUNKS
to TOLL TRUNKS and TOLL TRUNKS to TOLL CONNECT TRUNKS. The LOCAL
TANDEM may connect to TOLL TRUNKS directly as may some local switches.
Easy so far. Most local [exchange] switches and local tandem switches
use 2-wire trunks. Most toll switches use 4-wire trunks. In addition
to the intended use as a "public" switch, most of the systems
mentioned also saw life, in smaller versions, as PBXs.

Now that we have the basics, and the CAPS, out of the way a few words
from our sponsor. Much of the information that follows comes from
available sources.  My thanks to Notes on the Network, Notes on Direct
Distance Dialing, and of course Engineering and Operations in the Bell
System. The opinions expressed are mine and the accurate information
and other good stuff belongs to them. Whatever you do, don't throw
away old references just because a new one is issued, you may lose a
bit of history in the process.

LOCAL SWITCHING

Automatic switching equipment started to appear in general use in
1919.  [invented in 1889 by A. B. Strowger] The Step by Step [SXS]
equipment was installed and [I believe] manufactured by Automatic
Electric. In 1926 Western Electric introduced its own version the
#1SXS. This system, as many can attest, is still used in many areas.
Your basic local system, SXS was "improved" to provide 2-wire toll
service as early as 1920.  By 1940 SXS Tandem was able to provide
Centralized Automatic Message Accounting [CAMA]. SXS spawned several
variations used as Community Dial Offices [CDO]. In the beginning SXS
was not considered economical for large cities so a new development
began on a switcher for large cities.

The 1st Panel office was placed in service in 1921. This too was a
local switch later adapted to local tandem operations. Peaking in the
1950s, the last Panel office was retired on Sept.11,1982 in Newark
N.J.

In 1938 the #1XB system was introduced as a "metropolitan" office.
The #1XB was faster and bigger than earlier electro-mechanical offices
but, not quite "common control".

That was the job of the #5XB introduced in 1948. #5XB is capable of
providing "most" of the features we associate with the modern
switching network. A variation the #5XB is the XBT [crossbar tandem]
designed to provide only toll switching connections.

NOTE: At the end of this article I will list several small application
modifications on the above switching systems.

TOLL SWITCHING

In addition to the mentioned toll function provided by local switchers,
several toll only switches were developed.

WOOPS I am running out of time. What follows is only a short list.  Is
someone has the time feel free to fill in the blanks. If I have NET
access at my new location I will try to follow-up.

1943 [Philadelphia] #4 Crossbar System improved in 1953 it became known
as the #4A Crossbar System [what else]

Electronic Switching Systems [stored program control]

#1ESS

1st trial 1960 in Morris Ill. Introduced in 1965 Succasunna N.J.
Local Metropolitan applications. Upgraded several times.  1968 local
tandem 1974 2-wire toll 1976 #1AESS [New Processor] 1977 4-wire toll

#2ESS

1970 Local Suburban

1976 #2BESS same application [I have no idea what happened to the
     #2AESS]

#3ESS

1976 Local Rural

#4ESS

1976 Large 4-wire toll

#5ESS

1982 ALL OF THE ABOVE [after a little development]

Misc. Switching Systems [no particular order]

1979 10A RSS local small rural [a remote linked to a #1A or #2B ESS]

5A RMS and ORM are remote and optical remote modules of a #5ESS switch

#1/1A ESS HILO small/medium 4-wire toll on a 2-wire path

And last but not least all sorts of CAMA and operator switching systems.

I know I have missed a few of the systems and did not provide all
the detail available. Sorry for the abrupt ending but.......


Hope to be in touch soon,
Bernie McKeever

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 01:22:26 PST
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Tariffed in California


We got a brochure last week about ISDN from PacBell after inquiring
about it a month or two ago.  The 10-page color brochure was
completely information-free, so we called to see what was up.  They
didn't know, but promised to hunt around, and a few days later we
found that ISDN has been approved on a 2-year temporary tariff in
California.

The catch is, it's part of Centrex service, which currently has a
minimum of 20 lines.  They have a request in to the PUC to reduce that
to 2 lines, making it useful for a lot more people.

The second catch is, it only works in single central offices so far,
both because of 56 versus 64 kbit problems and because the CO's built
by different manufacturers don't talk to each other very well yet, he
said.  E.g. they don't pass the out-of-band call setup data in a
standard way.  The "island" problem is true, at least temporarily.

The third catch is, today you can only get it in El Segundo.  Within a
few months they will offer it in southern Fremont; downtown SF;
Sunnyvale; and San Bruno/South San Francisco.  None of those sites
covers where my company wants service anyway.

The pricing looked utterly reasonable; it was about $3.50/line/mo more
than regular Centrex service, which is the same price as regular
business phone service.  Installation charges were $600 plus about
$70/line, still half the price of 56kbit leased line installation.
(Hmm, but you need it on both ends!)

You have to be within 10,000 copper feet of the wire center.  They
expect no trouble with that in SF and Fremont (Fremont's wire center
runs fiber out to chambers in industrial parks, with copper from
there; max run about 2000 ft.)  Sunnyvale's wire center serves stuff
along the Central Expressway so it's pretty straight easy runs.  San
Bruno/SSF is mountainous and is the 'test case' for long bumpy runs.

The representative told me that they expect to be able to offer wide
area ISDN (not in the same wire center) by the end of the year, but it
will be '94-'95 before it's "ubiquitous".  They don't expect to add
any more CO's to the test before the end of the year.  His explanation
was that PacBell would love to convert the CO's as fast as possible
but the PUC is balking at making the ratepayers pay the cost of doing
so.

[[ I wish the moderator would get back to giving entertaining
   anecdotes about telephony as advertised, rather than smearing people
   by innuendo who can't respond.  I thought the moderator was to
   prevent flames, not fan them.  -- gnu ]]


[Moderator's Note: I find this last paragraph hard to comprehend. Are
you suggesting there was no truth to the messages regards jolnet and
the other sites shut down? And who, at any time, has been forbidden to
respond here? Did not Charlie Boykin respond? Wasn't Rich Andrews
invited to respond? What sir, precisely do you define as an 'entertaining
anecdote about telephony', and where did I advertise this? Finally, is
it possible that in future messages you might avoid that old, tired,
very worn out phraseology of Usenet -- the word 'flame'?    PT]

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: TCP/IP <-> ISDN Interoperation Mailing-List
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 17:45:03 GMT


I am setting up a mailing-list (a reflector, to be more precise) for
those interested in discussing issues relating to TCP/IP <-> ISDN
Interoperation.  Topics of discussion could include
header-compression, administration, protocols, evolving technology,
applications and so forth.  The reference system I have in mind is
some kind of small computer (possibly connected to a small LAN) with
an ISDN interface on it that it uses to talk to a gateway to the
Internet -- the issues involved vary somewhat depending on what kind
of system one has in mind.

For example, a Mac with an ISDN link to a mainframe would never be
routing packets from other machines, so source-IP address becomes
superfluous per-packet information.  Appropriate error detection/
correction techniques for expected ISDN performance problems
are another interesting area to explore.

I would encourage anyone interested in being part of the list to send
requests to [e-mail].  The list itself will
be [e-mail].  Our machines are in the process of
being moved to a new location and I have not actually set up the
reflector, so if your mail bounces keep trying.


Johnny TCP/ISDN


[Moderator's Note: My best wishes for success with your project.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #156
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13085;
          10 Mar 90 4:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06116;
          10 Mar 90 2:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01274;
          10 Mar 90 1:30 CST
Date:     Sat, 10 Mar 90 0:50:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #157
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Mar 90 00:50:23 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Will Martin)
    Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Patty Winter)
    Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls (Dan Veditz)
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill (John R. Levine)
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill (J. Philip Miller)
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Michael Coleman)
    Re: An AT&T/VISA Card? (Tom Lowe)
    Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set (Julian Macassey)
    Re: Modifying Cordless Phones (Tad Cook)
    Enhanced Service Conference (David J. Farber)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 8:23:13 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls


There was a segment on this AT&T Translation service this past weekend
on the Voice of America's "Communications World" program. I recommend
that Telecom readers who have shortwave radios try to tune this
program in each Saturday afternoon; I've been listening to it
regularly for some years now, and I often hear items mentioned or
discussed that have been on the Telecom list, or that show up there
soon thereafter. The thrust of the program is to discuss any and all
aspects of telecommunications, both in the US and in foreign
countries. It's about 20 minutes long, and the best time to hear it in
North America is the airing after the news at 3 PM Central Standard
Time (that's 2100 UTC) on Saturday. The best frequencies here in the
midwest are 15580, 15410, and 11760 kHz.

Non-US readers can get program schedules and information on other
times and frequencies from their local USIA office or by writing the
VOA directly; the VOA will not provide info to addresses within the
US.


Regards, Will

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

From: Patty Winter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls
Date: 9 Mar 90 20:30:03 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


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

>     Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is
>reached by dialing a toll-free number.

Now that's interesting -- why Monterey? Could it have anything to do
with the presence of one of the top language schools in the country,
namely the Defense Language Institute? The only problem with that
theory is that the DLI instructors already have full-time jobs, and
the US government might not like them moonlighting in their spare
time.

Anyone know whether this is sheer coincidence, or even why this
service is based in Monterey?

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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 13:34:30 PST
From: Dan Veditz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls
Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale, Calif.


>  [AT&T's] Langauge Line Service [provides] access to telephone
>  interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects, [...]
>       Based in Monterey, California, [...]

Hmm... the Air Force (Army?) has a Language Institute in Monterey.
It'd be a good source of translators, and the work would give the
students practice.  Anyone know if AT&T does hire students or grads
from the institute, or is LLS's location in Monterey a coincidence?


Dan Veditz      [e-mail]
                 { uunet | ncar!cepu }!ashtate!dveditz

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

Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 9 Mar 90 12:18:56 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>    On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond
>a certain distance from the CO.  I don't recall the name of the charge
>or the amount.

Milage charges are quite common in rural areas.  The amount varies
from state to state.  Sometimes it's a fixed amount if you're outside
the town limits, sometimes it's a per-mile charge, but it's usually
well-correlated with the amount of 60 HZ crosstalk on the line.


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

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Reply-To: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:07:54 GMT


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

>    On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond
>a certain distance from the CO.  I don't recall the name of the charge
>or the amount.

>    Anyone know the basis for this charge?  What is the distance
>beyond which the charge applies?  (My parents are less than 1.5 miles
>from the CO, and the phone lines follow the shortest road to the CO
>(e.g. they are about 1.5 miles long too).

>[Moderator's Note: This is indeed very strange. Are you sure this is
>how the charge is described?

I am sorry I do not have one of my telephone bills handy, but I have a
country home which is about 10 miles from the CO (314)-358-xxxx.
According to the MO PUC approved tarrifs, the flat rate is only for a
defined geographical region, usually the same as the city limits.  All
other subscribers pay a "milage charge" for the distance they are
outside of the region.  I suspect that this was instituted in the
spirit of distributing the costs according to the costs of providing
the service.

I believe that I saw a recent article that SWBT was trying to
eliminate that part of the tarrif, at least in certain areas near to
St. Louis.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
[e-mail] - Internet  [phone]   [e-mail] - bitnet
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil-UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Date: 9 Mar 90 15:14:06 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Andrew Payne) writes...

>In article <[e-mail]> "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys!jessea@
>uunet.uu.net> writes:
>>Also, what is "Unregulated inside Wire Maintenance Charge"?  I'm tired
>>of not knowing what I'm paying for and why.  Thanks in advance to
>>anyone that can answer these mysterious questions.  :-)

>    On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond
>a certain distance from the CO.  I don't recall the name of the charge
>or the amount.

Okay, here's what it sounds like to me.

The "Unregulated Inside Wire Maintenance Charge" is a common rip-off
which the Bells cooked up when the ownership of inside wiring was
transferred from them to their customers.  Since they don't own the
wiring in your house past the protector, they may charge a fee for its
maintenance.  Since it's yours, it's not subject to tariff or other
regulation.  And you don't have to pay it, if you're willing to fix
your own wire (and let's face it, it doesn't need much maintenance!).

The distance surcharge is very real too.  It's often labelled a "zone"
charge.  In rural areas, the cost of wire (to the CO) is very high,
since the distances are great and the densities are low.  So the
tariffs may include several zones.  Within the innermost zone, you pay
the normal charge.  Then you pay more for being farther away.  A mile
and a half seems a bit strange, but if it's beyond the high-density
"village" area, it's not unbelievable.

A lot of telcos have abolished this in the past couple of decades, and
some states don't like it.  But it's eminently fair in principle: Most
of the cross-subsidy that adds to toll bills goes to pay for rural
wire.  (Did you know that Mountain Bell and AT&T pay over a dollar a
minute to Beehive Telephone for calls into its territory?  Not much
profit there!  See Art Brothers' column in Telephone Engineer and
Management; his little Utah telco has some _very_ long local loops.  I
don't know if he has zone charges, though, since hardly anyone lives
near anyone else.)


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

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

From: Michael Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card?
Date: 9 Mar 90 06:03:25 GMT
Reply-To: Michael Coleman <[e-mail]>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


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

  -What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what
  -motivation the consumer has to get it.

Well, if the interest rate is 13.5%-14.5%, and they waive the yearly
fee (which I assume is $20) for the first year, I'll probably get one
because that's a lot better than the interest rates on any of my
current cards.  I believe it would also qualify as being one of the
best in the business.

As for donations to charitable causes, I guess I could just charge it
on my ATT card 8-)


Mike
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
try.            %% "When at first you
try :- try.     %%  don't succeed, ..."                  ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Re: An AT&T/VISA Card
Date: 9 Mar 90 08:16:34 EST (Fri)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


> What confuses me about this AT&T-affiliated VISA card is what
> motivation the consumer has to get it.

Well, if the reports in the newspapers are correct about it having a
14-15 % interest rate, that would be good motivation for me.  There
aren't too many cards out there with a rate that low.


Tom Lowe
AT&T Bell Labs
[e-mail]

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set
Date: 9 Mar 90 17:23:44 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9

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

> >> (complimentary things about the Plantronics cordless headset phone
> >> sold by DAK)

> Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that
> you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid
> the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard
> Walkman type headset is what I need.  I already have a Plantronics
> headset, but it is not cordless; it works great but I would like a
> little more mobility.

    There is a cordless unit that uses a Walkman type headset. It
is made by WICOM 21525 Strathern St, Canoga Park, California 91304.
[phone].

    They have two models: The first model "Walk 'N' Talk Cordless"
is a cordless phone with a belt clip pack holding the Touch Tone pad
etc. The headset is a Walkman type with an electret boom mike. The
second model is like the first, except it has a built in FM radio so
you can listen to the Greatful Dead between calls.  Prices are about
$199 and $169 respectfully.

    The sales dweeb told me that the headset was "Hearing Aid
Compatible".

    I have never seen or used one of these units.

Yours still looking for the five Plantronics Star Sets I stored in the
garage.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Modifying Cordless Phones
Date: 9 Mar 90 19:09:14 GMT
Organization: very little


Tom Steck asked about adding an external antenna to reduce
interference problems from various RFI generators in his home.  Adding
a better antenna is easy, but unless the antenna puts you further away
from the RFI generators (computers, touch-lamps, aquarium heaters, old
thermostats, TV synch generators, etc) it may increase the problem.
You could add a quarter wave (about 5 foot) ground plane on the roof,
and this would allow you to operate the phone a lot further from your
home.  It will also pick up more interference from other phones/baby
monitors on the 49 MHz band in the neighborhood.

The ARRL has a book on reducing interference, and there is some
material on shielding/bypassing TVs and computers.  Check a local ham
store for a interference or RFI book.


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: "David J. Farber" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Enhanced Service Conference
Date: 9 Mar 90 16:54:57 GMT
Reply-To: "David J. Farber" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Fulfilling the Promise for the 1990's:
Telecommunications Technologies and Policies
for Industry, Consumer and Education

Philadelphia, PA
March 23 and 24

In a unique interdisciplinary approach this conference will bring
together engineers and sociologist, industry representatives and
regulators, as well as computer scientists, educators and economists
to explore the proposition that dramatic advancements in information
and telecommunication technologies have outpaced our understanding of
how they affect organizations, individual consumers and the public
interest.  Special attention will be paid in the conference to the
deep policy differences that now exist between the United States and
Europe.  Critical questions to be examined include:

- Are American business opportunities being lost
  as the policy struggle continues?

- How can information technologies enhance
  productivity in business, teaching and research?

Organized by faculty of the Wharton Business School, the Annenberg
School of Communications and the School of Engineering and Applied
Science at the University of Pennsylvania, the conference will include
speakers such as Raymond Smith, CEO of the Bell Atlantic Corporation
and Ed David, former Science and Technology Advisor to the President
and former head of AT&T Bell Laboratories.  Panels include:

- New Technologies and Public Policy:
  American and European Perspectives

- Telecommunications and the Business Organization of the Future

- Consumers and the Intelligent Network

- Education: Is there a Telecommunications Fix?

- Is Public Policy Meeting the Needs of Consumers?

For further information and a brochure, contact the Center for
Communications and Information Science at the University of
Pennsylvania at [phone].


David Farber; Prof. of CIS and EE, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389
Tele: 215-898-9508 (off); 215-274-8292 (home); FAX: [phone];
Cellular:  302-740-1198

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the
sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- R. P. Feynman

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #157
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14411;
          10 Mar 90 5:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27692;
          10 Mar 90 3:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06116;
          10 Mar 90 2:35 CST
Date:     Sat, 10 Mar 90 1:39:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #158
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Mar 90 01:38:05 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (John Higdon)
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have (Tom Neff)
    Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (Blake Farenthold)
    Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller (John W. Keating)
    The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo (Chris Johnson)
    Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV (Craig R. Watkins)
    Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos (John Higdon)
    Phone Dialer Info Needed!! (George Wang)
    Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail (Henry Mensch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 9 Mar 90 00:47:27 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Michael Morrell <hplabs!hpda![e-mail]> writes:

> [In re toll saver]
> Do others think this is a bad feature?  I understand you can save
> money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the
> phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing
> (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything).  Also,

Do you feel that if someone you call isn't home that you should be
charged anyway for the call? You got something for nothing in the
knowledge that your party wasn't home, or at least wouldn't answer the
phone for one reason or another. What about if it's busy. Again, free
information.

Even those robber barons at PacTel Cellular have apparently dropped the
charges for unanswered calls.

> This feature should be illegal.

Oh great. More laws. And how would this be enforced?

> [Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or
> would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages
> waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to
> cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message. Years ago, telco
> security people referred to schemes involving letting the phone ring a
> certain number of times, hanging up and dialing over as 'constructive
> messages'; meaning telco believed a message had been delivered,
> regardless of no voice on the line. When I saw AT&T answering machines
> with 'Toll Saver' as a feature *they* were marketing, I gave up my
> campaign.  PT]

And rightly so. As I said above, to be totally consistent in your
argument, you would have to approve of something like this:

You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work
yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number.
As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision.
After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a
charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't
answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number
and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22!

Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the
facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call
attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would
sure put war dialers out of business!

No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my
messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages.


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

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 9 Mar 90 15:41:35 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


Re: Objections to 'toll saver' on the grounds that it tells you
something (i.e. no messages waiting) for 'nothing' (i.e. you get to
hang up before it picks up): BULLPUCKEY!  By this logic, telco might
as well charge you for a BUSY signal.  After all, it told you
something (that someone else was calling), didn't it?  And hey,
out-of-service recordings are valuable info too.  Outlaw them or
charge for it.

Just for fun, why don't we trundle back to REALITY for a bit.  Telco
is in business to let people TALK, voice or digitally.  Nickel and
diming Joe Consumer to death by playing petty games with his equipment
is not proper conduct of that business.

Hell, in the future we'll have voicemail stations integrated into our
home computers, and YOU will decide how it behaves.  Will we have
'illegal algorithm' tariffs?  Paging Mr. Orwell...

Remember, when convenience is outlawed only outlaws will have
convenience.

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

From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu,  8 Mar 90 22:32:45 CST
Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller


Jody Kravitz wrote:

>>There is a particular breed of telephone user that I would greatly
>>like to see exterminated. It is the Dedicated Wrong Number Caller.

>I programmed computers, and worked weird hours.  I had call forwarding.  In
>order to get any sleep, I would routinely forward my calls to the time &
>temperature lady when I was tired.

>One night I get this call from repair service.... The next day, it was no
>longer possible to forward calls to the time & temperature lady.

Ridding yourself of annoyance calls is what call forwarding was
INVENTED for.  After I ended a relationship with a rather possessive
woman she took to calling me at all hours of te night "to see if I was
alone" or "to see if I had changed my mind" and other such wonderful
reasons.  A simple 72# took care of it all.  My first thought was to
forward the calls to a modem somewhere (local Telenet pad) but then I
got creative. "Dial A Prayer" with Dr. Norman Vincent Peale was my first
choice ... it worked well.  If it had been available in the area
976-4SEX or some other dial-a-porn would probably been worth the few
bucks it would have cost.

Anyway Dr. Peale took care of her ... two nights later I quit forwarding
the calls and she hasn't bothered me since.


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


[Moderator's Note: Getting rid of unwanted calls is not really what Call
Waiting 'was invented for', but it is commonly used as you suggest.   PT]

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

From: "John W. Keating" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller
Date: 9 Mar 90 17:58:02 GMT
Reply-To: "John W. Keating" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA


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

>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!

Oh, my favorite repair question was when a repair type called my line
up to ask if *my* phone was working.  (I had turned off the call
waiting for obvious reasons and someone had been trying to reach my
number...)

******************************************************************************
* Internet: [e-mail] *        REPENT!           *          *
* Usenet:   ...!pyramid!rex!keating   * The coming of the Great  * John W.  *
* Bitnet:   cs6hecu@tcsvm             *    White Handkerchief    * Keating  *
* CI$:      73737,733                 *        is near!          *   III    *
*****************************************************************************

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Date: 8 Mar 90 22:38:06 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN


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

>   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!

>One-upmanship: I've gotten phone calls from Noo Ingland Telebozo
>because some telemarketer called my modem line and didn't think there
>should be a modem at the other end of the number they called at
>random.

And this all reminds me of the Saturday afternoon I was at home busy
playing a fast-paced, important multi-user game on the mainframe at
work on my second line (or maybe I was waiting for a phone call from
my girlfriend -- I'm sure it was something important! :-), when this
punk calls and asks for "Robert" or some such.  I say there's no
Robert here, you must have the wrong number.  *click* Just when I get
comfortable again in the other room, the phone rings again, and the
same twit says "let me talk to Robert" as if he really was there, but
that I was not letting him use the phone, or maybe just trying to hide
him from his obnoxious friends, so I clearly tell the caller that in
no way is there a Robert ever at this number.  *click*

Ten or twenty minutes later, same bozo calls back again.  I tell the
guy that by no stretch of the imagination is the person he wants to
talk to at this number.  He then proceeds to substitute obscenities
for most of the verbs, adjectives, nouns and adverbs in his next few
sentences as he tells _ME_ off for being a smartass!  Uh duh.  Who was
the moron who kept calling the wrong number again?  Sheeesh.


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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 18:55 EST
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV


>A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are
>being offered starting April 1.  The latter distributes IBM-PClone
>games for children and others over the cable system, two per week.

We've had this service for many years.  Basically, it works.

>It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic
>box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser
>interface.

It's a 9600 baud modem (actually, just a "dem", no "mo").  They use
different carriers on different systems, but the ones that I've seen
are in the commercial FM band.  I looked at it years ago and I seem to
remember that I decided that it was simple FSK, but I can't swear to
that anymore.

The "basic" service here is free (comes with basic cable service, like
MTV).  The "executive service" that you speak of has a monthly charge,
as does "The Electric Toy Box."  The executive service is a news
service; the Toy Box is a service which downloads PC games.

The news contains current wire-service news such as top AP headlines
at the top of each hour.

>Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to
>leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in
>electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup).

There is no buffer in the box at all.  The software that they supply
puts articles into memory (not disk).  Articles are rebroadcast often.
Depending on how many newsgroups (my term, not their's) you enable,
you should be able to turn on your machine and have articles come in
faster than you can read them.  The software contains some keyword
capabilities.

>The glossy credits this whole scheme to "X*PRESS, 4643 S Ulster
>Street, Suite 340, Denver CO 80237", on 800-772-6397.  That number was
>busy the one time I tried to call it.

It's sometimes busy, but not all the time.  They are fairly helpful;
you should call them if you have questions.

>I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service
>isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on
>the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio.

Keep looking.  I suspect you will find it soon.


Craig R. Watkins        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:        [e-mail]
                UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw
------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos
Date: 9 Mar 90 00:25:10 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Mar 8 at  0:31, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Quite coincidentally, most cable in Chicago is
> provided by Group W. And they are losing money badly ... like a
> million dollars *per month*. They want to sell out, and they actually
> have a buyer. Guess who!  Pacific Telesis, that's who!

And why will PacTel be able to run this money-losing operation when
the mighty Group W cannot? It's very simple. The answer is contained
in previous discussions herein, but to save you, gentle reader, the
trouble of looking through your archives, I'll recap.

After conning the California PUC into a regulation scheme, known to
the world by the euphamism "incentive regulation", Pacific Telesis
will have plenty of money to vulture-capture markets on a global
scale. This will enable them to be at the fore when proper
manipulations set them up as the only game in town for whatever it is
that they are sinking claws into at the time. In other words, when I
write that (sizable) check to Pac*Bell every month, I can take comfort
in the knowledge that the money is being well spent helping to provide
cable service to our honorable moderator until such time that PacTel
is able to parlay their acquisition into something really lucrative.

> Yes, one of the
> first, or maybe the first excursion by a telco into cable TV will
> happen right here in Chicago sometime later this spring, pending His
> Honor signing off on it and the Chicago City Council getting properly
> greased and oiled. They wanted to close the deal April 1, but that
> will be impossible. We now expect a June 1 cutover. A subsidiary of
> PacTel is being created to run things here.  PT]

So that's where they ended up with that! They tried desparately to get
the Palo Alto (or was it Menlo Park?) cable franchise and bombed. It
looks like Chicago is far enough away so that we dial tone customers
won't put two and two together and watch "incentive regulation" in
action.


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

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 21:20:13 -0600
From: George Wang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Dialer Info Needed!!


I am interested in building a tone phone dialer. I am interested in
knowing what kind of frequencies are generated in a touch tone phone.
Also, what kinds of specialized chips do we need?? Any layout or
circuit info???  Please respond via email. Thanks


George Wang

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

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 90 20:26:22 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Talking to the Folks at AT&T Mail


   From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
   Date: 7 Mar 90 16:08:48 GMT

   If you have access to AT&T Mail, you can also send a
   message to !atthelp on the service.  (The TSC was able to give me the
   right number, and apologized for the confusion.)

When dealing with attmail!atthelp you have to be sure to not give them
a reason to write you back more than once.  they have different people
answering the e-mail sent to atthelp, so there's no guarantee you'll
get the same person twice, and thus you'll have to repeat yourself ad
infinitum...

# Henry Mensch    /   <[e-mail]>   /   E40-379 MIT,  Cambridge, MA
# <[e-mail]-relay> / <[e-mail]> / <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #158
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27469;
          11 Mar 90 2:25 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10024;
          10 Mar 90 23:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29309;
          10 Mar 90 22:42 CST
Date:     Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:01:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Alcor ECPA Suit
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Mar 90 21:29:21 CST    Special: Alcor ECPA Suit

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    ECPA Suit: Court Filing (H. Keith Henson)
    Postscript  (H. Keith Henson & TELECOM Moderator)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ECPA suit-court filing
Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 13:47:53 PST


CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH, A Member of
GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN
1925 Century Part East, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, California  90067
Telephone: [phone]

Attorneys For Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case NO. SA CV90-021 JSL (RwRx)

COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF
AND DAMAGES
(Electronic
Communications Privacy
Act of 1986;
18 U.S.C. Section 2701,
et seq.)


H. KEITH HENSON, HUGH L. HIXON,
JR., THOMAS K. DONALDSON, NAOMI
REYNOLDS, ROGER GREGORY, MICHAEL G.
FEDEROWITCZ, STEVEN B. HARRIS,
BRIAN WOWK, ERIC GEISLINGER,
CATH WOOF, BILLY H. SEIDEL,
ALLEN J. LOPP, LEE CORBIN
RALPH MERKEL, AND KEITH LOFTSTROM

                    Plaintiffs,

     v.

RAYMOND CARRILLO, SCOTT HILL,
DAN CUPIDO, ALAN KUNZMAN, ROWE
WORTHINGTON, RICHARD BOGAN,
REAGAN SCHMALZ, GROVER TRASK, II,
ROBERT SPITZER, LINFORD L.
RICHARDSON, GUY PORTILLO,
individuals, and the COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, a subdivision of the
State of CAlifornia, And the CITY
OF RIVERSIDE, a municipal entity,
and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive,
               Defendants.

          Plaintiffs complain of defendants as follows:
                       JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATION

          1.   This case arises under an Act of Congress, namely
the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986; U.S.C. Section
2701, et Seq., and in particular, the civil enforcement
Provisions thereof, 18 U.S.C. Section 2707.   Venue is proper in this
Court in that all of the defendants reside in this district.

                   COMMON ALLEGATIONS

           2.    Plaintiffs are all individuals residing in
various point and places in the United States.  [except Brian
Wowk who resides in Canada.]
           3.   Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman,
Worthington, Bogan, Schmalz, Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley
are all employees of defendant County of Riverside, and at all
times material, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment.  Defendants Richardson and Portillo are all
employees of defendant City of Riverside and at all times
material, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment.  Defendant County of Riverside ["county'] is a
political subdivision of the State of California.  Defendant
City of Riverside ["city'] is a municipal entity located within
California.
          Defendants Carillo, Hill, Cupido, Kuntzman,
Worthington, Bogan, and Schmalz are employed by defendant County
in the Office of the Riverside County Coroner.  Defendants
Trask, Spitzer, Hinman and Mosley are employed by the said
county in the office of the District Attorney,  Defendants
Richardson and Portillo are employed by defendant City in the
Riverside Police Department.

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

          4.   All of the events complained of herein occurred
within two years of the date of filing of the complaint.
               At all times material, Alcor Life Extension
Foundation, a non-Profit corporation with its principal place of
business in Riverside County, maintained facilities at its place
of business whose purpose was to (in part) facilitate the
sending and receipt of electronic mail ["E-mail"] via computer-
driven modems and which electronic mail facility was utilized by
the plaintiffs, and each of them.  The Alcor Facility is remote in
geographical location from all plaintiffs.
          5.   At all times material, each plaintiff had one or
more E-mail messages abiding on electron or magnetic medial at
the Alcor facility.  Prior to [actually on] January 12, 1988, defendants
procured from the Riverside Superior Court a search warrant
which authorized, in general, a search of the facilities of
Alcor.  A true and correct copy of that search warrant is
attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A".  The search warrant does
not purport to reach, nor was it intended to reach, any of the
E-mail of plaintiffs.
          6.   On January 12, 1988, defendant entered upon the
Alcor premisses and removed many things therefrom including the
electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail.
          7.   Contemporaneously with the seizure of the
electronic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail, defendants were
explicitly informed that they were seizing plaintiffs' E-mail
which was not described either generally or specifically in the
warrant hereinabove referred to.

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

          8.   No notice was given to any plaintiff by any
defendant of the impending seizure of their E-mail.
          9.   In the process of procuring the warrant, neither
the defendants nor anyone else made any showing that there
was reason to believe that the contents of any of plaintiffs' E-
mail was relevant to any law enforcement inquiry.
          10.   Subsequent to the execution of the warrant on
January 12, 1988, no notice was given to any plaintiff by any
government entity, including the defendants, nor any
defendant herein, at any time, regarding the defendants
acquisition and retention of plaintiffs' E-mail.
          11.   The court issuing the warrant in respect of the
Alcor facility did not, prior to the issuance of the warrant nor
at any other time, determine that notice to plaintiffs
compromised any legitimate investigation within the meaning of 18
U.S.C.  section 2705(a)(2).
          12.   Not withstanding that defendant and each of them
were informed that they had taken, along with materials
describe in the warrant, E-mall belonging to plaintiffs, said
defendants knowingly and willfully (a) continued to access the
electronic and magnetic media containing plaintiffs' E-mail and
(b) continued to deny access to plaintiffs to such E-mail for
many months although a demand was made for the return of the
said E-mail.  Defendants' wrongful access to and retention of
plaintiffs' E-mail was intentional within the meaning of 18
U.S.C. section 2707.

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

          13.   Proximately caused by the unprivileged actions of
the defendants hereinbefore described, each plaintiff has
suffered damage in an amount to be proved at trial, but in no
event less than $10,000 each.
          WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray:
        1.   For damages according to proof;
        2.   For cost of suit;
        3.   For Attorneys' fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 2707(b)(3);  and
        4.   For such other and further relief as is required
in the circumstances.

Date:  January 11, 1990


GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH, AND EPSTEIN
A Professional Corporation

(signed)
CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

Exhibit "A"

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEARCH WARRANT

To any Sheriff, Police Officer, Marshal or Peace Officer
in the County of Riverside.

Proof, by sworn statement, having been made this day
to me by Alan Kunzman and it appearing that there is
probable cause to believe that at the place and on the
persons and in the vehicle(s) set forth herein there
is now being concealed property which is:

____  stolen or embezzled property
__x__ property and things used to commit a felony
__x__ property possessed (or being concealed by another)
           with intent to commit a public offense
__x__ property tending to show a felony was committed;
          YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED TO SEARCH :  the
          premises located at

   [description of Alcor address at 12327 Doherty St.]

including all rooms attics, basements, storage areas, and
other parts therein, garages, grounds and outbuilding and
appurtenances to said premises; vehicles(s) described as
follows:
(not applicable)
and the persons of (not applicable)
for the following property:

1.  All electronic storage devices, capable of storing,
electronic data regarding the above records,
including magnetic tapes, disc, (floppy or hard),
and the complete hardware necessary to retrieve
electronic data including CPU (Central Processing
Unit), CRT (viewing screen, disc or tape drives(s),
printer, software and service manual for operation
of the said computer, together with all handwritten
notes or printed material describing the
operation of the computers  (see exhibit A - search
warrant no.,  1 property to be seized #1)

2.  Human body parts identifiable or belonging to
the deceased, Dora Kent.

3.  Narcotics, controlled substances and other
drugs subject to regulation by the Drug
Enforcement Administration.


4.  Article of personal property tending to establish the identity
of person in control of premise, vehicle, storage areas,
and containers being searched, including utility company
receipts, rent receipts, address envelopes and keys and to
SEIZE it if found and bring it forthwith before me or
this court at the courthouse of this court.
    Good cause being shown this warrant my be served at any
time of the day or night as approve by my initials_________

Time of issuance _______    Time of execution __1600__
Given under my hand and dated this 12th day of January 1988
Thomas E. Hollenhorst  Judge of the Superior Court

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


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


H. KEITH HENSON, see attachment "A"
                          PLAINTIFF(S)

         vs.

RAYMOND CARRILLO,  see attachment "A"
                      DEFENDANTS(S)

CASE NUMBER

SA CV- 90-021  JSL Rw Rx

SUMMONS

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

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S), your are hereby summoned and required to
file with this court and serve upon
         Christopher Ashworth, Esq.
         GARFIELD, TEPPER, ASHWORTH & EPSTEIN
         A Professional Corporation

Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is:

        1925 Century Park East, Suite 1250
        Los Angeles, California   90067
        (213)  277-1981

an answer to the complaint which is herewith serve upon you
within __20__ days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive
of the day of service.  If you fail to do so, judgment by default
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Date   Jan. 11, 1990

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

By  MARIA CORTEZ
     Deputy Clerk
 (SEAL OF THE COURT)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Postscript
Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 09:15:02 PST


A few corrections to your anouncement.  I live in San Jose, only two
of the plaintiffs (who worked there) could be considered local to
Riverside, one lived as far away as Canada.

Second, Alcor (the owner of the BBS) is not a party to the suit, only
the users who had email on the system.

Thank you *very* much for covering this issue, and I will do my best
to keep you informed on developments.

Incidentally, my phone number is 408-978-6716 hm and 408-734-5287 wk.
Like many in Silcon Valley, I am at work typically from about local
noon to 8-9pm.  I don't mind my phone number going out to those who
could make use of my experience on this topic.  Keith Henson


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending this along. Mr. Kenson sent me
several very lengthy files relating to the legal procedings now going on.
I found them rather informative, and I am sure he will send copies to
any of you who request them. The files he sent me include
correspondence with the FBI and the United States Attorney, asking
why they are, in his estimation, refusing to act on the complaint he
filed against the Riverside County authorities.  Unfortunatly, there
is no room here to run those files (some 50 K of material was sent to
me), and much of it is not telecom-related, which is why I suggest you
get it direct from him if interested.

In my own opinion, I think they are going to lose the case, simply
because although the search warrant did not specifically mention email
using those words, it did discuss electronic storage media of all kinds.
It would be impossible to examine that media in detail without
reviewing the contents thereof. I think the court will rule that the
intent of the law was met and that the authorities acted correctly.  PT


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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Alcor ECPA Suit
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28055;
          11 Mar 90 2:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01813;
          11 Mar 90 0:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10024;
          10 Mar 90 23:47 CST
Date:     Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:50:30 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #159
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 10 Mar 90 22:50:17 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:                             Moderator: Patrick Townson

    Dataports at Atlanta (Ken Jongsma)
    Additional Caller ID Information (James Van Houten)
    Call Setup Info Reciprocity (John Boteler)
    AT&T Reach Out (was Re: Sprint Plus) (John Owens)
    Frame Relay vs. the CONS (Fred Goldstein)
    FBI Raids & Steve Jackson Games (James Van Artsdalen)
    Commercial for Free 900 Numbers (David Tamkin)
    Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges (Mark Solsman)
    Sprint Plus (Carol Springs)
    Alternate Carrier List Availability (Joe Weisenfeld)
    Changing to MCI Long Distance (Really Switcheroo) (David Lesher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dataports at Atlanta
Date: Thu,  8-Mar-90 17:29:54 PST


I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some
airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the
phone network. Seattle has a nice buisness area with desks, fax
machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge!

Anyway, I had 30 minutes to kill in Terminal 3 and thought I'd check
my company VAXMail. Now, Atlanta has loads of payphones (all
"serviced" by NTS - but that's another story). Unfortunately, none of
them have RJ11 jacks.

Looking around, I noticed that there was RJ11 jack by each jetway
door.  Ah Ha! I thought there might be an outside chance I could get
dialtone and make a credit card call. I found an unused Delta gate and
proceeded to unzip and hook up my laptop. Unfortunately, there wasn't
any dialtone.  The jack was either disabled or a digital loop of some
kind.

As I was packing up my computer, I noticed two senior Delta reps
quickly walking my direction. It took some explaining - The one
talking wanted to know who would have gotten billed for the call if it
had gone through and couldn't understand why I wasn't using the
payphones. We eventually parted on good terms, though the rep was
telling his partner that he had never heard of such a thing.

Later, at Chicago, I noticed there weren't any data jacks around the
United terminal either. It's a shame, after you get used to the area
at Seattle, you sort of expect it to be available everywhere.


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

Date: 08 Mar 90 23:31:34 EST
From: "James Van Houten, Exec VP" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Additional Caller ID Information


I was messing with my SAN-BAR 30F Caller*ID display today and found
that there is a phrase in the box called "PRIVATE NO.".  Not "OUT OF
AREA" but "PRIVATE NO."  This raises some interesting questions!!!
When will I start seeing this with unlisted numbers!!  Just thought I
would let you all know that at least SAN-BAR is prepared for the
WORST.  Thats all for now.


James Van Houten
P.O. Box 502
Temple Hills, MD  20757
Home [phone]   Work [phone]    Voice Mail [phone]
HAM:  KA3TTU @ N4QQ   CIS:  72067,316

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

Subject: Call Setup Info Reciprocity
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 0:38:37 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


I commend the moderator for limiting the discussion of Caller*ID to the
technical areas. It solves many problems at one stroke and allows this
discussion to progress.

It appears, magistrate, that although the calling number is displayed on
a Caller*ID display unit when the calling office supports it, the other
class features which rely on this same information are not always usable.

To clarify, a particular office was recently upgraded such that it now
transmits the calling number. That's nice. However, attempts to add a
number from that same office to the distinctive ring list, the selective
call forward list, or the other CLASS service lists for that matter, fail
with the message that "the number you have dialed is not available with
this service".

Why is this? What other service elements must be in place in order to
provide such CLASS services as distinctive ring, which apparently depend
only on the originating number.


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

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

Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership
Subject: AT&T Reach Out (was Re: Sprint Plus)
Date: 8 Mar 90 22:37:14 EST (Thu)
From: John Owens <[e-mail]>


On Mar 5, 15:40, Carol Springs wrote:

> 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...)

A few months ago, I made a few more long duration coast-to-coast calls
than usual.  In the AT&T portion of my phone bill for that month, all
of the calls eligible for ROA (all the domestic direct-dialed ones)
are marked with an '@' next to the '*N', etc., rate codes.  At the end
of the bill, before the total, is a section which reads (verbatim):

        ******************************************************************
        @After analyzing your long distance calls this month, we find you
        could have saved money with the AT&T REACH OUT (sm) AMERICA Long
        Distance Calling Plan.  For $7.15 a month you get an hour of
        weekend and night direct dialed AT&T interstate calling, and
        additional time costs less than 12 cents a minute.  For further
        information, call 1 800 REACH OUT, ext. 3058.
        ******************************************************************

What's most interesting about this is that the bill is generated by
Bell Atlantic's billing system.  I wonder if any other carriers get
equal enough access to have custom algorithms run by a BOC as part of
the billing process....


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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 07:05:16 PST
From: "k1io@FN42jk  09-Mar-1990 0957" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Frame Relay vs. the CONS


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Bandler) writes...

>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.

Nope.  LAPD+ does NOT provide the CONS.  Nor will we allow it to,
since it's not a network layer protocol.  There are two solutions
defined for running the CONS over LAPD+.  One is a one-octet
convergence function.  The other is to use X.25-PLP (data transfer
phase) over LAPD+.

I realize that's the American view and you Aussies may see it
differently, and I don't think it's settled at CCITT, but for sure we
Gringos don't go along with bowdlerizing the CONS.  Nor do we go along
with turning LAPD+ into a combination data link and network layer
protocol.  I've seen a number of "economy of protocol" hacks, where
one protocol is set to do the work of more than one layer, and they
generally turn into disasters.

>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.

Why would anyone want to run the CONS (X.25) across a LAN?  :-) (Yes, I
know some CONS fanatics do it.)  But since we're not going to get the
CONS from LAPD+ per se, the question is moot.


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

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 03:09:39 -0600
From: James Van Artsdalen <[e-mail]>
Subject: FBI Raids & Steve Jackson Games


A friend forwarded to me some postings regarding Steve Jackson Games
being raided.  I thought I'd emphasize that the company Steve Jackson
Games is quite legitimate.  They design, manufacture and market games,
mainly of the role-playing variety.


James R. Van Artsdalen          [e-mail]   "Live Free or Die"
Dell Computer Co    9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759         512-338-8789

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial for Free 900 Numbers
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 1:21:07 CST


Starting just a couple hours ago, I've heard three radio commercials
for Merchant Communications, Inc.  They are advertising that if you
have a good idea for a 900 line, they'll set you up with one for free.

To reach them, naturally, you need to dial a 900 number.  The call costs
"only" $10.00.


David Tamkin      [e-mail]     {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier
Post Office Box 813       Rosemont, Illinois  60018-0813     [phone]
BIX: dattier      GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN      CIS: 73720,1570     [phone]
Gagme management's official position on the above is an utter mystery to me.

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Friday, 9 Mar 1990 15:58:04 EST
From: Mark Solsman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges


Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could
call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges?

I'd have a relay station that would bounce the output of one modem to the
input of another, all signals. The advantages would be avoiding toll
charges since it would be local to the relay station, and local from
the relay station to the destination.

I would like to know for both a public and a private installation.


Thanks in Advance!

[Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure
someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story.
The way telephone rates in the United States are structured, it is very
rare that two or three local phone calls, hooked together to avoid a
toll charge would come out less expensive than the DDD rate for the
toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then
it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a
single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings,
at least on shorter calls?    PT]

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Plus
Date: 9 Mar 90 14:49:10 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


Thanks to everyone who wrote me about Sprint Plus.  I will summarize
here.

No one reports getting extensive information on Sprint Plus while
already a Sprint customer.  One person thinks he might have seen it
mentioned briefly in a bill enclosure.  As I pointed out, and as was
mentioned in one response, conversion to Sprint Plus of existing
accounts means (in most cases) less money from those accounts for
Sprint.  One person who received information on the plan from Sprint
itself got it in the form of a promotional mailing last November; he
was not (and is not) a Sprint customer.

One person asks if the extra volume discounts are mentioned in
Sprint's ads.  Since I've never seen ads for Sprint Plus, I wouldn't
know.  I checked with two Sprint reps on the discounts he mentions and
got conflicting information; I'll report the stats I consider the most
trustworthy (the rep left the phone for a while to get the info).  All
are agreed that Sprint Plus offers night/weekend rates between 5:00
p.m.  and 7:59 a.m. every day; customers are billed a minimum of $8 a
month for calls.

Apparently, in addition to these discounts, customers who make between
$25 and $99.99 worth of calls per month receive an extra five per cent
discount on day calls and 10 per cent on evening/night/weekend calls.
Between $100 and $199.99, they get five per cent off on day calls and
15 per cent off on other calls, and for $200 and up they get five per
cent on day calls and 20 per cent on others.  For what it's worth, the
guy who wrote me about the volume discounts and the first Sprint rep I
talked to reported 10 per cent off on *all* calls (including daytime
calls) at the $25-$99.99 level.  In contrast, the volume discounts on
"Sprint Classic" have dropped to one per cent.

I know little about MCI's and AT&T's similar plans.  Someone reports
that MCI's discount period starts at 7:00 p.m. and that AT&T's Reach
Out America uses beginning times based on the part of the plan
customers select; i.e., your mileage may vary.  MCI's program started
in June 1989 and Sprint Plus seems to have started last fall sometime.

I am in the process of convincing a Chicago friend (a Sprint customer)
who was burned out by a restrictive AT&T plan a few years ago to
switch to Sprint Plus, since his long distance bill is around
$40/month.  Clearly there is no reason, except inertia and general
paranoia, for customers like this to stick with the regular Sprint
plan.  The rep who converted my account a few weeks ago did so quite
cheerfully, after warning me about the $8/month minimum.  She also
assured me that my Callers' Plus points would be transferred to the
new account number, for all that I care.

Ironically, on the evening of the day I mailed my summary of Sprint
Plus info, I received a brochure on the service directly from Sprint --
as part of a mass mailing targeted at current AT&T customers.  I can
switch and get "savings of up to 34% over what [I'm] now paying AT&T."

Gee, if I switch to AT&T for $5 and then back to Sprint Plus for
another $5 before April 20, I can get a free FONCARD-shaped solar
calculator...

One final thing I should mention is that the evening discounts apply
to interstate calls only.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 07:47:32 PST
From: Joe Wiesenfeld <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternate Carrier List Availability


A while ago there was some discussion that the local RBOC would not
supply the list of equal access carriers available.  This AM I
contacted my local business office (for business ,not residential
service) and asked for the list of 1plus carriers.  The agent
immediately gave me the list of 15 carriers available on my exchange
and their phone number for contact.  He would not give me the 10XXX
codes, saying that I would have to get that info direct from the
carrier.  In a further discussion, he indicated that there were two
lotteries in each town, one business - one residential, that
determined the list and the order of the list.  Thus, even if the same
vendors were available to two adjoining towns, the order that their
names & phone contact numbers would be given out would be different.


Joseph Wiesenfeld
TRW Information Networks Division
1001 Worcester Road
Framingham, MA  01701
[phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Changing to MCI Long Distance, really: Switcharoo
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:50:50 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Re: The comment from the MCI rep:

I checked with Southern Bell re: blocking of dial 1 changes.  They
don't offer it, but the rep did say they used to get LOTS of those
{unauthorized change} problems but one day they just stopped, bang.

I think somebody read the sales force the riot act. I wonder who?


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 #159
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00878;
          11 Mar 90 3:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15904;
          11 Mar 90 1:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01813;
          11 Mar 90 0:52 CST
Date:     Sun, 11 Mar 90 0:04:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #160
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 11 Mar 90 00:04:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 160

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [John R. Levine]
    Re: ISDN Tariffed in California [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [John Debert]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Paul Guthrie]
    Re: Legion of Doom [Gordon Meyer]
    More Legion of Doom Antics [Computer World, via TELECOM Moderator]
    The Operator Knows What? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Jody Kravitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted
Date: 9 Mar 90 15:27:38 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID:
413-3373 tells a nice tale, and it's probably mostly true, but there's
one technical bug...  (and amazingly enough, I agree with the
moderator that this group should stick more to tech talk than
political flamage.)

>The "inefficiency" of the "Ericsson Plan" was that it was open-ended,
>and could have any number of digits (up to about 31). In that era, the
>only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was to time
>and wait to see if any more digits followed.  It was therefore widely
>dubbed (in American circles) as foolishly uneconomical.  As could be
>expected, decades of telephone employees were taught a Superior
>American Way had been invented.

European open-ended numbers aren't time-dependent.  And American
switches couldn't have been open ended.  Both of those are due to the
way switches were built and the network protocols used.

In the late '40s, when DDD was invented "here" (by AT&T), the Latest &
Greatest switch technology was the Crossbar.  Its relay logic was
based around deterministic number length.  Dial a 3-digit prefix, then a
4-digit suffix, and it stores 7 digits.  Once it grabbed the number, it
could route it on its merry way, sending the fixed-length string to the
next switch.  The receiving switch didn't have to say "enough digits"
since the digit-string was deterministic.

Europeans (such as LME) still used stepper switches and had no crossbar.
Steppers don't store numbers; each dialed digit points to either another
level of switching or a terminal.  You can get very flexible with them.
(When you see 4 or 5 digit dialing in the rural US, it's a stepper.)
So they developed a dialing plan that took advantage of this
flexibility, and couldn't have worked with crossbar.

The inter-office signaling differed too.  Europeans preferred
"compelled" signaling, where the originating office was prompted for
each additional digit.  When enough digits are received, it sends a
different signal to the sender.  AT&T (with its crossbars) used
en-bloc sending, so the destination didn't ask for more digits.

Neither approach is "right" or "wrong", they just evolved out of the
previous technology.

>And now, we have run out of Area Codes, while the rest of the world
>has for 40 years grown up with a system that has almost limitless
>variations and flexibility.

The system wasn't wrong per se.  Had 1+ for area code (not Toll) been
the standard all along, or had the "area code follows" code differed
from the "toll center access" code, we'd never have had problems with
moving to "interchangeable" area codes (which we'll get this decade
anyway).  And had the area code boundaries been drawn differently in
the first place, we'd have needed fewer splits.  But it's sometimes
hard to predict what areas will become popular 20 or 30 years in the
future!


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

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

Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 9 Mar 90 13:08:57 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> Donald E. Kimberlin / MCI ID: 413-3373
writes:

>In that era, the only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was
>to time and wait to see if any more digits followed.

In Europe, this is still often the case.  For example, if you want to
call the outfit that runs the Hannover trade fairs, their main number
is 89-0, while their fax machine is 89-32626.

>Which raises the question: Who was really right back then 40 years go?

Both the American fixed-length and the European variable-length
schemes make sense in their respective areas.  In the US, we have an
enormous area under a single telephone administration, and fixed
length numbers make it much easier to do things like route calls from
New York to Atlanta by way of Seattle at times when Seattle hasn't
woken up yet.  A call from Paris to Amsterdam isn't going to go via
Warsaw no matter how much spare bandwidth they have, the politics of
accounting for everything make it impractical.

Despite all of the moaning and groaning about running out of numbers,
the switch to NXX area codes is a pretty minor ones compared to some
of the changes that have happened in other countries.  Most phone
numbers won't change, the numbers that do change will change in a way
that's easy to describe, and the dialing procedures either don't
change or change in simple ways.  Compare this to the European mess
where the international code for each country is different, most
countries have special case dialing rules, e.g. Britain from Ireland,
and they do run out of numbers and stick new digits in various random
places.

I note that some European countries such as France and Belgium have
moved to fixed length numbers, and I expect after 1992 there will be
more cooperation among the various telephone adminisrations.  It'll be
interesting to see if they move to a unified routine scheme and, if
so, whether the adherents of variable length numbers (Germany and
Italy, for reasons of theology and disorganization, respectively) have
to change.


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

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Tariffed in California
Date: 10 Mar 90 04:29:24 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Gilmore) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 156, Message 4 of 5

>[summary: ISDN is tarriffed, but there are catches]

One other thing I would check: it is my understanding when BRI ISDN
was first tarriffed in the Chicago area, you didn't have full
flexibility over both B channels.  I was told that the first B could
only do voice, and it would take a SW upgrade before both could handle
data.  I would hope by now this is resolved, and it isn't an issue in
California.

P.S.  I always feel guilty when I use tarriff as a verb.

P.P.S.  I still wonder what good it does to get an ISDN line.  Who's out
there to connect to??


Chip Rosenthal                            |  Yes, you're a happy man and you're
[e-mail]                |  a lucky man, but are you a smart
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  man?  -David Bromberg

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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 10 Mar 90 09:09:50 GMT
Organization: NetCom - The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


In article <[e-mail]>, hplabs!hpda![e-mail]
(Michael Morrell) says:

(stuff about "toll-saver" feature deleted)

> Do others think this is a bad feature?  I understand you can save
> money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the
> phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing
> (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything).

> [Moderator's Note: 'Toll Saver' is a way to recieve a message (or
> would you call it a 'meta-message') informing you you have no messages
> waiting. And like yourself, I've spoken against it as a scheme to
> cheat the telco of its fee for delivering a message.

By following this chain of reasoning, the conclusion is that one
should be charged a fee for not only dialing any number but even for
simply picking up the phone. If one dials a number and it is not
answered, the message is that there's no one there to answer it and if
it rings busy, it's in use.  There are other messages as well, such as
vacant code, trunk busy, et cetera and your dial tone.

I'm sure that the Telco's would be more than happy to charge their
customers for every time the phone is picked up or every time it rings
 - even for every busy or other message.


jd
[e-mail]

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

From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <comcon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 10 Mar 90 10:30:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska


In article <[e-mail]>, hplabs!hpda![e-mail]
(Michael Morrell) writes:

> Do others think this is a bad feature?  I understand you can save
> money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the
> phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing
> (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything).  Also,

Save money? What about saving time? Suppose you _know_ there are 11
messages, some quite lengthy, on the machine, and you only want to
wade through them if a new one has been added?

> for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine,
> they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4).

Maybe you just have a 'thing' against answering machines.

BTW, My Code-A-Phone has toll-saver. In Anchorage, because of the
schism between the ringback signal and the actual ring voltage (RV
precedes ringback signalling here), when I have pending messages on
there, it picks up on the *first perceived ring*. Yup, some people
have complained. Perhaps, though, they would complain more if there
were *no way* to leave me a message.

> This feature should be illegal.

Techno-toy or whipping boy? Perhaps someday, it will be, but as Pat
mentioned, even AT&T has toll-saver on their machines.


Roy M. Silvernail  | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy  |  "Every race must arrive at this
#include <opinions.h>;#define opinions MINE  |   point in its history"
SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage,       |   ........Mr. Slippery
Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc.      |  <Ono-Sendai: the right choice!>

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 19:56:37 GMT


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

>Re: Objections to 'toll saver' on the grounds that it tells you
>something (i.e. no messages waiting) for 'nothing' (i.e. you get to
>hang up before it picks up): BULLPUCKEY!  By this logic, telco might
>as well charge you for a BUSY signal.  After all, it told you
>something (that someone else was calling), didn't it?  And hey,
>out-of-service recordings are valuable info too.  Outlaw them or
>charge for it.

Nevertheless, a friend of mine was denied FCC certification on a
device that lets you call a line, let it ring once, hang up, call in
again within 100 seconds and the device will switch you to a second
piece of CO equipment (a modem in most cases) to answer.  The FCC
cited the 'information being passed for no charge' excuse for this, so
we countered with both the toll saver example and a one other, but
they still wouldn't certify it.


Paul Guthrie
chinet!nsacray!paul or [e-mail] or attmail!balr!pdg

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

Date: 09 Mar 90 21:45:10 EST
From: GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Legion of Doom


In a recent digest Bob Moseley III reposted a message, originally from
Daneel Olivaw, concerning the e911/LoD ruckus.

I'd just like to point out, in the interest of accuracy and quelching
the already rampant rumours, that "Taran King" (the co-editor of
PHRACK) has not been indicted thus far.  In fact, he hasn't had any
search warrants executed against him either.  For all intents and
purposes he is not involved in the case at this time.

As an aside, perhaps those of you who have chided Computer Underground
participants for adopting pseudonames should reconsider the practice.
In light of all the recent techno-fear and witch-hunting it doesn't
seem quite so "juvenile".


Gordon R. Meyer
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Delphi and GEnie: GRMEYER


[Moderator's Note: Do I understand correctly? Some one or more people
commit a crime; use phake names to avoid detection, and you don't
think they should be criticized for concealing their identity? Please
read the next message today and tell me if you consider it to be an
example of 'techno-fear' and/or 'witch-hunting'.    PT]

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

From: TELECOM Moderator
Subject: More Legion of Doom Antics
Date: Thu Mar  8 19:42:46 1990


This appeared in [Computerworld], March 5, in their Inside Lines
column.

Bank-vault Hackers Claim Hit

"Two hackers claim to have pocketed $66,000 apiece (sic) from Citicorp
after illegally jacking into DEC VAXs on Citicorp's Decnet (sic),
which the multinational banking firm uses for electronic fund
transfers, according to an account of the episode in an electronic
newsletter published by The Legion of Doom. The hackers entered one of
the VAXs, created a file to capture incoming and outgoing control
sequences and then used the information to divert funds into a Swiss
bank account, one of the hackers wrote. Citicorp has declined to
comment on the claims."


[Moderator's Note: Gee, what a bunch of harmless antics! Are we who
condemn these things to be called 'witch-hunters', as Mr. Meyer
suggests?  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:42:20 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Operator Knows What?


Jody Kravitz' note also says that "The operator had never heard of
call forwarding."  Has anyone out there ever had to explain a new area
code or exchange (most notably, among the exchanges, something of
N0X/N1X form) to an operator?  I am vaguely aware that some East Coast
operators, between 1973 and 1980, didn't know of N0X/N1X prefixes in
use in 213 area (now 213/818, later to become 213/310/818).

Concern:  The poor souls who end up in the first NNX area code.

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 22:00:36 PST
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill


In article <[e-mail]> "Andrew Payne" writes

>     On a similar note, my parents pay a surcharge for being beyond
> a certain distance from the CO.  I don't recall the name of the charge
> or the amount.

My "Monthly Service" includes $1.20/month for Touch-Tone Service and
$0.65/month for 1 Quarter Miels Suburban Milage.

My other line, which has a seperate bill, does not show such a charge,
although I remember they said there would be such a charge when I
ordered the service.

I'm about 7 miles from the CO.  Many of the subscribers in my end of
town are served by SLC-96 multiplexors.  I'm 1.3 miles from the main
highway.  I'm at a loss to know how they come up with 1/4 mile of
suburban milage.


Jody

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #160
******************************












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03307;
          11 Mar 90 4:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25068;
          11 Mar 90 3:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15904;
          11 Mar 90 1:53 CST
Date:     Sun, 11 Mar 90 0:48:49 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #161
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 11 Mar 90 00:48:29 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 161

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    T1 Mux Info Needed [Jerry Aguirre]
    ISDN 2B1Q Countries? [Czeslaw Piasta]
    No Forward to Time & Temp? [Carl Moore]
    Re: No Forward to Time & Temp? [Jody Kravitz]
    Wrong Number For Model [Durham Morning Herald via J. Dean Brock]
    Wanted: TELEGUIDE FOR PC - ie. RLE GRAPHICS [Beezer]
    DDD History [David Lesher]
    Try This One! [John Higdon]
    Re: Installing a Second Line in Apartment [Steven King]
    Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging [Gordon Meyer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jerry Aguirre <[e-mail]>
Subject: T1 Mux Info Needed
Date: 10 Mar 90 05:32:12 GMT


We are trying to get a 64K international circut installed and have run
into a problem.  The local carrier (PacBell) doesn't offer "clear
channel" 64K lines (plus something about superframes being different).
The suggestion from AT&T was to get a T1 line for the local loop and
put the 64K on a subchannel of that.  The rest of the line would feed
into our PBX for long distance voice use (Megacom).

The problem we are having is finding a unit to split off a 64K V.35
subchannel from a T1 line and pass the rest of the T1 line into our
switch.  (With one of the subchannels dead.)  While such a beast is
supposed to exist no one has been able to specify one or even tell us
what its exact name is.

The configuration we are aiming at would look like this:

             -----        ----------        ---------------------
    ---T1---| CSU |--T1--| splitter |--T1--| System 75/Generic 1 |
             -----        ----------        ---------------------
                  |
                  | 64K
                  | V.35
                  |
            --------------
               | cisco router |
            --------------

I would appreciate any information and recomendations about the
channel splitter and other hardware to accomplish the above.

                Jerry Aguirre

                [e-mail]
                {amdahl|decwrl|sun}!oliveb!jerry

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:09:08 EST
From: Czeslaw Piasta <mitel![e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN 2B1Q Countries?


What countries have decided to follow the ANSI-T1.601-1988
specification for the U-reference point?

What countries are leaning towards it ?

The question more generally can be put, "What countries have adopted
or are adopting the '2B1Q line code' ?"

Thanks folks,

    Chester Piasta           UUCP:   ...!mitel!piasta


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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 14:35:14 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: No Forward to Time & Temp?


The message about no longer being able to forward to time &
temperature (from Jody Kravitz) reminds me of earlier note (sometime
last year?) about forwarding calls to some recording near Chicago
area, as written up in TELECOM Digest.  The latter case came under
"resale of services"(?), and was discovered by a phone-co. service rep
who called the original number and got switched to the recording, and
it led very shortly afterward to a phone-co. order that such
forwarding be discontinued immediately and permanently.  I don't see
such "resale" in Jody's note.  Jody, when it was no longer possible to
forward to time & temp., what happened when such forwarding was
attempted?

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

Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 20:52:10 PST
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Forward to Time & Temp?


In a previous posting I mentioned that my ability to forward my calls
to the time & temperature number went away. I received a request to
elaborate on this.

I do not know the implementation, but a day after the complaint by my
housemate's friend, you could not do the forward.  If memory serves me
correctly, you would get a fast busy if you entered the call-forward
code + the number of the time & temp lady.

There seem to be a couple of possibilities.  Both involve treating the
number as a special case.  One possibility is that a special case was
set in the CO firmware to not allow forwarding to that number.

Another possibility is more complicated.  The time & temp was provided
by the phone company from telco owned equipment in a differrent
Central Office than the one that I was served by.  It is possible that
they allocated a dedicated trunk between the two offices, and made a
special case of connecting all calls to the time number to that trunk.
This would save a lot of busy trunks and would also make forwarding
impossible.


Jody

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

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Dean Brock)
Subject: Wrong Number For Model
Date: 9 Mar 90 20:20:58 GMT


The March 7 issue of the [Durham Morning Herald] had a front page
article about Charlotte Clark, a 68 year old Durham women, who is
receiving many, many calls from men eager to converse with with
Durham's other Charlotte Clark, a 20 year old Duke University student
who posed for a Playboy feature entitled "Girls of the ACC."

At first the older Charlotte Clark could not understand why men would
be calling her to discuss Playboy magazine and "hesitated to tell her
friends and family about it because it was so strange."

    Most of the callers were "young fellows," who sounded like college
    students, she said.  A few sounds older, like college professors,
    she said.  [DMH, 3/7/90]

Now that Ms. Clark understands the motivations of her callers, she is
quick to inform them that they have reached the wrong Charlotte Clark.

Oh, the other Charlotte Clark got an unlisted number weeks ago.

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

From: Beezer <caeco!i-core![e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: TELEGUIDE FOR PC - ie. RLE GRAPHICS
Organization: Bitsko's Bar & Grill, Public Access, Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 16:45:12 GMT


Quite sometime ago, I personally learned that the TELEGUIDE service
uses RLE graphics.  For those that haven't heard of TELEGUIDE, it is a
public service information station that you walk up to and utilize
information about all the local events, features, weather, etc...
Usally contained in a upright station you walk up to, I'm looking to
see if ANYONE knows if you can dial-up one of their data links
directly.

There are already some comparable NATIONAL systems that use RLE
graphics, but they do not focus on LOCAL events.  Oh, RLE graphics by
the way are very swift "area-fill" graphics that use color.  Quick
example would be 'rolling green hills, the sun, and a advertizement'
that "area-fill" in a matter of seconds.

If you have leads, post them up - this would be a great asset to the
home computer community.  Thanx.


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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: DDD History
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 90 21:09:41 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


{Donald Kimberlin talked about DDD/SDT existing overseas prior to
here}

The most notable STD cutover I ever read about was in the book "A
Bridge too Far" about the Operation Market Garden diaster.  This was
the attempt to capture an intact bridge across the Rhine.

Seem as if the advanced paratroops had been dropped without the
correct {or maybe ANY!} crystals for their radios. In any case, they
had no communications.

The local phone systems were dial, but intertown calls needed an
operator. So the Germans put their operators in place, but left the
locals to run and fix the rest. A member of the Resistance installed
SDT at each switch in the system UNDER THE NOSES OF THE GERMANS. They
{the Dutch} could then use the system, by dialing more numbers than
needed for local calls, and did so for quite a while.

When the British advance was pinned down, the Resistance offered
several times to put them in contact with British units elsewhere in
the country, only to be told to "go away" perhaps because the Brits
did not understand/believe them.

Such is the irony/tragedy of war.


A host is a host & from coast to [e-mail]
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

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

Subject: Try This One!
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 9 Mar 90 18:50:47 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


I have had an ongoing billing problem with Pac*Bell for 27 months. For
those of you unfamiliar with a "Full State" 800 number, it works like
this:

There are four billing rates: Intralata on-peak, intralata off-peak,
interlata on-peak, and interlata off-peak. The rates are,
respectively, $21.50/hr, $8.60/hr, $12.50/hr, and $5.83/hr. The
interlata is handled by AT&T, and no, there is no typo; intralata is
higher than interlata.  As you can see, that last rate is very
attractive. For that reason, I got this service to conduct business
with associates in the Southern California area after hours. That was
four years ago.

In November of 1987, one of my associates moved to the high desert
area near Victorville. Phone service there is provided by Contel. That
was when the trouble started. Since that time, large amounts of usage
have been showing in the "intralata off-peak" column. When this first
happened it sent up an immediate flag, since the only calls received
are from Southern California.

It was no trouble convincing the business office that no calls were
originating from within the LATA and they gave me a credit for the
difference. But it happened the following month and has happened for
22 of the 27 months since calls started coming in from Contel.

Today, I made the monthly call to the business office to remind them
of the usual error and got a big surprise. I was connected with a
"supervisor" who said that their investigations had revealed that the
reason for the billing problem was faulty data from Contel. Well, that
made sense. But she went on to say that there really wasn't anything
they could do about it and they weren't going to adjust my bill
anymore.

What??? I asked where that was tariffed, and she said it was really
"beyond tariff". As a customer, I'm not entitled to correct billing?
Well, she was sorry but that was that and concluded the conversation.
First, I called AT&T for a reality check. Am I entitled to get what I
ordered and pay the correct rate? Of course. Also, the person at AT&T
was interested in how much revenue they were losing due to Pac*Bell's
billing errors statewide. After all, how many 800 customers know
exactly where all their calls come from and are sure enough of their
knowledge to complain?

Then I talked to a San Jose area manager for Pac*Bell who actually
sounded legitimate. She promised to resolve the problem to my
satisfaction by mid-week. This should be interesting. I'll let you
know.

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

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Installing a Second Line in Apartment
Date: 9 Mar 90 16:57:22 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> ntmtv![e-mail]
(Raymond Koverzin) writes:

>I want to install a second phone line in my aparment.  I called Pac
>Bell and they stated that can provide the second line "up to the wall
>of the apartment building" for the basic service activation charge.

>I talked to the landlord and he stated that he does not know if the
>apartments are properly wired for a second line.  He said that I would
>have to get a Pac Bell service person in to check into it.

>I have checked behind the phone outlet and there are two twisted pairs
>connected to the outlet.  How can I be sure that the second pair is
>hooked up to the local CO and that all I need is service activation?
>Is it likely that the second line has to be connected at the pedestal
>at the front entrance to the apartment complex, thus I will need to
>get a service technician to make the connection AND verify that the
>line is good inside my apartment.

>If that is the case, then I don't consider the second line is "wired
>up to the wall of the apartment building."  It is only up to the
>pedestal.

>How much should I expect to pay for a Pac Bell service tech?  I don't
>want to pay for having him install a second outlet; I can do that
>myself.

I was in the same situation about three months ago.  In my 12-year old
apartment building, I found a mess of wires (probably about half a
dozen pairs) terminating in bare wire behind my phone plate.  "This'll
be easy!"  I thought.  I called Illinois Bell to have them install the
second line.  For the base activation charge they sent out a man to
bring my second line "up to the wall"; in this case, to the
distribution panel in the building's utility room.  This he did.  He
said he really wasn't supposed to, but he had the time so he tried to
find a pair in the apartment to connect it to.

No luck.  Not a single connection, other than my original phone line.
Somewhere in the building every pair was severed.  The Bell guy
suggested my maintenance people might be able to fix things up for me;
otherwise he'd have to charge THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS A *HALF* HOUR to run
new wires.  I called maintenance.  "Sorry, not our job.  Call Bell."
Given the distance between my apartment and the utility room, I
estimated running new wires would be a two-hour job.  I didn't have
$140 to drop on a new line, so I called Bell to cancel service on it.

I was prepared to just kiss the $50 (or therabouts) for the activation
call goodbye.  After all, Bell *did* fullfil their half of the
bargain.  To my surprise, the service rep. got all charges (ALL
charges!) attributed to that short-lived second line dropped from my
bill!  She'd checked with billing and verified that I had never
actually used the line, so she (and her superior, I imagine) took pity
on me.  Score one for a helpful service rep. at Illinois Bell!


I'm very good at giving directions, especially if  | Steve King  [phone]
I'm giving them to myself, 'cause I know what I'm  |   ...uunet!motcid!king
talking about.                                     |   ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek

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

Date: 09 Mar 90 21:45:01 EST
From: GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging


In a recent Digest Tom Lowe asked for comments on Voicemark messaging.

I called rcvd a brochure on the service.  I think it's a good idea and
I'd like to utilize it but two things prevent me from doing so
(besides the fact that I can't use my RAO card that is :).

  1) I'd like to see a >2 hour delay for sending a message.  How
about expanding it to at least 5 hours?  If I call a message in at 6AM
CST, and delay it for the maximum two hours then it would still be 6AM
PST. Too early for most business calls...

  2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my
message lost.  The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but
I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution.  Seems to me a better
idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message. If
it detects constant voice on the other end (such as would be given by
an answering machine..I assume that most people are going to shut-up
and listen to the message) then Voicemark could "wait for the beep"
and replay it again.  Of course this would make the call longer in
duration but that could be billed back to the customer.

I realize that #2 might not be of great concern ... I can't use the
service to determine that for myself until the "billing negotiations"
are worked out!


GRM
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #161
******************************

ISSUES 162 AND 163 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 163 APPEARS NEXT THEN
162 FOLLOWS IT.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24803;
          11 Mar 90 15:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10542;
          11 Mar 90 14:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17898;
          11 Mar 90 13:03 CST
Date:     Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:56:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #163
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:55:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 163

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls [Jeffrey M. Schweiger]
    Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls [Bill Cerny]
    Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance [David Tamkin]
    Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Sprint Plus [David Schanen]
    Re: Alternate Carrier List Availability [David Schanen]
    Information Needed on Philips Minitel 1 Terminal [George S. Thurman]
    Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [Lou Judice]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls
Date: 11 Mar 90 02:01:44 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patty Winter) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 157, Message 2 of 11

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

<>     Based in Monterey, California, the 24-hour language service is
<>reached by dialing a toll-free number.

<Now that's interesting -- why Monterey? Could it have anything to do
<with the presence of one of the top language schools in the country,
<namely the Defense Language Institute? The only problem with that
<theory is that the DLI instructors already have full-time jobs, and
<the US government might not like them moonlighting in their spare
<time.

<Anyone know whether this is sheer coincidence, or even why this
<service is based in Monterey?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Veditz) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 157, Message 3 of 11

|Hmm... the Air Force (Army?) has a Language Institute in Monterey.
|It'd be a good source of translators, and the work would give the
|students practice.  Anyone know if AT&T does hire students or grads
|from the institute, or is LLS's location in Monterey a coincidence?

Determining whether or not 'moonlighting' is permitted, is usually
left up to the organization's commander.  There are some situations
where a policy exists precluding certain types of 'moonlighting'.  Any
moonlighting that does take place is not supposed to interfere with
normal responsibilities (ie., military duties, etc.).  I am _not_ a
spokesman in any way for the Defense Language Institute (DLI) at the
Presidio of Monterey, and do not know what their policy is on these
matters (or policies (plural), as there may very well be several
levels to 'moonlighting' - student/staff, military/civilian, etc).

There is also a large number of people living in the Monterey area who
were previously associated with the military installations here, liked
the area, and either stayed or returned after terminating an active
association (retiring, or just leaving) with DoD.  That's a source of
people who would not have to worry about 'moonlighting' policy for
those in active DoD employ.

Also, DLI is not the only language school in Monterey (or actually,
school teaching languages).  The Monterey Institute of International
Studies is a private upper-division and graduate school which includes
languages in its curricula.  There must also be both a supply and a
demand for translator/ interpreter services in the Monterey area, as
there are a number of such services listed in the Monterey Yellow
Pages.

*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger      CompuServe:  74236,1645    Standard Disclaimer
ARPAnet (Defense Data Network):                [e-mail]
*******************************************************************************

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: AT&T Translators Interpret Foreign Calls
Date: 10 Mar 90 17:32:03 GMT


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

>     The company's Langauge Line Service, providing access to
>telephone interpreters fluent in 143 languages and dialects...

Ever wonder how they staff this?

>     Based in Monterey, California...

Ah, across the street from the Defense Language Institute!  8-)


Bill Cerny
[e-mail]    |    attmail: !denwa!bill    |    fax: [phone]

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Query: Cordless Portable Hands-free Telephone Set
Date: 11 Mar 90 04:26:54 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary W. Sanders)
> writes:

> > In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> > X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 146, Message 2 of 9

> > Does anyone know of a cordless headset phone that doesn't require that
> > you have a plug inserted in your ear canal? Since I wear a hearing aid
> > the "in the ear" headsets don't work. Something with a standard
> > Walkman type headset is what I need.

>     There is a cordless unit that uses a Walkman type headset. It
> is made by WICOM 21525 Strathern St, Canoga Park, California 91304.
> [phone].

    And just hours after I posted the above about the WICOM unit I
decided to read my March 1990 edition of INBOUND/OUTBOUND. This is a
telecom related freebee magazine from Harry Newton's ego factory. They
have a section devoted to headsets - worth a read.  They also have an
article on the WICOM I mentioned before (Page 77). There is an 800
number for WICOM: [phone]. Also their FAX number (818)
715-9067.

    But there is another cordless phone that takes a "Walkman"
type headset. It is called the "Roamafone" by VXI, Rollinsford, New
Hampshire. It is a modified Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone. It costs
more than the WICOM - $375 - and does not have a model with an FM
radio.

Yours,

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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 14:07:55 CST


Paul Wilczynski wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 155:

| I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them.

| They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business
| office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us
| any more".

Applause, applause, applause!  (Serious applause to NET, not sarcastic
applause to Mr. Wilczynski.)

That's what happens when you cry "Wolf!" several hundred thousand
times too often.


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable Companies Versus Telcos
Date: 10 Mar 90 08:02:38 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


    Two or three years ago I got, on my monthly cable bill, a
miniature questionnaire about whether I owned a personal computer,
what type, etc. I filled it out (avid consumer of high technology that
I am), but that was the last I heard of it.

    Viacom claimed that they were considering adding "enhanced
services". Did anyone else get something like this? Does anyone know
if anything came of it?

    My guess is that the cable guys (at least here in Bellevue,
where the cable service is right out of the Stone Age) decided that
anything that involved real engineering was out of their ballpark.
(Anyone for rec.cabletv.stupid-company-stories?)


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Plus
Date: 11 Mar 90 13:30:03 GMT
Reply-To: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


    Hello net,

     Maybe I can help a little bit here.  I am an Independent Marketing
Representative for, a marketing group representing US Sprint.

     Here is the information I dug up on it.

     Effective July 17, 1989 - October 16, 1989

     When I signed someone on Sprint Plus they could get $25 credit on
they're January 1990 bill (from Sprint)

     Sprint Plus:

    Minimum charge of $8 per month.

    Night Rates start at 5pm instead of 11pm. (50% off day rates)

      (all bulk use discounts apply to interstate usage only)

    With $25 monthly usage you get 5% off all 8am-5pm usage and
 10% off all 5pm-8am usage.

    With $100 monthly usage you get an additional 5% off 5pm-8am usage.

    With $200 monthly usage you get a total of 20% off 5pm-8am usage.

        Hope this helped,

            -Dave

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternate Carrier List Availability
Date: 11 Mar 90 13:41:34 GMT
Reply-To: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


    I contacted my local operator (Pacific Northwest Bell) for
this very information.  The first operator I recieved refused to give
me the information so I asked for her supervisor who after some
chiding eventually gave to a man with the list (I'm not sure of his
position) he was very helpful and read off a list of some 30 or so
0XXX codes including carriers that were coin only! ( I don't think he
meant to do that :) It took a good half an hour but I got the info I
wanted.  So maybe if you push a little you can get the information.


        -Dave

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

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 15:05 EST
From: George S Thurman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on Philips Minitel 1 Terminal

Are any TELECOM Digest readers familiar with the data terminal from
PHILIPS, with the model # of MINITEL 1?

I need user information.

Thanks,
George S. Thurman
MCI MAIL ID 405-6081


[Moderator's Note: I might add George and I (we are neighbors and
friends of many years) also need the User Manual for the
Hewlitt-Packard terminal, Model 2629-E. George got two of them and
sold one to me. They're quite nice, older (circa 1982) terminals with
thermal printers built into the top. Any documentation on how to
operate them or his Phillips Minitel 1 will be appreciated.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 07:32:56 PST
From: "Lou Judice @KYO / DTN 323-4103" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos


It's interesting, because wrong numbers usually come in either one's
or 3-4 in a row.

Clearly the MEANEST way of dealing with this was in the film "Ruthless
People", when the Danny DeVito character received a wrong number for
Matilda.  "No, I'm sorry, Matilda can't come to the phone right now
because she's ******* ** ***** (use your imagination)".

This of course only works for certain combinations of male/female
callers and call-ee's. I certainly don't recommend it, and also
certainly have never had the nerve to do it!  :)

/ljj

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #163
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24808;
          11 Mar 90 15:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10542;
          11 Mar 90 14:08 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17898;
          11 Mar 90 13:03 CST
Date:     Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:17:01 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #162
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 11 Mar 90 12:15:01 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 162

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values and Telecommunications [Jane M. Fraser]
    Reach Out And Touch DGI <That's Cuban Intelligence, Folks> [Havana Moon]
    Billing and Answer Supervision in Frankfurt [David Lesher]
    Denmark Charges for Time Off-Hook Also [Julian Macassey]
    More Greed [John Higdon]
    Unlisted Stats [Kenneth Jongsma]
    Telecom Student Needs Tutor/Mentor [Joel P. Krigsman]
    Is That a Business or a Residence, Mr. Bush [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 12:29:10 est
From: "Jane M. Fraser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values and Telecommunications


Seven lectures will be presented at Ohio State University during the
spring quarter on the topic "Teleliteracy: Literacy, Values, and
Telecommunications."  The lectures are free and open to the public;
They are being sponsored by the Battelle Endowment for Technology and
Human Affairs.

This article is being posted by Jane M. Fraser, Associate Director,
Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications, 210 Baker Systems,
1971 Neil Avenue, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
(614-292-4129) (email: [e-mail]). The material was
drawn from material provided by Dr. Reeves.

For several centuries, print culture has been of central importance to
Western societies.  To be literate has meant to be able to read and
write the words of the vernacular language and to be able to generate
meaning through the written word.  At present we are in the throes of
a profound transformation toward new types of literacies as the result
of the confluence of the elecronic communications technologies of
television, interactive networks, and computer graphics.  The specific
forms othat this transformation will take, and the groups of opeople
whom it will empower or affect detrimentally, will depend on the ways
that access to (that is, literacy in) these technologies is
controlled.

The lecture series will explore a variety of literacies required by or
made possible by modern telecommunications, their value structures, and
their impacts on our values as individuals and as a society.  These
include traditional literacy and numeracy, "pictoriacey" (image
literacy), literacy in the critical use of television, computer
interactions including scientific visulaization and questions of
personal identity, and the "audiovisual literacy" of empowerment
through access to telecommunications media and information.

All presentations will be held 7-9 PM in Room 100 Stillman Hall, 1947
College Road, Ohio State University campus, Columbus, OH.  A public,
pay, parking facilty (ARPS garage) is located across the street,
accessible from College Road and from N. High St.  All presentations,
except the first, are on Thursdays.

Tuesday, 3 April 1990:
Brian Stock, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, University of Toronto
"Literacy and Values Then and Now".
Definitions and meanings of print literacy. Associated value complexes
(critical, abstract thinking, individual autonomy). Why redefine
literacy now?

Thursday, 12 April 1990
John Fiske, University of Wisconsin-Madison
"Teleliteracy and the Conditions of Reception"
Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois-Urbana
"The Discipline of Culture and the Technologies of Discipline:
It's Hard to be a Saint in the City"
Values of television and video manipulation; television as oral subculture?
Television watching as passive process? Values of orality: social
relatedness? Video manipulation as active process.

Thursday, 19 April 1990
Barbara Mihalas, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, Urbana
Richard Mark Friedhoff, Visicom Corporation, Los Angeles
"Pictoriacy" (image literacy) as bridge between media: scientific
visualization as highly interactive process. Changing scientists'
imaginations and intuitions about how natural phenomena behave.
Enlarging our conception of science; transforming scientific literacy
for citizens.

Thursday, 26 April 1990
Cheris Kramarae, University of Oregon
Andrew Ross, Princeton University
"Computer Hackers"
Personal computers and identity in a teleliterate world. Computer use
as highly interactive "world-making." Gender issues in computer use.

Thursday, 3 May 1990
Herbert Schiller, University of California-San Diego
"Welcome to the Two-tiered Society"
Oscar H. Gandy, Jr., University of Pennsylvania
"The Cybernetic Triage: Inequality in the Information Age"
Ownership of media and sources of information. Privatization.
Equity issues.

Thursday, 10 May 1990
Dee Dee Halleck, Paper Tiger TV
Kevin Wilson, Teleuniversite, Montreal
"The Access/Control Paradox in the New Electronic Media for the Home"

Thursday, 17 May 1990
Mark Poster, University of California-Irvine
"Derrida and Computer Writing"

More information can be obtained from Dr. Barbara Reeves or Toni
Mortimer at:
Center for Comparative Studies           614-292-2559
306 Dulles Hall
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reach Out And Touch DGI <That's Cuban Intelligence, Folks>
Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 11:52:51 PST


The following item by Havana Moon appeared originally in The Umbra et Lux
Newsletter - a monthly publication which focuses on Signals and Communica-
tions Intelligence (SIGINT/COMINT), espionage and counter-intelligence.
It is reposted here with permission.

Umbra et Lux is published by DX/SWL Press, 10606-8 Camino Ruiz, Suite 174-kk,
San Diego, CA  92126.  $18/year domestic, $24/year international.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


     THE "REACH OUT AND TOUCH THE DGI" PHONE SERVICE PUT ON HOLD

     Mimi Whitefield, a Miami Herald staff writer (that's an Uzi City
     Daily, folks), reports in the 2/14/90 edition that a new under-
     water cable that would improve the congested telephone service
     between the United States and Cuba was completed last April.  Un-
     fortunately, no one in Florida - or in Cuba, for that matter -
     has been able to use the line.  After a mere $7 million cash
     outlay, I imagine the Board Room types at AT&T are somewhat
     less than thrilled with this state of affairs.

     Seems the culprit is the US Trade Embargo which limits US companies'
     ability to do business with Cuba.  This Embargo has been in effect
     for nearly three decades and is designed to isolate Cuba economically
     and cut it off from US Dollars - and the issue here is the restric-
     tion on transferring the $220,000 a year it will take for the Cuban
     Telephone Company to maintain and service the connection.

     Meanwhile, the cable between Cojimar and West Palm Beach sits - and
     phone calls to Cuba are as hard to place as ever.  An AT&T spokesman
     says roughly 40 million attempts to "phone home" are made annually -
     with only about 400,000 of these attempts actually completed - simply
     because there aren't enough circuits.  This issue is especially hot
     in South Florida, where 85% of the calls to Cuba originate.

     Another reason AT&T is anxious to get this cable in service is due to
     the current over-the-horizon radio service to Cuba which uses a frequency
     assigned to Southern Bell for mobile cellular phones.  Spokesmen say
     that AT&T's Cuba calls occupy the frequency and interfere with Southern
     Bell's ability to provide cellular service.

     So reach out and touch someone - courtesy of Ma Bell - but you may
     find yourself camped out in that phone booth for a long, long time . . .
     Hold on, Fidel!


     (c) 1990, MoonBeam Press

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 9:12:12 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


This discussion started talking about the 'toll saver' feature of
answering machines.  John Higdon said:

>Even those robber barons at PacTel Cellular have apparently dropped the
>charges for unanswered calls.

{and comments on charging for both busy and no-answer calls}

>No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my
>messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages."

According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone
administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is
ringing, busy or hung at the switch.

Wouldn't that be just *great* on FTS, guys??

(For those not in_the_know, FTS is also known as the "Network to
Nowhere" since seemingly 60% of the calls die enroute, connect to the
wrong place, go to reorder, or have one-way audio)


A host is a host & from coast to [e-mail]
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

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

From: julian macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Denmark Likewise Charges For Time Off-Hook
Date: 11 Mar 90 05:14:02 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood CA U.S.A.


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

> You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work
> yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number.
> As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision.
> After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a
> charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't
> answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number
> and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22!

    When I lived in Denmark. You paid for communication attempts. If
you picked up the handset to see if you could get dialtone - ding
25 oere for local call. If you kept it off hook, you kept paying.
Then L. M. Ericsson came out with the Ericafone. The problem with
the Ericafone was that it didn't go on hook very positively.
After a few people complained about massive bills after the phone
had been of hook for a day or two they changed the billing for
phones off hook. As I recall they only charged you for the first
hour of "off hook operation".

    But wait, there's more... When you dialed a long distance
number, the long distance charges started immediatly after the
number was dialled and you were billed for the time on the line
(sometimes 2 second increments on international calls), whether
you spoke to anyone on the other end or not. Want to call the
operator and complain? That will be 25 oere - thanks. Emergency
calls (dial 000) were free, How comforting.

    Think how much better service could get if GTE moved into
Denmark.

> Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the
> facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call
> attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would
> sure put war dialers out of business!

    Yes, in case you wondered, you did pay for busy signals. I was
told that as equipment was being used to place the call, it should be
paid for. A good incentive not to supply service.

    Kinda ironic that the "Erlang" was named after a Danish
telephony engineer.


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

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

Subject: More Greed
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 10 Mar 90 19:27:50 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


For you toll-saver dissenters, a question: How would you feel about
this?--

Many people have answering machines that answer on the fourth or fifth
ring all the time. This enables them to leave the machine on at all
times without having to bother to turn it on when they leave. When
they are home, they answer the phone before the machine does. When
they are gone the machine eventually answers the phone.

I know people who do this. When I call them, if there is no answer on
the fourth ring, I assume they are out and hang up before the machine
answers since I just called to BS anyway. I have not been charged for
the call, but I know they are out and I didn't get stung by the
answering machine.

How about passing a law saying that you must let the phone ring ten
times for each call attempt:-)

But take heart. Nynex some time ago took a major step in this arena.
In some smoke-filled board room a few years back, it was decided that
there was a lot of traffic directed to its choke network (radio
request lines, contest lines, etc.) that was not generating revenue
because of busies and ACB reorders. So the courageous, pioneering
practice of charging for all calls to any choke number was instituted.
No answer?  You pay. Busy? You pay. All circuits busy? You pay. Nynex
equipment trouble? You pay.

That knowledge ought to warm some hearts.

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


[Moderator's Note: However, see the two messages before yours in this
issue.  Some countries do charge for the time the phone is *being
used* -- not just during the time a connection is established.
Anyway, my complaint was not that you let it ring for some period of
time, make some assumptions about the person at the other end and
disconnect. It was the practice of using *coded ringing by
pre-arrangement* with the other end; i.e. I let it ring twice and hang
up, then call back again right away ... you know it's me calling
because we planned it this way.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Unlisted Stats
Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 05:36:54 PST


The folowing chart appeared in this month's issue of [Esquire
Magazine]. The stats are attributed to Survey Sampling, Inc.

            Percentage of Telephone Numbers Unlisted

     Las Vegas            60.3%
     San Francisco        47.7%
     New York             36.5%
     Washington DC        26.2%
     Atlanta              23.8%
     Minneapolis          15.8%

Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

From: "GRRRRRR.....(----IT A DOGGY'S BAD DAY" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Student Needs Tutor/Mentor
Date: Sat, 10-Mar-90 05:36:54 EST

Hi!

I am a student at the Rochester Institute of Technology majoring in
Telecommunications which was recently offered.  Currently, I am taking
a course called "Telecommunications Fundamentals" this quarter.  The
textbook for this course is "Data Communications: A User's Guide", 3rd
ed., by Ken Sherman.

I'm looking for a mentor (or someone who doesn't mind helping out) who
can assist me via electronic mail with any questions that I might have
during the quarter.  If you don't mind helping me out, please let me
know.

Thank you very much!!

                                                Joel P Krigsman
Bitnet: JPK1521 @ RITVAX

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is That a Business or a Residence, Mr. Bush?
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 90 18:01:50 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Daniel Shorr of NPR's Weekend Edition suggested that after the
great Hashemi Rafsunjani phone call hoax, George may wish to get
Caller-ID.


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 #162
******************************






ISSUES 162 AND 163 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 163 CAME AHEAD OF 162
IN THE ARCHIVES.  164 NOW FOLLOWS.












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04724;
          12 Mar 90 8:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05092;
          12 Mar 90 7:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06888;
          12 Mar 90 6:14 CST
Date:     Mon, 12 Mar 90 5:53:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #164
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Mar 90 05:52:03 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 164

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    More on LoD [Gene Spafford]
    File Transfer Circuit Needed (for PCs,i.e.) [S. Jain]
    AT&T Enters Credit Card Biz [Bob Jacobson]
    What Happens With Lithuania Now? [Henry Mensch]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [John Higdon]
    Re: More Greed [John Higdon]
    Re: More Greed [John Wasilko]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Joel M. Snyder]
    White House "Caller ID" [Michael Katzmann]
    Re: Additional Caller ID Information [Bernie Roehl]
    Re: Unlisted Stats [Randal Schwartz]
    Sprint WD-40 Number? [Michael Fetzer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on LoD
Date: 12 Mar 90 00:54:50 GMT
Reply-To: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


For those of you believing that the LoD indictments are mean-spirited
attempts to kill the fun of a couple of kids, the following
information should be of interest.  This is taken from my monthly
"Guide to Computer Law" update bulletin, derived from a Dept. of
Justice news release:

Three people have been indicted in Atlanta under five federal laws in
connection with their activities with the "Legion of Doom."  The
indictment includes charges of conspiracy to commit computer fraud,
wire fraud, access code fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen
property.  Each of them has ALSO been charged with four counts of wire
fraud and one count of possesion of access code with intent to
defraud.

The article claims that the LoD has been alleged to consist of
approximately fifteen individuals in Georgia, Illinois, Michigan,
Texas, Florida and other states.  An investigation into their
activities is continuing.

One other person has also been charged in a separate indictment in
Chicago in connection with the theft and disclosure of Bell South's
911 software.

The cases and federal districts involved are listed as "US v. Grant
a.k.a. the Urvile a.k.a. Necron 99 a.k.a. Darden a.k.a. The Leftist,
and Riggs a.k.a. The Prophet" in the northern district of Georgia; US
v. Riggs a.k.a. Robert Johnson a.k.a. The Prophet, and Neirdorf a.k.a.
Knight LIghtning" in the northern district of Illinois.

For the interested, I think the laws involved (all from U.S.C. Title
18) are sections 1030, 1029 and 1343.  Section 1905 (disclosure of
confidential information such as trade secrets) may also be involved.

These guys are facing long prison sentences if found guilty of even a
few of these....


Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet:  [e-mail]    uucp:    ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 11 Mar 1990 15:41:26 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: File Transfer Circuit Needed (for PCs,i.e.)


    I am trying to hack together a circuit that would receive data
from another site.  I will be using a parity odd/even scheme to check
for errors in transmission.  But, I would also like to correct any
errors that may arise without retransmission via adding more info to
the transmission message so I can correct the parrity errors.  Does
anyone know if this is possible and where I can find a circuit (logic
diagram) for this animal?

Thank you,
s. jain

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

From: Bob Jacobson <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Enters Credit Card Biz
Date: 11 Mar 90 23:43:27 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


The WALL STREET JOURNAL reports that AT&T has officially thrown its
hat into the credit-card business ring.  The telephone calling-card
number will become the equivalent of your bankcard number; in fact, it
WILL BE your bankcard number if you use the AT&T VISA or Mastercard.

Putting two and two together, it becomes apparent that Caller ID (via
800 and 900 services) and this credit-card application of the
telephone number make for a potent telemarketing and sales tool.

Any thoughts on the subject?


Bob Jacobson

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 21:53:11 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Happens With Lithuania Now?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


What happens to Lithuania once (if) they are separated from the Soviet
Union's telephone network?  Do they get their own country code and the
like?

REFERENCE:

       "Expressing the will of the people, the Supreme Soviet of the
Lithuanian Republic declares and solemnly proclaims the restoration of
the exercise of sovereign powers of the Lithuanian state, which were
annulled by an alien power in 1940. From now on, Lithuania is once
again an independent state."

       -- Resolution approved by the Lithuanian Parliament.

# Henry Mensch    /   <[e-mail]>   /   E40-379 MIT,  Cambridge, MA
# <[e-mail]-relay> / <[e-mail]> / <[e-mail]>

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 11 Mar 90 15:09:44 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> (For those not in_the_know, FTS is also known as the "Network to
> Nowhere" since seemingly 60% of the calls die enroute, connect to the
> wrong place, go to reorder, or have one-way audio)

I am convinced that one of the factors responsible for the excellent
call completion rates in the United States is the traditional practice
of answer supervision billing. As I mentioned, PacTel Cellular used to
charge its customers for all call attempts regardless of the outcome.
During that time call completion was a rigged crapshoot in favor of
the house. It was better than an even-money bet that any given call
would end in a reorder, for which the caller would be charged ("uses
air time, you know").

Now that they have apparently dropped this practice, calls are
completed much more reliably. GTE Mobilnet, which has always started
the clock in this area upon supervision, has always completed calls
swiftly and dependably.

If a telco gets paid for every call attempt, successfully completed or
not, then what incentive is there to provide any kind of decent
service? As Julian Macassey put it in his related article:

>     Yes, in case you wondered, you did pay for busy signals. I was
> told that as equipment was being used to place the call, it should be
> paid for. A good incentive not to supply service.

This was PacTel Cellular's argument (maybe they should have been
providing service abroad), but I give you as exhibits A and B,
respectively, their quality of service before halting the practice of
charging for all call attempts, and after.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Greed
Date: 11 Mar 90 15:28:29 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Mar 11 at 12:17, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> It was the practice of using *coded ringing by
> pre-arrangement* with the other end; i.e. I let it ring twice and hang
> up, then call back again right away ... you know it's me calling
> because we planned it this way.  PT]

Sounds like a great use for Caller-ID. If someone sees on the display
that he doesn't want to talk to the caller and decides not to answer
the phone as a result, should there be a charge? A hell of a lot of
information has been passed!

An answering machine I have on the drawing board, but have not had the
energy or the need to prototype it yet, among other things works like
this:

It is PC-based and has (at least) two lines. One answers the listed
number where callers leave their messages and the other answers an
unlisted line where the owner calls to retrieve same. If there are new
messages, the unlisted line answers on the first ring. If not, the
unlisted line never answers.

This is, in essence, rich-man's Toll Saver. Anyone have a problem with
this? Do you feel that a mechanical answering device *must always*
answer the phone, even if it has no communication for the caller
(owner)? If you approve of this technique, why then do you object to
an economical equivalent for the common man (Toll Saver)?

My point is simply that unless you do bill for all call attempts,
there is no way the passing of "free" information can be prevented.
Attempts to do so will push the system closer and closer to the "bill
all attempts" doctrine; something that could ruin the high grade of
service we currently enjoy in the US.


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


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, as you phrased it, it is a good example of
Caller ID. But -- Caller ID *is* being charged for! Its not being
given away free by United Charities. So information is in fact being
passed (do you or don't you accept the call?) whether or not the phone
is answered and billing supervision begins. And the person who
subscribes to the Caller ID as a source of information pays for it,
regardless of whether or not the caller also pays for it (by having
his connection established.)  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 16:46:34 EST
From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Greed


The choke exchange in Los Angeles charges for all call attempts, too.
My first bill from GTE was quite a surprise.


Jeff

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

From: "Joel M. Snyder" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 11 Mar 90 19:49:21 GMT
Reply-To: "Joel M. Snyder" <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't


In several recent articles, the moderator called for charging people
for ring-no-answer, and one reader responded by suggesting that taken
to an extreme this would mean charging you for picking up the phone.

In fact, this is already true in the voice world, depending on how you
want to divide up the basic service charge your telco charges.  In the
voice world, it's unlikely to be taken to such extremes, but in the
data world.

On the standards committees I'm a member of, the telcos, rbocs, and
long distance carriers are always VERY concerned about network
resource usage, and they will likely be charging you for all use of
the network as you use it, rather than by creating a blanket
charge.  Thus, calls into a network which are never delivered, calls
which are cleared by the recipient, and other "pre-connection"
activities will all be something you will pay for.  Naturally, the way
this is all accounted for is a business decision of each provider, but
be assured that the "phone company" is making sure that the standards
support passing information which would be necessary for billing such
attempts to the appropriate accounting systems.

On a related note, and merely brushing caller-id into the
conversation, this issue is always discussed with great humor in
standards meetings, because, of course, from day one, calls are
delivered with the "calling address" field in all protocols -- X.25,
X.75 (as such), and the relevant packet-based ISDN protocols.  What
may be traditional in the voice world is highly irregular in the data
one, and we may find that as the networks migrate towards ISDN
services that either (a) all of the protocols are rewritten to deal
with privacy issues or (b) the issue dies a loud and noisy death when
the data people say "don't screw with what works, unless you're
willing to $pay$ for it."


Joel Snyder
U Arizona
CARAT Project


[Moderator's Note: I have never called for charging people for
'ring-no-answer' as such. I have only stated that structured and pre-
arranged ringing patterns -- where someone on the receiving end hears
the ringing and perceives a message from it -- should be illegal if
not paid for. This includes answering machines which 'listen' to rings
and in effect give a message by refusing to answer after the second
ring. The telco agrees: IBT's 'Identi-Call' service, where up to three
separate numbers can be camped on one line, with a distinctive ringing
pattern for each costs about $5 for each number assigned. And of
course Caller ID, which as Mr. Higdon notes definitly delivers a
message regardless of an actual connection being established, also
costs money.  PT]

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

Date: 10 Mar 90 18:31:28 GMT
From: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Subject: White House "Caller ID"
Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home


Perhaps C&P can provide the White House with caller id!  But then
again George Bush would have to be able to recognize the the Iranian
Speaker's number.

(Yes, yes I know it wouldn't work from Iran)

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

From: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Additional Caller ID Information
Date: 11 Mar 90 21:58:16 GMT
Reply-To: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


Having heard all the discussion about caller identification, I'm
curious as to how it's done.  I know how it works with ISDN sets
(vaguely), but how do they do it with standard analog subscriber loops?
Is it sent between rings?  If so, in what format?


        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: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unlisted Stats
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 01:55:26 GMT


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

| The following chart appeared in this month's issue of [Esquire
| Magazine]. The stats are attributed to Survey Sampling, Inc.

Makes me wonder how they came up with the stats...

"Hello, I'm from Survey Sampling.  Is the randomly selected number my
computer just dialed to talk to you listed or unlisted? ... Hello? ...
Hello?"  :-)

Just another listed number (and paying up the yin-yang to be that way!),


/=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] (Michael Fetzer)
Subject: Sprint WD-40 Number?
Date: 11 Mar 90 03:56:31 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet12], Del Mar, CA


I got my Sprint card through WD-40, with the 60 minutes free.  I was
just telling a friend about it.  He wants the number, and I can't
think of it.  1-800-xxx-wd40?  Can someone email it to me, please?


Mike

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: Surely. The number to call is 1-800-FON-WD40
(800-366-8340).  But don't call until you have studied for the test
they give you!  You'll need to answer two questions about the use of
WD-40 to remove rust and other accumulated crud.  The answers to both
questions are yes. If you don't want to listen to the commercial, just
punch '1' as soon as it answers; then pause, punch '1' again, (pause),
then '1' a third time.  You'll be congratulated as a winner, and
connected to the Business Office.  And the prize is actually about $5,
payable as a credit on your *third* bill. You'll pay a 75 cent
surcharge on each call.  Whatta deal!  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #164
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07031;
          12 Mar 90 17:06 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08546;
          12 Mar 90 8:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05092;
          12 Mar 90 7:20 CST
Date:     Mon, 12 Mar 90 7:00:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #165
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Mar 90 07:00:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 165

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Tad Cook]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Stuart Lynne]
    Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging [John Higdon]
    Re: T1 Mux Info Needed [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: Sprint Plus [Rich Sims]
    Telesphere Long Distance Service [Robert Kaplan]
    Searching For X.25 High Speed Boards [Antonio Martinez Mas]
    Changing of 416 from NNX to NXX [David Leibold]
    Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller [Shawn Goodin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Date: 12 Mar 90 03:07:14 GMT
Organization: very little


In the Seattle area I can call without toll charge to a very wide area
into the suburbs, but most of the suburbs cannot call each other
without paying toll.

I have a Centrex like service called 2-line Residential Centraflex.
One of the features is Call Transfer.  Anyone can call me, give me a
number, and I can hookflash, then dial the number and hang up.  This
ties up a trunk or two in the CO, but not my line.  As long as the
person calling me does not pay toll to reach me, and I don't call long
distance, no one pays.

There are some BBSs north of here in Snohomish County that have a
similar function, only automated.  I have not tried it, but they can
transfer calls from Seattle to Everett.  I think one or two of them
may use FX lines in the scheme, but I am not sure how.


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] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Date: 11 Mar 90 09:58:44 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Solsman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 159, Message 8 of 11

>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could
>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges?

A local BBS uses Call Forwarding to achieve this. His BBS is situated
in a suburb of Vancouver which is a free call from most parts of
Vancouver. But from some of the other suburbs it's a long distance
call (which is really strange in some cases, for example it's long
distance for me, but I'm only about 10km away, vs about 25km for
downtown Vancouver which is free).

He has a friend in the downtown area who allowed him to install a
phone line with call forwarding. It is permanently setup to forward to
the BBS number.

This means I can call his number in Vancouver and be forwarded to the
real number without any toll charges.

To summarize: A to B is free, B to C is free, A to C is long distance,
A to C via call forwarding in B is free.

Works fairly well. Saves everyone a bit of money.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532 (voice)    604-939-4768 (fax)


[Moderator's Note: You mean it saves everyone a bit of money *except*
for the person who subscribes to service 'B'. Someone is paying
whatever the going rate for local service is for that line. Does the
corresponding 'savings' experienced by users of the BBS offset the
basic monthly charge?  Have you any idea who uses it, and how
frequently?  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Voicemark Messaging
Date: 11 Mar 90 11:49:04 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]> writes:

>   2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my
> message lost.  The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but
> I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution.  Seems to me a better
> idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message.

Expanding on that a little, what about businesses that have automated
attendants? Frequently there is a considerable amount of canned
verbage before the default kicks in and you are connected with a live
attendant. By the time any human would be available to hear the
announcement, it would long be completed.

Also, when one calls the Higdon Manor he is greeted by a machine that
has no default. A DTMF digit must be entered, or the machine
ultimately hangs up without doing anything. (It's 1990, and I have no
desire to deal with anyone who can't generate DTMF!) I'm sure that
Voicemark will not listen to my menu and make the correct selection!


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

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: T1 Mux Info Needed
Date: 11 Mar 90 23:27:06 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!)


[e-mail] (Jerry Aguirre) writes:

>The problem we are having is finding a unit to split off a 64K V.35
>subchannel from a T1 line and pass the rest of the T1 line into our
>switch.

This is called a "drop and insert" function.  You might want to get
something like a copy of Telecommunications and call some of the small
T1 mux vendors and describe what you need.  I can't recommend a
particular one, but a knowledgable sales person should be able to
steer you in the right direction.


Chip Rosenthal                            |  Yes, you're a happy man and you're
[e-mail]                |  a lucky man, but are you a smart
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  man?  -David Bromberg

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 13:19:04 EST
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Plus


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

> 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...)

I've got several lines with different billing options, and Reach Out
America on one "set".  AT&T sends notices of updates of the ROA
service based on that subscription.  AT&T is also the LD carrier on
the other lines, not covered by the ROA plan, and whenever one of
those lines runs up a bill that would have been lower with ROA, I get
a notice about it, urging me to subscribe to the plan.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 02:55:35 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telesphere Long Distance Service


In a special issue last week, the Moderator noted that Telesphere, the
Chicago-based provider of 900 numbers, is also an AOS provider.

He also mentioned that Telesphere's AOS is somewhat disreputable.  I'd
like to provide confirmation of that.  Brandeis University
Telecommunications contracts with Telesphere to provide 0+ service
from all student phones.  While I don't have prices immediately at
hand, I can assure you that Telesphere's prices are far above the de
facto standard set by ATT, MCI, and US Sprint.

Service is also poor; Telesphere will not make person-to-person calls
from campus phones, claiming they have no way of billing.
Essentially, all they will do is charge a small fortune for making
collect calls.  The only way around it, as I have noted earlier, is to
use 950-[0|1]XXX to access rthe LD carrier of your choice, or ask
the Telesphere operator to connect you to AT&T.  Connection to AT&T
this way takes an extra 60 seconds and involves waiting through some
excruciatingly loud tones.  BTW, AT&T has no problems connecting
person-to-person calls and billing for them.

I suppose it could be worse though; when I went down to Brandeis
Telecommunications' office to complain that 10XXX didn't work, the
lady there said that "Telesphere is a lot better than the last company
we dealt with."  I don't think I want to know how bad the last company
was...

What I want to know, then, is what Brandeis' incentive to use
Telesphere might be?  Is the university possibly getting a cut of
Telesphere's revenue on collect calls?


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

P.S.  If you want to see for yourself, Telesphere's 10XXX code is
10555.  If anyone can get them to complete a person-to-person call,
I'd like to know about it.


[Moderator's Note: Their 'incentive' for using Telesphere is that they
receive a much larger commission on calls handled/billed for than AT&T
was giving them. Telesphere rates are much higher (as you have found
out) and the difference is 'passed on' to the organization running the
phones, in this case, your school.  They are really a sleazebag bunch,
but for 900 service, which is sleazy by its nature, I would probably
use them if I wanted a 900 line. Do you remember in the early days of
divestiture (and even before) how some of the OCC's and these AOS
creeps used to advertise how much cheaper and better their service was
than that provided by AT&T?  Americans got what they were asking for!  PT]

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

From: Antonio Martinez Mas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Searching For X.25 High Speed Boards
Date: 9 Mar 90 17:44:20 GMT
Reply-To: Antonio Martinez Mas <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept. Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos, dit, upm, Madrid, Spain


I am trying to find X.25 communications boards at high speeds, for
mainframes or minis and PC,s. The bit rate required is 2 Mbps for the
host comm. board and at least 1 Mbps for the personal computer board.

An alternative solution to the X.25 may be any other connection
oriented protocol at the required speed (may be with the ISDN Hxx
channels).

Has anyone out there had any experience with such boards?  Any
suggestions of a possible vendors?


    ! o !        Antonio Martinez Mas
  --! !-!-       Departamento de Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos
 !  ! ! !        ETSI Telecomunicacion
 \_ ! ! !_       Ciudad Universitaria s/n 28040 MADRID; SPAIN
     U P M       tel.(..34-1)5495700 ext 367; fax.(..34-1)2432077
 ...................................................................

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

Subject: Changing of 416 from NNX to NXX
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 20:31:46 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>

Well, 416 now requires 1+10D for all long distance (as is North
Carolina by now, and perhaps everywhere else in a few years). None of
the exchanges of the N 0/1 X format have shown up yet, though one new
NNX-style exchange has appeared in service in Toronto a few days into
March.

Here are some other observations I found courtesy of PunterNet:


   Msg #  : 29 of 81 - Ref 111/207
   From   : JIM BOYCE
   To     : ALL
   Posted : 0613h on 21-Jan-90 * CONF 130
   Subject: The 416 changeover...

   Just a short note.  I noticed the other day, when I did a change on my
   board to allow for the new dialing system ( By dialing 1+416 for ALL
   416 long distance calls.  No more dialing 1+number) I found out that
   the BBS was dialing 416+number for LOCAL calls.  Not 1+416, but just
   416+number. Where I am it WORKED!  The call was completed.  I tried it
   many times and the result was the same.  Local Bell staff were of ne
   help not knowing if it is normal or not.  I don't see how having to
   dial 416+number would be normal UNLESS this is a sign of things to
   come!!!

   Jim Boyce  -  SysOp
   K.E.B. SYSTEM IV   *  Node 111

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

[This is likely a situation for certain exchanges only. I tried it
from my residence and it stopped after the 416 with a recording. djcl]

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

   K.E.B. SYSTEM IV
   - Thornhill, ONT  *  Node 111

   Msg #  : 32 of 81 - Ref 111/210
   From   : JIM BOYCE
   To     : ROMAN KOWALCZUK
   Posted : 1056h on 24-Jan-90 * CONF 130
   Subject: Bell 416 changeover...

   Actually I think, although I'm sure it would upset loads of people,
   that Bell should make ALL local communities to Toronto AND Toronto a
   DIFFERENT area code.  The time will come when they will use up the 20%
   that they generated and if they integrated something like this now
   while things are still on a small scale they would have less problems.
   Actually it would be better to give Toronto the 416 code and the rest
   of 416 could be reassigned.  There is more people in Toronto and area
   so it only seems logical.

   Sooner or later it will happen but by that time it will be more
   difficult.

   Jim Boyce  -  SysOp
   K.E.B. SYSTEM IV   *  Node 111

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

|| David Leibold  [e-mail]
|| "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse" - Bruce Cockburn

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 01:10:28 EST
From: Shawn Goodin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller


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

>getting rid of the dedicated Wrong-number caller....

Since Jody Kravitz expressed her aggrievation over her roommate's
friends using her phone by forwarding her calls to the time and
temperature lady, I thought I'd mention a problem I had.

I once worked for a major GM division in the Chicago area.  I was
being annoyed by calls from headhunters and unable to get much work
done at times.

One day, I followed the maintenance personnel up to the roof to
oversee the replacement of a circuit breaker in the power systems of
our computer center.  As I climbed the various ladders and steps to
the roof, I noted three telephones -- one at the top of the ladder,
one on the roof in a weatherproofed housing, and one in the power
room.  I noted the phone numbers of all three phones.

The following day when the calls began again, I sent out a memo asking
folks to call me at a different number (actually the phone on a vacant
desk next to mine).  I then took my regular desk phone and set
call-forwarding (Centrex) to dial the number on the roof.

It was nice to have silence again ...... and I imagine that if someone
did answer the phone on the roof, it resulted in a very interesting
conversation.


Shawn

   UUCP:  ....!crash!pro-charlotte!shawng      | Pro-Charlotte - [phone]
   ARPA:  crash!pro-charlotte![e-mail]  | 300-9600 baud (HST) 24 hrs/day
   INET:  [e-mail]         | Log in as "register"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #165
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00449;
          13 Mar 90 3:14 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16781;
          13 Mar 90 1:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21004;
          13 Mar 90 0:22 CST
Date:     Tue, 13 Mar 90 0:00:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #166
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Mar 90 00:00:05 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 166

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Legion of Doom Story - Middlesex News [Middlesex News via Adam M. Gaffin]
    Citicorp Hackers [John Markoff]
    SW Bell in Mexico [Will Martin]
    Telecoms in Brazil [Nigel Whitfield]
    900 With a Twist [Jeffrey Silber]
    Bellcore Number Busy [Carl Moore]
    Sprint and Three-way Calling [Steve Elias]
    Cellular Privacy [Jeff DeSantis]
    Looking For International Network Managers [Sharon Fisher]
    An Idea For Using Caller*ID [Amanda Walker]
    Oops! A Typo Needing Correction [Tom Lowe]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 11:20:48 EST
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legion of Doom Story - Middlesex News


[Moderator's Note: This story appeared in the Middlesex News
(Framingham, MA) on Monday, March 12.  Mr. Gaffin indicated to me he
intends to do a followup story in his column next week also.   PT]

The operator of an Illinois computer bulletin-board system apparently
helped federal officials crack a multi-state ring of hackers now
charged with breaking into a computer system running a 911 system in
the South and distributing a highly technical on- line manual
describing how to run - and disrupt - the system.

Federal officials are not saying much about the investigation, except
to say it is continuing, but observers in the telecommunications field
say it may be widened to include a close look at hundreds of on-line
break-ins and attempted break-ins of computers tied to the
international Usenet network since last summer.

Ironically, though, the Illinois system operator had his system seized
by the government as evidence in the case. The government may also be
seizing other bulletin-board systems the hackers may have used. And
that raises some troubling questions about the protection of
electronic mail and First-Amendment rights on electronic networks.

Charged so far are four members of the ``Legion of Doom,'' which
federal officials allege did things such as re-programming
computerized phone switches and changing people's computerized credit
ratings.

Federal authorities were apparently aided by Rich Andrews, operator of
Jolnet, one of a small but growing number of private systems connected
to the Usenet international computer network (itself a part of the
Internet research network).

In an interview with Patrick Townson, who moderates a
telecommunications conference on Usenet, Andrews says his involvement
began about 18 months ago.

According to Townson, Andrews noticed the 911 documentation had been
uploaded to his system and promptly sent it to another Usenet-linked
BBS operated by AT&T, with a request that it be sent to the right
people there.

Andrews acknowledged, though, that he then kept a copy of the text
himself. A few months later, AT&T contacted him, asking him for the
manual, and then the feds got in touch with him. It was then, about a
year ago, Townson says, that Andrews decided to cooperate with the
feds.

According to Townson, Andrews said the 911 software was just ``a small
part of what this is all about...''

As part of the investigation, Andrews did nothing about the Legion of
Doom members allegedly using his system to pass the 911 manual back
and forth and to develop programs to crack other systems, Townson
says.

If convicted, the alleged hackers face upwards of 30 years in jail and
several hundred thousands of dollars in fines.

The seizure of Andrew's system has a number of system operators
worried. Unlike phone companies, which cannot be held liable for the
actions of their subscribers, computer bulletin-board systems fall
into one of those gray areas that remain unsettled.

Already, Bill Kuykendall, who runs a Chicago system similar in
operation to Jolnet, has tightened up his requirements for who he will
let on the system.

``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,'' he wrote in a
recent message to users of his system. ``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.''

                     ----- end -----

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

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 90 09:26:13 -0800
From: John Markoff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Citicorp Hackers


I checked that same story with telecommunications people at Citicorp
about two months ago and after discussions with them, came away
believing that nothing ever happened. My best guess is that the LoD
kids write interesting fiction.


John Markoff

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 8:27:31 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: SW Bell in Mexico


A news article from the [St. Louis Post-Dispatch], March 7 '90:

SW BELL TO HELP MEXICO MODERNIZE TELEPHONE NET

Southwestern Bell Corp. will help Mexico modernize its
telecommunications network under an agreement signed this week with
the Mexican Institute of Technology.

The agreement calls for SW Bell to help the institute train Mexican
citizens in advanced telephone technology and design. SW Bell also
will help the institute identify needs and resources for the Mexican
telecommunications industry.

"We're proud to be associated with such a prestigious university as
ITAM," said Ross Spicer, president of SBC Technology Resources Inc.,
the SW Bell subsidiary that will work directly with the institute.
ITAM is an acronym based on the institute's Mexican name.

The institute is a leading Mexican university that specializes in
economics, finance, business administration, computers, digital
networks and information technology. The university is building a new
center for research and post-graduate studies in telecommunications
engineering and design.

SBC Technology Resources Inc. helps SW Bell companies develop and
assess new and emerging technology that can be applied to their
businesses.

                       ***End of article***

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 09:47:04 GMT
From: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecoms in Brazil


I am currently working on a project that may involve linking systems
in Brazil to remotes in London, and I'd be grateful for any help that
people can give me with the following questions. They may seem an odd
bunch of requests, but we've still not decided much beyond that we
want to establish a link.

Anyway, here goes:

1) How tightly regulated is the Brazilian telecoms system; eg can we
just buy a modem and plug it in ourselves, or do we have to go through
the local Telco?

2) Assuming that it is possible to plug in a modem, are there any
restrictions on what sort can be used; eg must it conform to Bell or
CCITT specs, or would either do, and is there a limit on the maximum
speed.

3) Does Brazil have a packet switched data network that can be
accessed via IPSS from the UK. If so, what's it called, what
facilities does it offer?

4) What would typical call rates from Brazil to the UK be, both via a
direct dialup and via packet-switching? Is it likely to be cheaper
than calling in the other direction?

Well, I think that's most of what I need to know for now, but any
other comments would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Nigel.


It's true I've been lead an amazing dance        [e-mail]
But why should I ever complain?                [e-mail]
If I should be given a second chance            [e-mail]
I'd live it all over again.

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

From: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 With a Twist
Date: 12 Mar 90 17:54:33 GMT
Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


900 numbers are often run for less-than-noble purposes (e.g. getting
kids to run up their parents' phone bill).  I saw a new twist on the
900 number this weekend.  A local PBS station (WVIA/Scranton) is using
one for part of their telethon.  If you don't want to make a major
pledge, you can "give your support by calling our 900 number. Remember,
your call will cost $5.00."


"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
                                                        --Sen. Everett Dirksen
Jeffrey A. Silber/[e-mail]
Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation
in Science & Engineering

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:41:15 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore Number Busy

On Saturday and today, I have tried calling the Bellcore number given
for punching in area code and exchange, and the number, 201-644-5639,
is busy.  How do I check what is wrong?


[Moderator's Note: You don't check it. You just wait until it comes
back up, if it ever does. Maybe the computer was down, and the line
busied out as a result. Maybe it was deliberatly shut down.  Who
knows?  PT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint and Three-way Calling
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 08:30:05 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


YAAOUSS:  (Yet Another Advantage Of US Sprint):

Sprint's industry leading sound quality and volume levels are very
handy when one is using 3 way calling to connect long distance
parties...  I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume
levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint...


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

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

From: Jeff DeSantis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Privacy
Date: 12 Mar 90 16:15:43 GMT
Organization: NEC Information Systems, Acton, MA


Reported in the POLITICAL JOURNAL column of the [Boston Sunday Globe]
March 11, 1990 by Brian C. Mooney.

THE LONER IN LOVE WITH HIS PHONE

    This story falls into the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction category.
Last week, Globe columnist Mike Barnicle was driving his wife's car in
the South End when the car phone rang. Barnicle's wife's office was
trying to reach her. In the background, Barnicle heard a familiar
voice and asked the caller to put him on hold.

    For the next few minutes, he listened to former Boston Mayor Kevin
H. White giving advice to Democratic gubernatorial candidate John R.
Silber. Among other things, White advised Silber on how to deal with
the Globe. He also second-guessed Silber's decision to make Robert
(Skinner) Donahue his campaign director. Donahue was a key operative
of Joseph Timilty in the bitter 1975 White-Timilty mayoral campaign.

    "What are the chances of that happening?" said Barnicle of
intercepting the call.

    "Probably pretty good," White said in an interview, confirming
Barnicle's story.

===============================================================================
Jeff DeSantis                                                 [e-mail]
NEC Technologies, Boxborough, MA                               necntc!necis!jjd

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

From: Sharon Fisher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For International Network Managers
Date: 12 Mar 90 19:36:31 GMT
Organization: The Asylum, Belmont, CA


I'm doing a story for Network World about globalization of networks.
I'm looking for network managers who can discuss the following issues:

    o ability to get foreign equipment inside the country and
    the ability to communicate between countries

    o types of services and links available

    o difficulties in transmitting information across borders

    o planning issues, including user groups and hiring

    o 'how-to' information for people setting up their first
    international network

This isn't limited to Unix networks, PCs, or anything like that; in
fact, the bigger the better.

Please reply to me via email at

    [e-mail]

or

    [e-mail]

Thanks!


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

From: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Subject: An Idea For Using Caller*ID
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Sterling, VA
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 01:56:14 GMT


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

> Nevertheless, a friend of mine was denied FCC certification on a
> device that lets you call a line, let it ring once, hang up, call in
> again within 100 seconds and the device will switch you to a second
> piece of CO equipment (a modem in most cases) to answer.

This is off the subject some, but it gave me (what at first blush
seems to be) an interesting idea.  Imagine, if you will, box that
decides what piece of equipment to let answer the line based on the
ANI burst between the first and second rings.  That way, for example,
I could have a single line which would ring my phone (or my answering
droid) for most calls, but would put a fax machine on the line if I
was being called by a number in set "A", or my computer on the line if
I was bening called by a number in set "B", or whatever.

I can see really being able to use such a thing.


Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view."
    --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"

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

Subject: Oops! A Typo Needing Correction
Date: 12 Mar 90 10:51:17 EST (Mon)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


PT:  You told us to call 1-800-FON-WD40 (1-800-366-8340)
should have been 1-800-366-9340.

Tom Lowe
tel\@cdsdb1.ATT.COM

[Moderator's Note: Indeed I did. Sorry. I was really concerned at the
time about passing that difficult test they administer.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #166
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02826;
          13 Mar 90 4:01 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27432;
          13 Mar 90 2:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac16781;
          13 Mar 90 1:27 CST
Date:     Tue, 13 Mar 90 0:48:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #167
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Mar 90 00:47:43 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 167

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Bill Nickless]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Jeff Wolfe]
    Re: Telesphere Long Distance Service [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service [Tom Lowe]
    Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Robert E. Stampfli]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Colin Plumb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 11:01:43 CST
From: Bill   B40417 2-7390 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charge


In TELECOM Digest [e-mail] writes:

>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could
>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges?

And the moderator responds:

>[Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure
>someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story.
>The way telephone rates in the United States are structured, it is very
>rare that two or three local phone calls, hooked together to avoid a
>toll charge would come out less expensive than the DDD rate for the
>toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then
>it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a
>single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings,
>at least on shorter calls?    PT]

I can think of a situation where that strategy could be useful.  I
attend a small Christian university in Southwest Michigan called
Andrews University.  Andrews is affiliated with the Hinsdale Medical
Center, located just outside of Chicago.

Before we were connected to the Internet, one option we explored
involved the use of a leased line that exists between the Michgan and
Illinois campuses.  We were going to put two modems on a simple timer,
connected (naturally) with a null modem, and strap one of the modems
to auto-answer.  At night, when the leased line was not being used for
Nursing Department business, we would try to contact a Chicago site
local to Hinsdale for a USENET news feed.

Fortunately, we became connected to the Internet and receive our news
feed that way instead.

The key advantage to this plan is that in involved no increase in
funding from the University.  The Nursing Department was already
paying for 24 hours a day leased line service, of which 8 hours a day
wasn't being used.  We would have used those 8 hours without having to
justify our news feed to the bean-counters in the administration
building.

By the way: in an earlier Digest there was some question as to my
location. Donald E. Kimberlin wrote:

>Commenting in part on the message from:
>"Bill   B40417 2-7390 <[e-mail]>"
>(BTW, just WHAT Federal Penitentiary is that address from, Bill?)

I thought it was rather funny, but just for the record here is an
explanation of the various fields in the address:

Bill:     My first name
B40417:   My badge/payroll number
2-7390:   My office phone number (full extension: [phone])
nickless: My last name and computer login
flash:    A Sun Microsystems SparcStation 1  (Flash, Spark, Get it?  Oh well.
                                              We tried.... ;-) )
ras:      Reactor Analysis & Safety Division of
anl:      Argonne National Laboratory
gov:      funded by the Department of Energy of the Federal Government.

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

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 12 Mar 1990 13:13:25 EST
From: Jeff Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Solsman) says:

>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could
>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges?

I don't know for sure, but I would guess that it is.

>[Moderator's Note: I do not know if it is legal or not; I'm sure
>someone will comment. But practical and effecient? That's another story.

[ ... ... ]

>toll call. If both local calls were untimed, 'free' local calling, then
>it might work. But if a couple local calls cost 6-7 cents each and a
>single long-haul call costs 11 cents per minute, where is the savings,
>at least on shorter calls?    PT]

I live in the same area as the original poster, and our Telco does
allow free local calling, however I must dial a '1-xxx-xxxx' to call a
town less than 7 miles from my house, when I can dial 'xxx-xxxx' to
call a town 20 miles from my house. The toll boundaries seem to have
no logical pattern.

Is this a normal occurance? or are we just stuck in the dark ages?

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telesphere Long Distance Service
Date: 12 Mar 90 16:00:10 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]> writes:

> While I don't have prices immediately at
> hand, I can assure you that Telesphere's prices are far above the de
> facto standard set by ATT, MCI, and US Sprint.

For your dining and dancing pleasure, I will share with you at least
one sleazebag company's justification for stratospheric pricing in the
long distance market.

During the FCC hearings some time back (when people first were rudely
awakened by COCOTs and AOSes, a spokesman for some company (it might
have been ITI -- don't sue if I'm wrong) said that the "big three" LD
carriers were purposely vulture pricing their services below the cost
of providing them in order to drive the valient little Ma and Pa
operations out of business. When you pay $10.00 for a three-minute
call from San Francisco to Los Angeles, that is closer to the cost of
providing the service than the "dumping-style" charges of those nasty
big companies.

And I always thought the "big three" conspired to keep the rates UP!


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

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

Subject: Re: AT&T VoiceMark(sm) Messaging Service
Date: 12 Mar 90 10:34:26 EST (Mon)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]> writes:

> In a recent Digest Tom Lowe asked for comments on Voicemark messaging.

> I called and rcvd a brochure on the service.  I think it's a good
> idea and  I'd like to utilize it but two things prevent me from doing so
> (besides the fact that I can't use my RAO card that is :).

> 1) I'd like to see a >2 hour delay for sending a message.  How
> about expanding it to at least 5 hours?  If I call a message in at 6AM
> CST, and delay it for the maximum two hours then it would still be 6AM
> PST. Too early for most business calls...

You can specify delivery to begin up to 7 days in the future.  I think
you are confusing 2 hour delivery window with delay.  By default, the
system will attempt to deliver your message starting immediately and
continuing for the next 2 hours.  The 2 hour window can be changed to
one, two, three or four hours.

Specifying a delivery time is a major feature of the service.  It is
especially useful for deliverying messages internationally where the
timezones are very far apart.

> 2) I'm concerned about reaching answering machines and having my
> message lost.  The brochure says that message is delivered twice, but
> I'm not convinced that is a reliable solution.  Seems to me a better
> idea would be to have Voicemark "listen" while giving it's message. If
> it detects constant voice on the other end (such as would be given by
> an answering machine..I assume that most people are going to shut-up
> and listen to the message) then Voicemark could "wait for the beep"
> and replay it again.  Of course this would make the call longer in
> duration but that could be billed back to the customer.

The safest thing to do if you suspect there may be an answering
machine at the destination is to send a "person-to-person" message in
which an attendant will introduce a call.  There are two flavors of
"person-to-person": "Message taker allowed" and "no message taker".
If you specify "Message Taker allowed" and an answering machine takes
the call, the attendant will wait till the BEEP before starting the
message.  If you specify "No message taker", the attendant will not
deliver the message and delivery will be attempted again later.

As far as listening for voice, that's a tough issue.  It's hard to
reliably know if we have voice or noise or busy or dog barking or baby
crying, etc.  etc.  Also, the system can't listen for voice at the
other end while playing a message.  It would hear itself talking.
Also, we can't allow the attendant to stay on the line during the
message for privacy issues.

> I realize that #2 might not be of great concern ... I can't use the
> service to determine that for myself until the "billing negotiations"
> are worked out!

You can use MasterCard or VISA, if you have them.

To specify the above options, first record your message.  When finished
with the recording, you will be prompted:

[blah.blah.blah] .. For immediate delivery press 1.  For other delivery
instructions, press 0.

If you press 1, your message will be delivered for the next 2 hours.
If you press 0, you will be able to follow the prompts to specify
several options.  If you need help at any point, you can press "*H"
and you will be connected to an attendant who can answer any questions
and also enter your options for you.

Enjoy and thanks for the questions!


Tom Lowe
AT&T Bell Labs
[e-mail]
VoiceMark(sm):  1-800-562-MARK


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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos
Date: 12 Mar 90 16:49:31 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ


In an area related to people not understanding that they don't have
the correct number of the person they're calling, here's a problem
that I encountered.  If anyone can possibly think why the person I
called "lied" to me, let me know.

Even before the 212/718 split of New York City, there were a lot (>2)
of area codes in the area.  NY City was 212, the two suburban Long
Island counties are 516, and the northern suburbs, and up into the
Catskills are 914.  Also, businesses are branching out over the entire
area, so if you have a company's 7-digit "headquarters" phone number,
you have to know where it is or what the area code is.

In my case, I had a problem with a Long Island based bank; my account
was in a branch in Manhattan.  When I called the branch, I was given
the 7-digit of the main office, which I assumed to be a suburban Long
Island number.  So, I called (516) xxx-yyyy, and it was obvious I
didn't call a bank office.  So, in order to make sure that the error
wasn't one of my dialing or the telcos switching, I asked the person
if I had reached (516) etc.; she said "no".  OK, so I called that
number again, and of course the same person answered.

Now, I can almost understand people not wanting to give away their
phone number to a person who reached them by mistake, but if I already
have their phone number, and tell them what it is, it means I didn't
reach them by mistake, so at that point what difference does it make?
I can always call them again whenever I want.  (P.S., when I then
called (212) etc, I got the bank office.)

Any ideas as to why people act this way?


Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 09:39:51 EST
From: Bill Berbenich <bill@shannon>
Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta


In TELECOM Digest V10, #159, Ken Jongsma, [e-mail] writes:

>I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some
>airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the
>phone network. Seattle has a nice business area with desks, fax
>machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge!

Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed
before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have
many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary
in the Nineties.  Many of the airlines' clubs (paid membership type)
are getting RJ-11 connections in their lounges, but to retrofit an
entire airport or terminal would likely be too expensive to be
worthwhile to the airlines or airport commission at this time.

A letter to Delta suggesting a no-charge business area would probably
be a good idea - maybe other list members could mail a letter also (?).
Delta has its home base here in Atlanta and I think they would have
the clout to pull something like that off if enough interest was shown
to them.


        William A. Berbenich   Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Diamonds are a girl's best friend,  |uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill
but a man's best friend is a dog.   |Internet: [e-mail] |

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

From: Robert E Stampfli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Date: 12 Mar 90 19:16:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert E. Stampfli,55216,cb,1C315,6148604268)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge)
 >...  This charge you question, mandated by law, is
 >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long
 >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of
 >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ...

OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for
local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be
charged this fee.  So far I have been unable to convice my telco that
this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for
something I cannot use.


Rob Stampfli    / att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) / kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio)
614-864-9377    / osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home)

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 12 Mar 90 19:48:20 GMT
Reply-To: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario


This issue is basically one of a covert channel.  The telephone
company wants to charge for sending bits, and people have come up with
non-obvious ways to get the bits across.  But plugging covert channels
is *hard*.

I recently saw an ad for phone-controllable thermostats.  One handled
multiple zones, was intended for commercial buildings, and could be
programmed by DTMF tones (the primary password was 4 digits; the
supervisory one was 7 - it seemed adequate).

The other was for residential use; the suggested use was a cottage.
It didn't plug into the phone line at all.  It heard the telephone
ringing through a microphone.  If you called once, let the phone ring
a certain number of times (3-7, I think), hung up, then called back
within 30 seconds and let the phone ring another certain number of
times, it would heat the house up for a few hours so when you arrived
at your cottage, it would be warm.

Various people may believe that this is cheating the phone company by
communicating without making a billed call, but:

This gadget is designed to handle party lines (it isn't confused by
funny ring patterns), so as much as the manufacturers might have liked
to, it isn't allowed to connect to the phone line and answer the phone
line.  (Party lines must only be used by people, who can understand an
emergency request to vacate the line by someone else sharing it.  You
mustn't connect modems and whatnot to them.)

Those trying to figure out billing rules for unanswered calls might
like to ensure that their logic extends to cover this situation.

    -Colin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #167
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05707;
          13 Mar 90 5:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25494;
          13 Mar 90 3:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27432;
          13 Mar 90 2:32 CST
Date:     Tue, 13 Mar 90 1:50:44 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #168
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Mar 90 01:50:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 168

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Jim Shankland]
    Re: Operator Knows What? [John Cook]
    Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Amanda Walker]
    Sorry, Wrong Number [Matt Simpson]
    Phone Harassment [Murray S. Kucherawy]
    New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf [Insight Magazine via J. Lockhart]
    Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill [Matt Simpson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 14:01:58 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Towns Split by LATA Lines
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> 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.

That kind of effect is seen quite often in states like NC, where the
vast majority of the land area in the state is not part of any
municipality.  Cities and towns expand by annexing unincorporated
areas, so municipal boundaries often end up looking very random and
ragged, and some cities have "holes" (unincorporated areas surrounded
by city land) and "islands" (detached sections unconnected to the main
city area).

ZIP codes and telephone numbers for unincorporated areas are assigned
usually to the nearest city, but sometimes such areas end up getting
annexed by a different city.  It is therefore not uncommon to find
such anomalies as a residence that is in the city limits of A, has a
postal address of city B, and is served by a telephone exchange from
city C.

In Massachusetts (and, as far as I know, most of New England), a
completely different situation applies.  There is no such thing as
annexation or unincorporated areas; every piece of land is within the
limits of one of the 352 cities or towns.  Town boundaries are not as
ragged; they mostly follow natural boundaries or straight lines, in
the same manner as county, state, or national boundaries.  Telephone
exchange boundaries respect town lines most of the time, but there are
a few exceptions like the New Braintree example cited above.  Probably
the most common kind of exception is the edge effect, where a business
or residence in town A (but close to the boundary with town B) gets a
telephone number in a B exchange.


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

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

From: Jim Shankland <rtech!llama.rtech.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 13 Mar 90 00:25:50 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Shankland <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Eddie Group


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

>According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone
>administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is
>ringing, busy or hung at the switch.

That certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up in Munich.
Billing was done in "message units", which at the time cost 0.18 DM
each.  A (completed) local call cost one message unit, regardless of
its length.  Toll calls were charged in seconds per message unit,
rather than money per minute.  The phone company (== post office)
started counting message units when the connection was established.

Oh, yes: the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message
units consumed that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay;
there was no itemization of calls.  You pretty much had to take their
word for it that you'd consumed that many message units; none of this,
"But sir/ma'am, I never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff.


jas

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

From: John Cook <ucdavis!uop!quack![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Knows What?
Date: 12 Mar 90 08:57:24 GMT
Organization: The Goose Egg, Stockton, CA


I have often had to explain to Pacific Bell operators what 950-xxxx or
10xxx numbers are used for.  I never cease to be amased at how little
these people who should be in the know, really do know.

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

From: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Sterling, VA
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 02:09:36 GMT


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

> Who was the moron who kept calling the wrong number again?  Sheeesh.

I recently had a very annoying morning.  Evidently, my phone number
used to be connected to a local Mexican food wholesaler.  I got a
string of about 8 phone calls from someone wanting to order tortillas,
who simply would not believe that she had the wrong number.  "But it's
right here in my catalog!"  Sigh.

On call #7, it was her supervisor, who wanted to talk to *my*
supervisor (for playing games with this poor woman, I guess :-)).  I
rather testily suggested that she call C&P directory assistance and
ask *them* what my phone number was.  In a few minutes she called back
(call #8) and apologized profusely.  I asked her for the name of the
restaurant so that I could make sure and avoid it...

It's not so bad when I get strange messages on my machine (my # is
also one digit away from the loan department at a local bank :-)), but
this was truly annoying.  Grumble.


Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view."
    --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"


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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 13:21:29 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sorry, Wrong Number


The discussions of persistent wrong-number callers brought to mind a
couple of interesting anecdotes. Several years ago, when I lived in
Dayton, I got frequent calls from a head-hunter in Kansas City who
kept trying to talk me into jobs in all kinds of out-of-the-way
places. This guy called me often enough to know that my answering
machine's outgoing message was quite frequently weird, and that when I
answered the phone in person, it frequently wasn't a standard "Hello".

One day, he lost my number, and forgot what city I lived in .. so he
called Cincinnati information and asked for my number. They obligingly
gave him a number for Matt Simpson in Cincinnati, and he called, and
asked for Matt. The person who answered said "I'm sorry, sir, he
passed away 6 months ago"

The jerk was sure it was me playing games with him, so he said
"That's okay, he never was worth a s**t anyway" It turned out he was
talking to the guy's son. After trying to extract his foot from his
mouth, he remembered where I lived, and related the story to me.

Going farther back, when my brother and I were in school, we used to
use all kinds of weird names when we called home collect (Toll-saver
foes, take note: This was not a scam to deliver free messages;  our
parents always accepted the calls). This was before 0-plus dialing,
when the operators had to dial collect calls.

One day when I tried to call home, the operator dialed the wrong
number and announced that she had a collect call from the Wizard of
Oz. The ensuing conversation was quite amusing: The elderly lady who
answered was very confused ("Who did you say this is?" "This is the
operator speaking, but the call is from the Wizard of Oz") I tried to
explain that it was a wrong number, but when the operator read the
number to the lady, she said that was her number.

She finally agreed to pay for a call from the Wizard of Oz, although I
don't think she realized that's what she was agreeing to.  After the
operator was satisfied that the lady was accepting the charges, and
put the call through, I asked the lady again what her phone number
was, and determined that the operator had mis-dialed. The operator,
who was apparently still listening, broke in again, apologized
profusely, and dialed the right number next time.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:43:37 EST
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Harassment


I have a friend who is receiving sexually harassing phone calls.

This would not be unusual, except that the phone company has been
unable to trace the source of the calls.  The problem has been going
on for more than two years.  The local police are baffled, and each
time it happens, they aren't able to do anything more than add the
incident to their huge file on the case.

The content of these calls has increased in offensiveness to the point
where the receiver has become rather seriously paranoid.  As this
person is a good friend of mine, and I am concerned for his/her
well-being, I would like to see this stop as soon as possible.
However, I am as baffled as the next person.  When the phone company
places a trace on the line, the calls stop for one week (the maximum
duration of a line trace), then they start again.  This implies that
the person has ties within the phone company or within the police
department.

I am curious to know why the phone company is unable to trace the
call.  Also, if anyone out there is having a similar problem, or has
dealt with something such as this in the past, I'd like to hear from
you.  Finally, if anyone has any advice at all, PLEASE post or mail it
to me.  We would appreciate hearing from you.


=========================== Murray S. Kucherawy ============================
E-Mail:    mskucherawy@{ watmath | dahlia | crocus | trillium }.waterloo.edu
Faculty of Mathematics (Comp Sci), University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario
Gamesmaster/Postmaster, UW Computer Science Club ([e-mail])
System Manager, VAX/VMS Network, Board of Education, London, Ontario


[Moderator's Note: It may be very well the case, as you suggest, that
it is a employee of the telco who is tormenting your friend. A phreak
working for the company would know all the ins-and-outs of the call
tracing routine, and how to avoid getting caught. Is your friend
tape recording the calls? I think under the circumstances, a judge
would okay a silent and continuous tap on the line recording the
conversations in the hopes the voice would be recognized.

*Do tell the police and the court about this*. DO NOT notify telco of
the tap and recording device. If the calls stop when the police are
aware of the matter, then the contact is through the police. If the
calls continue, then record one or more conversations, transcribe them,
and *make a duplicate tape stored away safely*. Take the tape to the
telco management, in a meeting with the head of security. Play the
tape and hand out the transcriptions. Let them see if the voice or
speech mannerisms can be matched to any existing employee, particularly
an employee working in the frames or otherwise in a position of trust
who would know what was going on from day to day.

Let the police also have copies of the tapes if they were not the ones
making them to begin with. A couple of questions: Are the calls always
about the same time of day or day of the week?  Has your friend
changed (non-published) phone numbers only to have the new number
likewise polluted? If the latter is true, this points more and more to
some telco employee in a position of trust working in the CO who has
access to the records, or the ability to go right on the frames to
call out.  Please let us know the results of this.  PT]

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

From: John Lockard <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 15:43:37 EST


[Moderator's Note: Forwarded to the Digest from the Net Exchange BBS.  PT]

     Hearing-impaired and speech-impaired people now may be able to
communicate more effectively by telephone with other people, both deaf
and hearing, thanks to the introduction of the Phone Communicator, a
system developed by IBM that uses a tone telephone and a personal
computer.

     A prompter directs the sending party to type a message on the
phone's dialing keypad.  The deaf person receives the message on the
computer's screen and may then type a responce or send a prepared
message, which reaches the receiving party as a synthesized voice.
The device also has an aswering machine and an automatic dialing
function and is capable of saving and printing all phone
communications.

     The Phone Communicator is a "very important development" in
facilitating communication for the deaf, says Merv Garretson, interim
executive director for the National Association of the Deaf.  He says
the device should help many people in the workplace.

 From Insight, March 12, 1989.

                             =====

This caught me by suprise.  It seems that very few words, English or
otherwise, would have the same sequnce of numbers.  (I'm assuming that
they use 1 for Q, 0 for Z, * for a period, and # as a space.)

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 10:52:35 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill


Someone asked about mileage surcharges on phone bills. My bill
includes such a charge. I don't have a bill lying around, so I don't
remember the exact name, or the exact amount. However, it is
substantial. The "basic" rate for local service is about 12.00/month.
The distance surcharge is about 13.00. By the time the 1.00 for
Touch-tone service, and the FCC line charge is added, we're up to
about 32.00 for Plain Ole Telephone Service.

No, this not a FX line, it has no neat features (unless you consider
the fact that it quits working frequently, saving me from nuisance
calls, a feature). Several months ago, there was a flyer included in
my bill saying that if I wanted an explanation of any of the itemized
charges, that I could send back this card with a number where I could
be reached during the day. I sent it in, intending to ask about the
distance charge, and also give them some rhetorical grief about the
Touch-tone charges.

A South Central Bell rep called twice, I was out both times, and left
a message for me to return her call. The number she left was a
557-xxxx number, which is the format of all of SCB's business office,
repair service, etc. numbers in this area. Unfortunately, I work in a
GTE area, and it isn't possible to dial a 557 number from a GTE phone,
so I never got my answers.

Of course, I should be used to service like this, after fighting with
SCB for several months just to get a single line installed in my
house ... but that's another long story.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #168
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22485;
          14 Mar 90 23:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00120;
          14 Mar 90 21:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26739;
          14 Mar 90 20:47 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:15:50 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #169
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:15:01 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 169

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More Greed [Scott Fybush]
    Re: White House "Caller ID" [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Ken Abrams]
    MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) [Gary Segal]
    One More Horror Story [Scott Fybush]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Brian J. Haughey]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Roy Smith]
    How About More Digits in Addition to Caller ID ? [Brad Templeton]
    Can This Be True? [Richard Pavelle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 02:43:11 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Greed


Those of you who deal with a _real_ phone company can consider
yourselves lucky. Here at Brandeis, there is no answer supervision.
B'deis Telecommunications will tell you that they charge after six
rings because (of course) "it uses our facilities."  What B'deis
Telecommunications doesn't tell you is that if the called party
answers on the first ring, you can talk for 36 seconds (6 sec. ring
cycle x 6) and not get billed.  :-)

On the flip side, I don't know how NET deals with it but calls to the
Boston choke line 617-931-xxxx don't get billed by Brandeis if they
aren't completed ... or at least if you hang up within 42 seconds of
connecting.  BTW, is the network designed to prevent access to choke
lines from out-of-town if the choke line is very busy?  Last week, I
tried for 2 hours to get Ticket Master (617-931-2000) from a phone in
Rochester NY (716-427-xxxx), and kept getting an ATT "Sorry, the
number you have dialed is busy now."  message.  Would my odds of
getting through have been better if I had routed the call through
conference calling in the 617-736 exchange?


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

"Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!"

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 19:49:43 PST
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID"


Jimmy Carter did a "call in show" one Saturday morning when he was in
the white house.  The number was a 900 number.  I had never heard of a
900 number before.  I was curious then (and am now) if this was done
for "billing the caller", network congestion control, or caller-id.
Anyone care to comment ?


Jody

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

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

Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: 12 Mar 90 16:28:14 CST (Mon)
From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>


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

>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could
>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges?

I doubt that this lash-up is illegal anywhere in the U.S.  It's
probably not worth the trouble to really find out.  If you think about
it for a few minutes, there are a couple of other (better) ways to
accomplish the same thing.  Redialers or call diverters are available
on the open market that will do what you want without the added cost
of the modems.

If the intermediate office in your example has call forwarding
available, it will also accomplish the same thing using only one line
instead of two.  The drawback of the above two options is that you are
locked into a single terminating number to call.  Guess your modem
option would allow you some flexibility.  The cost of two lines and
two modems seems a pretty high price to pay to avoid paying the
short-haul toll charges.


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus)
Date: 12 Mar 90 21:01:13 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


I have MCI's equivlant of Sprint Plus or AT&Ts Reach Out America.
Here are the details:

Plan Name: Preimer (I think)

Plan Period: 7pm-8am weekdays, 12am Sat-5pm Sun

Rates:    Minumum $8.00 / month for first 60 minutes.
    10.833 cents per minute for each additional minute.

Distance: Rates apply to all 48 states.


When I first joined this plan, the additional minute rate was 11.33
cents.  I noticed sometime ago that the rate dropped without even a
marketing brouchure to annoucne it!  I find this plan meets my needs
very well, as most of my LD calls are to one of the coasts, so I
really save over distance sensitive rates.

The negative with this plan is that it only works from my phone, not
on calls dialed with the MCI card (i.e. no "Around Town" feature for
Preimer).  Any calls I make on my card are subject to the standard MCI
rates and rate periods.  Around Town does apply for those rates.


"If you've done six impossible things this morning, | Gary Segal, Motorola CID
why not finish it up with breakfast at MillieWays,  | 1501 W. Shure Drive
the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!"         | Arlington Heights, IL
                                                    | ...!uunet!motcid!segal

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 03:39:32 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: One More Horror Story


Just when I thought Brandeis Telecommunications had gotten as bad as
it could get, comes this month's phone bill.  Checking the calls
carefully, I found _four_ calls that my roommate made.  Now, Brandeis
uses six-digit accounting codes, and at least in theory, calls made
with one's access code will appear on one's own bill no matter what
phone the call was made from -- very much like a phone credit card,
though our numbers bear no relation to any real phone number.

Well, all four calls were made with my roommate's access code, _not_
mine.  So somewhere in the billing computer, it is looking at what
extension the call was placed from instead of the access code used
[this problem has never happened in reverse; since the phone line is
registered in my name, meaning collect calls and the like show up on
my bill, not his].

And it's not like the technical problems with the system are the worst
part.  When I went in to complain, the lady there told me that I
should first attempt to collect the $10.59 _directly_from_my_roommate_!
Imagine if AT&T were to suggest that to its customers!  Needless to
say, I told her that I had already wasted more than enough of my time,
and that Brandeis Telecommunications could figure out its own billing,
and that maybe I'd just use an AT&T card from here on.

This is not at all an isolated problem; people here have had nine-hour
calls to Brazil and other oddities on their phone bills for months
now, and there's nothing we students can really do.

Of course, New England Telephone isn't allowed to connect a direct
line to my room ... and I'm willing at this point to pay $15 a month
just so I can get 10XXX dialing, answer supervision, reasonable
billing, and twenty-four-hour-a-day operator service.

Any other ideas? (And no, I can't afford a cellular phone :-)


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

"Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!"

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian J Haughey)
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 12 Mar 90 16:32:49 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin


In article <[e-mail]>, hplabs!hpda![e-mail] (Michael
Morrell) writes:

>>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).

> Do others think this is a bad feature?  I understand you can save
> money when you are trying to see if you have messages, but I (and the
> phone company) don't think it's right to get something for nothing
> (i.e., I now know I have no messages without paying anything).  Also,
> for everybody else who calls you that don't want to talk to a machine,
> they'll get stuck paying the fee after only 2 rings (but sometimes 4).
> This feature should be illegal.

Two quibbles : Why should it be illegal? I think it's perfectly valid
to see if you have messages. Why be charged for discovering you have
no messages - when you *do* have them and want to access them, *then*
the telco makes its money. You could extend the same logic to the
practice described by some guys on this list who use exchange callback
to allow internal calls. I guess you'd disapprove of that, too.

But your other point strikes me as intriguing - you want external
callers to be able to hang up if they figure there's a machine on the
line?  Isn't that the same idea, that the caller gets information
from the number of rings to answering ? Why allow one and not the
other?


Regards,

bjh

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 13 Mar 90 15:45:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> Do you feel that if someone you call isn't home that you should be
> charged anyway for the call? You got something for nothing in the
> knowledge that your party wasn't home, or at least wouldn't answer the
> phone for one reason or another. What about if it's busy. Again, free
> information.

> You decide to call a friend, but you aren't sure he's home from work
> yet. He lives alone and has no answering machine. You dial the number.
> As it begins to ring, you hear the unmistakable clunk of supervision.
> After ten rings or so, you hang up. When the bill comes you find a
> charge for the call. When you protest, saying the call wasn't
> answered, the kind telco rep tells you that you dialed a valid number
> and found out the party wasn't home. Pay the $0.22!

> Apply that as well to a busy signal. In fact, just think of all the
> facility usage telcos and IECs would save if they billed for all call
> attempts, not to mention the extra money they would make! It would
> sure put war dialers out of business!

> No, I think you're both wrong. I will gladly pay to pick up my
> messages, but I resent having to pay for *no* messages.

How about the following scenario.  You decide to go see a friend who
lives some distance away.  You get in your car, drive to a toll road,
get on, and pay when you get off.  You get to your friend's house,
ring the bell, and there is no answer.  You get back in your car,
drive back over the toll road, and ask for the tolls back, since your
friend wasn't home, and you did not get to talk to him.  The toll
collector looks at you, and says: "Are you kidding?  You used my
road!."  Then you go to the gas station, and ask for a fillup, with
the same rationale.  The answer is probably not fit for usenet. Etc.
etc.

While I am certainly not advocating being charged for call attempts,
there definitely is a good rationale for them.  Actually, I believe
that in Denmark there is such a charge.  Some things are free, which
could reasonably have charges.  When buying something in a store, they
will usually let you return it for any reason.  Some businesses will
charge a restocking fee.

Also remember that one COCOT operator recently got caught placing
calls first over AT&T to see if the card number was good, hanging up,
and then placing the call over their own lines.  The court deemed this
illegal.

There was also some serious discussion in CCITT whether there should
be charges for call attempts in ISDN, which the US strongly opposed.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 16:47:42 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Jim Shankland <[e-mail]> writes:

> the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed
> that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no
> itemization of calls.  You pretty much had to take their word for it that
> you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I
> never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff.

    And how is that any different from the typical electric,
water, or natural gas bill?  In a typical house, each of these items
is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our
meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY".  What
would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But
sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could
I possibly have used that much?"

    Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized
bills from other utilities but not from the phone company?  It's
certainly not because of the amount of money involved.  The average
person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than their water
bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot lower than
their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas).


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

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

From: Brad Templeton <[e-mail]>
Subject: How About More Digits in Addition to Caller ID ?
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 15:20:11 EST


Keeping track of the numbers of the fax machines that call you is silly,
I think.

What would make a lot of sense would be extensible phone numbers.
After you key in a phone number, the system should let you keep
dialing, terminating with a '#' or somesuch as needed.

Then the extra digits should be sent to the recipient or PBX or
whatever.

Those digits might be an extension in the case of a PBX (no need for
centrex) or a code to identify who you're calling (fax machine, modem,
particular person.)  This would also replace the system whereby they
give you several numbers that ring differently.  Instead you dial
suffix digits.

Ideally, the telco could assign some codes (say all 3 digit codes
starting with 9) for official purposes.  These codes would have
standard meanings that everybody would obey -- fax machine, e-mail
hookup, switchboard, voice-mail message center etc.)

Thus all fax machines would use suffix 999, and fax machines would
know to add this suffix.

Nice trick is that it doesn't hurt to add the suffix when calling a
regular number, it's just ignored.

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

From: Richard Pavelle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can This Be True?
Date: 14 Mar 90 00:39:29 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA


I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told
me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a
paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance
calls the same way instead of using calling cards.  I did not believe
the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to
complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds.

Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor
that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world?

P.S. I took away his paper clips and scolded him!!!!!!!!!!


Richard Pavelle         UUCP: ...ll-xn!rp
                        ARPANET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Describe the payphone. Is this the older type where
you put the money in and then get a dial tone, typically without an
armored handset cable?  On those older-style payphones, yes, you could
use a safety-pin or similar to momentarily connect the tip to ground
(same as what happened when the coin hit a little 'seesaw' on the
inside of the box which briefly touched two wires together). When I
was ten years old, sometime around 1950, we always made free payphone
calls. The handset cords were made of straight (not curled) cloth, the
phone had three slots on the top for 5/10/25 cent coins, and the coin
return did not have a trap door as now. We were quite proficient at
getting a stiff wire up that return slot and tripping the collection
table in our favor before the operator could get to it and trip it the
other way, collecting the coins.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #169
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24953;
          15 Mar 90 0:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14643;
          14 Mar 90 22:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00120;
          14 Mar 90 21:53 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:50:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #170
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:50:33 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 170

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Chris Johnson]
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [John Higdon]
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [John R. Levine]
    Re: Telecoms in Brazil [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling [John Higdon]
    Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [Tom Hofmann]
    Re: London 071, 081 Split [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Steven King]
    Re: Dataports at Atlanta [David Barts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Date: 14 Mar 90 22:47:51 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert E. Stampfli)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8

> >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge)
> >...  This charge you question, mandated by law, is
> >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long
> >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of
> >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ...

>OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for
>local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be
>charged this fee.  So far I have been unable to convice my telco that
>this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for
>something I cannot use.

Well, what's really stinky about the whole thing is that most phone
companies probably bill that charge like US West (nee Northwestern
Bell) does: The line on the bill says it is an FCC charge, as if the
FCC were getting the money.  If you ask for details, the detailed bill
says it is an FCC mandated charge.

That the FCC specifically set the amount (which as you have noticed
I'm sure, has gone up every year since it started -- originally it was
"way cheap" at $1 a line or less, and is now pushing past $4 a line
here) may be strictly accurate, but it is deceptive "advertising"
nonetheless.  Most consumers, I'll bet, blame the government/FCC for
the charge when they think about it at all.

In reality, though, not only does the money go to phone company, but
it would be more descriptive to say they are limited to charging only
that amount and no more by the FCC.  If given a free hand, I'm sure
that immediately after divestiture local phone service prices would
have gone through the roof in a ballistic sort of way, instead of just
growing exponentially at about 7-10% a year.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Date: 13 Mar 90 10:14:34 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert E Stampfli <[e-mail]> writes:

> OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for
> local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be
> charged this fee.  So far I have been unable to convice my telco that
> this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for
> something I cannot use.

I'm surprised that no one has thought to mention the relavent point
concerning the access charge. In the spirit of "universal service",
this is a universal charge. It is not a usage charge; you don't escape
it just because you don't use long distance. It's design purpose was
to protect telcos' revenue, not to pay for long distance connections.

There is no way to get out of it, so you might as well stop spinning
your wheels.


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

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

Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 13 Mar 90 20:25:11 EST (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert E. Stampfli)
writes:

> >... This charge you question, mandated by law, is to compensate the local
> > telco for providing access to the long distance carrier of your choice.

>... it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for local calls
>only, with no long distance access, that I should not be charged this fee.

This is a common misconception.  The access charge is for access to
the network, not just to LD companies.  It was really a way to
compensate the telcos for the revenue they lost from traditionally
padded long distance rates by raising all of the local rates, without
having have tarriff hearings before every state PUC in the country.
It would be a lot more honest if the judge set an expiration date for
the access charge of, say, January 1991, and all of the telcos
adjusted their rates accordingly.  I realize that the highly
politicized PUCs in many states would make it extremely difficult for
the telcos to make up the difference in any reasonable way.  Ah, well.


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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 12:17:49 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecoms in Brazil


Try this lady; when I first ran across her 5-6 years or so ago, she
was just starting to work on getting Brazilian universities connected
with a network.  She ought to either have the knowledge you need, or
be able to point you at someone else who does.


Cheers,
Rich

   Date: Mon, 24 Jul 89 12:40 C
   From: [e-mail]
   To: [e-mail]
   Subject: request to be added to IFIP-GTWY list

   Please add my name to the list IFIP-GTWY
   Liane Tarouco
   University Federal of Rio Grande do Sul
   Porto Alegre - RS - BRAZIL

   [Alternate address from a message 26 Oct 89:
   From: [e-mail]]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling
Date: 13 Mar 90 10:04:01 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Elias <[e-mail]> writes:

> I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume
> levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint...

I think you may be experiencing a quirk of your area. My experience up
and down the state of California has been exactly the opposite. The
differences are minor, but usually if there is a difference, it's in
favor of AT&T. AT&T ought to know how to make their own technology
work!


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

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

From: Tom Hofmann <cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted
Reply-To: Tom Hofmann <cgch![e-mail]>
Organization: CIBA-GEIGY AG, Basle, Switzerland
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 18:50:38 GMT

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

|>In that era, the only way to know when the entire number had been dialed was
|>to time and wait to see if any more digits followed.

|In Europe, this is still often the case.  For example, if you want to
|call the outfit that runs the Hannover trade fairs, their main number
|is 89-0, while their fax machine is 89-32626.

There is no waiting for more digits in the above case: no other number
starts with 89-0.  Whenever extensions can be dialled directly,
<prefix>-0 (resp. <prefix>-1) is the number of the local operator
while all other extensions have a fixed length number (e.g. 5 digits
for Hannover trade fairs) starting with digits 2--9 ("<prefix>-NXX..."
in US-like notation).

Waiting for more digits is not necessary in Germany.  In Austria,
however, you sometimes get the local operator by simply dialling no
extension.

|               A call from Paris to Amsterdam isn't going to go via
|Warsaw no matter how much spare bandwidth they have, the politics of
|accounting for everything make it impractical.

Is a call from Florida to Hawaii routed via Mexico?

|               Compare this to the European mess
|where the international code for each country is different,

As in America! There are only two countries with the same area code:
USA and Canada (forget the Caribbean--that is like Liechtenstein, San
Marino etc. which have no country code either).

|countries have special case dialing rules, e.g. Britain from Ireland,

How about special case dialing from North America to Mexico ("area
code" 905 instead of +52 5)?

|and they do run out of numbers and stick new digits in various random
|places.

Usually, when running out of numbers, they add only one new digit at
a time. Still easier to remember then a new 3-digit area code.

|I note that some European countries such as France and Belgium have
|moved to fixed length numbers,

I cannot remember that France ever had variable length numbers.

|It'll be interesting to see if they move to a unified routine scheme
|and, if so, whether the adherents of variable length numbers (Germany and
|Italy, for reasons of theology and disorganization, respectively) have
|to change.

Rather the opposite. France and Belgium are the only countries in the
European Community (or even all of Europe?) with fixed length numbers.
(I am not sure --- has Belgium such a fixed number length?)


Tom Hofmann        [e-mail]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 09:03:15 EST


>Date: Thu, 08 Mar 90 18:41:17 +0000
>From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>

>In v10i114 John Pettitt <[e-mail]> reported:

>-> 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".

>I tried this from outside London (Nottingham - 0602), unlike John, and
>it also works. If you get the correct code the call completes put if
>you get the wrong one a recorded message is played saying:

>"Sorry, you have used the wrong code. Please redial replacing 071 with
>081.  British Telecom have not charged for this call." The 071/081 are
>obviously reversed for the other new area code.

I was sitting at home reading this last night, and I thought it might
be amusing to get a British Telecom recording.  If worse came to worst
I might be charged a buck or two for reaching a recording, but it
would be worth it for a few minutes' entertainment.  (If I actually
rang a number by accident it would be Mr. Pettitt's office number,
which should cause no one any great inconvenience at 2:45 am.)

I thought I would try all three carriers available to me (that I know
of)*.  I started with my default, Sprint, using the invalid 071 "city
code" (as they are termed by American telcos).  I received a recording
(American accent) from Sprint ("58-93"), who could not complete my
international call as dialled.  I thought, "Aha, Sprint does not know
about these new city codes."  However, when I tried MCI, the recording
informed me that I did not have to dial "0" after the country code
("2EN").  Oops, I had been dialling 011-44-071- when I should have
been dialling 011-44-71- (and I should have known better).

I went back to Sprint and tried the number correctly.  This time I was
informed "60-93 You have entered an invalid country or city code."
MCI informed me "Your international call cannot be completed as
dialled ...  2EN."  The first time I tried AT&T (I tried each carrier
at least twice) I got the message, following three tones, that my
international call could not be completed as dialled and suggesting
that if I continued to have trouble I should contact the AT&T
operator.  I had not yet heard a British accent.

Now it gets strange.  When I repeated the above test, with 10288-
011-44-71-etc., I got a something new.  Three loud and harmonic laden
tones followed by this message: "Due to the earthquake in the area you
are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time.  Please try
your call later."  These tones and words were repeat once.  After a
pause three similar but not identical tones at a more normal volume
were followed by "Your call cannot be completed at this time to the
country you are calling.  Please try your call again later." spoken
very slowly and distinctly.  I hung up after hearing this message the
second time.  I got the same sequence of recordings the next three
times I dialled, and one more time fifteen minutes later**.  Needless
to say, CBS did not interrupt with a bulletin and the 11:00 news did
not report a recent earthquake anywhere.

I repeated all the above numbers using the soon-to-be-valid city code
of 081 (without "0").  The results were the same as for 071, except
that I did not get the earthquake message from AT&T.  Finally, just
for the heck of it, I dialled via Sprint using 011-44-1- and shortly
heard a ringing tone (I disconnected immediately).

>BT must have informed large institutions/companies of the change, and
>especially their telephone people, as the new codes work from behind
>the PBX here at work. The new codes were blocked a couple of months ago
>when I last tried.

I guess these three international carriers are not in such a hurry as
the various PBXs, or BT has not got around to telling them.

    /JBL

*For completists I should state that I placed all these calls from New
Hampshire in 603-880.

**I tried again two hours later (midnight local time) and at 7:30 this
morning.  Still an earthquake somewhere, apparently.  Now I'm in
Cambridge I'll try again when I get to a pay phone (my PBX here won't
accept 10288 unfortunately, and the default carrier turns out not to be
AT&T).


[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."

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta
Date: 14 Mar 90 16:58:39 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes:

>[explanation that Atlanta's lack of dataports is due to age of the airport]
>[...] are getting RJ-11 connections in their lounges, but to retrofit an
>entire airport or terminal would likely be too expensive to be
>worthwhile to the airlines or airport commission at this time.

It wouldn't be necessary to retrofit an entire airport to pull this
off.  The Mallworld ... er, Woodfield Hyatt in Schaumburg IL has some
souped-up pay phones near its function rooms.  These computerized
wonders include, you guessed it, RJ-11 connectors!  It shouldn't be a
difficult matter to install a few of these anywhere that has existing
pay phones.


If all you do in life are important things, then   | Steve King  [phone]
you'll never have any fun -- unless having fun     |   ...uunet!motcid!king
is an important thing to you.                      |   ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 08:23:24 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta


> Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed
> before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have
> many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary
> in the Nineties.

Well, Sea-Tac was completed sometime in the mid *sixties*, and somehow
they did manage to install laptop facilities.  My guess is that if
Atlanta got enough complaints from laptop users, they'd find a way to
install the facilities.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #170
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27670;
          15 Mar 90 1:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09385;
          15 Mar 90 0:00 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14643;
          14 Mar 90 22:57 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Mar 90 21:54:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #171
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Mar 90 21:54:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 171

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Notes on the German Telephone System [Henning Schulzrinne]
    AT&T Call Manager Program [Ravinder Bhumbla]
    Enhanced 911 [David Barts]
    Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold [Charles Buckley]
    Happy NYTEL [John Stanley]
    Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature [Steve Elias]
    800 Costs [Hank Nussbacher]
    Request For Telco News Material [Scott Fybush]
    I Passed The Test With Flying Colors!  :) [Bill Berbenich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:16 EST
From: Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notes on the German Telephone System


Since there has been a recent discussion on call supervision in
Germany, I thought I'd add the experiences of a native. I was always
under the impression that calls were charged starting from the time
the other party answered - as correctly pointed out, the clock tick
method and non-itemized billing would make it close to impossible to
really check calls. However, I shared a phone once with a housemate
and we tabulated "talk" time with a specially designed kitchen timer.
Usually, we were within a unit or two of the phone bill, so that it
seems unlikely that call attempts were charged for. Also, coin phones
and the pay-after-you-talk phones in the post offices never charged
for call attempts.

[Aside: I often heard that the Bundespost, the German PTT, justified
its non-itemized billing system with privacy reasons. If you had the
data on a computer, the reasoning went, any [law enforcement agency |
hacker | your friendly, but nosy neighborhood employee of the
Bundespost ...]  could potentially put together some interesting
information on lifestyles for a large number of subscribers, even
without 900 numbers.  In reality, electronic offices are only now
replacing step-by-step switches, but there seems to be no general
clamoring for itemized billing.  I used to be impressed when they said
that they would take a photographic image of the matrix of mechanical
counters in the central office and automatically read the numbers into
the billing computer.]

The German pay phone system deserves a special paragraph. It seems to
me one of the few items in the German phone system that could stand
being emulated around here. First, German currency makes calling from
a coin phone somewhat less of a pain. Having DM 5 coins in common
circulation (app. $3.10) avoids the agony I so vividly remember when I
tried to call home after arriving at JFK. "Deposit seven dollars and
thirty-five cents, please..." Ever tried to convince a hamburger stand
to part with thirty quarters? (Needless to say, foreign visitors don't
carry calling cards. Many countries, including Germany, do not allow
collect calls.)

But even for your everyday coin calls, the German procedure seems far
more elegant (and cheaper). If you want to make a call, you deposit
the anticipated amount into the machine. The current balance is then
displayed, more or less slowly decrementing, on a digital readout. (In
older pay phones, the coins are shown sliding down a chute, dropping
into the coinbox rather audibly.)  If you see your balance approaching
zero, you either deposit more coins or hurry up your conversation.
Extra coins are refunded (but no change); leftover credit can be
applied to the next call.

Also, a basic unit of 0.30 DM (20c) provides about 40 sec of
cross-country off-peak talk time (roughly), that's often all it takes
to announce "I'll be arriving on the train at 15.42". Not much of an
incentive to use clever ringing patterns or "out-smart" automatic
operators. Also, there is no 60c+ surcharge, no operator interference,
no ringing back after call completion (but also no credit cards).
Actually, calling from a pay phone (used to be?)  slightly less
expensive than using a regular home phone, since a unit (beyond the
first) costs 0.23 DM from a regular phone, 0.20 DM from a payphone.

As of last December, the rate structure worked as follows (shown in
time per unit, where unit = 0.23 DM).

              M-F, 8am-6pm  otherwise
local calls       8 min     12 min     ("local" = same area code)
< 50 km          60 sec      2 min
50..100 km       20 sec     38 4/7 sec
> 100 km         15 sec     38 4/7 sec

Simple (and more expensive ...)

A word on area codes: Since large cities have short (2/3 digit) area
codes, but six-digit numbers, and small cities have long (4 digit)
area codes, but shorter numbers, must phone numbers work out to be
about 9 digits, not counting the initial zero indicating long
distance. (No problems with NXX area codes here.) You can actually
tell how a call is routed (if everything goes according to hierarchy)
by the area code: All cities connecting through Cologne, for example,
start with a two.

Originally, as pointed out in another recent submission, this allowed
call routing without storing (or waiting for) the whole number.
Naturally, the area code has to be instantaneously decodable, as they
say. If a city outgrows its numbering plan, it prepends a digit to all
numbers.


Henning Schulzrinne  ([e-mail])
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: [phone] (EST); FAX: [phone]

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

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Call Manager Program
Date: 14 Mar 90 06:04:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


    AT&T seems to have a new program called Call Manager which
helps roommates keep track of their calls.  I saw their ad in our
campus newspaper yesterday and called AT&T to find out about it today.
The way it works is each roommate selects a 2-digit code between 00
and 99 (without informing AT&T).  After that each time he makes a
call, he dials 0 nnn-nnn-nnnn 15 mm, where nnn-nnn-nnnn is the number
he is trying to dial and mm is his personal two digit code.  The 15 is
supposed to be dialled after you get a tone from AT&T.  The operator
assured me that dialling 15 would make sure that their computer did
not wait for a calling card number (the procedure did look
suspiciously like a calling card call to me).

    The calls will be listed separately in the monthly bill.  This
service is supposed to cost NOTHING, and, if I can manage to get my
roommates to dial those additional 4 digits this is sure going to save
me a lot of trouble with our monthly bill!


Disclaimer:    This is what I think the AT&T operator meant to say.
To make, sure call AT&T at 1-800-22-0300 and ask about the Call
Manager program.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 07:44:39 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Enhanced 911

Monday (12 March) an article appeared in the [Seattle Times] about the
impact of PBX's on Enhanced 911.  I don't have the complete text of
the article with me, but it was quite long and rambled a bit so I'll
summarize:

Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I
believe his/her mother was choking).  The child was panicked and
couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment, which normally
wouldn't be a problem because that part of King County has E911
service.

But the apartment complex was served by a PBX owned by a company
several miles away.  The address that came up on the E911 display was
that of the PBX company, not the location of the emergency.

Fortunately, the 911 dispatcher figured out that the address on the
E911 display was not correct, looked up the company's business number,
and found the correct address of the apartment.  (This time.  I could
easily imagine a tired or overworked operator sending an ambulance to
the address of the PBX owner.)

Even then, the complex involved had several buildings and there was
some question as to which one had the emergency.

Naturally, if the tenants had been served directly by Pacific
Northwest Bell instead of the PBX, E911 would have been able to supply
the correct address down to the apartment number.  The article
mentioned that apartment PBX's were becoming increasingly common and
this problem would also occur at many businesses (although I'd assume
there would be less chance of a frightened, confused child making a
911 call from an office).

 From what I remember of previous discussions in this group, I get the
impression that fixing E911 to handle this problem would be difficult.

(Also mentioned was that not all of King County has E911 service yet.)


David Barts            Pacer Corporation
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 10:30:01 PST
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold


It seems a bit sad, that the Bell name is now being put on inferior
merchandise, but that seems to be the case.

This refers to a phone I recently bought.  It carries the modernized
bell-in-a-circle logo at the top, and the words "BELL(tm) Phones" in
big letters, followed by (in smaller letters) "by Northwestern Bell
Phones".  The model number is Techline 2702S, and a quick check of the
back indicates the set was made in Korea.

The problem is something very simple, that even the old faithful 500
or 2500 sets didn't have: if you set the receiver down on a flat hard
surface (like a desktop) with the mouthpiece and earpiece down, you
generate a feedback squeal, which is disturbing to the party on the
other end, to say the least.

I have seen this happen on two sets of the same model, so I know it's
a design defect, and not a manufacturing one.  This was confirmed by
the manufacturing rep - see below.  Having noticed the problem, I
tried several different handsets of the same style made by other
companies (made in Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc. - sigh), and none of them
had this problem.

Northwestern Bell Phones provides an 800 number for service problems,
which I called using their product.  I demonstrated the problem in
real-time, and the rep replied: "Oh yes, that's a problem with all the
Techline phones [there are 4 models], but you know, you're going to
get that with any phone made."

I told her it was not true, and promptly switched to a handset made by
another company and demonstrated my point.  I told her I would not be
put off so easily.  I also allowed as noise cancelling was not a new
innovation, and was even cheap to implement, and there was no excuse
for not doing so.

At this point, she asked me to hold while she consulted a technician.
I waited, and she came back and said "Well, I just talked to our
technician, and he said the same thing I said.  You're welcome to send
it in for service, but we're not going to find anything wrong with
it."

I allowed as this was unacceptable, and stated I wanted my money back.
At this point she stated flat out "We do not give refunds.", and she
repeated this several times as I tried to reason with her.  I finally
gave up.

The case is so clearcut, and the matter so badly handled, that I feel
I must resort to a posting here.  If anyone from Northwestern Bell
reads this list, I would suggest you do something about your marketing
organization - poor-quality products and insolent, intimidating, lying
service reps won't get you very far.

The Bell name took years to develop a good reputation, and it seems
that this capital is being squandered by those who now use it.  Maybe
some of the other firms earning money off the Bell logo might want to
have a word with Northwestern Bell Phones as well, in their own
interest.


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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 11:25:47 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject: Happy NYTEL


  "O what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to telecommunicate..."

A recent series of messages discussed how to 'unlist' oneself by
changing the listing name. I had had a bad experience with a
(pre-divested) Michigan Bell, which did not allow me to do this. I
tried it with NYTEL, and LO!, 'certainly sir, what name do you want?'
There was an admitted $9.90 service order charge, which was minor, so
I said 'change it.'

This month, I see the order charge, plus a $1.81 per month charge. I am
waiting for a supervisor to call me back and I will find out what this is.

I am waiting because Happy NYTEL is trying to time my untimed service. They
claim that untimed service pays one charge per call, no matter how long the
call is. On my last bill, they charged me >$8 for 4 (very long) calls, all
local service area, all supposedly untimed. Previous bill: $12 for 15 calls.

And finally, who says COCOT and AOS weasles don't have a sense of humor?
Last bill, credit card call through a COCOT on the Ohio Turnpike to Michigan,
$1.56 for one minute. AT&T - similar distance, $.96. What's the humor? The
AOS service is named "Integretel". Like, 'integrity', only almost and not
quite.

/*------------------------------------------------------------------------
       nn    m m   RRR   i    John Stanley
      n  n  m m m  R  R       New Methods Research, Inc.
      n  n  m m m  RRR   i    6035 Corporate Drive
      n  n  m m m  R R   i    East Syracuse, NY 13057
      n  n  m m m  R  R  i
    #include <disclaimer.h>   [e-mail]
------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

[Author's note: is there really a 'receipt' mechanism for submitted items? I
have not received any for any of several submissions. Is mine one of the
bouncers?]


[Moderator's Note: Yes there is. It was not operating for about a
month due to a problem in the software, but it has been running again
for a few weeks. We use mmdf here, and a file called '.maildelivery'
tells how to sort, deliver and respond to incoming mail. The
'.maildelivery' file exempts mailer-daemons and other (themselves)
automated replies, to prevent an endless loop. But there is such a
variety of names these things use it is impossible to prevent them all
without accidentally excluding some legitimate names as well (without
having the .maildelivery file go on for hundreds of lines.)  The use
of a 'reply-to' line in your message almost always guarentees a
receipt. The autoreply program substitutes the 'reply-to' information
in place of the 'From' information whenever possible. If it can't,
then it replies to 'From'; but these frequently bounce.  I have about
a 95 percent success rate with autoreply.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 07:43:24 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature


I saw a TV ad in NJ this weekend for a "repeat dial" service available
from the local telco.  Does anyone know anything about this service???


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 15:32:15 O
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Costs


Does anyone know what the costs are to set up an "800" number?
Installation, monthly minimum, etc.  Does it matter where the base is?

I heard that AT&T now has a new service called "International 800" and
so far there are about 15 companies that have applied and work (places
like some international money market fund, big name travel agents,
etc.).  Anyone have list?


Thanks,
Hank

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:09:36 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For Telco News Material


When I'm not fighting to get AT&T operators, I'm the assistant
news director of WBRS-FM, the radio station on the Brandeis campus.
I'm trying to put together a story on how Brandeis Telecommunications
is making lots of money by using AOSs and the like.

So I come to all of you for help.  Is there anyone out there who'd be
willing to give me some usable quotes about scumbag AOSs, equal
access, and Telesphere's rates?

You can e-mail me at [e-mail], or voice at (617)
736-6327 or 6372.  Thanks for any help any of you might be able to
provide.


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

"Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!"

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 09:23:26 EST
From: Bill Berbenich <bill@shannon>
Subject: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! :)


1-800-FON-WD40 worked when I called.  And can you believe it...
I WON!!! :-)


Bill Berbenich
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Question: How long did you have to study for the test?  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #171
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29784;
          15 Mar 90 3:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00160;
          15 Mar 90 1:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09385;
          15 Mar 90 0:01 CST
Date:     Wed, 14 Mar 90 23:00:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #172
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Mar 90 23:00:21 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 172

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Michael I. Bushnell]
    Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Danial Hamilton]
    Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Roger Haaheim]
    Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Tom Lowe]
    Re: Wrong Number For Model [Michael L. Starr]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Torsten Lif]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Stuart Lynne]
    Re: Data Feed over Cable TV [Robert Gutierrez]
    Re: *TONE-BLOCK* [Don H. Kemp]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael I. Bushnell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Organization: University of No Money, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 17:15:10 GMT


I have a particularly sad example of the wrong number problem.  My
parents have been at the same number for about 30 years.  Last
Christmas, we got a call from an old woman looking for Mary.  We have
no Mary.  After the fourth call or so, the poor caller was nearly in
tears.  It seems this friend of hers had moved, left our number (by
mistake, obviously) and now she could find no way to get ahold of her.
It was all quite tragic.


    Michael I. Bushnell      \     This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE  \    And it must follow, as the night the day,
   [e-mail]     /\   Thou canst not be false to any man.
        CARPE DIEM           /  \  Farewell:  my blessing season this in thee!

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

From: Danial Hamilton <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Date: 14 Mar 90 17:05:29 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


My standard procedure for handling wrong numbers has always been to
ask the caller what number they dialed.  If the number they give me is
different than mine, then I tell them that they must have misdialed,
and to try their call again.  If they dialed my number correctly, then
I tell them that they dialed correctly, but the number they have is
incorrect.  Case one avoids revealing my number, and case two
(hopefully) avoids repeated call backs.

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

From: Roger Haaheim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Date: 13 Mar 90 13:54:39 GMT
Organization: HP Design Tech Center - Santa Clara, CA


Just gently remind him that HE's the one that keeps calling
the wrong number.

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

Date: 13 Mar 90 08:55:48 EST (Tue)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos


[e-mail] (Stan Krieger) writes:

> So, in order to make sure that the error
> wasn't one of my dialing or the telcos switching, I asked the person
> if I had reached (516) etc.; she said "no".  OK, so I called that
> number again, and of course the same person answered.

> Now, I can almost understand people not wanting to give away their
> phone number to a person who reached them by mistake, but if I already
> have their phone number, and tell them what it is, it means I didn't
> reach them by mistake, so at that point what difference does it make?

In many business environments, people don't necessarily know exactly
what number they are answering.  It may be a pots line that is used
exclusively for a toll-free number (although no restrictions on
calling the pots number), or part of a hunt group or any one of other
strange arrangements.  At one of my former jobs, my phone could
potentially be reached by dialing 3 or 4 different numbers, and I had
no idea which number had actually been dialed.

Then again, maybe they were just lying to you.


Tom Lowe
AT&T
[e-mail]

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

From: "Michael L. Starr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Number For Model
Reply-To: "Michael L. Starr" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T HRISO, Morristown, NJ
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 15:05:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Dean Brock)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 161, Message 5 of 10

>The March 7 issue of the [Durham Morning Herald] had a front page
>article about Charlotte Clark, a 68 year old Durham women, who is
>receiving many, many calls from men eager to converse with with
>Durham's other Charlotte Clark, a 20 year old Duke University student
>who posed for a Playboy feature entitled "Girls of the ACC."

This reminds me of an article I read several years ago in the
[Washington Post.]  The electric company in Virginia changed their name
from VEPCO to Virginia Power (apparently to avoid the confusion with
another company in the area, PEPCO).  It seems that whenever calls to
directory assistance came in requesting the number of Virginia Power,
the operators gave the number of an elderly woman named Virginia
Power.  After a period of a constant flood of calls to this poor
woman, the operators were instructed to ask callers whether they
wanted the power company or the individual.


 __/\__  ********************  __/\__   |       [e-mail]
 \    /  * Michael L. Starr *  \    /   |       att!hriso!starr
  |/\|   ********************   |/\|    |       attmail!starr

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

From: Torsten Lif <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 13 Mar 90 11:24:44 GMT
Reply-To: Torsten Lif <[e-mail]>
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Stockholm, Sweden


In article <[e-mail]> "Joel M. Snyder" <[e-mail]>
writes:

>In several recent articles, the moderator called for charging people
>for ring-no-answer, and one reader responded by suggesting that taken
>to an extreme this would mean charging you for picking up the phone.

>In fact, this is already true in the voice world, depending on how you
>want to divide up the basic service charge your telco charges.  In the
>voice world, it's unlikely to be taken to such extremes, but in the
>data world.

I may not be the only person to point this out, but nevertheless here
goes:

In Denmark you are indeed charged for "picking up the phone". The
counter (on which your charges are based) first "clicks" when you lift
the receiver (or more strictly: when you get the dialling tone).

Danish pay-phones have no return slot. Whatever money you put in stays
there.  The argument for all this is that the costly part for the CO
is in the *setting up* of the call; *not* in maintaining it. Even the
fact that the callee does not answer his phone contains information to
the caller.

Needless to say, repeating auto-diallers are not a big sell on the
Danish market  :-)


   Torsten Lif
   ELLEMTEL Telecommunication Laboratories
   P.O. Box 1505, S-125 25  ALVSJO, SWEDEN
   Tel: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 8:14:49 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have


Remember also though, that the "toll saver" feature is there for
another purpose as well.  Allowing more rings on the first pickup
gives you, the owner, time to get to the phone to pick it up before
the machine grabs the incoming call.  After the machine gets the first
one, however, it makes the assumption that you aren't home and answers
more quickly on subsequent calls so the caller doesn't have to wait
listening to rings any longer than necessary - theoretically keeping
some people from hanging up too soon.

The above, of course, so you can leave the machine on all the time and
not have to worry about remembering to turn it on every time you
leave.

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Date: 14 Mar 90 11:21:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes:

}To summarize: A to B is free, B to C is free, A to C is long distance,
}A to C via call forwarding in B is free.

}Works fairly well. Saves everyone a bit of money.

>[Moderator's Note: You mean it saves everyone a bit of money *except*
>for the person who subscribes to service 'B'. Someone is paying
>whatever the going rate for local service is for that line. Does the
>corresponding 'savings' experienced by users of the BBS offset the
>basic monthly charge?  Have you any idea who uses it, and how
>frequently?  PT]

I average 11 hours a week to deliver him his newsfeed.  At $.10/minute
that would work out to $320/month.

It probably costs him on the order of $30/month for the line and call
forwarding.

I would imagine that there are a fair number of other users on it as
well.

In the near future BCTel is supposed to be looking at widening the
free calling area. At that point in time this won't be too useful.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532 (voice)    604-939-4768 (fax)

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV
Date: 14 Mar 90 07:36:37 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC...The Purveyors of TCP/IP Communcations.


[e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes in Volume 10, Issue 155, Message 8 of 14:

> In this month's bill for Southwestern Cable TV in San Diego there
> arrived a number of glossy inserts.  One is quite interesting:

What happened to Cox Cable???

> A service called "X-PRESS" and one called "The Electric Toy Box" are
> being offered starting April 1.  The latter distributes IBM-PClone
> games for children and others over the cable system, two per week.

> According to the glossy, X-PRESS is a "constant stream of news and
> information from around the world, plus sports, weather,
> entertainment, and lifestyle reports.  It's used in over 2,500 schools
> nationwide as a classroom teaching aid."  (and on and on)

I had heard X-Press was outta business ... ah well, it's nice to spread
rumors for a service that I thought was awful.

X-press is a service transmitted out of Boulder, Colo. which takes
various newswire stories and uplinks them onto a VC-II data channel on
one of the pay services. The data feed is then received by the cable
company via an addressable VC-II (Videocipher-II) data receiver, then
re-modulated (FSK'd) on a spare frequency on the cable system (~70-75
mhz, or 108-118 mhz) and transmitted downstream in the cable.

> It costs $149 for the "interface kit", which is a modem-sized plastic
> box with an F-fitting for the cable RF and a DB-25 for the confuser
> interface.  My GUESS is it's a simple subcarrier modem, probably
> picking up 4800 bps SCA data transmissions on one of the many FM-band
> transmissions on the cable.....

Bingo ... though try 9600 baud. FSK no less (talk about bandwidth hog).

> It would seem that the above services are offered for $10 a month.
> However, to attract the money-grubbing capitalists, for an additional
> $20 a month, "X*PRESS Executive" offers stock market quotes and
> analysis, apparently compatable with some of the popular PC
> financial/get-rich-quick programs.

When I was 'testing' the service at the cable company I worked for,
this was actually part of the service, though it was a 'seperate' area
you had to go to on the program (on your PC) to manually look them up.
Now, they just added some fancy bells and whistles (ie: made a better
program) and charged you (the sucker) for it.

> Unless the "interface box" has a huge buffer, I'd expect you'd have to
> leave the computer on all the time, for an additional $20 a month in
> electricity (second highest electric rates in North America, yup).

Yessiree. Buffer is only as big as your memory, and that was filled up
in about 15 minutes or so. Oh, also, you can print out the articles
you wanted to save, but no file saving was allowed (I got around that
with a little nifty TSR called "LPTX" which redirected printer output
to a file).

> I haven't ordered the interface, and (presumably because the service
> isn't being offered until April 1), I haven't been able to find it on
> the cable whilst snooping around with my DC-to-light spy radio.

Try the frequencies listed above.

This service is a rip off because of one thing ... the 'stories' or
'articles' they used were the so-called _broadcast_ versions, or in other
words, just summaries of the real articles you see on your local newspaper.
Maybe about 1/4 - 1/3rd of the real newswire story. Might as well just get
a subscription to my local kitty-litter liner. And with just 640k of
buffer available, well, you may not get all the 'articles' you really
want anyway. How long would 640k last for a Usenet feed?!?

> As if 10MB/day of USENET wasn't enough incoming information overload
> already.

You know somebody has a 9600 baud Usenet feed on a SCPC channel on a
couple of satellites? I'm still trying to get more info about that.
One of the satellites is K-2 (Ku band). A 3 1/2 foot dish getting
continuous Usenet articles ..... Usenet articles .... Usenet
articles.....<TILT>.


   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
   Moffett Feild, California.

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

From: Don H Kemp <teletech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *TONE-BLOCK*
Date: 13 Mar 90 23:23:27 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John Higdon):

> Tom Lowe <[e-mail]> writes:

 [Tale of woe about ill-educated service reps deleted]

> [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
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                    (Sleezy Practice)
> they save their client. Incorrect billing by local telcos due to changes
> in equipment and service never recorded correctly is a scandal.

Legend has it that this kind of "consulting" was at one time very
common in the trucking industry.  The "consultant" would tell the
client that they would cut the client's phone bill by a large
percentage, by finding billing errors and "optimizing the network".

They would take, as their fee, up to half of the savings, sometimes
for as much as five year's worth.  They would then take a quick look
for errors, and if there wern't enough savings to provide a large
enough fee, they'd start ripping out WATS and 800 lines.  They would
then block LD calls on local lines.  Sure enough, the phone bills
would drop dramatically. The "consultant" would get their fee, and go
on his way.  Of course, when the truckers customers couldn't reach the
company, and the dispatchers couldn't get an outside line, and
revenues started dropping.

I agree that billing errors are rampant, especially where equipment
was transferred from the Bell Operating Company to AT&T at divisiture.
We have found cases where the client was being billed for equipment
that had been removed (or ordered removed) even before '83.  And we
still see cases where the Telco is charging for CPE that AT&T is also
charging for.

Our policy, and that of most reputable consultants, is that any
savings or refunds that we find are the client's.  We feel that we can
make a reasonable profit on our hourly fees alone.  Our clients seem
to agree, at least they keep calling back  :-).


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: Indeed, it was a much more common approach years
ago then now; but even then, the ethical consultants signed a contract
with the client saying they would divide the 'savings' in two parts:
the telco billing errors in one group and the service configuration/
judgment calls in another. They agreed to discuss both categories with
the client. Obviously, the billing errors were reported and corrected.
Regards the other, the client agreed in the contract that if he chose
to implement the recommendations of the consultant at any time in the
near future -- say the next year -- he was liable for that portion of
the fees the consultant would have earned had the changes been made at
the time of the consultation.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #172
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02397;
          15 Mar 90 3:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07161;
          15 Mar 90 2:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00160;
          15 Mar 90 1:05 CST
Date:     Thu, 15 Mar 90 0:01:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #173
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Mar 90 00:00:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 173

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ECPA Clarification [Ed Ravin]
    Telecom Conference in Philly [Daniel Finnigan]
    Phone Statistics [Henning Schulzrinne]
    Sleazy Credit Card Ad [Amitabh Shah]
    Re: Cordless Hands-free Phone Source [John Courtney]
    Cuban/USA Politics and the Cable [Keith Henson]
    Secret Service Surpasses ANI as Threat to Privacy [Herb Caen via J Palmer]
    Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance [Glenn M. Cooley]
    Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones [John Parsons]
    Use of New London City Codes From U.S. [Carl Moore]
    Area Codes List [Carl Moore]
    Global Ventures by US Sprint [Henry Mensch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ed Ravin <rutgers!cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Subject: ECPA Clarification
Organization: The Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game In New York
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 90 18:27:50 GMT


Some more clarifications on ECPA restrictions on receivers and receiving:

Our good moderator writes:

>[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]

There is *NO* restrictions on manufacturing of new scanners, at least
not legal ones.  Radio Shack and Uniden/Bearcat block the cellular
frequencies on their own volition, not under legal duress from the
ECPA (though perhaps under other kinds of duress).  Some
manufacturers, like AOR, come out with new models that DON'T have the
800 Mhz frequencies blocked.

Another confusion to the issue is that frequencies are not illegal to
listen to, but "protected communications" are.  So you could tune your
scanner to 870.330 and listen to the noise level (that's not illegal)
but when a cellular call comes in you tune away.  To add even more
confusion, some frequencies may be used by both "protected" and
ordinary communications, which means the scanner owner has the burden
of figuring out who he or she is listening to.

While we're on the subject, ECPA prohibits places a cordless telephone
BASE unit under "protected communications", but NOT the handset.
Don't ask me why.  This one will never stand up in the courts because
owners of cordless phones don't have the money to hire lawyers and
lobbyists the way the cellular telephone people do.

Again, there is no legal restriction on manufacturing or selling
equipment that is capable of receiving cellular (or for that matter,
IMTS 150 Mhz car phone) calls.  There is only a restriction on
manufacturing or selling equipment that is PRIMARILY USEFUL for
intercepting protected communications.  This was a hard-fought for
compromise in the law, perhaps the one piece of ground ceded to the
radio hobbyists.  Even a converter designed to down-convert the 800
Mhz band into a normal scanner seems to be legally sold (heck, they're
advertised in Popular Communications, it MUST be legal :-), probably
becaused it is also useful for tuning in trunked systems and the other
non-protected communications that can be listened to in the 800 Mhz
band.


Ed Ravin                  | hombre!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing
(BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| [e-mail]   | to waste-- boycott TV!"

Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article.

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

From: Daniel Finnigan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Conference in Philly
Date: 13 Mar 90 21:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: Daniel Finnigan <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


DON RITTER WILL BE GIVING A CLOSING ADDRESS AT CONFERENCE ON MARCH 23 AND 24

FULFILLING THE PROMISE FOR THE 1990's
Telecommunications Technologies and Policies
for Industry, Consumers and Education

In a unique interdisciplinary approach this conference will bring
together engineers and sociologists, industry representatives and
regulators, as well as computer scientists, educators and exonomists
to explore the proposition that dramatic advancements in information
and telecommunication technologies have outpaced our understanding of
how they affect organizations, individual consumers and the public
interest.  Special attention will be paid in the conference to the
deep policy differences that now exist between the United States and
Europe.  Critical questions to be examined include:

- Are American business opportunities being lost
  as the policy struggle continues?

- How can information technologies enhance
  productivity in business, teaching and research?

Organized faculty of the Wharton Business School, the Annenberg School
of Communications and the School of Engineering and Applied Science at
the University of Pennsylvania, the conference will include speakers
such as Raymond Smith, CEO of the Bell Atlantic Corporation and Ed
David, former Science and Technology Advisor to the President and
former head of AT&T Bell Laboratories.  Panels include:

- New Technologies and Public Policy:
  American and European Perspectives

- Telecommunications and the Business Organization of the Future

- Consumers and the Intelligent Network

- Education: Is there a Telecommunications Fix?

- Is Public Policy Meeting the Needs of Consumers?

For further information and a brochure, contact the Center for
Communications and Information Science at the University of
Pennsylvania at [phone].

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 20:19 EST
From: Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Statistics


For a report I'm working on, it would be helpful to have the following
traffic engineering data:

1) What is the average and peak rate of calls handled within the
   United States (or, if that's too difficult, by the major long distance
   carriers)?

2) What is the mean call duration?

3) Are there any estimates as to the fraction of bandwidth/calls/usage
   devoted to voice, data, fax, ...?

Any references, suggestions, clues, hints or guesses are appreciated.


Henning Schulzrinne  ([e-mail])
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003 - USA === phone: [phone] (EST); FAX: [phone]

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

From: Amitabh Shah <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sleazy Credit Card Ad
Date: 14 Mar 90 02:21:49 GMT
Reply-To: Amitabh Shah <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell University Computer Science Department


In the continuing saga of late night sleazy ads, here's one I saw
recently.  This was from a bank called American National something. It
showed a guy complaining about how other banks would not give him a
credit card because he had a lack of credit history. Then this bank
gave him one ("All you have to do is to open an account with them.",
yeah!) without any hassle.

At the end was a 900 number to call the bank for a credit application,
only 10$ per call.


Amitabh Shah                                    [e-mail]--(INTERNET)
Dept. of Computer Science                       { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP)
Upson Hall -- Cornell University                [phone]---------(OFFICE)
Ithaca NY 14853-7501                            [phone]-----------(HOME)

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

From: John Courtney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Hands-free Phone Source
Date: 13 Mar 90 15:55:48 GMT
Organization: Metromedia Paging Services


    I called about the WICOM unit. I already have a Plantronics
set but I don't like the way the earpiece sits in my ear. At any rate,
they informed me that Sharper Image stores carry the high priced model
(of course) A quick call to Sharper Image confirmed this. The price is
$ 199. Looks like a nice unit, plus you can have some tunes on all
day.


Later,
===============================================================================
John Courtney   INTERnet: [e-mail]   Metromedia Paging Services
201-807-3366      UUCP: ...uunet!metpage!courtney      Ridgefield Park NJ - USA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
     "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." - Brooks
===============================================================================
 The above text might not even be my opinion, its certainly not my employers..

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cuban/USA Politics and the Cable
Date: Tue, 13-Mar-90 08:26:12 PST


The story ckp reported on is the *stupidest* example of blind
government bureaucrats I have ever heard of.  Of course they should
encourage phone traffic, and the resultant spread of news/ideas to
Cuba if they have any desire for the Castro regime to fall.  STUPID!


Keith Henson (someone should take this one to the President!)

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

From: Jim Palmer <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Secret Service Surpasses ANI as Threat to Privacy
Date: 14 Mar 90 03:38:06 GMT


      from _The San Francisco Chronicle_, Monday March 12, 1990,
      quoted from Herb Caen's column:

"...Kind of scary: At around 8 a.m. on the day Pres. Bush spoke at the
Commonwealth Club, Phyllis Sherman phoned the S.F. Hilton to find out
the closest Muni stop [public transit], figuring it would be
impossible to drive there.  Although she gave neither her name nor
phone number, she got a phone call at 9:30 a.m. from a Secret Service
agent who addressed her by name and asked 'What was the nature of your
call?'  He accepted her explanation, adding, 'Sorry, but we're
checking out something I can't discuss.'  Now that's almost as
intriguing as the eavesdropping.  Pardon.  Surveillance ..." [endquote]

Boggles the mind.  Any guesses as to how it was done? ANI to the ^Nth!
But why was an hour and a half needed before followup?

P.S. For the SecServ: I'm clean, just curious. Really, I am, check the
files ;-)


{hplabs,ptsfa,pacbell,ucbvax}!well!jpalmer   Jim Palmer, not in JOCKEY shorts
Admirers of laws or sausages are advised to avoid witnessing either's creation.

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

From: Glenn M Cooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance
Date: 13 Mar 90 16:47:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (glenn.m.cooley,wi,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>I called MCI yesterday to switch my service over to them.
>They told me that I'd have to call my New England Telephone Business
>office also, because "the local phone companies don't believe us

What has been happening is that TELCOs hire telemarketing firms to
harass, I mean call, people at dinner time and ask if they want to
switch.  These firms get paid on commission and so MAGICALLY, the
TELCOs were told of many people who wanted to switch but didn't.

NETCO, my local TELCO, also does this (and who out there thinks
they're squeaky clean?) and started charging me for added services
(e.g. call waiting) which I never ordered. They insisted that I just
must have said yes in such a call (or it just must have been my wife)
because this service could not have been supplied otherwise. After
further argument, they canceled the service and credited me the
overcharges (do TELCOs hire people who see arguing as a fringe benefit
or are they trained to never, never, never, give in before 20 minutes
are up) still maintaining that this just could not happen and that
mine was the only case they had ever encountered.

Some two years later I read in TIME about this WIDESPREAD problem
which was a COMMON occurrance for up to 50% of the orders relayed by
the telemarketers.


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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 12:13:18 mst
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones


I bought two re-conditioned Western Electric Trimline (r) rotary
phones a while back from an AT&T Phone Store -- love that old
technology :) .  They both have a distortion problem when speaking in
a normal voice or louder.  My guess is overmodulation.  Is there a way
to cure this, perhaps by reducing the gain somehow?

                            Thanks, John Parsons


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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 90 21:01:49 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Use of New London City Codes From U.S.


This responds to an item posted Feb. 19 by John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
which was in Telecom:

You said that calling your office as 081 941 2564 (obviously from
within U.K.) works fine and that calling it with 071 instead of 081
yielded "Please re-dial omitting the 071, this is test announcement
three".  Just now I tried 011-44-71-941-2564 and it got AT&T
intercept, indicating that the new city code (I did not try 081 due to
the ghastly hour for U.K., 5 hours ahead of Eastern Time, where I am)
is not yet recognized at this end.


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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 16:18:49 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Codes List


The area codes list I "inherited" had 170 for northwest Mexico and 190
for Mexico City.  Aren't these referring to the former "fake" area
codes 706, 903, and 905?  (Yes, I know 903 will later appear in Texas
by splitting what is now 214.)

In my copy, I deleted 170 and 190 (see above), and also deleted
reference to suburbs w/r to area code 202, which in my copy again
refers only to Washington, DC.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 19:44:05 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Global Ventures by US Sprint
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Pinched from the [New York Times] --

US Sprint Communications Co. announced four moves Wednesday to expand
operations overseas, including a preliminary agreement to provide
high-quality international telephone links to the Soviet Union.

Sprint said it had signed an agreement to create a venture in Moscow
with Central Telegraph, which provides long-distance telephone and
telex services in the Soviet Union, and the Latvian Academy of
Sciences.

The new company, called Telenet U.S.S.R., will import and operate an
advanced switching center that will use satellite communications to
offer voice and high-speed data exchanges, said Susan W. Williams,
Sprint's vice president for international services.

Sprint will provide the switching center while Central Telegraph, a
unit of the Soviet Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs, will supply
office space, pay employee salaries and make local telephone
connections available, Ms. Williams said.

Operations are scheduled to begin by the end of the year, Sprint said.

Sprint also said that it had joined several Asian and European
concerns in planning a $260 million fiber-optic cable project.

Scheduled for completion in mid-1993, the system would link Tokyo,
Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore and connect with trans-Pacific
cables serving the United States and Canada.

In addition, Sprint said it was forming a venture with Elektrisk
Bureau AS, Norway's largest maker of electronic components, to sell
data communications products in Scandinavia and that it had opened new
switching centers in London and Amsterdam.


# Henry Mensch    /   <[e-mail]>   /   E40-379 MIT,  Cambridge, MA
# <[e-mail]-relay> / <[e-mail]> / <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #173
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04763;
          15 Mar 90 4:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27876;
          15 Mar 90 3:14 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07161;
          15 Mar 90 2:05 CST
Date:     Thu, 15 Mar 90 1:05:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #174
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Mar 90 01:05:12 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 174

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Back in Court Again: NTS/ITI Lawsuit [Don H. Kemp]
    Separations & CALC (was Re: Strange Charges on Bill) [Fred R. Goldstein]
    TCP/IP<-->ISDN Interoperation Mailing List [Johnny Zweig]
    Fax, E-mail, Voice Mail Comparisons Wanted [Steve Huff]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Matthias Urlichs]
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Steve Forrette]
    Being Charged For No-Answers [Liudvikas Bukys]
    Re: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus) [Todd Olson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: AT&T Back in Court Again: NTS/ITI Lawsuit
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 15:15:38 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


AT&T's back in court again....

FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 1990

     BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T today said it is suing National
Telephone Services Inc. (NTS) and International Telecharge Inc.
(ITI).  The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, charges that NTS and ITI have switched public telephones
from AT&T to NTS and ITI without the knowledge or consent of the
owners of the premises where the phones are located.

     AT&T charged NTS and ITI with a number of deceptive practices
including: deceiving business owners into believing that there is an
association between NTS, ITI and the local telephone companies;
claiming that AT&T is no longer providing long-distance service for a
business owner's public phones; or indicating that NTS or ITI has been
designated the new long-distance operator services company for public
pay phones on the business owner's premises.

     NTS is headquartered in Rockville, Md.  ITI is headquartered in
Dallas.

     AT&T said the deceptive practices have resulted in
considerable confusion and inconvenience for business owners
with public phones and may have cost AT&T millions of dollars
in lost revenue.

     "Business owners with public telephones deserve the right to
choose their long-distance company without concern for deceptive and
fraudulent business practices," said Merrill Tutton, vice president,
AT&T Consumer Services.

     The lawsuit against NTS and ITI asks the court to order NTS and
ITI to stop making false, misleading or deceptive representations, and
to stop switching AT&T long-distance business customers to NTS or ITI
without authorization by the customer.  In addition, it asks the court
to declare void any contracts between NTS or ITI and AT&T's business
customers that were entered into through NTS' or ITI's deceptive
actions.  AT&T has asked to be awarded damages it has suffered as a
consequence of NTS' and ITI's wrongful conduct.

     AT&T said it believes that thousands of business owners with
public telephones who have been switched from AT&T had either never
been contacted by NTS or ITI, had declined to switch when they were
contacted, or didn't realize they were being asked to authorize the
switch.  Many business owners were initially unaware that they had
been switched to another long-distance company.  AT&T also said these
practices have created confusion for people who make calls from public
phones.

     In a related action on Jan. 10, 1990, AT&T sued MCI and its
telemarketing agent, Pioneer Teletechnologies, for deceptive
telemarketing practices that misled consumers and for widespread
switching of long-distance customers without their consent.  The case
is still in the early stages of litigation.

     Business owners who chose AT&T long-distance for the public
telephones on their properties and think their service may have been
switched without their consent can contact their local AT&T account
executive or call 1-800-KEEP ATT (1-800-533-7288).

                         #   #   #


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


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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Separations & CALC (was Re: Strange Charges on Bill)
Date: 14 Mar 90 17:19:57 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert E Stampfli)
writes...

> > >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge)
> >...  This charge you question, mandated by law, is
> >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long
> >distance carrier of your choice. I know the system stinks; much of
> >divestiture does; but them's the breaks. ...
> >OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for

>local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be
>charged this fee.

Well, to be sure, the explanation of the charge above is somewhat in
error, but it's a common misunderstanding brought about by the use of
the slang term "access charge" to refer to what's formally known as
the "customer access line charge" (CALC).

Under the 1930-ish court ruling Smith v. Illinois, local telephone
service is jurisdictionally both interstate and intrastate.  Since the
same local wires are used for both, the cost must be charged to both.

 From then until 1984, a system called Separations & Settlements was
in place.  This apportioned the cost of local telco plant (the
non-traffic-sensitive stuff, or NTS) according to relative interstate
and intrastate use.  The interstate was marked up by a "Subscriber
Plant Factor" (SPF) to increase the interstate share; this constituted
the subsidy from AT&T Long Lines to the local telcos!  The interstate
money all came from usage (traffic sensitive) charges, even though it
paid for NTS.  Without this in place, long distance would have been
cheaper, local costlier.

In 1984, the rules changed.  SPFs remained in place, but instead of
charging 100% of the interstate NTS costs to toll/WATS usage, the FCC
decided that non-traffic-sensitive costs should have non-traffic-
sensitive charges.  (Sort of makes sense, doesn't it?)  So that's the
CALC, or "access charge".  It's the FCC's way of levying a monthly
charge for what's jurisdictionally theirs, the same way your state has
the telco levy a monthly charge for what's jurisdictionally theirs.
(Imagine if the states gave away lines for FREE but charge more for
intrastate calls ... that's the equivalent of the old FCC system.
Come to think of it, that's almost California!)

If your line had NO interstate "contamination", then 100% of its cost
would be borne at the state level.  You wouldn't pay CALC, but you'd
have a MUCH higher local charge to make up for the money that your
local telco isn't getting from the interstate pool.

In sum, it's not access TO interstate, it's just the result of having
two regulators splitting your bill.

Incidentally, this FCC proceeding began WELL BEFORE divestiture was
even dreamt up, and while it was installed coincident with it, it
technically has NOTHING TO DO with divestiture!  It would have
happened had the Bell System remained in place.  Really. Check it out.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone.  sharing requires permission.

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: TCP/IP<-->ISDN Interoperation Mailing List
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 20:32:24 GMT


[ IMPORTANT NOTE: Due to a stupid mistake on my part, the list as it
stood on 14 MAR 90 was lost.  I apologize profusely (you can send
flowers to the sysadmin who doesn't do daily incrementals any more).
Everyone who asked to be added please ask again -- I'll be more
careful from now on. ]

This is the second announcement of the creation of a mailing list (a
reflector, to be precise) for the discussion of issues relating to
using ISDN as a transport mechanism for TCP/IP traffic.  The list is a
means for people implementing systems to communicate with one another,
as well as to discuss issues peculiar to using moderately-fast
point-to-point reconfigurable serial links for internetworking.

Since different configurations allow different techniques for sending
the data (for example, a single workstation that dials up a server
directly would be able to elide IP-headers and most of the information
in each TCP-header as communication progresses).

As a favor to anyone who has trouble with mail aliases longer than 8
characters (or who just hates to type long names), the group is called
"tcp-isdn" rather than "tcp-ip-isdn" (*).  Requests to be added to the
list should be sent to:

    [e-mail]

Articles to be distributed to everyone on the list should be sent to

    [e-mail]

(Notice, for those who usually send to [e-mail], that the word
"brutus" is _not_ optional!)


Johnny List

(*) I opted against IP-ISDN since I think that using ISDN as a transport
mechanism for IP-datagrams ("ISDN as Ethernet") is only one of a number
of interesting ways of doing things, and didn't want to express a bias.

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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax, E-mail, Voice Mail Comparisons Wanted
Date: 14 Mar 90 17:42:52 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


I am working on a project that will describe & compare electronic
mail, fax, and voice mail.  Although I have searched the electronic
databases here, I'm not finding anything that compares these
processes.

Is there anything out there (preferably FTP) that will handle this
comparison?  I am most interested in each equipment's business use.
Specifically, I am looking for:

    1.    How to choose which device for use
        in your business.

    2.    Humorous anecdotes, satire, etc
        about e-mail, fax, and voice mail.

Thanks in advance.

Steve Huff
Internet:  [e-mail]    or    [e-mail]
Bitnet:    [e-mail]        or    [e-mail]

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

From: Matthias Urlichs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 19:41:30 GMT

In comp.dcom.telecom, article <[e-mail]>,  Jim Shankland
<[e-mail]> writes:

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

< >According to some friends I visited in Frankfurt, the telephone
< >administration charges for off-hook time. They don't care if it is
< >ringing, busy or hung at the switch.

Not in Germany. Some other European contries, like Austria, have that
problem.

< That certainly wasn't the case when I was growing up in Munich.
< Billing was done in "message units", which at the time cost 0.18 DM
< each.  A (completed) local call cost one message unit, regardless of
< its length.  Toll calls were charged in seconds per message unit,
< rather than money per minute.  The phone company (== post office)
< started counting message units when the connection was established.

Today, the unit is 0.23 DM. They recently dropped the general 1%
rebate (for wrong connections and general non-reliability). Local
calls now cost one unit per eight minutes (12 minutes, 18-8 o'clock).

Most long-distance calls are 15 (38 4/7) seconds per unit -- about DM
55 (21), or US$ 30 (12), per hour.

< Oh, yes: the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message
< units consumed that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay;
< there was no itemization of calls.  You pretty much had to take their
< word for it that you'd consumed that many message units; none of this,
< "But sir/ma'am, I never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff.

The technology still isn't there. Almost everywhere, you can't even
get touch tone dialling. But even where they have fairly modern
technology, you can't get a list of the numbers dialled, this being
justified by the magic word "privacy". Nonsense -- hell, it's _my_
phone line and bill! (The same reasoning is applied to the Telecom (new
name for the wiry part of the Bundespost)-operated X.25 network.)


Matthias Urlichs

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 18:31:40 PST
From: Steve Forrette <c186aj@cory>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for
>local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be
>charged this fee.  So far I have been unable to convice my telco that
>this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for
>something I cannot use.

I asked Pacific Bell about this a couple of months ago, and much to my
surpise, it made sense.  A line that can only place local calls *does*
have access to the interstate network, as it can *receive* calls from
out-of-state.  If they could block such calls (they probably can't), I
don't know what the answer would be.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 10:41:08 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Being Charged For No-Answers


I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for
long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or
not.  The University has a ROLM phone system internally.  It does
"least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers.

Now, in the consumer world, I thought it was long settled that charges
for incomplete calls were not acceptable and that the various
technical issues had been laid to rest.  Am I right?

Now, I'm wondering

    (1) whether there is any technical excuse:

        (a) in general, or

        (b) for a PBX (e.g. our ROLM system), or

        (c) for international calls.

    (2) whether this violates any tarriffs.

I will be pursuing this with our telecommunications people as well,
but would appreciate the commentary of all you smart and disinterested
telecom experts.


Liudvikas Bukys
<[e-mail]>
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY
USA

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 19:46:36 -1000
From: Todd Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Plans (Was: Sprint Plus)
Reply-To: Todd Olson <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Hawaii


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Gary Segal) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 4 of 10

>I have MCI's equivlant of Sprint Plus or AT&Ts Reach Out America.
>Here are the details:
  [....]
>Distance: Rates apply to all 48 states.

   I thought that there were 50 states?  I guess I don't live in a
state, huh?  Where do I live then in a foreign country?  Damn, I
thought I was an American; I guess not ... Does this mean I don't have
to pay taxes?

 ____ ___  _   _      ___      __  ___
  /  /  / / \ / \    /  / /   (   /  / /\  /  [e-mail]
 /  /__/ /__//__/   /__/ /__ __) /__/ /  \/

"Women: can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts." -  Norm of Cheers fame


[Moderator's Note: I *think* (am not sure) he meant the 48 contiginous
states on the mainland. There are some long distance plans which do
not take in Alaska or Hawaii (as was the case with Reach Out America
at first, and AT&T WATS for many years.)      PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #174
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03976;
          16 Mar 90 15:22 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00810;
          16 Mar 90 10:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05582;
          16 Mar 90 8:21 CST
Date:     Fri, 16 Mar 90 7:41:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #175
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Mar 90 07:40:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 175

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Will Martin]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [John Higdon]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Glenn M. Cooley]
    Re: White House "Caller ID" [Carl Moore]
    Re: White House "Caller ID" [David Tamkin]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Tom Neff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 10:45:49 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision


>Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized bills from other
>utilities but not from the phone company?  It's certainly not because of the
>amount of money involved.  The average person's average phone bill is probably
>a lot higher than their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and
>a lot lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas).

It is because the *basis* for the billing from the telco is so
different from the billing from the gas or electric company. The
electric company doesn't care what you plug into the sockets, and it
doesn't charge you differently for electricity that runs your stereo
vs. that which cooks your food (though I admit some areas DO have
time-of-day usage differentials in electric bills, so you pay less for
power used at night).

The telco bills you differently depending on multitudinous factors.
And they certainly make mistakes; not only have we all had evidence of
this personally, but many examples have been posted to this group.
There's nothing that keeps you from hooking your own electric meter
inside your house to the incoming line, and computing yur own bills as
a check on the electric-utility's billing. It wouldn't be too
cost-effective, but it would be fairly straightforward. To do the same
for your phone line would require a dedicated computer (probably);
some businesses actually do that and products to do this are marketed.
In order to avoid the expense of doing that, we want information from
the telco as to their basis for charging us. If we are being billed
some large amount for a call to Mozambique, we want to know about it,
not have it buried in and hidden by a message-unit charge total that
happened to be clicking off at 300 per second for that call, as
opposed to once every 10 seconds for a call next door.

Why do the Europeans allow such non-itemized billing when Americans
object?  Because our fundamental attitudes are different.
(Unfortunately, that difference is decreasing as traditional American
anti-government principles deteriorate...) Telcos in Europe tend to be
governmental organizations, like the Deutsche Bundespost, which impose
a great deal more weight on the user and have much less of an attitude
of "serving the customer" than even Ma Bell at her height of monopoly
had.  We've all heard the tales of poor service, waits for months or
years to get phones installed, the ridiculous anti-modem regulations,
etc., in Europe and other areas.  [Almost as bad as in GTE-land...  :-)]

The American attitude tended to be to let the private-enterprise telco
do *almost* anything it wanted, but to beat it about the head and
shoulders now and then with the state or local-area Public Utility
Commissions or equivalents. One aspect of that was to force the telco
to at least *specify* what it was charging us for, even if it could
[in reality] get away with charging us whatever it really wanted to
for those things. Also, there is the simple historic precedent -- if
you'd always been given a detailed breakout of the charges, the
mechanism for collecting and disseminating that data *was* in place,
so it might as well be used, and, if the customer always had received
that info, they expected to continue to receive it. Inertia plays a
big part here, too...

Many years ago, I think in some telephone-hacker publication or
article on phreaks I happened to run across, I read a prediction (or a
hope) that someday the telco would charge you for usage at a flat
rate. Whether you made a long-distance call or a local call, whether
you used conference-call facilities or other exotica, or just called
your Aunt Mabel to chat, you'd pay the same low per-time usage charge.
I *think* this was sort of in the same light as the '50's-era
predictions that nuclear power would make electricity so cheap that it
wouldn't be worth metering, though... :-) This seems to be based on
the theory that the electronics and computers that run the telco
facilities would become so cheap that it wouldn't be worth the effort
of determing what facilities you were using. I think history has shown
that to be incorrect; the billing is moving more and more in the
opposite direction, with the cheap computing facilities being used
first for accounting, in order to identify and bill for more and more
specific things.


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 15 Mar 90 09:48:27 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:

>     And how is that any different from the typical electric,
> water, or natural gas bill?  In a typical house, each of these items
> is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our
> meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY".  What
> would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But
> sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could
> I possibly have used that much?"

Perhaps you are making a good argument for the itemiztion of electric
and water bills. Maybe it could be done by usage on each day.

Last year, a client received a bill from PG&E (Pacific Graft &
Extortion), the local power company for approximately three times the
normal amount. This was for electrical consumption at their mountain
top transmitter site. The site demand is 20KW day after day, year
after year.

I explained this to PG&E who insisted that their meter could not
possibly be in error. Had we perhaps left something on inadvertently?
Had someone connected up an extension cord on the hill to steal power?
I asked the person if he was serious; the electrical service couldn't
withstand three time the normal draw! Not only that, but their own
meter showed the month's peak demand at 20KW. The figures didn't work
out.

I had to meet them at the site, where they swapped meters and all the
while told me that this was stupid since their meters were never
wrong.  The long and the short of it is that the bills went back to
normal.  Think how much easier this could have been if there had been
some detail to dispute.


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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:43:41 pst
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision


>     Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized
> bills from other utilities but not from the phone company?

Well actually I am not perfectly happy, *but* unlike the telephone, I
can go out and get daily readings off of my meters if I want to.  I
have access to exactly the same data that is going to go into the
billing system.  If things start getting weird, I can experiment and
watch the effects in "real time" on my account balance.

Given this level of control and information.  I can discover how my
use habits affect my cost and make intelligent decisions on how to
change my use patterns.  If all I got was a single bill, I wouldn't be
able to tell if I was making too many calls to grandma or too many
calls to my brother.

> It's certainly not because of the amount of money involved.  The
> average person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than
> their water bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot
> lower than their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas).

We may not be average, but at our house the phone bill is almost the
highest in the "utility" category.  It's really not very high (in the
$60 range), but our other bills are lower.


Benjamin Ellsworth      | [e-mail]                | INTERNET
Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP
1000 N.E. Circle        | (USA) [phone]         | FAX
Corvallis, OR 97330     | (USA) [phone]         | VOICE

                     All relevant disclaimers apply.

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 17:30:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 8 of 10

 .    Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized
 .bills from other utilities but not from the phone company?  It's
 .certainly not because of the amount of money involved.  The average
 .person's average phone bill is probably a lot higher than their water
 .bill, about the same as their electric bill, and a lot lower than
 .their gas bill (assuming they heat with gas).

Because there is less possibility of fraud.  It's not real likely that
the kid down the block can charge his TV usage to my electric bill.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 15 Mar 90 14:34:07 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ


> > the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed
> > that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no
> > itemization of calls.

>     And how is that any different from the typical electric,
> water, or natural gas bill?  In a typical house, each of these items
> is metered and once a month you get a bill saying "according to our
> meter, you used XXX kWH of electricity, and you own us $YYY".

>     Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized
> bills from other utilities but not from the phone company?

There are simple answers to this question.  The first is that, unlike
the gas or electric utilties, there are cases where the phone company
will refund the charges after usage (i.e., wrong numbers) or not
charge at all for usage (i.e., no answer or busy).  Thus, the only way
to determine if, in fact, these charges were not posted is to have a
fully itemized list.  The water company doesn't refund charges due to
a non-seating of the toilet valve, nor does the electric company when
you leave the refrigerator door open.

The second is that immediate access to billing information for water,
electricity, and gas is available.  If you, for example, want to see
how many KWH the electric company is billing you for your
airconditioner, just take meter readings two hours before, one hour
before, when you turn the A/C on, and one and two hours after.  The
difference in averages is mostly the A/C usage.  The bottom line is
that we are not taking the water, electric, etc. company's word for it
when we get their bill, as we can independently audit all the
information that they're basing their bill on, but we are taking the
phone company's word for it.

As an aside, about 22 years ago, NY Telephone got a tariff to provide
detailed billing for message unit calls (there is no unlimited local
service in New York City; message unit calls, from 1 to 6 for the
initial period with 1 message unit calls being untimed, cover Nassau
County (Long Island), all of New York City, and the southern part of
Westchester County, including Yonkers, Rye, and White Plains).  Where
NY Tel really socked it to anyone who wanted the service was that the
minimum for a call would be 2 message units.  Now, that might have
been okay, but all calls billed as 2 message units, including those to
one message unit areas, would be timed (1 message unit every 3 minutes
after the first 5 minutes).  Needless to say, this service was not
very popular.


Stan Krieger Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

From: Glenn M Cooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 15 Mar 90 15:15:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (glenn.m.cooley,wi,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>And how is that any different from the typical electric,
>water, or natural gas bill?

Because unlike the telephone, each of these has a meter which I can
read, measure, and verify my bill with. In fact, with my water bill, I
read the meter and send the numbers into the water company (they check
every so many years to adjust any discrepencies/deceit). And if I
wanted, I could use a one cubic foot bucket to verify or show that the
meter is or isn't ripping me off. But when the TELCO tells me to pay
up for 15 message units, how do I know this is correct and if it isn't
correct how do I prove it. Given the proven abusive nature of such
companies I wouldn't be surprised is their computers are
"accidentally" overcharging people.


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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:06:14 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID"


I don't know how President Carter's call-in was done.  I do recall it
was toll-free, on a 900 number (done so that it would not interfere
with the normal long-distance traffic), and that calls from the DC
area to that were routed via Wayne, Pa. (near Philadelphia).  The
number was 900-242-1611, if I remember, and someone in the Milwaukee
area got deluged with calls from some people (in 414 area?) who forgot
to dial the 900.  This was in 1977.

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID"
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 18:45:43 CST


Jody Kravitz wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 169:

| Jimmy Carter did a "call in show" one Saturday morning when he was in
| the white house.  The number was a 900 number.  I had never heard of a
| 900 number before.  I was curious then (and am now) if this was done
| for "billing the caller", network congestion control, or caller-id.
| Anyone care to comment ?

It could not have been for billing the caller, as those calls were
publicized as free.  That was the first time I heard of 900 numbers,
and that was the only time I have ever heard of a free call to a 900
number.


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

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 15 Mar 90 18:57:06 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


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

>Even the fact that the callee does not answer his phone contains
>information to the caller.

Hey, the fact that a payphone is not in use (and thus available to the
caller) conveys information.

I think we should charge 'em for looking.  :-)

(Actually, this is a classic case of monopoly despotism.  In a free
market, the issue would be decided by consumer choice.  If company A
charges for every off-hook, then company B can try to knock their
socks off in the marketplace by charging only for completed calls.  I
suspect that in the US, at least, it'd be a winning strategy.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #175
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04177;
          16 Mar 90 15:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00810;
          16 Mar 90 11:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05582;
          16 Mar 90 8:21 CST
Date:     Fri, 16 Mar 90 8:02:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #176
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Mar 90 08:02:42 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 176

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls [R. Smith]
    Executone 2496 Telephone System KSU and Extras For Sale [Doug Davis]
    UK Telephone System Questions [Doug Davis]
    Pay Phone Operation [Steven L. Finberg]
    US WEST Rate Change in Washington State [Roger Clark Swann]
    ISDN Local Station Wiring [Roger Clark Swann]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:32:28 GMT


    It works both ways.  I remember once trying to call somebody
(this was years ago, so I may be distorting the details) and by
mistake got an old lady on the phone who wouldn't respond to my simple
"is this xxx-xxxx?"  query.  So, I figured I just dialed it wrong,
said I was sorry for I had bothered her, and tried again.  Got the
same lady.  Obviously I had the wrong number, but she wouldn't give an
inch to any of my queries as to what number I had actually reached,
etc.  I tried DA and they gave me back her number again.  Obviously
some sort of foul up so I called the operator and asked her for help.
She dialed the number, got the old lady again, who by this time was so
freaked out she could only sob into the phone "why do you keep
bothering me!?" or something like that.  I never did resolve the
problem.  I feel sorry for the old lady, but she could have prevented
some of her grief is she had just confirmed that I had really reached
the number I thought I dialed.

    I have a funnier story about wrong numbers too.  One day a
couple of years ago, the phone rings.  The caller asks for somebody.
I say I think he has a wrong number ask what number he is trying to
reach.  He says 718-636-11238.  No, that's not a typo.  It didn't
sound right when he said it, but I couldn't figure out why it sounded
funny, so I asked him to repeat it.  Yup, he wanted 718-636-11238.  I
point out to him that he doesn't have the right number of digits,
thinking how strange it was that there is anybody in the USA who
doesn't know that a phone number must be 7 or 10 digits.  Of course
that's true, but this guy was calling from (if memory serves) The
Netherlands.  I was a bit surprised when he asked me if I would mind
looking up the correct number for him (seems like an expensive way to
get DA but, hell, if he's willing to pay for the transatlantic call,
I'm game).  He gives me the name and an address which must be just a
few buildings away on the next block from me!  I find him the number
and we chat a few minutes.

    Well, to make a long story short, here's what must have
happened.  It's not surprising that the party he was trying to reach
lives near me; after all, he just screwed up in the last few digits
and reached somebody unexpected in the same area code and exchange.
The odd part, is that my phone number is 718-636-1123 and my zip code
is 11238!  He must have somehow merged an area code and exchange with
a zip code, dialed the resulting 11 digits (the last of which was
ignored by the US switches) and gotten me.

    Now, the unlisted and collect story.  We're getting involved
in a legal situation.  The details are not important, other than the
telecom part.  We will be placing ads in newspapers soliciting
information that may be helpful to us from anybody who might know
anything and happen to see the ad.  These people are not supposed to
know who they are calling (other than my first name), and may be
reluctant to call at all, so the ad urges them to call collect.  The
calls may be far and few between, and every one is precious, so our
lawyer says to put an answering machine on the line, with an out going
message that starts "Hello, this is Roy.  Yes operator, I'll accept
the charges if this is a collect call".  To cut down on random calls,
the number should be unlisted.

    But I've been reading in telecom digest about these new
fandangled computerized collect call systems which do voice
recognition sans human operator intervention to determine whether to
put the call through.  I fear this will interact badly with our
answering machine.  I asked our lawyer about that.  He says not to
worry, that there is some way for a caller to get a real human
operator on the line.  Anybody know more about this?

    Also, our confidentiality is important in this matter; all the
callers are supposed to know is our first names.  Our lawyer told us a
story of a similar situation in which the caller managed to track down
who he was calling via the phone company.  Some people in a similar
situation to us set up a similar phone line with answering machine and
asked people to call collect.  Somebody called them, and they ended up
establishing a sort of relationship, getting a series of such collect
calls over a period of time.  Once, the caller forgot to call collect
and dialed the number directly.  Nobody thought anything of this until
the caller got his phone bill and saw a long distance call to a city
he didn't think he made any calls to.  The number was the same number
he had called collect several time before, but that didn't click (it
had never showed up on his phone bill before), so he called the phone
company to queried the charge.  The helpful phone company looked it up
and asked him, "You didn't call John Doe in Telco City, Wisconsin on
that day?"  That gave the caller everything he need to know to track
down exactly who the mysterious person was that he had been calling
collect for all these weeks was.

    It seems odd that the phone company would gladly give out the
name and address belonging to an unlisted phone number in response to
a billing query, but apparantly they did.  I once had a similar
unrecognized charge on my bill.  I called NY Tel and they quickly came
back with the name of the person belonging to that number.  The
confusion was just that I was calling some small town in central New
Jersey but the bill came back as Princeton, which wasn't where I
called (but I guess it went through a Princeton switch).  I don't
think it was unlisted, but the billing folks may not even have that
information.

    Anyway, the suggested solution from our lawyer is to have a
friend we trust take out the phone in his name, but installed in our
apartment.  That way, should an overly helpful telco clerk give out
more information than we would have liked, all anybody could do is
track down our friend, who presumably would clam up.  I know this
sounds like something out of a spy novel, but I assure you that the
legal situation is really not that mysterious and our lawyer is just
being paranoid, which I guess is what we're paying him for.


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

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Executone 2496 Telephone System KSU and Extras For Sale
Date: 14 Mar 90 17:31:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


I have the following for sale in whole or in part, this was removed
from service when we moved into this building.  It was attached to the
wall and still powered up (probably left in that state 6-9 Months).
It has been sitting in my store room about 2 months after I powered it
off and removed it from the wall.

I suspect the unit to be functional, but I cannot offer any guarantees
to how functional it is.

You can reach me via email, daytime (214)-340-5172, or evening
(214)-270-9226.

1 Executone KSU 2496/K21001 Series 5.
 Contains:
     # Type of card        Slot    Model Number(s) on card
    10 2 Line Co          (CO/LS)  K21023
    10 3 Station          (LC   )  K21039 LC/2496A
     1 Off Premises?      (OP   )  K21029
     1 EPA?               (EPA  )  K21007 EPA/2
     1 CPU                (CPU  )  K21020 CPU-3
     1 FX                 (FX   )  K21201 FX2


Additional:

1 Power Supply for above (Model K21003) Series 3.
1 External Pa Amplifier  (Model 4402001) 10 watts output.
4 Unknown (possibly external ring boxes) Model K21005 Series-I [ OPX-5 ].


Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun||texbell}!letni!doug     [e-mail]
"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."

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: UK Telephone System Questions
Date: 15 Mar 90 04:57:05 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


This is probably going to open a can of worms, but ... what problems am
I going to encounter using U.S. telephone equipment, specificly a
Trailblazer T2500 modem in the U.K.?

The power supply is an easy fix, the question is more directed to
different phone ring voltages, ground start or loop start etc.

Please answer via mail, I'll summarize if there is enough interest.

Thanks,

Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun||lawnet||texbell}!letni!doug or [e-mail]
"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."

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

From: "Steven L. Finberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay Phone Operation
Reply-To: "Steven L. Finberg" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 21:19:11 GMT


While local calls from pay phones are still $.10 here in MA (at least
from real NET/NYNEX ones), I noticed they are rather user unfriendly
compared to the Bell of PA ones I used last weekend.

The problem seems to be associated with the way calls are timed.  The
phone delivers a dial tone with out a coin, but insists on ten cents
before any local call can be dialed.  So far no problem.  The problem
occurs about once a minuite durring the first three, - the battery and
talk path are broken for about 3 seconds, making conversations
difficult, and making it obvious that you are at a payphone.

Then about 30 seconds before the end of the 3 min initial period, a
recorded "operator" comes on demanding 5 cents more for the next 3
min!  No matter when you put the nickel in she dosen't stop talking
till she is done her whole speel.  This makes for significant breaks
in any conversation.

Any ideas why the talk path interuptions are needed?

And why the recording can't be stoped as soon as the coin deposited?

The Bell of PA phone wanted 25 cents but didn't ever interupt, I don't
know what the initial period was, as I never made any extended local
calls.


**************************************************************************
Steve Finberg
PO Box 82 MIT BR Cambridge MA 02139
617-258-3754
[e-mail]
**************************************************************************

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: US WEST Rate Change in Washington State
Date: 15 Mar 90 06:08:19 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA


Just received my US West bill for March and included is the following
notice regarding rates:

Our Rate Structure is Changing

In accordance with the Washington Utilities and Transportation
Commission Fourth Supplemental Order, US WEST Communications is
simplifying its rate structure as of February 15, 1990. As a result,
most US WEST Communications customers will experience a monthly rate
decrease. No customer will receive an increase.

How Will This Affect You, Our Customers?

_Long_Distance_From_US_WEST_Will_Cost_You_Less_

Effective February 15, 1990, US WEST will temporarily reduce its long
distance rates. That price reduction will be replaced on July 1, 1990,
with a new "call timing method" that will, on average, amount to a
four percent savings. This new call timing will more accurately
reflect your long distance usage. It will reduce the timing of calls
longer than one minute to six-second increaments.

_Local_Service_

The multitiered structure used to calculate monthly rates will be
streamlined. As a result, most residence customers will experience a
decrease in their monthly local service.

[ Do they really mean that service will be decreased? :-) ]

_Suburban_Mileage_

All Suburban Mileage charges will be eliminated.

_Party-Line_Service_Improvement_

US WEST Communications will begin a five-year program to expand
current facilities in order to provide one-party service for all
customers. One-party service enables customers to place long distance
calls without the use of the operator, to choose their long distance
carrier and purchase discounted packages. For customers who currently
have party-line service, they may retain this service at their current
address.

WARES-0290


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

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Local Station Wiring
Date: 15 Mar 90 06:36:35 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA


Someone asked recently here about local station wiring for ISDN.  Here
in my office there is some remodeling going on currently involving the
same. ATT is installing several new drops for ATT 7500 series ISDN
sets and rather than use the plain four pair cable that they use for
the 2500 sets ( for the poens ), they are using a shielded type cable.
I have a piece here and it reads:

    TENSOLITE (SJ) CL2P 150'C 24 AWG (UL)

What I find strange about this stuff is the color coding...
    There are four pairs:    RED - BLACK
                GREEN - BLACK
                BLUE - BLACK
                WHITE - BLACK
    ( the shield surrounds the whole bundle )

The only way to identify the BLACK conductors is to find which color
they are twisted with. I think I perfer the scheme where a colored
cond. is paired with a white cond. with that same color stripe on it.
In addition, the conductors are stranded, rather than the conventional
solid.

Hope that this helps whomever needs it.


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


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #176
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00941;
          17 Mar 90 0:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20038;
          16 Mar 90 23:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12110;
          16 Mar 90 22:03 CST
Date:     Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:05:47 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #177
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:05:37 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 177

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Data Feed over Cable TV [Bob Sutterfield]
    Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Andrew Boardman]
    Re: Can This Be True? [George Pell]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Steve Swingler]
    Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: 900 With a Twist [Tom Betz]
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [David Tamkin]
    Re: Telecoms in Brazil [Hank Nussbacher]
    Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos (Tad Cook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV
Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:45:13 GMT


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

   You know somebody has a 9600 baud Usenet feed on a SCPC channel on
   a couple of satellites? I'm still trying to get more info about
   that.

Try contacting the folks at the Stargate project ([e-mail]) -
they did (do?) news over spare bandwidth on Ted Turner's network.  The
economics tilted somewhat away from their scheme with the introduction
of the Trailblazer and widespread use of NNTP, as well as the
universal availablility of UUNET.  I don't know whether the project is
officially belly-up or still in business serving a smaller niche.

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling
Date: 15 Mar 90 19:37:17 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!)


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

>> I tried using ATT with 3 way calling, and the volume
>> levels were definitely lacking compared to Sprint...
>I think you may be experiencing a quirk of your area. My experience up

>and down the state of California has been exactly the opposite.

Not necessarily.  I saw some tests of using V.35 modems with the three
LD carriers in Data Communications about a year back.  In all tests
(BER, call completion, setup time, etc.) AT&T won, except for one.
Sprint had the best signal levels.  I doubt it's a quirk so much as
different results for different conditions.


Chip Rosenthal                            |  Yes, you're a happy man and you're
[e-mail]                |  a lucky man, but are you a smart
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  man?  -David Bromberg

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 22:27:54 EST
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eating


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

>I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for
>long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or
>not.  The University has a ROLM phone system internally.  It does
>"least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers.

All of the ROLM systems I have seen have done very clever things as
far as returning call supervision to calling parties (they don't until
they *sbsolutely* have to; following the letter of the law lets them
get away with some interesting things), *HOWEVER*, "supervision" is a
foreign word when it comes to outgoing calls.  The rationale I've
gotten from ROLM and other *BX vendors is that they are primarily
targeting for a business environment, and businesses aren't
particularly concerned with calculating which account made which
calls, as they are all presumably made to further the cause of the
business.

>Now, in the consumer world, I thought it was long settled that charges
>for incomplete calls were not acceptable and that the various technical
>issues had been laid to rest.  Am I right?

As the saying goes, no one ever gets fired for buying (recommending to
buy, et cetera) IBM stuff.  "How could it have been the wrong choice,
it was made by IBM!"  The consumer world is not the business world,
not by far.

>Now, I'm wondering
>    (1) whether there is any technical excuse:
>        (a) in general, or

No.  I've worked on several ROLM boxes, and they've *all* been junk.

>        (b) for a PBX (e.g. our ROLM system), or

No. (presuming any sort of sanity with outgoing trunk connections)

>        (c) for international calls.

Hmm...  not so sure about this one...

>    (2) whether this violates any tarriffs.

As far as I can tell, no.  (I wish!)  I currently live in Columbia
University housing, and am forced to live with an IBM/ROLM 9751.  Most
people were quite unhappy with the price/performance ratio of ROLM
when it was newly installed, and some people (students, like me) were
looking for any means at all to get out of it (from lawsuits to
starting their own telephone service (a certain party with a NYNEX
line and a 5 station key system won't be mentioned :->)).  It's a
classic case of the fascist-university-wants-to-be-a-telephone-company-too
thing that's been posted about a lot lately.  I thought AT&T would
stop appearing in my *local* phone bills after 1984.  (They still do,
courtesy ACUS.)

[I eventually forked over for having a New York Tel. line installed in
addition to the ROLM line.  The ROLM only gets use for those
under-45-second calls.  (Like those $50 900 numbers and such.)  (Of
course, two weeks later, idiot contractors cut through *all* of the
New York Tel lines around here, and the out-of-service credits for the
month it took to get fixed (during the NYNEX strike) counterbalanced
my phone bills for months.  The striker-replacement "repair" people
were really pathetic.  My line was fixed within 48 hours of the end of
the strike. :-> (They traced the problem in about 15 minutes, and then
spent the next few hours ripping out a wall (*not* mine :->) with
three of their friends to get at the cable break.  (They said it was
the most fun they'd had in a while.)))]


Andrew Boardman
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]
or try [e-mail] if the Columbia machines are having problems

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

From: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can This Be True?
Date: 15 Mar 90 23:34:56 GMT
Reply-To: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Pavelle) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 10 of 10

+I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told
+me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a
+paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance
+calls the same way instead of using calling cards.  I did not believe
+the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to
+complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds.

+Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor
+that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world?

When I was 15 (quite a few years ago) with the older style pay phones
like the moderator described in his followup, we used to make calls
using a coke cup cut into a strip the width of a dime, inserting it
into the dime slot (calls were a dime), and dropping pennies into the
quarter slot. You may have had to bang the coin return at the same
time, but I don't remember now.


geo

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:24 CST
From: Steve Swingler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911


     Enhanced 911 *CAN* be implemented from many large PBXs.  It
simply requires the use of ANI trunks and an accurate database.  It
has been done by several different groups...the one that comes to mind
is the City of Seattle.  They use several NT SL-1 switches, and they
all provide accurate E911 data to the E911 Operator.

     The problem with the previously mentioned apartment complexes is
the lack of pressure on the owners of the places to spend the money to
fully implement E911, just in case it is ever needed.


Steve Swingler
Center for Computing and Information Systems
Baylor University

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta
Date: 15 Mar 90 19:33:56 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes:

>In TELECOM Digest V10, #159, Ken Jongsma, [e-mail] writes:

>>I had an interesting experience at the Atlanta Airport today. Some
>>airports (like Seattle) provide a place to plug your laptop into the
>>phone network. Seattle has a nice business area with desks, fax
>>machines and charge a call phones. All provided at no charge!

(stuff deleted)>

>A letter to Delta suggesting a no-charge business area would probably
>be a good idea - maybe other list members could mail a letter also (?).

    The "teleport" at SeaTac Airport is provided by USWest
Communications. There's one in the north satellite (i.e., the United
terminal), one in the main terminal (though rather hard to find), and,
presumably, one in the south satellite, the international terminal,
though I haven't been out there to check. International flights from
Seattle are to places I don't go.

        SeaTac, despite its role as an international hub, is a
relatively large, spacious, and empty airport, which had room to spare
for such services (the airport is much older than the "teleport".)  I
would guess that, even in other cities served by USWest, there
probably isn't existing room in the airport terminals for such a
service. (Do Denver, Portland, and Minneapolis have them?)

    I would also conjecture that vandalism in the average airport
is much higher than at SeaTac.

    Further, the authority governing SeaTac airport is only very
loosely coupled to other governmental agencies. The Port of Seattle is
governed by a board of commissioners, who are directly elected by the
voters of King County, and tend overwhelmingly to be businessmen
rather than politicians. The mayor of Seattle has nothing at the
airport with his name on it, except newspapers.

    Would the airlines provide such services? Maybe, but I doubt
that we'd be satisfied with their quality (and/or cost). Ditto for the
airport authorities (too much chance of politically-based patronage of
somebody's fly-by-night operation.)

    I'd write to the local BOC.


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]


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

From: Tom Betz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 With a Twist
Date: 15 Mar 90 21:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Betz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Greyston Business Services


Quoth Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]> in
<[e-mail]>:

|X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 166, Message 5 of 11

|900 numbers are often run for less-than-noble purposes (e.g. getting
|kids to run up their parents' phone bill).  I saw a new twist on the
|900 number this weekend.  A local PBS station (WVIA/Scranton) is using
|one for part of their telethon.  If you don't want to make a major
|pledge, you can "give your support by calling our 900 number. Remember,
|your call will cost $5.00."

WNET has been doing it for about a year... initially the calls were
$10 each, but now they have both $10 and $20 lines.

They use them to "shorten the on-air pledge period"...


"I don't run - I tend to black my eyes." - D.Parton | hombre!marob!upaya!tbetz
                                                    |  [e-mail]
"One minute I'm in the pasture porkin' ponies,      |      Tom Betz - GBS
the next I'm a can of Mighty Dog!" - Secretariat    |      [phone]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 1:29:37 CST


Robert Stampfli wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 167:

| OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for
| local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be
| charged this fee.  So far I have been unable to convice my telco that
| this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for
| something I cannot use.

1. Can your local telco really block all outgoing long distance calls?
They can assign no 1+ carrier, but can they block 10XXX?  [Perhaps the
link is not used for calls dialed via 950-YXXX or a carrier's 800
dial-up, but use of those carries a surcharge that can outstrip the
subscriber line charge fairly quickly.]

2. Would the telco really cancel this charge on the strength of a
customer's personal solemn promise not to place any long-distance
calls?

3. Can your local telco, as Steve Forrette pointed out, block incoming
long-distance calls?  I truly doubt it.  If you receive a
long-distance call, you are using the link from the l/d company's
local POP to your own CO.  You don't even get to choose which
long-distance carrier it is, because the caller makes that decision.


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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:15:56 O
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecoms in Brazil


>3) Does Brazil have a packet switched data network that can be
>accessed via IPSS from the UK. If so, what's it called, what
>facilities does it offer?

Try either of these people.  INTERDATA is the Brazilian equivalent of
Telenet or Tymnet.  EMBRATEL is the Brazilian PTT.

Brazil:  INTERDATA
         Mr. Armando F. Castanon          or  Mr. Arne Freinsilber
         EMBRATEL                             EMBRATEL
         Av. Pres. Wilson 231 / 10o andar     Av. Marechal Floriano 99/12 andar
         Rio de Janeiro, RJ  22031            Rio de Janeiro 20080
         Phone: [phone]              Phone: [phone]
         Fax:   [phone]                           or 2168637

>4) What would typical call rates from Brazil to the UK be, both via a
>direct dialup and via packet-switching? Is it likely to be cheaper
>than calling in the other direction?

The costs for connecting to the USA from Brazil are as follows:

     Country        Cost per    Cost per       Fixed      Maximum
                    connect     64,000         cost        speed
                     hour       characters   per month
     -------------+-----------+------------+-------------+--------+
     Brazil       | $20.55    |  $26.25    |   none      | 1200   |


Anytime,
Hank Nussbacher
Israel

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos
Date: 15 Mar 90 07:41:43 GMT
Organization: very little


Stan Krieger asked about why someone would lie to him when he has
dialed a wrong number (but not misdialed) and wants to verify the
number with them by asking "have I reached (x-number)?"...then they
say "no", and he calls back and gets them again.

I have had this happen, and here is what is really going on.  You have
accurately dialed what was originally a wrong number, but it comes on
as part of a group of lines into a business.  Like where I work, our
main number is 881-7000.  If that line is busy, it rotates to the next
line, and the next line, etc.  Each line has its own number, and it is
not consecutive, like 881-7001, etc.  So the receptionist or whoever
answers our phone at work, says, "no, you haven't reached 881-7459,
this is 881-7000."  She is not lying, she just doesn't know what the
number is for the third line in the trunk group, or whatever you have
come in on.


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]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #177
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03036;
          17 Mar 90 1:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22091;
          17 Mar 90 0:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20038;
          16 Mar 90 23:07 CST
Date:     Fri, 16 Mar 90 22:41:49 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #178
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Mar 90 22:40:59 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 178

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Special Issue: CLASS Features [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Linc Madison]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Tolls [Steve Elias]
    Re: More Greed [Glenn M. Cooley]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Glenn M. Cooley]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Steve Forrette]
    Re: White House "Caller ID" [Scott Fybush]
    Choke Lines [Carl Moore]
    Choke Exchange (was Re: More Greed) [Blake Farenthold]
    "Chilling Effect" on Public Access (Was Re: Legion of Doom) [Mike Godwin]
    Satellite Data Link [Steven L. Finberg]
    Information Needed Re: TPC 100 [Robert Masse]
    When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Scott Fybush]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:23:14 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: CLASS Features


The special issue for this weekend will be a detailed report of CLASS
features provided to the Digest by Chris Ambler of Cal Poly.

This issue will be distributed sometime Saturday afternoon or evening.
My thanks to Chris for sending it along.

Incidentally, for a good time:  'finger [e-mail]'.
You won't regret it!


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 02:17:25 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Rob Stamfli writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 167, Message 7 of 8

> >[Moderator's Note: ... (concerning the FCC Toll Access charge)
> >...  This charge you question, mandated by law, is
> >to compensate the local telco for providing access to the long
> >distance carrier of your choice.

>OK, then it would seem to me that if I request my second line be for
>local calls only, with no long distance access, that I should not be
>charged this fee.  So far I have been unable to convice my telco that
>this is the case, even though it would seem I would be paying for
>something I cannot use.

Oh, but you'll still have to pay the access charge, unless you manage
to get a line which blocks *INCOMING* long-distance calls.

The reason I know is that I was the system administrator for a small
residential Centrex system (11 lines).  One line was the answering
machine, left in a public area.  To prevent any unexplained calls to
Kathmandu, the line was restricted to place outgoing calls only within
the Centrex system.  However, because the line was still connected to
the long-distance system for incoming calls, we still paid the FCC
access charge, per Pac*Bell's ever-joyous interpretation of CPUC
Tariff.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Tolls
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 09:54:28 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


According to a tariff writer for NE Tel, using call forwarding in
order to avoid toll charges is explicitly illegal.  I don't know where
such a law is listed.  Perhaps it is written into the tariffs
somewhere.


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

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

From: Glenn M Cooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Greed
Date: 15 Mar 90 15:03:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (glenn.m.cooley,wi,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> BTW, is the network designed to prevent access to choke
>lines from out-of-town if the choke line is very busy?  Last week, I
>tried for 2 hours to get Ticket Master (617-931-2000) from a phone in
>Rochester NY (716-427-xxxx), and kept getting an ATT "Sorry...

You got it. Since the long distance carriers (ATT...) have to pay for
local TELCO access charges and tie up their capacity just to get a
busy signal on the far end (and hence no revenue), if the far end
number is getting a lot of calls and is busy the network software
blocks all future calls on the local end automatically/regardless. So
forget getting those Bruce tickets, unless you're local to the phone
order handling company, your call isn't even getting close to having a
equal shot at getting in. Your best bet is to call a friend in upstate
Vermont etc. where nobody is likely to be calling in and hence no
block is in effect in their LD hub.

A related anecdote -- when something like MTV has a 800 number phone
poll they only answer the phone 50 times (and only pay for 50 800#
calls) of the 80,000 calls that come in. Therefore, the LD carrier
loses money each day since the 50 call revenue is far less the
thousands of local TELCO access charges. (Usually when you call an
800# and it is busy you call back and get through with the charge for
the sucessful large enough to cover the unsuccessful ones.)

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

From: Glenn M Cooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Date: 15 Mar 90 15:24:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (glenn.m.cooley,wi,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I
>believe his/her mother was choking).  The child was panicked and
>couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment.

I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my
hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario
than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the
phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install
under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.)

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 12:49:52 GMT


> What would the electric company say if I called them up and said "But
> sir/ma'am, I didn't even run my air conditioner this month, how could
> I possibly have used that much?"

Actually, if you have reason to believe that your bill is in error
they are happy to work with you to figure it out. They're selling you
kWH, and if you didn't get them you're entitled to a refund. The phone
company is selling you bandwidth. If you don't get it, then you're
entitled to a refund.

>     Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized
> bills from other utilities but not from the phone company?

Because it's not technically feasible to get non-itemised bills from
other utilities, perhaps? What would an itemised bill from the power
company look like? "Refrigerator: $27.75, A/C: $57.21, ..."?


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

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 03:07:03 PST
From: Steve Forrette <c186aj@cory>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>In <[e-mail]> Jim Shankland <[e-mail]> writes:

>> the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed
>> that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no
>> itemization of calls.  You pretty much had to take their word for it that
>> you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I
>> never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff.

>    And how is that any different from the typical electric,
>water, or natural gas bill?

It's different because with an electric or gas bill, billing problems
can be resolved easily by looking at the meter (it's even CPE :-) ).
If there's a reading or billing error, you have the ultimate proof
that you are right.  I would imagine that these are quite accurate.
On the other hand, I'm sure we've all had billing problems of one sort
or another with "the phone company."  By its very nature it's more
prone to error.  Where would you be if you didn't get detailed
billing?

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 16:10:31 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White House "Caller ID"


A 900 number in 1977?!?  I was but 5 years old then, so I don't
remember, but it seems to me like a lot of COs wouldn't have been
programmed to accept a 900 number.  Anyone know if that was the case?


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

"Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!"

[Moderator's Note: There were '900' numbers in the middle seventies;
but not nearly the number we have today. I think there were maybe ten
or a dozen in all. Sports, horoscope and the talking clock were among
the first, along with national weather. All were one-way; there were
no interactive 900 numbers then (except President Carter). A call to
1-900-555-1212 is free; the tape used to last about a minute or less,
but now it goes on, and on and on.   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 11:23:33 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Choke Lines


Regarding "choke" lines: I am wondering about 215-263 in Philadelphia,
Pa., and 609-590 just across the river in Camden, NJ, being "choke"
lines.  An old gripe for people from Delaware is that both numbers are
11-digit long distance, and this causes problems in getting thru on
phone contests, because of the extra digits to dial.  More recently, I
have heard "263-xxxx inside Phila., 1-800-yyy-xxxx elsewhere", and I
can't recall just now what the yyy stands for.

(Scott Fybush had written concerning reaching a "choke" number from
out-of-area.)

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 09:42:02 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Choke Exchange (was Re: more greed)


[e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko) writes:

>The choke exchange in Los Angeles charges for all call attempts, too.
>My first bill from GTE was quite a surprise.

I can't beleive the radio stations stand for this.  When I was working
in radio (10 years ago) we fried comthing at the CO giving away $1,000
and a few weeks later the phone company came out with the "radio
exchange".

We didn't want to change our request/contest line number and told 'em
so.  They said if we didnt get on the choke exchange the'd cut off ALL
our phones if we jammed the CO again.

This had some people in the programming and engeneering departments at
the station awfully mad.  We had several plans.  The programmers
suggested we urge all our listeners to rip out their phones and march
on the business office.  The engineers had th better plan though: Let
'em cut off our phones.  We'd use the 2 way radios and send a DJ to a
payphone.. he'd come on the air and say we're giving the money away to
the first caller at xxx-xxxx.  We'd fry the phone system every day
from a different location.

Fortunatly for the station, cooler (management) heads prevailed and we
just hopped on the radio exchange bandwagon. But if they started
charging listeners for the calls, that seems to defeat the purpose of
a give-a-way if not violate FCC rules relating to stations conducting
lotteries.


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


[Moderator's Note: The fallacy in your argument is that charging for a
phone call to reach the radio station lottery is violating rules
pertaining to contests. Contests which have you mail in a coupon or
ticket are not violating the law because the post office requires a stamp
on the envelope. Both the postage stamp and the telephone charge are
simply fees for transporting the message.  PT]

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

From: Mike Godwin <walt.cc.utexas.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: "Chilling Effect" on Public Access (Was Re: Legion of Doom Story)
Date: 15 Mar 90 15:29:25 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Godwin <walt.cc.utexas.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas


If anyone is aware of sites that have gone offline or eliminated
public access out of fears resulting from the Legion of Doom-related
equipment seizures by federal agents and from worries that system
administrators may lack common-carrier immunity, please send me Email.
I'm working with a newspaper reporter here in Austin who'd like to
know what effect the seizures have had on the general Net community,
as well as any general information about the jolnet and attctc
'stings.'

It could be helpful if you include a voice phone number.


Mike Godwin, UT Law School    |"Neither am I anyone; I have dreamt the world as
[e-mail]   | you dreamt your work, my Shakespeare, and among
[e-mail]   | the forms in my dream are you, who like myself
[phone]                | are many and no one."  --Borges

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

From: "Steven L. Finberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite Data Link
Reply-To: "Steven L. Finberg" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 17:35:53 GMT


I am looking to set up a data link, probably full duplex, between a
high altitude ultra long duration atmospheric research aircraft and a
ground station.

On the order of 4800 bits per second of data is to be transfered.
Both telemetry and control is being communicated so the transfer must
be real time.

Over most of the proposed flight paths any number of synchronous comm
sats would be visible to both aircraft and the ground control.

What is the availability of low bandwidth transponder channnels, who
rents them out, how much do they cost?

Who makes the "ground" stations?  Light weight and an omni directional
nontracking antenna for the aircraft would be a big plus.

What are the coverage areas of the satellite receivers? Are their
footprints only aimed at land areas?


Thanks in advance.

Steve Finberg
PO Box 82 MIT BR, Cambridge MA 02139
617-258-3754
[e-mail]

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

From: Robert Masse <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed Re: TPC 100
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 22:58:35 GMT


Can anyone tell me what "TPC 100" is?  I have heard it in many
conversations but I never bothered finding out what it is exactly.

Thanks in advance,


                  Robert Masse  [phone]/home
             Internet: [e-mail]
                UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!robert
       soon: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 04:12:15 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs


The phone number of Alex's Pizza here in Waltham is 647-5522.  Of
course, from Brandeis that means dialing 9-647-5522.  Naturally any
number of people will forget and dial just 6475522, which the system
reads as 6475.  6475 is a student phone number in one of the dorms,
the occupants of which now answer their phone, "Alex's Pizza, may I
help you?"

Seems to me that if I were assigning numbers here, I would shy away
from using ones whose first three digits were the same as the local
CO's exchanges, namely 647, 890, 891, 893, 894, 897, and 899.  And in
fact, no numbers of the form 89xx are used on our phone system.  Would
it have been that complicated to not use 647x either?

Just one of those things that shows the difference between adequate
system design and excellent system design, I suppose.


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

"Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!"


[Moderator's Note: I had the same problem for awhile several years
ago. My office extension was 7262; the carry-out bar and grill on the
first floor of the office building had the number RANdolph (726) -
2xxx.  Invariably -- almost daily -- five minutes before the start of
the lunch hour at 11:45 my phone would ring. Somebody ordering their
lunch would be on the line.  Some had the courtesy to apologize, while
others would say nothing and just click off.  Still others were
profane *toward me* before hanging up. This was in 1968-69; our phone
system was a centrex on a 5-Xbar switch.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #178
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05118;
          17 Mar 90 2:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26886;
          17 Mar 90 1:17 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22091;
          17 Mar 90 0:12 CST
Date:     Sat, 17 Mar 90 0:00:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #179
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Mar 90 00:00:34 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 179

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Direct Dialing to USSR [Dan Ross]
    The Assignment from Hell [Blake Farenthold]
    T1 and DDS Test Equipment [Michael Dorl]
    When Gremlins Come A-calling [Epsilon]
    Interesting Use of 900 Service [Chuck Bennett]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [[e-mail]]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog To Avoid Toll Charges [Vance Shipley]
    Info Needed on Worldwide V&H Data [Peter G. Capek]
    Re: Bellcore Number Busy [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Bellcore Number Busy [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan Ross <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Direct Dialing to USSR
Date: 16 Mar 90 17:20:41 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


I just got an international dialing instructions card (with list of
codes) with my new MCI card, with a printing date of 2/90.  Something
new was a listing for "Soviet Union (Moscow Only) 7".  I called for
rate information, and the MCI rep gave me 011 7095 as the prefix to
call (I think 095 was listed here as the city code for Moscow earlier)
and the rates, which were lower than AT&T's rates of a year and a half
ago (minimum 3 minutes @ $6 something, additional minutes still $2 or
more, and operator assisted).

The rates are:
        1st min        addl mins
1pm-2am        2.24        2.01
7am-1pm        1.84        1.72
2am-7am        1.69        1.55

I won't be trying it anytime soon, but I thought it was interesting
that MCI was providing such a service.  Is it just via AT&T?  Is US
Sprint doing this too?


Dan Ross        [e-mail]    ...!uwvax!dross

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 13:59:19 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Assignment from Hell


I think someone wants to fire me.  I have been chosen to evaluate our
40 lawyer law firm's telecommunications needs.

First they want me to look at our long distance service.  This I can
live with, as the change, if any, SHOULD be almost transparent to our
users.  All I have to deal with are the sales reps.  I'd appreciate
any suggestions on what I should ask about.  So far I figure I need to
get:

        1) Prices per minute for
                A) 1+ service
                B) Dedicated WATS
                        i) installation charges
                        ii) recurring monthly charges
                C) Credit Cards
                        i) surcharge per call
                        ii) access method
                                a) 10xxx
                                b) 950-xxxx
                                c) 1-800
                                d) 1-800 to our DISA
                        iii) instant credit?
                D) Volume Discounts: Do credit card and WATS aggregate
                   to calculate discounts?

        2) Billing format/Customer Support

        3) Quasi technical stuff
                A) Is there a local switch?
                B) Fiber Optics
                        i) Fiber out of THIS city
                        ii) % of calls on fiber
                        iii) is it there own network or are they reselling
                C) Call setup time
                D) % of failed called (all circuits busy or other)

If you have any comments or suggestions on getting this information or
on another questions to ask, PLEASE let me know.

SECOND they want me to determine if we need a new PBX.  I'm starting
off with the idea we do not.  We have an ITT system 3100 and it does
everything I can think of that we need.  DID, SMDR, Xfers, conference
calls, forwarding (busy, no answer, always), DISA, paging, camp on,
etc. I really can't think of anything we (a bunch of lawyers) need
that we don't have.  Most attornies don't have computers and those who
do need only to tie into our Word Processing mini computer or to dial
up Westlaw.

But anyway, since I was asked to look at the firm's needs I figured
the best way to do it was to survey everyone to see what they
need/want in a phone system.  I got a list of features of an AT&T
System 75, tried to translate the feature descriptions into English
(or legaleese) but am not too happy with the results.  I was HOPING
that some of the telecomm pro's out there might have a list of typical
PBX features, in layman's terms I could base my survey on. If so
Pleeeeeeeese send it my way.


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

We are the people our parents warned us about.
              Jimmy Buffett


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

From: Michael Dorl - MACC <[e-mail]>
Subject: T1 and DDS Test Equipment
Date: 16 Mar 90 17:28:54 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center


I'm interested in test equipment for 56k DDS and T1 lines.  I'm just
starting to investigate but I think I want gear with following
capabilities:

  Interfaces supported:

    56k DDS plain (don't care about secondary channel)

    T1 D4, ESF, B8ZS (test equip does CSU function)

    V.35

  Capabilities:

    Test pattern - transmit and receive

    Standalone loopback testing ,with one unit

    End-to-end test with two units

    Able to cause the various kinds of remote loops on T1 and DDS

    Signal quality measurements such as jitter and spectrum

    Detect T1 events such as checksum errors, bipolar volations,
    framing errors, etc.

Any other things I should be interested in?

Any suggestions on vendors other than FIREBERD?


Michael Dorl [phone]    fax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: claris!wet![e-mail]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 05:02:01 PST
Subject: When Gremlins Come A-calling


I noticed the line status light flickering on one of my lines the
other day;  how odd, but it's been rainy, and who knows?  Then a
couple of times the phone would ring -- once.  Very strange.  So I
called repair service, in case Pac*Bell had someone playing with
the wires.  First surprise -- no human!  There's now an automated
system that eats DTMF and files trouble reports.  OK, I can live
with that.

Not long after, the phone rings, I pick it up, and I find myself in
someone else's conversation; about five seconds later the other
parties hang up.  The phone rings a few more times (once), but each
time I head toward the phone it's idle.  Finally it rings twice, I
pick it up, I hear another voice say "hello" and a third identify
himself as a Pac*Bell rep -- who was quite surprised to actually reach
me, apparently the other subscriber was sitting by the phone.

We learn that my line has somehow been crossed with a number with a
different prefix (but served by the same office).  They say they'll
get it fixed within a few hours [apparently they did].  I called
Pac*Bell billing to flag my account in case I've got an inadvertent
party line; we'll get it all figured out next cycle.  I have 976/900
blocking, so I don't have to worry about those nasties.  There's just
one thing that bothers me: I have MCI as my 1+, and it may be months
before I know if any unauthorized charges were made on my line.


                    -=EPS=-

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 10:59 EST
From: "Chuck Bennett    [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Use of 900 Service


Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance
for its PC based product 1-2-3.  The rate structure is a reversal of
most 900 services... $0.00 1st minute, $2.00 each additional minute.
One is supposed to be immediately connected to a technical "high
trained engineer" for support.  They are doing this on a trial basis.
It will be interesting to see if this works and/or spreads.


Chuck Bennett
UNC, Chapel Hill, NC

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 23:45:51 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision


) [ differentiate between metered, non-itemized billing from the
)   phone co and metered, non-itemized billing from the power co ]

Easy.  In the cases of the power, gas, and water bills, you are
receiving a fungible commodity.  With the phone bill, you can not
reasonably assert that <n> local calls may be interchanged with the
call to Brazil, and you must make this assertion or the idea of
metered, non-itemized billing is inappropriate.

Further, I can verify the readings on the meters for the power, gas,
and water by examining my meters.  I can, if it pleases me, go out and
watch the dials turn and verify that they are turning at the right
rate.  I can install my own meter (after the company's meter) if it
pleases me.  You can not, in principle, do this with the phone.


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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 19:14:06 PST
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


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

>In <[e-mail]> Jim Shankland <[e-mail]> writes:

>> the monthly phone bill listed *only* the number of message units consumed
>> that month, and the corresponding total amount to pay; there was no
>> itemization of calls.  You pretty much had to take their word for it that
>> you'd consumed that many message units; none of this, "But sir/ma'am, I
>> never called Bremerhaven last Thursday" stuff.

>    And how is that any different from the typical electric,
>water, or natural gas bill?  [...]
>    Why is it that people are perfectly happy to get non-itemized
>bills from other utilities but not from the phone company? [...]

Speaking for myself, I can say that I am willing to put up with the
utility bills on that basis because I can see the meter, I can see the
wires or pipes on my side of the meter, and I trust the utility
companies to have aaccurate meters (and if they weren't accurate, how
would I know, anyway).  The system is too simple for much to go wrong.
I don't have to worry about someone on the other side of the country
running their toster oven and charging it to my electric bill.  Even
when things go wrong, it is usually not the utility's fault, rather it
is usually some cretin (read Landlord) who is tapping my electric
lines to power the hall lights, or the elevator, or something, not an
error in billing.

The few billing errors I have heard of were simply errors of
misreading the meters, and they are usually cleared up quickly and
easily.  (When a residence gets a bill for $4,000,000,000 worth of
electricity used in one month [because the incorrect reading was lower
than the last correct reading, so the computer thought it spun
around], people at the utility are usually willing to believe that it
was their mistake.)

As a practical matter, I pretty much accept on faith that my local
phone bill is accurate.  I have never seen a local call on my bill
which I could show was billed incorrectly.  It is only the
long-distance and monthly charges which cause problems, because of the
complicated ways these charges can be generated, and the corresponding
increased chance of error.  (No flames or horror stories about
mistakes in local billing, please.)  But since I have yet to go 24
months without finding an error in my long-distance billing, I demand
to see it itemized.

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:32:28 GMT


My question is who is getting answer supervision provided all the way
back to the PBX?  I know of several people in different areas of the US
that are.  This allows optimal billing back of calls.

So, who is getting it?  Who is providing it, and how? (T-1,ISDN-PRA,or
analog)


vances

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 21:10:36 GMT


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

>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could
>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges?

>I'd have a relay station that would bounce the output of one modem to the
>input of another, all signals. The advantages would be avoiding toll
>charges since it would be local to the relay station, and local from
>the relay station to the destination.


I set one of these up once.  Trying to dial into our office switch and
out again over an FX line didn't work because of degradation of the
signal, so I hooked two modems back to back and created a
"digipeater"!

In order to prevent unauthorized use I hotlined the output of the
second modem so it would automatically connect me with the site I was
interested in.  I also disabled the escape sequences on both.  The
null modem cable connecting the two must be done correctly so you
don't get hung up.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 19:52:52 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on Worldwide V&H Data


A colleague of mine is looking for a source of information similar to
that on the Bellcore V+H tape for the world outside the US.  It seems
unlikely to exist in any centralized place, but perhaps there's some
way to get this from the various national PTT organizations?  He'd
like to have a way of locating places (for planning data
communications) by specifying country code + city code + exchange and
translating that into a latitude/longitude.  Does anyone know of a
source?


Peter Capek
IBM Research -- Yorktown Heights, NY

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore Number Busy
Date: 17 Mar 90 03:40:31 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> On Saturday and today, I have tried calling the Bellcore number given
> for punching in area code and exchange, and the number, 201-644-5639,
> is busy.  How do I check what is wrong?

That's a relatively local call from here.  It answered, and performed
as expected when I tried it this evening.  But it is a bit out of
date.  It correctly identified the location of several local and
out-of-town places I frequently call, but it had no audible response
at all to 708-864.  When I tried 312-864, it identified it as
Evanston, IL, which was correct until a month ago or so.  (But it
pronounced it as 'eevanston ill'.)


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: Thu, 15 Mar 90 14:36:13 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore Number Busy


Today, March 15, the Bellcore number ("enter area code...enter
exchange...")  accepted my call, but treated all the prefixes I
entered as non-existent (i.e., went right on to the next area code
prompt). Later in the day I tried again, and I was able to use that
service, punch-in and all.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #179
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26061;
          17 Mar 90 13:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13724;
          17 Mar 90 12:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11608;
          17 Mar 90 11:19 CST
Date:     Sat, 17 Mar 90 10:52:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: CLASS Phone Features
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Mar 90 10:50:00 CST    Special: CLASS Phone Features

Inside This Issue:                               Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CLASS Phone Features [Chris Ambler]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 90 16:13:56 -0800
From: Fubar <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLASS Phone Features


        No. 1/1A ESS                             Div. 3, Sec. 1z(3)
        Corporate Software Standards             Draft Issue 3/12/90

                  CUSTOM LOCAL AREA SIGNALING SERVICES (CLASS)

        1.0   INTRODUCTION

        1.01  GENERAL INFORMATION

              AT&T developed a set of 1A ESS revenue generating
              features called LASS (Local Area Signaling Services).
              Pacific Bell requested customized software enhancements
              for some of the features, and will refer to them as CLASS
              (Custom Local Area Signaling Services).  Documentation
              may refer to either acronym.

              The CLASS features allow increased customer control of
              phone calls.  Existing customer lines can be used to
              provide call management and security services.  The
              primary basis of CLASS is that the terminating office can
              obtain the identity of the calling party.  Special
              terminating treatment based on the identity of the
              calling party can then be provided.

              The CLASS features are dependent upon an SS/CCS
              (Signaling System 7/Common Channel Signaling) network and
              use the SS7 Call Management Mode of operation.  SS7 is
              the next generation signaling system that features
              flexible message formatting, high speed data transmission
              (56/64 kbps) and digital technology.  CCS is defined as a
              private network for transporting signaling messages.  In
              the existing voice and signaling network, signaling and
              voice use the same path but cannot use it at the same
              time.  With SS7, signaling and voice have been
              separated.  Signaling (SS7) is over a high-speed data
              link which carries signaling for more than one trunk.
              Refer to Corporate Software Standards, Division 3,
              Sections 1z(1) and 1z(2) for more information on SS7/CCS.

              In the initial deployment, the CLASS features will only
              work on intraLATA calls that are originated from and
              terminated to switches that are SS7 capable.

              Although CLASS features will be marketed and sold under
              the Commstar Custom Calling Feature label, the features
              will not be available for Centrex and Commstar II
              customers initially.  However, like the other Commstar
              features, most of the CLASS services can be added to
              existing telephone equipment and will work on Touch Tone
              or Rotary sets.

              The Tracking Code (TC) for installation, translation and
              trunk work associated with CLASS is 299.  All time spent
              on CLASS should be coded to the TC in order to ensure
              proper time reporting.

        1.02  REASON FOR ISSUANCE

              This document is being issued in order to incorporate
              Methods and Procedures with Corporate Software Standards
              for the CLASS features.

              Subsequent changes to this document will be noted with a
              (>).

        1.03  DESCRIPTION

              Seven features, plus Number ID Blocking, Screen List
              Editing, and Line History are available with the initial
              deployment of CLASS in the 1A ESS.  Pacific Bell renamed
              the AT&T features;  Bellcore has their own feature
              names.  Documentation may refer to any of the names as
              noted below.

              Pacific Bell   AT&T                  BELLCORE
              ------------   ----                  --------
              Call Block     Selective Call        Selective Call
                             Rejection (SCR)       Rejection

              Call Return    Automatic Callback    Auto Recall
                             (AC)

              Call Trace     Customer Originated   Customer Originated
                             Trace (COT)           Trace

              Number ID      Individual Calling    Calling Number
                             Line ID (ICLID)       Delivery

              Number ID      Privacy               Calling Number
              Blocking                             Delivery Block

              Priority       Distinctive Alerting  Distinctive Ringing/
              Ringing        (DA)                  Call Waiting

              Repeat         Automatic Recall      Auto Callback
              Dialing        (AR)

              Select Call    Selective Call        Selective Call
              Forwarding     Forwarding (SCF)      Forwarding

              NOTE:  Bulk Calling Line ID (BCLID) will not be offered
              with the initial deployment of CLASS features.

              Following is a brief description of the CLASS features as
              well as Line History and Screen List Editing.

              CALL BLOCK     The Call Block feature allows the customer
                             to not receive, or block, calls from a
                             pre-specified list of telephone numbers.
                             The telephone numbers are placed on a Call
                             Block Customer's Screening List.  When the
                             calling telephone number matches a number
                             on the screening list, the calling party
                             receives a rejection announcement.  The
                             customer blocking the calls (called
                             number) does not receive any indication
                             that a call was made.

                                  Activation Code:    *60
                                  Deactivation Code:  *80

              CALL RETURN    When activated, the Call Return feature
                             initiates a call to the last telephone
                             number who called the subscriber.  If the
                             calling number is idle, the call completes
                             immediately.  If the calling number is
                             busy, the request is queued until the line
                             is idle or he request times out.  This
                             feature can be used to re-establish a
                             previous incoming call, or to contact a
                             party who called while the customer was
                             unavailable.

                                  Activation Code:    *69
                                  Deactivation Code:  *89

              CALL TRACE     Call Trace allows the called party to
                             initialize an automatic trace of the last
                             incoming call received.  When the customer
                             activates a trace, a message containing
                             the following information is output to the
                             SCC Maintenance Channel:

                                  1.   Time the trace was activated
                                  2.   DN of the calling party
                                  3.   MLHG/multiline indicator
                                  4.   DN and LEN of the customer
                                         requesting the trace
                                  5.   Date and time of the TTY message
                                  6.   Date and time the call being
                                         traced was received
                                  7.   Privacy Indicator
                                  8.   CWT Indicator

                                  Activation Code:  *57
                                  No Deactivation Code required

              LINE HISTORY   Line History provides memory to store the
                             Last Call Directory Number (LCDN), service
                             routines to access the memory and logic to
                             retrieve the LCDNs.  Only the LCDN of the
                             most recent originating and terminating
                             call is saved.  A permanent Line History
                             Block is maintained for each line in a
                             CLASS office.  The LCDN is used in all
                             CLASS features.

              NUMBER ID      The Number ID feature enables the customer
                             to identify the calling party before the
                             call is answered.  After the first ring,
                             the calling party's DN is displayed on
                             customer premises equipment (CPE).  When
                             the calling party's location is not CLASS
                             equipped, or their telephone call is
                             marked private, a code will be appear on
                             the CPE display (e.g. '000-0000' or
                             'private' or 'out-of-area'); the display
                             is up to the CPE vendor.

                                  No Activation/Deactivation Codes are
                                  required.


              NUMBER         Number ID Blocking allows a customer to
              ID             make their telephone number private on a
              BLOCKING       per call basis by dialing an activation
                             code prior to the called number.  The term
                             'private' means that although the calling
                             number is sent to the far end, it is
                             marked private so that there will be no
                             ICLID display of the number; the calling
                             number can still be traced using Call
                             Trace and can also be added to screen
                             lists.

                             This capability is available to all
                             customers in a 1A ESS switch that has
                             CLASS, whether or not they have the Number
                             ID feature.

                                  Activation Code:   *67

              PRIORITY       This feature provides a distinctive ring
              RINGING        to the subscriber when incoming calls
                             originate from telephone numbers
                             pre-defined on a Priority Ringing List.
                             When the customer with Priority Ringing
                             receives a call and the calling number is
                             on the list, the called party receives:

                                  Special ringing tone if the called
                                  number is idle, or

                                  If the called customer has Call
                                  Waiting and is on a call, they will
                                  receive a special tone indicating
                                  that a number on their Priority
                                  Ringing List is trying to reach them.

                                  Activation Code:    *61
                                  Deactivation Code:  *81

              REPEAT         Upon activation, Repeat Dialing
              DIALING        automatically redials the last otgoing
                             call dialed from the subscriber's line.
                             It does not matter whether the last call
                             dialed from the customer's line was busy
                             or idle, answered or unanswered.

                             Repeat Dialing is available to POTS and
                             multiline hunt customers as long as the
                             ring back can be directed to a particular
                             number on a unique LEN.

                             If a call cannot be completed immediately
                             due to a busy line, the customer receives
                             a confirmation tone, the call is queued
                             and recall completion is attempted when
                             both parties are idle.  The customer with
                             Repeat Dialing receives ring-back ringing
                             (2 short 1 long within six seconds) and
                             upon answering the called party receives
                             regular ringing.

                             Once Repeat Dialing has been activated,
                             the busy/idle status of the called and
                             calling lines is checked every 45 seconds
                             for 30 minutes.

                                  Activation Code:    *66
                                  Deactivation Code:  *86

              SCREEN LIST    Screen List Editing allows subscribers to
              EDITING        build and change the lists of telephone
                             numbers associated with the Call Block,
                             Select Call Forwarding and Priority
                             Ringing CLASS features.  When editing, the
                             subscriber may also hear the entries on
                             the list and obtain instructions.  A
                             screening list is activated when it is
                             initially created during feature
                             activation.  When the screening list is
                             active and has at least one number on it,
                             the corresponding feature is on.

                             An individual list of DNs is required for
                             each feature that uses screening lists and
                             is associated with the customer's line.

              SELECT CALL    This feature automatically forwards
              FORWARDING     incoming calls from telephone numbers that
                             have been pre-defined on the subscriber's
                             Select Forwarding List.  Select Call
                             Forwarding is totally independent from
                             Call Forwarding Variable.  Separate
                             activations and 'forward to' numbers will
                             be required.  Both features may be
                             activated simultaneously.

                                  Activation Code:    *63
                                  Deactivation Code:  *83

              NOTE:     On Rotary sets, the '*' is replaced with '11'
                        on all activation/deactivation codes.


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

     Sig: ++Christopher();            | Fubar Systems BBS
Internet: [e-mail] | [phone] 3/12/24 8-N-1
    Also: [e-mail]    | finger [e-mail]
     Bix: cambler                     | Home of the 13K .plan (and growing)

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: CLASS Phone Features
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09010;
          18 Mar 90 11:14 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27557;
          18 Mar 90 9:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08989;
          18 Mar 90 8:28 CST
Date:     Sun, 18 Mar 90 8:25:55 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #180
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:25:30 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 180

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Bell Canada's ALEX [Doug Eastick]
    Re: London 071, 081 Split [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Dataports at Atlanta [Leonard P. Levine]
    Re: Can This Be True? [Amitabh Shah]
    Re: One More Horror Story [Len Jaffe]
    Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [John David Galt]
    Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Roy Smith]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Herman R. Silbiger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From:    Doug Eastick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Canada's ALEX
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date:    Fri, 16 Mar 90 23:58:59 EST


[From ont.general:  Bell Canada put a flyer in three major papers on
Wednesday promoting their new service, ALEX.]

[e-mail] (David Sherman|LSUC|Toronto) writes:
>Does Bell really have a lot of service providers signed up?
>I note also it's "subject to CRTC approval".
>Anyone have the inside scoop?

I don't have an inside scoop, but last fall I participated in part of
the market research for it (and got $50 for 2 hours of my time).  They
say the thing plugs into your phone jack (didn't say if it was the
existing one, or a new one).

About 40 of us (between 20-40 years of age) sat in a lecture-type room
and a real slick guy gave us a presentation.  They had two TV's, a
videodisc player, and a Mac with a joystick.  The Mac controlled the
videodisc and thus the video.  The laptop model shown in the ads looks
more practical.

Concept we were shown was this:
- use the joystick to pick things off a main menu:
    Banking, Games, Real Estate, Shopping, Movie Rental,
    News Headlines

- For banking you select your Bank (we were told ours was CIBC), and a
  list of pending bills, with due dates, pops up (Rogers, Bell, Gas).
  Pick and point to the bills you want to pay, and presto, it's sucked
  out of your account.  He said Rogers and Bell would submit their
  electronic invoices to the "main computer".  Oh ya, you needed to
  enter a secret code, and if you needed HUMAN help, you could hit a
  button talk to a Customer Service-like person, real-time.

- Headlines involved the top headlines from various networks.  We got
  to watch bits of ABC News Nightline.  This was quite irritating to
  watch because the refresh rate was about twice a second.  Ted
  Koppel's mouth looks quite funny in freeze frame.  On the bottom of
  the screen, while he was reading the "grabber" for the story,
  menu subtopics appeared such as background info on the Labor Union
  (if the story was about a labor union).  The idea of "only watching
  what you want more of" is a good one (like NN's Subject menu) but
  the picture really sucks.  I'd wait for ISDN :-).

- Real estate: a cross between the freeze-frame things on Rogers at
  present, and the News coverage described above.  You could also hit
  the magic button and talk to a live Realtor.

- Movie Rental: previews of movies (at the bad refresh rate), and
  ordering.  Use VISA/MC to pay, and they guarantee 30 minute delivery
  (ya right).

- Grocery Shopping involved "walking" thru the aisles and picking
  your products.  Products on sale we shown first (Maxwell House Coffee)
  then you could click to other brands.  Something like 3 hour
  delivery.  I picture a small warehouse with lots of little people
  running around, bagging your order :-).

- Storytelling.  This one really got me steamed.  If your child wants
  to hear a bedtime story, you can pick a story from a menu and THE ACTUAL
  AUTHOR will read the story to him/her.  It was a good idea, but I
  figure if you've got the time to click a few buttons, you should have
  time to sit down with your kid and read.

- Video games.  This was slightly interessting, and I know the D&D CS
  types will get a kick out of it.  You can "sign up" to play a game and
  if someone wants to play you they will notify you to come to your
  terminal and challenge them.  We played 4x4 truck racing (I should
  say, the videodisc showed us it).

We didn't actually play with anything, we just answered questions.  I
wouldn't pay for any of it, but by the support some of the other
people in the group gave it, it might work.

Comments I can remember:
   "Can you order beer?"  - no
   "It'll make us a nation of couch potatoes"
   "It's great, you don't have to leave your house for anything"
   "F*ck, those games are bitchin"  (same guy as the beer question)
   "Good for the disabled who can't get out that often"
   "I prefer to pick out my own produce at the grocery store"
   "Do you have to push the button after you move the stick?"

If anyone orders ALEX, please let me know what it's really like.
Thanks.


Doug Eastick -- [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London 071, 081 Split
Date: 17 Mar 90 05:28:59 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>However, when I tried MCI, the recording
>informed me that I did not have to dial "0" after the country code

If they know exactly what you have dialed wrong, why don't they just
put the call through?

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers
Date: 17 Mar 90 05:59:50 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for
>long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or
>not.  The University has a ROLM phone system internally.  It does
>"least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers.

A lot of these problems stems from the fact that telcos will normally
refuse to give answer supervision except to real carriers.  I have
never quite understood why.  What do they have to lose by providing
it?

But since they will not provide any indication of when a called number
has answered, most private telephone systems have no choice but to
establish a time period, after which, they assume the call has been
answered.


Jim Gottlieb                     Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: (011)[phone]            Voice Mail: (011)[phone]

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dataports at Atlanta
Date: 15 Mar 90 19:50:03 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> Unfortunately for such a modern airport, Atlanta's was completed
> before the advent of laptops (or even PCs) and therefore doesn't have
> many of the technological conveniences which are now almost necessary
> in the Nineties.

Even Milwaukee has had a small (6 station) office space with RJ-11
connectors available to the public, and has had one for more than a
year now.

If you ask any airport person, they will guide you to it.

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

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

Subject: Re: Can This Be True?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 15:04:43 -0500
From: Amitabh Shah <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Pavelle) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 169, Message 10 of 10

> I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told
> me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a
> paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance
> calls the same way instead of using calling cards.  I did not believe
> the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to
> complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds.

> Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor
> that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world?

I have done similar things in my childhood too ;-).

The public phones in India (at least in Bombay, where I lived) were
designed so that one made a call and only after hearing the called
party come on line, you put in the coins. We used to do two things:

1. On some sets, it was possible to communicate using ONLY THE
EARPIECE, not the mouthpiece, without using any coins. So you first
instruct your mom to speak slowly, and not immediately. Then you
alternate between hearing thru' the earpiece, and then speaking thru'
it. It really worked. It was easy to get caught doing this, and I was
indeed caught once by our school principal's wife.

2. Some very old Indian coins were doughnut-shaped (well, flat
doughnuts) - with a hole in the middle. If you had such a coin, then
you could tie a string to it and drop it in to complete the
connection. Pull it out later when you're done.

Ah, those were the days!!


Amitabh Shah                                    [e-mail]--(INTERNET)
Dept. of Computer Science                       { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP)
Upson Hall -- Cornell University                [phone]---------(OFFICE)
Ithaca NY 14853-7501                            [phone]-----------(HOME)

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

From: Len Jaffe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One More Horror Story
Reply-To: Len Jaffe <[e-mail]>
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 20:10:26 GMT


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

[College phone horror story...]

Let me tell you about the phones at Kent State.  I lived in a dorm
made up exclusivly of 4 person suites.  Each suite had a phone and
every 2 suites shared a bathroom.  This maent 8 peolple with access to
two phones.  Ohio Bell would non-randomly assign the phone to one
resident of the suite.  This lucky individual would be the person with
the lowest social security number.  I'm originally from New York State
so my SSN begins with a zero and all my roommates' SSNs began with a 2
so the phone would always be assigned to me.  The phones are rotary.
There are no individual codes to protect people from someone using the
phone for which you are responsible to call Germany after his phone
gets shut off for not paying the $500.00 he has already racked up.
Don't laugh! It happened to one of my closest friends.

  The billing office's attitude has always been, "The phone is in your
name, so it's your responsibility."  I have been called by collection
agencies and had my credit rating threatened over calls I did not
make, calls by people who did not live with me.

  Thanks for letting me let off this steam, it has been building since
1984.


 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.

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted
Date: Sat, 17-Mar-90 12:11:21 PST


In the USA, the only case where timing must be considered is when the
first digit you dial is 0.  The zero could be the whole number.  What
follows is the rest of the scheme, which allows ALL other cases to be
distinguished by their initial digits (usually the first two, but
sometimes as many as nine).

Here are the "old" and "new" systems as best I understand them.  At
present a few crowded area codes use the "new" system and the rest use
the "old."  I predict that in a few years all of USA + Canada +
carribean will have to go to the "new" system, because we will have
run out of area codes possible under the "old" system.  (Under the old
system an area code must have first digit in range 2-9, second 0-1,
third any.  New system allows second digit to be any, so the set of
possible codes increases by a factor of five!)

Old system:

First digit 0, second 0 = long distance operator "00", total length = 2.

First digit 0, second 1 = International call.  This case IS ambiguous, but
   the ambiguity is not a result of the US system, and you can tell the
   network you are done by hitting "#" at the end.

First digit 0, second 2-9 = Operator assisted call.  Ignore the initial zero
   for purposes of determining length.

First digit 1, second 0 = First five digits are a company code, then figure
   the total length as if the company code were omitted.

First digit 1, second 1 = Special function, length set by local phone co.
   (For example, "1170" turns off my Call Waiting.)

First digit 1, second 2-9 = The initial "1" is ignored, figure the length using
   the rest.

First digit 2-9, second 0 = Area code + number, total length = 10

First digit 2-9, second 1 = Check third digit to catch the special cases 411,
   611, and 911 (total length = 3).  Otherwise it is area code + number = 10.

First digit 2-9, second 2-9 = Local number, total length = 7

New system:

First digit 0, second 0 = same as old system

First digit 0, second 1 = same as old system

First digit 0, second 2-9 = 0 + area code + number, total length = 11.  (Yes,
   the new system requires the area code on operator assisted calls to your own
   area code.  Los Angeles does not yet have this but San Francisco does.)

First digit 1, second 0 = same as old system

First digit 1, second 1 = same as old system

First digit 1, second 2-9 = 1 + area code + number, total length = 11

First digit 2-9 = Check second and third digits to catch the special cases 411,
   611, and 911 (total length = 3).  Otherwise local number, total length = 7

Also, for those of you who aren't from here and haven't heard:
California will soon have TWELVE area codes!  The new ones are 510
(effective 10/7/91, covers the East Bay section of what is now 415)
and 310 (2/1/92, western Los Angeles County).

Have a phone time!  :)

    --->  [e-mail]
  (There IS no save vs. puns!  Ahhahahaha!)

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 15:47:29 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Kaplan) writes:

> from Brandeis that means dialing 9-647-5522.  Naturally any number of
> people will forget and dial just 6475522, which the system reads as 6475.

    It works the other way too (sounds like deja vu, doesn't it).
Some years ago, we had a data line put in at work (must have been
around 1980 or so; when having a 212A data set meant all sorts of fuss
to install a special line with an RJ-45-somethingorother with an
exclusion key phone, etc).  It was the only phone in the place where
you didn't have to dial 9 to get an outside line.  People often forgot
that, and would dial 9-xxx-yyy-zzzz and get connected to 9xx-xyy-yzzz.
This was before the days of dial 1 for long distance, so the call
would go through to some random long distance number.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 17 Mar 90 22:50:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who
want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call
costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter.  This counter
will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the
end of the month.

By the way, a non-trivial fraction of your cost of telephone service,
both local area and inter-LATA, is due to the cost of billing.


Herman Silbiger

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #180
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10914;
          18 Mar 90 12:07 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09332;
          18 Mar 90 10:39 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27557;
          18 Mar 90 9:35 CST
Date:     Sun, 18 Mar 90 9:20:27 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #181
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Mar 90 09:20:10 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 181

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones [Jim Rees]
    Re: Name That Undersea Cable [Jim Thompson]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Bob Breum]
    Re: Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have [Dave Levenson]
    Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf [Jim Thompson]
    Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Amitabh Shah]
    Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Jim Thompson]
    Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Carl Moore]
    Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Jeff Wolfe]
    Re: The Assignment From Hell [Curtis Abrue]
    Merlin Cordless Phone [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Information Needed on WE Trimline Phones
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 19:02:45 GMT


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

> I bought two re-conditioned Western Electric Trimline (r) rotary
> phones a while back from an AT&T Phone Store -- love that old
> technology :) .  They both have a distortion problem when speaking in
> a normal voice or louder.  My guess is overmodulation.  Is there a way
> to cure this, perhaps by reducing the gain somehow?

I love that old technology too.  If it were a modern phone you'd have
to take it apart, unsolder wires, buy an expensive replacement part,
etc.

But if it really is an old WE unit, the problem most likely is that
the carbon granules have started to stick together, which they do when
they get old.  The cure is simple and requires no dissassembly or
fancy test equipment.  Grasp the handset firmly by the earpiece end
and bang the mouthpiece end hard against a hard surface, like a
desktop (no, not your electronic desktop!  The old wooden kind).  This
will unstick (decohere for all you old radio technology fans) the
grains and improve the sound quality.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Thompson)
Subject: Re: Name That Undersea Cable
Date: 18 Mar 90 07:46:25 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


Responding to John R. Levine's question, "Name That Undersea Cable,"
posted Thu, 1 Mar 90:

>.." 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?"

There are several signs that say much the same thing ('transcontinental'
even!) running up the street outside where I work/live.  (No, I don't
live at work, usually.)

I'm in Dallas, Tx.  No ocean.


Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems -    [e-mail]
Charter Member - Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY)
"Confusing yourself is a way to stay honest."    -Jenny Holzer

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

From: Bob Breum <swbatl!uiucuxc!cmpfen![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Date: 17 Mar 90 21:18:44 GMT
Organization:


[e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could
>>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges?

>I doubt that this lash-up is illegal anywhere in the U.S.  It's
>probably not worth the trouble to really find out.  If you think about
>it for a few minutes, there are a couple of other (better) ways to
>accomplish the same thing.  Redialers or call diverters are available
>on the open market that will do what you want without the added cost
>of the modems.

>If the intermediate office in your example has call forwarding
>available, it will also accomplish the same thing using only one line
>instead of two.  The drawback of the above two options is that you are
>locked into a single terminating number to call.  Guess your modem
>option would allow you some flexibility.  The cost of two lines and
>two modems seems a pretty high price to pay to avoid paying the
>short-haul toll charges.

There's a better answer.  I have used a device which allows you to
reprogram the call forwarding number remotely to accomplish this same
purpose.  My home is a long distance call from my newsfeed in Orlando
(and most of the commercial online service access numbers).  My
mother's house is roughly halfway between, and is a local phone call
from either site.  I had an extra phone line installed in her attic,
billed to me at a rate of $17.02/month for unlimited local calls and
call forwarding.  Previous to this, I had a special calling plan which
allowed me to call Orlando for the discounted rate of $ 0.13/minute.
Forwarding my calls through the intermediate number saves me hundreds
of dolllars a month in LD charges.

The Remote Phone Forwarder (mfgd. by Cynex in N.J.) device is
programmed by means of the following sequence: assuming that the phone
line is already forwarded, you must first dial the intermediate site
and let it ring once or more.  Although the C.O. will, of course,
forward your call as programmed, it also rings the intermediate site
once to "remind" it that its phone has been forwarded.  This alerts
the Remote Phone Forwarder that you may wish to alter its programming.
It then goes offhook and disables call forwarding.  It waits thirty
seconds or so for you to call back and reprogram it using touchtones
and a two-digit security code.  If no call is received, or if the
reprogramming attempt fails, it redials the C.O. and reestablishes the
previously programmed call forwarding.

This process is cumbersome, and does not lend itself to frequent
programming changes.  It is also offensive if used for voice calls, as
you must ring the forwarded number again to alter its programming.  It
has, however, served very well in my data application.

I note that Mr. Townson has repeatedly poo-poohed this idea on account
of metered local phone service.  I've lived in at least eight
different service areas around the southern and midwestern U.S., and
I've never encountered metered local service.  I have seen a similar
concept offered, where you are allowed a handful of free local calls
monthly, after which you pay so much _per call,_ not per minute, for
which you pay a reduced monthly rate.  I'm not disputing the existence
of metered local service; I merely question Mr. Townson's perception
of its ubiquity.


Bob Breum        uunet!tarpit >---v--< petsd
1701 Missouri Avenue         hoptoad >---|
Sanford, FL 32771-9722 USA    ucf-cs >---+-----------------> !peora!cmpfen!bob
[phone]             uiucuxc >---'


[Moderator's Note: If unmetered, local talk-as-long-as-you-like
service is available, then of course this method works well. But in
many of the larger metro areas, unmetered calling is becoming very
rare.  Even in Chicago, where very limited free local calling is
available to *residence lines*, stringing together a series of
call-forwarded lines to defeat the meter is tenuous at best. If it
works in your community, great!  PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Repeat Dial Feature
Date: 18 Mar 90 02:58:54 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I saw a TV ad in NJ this weekend for a "repeat dial" service available
> from the local telco.  Does anyone know anything about this service???

Repeat*Call service is part of a package of custom calling services
offered by NJ Bell under the service mark CLASS.  With this service,
if you call a busy number, you then hang up, go off-hook, dial a
feature-activation code, and hang up again.  When the number you
previously dialed becomes not-busy, if your line is not-busy, you get
a call back.  If you answer, then that number gets called, and you get
connected.  While waiting, you may make or receive other calls.  (The
CO isn't really repeatedly re-trying, as the name suggests.  It
actually requests that the distant central office send notification
when the status of the called number changes.)

Note that the number you called must be within your LATA, and must be
served by a central office equipped for CLASS services.  If these two
requirements are not met, you are given a recorded message in response
to your feature-activation code, and you receive no call-back.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 201 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave


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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Proposal: An Answering Machine I'd Love to Have
Date: 18 Mar 90 03:05:25 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> (Actually, this is a classic case of monopoly despotism.  In a free
> market, the issue would be decided by consumer choice.  If company A
> charges for every off-hook, then company B can try to knock their
> socks off in the marketplace by charging only for completed calls.  I
> suspect that in the US, at least, it'd be a winning strategy.)

In the New York City area, there are two cellular telephone service
providers.  When the first system (known to cellular telephone users
as service B) went on the air a few years ago, they charged for every
call attempt, whether or not anyone answered.  The competition
(service A) which became active almost a year later charged only for
completed calls.  Apparently, Tom Neff is correct.  Today, both
companies charge only for completed calls.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 201 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave


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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 04:02:12 CST
From: Jim Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


Oh, I don't know, try it yourself:
(You'll have to add support for the '*' -> '.' and '#' -> ' '
mapping.)


Jim

                       -------- foneno.c -------
char buf[64];

main(argc, argv)
char **argv;
{
  while (*++argv)
    digit(*argv, buf);
}

digit(str, p)
char *str, *p;
{
  int i;

  if (!*str) {
    puts(buf);
    return;
  }

  for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
    *p = "000111ABCdEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXY"[((*str - '0') * 3) + i];
    digit(str + 1, p + 1);
  }
}

                        ------------------------
Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems -    [e-mail]
Charter Member - Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY)
"Confusing yourself is a way to stay honest."    -Jenny Holzer

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 15:16:07 EST
From: Amitabh Shah <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Organization: Cornell University Computer Science Department


This is what happened to a friend of mine (actually, my XSO) in India.
On a Sunday, they started getting a call every hour or so starting at
8:00 am.  The caller would ask "Is Yusuf there?" Despite being told
persistently that the caller had a wrong number, this wouldn't stop.
It was the same caller again and again. It happened about 10-12 times
and then stopped in the evening.

Later around 1:00 am that night, they get this call with a different
voice: "Hi. This is Yusuf. Are there any messages for me?"

It may have been one of their friends playing a practical joke, but to
this day, they haven't figured out who.


Amitabh Shah                                    [e-mail]--(INTERNET)
Dept. of Computer Science                       { ... }!cornell!shah-----(UUCP)
Upson Hall -- Cornell University                [phone]---------(OFFICE)
Ithaca NY 14853-7501                            [phone]-----------(HOME)


[Moderator's Note: Come on! This routine is as old as the hills! Jack
Benny used this on his radio show several times; and I think he got it
from Bob Hope. We were pulling this on neighbors and school teachers
we did not like when I was 10 years old; having gotten the idea from
listening to Jack Benny on Sunday nights.  Despite how old it is, it
is still good for a laugh.  PT]

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

From: Jim Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Date: 18 Mar 90 09:48:30 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


I might as well add to this thread.

My (current) number is one digit (3, instead of 2) away from the
Garland City Jail (even though I live miles from The Land of Gar).  I
get an incredible number of 3am "Do you have my husband there?" calls.

I find that repeating the correct number back to the calling party,
along with a friendly admonishment about their mis-dial eliminates the
'Persistant' caller.


Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems -    [e-mail]
Charter Member - Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY)
"Confusing yourself is a way to stay honest."    -Jenny Holzer


[Moderator's Note: I can think of all sorts of perfectly awful ways to
handle these calls, but I am not interested in breaking up a family
and causing a divorce, etc.  :) PT]

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

Date: Fri, 16 Mar 90 16:37:38 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...)


Response I sent to Jeff Wolfe <[e-mail]>:

Where are you that you dial 1+7D for a town less than 7 miles from
home, but have 7D for a town 20 miles from home?

My residence phone in Newark, Del. has lopsided local calling.  I can
call (local) all of New Castle County except for the little fringe
next door to Smyrna at Kent County line, and also 2 exchanges in
southern Chester County, Pa.  But Maryland, maybe only 2 or 3 miles
away to the west (and the next-door exchange in that direction), is
11-digit long distance (inter-LATA).

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 23:44 EST
From: Jeff Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: lopsided local calling area (was: Modem Leapfrog...)


I live in Dalton, Pennsylvania. A case in point:

Dalton, Pa.  (where I live) our prefix is 563
Lake Winloa, Pa. (7 miles from my house) Prefix is 378
Dunmore, Pa. (where I attend Penn State) Prefix is 961

I don't know why the boundaries are like this, but they are.

-Jeff

Ps. Our Tele Co is Commenwealth Telephone.

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 11:28 EST
From: Curtis Abrue <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Assignment From Hell


I can probably assist you in quickly getting long distance charges on
MCI.  Call me during business hours at 202-887-2907.

Some of your questions need to be handled by a sales rep but most of
them can be handled by me.


Curtis Abrue
MCI

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 02:22:35 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Merlin Cordless Phone


I just got a mailing from AT&T about the Merlin cordless the other
day.  The slick brochure explains that it has 5 line or function keys,
as well as dedicated transfer and hold keys.  Also, I thought it
interesting that it has a message light.

The funny part was in the letter: "Your competitors are doing
everything they can to be more competitive."  Yea, right.  They're
probably on their way to Radio Shack to buy a scanner.  :-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #181
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12833;
          19 Mar 90 1:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac28989;
          18 Mar 90 23:46 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04379;
          18 Mar 90 22:40 CST
Date:     Sun, 18 Mar 90 21:56:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #182
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Mar 90 21:55:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 182

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Does a 900-number Make a Sweepstakes a Lottery? [Brian Kantor]
    Misinterpreted Numbers? [Peter A. Clitherow]
    TDD Emulator/Macintosh [Thomas Neudecker]
    Rating and Billing SW for *nix [Richard O'Rourke]
    Loud Signal Tones vs. Your Ears [J. Stephen Reed]
    FCC Rumors (We _Told_ You They Were False) [Chip Rosenthal]
    Another Request for Telecom News [Scott Fybush]
    Recall / Flash Hook [Tim Steele]
    New Sprint Bills [Ken Jongsma]
    Email Directory Being Compiled [Phil Smyth]
    Buying Telephone Gear [Steve Bellovin]
    Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Jeff Wolfe]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Does a 900-number Make a Sweepstakes a Lottery?
Date: 17 Mar 90 14:23:34 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I received one of those "you may have already won" calls on my voice
mail at work the other day (in fact, so did everyone else in the
office!) that told me that all I had to do to find out I was a winner
was to ring up their 900 number and they'd be happy to enter me in the
contest.  The call would cost me $10.

(This one was a typical machine-delivered message, and if originated
in California, was illegal since it did not start with a human asking
me if I was willing to listen to the damn thing.  Sounded like they
hired some disk jocky to record it for them.  In fact, the whole thing
sounded like a radio contest.)

Since there was no mention of any other way to enter the contest, does
that make it a lottery and subject to all kinds of legal chastisement?

I've seen other "dial 900 to enter" contests, such as on MTV, but the
fine print always mentions that you can just send in a postcard and
enter for free as well.


    - Brian

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

Date: Sat, 17 Mar 90 21:02:51 EST
From: Peter A Clitherow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Misinterpreted Numbers?


I recently made a call from a COCOT outside an eatery in Key West (on
South Beach, perhaps the southernmost payphone in the cont. US), which
had no number listed on it - and had 10288+ dialling disabled.  Upon
receiving my ATT bill I was suprised to see a call listed from Orlando
FL 407-423-xxxx, whereas presumably, the number was 305-423-xxxx.
Whose DB was broken?  Southern Bell?, ATT?, the company that installed
the phone?  Presumably this happened in 1988 when 305 split.

I guess what I'm asking is what is sent to ATT - a logical phone
number, or some physical identifier that has to be matched for billing
purposes?  If I call that number, will it ring in Orlando or Key West?


pc

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:22:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: TDD Emulator/Macintosh


A while back some one posted a pointer to a TDD emulator for MS-Dos
boxes (in the Simtel archieves).  Would anyone know of a Macintosh
version?

Thanks,

Tom Neudecker
Carnegie Mellon

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

From: Richard O'Rourke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rating and Billing SW for *nix
Date: 17 Mar 90 05:46:52 GMT
Organization: Grass Root Systems, Burnaby, B.C., Canada


I'm shopping for a call rating and billing software package to run on
an AT&T 3b2 600 (or better).  I need to rate 500K to 800K calls per
month, spread across 8 billing cycles.  Procuring a bigger and better
machine is an option if the 3b2 won't get the job done.  We do want to
stay as close to *nix as possible.

Thanks for any information you can provide.


Richard O'Rourke - [phone] - Grass Root Systems
uunet!van-bc!mplex!ror - [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 16:01 EST
From: "J. Stephen Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Loud Signal Tones vs. Your Ears


An article in the [Chicago Tribune], Friday, March 16, noted an
investigation by relevant Illinois state agencies into the three-tone
pattern that is used to precede telco messages.  It noted that this
tone pattern is used hundreds of thousands of times per day; in the
Chicago area, on the first day of the mandatory cutover to the 708
suburban area code, it was used 1.6 million times.

Apparently these tones are about 116 decibels.  This level plays havoc
with anyone with sensitive hearing, and especially with those who have
hearing impairments and use amplifiers on the line.  Amplification can
put these tones up in the range of a jet engine at 100 feet away.

The article quoted a Bellcore spokesman to the effect that these tones
were implemented a decade ago -- in pattern, tone, and loudness --
under an international agreement to make them standard worldwide, and
that the loudness is necessary for some automated equipment to catch
the existence of a telco message.  The spokesman didn't promise early
changes but said that possible changes would be investigated.

Would anyone here from Bellcore care to amplify :-) on this for us?
And what kind of equipment (for business, I presume) would make use of
these tones?  I know I have been bothered by them, and my hearing is
far from bein weak or particularly sensitive.

* * *

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

* * *

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Rumors (We _Told_ You They Were False)
Date: 18 Mar 90 16:46:46 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!)


The following message was posted by William Degnan <William.Degnan
@f39.n382.z1.fidonet.org> to alt.cosuard.

The rumour that the FCC was going to start BBS charges was pretty
soundly debunked in Telecom as very old news resurfacing.  Here is a
pretty definitive answer that might be worth socking away for the next
time this comes up...

      --- start of forwarded message ---

 * Original to All @ 1:0/0 in MDF
 * Forwarded Tue Mar 13 1990  00:05:06 by William Degnan @ 1:382/39

Just as the FCC has finally gotten around to responding to my Letter
of Nov. 6, 1989 and my follow-up letter of Dec 15, 1989 -- I'm just
getting around to entering their reply here.

                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                      Common Carrier Bureau
                       Enforcement Division
         Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch
                            Suite 6202
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

                          Feb. 23, 1990

                                                In Reply Refer To:
                                                             63203
                                                       IC-90-00924

William S. Degnan
Principal Consultant
Communications Network Solutions
P.O. Box 9530
Austin, Texas 78766-9530

Dear Mr. Degnan:

Chairman Sikes asked this office to respond to your correspondence
expressing concern about the rumor of Commission licensing requirement
for computer bulletin board systems (BBS). It appears that you may be
referring to the Commission's 1987 proposal to eliminate the exemption
from interstate access charges currently permitted for enhanced
service providers.

As background, in its June 10, 1987 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC
Docket No. 87-215, the Commission invited comment from interested
members of the public on the issue of the access charge exemption for
enhanced service providers. The Commission requested information on
the types of services offered uner the enhanced service exemption, the
configuration of those services, and the effect upon them in
discontinuing the exemption. Our objective in this proceeding was to
establish a set of rules that would permit the recovery of the costs
of exchange access in a fair, reasonable and efficient manner from all
users of access service, regardless of their designation as carrier,
enhanced service provider or private customer.

After analyzing and carefully considering the voluminous record filed
in response to its proposal, the Commission released an Order on April
27, 1988, to terminate this proceeding. The record indicated that the
enhanced services industry in in a unique period of rapid and
substantial change because of a number of complex and interrelated
factors. Enclosed is informational material concerning this matter.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

                                Sincerely,

                                /signed/
                                Sue Earlewine
                                Carrier Analyst
                                Informal Complaints and Public
                                  Inquiries Branch
                                Enforcement Division
                                Common Carrier Bureau


Enclosures

     --- end of forwarded message ---


Chip Rosenthal                            |  Yes, you're a happy man and you're
[e-mail]                |  a lucky man, but are you a smart
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  man?  -David Bromberg

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 19:34:39 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Request for Telecom News


The story I'm working on for Brandeis' WBRS-FM and _The Justice_ has
been delayed a week, so I'm posting a few more questions for
knowledgeable readers:

1)What, if any, specific obligations does a university PBX operator
have to the system's users?  I was told by the director of Brandeis'
phone system that the university can--and will--block *all* 0+ dialing
from campus phones if abuse takes place.  Can they legally do that?

2)What rights does New England Telephone (or any local telco) have to
install a non-PBX line in my dorm room? ...in a student office?  I
suspect they would have no right to do this at all, and I'd like to
know if there are any universities out there that do permit this.

3)Technical question: Anybody have experience with the Northern
Telecom SL-1 switch or with the user hardware manufactured by NT?
I've heard a lot of people here are disappointed with the quality of
the equipment at the user end; on the other hand, the telecom
officials here say they are extremely pleased with the reliability of
the switch itself.

My thanks to those who replied to the original posting.  I'd like to
ask anyone with responses to this to reply either by e-mail at
[e-mail] or by voice at [phone]/6372/5277
for me or by voice at [phone]/5598 for Ilene Rosenberg.  If we
could hear from you by Thursday, we'd greatly appreciate it.


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

"Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!"

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

From: Tim Steele <tadtec![e-mail]>
Subject: Recall / Flash Hook
Organization: Tadpole Technology plc
Date: 17 Mar 90 12:25:00


To get the exchange back during a phone call, in the UK we use a 90ms
line break called Timed Break Recall (for those of us lucky enough to
have a modern exchange!).  I gather you guys in the US use a 600ms
line break called Flash Hook or something.  Is this right?


Tim

[e-mail]   ..!uunet!mcvax!ukc!tadtec!tjfs
Tadpole Technology plc, Titan House, Castle Park, CAMBRIDGE, CB3 0AY, UK
Phone: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Telex: TADTEC G

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Sprint Bills
Date: Sat, 17-Mar-90 05:54:51 PST


I just received by monthly residential Sprint bill. They've done a
pretty impressive redesign. Consider the following:

  Page 1:  Summary Page.  Pretty much the same as before. Includes call
                          activity totals, taxes and return receipt.

  Page 2:  Fon Manager    Lists total calls, minutes and charges by
                          calling number or FON Card number.

                          Tax breakdown by government unit.

  Page 3:  Fon Manager    Lists total calls, minutes and charges by
                          intrastate, interstate and international.

                          Lists minute analysis percentage and total
                          by day, evening and night rates for both
                          domestic and international calls.

                          Lists the top five called cities, number of
                          calls, number of minutes, total charges.

  Page 4+:  Detail Page.  Gives the usual itemized detail list by
                          calling number.

This is slick. I realize that most companies get this type of report
(or should be getting this stuff) from their SDMR processor, but I've
never seen it on a residential bill before. Since my residential bills
rarely drop under $100, this is useful stuff.


Ken Jongsma
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu,  8 Mar 90 14:38 CET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Email Directory Being Compiled


Dear Sir / Madam,

We here at EuroKom are endeavouring to build up a database of
electronic mail addresses.  If you wish us to place your E-mail
address in the database please reply with the following information.


          - Your full name
          - The name of your organisation
          - The Country in which you are resident
          - Your EuroKom name (if any)
          - EC Programme Affiliation (if any)


The information held in the database will be made available to all
registered EuroKom users, so that they may contact people who are not
EuroKom members.

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Phil Smyth
EuroKom.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Buying Telephone Gear
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 12:20:56 EST


Can anyone suggest an address where I can buy a few ``66 blocks'' (the
punch-down blocks), and a few short (4 foot) lengths of connectorized
25-pair cable?  Preferably without needing a second mortgage?

Please reply by mail.

        --Steve Bellovin
    [e-mail], att!ulysses!smb

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 18 Mar 1990 21:52:11 EST
From: Jeff Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...)


Somehow, my original post was truncated.  Here is the fixed version:

I live in Dalton, Pa. a town serviced by Commenweath Telephone Co. I
have a few friends in the town of Lake Winola, Pa. 7 driving miles
from my house. To call them, I must dial 1-378-xxxx. But, to call Penn
State's Scranton Campus, where I attend school, I can simply dial
961-xxxx.  Since Lake Winola is serviced by Commenwealth, and the PSU
Scranton campus (and the rest of Scranton/Dunmore) is served by Bell
Of Pa. I am at a loss to explain why the boundrys are the way they
are. A call to Commenwealth's Customer service did not help, as the
person I chatted with had no idea how the boundrys were laid down.

Is this a standard occurance? Or am I just lucky?


     Jeff Wolfe
     [e-mail]               RelayNet node: Outer
     [e-mail]                BBS [phone] HST

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #182
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19805;
          19 Mar 90 3:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32130;
          19 Mar 90 1:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05077;
          19 Mar 90 0:46 CST
Date:     Mon, 19 Mar 90 0:00:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #183
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Mar 90 00:00:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 183

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, etc [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [Steven King]
    Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [David Tamkin]
    Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Bill Fenner]
    Re: Bellcore Number Busy [Bill Fenner]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Miguel Cruz]
    Re: Research Paper on Telecommunications in China [Ernie Bokkelkamp]
    What is LOD and PHRACK? [@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:[e-mail]]
    Explain These Acronyms [@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls
Date: 18 Mar 90 17:30:11 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
 ...
>     Now, the unlisted and collect story.  We're getting involved
> in a legal situation.  The details are not important, other than the
> telecom part.  We will be placing ads in newspapers soliciting
> information that may be helpful to us from anybody who might know
> anything and happen to see the ad.  These people are not supposed to
> know who they are calling (other than my first name), and may be
> reluctant to call at all, so the ad urges them to call collect...

If people call you collect, then they are giving you their first name,
as well as their phone number (which appears on your bill when you
accept the collect call).  Do you expect people to call without
knowing who you are when they know that you know who they are?


Dave Levenson            Voice: 201 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            Internet: [e-mail]
Warren, NJ, USA            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos
Date: 19 Mar 90 00:57:43 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


And here's my obligatory Persistent Wrong Number horror story:

A few years back, I was running a BBS out of my dorm room.  For
various reasons, I shut it down after only three months.  Within that
period of time, it seems some helpful person listed my board on a
national service (I think it was Compu$erve, but I can't say for
sure).  Middle-of-the-night calls were a common occurrance through the
rest of the school year; as a matter of course I started shutting the
ringer off at night.  How do I know calls persisted?  I sometimes
forgot to hit the switch before I went to bed... :-(  I curse the
Commodore engineer who decided their modems should generate carrier in
ORIGINATE mode without first checking for an answering carrier!

A friend of mine was running a board out of his dorm room, too.  His
was up for several years, and was quite popular.  When he graduated he
recommended that the phone number be retired for a while, for the
sanity of the next occupants of the room.  The university didn't
listen to him.  I hear that the new occupants were quite mystified
(and upset!) over strange calls at all hours of the night, with either
silence or a weird squealing on the other end of the line.  I think
they finally got the number changed.


If there's a byte of data in the computer but no   | Steve King  [phone]
pointer is pointing to it, then it isn't really    |   ...uunet!motcid!king
there.                                             |   ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 15:58:34 CST


In <[e-mail]> Scott Fybush had written:

> from Brandeis that means dialing 9-647-5522.  Naturally any number of
> people will forget and dial just 6475522, which the system reads as 6475.

Roy Smith responded in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 180:

|    It works the other way too (sounds like deja vu, doesn't it).
| Some years ago, we had a data line put in at work (must have been
| around 1980 or so).  It was the only phone in the place where you
| didn't have to dial 9 to get an outside line.  People often forgot
| that, and would dial 9-xxx-yyy-zzzz and get connected to 9xx-xyy-yzzz.
| This was before the days of dial 1 for long distance, so the call
| would go through to some random long distance number.

That doesn't quite add up.

The only way 9xx-xyy-yzzz would have reached another area code (if
that's what Roy meant by saying "long distance" and showing ten
digits) is if the first x was 1 or 0.  Since no area code begins with
1 or 0, how could anyone who put an unnecessary 9 in front be trying
to call 9-1xx-yyy-zzzz or 9-0xx-yyy-zzzz?

Maybe if you had eight-digit intra-NPA toll dialing there, people were
trying to dial 9-1-Nyy-zzzz and dialing to area code 91N but never
completing a call because there were only six more digits; if N was a
7 (or a 2 before Georgia was split), the area code was invalid so the
call still got nowhere for a different reason.  Somehow, though, I
find it hard to accept that any area has *ever* had eight-digit
intra-NPA toll dialing and ten-digit inter-NPA dialing at any time in
history.

Now, let's say that the person was trying to place an operator-assisted
call with 0+ and dialed an unnecessary 9.  9-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX, where the
area code didn't begin with 8 or 9; if 903 had already been changed to
706, didn't begin with 3; or if 904 had not yet been split from 305,
didn't begin with 4.  But all area codes to date are N[0/1]X; the P
would be 0 or 1 and thus could not begin a valid prefix in area code
90N.  Again, no call completed.

Next, maybe the person thought 1+ was needed before calls outside the
area code.  We still run into the same problem with the P digit as in
the preceding paragraph; if N is 7 (or 2 before Georgia was split) we
don't even get a valid area code.

[I did just see a newspaper ad where a number in Itasca, Illinois, was
printed as (708) 150-XXXX, but I honestly believe that the way it was
printed won't work.  It must have been a typo for Itasca prefix 250
or, if that part of Itasca has Bensenville service, for 350.]

Now suppose the person dialing the extraneous 9 was trying to place a
ten-digit call to another NPA.  9-N[0/1]X-yyy-zzzz.  The N was never 0
or 1, so the call got placed to a local number, 9N[0/1]-Xyyy, assuming
9N[0/1] was a valid prefix reachable with seven digits.  I can believe
that, but the result would be an intra-NPA call.

Finally, let's say the person was trying to reach local number
NNX-zzzz.  (Ten-digit dialing to other area codes is a good indicator
that there were no N[0/1]X prefixes nearby.)  Dialing an extra 9 sends
the call to 9NN-Xzzz; again, it doesn't get out of the area code.

I just don't see how adding a 9 in front of a valid dialing sequence
can reach a valid inter-NPA number until we go to NXX area codes.

Roy, I think you remembered it wrong.  There must have been a lot of
wrong numbers, some of which might have been inter-LATA, but none of
which were inter-NPA.


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

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

From: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs
Date: 18 Mar 90 23:19:01 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
Kaplan) writes:

|Seems to me that if I were assigning numbers here, I would shy away
|from using ones whose first three digits were the same as the local
|CO's exchanges, namely 647, 890, 891, 893, 894, 897, and 899.  And in
|fact, no numbers of the form 89xx are used on our phone system.  Would
|it have been that complicated to not use 647x either?

PSU's PBX requires you to dial the last 5 digits of the phone number.
PSU's exchanges are 862-, 863-, and 865-, so PSU phone numbers dialled
from on campus start with 2-, 3-, and 5-.  Now State College, the
surrounding town, has exchanges 231,234,237,238,353,355,359.  This
presents a lot of collisions, but it seems that so far the namespace
is so large that there are no 862-3xxx or 863-5xxx numbers assigned.

One confusing thing is that State College recently added another
exchange, 867.  Dialing instructions can no longer say "Drop the 86",
because 7-xxxx from on campus gets you nowhere.

Another wonderiffic thing about the PSU phone system is the recent
addition of 911 emergency calling.  Now, the off-campus local-call
prefix used to be 9.  In offices (863 and 865), off-campus toll-calls
would be prefixed with 8, while in the dorms (862) it would be 91.
(10xxx worked from the dorms but not from offices.)

Starting on the second of March, at 5:30 pm, all off-campus calls were
to be prefixed with 8.  The only call you could dial starting with 9
is now 911.  If you attempt to dial an off-campus number with 9 now,
you get a bored-sounding OTC (Office of TeleCommunications) employee
saying "You have dialed 9 for an off-campus number.  It is now
necessary to dial 8 before these calls.  Please refer to your centrex
users guide for further information."

You get intercepted to this recording after dialing the prefix (I.E.
9-234 - recording.)  If they can do this, I don't see why tthey
couldn't just keep 9 as the access code.  Maybe to reduce accidental
911 calls.


Bill Fenner                   [e-mail]             ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf
[e-mail] (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633)     ..!lll-winken!/


[Moderator's Note: In addition to his sysoping duties at Heart of Gold
(hog) BBS, Mr. Fenner maintains a Fido/Telecom Digest gateway service.
Mail to 'Telecom Digest 1:129/87' from any Fido BBS is forwarded here
to the Digest automatically.  Thanks Bill!  PT]

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

From: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore Number Busy
Date: 18 Mar 90 23:24:07 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

|Today, March 15, the Bellcore number ("enter area code...enter
|exchange...")  accepted my call, but treated all the prefixes I
|entered as non-existent (i.e., went right on to the next area code
|prompt). Later in the day I tried again, and I was able to use that
|service, punch-in and all.

I just tried it, and all the local exchanges I tried, those belonging
to PSU, local towns, and State College, all got "State cllg, paw."
Wonderful text-to-speech, there... even my Radio Shack pair of voice
synthesis chips does better than that.


Bill Fenner                   [e-mail]             ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf
[e-mail] (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633)     ..!lll-winken!/

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 13:53:06 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision


Jim Gottlieb writes:

> A lot of these problems stems from the fact that telcos will normally
> refuse to give answer supervision except to real carriers.  I have
> never quite understood why.  What do they have to lose by providing
> it?

> But since they will not provide any indication of when a called number
> has answered, most private telephone systems have no choice but to
> establish a time period, after which, they assume the call has been
> answered.

The University of Michigan's otherwise inept phone system (medium to
large, phone number range covers around 40,000 #'s, but I don't know
how many are actually in use) has had answer supervision from Michigan
Bell for about a year.  I noticed accidentally when I flashed before a
call was answered and I didn't get a second dial tone.  But I tested
and sure enough, it works.

That's good, I guess, from the phone company (UMTel) that didn't
recognize standard touch tones properly for its first three years of
existence.

Also, come to think of it, the phone company that for years let anyone
place free, unbilled calls to anywhere in the world from any phone,
including public courtesy phones, by prefacing the call with the
obscure (yeah, right) sequence '15'.


                        Miguel Cruz
                 [e-mail]
           [>- Opinions?  Bah. These are FACTS. -<]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 19:14:00 EDT
From: Ernie Bokkelkamp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Research Paper on Telecommunications in China


On 20 Feb 1990 22:09, [e-mail] (1:105/42) wrote:

 uc>I am currently writing a research paper on Telecommunications in
 uc>China. In particular I am looking for information on technology
 uc>transfer existing communication facilities, planned facilities

 uc>If you know of any primary or secondary sources which would
 uc>assist me in this paper I would appreciate email.

I would suggest you contact SIEMENS AG, Dept Oe V, in Muenchen,
West Germany for information as this organisation is involved in China
with the installation of EWSD digital exchanges.

The full address is: SIEMENS AG, Public Switching Systems,
Hofmannstrasse 51, Postfach 70 00 73, D-8000 Muenchen, West Germany.


Regards,

Ernie Bokkelkamp                       Fido: 5:491/22 (SysOP) & 5:491/1
EWSD System Design Authority           Akom-BS200: EBOK  Region: LgRsa
TD / ISDN Pilot Project                Voice: [phone] / [phone]
PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa    *** Standard disclaimer applies  ***

Ernie Bokkelkamp via The Heart of Gold UUCP<>Fidonet Gateway, 1:129/87
UUCP: ...!{lll-winken,psuvax1}!psuhcx!hogbbs!5!491!22!Ernie.Bokkelkamp
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Mar 90 09:46:32 GMT
From: ins_bac <@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:[e-mail]>
Subject: What is LOD and Phrack?
Reply-To: jhunix![e-mail]
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF


Sorry to sound misinformed but I guess this is the best place to find
out.

1) I have been reading about hacking groups called LOD and PHRACK,
what exactly did they do that warrants the sentence of 31 years?

I mainly want to sound objective, but if these 'kids' could do it,
then outside malevolent forces I am sure could do it.  I think people
are going to have to learn that kids are a lot smarter than they
think.  I am under the impression that these groups did nothing that
threatened the integrity of the systems they explored.

Also I'd like to add that with the growing amount of control
communications services afford thru information dissemination, not
only will this incident prove to be a rallying point around the hacker
ethic for the next generation of hackers but it could make these young
geniuses into martyrs.  I think the phone company is best erved by
listening to them instead of persecuting them.  If they (PH. and LOD)
did do this for profit, I am sure they would have been in different
position.


[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: The 'hackers group' is called Legion of Doom, or
LoD for short. Phrack is the official publication of the Legion.
Phrack was distrbuted via the Internet, among other electronic
networks, and it was the contents of Phrack, among other things, which
got the LoD in trouble recently and caused at least a few computer
sites to be closed by the government and/or (in the case of attctc) by
its owner. They have not received any punishment yet because they have
not been found guilty yet. For further information, I refer you to the
Telecom-Archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu - cd telecom-archives) and the file
there entitled 'jolnet'.   PT]

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

Date: 18 Mar 90 09:46:32 GMT
From: ins_bac <@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:[e-mail]>
Subject: Explain These Acronymns
Reply-To: jhunix![e-mail]
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF


I am new to the Unix news enviroment and just stumbled across this
group, but what do the following terms stand for and what are they?

 a) ISDN
 b) TCPIP
 c) LOD
 d) SBDN

They seem to pop up once in a while. Well thats it for now.


[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Again, check the Telecom-Archives, and pull the files
'glossary.txt.', 'glossary.acronyms' and 'phrack.acronyms'.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #183
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21452;
          19 Mar 90 4:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10423;
          19 Mar 90 2:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae32130;
          19 Mar 90 1:51 CST
Date:     Mon, 19 Mar 90 1:31:01 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #184
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Mar 90 01:30:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 184

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Pac Tel and Cable Service in Chicago [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo [Charles Daffinger]
    Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: CLASS Phone Features [Mark Earle]
    Intercepting Cellular Transmissions [Mark Earle]
    Re: Calling Card Validation [Allen Nigel]
    Yellow Pages Error Puts Distribution on Hold [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 0:54:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac Tel and Cable Service in Chicago


When Group W made its financial projections in 1984, it figured that
five years later its Chicago cable system would serve 225,000
subscribers and generate $151 million in annual revenue. They must
have figured something wrong, since it did not turn out that way. It
didn't even come close.

At the end of 1989, Group W, whose service area is the north and
northwest sections of Chicago, had just 105,000 paying subscribers,
and losses of $1.5 million per *month*. The total loss in 1989 was
just about $19 million. Not surpisingly, Group W wants out -- badly.

No one here was surprised then when Prime Cable, of Austin, Texas made
an offer to buy the Chicago market from Group W.  Prime Cable is in
the business of taking over failing cable systems and making them into
profitable operations. The most notable example of this is what they
did in Atlanta. Prime Cable agreed to buy Group W Cable for $198
million, or what at that time was about $2000 per subscriber. That's
about $800 per subscriber less than what a healthy cable system could
fetch.

What did come as a surprise, and will potentially kill the deal is the
arrangement between Prime Cable and their partner, Pac Tel Corp. of
San Fransisco; a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, one of the
former members of the 'Bell System'. The plan calls for Prime Cable to
purchase Group W Cable, then sell it immediatly to Pac Tel ... and
sign a management contract with Pac Tel to operate the Chicago system.

"Not if we can help it," said Michael Green, the general manager of
Chicago Cable Television, the cable system that serves the south side
of our city and the lakefront area. Like other members of the
National Cable Television Association, Chicago Cable strongly opposes
the entry of a 'Baby Bell' into the cable business.

But some members of the NCTA are saying privately they don't care if
Pac Tel operates cable, as long as they don't do it in the same
communities where they are the telco. Likewise, if Ameritech/Illinois
Bell tried to go into cable *in the Chicago area* there would be a
major battle brewing.

In 1984, when Judge Greene presided over divestiture, one of the terms
was that the 'Baby Bells' could not enter the cable television business.
If he grants the waiver Pac Tel is requesting, a precedent will be set
which may well lead to all the telcos getting into the act: something
that gives the existing cable operators nightmares.

In fact, cable operators and broadcasters rarely agree on anything,
but the National Association of Broadcasters and independent
television broadcasters have joined the NCTA chorus against Pac Tel's
attempted move into the Chicago market. They say one small step today
(allowing a telco to buy into the Chicago market) can serve up a later
rationalization for a giant leap into information services on a
widespread basis.

And I assume we all know that given the opportunity to be in cable,
the telcos would move in a hurry, and the relatively small existing
cable industry in America would be soon gone -- squashed dead by the
Sisters Bell .... His Honor hasn't indicated which way he will rule,
and the next few months should bring a flurry of activity to his
courtroom as the cable guys fight to keep Pac Tel from getting a piece
of the action here, or anywhere.

Which still doesn't answer the question, 'Why would anyone WANT the
cable business in Chicago?' ... the fact is, it has not panned out as
expected in Chicago or most large urban areas. Maybe Pac Tel needs a
tax writeoff.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 22:37:08 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distance Surcharge on Phone Bill
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


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

> A South Central Bell rep called twice, I was out both times, and left
> a message for me to return her call. The number she left was a
> 557-xxxx number, which is the format of all of SCB's business office,
> repair service, etc. numbers in this area. Unfortunately, I work in a
> GTE area, and it isn't possible to dial a 557 number from a GTE phone,
> so I never got my answers.

I had a similar problem last fall.  Due to various real-estate weasel
shenanigans, our scheduled move to our new house was delayed a couple
of weeks.  As I had previously arranged with Southern Bell to switch
our line over to the new address on a given date (both houses are
served by the same CO), I called them back four days before the
scheduled switchover and informed them of the delay.  "No problem,"
they assured me.

Well, you guessed it, they blew it.  Friday evening rolls around, and
suddenly our phone no longer has dial tone.  And of course, this is
the Friday night before Labor Day, so I figure we're doomed to a long
weekend without phone service.  But I went back into work and tried to
call Southern Bell's customer repair number anyway.  This number
(780-BELL) is toll-free and supposedly universally available across
the multi-state Southern Bell territory.  My only problem was that my
work phone is in GTE-land, from which there seems to be no way on
earth to dial that number!  Finally, after getting the GTE operator to
connect me with a Southern Bell operator, I managed to extract a real,
dialable, long distance number which I was told I could dial collect.
That worked, and our phone service was back by the next day.

However, this business of undialable numbers is disturbing.  It's bad
enough that you can't directly dial +1-800-nxx-xxxx from other
countries, but now local numbers too?


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

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 23:37:00 -0500
From: Charles Daffinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Persistent Wrong Number Bozo
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington


My number has the last 2 digits swapped with the number for the Big
Red Liquor store (... 7354 vs ... 7345).  I frequently get calls at
the ungodly hour of 8AM: 'do you have kegs'... or 'are you open', etc.

Once one of their big ads in the peper had the number misprinted,
instead giving my number.  My phone began ringing off the hook after
this.  The manager was a real jerk when I called to tell him about the
problem.  After that, when people called to ask about an item on the
special, I replied 'No, I'm out of <item>.  You may want to check at
<name of some other store>'.


Charles Daffinger  >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water<  [phone]
[e-mail]
Home of the Whitewater mailing list:    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 23:32:26 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill


In Argentina, rampant inflation is a fact of life. But even so,
Argentines were shocked by phone bills which went out the second week
of March that were as much as seventeen times higher than the month
before.

One resident of Buenos Aires, Antonio Lecce, paid a phone bill of
$3.60 for February, and got a $40 bill this month. That amounts to
about half a month's pay for the average citizen of that South
American country.

Rates went up March 9 by what the government-owned telephone
administration (Entel) said was an average of 433 percent. But bills
reflect much higher rates. The latest bimonthly service charge plus
200 calls, for example, increased by 1,682 percent, to 31,816
australs, or about $6.75.  A typical family's bill increased nearly
ten times to $43.80, which is prohibitively high for most people in
Argentina.

The government's explanation is that rates were eroded by inflation,
which skyrocketed by 12,000 percent in the past year. The overall
inflation rate in January alone was 79 percent, and 62 percent in
February.

Also, rates had to be increased to allow a profit at the
deficit-ridden Entel, which the government is trying desperately to
sell.

Entel director Maria Julia Alsogaray said, "People who cannot afford
the new rates can give up their service, and share with someone else."
Her comments, along with the increases outraged Argentines who live
with substandard phone service to begin with.  The phones go dead when
it rains, and even in nice weather it is difficult to get a dial tone
or the right connection on the first try.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:53:15 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLASS Phone Features


Patrick, thank you for the recent CLASS listing. Wish that more of
them were available here; we get call waiting, forward, and three-way
conferencing, and that's about it, from what I can tell.

This leads to a question:

Which features are dependant on switch level (7ESS for the "good"
ones?) How do I find out which level is installed here? Is there a
requestable listing (Bellcore?) or a code/number one can use to
interrogate the servicing CO that gives me, the subscriber, a way to
find out what I have serving me...?

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 08:53:15 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intercepting Cellular Transmissions


Re: Cellular reception. It is emphatically NOT illegal to own/possess
a receiver cabable of receiving CMT calls. It *is* illegal to
intercept such a call. BUT, some of the CMT frequencies are shared
with non-CMT services, which ARE legal to receive.  The usual
non-disclusure/make gain from interecepted comms apply, of course, as
with any intercepted communications.

I believe that to advertise privacy of communications, the CMT vendors
ought to scramble/encrypt the communications. Instead, they've made
the system technically easy to intercept. Here's why (w/a TEXAS
viewpoint, remember!)

Originally, CMT was proposed to use low-height, low powered "cells".
The call would pass from cell to cell, and the same frequency could be
used several times, say at the north and south ends of a given
town/metro area.

Well, in reality, putting in 80 to 100 sites proved a costly
investment. So, they (CMT providers) went for 2-3 "super sites". In
San Antonio, Cellular One and Southwestern Bell each have 2 sites
(Cells). In Corpus Christi, they each have ONE. There are sites in
outlying areas, but you don't get switched to those sites unless you
are in very close proximity (30 miles or so away from the main site).

Also, the earpiece feedback of the mobile's mouthpiece is aparently
done at the central site...meaning that by listening to the BASE
signal from the cell, one hears BOTH sides of the conversation.

Now, think about that...I can (potentially) listen to a nice, high,
STRONG signal, hear BOTH sides of a conversation...and since the
signal is so strong, I only need a simple antenna (i.e., I can do the
deed from anywhere without being obvious). So, I don't doubt for a
moment that CMT calls are intercepted.

Playing devils' advocate: If I wish to intercept your CMT calls,
first, I find out if you're Cell 1 or SWB-narrows the channels to
listen to in half. Then I find out your CMT number. Listening to the
base signals, I can find most of the calls TO your phone. Calls you
originate are toughter, but not impossible.  For a rate cheaper than a
typical detective charges, your CMT calls *could* be intercepted. (The
detective charges 'field' rates. This work could be done at an
"office" rate).

Oh, yeah: CMT calls are private, right? That's what the ECPA says! So
go ahead, make deals and dates, knowing that congress has protected
your sensitive communications with the shield of a law, largely
un-enforceable.


Mark Earle
Cute saying goes here.....
from Pro-Sparlkin, Corpus Christi, Tx


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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90  0:23:00 EST
From: canremote![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling Card Validation


In Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 105, message 9 of 9, the moderator
wrote.:

 > 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.

Actually, operator service providers (long distance companies usually
associated with privately-owned pay telephones or hotel phones, that
usually do not own their own long-distance lines and often charge
substantially more than AT&T) would like to be able to validate
calling cards that people key in to pay for their calls. Operator
service companies aren't telcos, nor are they facilities-based long
distance carriers.

Didn't one OSP get in trouble for verifying calling card numbers by
improperly accessing an AT&T or BOC calling card database? As I
understand it, when the OSP wanted to verify a number, it would
attempt to place a call over the AT&T network using the calling card
number, and hang up before the called number started to ring.  (I
suspect that OSPs can purchase calling card verification services
through a service bureau, but the OSP in this case was getting
verification for free.)

Things weren't this complicated before divesture. :-)


 MaS Relayer v1.00.00
 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST
 Internet: [e-mail]
 UUCP:     ...tmsoft!masnet!canremote!nigel.allen

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 23:53:52 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yellow Pages Error Puts Distribution on Hold


Jeffrey Feinberg and Adrienne Maidenbaum took a $197 ad on Page 68 of
the Greater Hollywood, Florida Yellow Pages to let everyone know about
the legal services they offered in their practice:

   "Real Estate, trial practice, title insurance, divorce, father's
    rights, abortion ... "

The trouble is, the word should have been ADOPTION -- not abortion.

Very stunned and dismayed, Feinberg and Maidenbaum, attornies at law,
demanded a recall.

Apparently someone at the printing plant in Atlanta slipped up and
mistyped the entry.

The attornies raced off to the courthouse. Broward County Circuit
Court Judge Linda Vitale granted their motion to prohibit further
distribution of the directory.

More than 220,000 copies had already been distributed throughout
Broward and North Dade Counties, according to Bell South Advertising
and Publishing Corporation. An additional 95,000 are sitting
undelivered in the warehouses of Bell South Distributing, waiting for
the outcome of a hearing set for Monday, March 19.

Jim Owens, attorney for Bell South Advertising admitted, "It's our
error. We're imperfect human beings. But it is not in the best
interest of the people in the area to stop delivery because of one ad,
no matter how concerned we are with the error. We caused the error,
we're deeply sorry for it, but we see no reason for the public to
suffer because of our error."

Feinberg said Bell South Advertising offered them a free full-page ad
in next year's run. The law partners were not satisfied. They asked
for damages and a disclaimer inserted in the next Bell South Telephone
Company billings in the region served by the directory.

He continued, "We really didn't need this. There isn't anything
positive about being an abortion lawyer. To a large segment of this
community, abortion is tantamount to advertising for contract murder.
Abortion is a very volatile issue and our firm does not want to be
associated with abortion."

To correct the error, Feinberg asked the court to order Bell South to
included a gummed sticker with the correct ad in all telephone bills
next month, along with instructions asking customers to paste over the
erroneous ad.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #184
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18927;
          20 Mar 90 3:53 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01269;
          20 Mar 90 2:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31439;
          20 Mar 90 0:59 CST
Date:     Tue, 20 Mar 90 0:12:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #185
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Mar 90 00:12:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 185

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can This Be True? [Tom Talpey]
    Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, etc. [Roy Smith]
    Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill [George Horwath]
    Re: T1 and DDS Test Equipment [Brian Woodroffe]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Gary Wilson]
    Re: US WEST Rate Change in Washington State [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Interesting Use of 900 Service [Will Martin]
    Re: CLASS Phone Features [John David Galt]
    Re: I Passed the Test With Flying Colors! :) [Bob Mosley III]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 09:20:56 -0500
From: Tom Talpey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can This Be True?


> I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told
> me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a
> paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance
> calls the same way instead of using calling cards.  I did not believe
> the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to
> complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds.

Circa 1970 with pay phones in Rochester, NY, this was possible. By
placing a thumbtack in the dial's fingerhook, a completed circuit with
the metal cage of the mouthpiece would nicely obtain a dialtone. In
retrospect I assume this would be a loop or ground start, depending on
the phone's configuration. What was interesting about it was that, as
observed, the phone was completely unrestricted at this point. Where I
went to school, it was common to find thumbtacks up behind the coin
slots. Not that _I_ ever used them for such purposes.


Tom Talpey
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 10:25:19 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos, Unlisted Numbers, Collect Calls
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


> If people call you collect, then they are giving you their first name,
> as well as their phone number [...] Do you expect people to call without
> knowing who you are when they know that you know who they are?


    Strange as it sounds, yes I do.  I appreciate the various
notes I've gotten on this subject and I might as well respond en masse
to them.  To the suggestion that I just put in an 800 number, we
thought of that already.  According to our lawyer, 800 numbers look
corporate and the sorts of people we are looking for might be scared
off by that.  Also, an 800 number that forwards to our regular line
means they get a busy signal if I'm on the phone.  This phone line
will be dedicated to nothing but waiting for those rare but important
calls.

    And, unfortunately, I must respectfully decline to answer
queries asking the specifics of what's going on here, other than to
assure you that (no matter how bizarre it all sounds) it's really
reasonably straight forward.  Most of the running around in circles is
to satisfy the paranoia of our lawyer.  I hesitated bring this up in
the first place since I knew I would have to remain mysterious about
the background, but I though the telecomm issues, even in isolation,
might be interesting.


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

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

From: George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill
Date: 19 Mar 90 15:12:07 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Regarding the Argentine phone system:  Some years ago, when I was at
GTE, one of our engineers went down there to work on a PABX and
brought back some stories about the phone service. For example,
wealthy people have no trouble getting dial tone. When they want to
make a call, they inform a servant who then removes the handset from
the phone. The maid or butler is the one who waits for dial tone (up
to a half hour, if I recall correctly).


George Horwath, Motorola C.I.D.            1501 W. Shure Drive
 ...!uunet!motcid!horwath            Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Disclaimer: The above is all my fault.

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 16:26:34 gmt
From: Brian Woodroffe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: T1 and DDS Test Equipment


With regard to the following RFI, I think you should check out the
HP3787B The following (brief) description of the capabilities of the
Hewlett-Packard 3787B Digital Data Test Set has been culled from the
1989 HP catalogue:

ISDN D & D channel Protocol Analysis interface
Comprehensive bit error measurements and analysis at DS1C, DS1, DS0 and DDS
interfaces.
Sub-rate drop and insert.
Built in data logging.
DS1 Jitter analysis.

Drop & Insert:
If the Transmitter/receiver is suitably frames, test patterns or control
codes can be inserted to/extracted from the following:-
Individual timeslot (64k and 56kbit/s)
DDS: 2.4k, 4.8k, 9.6k, 19.2k, 56kbit/s primary or secondary channels (DS0A
and DS0B.)
4kbit/s Datalink (ESF)
4kbit/s Fs channel (DS1 Ft)
8kbit/s R-channel (T1DM)

Measurements:
Frequency: DS0 (64kbit/s), DS1 (1.544Mbit/s), DS1C (3.152Mbit/s)
Framing: DS1 (SF, ESF, T1DM and Ft only), DS1C and DS0B
Line Code: B8ZS, AMI.
Error Types: Logic (binary), Bipolar Violations, Frame Word, CRC-6 Word.
Error Results: Error count, Error Ratio, Error Seconds, Error Free Seconds,
    % Error Free Seconds.
Error Analysis: %Availability, %Unavailability, %Severely Errored Seconds,
    %Error Seconds, %Degraded Minutes, Count Consequective SES, Count
    SES, Count ES, Count Degraded Minutes.
Alarm Seconds: Instrument Power Loss Seconds, Signal Loss Seconds, AIS
    Seconds , Frame Loss Seconds, Test Pattern Loss Seconds.
Frame Slips (Controlled): separate and concurrent indication of positive and
    negative slips.
Protocol Analyser Interface: RS232C 4-wire synchronous interface, for the
    following: DDS primary & secondary channels ISDN B/D (64/56kbits/s)
    ESF datalink, D4 Fs channel, T1DM R-channel.
DS0 Bit monitor:Selected received csutomer bytes displayed.
Signalling bits: A,B(SF) or A,B,C,D(ESF) can be ste/didsplayed for 56kbit/s.

DS1 Jitter Measurement(option)
Peak-to-Peak: Range 0.00 to 10.00UI, in 0.01 UI steps
Jitter Filters: LP=2Hz to 40Khz, HP1+LP=10Hz to 40Khz, HP2+LP=8Khz to 40Khz.
Jitter Threshold:0.05 to 10.00UI pk/pk in 0.01UI pk/pk increments.
Jitter Hit Measurements: Jitter Hit Count, Jitter Hit Bit Count, Jitter Hit
    Bit Ratio, Jitter Hit Seconds, Jitter Hit Free Seconds.

Now with regard to your specific points:

|I'm interested in test equipment for 56k DDS and T1 lines.  I'm just
|starting to investigate but I think I want gear with following
|capabilities:

|  Interfaces supported:

|    56k DDS plain (don't care about secondary channel)

Yes, secondary channel is included.

|    T1 D4, ESF, B8ZS (test equip does CSU function)

Yes, yes, yes (not sure what you mean).

|    V.35

DSX type connections or RS232C as appropriate.

| Capabilities:
|
|    Test pattern - transmit and receive

Yes, standard PRBSs etc.

|    Standalone loopback testing ,with one unit

Yes, (In DDS the returned MAP-codes are checked for.)

|    End-to-end test with two units

Yes.

|    Able to cause the various kinds of remote loops on T1 and DDS

Yes, T1: inband or data link, DDS alternating or latching and MJU
routining.

|    Signal quality measurements such as jitter and spectrum

Yes, jitter

|    Detect T1 events such as checksum errors, bipolar volations,
|    framing errors, etc.

Yes, yes, yes.

|Any other things I should be interested in?

Yes, the '87 has probably the fullest coverage of T1 & DDS
functionality.  T1 pipe testing; DDS: Primary channel, Secondary
channel, full sub-rate E/C (even 19.2kbit/s), Loopbacks, MJU routing
etc. The '87 is combined transmitter receiver, which operate
independantly to allow testing across levels in the hierarchy.
Obviously it is remote controllable (both HPIB & RS232).

Your nearest HP dealer will have fuller details:
(for Wisconsin:-)

Hewlett-Packard
275N Corporate Drive
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel [phone]  fax [phone]

+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Brian Woodroffe                | HPDESK: Brian Woodroffe/HP1400/B1 |
| Hewlett Packard Ltd            | ARPA:   bww@hpsqf                 |
| Queensferry Telecomms Division |         [e-mail]   |
| South Queensferry              | UUCP:   ..!hplabs!hpqtdla!bww     |
| West Lothian                   | JANET:  [e-mail]  |
| Scotland EH30 9TG.             | PHONE:  [phone]           |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

NB: You are advised to check the suitability yourself.

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Date: 19 Mar 90 16:43:31 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Oceanport,NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Glenn M Cooley)
writes:

> I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my
> hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario
> than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the
> phone :-)

I like the humor but E911 has real advantages and potential for cost
savings in dispatcher costs through manpower reductions.

Usually, E911 is integrated into a computer aided dispatch system at
the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).  When a dispatcher answers
the call, the address and phone number are automatically run against
the computer system and displays all the information known about the
address.  This includes what fire company, first aid squad and police
patrol car should be dispatched to the address and any known hazards
on scene (dangerous chemicals, etc.)  The dispatcher, once she
determines the nature of the problem (Police, Fire, Medical) merely
has hit the corresponding button to dispatch the appropriate agency
automatically whether by phone, radio or computer depending on the
system.

This also allows the computer to log the incident and response,
freeing the dispatcher to handle the next call, hence, fewer
dispatchers are required then with a manual look-up process.  However,
this cost reduction can only be acheived by consolidating dispatch,
i.e. one county PSAP instead of twenty-seven township ones.  Here
politics can get in the way.

E911 allows the dispatcher to send help quicker and with less chance
of data entry error.  A human is still needed in the loop to filter
out false calls and occasional errors such as the PBX one.

The magazine of choice for people interested in this topic is the
"APCO Communicator" published by the Associated Public Safety
Communications Officers, Inc. of which I'm a member.


73

Gary Wilson, WB2BOO
Deputy Communications Coordinator (Volunteer)
Office of Emergency Management
Mercer County, New Jersey

PS  The address and phone number should STILL be taped to the phone !

     :-}

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

From: Peter Marshall <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US WEST Rate Change in Washington State
Date: 19 Mar 90 17:17:42 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Marshall <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


Hard to understand Roger Swann's 3/15 post on this topic, but
notwithstanding absence of a discernible point to the post, seems the
topic is the WA PUC's recent approval of a negotiated settlement
providing for US West incentive regulation here.

More to the point, perhaps is that two intervenors in the case have
appealed the WUTC's Order in court, and that the PUC and US West were
also in court last week over a little matter of some $8M relative to
the tariffs US West filed to implement the Order in question.

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 13:25:54 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting use of 900 Service


>Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance
>for its PC based product 1-2-3.  The rate structure is a reversal of
>most 900 services... $0.00 1st minute, $2.00 each additional minute.
>One is supposed to be immediately connected to a technical "high
>trained engineer" for support.  They are doing this on a trial basis.
>It will be interesting to see if this works and/or spreads.

Intriguing concept, but I find it hard to understand just what they
are trying to do with this arrangement. I get the impression that they
are encouraging simple questions -- if you can get your answer in a
minute, you don't pay anything. (But then Lotus has to pay for the
call -- the previously posted information on 900-call-charging assumed
the callers would always be paying more than the cost of the calls, so
I wonder how the billing arrangement works in this case...)

But then you pay more and more as your question gets more complex or
harder to answer. So it actively discourages difficult queries. Yet
this seems to be the reverse of what a technical hotline or
customer/user-assistance service is supposed to be doing. It promotes
"RTFM"-type questions that the user probably can and should figure out
for themselves in order to learn the use of the product, but punishes
the user for having a difficult problem they cannot get solved
locally.  Yet "pushing the envelope" for a product like 1-2-3 is the
way it gets applied in more and more areas and thus generates more
applicability and therefore eventually more sales. And finding obscure
bugs that didn't show up in regular product testing is what advanced
users are really good for, from a system-designers' and -implementers'
point of view. But such bugs would most probably be describable or
identifiable only after a *lot* of trial-and-error and give-and-take
between the user and the tech-assistance rep. This charging procedure
would discourage such interaction, thus leaving such bugs undiscovered
and lurking to bite other users and haunt the company in the future.

If they just don't want to be bothered, I could understand a high fee
for the first minute. But a zero fee for the first minute with some
fee thereafter is hard to comprehend, unless this is coupled with a
method for the tech-assistance folks to turn off the fee when they
recognize a valid problem or decide the time they are spending is
worthwhile to the company. Is that an available option for 900 calls --
that the callee has a button they can push that tells the telco
"this call is free to the caller"?


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: CLASS Phone Features
Date: Mon, 19-Mar-90 18:47:07 PST


I asked my local PacBell rep about CLASS just now, and she said that
it is being delayed here (Silicon Valley) because most of the carriers
that have it are being sued for various reasons.  Can anyone fill me
in on why?


   [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Mosley III <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! :)
Date: 19 Mar 90 18:23:03 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society, Austin, TX


In article <[e-mail]>, bill@shannon (Bill Berbenich) writes:

> 1-800-FON-WD40 worked when I called.  And can you believe it...
> I WON!!! :-)


Just on a lark, I deliberately picked the wrong answers, and I still
won.

Reminds me of an "Eyebeam" strip some years ago:

"For our super grand prize, who wrote the Gettysburg Address?"

"Domino's Pizza"

"Correct! You Win! Will you be paying by Cash, Check, or Visa?"


                                OM

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #185
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18959;
          20 Mar 90 3:54 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01269;
          20 Mar 90 2:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31439;
          20 Mar 90 0:59 CST
Date:     Tue, 20 Mar 90 0:54:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #186
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Mar 90 00:54:23 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 186

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold [Brad Isley]
    Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area [David Tamkin]
    Re: What is LOD and Phrack? [Douglas Mason]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Matthias Urlichs]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Recall / Flashohook [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Protection Device [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Warning: Defective "Bell" Phone Being Sold
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Prototype IS the Product..."
Date: 19 Mar 90 07:58:26 EST (Mon)
From: Brad Isley <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 171, Message 4 of 9

>It seems a bit sad, that the Bell name is now being put on inferior
>merchandise, but that seems to be the case.

This is no news to me.  My wife works for Southern Bell.  They had a
"special" offer for employees several years back for som phones made
by "Bell".  She bought a cordless phone through this offer for a huge
discount.  Later we discovered why the discount was so large.  The
batteries would typically last about 10 minutes.  Nice touch (brand
new).  At most any time, though it only happened when we were asleep,
it would emit an ear-piercing squeal that would wake us up from the
other side of the house.

After tiring of this we called to try and get it fixed.  We were
informed that since we got it through the "special" we had no warranty
and it would cost $90 to send it in for repair.  That was about $30
less than the phone cost to start with.  We tossed it at that point.
In case you're interested, it was the "Freedom Phone" - I forget the
specific manufacturer, but it was not AT&T or Southern Bell.  No more
"Bell" phones for us - we are QUITE pleased with all 4 of out AT&T
phones.


   Brad Isley,
   yer local tools blacksmith.
   What, me worry ?

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 23:33:02 CST


Jeff Wolfe wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 182:

| I live in Dalton, Pa. a town serviced by Commenweath Telephone Co. I
| have a few friends in the town of Lake Winola, Pa. 7 driving miles
| from my house. To call them, I must dial 1-378-xxxx. But, to call Penn
| State's Scranton Campus, where I attend school, I can simply dial
| 961-xxxx.

What's significant are not so much the boundaries of your seven-digit
dialing area so much as those of your toll-free area.  If I were
placing calls from Dalton, whether there were toll charges would be
more important to me than whether I had to dial eight digits or seven.

Where the moderator lives and where my parents live, there are a lot
of places to which one must dial eleven digits but the calls are
untimed and also a lot of places to which one must dial seven digits
but the calls carry a per-minute toll.  Given a choice of which of a
company's locations to call, I'll take more button-pushing with less
cost over dialing fewer digits but paying higher charges any day.

Do you also have untimed (perhaps even unlimited) service to Scranton
but have to pay by the minute for a call to Lake Winola, or is it the
other way around?


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

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is LOD and Phrack?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 12:46:46 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: The 'hackers group' is called Legion of Doom, or
>LoD for short. Phrack is the official publication of the Legion.
>Phrack was distrbuted via the Internet, among other electronic
>networks, and it was the contents of Phrack, among other things, which
>got the LoD in trouble recently and caused at least a few computer
>sites to be closed by the government and/or (in the case of attctc) by
>its owner. They have not received any punishment yet because they have
>not been found guilty yet. For further information, I refer you to the
>Telecom-Archives (ftp lcs.mit.edu - cd telecom-archives) and the file
>there entitled 'jolnet'.   PT]

A few minor corrections to Pat's otherwise correct comments.  PHRACK
(short for "Phreak and Hack") was put out by Taran King and Knight
Lightning as a quite seperate entity from the LoD group.  LoD put out
something called "The LoD Technical Journal" which was their "official
publication".  In fact, I dare say that for some time there was a lot
of friction between the two "magazines", people often arguing over who
was better -- The LoD tech journal had more techy stuff, but Phrack
was put out on a quite regular basis (about 29 issues, each about 200k
long) while LoD only put out a few (3 I believe) and were erratic
about when they were released.

It is quite suprising that Phrack was the one hit with the bad stuff.
I was actually an editor for it some time back before I decided the
"business was not for me" and there was a lot of screening as to what
was "questionable" and what could be printed.  I suppose it was a bad
choice on Craig's part for not deleting that E911 stuff when he
received it.  I knew him fairly well (Knight Lightning) and knew he
kept quite far from the "bad stuff" and wouldn't touch it for fear of
God or other equally dangerous agencies.

I have mixed feelings about the whole bust affair.  I got along with
many of the group, and have met many of them.  The whole "Eliteness"
of the group's attitude really bothered me, and it seemed that by
placing themselves on such a stand, it was only a matter of time
before someone came to knock them off.  Now I only wish that they
aren't shafted to the extreme that the media seems to want to impose.
What they did was wrong, wrong, wrong; don't think I am trying to
justify that, but after meeting some of these people, talking to them,
realizing that they are indeed people, students, kids even, it's hard
to wish 31 years upon them.

I invite all threats/comments/suggestions.  If you are nice, I'll even
send you some of the back issues of Phrack for your reading
entertainment.  ;-)


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |

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

From: Matthias Urlichs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 09:55:57 GMT


In comp.dcom.telecom, article <[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger) writes:

< For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who
< want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call
< costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter.  This counter
< will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the
< end of the month.

One problem is that this counter is incremented by a high-frequency
beep (16 kHz?), so you can't run a "normal" modem on that line. (MNP
and/or PEP is OK.)

One might assume that 16 kHz should not disturb modems, which use
lower frequencies. Unfortunately, the PTT plays some dirty games with
the line to make sure that the beep is not propagated to the other
end.

The other problem is that this counter has absolutely zero legal
significance.  You say "Did not", PTT says "Did too", and that ends
the argument.

If there's a real problem with billing, it usually takes lots of phone
calls to convince them that something may indeed be wrong, and then
they will send you a crew of repairmen (one at a time) to test your
installation (consisting of calling the line test machine (which
pronounces the line OK), asking some non-pertinent questions, and
leaving) before they even think of searching for the bug at their
side. :-( And we have not even talked about trying to get part of your
money back. :-( :-(

< By the way, a non-trivial fraction of your cost of telephone service,
< both local area and inter-LATA, is due to the cost of billing.

This statement, unfortunately, makes sense.


Matthias Urlichs

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 19 Mar 90 17:52:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
writes:

>For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who
>want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call
>costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter.  This counter
>will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the
>end of the month.

>Herman Silbiger

How can such a device work on a system where the PTT's counter runs at
different rates depending on distance, time of day, and so on?

I think this is a fundamental diference between the telephone and
other utilities that no one has explicitly mentioned yet.  The phone
company would have to provide you with a (rather large) database of
billing rates for various destinations and times for you to do your
own billing as a check.

On the other hand, one could easily buy a bunch of electric meters and
attach them to large appliances to itemize their own electric bill.
Steve Ciarcia built a device some years ago in _Byte_ to send a
certain number of pulses per kilowatt hour to a PC which counted them.
I would expect to be able to buy a similar device somewhere.  Indeed
the electric company could concievably sell such a service, with
remote telemetering meter modules to provide itemized billing.

With electric power, the maximum number of rates I can think of a
single customer having to contend with is peak/off-peak and low/high
power factor, for a total of four.  With telephone service, there are
a lot more different rates that might be charged and therefore must
keep track of in order to do your own billing.


Steve Tell                    [e-mail]
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.  Former chief engineer, Duke Union
Community Television, Durham, NC.

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Date: 19 Mar 90 18:21:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> swbatl!uiucuxc!cmpfen![e-mail] (Bob
Breum) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 181, Message 3 of 12

>[e-mail] (Ken Abrams) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person
>>>could call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll
>>>charges?

 .....lots deleted....

>There's a better answer.  I have used a device which allows you to
>reprogram the call forwarding number remotely to accomplish this same
>purpose.

>The Remote Phone Forwarder (mfgd. by Cynex in N.J.) device....
>Bob Breum

(Could you pleas post/mail their address/phone number? - thanks)

I've been wondering about the feasibility of a related setup.  Here's
the situation.  I make quite a few long-distance calls while in my
office at school, and right how have to use my calling card.  The
$0.70 or so per call adds up.  My appartment is a local call from
school.

Is there a device available that would coexist with an answering
machine, and if it heard the right DTMF security sequence kick the
answering machine off the line and respond with its own prompt (a tone
or somthing).  Then I would enter the number I wanted to call and the
device would use three-way calling to place the call.  It would then sit
back and hold the line open until the call was completed, at which
time I could either hand up or send it another number.

Does such a device exist?  I haven't experimented with three-way to
see if CPC is provided when the second connection is broken so the
device would know to accept another number.  (I think it has to flash
in order to connect to me, the first connection, again).


Steve Tell                    [e-mail]
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.
Former chief engineer, Duke Union Community Television, Durham, NC.

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recall / Flash Hook
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 00:15:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> tadtec![e-mail] (Tim Steele) writes:

>To get the exchange back during a phone call, in the UK we use a 90ms
>line break called Timed Break Recall (for those of us lucky enough to
>have a modern exchange!).  I gather you guys in the US use a 600ms
>line break called Flash Hook or something.  Is this right?

Yes, you are quite correct.  A "flash" (or "hookswitch flash") is widely
accepted as a 600 millisecond on hook condition.

Qouting from the EIA Standard RS-464 Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Switching
Equipment for Voiceband Applications:


4    Technical Requirements

4.1    Central Office - PBX Trunk Interface

    4.1.1    Supervision - Ground Start Trunks

        4.1.1.6    Call Supervision

        4.1.1.6.4    The PBX shall not generate momentary breaks
    in the dc path through the trunk circuit exceeding 100 ms on
    outgoing calls and for longer than ten seconds on incoming calls,
    except to signal disconnect or, on outgoing calls, to flash-recall a
    toll operator.  If the PBX automatically generates flash signalling,
    it shall generate an on-hook indication of 300 ms to one second to
    signal a flash request.


4.8    Station Interface

    4.8.3    Loop Supervision

        4.8.3.5    Call Supervision

        4.8.3.5.1    If flash signals (momentary on-hooks) from
    the remote terminal are used by the PBX to initiate internal calling
    features, the PBX shall ignore an on-hook signal of 150 ms or less;
    interpret an on-hook signal of 300 ms to one second as a valid
    flash; interpret an on-hook signal of 1.5 seconds or greater as a
    valid disconnect.

        4.8.3.5.2    If flash timing is not provided, the PBX
    shall interpret an on-hook signal of 300 ms or greater as a valid
    disconnect.

How's that for an answer?

vance

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: Loud Signal Tones vs. Your Ears
Date: 19 Mar 90 20:58:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (J. Stephen Reed)
writes:

> Apparently these tones are about 116 decibels.  This level plays havoc
> with anyone with sensitive hearing, and especially with those who have
> hearing impairments and use amplifiers on the line.  Amplification can
> put these tones up in the range of a jet engine at 100 feet away.

I don't know who measured the level of these tones, or how they were
measured, but I doubt very much that the level of those tones is 116
dB.  However, even if they were at that level, they could not cause
any hearing damage at those short durations.  In addition all
telephone receivers made by reputable manufacturers have a limiting
device installed across the receiver capsule terminals (a varistor),
which limits at 119 dB re 20 microPascals, so that regardless of any
amplification on the line, harmful levels are not possible when
hearing loud tones or noises for short periods.

Herman Silbiger

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 23:19:41 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Protection Device

Does anyone know of a device that will allow you to (legally) connect
a homebrew device to a POTS line?  What I have in mind is something
that would go between your device and the telco line that would
protect them from any "evil" signal you may generate.  What I'd like
to do is to be able to make something myself, and possibly sell/lease
it in small quantities without having to get the device itself FCC
approved.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #186
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21244;
          20 Mar 90 4:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15271;
          20 Mar 90 3:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01269;
          20 Mar 90 2:08 CST
Date:     Tue, 20 Mar 90 1:36:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #187
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Mar 90 01:35:30 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 187

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    PTT's Which Bill in Message Units [Joseph C. Pistritto]
    Is There a Modular Wiring Standard? [David J. Camp]
    Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [Will Martin]
    PALCOM PT1013SL Programmable Call Controller [James Van Houten]
    Business Week on Long Distance Rates [Business Week via Ken Jongsma]
    New California PUC Rules for Pay Phones [LA Times via Steven W. Grabhorn]
    Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? [Mark Brader]
    Calling North America From Overseas [Jim Gottlieb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 90 09:58:45+0100
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PTT's Which Bill in Message Units


They will indeed rent you a counter device to count your calls,
however, they will also refuse to accept its results to 'adjust' your
bill if they make a mistake.  Only the counter in the PTT is
official.

Speaking of the cost of billing, I pay an extra 5 Swiss Francs (about
3 US $) a month to get itemized billing on my phone in Switzerland.
Now, it might amaze some of you Americans out there that you can be
CHARGED for billing, but after living in Europe for a while, you get
used to things like that.  (After all, didn't the KGB charge the
families of executed persons for the bullets...)

======================================================================
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: "David J. Camp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is There a Modular Wiring Standard?
Reply-To: "David J. Camp" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 09:32:44 GMT


I see these 6-pin modular adapters cropping up in a lot of products.
Is there a pinout standard?  I would appreciate a diagram.  Please
reply directly to me.

Thank you,

-David-

Bitnet:   [e-mail]                ^      Mr. David J. Camp
Internet: [e-mail]   < * >    Box 8067, Biostatistics
uucp:     uunet!wugate!wubios!david         v      660 South Euclid
Washington University (314) 36-23635               Saint Louis, MO 63110

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 12:55:46 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees


>[Moderator's Note: The fallacy in your argument is that charging for a
>phone call to reach the radio station lottery is violating rules
>pertaining to contests. Contests which have you mail in a coupon or
>ticket are not violating the law because the post office requires a stamp
>on the envelope. Both the postage stamp and the telephone charge are
>simply fees for transporting the message.  PT]

Don't be so sure about this -- up until fairly recently (mid '60's or
early '70's, I believe), a lot of nationwide contests or sweepstakes
were illegal in Missouri, and void in this state, because the official
State Attorney General legal opinion on the issue was that *the stamp
on the envelope* needed to enter the contest was a payment, which made
the contest a lottery then illegal under state law.

It wasn't until a state constitutional amendment was passed that
permitted the state lottery to be begun that this situation changed. I
recall quite clearly a lot of otherwise-nationwide contests that had
"void in Missouri" [and some other states] in the fine print because
of this, and the subject showed up now and then in newspaper advice
columns and consumer articles.

Some states still have some provisions in their laws that help their
citizens in this respect. I think Vermont is one of them; you'll see a
note in the fine print of contest rules regarding sending for an entry
blank or the like that residents of all states *except Vermont* [or
whatever state this really is, if not Vermont] have to send a
self-addressed stamped envelope. Residents of Vermont [or whereever]
need only send a self-addressed envelope with no stamp on it.

Back then, calling Long Distance was still a big deal, so I think
there were few, if any, contests that required entry by calling
outside a local area. I tend to think that the mindset that called the
stamp an illegal lottery payment would view the cost of toll calls the
same way.


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: 19 Mar 90 12:56:28 EST
From: James Van Houten <[e-mail]>
Subject: PALCOM PT1013SL Programmable Call Controller


I have read several messages in the Digest that concern controlling
access to your dialtone (i.e. College Dorms, Etc).  This is a perfect
solution.  The PT1013SL is a programmable Toll Restrictor that does
much more than just block 1+, 0+, 00, 011, 900, 976, 411.  The
controller has the ability to block up to 400 digits of your choice.
It has an override code that allows the owner of the device to bypass
it on a per call basis.  The controller will also make a line incoming
only and can make a lined timed from 1-15 mins.  If you have a need to
have total control of a phone line then the PT1013SL is for you.  Give
me a call for further info.


James Van Houten
P.O. Box 502
Temple Hills, MD  20757
[phone]
INTERNET: 72067,[e-mail]
PACKET:  KA3TTU@N4QQ
Voice Mail:  [phone]


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

Subject: Business Week On Long Distance Rates
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 19:27:30 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


This week's Business Week has an interesting Personal Business article
on Long Distance. Some of the highlights:

Long Distance rates have dropped almost 40% since 1984.

Most consumers cannot tell the difference between AT&T, MCI and Sprint
in terms of connection quality. Marketing is focusing on price.

     On a 12 minute evening call, the following rates apply:

     AT&T (No Plan)   1.89       AT&T (Reach Out Day)  1.42*
     MCI (No Plan)    1.77       MCI (Primetime)       1.29*
     Sprint (No Plan) 1.74       Sprint (Plus)         1.38*

    * Volume discounts apply in addition to listed rates.

Telecom Research & Action Center (TRAC) publishes a business
($5/issue) and residential ($1/issue) newsletter that compares rates.
Their address is PO Box 12038, Washington, DC 20005.

TRAC finds that Sprint is almost always cheaper, but not always the
best choice. Saturday callers should use MCIs Supersaver plan. Longer
calls (10+ minutes) overseas may be cheaper on AT&T.

Promotions abound. MCI gives miles on Northwest or American Airlines
and offers members of the ABA a 5-10% discount. Sprint allows new
members to cash in Contental miles for credit on their Sprint bill.
AT&T gives a $10 credit if you sign up with HBO and vice versa. In
addition, most carriers offer to pick up the BOC conversion charge if
you change default carriers as well as offering a certain amount of
"free" calls.

[Comment: The new Sprint bill (mentioned in a previous digest) makes
it very easy to analize you bill and decide if your calling patterns
suggest a change in carriers. - Ken]


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

From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New California PUC Rules for Pay Phones
Date: 19 Mar 90 21:44:20 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


 From the Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1990

             PUC IS ABOUT TO WRITE NEW RULE BOOK FOR PAY PHONES

     A  new era in the pay-phone business in California is expected to  dawn
later  this  year when the Public Utilities Commission completes work  on  a
two-year  study  of  the former monopoly that it opened  to  competition  in
November, 1985.

     The centerpiece is a "settlement agreement" that reconciles the differ-
ences  of  all parties: consumer groups, the PUC's  consumer-support  staff,
local  phone  companies, long-distance carriers and owners  of  private  pay
phones.   If it works as intended, the agreement would have  these  benefits
for each group:

CONSUMERS:  There will be a uniform 20-cent rate for local coin  calls  from
any  pay  phone, guaranteed for five years.  (While pay phones  operated  by
local  phone companies charge 20 cents for these calls, private  owners  may
charge  25 cents.)  There will also be minimum equipment standards and  uni-
form information posted at the pay phones, including the name and  toll-free
number  of the telephone's owner.  There also will be no charge for  dialing
toll-free  numbers to reach a preferred long-distance carrier, whether  that
carrier had a prescribed five-digit code (10-XXX) or a number starting  with
a  prefix  of 950 or 800.  A phone's owner could no longer block  access  to
carriers other than the one subscribed to.

LOCAL  PHONE COMPANIES: The PUC would authorize and set out  procedures  for
these companies to enforce prices and "get rid of the bad actors" by discon-
necting those guilty of persistent overcharging.

PAY PHONE OWNERS: The new owners agreed to trim their basic coin rate to  20
cents  but in exchange will receive a 30-cent payment from  phone  companies
and  long-distance  carriers for all non-coin calls the private  pay  phones
transmit to their networks.  This provision can spell the difference between
profitability and loss for the pay phone's owner.  Owners also will  eventu-
ally be able to buy additional network services from local carriers that are
not now available, offering such advantages as correctly identifying when  a
call is answered and billing should begin.

LONG-DISTANCE  CARRIERS: So-called interexchange carriers are  assured  that
their  customers  will always be able to reach them from any  pay  phone  in
California.   Owners will no longer be able to force customers to  use  only
the carrier the owners selected for their phones.

PHONE  MAKERS: Manufacturers of telephones equipped with automated  operator
and  billing  services that meet certain standards set by the  PUC  will  be
allowed  to install their equipment and compete with the local phone  compa-
nies' operators for dial-O calls.


Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152
Phone:[phone] Internet:[e-mail] UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 18:15:30 EST


In ont.general, in a discussion on harrassing phone calls (and Caller ID),
L.J.Dickey ([e-mail]) writes:

>  The phone company can install a device that will, on command,
>  "lock in" the caller, so that, even after the caller hangs up,
>  the phones are still connected.

I recall reading about such a device myself, but it was in Reader's
Digest and more than 10 years ago.  I don't believe I've ever seen it
mentioned here on comp.dcom.telecom.  Given what I have learned here
about the wide variations between switches, I'd conjecture that the
device exists, but only for some types of switch.  Would I be right?


Mark Brader            "When you're up to your ass in alligators,
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto         maybe you're in the wrong swamp."
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]                -- Bill Stewart


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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling North America From Overseas
Date: 19 Mar 90 10:10:38 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


I received a fax from the owner of Credit Card Calling Services (CCCS)
and I will pass on the information I received.

CCCS will place calls to any number in the U.S. or Canada, including
(800) numbers (I assume only those (800) numbers dialable from New
Jersey).  I find their rates to be cheaper than using AT&T's USA
Direct, but the owner of CCCS believed they were often more expensive
than AT&T.  Part of this confusion may result from the fact that each
AT&T operator I talk to gives me different rates for their service,
and then there was the one who reprimanded me: "It's the middle of the
night over here!  You call us up in the middle of the night and expect
us to know all the rates?"  Well, excuuuuse me.  But I digress...

CCCS plans to extend service to other countries in the near future.
Europe and Japan will be the first overseas countries that one will be
able to call using this service.

CCCS charges $4.80 for the first minute on any U.S. station-to-station
call.  This includes calls to (800) numbers.  Person-to-person calls
are $7.80 for the first minute.  The additional-minute rate varies
according to where you are calling from.

To quote the owner, a Mr. Nadybal:

"CCCS is extremely sensitive about fraud.  Because of experience with
fraud, the following restrictions exist:

    - Calls are permitted for voice use only.  We do not permit
      data transfers over our lines.  This includes computer
      transmissions and fax.

    - We have suspended acceptance of US Bell company calling cards
      at this time.  For the moment, we accept only major credit
      cards and collect calls.  Collect calls can not be made to
      Canada.

    - For a considerable and random portion of each day, we
      restrict calls to non-800 numbers to only person-to-person
      calls.  There is no extra charge unless the customer
      specifically asks for person-to-person service.  This is a
      fraud-protection measure we found necessary to implement.

    - Callers who wish to use the system extensively should rotate
      billing between different credit cards.  We have automated
      billing number blocking in place which senses calling
      patterns used by computer hackers trying to access computers
      stateside using stolen or invented credit card numbers.  It
      is conceivable that a 'frequent caller' might 'trip' the
      system into blocking a card number until the caller writes us
      and asks for the block to be manually lifted.

Anyone who would like a detailed explanation of the service and a
wallet-sized card with access numbers can write to:

    Credit Card Calling Systems, Inc.
    67 Wall St., #2411
    New York, NY  10005

    Tel: [phone]
    Fax: [phone]"


I don't have their wallet-sized card, but here are the access numbers.

From Europe ($1.55 additional-minute charge except $1.35 from Great Britain):
Belgium        11-5454
Denmark        800-10-800
Finland        98-001-0110
France        19 (wait for tone) 0590-1800
Germany/Berlin    01-302928
Great Britain    0800-89-1800
Greece        0800-12-2928
Israel        00177-908-7831    (not available from public phones)
Italy        1678-79-074    (local call charge applies)
Liechtenstein    04605-1800
Monaco        19 (wait for tone) 0590-2747
Netherlands    06 (wait for tone) 022-6202
Norway        050-12-050
San Marino    1678-74-001
Sweden        020-79-56-79
Switzerland    04605-2928    (local call charge applies)
Vatican City    1678-74-001

Asia ($1.95 each additional minute):
Australia    0014-800-125571
Hong Kong    800-2928
Japan        0031-12-1800    (not available from all phones)
New Zealand    TBA
Philippines    TBA
Singapore    800-1518
So. Korea    0081-800-907-8201  (not available from all phones)

Latin America ($1.95 each additional minute):
Brazil        00081-4550-2928
Chile        TBA
Mexico        TBA
Panama        1-800-322-2928

Caribbean Basin ($1.95 each additional minute):
Aruba        800-1508
Antigua        1-800-322-2928    (not available from public telephones)
Jamaica        0-800-322-2928

Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, Br. Virgin Isl., Cayman Islands, Dominican
Republic, Puerto Rico, St Kitts & Nevis(?), St. Maarten, Saba, &
Bonaire, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos, U.S. Virgin Isl. :
        1-800-322-2928


Jim Gottlieb                     Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: [phone]                        Voice Mail: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #187
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06548;
          21 Mar 90 3:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23716;
          21 Mar 90 1:26 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25980;
          21 Mar 90 0:20 CST
Date:     Tue, 20 Mar 90 23:41:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #188
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Mar 90 23:40:17 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 188

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    PSC to the Rescue [Matt Simpson]
    FCC Access Charges [System Operator]
    Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia [David Leibold]
    Fun With Step-By-Step Switches [David Leibold]
    Odd Stuff at MCI [Ted Koppel]
    ALEX is Nothing Special [Robert Masse]
    Wiring Standards for Data on RJ45 [Edward Greenberg]
    Arrrrrgh! COCOT's Have Crossed the Atlantic [John Pettitt]
    SPRINT Industrial Espionage Lawsuit [W. W. Scott]
    Information Wanted on CNA [Don Saklad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 09:34:09 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: PSC to the Rescue


Bob Goudreau's description of having his phone service disconnected
because the phone company forgot to delay a cutover as he requested
reminded me of one chapter in my long story of trying to get phone
service in my new residence ... so I thought I'd relay the whole
bitter story.

It started in about Feb. 89, when I was almost through (I thought)
construction of my new house, about 1/4 mile fom my old one, on the
same property, served by the same central office and same cable.  I
called SCB to request a new service installation. Since I was unsure
of my exact moving date, I asked if they could go ahead and do the
physical cable installation, and I would call back later and give a
cutover date. No, they couldn't do that, they had to cutover the day
they installed the cable.

I asked if I could have the service active at both locations for a
transition period. She thought so, but if not, what date did I want it
cutover? I picked an arbitrary date in April, figuring that if I
didn't move at the same time the phone service did, I could just leave
the answering machine at whatever location had a live phone jack.

Several days later, I recieved a letter informing me that due to
"unanticipated growth" in my area, they would not be able to
immediately fulfill my request for new phone service. I called and
asked what the problem was, and was told that they lacked the
necessary outside plant capacity; translation: no more pairs on the
cable. When did they think they could provide service? Maybe
September, but they couldn't commit to that. I said that was totally
ridiculous, that all they had to do was to use the pair serving my old
house to serve the new one, since the old one would be probably be
vacant until after they "upgraded their outside plant".

I was told that they didn't do business that way, that they couldn't
take a pair from an existing location to serve a new location, not
even when requested to do so by the owner of both locations. Much
irate screaming got me connected to a supervisor, who told me that
there were other people in that area who had been waiting for service
for 6 months, and were probably facing another 6 month wait, and that
if they disconnected my existing service, they would have to use that
capacity to fulfill one of those waiting orders before they could give
it back to me, because that was a newer order. I said I didn't want my
service disconnected, I wanted my demark point moved to another
location on the same premises. Finally, they agreed to investigate
that possibility.

The next day, they called back, to tell me they had checked with
engineering and had been told that the pair which served my old house
could not be used to serve a new house 1/4 mile away. I'm not a
telephony person, so I didn't understand their reason. They said
something about a booster coil on the cable between the two locations.
I was also so mad thay I didn't think quickly enough to catch their
contradiction; the day before, they had threatened to give my pair to
someone else, now they're telling me it won't work anywhere else.


At this point I gave up, figuring I'd move without phone service,
relying on an answering machine at the old location and a voice pager
to keep in touch with the outside world. This was fine, till one day I
came home and picked up the phone to return a call, and it was dead. I
knew right away what the problem was, this was the date that I had
originally requested the cutover. Of course, the new service was not
installed. I drove 3 miles to the nearest pay-phone, and talked to
repair service.  The rep was extremely apologetic and helpful, and
promised to have my old service restored by Monday evening (this was
Friday). He mentioned that to get the order into the system, he
actually had to enter a transfer request that said I was moving from
the new house back to the old house, but not to worry, it wouldn't
cost me anything.

Sure enough, on Monday, I had phone service again, but I was a
little dubious about the effect of the rep's new transfer order. So a
couple of weeks later, just for grins, I called the service dept. to
ask if there had been any improvement on the anticipated date for my
new service.

 .."Sir your new service should already be operational" .. "Well, I'm
afraid it isn't" .. The call almost became a Laurel-and Hardy type of
conversation " Is your new address ....?" "No, that's my old address..."
Finally, the confusion was resolved, and they regretfully informed me
that the installation schedule had been delayed even more.

For a couple of months, I lived with this inconvenience, until one day
I got a bill which included $60 for "new service installation". I
instantly guessed that this was for restoring the old service, and
after I came down off the ceiling, I called to complain. I got hold of
a real rude rep, who explained to me (in a "You idiot" tone) that the
charge was for reconnecting my old service. When I complained that I
didn't think I should pay for telco screwups, she explained in a very
exasperated tone that a transfer request generated two work orders,
one to disconnect old service, and one to connect new service, and
just because one got cancelled, the other didn't automatically get
cancelled.

I said that I thought that was their problem, that all I wanted was
continuous phone service, that they had disrupted that because of
their own internal screwup, and that I shouldn't have to pay to
restore it. She told me that I was all wrong. I then pointed out that
I had been told that there would be no charge. "Who told you that?" ..
"I don't remember his name, but it was one of your service reps" ...
"Well, there are over 200 of us, and if you don't remember which one
you talked to, I can't help you" ... "Well, if you can't help me, I'd
like to speak to a manager" ... "All our managers are in a meeting,
and I don't know when one will be available".  She didn't offer to
take a message to have a manager return my call when available.

At this point, I got really angry, and did what I should have done
months earlier: I called the state Public Service Commission and
explained the situation. Less tahn 2 hours later, I received a call
from someone at SCB, telling me that the $60 charge had been deducted
from my bill, and that my new service would be installed the next
week. The PSC rep even called me back the next week to verify that SCB
had made good on their promise ... they had.

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

Subject: FCC Access Charges
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 90 21:48:52 EST
From: System Operator <[e-mail]>


Just to throw this in on the discussion of FCC access charges:

For a while, I ran a 976 service in the South Florida area.  My phone
bills where HUGE!  On each line there was a 6! dollar FCC access
charge.  This can mount up when you consider how many trunks are
placed on each working phone number.

As we all know, these charges are to allow everyone "equal access to
the long distance network."  Ok, I'll bite...  The 976 lines were not
capable of placing outgoing calls; no dialtone, just battery tick
when they are taken off hook.  ALL calls outside the LATA are BLOCKED
from being able to reach those 976 number.  Hence NO ACCESS to the
NETWORK is possible from EITHER direction.  Why was I being
charged??!!

When I asked someone from Southern Bell, they said, well, gosh gee,
its because that 6 dollars per month was calculated based on EACH
phone line, regardless of whether they have access to the network.

Does this mean ring-down lines get nailed too?

Anyone else have some opinions, comments?  How about a good old class
action suit?. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars over the
course of several years!!!

These thoughts are my own, and all standard disclaimers apply.


Andy
{your favorite backbone...codas}!novavax!pinn!sysop

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

Subject: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 22:58:04 EST
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


I read an item some time ago that Maritime Tel & Tel, which service
the province of Nova Scotia, Canada, plans to introduce a 911 service
that will cover the entire province. Currently, Canadian 911
installations are done on a region-by-region, or even city-by-city
basis.

Any examples of state-wide 911 yet?


|| David Leibold       "Art is anything you can get away with"
|| [e-mail]                 - Marshall McLuhan


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

Subject: Fun With Step-By-Step Switches
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 23:08:37 EST
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


Years ago, when I had access to a real live step-by-step exchange,
there were some strange things that could be done.

For instance, because of number absorbing and things like that, a call
placed to one exchange for numbers of the form nxx.4xxx could also be
dialed using nxx.7xxx when called via long distance (same nxx
exchange, same last three digits, just use a 7 instead of a 4; there
were officially no such things as nxx.7xxx numbers). Some people kept
phoning our number long distance because they were really wanting some
party who had a number like zzz.7xxx in another exchange, only they
decided to dial our exchange (which was adjacent) as nxx.7xxx,
therefore getting us on nxx.4xxx.

Not to mention what we could do to that adjacent exchange (zzz)...
dialing to that exchange, but with numbers like zzz.70523 (yes, extra
digits on step-by-step!), it was possible to tap into some of the
calls being placed in that exchange. (Again, no official phone #s in
the zzz.70xx range, but this was something strange for electro-mechanical
technology).

Of course, up in the great white north, one used to be able to dial 1
514 188 xxxx and it likely got the overseas dialing trunk.

No wonder the phone company wanted to switch us over to digital
technology as soon as possible. (I didn't have a blue box, so some of
these things couldn't be tested out too well). Obviously, with the
change in technology, all of the above is now likely unavailable.

Anyone else with experiences on SxS switches?


|| David Leibold          "The trouble with normal is it always gets worse"
|| [e-mail]                       - Bruce Cockburn

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

From: Ted Koppel <isis!isis.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Odd Stuff at MCI
Date: 20 Mar 90 06:20:16 GMT
Organization: CARL -- Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries


I was trying to make a call this morning (Denver --> San Jose) on MCI
from home.  Got an intercept that said my call can't be completed at
this time - for further information call 1-800-888-1800.

Tried, of course, calling the 800-888-1800, but line was consistently
busy, so eventually I went to work.

Called MCI tonight to ask if they were having network problems this
morning, but the (low-level) clerk I spoke to of course didn't know
anything.

1 - was MCI not working to the West Coast today, or did I have a
fluke?

2 - what is the point of dialing the 1-800-888-1800 number; what
information might they have told me if it hadn't been busy?


Ted Koppel       CARL - Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries =
Internet:  [e-mail]     -or- uunet!isis!tkoppel (uucp)

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

From: Robert Masse <[e-mail]>
Subject: ALEX is Nothing Special
Organization: None
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 90 21:55:37 GMT


I have personally used Bell's ALEX several times and I don't think
it's as good as the publicity suggests.  I find that the services it
currently offers are not very useful to the average person.  Maybe in
the future Bell will offer more usefull services but until they do I
don't recommend it.


                  Robert Masse  [phone]/home
             Internet: [e-mail]
                UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!robert
       soon: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 08:12 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wiring Standards for Data on RJ45


I'd like to wire some RS-232 circuits from desks back to a wiring
closet using modular hardware at the desk end.  We will be terminating
a six wire connection on an RJ45 (8 pin modular jack) under each desk,
and then use a modular cord (with appropriate ends) to connect the
jack to a DB25 or DB9 shell, thence into the back of a PC.

Is there any standard for the appearance of the standard RS-232
signals on the RJ45, or should I just invent something that works.

Note: Why 8 pin jacks with six wire circuits?  We can't seem to get
some of the parts with RJ11 jacks.

Thanks,

Ed Greenberg
[e-mail]

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

From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 15:31:22 GMT
Organization: Specialix International
Subject:  Arrrrrgh! COCOT's Have Crossed the Atlantic


I have found a COCOT in the UK.  In the Continental Arilines
President's Club lounge at London Gatwick Ariport there is a public
phone that has the name `Comvik Card Call' and a `CCC' logo on the
front.

It claims to take Mastercard, VISA, AmEx, Diners and Switch (a debit
card).  It does not take money.  It blocks calls to the operator and
will not allow the use of a British Telecom or Pacific Bell credit
card.

I tried to use my Switch card and it would not work so I pressed the
button marked `helpline' and got connected to some bimbo who claimed
not to have heard of Switch cards (despite the Switch logo on the
phone!).

The flyer that was next to the phone identified CCC as a Kinnevik
Company but does not list a phone number for them.

The rates posted on the phone were 3 to 5 times the BT rate for the
same call.


John Pettitt
Specialix International
[e-mail]


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

From: W W Scott <rruxc![e-mail]>
Subject: SPRINT Industrial Espionage Lawsuit
Date: 20 Mar 90 18:04:01 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


Have you heard that the FBI is investigating SPRINT for using
industrial espionage to obtain information from Martin-Marietta and
MCI to help win the FTS-2000 contract?

SPRINT executives are reportedly so quiet that you can hear a pin
drop!

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

From: Don Saklad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on CNA
Reply-To: Don Saklad <[e-mail]>
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 02:10:03 GMT


 ...from a stack of pending telecommunications questions:

Does anyone know something, anything or everything about CNA, customer
name and address service?


[Moderator's Note: Customer Name and Address Bureau (or Service) is
usually only an inter-telco arrangment, where authorized employees of
one telco (such as the billing department) can get the name and
address of a customer whose charges have to be billed collect, etc.
One exception to the rule that CNA can only be used internally by
telcos is the one operated by Illinois Bell specifically for the
public.  (They also have an internal version for their own use.)  By
dialing 312 (or 708, it matters not) 796-9600 you reach operators at
Illinois Bell's Chicago-Wabash central office who do reverse directory
lookups at the rate of 35 cents per two numbers. You provide the
312/708 number; they respond with the name and address where the
service is located.  If the service is non-pub, that's your tough
luck; they don't have it available on their terminals. As stated
above, most telcos do not offer this service to the public.  Are there
others besides Illinois Bell, which also does it for Central Tel on
the northwest side?  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #188
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08391;
          21 Mar 90 4:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31768;
          21 Mar 90 2:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23716;
          21 Mar 90 1:26 CST
Date:     Wed, 21 Mar 90 0:28:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #189
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 21 Mar 90 00:28:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 189

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [David Dyer-Bennet]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Daniel Karrenberg]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Macy W. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: Interesting use of 900 Service [David Schanen]
    Re: Interesting use of 900 Service [Ken Weaverling]
    Re: Interesting use of 900 Service [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Recall / Flash Hook [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [John Bruner]
    Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling [Linc Madison]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Tue Mar 20 15:34:20 1990
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10,
 Issue 179, Message 8 of 12  vances writes:

>My question is who is getting answer supervision provided all the way
>back to the PBX?  I know of several people in different areas of the US
>that are.  This allows optimal billing back of calls.

Most BOC's will not give answer supervsion (aka reverse battery) for
any reason.  They simply refuse to tarriff it.  Most COCOT vendors
(the ones that try to be legit, anyway) would kill for answer
supervision.  Murder, however, is regarded negatively by the BOC's.

Many non-Bell telcos will give it, some by tarriff, some not.  I got
GTE Ohio to give it to me on my ground start PBX trunks by making
arrangments with local managment.  (I still cannot believe they did
it) Ohio Bell says "no tarriff, not available".  If you are a
governmental agency or other large user, "special arrangement"
tarriffs are used to get it.

When the connections to the long distance carrier are direct and do
not use telco provided switching equipment, answer supervision can be
obtained from most long distance carriers upon special arrangment.
This usually involves the use of a T1 feed for higher volume users.
Note that AT&T does not like to provide answer supervision (seems odd
to me) on Megacom.

Now: if the telco won't give us answer supervision, why should we have
to provide it to the telco by tarriff on DID lines?  ;-)

In article <[e-mail]>
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 175, Message 2 of 9

[ Several discussions of various types of itemized and non-itemized
 billings deleted to prevent boredom....]

Actually GTE Mobilnet may have the whole thing figured out for us:
They charge an additional $2.25 per month to render an itemized bill
(in the Cleveland-Akron market, at least) for their cellular telephone
service.

I'm not sure if I agree with this or not ... but at least there is a
choice.


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")


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

From: David Dyer-Bennet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Reply-To: David Dyer-Bennet <ns![e-mail]>
Organization: Terrabit Software
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 22:52:25 GMT


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

:Further, I can verify the readings on the meters for the power, gas,
:and water by examining my meters.  I can, if it pleases me, go out and
:watch the dials turn and verify that they are turning at the right
:rate.  I can install my own meter (after the company's meter) if it
:pleases me.  You can not, in principle, do this with the phone.

In England, which uses non-itemized message-unit billing, it is
possible (though not normal) to get phones with a "message unit" meter
right on them.  I've run into them in short-term rental situations,
where the people staying in a house want phone service, but it's
different people each week.  With this setup, the landlord can come by
and check the phone meter and add your phone bill into the total when
you leave.

This is not meant to refute your basic point at all, particularly
since it's not the normal setup and most likely costs extra.  But, *in
principle*, you can do most of this (not connecting your own meter)
with the phone system.


David Dyer-Bennet, [e-mail]
or [e-mail]
or Fidonet 1:282/341.0, [phone] 9600hst/2400/1200/300
or terrabit![e-mail], ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!terrabit!ddb

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

From: Daniel Karrenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 20 Mar 90 11:17:53 GMT
Organization: European Unix systems User Group


[e-mail] (Stephen Tell) writes:

>How can such a device work on a system where the PTT's counter runs at
>different rates depending on distance, time of day, and so on?

In the systems based on message units the local exchange (sometimes
the toll exchange but never mind the details) will figure out to which
charge band you are calling.  As soon as call supervision indicates
the call is completed it will send 16kHz pulses down the subscriber
line.  The pulses are spaced according to the tariff applying to the
call.  The pulses will reach a meter at the local exchange associated
with your line.  These meters (at least in Germany) mostly still are
mechanical counters arranged in blocks of (I think) 25x25 which are
photographed once a month.  The photographs are used to key the meter
counts into the billing system manually (believe it or not).

Call supervision works on all national and most international calls.
Some areas of the UK are a notable exception.  In these cases you get
billed for the ringing and there is nothing you can do about it.

If you want a meter at home, the PTT whill remove the lowpass filter
that blocks the 16kHz pulses and -voila- your meter starts ticking.
Last time I saw them they were mechanical counters attached to a
simple LC filter circuit.  I am now living in the Netherlands and here
they sell you counters with LCD displays.  You can strap the unit
price with jumpers and read them off in real $$s.  Before anyone asks:
Yes there is plenty of room for inflation in the design.  :-)


Daniel Karrenberg                    Future Net:  <[e-mail]>
CWI, Amsterdam                        Oldie Net:  mcsun!dfk
The Netherlands          Because It's There Net:  DFK@MCVAX

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

Date: Tue Mar 20 14:57:37 1990
From: fmsystm!macy
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]>  Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 5 of 10
Steve Swingler writes:

>     Enhanced 911 *CAN* be implemented from many large PBXs.  It
>simply requires the use of ANI trunks and an accurate database.  It
>has been done by several different groups...the one that comes to mind
>is the City of Seattle.  They use several NT SL-1 switches, and they
>all provide accurate E911 data to the E911 Operator.

>     The problem with the previously mentioned apartment complexes is
>the lack of pressure on the owners of the places to spend the money to
>fully implement E911, just in case it is ever needed.

Steve in correct in purely technical terms.  Many PBX's have AIOD
(Automatic Idenification of Outward Dialing) capability.  The reason
it is seldom used is refusal of the local phone companies to offer the
service.

Why?  It lets the PBX vendor compete with Centrex.  The phone
companies boast about the billing info they can provide on Centrex
stations, and use it as a marketing tool.  They then refuse to offer
AIOD to prevent equal capability to PBX vendors.  The reason AIOD was
developed was to let telco installed PBX's do this.

I have fought this battle with Ohio Bell and GTE Ohio for over ten
years.  And now they are using E911 as another reason to buy Centrex.

I have no problems with the telco doing this.  They should be required
to offer AIOD and DID lines tarrifed at reasonable prices as part of
their Centrex offering, and not be allowed to set up a marketing
advantage by denying these services.

(Repeat of same argument applies to telco payphones and COCOT access
lines: a level playing field should be required.)


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")


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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting use of 900 Service
Date: 20 Mar 90 18:56:00 GMT
Reply-To: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


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

>If they just don't want to be bothered, I could understand a high fee
>for the first minute. But a zero fee for the first minute with some
>fee thereafter is hard to comprehend, unless this is coupled with a
>method for the tech-assistance folks to turn off the fee when they
>recognize a valid problem or decide the time they are spending is
>worthwhile to the company. Is that an available option for 900 calls --
>that the callee has a button they can push that tells the telco
>"this call is free to the caller"?

    Being a former representaive for ATT/USWEST/Mountain Bell (during
divestiture) I'll tell what I know about 900 numbers.

    When I worked there, 900 service was being billed as single-number
service, or an alternative to having 2 800 lines (one for intra and
one for inter state)

    It also had a vote taking feature whereby you could charge the
customer for a vote that they cast.  (I thought this would be great
for demographics, you could see who was willing to part with a buck
for little in return.)

    How all these Phone Sex etc... $5-$30 per call things got started,
I don't know. As for Will's question I doubt very much that ATT or
anyone else who sells 900 service would let the customers turn off and
on their rates.


    -Dave

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

From: weave <@sun.acs.udel.edu:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting use of 900 Service
Date: 21 Mar 90 04:19:45 GMT
Reply-To: weave <@sun.acs.udel.edu:[e-mail]>
Organization: Delaware Tech College


>Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance
>for its PC based product 1-2-3.

Yeah, sure... I can imagine me placing a 900 call from my office phone
to a service like this. We've already gotten threatening memos about
calling 900 or 976 numbers. (Every call we make causes a printer to
print the extension it came from and the telephone # called, along
with date/time.)

My employer will be convinced I'm calling up Dan Quayle's Nintendo Tip
Line.

I hope other vendors don't use this scheme or if they do, still offer
other maintenance arrangements.


Ken Weaverling - Systems Administrator |  Internet: [e-mail]
Delaware Technical & Community College |  Voice:    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 08:03 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Interesting Use of 900 Number


>Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance
>for its PC based product 1-2-3.  The rate structure is a reversal of
>most 900 services... $0.00 1st minute, $2.00 each additional minute.
>One is supposed to be immediately connected to a technical "high
>trained engineer" for support.  They are doing this on a trial basis.
>It will be interesting to see if this works and/or spreads.

Perhaps they put you on hold for a minute first :-)

Consider who can use this...  Most corporations have 900 numbers
blocked (or should :-) We're down to the individuals then.  This is a
offer to an isolated number cruncher, say a private practice
accountant, an investor, etc., to get an expert on the phone and, for
the low low price of $120/hour, buy consulting time.

I think it's overpriced.  I also don't think it'll last.


Ed Greenberg
[e-mail]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recall / Flash Hook
Date: 20 Mar 90 14:19:23 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vance Shipley) writes:
>Quoting from the EIA Standard RS-464 Private Branch Exchange (PBX) Switching
>Equipment for Voiceband Applications:
>        4.8.3.5.1    If flash signals (momentary on-hooks) from
>    the remote terminal are used by the PBX to initiate internal calling
>    features, the PBX shall ignore an on-hook signal of 150 ms or less;
>    interpret an on-hook signal of 300 ms to one second as a valid
>    flash; interpret an on-hook signal of 1.5 seconds or greater as a
>    valid disconnect.

Pity some didn't take notice of that when they were writing the
software for their stuff: our campus MD-110 switch seems to think that
just about any single pulse is a flash.  You can't pulse-dial any
number with a 1 in it.  Played hob with the outdial modem pool until we
managed to educate the users NOT to turn off tone dialing.  Those with
the older Racal/Vadic dialers that ONLY pulse-dial just had to upgrade....


    - Brian

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 09:08:51 CST
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees

I've been wondering for some time about the 900 numbers which
advertise a "TV sports trivia game show" (and similar programs for
other subjects).  You can win $100 just by making a telephone call,
but of course, it's a 900 number and you're billed for the call.  Is
this really legal?  The ads I've heard have never mentioned a method
for "playing" the trivia game for free (or for the cost of a stamp).

What's the difference between this and, say, playing blackjack by
telephone?

John

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 19:20:01 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint and Three-way Calling
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <[e-mail]> Chip Rosenthal writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 2 of 10

>Not necessarily.  I saw some tests of using V.35 modems with the three
>LD carriers in Data Communications about a year back.  In all tests
>(BER, call completion, setup time, etc.) AT&T won, except for one.
>Sprint had the best signal levels.  I doubt it's a quirk so much as
>different results for different conditions.

About three years ago, I was working on a project that required me
to send numerous faxen to Italy.  I thus had a strong interest in
signal quality comparisons between AT&T, MCI, and Sprint.  I found
that for voice communications, AT&T had a slight edge over MCI, with
Sprint a distant third.  For fax transmission, though, Sprint was the
winner by a mile, if you could get a circuit.  MCI was a close second,
and had enough of an advantage on circuit availability to make it the
overall winner.  AT&T was left in the dust -- I almost never had a
retransmission on either Sprint or MCI, but AT&T botched the send due
to line noise about 65% of the time!  I wound up programming our fax
machine to auto-dial 9-10222-011-39-6-etc.  (Of course, the person who
reviews the phone bills sent my manager a note saying, "...but AT&T is
our official long-distance company."  When I explained the situation,
though, my manager said, "Don't sweat it; do what works."  Maybe his
common sense was why he was laid off...  1/2 :-)


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #189
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08403;
          21 Mar 90 4:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31768;
          21 Mar 90 2:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae23716;
          21 Mar 90 1:26 CST
Date:     Wed, 21 Mar 90 1:06:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #190
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 21 Mar 90 01:00:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 190

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Legion of Doom [Gordon Meyer]
    Re: Phone Harassment [Lyle Seaman]
    Re: Strange Charges on Bill [Linc Madison]
    Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...) [Peter Fleszar]
    Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area [Jeff Wolfe]
    Re: Defective "Bell" Phones [Steve Kass]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 90 18:56:12 EST
From: GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Legion of Doom Rebuttal to Moderator


In Telecom Digest v10 #160 the moderator suggested that I retract my
characterization of the recent LoD/Phrack busts as a "witch hunt" on
the basis of of an allegation about LoD involvement in a supposed
$66,000. theft from a Citibank VAX computer.  (Legal note: This is
heresay. I'm not suggesting that Citibank's computers have been
comprimised. I know of no such instance.)

Actually, this particular story is a _perfect_ example that it is
indeed a "witch-hunt".  A "witch-hunt", for those not familar with the
term, usually refers to a situation where people are presumed guilty
before being convicted, where associates of alleged "criminals" are
harassed, intimidated, and discredited, with the whole thing being fed
by culture misinterpretation and escalation by people whose opinions
are based solely on what they have read in the newspaper and other
media.

All of this applies to the subject at hand.  First off, no one has
been convicted of any charges, at least not yet.  The indictment for
Neidorf and Riggs lists 5-7 "facts" about the Legion of Doom.  All of
which are heresay and should not be included as "evidence" of
anything.  Also, there is indeed a "hit list" of known associates of
the LoD, and PHRACK contributors. (I don't know if our moderator is on
it, but I do know that things he has written were published in Phrack.
Perhaps w/out his permission but that's a moot point when putting
together a list of "suspects".  People who don't belive this aren't
familar with CoIntelPro.)

Finally, I have read the "How We Got Rich Through Electronic Fund
Transfer" article by the Legion of Doom.  It was published 11/27/89 in
Phrack #29.  As John Markoff surmised it is indeed _fiction_.  The
satire, humor, and obvious tounge-in-cheekness (sic) of it all is
quite obvious if you are computer literate and attentive to the
computer underground.  If you're a techno-phobic news reporter or
federal agent I could easily see how it could be believed, but one
can't interpret humorous articles from an outside perspective.  How
many times have people made tounge-in-cheek comments in this digest
that could, if taken out of context in terms of intent, be shocking to
much of the tele-phobic :) populace?

It is not my intent to write an apology for the computer underground.
What I am trying to do is inject some sanity and perspective into the
discussion (which seems to have died down, but it will be an issue
we'll face again in the future.)  Cultural ignorance, name-calling,
and emotional attachment aren't going to get us anywhere.  No one (at
least not me) is doubting the seriousness of the charges. But just
because the charges are serious doesn't preclude the possiblity that
the recent actions undertaken against people known to associate with
p/hackers aren't a "mean-spirited attempt to kill the fun of a couple
of kids" (a tip of the hat to Gene Spafford in v10 #164). The stories
reported here don't give the full picture.  Intimidation, threats,
disruption of work and school, "hit lists", and serious legal charges
are _all_ part of the tactics being used in this "witch-hunt".  That,
my friends, ought to indicate that perhaps the use of pseudonames
wasn't such a bad idea after all.

It has occured to me that I should clarify something I said in a
previous message.  I belive that the events described in the LoD
electronic fund transfer article are fictional.  The article (and
another in the same issue of PHRACK) does describe, in a narrative
form, the process and format of overseas electronic fund transfers.
That information may indeed be accurate.  I simply don't know. I doubt
that Citibank will confirm if it is or isn't.  Many would say that it
"isn't cool" to disclose the hows and where-fors of the EFT process.
Perhaps so.  But again I question the logical leap from _knowing_ how
to divert funds, to accusing them of actually doing it.

Thanks for letting me clarify that point. I'm sure it will save some
bandwidth in the long run.


Gordon Meyer
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your comments. I am not a contributor to
Phrack, per se. If they were using articles from TELECOM Digest in
their publication, I hope they at least were attributing the author
and this publication.  This Digest may be freely distributed anywhere.
The operative word of course, is *freely*. You cannot charge for its
distribution, nor pass it along to people or organizations you know
will charge for reading the Digest.  Exceptions are made for UUNET,
systems with mailbox fees where the reader has asked me to deliver to
a mailbox there, and public access sites like Chinet, Portal, etc.  PT]

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

From: Lyle Seaman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Harassment
Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 22:44:43 GMT


More on the phone harrasment thing.  We were occasionally getting
obscene phone calls at home, from (among others) an adult male with a
very juvenile sense of humour.  I say we, but the only one who ever
received them was my wife.  She was upset because they knew her first
name.  I suggested that they probably didn't know her, but had gotten
her name from the phone book where it is listed, either before or
after reaching our answering machine, which stated "You have reached
the Seaman residence..."

Anyway, this idiot left an obscene message on a ** tape recorder ** !!
I've saved it in case these continued and the law was called in.  ( I
still can't believe it!)  I since changed the outgoing message, and I
haven't received any more calls since 3 months ago.

On a tape recorder!


Lyle                     sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From:
[e-mail]        (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws)  [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 19:27:51 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Bill
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> David Tamkin writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 177, Message 8 of 10

>1. Can your local telco really block all outgoing long distance calls?
>They can assign no 1+ carrier, but can they block 10XXX?  [Perhaps the
>link is not used for calls dialed via 950-YXXX or a carrier's 800
>dial-up, but use of those carries a surcharge that can outstrip the
>subscriber line charge fairly quickly.]

Oh, yes!  (But, of course, they charge you extra for the privilege.)
I know 'cause when I were a undergrad, we had a computer terminal in
my eating club, with a modem for dialing up the campus mainframe.  We
were very concerned, though, about leaving a phone in a
publicly-accessible area (especially 'cause it were a really cheap
modem which required you to dial from a phone).  NJBell arranged "toll
blocking," which means that any attempt to dial any non-local call
would result in re-order.  Then again, they didn't actually do it when
they said they had.

In a similar situation more recently here in California (where I is a
grad student), we have a Centrex system with forward-on-no-answer to a
common answering machine.  The answering machine line is blocked for
all non-Centrex outgoing calls, but can receive calls from anywhere.
We thus got (at *no* charge, even from Pac*Bell!) a service feature
with a name something along the lines of Collect/Third Party Blocking,
which prevents any incoming calls from being billed to the line.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

From: Peter Fleszar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area (was: Modem Leapfrog...)
Date: 19 Mar 90 23:01:40 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Fleszar <[e-mail]>
Organization: SUNY Binghamton, NY


Well, in upstate NY calling areas are roughly congruent with county
lines.  The county seat (which in my examples is the same as the
market center of the county; perhaps a systematic bias) can call all,
or nearly all, of the smaller towns within the county, but often not
other towns inside the same radius but not within the county.  The
smaller towns can call the next town inside the county and the county
seat, but often not adjacent towns inside or (especially) outside the
county.

I'll illustrate this by discussing my home area of Cortland (Cortland)
and Tompkins (Ithaca) counties; and add without further proof that
this system seems to hold for Cayuga (Auburn), Onondaga (Syracuse),
and Broome (Binghamton) counties.

CORTLAND
County seat: Cortland - (607) 749, 753, 756 - NYTel

Can call (within county): Cincinnatus (607) 863, Truxton (607) 842,
  Marathon (607) 849, Virgil (607) 835 - Contel; McGraw (607) 836 -
  NYTel.

Can call (town just outside county, but exchange includes significant
  area within county) DeRuyter (315) 852, Dryden (607) 844 - Contel;
  Tully (315) 696 - NYTel.

Can call (entirely outside county, but town much closer to Cortland
  than to its own county seat): Sempronius (315) 496, McLean (607) 838,
  Groton (607) 898 - NYTel.  (Note that these are served by the same
  local loop provider as Cortland.)

Example town: Marathon, south of Cortland (exchange area includes a
  small rural corner of Broome county) - Contel

Can call: Cortland (607) 749, 753, 756, [adjacent within county] McGraw
  (607) 836 - NYTel; [adjacent within county] Cincinnatus (607) 863 -
  Contel.

Can NOT call the other adjacent exchanges: Dryden (Tompkins county)
  (607) 844, Richford (Tioga county) (607) 657, Whitney Point (Broome
  county) (607) 692.

TOMPKINS
County seat: Ithaca - (607) 253, 254, 255, [256 - disused], 257,
  272, 273, 274, 277 - NYTel

Can call (all within county): (607) 387 Trumansburg - Trumansburg
  Home Telephone Co.; Etna (607) 347, Dryden (607) 844, Slaterville
  Springs (607) [don't recall] - Contel;  Lansing (607) 533, Newfield
  (607) 564, McLean (607) 838, Groton (607) 898 - NYTel.  Can't call
  elsewhere locally.

Example: Groton, 15 mi. from Ithaca and 10 mi. from Cortland, all
  inside Tompkins county as far as I know.

Can call (within county) Ithaca (607) 2xx, McLean (607) 838.
  These are NYTel, as is Groton.

Can call (outside county) Cortland (607) 7xx - NYTel.

Can NOT call (adjacent within county) Etna (607) 347, Dryden (607)
  844 - Contel; Lansing (607) 533 - NYTel.

Can NOT call (adjacent outside county) Sempronius (315) 496, Moravia
  (607) 497 - NYTel.

So, I guess this all means that 1) the county seat exchange can call
within the county and some very nearby areas outside within its market
area; 2) rural exchanges can call the county seat, the market center,
and maybe one or two other towns close by, but not outside the county.

Hope this helps someone.  I'd like it if someone who *knows* would
post some hard stuff to end the discussion (yea, right :) ).

Peter Fleszar
BITnet     PODOP10@BINGVAXA
Internet   [e-mail]
Compu$...  72000,1471
Ham Radio  KB2CCL
Phone      [phone]
Mail-home  PO Box 32, McLean, NY 13102 USA.


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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 20 Mar 1990 12:08:22 EST
From: Jeff Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lopsided Local Calling Area

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Tamkin)
says:

>Jeff Wolfe wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 182:

>| from my house. To call them, I must dial 1-378-xxxx. But, to call Penn
>| State's Scranton Campus, where I attend school, I can simply dial
>| 961-xxxx.

>What's significant are not so much the boundaries of your seven-digit
>dialing area so much as those of your toll-free area.  If I were
>placing calls from Dalton, whether there were toll charges would be
>more important to me than whether I had to dial eight digits or seven.

    I guess I should have specified that any number with a '1' in
front is automatically a toll call in our area (except calls to the
telco itself).  I am indeed charged by the minute to call Lake Winola.
My Scranton service is untimed and unlimited. The 'local toll' (I'm
not up on teleco terms) rates are more expensive than AT&T's long
distance rates.. I would gladly dial 50 digits if I didn't have to pay
for a call that only went 7 miles!


  -- Jeff Wolfe
     [e-mail]               RelayNet node: Outer
     [e-mail]                BBS [phone] HST

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 09:32 EDT
From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Defective "Bell" phones


In TELECOM Digest #186, Brad Isley <[e-mail]> writes:

> This is no news to me.  My wife works for Southern Bell.  They had a
> "special" offer for employees several years back for som phones made
> by "Bell".  She bought a cordless phone through this offer for a huge
> discount.  Later we discovered why the discount was so large.  The
> batteries would typically last about 10 minutes.  Nice touch (brand
> new).  At most any time, though it only happened when we were asleep,
> it would emit an ear-piercing squeal that would wake us up from the
> other side of the house.

I don't know what model you have, but it's a Southwestern Bell Freedom
phone.  I purchased one recently, and it had the same two problems you
describe, but they were easy to remedy.  The problem with the battery
is typical of Ni-Cad rechargeables.  You have to discharge it
completely (leave the phone ON and set on TALK, with the base unit
disconnected, for a day or so), then recharge it completely (again for
a day or so, now with the base unit plugged in).

The squeal was a bit harder to figure out.  Of the four switches on
the remote unit, one is OFF/ON and another is STANDBY/TALK.  To use
the phone, you must turn it ON, then set it to TALK.  The other way
round doesn't work.  Conversely, when you end a conversation, you have
to set it to STANDBY, then turn it OFF if you want (the remote won't
ring if it's OFF).  If you do it the wrong way, just shutting the
phone OFF while leaving it on TALK, the base unit squeals at odd
intervals (it happened while I was awake, fortunately).  Maybe someone
with a bit of technical knowledge can tell us why.

I'm happy mine (model 1725), though the speaker phone in the base unit
is pretty lousy, and programming numbers into the phone is awkward to
do, and you can't program a # into a number, making it impossible to
have a single button to retrieve my voice mail at work.  I chose it
over AT&T's model because the base unit is wall mountable.  It's
widely available on sale for about $149.  In addition, SW Bell has a
toll-free number for information about the phone.  I called for a
manual and got one within a few days.

I expect my old 2500 set to outlast the Freedom Phone, but I don't
regret the purchase.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: 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 ::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #190
******************************

ISSUES 191 AND 192 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 192 COMES NEXT THEN 191
FOLLOWS.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04758;
          22 Mar 90 2:42 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18454;
          22 Mar 90 0:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32330;
          21 Mar 90 23:41 CST
Date:     Wed, 21 Mar 90 23:38:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #192
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 21 Mar 90 23:37:25 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 192

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Does a 900-number Make a Sweepstakes a Lottery? [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [Evelyn C. Leeper]
    Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf [Lyle Seaman]
    Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill [Lyle Seaman]
    Re: Phone Harassment [Gary Sarff]
    Re: White House Caller-ID [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance [Jon Baker]
    Re: Calling North America From Overseas [Tom Hofmann]
    Re: Information Wanted on CNA [Lyle Seaman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Tue Mar 20 16:51:41 1990
Subject: Re: Does a 900-number Make a Sweepstakes a Lottery?
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> :
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 182, Message 1 of 12

>I received one of those "you may have already won" calls on my voice
>mail at work the other day (in fact, so did everyone else in the
>office!) that told me that all I had to do to find out I was a winner
>was to ring up their 900 number and they'd be happy to enter me in the
>contest.  The call would cost me $10.

I got one of these on my cellular phone the other night on the way
back from a customer site.  Talk about sleazy!  There was absolutely
no way to identify the caller without calling the 900 number.  And I
had to pay airtime, too, 'cause I answered the call.  Gad, I was
steamed!

They were obviously power dialing the entire 216-389-xxxx cellular
exchange, and judging by the time, intentionally....

My friend in CO engineering at Mobilnet said they had no way to trace,
its just another incoming trunk call to them from Ohio Bell.

Cincinatti Bell is trying out cellular service where the caller pays
for the airtime on incoming calls (Yes, a 1+ is required) (Its
optional, BTW) Sounds pretty good to me...it would end this crap.

Hmmm.... No wonder Ohio Bell just petitioned the PUC to drop 976
service.  They don't want to be involved in this kind of crap.  I do
not like to espouse "there oughta be a law" very often, but this is
worse than junk fax.


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")


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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 13:05:50 EST
From: Evelyn C Leeper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees
Date: 20 Mar 90 18:05:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> >[Moderator's Note: The fallacy in your argument is that charging for a
> >phone call to reach the radio station lottery is violating rules
> >pertaining to contests. Contests which have you mail in a coupon or
> >ticket are not violating the law because the post office requires a stamp
> >on the envelope. Both the postage stamp and the telephone charge are
> >simply fees for transporting the message.  PT]

I missed the article that this was ttached to, but the original
article was asking about 900 numbers, the cost for which is different
from a "regular" call in that the "regular" call is being charged for
what the call itself (supposedly) costs, while the 900 number can
charge whatever it wants as a money-making proposition.


Evelyn C. Leeper  |  [phone]  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  [e-mail]
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing.
                      -Edmund Burke

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

From: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees
Date: 21 Mar 90 20:28:43 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


[Moderator's Note: My original comments deleted. See above message.  PT]

States like Missouri aside, isn't the important part WHO GETS THE
PAYMENT?  When you mail in a sweepstakes entry, none of the postage
goes to the contest operator, unless the USPS is running a
sweepstakes, which I've never heard of it doing.  Entering by a toll
call doesn't involve any payment to the sweepstakes operator unless a
phone company is running it, OR if the call is to a slime (976 or 900)
number.  (Note: slimeyness is in the billing method, not the subject
matter of the phone call)

In the case of a 976 or 900 number where the customer payment is
non-zero, it sure looks like a payment to the sweepstakes operator to
me, even if the payment just subsidizes the cost of the phone line,
and especially if it's more than that.

                        Gordon L. Burditt
                        sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: Lyle Seaman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For the Deaf
Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 22:39:09 GMT


[e-mail] (John Lockard) writes:

>     A prompter directs the sending party to type a message on the
>phone's dialing keypad.  The deaf person receives the message on the
>computer's screen and may then type a responce or send a prepared
>message, which reaches the receiving party as a synthesized voice.

>This caught me by suprise.  It seems that very few words, English or
>otherwise, would have the same sequnce of numbers.  (I'm assuming that
>they use 1 for Q, 0 for Z, * for a period, and # as a space.)

Well, maybe they use 77 for Q, 9999 for Z, 1 for space, * for period,
and # for end of letter.

44#33#555#555#666#15#666#44#66#1555#999#555#33#144#33#77#33#*
HELLO JOHN LYLE HERE

A lot of typing but workable.  If you wanted to call someone
deaf regularly, you might use one of these credit card sized
dialers with a bunch of standard strings keyed in...


Lyle                     sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From:
[e-mail]        (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws)  [phone]

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

From: Lyle Seaman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill
Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 21:09:38 GMT


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

>Entel director Maria Julia Alsogaray said, "People who cannot afford
>the new rates can give up their service, and share with someone else."
>Her comments, along with the increases outraged Argentines who live
>with substandard phone service to begin with.  The phones go dead when
>it rains, and even in nice weather it is difficult to get a dial tone
>or the right connection on the first try.

It seems that the US isn't the only place where the people think of
telephone service as a necessity.  As few as 10 years ago, I knew
several families that didn't have 'phone service, due to its expense.
(I've moved away, so I don't know the current status).  Several years
ago, when I was living alone, I did without a home phone without much
difficulty.  The GDTC wanted a $150 deposit just to install one.
Incidentally, I didn't have a TV or stereo, just a clock radio.
Amazing how much _productive_ stuff I got done.

So it seems to me that a response of outrage really isn't warranted.


Lyle                     sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From:
[e-mail]        (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws)  [phone]

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

From: Gary Sarff <wicat!meph![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Harassment
Date: 20 Mar 90 23:00:15 GMT
Reply-To: sarek![e-mail]
Organization: WICAT Systems Inc., Orem Utah


I have been wondering something for some time about tracing of phone
calls.  This may not be possible since it doesn't seem to be done,
but...

When one makes a toll-call, the information about the call shows up on
your bill.  So, some equipment somewhere is communicating with a
billing computer, and it seems to me that the billing informaation for
the calls you make are, by necessity, stored for some period of time,
up to the time of printing of your next bill.  This could be as much
as one month.

So, to find out where a call is coming from, say in the case of
harassment, or kidnapping ransom calls or some such thing, why can't
the billing records of telco's be searched?

If for example, you received a call, at 1pm in the afternoon, and say
given as a starting point, that it is believed to have originated from
the same state you are in, somewhere there could be (if it wasn't a
local no-charge call) a billing record on someone else's phone bill
with your number on it at a time of 1pm. Is this a jurisdictional
thing?  Technologically not feasible?  It seems that it would be
easier than trying to put a trace on a line at just the time needed to
catch someone and hoping that the caller stays on long enough to
complete the trace.


  signed, very curious.


[Moderator's Note: For that matter, in ESS offices, even local calls
are logged. Now and then to audit my bill I ask for a print out for
the past month of all calls charged as 'units'. You'd think something
similar to 'grep' could be used to scan a few million records in a
fairly short time looking for all instances of calls to a given
number. That's not to say they would always get an answer -- certainly
not from non-ESS offices -- but frequently they'd get a very good idea
of who was connected to whom, and when.   PT]

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: White House Caller-ID
Date: Wed Mar 21 12:27:18 1990
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]>
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 175, Message 8 of 9

>Jody Kravitz wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 169:

>| Jimmy Carter did a "call in show" one Saturday morning when he was in
>| the white house.  The number was a 900 number.  I had never heard of a
>| 900 number before.  I was curious then (and am now) if this was done
>| for "billing the caller", network congestion control, or caller-id.
>| Anyone care to comment ?

OK, OK, here's the story...
AT&T designated 900 as a "special services" area code in the mid-70's
All classes of CO's were to route the call the the nearest toll center
which then ticketed the call and sent it on the the Class 2's which
would then translate and forward the call.

In this case the 900 lines were used as choke exchanges thru the Class
2 and 3 offices (the end offices were not too smart back then).

The offical use was a test of "mass calling" and resulted in a
redesign of the 900 concept, both technically and marketing-wise.  The
700 and 600 area code designation came about as a result of this.

It should be noted that the local operating companies' management were
less than thrilled with this experiment, they thought it to be
disruptive.


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")


[Moderator's Note: What is the '600 area code designation'? What is it
for?  PT]

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Changing to MCI Long Distance
Date: 21 Mar 90 06:01:22 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Glenn M Cooley) writes:

> NETCO, my local TELCO, also does this (and who out there thinks
> they're squeaky clean?) and started charging me for added services
> (e.g. call waiting) which I never ordered. They insisted that I just
> must have said yes in such a call (or it just must have been my wife)
> because this service could not have been supplied otherwise. After
> further argument, they canceled the service and credited me the
> overcharges (do TELCOs hire people who see arguing as a fringe benefit
> or are they trained to never, never, never, give in before 20 minutes
> are up) still maintaining that this just could not happen and that
> mine was the only case they had ever encountered.

Also happened to me a few years back - my long distance service
suddenly changed to MCI, even though I had deliberately elected AT&T
as my carrier.  I called MCI about it, and they admitted to the
practice of calling US West and bogusly reporting that customers
wanted to change to MCI.  The Telco wouldn't argue, for legal reasons
and because they could charge for the switch.  (As it happens, this
was my first such switch, which was a freebie).

I convinced the MCI rep that I'd keep their service if they'd credit
me the $5 switch fee (which I wasn't actually charged) PLUS another $5
switch fee to switch back to AT&T if I didn't like MCI.  I used up my
$10 credit years ago, and have kept MCI since.  Moral : cheap
marketing tactic, but it worked.


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

From: Tom Hofmann <cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling North America From Overseas
Reply-To: Tom Hofmann <cgch![e-mail]>
Organization: CIBA-GEIGY AG, Basle, Switzerland
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 07:06:11 GMT


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

|I don't have their wallet-sized card, but here are the access numbers.

|Liechtenstein    04605-1800
|Switzerland    04605-2928    (local call charge applies)

|France        19 (wait for tone) 0590-1800
|Monaco        19 (wait for tone) 0590-2747

Strange that there are different numbers for Switzerland and
Liechtenstein (France and Monaco resp.)---they belong to the same
telephone system.  Are you sure about the access numbers?


Tom Hofmann        [e-mail]

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

From: Lyle Seaman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on CNA
Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms.
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 19:22:35 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: Customer Name and Address Bureau (or Service) is

 .... stuff deleted

>luck; they don't have it available on their terminals. As stated
>above, most telcos do not offer this service to the public.  Are there
>others besides Illinois Bell, which also does it for Central Tel on
>the northwest side?  PT]

Is there any legal restriction that prevents me from offering this
service myself?  It would be a simple matter to set up the database on
a computer from the data contained in a (publicly-available) telephone
directory.  But would there be any market?  How often does anyone need
to get a name/address given a phone number?


Lyle                      Wang             [e-mail]
508 967 2322         Lowell, MA, USA       uunet!comm.wang.com!lws


[Moderator's Note: There is no legal restriction whatsoever ... just
be sure not to copy in bulk from the phone book; it is copyrighted.
And don't copy in bulk from Haines Criss Cross or similar; they are
copyrighted also.  Both Haines and the telcos put 'ringers' in their
book; i.e. non-existent, phake, phalse entries. These are inserted
only for the purpose of finding them in print in *someone else's book*
later on, so they can sue them for copyright violations. Of course,
most telcos will sell you the right to copy their books for the
purpose you describe. Haines pays Ameritech BIG $$$$$$$$$$ annually
for the right to key-punch their directories in reverse order once
Ameritech compiles it.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #192
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04782;
          22 Mar 90 2:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18454;
          22 Mar 90 0:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32330;
          21 Mar 90 23:40 CST
Date:     Wed, 21 Mar 90 22:45:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #191
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 21 Mar 90 22:45:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 191

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Lyle Seaman]
    Re: Can This Be True? [Piet van Oostrum]
    Re: Can This Be True? [Michael Lyman]
    Re: New Sprint Bills [Linc Madison]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Gordon Letwin]
    Re: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Defective "Bell" Phones [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV [Gary Sarff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Tue Mar 20 16:03:39 1990
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10,
 Issue 179, Message 9 of 12

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

>>Is it illegal to have two modems tied up to each other so that a person could
>>call the one modem and bounce to another (3d) modem to avoid toll charges?

>I set one of these up once.  Trying to dial into our office switch and
>out again over an FX line didn't work because of degradation of the
>signal, so I hooked two modems back to back and created a
>"digipeater"!

Well, I do this routinely in several different ways:

First: Ncoast, my news feed and system I act as "fill in" sysop for,
is located in Cleveland.  I am in Medina 15 miles and an intra-lata
toll call away.  I call from home into our office system (fmsystm) in
Medina and call out on another modem, using one of our Cleveland FX's
at nite in order to access ncoast directly.  Defintiely legal.

Second: I can call our office PBX's Medina DISA line and use it to
tandem thru the PBX to the Cleveland lines, too.  We have a bit of
transmission degradation this way, but since I am supposed to know
about these things, I installed a two wire voice repeater on the DISA
line to solve this.  We also have an Akron line, and my wife uses this
all the time to call her parents in Akron.  (Saves me major bucks,
too!)

Third: We get a lot of calls from Akron.  There is an exchange (Sharon
Center) that overlaps local calling areas with Medina and Akron.  We
set up a Remote Call Forward line in Sharon Center targeting our
Medina number and use it often.  We even got the telco to set it up to
allow more that one call at a time (not often done).  Also quite
legal.  Result: we only need one FX for outbound calling to Akron, all
our incoming call from Akron come in on our local Medina trunks via
the Sharon RCF.

I see no difference between two modems strapped back to back and the
use of a PBX with DISA.

Patrick, our moderator, commented that he thought the economics of
such arrangments are marginal.  I disagree, these arrangments work
well for us, and by checking our SMDR records, we know they save us
much money.  It should be noted that all the lines involved are flat
rate local lines...measured (per minute) local lines might impact the
economics.  We have set up similar arrangments for customers with
metered Ohil Bell lines, with postive results.

Note: in telephone terminology metered and measured lines are not the
same.

   Measured: billed for usage by time.
   Metered: billed by call regardless of duration.

In Ohio Bell its $0.09/call Flat: billed at a flat rate (per month)
with no additional charge for usage.  We have all three types in Ohio,
depending on who the local telco is, and what type of line you get.
Lots of fun!


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")


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

From: Lyle Seaman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Tolls
Organization: Wang Labs, Platform Comms.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 23:03:35 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Elias) writes:

>According to a tariff writer for NE Tel, using call forwarding in
>order to avoid toll charges is explicitly illegal.  I don't know where
>such a law is listed.  Perhaps it is written into the tariffs
>somewhere.

If this is illegal, it's just another sign of what's wrong with our
government.  When I can use two services provided by a vendor,
completely consistently with their design, at a net savings to me,
then it's because the vendor is not pricing their services
consistently.

If this is really cheaper, then the vendor should just use this
technique to provide long-distance service.  If not, then it should be
priced appropriately.  Under no circumstances should the government
have to step in and persecute [sic] me for utilizing simple capitalist
and legitimate principals.  But instead, the vendor uses its lobbying
muscle to force the enactment of legal provisions supporting its non-
competitive practices... !

[dismount soapbox]

A while back, before divestiture (BD), there used to be a service that
would provide to subscribers, cheaper long-distance calling.  The way
it worked, I think, is they bought an 800 number from AT&T, then would
forward calls from subscribers to the desired goal.  So for instance,
if the 800 number terminated in Seattle, and I wanted to call my
mother in Seattle everyday, I would buy this service.  Now, what is
the difference between that, and linking two local areas (or cheap
areas) to avoid paying a higher cost?


Lyle                     sendmail.cf under construction, pardon the From:
[e-mail]        (or, uunet!comm.wang.com!lws)  [phone]

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can This Be True?
Date: 21 Mar 90 15:14:39 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


 `> I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told
 `> me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a
 `> paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance
 `> calls the same way instead of using calling cards.  I did not believe
 `> the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to
 `> complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds.

In the Netherlands, telephone billing is, as in most European
countries ``click-based''. You can have a counter at home to see how
many clicks you have used. The telephone company then sends a puls
over your line for each click. This pulse is between one of the signal
wires and ground. This pulse is also used for payphones, to deduct the
money from your deposit (on older payphones the click would cause the
phone to swallow one coin). Some people found out a few years ago that
you could disable the counting by grounding the microphone (just
opening the moutpiece). Apparently the phone company changed all pay
phones when they found out.


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!ruuinf!piet  Telefax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail] (*`Pete')

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

From: Michael Lyman <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can This Be True?
Date: 21 Mar 90 18:22:49 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Tom Talpey) writes:


>> I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told
>> me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a
>> paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance
>> calls the same way instead of using calling cards.  I did not believe
>> the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to
>> complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds.

    Back in the "olden days" a cassette recorder and a payphone
was all that was required for long distance chicanery ( plus a pocket
full of spare change ). It was a simple scheme: deposit a dime, or any
coin that would render dialtone (for kicks the method above was also
used ), dial a digit thus getting rid of the dial tone. Now it got
technical .... the cassette recorder microphone was held against the
earpiece and while the recorder ran, coins (usually dimes or quarters
) were slowly but methodically deposited into the phone, recording the
"ding-ding" as the coins dropped.

When all the coins were deposited, the payphone was hung up. There was
a time-out associated with the no-dial condition so the perpetrator
had to be careful not to exceed this timeout, and above all, the whole
operation had to be *quiet* in order to make a quality recording.  The
stage was now set!

Someone would dial "0" and ask the operator to place a long distance
call. The operator would ask to deposit $XX in coins for the first
three minutes. At this point the recorder (which has been requeued to
the begining) was held up to the telephone mouthpiece and the sound of
the coins dropping was played back for the operator. When the required
amount of $XX was reached, the recorder was stopped and the operator
said "thenk-yew" and three minutes of conversation usually to a random
number took place.

    I'm still not sure if it was the operator that had to listen
for the chimes that the coins made or the recorder faked out some
on-line equipment, but it was Iowa, it was the '60's and it provided
no end of paranoia to the little burr-heads on the block that the
phone police might one day be calling.

Just another story....


-M.L.


[Moderator's Note: In those days, the only way for the operator to
verify your deposit was to listen for the 'ding' of the nickle, the
'ding-ding' of the dime, and the 'bong' of the quarter, as each went
down the chute and caused a little metal arm inside to hit the bell.
We also found in the early days of ESS that pressing the three and six
keys at the same time created a pitch that 'sounded like a nickle' to
the operator when a manual collection was required (usually when for
some reason the equipment failed to capture the number being called
and the operator had to bubble it in herself.)  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 19:59:58 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Sprint Bills
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Ken Jongsma writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 182, Message 9 of 12

>I just received by monthly residential Sprint bill. They've done a
>pretty impressive redesign. Consider the following:

 ... page 2:  Fon Manager    .. .Tax breakdown by government unit.

Verrry useful -- I discovered that my municipal utility tax is being
illegally applied to *all* my calls, instead of only in-state.  Sprint
is investigating.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Date: 20 Mar 90 19:10:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Glenn M Cooley) writes:

> >Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I
> >believe his/her mother was choking).  The child was panicked and
> >couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment.

> I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my
> hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario
> than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the
> phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install
> under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.)

But that's not the only scenario where 911 ANI is extremely useful.

1. A person manages to dial 911, and loses consciousness (or is
interrupted by a blunt object) part way through the call.

2. A person hears a burglar in the next room, dials 911, and is afraid
to speak loud enough to be clearly heard.

3. A person who isn't sure of the address of where they are because
they were taken there against their will, or were too loaded to know
where they are.

4. The case alluded to above, involving a panicked or small child,
though, is probably a common one, and very worthwhile.


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
No matter what other nations may say about the United States,
immigration is still the sincerest form of flattery.
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon LETWIN)
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Date: 22 Mar 90 02:31:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Barts) writes:
> Monday (12 March) an article appeared in the [Seattle Times] about the
> impact of PBX's on Enhanced 911.

> Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I
> believe his/her mother was choking).

The actual story was that the mother had the flu and felt "short of
breath".  Presumably she had the kid call 911.

So folks, don't wait for an emergency, if you get a splinter in your
finger, call 911!  After all, they won't charge *you*, and you'll get
all that free attention!  Heck, it's more fun then watching soap
operas.

    Gordon Letwin


[Moderator's Note: Far be it from me to promote the abuse of 911, and
in fact I teach that 911 should only be used in dire emergency, when
intervention by the police, fire or medical personnel is needed
immediatly. But let's not second-guess what 'shortness of breath' means.
In Chicago not long ago, a grandmother had a heart attack; her five year
old grandson called 911 to report 'gramma is breathing funny'.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 09:14:52 -0800
From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail] (woody) writes:

>Any examples of state-wide 911 yet?

I think that California has state-wide 911 (probably with the
exception of a couple of sites in Pinnacles :-) ).  Did you mean 911
coverage state-wide (i.e. I can dial 911 anywhere and get help) or a
central 911 dispatch center that serves an entire state (not very
likely in a large state)?


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 21 Mar 1990 08:03:22 EST
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Defective "Bell" phones


As with all phones that depend on household electrical power, this
should _not_ be your one and only phone available to you in an
emergency.

Interestingly enough, some vendors of these phones put this kind of
warning in their instructions, and some do not.


Peter M. Weiss                   |  (this line intentionally left blank)
31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | advertize here, reach Mega populi
University Park, PA USA 16802    | Disclaimer :1 * applies herein

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

From: Gary Sarff <wicat!meph![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Feed over Cable TV
Date: 21 Mar 90 00:02:45 GMT
Reply-To: sarek![e-mail]
Organization: WICAT Systems Inc., Orem Utah


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

>You know somebody has a 9600 baud Usenet feed on a SCPC channel on a
>couple of satellites? I'm still trying to get more info about that.

I have been hearing this for about the past two years, and have not been
able to find out anything definitive either.  Maybe I'm not looking in
the right place?  Anyone have any real information about this?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #191
******************************

ISSUES 191 AND 192 REVERSED IN MAILING. ISSUES RUN 190-192-191-193.












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07357;
          22 Mar 90 3:45 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22244;
          22 Mar 90 1:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18454;
          22 Mar 90 0:48 CST
Date:     Thu, 22 Mar 90 0:33:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #193
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 22 Mar 90 00:33:05 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 193

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Legion of Doom Rebuttal to Moderator [Gene Spafford]
    Re: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? [Bernard Rupe]
    Re: Odd Stuff at MCI [Rob Gutierrez]
    Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears [Steve Elias]
    Privacy in Printout [Leonard P. Levine]
    Want Info on Panasonic PBXs [Andrew Payne]
    Why Are In-State Calls So Expensive? [Andrew Payne]
    Telco Interface Guidelines Sought [Ray Berry]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Legion of Doom Rebuttal to Moderator
Date: 21 Mar 90 16:14:05 GMT
Reply-To: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


Let me point out that the investigation that resulted in the four
indictements of the LoD folks has also included a number of other
indictments and arrests.  All of this APPEARS to be one large-scale
investigation into a pattern of repeated collaboration for purposes of
illegal activity (in legal terms, criminal conspiracy).  The
information I have available from various sources indicates that the
investigation is continuing, others are likely to be charged, and
there MAY be some national security aspects to parts of the
investigation that have yet to be disclosed.

Now maybe there are one or two people on the law enforcement side who
are a little over-zealous (but not the few I talk with on a regular
basis).  For someone to be indicted requires that sufficient evidence
be collected to convince a grand jury -- a group of 23 (24?  I forget
exactly) average people -- that the evidence shows a high probability
that the crimes were committed.  Search warrants require probable
cause and the action of judges who will not sign imprecise and poorly
targeted warrants.  Material seized under warrant can be forced to be
returned by legal action if the grounds for the warrant are shown to
be false, so the people who lost things have legal remedy if they are
innocent.

The system has a lot of checks on it, and it requires convincing a lot
of people along the way that there is significant evidence to take the
next step.  If these guys were alleged mafioso instead of electronic
terrorists, would you still be claiming it was a witch hunt?
Conspiracy, fraud, theft, violations of the computer fraud and abuse
act, maybe the ECPA, possesion of unauthorized access codes, et. al.
are not to be taken lightly, and not to be dismissed as some
"vendetta" by law enforcement.

Realize that the Feds involved are prohibited from disclosing elements
of their evidence and investigation precisely to protect the rights of
the defendants.  If you base your perceptions of this whole mess on
just what has been rumored and reported by those close to the
defendants (or from potential defendants), then you are going to get a
very biased, inaccurate picture of the situation.  Only after the
whole mess comes to trial will we all be able to get a more complete
picture, and then some people may be surprised at the scope and nature
of what is involved.


Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet:  [e-mail]    uucp:    ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf

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

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 13:57:07 CST
From: Bernard Rupe <motcid!ivory![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call?
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

>L.J.Dickey ([e-mail]) writes:
>>  The phone company can install a device that will, on command,
>>  "lock in" the caller, so that, even after the caller hangs up,
>>  the phones are still connected.

>  ... I'd conjecture that the
>device exists, but only for some types of switch.  Would I be right?

A feature that performs this exact function is called Malicious Call
Hold.  It is available to 911 systems, but can also be assigned to
someone who is getting repeated "malicious" calls.  The feature, when
activated, will hold up the connection to the calling telephone line
(if it's off of the same switch) or, if not, it will hold up the
incoming trunk.  This is really the limitation of the feature -- it
cannot hold up a line from outside the Central Office.

A feature such as Customer Originated Trace (CLASS), seems overall
more useful.  Also, I don't believe any equiptment is needed on the
customer premesis.  The feature is available with the DMS-100 (NTI)
and, I think, also with the 5ESS (AT&T).


Bernie Rupe                               1501 W. Shure Drive
Motorola, Inc.                                Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Cellular Infrastructure Division          708 632-2814
 ...!uunet!motcid!rupeb

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

From: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Odd Stuff at MCI
Date: 22 Mar 90 04:19:40 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet Network Operations


isis!isis.UUCP![e-mail] (Ted Koppel) writes:

> I was trying to make a call this morning (Denver --> San Jose) on MCI
> from home.  Got an intercept that said my call can't be completed at
> this time - for further information call 1-800-888-1800.

> Tried, of course, calling the 800-888-1800, but line was consistently
> busy, so eventually I went to work.

> Called MCI tonight to ask if they were having network problems this
> morning, but the (low-level) clerk I spoke to of course didn't know
> anything.

> 1 - was MCI not working to the West Coast today, or did I have a
> fluke?

I can't get ahold of any of my friends at MCI. Denver is served by a
switch called Denver Junction ("DNJ"), which is a DEX-600. Not as fast
as the old swich Denver was mostly served by (a DMS-250). But, you did
get one of the default recordings, so the FGD's to MCI were obviously
OK, and the switch itself was working at least.

Now, San Jose is a different story. It's a real old Wescom switch, and
it did work fine, though it tended to choke out once in a while.

But you dialed the trouble number (888-1800) and it was busy. The
trouble number has a minimum of two T-1's serving it (48 trunks), and
if you were getting busies, then it was major outage time.

> 2 - what is the point of dialing the 1-800-888-1800 number; what
> information might they have told me if it hadn't been busy?

Nothing. The numbers just go right into residental customer service,
and you're lucky if you can get two out of three rate quotes right.
Anyway, surprise them and if you get though the next time, ask them to
look at the 'bulletin board' (actually a TV monitor) and ask if
there's any 'red flashes' or 'red alerts'. The monitors display three
alerts at any given time, and are color coded (White = Non-service
affecting, Blue = Service affecting, Red = Major Outage) ... if the
monitors are working.  The problem is the monitors are updated from
Hayward (California), and if there's a cable cut, the data lines for
them are cut too.

Ja ne.   Robert Gutierrez/NSIPO Network Operations/NASA Ames Research.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 08:37:10 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


To all of you who think that it is not possible to have ear discomfort
as a result of the telephone -- you obviously never been on the line
when my Mum is talking.  The pain can be quite real if we're on
extensions in the same house...  Even on a long distance call, 116 db
of my Mum's voice seems to get through somehow (with US Sprint, of
course.)  Who needs speakerphones when you've got 116 db blasting out
of the headset? :)


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

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privacy in Printout
Date: 20 Mar 90 22:12:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Is TDD printed output Information or just paper?

 From the [Milwaukee Journal], 3/18/90.

A piece of TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) output was
pried from the clenched fist of a deaf man, resulting in a life prison
sentence for murder, according to an appeal being considered by the
Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The questions created by this case include: Was the paper obtained
illegally? Is the TDD output to be considered public information or as
private as a phone conversation?  Since the TDD was in the sheriff's
department office in Pierce County, Wisconsin, the paper is police
property.  Is the information written on it during normal use also
police property?

The facts of the case: Robert Rewolinski was picked up on a traffic
charge in June 1987.  He used the TDD in the sheriff's office to call
his common law wife, Catherine Teeters, for a ride home.  During the
TDD conversation Teeters told Rewolinski "I am scared like hell you
will do something to me or the kids.  I don't want the kids to have
short lives or hurt... I can't stand you anymore... You must
understand that I don't want you and I don't love you."

Three hours later the sheriff's TDD received a call with the message
"Robert Rewolinski here.  Lost my mind.  Cathy's dead."  The TDD
printout of the earlier conversation was considered the critical
evidence in convicting him of first degree murder rather than
manslaughter.  The prosecution contends that the deputy was simply
retaining custody and control of police property.  She could not have
been looking for evidence of a crime since no crime had yet been
committed.  The defense contends Rewolinski deserves a new trial
because the printout should not have been taken or used as evidence.

It is clear that the paper belonged to the sheriff.  Did the
information on it belong to them too?  The police do not monitor phone
conversations in such circumstances, how about TDD communication?

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| 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: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Want Info on Panasonic PBXs
Date: 21 Mar 90 01:44:17 GMT
Reply-To: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


    I caught the tail end of the discussion a few weeks ago: I'm
looking for info on the Panasonic PBX (KX------?) that will use plain
old telephones as extensions.

    I'm interested in:

    - the model number(s)
    - summary of features
    - price range
    - supplier
    - someone to contact for more info

    Any info appreciated.


=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =
Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI        UUCP:  ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne
                          INTERNET:  [e-mail]

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

From: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Are In-State Calls So Expensive?
Date: 21 Mar 90 02:11:50 GMT
Reply-To: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


    I hope this subject hasn't been beaten to death before, but
why are in-state calls SO expensive?

    I got my last phone bill and it had a charge for a 15 minute
in-state call (AT&T, daytime rates) for over $7!  That's more than 40
cents a minute which is far more than the highest mileage rate
(4251-5750 miles) listed on my AT&T rate schedule.  And my state (West
Virginia), isn't even a big state.

    I called AT&T and the person I spoke to had no idea why
in-state calls are so expensive.  A Sprint salesperson said it was due
to "state taxes".  MCI was even less helpful.  A person from AT&T
called to see if everything was ok with my service and I told him
about the in-state rates.  He didn't even know in-state calls were
charged at a different rate!

    I guess my questions are:

- Why are in-state calls so expensive?

- Do the in-state rates vary from state to state?

    I'd guess they would.

- Why does the issue seem to get swept under the carpet?

    None of the people at the various long-distance companies
seemed very educated about the matter.  I asked AT&T for their
in-state rates and they sent me their standard rate schedule.  It has
a footnote: "Add 3% Federal excise tax and applicable state surcharges
to all prices in this brochure."  Their Reach Out America plan
includes "a full hour of weekend/night calls to __anywhere__ [emphasis
mine, of course] in the country..."  After calling, I found that AT&T
seems to define anywhere as anywhere but West Virginia.

- How long will this rate structure continue to be reasonable?

    I realize states have the power to govern and regulate all
trade within their borders, but with networks criss-crossing the
country, it is reasonable to expect an in-state call to be carried on
out-of-state networks.  I know for a fact that my in-state call in
question is carried almost entirely out of the state of West Virginia.

- Is there any way to get around this?

    My parents live less than 5 miles from another state
(Maryland).  I live less than 15 miles from other states (Ohio &
Pennsylvania).  Both of us have out-of-state exchanges in our local
calling areas.  Its almost worth it for me to get a phone in Maryland
with call forwarding, put some sort of box on it so I can set the call
forward remotely, and use that setup to make in-state calls.

    I am puzzled.  Comments appreciated.

=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =
Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI        UUCP:  ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne
                          INTERNET:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Intra-state rates are generally higher because Bell
is more successful at getting their way with local regulators in most
cases.  Over the years, chances are likely your local state utility
commissioners have gotten friendly -- real friendly -- with the folks
on the board of the local telco. Of the fifty plus Reach Out Plans
offered by AT&T (Reach Out America; Reach Out <state name>; etc., a
few, such as Reach Out Illinois offer an 'interstate transparency'
deal.  For instance, I get intrastate Illinois calls in my plan; but
technically I don't subscribe to Reach Out America; I subscribe to
Reach Out Illinois, and I pay 85 cents per month for the 'interstate
option'. Not all state regulators have okayed this neat little
addition.  And let me tell you, Reach Out is no big deal if you live
in the central part of the United States: my most expensive nighttime
calls would only be about 13-14 cents per minute anyway! Its a good
deal for folks on either coast who tend to call the opposite coast, or
to Alaska/Hawaii a lot, etc.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 17:00:28 PST
From: Ray Berry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco Interface Guidelines Sought


    I've accepted a short job (re)designing a consumer oriented
appli- ance that connects directly to the PSTN.  (== 'public switched
telephone network' ??).  Although I'm comfortable with general
engineering topics, I do not have previous experience interfacing to
the telco lines.  Can anyone recommend a succinct and practical
introduction outlining the 'rules' which must be followed?  I have
acquired a copy of RS-496 and done a first pass through it.  Great
reading, but I suspect it's a bit of overkill for what I'm doing.  Any
pointers/references etc will be appreciated.


Ray Berry  kb7ht  uucp: ...ole!ray CIS: 73407,3152 /* "inquire within" */
Seattle Silicon Corp. 3075 112th Ave NE. Bellevue WA 98004 [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #193
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09780;
          22 Mar 90 4:38 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14241;
          22 Mar 90 2:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag22244;
          22 Mar 90 1:55 CST
Date:     Thu, 22 Mar 90 1:26:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #194
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 22 Mar 90 01:25:17 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 194

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ain't Progress Wunnerful? [Paul Fuqua]
    CID on System 85 and More on Cellular Itemized Billing [Jeff Wasilko]
    Bell Canada's New and Exciting ALEX Service [Richard Snider]
    New Brunswick Gets Caller ID, CCS7, CMS, etc [David Leibold]
    Need Advice on Background Noise Problem [Roger Clark Swann]
    Cellular License Lottery [Gregory M. Paris]
    Vegas Gets CLASS [Ken Jongsma]
    Rochester Tel Enters Kansas [Lee C. Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90  14:52:18 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ain't Progress Wunnerful?


     Texas Instruments in Dallas is in the process of junking its
aging Centrex service in favor of some Northern Telecom device (I
think a DMS-100), with NT Meridian phones, purveyed by GTE.

     Frankly, I'm not sure what TI is getting out of the deal.  The
system has the same old features (forward on busy/no-answer, hold,
transfer, 3-way, etc), just with individual buttons.  There's the
expense of new phones, new wiring, and training for all users.
There's the hassle that standard answering machines, modems, and the
like won't work with this system.  There's the apparently gratuitous
change from 4-digit to 5-digit extension dialing (we can only get to
the one exchange, so why have 5 digits?).

     In addition to all the changeover annoyance, the new system has a
real human-factors botch: no tones are generated at the phone when
dialing.  Tones are generated after the call connects, but only for a
fixed, short duration, so any remote device that needs long tones
(like many answering machines) is difficult or impossible to access.
How could Northern Telecom let such a stupid mistake out the door?

     The most telling comment may be from the GTE lady running the
phone class.  It seems that they have the same system in their office,
with the same difficulty in checking remote answering machines.  Their
solution: their Fax machine is on an outside line, so they go over and
use its phone.

     I do not have much hope that the problem will be resolved.


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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 23:26:28 EST
From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: CID on System 85 and More on Cellular Itemized Billing


Our phone system here at RIT is a System 85. Some of the digital phone
sets (like our receptionist's) have an LED panel that displays both
the calling party's name and extension and the called party's name and
extension. If the calling part is from off campus, the display shows
'D I D'.

Is this implemented in a similar way to CID or is this just particular
to the System 85? Can this be interfaced to the outside world (with
CID info passing both ways)?

Since I work part time at Albany Telephone/Cellular One, I thought I'd
throw some more useless trivia about itemized billing.

ATC customers get itemized LD charges for free, and pay $2.00/month
for itemized airtime billing. Calls can be sorted chronologically or
by number.

Customers who are on the Bulk/Centralized billing plans get itemized
biiling free.

Buffalo Telephone/Cellular One customers pay $1.00/month and a penny a
line item for airtime.

If there's any interest, I can gather some background info on Roam
America, a program similar to the Follow-Me Roaming program on the
wireline systems.

Roam America offers both automatic forwarding to the service area
customers are roaming in and caller notification. Caller notification
provides customer's callers with precise dialing instructions to reach
roamers using an automated voice response system. Caller notification
is offered in all but about 20-30 of the non-wireline cities.


Jeff

| RIT VAX/VMS Systems: |     Jeff Wasilko     |     RIT Ultrix Systems:     |
|BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:[e-mail]|
|UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:[e-mail]____+
|INTERNET: [e-mail]                |'claimer: No one cares.      |

[Moderator's Note: Yes please, send an article about Roam America.  PT]

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

Subject: Bell Canada's New and Exciting ALEX Service
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 21:59:58 EST
From: Richard Snider <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: rsnider@xrtll
Organization: ISOTECH Computer Industries, Toronto, Canada


After reading the posting about Bell Canada's ALEX system and
recovering from the laughing fit that my boss and I had I decided to
tell what I know about it.

So here I sit staring at white on black letters on a 6 inch tall
screen with my noseprints on it.  Yes, I am staring into an "Official"
Bell Canada issue ALEX terminal.  The company I work for (Not the one
on the Org. line in this message) is planning on being a service
provider in the Toronto area when Bell here starts it up.  I suppose I
am the techie that will have to worry about how it is supposed to
work.

Let me tell you about it...  The media hype session that was described
bears no resemblance to what this thing is supposed to do (There isn't
even a joystick or mouse provided with the terminal :-(.  The idea is
to clone the "Minitel" system that is in use in France and artfully
reap the same sort of profits that they do over there.  Bell Canada
decided that they should go one better than a text only system and
decided that they will support graphics as well using the NAPLPS
protocol.

These terminals run at 1200 baud feature a bothersome "Chicklet" type
keyboard that would remind many of the original PET computers.  The
drawing rate (Not considering the data transmission rate) would not
support refreshing the screen for any sort of animation unless you are
prepared to wait about 10sec or more per page.  You can get versions
of the terminal emulator for your favorite flavour of PC as well if
you wish.

Its not all bad however, they have had for some period of time
(months) run a successful trial of the system in Montreal with
services such as:

 - Message boards and chat lines (The most popular of course)
 - Games (two player or more + against the machine)
 - All sorts of self improvement services (educational, health, sex)
 - Typical information (Weather, local travel, airline flights, etc)
 - Services (Do it yourself law, banking, accounting, taxes)

Actually only recently they introduced a shop at home services and the
like (without pictures of the products, or panning shots of the
grocery store).  As far as I know (haven't checked this month) there
are no banks on line.

It is fairly apparent that most of the services provided are along the
message board and chat lines as a cheaper (or not) alternative to the
976 services offered for the same reasons.  Lately they circulated a
letter to all service providers (or would be ones) regarding the use
of "Animators" on chat lines or message boards available who would
talk to users as if they were another user.  The remainder of the
letter goes on to describe how one user talked for $32 worth of time
to someone they thought was another user and tried to arrange to meet
them.  Obviously they wouldn't and then when the user found out that
this person worked for the service provider he hit the roof and phoned
up the company and caused a few heads to roll.

I guess we will have to see how this goes in Toronto.  If anyone is
more interested I will be glad to describe whatever I can about it.


                        Richard Snider

I disclaim everything, but did I claim anything ?

Where: ..uunet!mnetor!yunexus!xrtll!rsnider    Also:  [e-mail]
An unbreakable tool is useful for breaking other tools.

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

Subject: New Brunswick gets Caller ID, CCS7, CMS, etc
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 22:43:07 EST
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


[The following is from PunterNet's telco conference...]

 Msg #  : 107 of 110 - Ref 95/139
 From   : BERNIE WILCOX
 To     : SYSTEMS OPERATORS
 Posted : 2125h on 16-Mar-90 * CONF 130
 Subject: NBTel Offers New Services

 From: NBTel News - No.1 Vol 21.
 -------------------------------

  Some NBTel customers will have the opportunity to use their
telephone service in a new way, beginining the first of March.

  The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
(CRTC) has approved NBTel's request to offer Call Management Services
(CMS) in the Rothesay, Hampton, Norton and Springfield exchange areas.

  NBTel will be among the first telephone companies in Canada to
provide the Call Trace, Call Return and Call Display features.

  Through Call Management Services residence and single-line business
customers will be able to identify callers before answering the phone,
return the calls they missed or were unable to answer and initiate
traces on malicious calls.

  "With these features, customers will, for the first time, have
control over their incoming calls," said Brian Reid,executive general
manager of customer services for NBTel. "And, these services represent
just the tip of the iceberg in a whole new generation of home
information services that will be available in the 1990s."

  NBTel plans to expand Call Management Services over the next
two-to-three years to those communities in the province that are
served by digital switching equipment.

Info contact:

Martha Edwards, Editor
NBTel NEWS
Information and Public Affairs Section
P.O. Box 1430, Saint John, N.B.
E2L 4K2

  *Foggy Town Bulletin Board*
  - Saint John, N.B  *  Node 95
  Msg #  : 108 of 110 - Ref 95/140
  From   : PIERO ROCCA
  To     : DAVE LEIBOLD
  Posted : 1737h on 16-Mar-90 * CONF 130
  Subject: NBTel has had CMS for 1 month

Guess what:  New Brunswick Telephone has had caller I.D. now for about a
month.  Not bad for the Maritimes.

  Piero Rocca
  Lakers #1 Oilers Rule!

*Foggy Town Bulletin Board*
 - Saint John, N.B  *  Node 95

End of Msg 108


[Posters note: Bell Canada tried the service for experiment in
Peterborough Ontario a few years back. Given that the New Brunswick
communities involved in the CMS (Caller ID, etc) project are not major
centres in that province, it is likely something of a trial project to
work out bugs and that before it gets inflicted on more sizable
centres like Moncton, Fredericton, St John, etc.]


  || David Leibold      "Art is anything you can get away with"
  || [e-mail]               - Marshall McLuhan"

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Need Advice on Background Noise Problem
Date: 20 Mar 90 18:22:59 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA


I need some advice with a small phone problem here. I am working in a
noisy lab area where it is sometimes very hard to talk on the phone.
The set is of the 2500 flavor, and the problem is that the mic is
picking up the noise such that the incoming voices are covered and the
remote parties are also getting excessive noise, making it hard for
them to hear as well.

I remember that there used to be noise canceling mics that would fit
on a 500/2500 handset. So, I looked through my ATT equipment catalog
and found this item called a 'Very High Noise Confidencer', #31050-12
@ $37. There are no details as to what handsets this will connect to
or how it even works. Is it a replacement mic element or an electronic
box that inserts in the handset cord or something else?  There was no
picture as it was listed next to the handsets under accessories.

Anyone have further info on this other similar items? Anyone have
additional ideas that might help?  Note that an amplifier handset
probably wouldn't do much but amplify the noise and make things worse,
since the local noise is obviously getting into the voice circuit and
interfering with things at both ends.


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


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

From: "Gregory M. Paris" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular License Lottery
Date: 21 Mar 90 00:50:52 GMT
Reply-To: Greg Paris <[e-mail]>
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division


On Monday (3/19), I got a chance to talk briefly with one of the
technicians at Metro Mobile cellular in Providence, RI while they
changed my service from NYNEX Mobile Communications to them (I didn't
like the quintupling of my monthly service charge that NYNEX
implemented without warning).

Of interest to me was why neither Metro Mobile nor NYNEX claim
Aquidneck Island (the "Rhode Island" in Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations) as part of their respective service areas.  I was told
that the FCC allocated a license for this area only just late last
year.  Further, that the FCC's procedure is to hold a lottery for the
license and sell (right word?) it to the lucky winner.  In this case,
as apparently often happens, the license went to neither of the
carriers in this area (unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the
winner).  So far, that company has not announced plans as to what
they'll do with the license -- use it (unlikely), or sell it for many
times what they paid for it.

I don't understand two aspects of this process.  First, why not
allocate the license for the area right off?  (I'd have appreciated
that.)  Second, what purpose does it serve to have a third party gain
the license and make a quick but seemingly undeserved profit from it?

One other thing the techs mentioned, which they debated amongst
themselves, was whether the Wampanaog (I'm sure I spelled that
incorrectly) Indians were successful in gaining the cell license for
the Cape Cod, Massachusetts area.  From what they said, the tribe
claimed the license under their existing treaty rights.  Anyone
know more about this?


Greg Paris <[e-mail]>
           {uiucdcs,uunet}!rayssd!gmp

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

Subject: Vegas Gets CLASS
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 7:39:03 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Centel is scheduled to offer all CLASS features, including CLID to its
Vegas area residents if the Nevada PUC approves. They plan on offering
it with the optional selective blocking feature. They will be selling
integrated display telephones for $140, external displays for $60 and
renting the external displays for $4/month.

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

Date: 21 Mar 90 09:56:42 PST (Wednesday)
Subject: Rochester Tel Enters Kansas
From: [e-mail]


 From the [Rochester (NY) Times-Union]:

Rochester Tel Enters Kansas

Continuing its whirlwind acquisitions, Rochester Telephone Corp. plans
to purchase S & A Telephone Co. of Allen, Kansas.

Today's announcement signals Rochester Tel's entry into a third new
state within the past month, following deals for properties in Iowa
and Alabama.

The company said it signed a letter of intent to buy S & A from Arthur
D.  Biggs, president, and his family for stock, but did not disclose
the amount.

S & A serves about 800 access lines in a territory 30 miles southwest
of Topeka.  Through an associated company called ADB, S & A has a 13
percent interest in the Topeka cellular-telephone area - "an important
consideration in our purchase," said David C. Mitchell, president of
Rochester Tel's Telephone Group.

"S & A will be a our 16th midwestern property, most of them acquired
within the past year," Mitchell said.  "We will continue to look at
other companies in Kansas and the midwestern region."

The purchase is subject to approval of regulatory agencies and
Rochester Tel's directors.

Biggs said S & A customers will benefit from affiliation with
Rochester Tel.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #194
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12365;
          23 Mar 90 5:02 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07112;
          23 Mar 90 2:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03493;
          23 Mar 90 1:12 CST
Date:     Fri, 23 Mar 90 0:38:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #195
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Mar 90 00:37:01 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 195

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New 1-900 Number [David Barts]
    FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    Call Answer [James Van Houten]
    Need Areacode + Exchange ==> City/State Translation [John L. Shelton]
    New AT&T Rate Plan [Ken Jongsma]
    CID Box Info Wanted [Ronald L. Fletcher]
    Special Issue This Weekend: 900 Comparisons [TELECOM Moderator]
    Canadian Prefix vrs. Location Charts] [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Defective "Bell" phones [Brad Isley]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Patricia R. White]
    Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Update on the Southwestern Bell vrs. BBS Situation [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Bell Canada's New and Exciting ALEX Service [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Mark Solsman]
    Bellcore NUA PC [Gordon Meyer]
    Re: Cellular License Lottery [Scott Fybush]
    NYC Local Service [Carl Moore]
    Re: Can This be True? [David Schanen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 90 22:40:48 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: New 1-900 Number


This is an excerpt from an article posted to rec.radio.shortwave:

> From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)

> pinched from the [New York Times]:

> . . . Additionally, nine-minute BBC world newscasts will be available
> starting Thursday by calling a toll telephone number, [phone].

> "So if you are really crazy about world news, you can dial in for
> under $1 a minute and hear an up-to-the-minute world newscast," Tusa
> said. "The most recent bulletins won't ever be more than 51 minutes
> old.". . .

No mention on exact charges, but if I found myself on a trip sans
portable shortwave radio and a major incident was developing, I'd use
it.

It might be easier to remember the number as 900-988-4BBC.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb


[Moderator's Note: And of course Henry Mensch, who wrote the article
quoted is a long-time Digest contributor also.    PT]

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

From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 11:57:37 PST


> Have you heard that the FBI is investigating SPRINT for using
> industrial espionage to obtain information from Martin-Marietta and
> MCI to help win the FTS-2000 contract?

Could we please get a source on this?

(Have you heard that they have spotted B-52 bombers on Mars?  ;-)

[Moderator's Note: Perhaps Mr. Scott, who posted the original note on
this will write again, with more details.   PT]

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

Date: 21 Mar 90 07:40:56 EST
From: James Van Houten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer Call Service


There is a new service available from C&P Telephone (Bell Atlantic)
called Answer Call.  It is basically voice mail that will answer your
calls if you don't.  The interesing thing about Answer Call is that
when you want to retrieve your messages you have to call a (301)
277-XXXX.  This access number is the same for everybody with Answer
Call.  Is this a feature assoc. with CLASS at all??


James Van Houten
[phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 15:54:15 PST
From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Areacode + Exchange ==> City/State Translation


Anyone know where I can get this info on line?

=John=

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

Subject: New AT&T Rate Plan
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 7:34:33 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


AT&T is offering a new billing plan called Select Saver. For $1.90 per
month, subscribers will be able to make calls to a specified area code
at a reduced rate from AT&Ts normal rates.

Per minute prices for calls to the selected area code are as follows:
Day: .20/min Night/Weekend: .12/min.

Customers will also get a 5% discount on all other interstate calls.

Customers can sign up now for the plan. It wasn't clear if multiple
areacodes could be ordered.


[Moderator's Note: This new service seems to be reviving the old 'Pick
a Point' service some telcos used to offer. Yes, you can select more
than one area code at $1.90 each, but if you pick more than two or
three you might as well sign up for Reach Out America with the five
percent day option (discount) instead.   PT]

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

From: Ronald L Fletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: CID Box Info Wanted
Date: 20 Mar 90 15:39:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Sometime back someone posted model numbers for Caller ID boxes and if
I remember correctly one of them had an RS232 output.  Of course I did
not save this info and now I find I need it.  Could some kind soul who
did save it please email it to me.


                    Thanks,
                    Ron Fletcher
                    att!mtgzy!rlf

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 1:31:31 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue This Weekend: 900 Comparisons


Jeff DeSantis has kindly sent along a lengthy report on 900 service,
and the exact specifics of this controversial service from each
telephone company which offers it for sale.

I will transmit this sometime Saturday.  My thanks to Mr. DeSantis for
sending it along to the Digest.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 1:34:25 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Canadian Prefix vrs. Location Charts


Some time ago, David Leibold, one of our contributors from Canada,
sent several files to the Telecom Archives which match area
code/geographic area for each area code in Canada, including 800
service.

These are available in the Archives for anyone who wants to review
them. They are in their own sub-directory because of their size. A
couple days ago, he sent a revised chart for area 604 (British
Columbia), and it is now available also.


Patrick Townson


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

Subject: Re: Defective "Bell" phones
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Prototype IS the Product..."
Date: 21 Mar 90 08:15:40 EST (Wed)
From: Brad Isley <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 190, Message 6 of 6

>I don't know what model you have, but it's a Southwestern Bell Freedom
>phone.  I purchased one recently, and it had the same two problems you
>describe, but they were easy to remedy.  The problem with the battery
>is typical of Ni-Cad rechargeables.  You have to discharge it
>completely (leave the phone ON and set on TALK, with the base unit
>disconnected, for a day or so), then recharge it completely (again for
>a day or so, now with the base unit plugged in).

OK, I'll admit this one was easy, but the manual stated that the
handset should be left on the base when not in use.  This directly
violates the ni-cad long-life rules.  I naively assumed they had an
intelligent charger in the base (one that cycles the batteries).  AT&T
specifically provides a non-charging base to rest the phone in between
charges.

>The squeal was a bit harder to figure out.  Of the four switches on
>the remote unit, one is OFF/ON and another is STANDBY/TALK.  To use
>the phone, you must turn it ON, then set it to TALK.  The other way
>round doesn't work.  Conversely, when you end a conversation, you have
>to set it to STANDBY, then turn it OFF if you want (the remote won't
>ring if it's OFF).  If you do it the wrong way, just shutting the
>phone OFF while leaving it on TALK, the base unit squeals at odd
>intervals (it happened while I was awake, fortunately).  Maybe someone
>with a bit of technical knowledge can tell us why.

Nice to know this, but the rep could have explained this rather than
have us send it in for repair.

>  I chose it
>over AT&T's model because the base unit is wall mountable.

AT&T's newer ones are wall mountable and MUCH better.  We have one and
it is great.

I'll see if I can dig up the 'Freedom Phone' now that I know how to
prevent the 'squeal'.  Thanks for the tip!


Brad Isley, yer local tools blacksmith.
What, me worry ?   YEAH!

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

From: "Patricia R. White" <uflorida!novavax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 22 Mar 90 02:16:21 GMT
Reply-To: "Patricia R. White" <uflorida!novavax![e-mail]>
Organization: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida


The counters were available from the Bundespost when we were in
Germany.  Theirs ran at different rates depending upon the distance,
time of day, etc.  So your message cost was the same for each click,
you just got more clicks for more expensive calls.  GIs used them a
lot in Germany (my brother-in-law had one because his wife kept
calling the States - eventually he just had the phone taken out...)


Tricia White

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

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 90 19:26:01 PST
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


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

>I've been wondering for some time about the 900 numbers which
>advertise a "TV sports trivia game show" (and similar programs for
>other subjects).  You can win $100 just by making a telephone call,
>but of course, it's a 900 number and you're billed for the call.  Is
>this really legal?  The ads I've heard have never mentioned a method
>for "playing" the trivia game for free (or for the cost of a stamp).

>What's the difference between this and, say, playing blackjack by
>telephone?

The difference is that TV Sport Trivia is a game of skill, not a game
of chance.  If you know every piece of sports trivia, then you cannot
lose, so it is not gambling.  This is perfectly legal.  In fact, about
10 years ago Burger King had a trivia game like this, only since this
was done with scratch-off cards, you could easily go to the library
and look up the answer.


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]    "Beware: free advice is often overpriced!"

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 15:46:46 GMT


This is third-hand, but I think of interest to this group.

Apparently the local BBS organisation, COSUARD, decided to cut a deal
with the PUC where multi-line BBSes were to be regarded as businesses
and single- line ones regarded as hobbies. This fell through, and now
both SWBell and the PUC are going back to the position that all BBSes
are businesses.

Speculation: dividing BBSes up by # of lines makes no sense to me.
About the only BBS I call regularly any more is a multiline BBS, run
without fee on a hobby basis. It occurs to me that if this position
seemed out of whack at the PUC as well it might have led them to
believe the COSUARD folks were being hypocritical. At least the PUC
seemed entirely on the BBS side until this deal was proposed...

Now that SWBell has dropped out of the BBS business itself, with the
demise of SourceLine, I really wonder why they're bothering to keep
this whole affair alive. It's not for the money... they've spent far
more on it than they could ever hope to recover, with no end in sight.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada's New and Exciting ALEX Service
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 16:33:19 GMT


Sounds just like SourceLine or US Videotel down here in Houston. I remember
talking to a SourceLine rep in a mall who claimed the thing would drive BBSes
out of existence. Now SourceLine has been shut down, and (as I said in my last
message) Southwestern Bell is intent on driving BBSes out of existence anyway.


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

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 22 Mar 1990 17:57:15 EST
From: Mark Solsman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges


I appreciate everyone's input in this subject. I have learned several
things.  I can't believe that I didn't think of just having call
forwarding put on a common line. This sounded like the cheapest. The
only disadvantage is you would be connected to the same number all of
the time. (Unless there is a way to remotely program one-line call
forwarding [service from telco]).


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

Date: 22 Mar 90 19:15:36 EST
From: GORDON MEYER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore NUA PC


I just got through to Bellcore's PC that will give the state and
exchange when you key in the info via DTMF.  I note with interest that
it doesn't know about the 312/708 split!


Gordon Meyer
[e-mail]


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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 13:29:43 -0500
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular License Lottery


NYNEX mobile's ads in the _Boston Globe_ for the past couple of months
have shown a coverage map that does not include Cape Cod.  A small
asterisk directs the reader to this statement, "Cape Cod coverage
pending FCC approval."

I don't know whether this just means they've applied, or whether they
have the cp in hand and are building.  Doesn't say anything about the
Wampanoag (correct spelling) Indians, though ...


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

"Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!"

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 9:56:39 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYC Local Service


In Digest 175 in the current volume, there was a note about there
being no unlimited calling in NYC.  An exception I noticed a while
back in a Queens call guide (for what was still in area 212) was
people who ALREADY had flat rate service there.

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can This Be True?
Date: 22 Mar 90 19:55:54 GMT
Reply-To: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


In article <[e-mail]> (The Moderator) writes:

>[Moderator's Note: In those days, the only way for the operator to
>verify your deposit was to listen for the 'ding' of the nickle, the
>'ding-ding' of the dime, and the 'bong' of the quarter, as each went
>down the chute and caused a little metal arm inside to hit the bell....

   As I recall you could just put the reciever up to an adjacent pay
phone and that worked great.

   Anyone ever read Abby Hoffman? =)

    -Dave

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #195
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12675;
          23 Mar 90 5:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10161;
          23 Mar 90 3:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07112;
          23 Mar 90 2:19 CST
Date:     Fri, 23 Mar 90 1:17:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #196
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Mar 90 01:15:56 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 196

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can This Be True? [Richard Pavelle]
    Re: 800 Costs [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call? [Tom Perrine]
    Re: Cellular License Lottery [John R. Levine]
    Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill [Glenn M. Cooley]
    Re: DDD History [Wm Randolph Franklin]
    Re: DDD History [Bob Smart]
    Need Info on Nationwide Pagers [Stephen J. Friedl]
    Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Jon Baker]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Kevin Hopkins]
    Re: Phone Harassment [Carol Springs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Richard Pavelle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can This Be True?
Date: 22 Mar 90 11:29:22 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA


I sent this last week and am posting it again after responding to the
moderator's comments:

I trust all of you readers can keep a secret: My 15 year old son told
me that he and his friends can place calls from pay phones using a
paper clip instead of coins. In addition they can place long-distance
calls the same way instead of using calling cards.  I did not believe
the claim until I saw the kids in action. They use the paper clip to
complete a circuit and it requires about five seconds.

Now I ask you readers how can this be? Is telephone technology so poor
that a simple paper clip can allow one to dial around the world?

P.S. I took away his paper clips and scolded him!!!!!!!!!!

[Moderator's Note: Describe the payphone. Is this the older type where
you put the money in and then get a dial tone, typically without an
armored handset cable?  ........ other way, collecting the coins.  PT]

These are modern payphones with armored handset cables. He can
perform the trick on payphones that take dimes and those that require
quarters. I should add that it sometimes takes a few attempts to be
successful.


Richard Pavelle         UUCP: ...ll-xn!rp
                        ARPANET: [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Costs
Date: 22 Mar 90 06:18:34 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>I heard that AT&T now has a new service called "International 800" and
>so far there are about 15 companies that have applied and work (places
>like some international money market fund, big name travel agents,
>etc.).  Anyone have list?

15 companies?  Many many more than that I'm sure.  When bored
sometimes, I sequentially dial 0031 numbers here, and there are many.
Most are fax machines so I don't know who they belong to.  Others
include voice mail systems and Cray Research tech support.


Jim Gottlieb                     Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: [phone]                    Voice Mail: [phone]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device to "Lock In" a Harrassing Call?
Date: 22 Mar 90 19:21:07 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


>A feature that performs this exact function is called Malicious Call
>Hold.  It is available to 911 systems, but can also be assigned to
>someone who is getting repeated "malicious" calls.  The feature, when
>activated, will hold up the connection to the calling telephone line
>(if it's off of the same switch) or, if not, it will hold up the
>incoming trunk.  This is really the limitation of the feature -- it
>cannot hold up a line from outside the Central Office.

Trying to get the phone company to do this can be difficult, unless
you really lean on them, at least that was my experience in the past.
They used to (and many MAY still do) insist that you log the time of
malicous calls for seven days, THEN they will investigate.

But things MAY be changing: Last month my wife started getting
repeated calls (1/min) at home from one of those @!#*&^%$ automated
sales machines. (Everybody at my house knows what a modem sounds like;
it wasn't a modem.) Not only was the thing calling again and again
and again and again, but it was stuck at the end of its "record" tape
(where it records your responses), so all we got out of it was
silence; I couldn't get the name of the company that was calling us.

I called Pacific Bell, and immediately asked to speak to a supervisor
(Mom was a service rep for Mountain Bell and made sure her kids knew
how the system worked.) I explained to the supervisor that we were
getting harassing calls from a machine; my wife was home with a sick
infant that needed sleep and I wanted that !@&*^!@ thing traced NOW;
none of this "keep a log for seven days" stuff was acceptable.

This lady was terrific. She suggested that I have the home phone left
off the hook for one hour, which usually takes care of the calling
machines. (It worked.) She said that if that didn't work they could
try a "quick trace", which I think meant that they would try to trace
it if was easy, i.e. from the same CO. She also *called back* later in
the day to verify that everything was OK!!


Tom Perrine (tep)
Logicon (Tactical and Training Systems Division) San Diego CA [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]        GENIE: T.PERRINE
UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep -or- sun!suntan!tots!tep

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

Subject: Re: Cellular License Lottery
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 14:40:07 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>One other thing the techs mentioned, which they debated amongst
>themselves, was whether the Wampanaog (I'm sure I spelled that
>incorrectly) Indians were successful in gaining the cell license for
>the Cape Cod, Massachusetts area.

According to an article in the [Boston Globe] a month or two ago,
they're still in the arguing stage.  There are three contenders for
the Cape Cod wireline cellular franchise.  The first, of course, is
New England Telephone, which provides service to 99% of the Cape and
Islands (Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.)  The second is the tiny
Elizabeth Islands Telephone Co. which provides service on Naushon
Island.  They don't even have a switch, their 508-299 exchange is
physically located in NET's switch in Falmouth, but they are a real
telco that has been in business for a long time.  The third is a
company organized by the Indians on Martha's Vineyard expressly for
the purpose of getting the cellular license.

The Indians claim that they should have preference due to a bunch of
long standing treaty issues the details of which I forget.  The other
two telcos claim that the Indians' company isn't really a telco since
it doesn't provide phone service to anyone, and the cellular lottery
isn't supposed to be rigged in anyone's favor.


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

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

From: Glenn M Cooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting a Mortgage to Pay the Phone Bill
Date: 22 Mar 90 15:01:23 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (glenn.m.cooley,wi,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I would like to hear some comments (and perhaps political support) on
my local TELCO's (NETCO, a member of the NYNEX "family" :-) ) latest
bill insert telling me about their great new program to offer a steep
discount on phone service to certain groups of people, those on
welfare, the elderly, etc. It also just happens :-) that NETCO has put
in for a steep rate increase. Now I see this as just another tax
increase that is being hidden (nothing new to MA residents). If people
on welfare need/deserve/should have more money then simply give them a
bigger check.  If there is no money to give them a bigger check then
raise taxes. I get concerned when I see creative energy going not to
"find a cure for cancer" but for finding ways to get more money from
the public covertly.  (Flamers take note, I'm not commenting on
welfare, the poor, etc. but on this approach of the emperor's new
clothes.)

And speaking of political support, every time I contact the DPU to
convey my desires (as though I think that the government works for me
:-) ) this happens:

DPU: Sorry, its too late, we just had a hearing and you weren't there.

ME: Well, when is the next hearing?

DPU: Sorry, it is not scheduled yet.

     --- time passes--

DPU: Sorry, its too late, we just had a hearing and you weren't there.

ME: You didn't tell me about this hearing when I last called, when is
the next one?

DPU: Sorry, it is not scheduled yet.

Is there any other way to get the DPU to listen to the public (or what
I guess I really mean the the common person)?


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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DDD History
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 22 Mar 90 22:58:46 GMT


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

>When the British advance (in the Bridge Too Far in WWII) was pinned
>down, the Resistance offered
>several times to put them in contact with British units elsewhere in
>the country, only to be told to "go away" perhaps because the Brits
>did not understand/believe them.

Perhaps because, in the biggest failure of Allied intelligence in
WWII, for much of the war the Dutch resistance movement was really
being run by the Germans.  Even today it's not certain whose side
certain Dutch resistance leaders were really on.  Therefore it's
understandable that the British units might not trust the Dutch later
on, even after the deception was discovered.


                           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: Bob Smart <vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DDD History
Date: 23 Mar 90 01:05:14 GMT
Organization: Verdix Corporation, Chantilly,  VA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Lesher)
says:

>  (Description of Market Garden Airborne operation)

> Seem as if the advanced paratroops had been dropped without the
> correct {or maybe ANY!} crystals for their radios. In any case, they
> had no communications.

Correct, wrong crystals in some, others broke during the para-drop. A
decision to leave the backup systems (Carrier Pigeons) in England
confounded the problem

> When the British advance was pinned down, the Resistance offered
> several times to put them in contact with British units elsewhere in
> the country, only to be told to "go away" perhaps because the Brits
> did not understand/believe them.

> Such is the irony/tragedy of war.

I remember reading of a similar incedent in Granada. An 82nd Airborne
squad was pinned in a house with radios that could not reach anyone.
Someone jokingly picked up the phone and got dial tone. A Sergeant
used his calling card to place a call to the unit orderly room at Fort
Bragg NC who called Division HQ on the other side of base who used
high powered command radios to call the Advanced HQ in Granada ( I was
told separatly that this was a satelite link) who used field phones to
call the Artillery command post who issued fire orders to a battery.
Artillery was called and corrected for over half an hour with no
mistakes.

I have always had two questions. Was the NCO allowed to put the phone
call bill into Uncle? And why didn't AT&T use it in an ad? (When your
call has to go thru first time don't rely on .. :-))


Bob Smart ([e-mail])


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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 20:46:02 -0500
From: mtndew![e-mail]
Subject: Need Info on Nationwide Pagers


Hi folks,

     I will be doing a moderate amount of travel this summer, and I am
thinking about getting a nationwide pager.  I have info from SkyTel
(with SkyPager service) and it looks pretty good.  I would like to
hear from others who have used it on how you like or dislike it.  Info
about other services (if any) would be appreciated as well.

     Respond via email, I will summarize and post.


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

"How in the world did Vicks ever get Nyquil past the DEA?" - me

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers
Date: 22 Mar 90 14:51:44 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> I have recently discovered that my department is being charged for
> long-distance phone calls after 4 rings, whether there is an answer or
> not.  The University has a ROLM phone system internally.  It does
> "least cost" routing to a number of long-distance carriers.

Sounds like a problem internal to the University Of Rochester, having
nothing to do with tariffs or regulations.  Find out if the local
Telco is billing UofR for the uncompleted calls, and your
Facility/Billing/Whoever is just passing that charage on to you, OR if
the local Telco is NOT charging for the incomplete call (which they
shouldn't be) but your Facilities Dept. (or whoever takes care of the
Rolm) is concocting up these bogus charges just to milk the
departments for more money (really just 'funny money' anyway, since it
all stays within the U of R).

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

Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 17:28:46 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


In v10i180 Herman R. Silbiger said:

-> For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units who
-> want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each call
-> costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter.  This counter
-> will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the bill at the
-> end of the month.

A friend hired one of these from BT in the UK three years ago or so.
It increments the counter by using signalling from the CO, along the
lines of that used to notify payphones that a message unit has been
used (and to demand more money).  If I remember correctly BT would
only rent this device as the rental charge included the cost of the
signals from the CO to the subscriber's meter.

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

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Harassment
Date: 22 Mar 90 16:57:19 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lyle Seaman) writes:

>Anyway, this idiot left an obscene message on a ** tape recorder ** !!
>I've saved it in case these continued and the law was called in.  ( I
>still can't believe it!)  I since changed the outgoing message, and I
>haven't received any more calls since 3 months ago.

>On a tape recorder!

Yes, this happens.  I once arrived back home after a weekend away to
find a double blinkenlight on my (older-model) answering machine.  I
had to sit through the first message, which was from an obscene
caller, in order to hear the second.  At one point the guy paused in
his unimaginative anatomical fantasies to say angrily, "Why don't you
pick up the phone -- I *know* you're listening."

I was glad I did leave the thing running, because, as it happened, the
second message was from a friend's mother about a family emergency.  I
turned the tape over in order to keep the first message around, but
fortunately I never had any trouble with the caller again.  Guess he
got tired of all those people who just liked to listen...  :-(


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #196
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12866;
          23 Mar 90 5:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10161;
          23 Mar 90 3:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07112;
          23 Mar 90 2:19 CST
Date:     Fri, 23 Mar 90 2:06:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #197
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Mar 90 02:05:42 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 197

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Fictitious Listings With NETel [Hagbard Celine]
    How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Will Martin]
    Camp-on-busy in a Centrex? [Will Martin]
    Wanted: V&H Coordinate Database Source [Timothy Coddington]
    Two Questions (One Easy, One More Difficult) [W. L. Ware]
    Switch Two Devices by Ring? [John R. Levine]
    DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For Deaf) [Carl]
    "Choke" Lines [Bruce E. Howells]
    Hotel/Motel Charges [Scott D. Green]
    What Will Happen to 10XXX+ ? [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fictitious Listings With NETel
Date: 22 Mar 90 07:16:37 GMT
Reply-To: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA


   I know this has been discussed (or at least mentioned) before, but
I can't seem to find the article(s) in question...

   I'm adding another line in my house.  I want to list the number
under a fictitious name, but have it billed to my real name and
address (of course.)  I DO NOT want the number non-published, but I DO
NOT want it under my name.

   My understanding was that it was perfectly legal/OK to list a line
under anything the customer wanted ... especially if it's a
normal-sounding (but false) name, like "Alan Waterman," or similar.
It was also my understanding that despite this permissiveness, LEC
CSRs are typically uninformed/uncooperative about actually doing so.

   I talked to a woman at NETel, and then her supervisor, and was told
that "we don't allow things like that."  Do I have any recourse?

<BTW- I wasn't being obnoxious, she offered to connect me to her
supervisor.  They seemed to be bothered by the very idea that I wanted
to do such a thing.  I don't understand why...>

   Any help/suggestions/things to say to the people at NETel would be
much appreciated.  I read this newsgroup, so they CAN be posted ... but
I rather suspect that all concerned would appreciate private mail.

Thanks in advance,

Andrew Reynhout   (Internet: [e-mail])    | I should be a polar
                  (BITNET: [e-mail])       | bear.  But it's im-
All hail Eris!    (uucp: uunet!wpi.wpi.edu!reynhout)  | possible.  -R.Smith


[Moderator's Note: Maybe you talk too much and know too much about the
rules for your own good, where NETel is concerned. Maybe what you need
is to have a roommate move in -- even if he is just a figment of your
imagination. And your roommate needs to be listed in the phone book
also, you see, and you will go ahead and keep paying the bill, but
list him on the second line, which is in his bedroom. They want to
talk to him? Well, he is out of town this week, but you can have him
call later.  Don't try to impress them with your knowledge of the
rules, 'cause you don't impress them, you actually scare them out of
their wits.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 14:37:54 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: How To Identify Your CO Equipment


In Telecom Digest #184, Mark Earle wrote:

>Subject: Re: CLASS Phone Features
>Which features are dependant on switch level (7ESS for the "good"
>ones?) How do I find out which level is installed here? Is there a
>requestable listing (Bellcore?) or a code/number one can use to
>interrogate the servicing CO that gives me, the subscriber, a way to
>find out what I have serving me...?

What he is asking is something I have been wondering for years, and
meant to ask on the list several times, and just never did.

I've been waiting to see any replies. Unfortunately, nothing has yet
shown up. Essentially, the question is "How do you identify your CO's
equipment?"

Every now and then, someone will mention , in the course of their
posting on some subject or another, that their exchange's CO has a "#4
ESS" or a "#3 ESS". How do they know that? As Mark asks, is there a
special test number you dial that tells you the equipment and software
version? That seems unlikely... Do you just have to know what strange
sounds are generated by this or that piece of gear when you do "x" or
"y" with your telephone?

If it comes down to an answer of "you ask the telco" I'm going to
belabor somebody about the head and shoulders with a rubber chicken...

For that matter, how do you tell what equipment you have servicing you
if it is pre-ESS? Can you tell from the sequence of noises when you
dial? (But all BOCs are fully ESS now, right? Only odd private telcos
still have non-ESS gear -- am I right in saying that?)


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 14:53:59 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Camp-on-busy in a Centrex?


Some years ago, I posted to Telecom my wish for a telephone-service
enhancement -- that I could buy the capability for my telephone to
just hang on the line when I reach a busy signal, and then my call
would be put through and the called phone ring when it became un-busy.
I was told that it wasn't possible because the connection wasn't
really made across the network when the called phone was busy -- my
call just got as far as my CO, which queried the network which in turn
checked the called phone line first; if it was busy, the network
connection was dropped and the "busy" tone was generated by my local
CO.  I assume that is still true; let me know if it isn't.

Anyway, this explanation does not tell me why I can't have this same
function within a Centrex. Don't some PBXs offer this to the phones
they service? Since all the lines in a Centrex are off the same CO,
the "across-network" business doesn't apply. Why isn't "camp-on-busy"
offered as a standard Centrex feature? If I call another office inside
my Centrex and get a busy signal, why can't I just keep holding on and
get a ring as soon as they hang up? Why do I have to hang up and call
over and over, even if I have a machine doing that hanging up and
redialling for me, like some telephones allow? Within the CO, why
can't the "potential" connection be kept up as easily as "live"
connections?

If this IS possible, how would hunting affect this? If I call an
office with four rotary lines and all are busy, I have already been
shunted from line 1 to line 2 to line 3 to line 4 and am getting the
busy from line 4. If I am "camped" on that busy, what happens when
line 2 is hung up? Is there something that could make my call go back
to the beginning of the hunt group and get completed when any of the
lines open up? Or is this why the service isn't offered -- because
there isn't any way to loop back to the beginning of the hunt group
once you end up at the last one? If some PBXs DO allow this, how do
they handle hunting?


Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

From: Timothy Coddington <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: V&H Coordinate Database Source
Date: 22 Mar 90 21:08:54 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon Univ (Software Engineering Institute), Pgh, PA


I'm looking for a source for the V&H coordinate database.  This is
very large table used to compute the distance between the two end
points of a phone call.  The table is searched using the area code and
exchange as the keys.  From that combination a V and H coordinate is
obtained and used in calculating the distance (similar to an X and Y
coordinate system).

Is the table/database available online somewhere?

Who might I contact to get it?

Thanks for any help.

      Tim Coddington    412-268-7712  or 244-8557
            [e-mail]

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

From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Two Questions (One Easy, One More Difficult)
Date: 22 Mar 90 17:53:56 GMT
Reply-To: W.L. Ware <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


First, where are the telecom archives stored?

Second, when I bought my last celluar phone, on a Sunday ... The dealer
typed in quite a few digits on the phone, gave me 5 phone #'s to
choose from and then entered that number. Can anyone give me some info
on how Celluar Phones are programmed and what exactly the dealer has
control over?

************************************************************************
*W.L.Ware                                             LANCEWARE SYSTEMS*
*WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu                    Value Added reseller*
*WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu                          Mac and IBM Access. *


[Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives are located a MIT. They are
accessed via 'ftp lcs.mit.edu', then 'cd telecom-archives'. Use
anonymous login.  Regards cellular phone programming, I'd like more
information myself if one or more readers will comment on it.  PT]

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

Subject: Switch Two Devices by Ring?
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 14:46:31 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


My local telco has started to offer a service where you can have two
or three phone numbers assigned to a single line and distinguish them
by the way they ring.  It's quite inexpensive, $3/month for one extra
number or $5/month for two.

It occurs to me that a fine way to put a fax and a modem on the same
line would be to use a box that listened to the ring and connected to
one of two or three ports depending on the ring pattern.  Since it
would connect to the right device before the phone was answered, it
avoids the problems of boxes that answer the phone and then try to
tell who or what is calling.  For outgoing calls, if a device picks up
the phone it should seize the line until it hangs up.

Does such a device exist?

Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 17:33:40 -0500
From: Carl <[e-mail]>
Subject: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For Deaf)


  I'm surprised no one has mentioned this scheme for sending
alphanumerics and punctuation via DTMF.  I've seen it used on at least
two computer systems, one of which was the University of Michigan's
old MTS system, which years ago had a DTMF input line that would
respond with an amazing (for the time period) recorded voice that
could, by real-time splicing of magnetically-recorded (presumably on a
drum) phonetic sounds (plus a large number of complete words),
pronounce a huge vocabulary of words.  This was in the mid-70's, and
it was far more technologically impressive than the Votrax voice they
replaced it with later.  (I'm not sure if they still have the DTMF
input line; the number I had was changed a long time ago.)

  Anyway, the scheme is this: each character has a unique two-digit
DTMF code.  For the letters other than Q and Z the first digit of the
code is the touch-tone button on which that letter appears, and the
second digit is the place- ment (1, 2, or 3) of the letter in that
group.  For example, A is 21, B is 22, C is 23, D is 31, and so forth.
Q is 70 and Z is 90.  The digits 0-9 are 00-09 respectively.  The
non-alphanumeric characters are composed of codes which have mnemonic
two-letter combinations.  Some of the codes and their text
equivalents, along with the mnemonic words, are:

                  Code    Character    Mnemonic
                  ----    ---------    --------
                   25      (space)     BLank
                   26         ,        COmma
                   39         !        EXclamation point
                   73         .        PEriod
                   78         ?        QUestion mark (Q = 7)

  One would enter a message by typing the two-digit codes in sequence,
without intervening digits:

       H E L L O , ^ M Y ^ N A M E ^ I S ^ C A R L .    (^ = space)
       4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9

       (on the MTS system the sequence #9 was used for RETURN.  Other
        sequences were #2 for repeat line (like ctrl-R), #6 for backspace,
        and I think #0 for cancel line.)

  That long series of digits looks pretty intimidating for such a
short message, but the scheme is actually quite simple once you get
used to it.


Carl

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 22:24:53 EST
From: "Bruce E. Howells" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Choke" Lines


Living in the New York area, I've been pretty heavily exposed to
"choke" lines for radio call-in contests.  Here, they're in the 955
prefix.

I'm wondering what sort of hardware is used for these - special
switches dedicated 24 hours, or do they move the higher capacity stuff
around?  It would seem to make sense to have a few high-capacity
switch/hardware sets, and move it from number to number as needed, but
is the savings in hardware worth the difficulty of co-ordination?  And
how are these handled long-distance?  Is the peak loading low enough
that LD doesn't need to worry?  (Not that I'm worried that some day 3
stations will say call 955-whatever all at once and melt a switch
somewhere,just curious...)

Thanks for any information...


Bruce E. Howells,   [e-mail]  |   engnbsu@buacca  (BITNet)
    Just a random Engineering undergrad...


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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 10:00 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel/Motel Charges


OK, travelers, we've read about AOS's, exorbitant surcharges levied by
hotels, blocked access to LD carriers, etc.  I am in the dubious
position of managing one of those "hospitality" PBX's, and let me
first state that our 1+ carrier is Sprint, and 0+ is AT&T.  However,
we do surcharge many calls.

My question to all of you is, "What's Fair?"  I'm not entirely
comfortable with aspects of our rate structure, but the business folks
are pleased with the revenues, and of course there's a certain amount
of overhead associated with providing the service.

Knowing that you are an astute group of phone users with an
understanding of the bizness, what do you think?  Please address any
or all aspects of the service as it relates to the guest - dial tone,
untimed local, timed units, DDD, 0+, 950-, 800-, 10xxx-.

I will detail our charges later; I don't want to color your responses.

Eagerly anticipating your input.


scott green

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

Subject: What Will Happen to 10XXX+ ?
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 21:55:41 EST
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


It will be interesting to see what would happen should Canada be
successful in getting a competitive long distance system, what with
the CNCP/Rogers proposal to provide another long distance network to
challenge the existing Telecom Canada monopoly.

[Aside - already, Bell Canada is having its operators identify
themselves as "Bell Operator", even though competition is nowhere in
sight, yet.  Some preparatory moves on Bell Canada's part? ]

However, given different jurisdictions involved, what would happen if
someone on Sprint wanted to call Canada, but Canada has a choice of
two carriers? Could we see a dialing go like this:

    10777 + 10xxx + 1 + (Canadian #) for Telecom Canada    -- or,
    10777 + 10yyy + 1 + (Canadian #) for CNCP/Rogers (Cantel)

That is, once it crosses the border, allow another selection of carriers.

Presently, Canada does not have the 10XXX+ to allow a choice of U.S.
carriers when calling America. I don't know if all calls (1+) to USA
are stuck with AT&T, though I think there was a "Teleplus" service
tried that used the access code 1022+ to get at MCI (?) for a while.
Meanwhile, 1 800 950 1022 can be dialed from Canada to get MCI access.
Unknown about access to Sprint, Allnet, Value-net of Waco, etc, though
I understand that those calls (to 950) are to be blocked at this time.

Even within the U.S., there are already interesting possibilities what
with the regional and local long distance carriers involved.

What happens if competition is to be accessed if other countries
decide to break their long distance monopolies?


|| David Leibold     "Millions of people who have never died before will be
|| [e-mail]  instantly killed " - William Shatner, Star Trek outtake

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #197
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14202;
          23 Mar 90 6:07 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12216;
          23 Mar 90 4:34 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad10161;
          23 Mar 90 3:30 CST
Date:     Fri, 23 Mar 90 2:41:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #198
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Mar 90 02:40:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 198

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    My Two Cents Worth [Ed Naratil]
    Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! [Victor Schwartz]
    Re: UK Telephone System Questions [Todd Inch]
    Re: Answering Machines [Todd Inch]
    Data Ports at Airports [David Leibold]
    900 Numbers in 1977 [David Leibold]
    Where is This Package Hiding At? [Francis N. Godfrey]
    How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled? [David Tamkin]
    Time Zones [Carl Moore]
    Re: Enahanced 911 [Kim Greer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ed Naratil <[e-mail]>
Subject: My Two Cents Worth
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 12:32:16 EDT


Two thoughts:

1. Regarding cheating pay phones:  I heard it said (:>) back when
   pay phones only cost a nickle (yes, only 5 cents!) to make a
   local call, the call could be made for only a penny.  What you
   would do is carefully place the penny in the nickle slot, hold
   it there with a car or house key, and then using the key give
   the penny a quick rotary spin.  This would cause the penny to
   rotate down the slot activating whatever mechanism was used to
   decode the nickle.

2. Regarding tracing offensive or obscene telephone calls by the
   telephone company:  Yes, the means exist, and have existed for
   many, many, moons.  The biggest problem is that unless forced
   into it by courts or law inforcement agencies, the telephone
   companies don't want to get involved in court cases directly
   or indirectly.


Ed Naratil                       (All standard disclaimers apply)
AMPR:  W3BNR@N3LA.#EPA.PA.USA.NA         [e-mail]

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

Date: 22 Mar 90 07:59:07 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! (1 hour free on U.S.
From: [e-mail]


For those of you who passed this stressful test on the many uses of
WD40 and won an hour of free calling on U.S. Sprint:

I also won, and received my FON Card some time ago.  I used it on one
occasion from a pay phone, and just received the bill.

As I had been warned, I am still charged the surcharge (about 80
cents, I believe) for remote access, but the time charge (1 minute, in
this case) was not shown on the bill.

There was no indication of how much credit remained, so I guess the
only way I'll know when I've used up my 1 hour of free calling (aside
from keeping all my bills and running a private total) is to wait for
the first bill which includes time charges rather than just
surcharges.

All-in-all, it's not a bad deal.  If I had used my MCI calling card, I
would have paid the same surcharge PLUS the time charge.  The only
draw-back is that it's yet another bill which arrives each month.  I
think I get about 4 separate telephone bills each month now!


Victor Schwartz
Xerox Corporation

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK Telephone System Questions
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 02:51:41 GMT


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

>This is probably going to open a can of worms, but ... what problems am
>I going to encounter using U.S. telephone equipment, specificly a
>Trailblazer T2500 modem in the U.K.?

>The power supply is an easy fix, the question is more directed to
>different phone ring voltages, ground start or loop start etc.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So what the heck are these?  I've always wondered.  Have anything to
do with the bell being across tip and ring vs. earth-ground and ring,
or maybe detecting off-hook?


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]
"I dreamed you gave birth to apples.  A huge Red Delicious, a Gravenstein, a
Johnathan, and a Granny Smith - they came out of the mylar hole."  - my wife

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machines
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 05:27:10 GMT


This is from rec.humor.  I thought it might be worth cross-posting here.

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Insomnia Inc.) writes:
>from:[e-mail]
>This was off of the sub-genius mailing list

A particularly insidious kind of sales call now appearing in several
cities is one which is initiated by computer, and contains recorded
questions ... that requires answers in simple digits or "yes" and
"no".  A voice recognition circuit then processes your answers and
asks further questions based on your former answers.

The sales pitch is usually disguised as a survey of some kind.  The
despicable thing about these things is that they won't leave you
alone. If you hang up, they will just call back again.>

One day my wife got a call from one of these computer systems, and her
answering machine answered. The conversation that followed was
hilarious, as it consisted of two machines talking to each other
without having the slightest idea about what each other was saying.
The conversation wound up in an endless loop, as follows:

[PHONE] *RING*

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "...At the tone, please give your message.
BEEEEEP."

[PHONE] "Hello. This is [company_name], and we are taking a telephone
survey ... when I ask a question, wait for the beep, then please speak
plainly.  I will repeat your answer back to you, and verify it.
First, what is your phone number? BEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

(The answering machine, upon hearing the beep, got confused and
thought it was a play-back command, and generated another beep in
response.)

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[PHONE] "Thank you! Your phone number was 443-28347-47756-377764-22222.
Is that correct? BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[PHONE] "Thank you! Do you have any children? BEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[PHONE] Thank you! What is the age of your first child? BEEEEEEEEEEP."

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[PHONE] "Your first child is 1,222 years old. Is that correct?
BEEEEEP."

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[---------------  BEGIN ENDLESS LOOP ----------------]

[PHONE] "Thank you! Do you have any more children? BEEEEEEP."

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[PHONE] "Thank you! What is this child's age? BEEEP."

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[PHONE] "This child is 4,233 years old. Is that correct? BEEEEP."

[ANSWERING MACHINE] "BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP."

[---------------------END LOOP -----------------------]

My wife, upon noticing that the answering machine had been going for
over half an hour, turned up the volume to find out what was going on.
When she discovered this endless loop (by now she had over 200
children, all over 1,000 years old), she switched off the answering
machine. The computer never called again.


>Yes! We have no parameters,   |  jen Wiley    [e-mail]
>We have no parameters today!  |/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>cigarette: n; a fire at one end, a fool at the other, and a pinch of tobacco
>        in between.


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]
"I dreamed you gave birth to apples.  A huge Red Delicious, a Gravenstein, a
Johnathan, and a Granny Smith - they came out of the mylar hole."  - my wife

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

Subject: Data Ports at Airports
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 21:45:47 EST
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


Ken Jongsma had a message some time back about data ports at an
Atlanta airport (if memory serves correctly).

There was a terminal set up at Pearson airport in Toronto that was
supposed to give access to services like Datapac, iNet and that. It
consisted of a keyboard, screen, and free access to the data.
Supposedly, one could have direct connect to the Datapac public dial
port with this, however I have never seen this thing actually work
(I've tried it, and it appeared to be broken whenever I've seen it).

Now, if they could have payphones with keyboards and screens, so that
Usenet or BBSes could be dialed on the run ... then again, the telcos
might give us the nightmare of having it COCOT-style.


|| David Leibold    [e-mail]

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

Subject: 900 Numbers in 1977
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 21:39:29 EST
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


Scott Fybush wrote about the 900 number Jimmy Carter could be reached
at during a phone in back in 1977.

There was a Canadian phone-in using a 900 number (it used 1 900 975
9811 (or dial 112+ from British Columbia and parts of Saskatchewan).
The latest table I have for the 900 exchanges indicates a carrier code
of 'ALN' (AllNet?) for recent years. This 900 number was a free call,
and it had to do with soliciting the public for opinions about public
issues or something like that.

Another toll-free 900 number happened just when 900 service was
officially started up in Canada a few years ago, when Coca Cola
decided to switch from classic to Pepsi-clone. The 1 900 200 COKE
number could be called free to register support for a classic version
of coke as well as the new version (listed carrier as AT&T).

Otherwise, Canadian access to 900 services have generally been for
polls and tame recordings, and not generally for the high-priced
consulting services (Bell Canada would like to introduce that within a
year or so)


|| David Leibold    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 02:34:22 EST
From: "Francis N. Godfrey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where is This Package Hiding At?
Reply-To: "Francis N. Godfrey" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY


I do not check this group very often. So please respond via E-mail, the
address is valid.

I am trying to find a package for my Unix system called tiny_talk (or
is it tiny_world) in which it will help the system connect to many of
those "tiny...." what ever thingys.

Any help appreciated. Please respond via E-mail.


Francis N. Godfrey |Computing and Network Services|"An undergrad with time..."
Syracuse University|Micro Cluster Support         |"We bring servers to you. "
                               |[e-mail]
"I want to be *dainty*, darling." -- Lt. Worf
            from Star Trek: The Next Regurgitation

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled?
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 90 10:52:04 CST


Macy Hallock wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 192:

| In article <[e-mail]> [someone else had written]:

| >I received one of those "you may have already won" calls on my voice
| >mail at work the other day (in fact, so did everyone else in the
| >office!) that told me that all I had to do to find out I was a winner
| >was to ring up their 900 numbe.  The call would cost me $10.

| I got one of these on my cellular phone the other night on the way
| back from a customer site.  Talk about sleazy!  There was absolutely
| no way to identify the caller without calling the 900 number.  And I
| had to pay airtime, too, 'cause I answered the call.

| They were obviously power dialing the entire 216-389-xxxx cellular
| exchange, and judging by the time, intentionally....

What a great argument in favor of Caller ID on cellular phones; if you
don't recognize the calling number, or if it is blocked, let it get
forwarded on no answer to an answering machine or voice mail.

| Cincinnati Bell is trying out cellular service where the caller pays
| for the airtime on incoming calls (Yes, a 1+ is required) (It's
| optional, BTW) Sounds pretty good to me...it would end this crap.

Sounds like a very good idea to me too, but I wonder whether the
billing arrangements could be made if the incoming call is inter-LATA.
And of course, if a person answering a cellular line accepts the
charges to receive a collect call, those will include the airtime.

There is a cost involved, I should think, for the receiving cellular
company to transmit airtime cost information to the telco from which
the call was placed.  And unless the receiving cellular company is
provided in ALL cases with the calling number, such information cannot
be batched but must be sent separately for each call.  (Remittances
back to the receiving cellular telco can, of course, be batched.  I'd
hate to think of separate payments for every call to a cellular
number!)

Furthermore, on a call placed from one cellular line to another, the
caller pays double airtime.  That's fair, I guess, but steep.

As for 1+, that would make a difference only under both of two
conditions: (1) the caller doesn't already have to dial 1+ and (2) the
call is being placed from an area code that has no N[0/1]X prefixes
and still can allow eight- and ten-digit dialing.  Here in 312 and 708
very few cellular prefixes are NNX, and prepending a 1 would make most
of them look like the lead-in to inter-NPA dialing; and if the call is
being placed to another area code, the 1+ is needed anyway.

What I think are needed here are separate prefixes for cellular
customers who do and do not bear airtime costs on incoming calls, so
that people placing calls can be aware before they dial.


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, 22 Mar 90 23:09:45 EST
From: MOORE <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Time Zones


This was prompted by a question (NOT affecting anything I have in progress)
I have regarding Voicemark (AT&T).  Do phone prefixes have "noise" around
time zone boundaries as they do around county lines?  I have now used the
Voicemark system, and in the interactive part I am told what time (and
time zone) it is at the receiving end of the message.  This is after I
punch in the receiving phone number.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Date: 22 Mar 90 10:17:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kim Greer)
Organization: Academic Computing, Duke University, Durham, NC


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (glenn.m.cooley,wi,)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 178, Message 5 of 14

++Basically, a six-year-old child called 911 for a medical emergency (I
++believe his/her mother was choking).  The child was panicked and
++couldn't remember the address of his/her apartment.

+I agree that it certainly is better to spend millions of my
+hard-earned tax dollars for the high-tech solution to this scenario
+than for the child's parents to tape their address on the back of the
+phone :-) (BTW could you people help get the government to install
+under pavement heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires.)

   Do you really expect the six year old mentioned above to be able to
read?  Maybe some can.  And while many kids this age have had their
name and address drilled into them, in a panicked setting, its likely
to go right out the door with the cat.  I would rather my tax dollars
go for something that can literally save lives, as opposed to a lot of
(IMO) garbage that taxes are used for.

  I noted the :-) above, so I'm not sure how anti-911 you or anyone
else is.  What, other than perhaps cost, do people really object to
with (E)911?  Is "anonymity" more preferred in life&death situations
than getting help to someone?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #198
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06512;
          24 Mar 90 3:14 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23094;
          24 Mar 90 1:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30972;
          24 Mar 90 0:40 CST
Date:     Sat, 24 Mar 90 0:23:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #199
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 24 Mar 90 00:22:28 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 199

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Being Charged For No-Answers [Jerry B. Altzman]
    Re: Data Ports at Airports [John R. Levine]
    Re: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation [Steve Nuchia]
    Re: Phone Harassment [Gary Wilson]
    Re: Phone Harassment [Heath Roberts]
    Re: Choke Lines [Gregory W. Isett]
    Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges [Chris Johnson]
    Re: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please [Will Martin]
    Re: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please [Benjamin Ellsworth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Being Charged For No-Answers
Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 18:37:02 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]
(Jon Baker) writes:

>Sounds like a problem internal to the University Of Rochester, having
>nothing to do with tariffs or regulations.  Find out if the local
>Telco is billing UofR for the uncompleted calls, and your
>Facility/Billing/Whoever is just passing that charage on to you, OR if
>the local Telco is NOT charging for the incomplete call (which they
>shouldn't be) but your Facilities Dept (or whoever takes care of the
>Rolm) is concocting up these bogus charges just to milk the
>departments for more money. (Really just 'funny money' anyway, since it
>all stays within the U of R).

At Columbia, we have a (large) ROLM switch. The university here does
the same thing that Rochester does, except the wait is an even 45
seconds, answer or not. This is a real problem when, for example,
calling overseas, when you can wait 40 seconds for a connection, or to
some domestic points (I have a friend who is constantly fighting with
the telecom office about calls to home that don't get answered, but
for which she gets charged anyway.)

It isn't always funny money that gets tossed around.

It wouldn't be so bad, either, except the switch goes down at least
once a week for repairs on short notice.

DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. This is me. Columbia is them.

//jbaltz
jerry b. altzman    "We've got to get in to get out"         212 854 8058
[e-mail]                            jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
 ...!rutgers!columbia!cunixf!jbaltz (bang!)             NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)

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

Subject: Re: Data Ports at Airports
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 12:02:22 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


A few years ago at Logan Airport in Boston, New England Tel had an
experimental pay phone terminal.  It had a 24x80 screen, a membrane
keyboard, and a coinless payphone built in.  Its modem ran at 1200 bps
which at the time was the fastest anyone used.  Someone had even
chained a chair to it so you could sit down while you hacked.  You
paid only for the call, there was no surcharge for the terminal.
Needless to say, this was pre-divestiture.  My recollection is hazy
but I think it had some on screen dialogs to help you call into
Telenet, Tymnet, Compuserve, and the like.

I used it a few times and it worked pretty well.  I dialed into
various computers to pick up my mail, and even called the on-line
airline guide to check and change a reservation.  My main complaint
was that since most of the numbers I called were local to the airport,
if the phone had a coin slot I could have called for a dime instead of
using my calling card and paying 12 cents per minute.  Computers with
800 numbers could of course be called for free, but there weren't many
of them.

Sadly, it went away after about a year.  As far as I can tell, I was
the only person ever to use it -- I got a few bewildered stares while
I was typing at it, but never saw anyone else even try to use it.
I've seen nothing like it since except for some TDDs which are hardly
the same thing.

Regards,

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

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

From: Steve Nuchia <nuchat![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation
Date: 23 Mar 90 15:12:55 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Nuchia <nuchat![e-mail]>
Organization: Houston Public Access


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

>This is third-hand, but I think of interest to this group.

Peter, it would not have been difficult to check on things.

As a member of the COSUARD board, I feel it necessary to respond to
this.  Peter's version has most of the right facts, but scrambled in a
way typical of "third-hand" information.

>Apparently the local BBS organisation, COSUARD, decided to cut a deal

COSUARD was formed specifically for this issue.  It may have a life as
a BBS organization after this issue is resolved, but for now our
attention and resources are completely devoted to doing battle with
Southwestern Bell.

>with the PUC where multi-line BBSes were to be regarded as businesses

The PUC wouldn't even have been an interested observer if we hadn't
filed a complaint before them.  This fight was started by SWB and
is between COSUARD (what a name!) and SWB.

>and single-line ones regarded as hobbies. This fell through, and now

You would not believe the number of different positions SWB has taken
over the last two years, and the slimey ways they've repudiated them.
At the point at which our case was filed, and continuing through the
cutoff of intervention (addition of plaintiffs), SWB held that all
BBSes were businesses and had not raised number of lines as an issue
in the (several) settlements we had agreed to.  After it became
impossible to add a multi-line BBS to the group of intervenors SWB
decided that a single line was an absolute and immutable feature of
any settlement.  They have moved all over the map on the other main
issue (definition of compensation), but have never wavered on single
line.

It is interesting to note that their spokesman, in a public meeting
held to discuss settlement possibilities, described the one line
restriction as "arbitrary".  Nevertheless, the absolutely will not
budge.  Our speculation is that they this is either an attempt to
protect their information service business or an attempt to renege on
their settlement with Bruce Penny.  I'm not fully briefed on how the
Penny case is thought to influence their position, and this is
speculation anyway.  The important fact is that a single line has
become an unavoidable feature of any possible pre-trial settlement,
and it is very possible that we do not have standing to argue that
issue before the PUC.

In any case negotiations are continuing, and I can't talk about the
current status (mostly because things are changing too fast for
anybody outside the intervenor group to keep up with.)  But the first
serious one-line settlement proposal was rejected by an overwhelming
majority vote of the members present at a regular meeting.  Since then
we have continued to negotiate, and the dividing line on compensation
has wavered all over the map, but SWB has remained firm on one line.

>both SWBell and the PUC are going back to the position that all BBSes
>are businesses.

SWB has always had that position, although at various times various
representatives of SWB have agreed to other things, they keep
returning to that.  On many occasions their representatives have
stated that eventually they will be billing all BBSes as businesses --
this causes us to be rather concerned about the longevity of any
settlement we agree to.

The PUC had no position on the matter until we brought the case to
them.  The case is in pre-hearing before an examiner, and has not yet
been heard by the commissioners.  We have some idea how the members of
the commission individually feel about the issue, and it is too close
to call.  Until they hear the case and make a ruling the PUC will not
have any official position on the issue.

>Speculation: dividing BBSes up by # of lines makes no sense to me.

It makes a great deal of sense to me.  SWB is attemtping to divide up
COSUARD's support base.

 From a technical and legal standpoint it is preposterous.

>About the only BBS I call regularly any more is a multiline BBS, run
>without fee on a hobby basis. It occurs to me that if this position

Where were you when we were begging for intervenors?

>seemed out of whack at the PUC as well it might have led them to
>believe the COSUARD folks were being hypocritical. At least the PUC
>seemed entirely on the BBS side until this deal was proposed...

This is complete gibberish.  The one line position is Bell's, not
ours, and if it weren't for the presumption-of-reasonableness that the
utilities enjoy (extra-legally) with the commision they very probably
would view it as "out of whack".

>Now that SWBell has dropped out of the BBS business itself, with the
>demise of SourceLine, I really wonder why they're bothering to keep
>this whole affair alive. It's not for the money... they've spent far
>more on it than they could ever hope to recover, with no end in sight.

Some believe that they just have a tiger by the tail -- I do believe
they seriously underestimated, on several occasions, our resolve and
ability to remain organized.  Heck, its surprised me several times.

But the (bbs) revenue is not and never has been the important factor
for Bell.  After all, they are a regulated monoply, and will make
their money no matter what.  The issues are:

1) Purity of tariff.  They seem to believe, deep in their
   beady little hearts, that BBSes are really businesses,
   and that we're trying to pull a fast one on them.  They
   have a responsibility to enforce the tariff, and are
   justified in being forceful about it.

   However, I believe we have presented overwhelming evidence
   that we are not businesses, and the case goes on.  They
   are simply not interested in (or capable of understanding?) our point.

2) Establishing a Precedent.  They would like to do away with
   the distinction between business and residential service
   altogether.  On several occasions they have stated that
   universal measured service is their ultimate tariff goal.
   Also, data communications is the only part of their regulated
   business that has a potential for rapid growth.

   So, they are trying to carve out as much ground in datacom
   as they can for businesses rates, by establishing a precedent
   in this case.  They are also trying to weaken the tradition
   of free local calls and low residential rates as much as possible.

Thank you for permitting me this rebuttal.

    steve

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Harassment
Date: 23 Mar 90 19:18:26 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Oceanport,NJ


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

> received them was my wife.  She was upset because they knew her first
> name.  I suggested that they probably didn't know her, but had gotten
> her name from the phone book where it is listed, either before or
> after reaching our answering machine, which stated "You have reached
> the Seaman residence..."

From a crime prevention point you should not have your last name on
your mailbox, front door or answering machine.  All of these make it
that much easier for a burgular to determine if anyone is home.

My answering machine says "Hi this is Gary.  I can't answer the phone
right now but ", etc.


Gary Wilson

PS: Notice I didn't mentioned my wife's name at all.

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Harassment
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 21:05:49 GMT

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

>I have been wondering something for some time about tracing of phone
>calls.  This may not be possible since it doesn't seem to be done,
>but...

[stuff deleted]

>So, to find out where a call is coming from, say in the case of
>harassment, or kidnapping ransom calls or some such thing, why can't
>the billing records of telco's be searched?

>[Could the telco just search for] a billing record on someone else's phone
>bill with your number on it at a time of 1pm. Is this a jurisdictional
>thing?  Technologically not feasible?  It seems that it would be
>easier than trying to put a trace on a line at just the time needed to
>catch someone and hoping that the caller stays on long enough to
>complete the trace.

With Northern Telecom switches, this is easy... all calls are logged.
But if you're expecting someone to call and you notify the telco, a
switch operator can tell the switch to log any calls to or from your
line to a printer. They get notification about a half second after the
call's completed.

Can't speak to ATT or others, but I'd assume they have similar
capabilities.


Heath Roberts
NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program
[e-mail]

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

From: "Gregory W. Isett" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Choke Lines
Date: 23 Mar 90 19:47:33 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


Could someone tell a novice user what exactly a "choke line" is?


Gregory W. Isett        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:            [e-mail]
State College, PA. USA         UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!gwi
[phone]

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Leapfrog to Avoid Toll Charges
Date: 23 Mar 90 23:31:34 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Mendota Heights, MN


Someone had mentioned a device that would automatically forward calls
from one line to another line in response to the subject above.  Just
for anyone who is interested, I saw just such a thing advertised in
Radio Shack's litter box liner circular yesterday for about $50.


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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 13:43:45 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please

See the newspaper GOVERNMENT COMPUTER NEWS for March 5, '90, page 3.
This has an article, "Suit Stirs Up Speculation About FTS 2000
Vendor".

This thing is far too long to type in and I don't have a scanner.  To
summarize: this is a "qui tam" suit which is some sort of high-secrecy
legal foofaraw, under seal to protect whistle-blowers.  Everybody is
"no comment"ing about it.  Some unnamed "defense industry newsletter"
broke the story on Feb. 12.  The names of those filing the suit are
secret but are reported to be two "current or former Sprint"
employees.  A copy of it somehow has gotten to the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee, which is investigating GSA procurement practices.
This has reopened interest in the FTS-2000 procurement, which is a
massive action that has been going on for years, it seems, and is
reported on in excruciating detail in the papers aimed at the federal
computer community.

The suit reportedly accuses US Sprint of setting up a special team to
spy on rival FTS bidders AT&T and Martin Marietta.  It also accuses
the company of tapping into a computer (it isn't clear just *whose*
computer this was) and using the data to prepare its best-and-final
price offer.  The FBI is investigating; Sprint denies it did any such
thing.  (Sprint got 40% of FTS-2000 and AT&T got the rest, in December
'88.)


Regards, Will

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

From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  FBI Investigation of Sprint -- Source Please
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 12:49:20 PST


Thanks.  I'll see if I can dig up the article and read it.  Sounds like
it could be a juicy court case if it gets that far.


Ben

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #199
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09646;
          24 Mar 90 4:19 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26534;
          24 Mar 90 2:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23094;
          24 Mar 90 1:46 CST
Date:     Sat, 24 Mar 90 1:11:14 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #200
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 24 Mar 90 01:10:59 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 200

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [Steve Kass]
    Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [David Lesher]
    Re: Interesting use of 900 Service [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Answer Call Service [Bernard Rupe]
    Re: Misinterpreted Numbers? [Jon Baker]
    Re: Phone Harassment [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: White House Caller-ID [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! (1 hour free on Sprint) [Ajay]
    Re: Can This Be True? [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 14:14 EDT
From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel/Motel Charges


In Telecom Digest, Issue #197, Scott D. Green <[e-mail]> writes:

> Subject: Hotel/Motel Charges

> My question to all of you is, "What's Fair?"  I'm not entirely
> comfortable with aspects of our rate structure, but the business folks
> are pleased with the revenues, and of course there's a certain amount
> of overhead associated with providing the service.

<Flame ON>

When I check into a hotel, I ask about phone charges immediately.  If
there are ANY surcharges, charges for local calls*, blocking, etc.,
or, as happens most often, if the receptionist doesn't know what the
charges are, I use my AT&T card from a payphone.  And if there are two
comparable hotels to choose from, the phone policy makes my choice.  I
want a phone that holds no surprises (I find few, sad to say).

Sure there's overhead associated with providing phone service, but
there's overhead associated with providing electricity, clean sheets,
hot water.  What's next, gas, electric, cable TV and water bills
attached to my hotel bill when I check out?  If I eat in the hotel
restaurant, have a drink in the hotel bar or use room service, by all
means bill me for the service.  But when it comes to the phone, don't
charge me a cent more than you get charged for the calls I make, and
absorb the overhead into your room rates.

<Flame OFF>

Whatever policy you settle on, make absolutely certain that it's given
out in writing to everyone who checks in and that the hotel staff
understand it well.

I realize businesses don't usually get free local calls.  I can stand
a nominal charge for these, say, anything up to what local pay phones
cost, if they're costing you money.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: 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, 23 Mar 90 18:14:06 EST
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel/Motel Charges
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>



I spent several weeks at the Residence Inn in Arlington VA last fall.
They wanted a minimum of $0.75/call, any call-800, 10xxx, 950, local.
Note that DC has flat rate local calls, ~7.9 cents per, I recall.

I made it a point to make ONE local call per day. Of course, it
was 4+hours long and went to my local Usenet access machine. For
everything else, I walked to the lobby and used the LEC coin
slot.

I'll pay $0.25/local call, and zero for access. Anything else is
a rip, AND MAKES ME REEVAULATE IF I WANT TO STAY THERE. Remember,
Econ-lodge has *free* local calls everywhere I have stayed.

Remind your beancounters that motel guests vote with their feet.


A host is a host from coast to [e-mail]
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting use of 900 Service
Date: 23 Mar 90 01:24:06 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> weave <@sun.acs.udel.edu:weave@sun.
acs.udel.edu> writes:

>>Lotus Corporation has announced a 900 number for technical assistance
>>for its PC based product 1-2-3.

>Yeah, sure... I can imagine me placing a 900 call from my office phone...
(stuff deleted)

>My employer will be convinced I'm calling up Dan Quayle's Nintendo Tip
>Line.

    I want to put a stop to this vicious rumor. I know both Dan
Quayle and the Nintendo Game Master. They are separate people. They
just *look* alike. :-)

>I hope other vendors don't use this scheme or if they do, still offer
>other maintenance arrangements.

At the rates Lotus is charging, I hope not too. Sounds like it would
cost you at least $50 to get any useful information out of this
service.

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 11:02:25 CST
From: Bernard Rupe <motcid!ivory![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Call Service
Reply-To: Bernard Rupe <motcid![e-mail]>
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Van Houten)
writes:

>There is a new service available from C&P Telephone (Bell Atlantic)
>called Answer Call.  It is basically voice mail that will answer your
>calls if you don't.  The interesing thing about Answer Call is that
>when you want to retrieve your messages you have to call a (301)
>277-XXXX.  This access number is the same for everybody with Answer
>Call.  Is this a feature associated with CLASS at all??

No, I don't think so.  Although CLASS would probably work, a link
called Simplified Message Desk Interface (SMDI) is used to pass ANI
type information to the voice mail system.  This allows the system to
play the appropriate personal greeting when it answers a call and to
know who is calling in for messages (if you call from your home
phone).

By the way, AT&T uses the term SMSI, and not SMDI.


Bernie Rupe                               1501 W. Shure Drive
Motorola, Inc.                                Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Cellular Infrastructure Division          708 632-2814
 ...!uunet!motcid!rupeb

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Misinterpreted Numbers?
Date: 23 Mar 90 20:28:02 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter A Clitherow)
writes:

> I recently made a call from a COCOT outside an eatery in Key West (on
> South Beach, perhaps the southernmost payphone in the cont. US), which
> had no number listed on it - and had 10288+ dialling disabled.  Upon

Per recent Judge Greene rulings, this will be illegal soon (perhaps
this summer).  Equal access will be required via pay phones.

> I guess what I'm asking is what is sent to ATT - a logical phone
> number, or some physical identifier that has to be matched for billing
> purposes?  If I call that number, will it ring in Orlando or Key West?

Undoubtedly, a logical DN.


[Moderator's Note: Actually, it is illegal now for COCOTS to block 10xxx
access, and the ruling came from the FCC.    PT]

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Fri Mar 23 10:00:17 1990
Subject: Re: Phone Harassment
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]>:
Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 192, Message 6 of 10

>I have been wondering something for some time about tracing of phone
>calls.  This may not be possible since it doesn't seem to be done,
>but...

>When one makes a toll-call, the information about the call shows up on
>your bill.  So, some equipment somewhere is communicating with a
>billing computer, and it seems to me that the billing informaation for
>the calls you make are, by necessity, stored for some period of time,
>up to the time of printing of your next bill.  This could be as much
>as one month.

>So, to find out where a call is coming from, say in the case of
>harassment, or kidnapping ransom calls or some such thing, why can't
>the billing records of telco's be searched?

 [addtional examples of this use deleted for brevity...]

>[Moderator's Note: For that matter, in ESS offices, even local calls
>are logged. Now and then to audit my bill I ask for a print out for
>the past month of all calls charged as 'units'. You'd think something
>similar to 'grep' could be used to scan a few million records in a
>fairly short time looking for all instances of calls to a given
>number. That's not to say they would always get an answer -- certainly
>not from non-ESS offices -- but frequently they'd get a very good idea
>of who was connected to whom, and when.   PT]

Ah, you are both are correct ... sorta.  Yes, in many ESS offices, the
billing tapes show the calling and called no., along with the time and
duration of the call.

However, not all types of offices do this.  As I recall...it was
possible to configure most ESS machines to only do the equivalent of
"peg count" a local call, like crossbar and SXS offices, in order to
save tape and maintain compatibilty with telco billing equipment.  The
telco had to consider the amont of billing computer capacity that
would be required to process all these detail billed local calls as
well.

Now, you and I know that most of the ESS machines output this info on
their raw billing tapes ... and use the detail for traffic study and
network design.  The detail is dropped on the first pass thru the
billing computer, though ... and NOBODY outside engineering and plant
ever, ever gets to scan raw billing tapes. (OK, maybe a few computer
center types,too...)

Now the telco records are often supeonaed (sp?) by the courts and law
enforcement ... but the telco always provides "cooked" printouts without
the local calls (the telco says local calling info is not available).
In fact the telco security dept. are told that local calls can only be
trapped with an active or passive (software) trap.

The fact is, this info could _sometimes_ be gained from a scan of the
raw billing tapes.  Of course, will never be permitted to occur if the
telco has anything to say about it.  Since this info is highly
"compartmentilized" in the telco, most of the other staff members are
unaware of this fact, too.  I cannot even say this is totally
intentional and not just a byproduct of telco bureacracy.

Retention time of raw CO billing tapes varies.  Its also worth noting
that some telcos are experimenting with "real-time" recording of
billing info via internal X.25 type networks to speed up and
centralize data collection/billing.  This might change some of this
nonsense.

I'd love to see a court put a few telco engineering and computer
center types on the stand and ask these questions, rather than the
usual security dept. and public relations people they tell the court
are their "experts".  I'm so tired of the telco's attitude of "we know
about this and you don't" they have gotten away with for so long.
Even the government itself cannot pull this one off anymore.

Well, if this posting doesn't get me a call from the phone police, I
don't know what will ... maybe I'll tell them I'm a LfoD right wing
reactionary and use John Higdon's name or something ... the press
would love that one!


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")


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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Fri Mar 23 10:57:11 1990
Subject: Re: White House Caller-ID
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA

In article <[e-mail]> :
Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 192, Message 7 of 10

>[Moderator's Note: What is the '600 area code designation'? What is it
>for?  PT]

AT&T and Bellcore don't tell me all their secrets anymore, but ten
years ago areacode 600 was reserved for "government services".

I was told this was for FTS related access and public access to
government agencies...something like 800.  I have no idea if anything
is currently in the works to use this.

I also recall that areacode 500 was also reserved, but I never knew
what for ... anyone else know?  Hello, Bellcore, are you on the line?

Also, can someone send me the six or seven reserved office codes
along with their recommended use, i.e. 976, 950, 940, etc. ?


 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
 150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
 Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
 (Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")


[Moderator's Note: Well as of about a year ago, '710' was being used
for those special government services, according to Harry Newton in
[Teleconnect Magazine].  PT]

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

Date: 23 Mar 90 20:04:14 GMT
From: ins_bac <@jhmail.hcf.jhu.edu:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! (1 hour free on Sprint)
Reply-To: jhunix![e-mail]
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF


When I switched over to US Sprint, they gave me 30 free minutes of
Long distance service (what else?). I thought ... great!! my phone bill
will be lower this month (Jan). Well, somehow they forgot to discount my
bill and I called and complained, well after waiting 18 minutes on
hold, a rep finally greets me and I tell her the problem, shes says
sorry..blah blah and she will credit my bill for a lousy 3.74, surely
30 minutes of off-peak ld calling is worth a little more than this?
well to make it short, I was dissappointed and very annoyed at the
length of time required to get a rep.  I also tried to get the WD40
quiz credit but thats for non-Sprint subscribers.  So the free 60
minutes may not be as much as your hoping.

Just a little buzz-kill...

 -Ajay

[Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, my first bill did come from
Sprint, and the credit was not there, but the charges were. On calling
I was told the credit (all four dollars and something of it) would be
applied to my *third* bill.  In the meantime, they'd appreciate it if
I would pay my current bill.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 18:02:56 EST
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can This Be True?
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


re: Dong, dong, ding...
!As I recall you could just put the receiver up to an adjacent pay
!phone and that worked great.

They wised up and only put short cords on the handsets -- what a
pain. I recall that if you were at a garage (remember THOSE?)
and just happened to step on the air hose ............


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 #200
******************************