Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss201-250

Internet Message Format | 1990-04-13 | 833.5 KB

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11637;
          24 Mar 90 5:22 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31704;
          24 Mar 90 3:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26534;
          24 Mar 90 2:51 CST
Date:     Sat, 24 Mar 90 2:30:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #201
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 24 Mar 90 02:30:07 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 201

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia [David Leibold]
    Re: Need Advice on Background Noise Problem [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: Rochester Tel Enters Kansas [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    911 and Home PBX's [Stuart Lynne]
    Re: AT&T New Service [Edward Greenberg]
    Fictitious Directory Listings [Henry Mensch]
    Re: Need Info on Nationwide Pagers [Michael T. Doughney]
    Lata,NPA, and NXX Data Needed [Steve Swingler]
    Help Needed With Installing Second Line [Richard Stanton]
    Need Phone System Information [Duane L. Christensen]
    Odd New Number "Recording" [Roy Smith]
    New Service Allows Same-day Activation of New Phone Number [Bob Goudreau]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (woody)
Subject: Re: Province-wide 911 in Nova Scotia
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Leibold)
Organization: On time and on track
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 04:13:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
writes:

>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)?

I think the announcement in Nova Scotia means that when 911 happens,
it happens province-wide, as opposed to the city-by-city or
region-by-region approach taken elsewhere in Canada. ie. dial 911
anywhere in NS to get help, possibly through a central dispatch in
Halifax or somewhere.

There have been letters to the _Toronto_Star_ about people trying to
dial 911 while they were away at their cottages only to get the number
not in service recording, or other error. 911 is not province-wide in
Ontario at this point.


|| David Leibold
|| djcl @contact.uucp

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Fri Mar 23 11:17:08 1990
Subject: Re: Need Advice on Background Noise Problem
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 194, Message 5 of 8

>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.

This is an easy one.  Walker makes just the items you need.  You can
buy them from Graybar or any major phone equipment distributor.  Call
1-800-HANDSET and ask for a catalog and applications guide.  You can
buy an amlified handset with a noise cancelling mic that has a modular
connector on it that will directly replace your handset.  You can even
match the color exactly.  2500's are the easiest to set up, of course.

We use these all over: factory floor areas, garages, computer rooms,
anywhere there is noise.  Please note that a hard-of-hearing handset
and a noisy background handset are very different in the characteristics:
be sure to get the right one.  These are not cheap, but they are worth
every penny.  You have to try one (and show it to your boss) and you'll
even find yourself wanting one at home.

Since I'm in the business (and have the key to the stockroom ;-) ) ...
I have these in a few critical places myself.

I'll bet Patrick would like to have a couple of these at home for his
overseas calls, too.

IMHO - The PUC's should mandate _all_ paystations have noise
cancelling mics and amplified handsets.  I have lost more money on
calls I could hear on due to background noise (ever notice how all
payphone face the road)?  In many public areas you see a few
paystations with amplified handsets for the hard-of-hearing and I
always find these best to use.


 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 11:25:41 1990
Subject: Re: Rochester Tel Enters Kansas
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> :
Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 194, Message 8 of 8

>Continuing its whirlwind acquisitions, Rochester Telephone Corp. plans
>to purchase S & A Telephone Co. of Allen, Kansas.

>  [...details omitted...]

>Biggs said S & A customers will benefit from affiliation with
>Rochester Tel.

I've worked with many independent telcos: from GTE, United, Alltel,
Centel to Winter Park Telephone to Chatham Farmer's Telephone Coop.
(remind me to tell you about the time I tried to buy a telco once...)

I've also worked with Rochester Telephone.
Think we could get Rochester Telephone to buy GTE Ohio?

The attitude of RT employees was always one of the best of any
independant telco I worked with.  I hope they don't lose that as they
grow ... many other telcos have, that's for sure.  You could actually
get someone who knew something to call you back from RT (once you
found 'em).

I still like the attitude of really small companies like Pinnacles and
Beehive Telephone best. (Aanyone ever read the Art Brothers columns in
TE&M ?)


 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: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: 911 and Home PBX's
Date: 23 Mar 90 09:34:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


One interesting problem associated with using low cost PBX's at home
is that they typically do not automatically select line to dial out on
when you pick up a handset.

For example on my Panasonic 308 to get an outside line you have to
dial 81, 82 or 83.

How do I explain to my kids that you don't dial 911, but 81 then 911
when they are at home but just 911 somewhere else (three and five
years old). And if they get a busy signal (what's a busy signal dad?)
to try 82 the 911.

I'm told that it's not a technical limitation, the switches could be
designed to hunt for a free line but that then the telephone companies
want to sell you more expensive "pbx" lines. If you want to use
standard telephone lines the user has to select the outgoing line, the
switch cannot do it for him.

I'm waiting for the first time someone in California (for example, any
state with strong consumer laws and lot's of lawyers will do) to have
some serious loss due to a delay from not being able to dial 911
directly from one of these phones and sue everyone in sight (owner of
phone, telephone company, manufacturer of switch etc).

Perhaps what Panasonic should do is to have a special 911 mode, where
the switch drops the call on line 1, gets a dial tone, dials 911 and
then connects the set that dialled 911 to that line.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532 (voice)   604-939-4768 (fax)


[Moderator's Note: Who would they sue, the installer and owner of the
system?  This is not a case where you are at the mercy of some place
which chooses to use the system; you bought it, installed it and
apparently prefer to use it.  When I had my PBX here, 81 and 82 would
do exactly what yours is doing: select individual outgoing trunks. If
the selection was busy then it did not hunt. However dialing 9
selected from either open trunk.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 08:39 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T New Service


According to "Nikko" at 1-800-222-0300 (AT&T Residence Long Distance)
the new AT&T service for calling one area code at a discount for
$1.90/ month will be available for ordering in April.

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 14:04:07 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fictitious Directory Listings
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I had such a setup some years ago, with a fictitious roommate.  Don't
tell them any more than they need to know; they'll engage their
limited intelligence to parse your request and come up with the wrong
answer every time.


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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 23:19:22 EST
From: "Michael T. Doughney" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Need Info on Nationwide Pagers


I used a Skypager for about a year and a half, and found it almost
indispensable.  I had no problems using it in Los Angeles, Las Vegas,
Atlanta, New Orleans, SF-Bay Area, Chicago, New York, and at home in
the Washington-Baltimore area.

They are using a single nationwide 900mhz frequency, which provides
great building penetration - I have been paged twice while deep in the
New York subway system!  However, their coverage may be unacceptable
in outer-suburban and rural areas.  They used to have a coverage map
book, you might ask for this if you think this might be a problem.

I have heard from a reliable source that SkyPager has secured the same
frequency for Canada, and Toronto will come on-line later this year.
Apparently they've also secured a government contract for which they
will be expanding coverage to cover all military bases in the U.S.,
and resort areas that off-duty personnel frequent.

The Time-of-Day page feature is handy to set up reminders or wake-up
calls for yourself, and the Page Recall feature helps if you're out of
range for a time.  If you're flying, this might not be for long - I've
been paged in the air somewhere over Arizona.

As for other systems, I tested a Cue pager about three years ago.
This system uses (used?) an FM broadcast subcarrier; I found it had no
coverage inside buildings, including in the basement office of their
sales rep.

Disclaimer: Just a satisfied Skypager customer.

Mike Doughney  ([e-mail])
Computer TimeShare Corp. / Digital Express Group, Inc.
Greenbelt, Maryland                     [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 15:28 CST
From: Steve Swingler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lata, NPA, and NXX Data Needed


     I am in dire need of a file containing lata information for every
NPA and NXX in the U.S.  If anyone has this information in ANY
electronic form and can send it to me, or tell me where it is
available via FTP, I would appreciate it very much.

     Thanks for you help!


Steve Swinglers
Center for Computing and Information Systems
Baylor University


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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 13:35:51 PST
From: Richard Stanton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With Installing Second Line


I want to get a second line installed in my house. I've heard that
the necessary changes to the inside wiring are very simple, and to
save money I'd like to do it myself if this is the case.

I'd really appreciate any help in this direction. Hints on how to go
about it, or suggestions for where to look for details, would be
extremely welcome. Either post replies, or e-mail me, and I'll
summarize replies.

Thanks,

Richard Stanton
[e-mail]

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

From: "Duane L. Christensen" <btni!null![e-mail]>
Subject: Need Phone System Information
Reply-To: "Duane L. Christensen" <btni!null![e-mail]>
Organization: U S West Communications
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 20:50:41 GMT


I am writing this request for software/hardware for a friend.  She is
looking for a "Call Accounting Package" for a law firm.  The attorneys
charge for the phone calls and for the time on the calls to their
clients.  They want to be able to enter a code on the phone itself,
and then later generate some detail and summary reports.

They currently have a system that does this, but it only allows a
limited number of codes to charge to (they need to charge to 3000+
different codes), and the attorneys have to go through some convoluted
steps to enter the account codes.

If anyone out there, knows of phone systems that meet this need please
mail responses to me. I will repost a summary of replies.

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Odd New Number "Recording"
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 21:25:41 GMT


    The other day I called a company in California.  The number I
had was an old one, but instead of getting the usual recording, I got
a real live human who answered the phone "Number referral".  Before I
could say anything, she told me that the company I was calling had a
new number and told me what it was.  There was a little delay between
the time the phone was answered and she gave me the message, about the
right amount of time for somebody to check to see which line they had
answered and look something up.  I've never heard of such a thing
before.  Why a person and not just a recording?

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

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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 14:58:17 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Service Allows Same-day Activation of New Phone Number


In yesterday's phone bill I received from Southern Bell was an
insert describing a new service:


            QUICK(sm) SERVICE NOW AVAILABLE

    *It's the best way to get new telephone service fast.  And if
    you call us by 3:00 p.m., we will connect you that very same
    day.*  When you move into a previously owned home or a
    previously occupied apartment, plug in your telephone even
    before you haul the first load of boxes.  That way, Southern
    Bell can fix you up with phone service fast.  With Southern
    Bell's new Quick Service, when you plug in your telephone,
    you will immediately hear a dial tone.  Then you just call the
    Business Office -- Monday through Friday during regular business
    hours -- at 780-2355, and place your order.  We'll check your
    line for problems, issue you a phone number, and add your new
    address and phone number to the directory listings.  *And if
    you call by 3:00 p.m., we'll connect your phone service on
    the day you call.*  So your phone will be ready and ringing in
    your new home before you finish packing at your old address.
    Quick Service is available to most residence customers.

    We know moving can be difficult.  So Southern Bell's Quick
    Service makes getting phone service in your new home easier
    and faster than ever.  And that means more convenience, safety
    and peace of mind for you.  After all, the faster you get phone
    service in your new location, the faster it will feel like
    home.

    So remember, always unpack your phone first.  And let Southern
    Bell's Quick Service make your life -- and your move -- just a
    touch easier.

    If you are moving into a newly built home or apartment, it
    requires you to connect your service in the conventional way.


This is interesting, but it raises a bunch of questions:

1)  Is it possible to make any other types of calls from a "temporary
    dial tone" line?  The number quoted above (780-BELL) is a special
    toll-free number dialable only from So. Bell territory.  But
    what about local calls?  911?  Operator-assisted calls?  Calling
    card calls?  800 numbers?

2)  Is the temporary line dialable from anywhere else?  If so, what
    number is it assigned?  (Presumably not the old owner's number, as
    that may have followed him to a new address served by the same CO.)

3)  Does the temporary line accept tone dialing as well as pulse?

4)  Are there any nasty surprises on your first phone bill?  (E.g.,
    "QUICK SERVICE:  $5.00".)


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #201
******************************












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09640;
          25 Mar 90 23:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12737;
          25 Mar 90 22:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad08136;
          25 Mar 90 21:00 CST
Date:     Sun, 25 Mar 90 20:50:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #202
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 25 Mar 90 20:50:21 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 202

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ISDN Public Phones [Jim Gottlieb]
    Itemized Billing in the UK [Kevin Hopkins]
    European Telepoint [Kevin Hopkins]
    DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Karl Lohner]
    Re: Strange Charges on Phone Bills [Jack Winslade]
    Billing Tapes and Who Gets to See Them [Richard Snider]
    US Sprint [Steven King]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Public Phones
Date: 23 Mar 90 06:01:13 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


The following was snagged off of a local BBS (Janis II).  My comments
are those [in square brackets].


 Date: 03/19/90 (22:38)              Number: 183 (Echo)
 To: ALL                             Refer#: NONE
 From: BOB KAWARATANI                Read: HAS REPLIES
 Subj: PAY PHONES                    Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

The following article is a summary translation of an article from the
March 12 evening edition of the Asahi Shinbun.  I thought it might be
of interest to telecommunication users.  Note, I don't have any of my
special dictionaries or glossaries with me so please forgive the
literal translations of some of the technical terms and organization
names.

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

NTT [the telco here] has developed a public telephone for use by
personal computer communications users and others.  If approval from
the Posts and Telecommunications Ministry is obtained, installation of
1,000 units throughout Japan is planned during FY1990.

These units are part of the INS Net 64 [ISDN 2B+D] and are part of
NTTs efforts to make INS [ISDN] more accessible to general users.
These telephones are equipped with analog and digital jacks on the
front face of the units.  The analog jacks are for use by standard
facsimile units and modems.  In this case, the analog signals from
these units are converted to digital form for transmission.  The
digital jack is for high speed facsimile units (G4 level units) and
other digital equipment.

A section manager at NTT's Public Telephone Support Headquarters
stated "in the future, telephones will be miniaturized and we would
like to be able to connect to IC cards and electronic notebooks".

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

I think that this really exciting news in that NTT has recognized the
potential for networking and personal telecommunications.  Let's hope
that other countries will provide telephones with modular jacks so our
laptop and notebook size computers will be able to send messages from
public telephones around the world.


 Date: 03-22-90 (07:30)              Number: 187 (Echo)
 To: BOB KAWARATANI                  Refer#: 183
 From: RENE ANDERSSON                  Read: NO
 Subj: PAY PHONES                    Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

>I think that this really exciting news in that NTT has recognized
>the potential for networking and personal telecommunications.
>Let's hope that other countries will provide telephones with
>modular jacks so our laptop and notebook size computers will be
>able to send messages from public telephones around the world.

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

I would really like to join your enthusiasm. Unfortunately during my
short week back home in Sweden I got shocked back into reality.
Televerket (Sweden's NTT) insists on using an outdated jack with four
big ugly protruding connectors and an even bigger and uglier
stabilizing plastic device in the middle of the jack. The whole thing
is about 12 - 15 times larger than a modular jack.

A very sad story, not the least because the Nordic countries are
really advanced when it comes to cellular phones. NMT stands for
Nordic Mobile Telephone and today you can call from a mobile phone
anywhere within Scandinavia except from some exceptionally remote
mountain areas. The average cellular phone weighs in at around 125
grams which means that Konishiki could lose one of those mothers in
his rear areas and never find it again.  But when I asked a friend who
works for Televerket why they don't equip the phones with an external
modular jack so it would be possible to connect faxes and modems, all
I got was a blank stare as if I really had turned Japanese during my
sojourn here.

The idea is great, but if someone doesn't try to esablish some
international standards on an early stage, communications will go the
same way as HDTV. Right now the Scandinavian countries are lobbying
Brussels to accept NMT for all of EC. I doubt that they will succeed.


 Date: 03/22/90 (08:42)              Number: 188 (Echo)
 To: BOB KAWARATANI                  Refer#: 183
 From: NORIO NISHIYAMA                 Read: NO
 Subj: PAY PHONES                    Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

Bob,

BK> Let's hope that other countries will provide telephones with
BK> modular jacks so our laptop and notebook size computers will be
BK> able to send messages from public telephones around the world.

And with Japanese Wor-pro. (grin) [Japanese stand-alone word processors]

My most interesting experience with public telephone was a trial from
the one installed in de Gaulle airport.

Not 9,600 bps but 300 bps, I could send 2 messages and could receive
1. It costed 2 French franc, excluding Van and E-mail charge.


Nishiyama

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

Subject: Itemized Billing in the UK
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 16:57:52 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


Itemized billing is now being introduced in the UK, albeit slowly. As phone
lines are moved across to the System X (digital)  exchanges BT are offering
free itemized billing,  though  you have to  request it. There is usually a
six  month delay  between the  switch   to System  X  and  the provision of
itemized billing. The time lag was longer on  those switched to  System X a
few years ago  as itemized  billing has only  become available  in the last
year or so.

The itemized  bills show time  of  call, duration, number  dialled and cost
exclusive of VAT.  The  odd thing  is that only calls  10 units or over are
itemized (44p + 15% VAT = 50.6p), the rest are lumped into a total shown as
"metered   calls". Does  anyone   know why BT  don't  itemize    all  calls
irrespective of cost? If anyone from BT is reading this list maybe they can
provide an answer to this?

Does anyone from BT read this list?

+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| [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   |
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+


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

Subject: European Telepoint
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 17:48:44 +0000
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


Computing,  a UK  trade magazine,  reports  that  the UK second  generation
cordless telephone   standard known as   CT2 has been adopted  by   PTTs in
France, West Germany, Belgium, Spain,  Portugal and  Finland.  This follows
the signing of a letter of intent between the above governments  and the UK
government.  According to the  article the  UK gained   the   advantage  on
competing standards by licensing four Telepoint operators using CT2 shortly
after  the European  Community  announced  its  backing  of CT2.   Byps,  a
Barclays Bank / Philips / Shell Oil joint venture which operates one of the
UK Telepoint networks, welcomes the move and says that  it will  help boost
the UK market, which is expected to have 4 million Telepoint users by 1995.

CT2 telephones have a range of 200 metres from the central  Telepoint using
low   cost handsets,  and  has   a  usage  density   comparable to landline
telephones. It is expected to become the "people's cellphone".

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


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

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 19:47 EST
From: Karl Lohner <[e-mail]>
Subject: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (re: New Phone Surmounts Barrier For Deaf)


  Carl <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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 placement (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.

>                   Code    Character    Mnemonic
>                    73         .        PEriod

>        H E L L O , ^ M Y ^ N A M E ^ I S ^ C A R L .    (^ = space)
>        4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9
                                         ^^----------^^-----------------+
   Is it really true that a period and the letter 'S' would be the same |
numeric code under this system?  It seems like the only flaw under an --+
otherwise quite usable system.


Karl Lohner.     [e-mail]      [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: It is such a good scheme in fact that there ought
to be some work-around past this one problem.  P]

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 00:23:40 EST
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Phone Bills
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


All of this talk here about strange charges appearing on telephone
bills prompted me to take a good look at mine.  Sure enough, one of
the itemized charges was a $.50 (per line) charge for 'extended local
calling area'.  I admit that I have not been paying that much
attention to the specifics of the local phone rates, so I phoned the
U.S. West rep, thinking that I might be paying for something that I
seldom or never use.

She explained that this charge is <quote> for some areas which used to
be toll calls from Omaha which are now part of the local calling area
<end quote>.  When I asked if it were optional and could I have it
removed, she said it was a mandatory charge that they once had
included in the line charge but <quote> due to regulations they now
must itemize it <end quote>.

It seems that this 'extended area' includes such things as Council
Bluffs (across the river in Iowa .. same metro area .. different area
code from Omaha but dial 7 digits only .. been a local call as long as
I can remember), a few small towns in Iowa that nobody I know ever
calls, and a few outer-suburban areas of Omaha, some of which are
closer to me than downtown Omaha.  Strangely enough, the local phone
book lists the entire area as 'your local calling area' with no
reference to the fact that much of it is 'extended' for the additional
charge.

In Omaha, each untimed, unmeasured string to which you can tie a tin
can runs about $17/mo, sans tin can, of course.  Measured service is
available, but they do not promote it, nor do they tell in the phone
book which prefixes are how many units, etc.  The local calling area
is essentially a 'blob' in eastern Nebraska - western Iowa which has
very few staggered local calling areas within it, making several cases
where it is a toll call to call one community just down the road, but
one many miles the other way is local.  There was talk in a local
conference about a community (Washington, Ne.) just to the north of
Omaha, which is right smack dab on the line between the Omaha calling
area (U.S. West) and the Blair calling area (Huntel).  Some who live
in Washington evidently have one service, some have the other, and
some have both.  There was talk of one business there that had three
phones, side by side, any two of which were toll calls from either of
the others.

Although I am somewhat cynical about The Phone Company <tm> I must
admit that the service in Omaha is the best I have ever seen.  Such
things as slow dial tones and reorders simply do not happen.  Lately
the service reps have become quite proficient at answering questions
without the run-around, although they don't always tell me the answer
I want.

Good Day!         JSW

   --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
 * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

Subject: Billing Tapes and Who Gets to See Them
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 15:39:40 EST
From: Richard Snider <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: rsnider@xrtll
Organization: ISOTECH Computer Industries, Toronto, Canada


I supose the rules vary as to who gets to see the contents of "Raw"
billing or logging tapes becuase a long time ago, someone I knew was
in trouble with the phone cops and as part of the evidence used
against him was an item "DMS100 Log Information".  After we got to see
a copy of this we were made into believers regarding what Bell keeps
laying around that their ESS churns out.  I should note that this
wasn't pen recorder output, that was listed later in the evidence
along with the appropriate documents giving them permission to put it
on the line.

This brings up an interesting point in that they MUST get permission
to attach a device to your line that does nothing more than record
numbers that you have dialed (Along with other things I suppose).
However there were no documents regarding the Logs.  I suppose all you
have to do is ask :-)

BTW, the case was thrown out of court.

                                        Richard Snider

Where: ..uunet!mnetor!yunexus!xrtll!rsnider    Also:  [e-mail]
An unbreakable tool is useful for breaking other tools.

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint
Date: 24 Mar 90 22:43:43 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was
quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes
separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill.  I gather the
same is true for MCI and other ld carriers.  But *not* for AT&T.  Why
can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't?  Or, if
they can, why don't they?

And yet another Persistent Wrong Number Bozo story.  This one has a
twist, the "persistent bozo" is many different people who call (say,
three or four calls a month) asking for a "Mr. Warber".  Never heard
of the guy.  I figured that he'd had the phone number before it was
assigned to me, so I just blew it off for a while.  A little more
thatn a year, actually.  After a while I got suspicious, so I started
questioning the callers about when they got this number.  "Oh, just a
few weeks ago" is the common reply.  SOMEWHERE out there, Mr. Warber
(if that is his name) is giving out my phone number in an effort to
dodge creditors/salesmen/in-laws/whatever!  Thanks buddy, I really
appreciate it.  (I checked; there's no "Warber" listed in the phone
book...)


It's only impossible until it's done.              | Steve King  [phone]
                                                   |   ...uunet!motcid!king
                                                   |   ...ddsw1!palnet!stevek

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #202
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12303;
          26 Mar 90 0:52 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24086;
          25 Mar 90 23:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ak12737;
          25 Mar 90 22:06 CST
Date:     Sun, 25 Mar 90 21:30:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #203
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 25 Mar 90 21:30:09 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 203

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    German Cellular Experience [John R. Covert]
    Reasons For Some Repetitive Wrong Numbers [Mark James]
    From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [Bob Mosley III]
    Electronic Dialing of a Cellular Telephone [Scott Novell]
    Re: Dial 9 For Outside Line [Stuart Lynne]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 22:28:42 PST
From: "John R. Covert  23-Mar-1990 1558" <[e-mail]>
Subject: German Cellular Experience


Just returned from ten days in Germany, where I rented an AEG portable
phone.  Weight was 570g; dimensions were 19.5 x 8 x 3.4 cm plus the
16.3 cm antenna.

The rates from Sixt/Budget are DM 19 per day, DM 95 per week, and DM
295 per month.  (No associated car rental required.)  Budget charges
DM 0.80 for each DM 0.23 unit.  Thus I didn't use it for very many
outgoing calls, but did receive a significant number of incoming
calls.  In Germany, incoming calls are charged to the caller; all
cellular phone numbers nationwide are "0161+7D".  They can be called
from the U.S. on AT&T (no extra charge over the normal international
charge) but cannot be called on Sprint, MCI, or ITT.  They can also be
called from the U.K. on either BT or Mercury.  At certain times of the
day, it's cheaper to call a German cellular phone from the U.S. or the
U.K. than from within Germany.

With longer term rentals, the monthly rental rates are further
reduced, and you may also have your own account with the Bundespost.
Bundespost monthly rates are DM 120 ($70).  Of course, then you only
pay DM 0.23 per unit.  Units are charged every 8 seconds peak and 20
seconds off-peak for all domestic calls.  International calls are
charged standard German rates (in units) plus an airtime surcharge of
one unit every 16 seconds peak or 40 seconds off-peak.

This makes the Bundespost per minute rates roughly $1.00/minute peak
(including the landline portion, which in Germany is about
$0.70/minute peak for anything over 60 miles) and about $0.41
off-peak.  Budget marks this up to $3.48 peak and $1.41 off-peak.  One
short call to the U.S. (about 2.5 minutes at 11PM) cranked up 44
units, or almost $21 at Budget's rates.

Coverage is quite poor.  There are typically cell-sites only on the
~200 meter regional TV towers, thus there may only be one cell site
attempting to cover an entire large city.  Coverage in downtown areas
was not good due to shadows from buildings.  Even where there was good
coverage, I observed a significant amount of unexplained fading.  For
example, sitting in the restaurant of my hotel, I could see the tower,
and the signal strength meter would sit at full strength.  But
periodically, with the phone sitting still, the signal would fade down
to nothing and the no-service indicator would come on.  Fifteen
seconds later, the phone would beep, indicating that it was back in
service.

A dealer in W|rzburg told me that he doesn't sell portables due to the
poor coverage in the area.  He claims the system is a 450 MHz system
with a maximum channel capacity of 200 (doesn't agree with the 290
mentioned by a friend who asked about the phones at a different store)
Price for portables is nearly $5000; price for car phones is about
$3500.  W|rzburg has only 24 channels for an area of roughly 3000
square miles with a population of somewhere between a quarter and half
a million.  At those rates and with those prices, it's no wonder there
are not a lot of customers and that there is poor coverage.

I also had coverage difficulty in the N|rnberg/F|rth area.  When I
could see the TV tower ten miles away, the phone worked.  If it was
behind a hill or building, the phone didn't work.

Likewise in Berlin.  Right on the Kudamm the signal was almost
non-existent.  The phone did not work inside any building in the main
business district, but it did work from atop the Wall near the
Brandenburg Gate.  I did not attempt to take the phone into East
Berlin, although the next day when I returned the phone to Budget, I
was told that (contrary to the official rules) their customers had
been able to bring the phones in as long as they had the rental
contract with them.  I wouldn't recommend trying it though -- as a
foreigner, I wasn't allowed to bring a bicycle into East Berlin last
Sunday.

When flying from N|rnberg to Berlin, the airport security folks
insisted that I place the phone in my checked luggage, not in my
carry-on bag.  No suggestions like "what if I put the batteries in my
checked luggage, so I can't turn the phone on" worked, and the airline
made me sign a statement that absolved them of responsibility for loss
or damage to the phone.


/john

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

From: Mark James <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reasons For Some Repetitive Wrong Numbers
Date: 24 Mar 90 16:29:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GIP ALTAIR,c/o INRIA, Rocquencourt, FRANCE


There's been some discussion about `persistent wrong number bozos',
and I've certainly had my share of them.  I have kept track of some of
the reasons for repeated wrong numbers, and some of them are not
completely the bozo's fault.

Sometimes it's hardware.  Right now we have a number that's not far
from, but not really close to, that of the local cinema, ending in
3996 instead of 3963.  But the frequency of calls that we got asking
when the Dead Poets Society was showing was so high that I took to
asking people what they were trying to do, and what equipment they
had.  It appears that the 9 bounces on some Matra touch-tone phones,
so that people actually dial 39963; the switching system ignores the
last 3 and sends the suckers to us.

Sometimes it's the stupidity of the area code set-up.  Here in France,
everyone has eight-digit numbers, and there are only two area codes:
the Paris region (area code 1) and everywhere else (*no* area code).
Within your area, you just dial an eight-digit number.  To call from
Paris to the provinces, you dial 16, wait for a different dial tone,
then dial eight digits; and to call from the provinces to Paris, you
have to dial 16, wait for the trunk dial tone, then 1 + eight digits.
With such a mess, you can imagine the number of Parisians who forget
the 16, or foreigners who forget the 1 (or who mistakenly put it in,
never having dialed a non-Parisian French number before).  When you
ask them what number they are dialing, it's the correct one, but the
person they really want is a woman named Liliane who lives in Orleans
or someplace, who has our number in the other zone, and about whom we
already know about half of the story of her life.  And I wonder what
*she* thinks about the people who keep calling her number, and who
might not even speak French.

Sometimes, though, it's just the bozo.  Even here, however, you can
notice some patterns, and take measures accordingly.  For example, a
person's bozoicity seems to rise with age, and the increase becomes
exponential somewhere around age 90.  Now these gentle folk have
trouble with big digits, like 8 and 9; also, they are just the kind of
people who like to garden.

So when we discovered some years ago that our new telephone number was
498-896, and that the number for the Milford Garden Centre was 498-986
(this was New Zealand, where they still have step-by-step switches and
variable-length phone numbers even in the same city), we should have
seen what was coming.  We actually got to know several of the
repeaters by voice; each had a preferred day of the week to call,
presumably when the pension check arrived.  Most were polite and even
embarrassed with their repeating fumble-fingers, but some -- those who
liked early Saturday and Sunday morning -- became a bit pesty after a
while.  So we took to answering them, "No, I'm fresh out of bigonias.
By the way, we're moving next week, and you might like to note our new
phone number", and giving them the number of a competitor.  Worked
like a charm, the bozos.


### T. Mark James           #### opinions, errors etc are my own ###
### [e-mail]  #### "I'm stupid enough to try anything
### [phone]     ####  once."  -- The `Bag Man'
################################      Univ. of Washington, 1968

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

From: Bob Mosley III <[e-mail]>
Subject: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Date: 24 Mar 90 20:05:53 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society, Austin, TX


[note: this reposting is from alt.cosuard, a newsgroup that is part of
a multi-net link established by members of COSUARD to assist in the
fight against SWB over BBS rate hikes. This post is also being
reposted to alt.bbs as a matter of courtesy.]

  Date: 23-Mar-90 00:22
  From: William Degnan
  To:   All
  Subj: The PUC

On March 9, 1990, Reginald Hirsch and Ed Hopper met with John Costello
and Rick Guzman of the Office of the General Counsel of the Texas PUC.

First, some background:

A few weeks ago, it became obvious that Southwestern Bell could end
the 8387 case by stating that it would enact a new BBS policy.  This
policy would hold that a BBS that was restricted to one line and that
did not charge a fee for access would be entitled to residential
rates.  This proposed description would cover all four BBSs involved
in the 8387 case.  As a result, by unilateral action, Southwestern Bell
could get out of the 8387 case.

With this in mind, the COSUARD board agreed to support a decision to
settle on the above terms. It was the boards feeling that further
dialog with Southwestern Bell would have some potential to expand the
line limitation to some number above one line in the future.
Additionally, the board felt that an agreement could be reached with
Southwestern Bell so that the settlement could be considered a "floor"
on BBS regulation.  The vast majority of BBSs, which fall in the one
line/no forced charge category, would be thus protected.  It was not a
perfect settlement, but an acceptable one.

The board made plans to announce this to the membership and the public.

Unfortunately, there was a fly in the ointment.  Guzman and Costello,
who represent the General Counsel before the PUC and are the third
side in the case, did not accept the Southwestern Bell proposal.  They
indicated, instead, that another arrangement should be used. This
would be to allow a BBS to have up to three lines but the BBS could
not accept contributions.  Neither Hirsch nor Hopper favored that
arrangement. While it did help a few boards, a far larger number would
be hurt because they could no longer ask their callers for voluntary
help on the tremendous expense involved in the operation of a BBS.

The meeting on March 9 was devoted to this potential settlement.

Costello stated that he could not support any arrangement in which a
sysop received money, under any terms, from users.  Hopper replied
that if that was the case, why should a sysop accept any line quantity
limitation whatsoever? No other residential customer must accept a
limit on the number of lines installed on his premise.  In addition,
the high expense of multiline BBS operation is such that most
multi-line systems, particularly those at three lines or greater, must
assess fees in order to cover extensive costs. Therefore, the "right"
to multiple lines is an empty right with the inability of sysops to
seek assistance on costs.

Hopper pointed out that telephone policy has always taken into account
the social value of price considerations.  By protecting BBSs with
residential rates, a social good is performed.  Sysops include among
their numbers children, the disabled, veterans and, of course,
computer hobbyists who are extending the spirit of innovation which
created the American Dream.  Fostering BBS systems is in the public
interest. Costello replied that he could not take such external
matters into consideration.

There was a great deal of discussion about telephone construction
costs and the cost of providing "excessive" numbers of phone lines in
residences. Hopper stated that if, in fact, there is documented proof
that installation of second, third or more phone lines causes
extensive costs, such costs should be recovered by uniform increases
in charges that are applied to all residential customers who order
extra lines.  Hopper stated, "Do not pick on sysops by misclassifying
a BBS to business rates."

Further, Hopper and Hirsch pointed out that these construction costs
are the same type of "external matter" that Mr. Costello refused to
consider a moment earlier.

Again, the issue of "Why accept a line limit if we can't take
donations?" was pressed. "What's in it for us?" Costello's response
was that if the BBS community did not agree to his plan, he would
support the original Southwestern Bell position that all BBSs, by
offering a "service to the public" were businesses.  The issue of
money would be irrelevant.  Once a BBS is turned on, before the first
dime of contributions is made, the BBS would be a business, paying
business rates.  Hirsch stated he was "flabbergasted" to hear the PUC
take such a position.

After the meeting, Southwestern Bell indicated that it no longer was
willing to accept the one line with donations formula and was now more
inclined to the PUC formula.

The issue that COSUARD now seeks your input on is this:

Is the PUC "3 Lines/No Donations" proposal acceptable or not?  It is
the feeling of Messrs. Hirsch and Hopper that it is not. However,
public input from the BBS community is critical on this issue. A real
danger exists that ALL BBSs could be assessed business rates. Your
input is needed. Please respond now.


Ed Hopper-President-COSUARD


 ...this situation is a bloody mess now, eh?

                            OM

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

From: Scott Novell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Electronic Dialing of a Cellular Telephone
Date: 25 Mar 90 01:16:02 GMT
Reply-To: Scott Novell <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


Here is the question:
  I have an electronic monitoring system which is able to place calls
through a normal phone by just being plugged in (by a standard phone
cord) to the handset port on the base of a normal (non-cellular)
phone.  I recently bought a cellular phone in which I set up the same
way but the cellular phone doesn't recognize or react to my monitoring
systems attempts at calling out.  On the cellular phone's handset
(when plugged in), it requires you to hit a "send" button after you
type in the number.  I have also tried buying a Radio Shack type
adapter which is designed to let your fax machine dial through a
cellular phone, but that does not work for my Fax machine or my
monitoring system.  Any help would be appreciated.  Please respond by
email since I do not read any of these newsgroups I am posting this
to.


[e-mail]

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

From: Stuart Lynne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial 9 For Outside Line
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 22:57:55 PST


>apparently prefer to use it.  When I had my PBX here, 81 and 82 would
>do exactly what yours is doing: select individual outgoing trunks. If
>the selection was busy then it did not hunt. However dialing 9
>selected from either open trunk.  PT]

This is really strange !

My cohort who is also using a Panasonic 308 says his does exactly that...

Hm, mine definitely doesn't. The only difference is that his was purchased
from the US. Mine in Canada.

Looks like the restriction is a Canadian one (the person must select the
outside line, the pbx can't do it automatically).

We'll investigate further. It may be different ROM's or jumper setting.

In any case my original suggestion stands. PBX's should be programmed to
accept 911, find an outside line (dumping someone else if necessary) and
then redial 911, and connect the handset. If we are going to have an
emergency number it should work *everywhere*, consistently.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532 (voice)    604-939-4768 (fax)


[Moderator's Note: Mine had dip switches inside the unit which either
allowed or disallowed 9. If 9 was allowed, then 81 was selected as the
first choice, and 82 was selected when 81 was busy. Another dip switch
disallowed (or allowed) 9 calls to overflow to 82. That is, you could
force 9 calls to 81 only, returning NC condition to the caller if 81
was in use. This still allowed direct connection to 82 by
knowledgeable users.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #203
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18301;
          26 Mar 90 3:29 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26536;
          26 Mar 90 1:14 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae26616;
          26 Mar 90 0:10 CST
Date:     Sun, 25 Mar 90 23:11:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #204
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 25 Mar 90 23:10:43 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 204

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [W. H. Sohl]
    Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees [W. H. Sohl]
    Re: Camp-on-busy in a Centrex? [Marvin Sirbu]
    Re: Data Ports at Airports [Andy Behrens]
    Re: Fictitious Listings With NETel [Mike Perka]
    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [David Tamkin]
    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Lawrence M. Geary]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Tad Cook]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Glenn M. Cooley]
    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Bill Cerny]
    Re: Ain't Progress Wunnerful? [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "W. H. Sohl" <pyuxe![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision
Date: 23 Mar 90 16:17:42 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


> [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.

I seem to recall that here in New Jersey, you can choose to have a
special meter installed which keeps track of electricity used on a
time of day basis.

The purpose is to encourage residents to shift their usage to the
evening and night hours when capacity is usually always readily
available.  There was, I guess, two sets of meter readings.  One set
that tracked usage between 8am and 5pm (my best guess at the times)
and another that kept track for the remaining (off peak) hours.  I
have no idea as to what type of internal clock or tracking mechanism
was used.  I also don't know if this type of meter and charging is
still an option.  Presumably there'd have to be an internal battery to
keep the clock running during power outages (a not altogether unusual
situation in NJ or anywhere else).


Bill Sohl, Bellcore
bellcore!pyuxe!whs70


[Moderator's Note: Chicago's Commonwealth Edison has a similar rate
structure for certain kinds of business places and large older
residential hotels using a common meter for the entire building. In
addition to the measurement of electrical consumption, there is also a
measurement of 'demand', or amount of current pulled at any given
time.  Provided you stay below a certain demand level the rate is
lower. A 'finger' on the meter is pulled upward as more current is
demanded, and the finger stays locked at its highest position until
the meter reader resets it on his/her next visit.  PT]

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

From: "W. H. Sohl" <pyuxe![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls and Stamps as Lottery Fees
Date: 23 Mar 90 17:20:16 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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?

I have the same thought, especially after seeing what seems to me to
be a lottery using 900 numbers on the MTV (Music Cable Channel) just
the other day.  The scheme works as follows: You call the 900 number
listed and give your name and address and which is then put into the
"pot or barrel" for a drawing worth $25,000.  There was a definete
charge ($2 I think) announced with making the 900 call.  I saw the ad
recently, I think on Sunday 3/18.

Well, any legal opinions out there?  Isn't this nothing more than a
lottery using a 900 number as the method of selling chances?


Bill Sohl
bellcore!pyuxe!whs70

All disclaimers apply!

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 16:59:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Camp-on-busy in a Centrex?


Our 1AESS - based Centrex has provided camp-on-busy to all user lines
for some time.  However, we pay extra for the service.  Unless your
Centrex is provided on a Crossbar, you should be able to order
camp-on-busy.


Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon University

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

From: Andy Behrens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Ports at Airports
Date: 24 Mar 90 23:16:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse


In article <[e-mail]> contact!djcl (woody) writes:

> 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.

I saw such a beast in the lobby of the Sheraton hotel in Springfield,
Mass.  It had menu options for connecting to various public networks
(Telenet, Compuserve, etc), calling your own computer -- which they
called "electronic mail system" --, and sending Fax messages.

I don't think it had direct connections to any of the data networks;
probably it was programmed to dial up the nearest access numbers.

You had to pay for any long distance calls, plus a hefty per-minute
surcharge for the use of the terminal.


Live justly, love gently, walk humbly.
                    Andy Behrens
                    [e-mail]
uucp:   {uunet,rutgers}!dartvax!coat.com!andyb
RFD 1, Box 116, East Thetford, Vt. 05043        [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 17:30:01 EST
From: Mike Perka <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fictitious Listings With NETel
Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, Va.


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

>   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.

>   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?

Yes.  One of the better methods for accomplishing this feat is to tell
your service representative that you'd like your phone listed under
your "religious" name.  You'll be hard pressed to find a telco
employee who will give you any grief with this -- if you do, simply
ask for their supervisor.

One problem with the fictitious roommate ploy (as suggested by the
moderator) is some companies will demand credit information on the
'roommate'.


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

From: David Tamkin <point![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 15:08:40 CST


Carl, who gave no surname, wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 197:

| 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 placement (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 [such as]

|                   Code    Character    Mnemonic
|                    25      (space)     BLank
|                    26         ,        COmma
|                    39         !        EXclamation point
|                    73         .        PEriod
|                    78         ?        QUestion mark (Q = 7)

That would mean period and S have the same code.  It can't be.  There
are just too many words, such as plurals of nouns and third-person
singulars of verbs, that consist of another legitimate word plus the
letter S.

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


[Moderator's Note: This same point was raised in the last issue. Since
then I have thought about it and it occurs to me you could probably
eliminate the exclamation point and use 39 for the period instead.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary)
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme
Date: 24 Mar 90 15:24:01 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary,ho,)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Carl) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 197, Message 7 of 10

>  I'm surprised no one has mentioned this scheme for sending
>alphanumerics and punctuation via DTMF.  I've seen it used on at least

This is the same system used by some brokerage firms which offer
automated stock quote information over the phone. You type the stock
symbol using the coding system described, and end with a #.


     --Larry: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Date: 24 Mar 90 08:37:05 GMT
Organization: very little


I was interested in Gordon Letwin's (of Microsoft...yeah, he is the
"architect" of OS/2) comment about 911, where he said "don't wait for
an emergency....to dial 911".

Gordon lives in the Seattle area, and around here you cannot call the
cops to report ANYTHING without dialing 911.  Try to find a number in
the Seattle phone book to report a parking problem ... it says "dial
911."

This has some advantages though ... it gives everyone a single point
of contact (with ALI), and it also keeps the decision making process
on what is and isn't an emergency at the professional level.  That way
you don't have civilians like me not calling 911 to report a stalled
truck on the freeway because "911 is for REAL emergencies", and then
it turns it is a PROPANE truck.

Did anyone see that goofy letter in Dear Abby a few weeks back from
the volunteer fireman who admonished people to teach their kids to
dial 9-1-1, rather than 911 or 9-11, because "there is no eleven on
the dial"?  The guy even claimed that "there are court cases" because
of this confusion, where someone panicked because they couldn't find
the 11 on the dial and let the house burn down!  This old story is
even in one of Jan Brunvand's books about "Urban Legends", and I keep
seeing it popping up again and again ... even in the APCO (Assoc of
Police Comm Officers) Bulletin!


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: Glenn M Cooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Date: 24 Mar 90 19:34:44 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (glenn.m.cooley,wi,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>  I noted the :-) above, so I'm not sure how anti-911 you or anyone
>else is.

My point was, that since we all know that government funds come from a
very large grove of money trees being cultivated in Nebraska, the
government should spent all it can on shiny, new, and most of all,
expensive things without any thought that these funds could be better
used. (After all, the government only has to plant a few more of these
money trees. :-) )

For example, the federal government recently purchased a new phone
system which will save it $200 million a year.  And since this new
phone system only cost $25 billion the payback period is only a mere
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE YEARS.

BTW, could you help get the government to install under pavement
heaters so that I don't have to buy snow tires (my six-year-old is too
young to help me change tires). And think of all the lives that would
be saved--I estimate it would only cost $20 million per saved life and
only cost $800 per person -- and think of the jobs this would create.  :-)

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Date: 24 Mar 90 15:04:53 GMT


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

>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?

Knowledge of switching systems is folklore in many "phone klatches,"
where often the conversation starts, "Remember that _awful_ 1EAX that
GTE put in the Slater Office..." ;-)

Telcos distribute various literature describing their local switching
network topology; Pacific*Bell once distributed this as a Lotus 123
spreadsheet.  The FCC-mandated ONA filings for each RBOC contain an
appendix with switching system information (US West's filing even
includes analog to digital cutover dates).  This summer the RBOCs will
furnish a database of their wirecenters and switching systems, per the
format specified by the FCC.  Should become a popular FTP object. ;-)

>As Mark asks, is there a special test number you dial that tells you
>the equipment and software version?

In SoCal, dial NXX-1NXX and compare the tone to "known" references
(i.e., 619-282-1282 is a 1AESS tone, 619-461-1461 is #5 Crowbar in San
Diego county).  This won't tell you the generic, and it's not
implemented in a standard fashion on 5ESS and DMS switches.

>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...

Why not ask the telco?  Pacific*Bell customer reps can tell you
whether a prefix is 1AESS, 5ESS, DMS, or electro-mechanical.  They
don't know the software generic, but it's common knowledge in SoCal
that the 5ESS switches are all 5E3.2 or later (5E4.2 or 5E5 in ISDN
areas), almost all 1AESS switches are 1AE10 (just waiting for CCS7),
and the DMS switches are all different.  ;-)


Bill Cerny
[e-mail]    |    attmail: !denwa!bill    |    fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The same numbers are assigned here on most prefixes
for something or another. For example, 338-1338, 248-1248, 643-1643 and
236-1236 always return a busy signal.  PT]

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ain't Progress Wunnerful?
Date: 22 Mar 90 20:38:38 GMT
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.


[e-mail] (Paul Fuqua) writes:

>     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?

While Stanford's DMS-100 may not be exactly the same as the one TI is
getting, here is how ours seems to work. It supports both fancy phones
and POTS-like lines. The fancy type phones do not generate touch tones
when dialing, but the tones get sent out directly from the switch (if
they are indeed needed at all, I guess). But, once your call is
completed, the buttons on your phone will send a signal down to the
switch that they are being pressed, and the switch responds by
generating an audible, fixed length corresponding DTMF tone.

The obvious advantage: you can use the access features on answering
machines, second dial tone services and whatnot.

The obvious disadvantages: on phones without the LCD display, you
don't get feedback of what you're dialing, so mistakes happen without
your always knowing it, and, crufty answering machines like mine that
need 10 second long tones don't always respond to the half second ones
generated at the DMS-100 switch, as you mentioned.


# Daniel M. Rosenberg    //  Stanford CSLI  // Eat my opinions, not Stanford's.
# [e-mail] // decwrl!csli!dmr // [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #204
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23920;
          26 Mar 90 9:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31901;
          26 Mar 90 2:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26536;
          26 Mar 90 1:15 CST
Date:     Mon, 26 Mar 90 0:23:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #205
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 26 Mar 90 00:23:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 205

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears [Tad Cook]
    Re: 911 and Home PBX's [Stuart Lynne]
    Re: Need Phone System Information [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: How to Identify Your CO Equipment [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: Operator Knows What? [Bob Stratton]
    Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller [Bob Stratton]
    Re: Choke Lines [Macy M. Hallock, Jr.]
    Re: Phone Harassment [Brandon S. Allbery]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Loud Signal Tones vrs. Your Ears
Date: 24 Mar 90 21:15:38 GMT
Organization: very little


Steve Elias posted a note about his mother and how she speaks so
loudly on the phone.  A few years ago at work we had someone there
with a very LOUD telephone presence.  For laughs, I used to hold the
receiver in my lap, speak loudly in it's direction, and it made a very
effective speakerphone; no problem hearing her at all, and it made my
co-workers crack up!


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: 911 and Home PBX's
Date: 24 Mar 90 23:45:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes:

}I'm waiting for the first time someone in California (for example, any
}state with strong consumer laws and lot's of lawyers will do) to have
}some serious loss due to a delay from not being able to dial 911
}directly from one of these phones and sue everyone in sight (owner of
}phone, telephone company, manufacturer of switch etc).

}[Moderator's Note: Who would they sue, the installer and owner of the
}system?  This is not a case where you are at the mercy of some place
}which chooses to use the system; you bought it, installed it and

I would suggest that if the people who design and build the product
specifically design something that is unsafe to use due to the
pressure of a third party (Telco's) that both might be opening
themselves to a lawsuit.

Especially if it can be shown that there are only non-technical
reasons for the way that it is designed. And that all competing
products are the same thereby limiting your choice to ones all have
the same problems.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532 (voice)    604-939-4768 (fax)


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

From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Phone System Information
Reply-To: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 03:43:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Duane L. Christensen" <btni!null!dlc@
uunet.uu.net> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 201, Message 10 of 12

>I am writing this request for software/hardware for a friend.  She is
>looking for a "Call Accounting Package" for a law firm.

>They currently have a system that does this, but it only allows a
>limited number of codes to charge to (they need to charge to 3000+
>different codes), and the attorneys have to go through some convoluted
>steps to enter the account codes.

I'm a bit confused by your posting.  Are you in need of info on
replacing the phone system or the call accounting package?  Generally
speaking, most call accounting systems will sort out the call by
whatever account number they get from the phone system.  I have
encountered several phone systems that would not set up for "forced
account entry" (and the users would not remember to voluntarily enter
the codes).

If you need a better call accounting package, look into the Tel-Sense
PC by Tel Electronics in American Fork, UT.  Its a self contained card
that goes into a PC and links to the phone system.  Unlike all other
PC based systems, this uses no CPU power from the PC until its time to
run the reports.  The report info can be set up for DBase type files,
too. (FoXBase is the engine for the report generator) Highly
recommended.  I have sold several of these where other people's units
would not do the job.

If the phone system is the problem, that's more difficult.  Call
accounting systems cannot make phone systems work differently.  However
I have used Mitel Smart One dialers in some cases to solve situations
just like this (law firm billing troubles).  I can give you more
details (and a reference) on request, just 'cause you're a Usenet/Digest
reader (all others $100 per hour, please! :)  I got rent to pay, too)
This is not an ideal solution, but carefully applied can work well.

Disclaimer: I sell this stuff and I'm good at it, too!  But I don't
get commissions for the stuff I give advice about in the Digest
(Nuts!)  I guess I'll always be an engineer at heart...


 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: Sat, 24 Mar 90 17:31:30 PST
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


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

>Essentially, the question is "How do you identify your CO's equipment?"
>[...]
>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...

At the risk of being attacked, I'll say "you ask the telco."  The
secret is knowing who to ask.  When I needed precise detail about the
call waiting tone I get (so that I could rig some equipment to
recognize it), I went 'round and 'round, until I finally got it right.
Don't call your business office, don't call special services, don't
call billing.  Call repair.

Here in San Francisco, repair is reached by dialing 611, which puts
you through to the CO directly.  The person who answered the phone was
not knowledgable at all, but when I gave her questions clear enough
for her to write down ("how long, in milliseconds, is a call waiting
tone?") and suggested that someone there would know the answer (which,
I am told, varies according to the type of equipment), she said she
would pass the questions along and call me back.  Sure enough, about
an hour later, she called back with exactly the information I
requested.  For best results call during business hours.


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]    "Beware: free advice is often overpriced!"

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

Date: Sat Mar 24 10:36:19 1990
From: Macy Hallock, Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel/Motel Charges
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> Scott Green writes:
Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 197, Message 9 of 10

>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?"

OK, here's what we suggest to our hotel/motel clients (we sell/install/
service phone systems, among other things ...)

"Premium" pricing:

Local calls: $ .25 (same cost as pay phones in Ohio)
     (Actual Ohio Bell cost to hotel $.09/call + $40./mo. per trunk)

800 and 950 calls:  $ .25

1+ calls: +20% over ATT MTS (non-discounted 1+ rates)
    (Actual cost to hotel is usually a Sprint or Litel plan for
    mid-size businesses ... usually averages around 15% below ATT MTS)

Note: Since Ohio Bell will not give answer supervsion, we suggest 35 second
        grace period be used AND this be noted on the room phone.  Very little
        apparent abuse seems to occur according to our audits.

0+ calls:  Pick your AOS ... and rates ... (Ugh!)

"Aggressive" pricing:

Local calls: $ .20  (idea is to encourage room phone use over pay phone)
    (If room guest is a member of frequent user club, no charge)

800 and 950 calls: No Charge

1+ calls: $.50 + ATT MTS (Idea is to be cheaper than pay phone again..)
    (Of course the hotel cost is still aroung -15% off MTS)
    (Some chains have negotiated large discounts on 1+ calling)

0+ calls: Go straight to ATT.  If hotel is a member of a large group,
    (ATT will pay commissions on 0+  e.g. Holiday Inns, Rodeway, etc.)

The biggest travesty here is ATT will not pay 0+ commissions at
anything approaching reasonable levels unless you negotiate a REALLY
BIG contract;  like a chain-wide contract.  This leaves the
independants out in the cold.  The effect is to encourage independants
(who are cash starved anyway) to use slimy AOS's.  This same problem
occurs with the paystations in the lobby.

At present, our two biggest technical problems with hotel/motel accounts are:

- Older software cannot deal with 10XXX dialing.  Most generics block 00
  as well.  At least one generic I have seen allows 10XXX without proper
  billing and capture.  The property owners do not understand why upgrading
  the software costs $6000. and will not do it...they just keep yelling at
  us about it.

- International calling without use of a credit card.  Most PBX trunks are
  set up with the telco to prohibit billback of 0+ calls to the rooms
  (too much fraud and to encourage 1+)  Some guests, mainly those from
  overseas, do not have calling cards.  011+ calls are considered as
  0+ operator assisted calls and get blocked.  Some hotel/motel SMDR
  billing systems also drop all billing on all 0+ calls.  We advise the
  front desk be prepared to dial these calls (on a time and charges basis)
  these guests.

Our biggest service problem is poor training and high turnover of
front desk personnel.  We cannot afford to send a trainer to the site
every four weeks to train ... and most properties do not want to buy
service contracts (and bitch about the service bill when our techs fix
the messes their maintenance people make when the try to wire up their
own phone jacks.)

Low cost residence hotels are a another story.  The guests will try
anything to beat the system, and the owners seem to be willing to try
almost anything to get a buck out of the guests.

Any other secrets of the industry I should give away?


 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: Bob Stratton <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Knows What?
Date: 25 Mar 90 10:55:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> 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).

It's my _current_ experience that new bogus third-party coin stations
in the Washington, DC area have cheesy routing tables that STILL don't
know what a N0X/N1X exchange is!

Having tried to reach the bogus third-party-coin-phone-operator when I
noticed this, it became obvious that they knew even less about these
exchanges than the phone did.  <sigh>


Bob Stratton        | UUCP: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Stratton Sys. Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32   Delphi: RJSIII   Prodigy: WHMD84A
Alexandria, VA      | PSTN: 703.765.4335 (Home Ofc.)  703.591.7101 (Office)

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

From: Bob Stratton <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Dedicated Wrong-number Caller
Date: 25 Mar 90 10:09:01 GMT


Having read some of their trade journals, I can tell you that
collection agencies are one of the most common culprits for calling a
number to death in the face of evidence that the desired party isn't
there.

These guys have "procedures" codified, that, to put it nicely, are
belligerent. They operate on the assumption that any lead is a correct
lead.

Needless to say, they are horrible on the phone! I have had a few
trying to get someone who may have had my phone number around 6 years
ago!  <sigh>


Bob Stratton        | UUCP: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Stratton Sys. Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32   Delphi: RJSIII   Prodigy: WHMD84A
Alexandria, VA      | PSTN: 703.765.4335 (Home Ofc.)  703.591.7101 (Office)

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sat Mar 24 10:44:16 1990
Subject: Re: Choke Lines
Organization: F M Systems Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]>:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 199, Message 6 of 9

>Could someone tell a novice user what exactly a "choke line" is?

Its one of those $10 per call 900 numbers: When you get the bill, you
choke.

Sorry ... couldn't resist a little telecom humor about one of my
favorite topics...


 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: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Harassment
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Organization: Telotech, Inc.
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 19:09:42 GMT


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail]:

| In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lyle Seaman) writes:
| > 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.

Mine goes one better: the *only* identification is my phone number,
unless you want to match my voice.


-=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc.   (I do not speak for telotech.) <=-
** [e-mail] ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} **
            Help stamp out SQL in your lifetime.


[Moderator's Note: How about one that is on the same voicemail service
I use (Centel, Des Plaines, IL)?  The number is answered, "After you
hear the tone, leave your message." Then the voicemail lady's default,
"You may start your message now." <beep>.  That's it.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #205
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24192;
          26 Mar 90 9:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03678;
          26 Mar 90 3:23 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31901;
          26 Mar 90 2:19 CST
Date:     Mon, 26 Mar 90 1:57:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #206
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 26 Mar 90 01:57:23 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 206

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Defective "Bell" Phones [Tad Cook]
    Re: Switch Two Devices By Ring [Tad Cook]
    Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled? [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Rob Gutierrez]
    Re: Quick Service [Mark Earle]
    Re: Skypager [Jeffrey J. Carpenter]
    Re: Choke Lines [Tad Cook]
    Re: Choke Lines [John Boteler]
    Six Digit Telephone Numbers Used By Cable Company [Bob Stratton]
    Cordless Phone Range [Charles he Hemstreet]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Defective "Bell" Phones
Date: 25 Mar 90 23:05:57 GMT
Organization: very little


Brad Isley mentioned that leaving a cordless handset in the base
violated Nicad "long life rules".

What rule is this?

When the battery is charged, the "resistance" of the battery goes up,
so current goes down, and in a well designed charging circuit, there
should be no problems with over-charging when a trickle of current is
left on the battery.

Perhaps the "rule" was the myth about deep-discharging Nicads to
prevent a so-called "memory" effect?  Deep discharging nicads beyond a
certain point (like if you leave the handset out of the base for a
long time, until is "dies") DOES shorten the life of a nicad, but
contrary to popular legend, repeated short charge-discharge cycles is
NOT bad for Nicads.


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] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Switch Two Devices by Ring?
Date: 25 Mar 90 23:17:39 GMT
Organization: very little


John Levine asked about using distinctive ringing (two phone numbers
assigned to one line) to distinguish Fax from voice calls before the
call is answered.

There are several devices out that do this.  One is the Auto-Line,
made by ITS of New York.  They even have one with the ability to
detect several ringing cadences, so that you can swtich between modem,
fax and voice on the same line.


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: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors!
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Organization: Telotech, Inc.
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 20:02:07 GMT


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [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:
+---------------

For those interested in such shenanigans:

U.S. Sprint was *handing out* FonCards at the Lake County Amateur
Radio Assoc.  Hamfest today.  I didn't get any information (or a
card); I have an MCI card, but don't use it often --- I make very few
long distance calls.  But I don't think it was limited in any way.

I was rather surprised; you'd think they'd be just a *little* more
careful about who they give cards to than just offering them to any
passers-by.  (The 'Fest was open to the public, so they can't assume
all that much about the people there.)

Is this a common practice, with U.S. Sprint or others?  (I saw an MCI
rep there as well, but *she* wasn't handing out cards.)


-=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc.   (I do not speak for telotech.) <=-
** [e-mail] ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} **
            Help stamp out SQL in your lifetime.


[Moderator's Note: I'll tell you why I think Sprint is so free with
their calling cards. They have no compunction against cancelling them
as rapidly and with the same ease with which they start them. Consider
the articles in the past in the Digest where someone did not use the
Sprint card for several months, then used it several times from
different locatons over two or three days. Presto, they go to use it
again and Sprint has cancelled it, claiming they thought there was
fraudulent usage going on. No matter they leave someone stranded at a
payphone in some remote town; they have their procedures and policies,
you know.  What do you want to bet we who got the WD-40 cards have to
'remind them' to issue us our five bucks credit for 'one hour of free
calling' once the third billing cycle passes without it?  PT]

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled?
Date: 26 Mar 90 03:36:40 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


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

> | 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.

I agree that Caller ID should be available from cellular phones, but
what is to keep someone that is purposely power-dialing the cellular
exchange from not just doing it via a new number created specially for
that purpose?  If you block his old one, how do you find his new
number until it is too late?  If they want to get you, they will.

  -dave

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

From: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Date: 26 Mar 90 05:58:47 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:

> 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.

> 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...

Well, you could say that I *did* ask the telco at MCI...

 ...but somebody else did, and mixed it in with our V/H database.

There was an option on one of MCI's databases to call up V/H
coordinates, and a sub-option to get specific info on a C.O.  One of
those options included what type of switch it was. That's how I got to
find out that my house was a 1AESS, my work was a 5ESS, and my fathers
place was a DMS-100. That's about all I ever looked up, though.

P.S. I looked up the 848 NXX (Berkeley, CA.) and it said 1ESS. This is
one of the well known #5 X-bar systems left that Pac-Bell wants to get
rid of, but the State PUC won't let them write it off yet. I wonder if
Pac-Bell changed it prematurely in anticipation of scrapping it out to
the Middle East (where I heard a lot of Pac-Bell's old X-bar offices
went ... can somebody confirm or deny?).

> 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?)

Actually, I can tell from dial-tone if it's an X-bar, old-ESS (1 to 4)
or old GTE ESS. Hard to tell 5A's, GTD-5's and DMS's from each other.


   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
   Moffett Feild, California.

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 10:45:08 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Quick Service


A poster to the Digest described a new Southern Bell feature whereby
one could get "instant" phone service, if the new residence had
previously had phone service active.

Pre-divestature, in a small town (Gowanda) south of Buffalo, phones
were hard-wired, and owned by the phoneco. Most of the time, as folks
moved, they simply left the instrument. My father was/is a carpenter,
and doing remodeling jobs, would use the phones for outgoing calls.
The phones were left set up so that you got dial tone, could dial any
local call or the operator. You could also have a person call the
operator, and she could ring the "no number" phone, without charge. My
mother used this to keep in touch with Dad; she'd call the operator,
and say "ring the phone at such and such address" and it'd work.

As recently as Sept. '89 it *still* worked this way! And in fact, at
that time, in town calls could be dialed w/5 digits; i.e., the full
number is (716)-532-xxxx, you can dial 2-xxxx. In miles covered, the
local dialing area is impressive. My folks are 7 miles from town, and
can call towns nearly 30 miles away as local calls (with only 5 digits
yet). Touch Tone is still done by a converter at the subscriber's
residence, and is offered at $8/month including equipment rental. It's
a Mitel dialer, as I recall, and not many folks have it.

On the plus side, I had the laptop, clip-leaded to tip and ring;
pulsed out back to Texas with no major problems while there.

Cute saying goes here.....

from Pro-Sparlkin, Corpus Christi, Tx


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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 15:43:41 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Skypager


What are the approximate costs for the Skypager?


Jeff Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computing and Information Services
USMAIL: 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238
[phone], FAX [phone] | [e-mail] | [e-mail]
[e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Choke Lines
Date: 25 Mar 90 23:46:15 GMT
Organization: very little


Someone asked about choke numbers, which are used when generating a
huge volume of calls to a single number intermittently.  The best
example is when a radio station is giving away $10,000.00 to the 15th
caller.  Before they started this service, the radio station would
give out a number for a phone that went into the announcer's booth,
and folks from all over town would repeatedly dial (because they got
busies) into the exchange that served the radio station.

In some instances, this caused severe problems with the switch serving
the station, and other subscribers had trouble calling 911 or even
getting dial tone.  Also, it tended to block all of the trunks from
the other switches that served people trying to call in.  So what they
did was to create a special prefix.  On any one switch, they may have
all of the calls to this prefix go through a few dedicated
trunks.

This way when you have more attempts to dial the number in a
certain exchange than you have trunks available, you get a local
all-trunks-busy, rather than having the call go all the way through to
the end exchange, tieing up huge numbers of trunks just to get a busy
back.  This is a lot handier than having to monitor the network for
this kind of activity, and reprogram it based upon demand.  There are
also some interesting things that happen when more than one radio
station runs a promotion at the same time, or if someone tries the
service while another station is taking calls.


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]

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

Subject: Re: Choke Lines
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 1:39:13 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


I understand a trend is afoot to charge for all calls to radio station
contest choke trunks.

The theory (argument, etc.) is that since callers to these contests
tie up much network resources, even if they never make it out of their
own offices, that they should pay for the inconvenience to the other
subscribers.

Is this trend fact or fantasy? Is it a matter of tariffs or is there
some other technical factor to consider?

May the blessings of The Telephone Company be upon you!


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

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

From: Bob Stratton <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Six Digit Telephone Numbers Used By Cable System
Date: 25 Mar 90 09:34:21 GMT


When someone mentioned five digit telephone #'s in rural areas as
being supported by stepper hardware, I was reminded of a current topic
that I've come upon:

My local Cable TV vendor has, like many others, a Pay-per-view service
that takes telephone orders. No Big Deal. Recently, they have
introduced "Top Event Express", a _6_ digit phone number that
evidently does some sort of Calling Party ID, and passes it in a
machine-readable form to the cable company's computer, which asks for
my order, WITHOUT ever asking who I am.

The number is "103800", which looks to me like a carrier access number
followed by "0". I have tried scanning a bit with this carrier access
code (if indeed it is one), and the only thing I've run into was an
intercept operator of some sort who had no information as to why she
was even there. [Not surprising]

I'd appreciate any clues as to how this is implemented, and why more
businesses haven't jumped on the bandwagon.


Bob Stratton                 UUCP: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Stratton Systems Design      GEnie: R.STRATTON32          Delphi: RJSIII
Alexandria, VA               Prodigy <gag>: WHMD84A       PSTN: 703.765.4335

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

From: charles he hemstreet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Phone Range
Date: 25 Mar 90 23:04:04 GMT
Reply-To: charles he hemstreet <[e-mail]>
Organization: Colorado State University


I have a question about the FCC regulations concerning portable phones
(not cellular).  I recently bought a cobra cordless phone and it
doesn't seem to get that great a range.  The model is CP468.  Can
anyone tell me what the maximum allowable range is for new cordless
phones.  I remember back in the days when it wasn't so regulated that
one could purchase a phone with a range of 1500 feet, and that was
rare.  Standard range was a 1000 feet.  The box I got the phone in
doesn't say anything except .... "maximum allowable range".

If anyone can fill me in, I would sure appreciate it.  You can send
response to me via email.


Thanks,

Chip

!===========================================================================!
! Charles H. Hemstreet IV       !internet: [e-mail] !
! Colorado State University     !                                           !
!===========================================================================!

[Moderator's Note: The FCC cannot regulate the *range* or distance
travelled of any radio signal, including cordless phones. That would
be impossible, based on the wild and sometimes whacky ways radio
signals are propogated and skip around. What the FCC regulates is the
output or level of radiation from a transmitter, and the length of the
(transmitting) antenna used. Cordless phones are limited to a hundred
milliwatts (a tenth of a watt) output, and antennas of a certain
design and length. Electromagnetic waves of this length (about 8
meters) and strength typically can be received for 800-1200 feet. Some
cordless phone manufacturers optimize the construction of their device
(what we used to call 'peaking' our CB radios) by a liberal
interpretation of FCC rules relating to the modulation on the units
among other things. So they get another couple hundred feet of range
under ideal atmospheric and other conditions.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #206
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25420;
          26 Mar 90 10:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26920;
          26 Mar 90 4:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03678;
          26 Mar 90 3:23 CST
Date:     Mon, 26 Mar 90 3:06:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #207
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 26 Mar 90 03:05:45 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 207

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cellular Programming [Jeff Wasilko]
    Distinctive Ring Converter [Jeff Wasilko]
    Re: Misinterpreted Numbers [Tad Cook]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Jay Maynard]
    Re: Strange Charges on Phone Bills [Robert Savery]
    Phone Rates, Books, etc [Jack Winslade]
    XMODEM Protocol [enrico![e-mail]]
    Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [B. Templeton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 01:18:16 EST
From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Programming


In a previous digest, Lance Ware asked:

>Second, when I bought my last cellular phone, on a Sunday, the dealer
>typed in quite a few digits on the phone, gave me five phone #'s to
>choose from and then entered that number. Can anyone give me some info
>on how Cellular Phones are programmed and what exactly the dealer has
>control over?

Cellular phones need quite a bit of information to work. Each phone
has a electronic serial number (ESN) permanently assigned to it. This
serial number is used for identification/authentication of the phone.
Installers must program information about the cellular carrier (system
identifier code) you have chosen, your lock code, along with the phone
number.

Each type of cellular phone has different programming techniques, and
they are closely guarded since it is possible to defraud the service
provider by changing the phone number or ESN. Note that there are
extensive systems in place to prevent fraudulent calls. Generally, it
is not possible to make more than one fraudulent call per phone number
before the system blacklists/turns off that phone number.

Your dealer only has control over the phone. As you might expect, all
features (i.e., call waiting, three-way calling, etc.) are enabled at
the switch.


| 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.      |

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 01:30:50 EST
From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distinctive Ring Converter


In a previous Digest, someone asked about a device to route calls to
particular devices/extentions based on the ring pattern.

Well, as I was flipping through TE&M I saw an ad for such a device.

The manufacturer is Ci Network Products. Their address is:

    Charles Center, 5600 Apollo Drive
    Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008
    [phone]

This is the short blurb in the ad:

"Recent telco offerings of two or more directory numbers on a single
line by employing distinctive ringing cadences have afforded Ci an
opportunity. Its Distinctive Ringing Converter (DRC) identifies the
ringing cadence assigned to a fax machine, for example, and passes the
ringing signal only to the fax terminal, avoiding attendant
interuption of the automated answering sequence."


| 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.      |

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Misinterpreted Numbers?
Date: 26 Mar 90 06:00:10 GMT
Organization: very little


The Moderator mentioned that it is illegal for payphones to block
10XXX access, per an FCC ruling.  Any specific reference on this?  Our
WA state PUC just told me that blocking 10XXX is OK, as long as there
is some OTHER way to get through; such as charging 25 cents to call
950-1022 instead of 10222 for MCI.


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]


[Moderator's Note: Didn't we cover this in a Digest some months back?
Was it the FCC (I think it was), or was it it one of the state
commissions which laid down the law to those guys?  PT]

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

From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 90 15:49:19 GMT


>[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]

Basic rule: Emergency personnel would much rather respond when they
didn't have to then not respond when they were needed. If in doubt,
CALL.

It's never appropriate to chastise someone for calling 911 when they
honestly feel that they have an emergency.

As for ANI on 911, it does indeed help matters. I used to run with a
fire department that did its own dispatching, and each member served a
shift in rotation up at the station answering the phones. It was not
uncommon at all for a distraught caller to have trouble either
remembering or saying their address; even with the help of a tape
recorder attached to the phone line to play back the call, we had to
guess at addresses far more than I would like. A correct E911 database
removes that problem.


Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
[e-mail]       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
attctc, RIP. It was nice knowing ya +----------------------------------------
         "Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within." - Charles Hannum


[Moderator's Note: You are right on both counts. Better safe than
sorry is the best rule; however the abuse 911 takes here in Chicago is
extreme at times.  People come home from work to find they have been
burglarized, so they call 911. That is not an emergency. It would have
been an emergency if they were there and caught the burglar in the
act. Whether the police arrive in two minutes or twenty minutes at
this point is not important. What annoys me are the people who call
911 to report their car stolen from wherever they had it parked
*yesterday*.  That's not an emergency either. ANI is a big help here
due to similar sounding streets. In the old days a caller yells in the
phone, "help my house in on fire! 4921 Western Avenue ... " then slams
the phone down and runs outside. The Fire Department had to dispatch a
company to both 4921 *North* Western and 4921 *South* Western Avenue,
at a waste of manpower and resources for one company or the other, or
*both* if it was a malicious phalse alarm. Thank goodness those days
are over.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 16:55:52 EST
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Charges on Phone Bills
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


    In a recent article, Jack Winslade wrote:
     >Measured service is available, but they do not promote it, nor do
     >they tell in the phone book which prefixes are how many units, ect.

         " Here are the useage rates ---    (Omaha, Nebraska)
         .------------------------------------------
         |          |   Each       |  For Calls    |
         |  Each    |  Additional  | Within Local  |
         | Minute   |   Minute     | Calling Area* |
         |----------|--------------|---------------|
         |   5c     |     1.0c     |  0 - 10 miles |
         |----------|--------------|---------------|
         |   7c     |     1.3c     | 11 - 15 miles |
         |----------|--------------|---------------|
         |   9c     |     1.5c     | 16 - 20 miles |
         |----------|--------------|---------------|
         |   11c    |     1.7c     | 21 - 25 miles |
         |----------|--------------|---------------|
         |   13c    |     1.9c     | 25 - 35 miles |
         `----------`--------------`---------------'
         * Long distance charges may apply to calls outside
           local calling area.  "end quote.

    " You will recieve discounts if you call at night and on  weekends.
    Calls made between 9pm and 9am weekdays and on weekends [ all day ]
    carry a 50% discount. "

         Disclaimer: The above was borrowed from the U S West phone
                     book, Omaha edition, page 7

    If you know where you are calling and how far away it is, it's not to
    hard to figure out the charge.If all you have is the phone number and
    no idea of the address,I've found that unless your calling outside the
    metro area most calls will fall in the 5c catagory.

    I have had Measured service for a while now, and until I got a modem,
    found that it saved me $5.00 a month. U S West tracks my calls by
    catagory, adds up the charges and applies the charge to a $5.00
    allowance they give you. If you go over the allowance, you are only
    charged the  difference. In my case, the basic service charge is
    $16.10. The basic charge for unmeasured service charge is 20.45. Even
    with all the time I spend on bbs around town, I've never used up the
    $4.35 difference.Usually I run about $3.00 over.

                               BOB

         Disclaimer: These must be my opinions, no one else wants them!

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
 * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Mar 90 16:58:29 EST
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Rates, Books, etc.
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


JSW writes:   ... the Omaha measured service rates do not appear in the
                  phone book.

Robert Savery writes: ... here they are, page 7 of the phone book.

Oops!  <blush> I was not looking in the 'real' phone book, but the
alternate one that Omaha has had for 3-4 years.  I checked in the
'real' one and sure enough, they are posted.

Omaha, as do several other cities, has a competing second directory.
Small business owners are griping because they now are compelled to
take out ads in both to insure maximum coverage.  Of course, both U.S.
West and the competing company both assert that theirs is the
'official' city of Omaha phone directory.

To the phone consumer, I have noticed one benefit.  Before the
competing directory was published, it was like pulling teeth to get
more than one copy of the directory per line.  Now U.S. West will give
you as many copies as you can use.


Good Day!        JSW

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
 * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

From: danny <enrico![e-mail]>
Subject: XMODEM Protocol
Date: 24 Mar 90 01:14:22 GMT
Organization: Innovative Interfaces Inc., Berkeley, CA


I am writing a program that handles xmodem protocol.  I need books,
programs or whatever information on xmodem.  Please e-mail me at
uunet!enrico!danny since I don't read this group.

Thanks in advance.


DC

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

From: Brad Templeton <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 3:18:17 EST
Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.


I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the
Telco's positions somewhat on this.

The Business/Residence distinction was created to give residence
phones a break because of their patterns of low use.  Residence phones
are usually used only infrequently, nothing compared to the use
business phones get.  So they deserve a lower cost.

But BBS phones, and indeed even modem phones, aren't like that.  If
you need a multi use BBS, that means you probably have lines that see
constant use.  Even the typical small business doesn't see that, you
need a PBX to get that level of usage.

Yes, part of the cost difference goes back to "ability to pay," but in
reality the telco doesn't and needn't care what you do with the line
or how much money you make from it.  What affects them is how much use
it gets.

So to be fair from a usage standpoint, BBSs should probably pay more
than the basic business rate!  Hobby or not, it strikes me as a bit
greedy to fight for the residence rate on a phone line that will see
such intense use.

The current system isn't fair, of course.  There are many businesses
who have little usage, and residences who use the phone a lot.  And
BBSs tend to use the phone more off-peak, while businesses don't.  The
system is created to provide some statistical difference.  But who can
argue that a BBS is in the usage class of a general residential line?


Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Templeton is the Moderator for the funny stories
and jokes newsgroup (rec.humor.funny) on Usenet.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #207
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21003;
          27 Mar 90 3:14 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03691;
          27 Mar 90 1:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26904;
          27 Mar 90 0:32 CST
Date:     Tue, 27 Mar 90 0:30:14 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #208
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 27 Mar 90 00:30:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 208

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [K. Denninger]
    Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [G. Kloepfer]
    Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSAURD vs Ma Bell [P. da Silva]
    COSUARD and Business Rates [Jon Solomon]
    Re: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 18:19:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Templeton) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 207, Message 8 of 8

>I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the
>Telco's positions somewhat on this.

I don't.

>The Business/Residence distinction was created to give residence
>phones a break because of their patterns of low use.  Residence phones
>are usually used only infrequently, nothing compared to the use
>business phones get.  So they deserve a lower cost.

This is not true.  Residential phones, at least in the USA, are
charged at a lower rate for reasons which have nothing to do with
usage patterns.  It has to do with the notion that everyone should be
able to not only have a phone line, but be able to afford to use it,
at least within some defined "local" area.

Business users >subsidize< residential customers at present in the US.
That is, the typical residential bill does not cover the cost of
providing service to that customer.  This is being phased out slowly
now that Ma Bell is broken up, but the last I heard it had not
completely taken place.

>But BBS phones, and indeed even modem phones, aren't like that.  If
>you need a multi use BBS, that means you probably have lines that see
>constant use.  Even the typical small business doesn't see that, you
>need a PBX to get that level of usage.

Oh?  Ever have a teenager in your home?  Were you ever a teen with a
number of friends to call?  My household, when I was growing up, had
the phone in use from about 4-5 pm until 10 or 11, every weeknight.
There was, given, a break about 6 or so (for dinner!).  Then my sister
would get back on the line and stay on -- for hours at a time.
(Admittedly I did this once in a while too).

>Yes, part of the cost difference goes back to "ability to pay," but in
>reality the telco doesn't and needn't care what you do with the line
>or how much money you make from it.  What affects them is how much use
>it gets.

Yes, and for INCOMING calls the caller pays the bill.  That is, as
long as you don't dial out, the phone company should not care how long
you are on the line, since the other user's end is paying the freight
for your phone to be "off hook".

In Chicago, the originator indeed does pay the bill - by the minute.
Outside of an 8-mile radius for residential customers, and on ALL
CALLS for business customers.  Within roughly 8 miles a residential
customer pays about a nickel per call -- regardless of how long they
talk.

>So to be fair from a usage standpoint, BBSs should probably pay more
>than the basic business rate!  Hobby or not, it strikes me as a bit
>greedy to fight for the residence rate on a phone line that will see
>such intense use.

But the other end of the call is ALREADY paying for the use!  Why
should BBS owners, or any other RECEIVER of a call, be charged
differently than anyone else?  The caller is already paying the
freight!

And not all BBS systems get that level of use; those that do may only
get it for a couple of hours a day.  I know personally of two 12-line
systems in the Chicago area which have peak usage for perhaps an hour
a day -- and at least 12 hours during which there is >no< activity
(people do sleep you know!)

Shall we have a "teenager" tax on the phone too?  If you have a teen
in the house, there is a high probability that the phone will be used
more like a business than a residence, so anyone with a teen should
pay business rates, right?

>The current system isn't fair, of course.  There are many businesses
>who have little usage, and residences who use the phone a lot.  And
>BBSs tend to use the phone more off-peak, while businesses don't.  The
>system is created to provide some statistical difference.  But who can
>argue that a BBS is in the usage class of a general residential line?

I can easily argue it, given that there are such things as teenagers
and that their phone lines aren't rated as business lines.  In
addition to living with one such teen during her "phoney" years (:-) I
also ran a BBS for about 6 years during that time.  The voice line for
our home was in more constant use than my BBS telephone!

The point about off-peak use is even more relavent.  A BBS system
costs the telco nearly NOTHING to allow on the network, given that the
peak usage for these lines tends to occur after the supper hour --
when most of the capacity of the system is quiescent!  Since the
caller is paying for the call, the telco is receiving revenue that it
would otherwise not get at all, with no undue (read: requiring
additional expense) load on their equipment.  After all, telco's
design and implement their load capacity for daytime business use --
residential and BBS use, especially at night when it is the only real
load, are miniscule in comparison.

Sounds to me like the telco's are the greedy ones here.


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


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

Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Reply-To: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <think!ames!limbic.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, NY
Date: 26 Mar 90 23:10:37 EST (Mon)
From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <think!ames!limbic.UUCP![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Templeton) writes:

>The Business/Residence distinction was created to give residence
>phones a break because of their patterns of low use.  Residence phones
>are usually used only infrequently, nothing compared to the use
>business phones get.  So they deserve a lower cost.

I disagree entirely on this point.  This was discussed back a few
months ago with regard to the same issue -- I think you will find that
a teenage youngster in the household can (and may) generate more
telephone usage than a BBS might.

As for your frequency of use argument -- why should the receiver of a
telephone call be charged for receiving calls - regardless of what
kind or quantity.  The telcos are billing the customers who call the
BBS (sans long distance users, but that, of course, is absorbed in the
FCC line charge, right?).  They *are* receiving the appropriate amount
of revenue for the volume of calls being made to the line(s).

>Even the typical small business doesn't see that, you
>need a PBX to get that level of usage.

Why?  And does it matter that one needs a PBX at all?

>So to be fair from a usage standpoint, BBSs should probably pay more
>than the basic business rate! Hobby or not, it strikes me as a bit
>greedy to fight for the residence rate on a phone line that will see
>such intense use.

Then what you are implying that one should pay their phone bill _not_
based on the class of user that is using it, but rather the amount of
time per month that the line is used (for INCOMING or OUTGOING calls).
If this is the case, then the idea of a 'business line' or
'residential line' (or even the 'life line' (subsidized low-income
phone)) should be entirely eliminated, since if one doesn't use their
phone, they won't get billed for it (save a monthly service charge,
which should be equal for any user, plus any special 'features' added
to the line).

I'm attempting not to flame your point, but I do feel that if you're
going to make a point to charge BBS phone users more for a line, then
perhaps what you really should recommend is that the way telephone
lines are billed be completely reworked.  Personally -- I'm not
convinced that BBSs put enough 'stress' on the telephone system where
the telcos are finding it necessary to increase the amount of service
they provide (ie. increase amount of equipment) to service the BBS
comminity.  Multi-line homes must pay for each line (installation plus
monthly service charge).  I see no reason why a BBS operator (or
computer user of any kind) should pay extra for their phone service.


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.  ...!ames!limbic!gil |
[e-mail] ICUS Software Systems -- Western
Development Center P.O. Box 1 Islip Terrace, NY 11752

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 02:35:55 GMT


> So to be fair from a usage standpoint, BBSs should probably pay more
> than the basic business rate!  Hobby or not, it strikes me as a bit
> greedy to fight for the residence rate on a phone line that will see
> such intense use.

We've seen this argument before. If the length of calls is a problem,
the fair thing is to go to metered service. That way you get everyone,
including the folks who *talk* for hours. If you can't do that, it's
unjust to pick on computer hobbyists.

Personally, the times I've run a BBS the usage on that phone line has
gone *down*, because I'm no longer calling out to work on that line.


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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 18:33:57 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: COSUARD and Business Rates


New England Telephone has the best possible solution which I think is
most fair and impartial.

1) Residence customers can not have Residence Measured and Residence
Unmeasured (or Metropolitan) service in the same premise. You can have
100 lines measured, or unmeasured/metropolitan, but you can not have
two lines, one measured, and one unmeasured. This is a fairly recent
situation.

2) BBS's lines are considered business only if they are incoming (and
thus incur no message units), even though the lines are measured.

3) You can hook an unmeasured line on your BBS only if you and your
fellow residence people (roommates, family, etc) use it. Mainly if it
is used here for my own personal use or by me (even if it is used for
BBS "business"), it can be a resident unmeasured line.

Business rates are $25.00/month, resident metropolitan service is
$22.00/month.  This includes the access charges, and wiring insurance
(whatever it is called in your areea) meaning I can call repair
service if my line is broken and they will fix any part of it.

Basically, I can set up a BBS with a UUCP dial-in (business/measured)
and a UUCP dial-out (a separate line -- metropolitan unmeasured) for
about as much business or residence.

The way they handle business installation here; you can have 5 lines
installed for $100.00 even though the basic rate is $125.00 ... go
figure.

Southwestern Bell should not, in my opinion, grant residence lines for
BBS service since they have to recover the cost of the copper, between
your home and the central office, which is not completely done by
residence lines. Residence service is priced at the "lowest possible
level", and business service is priced at the "prevailing economic
rate".

I think residence service fails to recover all costs since PUC's are
generally reluctant to stiff customers with the costs. Instead they
price business rates which are usually more prolific (note, usually)
in a given community, to recover the costs of residential users.

This should be the guideline:

Residence service is for the use of the party, and other occupants
of his home, and rarely and occasionally, guests. Note that a guest
who stays too long becomes an occupant.

Business service is mainly for people to call in (churches, etc use
business service even though they are not for profit), and for the
completion of "business" related to the use the line provides (in this
case the operation of a bbs).

Where you get something back is where you use residence measured rates,
which cost $6.75/line incl access fees. Also, if your uucp outdials can
be ddone in unmeasured service that is $14.00/line. You can save bundles
if they will let you do that. But you aren't paying for what you use.

Good luck convincing the powers that be to let you suck the juice off
of the rest of us.


jsol

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Update on the Southwestern Bell Vrs. BBS Situation
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 16:28:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Steve Nuchia <nuchat![e-mail]>
writes:

> >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?

Where were you begging? I haven't seen any requests on any of the
local groups or on Sanctuary, the BBS in question and the only BBS I
currently call ... I can't get into the cliquish chattiness on most
BBSes (and also, incidentally, on alt.cosuard).

I have posted messages on alt.cosuard in the past, and recieved a resounding
silence... while trying to keep up with the local BBS chatter in it. I
finally gave up under the assumption that COSUARD didn't want or need input
from Usenet.


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


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #208
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23804;
          27 Mar 90 4:20 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01579;
          27 Mar 90 2:42 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03691;
          27 Mar 90 1:38 CST
Date:     Tue, 27 Mar 90 1:02:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #209
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 27 Mar 90 01:00:10 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 209

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (minor correction) [[e-mail]]
    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Bill Fenner]
    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Ken Dykes]
    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Jim Rees]
    Re: Phone Harassment [Tom Perrine]
    Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors! [Bill Fenner]
    Re: Itemized Billing in the UK [Scott Ferguson]
    Re: 911 and Home PBX's [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Enhanced 911 [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Phone Rates, Books, etc. [Scott Fybush]
    Re: US Sprint [Sergio Gelato]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 05:03:59 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme (minor correction)
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


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

>  Carl <[e-mail]> writes:

=> 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 placement (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.

=>                   Code    Character    Mnemonic
=>                    73         .        PEriod
=>
=>        H E L L O , ^ M Y ^ N A M E ^ I S ^ C A R L .    (^ = space)
=>        4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9
=>                                        ^^----------^^-----------------+
>   Is it really true that a period and the letter 'S' would be the same |
>numeric code under this system?  It seems like the only flaw under an --+
>otherwise quite usable system.

>[Moderator's Note: It is such a good scheme in fact that there ought
>to be some work-around past this one problem.  PT]

Ok, so I had a small memory glitch. :-) It's been about ten years
since I last used the MTS system.  (Also, this was my first post to
any newsgroup ever.  I was concentrating on being concise.)  I
remember now that MTS "pronounced" that character (".", period) as
"point," so it very well may have been POint, or 76.  Also please bear
in mind that there is no "standard" for translating DTMF to text,
therefore any number of schemes could be used.  As long as there is
SOME remember-able word associated with each character, it's easy to
learn the system.  Once you're used to it, you don't even need the
mnemonics anymore.


Carl, considering a possible change of name. :-)


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

From: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme
Date: 26 Mar 90 18:17:03 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University


In article <[e-mail]> point![e-mail]
(David Tamkin) writes:

|Carl, who gave no surname, wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 197:
||                   Code    Character    Mnemonic
||                    39         !        EXclamation point
||                    73         .        PEriod

|That would mean period and S have the same code.  It can't be.  There
|[Moderator's Note: This same point was raised in the last issue. Since
|then I have thought about it and it occurs to me you could probably
|eliminate the exclamation point and use 39 for the period instead.  PT]

Ah, but that elimitates the mnemonicness (what a word! :-) of PEriod.
Maybe 77, PeRiod, or 74, PerIod, or ...


Bill Fenner                   [e-mail]             ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf
[e-mail] (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633)     ..!lll-winken!/

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

From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme
Date: 27 Mar 90 01:46:24 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Karl Lohner) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 202, Message 4 of 7

>  Carl <[e-mail]> writes:
>>        4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9
>                                         ^^----------^^-----------------+
>   Is it really true that a period and the letter 'S' would be the same |
>numeric code under this system?  It seems like the only flaw under an --+
>otherwise quite usable system.

Perhaps someone decided that period means "Stop" ??  If not, we can
always invent the legend after the fact :-)


   - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W]
          [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]
          [e-mail]           watmath!kgdykes
          [e-mail]         B8 s+ f+ w t e m r

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 15:29:07 GMT


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

> >        H E L L O , ^ M Y ^ N A M E ^ I S ^ C A R L .    (^ = space)
> >        4232535363262561932562216132254373252321725373#9
>                                          ^^----------^^-----------------+
>    Is it really true that a period and the letter 'S' would be the same |
> numeric code under this system?  It seems like the only flaw under an --+
> otherwise quite usable system.

No, that's a typo.  I don't remember what '.' was exactly, but it may
have been '37'.  All the codes were unique.

As I remember, it was possible to produce all 256 EBCDIC (this is IBM,
remember) codes, and all of the ones you ever really needed you could
make with two keystrokes.  If you had a 16 button pad it was easier.

I had a 10 button pad that I converted to 12 button by drilling two
holes in the plastic front and adding two buttons.  The switches were
already there.  In those days the tones were produced by a very clever
circuit that had two LC tanks but only a single active element!  I
never did completely figure out how it worked.  The inductors were big
things encased in ferrite. One of the common failure modes was that
the glue would fail and the ferrite would come apart.

I could actually key in to the Audio Response Unit (ARU) faster than
into a normal keyboard (this was before I learned to type).  Many of
the codes were mnemonic (comma was 26, "cm", for example).  Recently I
came across some scheme, from a bank I think, that required you to hit
the key that the letter was on, once for first position, twice for
second, three times for third.  So 'a' is 2, 'b' is 22, and so on.
Since each letter was variable length, you had to hit a '#' to
terminate a letter.  So some letters end up being four keystrokes!  I
just laughed when I saw this.

More on the ARU: There were two of them.  The first did the voice
synthesis on the 360/67 cpu and used prodigious amounts of cpu time,
but could synthesize anything at all.  Someone had even programmed it
to make music.  I think it had four phone lines and was the size of a
Vax 780.  Later they replaced it with some rack-mount jobs that did
their own synthesis but could only do phonemes, so were useless for
music, but they kept the same touchtone input code.  I don't know what
ever happened to the ARU -- maybe it's still there? MTS hasn't changed
much.

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Harassment
Date: 26 Mar 90 17:45:47 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


> 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.

>[Moderator's Note: How about one that is on the same voicemail service
>I use (Centel, Des Plaines, IL)?  The number is answered, "After you
>hear the tone, leave your message." Then the voicemail lady's default,
>"You may start your message now." <beep>.  That's it.  PT]

Some companies use these approaches to avoid unwanted visitors, etc. A
friend works at a company that has a building on which *every* door
says "Please use other door", with an arrow pointing to the right :-)

Also, if you call someone there, the voice mail system answers using
the called persons voice and the messages implies that you have
reached their *home*.

Subtle, but effective.


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

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

From: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Passed The Test With Flying Colors!
Date: 26 Mar 90 18:32:05 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Penn State University


In article <[e-mail]> "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech!bsa@
cwjcc.ins.cwru.edu> writes:

|[Moderator's Note:
|What do you want to bet we who got the WD-40 cards have to
|'remind them' to issue us our five bucks credit for 'one hour of free
|calling' once the third billing cycle passes without it?  PT]

Hm.  I tried the WD-40 number the first day I saw it in the Digest; I
still haven't gotten my neat-o new FON card.  Should I bother calling
them and bugging them?  Should I win the WD-40 thing again?  Should I
give up?  The only reason I wanted it was for the ("free") calls; I
miss my PC Pursuit. :-)


Bill Fenner                   [e-mail]             ..!psuvax1!psuhcx!wcf
[e-mail] (1:129/87 - 814/238-9633)     ..!lll-winken!/


[Moderator's Note: I suggest you order it again; everyone else got
their card and some of us have recieved our first bills already.   PT]

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

From: Scott Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Itemized Billing in the UK
Date: 26 Mar 90 14:54:35 GMT
Organization: HP, Queensferry Telecomms (UK)


>Does  anyone   know why BT  don't  itemize    all  calls
>irrespective of cost? If anyone from BT is reading this list maybe they can
>provide an answer to this?

If BT listed all the calls under 50p you would receive a enormous bill
for the paper required to print out all the bills. It's clearly a
compromise between information and practicality.


Scott Ferguson
Hewlett Packard
Queensferry Telecommunicationss Division
Scotland
[e-mail]

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 and Home PBX's
Date: 26 Mar 90 16:40:07 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne) writes...

>For example on my Panasonic 308 to get an outside line you have to
>dial 81, 82 or 83.

> >I'm told that it's not a technical limitation, the switches could be
>designed to hunt for a free line but that then the telephone companies
>want to sell you more expensive "pbx" lines.

Some PBXs have that option; the Mitel SX-5, f'rinstance, could be run
with or without trunk scanning.  That lets you pick the "key system"
or "PBX" tariff.  In most cases, flat rate business PBX trunks cost
more (about 1.5 to 2x) than individual lines.  Measured trunks,
however, don't have the surcharge, so in measured service areas you
use "PBX" mode.  As Patrick pointed out, some switches activate both
options.

In most tariffs that I've seen, residential PBXs are treated as
residential lines, with no surcharge.  Panasonic may have been aiming
the switch at business users.

>Perhaps what Panasonic should do is to have a special 911 mode, where
>the switch drops the call on line 1, gets a dial tone, dials 911 and
>then connects the set that dialled 911 to that line.

It would be a nice idea for "911" to simply autodial 911 on a trunk,
but ONLY if you didn't use "9" for trunk access.  Else you might
accidentally get the cops upset when you didn't mean to call them.


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

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enhanced 911
Date: 26 Mar 90 17:02:23 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Glenn M Cooley) writes...

>For example, the federal government recently purchased a new phone
>system which will save it $200 million a year.  And since this new
>phone system only cost $25 billion the payback period is only a mere
>ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE YEARS.

I personally don't think FTS2000 was a good idea but the above is
simply wrong!

The gummint spends sagans (millions and millions) of dollars a year on
phone calls.  FTS2000 is a service provided by AT&T and US Sprint.  It
will provide lower bills, for intra-gov't calls, than any commercially
available service.

Perhaps the $25B is the total anticipated phone bill over a decade,
but it's not an up-front expenditure.  There's no "payback" period.
The savings is of course a silly number based upon comparing it to a
very inefficient network; it could save over a billion a year if you
compared it to the cost of sending all calls through COCOTS!  Still,
the FTS2000 rates are pretty cheap.


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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 20:56:59 est
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Rates, Books, etc.


Having trouble getting yer local telco to give you more than one copy
of the phonebook?

Just go down to your local college or university -- phone books will
be in plentiful supply all over campus ... at least they are here at
Brandeis.  Walk in any door and you'll be greeted by a big
blue-and-yellow stack of them; and Boston phone books are big!

I mourn for all the trees that died to support it...


Scott Fybush
Disclaimer: This may not be my own opinoin.

"Help me, my home phone is a COCOT!"

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 20:22 EDT
From: Sergio Gelato <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint


>From: motcid![e-mail] (Steven King)
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 202, Message 7 of 7

>I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was
>quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes
>separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill.  I gather the
>same is true for MCI and other ld carriers.  But *not* for AT&T.  Why
>can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't?  Or, if
>they can, why don't they?

I once got billed by Sprint through the local telco (New York Tel).
This was shortly after service was established on that line. (I told
NYTEL to assign Sprint as the default carrier, and let them take care
of notifying Sprint. Sprint may not have been told my address in time
for the first bill.) So it is indeed possible for Sprint to bill
through the local carrier.

    As to why they insist on doing their own billing, I would
venture the following guess: it is cheaper (for them, at least). Note
that I have no actual knowledge of how much NYTEL charges for
third-party billing; but since Sprint &al. need to have their own
billing department anyway (to take care of all these FONcards), they
might as well do all of their billing themselves. To us customers, it
means one more 25- (soon to be 30-) cent stamp per month -- that is
usually negligible compared to the amount of a long distance bill.


Sergio Gelato <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #209
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26219;
          27 Mar 90 5:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09809;
          27 Mar 90 3:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01579;
          27 Mar 90 2:42 CST
Date:     Tue, 27 Mar 90 1:50:39 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #210
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 27 Mar 90 01:50:02 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 210

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    911 Breakdowns in St. Louis [Will Martin]
    Problem with Northern Telecom Switch [Jesse W. Asher]
    Review of the DataTool 5500 [Stephen J. Friedl]
    Sprint Voice FON Card [Communications Week via Ken Jongsma]
    INTRAstate Calling Plans [Lawrence M. Geary]
    Smart, Secure Answering Machines [Tom Neff]
    Ringing a Busy Phone [Paul Nakada]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 9:51:33 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Breakdowns in St. Louis


The local St. Louis TV news had stories last night about a breakdown
problem in our local 911 service. This seems to have been going on for
the past year, but only now is being reported. The situation is that
the 911 central-contact point is a roomfull of police operators in a
new communications center in the downtown area, next to the main
police station. The EMS crews, though, are dispatched from a totally
separate station miles away from this. The lines between the two sites
break down frequently, like 11 times in the past 10 months (or 10
times in the past 11 months ... whatever). These breakdowns happen with
*any* bad weather; it just happened Saturday with a heavy snowfall. It
has happened with rain and hot weather, too.

What happens is that calls to 911 for medical-type emergencies are
transferred to the EMS center by the 911 operators. The caller hears a
new ring, and then the EMS people answer. When the breakdowns happen,
calls in progress which have been so transferred go dead. New callers
being transferred get endless rings but the EMS site doesn't get the
call.

When this happens, all the EMS people pile into cars and trucks and
move en masse to the downtown site and resume operations from there.
That takes about an hour during which the police operators try to
handle medical emergencies for which they are not trained.

The solution being called for is to move the EMS dispatchers to the
communication center. Only one of the TV stations that carried this
news item (that I saw) even mentioned Southwestern Bell. That one
stated that SW Bell "knew the cause of the problem and was working on
it." Seems that it has been quite long enough for any technical bug to
have gotten fixed! No details on the technical nature of this problem
were ever given; I know SW Bell people read this list -- how about
posting the true details of what is going on here?


Regards, Will

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

From: "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys![e-mail]>
Subject: Problem with Northern Telecom Switch
Date: 23 Mar 90 23:09:14 GMT
Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys![e-mail]>
Organization: Dynasys:  Consulting for the Future.


I'm not sure what kind of problem this is, so I'm posting in different
places.  I'm trying to get a 3B2 hooked up to the net, but I'm having
a strange problem that keeps my from getting a good connection.
According to the people there (who don't know anything about the
switch), they have SL-1 Northern Telecom "integrated voice/data
switch" that they use on campus (local college).  It not only directs
voice calls, but also handles data calls.

What happens is that you call this one number (everyone that wishes to
connect to the computers on campus call this number) and connect (I
assume with the switch).  It then asks you for a number to call.  You
punch in from your keyboard what number you wish to connect to (a four
digit number).  Then, supposedly, you are connected to one of three
modems which puts you in contact with the 3B2.

Here's where the problem is:  I used cu to call this number and input
the four digit number to gain access to the 3B2.  It connects to the
3B2, but all characters are turned to upper case with a backslash in
front of all characters which are supposed to be upper case.  It's
very strange because the screen displays "login:" until the switch
connects and then it is changed to "\LOGIN:".  If you type something
in, it too is in uppercase.  Does anyone know these symptoms and have
any suggestions on what to do about them?  Any help would be
gratefully accepted.  Thanx.


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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 17:57:52 -0500
From: mtndew![e-mail]
Subject: Review of the DataTool 5500


Hi folks,

     This is a review of the Datacom Technologies DataTool 5500, a
multifunction datacom tester.  If you are not interested in RS-232,
skip this article.  If you do use RS-232 a lot, you cannot live
without this (unless *maybe* you have an HP data scope, but it's still
pretty awesome).

     The DT 5500 at first glance is a really fancy breakout box.  It's
got a red and green LED on each signal line on both sides (total of
100), plus the traditional jumpers and DIP switches.  The LEDs are
buffered so they don't load down the lines being monitored very much.

     What makes it so useful is the little Z80 and 16x2 LC display.
It has a handful of tests built in, and I use about half of them
regularly.  Listed below are the major categories of tests, plus a
description.  Note that each of these has many options, and I just
touch on the high points.  This is a remarkably versatile tool.

Self Test - this is obvious

Pin Analyzer - you run a jumper from a special pin to any of the
     RS-232 lines, and it tells you high or low level (with
     voltage) receiver, ground, or no connect.  Being able to
     track down a receiver is *really* handy when trying to
     connect something without a manual.

Analyze Device - this is amazing.  You stick this in a data
     stream and it sniffs it to tell you bit rate, parity, and
     number of stop bits.  I once had a really old terminal with
     no manual and a non-obvious bit rate.  Rather than try all
     2^16 combinations of the DIP switches, I stuck a book on the
     spacebar and the DT told me everything in a few seconds.

Send Data - It can send a handful of different messages (80/132
     scroll, QBF, your own message, etc.) at any serial setting.
     I use this when hooking up printers so I can make sure the
     flow control is right before I start diddling with the lp
     spooler.  Kind of good for testing how fast a serial port
     can take data at full speed without choking (especially at
     38.4kbps!)

Trap Data - this is the best of the bunch.  Put this in a data
     stream, and it will trap the data going in one or both
     directions.  It has a total of 4kb for the buffer, and you
     can trigger on the start of test, a message match of your
     choice, or when you hit the reset button.  While the test is
     running, the data stream is flowing past on the LC display,
     and when it is finished you can review both TD and RD trap
     buffers with a fairly convenient set of keystrokes.  You can
     print the trap buffers to a serial or a parallel printer.

     If you do RS-232 without some kind of datastream trapping,
     you are working without your eyes.

Printer Setup - it sends a message to a printer in all
     combinations of bit rate, parity, and stop bits, and you
     watch it until something prints that makes sense.  It is
     possible for garbage serial data to confuse the printer
     sometimes, but if you don't have a manual, you will probably
     live with whatever you have :-).  I don't use this much.

Data Throughput - this monitors a serial line and tells the data
     rate through the line in CPS and % of occupancy.   Nice if
     you want to see how well uucp between two machines or a
     TrailBlazer is doing.

BERT - as bit error rate testers go, this is supposed to be a
     good one, but I don't use it.  The manual uses BERT as their
     introductory example to get the user comfortable with the
     box, and it struck me as being well done (from my very
     limited perspective).

Monitor SDLC - I never work with SDLC and know nothing about how
     nice this is.  The docs seem to indicate that the support is
     fairly extensive.

Polling - more stuff I don't use, I barely know what it is.

Bias Distortion - this measures how much a data link messes up a
     signal.  They send a 50% duty cycle square wave signal out
     one end, and you're supposed to loop it back on the other
     end.  It reads the wave coming back and reports the actual
     duty cycle coming back: if it's not 50-50 then there is
     distortion somewhere in the line.  I don't use this but
     probably should.

Event Timing - this measures the time between two events, an
     "event" being a transition of a signal line.  Really nice to
     know long DTR was low or how long it takes CTS to follow RTS
     or some other such measurement.

Print Test Data - this prints the trap buffer or the BERT
     results.  I use this with trap data all the time.

Load User Msg - this lets you download a message from an external
     device (say, a PC or a terminal) into the message buffer.
     You can either use this as a print test pattern for output
     or a message to match on trap data.  I've not used this yet
     but know that I will soon enough.

The DT5500 supports async to 38400bps and sync to 64000bps, plus SDLC.
I never use sync or SDLC so my knowledge of the entire topic is weak
(but the rest of the box is so good that I can't help but assume that
they did this part well too).  They also support parallel for the
tests that make sense (i.e., send/trap data, print test data, etc.)

It operates on three 9-volt batteries or external power.  They use one
of those power bricks, but the brick is in the middle of the cable(!)
instead of on the wall end.  I almost always use the AC so batteries
last a long time for me.  I wish the unit would recharge NiCd
batteries if used.  The unit is solidly built with a good feel.

The unit costs $1295 retail, and I know of no dealers or anybody who
gives discounts.  I don't know if they have any kind of trial use or
eval program, but it would make sense if they did because they would
never get any of these returned.  It's worth every penny.

I formerly had the DataTool 5000, the lower-end unit, and I just got
the 5500 -- it is so wonderful I can hardly see straight.  I use it at
least two hours every day, and without the two-way data trap I would
be reduced to a bumbling idiot.  It has saved me a bazillion hours.

The 5000 is great too, but it only handles 19200bps and traps data one
way.  I don't think it does SDLC either, plus a couple of other more
minor things, so definitely spend the extra $400 or so and get the
5500.

Datacom Technologies (formerly Datacom Northwest) has been around for
a while, and they have been totally great to deal with.  I have owned
their breakout boxes since 1984, and they have been nothing but
helpful and responsive to me.  I made several suggestions for
improvements to the DataTool, and several of them made it into the
product a few months later.  They also give out those great little
RS-232 screwdrivers at trade shows.

I have no connection with Datacom Technologies other than being a
fully satisfied and enthusiastic customer.  The DataTool is unlike
anything else, and other RS-232 people really gotta hear about this.
You can call them at [phone] for literature -- they are in
Everett, Washington (tell them you heard about it in TELECOM Digest :-).

I'd be glad to answer any questions on any of this.


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


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

Subject: Sprint Voice FON Card
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 19:40:33 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


 From the March 19 issue of [Communications Week]:

US Sprint is poised to sign on its first users for a voice activated
feature of its FON Card. With this new service, the sound of a
caller's voice will activate speed dialing and message call delivery
as well as verify that the charge customer is indeed the person making
the call.

Set to be initiated in May, the service was first developed as a way
to reduce fraud. "Originally, we wanted a way to stop someone who
stole authorization codes from breaking into the system," said Hal
Poel, director of card marketing for US Sprint. "We found, however,
that consumers were less interested in not getting ripped off than in
using friendlier codes that were easier to remember."

Although the service is available to residential customers, Poel said
business travelers will likely have more opportunity to use the
service.

In speed dialing, callers establish their own voice phonebooks in
which they set voice passwords that correspond with frequently called
numbers. If a caller wants to reach home he could simply say "call
home" and the Sprint service would do the rest.

The message call delivery feature allows a caller who has received a
busy signal or no answer to leave up to a two minute message that is
delivered automatically. The system attempts to deliver the message
every 15 minutes for three hours. The caller can call into the system
to find out when and by whom the message was received and if their was
a return message.

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

From: [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary)
Subject: INTRAstate Calling Plans
Date: 26 Mar 90 20:42:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


There's a number within my state, within my area code, that gets
called frequently from my house. The exchange is "too far" to be
included in the 20 hour/month "extended calling area" offered by the
local telco. Is there a calling plan from one of the long distance
companies that might apply here? Or should it be possible to get it as
a "foreign exchange" of some kind? Right now usage is upwards of
$40/month at evening rates and I'd like to find a way to reduce it.


     --Larry: [e-mail]

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 12:30:50 EST
Subject: Smart, Secure Answering Machines


Can anyone recommend a good answering machine that lets me program my
own touch tone "password" of more than two digits?  I want a new
machine but I don't like the models that pick the first of 2 digits
for you and only let you switch between two possible second digits,
e.g. 43/46.  Any idiot could bust that!

Reply to me by mail and if there is interest I will summarize.

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

From: Paul Nakada <oracle!oracle.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Ringing a Busy Phone
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 20:37:39 GMT


In an emergency situation, can a busy phone (off hook) be coerced into
ringing its ringer?  Even if the phone which is off hook doesn't ring,
can another another phone on the same line ring?

This could be a nice feature; a call waiting that rings the ringer
instead of the call waiting tone.  This would server the dual purpose
of CW and warning of a forgotten off hook phone.


Paul Nakada
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: No, you cannot get the bell to ring if the phone is
off hook. The way the instrument is constructed prohibits this. When
the phone goes off-hook, a couple contacts inside the phone break
their connectivity in one direction and establish it in another,
diverting the current which would have gone to the bell into the
(internal) network instead. Other instruments on the line, although
still in a position to ring the bell will not ring because the phone
which is off-hook is grabbing all the current which comes down the
line.

And don't forget the change in voltage from the CO: it drops
considerably when a phone goes off hook (because the resistance
changes) and its this drop in voltage which tells relays at the CO to
do their thing. The bell typically takes a lot of voltage to operate;
just ask me about the time I had my Golden Screwdriver and my hands
where they didn't belong when someone called while I was modifying an
instrument.

Thus was invented the Witches Wail, a loud obnoxious noise sent down
the line intended to call attention to the off-hook receiver. That,
and having the operator go in on the line and tell parties to can the
sh--, and give someone else a crack at it.  :) PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #210
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00263;
          27 Mar 90 8:01 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09809;
          27 Mar 90 3:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01579;
          27 Mar 90 2:43 CST
Date:     Tue, 27 Mar 90 2:36:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #211
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 27 Mar 90 02:35:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 211

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service [Steven J. Owens]
    Re: Six Digit Telephone Numbers Used By Cable System [Willaim Berbernich]
    Re: Cellular Programming [Rob Gutierrez]
    Something to Consider [Jim Thomas]
    Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven J Owens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service
Date: 26 Mar 90 20:34:50 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services


Hi all,

    I wrote an article for a newspaper class about the SJG/SS
business (my instructor found the intial premise amusing - sounded
more like a 50s pulp serial with a hefty dose of postmodernism thrown
in).  In the course of writing the article, I gave SJG a call, and
they put Steve Jackson on the line (evidently I caught him in a
"lull," so to speak).  Here is some of what he told me.

    By the way, I called the Secret Service too.  They had one (1)
number listed (their local office, that is).  No address.  The lady
who answered the phone said she couldn't give out any information on
the case over the phone.  I asked if there was some sort of public
information number or something I could call (since the number I *had*
called was simply listed as "Secret Service," right there between
Secor International and Secret Whispers).  "I'm sorry, we cannot give
out that information over the phone."  Well, fine, then where do I go
to get the information in person, since the address isn't listed?
"I'm sorry, we cannot give out that information over the phone."

    It isn't as obnoxious as it sounds.  A helpful Treasury Dept.
official whom I called later told me that I'd probably reached their
answering service.

    On with the comments from Steve Jackson

********

Is the BBS going to be back up?

    "We've been trying to get one and set it up, but we're having
software trouble.  The Secret Service people have been promising that
the software would be returned...every day they say `It's in the mail,
Federal Express will have it to you within 24 hours.' but so far we
haven't gotten a copy."

What did the search warrant say the Secret Service was looking for?

    "It took two paragraphs to say it, but what it boiled down to
was `computer hardware and software, and records relating to computer
hardware and software.'"

How did you find out about the search?

    "When the staff showed up, the Secret Service was already
here, and they wouldn't let anybody in.  They cut or broke their way
in to filing cabinets and boxes ... we would have been happy to unlock
things if they'd let us in."

Was the GURPS Cyberpunk Rulebook related to the cause of the search?

    "We're not sure on that - maybe in a roundabout way.  When
they were reading the handbook in my presence they were getting very
upset and saying `This is just a handbook for computer crime.'"

What is the status of the GURPS Cyberpunk book?

    The Secret Service confiscated all of the GURPS Cyberpunk
materials, including the copies uploaded on the BBS.  "We're
recreating the text" from material downloaded by users, material sent
out play testers, and old rough drafts. "Estimated losses are roughly
$10,000 a week, for three or four weeks."  This was excaberated by
initial delays while the SJG folks waited for the promised return of
the document instead of trying to recreate it themselves.

Why did the Secret Service search SJG?

    All they will say is that it is in connection with a
nationwide data piracy case.  We have learned that it is in connection
with the 911 emergency computer system, which is more than the Secret
Service will tell us.

What about the author of the GURPS Cyberpunk book?  Was he searched as well?

    "Loyd Blankenship ... his home was searched earlier that day.
They evidently was something of a sore point with the folks at SJG
itself.  "They descended on a desk being used as a repair bench" by
the SJG staffer in charge of computer maintenance "it had about 2 or 3
half-assembled computers and other junk on it.  They took everything."
The staffer in charge of computer maintenance was particularly irked
that the Secret Service even took a bag of nuts and bolts.

And the sysop of the Illuminati BBS?

    Creede Lambard, aka Fearless Leader, they didn't bother him at
all.  They "ate some of the candy of his desk, but that's it."

Can you tell me anything about the relation between the GURPS
Cyberpunk book and the search?

    "In the course of writing the Cyberpunk book, Loyd made lots
and lots of connections with the computer underground.  He was also
researching a mainstream book on the computer underworld at the time."
Jackson conjectured that contacts made in this research may have led
the Secret Service to suspect that there was a link between the
computer pirates they are tracking and Loyd, and even Steve Jackson
Games.

Was the Legion of Doom on the SJG BBS?

    "It's possible that they were, but unlikely.  I know of
several people, who have that kind of background, who were on the
board, but no active hackers."  Of course, he pointed out, the board
did allow aliases, so it's impossible to be certain...

*********

    I gave Loyd Blankenship a call to see if he could answer any
of the several questions raised by this information and by things I'd
heard on comp.dcom.telecom.  His only comment was that he had no
comment at this time (which, I suppose, might mean that he actually
has something going on with the SS, or that his lawyer is a bit more
paranoid than Jackson's lawyer and told him to answer all queries with
"no comment", or that Jackson decided that PR was more important than
being paranoid.)

    By the way, I'm still working on that article (re-write of it)
so if anybody wants to comment and has some sort of important sounding
"credentials" that I can quote, please drop me a line :-)

(phone# is 412-885-2532, but you're unlikely to find me there - except
maybe Tuesday and Thursday morning & early afternoon.)


Steven J. Owens  |  Scratch@Pittvms  |  [e-mail]

"Well, that's one of the differences between life and fiction,
 after all.  Fiction is supposed to make sense."

    _Telling_Lies_For_Fun_&_Profit_, Lawrence Block

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

From: The Wisdom Tooth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Six Digit Telephone Numbers Used By Cable System
Date: 26 Mar 90 21:00:33 GMT
Reply-To: The Wisdom Tooth <eedsp![e-mail]>
Organization: DSP Lab, School of Electrical Engineering, Ga. Tech, Atlanta, GA


In article <[e-mail]> well![e-mail] (Bob Stratton)
writes:

>My local Cable TV vendor has, like many others, a Pay-per-view service
>that takes telephone orders. No Big Deal. Recently, they have
>introduced "Top Event Express", a _6_ digit phone number that
>evidently does some sort of Calling Party ID, and passes it in a
>machine-readable form to the cable company's computer, which asks for
>my order, WITHOUT ever asking who I am.

>I'd appreciate any clues as to how this is implemented, and why more
>businesses haven't jumped on the bandwagon.

Prime Cable here in Atlanta has the same setup, only you call a
regular 7-digit number (340-xxxx). The recording thanks you for your
order and a few minutes later your box gets the code to unlock the
channel you ordered.

I don't know how this could be done. I am not aware the the local
telco (Southern Bell) is authorized a tariff of this sort (CLID) yet
by the state PSC. Anyone know the answer here? I don't quite know how,
but it does work.


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: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Programming
Date: 27 Mar 90 02:47:22 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko) writes in V.10, Iss 207, Msg 1 of 8

> In a previous digest, Lance Ware asked:

> >Second, when I bought my last cellular phone, on a Sunday, the dealer
> >typed in quite a few digits on the phone, gave me five phone #'s to
> >choose from and then entered that number. Can anyone give me some info
> >on how Cellular Phones are programmed and what exactly the dealer has
> >control over?

> Cellular phones need quite a bit of information to work. Each phone
> has a electronic serial number (ESN) permanently assigned to it. This
> serial number is used for identification/authentication of the phone.
> Installers must program information about the cellular carrier (system
> identifier code) you have chosen, your lock code, along with the phone
> number.

Also, depending on the type of phone you get, he also has control over
the options for it (speakerphone, horn alert, etc). With the Panasonic
I have, a couple of other options that are only dealer- programmable
are auto-lock on power cycle (having to enter my unlock code every
time I turned it off and on) and DTMF interval (choosing 1/2 second or
continious DTMF tone during a call).

> Each type of cellular phone has different programming techniques, and
> they are closely guarded since it is possible to defraud the service
> provider by changing the phone number or ESN.

Actually the ESN has never been dealer-programmable, though it has
been field-programmable long ago through a socketed ROM. This was a
problem for a while in which 'magic chips' were available which
changed the ESN and telephone number (they were sometimes in the same
ROM!) and 'cellular pirates' were able to make and receive calls.
These old phones are still popular for that same reason, but have to
be changed daily when the cellular company catches on to what's going
on.

BTW: The old G.E. CF-3000 phone I had had all of the programming
instructions on the last pages!!!

Nowadays, ESN's are now hard-soldered ROMs on the board or (lately)
burned into the CPU of the phone. The only thing you can do is change
the phone number, but since you can't change the ESN, once you defraud
the cellular company, they got the ESN to block any more attempts to
defraud them.

> Note that there are
> extensive systems in place to prevent fraudulent calls. Generally, it
> is not possible to make more than one fraudulent call per phone number
> before the system blacklists/turns off that phone number.

Again for the casual person defrauding the cellular company, yes,
there's a `bogus ESN' nationwide network being set up ... but for the
hard-core pirate who changes his ESN daily, that's a different story.

In a future issue, I will be detailing my experience with GTE Mobilnet
here in San Francisco when I receive my first bill (ugh!). I've made
experiments to the celluar services, regular calls, and 'choke line'
calls along with L.D. and 800 calls.


   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
   Moffett Feild, California.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 00:13 CST
From: jim thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Something to Consider

When Pat Townson, the Moderator of this Digest, indicated that the LoD
discussions would be terminated, I, perhaps like many, dashed off a
note objecting. Pat responded with a convincing rationale for his
decision, one that is difficult to argue with. Loosely summarized, he
says:

  1. The volume of messages he receives is so high that he must, as a
     pragmatic matter, curtail some discussions.

  2. There are imposed limits on the amount of mail he can send out, which
     means not all good (or bad) ideas can be aired.

  3. He is bound by charter to keep the topics germane to telecom issues,
     which unfortunately limits some of the topics others of us find
     interesting.

Most of us can sympathize with these constraints, and it is a reminder
of the excellent job he does *in spite of* the restrictions imposed on
him.

Nonetheless, there are a number of issues raised by the LoD
indictments that remain unaddressed or inadequately discussed.  Mike
Goodwin's recent note identified many of the legal issues pertaining
to enforcement of computer abuse laws. There are other questions
involving the role of media and law enforcement in creating an
imagery, the ideological questions of control of information in a
democratic society, the problems of computerized information and
privacy, the role of "hackers" as in an increasingly technocratic
world, and ethical questions of the behavior of the "computer
underground (phreaks, hackers, and pirates).

If there is sufficient interest, I propose a digest, perhaps called
"The Computer Underground Digest," as a forum to raise these issues.
If anyone is interested, send a bitnote note to:

           TK0JUT2@NIU   (that's a zero, not an "oh")

NOTE: The address for the proposed new forum *is not* the header of
this address!

I'll put together a trial issue over the next few days in response to some of
the recent issues that have been raised.  The first issue could include:

  a) A copy of the LoD indictment
  b) A copy of the Press Release accompanying it
  c) A news story or two
  d) A defense of aliases on BBSs
  e) And anything else anybody wants to send.

If this sounds feasible, I welcome ideas or suggestions on what to
include, and would especially welcome initial comments or
observations. There are no restrictions on size or on topic, and
controversial themes are welcome.

For those who first want to know my own background or qualifications:
I am currently associate professor (full in the fall) of
sociology/criminal justice at Northern Illinois University and have
been engaged in research with Gordon Meyer for the past two years on
the computer underground. Although Gordon has not yet "volunteered,"
he would be co-moderator.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 2:27:54 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia


I fully support the idea presented by Jim Thomas in the message just
before this one. I only wish someone would come forward and volunteer
to do the same thing for Caller*ID!

Jim has indicated he will keep the mailing list discussion of the LoD
going as long as there is interest, and I encourage any of you
interested in the discussion to sign up independently with him. Of
course, you will still continue to see some news items about LoD here
in TELECOM Digest as well, but after the intial message and a couple
replies as appropriate the discussion will move to his list.

Some editorial changes have to be made here at this time due to the
extremely heavy volume of mail we are receiving --

1) Jim's idea shown above is being implemented immediatly. And in
subsequent articles in the Digest, whenever the discussion tends to go
on to the point that (a) it becomes acrimonious, (b) it clogs a great
deal of space, or (c) it becomes removed from telephony and drifts
into areas of the law and/or other social issues then *someone* will
have to volunteer to start a temporary list to handle it.

2) Effective at this time (allowance made for stuff presently in the
queue) ** signatures will be deleted from all messages in the Digest
**. Most of you have reasonable signatures. Some of you have
outrageously long and involved signatures, cute sayings, etc appended
to your messages. By eliminating signatures, my estimate is that 10-15
percent of the space in each issue will be freed up.  Please make sure
your message has a 'reply-to' line and an 'organization' line. These
are left intact when messages are digested.

3) The ratio of quoted text to original text allowed in the Digest
will now be 25/75 percent. Usenet guidelines allow 50/50, and I have
had to decline messages in the past from folks who sent a huge amount
of quoted stuff with very little original stuff, because it won't go
through the gateway. I was trying to edit this stuff myself to some
extent, but some users complained about that.  When possible,
eliminate quotes and do paraphrasing instead. Quote if you must, and
*do not* use line eaters and other work-arounds to defeat this rule.
I estimate about 20-25 percent of each issue could be freed up if
quotes were more restrained.

The savings in space realized from signatures and quotes alone would
mean I could put out two or three Digests per day instead of the four
we are seeing now.

Finally, articles properly edited will be given first consideration. I
will continue to edit and layout the Digest, but your help in creating
paragraphs, checking your spelling, grammar and syntax will be very
much appreciated.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #211
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20365;
          28 Mar 90 3:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20112;
          28 Mar 90 2:00 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13243;
          28 Mar 90 0:56 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Mar 90 0:30:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #212
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Mar 90 00:30:02 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 212

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: US Sprint [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: US Sprint [Wally Kramer]
    Re: US Sprint [Rob Gutierrez]
    Re: US Sprint (Actually, Separate Billing) [David Tamkin]
    Re: Dial 9 For Outside Line [Gordon Burditt]
    Panasonic and "Dial 9" [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled [David Tamkin]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Mark Solsman]
    Re: Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service [Ichiro Matsumura]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Organization: Telotech, Inc.
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 00:25:42 GMT


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by motcid![e-mail] (Steven
King):

| I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was
| quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes
| separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill.  I gather the
| same is true for MCI and other ld carriers.  But *not* for AT&T.  Why
| can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't?  Or, if
| they can, why don't they?

It may depend on the willingness of the BOC.  Here in northeast Ohio,
AT&T and Sprint bill through Ohio Bell, and MCI will begin doing so
within the next few months.


-=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc.   (I do not speak for telotech.) <=-
** [e-mail] ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} **

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 10:27:11 PST
From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Reply-To: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon


A few weeks back I found myself midway between Portland and Seattle
without my FONCARD.  The sign on the payphone said LD was assigned to
MCI, but since I was calling from Centralia, Washington to Seattle, I
figured it would be intra-LATA (although I don't know for sure) so it
would be carried by US West (previously Pacific Northwest Bell).

My dial 1 carrier at home is US Sprint and I have a FONCARD, but I
don't carry it around with me (don't want to lose it to unauthorized
fingers).  I also have an AT&T calling card (also left at home--but
it's easy to remember its number) which I use when Sprint is
inaccessible.  I've never had anything to do with MCI.

I dialed 0-938-xxxx and waited for the tone.  The first time I got
some funny clacking/gurgling sounds, and then nothing.  I tried again,
and got the familiar squirrelly fading tone.  So I entered my AT&T
number assuming it would either be rejected if really MCI, or accepted
if it was US West.  The call went through and ended normally.  The
phone didn't start ringing as I walked away.

This month's US West bill had a page with MCI's logo and the charge
for that call on it!

Why did MCI accept AT&T's calling card number?  Why did MCI bill for
this call?

            *Flame On*

Why does US Sprint pick such blasted hard-to-remember FONCARD numbers?
The reason I don't use their damn card is because it's too blooming
hard to remember the dog gone number.  They'd get 50% more business
from me if it were easier to remember the number!  Why can't I pick,
say, the first 10 digits, and let them pick the 4-digit "password?"

            *Flame Off*

[e-mail] (Wally Kramer) 503 627 2363

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

From: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Date: 28 Mar 90 04:20:08 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Sergio Gelato) writes in V.10, Iss 209, Msg 11 of 11

> >From: motcid![e-mail] (Steven King)
> >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 202, Message 7 of 7

> >I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was
> >quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes
> >separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill.  I gather the
> >same is true for MCI and other ld carriers.  But *not* for AT&T.  Why
> >can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't?  Or, if
> >they can, why don't they?

> I once got billed by Sprint through the local telco (New York Tel).
> This was shortly after service was established on that line. (I told
> NYTEL to assign Sprint as the default carrier, and let them take care
> of notifying Sprint. Sprint may not have been told my address in time
> for the first bill.) So it is indeed possible for Sprint to bill
> through the local carrier.

This is indeed true that ANY carrier can bill through the local telco
(yes, including COCOTS, obviously). This is called 10XXX Random
billing. An agreement is set up with the telco to provide LIMITED
billing for unrecognized customers (callers without an account on the
L.D. carrier they are using).  Usually, if more than 3 months of this
type of billing occurs, the telco sends a notice to the L.D. carrier
that they will not accept anymore 'casual' billing for that phone
number, but they do furnish the name & address for the L.D. carrier to
bill directly.

Remember, this is MUCH different than a "billing contract" that AT&T
has with all the telco's and MCI has with some of them (Pac Bell,
Southern Belle, etc.).  A "billing contract" makes the local telco act
as the L.D. carriers 'collection agent' and thus is paid to do so.
This permits the L.D. carriers to continiously bill their customer
through the local telco bill. At MCI, this is called "BOC Billing".
This also allows the L.D. company to talor the actual billing pages to
their taste (i.e.: type of detail and how it's presented) as opposed
to just the straight list of calls on a '10XXX Random' billing.

>     As to why they insist on doing their own billing, I would
> venture the following guess: it is cheaper (for them, at least).....

Very wrong. It is much cheaper for the L.D. companies to bill through
the local telcos. This is not just because the savings on generating
seperate bills.  This is because of one bill convience (payments
getting lost), more current payments (what happens if you don't pay
your LEC bill .... no phone service!), and less calls to customer
service (local telco reps could [supposedly] answer simple questions
[ha!] before having to refer customers to the L.D. company).

Spint has been unable to negotiate any billing contracts with any of
the LEC's because of their billing snafu's. The LEC's have steadfastly
refused contracts because they did not want the headaches that Sprint
had in unraveling the mess. Remember, as part of the negotitated
'billing contract', the local telco reps do have to answer 'simple'
questions about the L.D. bill in question. This is changing since they
were able to negotiate ONE contract so far last year (don't know who
with).

The LEC's still do carry Sprint's 10XXX Random billing, but have
outright refused to answer any questions about it, referring all the
inquiries to Sprint. The problem here is that Sprint has no records of
these calls, since there was no 'customer' account to bill them
against, hence the reason to 'bill' the LEC to begin with.  BTW: It's
the LEC who has to 'credit' these type of calls (usually called
'refusal to pay', technically 'chargeback' or 'billback'), not the
L.D. carrier.

> Note that I have no actual knowledge of how much NYTEL charges for
> third-party billing;

Usually, for 10XXX Random billing, it's a percentage, and "Billing
Contracts" are both a percentage and up-front fee.

I, personally think that "billing contracts" (MCI: 'BOC Billing') are
a great convience, but also another source of infringing on your
privacy, since now the local telco has records of _both_ your local
and long distance. Yes, I know this was true before and after the
break-up with AT&T billed L.D. calls, but using an alternative gave me
some sort of measure that records of all my calls couldn't be
single-sourced. It didn't help any that one of the first things I
learned to do at MCI was look up movie star's phone numbers and phone
bills, then CNA the numbers to see who their friends were. This was
better known as 'killing time'.


   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Network Operations,
   Moffett Feild, California.

P.S...  No I did'nt sell those numbers to anybody, or give out the bills, or
    tell who their friends were, and so on, and so forth.....and I'm
    DEFINITELY not posting them here or e-mailing them to anybody!!!

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint (Actually, Separate Billing)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 9:19:33 CST


Sergio Gelato answered Steven King (not to be confused with author Stephen
King) in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 209:

| To us customers, it [receiving a separate bill  from an IXC]
| means one more 25- (soon to be 30-) cent stamp per month -- that is
| usually negligible compared to the amount of a long distance bill.

If you have a credit card (they accept MasterCard and VISA, perhaps
others) and use MCI, you can save a stamp.  MCI will bill your credit
card directly if you wish.  That gives you extra time to pay and, when
the bill is right, saves you a stamp.  [When the bill is wrong, it
takes one stamp to pay the correct charges on your credit card and one
to write to your card issuer to explain why you are refusing part of
the billing from MCI, so it's the same total of two stamps you would
have used if you sent MCI their own check.]

For all my troubles with MCI, they've never billed me for an incorrect
amount.  They cut my statement on the twelfth of the month and it
arrives around the twentieth, showing all detail of calls and taxes
but nothing to remit because they've billed my MasterCard.  That
particular MasterCard's billing cycle ends on the twenty-ninth ofthe
month, so I have until roughly the twenty-third of the next month to
pay for the charges, including those from MCI.


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: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial 9 For Outside Line
Date: 26 Mar 90 23:54:53 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


>[Moderator's Note: Mine had dip switches inside the unit which either
>allowed or disallowed 9. If 9 was allowed, then 81 was selected as the
>first choice, and 82 was selected when 81 was busy. Another dip switch
>disallowed (or allowed) 9 calls to overflow to 82. That is, you could
>force 9 calls to 81 only, returning NC condition to the caller if 81
>was in use. This still allowed direct connection to 82 by
>knowledgeable users.  PT]

The KX-T61610 has a much more flexible setup.  You can dial "9" to get
any (non-busy and allowable) outside line, or "81" through "86" to get
a specific outside line.

Use of individual outside lines (via "9" OR "8x") for outgoing calls
may be blocked, on a per-extension basis by programming, and you can
specify a different set for "day mode" and "night mode".  (In effect,
this is two 16 x 6 bit arrays for "Extension x may use line y", one
for day mode and one for night mode).  So, for example, Ext 15 may use
lines 1,2,3, and 5 during the day and 2 and 4 at night.  (What
constitutes "day" and "night" may be determined manually only or
manually and by the clock.)  An extension could be forbidden any
outgoing outside calls at all.

There is a different set of parameters for which lines ring on which
extensions, day and night mode.  Ringing on extension x for line y can
be delayed by a (single, global, grr...) number of rings 1-4.  You can
also independently disconnect a line for everyone by programming that
it isn't connected, then re-activate it when the telephone repair crew
fixes the line, without changing the individual extension programming.

In addition, there is another set of parameters for which lines may be
accessed by dialing "9".  This does not stop you from specifically
asking for the line, but you can arrange things so you get your
special line (FX or out-WATS or a dummy line) by dialing "85" but
never by dialing "9".  There are times I wish you could specify a
preference order, but you can't.  It takes the lowest-numbered
eligible line.  This last set of parameters is described in an
addendum to the manual.  It might not be present in all 61610's.


        Gordon L. Burditt
        sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Tue 27 Mar 90 07:51:53-PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic and "Dial 9"


You do not have to dial 9 or 8foo on the Panasonic KX-t61610 if you
use the proprietary phones (known to us who have them as "wizard's
consoles"). With a wizard's console, you can program the system for
"automatic CO line hunting". This means that when you pick up the
handset or hit he speakerphone button, you wil get *real* (outside)
dialtone rather than intercom (internal) dialtone. The disadvantage is
not great for me, I live in a 1 bedroom apartment and seldom have
reason to call any of the other extensions (the kitchen, bathroom,
bedroom..) :-)


Ole

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 17:32:07 CST


Macy Hallock complained about receiving junk calls on his cellular
phone and having to pay for airtime to boot, and I replied:

> 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.

In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 206, Dave McMahan misunderstood
that part of my post and responded:

| What is to keep someone that is purposely power-dialing the cellular
| exchange from not just doing it via a new number created specially for
| that purpose?  If you block his old one, how do you find his new
| number until it is too late?  If they want to get you, they will.

I hadn't meant that the cellular customer should use Call Blocking to
refuse calls from the power dialer's number.  The blocking to which I
had referred was Caller ID blocking, where a *caller* refuses to have
his or her number provided to a callee who has Caller ID.  If a
cellular customer who has Caller ID sees that a caller has blocked the
delivery of the calling number, the callee, not knowing who is
calling, can let the phone ring unanswered and not get soaked for
airtime.

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 27 Mar 1990 21:37:20 EST
From: Mark Solsman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone


In response to the Moderator's comment:

I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical
switching in the phone, but what about other phones on the same
extension? If you send the correct signal (70volts AC??) through the
lines, wont all the other phones ring that were not previously
off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the origional
phone that was off-hook?


Mark Solsman                                             MHS108 @ PSUVM.BITNET
                                                         MHS108 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDU

[Moderator's Note: How about a technical reply on this from the
experts?  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 21:25:51 PST
From: Ichiro Matsumura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Games and the Secret Service
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>    By the way, I called the Secret Service too.  They had one (1)
>number listed (their local office, that is).  No address.  The lady
>who answered the phone said she couldn't give out any information on
>the case over the phone.  I asked if there was some sort of public
>information number or something I could call (since the number I *had*
>called was simply listed as "Secret Service," right there between
>Secor International and Secret Whispers).

I consider this rather odd. In my White Pages, the Secret Service is
listed in the Federal Government Pages section at the front, not in the
general directory. An address (presumably the Bay Area headquarters) is
also given: 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.


Elliot Wilen

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #212
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22497;
          28 Mar 90 4:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21885;
          28 Mar 90 3:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20112;
          28 Mar 90 2:00 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Mar 90 1:20:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #213
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Mar 90 01:18:35 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 213

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Card  [Don H. Kemp]
    Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [Marcel Mongeon]
    Cellular Phone Question [Steve Elias]
    CUE vrs. Skypager [Allen Gwinn]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The Card
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 14:40:30 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


 Well people, Here's the "official" word from AT&T on their credit
 card...


FOR RELEASE MONDAY, MARCH 26, 1990

     NEW YORK -- AT&T today introduced the AT&T Universal Card,
offering consumers the simplicity of a combined long-distance calling
card and general purpose credit card with worldwide acceptance.

     The new card will be accepted by VISA or MasterCard merchants,
will include discounts on AT&T long-distance calling card rates and
will be supported by the only service guarantee offered on any VISA or
MasterCard.

     Charter AT&T Universal Card members -- those customers who apply
for the card in 1990 -- will pay no annual fee for life, as long as
they use the card for a purchase once a year.  Card members will
receive a 10 percent discount off AT&T's calling card rates on AT&T
calls made with the new card.

     "This combination of customer convenience, AT&T service and value
is unique in the credit card industry," said Paul Kahn, president,
AT&T Universal Card Services Corp.

     "It works just as the AT&T Card would when placing a
long-distance call, and just as a VISA or MasterCard credit card would
when purchasing goods or services or obtaining cash around the world."

     Features normally associated only with gold bank cards are
standard on the AT&T Universal Card.  These include free collision
damage coverage on rental cars, free extension of a manufacturer's
warranty on products purchased with the card, and free purchase
protection from loss, theft, or breakage.

     Customers who choose to pay their charges over time will pay a
variable annual rate of 18.9 percent -- lower than the rate paid by
the average customer of the top 100 issuers of credit cards.  In
addition, when interest rates and annual fees are taken into
consideration, the AT&T Universal Card will cost card members less
than the combined price paid by more than 90 percent of the customers
of the nation's top 25 card issuers.

     AT&T said no interest will be charged on long-distance calls made
with the card unless they remain unpaid 30 days after being billed.
On purchases, there will be a 25-day grace period before interest is
charged.

     "For more than 100 years the AT&T brand has stood for excellence
in product quality and service," said Vic Pelson, AT&T group executive
and president, Communications Services.  "The new AT&T Universal Card
carries with it the same commitment to excellence.

     "We've done our homework.  Our customers have been telling us
they wanted the convenience of a single card, a card without an annual
fee, and a card that has the value, quality and reliability of AT&T."

     The AT&T Universal Card will be issued by Universal Bank and
processed by Total System Services, Inc., both subsidiaries of Synovus
Financial Corp.  All three companies are based in Columbus, Ga.

     AT&T said the card will be accepted for purchases at more than 7
million locations and for calls from 200 million telephones worldwide.
Customers also can use the card to obtain cash at more than 300,000
banks and automated teller machines nationwide and abroad.

     AT&T said the card can be used to make long-distance calls within
the United States and to 271 countries and areas worldwide.  AT&T card
members will be able to call back to the United States from 125
different countries, and in 65 countries callers can be directly
connected to an AT&T operator through USADirect(sm).

     Card members can call toll-free to reach an AT&T service
representative 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to help resolve
problems or assist with emergencies.  AT&T said disputed transactions
will be removed from the customer's statement and resolved quickly.

     AT&T said it will guarantee that card members receive error-free
service.  "Under our AT&T Universal Card Service Guarantee, if there
is ever a problem, and it's our error, we'll fix it, explain why it
happened and tell the customer what we are going to do to prevent it
from happening again," said Kahn.

     If a customer tells AT&T it has not met its commitment, AT&T will
send the customer a $10 certificate, which can be used toward any AT&T
Universal Card charges.  Under the service guarantee, AT&T will serve
as the customer's representative in all disputes with merchants.

     AT&T will cover most retail purchases for loss, theft and
accidental damage for 90 days, and will double the manufacturer's
original warranty when merchandise is purchased using the AT&T
Universal Card.

     Automatic collision damage reimbursement will be available when
rental cars are charged with the AT&T Universal Card.  In addition,
automatic travel accident insurance up to $250,000 on any common
carrier -- including airlines, ships, trains and buses -- will be
provided when tickets are purchased on the card.

     If lost or stolen, the AT&T Universal Card will be replaced
within 48 hours in the United States and in most international
locations.  Any AT&T operator will be able to connect the customer
with an AT&T Universal Card service representative.  AT&T said
emergency charge and calling card capability, along with access to
cash, will be available if needed during the time the replacement card
is being delivered.

     "Our goal is to provide service to our customers in a manner
unprecedented in the credit card industry," said Kahn.

     To apply for the card, customers should call toll-free
1-800-662-7759.

                          #   #   #

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


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

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 15:35:55 EST
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell "Numbering Plan Area" Scheme Was Shortsighted
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, cgch![e-mail] (Tom Hofmann) writes:

> |               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?

Er, no, but is a call from Athens (in the EC) to Lisbon (in the EC)
going to go via Tunis (most definitely *not* in the EC)?  His point
was that *between* countries, calls are usually forced to "bottleneck"
into well-defined country-to-country channels (this is a not-so-good
thing).  *Within* countries, calls can usually be efficiently routed
any way the phone company chooses to (this is a good thing).  The
bigger the country, the more calls that fall into the latter category
instead of the former.  It would be good if the entire EC could act as
a single country in this respect and route traffic as if it had one
single integrated telecom system, but (unsurprisingly) politics
currently makes this impractical, even if the technology doesn't.

> |               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).

Again, you miss the point.  Imagine each state in the US having its
own dialing plan and country code, and each one having to negotiate
its own bilateral channel arrangement with each and every other
state ....

> |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)?

How about it?  All recent phone books that I've seen in the US
  a) don't list 905 as an area code, and
  b) DO list +52 as Mexico's country code.

If the 905 hack still works as an alternative way to dial Mexico, it's
soon being phased out.  (BTW, Mexico *is* in North America.  It's just
not in the North American Numbering Plan.)

> |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 disagree.  The vast majority of calls are *within* area codes.
Adding new digits to a number requires *everyone* dialing that number,
both from within and from outside its area code, to change the way
they dial.  Merely changing the area code only affects calls from
outside the code.  Not to mention the fact that when an area code is
split here in the NANP, about half the numbers typically get to stay
in the existing code and don't have to change at all.  Compare with,
say Japan, where *every* number in code 3 (Tokyo) had to change to
accomodate the new prefix digit.

> |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 guess it depends on how fixed-length numbers are defined.  As a
recent poster from the UK has described, Britain is moving to a system
with a fixed length for the *total* number (area code + local number).

Once it is fully implemented, all numbers will have a total of 9
digits (not counting the 0 prefix [%]): either 2 digit area code with
7 digit local number, or else 3 digit area code with 6 digit local
number.  France and the UK together have about 120 million people,
which is more that a third of the combined population of the EC &
EFTA.  A significant fraction indeed.

> (I am not sure --- has Belgium such a fixed number length?)

I don't think so, unless it's of the British "total digits" flavor.
My phone book shows Belgian codes with both 1 and 2 digits.

[%] {I know, Britons will argue that the 0 should be counted and that
numbers are properly a total of ten digits.  But I maintain that the 0
is really an inter-area-code access prefix, NOT an integral part of
the number, for the simple reason that it isn't used in international
dialing.  If it *were* an integral part of the number, people would be
listing their numbers as (for example) "+44 081 xxx xxxx" instead of
"+44 81 xxx xxxx".  Contrast this with the Soviet Union, where the 0
really is part of the number: to call Moscow, you really do dial "+7
095 xxx xxxx".}


Bob Goudreau    1 919 248 6231  Data General Corporation  62 Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709  USA          ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau


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

From: joymrmn![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hotal/Motel Charges
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 15:35:55 EST


I too administer a hotel PBX and am quite interested in what people
have to say about phone service and surcharges in a hotel or motel.

We currently have the following rates in place at a hotel located in
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (If you are coming to town send me e-mail
and I will be happy to reply with the name and rates etc.):

    Local Calls:        60 cents
    Credit Card Calls:    35 cent surcharge
    Direct Dial Calls:    45% over and above the long distance
                rates (Direct Dial) that Bell has
                programmed into our call detail recorder
                machine.
    411:            75 cents
    800 Calls:        60 cents
    900 Calls:        One dollar per minute for all calls.
                The CDR can't distinguish between different
                numbers.

Some hotels that I have seen in the US give away calls like locals and
800 and Credit card calls but then turn around and charge full operator
assisted rates for any direct dialed call.  There is presently in Canada
no concept such as alternate carrier so there is no danger for a guest
to get beat on extra hidden charges.

Some other random comments on the subject:

The call detail recorder does not have answer supervision even though
the PBX (an SL-1 or Meridian) and the Call Detail Recorder are both
provided by Bell and I know for a fact that the PBX is supposed to be
able to support it.  The lack of answer supervision causes us no end
of grief particularly on international calls with their long setup
times and higher frequency of call blockage.  We have set the CDR call
setup defaults high enough to the point where we actually lose a small
percentage of short calls.

Because Bell considers that we are resellers, we are prohibited from
using Outwats and Foreign Exchange lines in a least cost routing
system to route calls from guest rooms over.  Has anyone any
information that would be relevant to this situation in Canada?

We are presently upgrading the phones in our rooms to provide two
different sets in the main room with two lines each and one single
line phone in the bathroom (You never know when the important call is
going to come in!).  Since the two line sets operate on a single pair
digital line, we are also wiring an extra analog pair near the desk on
a modular jack for Fax machines (available through the Front Desk) and
Computers (we even have one or two of those for you to use).  What
other features (such as Direct Inward Dial, Do Not Disturb, Message
Lights etc.) do people think would be useful?


Marcel D. Mongeon
E-Mail: uunet!joymrmn!root
Tel   : [phone]


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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 08:31:38 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Question
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 90 10:06:13 -0500
From: Steve Elias <eli>


Is there a limit on the number of active subscribers to a cellular
phone system?  Is it possible to get "trunk busy" signals when dialing
to or from cellular phones.  A friend of mine pointed out that there
must be a limited number of frequencies available, so the number of
simulataneous calls within a cell must be limited.  What's the limit?


; Steve Elias, [e-mail], [e-mail]
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax [phone]


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

Subject: CUE vrs. Skypager
Date: Tue Mar 27 22:39:56 1990
From: Allen Gwinn <[e-mail]>


I used a Skypager for quite a while and found the coverage
unacceptable.  I was unable to receive pages 4 miles south of the
geographic center of Nashville, TN.  In addition, they have
practically no regional coverage whatsoever.  I am currently using a
pager from CUE Nationwide Paging.  At first, their coverage was poor
inside buildings and such, but they seem to have cured all of that
with the latest release of their pager (thats been out for about a
year).  Their overall coverage is quite a bit better (I think they
cover about 5 times the area that SkyTel does) than Skypager in my
opinion, and their cost can be about 1/2 as much.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #213
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15293;
          29 Mar 90 0:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27883;
          28 Mar 90 23:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14655;
          28 Mar 90 22:10 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Mar 90 21:41:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #214
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Mar 90 21:40:25 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 214

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: US Sprint [Bruce E. Howells]
    Re: US Sprint [Rob Gutierrez]
    Re: US Sprint [Joel M. Snyder]
    Re: US Sprint [Bryan M. Richardson]
    Sprint Card Giveaways [Andrew Boardman]
    Re: Choke Lines [Bryan M. Rrichardson]
    Re: Choke Lines [Dan Ross]
    Re: Information Wanted on CNA [[e-mail]]
    Re: Can This Be True? (ground-starting pay phones) [Bruce Perens]
    Re: 911 Breakdowns in St. Louis [David Schanen]
    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Bryan M. Richardson]
    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Ed Ravin]
    Re: MCI Plans [[e-mail]]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Ken Dykes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 01:55:39 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Organization: Boston University


According to the alleged customer service people at Sprint...

They do their own billing directly, except when you're between
accounts.  While you're getting a new account, they bill through the
local telco, with a page right after the AT+T page.

Quite surprised me one month to have to pay them three ways: Check to
them on the old account, check to them on the new account, check to
NJBell for the 3 calls Sprint billed through when they weren't quite
sure who I was.

Didn't try to get into much detail with them, but I'd assume it would
be cheaper for them to do their own billing than shove it through the
local BOC.


Bruce E. Howells,   [e-mail]   |    engnbsu@buacca  (BITNet)
   Just a random Engineering undergrad...

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

From: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Date: 28 Mar 90 08:06:13 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[Am *I* the ONLY MCI expert around here?!?]

[e-mail] (Wally Kramer) writes in V.10, Iss. 212, Msg 2 of 9

> A few weeks back I found myself midway between Portland and Seattle
> without my FONCARD.  The sign on the payphone said LD was assigned to
> MCI,.......

> .... I entered my AT&T
> number assuming it would either be rejected if really MCI, or accepted
> if it was US West.  The call went through and ended normally....

> This month's US West bill had a page with MCI's logo and the charge
> for that call on it!

Question 1:

> Why did MCI accept AT&T's calling card number?

It wasn't an AT&T number it accepted, technically. It was an LEC
number it accepted. Remember, you said 'U.S. Worst..' (err, sorry) ...
'U.S.  West card'. And U.S.W. makes their card database available to
database resellers for use by your friends and mine...COCOTS!
(actually, AOS's).

Question 2:

> Why did MCI bill for this call?

Because MCI subscribes to these same database-resellers that the AOS's
use, and then uses 10XXX random billing to bill you for the call. Note
that this is the ONLY instance that MCI would accept an LEC calling
card (from a preassigned payphone or 10XXX dialed payphone call). MCI
won't accept LEC (BOC) calling cards from their own calling-card
network (950-1022/800-950- 1022).

I love responding to this question because it allows me to remind
everybody that MCI uses IBM PS/2 Model 50's (80286 PC's) for BOC card
verification.  (Their own cards are verified by seperate
mini-mainframes).

Oh well.


 Robert Gutierrez/NASA Science Internet Network Operations Center (NSI-NOC).

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

From: "Joel M. Snyder" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Date: 28 Mar 90 10:01:41 GMT
Reply-To: "Joel M. Snyder" <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't


Here's an anecdote which shows one of the particular frailties of the
combined billing agreements that LD companies have with the LEC:

Recently, a friend found bills by a LD company that she had never used
(not her 1+ carrier) for calls to Saudi Arabia in her monthly phone
bills.  She contacted the LD company (wasted time!) and informed them
of their error, and they told her not to pay that portion of her local
phone bill.

But they didn't tell the LEC that this was OK, so the LEC considered
her in default on part of her bill.

This might have been OK for one month, but whatever/whomever was
generating these calls from a different long distance company to her
phone number continued for several months.  And she wasted more and
more time dealing with a company she had no interest in working with
(that's why she chose AT&T, to avoid this crap), and getting greater
and greater harrassment from the LEC, for no good reason.  This was
not a case of a phone person playing around; there was this company
from nowhere creating data that caused US West to want to turn off her
service.

Had she not left town (for other reasons...), the situation might have
come to that.  As far as I know, though, there is open correspondence
between her and the other two parties involved (US West and the LD
carrier) on this issue -- 9 months after she turned off phone service
entirely.


jms

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

From: "bryan.m.richardson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Date: 28 Mar 90 21:43:50 GMT
Reply-To: "bryan.m.richardson,ih," <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>> >Why
>> >can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't?  Or, if
>> >they can, why don't they?

Back in the Bell System days, the network was designed to do billing
at the originating switch (the central office).  At divestiture, AT&T
lost all of the central offices, and thus, did not have the capability
to bill.  Instead, AT&T contracts out to the RBOCs to do its POTS
(Plain Old Telephone Service) billing.  This is generally considered
MORE expensive than if AT&T did it itself.


Bryan Richardson

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 14:14:41 EST
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint card-giveaways
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eating


In article <[e-mail]> Brandon wrote:

>U.S. Sprint was *handing out* FonCards at the Lake County Amateur
>Radio Assoc.  Hamfest today.

Several times now, in midtown New York City, agressive Sprint people
have been standing behind a small silver-grey desk thing in the Sprint
colors with lines like, "Get your phone card here!  They're free!"
One just writes down one's address and telephone number (no
identification is asked for) and they hand you a working "Fon Card."
Just look around Herald square (33rd and 6th and B'way) around the
time buisness types are getting out of work and you'll see them, next
time you happen to be in New York.  Sightings have also been reported
at 42nd and 5th, and outside of the Citicorp building.  (Perhaps
they're not aware that the monthls meetings of 2600 Magazine people
are in the Citicorp building...)

These card giveaways must do wonders for the Sprint marketing
statistics...


Andrew Boardman
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]
or try [e-mail] if the Columbia machines are having problems

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

From: "bryan.m.richardson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Choke" Lines
Date: 28 Mar 90 21:36:50 GMT
Reply-To: "bryan.m.richardson,ih," <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce E. Howells) writes:

>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?

I would expect that the more sophisticated switches would have network
management controls continually applied to these prefixes, and are
gapped at each originating switch within the LATA.

This would work by only allowing one call in thirty (or one every x
seconds) to even attempt to complete.  The remainder would immediately
get busy signal.  You can usually "hear" how far you're getting.  If
you get busy immediately after dialing the last digit, you're being
blocked at the CO.

Similar controls are applied within the AT&T network -- it doesn't make
sense to route a call across the country to get a busy signal when
those resources could be used for something else.  The SF earthquake
is a good example.


Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories

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

From: Dan Ross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Choke Lines
Date: 28 Mar 90 18:46:00 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 206, Message 8 of 11

>... The best example is when a radio station is giving away $10,000.00 to
>the 15th caller.

>In some instances, this caused severe problems with the switch serving
>the station, and other subscribers had trouble calling 911 or even
>getting dial tone.

Around 1987, an Austin, Texas, station was giving away a simply huge
amount of money (I think it was $100,000) to the 150th caller.  Every
day, they'd run through several callers (they kept a running count),
with the possibility of going ALL the WAY to 150.  Finally, one day
they decided to go ALL THE WAY, and of course, I tried to call.  I
lived in the dorm at the time at the U of Texas, and I couldn't get a
dial tone on the University's PBX without a 5- to 60-second delay; and
when I did, dialing an outside line (with 9) gave me the "all lines
are busy" message from the PBX.  The adjacent dorm housed >2800
students (>1400 phones), so I can imagine why.

It made the papers in a big way -- as well as sending "Key-103"
(KEYI-FM) to court for causing most of the central city's phone system
to complete only a small percentage of calls.  All the radio station
call-in lines had the same prefix, so I assumed they used 'choke
lines,' but either they weren't actually choke lines, or it was just
too much for them.

The radio station was given a court order regarding how it could
conduct call-in contests, limiting the amount of time they could
accept calls, etc.


Dan Ross            [e-mail]    ..!uwvax!dross

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 07:02:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on CNA


What's the number to dial in the greater Boston area for CNA?

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

From: Bruce Perens <pixar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can This Be True? (ground-starting pay phones)
Date: 27 Mar 90 18:33:44 GMT
Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California


Some locations have armored pay phones connected to wimpy external
bells.  One can simply unscrew the cover on the external bell, and
complete the connection there (Of course I've got lots of dimes now,
but I was a kid once). Of course, now that one can put an arbitrarily
sophisticated program in the C.O., it shouldn't be to hard to track
down abusers, but who wants to round up a bunch of kids?


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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 Breakdowns in St. Louis
Date: 27 Mar 90 20:14:47 GMT
Reply-To: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


    We just recently had problems in a suburb of Seattle, I
haven't been able to locate a an article as it happened several days
ago.  But I heard the tail end of a recap on the local news here, they
said that one person's life could have been saved had the service been
available, and that it had been repaired by ATT.

        -Dave

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

From: "bryan.m.richardson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Date: 28 Mar 90 21:26:27 GMT
Reply-To: "bryan.m.richardson,ih," <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>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?"

I agree with the posting that suggested calling the repair number for
the local telco.  It may get me "belabored ... with a rubber chicken"
but it makes the most sense.

Among the ESS(tm) offices, I believe that 1A-ESS and 5ESS remain as
the AT&T switching products acting as central office equipment.  The 4
ESS switch remains as the vehicle for the AT&T long distance network.
This switch provides dial tone for a VERY FEW customers (old, "dumb"
PBXs directly connected).  I must question the ability to detect the
type of office by "Type of dial tone" as suggested.

I did have the opportunity to experience a step-by-step in northern
Minnesota where you could hear the clunking.


Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories

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

From: Ed Ravin <cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Reply-To: Ed Ravin <cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Organization: The Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game In New York
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 21:25:50 GMT


Some exchanges have a "verification number", which reads back a
recording of either the exchange NPA and prefix (for an
electromechanical switch) or some arbitrary message (that usually
includes some hint of what equipment they're running).  Try exchanges
in New York City with a 9901 suffix -- [phone] for example.


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.

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 1990 7:04:44 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI Plans


 From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>

> I have MCI's equivlant of Sprint Plus or AT&Ts Reach Out America.
> Here are the details:

> Plan Name: Preimer (I think)

The plan is called MCI PrimeTime.  Hours are M-F 7pm-8am; 12 am
Sat-5pm Sun; Sun 11pm-8am Mon.  You can call anywhere in US, Puerto
Rico, US Virgin Islands.  Non-plan calls are discounted 10%.  Plan can
be extended to cover in-state calls for additional $1.50/month.  Plan
applies only to calls dialed directly from home.

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

From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Date: 28 Mar 90 11:55:07 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Solsman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 212, Message 8 of 9

>extension? If you send the correct signal (70volts AC??) through the
>lines, wont all the other phones ring that were not previously
>off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the origional

  Well even if the off-hook phone didn't melt down or something, I suspect
the sound in the earpiece would be sufficiently loud that operating
companies would worry about lawsuits over hearing damage.

 ...and several milliseconds later something would melt anyway :-)
Seriously, I suspect the old 500/2500 series could survive, but
cheapie free-with-magazine-subscription phones, etc and off-hook
asnwering machines may suffer a few silicon junction traumas.


   - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W]
[e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #214
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17579;
          29 Mar 90 1:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26575;
          29 Mar 90 0:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27883;
          28 Mar 90 23:15 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Mar 90 22:49:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #215
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Mar 90 22:49:09 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 215

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Universal Card and Other Long Distance Companies [Bill Huttig]
    Re: The Card [Peter Weiss]
    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [David Smallberg]
    Nicad Memory [Steve Fineberg]
    Re: Misinterpreted Numbers? [Steve Forrette]
    Teenage Tax [Jon Solomon]
    Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [B. Templeton]
    Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [P. Hutmacher]
    Re: Problem With Northern Telecom Switch [Ronald L. Fletcher]
    Re: Problem With Northern Telecom Switch [Tony Olekshy]
    Re: US Sprint [Leland F. Derbenwick]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Stephen Tell]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Universal Card and Other Long Distance Companies
Date: 28 Mar 90 16:19:47 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I was just thinking about AT&T's Visa and Mastercards.  With MCI
billing to credit cards you can have your MCI calls billed to your
AT&T Visa/MasterCard.  But are the calling card numbers on the card
restriced to AT&T?  For example in Florida all Bell/AT&T card #'s can
be used with 10xxx +0 + number or 0+ calls (as a matter of fact you
must use a Bell/ATT card.  Since the card number will be issued by
SNET will the card work with non ATT 0+ calls?


Bill

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 28 Mar 1990 15:15:59 EST
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


I just applied for the above credit card.  They wanted to know the
number of years at my current residence/job, address of home/job, my
bank name, my approx. salary, my mother's maiden name, how I heard
about the 800 number.

Seemed pretty painless.


/Pete

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

From: David Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme
Date: 29 Mar 90 01:54:02 GMT
Reply-To: David Smallberg <oahu![e-mail]>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


At UCLA around 1977, a DTMF-to-text converter was hooked up to an
incoming UNIX tty line, with the tty output going to a Votrax.  Who
needed a modem?  When you called the number, everything that would
have appeared on the screen was "read" to you, and you keyed in your
login, password, etc. at the spoken UNIX prompts.  (A = 21, B = 22,
etc.; I forget what newline, blank, control characters, etc. were).
Of course the pronunciations were frequently awful, so you sometimes
would run some command repeatedly until you understood the output.


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

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 11:48 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nicad Memory


In a recent Digest Tad Cook claimed Nicad Memory was a "myth".
I beg to differ!

    Memory is a real problem with Nicad batteries. The
problem occurs on long charge hardly ever/never discharge cycles.
I have rescued more HT220 batteries from police service than I
can lift!

    To lose memory you really have to abuse the battery by most
Ham's standards, ie. really long charge cycles with practically no
use.  Fortunately the PD threw them to the ham club (when we ran
HT220s) and they were easily rescued by cycling them a few times. Well
worth doing when a new pack is $50 and you are a starving grad
student.  Almost worth doing for a portable telephone where the
replacement cells are about $1.50 each.

     Further the "resistance" of each cell actually goes DOWN as it
approaches full charge, for this reason you can NOT safely charge
Nicads with a voltage source but should use a current source for non
temperature monitored charging.

    Simple deep discharging of battery packs is worse than
developing memory.  If there is no mechanism to stop the discharge at
about 1V per cell, it is likely that one or more cells will die before
the others and get reverse charged.  The remaining live cells tend to
reverse charge any "dead " cells.  Reverse charge is a very dangerous
state, any reversed cell is very likely to short out and become
unchargeable.  Once shorted it takes heroic measures to rescue a cell;
ie, one must dump huge currents (>10A) from a big cap through the cell
to burn out the short.  Such rescued cells tend to be less reliable !!

    Battery packs should be closely monitored on discharge or each
cell should be discharge individually.

    What is the answer?  For memory considerations run the battery
down and store it relatively discharged, but for short prevention
never let it get fully discharged. The importers seem to agree; they
ship radio batteries over here about 10% charged. Read the notice ...
Must be fully charged fully before use.

    All of the above comes from extensive experiments with Nicads
both for ham radio and various "state of the art" energy storage
systems here at MIT.  We have tested and consulted with many
manufactures including Sayno, GE, Varta and Gould. Most of my
experience is from about 6 years ago, and recently some manufactures
have introduced new designs to minimize memory, I guess I will believe
it when I get a chance to test them, Back then, until presented with
measurement on their cells several manufactures swore it wasn't a
problem.  BTW at the time Sayno had the most efficient cells by a fair
margin.

            73 Steve F
               W1GSL

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 22:56:23 PST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Misinterpreted Numbers?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


>[Moderator's Note: Actually, it is illegal now for COCOTS to block 10xxx
>access, and the ruling came from the FCC.    PT]

A couple of months ago I had a long chat with an FCC attorney.  He
reminded me of what should have been obvious - that this ruling only
applies to inter-state calls.  The blocking policy for in-state calls
is a state PUC issue, and unfortunately, mine (California) allows it,
at least for the time being.  It is interesting to note that every
COCOT in California that I have found to block does not make the
inter/intra-state distinction.

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 18:45:53 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teenage Tax


Yes. A teenage tax for the usage to pay for the usage.  A modem tax
too......

Anything but per minute unless the rates are OK. Right now per minute
charges would have me subsidizing all the phones in Somerville with my
modem usage.


jsol

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

From: Brad Templeton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Date: 27 Mar 90 18:08:31 GMT
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.


So many people have pointed out teen-agers.  Yes, there are extreme
cases which generated that stereotype, but we had 4 teens in my family
and the use was nowhere near constant.  Teens do indeed have much
longer calls than other users, but they don't match a multi-line BBS.

If you believe that phone charges should be based on "ability to pay"
to some similar rule, then I agree, a hobby BBS could well be in the
lower rate class.  (Although one might argue that BBSs are mostly run
by the middle classes, certainly in the early days it could be classed
as one of the more expensive hobbies.)

Also, if the whole system is to be based on outgoing patterns only,
then again a BBS is in the lower class.  But the system isn't done
this way, or radio stations wouldn't have choke exchanges (see other
thread) etc.  Indeed, you might have to think about the tougher
reverse, which is charging more for modem callers.

Of course, the easy solution is to charge timed message units for
local calls.  But nobody likes that.  So we need a good system of
charging for fixed rate local calling.  I believe such a system should
still be based roughly on the amount of load you put on the telco.

You can measure incoming load or outgoing load, probable patterns of
use, time-based usage patterns and a number of other factors.

All I'm really saying is that a BBS, particularly a multi-line, is
going to tend towards the higher end.  Not the highest, and with most
of them, largely in the evening, which is a mitigating factor.  As
such, I just wanted to point out that it may be a bit greedy to argue
for the lowest usage class for such systems.  (Perhaps more than one
class is needed to make unlimited local calling work fairly.)


Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario
519/884-7473

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Hutmacher)
Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Date: 27 Mar 90 09:36:07 GMT


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

> I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the
> Telco's positions somewhat on this.

A lot of folks not directly involved would sometimes have this train
of thought Brad.  However, since I am somewhat involved in the
litigation with SWB I'll tell you the real reason we're up in arms
about the whole deal:

Business rates for bulletin boards are not covered in the tariff.
Telephone lines terminating into residences are by the tariff to be
billed at residential rates.

How we use the service is not the issue here.  If SWB wants to take a
residential class and change it to commercial then they need to follow
the rules and have a rate hearing and try and get their new tariff
installed legally.


Paul Hutmacher    | crash!pro-europa!paul     | Send lawyers, guns, and money,
P.O. Box 66046    | [e-mail]   | the phone company's run amok!
Houston, TX 77266 | 713/526-0714 3/12/24/9600 |  - Warren Zevon (kinda sorta)

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

From: Ronald L Fletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problem with Northern Telecom Switch
Date: 28 Mar 90 16:15:55 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, dynasys![e-mail]
(Jesse W. Asher) writes:

> Here's where the problem is.  I used cu to call this number and input
> the four digit number to gain access to the 3B2.  It connects to the
> 3B2, but all characters are turned to upper case with a backslash in
> front of all characters which are supposed to be upper case.  It's
> very strange because the screen displays "login:" until the switch
> connects and then it is changed to "\LOGIN:".  If you type something
> in, it too is in uppercase.  Does anyone know these symptoms and have
> any suggestions on what to do about them?  Any help would be
> gratefully accepted.  Thanx.

This is caused by the UNIX(r) OS on the 3b2 and is not specific to the
NTI switch. What is happening is the first input line the 3b2 is
receiving is in ALL CAPS so it assumes the sending terminal is only
capable of generating upper-case characters. This causes the iuclc and
xcase I/O parameters to be set (see stty(1)) and the entire session
will be held in upper-case. This goes back to the days when some
terminals/OS's only worked in upper-case.

It is likely the data call transfer device or the receiving modem is
generating these upper-case characters and you will probably need to
get the switch administrator involved to get it cured. I have seen
this behavior in some modems that are set to both dial and receive
calls.

There is USUALLY an easy work-around. If you type control-d as the
FIRST character at the LOGIN: prompt, the system will respawn a new
getty with the default I/O parameters.  This should return a login:
prompt and you then login normally.  On some systems this may drop the
line and you'll be right back to where you started from.


Hope this helps,
Ron Fletcher
att!mtgzy!rlf

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

From: [e-mail] (Tony Olekshy)
Subject: Re: Problem with Northern Telecom Switch
Date: 28 Mar 90 18:15:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.


In message <[e-mail]>, dynasys![e-mail]
    (Jesse W. Asher) writes:

>   ...strange because the screen displays "login:" until the switch
> connects and then it is changed to "\LOGIN:".  If you type something
> in, it too is in uppercase.

Unix switches into upper case login: when a login name is entered in
upper case, and transliterates real uppercase into the \X sequence.  I
would seem as though the switch is talking some upper-case to the
getty running on the port and confusing it.  You should be able to
enter ^D (that's control-D) to the \LOGIN: prompt and get a new Login:
prompt.

The way this works is that once getty, which is what runs waiting for
someone to connect to the port, thinks it has a connection, it fires
off the login program.  The login program then lets you make some
number of tries at logging in.  If you succeed, login fires off your
shell.  If not, login dies and a new getty is created to monitor the
port.  The ^D character tells the login program there is no more input
to come, so it exits, and the new getty (not having seen the stuff
from the switch) talks to you in not-confused mode.

Your mileage may vary.


Yours, etc., Tony Olekshy (...!alberta!oha!tony or [e-mail]).

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

From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Date: 28 Mar 90 22:31:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, telotech![e-mail]
(Brandon S. Allbery) writes:

> It may depend on the willingness of the BOC.  Here in northeast Ohio,
> AT&T and Sprint bill through Ohio Bell, and MCI will begin doing so
> within the next few months.

It varies from place to place.  Even though "everyone knows" that AT&T
bills through the local phone company, AT&T does its own billing for
service in the Minneapolis area.

 -- Speaking strictly for myself,
 --   Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ
 --   [e-mail]  or  <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Date: 28 Mar 90 17:14:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Solsman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 212, Message 8 of 9

>In response to the Moderator's comment:  [about ringing an off-hook phone]

>I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical
>switching in the phone,

Not all phones have any switching.  The ringer and its series capacitor are
connected directly across tip and ring in some (many?) phones I've seen.

>                   but what about other phones on the same
>extension? If you send the correct signal (70 volts AC??) through the
>lines, wont all the other phones ring that were not previously
>off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the origional
>phone that was off-hook?

Now that I think of it, I've seen this happen.  The day after Duke cut
over to a 5ESS from the old electromechanical NX-1E the software was
still set up wrong on all the student lines.  I saw it happen on a
friend's phone; he couldn't get any real calls, but once the phone
rang, he picked it up, and it kept ringing. Or maybe he picked up the
phone and it started to ring. The phone worked fine when they fixed
the switch.  I looked things over and it did in fact go off-hook (not
a stuck hookswitch or anything like that).  The phone was a generic
wall-mount unit by ITT, non-electronic except for the IC touch-tone
pad.

For a day after cut, no one could make calls (no dialtone, but
incoming calls were fine), and for another day we couldn't recieve
them (but could dial out).  I recall being quite amused after getting
home at 3 a.m. from watching the cutover and picking up the phone to
find no dialtone (just DC).


Steve Tell                    [e-mail]
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.  Former chief engineer, Duke Union
Community Television, Durham, NC.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #215
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22546;
          29 Mar 90 3:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05736;
          29 Mar 90 2:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09927;
          29 Mar 90 1:22 CST
Date:     Thu, 29 Mar 90 0:17:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #216
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 29 Mar 90 00:15:07 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 216

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Privacy [David Gast]
    Overhearing cellular calls [Joel B Levin]
    Cellular phone recordings [[e-mail]]
    Re: Cellular Programming [Norman Yarvin]
    +071 and +081 in London (+01 split) ["Joel B. Levin"]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 90 18:17:31 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Privacy


CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) is working to
protect telephone privacy.  I am forwarding two articles written by
Marc Rotenberg of CPSR.  These articles show how the telephone companies
before the MFJ were concerned about privacy in spite of comments to
the contrary.  My apologies for the length, but I feel it is important
to get information from a knowledgable source.  Mr. Rotenberg is also
a member of the Bar.  [ I don't know who typed what; I am only forwarding
them with permission. ]


                          ===== 1 =====


Telephone Privacy    1    Dr. Bonnie Guiton

                        March 14, 1990

Dr. Bonnie Guiton
US Office of Consumer Affairs
Department of Health and Human Services
1725 I St., NW, Suite 1009
Washington, DC  20201


Dear Dr. Guiton:


    I am writing to you regarding the Office of Consumer Affairs'
draft principles for telecommunications privacy.  CPSR supports the
general thrust of the proposal, and offers these suggestions in the
spirit of ensuring that the intent of the principles will be achieved
in practice.

    Before turning to our specific recommendations, there is a
fundamental point about telephone privacy that should not be lost in
the current discussion about Telephone Transaction Generated
Information (TTGI) and new phone technologies: a telephone call is
presumptively a confidential communication.  Statutory and
constitutional law place barriers around a phone call to keep out
third parties and to preserve the expectation of privacy of the
parties to the communication.  Even for the purposes of a lawful
criminal investigation, the surreptitious collection of information
generated by a phone communication is tightly regulated.  And the
privacy policies of the phone company, prior to deregulation,
reflected this underlying concern for the confidentiality of all phone
communications.  Perhaps the clearest statement in support of
telephone privacy can be found in the original Federal Communications
Act of 1934:

No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any
communications and divulge or publish the existence, contents, sub-
stance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication
to any person.  (Section 605).

    As the Congress recognized in 1934, telephone privacy means
more than simply protecting the contents of the communication from
unlawful disclosure.  The confidentiality of phone communications
extends as well to toll record information, and the broader category
of TTGI.  This data reveals the identities of the parties to a phone
call.  The aggregation of call detail records and other personal
information would provide a detailed dossier of a person's close
friends, business associates, doctors, lawyers, creditors, political
associations, and so on.  Therefore, the distinction between the
content of a communication and the transactional data generated by the
communication is not sufficient to protect the privacy of phone
callers.  The categories are inextricably related.

    There is a good reason that the law, traditional industry
policy, and even the design of the phone instrument protect the
privacy of telephone communications.  Confidentiality promotes trust.
As with a privileged communication between a doctor and a patient or a
husband and a wife, confidentiality encourages frank, open discussion
and the sharing of intimate facts that create ties and strengthen
human bonds.

    New information collection practices, if not properly
regulated, could erode the essential value of phone communication.
Virtually every phone call contains information that would be valuable
to third parties.  Any conveyor of the information could sell it to a
third party.  But such activities, once they become apparent to phone
customers, will likely drive phone customers to other forms of
communication and undermine the utility of the phone system. As Judge
Richard Posner warned in The Economics of Justice:

"People who lack conversational privacy must learn to express them-
selves precisely and circumspectively, since many of their
conversations are bound to be overheard, creating abundant
possibilities of recrimination and misunderstanding."  (p. 172).

The sale of TTGI, which would disclose intimate facts, may similarly
cause phone customers to be more cautious in who they call, or to
avoid the use of the telephone altogether.

    Therefore, telephone service providers must adhere to the
highest standards of privacy protection, recognizing in particular
that, unlike other records systems, telephone records are an extensive
and detailed collection of our daily activities.  Where the service
provider operates as a common carrier, it has the additional
obligation, by grant of its status, not to deprive phone consumers of
privacy rights that cannot otherwise be recaptured.

    As a threshold matter, telephone service providers should
ensure that consumers retain control over the disclosure of personal
information regardless of the technology involved.  Additional
Telephone Privacy Principles, based on the Code of Fair Information
Practices, follow:

1.  Consumers should have the right to inspect, correct, and amend
their TTGI records.

2.     Telephone service providers must assure the accuracy,
reliability, completeness, and integrity of personal information.
Consumers should be entitled to damage awards for any disclosure of
personal information that causes harm.

3.     Telephone service providers should ensure that personal
information is only used for its intended purpose and must take
precautions to prevent misuses of the information.

4.     Telephone service providers should request only that informa-
tion which is necessary to provide the service to the consumer.

5.     Telephone service providers should reduce the collection, use,
and storage of personal information to the maximum extent possible.

6.     Telephone service providers should establish and publicize
comprehensive business practices for the protection of personal
information.

7.     TTGI that was obtained for one purpose should not be used, or
made available for sale or exchange to third parties for other
purposes without the consent of the phone customer.  Simply noti-
fying the phone customer of the disclosures practices without
providing enforceable rights, including the right to prohibit
disclosure, will not protect privacy.  In those instances where the
phone customer agrees to disclose information, the following
principles should apply:

a) When TTGI information is sold or exchanged for other purposes,
consumers must be able to find out to whom their TTGI information has
been sold or exchanged.

b) Consumers must be able to opt out completely from having their TTGI
information sold or exchanged.  For ANI services, all consumers must
have the ability to block the display of their phone numbers including
calls to 800 or 900 numbers.

c)     A third party which purchases TTGI from a telephone service
provider and subsequently sells or exchanges that information with a
fourth party is responsible for notifying the service provider of the
sale or exchange.

d) Telephone service providers must not transfer an unlisted or
unpublished telephone number unless a consumer gives prior consent.

e)     Consumers should suffer no cost or diminishment of service as
a result of exercising their privacy rights, such as having their name
removed from lists that are transferred to others.  This further means
that there should be no additional cost for a consumer who chooses not
to disclosure a phone number.

    We hope that these suggestions will assist the Office of
Consumer Affairs in your efforts to protect the privacy and
confidentiality of telephone communications.


                    Sincerely yours,


                    Marc Rotenberg, Director
                    CPSR Washington Office


                          ===== 2 =====

[On Privacy and Phone Deregulation]


The sale of personal information generated by phone calls may be the
most significant privacy development since the deregulation of the
phone system.  Caller ID is only one aspect of the problem.  The sale
of Telephone Transaction Generated Information (TTGI), or simply toll
records (the audit trail generated by phone communications), may now
be sold to direct marketing firms and used by the phone companies for
purposes unrelated to billing verification.

To understand the dramatic departure from traditional phone company
practices, note this excerpt from a 1984 article "Protection of
Personal Data in the United States," by William Caming (The
Information Society, pp.117-119, vol, 3., no. 2 (1984)).  Mr. Caming
was for many years general counsel for AT&T.

"In testimony before the Privacy Commission, I said in behalf of AT&T
that we unreservedly pledged ourselves to undertake promptly a
thorough reexamination of our policies and practices impacting upon
privacy to ensure that the Bell System's commitment to the spirit of
"Fair information" principles was being fully realized. . . .

"Over the years, the Bell System has staunchly supported the concept
that the protection of its customers' communications and business
records is of singular importance.  Time and time again, we have
stressed to the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission and
on other public forums that the preservation of privacy is a basic
concept in our business. .
        . . .

". . . toll billing record are corporate records maintained in the
ordinary course of business as necessary substantiation for the
charges billed to customers.  These records are extremely sensitive
since they, in essence, constitute a virtual log of one's daily
communications.  They are generally kept for a limited period of time
to serve the needs of the business and to conform to statutory and
regulatory requirements.  They are normally destroyed as a matter of
business routine at the conclusion of the prescribed retention period,
usually six months.

"Access to these records is rigorously restricted.  They are not
released except pursuant to subpoena, administrative summons, or court
order valid on its face. . . . Exceptions to the foregoing policies
are extremely few in number."

An upcoming article in the CPSR Newsletter by Jeff Johnson address
some of the privacy issues related to caller ID.

      Marc Rotenberg, Director
      CPSR Washington Office.

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

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


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

Subject: Overhearing Cellular Calls
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 10:23:55 -0500
From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>


The following excerpt was in the (moderated) misc.security newsgroup,
and I guess, the security mailing list.  The person quoted below met
with two local FBI agents "to discuss computer, information and
network security", to enable his organization to be prepared in case
of security problems.  He summarized this meeting for the network and
one interesting (and relevant to this list) tidbit was included:

    From: [e-mail] ("Frank Topper")
    Subject: Meeting with the FBI
    Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

    A questionable activity, but not illegal, is when a hacker (or
    employee) reads files they are not supposed to have seen.  Not so
    related to universities is the new wrinkle provided by cellular
    phones.  In this case the transmission travels through the
    airwaves to a hardwire transmission point.  It is not illegal to
    listen in to the part broadcasted (although, a recent note on the
    SECURITY list mentioned that it was illegal to disclose an
    overheard conversation). [apparently summarizing the remarks of
    the agents --/JBL]

While this is an informal summary of an informal discussion, the last
sentence does seem to contradict what we have been hearing lately
about cellular (as opposed to cordless) telephone conversations.

You may find the entire article of interest.  It was written by

        Frank Topper
        Information Analyst
        University of Pennsylvania.

/JBL

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 1990 5:24:58 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Phone Recordings


Yesterday I dialed a long distance call to a cellular phone which was
answered after about four rings by a recording which said something
like "Thanks for using Cellular One. The mobile customer you have
dialed has left the vehicle or traveled beyond the service area.
Please try again later."

Will I be charged for this call?  Why do they provide these
recordings?  I would prefer to get the usual no answer.  Also, why do
they answer with the recording after a short 4 rings instead of 10?

Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: You are not charged for incomplete call attempts to
mobile phones. By playing the recording to you after four rings, the
assumption is you will disconnect sooner and make a circuit available
to someone else. If the phone *was* turned on and within the service
area, then it would ring fifty times if you waited that long.  When
the phone being called does not transmit a reply back to the base
right away saying 'here I am', then the celluar service provider tells
you right away the phone cannot be located, saving time for you and
airtime for them.  The reason for four rings is because it takes about
that long for the base to query all the cells.  PT]

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

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Programming
Date: 28 Mar 90 22:22:19 GMT
Reply-To: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158


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

>Nowadays, ESN's are now hard-soldered ROMs on the board or (lately)
>burned into the CPU of the phone. The only thing you can do is change
>the phone number [...]

Burning the number into the CPU of the phone will not block anybody
serious, unless the CPU has a lock bit (so that one can not read out
the internal ROM.)  A while ago, there was an article in alt.hackers
by someone who had taken apart his cellular telephone and unsoldered
the CPU.  He dumped the internal ROM, disassembled it, and modified
the code to add a scanner mode.  Then he soldered in a socket in place
of the CPU, bought another processor of the same variety, programmed
it with the modified code, and placed it in the socket.

While this takes some skill and knowledge, it is far from impossible.

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: +071 and +081 in London (+01 split)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 10:11:46 EST


I reported a week or two ago on some experiments I conducted trying
the new London city codes from the U.S. (which a British poster, Mr.
Pettit, said were now mostly enabled, though official cutover is not
till May).  Not AT&T, Sprint, or MCI would accept either the 071 code
or the 081 code; the calls were intercepted somewhere on the U.S.
side.  I also reported that AT&T's intercept was peculiar, to say the
least.

Last night I tried again, using Mr. Pettit's office number (which I
never actually rang).  It may now be reached by dialing, from the
U.S., 011-44-1-941-xxxx.  After May, it will be accessible by dialing
011-44-81-941-xxxx.  Mr. Pettit reported that using the 071 city code
resulted in a British Telecom intercept.  I tried that city code on
the same three carriers last night: 011-44-71-941-xxxx.  I was calling
from New Hampshire (603-880) on New England Telephone.

Sprint (my default): no change.  A numbered recording (60-93) informed
me that I had dialed an invalid country or city code.

AT&T: no change.  I still get an intercept telling me that "due to the
earthquake in the area you are calling" my call couldn't be completed.
Something is not quite right in that office.  (I get the same result
calling from a Massachusetts pay phone.)

MCI: Success!  I got an intercept recording with a British accent
telling me that instead of dialing the city code of 1 I should be
using the city code 81 to reach the number.

So MCI wins this particular race.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #216
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25031;
          29 Mar 90 5:15 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18948;
          29 Mar 90 3:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05736;
          29 Mar 90 2:31 CST
Date:     Thu, 29 Mar 90 1:22:30 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #217
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:22:11 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 217

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos [David Gast]
    Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Jack Winslade]
    Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [Ken Abrams]
    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Jon Baker]
    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [John Boteler]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [David Schanen]
    FAXes on VAXes [John W. Manly]
    Wanted: SxS Unit [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    How Do I Set Up a 950 Number? [The Blade]
    How Do 800 Numbers Propogate? [Andrew M. Winkler]
    Need Email Address to GTE Laboratories [Anthony Lee]
    Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 22:56:11 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number Bozos


Another cause -- at least out here in GTE land is that the phone company
is sending the call to the wrong number.  It happened to me the last
time only a few weeks ago.  I call a number, the phone rings, and then
there is an answer.  I ask if this is 234-5678 (not real number), she
says No, you stupid idiot, you dialed 234-1234.  I aplogize (not
imagining how I could have made such a gross error and try again.
This time I am very certain that I dialed 234-5678.  The same person
answers, I try to explain that I did not dial her number, but she is
angry anyway.

Then I call GTE to get credit for these calls.  The operator insists
that he has to try the number.  He dials 234-5678, get 234-1234 and
the woman on the other end really lets him have it.  (She does not
recognize the difference in our voices).

Moral: Before really screwing someone over for dialing a wrong number,
be certain that it is not the phone company's fault.


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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 20:11:05 EST
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


Several years ago I worked for a hotel that was part of a regional
chain.  That chain (as well as others) made it a practice never to
have a room numbered 411, since with the PBX's they had, the room
number was the extension number and could be dialed from any phone on
the property.  Anyone dialing DA without dialing 9 first would
therefore ring room 411, thus the only practical solution was to
eliminate 411 from the room numbering scheme.

In this hotel, extension 411 came in to a jack on the (cord at the
time) switchboard and the operators reported that quite a few calls
came in on it from both guests and employees (who should have been in
the habit of dialing 9 first).


Good Day!       JSW

  --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
  * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

[Moderator's Note: I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to
room dialing strictly by the room number. What if there are rooms on
every floor of a twenty story building? How do you dial rooms 911, 611,
and such? I've always seen room to room dialing done with something
like '7' as the first digit, then the room number. The single digits
'1' through '6' are things like room service, valet and front desk.
'8' starts off long distance calls and '9' starts off local calls.  PT]

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Date: 28 Mar 90 18:15:08 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> Karl Denninger <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 208, Message 1 of 5

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Templeton) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 207, Message 8 of 8

>>I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the
>>Telco's positions somewhat on this.

>I don't.

I don't either.

[Much deleted]

>Sounds to me like the telco's are the greedy ones here.

And stupid to boot (which is no real surprise).  The people at the
TELCO that are handling this issue have a chronic case of tunnel
vision.  They are penny wise and pound foolish.  Like Brad so aptly
pointed out, the BBS lines generate almost NO originating traffic and
the callers pay the freight for all the terminating calls. The TELCO
gets ALL this money if it is a local call in a measured service area
and they get a piece of the revenue if it is a long distance call.  If
the local TELCO had any decent vision for the future, they would be
trying to encourage BBS-type services instead of stiffeling it and
they should be using the resources they are wasting fighting this
issue to plan and implement "universal" measured service.


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Date: 29 Mar 90 00:29:36 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> 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

No.  Not standardized across all CO equipment, anyway.

> 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?

There are certainly 'quirks' to all CO equipment of all generations
that distinguish them from one another.  Don't ask for a comprehensive
list of quirks ...

> 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...

Sorry, that's the best way.  General rule - GTOC = GTD-5, RBOC = 5ESS.
There's a fair number of other vendors' CO's out there, also.  As for
software version number, that's hard to say.  There's no way I know of
to detect it from your CPE.

The best way to figure it out is look at all the neat new features
your local telco is pushing, and equate that to the latest and
greatest software release.

> 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?)

No.  Although the minority, there are still a fair number of 'archaic'
switches out there, particularly in remote/rural areas.


Jon Baker

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

Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 9:04:15 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Quick and dirty CO identification techniques:

Accessing from the subscriber end:

    ESS5: Breaks dial tone on button-down.
    DMS-100: breaks dial tone on button-up; reorders dial tone
        on TT 'D'.

Calling a subscriber on the switch in question:

    ESS5 & DMS-100 both complete the connection silently (when answered).
    ESS1, et al complete the connection with a distinctive click.
    XBAR, SxS, panel, XY, etc. left as an adventure to the reader.


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

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Date: 28 Mar 90 23:22:45 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Solsman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 212, Message 8 of 9

>In response to the Moderator's comment:
>I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical
>switching in the phone, but what about other phones on the same
>extension? [SIC] (line?).

It won't work for several reasons:

1) The station that IS off hook puts a very low resistance across the
   line (repeat coil in the phone).  If ringing is applied to the line,
   (usually 88 VAC, superimposed on the talk battery) the repeat coil
   will take most of it.

2) Normal ringing circuits are designed so that they will not ring into
   a low resistance; they will "trip" and stop ringing.

3) It is possible that ringing applied manually to an off-hook line might
   make the other phones chirp if they have electronic ringers but this
   could only be done from a manual test position (or some similar
   arrangement) and it might damage the phone that is off-hook if applied
   long enough.


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways
Date: 29 Mar 90 06:22:59 GMT
Reply-To: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew Boardman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 214, Message 5 of 14

>In article <[e-mail]> Brandon wrote:

>>U.S. Sprint was *handing out* FonCards at the Lake County Amateur
>>Radio Assoc.  Hamfest today.

>Several times now, in midtown New York City, agressive Sprint people
>have been standing behind a small silver-grey desk thing in the Sprint
>colors with lines like, "Get your phone card here!  They're free!"
>One just writes down one's address and telephone number (no
>identification is asked for) and they hand you a working "Fon Card."

    Well this is just silly!  I can say with certainty that they
were *not* handing out FON cards.

    I'm an Independant Marketing Representative (IMR) with a
company called "Network 2000".

    The fellows you spotted on the streets of New York and other
major (and not so major) cities are most likely representatives of
this company.  From what I gather we are the single greatest marketing
tool for US Sprint (from my conversations with US Sprint customer
service reps.)

    You were probably confusing the demonstration FON card we
carry, with an actual card.  There would be *incredible* (to put it
mildly) security problems with "handing out phone cards", that just
wouldn't work.

    Let me know if you want more information about Network 2000,
who knows you might be the next one out there selling Sprint. =)

        -Dave

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

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 10:19 EST
From: John W Manly <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAXes on VAXes


Hi, all.

The Academic Computer Center here at Amherst College has finally woken
up, smelled the coffee, and decided we really can't operate without a
FAX anymore.

But if we're going to spring for one, we want to do it in style.
Ideally, we would like a FAX machine that prints on normal paper (as
opposed to thermal paper), and has an interface on it so that it can
take input from the VAX (through a standard RS-232 port) as well as a
regular scanner.  We'd also like it for under $3000 if possible,
although preliminary investigation suggests this is WAY too low.

The question is, where might we look for one?  Generally, FAX machines
are not advertised in the publications that I usually read, like
Digital Review, DEC Professional, and so on.

So what advice do people have? Is anyone out there using FAXes
connected to VAXes?  Or connected to any other mini or mainframe for
that matter? Even if not, does anyone have advice on what
features/options we should be sure to look for or to avoid?  Which
companies' offerings should be be sure to investigate?  Thanks for any
and all replies.

Please respond directly to me as I am not a regular reader of TELECOM.


BITNET:    JWMANLY@AMHERST                 - John W. Manly
INTERNET:  [e-mail]               System Manager
PHONE:     [phone]                    Amherst College

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

Date: Tue 27 Mar 90 07:55:01-PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: SxS Unit


Hi,

    For my own private "telephone museum" I am looking for a piece
of a stepper switch. I think what I want is simply one "cylinder" (I
know that's not the name...) where you can seen the "rotor" and a
bunch of contacts. I don't have room for much more.  Any ideas where I
could pick one up? Phone companies are throwing these away as scrap
these days, are they not?


Ole

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

From: The Blade <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Do I Set Up a 950 Number?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 14:48:46 PST
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM


I need information regarding if it is possible for a newly established
telecommunications company to set up a 950 port in NJ.  What are the
guidelines, costs, hardware requirements, etc.  Any info would be
appreciated.


Blade
darkside.com

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

From: "Andrew M. Winkler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Do 800 Numbers Propogate?
Reply-To: "Andrew M. Winkler" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 17:22:33 GMT


My wife runs a manufacturing company for pet products, and recently
got an 800 number. The number is printed on the packaging. Not too
long after getting the number, she got a 1 am call from someone in
Mississippi, where none of her products have ever sold. More recently,
she got a call from someone in Michigan who said someone had left the
number (a name) on his answering machine. Are these kinds of
weirdnessed normal? Any insight? Please email. If there is any
interest, I'll post a summary.


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

From: Anthony Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Email Address to GTE Laboratories
Date: 28 Mar 90 12:32:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I met someone named Peter Ng from GTE Lab at a conference in
Singapore last year and I would like to contact him again.  So I am
wondering if someone could give me the address of the postmaster at
GTE Labs in Waltham MA.

Thanks in advance.

Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor)
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651
Internet: [e-mail]        +(61)-7-377-4139 (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 0:35:48 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia


This is a clarification on the editorial changes mentioned a couple
days ago:

Signatures do serve a purpose, so we will continue allowing up to *two
lines* only -- but no boxes, stars, slogans, cute sayings, half a
dozen alternate addresses, etc. (Maybe some exceptions as needed,
provided they provide needed address information.)

Please get those quotes down to a maximum of 25-30% of the total
message ...

In the case of 'Re:' messages: Before replying to a given article,
please read **all items** for the day which have arrived first. See
if someone else is saying the same thing. If so, do you need to repeat
what was said?

Bandwidth is becoming critical here. Please help reduce total
transmission, and do at least a modicum of editing on submissions.

For next: A special issue of the Digest this weekend will be a copy of
the federal indictment in Chicago of members of Legion of Doom. Follow
up messages to it should be directed to the auxiliary mailing list
established for the purpose: [e-mail] -- not to the Digest.

Also: If you did not get a copy of the FCC order regards COCOT
blocking of 10xxx codes, it is in the Telecom Archives. I also have a
copy of it here and will will mail it to *non-ftp'able locations* on
request.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #217
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14916;
          30 Mar 90 2:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21679;
          30 Mar 90 0:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17044;
          29 Mar 90 23:47 CST
Date:     Thu, 29 Mar 90 22:51:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #218
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 29 Mar 90 22:50:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 218

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: US Sprint (Actually, Separate Billing) [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [Fred E.J. Linton]
    US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT Advantage [Steve Elias]
    Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [Andrew Boardman]
    Re: Room to Room Dialing in Hotels [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: Room to Room Dialing in Hotels [Edward Greenberg]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [John Bruner]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Tom Perrine]
    Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled [Doug Davis]
    Re: Switch Two Devices by Ring? [Paul Guthrie]
    Re: Need Email Address to GTE Laboratories [Anthony Lee]
    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Edward Vielmetti]
    Re: UK Telephone System Questions [Jon Baker]
    MCI Hotlines [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint (Actually, Separate Billing)
Date: 29 Mar 90 21:25:04 GMT


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

> If you have a credit card and use MCI, you can save a stamp.
> MCI will bill your credit card directly if you wish.
> [When the bill is wrong, it takes one stamp to pay the correct charges
> on your credit card and one to write to your card issuer to explain why
> you are refusing part of the billing from MCI, so it's the same total of two
> stamps you would have used if you sent MCI their own check.]

Actually, MCI does get my bill wrong on occasion, and does bill one of
my credit cards directly (a CitiBank AAdvantage card, so with the 5 AA
miles per MCI dollar and the additional AA mile per CitiBank billing
dollar I'm getting a "whopping" 6% discount on my MCI calls :-).

I've called MCI Customer Service in such situations as: getting
charged for misconnections, or for non-connections (I dial, I hear
three "rings" on a ring-generator, I hear what sounds like a handset
going off-hook, but I hear no voice from the other end -- or perhaps
the person on the other end hears no voice from me, hence remains
silent, waiting)); and on each and every occasion they have promptly
agreed to post a credit in the amount of those calls' charges (plus
taxes) on my next bill.  Means I'm sometimes a bit pre-paid, but
things have always come out even again after a bill or two, and I've
never needed to part with that second postage stamp.

Now if AA would just credit my MCI and CitiBank card mileage credits a
bit more _promptly_ ... :-) .    -- Fred [look, pa, no /.sig!]

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

From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways
Date: 29 Mar 90 22:19:30 GMT


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

> Several times now, in midtown New York City, agressive Sprint people
> have been standing behind a small silver-grey desk thing in the Sprint
> colors with lines like, "Get your phone card here!  They're free!"

Same phenomenon at the weekly Sunday flea market in New Haven (CT).
This is a market at which produce vendors, clothing vendors, and junk
dealers (folks whose work it is to empty out left-over furniture,
etc., from empty houses trying to get sold in settlement of an estate,
and whose extra income comes from selling the more saleable of the
items they thus "salvage") hawk their wares to an extremely penurious
assortment of customers.

(How penurious?  Let a typical exchange illustrate: "How much you want
for that TV?"  "Five bucks."  "Aw, you know I don't have that kinda
money; let's see (rummaging through pockets) ... would you take a
quarter for it?"  And, mirabile dictu, sometimes that quarter is
really all it takes!)

Anyway, on at least two Sundays in the past three months, there at
that market were Sprint folks hawking Sprint's shiny new silver FoN
cards.  I chatted with one of them a bit -- not very long, as, already
having a FoN card, and not wishing to sign up Sprint as my dial-one
carrier, I wasn't a very good prospect -- long enough, at least, to
learn that these Sprint folks work on a per-signup commission, and
that the longer-term aim is to make Sprint dial-one customers out of
these FoN card accepters.

Wonder how long it takes Sprint to revoke a card because of unpaid
bills?


Fred

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT advantage
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 10:12:36 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Regarding the Network 2000 marketing practices...

Some folks within US Sprint do not appreciate the bad name that Sprint
gets by being associated with Network 2000.  However, I'm sure their
beancounters appreciate the bottom line that Network 2000 helps to
generate.

Regarding the new ATT ads:  Speed.  Another ATT advantage.

I notice that in the fine print, the ad says "statistics based on
switched service".  Does this mean this "speed" advantage is really
only noticeable on old style crossbar switch COs???  What is the
difference in timing on 5ESS switches?  I notice about a 1 second
difference in call setup time from my CO in Massachusetts.  This
doesn't make a difference to me, personally -- I'd prefer the better
sound quality and lower prices from Sprint even if it took
*significantly* longer to set up the call.

In any case, I think that ATT's ads are easily as sleazy as any of the
other long distance companies.  It's getting so that the LD carrier
ads remind me of those obnoxious "slam the other candidate" political
ads.


; Steve Elias, [e-mail], [e-mail]
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax [phone]


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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 15:53:51 EST
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eating


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

>    You were probably confusing the demonstration FON card we
>carry, with an actual card.  There would be *incredible* (to put it
>mildly) security problems with "handing out phone cards", that just
>wouldn't work.

Well now, that's what *I* thought.  Nevertheless, I've got a shiny new
FONCARD in my wallet that worked 45 seconds after I got it!

/a

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 12:35:46 est
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Room to Room Dialing In Hotels
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> [Moderator's Note: I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to
> room dialing strictly by the room number. What if there are rooms on
> every floor of a twenty story building? How do you dial rooms 911, 611,

My experience (Pan Pacific hotel, Anaheim, CA): floors 1-9, dial '7' then
room number.  floors 10-14, dial room number.   In a smaller hotel with only
three digit room numbers, room to room was by dialing only those three
digits (which probably only started with 1 or 2 so could be identified as
three digit by the first digit.).


internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1   Location: Newark, DE, USA

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 11:34 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Room to Room Dialing In Hotels


The moderator (Hi Patrick) states that he's never seen a hotel which
allowed room-to-room dialing where the extension was the room number.

I've been in hotels this scheme, although I've been in lots of hotels
that used a prefix, too.  I remember one where the rooms were all in
the form 101 to 1xx and 201 to 2xx, and various hotel extensions were
all in another hundreds group.

One common scheme is "For Rooms on 2 - 9, dial 7 + Room Number."  For
rooms on 10 and above, dial the room number.

'Course I remember the first PBX I ever saw, when I was five (in
1960).  It was at the Brunswick Hotel in Lakewood New Jersey.  The
phones were all old style non-dial phones.  Round base, skinny neck,
large cradle and oversized heavy handset.  Behind the desk was the
most fascinating device: A cord board.  In the lobby, was a row of
wooden phone booths.  Some had cathedral style coin phones, and others
had house phones -- separate earpiece, with mouthpiece mounted on the
wall!  No dial, of course.

Boy, how far we've come.


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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 08:59:20 CST
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone

I have read the explanations of why it is impossible to ring a busy
telephone with some interest, because I remember it happening in my
parents' house a long time ago.  We had a party line, and the other
party had left their telephone off-hook.  My parents called Indiana
Bell from a neighbor's telephone.  There was a very strange ring in
the house (a set of very short rings), and when I lifted the receiver
of one telephone, the other one continued to ring.

All of the telephones in those days had real bells.  Perhaps that made
a difference.  I'm certainly willing to believe that modern telephones
with electronic ringers wouldn't do this.


John Bruner    Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois
    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Date: 29 Mar 90 20:23:59 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


What about the long-rumored "Infinity Bug"? This is reportedly a
device that allows one to call a phone, and listen to whatever the
phone mic picks up. The interesting part is that the phone never rings
and the handset does not need to be lifted. This seems to be similar
to the problem of rining an off-hook phone.

I saw a phone once (Bell System 2500) that had a push-to-talk swith in
the handset, and was told that this was because the "infinity bugs"
were still around.  Don't ask where, or when :-)

Has anyone actually seen one of these things, or is it just a myth
that a *lot* of people believe in?


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

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Should Cellular Airtime Billing Be Handled
Date: 29 Mar 90 16:14:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Logic Process  Dallas, Texas.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Tamkin)
writes:

>I hadn't meant that the cellular customer should use Call Blocking to
>refuse calls from the power dialer's number.  The blocking to which I
>had referred was Caller ID blocking, where a *caller* refuses to have
>his or her number provided to a callee who has Caller ID.  If a
>cellular customer who has Caller ID sees that a caller has blocked the
>delivery of the calling number, the callee, not knowing who is
>calling, can let the phone ring unanswered and not get soaked for
>airtime.

Ur, I don't know about where you are getting your cellular
subscription from, but around here both Southwestern Bell Mobil
systems (wireline) and GTE MetroCell (non-wireline) charge for air
time while your phone is ringing. That is, if your phone is powered up
and a call comes in you will be charged for the same air time as if
you had answered it.  No, you don't get charged if your phone is
turned off.

This really burns me up, having a !@#$ telemarketer call and have to
*PAY* to listen to them. Personally someone who powerdials a cellular
exchange should have their cellular phone number listed in a public
place so we can initate retaliatory strikes with a speed dialer ;-)


Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun|lawnet|texbell}!letni!doug or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Both Ameritech Mobile and Cellular One here in Chicago
say very plainly in their literature "We do not bill for busy or unanswered
calls."  They do keep track of the time, however, and if you answer
(on an incoming call) or get an answer on a call you made, then the
charges are backdated to when you actually pressed 'send' (on outgoing
calls) or when the CO started ringing you (on incoming calls).   PT]

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Switch Two Devices by Ring?
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 20:32:25 GMT


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

>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 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.

Yes, such a device is available from Know Ideas Inc at (708)3580505.
They have versions to switch between two three and four distinctive
rings.  These work quite well, and exactly as described.  I don't
quite recall prices, but they are less than the less functional "Fax
switches".


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

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

From: Anthony Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Email Address to GTE Laboratories
Date: 29 Mar 90 23:38:08 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Anthony Lee) writes:

>I met someone named Peter Ng from GTE Lab at a conference in

I just want to thank everyone on the net for helping out.  I didn't
think that the email address to GTE would be that easy to come by.
When I met Peter last year, he didn't give me his email address and so
I assumed that it is very difficult to get access to GTE.  Hopefully
I'll be able to get to him (at least I don't have to SNAIL him B-).


Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor)
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651
Internet: [e-mail]        +(61)-7-377-4139 (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

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

From: Edward Vielmetti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme
Date: 29 Mar 90 17:57:23 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor MI.


FROGGY, the U of Michigan Audio Response Unit, was disconnected
forever once they decomissioned the Data Concentrator (a PDP of some
flavor) through which it was attached to MTS.  I believe that Dave
Mills of Fuzzball and NTP fame has some credit for the Data
Concentrator.


Ed

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK Telephone System Questions
Date: 29 Mar 90 14:38:47 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, gtisqr![e-mail]
(Todd Inch) writes:

> >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?

Methods of detecting on/off hook.  In ground start, seizure is
detected by applying ground to (I think) the tip lead.  In loop start,
it's detected by closing the tip/ring loop.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 1990 16:12:34 MST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI HotLines


MCI is now offering a new service called HotLines.

MCI customers can call 1.700.770.7000 any time for $0.65/min.  (A
touchtone phone is required).  Calls can be placed from home or via
the MCI Card.  It is not clear from their literature if there is a
surcharge for card access.

The following information is available:

    1. Jeane Dixon Horoscopes
    2. Sports Illustrated Sports HotLine
    3. Soap Opera Updates by Lynda Hirsch
    4. Fortune Magazine's Business and Financial News
    5. WeatherTrak Forecasts

MCI is offering two five-minute free HotLines calls to get customers
to try the new service.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #218
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16938;
          30 Mar 90 3:33 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16264;
          30 Mar 90 1:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21679;
          30 Mar 90 0:52 CST
Date:     Fri, 30 Mar 90 0:16:14 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #219
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 30 Mar 90 00:15:24 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 219

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Yoram Eisenstadter]
    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Paul Guthrie]
    Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment [Jon Solomon]
    Re: Problem With Northern Telecom Switch [Jim Rees]
    Re: The Card [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Extended 911 Coverage [Joel B. Levin]
    Plain Paper Fax / PC-Fax [Steve Elias]
    Info on NUA-s Wanted [Milan Kovacevic]
    Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX [John L. Shelton]
    Where Can I Get Old Databit Muxes [Kent Hauser]
    Historical Query: Carterfone [Arthur Axelrod]
    Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 14:17:59 EST
From: Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In a recent message, Ed Ravin wrote about New York City exchanges that
have numbers (-9901 suffixes) that identify the CO equipment.  Being a
NY City resident, I couldn't resist calling the number for my local
exchange (718-347-9901).  Here's roughly what the recording said:

        ``We are pleased to announce that you have reached
          the Floral Park 1A-ESS, serving the 343 and 347
          exchanges in the 718 area, and the 352 and 354
          exchanges in the 516 area.''

I also called the number in the original posting, 212-601-9901, and
got an interesting variant:

        ``Congratulations! You have reached the Kingsbridge DMS...''

Cheers .. Y

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

From: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Reply-To: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 19:42:43 GMT


The CO switch type is a field in Bellcore's LERG database.


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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 18:29:59 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: How To Identify Your CO Equipment


It is virtually impossible to determine the difference between a
5-ESS and any other digital switch (virtually, not totally).

5-ESS is the most perfect of the digital switches. Unfortunatly it
can be used for just about any CO purpose including remote CO's and
CO's that have one prefix (and half of it unused), all the way up to
ten prefixes or more.

You can tell you are on a 1-A or 1ess because it clicks. Seriously,
digital switches don't click, they are silent. 5-ESS, Northern Telecom
DMS and other digital switches (GTE GTD5 comes to mind) are all silent
and work basically the same. If you have a phone on the line you can
usually tell what the machine is, particularly on where you live and
which kind of machine your phone company uses.

DMS switches sometimes have ringing before intercept on not-in-service
numbers. If you get that, you know for certain you are on a DMS-100.
DMS-200s don't do that.

Call waiting is another sign. Click Beep Click Click means either 1 or
1-A ESS. Just a beep means digital. On a digital switch you can not
tell when your second party terminates, there is no clunk clunk like
on 1-A's and 1's.

The difference beteween a 1 and a 1-A is the 1 is older, and will
probably be phased out soon; also you cannot get any of the new
features on a 1 because they ran out of space in the CPU and memory
for more programming.  If they add something they have to take
something away. *70 does not work on a 1. 1-A's have all the nifty
features and *70 works.

5-ESS' have a tendency (although this is not due to the hardware) to
ring the phone if you make a three-way call to a second party, don't
connect to them first, and hang up. It usually means you got a busy
signal on the first call, called someone else, and then hung up with
the first party holding. The phone will ring then. Also, call waiting
will ring the phone, but it does on all machines.

ATT doesn't let the LOC's program the 5-ESS' like they do with the 1's
and the 1-A's. That means no local hacks. Here in Mass, the 1's and
1-A's all cut in with a recording saying dial 1-508-number when you
dial an empty prefix in 617. The 5-ESS' gobble the whole number before
saying the recording.

For those in Boston: Alot of Boston CO's are turning 5-ESS. 439 is a
5-ESS, 338 is a 1-A. All Back Bay CO's are 1-A's. Charlestown just got
a DMS-100 all the Bowdoin COs are 1-A's. The Franklin St. CO is a
5-ESS.

Somerville, Arlington, Belmont are all 5-ESS'.  Watertown is a 1;
that's right, a 1. Switches no more than six prefixes.  I hope they
replace it soon.  Brookline just got a 1-A. 432 is on it. All other
prefixes are on a 1-A.  Brighton is a 1-A.  Newton is a DMS-200, a BIG
CO. Newton has a centrex on the Watertown switch and a prefix for
local numbers on it too. Newton was the first digital switch in the
area. It was also the first crossbar switch and when that got replaced
by the DMS it was so old and crickety. Now they have something that is
not much worse.

Cambridge has three CO's, one is the old MIT CO, which is Kendall
Square now (called Bent Street), and is a 1-A. MIT has its own CO
which is a 5-ESS. The third CO is the Ware Street CO and it covers
most of Cambridge.  Here you have a choice between a 1-A and a 5-ESS.
Of course I am getting one of each.

Harvard just switched from the 1-A to the 5-ESS. 495 moved in its
entirety, no line changes, and 498 numbers went to 493 which is on the
5-ESS. Dialing 498 + ext. gives you a recording saying dial 493 + ext.
These are the student numbers, so it didn't matter.

Anyway, hope that helps. FYI, 279-438 is a DMS-100, and you can dial
[phone] to see the ringing before the intercept.

Some telcos put a recording in after a ringing signal.  I am not
talking about that; I am talking about ring, ring ... beep beep
beep, the number you have reached 2 7 9 1 6 6 6 is not in service in
area code 6 1 7.

In other machines, the intercept beeps occur without ringing.


jsol

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Problem With Northern Telecom Switch
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 19:17:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ronald L Fletcher)
writes:

> There is USUALLY an easy work-around. If you type control-d as the
> FIRST character at the LOGIN: prompt, the system will respawn a new
> getty with the default I/O parameters.  This should return a login:
> prompt and you then login normally.  On some systems this may drop the
> line and you'll be right back to where you started from.

If that's the case, the other thing you can do is log in and do "stty
 -lcase" (or is it "stty lcase"?  Try them both, or check the man
page).  If you have any upper-case letters, or any of {}~| (maybe some
others) in your user name or password, you'll have to precede the
letters with \ and type the special characters as \[ \] \` \\
respectively.

I have actually logged in to Unix and tried to do work on an
upper-case only terminal, on a v6 system back (running on an Interdata
8/32!) in 1979.  What a pain.

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

From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 29 Mar 90 21:54:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don H Kemp) writes:

>  Well people, Here's the "official" word from AT&T on their credit card...

Seeing the word first in Tuesday's [New York Times] (both a full-page
ad and a longish article in the business section), I tried to call the
1-800-662-7759 Don Kemp mentions -- busy all day!  Tried again around
4:00 am EST Wednesday and got through without even entering a queue --
it pays to be a night-owl!

Questions asked prospective subscribers are all quite easy to answer --
name, address, home phone #, Soc. Sec. #, names of checking/savings
banks, annual income, mother's maiden name, employer -- nothing you
need look up data for.

Answers provided this prospective subscriber: No, the card number
bears no resemblance to your phone number, and the PIN is not
imprinted on the card (though your phone number is, in a subsidiary
way); yes, the rental car collision/damage coverage, supplemental to
any collision/damage coverage your home auto policy may provide, is
valid even if your home auto policy provides _no_ collision/damage
coverage, and even if you have no home auto policy; yes, no annual fee
ever for 1990 subscribers who use the card in _some_ way (calling card
_or_ charge card mode) at least once a year.

My interlocutor agreed that AT&T had evidently underestimated the
response this card offering would generate -- he was aware of long
queuing times, but was flabbergasted that busy signals actually kept
me from ever getting on the queue at all -- he spoke of 12,000 calls
per hour getting handled, nationwide, on Tuesday!  I might estimate
four calls per hour per operator -- at that rate, AT&T must have had
some 3,000 operators nationwide handling all those calls, and well
over 100,000 applicants getting through.  Wow!


Fred

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Extended 911 Coverage
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 08:15:38 EST


I don't expect to see a state-wide (area-code-wide, LATA-wide, they're
all the same for me) 911 coverage for quite some time unless some
changes are made.

I live in the town of Merrimack, New Hampshire (as someone has pointed
out, in New England you are always in some town or city, there is no
"out in the county" as there is out west).  But we in the southern
part of the town are in the Nashua, NH coverage area, and my phone
number is a Nashua number.  The rest of Merrimack is covered by its
own two prefixes.  Nashua (except for 888 in south Nashua) has the
latest most modern switching equipment, as far as I can tell;
Merrimack's is older and may be ESS or may be crossbar.

Nashua has for a long time had 911, but Merrimack residents have
always been told to dial the appropriate police or fire number
directly.  If I had called 911 from my own telephone, it would have
gone to the Nashua emergency dispatcher, and he or she would not be
able to dispatch the Merrimack emergency people.

A couple months ago Merrimack got 911 service.  A policeman visited my
daughter's kindergarten and handed out new stickers to put on the
phones.  They are now handing out two sets of stickers.  If you live
in Merrimack and have a Merrimack number, you dial 911 for all
emergencies.  However, if you have a Nashua prefix, you get a
different sticker with a regular 7 digit Merrimack number and
instructions _not_ to dial 911.

Until they get together and resolve this kind of problem there won't
be any universal 911 for all of 603 (or even the southern NH area).
This is complicated by the fact that there are a lot of towns in NH,
including two covered by the Nashua phone book, that have independent
phone companies.

     /JBL

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Plain Paper Fax / PC-Fax
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 10:04:44 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Hello John and Telecom readers,

I'm not very well versed on the pricing and availability of plain
paper fax machines, but for your requirements, you might want to
consider building up a PC AT with a PC-Fax board.  Such a setup would
allow you to print your faxes on an laserprinter and thus produce
plain paper output.  I'm not sure if any current PC-Fax products have
an established RS232 interface which can accept text from a VAX,
though such a setup would not be too difficult for a system manager
type to customize.  I believe such a setup would cost well under
$3000.  Most PC magazines review PC-Fax board occasionally, and there
are lots of ads for the beasties.


; Steve Elias, [e-mail], [e-mail]
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax [phone]


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

From: Milan Kovacevic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on NUA-s Wanted
Date: 29 Mar 90 16:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: Milan Kovacevic <[e-mail]>
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


I am looking for a list of NUA numbers for the USA. If you have any
information that might help me, please send me E_mail.


Milan Kovacevic  ([e-mail])

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 09:19:55 PST
From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX


I would like to try some public voice mail exchanges before going
whole-hog to purchasing an in-house voice mail system.  To do this, I
must have calls diverted from my extension when busy (or no answer) to
an outside number.  We have Direct-Inward-Dialing (DID) on this Mitel.

When I forward my line to an outside number, inside callers get my
voice mail, but outside callers get a busy signal.  My PBX service
provider says that's because we have "loop start" trunks instead of
"ground start," but this sounds bogus to me.

Anyone have experience with this scenario?


=John Shelton=

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

From: Kent Hauser <tfd![e-mail]>
Subject: Where Can I Get Old Databit Muxes
Date: 29 Mar 90 19:20:32 GMT
Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC


Does anyone know where anyone can get some old Databit multiplexers?

Actually, any cheap synchronous telex muxes would do, but I've already
got a bunch of Databit 922's & if I could get some used ones, that
would be the easiest.


Kent Hauser            UUCP: {uunet, sun!sundc}!tfd!kent
Twenty-First Designs        INET: [e-mail]      [phone]

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

Date: 29 Mar 90 14:56:55 PST (Thursday)
Subject: Historical Query:  Carterfone
From: [e-mail]


Perhaps someone can refresh my aging memory (it's the second thing to
go:-).  There was a landmark court case that led to a ruling that
non-telco devices could be connected to the net.  That led to DAAs
(standing for Direct Access Arrangements, I think) and then to FCC
registration.  The case is referred to as the Carterfone Decision (I
think).

Could someone enlighten me as to the dates and some of the background
of this case?  Were there any other court cases that were part of ther
process?


    Art Axelrod
    Xerox Webster Research Center

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines
Date: Thu 29 Mar 1990  23:00 CST


In the message prior to this, Art Axelrod mentions the landmark
Carterfone case. It brought about some major changes.  Carterfone was
in the early sixties. My very first answering machine was manufactured
about that time, and it could not by law be hardwired into the phone
line.  Instead, the phone sat on a box with a speaker in the top of
it. Two metal fingers were fitted under the receiver, in the middle
section on top of the phone between the switchook buttons. Any loud
noise in the vicinity (such as the vacuum cleaner in general, but the
bell on the phone in particular) caused a relay in the box to close
its contacts.  This in turn powered a spring-loaded thing which forced
the fingers to jump up about half an inch, lifting the receiver
slightly off the hook, 'answering' the phone. The mobious (or
endless-loop) tape in the box played a message through the speaker
which the mouthpiece on the phone 'heard' accoustically.

A little suction cup accoustic coupler was attached to the receiver
also, near the earpiece. This 'heard' what the caller said, and sent
it to a portable cassette player sitting nearby, whose remote on/off
was controlled by something in the box which sat under the phone. I
got a fifteen second outgoing message and a thirty second incoming
message.

The outgoing message was recorded on the incoming message tape each
time it played out, so when you listened to your messages (when you
got home, of course, since there was no such thing as remote message
playback), you heard your own outgoing message before each incoming
message. And of course these were strange things generally unknown to
the public and an actual message left by anyone was rare.  Plenty of
dial tones and "if you'd like to make a call, please hang up and try
again" messages though! I had two such machines; one for the
switchboard phone (I lived in an apartment hotel) and one for my
private line. They cost me about $500 each as I recall; back in 1961.
When the maid would come in to vacuum my carpet, the phones would go
off hook and start playing their message when she was near them!


PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #219
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02045;
          31 Mar 90 20:42 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10993; 31 Mar 90 19:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25842;
          30 Mar 90 23:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18973;
          30 Mar 90 22:01 CST
Date:     Fri, 30 Mar 90 22:01:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #220
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 30 Mar 90 22:00:19 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 220

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Spring Ahead; Fall Behind [TELECOM Moderator]
    Sprint Foncards in Braille [Douglas W. Martin]
    Re: Sprint Foncards in Braille [Greg Fowler]
    Vnet, VPN, SDN and Leased Lines [Brian Jay Gould]
    Need Info on AT&T Sceptre Teletext Terminal (Jim Rees)
    Overhearing Conversations [Yong Su Kim]
    PBX Recommendations Wanted [Todd Inch]
    800 Service Providers [John Stanley]
    10xxx Access Codes Addendum [John Stanley]
    Technical Specs For a Caller-ID Box [Mike Shulman]
    ATT Smart About PINs [Steve Elias]
    A Call to 212-228-9901 [Stephen Tihor]
    900 Number Pricing List [Dave Esan]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [John Stanley]
    Correction to Boston Area CO Descriptions [Jon Solomon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 20:06:52 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spring Ahead; Fall Behind


Don't forget: The United States switches to Daylight Savings Time this
Sunday, April 1, at 2:00 AM (your local time).  Whatever time you
finish your hacking Saturday night/Sunday morning be sure to set your
clock ahead one hour before going to sleep or you'll be late for
whatever you planned for Sunday!


PT

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 08:31:50 PST
From: "Douglas W. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Foncards in Braille


     I too was successful at the WD40 quiz and won a Sprint card.
During the conversation with the Sprint rep, I mentioned that I was
totally blind, and he asked me if I wanted my Foncard in Braille.  I
got the card and the instructions in Braille; the card has the number:
#1800 #8778000 followed by my 14-digit number in Braille.  The dialing
instructions occupy two Braille pages.  I believe they also said that
I can call directory assistance in any area code for free because of
my blindness.  i.e. calls to 1-NPA-555-1212 will be credited.  I'm not
changing to Sprint as my primary carrier, but I was impressed with
their service.  To my knowledge, no other company offers these
services.


Doug Martin,    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Although AT&T does not offer their cards in Braille,
they do write off charges to 555-1212 for persons who are visually or
print handicapped.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Foncards in Braille
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 12:12:39 PST
From: [e-mail]


>[Moderator's Note: I suggest you order it again; everyone else got
>their card and some of us have recieved our first bills already.   PT]

I called into the contest when it was first announced in the Digest.
About a week ago, I decided to call to see where my card was.  I
called the contest number back and was told to call Sprint Customer
Service.

The person I spoke to was quite nice and polite.  After about 10
minutes of hold time, she said she had checked all the offices and
they had no record of my order.

There's one additional twist to this story.  Since the cards have some
random number on them, I decided to take advantage of Sprint's
advertising that they will provide a card labelled in Braille.  I'm
not interested in remembering random numbers and typically don't have
the reading equipment I use available when I want to use the card.

The Sprint representative told me that perhaps my order had been lost
because all requests for Braille cards are *written by hand* and
passed up the chain in this manner.  It was amazing to hear this and
would certainly guarantee more potential problems for visually
impaired customers (but maybe the Braille cards were for PR and
service wasn't their goal).


    Greg

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vnet, VPN, SDN and Leased lines
Date: 30 Mar 90 03:20:21 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


I am attempting to consolidate some long distance bills and in the
process get some volume discounts.  The problem is that Sprint has
told me that none of the carriers can offer my leased line bills as
part of the total.  That is, my 70k/month of leased traffic won't add
to my total volume and thus add to my discount.

AT&T can't give me a straight answer, and MCI has said (and backed in
writing) that they "probably" can.

Anyone out there know for sure?

Thanks.

*  Brian Jay Gould - Director, Systems Support *
*  General Logistics International, Inc.       *
*  internet:  [e-mail]             *

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Need Info on AT&T Sceptre Teletext Terminal
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 16:47:15 GMT


I've just acquired an antique AT&T Sceptre teletext terminal without
manual.  It was manufactured by Western Electric and the firmware is
dated 1983.  It has an internal modem and claims to speak NAPLPS.  The
modem doesn't respond to standard 300, 1200, or 1200 Vadic answer
tones.

Does anyone know anything about this terminal?  Anyone know where I
can get a NAPLPS spec?

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

From: Yong Su Kim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Overhearing Conversations
Reply-To: Yong Su Kim <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 18:40:57 GMT


A week ago, my friend called his friend at Cornell. During this
conversation, my friend was able to hear another conversation but his
friend at Cornell was unable to hear the other conversation. I presume
that this must have meant my friend was connected to two other lines.
However, my friend could only hear one side of the other conversation
and could not respond.

The phone company we use here is AT&T. I was wondering if such crossed
lines are common. Maybe someone out there knows more about such
problems.


|Internet: [e-mail]        |||||||||||Yong Su Kim||||||||||||
|Bitnet  : yk4@cunixc                 |||||The Korean from Hong Kong||||
|UUCP    : uunet!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!yk4 |||||||...Apple IIGS user...||||||


[Moderator's Note: Instead of crossed lines it may have been
crosstalk. Wires get wet; insulation around old wires is sometimes
poor, etc. On occassion when I have had to wait a few seconds for dial
tone, the amount of crosstalk was incredible; especially the day the
manhole in front of our building got flooded after a heavy rain.  Once
dial tone arrived, it (and my subsequent connection) were clean and
free of miscellaneous conversations.  It can be fun to listen to!  PT]

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: PBX Recommendations Wanted
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 00:43:38 GMT


My firm is interested in finding a replacement PBX for our existing
Omega-Phone (Iwatsu) system (don't laugh!).

I'd like suggestions from you telecommers about a model or vendor, and
if possible, some guess at a price.  We would consider a used system
if sufficient documentation is supplied with it.

                             Features we need:

- 50 extensions (now) plus expandability.

- 10 telco i/o lines plus 4 incoming and 2 outgoing WATS lines (now), plus
  expandability.

- Use standard 2500 style (POTS - compatible) phones.  Possibly with optional
  message-wait light.  Want compatibility with speakerphones, autodialers,
  modems, faxes, etc.  Single pair wiring with maybe a second pair for a
  message light.

- Semi-direct inward dialing of extensions, probably after an automated answer
  and prompt for extension number.  (Want to be able to inward dial modems and
  a fax on a regular extension by dialing main number-pause-extension.)
  Anyone have horror stories of fax's/modems set up like this?

- Direct dialing of outside numbers, via PBX auto-selection of line (WATS,
  local, foreign exchange) depending on A/C and prefix.

- Programmable outward number blocking (e.g. 900, 976, etc.)

- Extension forwarding, last number redial, conference calling within company.

- Unanswered incoming calls can select voice mail, another extension, or be
  forwarded to our operator.

- Voice mail.

- Paging, music on hold.

- Audit trail of outgoing calls by extension would be nice.


                     Existing problems we have:

- Proprietary phone sets, using 3 pair wiring, incompatible with everything,
  too expensive, too many buttons (42!).

- No automatic selection of outward lines.  All lines are now either WATS or
  foreign exchange, we want to add one or two local lines to avoid some LD
  charges.  Users now manually select an outgoing line.

- No sharing of lines.  Now have dedicated modem and fax lines which can't
  take advantage of choosing local, foreign exchange, WATS.

- No direct/semi-direct inward dialing.  All incoming calls handled by our
  receptionist.

- Too many calls from telemarketers (but a PBX probably can't help that. ;^)

We would probably want to install/maintain the system ourselves.  We
have little PBX experience, but have electronic engineers and some
telephone knowledge.  We maintain our existing system.

Please mail me responses, I'll summarize and re-post.

I'll also take phone calls at 1-800-426-8048 from USA or 206 743-6659 from
Washington state.  I'm here 8-5 Pacific time.  Thanks!


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 17:10:41 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Service Providers

Can anyone tell me who has been assigned the 800 prefix 275, as in
1-800-ASK-xxxx? I am having a real hard time getting ahold of MCI 800
service to question a bill and am starting to look for a new 800
service provider.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 17:12:38 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject: 10xxx Access Codes Addendum


I have an addition to the recent list of 10xxx codes. 10096 belongs to
FLEX Communications in Johnstown, NY.

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Shulman <shulman>)
Subject: Technical Specs For a Caller-ID Box
Date: 30 Mar 90 00:56:03 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mike Shulman <shulman>,SPCSYS,7586)
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp., Tinton Falls, N.J.


  Hello everyone!  I am sure this has been discussed by now, but I
just joined this news group. Where can I get hold of some technical
specs that would allow me to build a box that would do all the
Caller-ID stuff? It doesn't sound like it would be very difficult for
someone who likes to put circuits together. Have any of the magazines
like Popular Electronics come out with schematics for such a thing
yet?

  If anyone has any info on this, please post or E-mail.  Thanks in
advance!


Mike Shulman                         <Insert your favorite disclaimer here>
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: princeton!rutgers!petsd!pedsga!mikes

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: ATT Smart About PINs
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 08:17:48 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


I just got a new corporate ATT card.  It can be used with our
company's 800 number or for any other phone call.  It looks like a
damned nice service.  One thing that I thought was really smart was
that ATT does not print the last 4 digits (PIN) on the card.  This was
at the request of the customer (Bull).  Good move!


; Steve Elias, [e-mail], [e-mail]
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 1990 12:59:45 EST
From: Stephen Tihor <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Call to 212-228-9901


"You have reach 13th street dee ess one serving codes....."

What might a DS/1 (SP?) in the context of a switch self announcment mean?

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Number Pricing List
Date: 30 Mar 90 19:15:35 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


Is there a source that provides the cost for an individual 900 call?
I have call 1-900-555-1212 and got some fixed costs for individual
NXX's, but then got a list of premium services with no announced cost.

Somewhere, someone in a galaxy far far away must have a list.

Thanks for any pointers.


 -->     David Esan      {rutgers, ames, harvard}!rochester!moscom!de

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 09:29:27 EST
From: John Stanley <nmri!![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John Stanley)
Organization: New Methods Research, Inc.


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

>I have read the explanations of why it is impossible to ring a busy
>telephone with some interest, because I remember it happening in my
>parents' house a long time ago.  We had a party line, and the other

 The party line reference is the key. There are  (were)  two  ways  of
setting  up  a  party  line  for  ringing. One system involved "tuned-
ringers", where each party's bell was tuned for  a  different  ringing
frequency.  This was what we had at my parent's house (GTE). Our bells
were tuned for 20Hz, next door was 30Hz, etc. We switched  to  private
service  after  the neighbors kids got old enough to use the phone and
we couldn't, but the line and  CO  to  this  day  have  the  different
ringing  frequency  generators.  The last digit of the number selected
which frequency. To call another party on your line,  you  could  dial
71xy,  where  x  was  the last digit of your number, and y was theirs.
Hang up and answer when your phone stops ringing. This  gave  me  many
happy  hours  of fun, ringing our phones. Of course, all the non-telco
phones had non-tuned ringers, so they happily rang on  any  frequency.
It  was  a  handy  way  to alert other residents to trouble -- a phone
ringing twice as much as usual with two tones  is  quite  distinctive.
(Hey! Did GTE invent Distinctive Ringing?)

 The  second  method  is  called  bridged  ringing.  The  ringers  are
connected  from  one side of the pair to ground, not from tip to ring.
It was possible to get 4 party service this way, but I do not remember
the  details.  But,  this  meant  that the CO could ring your phone by
putting ring current on one side of the pair, your neighbor  with  the
other.

 You didn't ask, but I will. "How does the CO know  on  a  party  line
which  party  is making a call?" Well, you all had untimed service and
the operator asked you on long distance calls.  Newer  systems  put  a
load  from tip or ring to ground to indicate which party you are. This
was well beyond the old step-by-step we had, so "your  number  please"
on all LD calls.

 This is why you are not allowed to put CPE on a party line. Most  new
phones  would  ring  on every call. That, and if you screw up the line
you could hurt someone besides yourself.


       nn    m m   RRR   i    John Stanley     |Signature truncated by
    #include <disclaimer.h>   [e-mail] | popular demand

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 20:07:17 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction to Boston Area CO Descriptions


Brookline's 432 exchange is a 5-ESS, not a 1-A. The 1-A switches
everything else. There may be two 1-A's.


jsol

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #220
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02170;
          31 Mar 90 20:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10993; 31 Mar 90 19:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02737;
          31 Mar 90 1:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10962;
          31 Mar 90 0:07 CST
Date:     Fri, 30 Mar 90 23:07:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #221
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 30 Mar 90 23:06:45 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 221

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines [John Higdon]
    Re: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines [Scott Fybush]
    Re: Historical Query: Carterfone [Kevin L. Blatter]
    Re: Historical Query: Carterfone [Joel M. Snyder]
    Re: Cordless Phone Range [Tad Cook]
    Re: US Sprint [Hagbard Celine]
    Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - Only ATT Advantage [J. Higdon]
    Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - Only ATT Advantage [W. Kramer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines
Date: 30 Mar 90 10:21:38 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Mar 30 at  0:16, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> The mobious (or endless-loop) tape in the box played a message through
> the speaker which the mouthpiece on the phone 'heard' accoustically.

> A little suction cup accoustic coupler was attached to the receiver
> also, near the earpiece. This 'heard' what the caller said, and sent
> it to a portable cassette player sitting nearby, whose remote on/off

In the mid-60's, I had something called an Ansaphone. It was highly
versatile for the period and allowed the user to use either full
accoustical coupling as you describe, or use an inductive ring that
slipped over the earpiece end of the handset. This ring could couple
two-way communication through the telephone and the quality, needless
to say, was highly superior to the accoustical method. If you removed
the carbon microphone from the handset before strapping the telephone
into this contraption, you would eliminate the "clang" when the thing
answered the phone.

> The outgoing message was recorded on the incoming message tape each
> time it played out, so when you listened to your messages (when you
> got home, of course, since there was no such thing as remote message
> playback), you heard your own outgoing message before each incoming
> message.

The Ansaphone used an endless loop for the outgoing message, and a
much longer endless loop for the incoming message. So, instead of
rewinding, it simply fast-forwarded to the beginning of the tape. The
incoming tape did not run except to record an actual incoming message,
so listening to messages was not so tedious. But the real whizzo was
the ability to listen to messages remotely.

Using a handheld tone generator similar to the early Phonemates, one
could get the incoming tape to FF, then play the messages. When the
entire tape had played, the machine would hang up. The contraption
cost nearly $1,000.

Not as neat as my home voice mail, but we are talking the Sixties!


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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 20:45:37 est
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pre-Carterfone Answering Machines


Are you sure that the "1961"-vintage answering machine described in
your posting used a portable _cassette_ recorder?  It's my
recollection that Philips didn't invent the cassette tape until about
1963 or so.


Scott Fybush

[Moderator's Note: You expect me to remember almost thirty years ago? :)
As I think about it, my first answering machine was around 1964; I had
one of them, and got the second one (for the manual line from the cord
switchboard downstairs) about six months after the first one.  The
portable cassette players were expensive also; about a hundred dollars
each for a couple of real cheezie things.  I date things back then
around JFK: He had been gone almost a year when I got the first unit. PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 10:33 EST
Subject: Re: Historical Query: Carterfone


< Perhaps someone can refresh my aging memory (it's the second thing to
< go:-).  There was a landmark court case that led to a ruling that
< non-telco devices could be connected to the net.  That led to DAAs
< (standing for Direct Access Arrangements, I think) and then to FCC
< registration.  The case is referred to as the Carterfone Decision (I
< think).

< Could someone enlighten me as to the dates and some of the background
< of this case?  Were there any other court cases that were part of there
< process?

To quote directly from _Engineering and Operations in the Bell
System_, 2nd Edition, 1984, Section 17.2.3, P. 692-693:

     In 1947, the FCC permitted use of customer-provided recording
devices but ordered that direct electrical connection of such devices
to the telephone network must be through protecting arrangements
provided and maintained by the telephone company.

     A variety of interconnection devices, many of which were foreign
made, became available during the late 1950s.  They were designed to
attach to existing telephone sets or to be used as terminal equipment
themselves.  The major common carriers maintained that it would be
impossible to ensure efficient telephone service if devices supplied
by firms with no legal responsibility for the quality of service were
attached to the network by customers; interconnection of such devices
could increase the network's operating costs and disrupt its
efficiency.  This could be particularly damaging in times of
emergency.

     The FCC supported this position and refused to allow the use of
interconnection devices, but it was overruled by the court of appeals
in the case of the Hush-A-Phone device, a small cup-like nonelectrical
handset attachment that enhanced privacy when talking.  Then, in 1968,
the FCC ruled in favor of Carter Electronics, a Texas firm that made a
mobile radio device that could be acoustically coupled to the common
carrier voice telephone network.  This device, called the Carterfone,
was primarily being sold to oil exploration and drilling companies for
use by field engineers in remote areas.

     This ruling by the FCC was a landmark: It set in motion the
forces of deregulation and led to intense competition because, unlike
the Hush-A-Phone Decision, the Carterfone ruling permitted the direct
electrical attachment of devices to the telephone company's equipment
provided the operation of the network was not adversely affected.  The
FCC recognized the concern for potential adverse effects on the
network and on the quality of service as a result of the attachment of
customer-provided equipment and contemplated the continued use of
network control signaling apparatus provided by a common carrier.

     Consequently, the FCC approved Tariffs requiring the use of a
protective coupler between customer-provided equipment and the
network.  In November 1975, the FCC issued a report and an order
instituting a registration program.  Under that program,
Carrier-provided protective coupling devices are no longer necessary
if the customer-provided equipment is registered with the FCC or uses
a registered protective coupling device.

Hope this helps to answer your questions.


Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T Bell Labs

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

From: "Joel M. Snyder" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Historical Query:  Carterfone
Date: 31 Mar 90 01:35:25 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona MIS Dep't


I don't have great details on the Carterphone decision, but I can tell
you what it was about: those things you put on your phone so your
shoulder can hold the receiver.

Carterphone made them; and for whatever reason, Bell didn't like them
making them.  I don't know whether they broke the receivers, or if
Bell wanted to charge you 30 cents a month for them or what, but they
contended that this product was a "customer owned" gadget and could
not be put on their telephones.

Carterphone, justifiably upset at this stupidity, sued, and thus was
born the proposition that not all telephone equipment is created
equal, and that Ma Bell has the right to "protect" herself (DAA) from
such stuff.


jms


[Moderator's Note: Carterfone was NOT about 'those things you put on
the phone so it can rest on your shoulder...'.  Carterfone was some
radio equipment, although the specifics escape me now. However, our
good friends at the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company did make
history of sorts when they sued a funeral home which had distributed
plastic covers for telephone directories which had the funeral home's
advertisement on it. SW Bell claimed the plastic phone book covers
were 'unauthorized attachments'. That would have been circa 1957.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Cordless Phone Range
Date: 30 Mar 90 05:14:09 GMT
Organization: very little


I wanted to make a couple of comments on what the Moderator said in
response to a question about cordless phone range.

First, I don't think that the FCC regulates cordless phones at a 100
mw output anymore; rather they regulate the field strength of the
transmitter.  This usually works out to 100 mw or less though.  I
don't have the figures in front of me, but it is some kind of level of
microvolts per square meter, measured in an RF anechoic chamber.  The
length of the antenna is also regulated.

The wavelength is not really 8 meters, but is closer to 6 meters.  In
fact, it is right below the 6 meter amateur radio band.

The moderator mentioned that some manufacturers optimize their phones
by a liberal interpretation of the rules and by "peaking" the
modulation on the unit, as he has seen done with "CB."  Actually,
boosting the modulation on cordless phones does not increase the
signal strength, as it uses FM.  Boosting modulation levels only
increases deviation of the signal, which causes problems once it
deviates beyond the bandwidth of the receiver.  The CB radios he is
thinking of use SSB or AM, and higher average modulation levels do
produce higher output there.

He mentioned range under "ideal atmospheric conditions", but this is
not really a factor, since cordless phones are always operated in the
"near field" of the transmitter, and skywave radiation does not come
into effect....unless there is some horrendous "skip" coming in from
out of the area by high powered transmitters on the same frequency.

I THINK (but I am not sure) that some cordless phones have greater
range for a couple of reasons.  One is that the unit is designed to
operate right up to the legal limit on radiation limits and antenna
design, and the other reason is that the better quality ones probably
have a LOT better receivers.  This can make a tremendous difference.
For instance, there are folks using cordless phones that are probably
rated at 1000 feet or less in my neighborhood, yet I can hear the
transmissions from their base unit a LOT further away with my VHF
scanner radio.  This is because the scanner radio has a much better
receiver than they have in their handset.

There are many factors that can affect a cordless phone's transmission
quality.  Computers are notorious for putting out radio frequency
interference (RFI) that can really screw up the range.  Also, if your
handset shares a frequency with one of the popular room or "baby"
monitors (49.83, 49.845, 49.86, 49.875 MHz) in the neighborhood, your
range will be adversley affected, as these things transmit a constant
carrier and can often be heard for blocks.

In fact, my sister has a Fisher Price baby monitor, and the
instruction book says to leave the transmitter on all the time.  Here
is another case where people don't realize how far they are
transmitting, because the receivers that are supplied with these
things are so lousy.

If you are curious, and have a VHF scanner, here are the cordless
phone frequencies.  There are channelized in pairs, with the handsets
transmitting on the high side:

Base         Handset

46.61 MHz    49.67  MHz
46.63 MHz    49.845 MHz
46.67 MHz    49.86  MHz
46.71 MHz    49.77  MHz
46.73 MHz    49.875 MHz
46.77 MHz    49.83  MHz
46.83 MHz    49.89  MHz
46.87 MHz    49.93  MHz
46.93 MHz    49.99  MHz
46.97 MHz    49.97  MHz


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: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Date: 30 Mar 90 08:28:00 GMT
Reply-To: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Steven King)
writes:

>I recently signed up with Sprint as my long-distance carrier and was
>quite surprised around billing time to find that their bill comes
>separately from the local (Illinois Bell) phone bill.  I gather the
>same is true for MCI and other ld carriers.  But *not* for AT&T.  Why
>can AT&T bill through the local carrier but the others can't?  Or, if
>they can, why don't they?

    AT&T doesn't presently have the facilities to bill seperately.  They will
soon, but you didn't hear it from me.  And don't tell the LECs I told you.
I don't know why AT&T thinks they can (or even would WANT to) hide such info-
rmation, but they made a big deal about it.


   Andrew Reynhout   (Internet: [e-mail])
                     (BITNET: [e-mail])
   All hail Eris!    (uucp: uunet!wpi.wpi.edu!reynhout)

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT advantage
Date: 30 Mar 90 10:00:29 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Elias <[e-mail]> writes:

> doesn't make a difference to me, personally -- I'd prefer the better
> sound quality and lower prices from Sprint even if it took
> *significantly* longer to set up the call.

Is this a difference in ears, or a difference in geographic locations?
IMHO, AT&T consistently sounds either the same or a little better than
Sprint. Ever since AT&T putting the calls of the masses over its own
fiber and digital microwave network, I have found the quality of
connections to be awesome.

Remember: Sprint is using AT&T's technology; not the other way around.

BTW, I find the price diffential between Sprint and AT&T to be
underwhelming and if you fail to correct Sprint's billing errors,
AT&T's cost is lower.


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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 12:17:14 PST
From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT advantage
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon


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

>Regarding the new ATT ads:  Speed.  Another ATT advantage.

>difference in call setup time from my CO in Massachusetts.

I notice about 3 seconds longer at home (503-635) -- probably #5 ESS.
What takes Sprint so long?

Is it the CO procrastinating?  Maybe it's making sure no AT&T calls
need service first.  Could it be that Sprint's system takes a long
time to see decide whether it will send the call morth or south.

Or maybe Sprint has to arbitrate for access from my CO to the local
Sprint switching center.  How does this work?  Do they have a fiber
optic cable laying across the Willamette Valley that they string to
every CO along the way?  Can someone enlighten me?


[e-mail] (Wally Kramer) 503 627 2363

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #221
******************************

ISSUES 222-223 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 223 COMES NEXT THEN 222
FOLLOWS.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03270;
          31 Mar 90 21:14 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae10993; 31 Mar 90 20:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26094;
          31 Mar 90 13:26 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28673;
          31 Mar 90 12:19 CST
Date:     Sat, 31 Mar 90 11:36:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #223
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 31 Mar 90 11:35:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 223

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation [Steven King]
    Tel Codes - NPA/NXX to City/State/Province Tables [Dave Leibold]
    Re: Cellular Phone Recordings [John G. De Armond]
    Cellular Call Billing Procedures [John Covert]
    Re: Historical Query: Carterfone [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Itemized Billing in the UK [Dave Horsfall]
    Re: Room to Room Dialing In Hotels [[e-mail]]
    Announcements [TELECOM Moderator]
    Master Clocks Around the World [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation
Date: 30 Mar 90 15:11:37 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I just heard a US Sprint ad on the radio this morning.  Talk about
your basic misinformation!  This is the kind of thing that keeps the
technical illiteracy rate much too high, IMHO.

Paraphrased: "For faxes you can't tell from the original, use US
Sprint.  US Sprint uses fiber optic lines, and they're digital so
they're just as good for data as they are for voice."

                  WARNING, WILL ROBINSON!  DANGER!  DANGER!

Correct me if I'm wrong (and keep the flamethrowers on "medium rare",
please) but the quality of a fax is dependent solely upon the fax
machine and not at all (or at least, very little) on the line quality.
I assume fax machines use some sort of error-correction, so anything
but truly horrid phone lines shouldn't affect it.

I could see Sprint's point (sort of) if my fax machine injected
digital data directly into their digital network.  (Holy ISDN,
Batman!)  But it doesn't.  It's modulated to analog when I send it,
and demodulated back to digital on the far end.  I truly can't see
where a "digital fiber-optic network" would yield a significant
quality increase over, say, two tin cans and a reasonably good piece
of string.  (Well, I exaggerate, but you take my meaning... :-)

I'm sure the reason for this misinformation is that the marketing
droid doesn't know squat about the technical aspects of what he's
selling.  That's no excuse, mind you.

                                    --Steve King

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

Subject: Tel Codes - NPA/NXX to City/State/Province Tables
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 12:11:48 EST
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


I have recently sent updated versions of the areas 204, 416, 604 and
902 exchange lists, and they hopefully should appear in the archives
before too long.

Also, thanks largely to corrections and advice from Carl Moore, there
is an update area/country codes document sent along. Thanks also to
those who discuss country codes for overseas dialing.

These are part of a project called "Tel Codes" which seeks to compile
information about exchanges, area codes and country codes.

Thanks to TELECOM Digest and its participants for information on area
codes, country codes and other information.

I am restricting my exchange lists to Canadian area codes at this
point.  However, if anyone wants to compile similar information for
USA, please e-mail me ([e-mail]) and perhaps we can get other
area codes into the archives.


[Moderator's Note: In fact, these have been moved into the Archives,
and now replace the original versions of the tables you sent a couple
months ago. In the Archives, switch to the sub-directory 'npa' to find
them. Thanks for sending them along.   PT]

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

From: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Recordings
Date: 30 Mar 90 06:06:17 GMT
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car
 and gun works facility)


>[Moderator's Note: You are not charged for incomplete call attempts to
>mobile phones. By playing the recording to you after four rings, the
>assumption is you will disconnect sooner and make a circuit available
>to someone else. If the phone *was* turned on and within the service
>area, then it would ring fifty times if you waited that long.

At least here in Atlanta with BellSouth Mobility, this is not strictly
true.  I've just been sitting here with my cellphone experimenting to
confirm my previous experience.  Here, the call goes to intercep in
*about* 4 rings regardless.  I say "about" because it seems to be a
timed function rather than a ring count.  The only exception to this
is if the cellphone is busy.  In that case, the intercept is
immediate.

>When the phone being called does not transmit a reply back to the base
>right away saying 'here I am', then the celluar service provider tells
>you right away the phone cannot be located, saving time for you and
>airtime for them.  The reason for four rings is because it takes about
>that long for the base to query all the cells.  PT]

I think a lot of these parameters depend on which vendors' software
happens to be running the system at the moment and what revision.  I
distinctly remember that right after I got my portable a couple of
years ago, the calls would go to intercept almost immediately if the
phone was off.

We have a cellular system software house here in Atlanta and from what
I've heard and seen, most operations would as well be governed by a
random number generator :-) (I don't know if BSM uses that software or
not so don't extrapolate on the previous statement.)


John De Armond, WD4OQC  Radiation Systems, Inc.  Atlanta, Ga   emory!rsiatl!jgd

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 23:25:51 PST
From: "John R. Covert  29-Mar-1990 1951" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Call Billing Procedures


>Moderator's Note: You are not charged for incomplete call attempts to
>mobile phones. ...
>if the phone being called does not transmit a reply back to the base
>right away saying 'here I am', then the celluar service provider tells
>you right away the phone cannot be located, saving time for you and
>airtime for them.

The moderator is generally correct, but some details are wrong.

In particular, the cellular carrier is not using a significant amount
of airtime ringing you.  Ringing is merely indicated by a message
transmitted on the setup channel (along with all the other data
flowing all the time on that channel).  The protocol specifies that
cellular phones are paged exactly twice at a specified interval --
twice so that a phone which was doing a rescan for the strongest setup
channel won't miss a call.  Only after the phone responds (also on the
setup channel) can a air channel be allocated.  Prior to the response,
the cellular system doesn't know in which cell the phone is located --
at most the general area (group of several cells) is known if "login"
has been requested.

In addition, though you shouldn't be charged when you get the recording,
the "A" carrier in Salinas had their switch set up wrong, causing an
off-hook condition to be returned.  This appears to have been
corrected.

And both U.K. carriers charge for reaching their recordings -- and in
the U.K., cellular phones are assigned to special area codes allowing
the caller to be charged for the air time, rather than the cellular
phone user.

>Moderator's Note: Both Ameritech Mobile and Cellular One here in Chicago
>say very plainly in their literature "We do not bill for busy or unanswered
>calls."  They do keep track of the time, however, and if you answer
>(on an incoming call) or get an answer on a call you made, then the
>charges are backdated to when you actually pressed 'send' (on outgoing
>calls) or when the CO started ringing you (on incoming calls).   PT]

Roamers visiting Chicago and using Ameritech will, however, see
entries for "Unanswered Call" for all busy and don't answer calls,
billed at $0.25 plus tax.  Truly slimy only charging roamers.

The NYNEX tariff on file with the Mass. DPU specifically states that
the chargeable portion of an incoming call begins when the Send button
is pressed and that the chargeable portion of an outgoing call (if it
is completed) begins when the system allocates a channel (on most
phones this is when the number dialled disappears from the display).
NYNEX _was_ charging on incoming calls from the time the channel was
allocated (beginning of ringing).  I pointed out to them that they
were in violation of their tariff, and they fixed it.  I haven't
checked again since the new switch was installed to see that they are
still obeying the tariff.

I also pointed out to them that charging as soon as the phone starts
ringing is a public safety problem -- a driver should have time to
quickly assess the traffic situation before picking up the phone.

The Mass. NYNEX tariff also states that you are only charged for
completed calls.  As a result, each month I ask for credit for any
calls that drop or are otherwise interrupted, as well as for any
incoming wrong numbers.  However, telemarketers who dialled my home
number and were forwarded are my problem.  Fortunately Massachusetts
law requires autodialing telemarketers to skip the numbers of people
who do not want such calls, thus there is almost no problem with
automatic power dialling.  Unfortunately there is still no requirement
for telemarketers who manually dial numbers in the phone book or from
their records to leave people alone, so I usually get some small
number of calls each month.


/john

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Historical Query: Carterfone
Date: 30 Mar 90 21:15:27 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


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

>There was a landmark court case that led to a ruling that
>non-telco devices could be connected to the net.  That led to DAAs
>(standing for Direct Access Arrangements, I think) and then to FCC
>registration.  The case is referred to as the Carterfone Decision (I
>think).

Carterfone occured in 1968.  Prior to that, the FCC and state
regulators all allowed the local telephone companies to have tariff
restrictions prohibiting any "foreign" attachments.  Only telco could
attach telephone sets, modems, PBXs, etc.  The sole exception was
wirephoto machines, which newspapers won under a First Amendment
claim!  (And that didn't mean any fax, either.)  Even shoulder rests
for handsets were officially forbidden!  (Not that they could enforce
that one.)

The Carterfone itself was an acoustic coupler for land mobile radios.
It was used to allow oil field drill rigs (radio equipped) to patch
calls into the telephone network.  Ma Bell was insane to complain
about it, but in their arrogance, they tried to prohibit people from
using it.  The FCC had changed its stripes by then and used this case
to allow the competitive provision of telephone terminal equipment,
and the rest is history.

Before Carterfone, a 300 baud modem rented for $25/month.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]  voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone, sharing requires permission

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

From: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Itemized Billing in the UK
Date: 30 Mar 90 03:02:03 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


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

| The itemized  bills show time  of  call, duration, number  dialled and cost
| exclusive of VAT.  The  odd thing  is that only calls  10 units or over are
| itemized (44p + 15% VAT = 50.6p), the rest are lumped into a total shown as
| "metered   calls". Does  anyone   know why BT  don't  itemize    all  calls
| irrespective of cost? If anyone from BT is reading this list maybe they can
| provide an answer to this?

Pretty much the same as Australia - all local calls are lumped under
"metered calls," whereas STD/ISD calls are (optionally) itemised.

I guess if every local call was itemised the list would be horrendous!
Let's see, quarterly billing (say 90 days), average of three
calls/day, 20 entries/page, a million phones.  that's a lot of trees
gone to waste!


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)  Alcatel STC Australia  [e-mail]
[e-mail]  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Room to Room Dialing In Hotels
Date: 30 Mar 90 14:02:44 PST
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA


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

>> [Moderator's Note: I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to
>> room dialing strictly by the room number. What if there are rooms on
>> every floor of a twenty story building? How do you dial rooms 911, 611,

Easy, assuming that by 911 and 611, you mean emergency and repair
service.  You dial "9" first, just like for any other outside call.

> My experience (Pan Pacific hotel, Anaheim, CA): floors 1-9, dial '7' then
> room number.  floors 10-14, dial room number.

Just down the street at the Anaheim Hilton and Towers, a similar
scheme is used, if I remember correctly.  Rooms are numbered like
pages in some technical books, <floor>-<room_within_floor>, and that's
how you dial them (ie room 203, 14th floor, is dialed as 14203; use a
leading "7" for floors below 10).

I do remember that there was no floor designated as "the tenth floor",
and the reason given was that the phone system would have confused
room phone numbers starting with "10" with something else!  There
*was* a floor labelled "13", though, which may say something about a
triumph of technological considerations over superstitious ones...


Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA
Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG
Internet:  [e-mail], or if that fails, [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 10:49:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Announcements


Later today, a special issue of the Digest will be distributed which
will be a copy of the federal indictment in Chicago against certain
Legion of Doom members. Watch for it Saturday afternoon or evening.

For next: I am just about ready to announce a new FTP/Mail server for
the Telecom-Archives, which will enable all of you to obtain material
from the archives directly. This will be experimental; a temporary
thing which may become permanent if it works well and is not too much
of an imposition on the people maintaining it.


PT

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 11:02:30 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Master Clocks Around the World


It is time to adjust our clocks once again. At 2:00 AM local time
Sunday, April 1, the United States moves to Daylight Savings Time, and
all clocks must be moved forward one hour.

Here are just a few sources for synching your clocks:

NAVOSBY, Washington DC   202-653-0351   1200 baud
NBS, Ft. Collins, CO     303-494-4774   1200 baud
NAVOSBY Talking Clock    202-653-1800
WWV National Bureau of Standards  5, 10, 15 megs on shortwave radio.

Two lesser known sources of time information are:

British Telecom Master Clock, via Telenet, @C 023421920100605,NAME,PWD
Japan, VENUS-P Master Clock,  via Telenet, @C 044082006004,NAME,PWD

Both of these require NAME,PWD. They do not accept collect connections!
The first is expressed in GMT; the latter gives GMT and JST. Both
display the correct time, then immediatly disconnect.  I recommend
against using PC Pursuit names and passwords, and suggest using your
full service Telenet account instead.

PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #223
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05983;
          31 Mar 90 22:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10993; 31 Mar 90 19:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02048;
          31 Mar 90 2:17 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02737;
          31 Mar 90 1:12 CST
Date:     Sat, 31 Mar 90 0:20:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #222
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 31 Mar 90 00:20:02 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 222

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell [K. Denninger]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Macy Hallock]
    Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [Hagbard Celine]
    Re: UK Telephone System Questions [Steve Chu]
    Re: Why Are In-State Calls So Expensive? [Hagbard Celine]
    Re: How to Identify Your CO Equipment [Roy Smith]
    Re: The Card [Matt Simpson]
    Re: The Card [Hector Myerston]
    Let's Hear it For TELECOM Digest! [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: From the Horse's ____: The Latest on COSUARD vs Ma Bell
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 21:16:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> Karl Denninger <[e-mail]> writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>>I don't know about you folks, but I have to sympathize with the
>>>Telco's positions somewhat on this.
>>I don't.
>I don't either.
>>Sounds to me like the telco's are the greedy ones here.
>And stupid to boot (which is no real surprise).  The people at the
>TELCO that are handling this issue have a chronic case of tunnel
>vision.  They are penny wise and pound foolish.

That all depends.  They might have this thought out quite well, and
are simply implementing what they intended to all along -- that is,
have complete control of the information transport AND provision
market.

Look at the reality of the situation.  In the places where the telco's
are doing this, they are also petitioning to be allowed to provide and
serve information, rather than just carry it.  Now, if you were a
business about to enter this business, what would you prefer?

1) That everyone have a choice whether they subscribe to your system, or use
   another for free or pay (the current state of affairs, given that BBS
   systems can operate under residential rates as long as they are not run
   as a business and are in someone's home)

2) That the free providers be knocked out of competition by some legal
   maneuvering that you can pull with your monopoly position on carrying the
   information -- giving you a much larger slice of the total
   information-provider pie.

Look at what is going on.  It's the same game here as it is in many
other lines of business in the USA.  Companies are using the legal
system to get what they cannot obtain by having a better product --
because they >don't< have a better product.  Instead of coming up with
the killer, be-all end-all information service, and making it cheaper
than anyone else's (ie: free except for the telephone connect time),
the telco's are resorting to the law to kill (or maim) the sources of
competition.

I hope that this isn't lost on Judge Green when he rules on whether
RBOC's can enter the information provider business ... they certainly
aren't playing fair!

Free competition?  Looks more like "kill the competitor through the
law" to me.

I personally think it's time to discuss, in all seriousness, removing
the telephone companies monopoly status in local service areas.


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


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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Mar 30 16:51:11 1990
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina (where's that?) Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> :
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 212, Message 8 of 9

>In response to the Moderator's comment:

>I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical
>switching in the phone, but what about other phones on the same
>extension? If you send the correct signal (70volts AC??) through the
>lines, won't all the other phones ring that were not previously
>off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the original

This worked just fine back in the days of SxS CO's ... in fact we did it
all the time.  However, there were a couple problems with doing this:

- Most of the telephone instruments had a hookswitch that disconnected
  the ringer of the set when it was off hook, so it would not ring.
  Of course, any extensions would ring just fine...

- This did not damage the sets.  It did not damage the electromechanical
  CO line equipment, either.   This is not the case for electronic CO's.

- What we would do is use the test board's ability to
  access (thru a special Connector switch in that hundreds group) and
  verify (monitor) the line.  You could always tell an ROH (Receiver
  Off Hook) by the background noise.  We had a ring key on the test
  baord for manual ring on the line (along with the usual voltage and
  metering keys) and we would force ring the line with this key, usually
  with some nice l-o-n-g rings.

- In newer electronic CO's this is a much more involved process.  You
  can monitor the line from the test board (actually a CRT with a phone
  associated with it), but you cannot ring it over an ROH directly, since
  you do not have a direct metallic connection to the line.  If the
  subsriber's pair is metallic (not SLC or other carrier or on a Remote
  Line Module) you can get the frame person to put up a "shoe" on the
  cable pair, and use the test board for talk and ring from there.
  The "shoe" removes the connection to the CO's line circuit while
  you do this.

  (As I recall, doing this always elicited interesting reactions.
  I shook up a couple of subscribers pretty good ... they were often
  taking the phone off hook intentionally.  Since this would tie up
  linefinders in a SxS office, we would ring them to get them back on
  hook, or "pick" them out, a form of temporary disconnect, to release
  the equipment.)

Fun stuff, huh?  You could shock the dayslights out of someone working
on the cable pair this way, too.  A nice way to make an installer mad
at you ... usually used when you lost to that installer in the
cut-throat Euchre games we often had at lunch in the garage that day.  :-)

>[Moderator's Note: How about a technical reply on this from the
>experts?  PT]

I'm no expert.  I'm just dangerous.  Experts don't tell their secrets.

 Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
 F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy

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

From: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone)
Date: 30 Mar 90 09:30:40 GMT
Reply-To: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA


In article <[e-mail]> tots![e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

>What about the long-rumored "Infinity Bug"? This is reportedly a
>device that allows one to call a phone, and listen to whatever the
>phone mic picks up. The interesting part is that the phone never rings
>and the handset does not need to be lifted. This seems to be similar
>to the problem of rining an off-hook phone.

>Has anyone actually seen one of these things, or is it just a myth
>that a *lot* of people believe in?

   Well, I can say with certainty that they're very real.  It's not
all that difficult, actually.  At least not with electromechanical
bells, which require a bit of time before they actually start to ring.
I'm not sure how transparent an infinity transmitter could be
nowadays, with the advent of disposable phones that chirp in response
to pulse dialing!

   In fact, I once saw one of these phones (packaged with an on-board
radio and LED clock, even!) that would react unfavorably to any
high-amplitude audio on the line.  DTMF signals could be heard, and
EVEN loud voices.  You couldn't understand what they were saying, but
it was clear that it was a voice.  All of this coming out of a little
piezo-element transducer.


Andrew Reynhout   (Internet: [e-mail])
                  (BITNET: [e-mail])

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

From: Steve Chu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK Telephone System Questions
Date: 30 Mar 90 23:02:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T Denver


In article <[e-mail]>, asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]
(Jon Baker) writes:

> > the question is more directed to
> > different phone ring voltages, ground start or loop start etc.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Methods of detecting on/off hook.  In ground start, seizure is
> detected by applying ground to (I think) the tip lead.  In loop start,
> it's detected by closing the tip/ring loop.

The ground start protocol is much more than appling a gaound to the
tip.  To seize a outgoing trunk, the customer premise equipment, i.e.
PABX, PBX, or terminal, will ground the tip and complete the current
loop as for a loop start trunk.  The central office applies a battery
reversal and grounds the tip when it recognizes the ground.  The
terminal recognizes the new ground, and releases its ground. The
central office reverses battery again, and the connection is completed.
Clear down is just releasing loop current.  No dial tone is provided
by the central office.

In the UK, ground start trunks can be decadic pulse or tone
signalling.

If there are any errors in the above descriptions, blame my poor
memory and a lack of a local reference on ground start trunks.

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

From: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are In-State Calls So Expensive?
Date: 30 Mar 90 07:35:31 GMT
Reply-To: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA


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

>    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.

   This is unrelated to your intrastate, interLATA question, but...

   I live in Rhode Island.  The smallest state in the Union.  NETel is
my LEC.  I have friends who live 10 miles away who are long distance,
and others who are 15 miles away that are local.  I have friends who
have one line in their house that is local, and one that is LD (and
they're not paying alt-CO charges!)

   The entire state is smaller than MOST people's local dialing areas,
but they have managed to break it down into 5 toll bands, at the
following rates:

   Mileage      Full rate  Eve rate   N/W rate
     0-11        .32 .14    .21 .09    .13 .06
    12-16        .41 .20    .27 .13    .16 .08
    17-22        .47 .23    .31 .15    .19 .09
    23-30        .51 .24    .33 .16    .20 .10
     31+         .54 .27    .35 .18    .22 .11

   (obviously, rates are given for first minute and each additional minute)

   So, clearly, calling 17+ miles away during the daytime is more
expensive than calling California...how silly.

Sorry to spit numbers at you like that.  But these rates are
ludicrous!


Andrew Reynhout   (Internet: [e-mail])
                  (BITNET: [e-mail])


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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: How To Identify Your CO Equipment
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 14:22:06 GMT


> In a recent message, Ed Ravin wrote about New York City exchanges that
> have numbers (-9901 suffixes) that identify the CO equipment.

    This is obviously not universal.  From work (212-578-9901) I
get a recording telling me what exchanges are served, but not what
type of gear.  From home (718-636-9901) it just rings and nobody/nothing
answers.


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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 10:20:54 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


I applied for the ATT Universal Card yesterday ... the call was answered
fairly quickly (this was about 10 AM EST). The operator asked for my
phone number, then read my name and address to me for verification ...
so they're apparently operating from some type of data base.

She had trouble pronouncing my street name, probably because she had
one of the two variations I've seen on some of my junk mail that have
extra consonants inserted which would twist one's tongue. She then
told me I was pre-approved for a $3000 credit limit, so they probably
also have some credit info.

After telling me this, she asked what my income was, within a list of
ranges, but didn't ask any other kind of credit-related info, like
employer, bank account, or anything like that. She did ask for my
mother's maiden name, which she said was to be used as a password when
I call in with questions about my account. I thought it was a little
interesting that they had all the info they needed to do a mass
mailing, but decided not to.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 30 Mar 90  09:44 PDT
Subject: Re: The Card
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


     Everyone calling for the AT&T Universal Card reports variations
of what questions they asked.  I called, was asked for home phone
number and she came back with my name, address and >The amount I had
been OKd for<.  Then she asked my income and verification code (it
doesn't have to be your mother's maiden name).  No questions on how
long I had lived at my address, employee etc as other report.

     It appears they are tied into some Big Brother-type DB which
knows more about us than we suspect.  I seems like that the questions
asked are proportional to how much data they already have on you!.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 10:32 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's Hear it For TELECOM Digest!


Re: Kent Hauser's Inquiry About Databit Telex Multiplexers, dated 29 March
1990 07:20 GMT

In fact, Telecom Digest didn't get old Databit muxes, but it _did_ get
Databit's oldest customer and later an export salesman for them.  The
reply contact was consummated by telephone at 10 AM EST, making for an
approximate 8-hour elapsed time to identify sources for a needed piece
of hardware.

Now honestly, folks, where else can you expect such a result in
today's environment?

Let's hear it now for TELECOM Digest!

(<clap> <clap> <clap> accompanied by cheers, foot stomping and whistling)

P.S. Any other members of the Databit Alumni Association out there?


Donald E. Kimberlin, Telecom Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
AT&TMail or MCIMail dkimberlin       Phone: [phone]


[Moderator's Blush: Thank you for your kind words. The fact is, we
currently have about 35,000 regular readers in eighteen countries, and
on five domestic networks in the United States. For almost any
telecom-related question you might have, *someone* out there will have
the answer. And as just a reminder, TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom
is *always* FREE. Anyone is permitted to redistribute it, provided
they do so without charge or changes of any kind to the text.
Exceptions are made for mailbox fees where delivery is to a commercial
email service mailbox at the subscriber's request; public access Unix
user fees; and UUNET / other inter-site transmission charges. If you
otherwise had to pay to read this message, *please* drop me a note
today giving me the details.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #222
******************************











ISSUES 222 AND 223 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 223 WAS BEFORE 222
AND 224 COMES NEXT.


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17534;
          1 Apr 90 5:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06698;
          1 Apr 90 3:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07408;
          1 Apr 90 1:32 CST
Date:     Sun, 1 Apr 90 0:54:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #224
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Apr 90 00:53:44 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 224

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Notes on the German Telephone System [Ernie Bokkelkamp]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [Ernie Bokkelkamp]
    Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test [Nick Sayer]
    British Telecom Master Clock [John R. Covert]
    Surcharge-free Card Calls; Metro.<>ITT [James R. Celoni, S.J.]
    911 for Emergency From PBX [James R. Celoni, S.J.]
    Comparing the Carriers on FAX Quality [Jon Solomon]
    Correction: Legion of Doom Indictments [Mike Godwin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun,  1 Apr 90 00:42:00 EDT
From: Ernie Bokkelkamp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notes on the German Telephone System


On 18 Mar 1990 07:02, Henning Schulzrinne (1:105/42) wrote:

 HS>Since there has been a recent discussion on call supervision in
 HS>Germany, I thought I'd add the experiences of a native. I was
 HS>always under the impression that calls were charged starting from the
 HS>time the other party answered - as correctly pointed out, the clock
 HS>tick method and non-itemized billing would make it close to
 HS>impossible to really check calls.

This is correct, the DBP (Deutsche Bundes Post) uses units where by
each unit is equivalent to a number of seconds depending on the
distance of the call.

 HS>[Aside: I often heard that the Bundespost, the German PTT,
 HS>justified its non-itemized billing system with privacy reasons. If you
 HS>had the data on a computer, the reasoning went, any [law enforcement
 HS>agency | hacker | your friendly, but nosy neighborhood employee of the
 HS>Bundespost ...]  could potentially put together some interesting
 HS>information on lifestyles for a large number of subscribers,
 HS>even without 900 numbers.  In reality, electronic offices are only
 HS>now replacing step-by-step switches, but there seems to be no
 HS>general clamoring for itemized billing.

The DBP is capable of itemized billing, but the problem is slightly
more complex. There is a fear in Germany that having personal details
stored in computers can lead to abuse of such information. Due to this
a law was instituted to control storage of personal details and what
measurements have to be taken to protect this information which is
called the Bundes Daten Schutz Gesaetz (Federal Data Protection Law).
This law applies to all computer systems, including the systems used
by the DBP. A few years ago the DBP tried to introduce itemized
billing but was forced to drop it due to this law.

I am not an expert on the BDSG, but over the last few years I have
seen many instances where this law has caused direct changes in
computer systems. One example that comes to mind is a mainframe
operating system where the latest release has multiple levels of
system administrator access so that the system administrator can now
be restricted and can be supervised by the BDSG Beauftragter (BDSG
responsible person); you are required by law to have such person under
certain (most) conditions.

 HS>The German pay phone system deserves a special paragraph. It
 HS>seems to me one of the few items in the German phone system that
 HS>could stand being emulated around here. First, German currency makes
 HS>calling from a coin phone somewhat less of a pain. Having DM 5 coins
 HS>in common circulation (app. $3.10) avoids the agony I so vividly

I can still remember my attempt to use my American Express card in NY.
The public phone said credit cards only, so why not my card? I am also
still waiting for a refund from AT&T after I had problems with the
next phone I tried to use. That was the last time I tried public
phones in the US.

But I agree that the German public phones are the best. There are
basically two types on pay phones: national and international. When I
am in Germany and I want to phone my wife then I take 2 x 5DM coins
and I speak to her until the money runs out. That is better then
trying to phone from a hotel, a few years ago I stayed in a hotel in
Muenich for only one night, I made one phone call to the US, the next
day I paid more for the call then I paid for the room.

 HS>Actually, calling from a pay phone (used to be?)  slightly less
 HS>expensive than using a regular home phone, since a unit (beyond
 HS>the first) costs 0.23 DM from a regular phone, 0.20 DM from a
 HS>payphone.

Depending on who you are and where you stay calling from, a pay phone
is always cheaper. If you call from a hotel then they can charge
anything they like as it is a service (Dienstleistung) and service is
expensive.


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!22.1!Ernie.Bokkelkamp
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The Fido/Internet Gateway Manager reminds us that
the proper form of address to here is "Telecom Digest  1:129/87" --
not Telecom Moderator or some other variation. Because this message
was mis-addressed it sat in the HOG BBS dead letter file an extra day.
Fido readers/writers, please take note of this when writing.   PT]

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

Date: Sun,  1 Apr 90 00:42:00 EDT
From: Ernie Bokkelkamp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing and Answer Supervision


On 21 Mar 1990 04:08, Stephen Tell (1:105/42) wrote:

 ST>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
 ST>(herman.r.silbiger) writes:

 ST>>For those subscribers to PTTs which only bill in message units
 ST>>who want to check on their bills, or perhaps know how much each
 ST>>call costs, the PTT will rent you a device with a counter.  This
 ST>>counter will give you the unit counts, and you can then check the
 ST>>bill at the end of the month.

 ST>How can such a device work on a system where the PTT's counter
 ST>runs at different rates depending on distance, time of day, and so on?

The secret is that the PTT supplies a 16Khz meter pulse on the
subscriber line. On an EWSD digital exchange the subscriber has to be
connected on a special subscriber line module which is capable of
supplying this signal. The number of pulses depends on the actual
metering in the exchange, for each unit a pulse is send to the
subscriber. The determination of how many seconds per message unit
depends on how the exchange has been programmed, this can either be
determined in the originating exchange according to the code dialed or
by the destination exchange using a similar method.

However a meter connected to a subscriber line which is stepped using
the 16Khz pulse can not be used to dispute your phone bill. The reason
for this is reasonable simple, it is very easy to tamper with such
equipment.


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!22.1!Ernie.Bokkelkamp
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Nick Sayer <uop!quack![e-mail]>
Subject: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test
Date: 31 Mar 90 06:05:12 GMT
Organization: The Goose Egg, Stockton, CA


Hi. I built my own phone, and have noticed a small piece of weirdness
on the part of my telco.

In my phone, I used a buzzer and a diode to make the ringer. The diode
is in series with the buzzer and a resistor right across the line. The
diode is reverse-biased with respect to the normal 48-volts-on-hook
the telco gives. The result is that when the AC ring voltage comes
over, the negative half, with a little drop from the resistor goes
into the buzzer. This system works just fine, and was right out of a
magazine.  I have also tested this idea using opto-isolators instead
of the buzzer to supply the ring to digital logic (I made a "blackbox"
phone interface for an auto-patch in a separate project). Apart from
"hook-clicks" (which are not a problem - the logic version simply
relies on the processor to know the difference between falsing and
rings, and the audio version isn't loud).

If I'm up late at night, I sometimes hear a short beep from the phone.
Only one thing could cause this beep. DC across the phone line with
the polarity reversed. The beep is on the order of 500-700 msec long,
and only happens during the wee hours. Normally I just sleep through
it, and it is nowhere near the volume level of the ring.

Are they testing the line? Are they trying to tell me something? Is
Charlie listening (or Gerry or Ivan for that matter)? :-)


Nick Sayer  -  The Goose Egg public unix  -  209-952-5347 (Telebit)
quack![e-mail]            !
 ...pacbell!sactoh0!quack!mrapple!

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 13:32:29 PST
From: "John R. Covert  31-Mar-1990 1627" <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Telecom Master Clock


The moderator was kind enough to provide the following two DTEs
(reachable from any X.25 network, not necessarily just Telenet):

British Telecom Master Clock, 23421920100605
Japan, VENUS-P Master Clock,  44082006004

>The first is expressed in GMT; the latter gives GMT and JST.

The BT Clock gave me "BST: British Summer Time."  I suspect it
provides UTC in the winter, which it may erroneously call GMT.  GMT no
longer exists; in fact, no British Government organization is in the
official timekeeping business anymore.  UTC is maintained in Paris
(where it never represents the local time).

The DTE for the VENUS-P Clock was out of order just now.

/john


[Moderator's Note: Actually, you may want to try the Japan connection
a different way. The address (from Telenet) @C 0440820060xx is a
master address for the testing center. 'xx' can be appended or
omitted, where 'xx' is two digits from 00 through 04.  00 is an echo
test; the only way to exit is by typing ECHF or by getting Telenet
back on the line.  01 generates a test message sent to you. 02 gets a
help message. 04 is the Master Clock.  Simply entering
0440820060,NAME,PWD puts you on line in menu mode, with the choices as
shown above. Direct entry to any category by adding the final two
digits bypasses the menu.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 20:29:41 EST
From: "James R. Celoni, S.J." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Surcharge-free Card Calls on Metro.<>ITT


With all the talk about the per-call surcharges for Sprint's FONcard,
the MCI Card (except from "around town"), the AT&T Card, and BOC cards
(for intralata calls or accepted by a long-distance carrier (or AOS)
for interlata calls), I'm surprised nobody's mentioned
Metromedia<>ITT's "Preferred Calling Card": It is surcharge-free
everywhere it is accessible via 950-0ITT, and the per-minute rates are
their direct-dial rates (which last time I checked were very slightly
lower than the Big Three's).  It also works on BOC slide-card-in pay
phones.  At no extra charge you can get a card that lets you enter
three-digit account codes; then the bill is sorted by code (but all
slide-card-in calls are grouped under account code 000).

Metro.<>ITT's calling card has no monthly minimum, fee, or catches;
they might even still have their first-card-call-free-up-to-$5
promotion.  (OK, there's a 75-cent surcharge if you use 800/ EASY-ITT
access, but in all my travels in the five years I've had the card,
I've always been able to use 950, even in Applegate, CA.)  I've found
transmission quality fine for voice and data; you can check it out via
10ITT+1+phone number.  (But if you dial 10itt+ZERO+phone number and
enter your BOC card number after the bong, you'll pay a surcharge,
just like you would if you used 10ATT, 10222, or 10333.)

Metro.<>ITT's customer service is good: last year they set up some 100
separate accounts for us, all with different card numbers and billing
addresses, with no hassle.  [For our dial-1 service we subscribe to
their "Custom WATS", the winner for our usage pattern ($300-1000/mo),
though we now supplement it with MCI Primetime and MCI Supersaver
since we call a lot on evenings and Saturdays and have a large
residence with a PBX that can route based on time of day and digits
dialed.

By the way, we just told MCI on which lines we wanted what plan but
didn't change default carriers; the PBX chooses a trunk from the
appropriate group and prefixes the call with 10222 or 10488.  The
total minimum is $8/mo for Primetime and $5/mo for Supersaver, even
though we have three lines for each.  The afternoon it took me to edit
the routing tables has meant big $avings!  But I digress ...

Last year ITT sold their USTS long-distance service (including
American Network which they'd acquired the year before) to Metromedia,
and I've noticed no changes since then except that the bill is on
smaller paper and their sales/service number changed to 800/ 275-0100
(M-F 8am-9pm EST).  I don't think they're aggressively pursuing the
residential market; I bet their rates would be higher if they
advertised as much as the Big Three and had a larger proportion of
low-usage accounts.

Disclaimer:  I'm just a satisfied customer.

James R. Celoni, S.J., [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 20:30:30 EST
From: "James R. Celoni, S.J." <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 For Emergency From PBX


If you have a PBX with automatic route selection, allowing "911" to
reach the emergency folks is no problem even if 9 is the initial digit
for trunk calling: just program the digit string "11" to outpulse the
digits dialed with an initial "9".  (Since some will dial "9-911"
instead, "9-911" should just seize a trunk and just send out the
"911".)  And PBXs with ARS will often let you allow these calls even
from "restricted" phones (those you don't want to place local calls).
The only hitch is that if you set up the switch to give dialtone after
the initial "9", then the "911" caller will hear it between the "9"
and "11".  Too bad tiny key systems and switches aren't so flexible.


James R. Celoni, S.J., [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 21:19:28 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comparing the Carriers on FAX Quality


My only comment is that if you compare SPRINT to ATT for quality, you
get no significant difference when you use a FAX machine, but I will
bet you dollars to donuts it was directed at MCI and all the mom-pop
services out there which use sattelites, low quality lines and Feature
Group A service (I think, someone correct me if I am wrong).

Basically, Sprint does better than ATT (not by much) but creams the
other LD companies which just don't handle it well. Trust me, I had
MCI service and I know that except for certain kinds of calls, they
lose big on DATA and FAX calls. Even with error correction, your phone
bill will reflect the difference in call duration time when you see
all the time it spends correcting and how little it spends processing
the message.

(I'm exaggerating slightly, but only slightly).


jsol

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

Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 21:40:15 -0600
From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction: Legion of Doom Indictments
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas


Just a correction to the Digest:

I didn't transcribe the indictment, but merely received a file that
had been transcribed already by Jim Thomas at Northern Illinois
University.  He agreed to my suggestion that I forward it to
comp.dcom.telecom.

Another correction: the word "investigation" should have been
"investigate" in my introductory paragraph.

Thanks.


Mike Godwin, UT Law School
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #224
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22730;
          2 Apr 90 3:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22867;
          2 Apr 90 1:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00394;
          2 Apr 90 0:38 CDT
Date:     Mon, 2 Apr 90 0:18:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #225
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Apr 90 00:17:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 225

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Broadcasters to Bell: "We Just Don't Trust You" [TELECOM Moderator]
    Info Request: TIRKS + Netview [Warren F. Seltzer]
    "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [David G. Cantor]
    Re: Hotel/Motel Charges [Ernie Bokkelkamp]
    Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [John G. De Armond]
    Re: Master Clocks Around the World [Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter]
    Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Everyone Can Access Telecom Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 21:17:12 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Broadcasters to Bell: "We Just Don't Trust You"


A growing tension over potential phone company moves into television
programming and information services flared at a meeting of the
nation's broadcasters Saturday when a member of the National
Association of Broadcasters told Ormand Wade of Ameritech, "We just
don't trust you."

Ormand Wade, vice-chairman of Ameritech and former CEO of Illinois
Bell was a guest speaker at the National Association of Broadcasters
convention in Atlanta over the weekend. His message was received with
antagonism by members of the group.

The convention began with a welcoming address by Edward Fritts,
president of the NAB. In his remarks he said,

"We began the 1980's with good old Ma Bell. Now, a decade later, Ma
Bell is just a memory. In her place we have seven Baby Bells, all
getting to be too big for their britches."

The fears of broadcasters, as well as many newspaper publishers,
result from moves by the seven regional companies, including Ameritech
here in Chicago, to lift current curbws and be allowed to be a conduit
for video and data services via emerging technologies, notably fiber
optic phone lines.

According to the broadcasters, if the Bells are allowed any incursion
into this field, they (the Bells) are likely to ultimatly become more
than just a conduit for information and programs. They are likely, say
the broadcasters, to begin originating and producing information
themselves, becoming a very formidable rival to broadcasters, cable
companies and newspapers. Despite divestiture, the combined annual
revenues of the sisters Bell dwarf those of the broadcast, cable and
newspaper industries combined.

Distrust of the telcos became pronounced and very apparent following
the address by Ormand Wade of Ameritech, in which he stated,

"Although we do not see production of programming as our strong suit
unless it were in tandem with people such as yourselves, the
transmission of such programming is something we very much want to
do."

Following Mr. Wade's address, a rebuttal was offered by a dubious Gary
Schmedding, Vice President - Broadcasting for Lee Enterprises, of
Davenport, IA, owner of five television stations.

Mr. Schmedding remarked in part,

"You make a pleasant appearance. You seem to be a congenial fellow,
but we just don't trust you. There'll be no agreement on my part to
let you in on producing programming. You have much greater resources
than all of us together. It is that simple: We don't trust you."


PT

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

From: "Warren F. Seltzer" <ttrnds![e-mail]>
Subject: Info Request: TIRKS + Netview
Date: 1 Apr 90 22:59:50 GMT
Organization: Teltrend, Inc., Kirkland, WA


I am involved in developing a Network Mananagement application of the
WAN/Telephony/Datacomm type (rather than LAN management).  We want to
connect our systems to our customers existing higher-level
"Integrated" network managers; TIRKS and Netview, in particular.  I
lack some of the basic pointers to information.  Please feel free to
respond by any route.

I had thought that Bellcore and IBM catalogs would be the best place
to start, but so far that's pretty much a dry hole. (TIRKS and Netview
are trademarks of very big corporations. Bellcore and IBM.)

Thank you for your support,


Warren Seltzer     amc.com!ttrnds!warren
Teltrend Inc.      12034 115th Avenue NE   Kirkland, WA 98034
Fax: [phone]  Voice: 206 820 6500

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

Subject: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 90 08:59:44 PDT
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


A number of companies are advertising "unlimited long distance calling
for fees on the order of $200.00/month.  Apparently they insert a
"black box" in your telco line so that, when you dial long-distance,
your calls are resent to a 950 number, and then you use one of the
standard carriers at bulk-rates.

I would like to know what are people's experiences with such services
and which companies provide the best service.


David G. Cantor   Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles    Internet:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 00:40:00 EDT
From: Ernie Bokkelkamp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel/Motel Charges


On 24 Mar 1990 19:40, Scott D. Green (1:105/42) wrote:

 SG>OK, travelers, we've read about AOS's, exorbitant surcharges
 SG>levied by hotels, blocked access to LD carriers, etc.

One upon a time ('82) I spend 4 months on training in the US. I was
based in NJ and spend half of the time all over the east coast flying
from training centre to training centre.

When not away from base, I stayed at a motel belonging to a well known
chain of Inns (the R...).  After the my first period I noticed that
none of the calls I made to my head office in Germany where billed. My
parents are still wondering why I phoned so regular and I am still
wondering how it could have happened.


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!22.1!Ernie.Bokkelkamp
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone)
Date: 1 Apr 90 02:56:57 GMT
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car
 and gun works facility)


In article <[e-mail]> tots![e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

>What about the long-rumored "Infinity Bug"? This is reportedly a
>device that allows one to call a phone, and listen to whatever the
>phone mic picks up. The interesting part is that the phone never rings
>and the handset does not need to be lifted. This seems to be similar
>to the problem of rining an off-hook phone.

>Has anyone actually seen one of these things, or is it just a myth
>that a *lot* of people believe in?

Yes these things do exist.  I used one in the early '70s to get the
goods on my boss who was, it turns out, planning on having some pot
planted in my car in order to have me fired.  I worked for the
government at the time.  I got my infinity transmitter from a friend
who worked for a well known government agency whose name begins with a
"C" :-).

The transmitter looked just like a regular phone network device.  It
was installed inside a normal (at the time) dial phone.  It's function
depended on the fact that crossbar systems typically make up the DC
path somewhat before the ring voltage is turned on.  The procedure
when you want to monitor ambient conversations is to dial the number
of the phone containing the infinity transmitter and apply a sequence
of tones to the line as the last digit is completed.

A sequence is used to keep amateur sweeps (and some sophisticated
ones) from finding the bug by sweeping the line with a variable
frequency tone.  The infinity transmitter detects these tones and
picks up the line before the bell has a chance to ring.  It then
connects the handset microphone to the line and one can monitor the
sounds in the room.  The transmitter disconnects itself in the event
the target phone is taken offhook.

These devices work pretty well on old systems.  Sometimes the ring
generator would be in a state such as to put ring on the line almost
immediately after the DC was made up.  In that case, the phone WOULD
ring.  I usually would just hang up, though it was recommended that
the tapper go ahead and act like he had reached a wrong number so as
not to raise alarm with the target with all the single and aborted
rings.

The big limitation with these bugs was the quality of the handset
microphone.  The old phones this agency had must have been bought at a
surplus auction held by Columbus!

Oh yeah, about my problem.  I confronted my boss behind closed doors
with those tapes and tapes from a phone tap I'd installed too and we
reached an agreement on a truce until I could transfer to another
agency.  Last time I'd heard, he'd been arrested for sexual battery to
a subordinate.  So I guess he got his :-)

BTW, to any of you folks who buy government surplus equipment - I
never did go back and retrieve the transmitter.  Who knows, you may
just own it now :-)


John De Armond, WD4OQC  Radiation Systems, Inc.
Atlanta, Ga     emory!rsiatl!jgd

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

From: Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 15:17:04 EDT


I just wanted to add two more numbers to your time sources list.
These numbers provide the output of WWV and WWVH:

    WWV    [phone]
    WWVH    [phone]


Jeff Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computing and Information Services
USMAIL: 600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238
[phone], FAX [phone] | [e-mail] | [e-mail]
[e-mail] or [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I assume by now, a day after the fact, that everyone
adjusted their clocks forward one hour Sunday morning.  PT]

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation
Date: 1 Apr 90 20:14:53 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


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

>Correct me if I'm wrong (and keep the flamethrowers on "medium rare",
>please) but the quality of a fax is dependent solely upon the fax
>machine and not at all (or at least, very little) on the line quality.
>I assume fax machines use some sort of error-correction, so anything
>but truly horrid phone lines shouldn't affect it.

As I recall, the quality of a fax is governed by the quality of the
input scanner for the most part and governed by the quality of the
printer to a lesser degree.  Most of the picture noise is picked up in
the initial scan, that is why computer generated faxes look so much
cleaner than those that are scanned, even from good copy.


Dave

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 23:54:27 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Everyone Can Access Telecom Archives


A new program running at Princeton University now allows non-Internet
sites to access ftp'able files from anywhere. In this message, I will
discuss only how it works in reference to the Telecom-Archives. A
complete help file is available from the site offering the service.

The program is called BITFTP, and it is intended mainly as a way for
Bitnet sites to work-around the lack of ftp to Internet sites. Tests
have shown it will work for Fido and UUCP sites as well, but with
reservations, as noted below:


1) Send a letter to:
        (From Bitnet sites):     [e-mail]
        (From Fido/UUCP sites):  [e-mail]

It's the same machine; just approach it from the most direct route.

2) If you can include a 'reply-to' line in your envelope, I recommend
you do so, since some mailers have a tendency to munge 'from' lines.

3) Leave the subject line empty, or put whatever you want there. It is
not relevant.

4) Begin with the FIRST line, and be left-justified. Enter FTP commands
as follows:

FTP lcs.mit.edu
USER anonymous
CD telecom-archives
ASCII
GET file.name
BYE

Use UPPER CASE for the ftp commands, and substitute the name of the
file you want in place of 'file.name'. Put the commands in the order
shown.

5) Mail your letter.  You will get back at least two replies. One will
be the file requested, in the form of mail to you. The second reply
will be a letter showing your commands, and how the remote site
interpreted them in filling your request. If the file does not exist,
or if the ftp (via telnet) connection could not be established, you
will be so advised.

6) Allow time for a reply, and do not submit duplicate requests! It
may take a day or two for your letter to reach Princeton, a day or two
for the request to be processed and mailed back, and another day or
two for the reply to reach you. This is a worst-case scenario; in
tests we found it was much faster, but don't rely on it.

7) For a complete help file giving very detailed information about the
workings of BITFTP, send a note to the same address with the word 'HELP'
as the first and only word in the message.

8) A word of caution and advice: Our back volume files are ** large **,
as is the telecom-recent file when it is near cut off. The telecom-recent
file is cut off after the x00th and x50th issues of each volume. It is
then renamed something like '1990.vol10.iss151-200'.  Then it is
zeroed out and started over.

I do not recommend that you pull telecom-recent merely to get one or
two missing issues out of the middle. Instead, continue writing to me
to request them.

This program was specifically designed for Bitnet users. Even they
should use some restraint in pulling large quantities of files. The
large files are broken into parts and mailed. In a test, the
telecom-recent file was broken into ten parts, each part mailed
separately to me!

Fido and UUCP users should exercise great caution. Make sure your
sysop is aware of ** how large ** some of these files are before you
order them.  Don't get your neighbor sites angry at you. There should
be no problem in ordering the smaller files, and the larger ones
** occassionally ** with your site administrator's okay.

To avoid getting back a reply of 'no such file found', the first thing
you should do is order the file 'index.to.archives', and work from
that in placing future requests.

Internet users should avoid this method entirely and continue using
regular ftp methodology, addressing requests to 'ftp lcs.mit.edu'.

         -----  excerpts from the Help File for BITFTP -----

Remember, to use BITFTP, send mail containing your ftp commands to
[e-mail].  The first command to BITFTP must be "FTP" or
"HELP".

[PT Note: However, '[e-mail]' also works okay.]

You will also receive a mail file containing a log of your ftp
session.  In that mail file, entries prefixed by ">" are your original
commands; those prefixed by ">>" are your commands as interpreted by
BITFTP and passed to TCPIP; those prefixed by ">>>" are your commands
as interpreted by TCPIP and passed to the remote host; those prefixed
by "<<<" are messages from the remote host; and those prefixed by
">>>>" are completion messages from BITFTP.

If BITFTP is unable to connect to the host you specify, it will send
you mail after the first attempt, but will keep trying at intervals
over three days.  The only additional mail files you will receive will
be when the connection is made successfully or when BITFTP gives up
after three days.

Questions about BITFTP and suggestions for improvements should be
directed to Melinda Varian, MAINT@PUCC on BITNET or
[e-mail] on the Internet.

The author gratefully acknowledges the use of the FTP SUBCOM interface
written by David Nessl (DAVID@NERVM), the SENDJANI EXEC written by Alan
Flavell ([e-mail]), the uuencoding utility written by John
Fisher (FISHER@RPIECS), and the RFC822 parsing routine written by Eric
Thomas (ERIC@LEPICS).  NOTE: If you have any complaints/suggestions
about the way any of these routines work in BITFTP, please send them to
MAINT@PUCC (Melinda Varian), not to the authors.

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

And my thanks to Peter Weiss for bringing this to my attention.

PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #225
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22436;
          3 Apr 90 3:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23909;
          3 Apr 90 1:52 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30679;
          3 Apr 90 0:47 CDT
Date:     Tue, 3 Apr 90 0:02:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #226
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Apr 90 00:00:04 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 226

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [Johnny Zweig]
    Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [Allyn Lai]
    Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [Bruce Perens]
    Re: The Card [Johnny Zweig]
    Re: The Card [Ray Spalding]
    Re: 800 Service Providers [Bob Stratton]
    Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - Only ATT advantage [A Donaldson]
    Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV [Glen Overby]
    Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [John Higdon]
    Re: Nicad Memory [Harry Burford]
    Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX [Dan Margolis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 19:28:13 GMT


It is interesting to note the difference between two popular versions
of the Infinity Transmitter folklore: the real device is basically a
bug that you install in someone's phone and that uses the line as a
means of sending back and the handset mike as a pickup;
misunderstanding of the phrase "this device allows you to call up and
listen through the handset mike without the handset being picked up"
leads people to believe there is a device I can use on _my_ end to
call an untampered phoneset and listen through the handset.

The latter is obviously false since there is no electrical connection
between the handset mike and the line in an on-hook telephone.  Just
shows to go ya....


Johnny Bug

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone)
Date: Sun,  1-Apr-90 12:07:27 PDT


I remember a good article in a British electronics journal
("Electronics" I think) last year that went into detail about bugs and
surveillence gear.

A good description of infinity bugs was given.  I have the article
somewhere.


Allyn Lai
[e-mail]

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

From: Bruce Perens <pixar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone)
Date: 2 Apr 90 07:34:47 GMT
Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California


tots![e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:


>What about the long-rumored "Infinity Bug"?

One day, back when I was in Junior High, I spent a fun day in the U.S.
patent office looking up plans for wire-tapping devices. I think many
of the patents belonged to Western Electric, but it was a long time
ago. That's still a good place to look if you want to understand these
things better without breaking any laws. They used to charge $1.50 to
photocopy any patent - it may cost more now.

The infinity bug (also called the "harmonica bug") relied on the CO
connecting the audio path to the phone before ringing. A tone-sensitive
relay was wired into the phone, and the party wishing to bug the phone
called the phone and transmitted the tone (blew into a harmonica) before
ringing started. The relay picked up the line before it could ring.
If the bugged party happened to pick up the phone, they would have to hang
up to get dial tone. I guess it sometimes took a few tries to get the
connection, thus someone might get a lot of ring-and-hang-ups if they
were bugged with this device.

Do modern COs still work that way?


            bp

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 20:05:18 GMT


[e-mail] (Matt Simpson) writes:

>I applied for the ATT Universal Card yesterday ...
   [stuff deleted]
>After telling me this, she asked what my income was, within a list of
>ranges, but didn't ask any other kind of credit-related info, like
>employer, bank account, or anything like that....

She asked for your social security number.  With that she can ping TRW
or any of dozens of other credit reporting companies to find out if
anyone ever has filed a derogatory credit report against you. So,
without any fuss and unbeknownst to most people, a considerable amount
of "credit-related info" is disclosed when applying for the Card.
(Which I did, BTW.)


Johnny Big-Bro-is-watchin'

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

From: Ray Spalding <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 3 Apr 90 02:50:56 GMT
Reply-To: Ray Spalding <[e-mail]>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matt Simpson) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 222, Message 7 of 9

>I applied for the ATT Universal Card yesterday ... the call was answered
>fairly quickly (this was about 10 AM EST). The operator asked for my
>phone number, then read my name and address to me for verification ...
>so they're apparently operating from some type of data base.

>She had trouble pronouncing my street name, probably because she had
>one of the two variations I've seen on some of my junk mail that have
>extra consonants inserted which would twist one's tongue. She then
>told me I was pre-approved for a $3000 credit limit, so they probably
>also have some credit info.

>After telling me this, she asked what my income was, within a list of
>ranges, but didn't ask any other kind of credit-related info, like
>employer, bank account, or anything like that. She did ask for my
>mother's maiden name, which she said was to be used as a password when
>I call in with questions about my account. I thought it was a little
>interesting that they had all the info they needed to do a mass
>mailing, but decided not to.

I just applied for the Card.  A rep answered on the first ring, and
asked if I was applying for the Card.  (I said yes, of course).  After
I gave my "primary" phone number and name, I got the "full" set of
questions: home address, social security number, years at address, own
or rent, am I employed, employer, work phone, salary range (in
brackets of $10K, or > $50K; ostensibly for purposes of evaluating
credit-worthiness), mother's maiden name (for security during phone
transactions).

The rep also asked how I had obtained their 800 number; I replied "a
computer bulletin board".  (Hope that doesn't hurt my credit rating
:-)).  If I had had more presence of mind, I would have said the
TELECOM Digest.  (I've seen TV and magazine ads, but the articles
here, rather than those, convinced me it was a good deal).

The rep recapped the information I gave, and said I'd be hearing in a
couple of weeks if I met their approval, and if so, in 4 weeks or so
I'd receive the Card.

I told her I'd heard that sometimes they have prior information about
some applicants.  Affirmative "uh huh".  I told her that didn't seem
to be the case with me, and asked her why.  She confimred that this
was true, and added sincerely, "I don't know".  I didn't bother asking
for her supervisor :-).

They must have a weak database, however, because I constantly get
"preapproved" invitations for credit cards in the junk mail.  Although
AT&T is my dial-1 carrier, I've never been a "phone card" holder with
any company; perhaps their database is phone-card based rather than
credit-rating based.


Ray Spalding,  Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0275
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!cc100aa
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Stratton <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Service Providers
Date: 2 Apr 90 03:22:07 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Stratton <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


According to my list, the 275's belong to ITT (United States Transmission
Systems).

I hope this helps.


Bob Stratton        | UUCP: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Stratton Sys. Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32   Delphi: RJSIII   Prodigy: WHMD84A
Alexandria, VA      | PSTN: 703.765.4335 (Home Ofc.)  703.591.7101 (Office)

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

From: Al Donaldson <vrdxhq!escom.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint; Network 2000 & One Second - The Only ATT advantage
Date: 31 Mar 90 18:04:02 GMT
Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA


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

> In any case, I think that ATT's ads are easily as sleazy as any of the
> other long distance companies.

I think ATT makes a fundamental mistake here.  If you're going to air
ads that annoy your viewers, you should't put your phone number on the
screen.

Especially an **800** number.

So you're not calling up ATT to tell them what you think about their
ads?  "Welll, I am nowwwww."


Al

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

From: Glen Overby <plains![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV
Date: 1 Apr 90 01:09:47 GMT
Reply-To: Glen Overby <plains![e-mail]>
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo


In article <[e-mail]> Robert Gutierrez <gutierre@oblio.
arc.nasa.gov writes:

>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.

I got a different story about a year ago.  My roommate at the time had
tried getting me to pay part of his cable bill by dangling their ad in
the August 1988 "Cabletime" in front of me, so I called and got
someone who seemed fairly knowledgeable.

I also posted a query to the net about their service, and got one
whole response (but a good one), and a bunch of other people asking
"who are they and what's their phone number".

The guy from XPRESS told me that their "feed" was over CNN and WTBS
and did not require any additional hardware at the cable company end
(the person who responded to my net query said the cable company
decodes the signal from CNN or WTBS).  Their software would run on any
PC with a IBM compatable serial port.  I didn't ask if it was ASCII so
I could convert it to something inews could eat, allowing me to throw
their software away and use rn.

At the time XPRESS had been in business for four years and had 25,000
subscribers.  They carried 30 wire services and some other stuff like
the Best of Bix.

I never bought into it, since I'm already enough of a newsaholic.

Isn't Brad Templeton's ClariNet just getting the same kind of feeds
from UPI, et al. and reselling them over News rather than cable?

There was an article in the January or February CACM about a similar service
offered in the Boston area.


        Glen Overby    <[e-mail]>
    uunet!plains!overby (UUCP)  overby@plains (Bitnet)

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services
Date: 2 Apr 90 02:32:00 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]> writes:

> A number of companies are advertising "unlimited long distance calling
> for fees on the order of $200.00/month.  Apparently they insert a
> "black box" in your telco line so that, when you dial long-distance,
> your calls are resent to a 950 number, and then you use one of the
> standard carriers at bulk-rates.

Yes, and probably using a stolen authorization code. Several years ago
we went through the era of "flat-rate" long distance. Without
exception, it was fraudulent. Back then, you would sign up with the
company and they would give you a 950 number to call (it was usually
Sprint or MCI) and an authorization code that would allow you to make
as many calls as you like for $200 a month.

They would concoct some excuse or another as to why they would have to
keep giving you new authorization codes, but now it seems that they
can make this invisible to the "customer" via dialers. It is very
reassuring to note that even the scam artists keep up with available
technology.

> I would like to know what are people's experiences with such services
> and which companies provide the best service.

If by "best service" you mean "how long is it before the gendarmarie
come banging on your door", the answer is about 2-3 months. You will
probably get off light if you cooperate.

I'd be happy to eat my words if wrong, but think about it for a
moment.  Many companies, including my humble self, spend many times
$200 a month for long distance. If something like this was legitimate,
I (and a stampede-load of others) would cancel my Sprint, AT&T, and
WATS services in a second.

The next call you make should probably be to the authorities!


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

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

From: Harry Burford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nicad Memory
Date: 2 Apr 90 13:11:11 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita KS


[e-mail] writes:

>In a recent Digest Tad Cook claimed Nicad Memory was a "myth".
>I beg to differ!

>    Memory is a real problem with Nicad batteries. The
>problem occurs on long charge hardly ever/never discharge cycles.
>I have rescued more HT220 batteries from police service than I
>can lift!

I have been using a gms403 charger from Control Products Unlimited
(215)-383-6395.  It will automatically charge ni-cad batteries.  You
hook up the battery and the device puts a 400 mA load on it to
discharge it down to .9V per cell.  Then it hits it with a 4A pulse of
voltage and then checks the voltage.

It continues with this PULSE-CHECH procedure on about a 1hz rate until
the terminal voltage of the battery is reached.  The pulse tends to
burn out any 'wiskering' that causes ni-cads to get memory.  Also,
since you aren't using a constant Voltage or Current source, the
battery doesn't get hot.

I've been able to recover about 60% of the batteries that normally
would have been thrown away.  My 600mA 7.2V radio battery pack is
typically charged in about 50 min.  My 12V 2A battery pack for the lap
top computer takes 2 hr. to charge.  A time fail safe prevents the
charger from running forever if you have a bad cell that won't let the
pack reach terminal voltage.  The charger is expensive, but I figure
it has paid for itself since I now get all my battery products without
chargers if possible, and I have saved several expensive battery
packs.


Harry Burford - NCR Peripheral Products Division, Printer Products
PHONE: [phone]       TELEX: 417-465         FAX: [phone]
SLOWNET:  3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita KS         CALL: KA0TTY
C-$erve:  76367,151    SS: 9.5       [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon,  2 Apr 90 17:39:03 EDT
From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX


John L. Shelton writes:

>When I forward my line to an outside number, inside callers get my
>voice mail, but outside callers get a busy signal.  My PBX service
>provider says that's because we have "loop start" trunks instead of
>"ground start," but this sounds bogus to me.

>Anyone have experience with this scenario?

This is probably not bogus.  One problem with loop start trunks is
that they cannot be depended upon to give a reliable disconnect.  If
your PBX were to forward an incoming trunk to an outgoing trunk with
no in-system user and both trunks fail to disconnect, your system may
never hang-up the trunks.  With at least one of the two being ground
start, you can be sure one of the trunks will get disconnected and the
system can disconnect the other -- unless, of course, the ground-start
trunk is connected to a machine that never hangs up.  It's better to
make sure both trunks are ground start.

Some PBXs let you override this restriction, but you run the risk of
busying out your trunks.

Dan Margolis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #226
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25264;
          3 Apr 90 4:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21527;
          3 Apr 90 2:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23909;
          3 Apr 90 1:52 CDT
Date:     Tue, 3 Apr 90 1:23:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #227
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Apr 90 01:22:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 227

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: US Sprint [Steve Elias]
    Re: Notes on the German Telephone System [Tom Ace]
    Re: Overhearing Conversations [Scott Hazen Mueller]
    Re: Master Clocks Around the World [Blake Farenthold]
    Re: ATT Smart About PINs [Tom Perrine]
    Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number [Brad Carlson]
    DMS-100 Problems [Robert Masse]
    Did Legion of Doom Plant "Time Bombs" Also? [Newsbriefs via Don H. Kemp]
    Enhanced Caller ID Trial [Communication Week via Ken Jongsma]
    London 071/081 Split Fully Working From Today? [Kevin Hopkins]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Elias <samsung!pws.bull.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Organization: disclaimer
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 90 15:47:02 GMT


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

>> ...better sound quality and lower prices from Sprint even if it took...

>Is this a difference in ears, or a difference in geographic locations?

Perhaps both.  My ears have "low normal" sensitivity.  The aspect of
sound quality that is most apparent to me is volume.  I believe that
this is the most important aspect of phone connection quality to
*most* people, regardless of their hearing sensitivity.

'Clarity' with both carriers is quite good, but the extra tad of
volume from Sprint makes a big difference to me.  I never hear any
background hiss, either -- but that's not to say that it isn't there.

>IMHO, AT&T consistently sounds either the same or a little better than
>Sprint.

Maybe in my case, IMHO stands for 'in my hearing impaired opinion',
although technically my hearing is 'normal'.

>Remember: Sprint is using AT&T's technology; not the other way around.

Precisely.  ATT's advantage is their pre-divestiture monopoly.  In my
humble opinion, this is unfair and yet another reason why my business
goes to Sprint.


Disclaimer:  infinite.  please keep the lawyers away from me.

Steve Elias, [e-mail], 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 13:05:01 PDT
From: Tom Ace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Notes on the German Telephone System


Ernie Bokkelkamp <[e-mail]> writes:

>But I agree that the German public phones are the best.

At their best they are quite good, but some older models exhibited
mechanical problems; their coin mechanisms would fail to recognize
genuine German coins.  Once, while talking on one of them, I was
constantly putting 1 DM coins in; it was returning them to me about
90% of the time.  Frustrating!  This was not an isolated instance; I
experienced it on several phones, and heard that it was not an
uncommon occurrence.  For someone who expected German machinery to be
very reliable, I was disappointed.

Who knows, though; maybe they had to make the mechanisms very
selective in order to keep similarly-sized foreign coins out of their
coin boxes, and had trouble keeping the things reliable with such
close tolerances.

Calling the US from German pay phones usually works well, with a
surprisingly fast call setup time.  When equal access first came to my
CO in Colorado, I gave Sprint a try; the time to set up a call to
California using Sprint was substantially longer than what I was used
to when calling the same number from German pay phones.  (The
situation may have changed since then; that was in 1985.  I found it
amusing at the time.)

The Deutsche Bundespost maintained an interesting museum on
communication technology in West Berlin when I was there (1985).  They
had examples of various models of German phones over the years on
display (including a good number of pay phones), pieces of switching
gear, and other exhibits.  One exhibit proudly explained that a German
man had invented the telephone slightly before Alexander Graham Bell
did.


Tom Ace
[e-mail]

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

From: Scott Hazen Mueller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations
Date: 2 Apr 90 21:25:23 GMT
Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix


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

>Moderator's Note: Instead of crossed lines it may have been crosstalk. Wires
>get wet; insulation around old wires is sometimes poor, etc. On occassion
>when I have had to wait a few seconds for dial tone, the amount of crosstalk
>was incredible [...] It can be fun to listen to!

If you don't get it all the time, that is...  I've been meaning to ask
about a crosstalk problem that I've been having for some time now.  I
have multiple lines running from an inside jack in the back bedroom
under the carpet to a line of jacks in the front office.

I had to do it this way as my wife didn't agree that we should use the
master bedroom for the computer (:-) and there were no jacks in the
office.  I used 6-wire station cable from a local electronics store to
extend the lines across the house, with 3 lines on the cable.  One of
the lines is the house voice line, and the problem that I have been
having is that I get significant crosstalk from my main modem on one
of the adjacent lines.

Since the modem runs about 50% of the time, there is almost never a
time when we have a completely quiet line, and we have had problems
with the answering machine not properly detecting hangup because of
the crosstalk from the modem - it's a quite distinctive sound, and I
can recognize it in a flash, even on the answering machine.  Does
anyone reading Telecom know of any techniques to isolate the lines
better?  I'd like to avoid tearing up the carpeting again; something
along the lines of installing a dinky resistor in one of the jacks
would be more my speed.

I'm pretty sure that the problem is not in the house wiring; before I
installed my office jacks I had some extension cable running down the
hallway carrying the modem line, and we had no problems then.  Also, I
was advised at one time that the problem was because the house line
was unterminated, but wiring in the jack and putting a phone in didn't
seem to help.

Thanks for any help!


Scott Hazen Mueller | [e-mail] or (ames|pyramid|vsi1)!zorch!scott
10122 Amador Oak Ct.|[phone]     |Mail [e-mail]
Cupertino, CA  95014|Love make, not more|for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests
SF-Bay Public-Access Unix 408-996-7358/61/78/86 login newuser password public


[Moderator's Note: And that is why 'they' always say don't have a data
line in the same cable run as a voice line. I have a one-(turn) button
two line phone on the desk with this terminal and modem. They share a
small piece of four-conductor cable for my other line. When the modem
is running there is always a slight bit of bleeding onto the voice line.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 12:30:36 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World


Patrick missed a couple of other time sources...

WWV-Voice (Ft. Collins) 303-499-7111
WWVH-Voice (Kekaha) 808-355-4363

They say phone propagation delays could cause these (and any dial up
time services) to be off by as much as 30 milliseconds.

There is also a "modem" clock operated by Leitech Video that gives the
time at 300 baud (Eastern, I think) ... but when I ran my time-set
program on the Mac it doesn't look like it made the switch last night as
my -1 adjustment to Central time resulted in the clock being an hour
behind.

The Leitech clock's phone numbers are:

VA- 804-424-5631
Canada 416-445-9408

I also believe either WWV or NAVOSBY has a 1-900 number but I don't have it
handy.


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: NAVOSBY has the pay-number: 1-900-410-TIME. But why
pay 900 prices for a call when you can get it for 12 cents on Reach
Out at that time of night.  PT]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT Smart About PINs
Date: 2 Apr 90 19:00:33 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 220, Message 11 of 15

>I just got a new corporate ATT card.  It can be used with our
>company's 800 number or for any other phone call.  It looks like a
>damned nice service.  One thing that I thought was really smart was
>that ATT does not print the last 4 digits (PIN) on the card.  This was
>at the request of the customer (Bull).  Good move!

I just called (800) CALL-ATT, and asked about getting a card without
the PIN (to replace my current one). The service rep and her
supervisor were both amazed that anyone could get a card without a PIN
embossed on it. I suggested that more people would like this option
and the reponse was "Really? Why would they bother? Then they'll have
to remember the PIN!"

Sigh.


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

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

Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 22:20:08 -0500
From: Brad Carlson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number


  Does anyone know the number to call that returns a voice recording
of the number that you are calling from?  I threw the number away
several years ago when I couldn't think of what it might be useful
for, and have kicked myself several times since when I have needed
someone to call me at a pay phone, been apartment sitting for friends
who have removed the little paper tags with the phone number on them,
etc.

Thanks in advance,        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It varies from community to community; from CO to
CO ... no one number applies everywhere. Maybe someone knows the
number in your town, if there is one.   PT]

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

From: Robert Masse <[e-mail]>
Subject: DMS-100 Problems
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 23:40:24 GMT


My friend and I were talking yesterday and I we accidentally crashed the
phone line.

We are on the same CO and we both have conference calling (three-way
calling) and call waiting.  I forget the whole process, but what
happened is I did ring-back using my three-way calling with my friend on
the other line and later I answered the first ring.  Then I listened
for five seconds (the long beeeeep) and then it went normal.  I could
listen to my friend but he couldn't hear me.  Later on I clicked my
line to go to call waiting and it was empty except for two call waiting
beeps at the same time (beep-beep), similar to distinctive ringing and
then it went totally dead.  Then I heard a lonnnng ring and it picked
up and I heard two people talking.  But they couldn't hear me.

Now I was wondering if any one else had a similar experience with their
phone line on a DMS-100 switch?


Thanks,

                  Robert Masse  [phone]/home
                 Internet: [e-mail]
                UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!robert

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

Subject: Did Legion of Doom Plant "Time Bombs" Also?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 16:03:54 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


As reported in AT&T's Consultant Liason Program electronic
newsletter "Newsbriefs":


   LEGION OF DOOM -- ... A government affadavit alleged that in June
   hackers believed to be Legion of Doom members planted software
   "time bombs" in AT&T's 5ESS switching computers in Denver, Atlanta
   and New Jersey.  These programs ... were defused by AT&T security
   personnel before they could disrupt phone service. ... New York
   Newsday, p. 15, 4/1.


Don H Kemp  B & K Associates, Inc.  Rutland, VT   uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

Subject: Enhanced Caller ID Trial
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 90 10:34:48 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


 From an article by Dawn Bushaus in this week's [Communication Week]:

Next month a small group of US West Communications Group Inc.
customers here (Grand Forks, ND) will participate in a test of
Northern Telecom Inc's Integrated Systems Division's caller ID
software. The software lets a caller's name be displayed with or
instead of, the caller's number.

The Northern Division, based in Raleigh, NC, hopes the new product
will be an answer to some of the privacy concerns that are impeding
some caller identification proposals.

US West ... confirmed last week that it will use the software at a
technical trial here, where it is currently conducting a trial of
CLASS services including Caller ID.

The US West Inc. subsidiary will use the software to display both the
caller's number and name, according to Steve Hammack, US West manager
of marketing communications.

Northern believes other telephone companies may choose to use the
software to alleviate customers' privacy concerns by supplying only
the caller's number. Most opposition to Caller ID service comes from
people with unlisted numbers who don't want people to call them back,
a Northern spokesman said.

"Providing the name instead of the number would take care of that,"
the spokesman said. The software is capable of providing only the
name, only the number or both pieces of information.

"It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's the solution," said
Peter Bernstein, an analyst with Probe Research, Inc., Cedar Knolls,
NJ. "It doesn't do anything for the Big Brother issues plaguing Caller
ID."

Customers who do not have unlisted numbers still potentially could be
at the mercy of retail companies. When customers call these companies
the retailers would be able to gain access to their names using Caller
ID, and subsequently gain access to their numbers through directory
assistance or telephone books, Bernstein said.

"This whole Caller ID imbroglio is missing the point," he added. "The
service is identifying the billing number and it's hard to say
inanimate objects have privacy rights."


Ken Jongsma                                      [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                                [e-mail]

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

Subject: London 071/081 Split Fully Working From Today?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 90 16:57:55 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


It seem that the London 071/081 split is effective from today.  In a
recent advertisement in `Computing', a trade magazine in the UK, BT
asked users to reprogram their PBXs, Faxes, modems, etc. to use the
new 071/081 codes instead of 01. It advises users to reprogram their
equipment:

  "... preferably between 2 April and 5 May. To help with
  reprogramming during this period, we will ensure that all calls
  dialled correctly with the new 071 or 081 code, as well as the 01
  code, are connected."

It seems there will be no grace period after 6th May as the
advertisement also states:

  "And if you make a mistake after 6 May, your call will be
  intercepted by a free recorded announcement which gives the correct
  procedure. The announcement is made without Special Information
  Tone (SIT)."

I presume the SIT is monitored by automatic equipment but why refrain
from using it?

Also in the same advertisement BT detail how to leave off the area
code when dialling an intra-area call (a real toughie that one) but
add:

  "If you use the new code when phoning a number in the same area,
  the call will still be connected."

This also works for intra-area calls outside London as per a previous
message of mine to the digest.  This seem to be further proof that the
same number can be used in any part of the UK to contact the same
phone. No worries about whether you do/do not need the area code.

BT have now been posting advertisments about the 071/081 split on
large and prominent hoardings outside London for at least the last
week. How is their international advertising campaign (if it exists)
proceeding?

            Kev.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #227
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20571;
          4 Apr 90 2:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29752;
          4 Apr 90 1:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18532;
          4 Apr 90 0:00 CDT
Date:     Tue, 3 Apr 90 23:46:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #228
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Apr 90 23:45:25 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 228

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Overhearing Conversations [John Higdon]
    Re: Overhearing Conversations [Scott Fybush]
    Re: FAXes on VAXes [Bernie Roehl]
    Re: FAXes on VAXes [Bob Sutterfield]
    Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [William L. Ware]
    Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services [Hector Myerston]
    Re: Billing and Answer Supervision [David Gast]
    Re: Denmark Likewise Charges For Time Off-Hook [Per G|tterup]
    Re: Ain't Progress Wunnerful? [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Let's Hear It For TELECOM Digest! [Kent Hauser]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations
Date: 3 Apr 90 03:21:08 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Scott Hazen Mueller <[e-mail]> writes:

> One of
> the lines is the house voice line, and the problem that I have been
> having is that I get significant crosstalk from my main modem on one
> of the adjacent lines.

> [Moderator's Note: And that is why 'they' always say don't have a data
> line in the same cable run as a voice line. I have a one-(turn) button
> two line phone on the desk with this terminal and modem. They share a
> small piece of four-conductor cable for my other line. When the modem
> is running there is always a slight bit of bleeding onto the voice line.  PT]

There must be voodoo or magic involved in maintaining isolation. My
phone wiring must qualify as the biggest gawdawful mess anyone has
ever seen anywhere. Trunks run in 3 and 4 pair IW, sometimes coupled
with extensions or sometimes with other trunks. Some modems go through
the PBX, some don't. There is 25 pair cable running all over the house
with stations and trunks appearing in random combinations.

Never, but never, have I ever heard the slightest trace of crosstalk
from any of the five or six modems. There are three Telebits and a
hodge podge of slower modems, at least one of which is off-hook at any
given moment. The speakers are all turned off, so it would be very
evident if modem noise were to be heard. It never is.

If telephone circuits are properly balanced and terminated, there is
little chance that any crosstalk will occur, regardless of where they
are run. It is important, however, that the two conductors comprising
the circuit run in exactly the same path; to do otherwise (one wire
running down this cable, the other down that) is to unbalance the
circuit (physically) and creates a possibility for mutual induction.

There is absolutely no reason data (modem) and voice circuits can't be
run in the same cable. They certainly are outside your house!


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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 13:04:07 edt
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations


In my room I have a voice line and a modem line running together on
cheap 4-conductor phone cord for about 50 feet.  I have yet to
experience any crosstalk problems with the modem -- and the modem is
almost always on.

Then again, I'm so close to the PBX here that voice is quite
loud -- enough so as to block out any crosstalk I might otherwise hear.

The modem has never confused the answering machine, either.

Scott Fybush

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

From: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FAXes on VAXes
Date: 3 Apr 90 18:27:11 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo


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

>Ideally, we would like a FAX machine that prints on normal paper (as
>opposed to thermal paper), and has an interface on it so that it can
>take input from the VAX (through a standard RS-232 port) as well as a
>regular scanner.  We'd also like it for under $3000 if possible,
>although preliminary investigation suggests this is WAY too low.

Really?  I find that surprising.  You can buy Fax cards for a PC for
less than $1000.  Even if you had to buy a PC as well, you're looking
at way under $3000.  Run a serial line from your VAX to the PC, and
away you go.  (If you don't already have a laser printer on your VAX,
you'll probably want one for printing the faxes; you'll also want a
small scanner on your PC).


    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]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 09:09:15 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FAXes on VAXes
Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>


You might check the traffic in the newsgroup alt.fax, and its
accumulated archives on nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu in the directory
pub/fax/fax-archives/*.

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

From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services
Date: 3 Apr 90 22:00:40 GMT
Reply-To: <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.cs.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


I would also like any info possible on this.


*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: Read on in this issue ... the consensus seems to be
there is no such thing as a legitimate service of this sort.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 19:53:27 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


David Cantor asks if $200/month for unlimited calling is a good deal ...

The answer is probably not. Look at the following examples:

Sprint Plus Evening/Night/Weekend Rate = ~.12/minute  (2000-3000 miles)
Sprint Day Rate = ~.24/minute                         (2000-3000 miles)

If all your calls are in the evening, you'd have to be on the phone in
excess of 27 hours a month before you broke even. All day rate calls
would require 13 hours before breakeven.

When you consider that on top of the above, many of these resellers
are under investigation for fraud: They have a limited number of lines
available so callers always get busy signals. Not to mention poor line
quality since your call is being bounced around a lot more than it
needs to be.

I'd be surprised if they really are using a 950 number, though you
could just as easily get busy signals there if they don't have enough
trunks. If they are using a 950 number, you should be able to use them
without the black box. At least then you would be able to use other
carriers if their trunks were busy. If you don't have to sign a
contract, why not try it and let us know how it works? I wouldn't sign
any contracts though.


Ken Jongsma                                      [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 1 Apr 90  08:23 PDT
Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


     A local variation of this is to offer unlimited calling over
 >legit< lines for $XXX per month.  You dial the number, get dial tone
and dial the desired number.  Simple, legal and unregulated.

The catch - a Grade-of-Service of about P.9999.  Lets see... one line
pre-subcribed to Acme at 14 cents per minute * 60 * 24 * 30 is about
$6K a month worse case, make that around $4K for busies, no answers
and call setups etc.  Find around 20 suckers to give you $200 each to
pay for the line.  Find another 50 suckers for profit, set up the
service and leave town.  It seems like these guys make arrangements to
provide an acceptable service for a couple of days and then ....


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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 22:59:59 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Billing and Answer Supervision


[e-mail] (Stephen Tell) wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)

>>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.

>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 Holland, for example, there is a counter by the phone.  It looks
rather like an odometer.  Every so often it clicks and one more
``message unit'' (I don't know the exact name in Holland) is charged.
The PTT varies the rate of the clicks with the distance of the calls.
It really is not so difficult although I do not know the exact
mechanism used to increment the timer.  As such, no large database is
needed.  In fact, a much smaller database is needed in Holland than in
the U.S.  In the U.S. the phone company keeps a record of all outgoing
billable calls (in some localities ZUM calls are not itemized); in
Holland only the beginning and ending counts for the billing cycle are
needed.

> With electric power, the maximum number of rates I can think of a
> single customer having to contend with is peak/off-peak ...

When electric utilities implement gadgets to bill different electric
rates for different times of the day, there is nothing to prevent them
from implementing more than peak/off-peak.  They could have, for
example, very low, somewhat low, medium, high, peak, brownout, and
blackout.


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

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

From: Per G|tterup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Denmark Likewise Charges For Time Off-Hook
Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 08:52:27 GMT


[e-mail] (julian macassey) writes:

||    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.

||    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.

It is luckily not so anymore. Now the Danish telcos have moved on and
accepted that what they sell is service, and therefore you don't have
to pay for non-connections. They now only change from the moment the
person in the other end picks up the phone, and this applies to
international long-distance calls as well. Calls to the operator are
now free, except if you need some kind of special service, like the
time or to enquire about a subscriber (number etc.). Emergency calls
are still free as well!

||Think how much better service could get if GTE moved into Denmark.

Maybe. I've spent quite a lot of time in St. Pete, Fl. where GTE is
pretty dominant, and I've got nothing to complain about. One thing I
do miss is the free local calls. Here in Denmark you pay 29 oere,
which is around $0.05, a minute for a local call, and it runs up real
fast if you're not careful!


| Per Gotterup                        | Student, DIKU (Inst. of Comp. Sci.)
| University of Copenhagen, Denmark   | Internet: [e-mail]

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

Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
Subject: Re: Ain't Progress Wunnerful?
Date: 2 Apr 90 17:53:54 JST (Mon)
From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>:

>     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?

Northern Telecom isn't the only one guilty.  It's one of my main
complaints about modern phone systems (my other is that they normally
do not generate a CPC [disconnect supervision] signal on analog
ports).

The Japanese telecom companies are especially guilty of this (the one
notable exception being Panasonic's KX products).  I have asked them
why they do this.  They point to the spec that says that touch-tones
must only be 100ms minimum duration.  Yes, that's fine for dialing
into a dial-tone on a clean phone line, but not enough to interrupt an
announcement on an answering machine or voice mail system.  The fact
that such systems are virtually non-existant in Japan would explain
their ignorance.  I hope that as interactive voice systems become more
prevalent here that the PBX and KTS makers will mend their ways.  I
figure that all it will take is for the engineer of a company to not
be able to access some service he wants to call.

But that fails to explain why a company like Northern Telecom would do
this, except that maybe it has historically been done that way.  AT&T
does get it right in their systems.  Mitel Supersets also work
correctly, because they have a real tone-generator in the set.

A work-around to this is to set the touch-tone length (usually it is
an option on PBXs) to something like one second.  The drawback is that
dialing an 11-digit number will now take a long time to outdial.


Jim Gottlieb                     Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
    <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: (011)[phone]            Voice Mail: (011)[phone]

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

From: Kent Hauser <tfd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let's Hear It For TELECOM Digest!
Date: 4 Apr 90 00:52:16 GMT
Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Donald E.
Kimberlin) writes:

> In fact, Telecom Digest didn't get old Databit muxes, but it _did_ get
> Databit's oldest customer and later an export salesman for them.  The
> reply contact was consummated by telephone at 10 AM EST, making for an
> approximate 8-hour elapsed time to identify sources for a needed piece
> of hardware.

> Now honestly, folks, where else can you expect such a result in
> today's environment?

> Let's hear it now for TELECOM Digest!
> P.S. Any other members of the Databit Alumni Association out there?

As the person in need, let me also add that the 8-hour turnaround time
from my request for sources for obsolete equipment to the
identification of the source of same does not include the time factor
for the "moderation delay".

The moderation delay for my article added a good 2 hours or so to the
total turnaround.  Where's Pat when you need him? :=>


Kent Hauser            UUCP: {uunet, sun!sundc}!tfd!kent
Twenty-First Designs        INET: [e-mail]
[phone]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks once again. This Digest is simply typical of
our entire net, I believe, as a source of information, and a way to
match people who need help and advice with people who can give it. And
at the prices we charge for subscriptions! It would be a bargain at
twice the cost!  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #228
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29884;
          4 Apr 90 9:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22728;
          4 Apr 90 2:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29752;
          4 Apr 90 1:05 CDT
Date:     Wed, 4 Apr 90 0:30:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #229
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 4 Apr 90 00:30:10 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 229

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Michael A. Patton]
    Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX [John Higdon]
    Switch Types at Pacific Bell [Guy Tonti]
    '70s Technology Comes to JR [Jim Gottlieb]
    Int'l Experiences With AT&T and MCI Calling Cards :-( [Peter J. Dotzauer]
    Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story? [David M. Watt]
    Mercury in the UK: A Question [David Leibold]
    Step By Step Unit Displayed [Carl Moore]
    A Small Simple Question [Homeless Hacker]
    Note to Subscribers of CuD [Jim Thomas & Gordon Meyer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 02:48:23 EDT
Subject: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
From: "Michael A. Patton" <[e-mail]>


On Thu, 29 Mar 90 John L. Shelton writes:

   [Forwarding my line to an outside number works for inside callers,
   but not outside callers.]  My PBX service provider says that's
   because we have "loop start" trunks instead of "ground start," but
   this sounds bogus to me.

That's exactly what the problem is.  Here for the edification of all
is a short intro to the differences between Loop Start and Ground
Start trunks as viewed by the user (at a high level, i.e. a telecom
manager as opposed to PBX engineer).  I promise at the end of this to
say why the difference affects your question.

First, on availability, since Loop Start is what a normal phone uses,
these kinds of "trunks" are available everywhere and every PBX I've
seen has this type of connection available (although frequently
recommended against) as an option.  In most cases, if you don't say
otherwise, this is what you'll get.  Tariffs may also differ in
pricing and other particulars.

Now the main difference.  Ground Start does, and Loop Start does not,
provide supervision and positive interlock on line utilization.  The
main effects of this difference are seen on Loop Start trunks as
"glare" and charges for calls based on a timer rather than actual
completion.

"Glare" is a term used in the industry for when two systems at
opposite ends of a trunk both pick up the trunk and connect new calls
to it.  In this case, someone who has dialed 9 to get an outside line
and someone who has called into the company are connected together
without either one realizing it.  The mnemonic here is that you have
two callers "glaring" at one another for having gotten in the way of
their call.  Loop Start provides no way to interlock against glare,
Ground Start interlocks intrinsically in the protocol for picking up
the trunk.

The latter of these two problems occurs when the operator of the PBX
wishes to charge back to the individual lines for outgoing calls.
Since you get no positive indication when the called party answers on
a Loop Start line, most systems resort to some time based trick (i.e.
calls under 40 secs were probably not real, over 40 secs probably
were, so start charging at 40 secs).  On the other hand Ground Start
trunks can be configured (I don't remember if it's the default) to
return positive supervision so acurate billing can be done.

The lack of supervision also means that the PBX is solely at the mercy
of the local user to know when a call is over.  If an outside caller
calls you (or you call out), the switch will keep the circuit up until
you hang up your phone, it can't tell when the outside party hangs up.
This means that among other things --- if you leave your phone off
hook rather than hanging up on an inbound call --- you are tying up a
CO trunk.  In some cases the CO will detect this condition and drop
the call on its side, opening the line up to glare or other problems.
I have even seen COs that when provoked like this will set the line
into an unusable state (which you probably won't notice unless you
test all your trunks with a butt set regularly).

Now finally, in case you haven't figured it out, the above is the
reason you can't forward incoming calls back out without Ground Start
trunks.  The PBX has no one to watch for final disconnection.  It
would have connected two trunks together with no supervision from
either of them to indicate when it should take the call down.  Failing
any other consideration, I would always recommend Ground Start trunks
over Loop Start trunks for a PBX.  But as I said, availability and
pricing may be different.

The reason I know all this is that I used to work as telecom manager
(among other things) at a company that had a Loop Start only PBX which
did allow forwarding to outside lines and I had to regularly go
through all the trunks into the system to find the ones that were hung
and fix them up (disconnection for about 5 mins seemed to do it).

I didn't know at the time that this was the problem (we also had
glare, but since outgoing calls were not itemizable on that PBX no
billing problems).  When we got a new PBX, they recommended we switch
to Ground Start trunks.  After discovering how well they addressed
these issues, I'm only sorry I didn't hear about them earlier.  Since
the product we made was for connection to the switched telephone
system, this lesson was quickly adopted and the next version of our
product supported Ground Start lines.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX
Date: 3 Apr 90 02:44:18 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dan Margolis writes:

> This is probably not bogus.  One problem with loop start trunks is
> that they cannot be depended upon to give a reliable disconnect.

This is not necessarily the case. Except for misprogrammed digital
switches, sufficient loop current interruption is generated by
virually all commonly used CO switching equipment on loop start trunks
upon disconnect or dial tone reacquisition. 1 and 1A ESS equipment is
especially good at this.

Furthermore, most PBX switches that allow unattended trunk to trunk
communications also provide a "MAX TIME" for connection. The maximum
time two trunks can be connected together can be set in programming.
In the case of the ITT 3100, you can even set ground start trunks for
unlimited time and loop start for some reasonable value, such as 30
minutes.

BTW, my Panasonic KX-T1232 allows trunk to trunk transfer and
unerringly disconects when the callers hang up. The Panasonic uses
only loop start lines. My CO is a 1ESS.

> Some PBXs let you override this restriction, but you run the risk of
> busying out your trunks.

Not with a time-out.


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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 13:05:22 -0700
From: Guy Tonti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switch Types at Pacific Bell


To provide some information on the Central Office switch types used by
Pacific Bell, here is what we had (as of 9/1/89, which may be old for
a few sites, but is generally okay).

Pacific Bell uses exclusively switches by AT & T and Northern Telecom
(we are the only RBOC that does not use Siemens, and many of the
others use Stromberg-Carlson and/or Ericson (sp?)).

In Northern California, we had the following:

    89 1AEs
    13 1Es
    36 5Es
    41 DMS-100s
    46 DMS-10s (small switch intended for "suburban" areas)
    29 2Bs  (small switch intended for "suburban" areas)
    10 3Es  (smaller switch intended for "remote" communities)
    21 Crossbars

In Southern California (roughly defined as the Tehachipis and the
Tejon Pass), we had the following:

    96 1AEs
    18 1Es
    35 5Es
    61 DMS-100s
     6 DMS-10s
     6 2Bs
     3 Crossbars

This reflects the fewer smaller, remote communities and the urban
sprawl in Southern California.

Pacific has been upgrading its crossbars to various electronic
switches (depending on the size of the central office), its 1Es to
1AEs (allowing additional call capacity, more "custom calling"
features and ISDN) and its 1Es/1AEs more gradually to 5Es and DMS-100s
(for the best information on the switches and their functionalities, I
suggest reading "Engineering and Operations in the Bell System.")
This upgrading will probably be escalated with the recent regulatory
changes.

Also regarding billing by the LECs.  It is strictly a contractual
arrangement between the IECs and the individual LECs.  i.e., Sprint or
MCI may have an RBOC do its billing, while not have another LEC (which
may have customers across the street) do it; or vice versa.


Guy Tonti
[e-mail]

Disclaimer:  Though I am an employee of Pacific Bell, the above information
         is not supplied as official company material.  It is all
         available and on file from the California Public Utilities
         Commission.

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: '70s Technology Comes to JR
Date: 3 Apr 90 10:40:23 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


One thing that visitors to Japan usually notice is the lack of
advanced technology in many aspects of daily life.  The lack of
computer use has been discussed here before.  Most Japanese offices
are buried under mountains of paper (no wonder they have to cram all
the desks together :-).

When I was first here in 1982, I was struck by the fact that telephone
answering machines were nowhere to be found.  Likewise, most train
stations in Japan have employees punching tickets at entrance gates
and more employees at the exit checking people's tickets and passes.

So I was pleased to read an announcement on the train several months
back that JR Higasi-Nihon was planning to install automated gates at
all stations in the Yamanote loop (and selected other locations)
beginning this spring.  Now they have posters in the trains asking
people to exchange their old passes for ones with a magnetic backing
so they can be used in the new gates.

And not to be outdone, the Eidan Subway system in Tokyo has announced
(in its most recent issue of [Metro News]) that they too will soon
begin to install automated ticket gates (they have had them as a trial
only at Ebisu up until now) and hope to complete the project within
five years.  Five years?  I would think that the payback would be
rather quick on such a system, but perhaps not in a country where they
can't quickly lay people off after installing automation.


Jim Gottlieb                  Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
    <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: [phone]                 Voice Mail: [phone]

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

From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Int'l Experiences With AT&T and MCI Calling Cards :-(
Date: 4 Apr 90 01:35:41 GMT
Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC


In March, when visiting Germany, I thought I was well-equipped for any
calls I needed to make, carrying both the AT&T and MCI calling cards.
However, it turns out that one is out of luck when relying on these
cards:

1. MCI: Before departure, I double-checked with MCI about how to use their
        card in West Germany. I was assured that I just would have to call
        950-1022 to get the MCI dial tone, as one would do within the U.S.
        Although I had slight doubts that the same number would work within
        Germany, I took their word for a fact.

        950-1022, however, was not a number in use, at least not in the
        areas I was. After learning about Germany's 0130 service
        (similar to the U.S. 800 service), I asked about MCI's number
        there. The 0130 information has never heard of MCI, and they asked
        me what M. C. I. stands for, and what kind of company it is!

2. AT&T: At least, they had a 0130 number (0130 0010). However, the operator
        balked when I needed to make a call to Puerto Rico, insisting I
        cannot make a phone call from a foreign country to another
        foreign country. After I explained that Puerto Rico is NOT a
        foreign country, but a U.S. commonwealth, he got more specific,
        now claiming that calls are restricted to the continental U.S.
        only.

Any comments on these incidents are welcome, especially on the
restrictions of the AT&T card. Are there any cards that are truly
useful for international travel? I believe the U.S. Sprint FON card is
even more restricted in its use. And, could a calling card by the
Bundespost be used in the U.S. without restriction?


Peter Dotzauer, Numerical Cartography Lab, Dept of Geography, OSU, Columbus, OH
     VOICE [phone]      FAX [phone]       DATA [phone]
    BITNET pjd@ohstvmb       UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd
      FIDO 1:226/330   INTERNET [e-mail] [128.146.1.5]

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

From: David M Watt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 01:46:01 GMT


I read elsewhere on the net that Deutsch Bundespost has recently been
split into three parts, and is now competing under market conditions.
I understand that modems faster than 1200 baud are illegal (!) in the
FRG because of regulations that were promulgated and enforced by D.B.
I also heard that many, many people in Germany were disobeying those
rules.  Could someone provide some background and history about all of
this?  What does it mean to the German modem punter?

Please post responses to the net, since I suspect this is of general
interest.

Thanks!

Dave Watt    [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Mercury in the UK: A Question
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 23:28:28 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


I have heard about this Mercury service in the UK, which is something
like a competing phone company. Originally, I believe they were into
public telephone service (like COCOTs or something like that).

Are they into long distance, also, in the manner that Sprint or MCI
would be in the US? If so, how would calls be dialed through (ie. what
is the UK equivalent of 10XXX+ or 950 service, if any?).


|| David Leibold [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 10:02:19 EDT
From:  Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Step By Step Unit Displayed


I believe there's a SxS unit displayed in Philadelphia on the ground
floor of the Franklin Institute.  I was there just before last
Christmas.

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

From: Homeless hacker <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Small Simple Question
Reply-To: Homeless hacker <[e-mail]>
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 90 00:06:08 GMT


I'm a computer engineering major thinking about my senior project.  One of my
idea involves a device that will answer the fone.

My advisor is worried that it is illegal to hook up homebrew devices
to the phone line.  I was under the impression that that changed with
the divestiture of AT&T, but I need to convince my advisor.

1)  What are the exact rules, regs, etc. re: attaching equipment to the phone
    line?

2)  Where can I find a reliable print source of this info to show him?

Please reply via email, I will post a summary to comp.dcom.telecom.

Thanx!

Reply to [e-mail]   or one of these others:
                Fidonet : atman via 1:119/666.0   WWIVnet : 1@9651

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

Date: Tue, 03 Apr 90 22:27 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Note to Subscribers of CuD


Our thanks again to Pat for sending material to Computer Underground
Digest. To date (3 April), three issues have been put out. If anybody
has subscribed but not received any, it means mail is not getting
through and we missed the return, or, if we received the return, to
could not get through to notify you.  So, send a note to:

             TK0JUT2@NIU  (bitnet)--that's a zero, not an "oh"
                                       or
                INTERNET:[e-mail]@UICVM.uic.edu

And we'll try to get it straightned out. The inquiries and
subscriptions have been high, and we currently are reaching about 135
subscribers with about 50 additional addresses that we cannot reach at
the moment (but are working on it).

Computer Underground Digest is a forum for debating and sharing
information about the ethical, policy, legal, enforcement, and other
ramifications of phreaking, hacking, and piracy.

Jim Thomas & Gordon Meyer  (co-moderators)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #229
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17785;
          5 Apr 90 4:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31797;
          5 Apr 90 2:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04783;
          5 Apr 90 1:24 CDT
Date:     Thu, 5 Apr 90 1:01:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #230
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Apr 90 01:00:12 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 230

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Small Simple Question [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: A Small Simple Question [John Higdon]
    Re: A Small Simple Question [Marvin Sirbu]
    Re: A Small Simple Question [Edward Greenberg]
    Re: Enhanced Caller ID Trial [Bob Sherman]
    Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation [Steve Friedl]
    Re: London 071/081 Split Fully Working From Today? [Ian G. Batten]
    Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs [Ron Winograd]
    Re: Itemized Billing in the UK [Tim Oldham]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Jamie Hanrahan]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Bill Darden]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question
Date: 4 Apr 90 22:52:27 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin (yay!)


Homeless hacker <[e-mail]> writes:

>My advisor is worried that it is illegal to hook up homebrew devices
>to the phone line.  I was under the impression that that changed with
>the divestiture of AT&T, but I need to convince my advisor.

You are correct, but I fear it won't do you much good.  The
requirements of equipment which may be connected to the public
switched network are complex, and are governed by the FCC.  FCC
regulations part 15 and 68 specify most of these requirements.

I assume you can get them from the Government printing office.  But it
won't do you much good - nobody uses them.  There are services out
there who make their money by following the FCC regulations,
translating them from Legalese into English, and selling you their
compilations.

Assuming you get over this hurdle, you now have to prove that your
equipment meets the regulations.  This springs forward yet another
industry - labs which perform FCC compliance testing, and put together
packets all ready to go to the FCC for approval.

This isn't a senior project - it's a career!

But fear not.  Because of this scenario, there are folks who make
devices which connect to the network interface, carry FCC
pre-registeration, and your system sits behind it.  At my last job, we
did one of these things for T1 networks.  You can also get them for
plain old phone lines - they are called Direct Access Arrangements
(DAA).  Some of the features you will often find in a DAA are integral
2-to-4 wire converters (which makes it easy to connect up your
transmit/receive circuitry) and a ring detection circuit.  Therefore,
the scope of your project would be a lot more reasonable if you used a
DAA to connect to the phone line.


Chip Rosenthal    [e-mail]
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question
Date: 4 Apr 90 02:21:05 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Homeless hacker <[e-mail]> writes:

> 1)  What are the exact rules, regs, etc. re: attaching equipment to the
> phone line?

Simply put, anything connected to the telephone network must be
FCC-registered. To become registered, a device (or prototype) must
pass a battery of tests as certified by a registered professional
electrical engineer.

> 2)  Where can I find a reliable print source of this info to show him?

The tests and all applicable rules are defined in Part 68 of the FCC's
rules and regulations. This can be obtained in any US Govt. bookstore
and many other places by mail.


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

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

Date: Wed,  4 Apr 90 10:37:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question


You can find the rules for hooking customer premises equipment (CPE)
to the network in Part 68 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(available in most libraries).

Basically, any device type to be connected to the network must be
tested by the FCC from which the manufacturer receives a Registration
number for that product.  You can see it stamped on the back of any
telephone.

For homebrew users, you can buy a box from many electronics
distributors which is essentially an isolator.  The box has a
registration number, and it provides the isolation of the telephone
line from random voltages generated by your homebrew equipment which
is what Registration tests for.  You can then merrily construct
whatever homebrew equipment you want and connect it to the phone line
through the Registered device.  These devices used to be supplied by
the phone company under the name Protective Access Arrangement (PAA).

For details on the Regulatory history see FCC Reports (at your local
law library):

Proposals for New or Revised Classes of Interstate and Foreign MTS and
Wats, 56 FCC 2d 593 (1975) (details of registration program), 57 FCC
2d 1216 (1976), 58 FCC 2d 716 (1976) 58 FCC 2d 736 (1976), 59 FCC 2d
83 (1976).


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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 10:46 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question


 From: Homeless hacker <[e-mail]>

>I'm a computer engineering major thinking about my senior project.
>One of my idea involves a device that will answer the fone.

>My advisor is worried that it is illegal to hook up homebrew devices
>to the phone line.  I was under the impression that that changed
>with the divestiture of AT&T, but I need to convince my advisor.

Your advisor is right.  To attach something to the phone system it
needs to be type accepted.  If you were hacking in your home, you
could probably go for it, since nobody will care unless you do damage.

Once the school gets into the act, they have to be careful not to
bless your work.

One thought though, if this is for a school project, there's really no
need to attach it to the phone lines.  You could attach it to the
phone system in your school -- It may be easier to get permission to
do this.  You could also consider attaching it to a telephone tester,
like they have at phone stores.

I imagine that this is how pre-type acceptance development work gets
done in the business world.


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

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Enhanced Caller ID Trial
Organization: Not much!
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 05:56:24 GMT


In <[e-mail]> wybbs![e-mail] (Ken Jongsma) writes:

>Customers who do not have unlisted numbers still potentially could be
>at the mercy of retail companies. When customers call these companies
>the retailers would be able to gain access to their names using Caller
>ID, and subsequently gain access to their numbers through directory
>assistance or telephone books, Bernstein said.

Directory assistance or phone books would be the primitive ways of
doing it, there is a database produced by the Donnelly Company (they
print a lot of the phone directories) that contains over 61 million
residential phone numbers in it (I know, as I use it, as do private
eyes, mass mailers etc).  where you input area code and phone number,
and it gives you name,address, length of residence, names of neighbors
and much more. There is also the Electronic Yellow Pages databases,
with millions of business phone numbers that can be converted to name
and address.

We were contacted recently by a charitable organization recently
wanting to know how much it would cost them to convert the numbers of
people calling their 900 number to make a donation (they get every
number that calls the 900 service for billing purposes) so that they
could follow up with mailings to remind the people to keep making
those $25 donations by calling the 900 number which puts a $25 charge
on your bill for each call.

Just one example of what will get worse with caller ID. This goes on
NOW without caller ID, since there are 2 kinds of number
identification. The Caller ID kind which you and I can get a reader
for, and the automatic one which you cannot block that goes to the
operator, 911 centers, and on all LD trunks for billing info if you
should use 10xxx, 900 numbers etc..


[e-mail] | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN

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

From: Steve Friedl <mtndew![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation
Date: 4 Apr 90 01:19:20 GMT
Organization: Steve's Barnburner 386


Steven King writes:

> I assume fax machines use some sort of error-correction, so anything
> but truly horrid phone lines shouldn't affect it.

No, not at all.  Note here that "fax" means Group III, which is all I
have substantial experience with.

Group III fax has neither error correction nor flow control, so phone
lines do definitely make a difference.  The data pattern is modified
Huffman, and when you expand it you get so many bits across the page.
A line hit of even a single bit means that you have basically lost the
whole scanline, and there are three things I know of you can do with
it.

        * ignore it.  This means that you have shortened your page
      by a little bit.

    * issue a blank scan line.  This means that your page is the
      right length, but you have a "hole" in the middle of something.

    * duplicate the last good line.  This is probably the best
      and most common method of dealing with them.  If you look
      closely at a fax you might see some of these.

> I'm sure the reason for this misinformation is that the marketing
> droid [of Sprint] doesn't know squat about the technical aspects
> of what he's selling.  That's no excuse, mind you.

"Marketing Droid" is redundant, and Sprint may be full of it, but
phone lines definitely make a big difference in fax quality.


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

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

From: Ian G Batten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London 071/081 Split Fully Working From Today?
Organization: BT Fulcrum, Birmingham, England.
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 11:16:01 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

>   "If you use the new code when phoning a number in the same area,
>   the call will still be connected."

> This also works for intra-area calls outside London as per a previous
> message of mine to the digest.  This seem to be further proof that the
> same number can be used in any part of the UK to contact the same
> phone. No worries about whether you do/do not need the area code.


This didn't used to be the case.  I recall dialling 021- (the
Birmingham code) in front of a local number and getting a recorded
message saying not to.  But I just tried calling my house from work
(021-771 and 021-476) and it connected fine.  Given the 771 exchange
is not too modern, as my uucp feeds will attest, I guess this reflects
a policy change.

But the dialing between Birmingham and its satellites is still pretty
mystic.  One and two digit codes _not_ starting with a zero are the
order of the day, and there seem to be n^2 ways to call between n
areas.


Ian G Batten, BT Fulcrum - [e-mail] - ...!uunet!ukc!fulcrum!igb

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

From: Nitemare <gill!vpnet![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When People Don't Dial 9 on PBXs
Date: 1 Apr 90 06:55:03 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to
>room dialing strictly by the room number. What if there are rooms on
>every floor of a twenty story building? How do you dial rooms 911, 611,
>and such?

On the contrary, the VAST majority of hotels I have been in have had you
simply dial the room numer for room to room calls!


Nitemare

Ron Winograd   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Apparently this is possible if there is no conflict
in room number lengths and other considerations.  PT]

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

From: Tim Oldham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Itemized Billing in the UK
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 18:04:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott Ferguson) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 209, Message 7 of 11

>>Does anyone know why BT don't itemize all calls
>>irrespective of cost? If anyone from BT is reading this list maybe they can
>>provide an answer to this?

>If BT listed all the calls under 50p you would receive a enormous bill
>for the paper required to print out all the bills. It's clearly a
>compromise between information and practicality.

This is quite true. For data services that are billed on usage, the
customer has a choice of what level of itemizing is required. PSS
(Packet SwitchStream), BT's X.25 service, has a choice of the
following itemizing levels:

    all calls
    all calls over 75p
    international calls only
    international calls over 75p only
    inland calls only
    inland calls over 75p

You can also be billed monthly or quarterly for this service.

There is a minimum charge of 5 pounds sterling for up to 10 sheets of
printout, 30 lines per sheet. Extra sheets over 10 are 50p each.

Clearly BT could, in theory, offer all customers such a service, but
the costs would have to be passed on to the customer in some way. It
isn't so much the paper, but the transfer of all the information to
the billing centres and the computer billing operations time required
to print and collate the vast quantities of information involved.

Losing the calls under 50p from the bill isn't too significant.
Personally, I'd prefer to receive itemized bills on which any
unexpected high cost calls can be easily discerned. Incidentally, the
50p limit is actually 10 units.

I work for BT, but am not involved in the operations or management of
the UK or International network. I do not speak officially for BT.


Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. [e-mail] or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Date: 4 Apr 90 13:01:58 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA


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

> In response to the Moderator's comment:

> I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical
> switching in the phone,

Don't bet on it.

> [Moderator's Note: How about a technical reply on this from the
> experts?  PT]


Yesterday it happened to me while I was ON the phone in question.
(Talking via the phone, silly, not sitting on it!)  I guess our PBX
(Harris) malfunctioned, and ring voltage was briefly applied where it
shouldn't have been. The chirp-style ringer in my phone chirped, and
another phone on the same line chirped also.

The phone I was talking on, a Panasonic KX-T2355, has an REN of 1.0B,
the other one, 0.2B.  Oh, and the phone DID survive the experience.
(I've heard so many good things about Panasonic KXT-series phones
here, I wonder if they're the "2500 sets of the 90's"?)

The worst of it was what it did to the earpiece, and in turn what the
earpiece did to my ear.  20Hz at, um, how many dB?  I could literally
feel my eardrum flapping in the breeze.  Not fun.

So, anyway, yes, it can happen, with at least some combinations of
ring- voltage-suppliers and phones.

     Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA
   Internet:  [e-mail], or if that fails, [e-mail]
           Uucp:  ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh

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

From: "Bill Darden" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Date: 4 Apr 90 22:53:37 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA


Loop start trunks are easier to test, but more difficult to busy out.


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #230
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19585;
          5 Apr 90 5:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04083;
          5 Apr 90 3:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31797;
          5 Apr 90 2:30 CDT
Date:     Thu, 5 Apr 90 1:55:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #231
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Apr 90 01:55:34 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 231

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Overhearing Conversations [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: Master Clocks Around the World [David Leibold]
    Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV [Robert Gutierrez]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [George Horwath]
    Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone) [David E. A. Wilson]
    Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries? [Peter J. Dotzauer]
    Why 911 Should Work From Outside Area Codes [[e-mail]]
    Cellular Billing [David Tamkin]
    Re: The Card [David Tamkin]
    950 Number For ITT [Steve Elias]
    Fax/Phone/Ansmach Recommendations [Ron Watkins]
    Telcos Entry Into Cable [Ted Carlin]
    Where Did the Kids BBS Near Chicago Go? [Paul S. R. Chisholm]
    Correction Re: Everyone Can Access Telecom Archives [Yoram Eisenstadter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Organization: Telotech, Inc.
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 18:21:52 GMT


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail] (Yong Su
Kim):

| The phone company we use here is AT&T. I was wondering if such crossed
| lines are common. Maybe someone out there knows more about such
| problems.

| [Moderator's Note: Instead of crossed lines it may have been
| crosstalk. Wires get wet; insulation around old wires is sometimes

And maybe not.  A few weeks ago, we were dialing out from Telotech on
our modem line; we heard someone else's conversation during the whole
thing, loud enough to make the modem connection fail.  This is a
relatively new area, so the phone wires around here aren't likely to
have insulation problems.

I don't think the LD provider has anything to do with it; it was a
local call, if I recall correctly.


-=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc.   (I do not speak for telotech.) <=-
** [e-mail] ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} **

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

From: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery" <telotech![e-mail]>
Organization: Telotech, Inc.
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 18:03:42 GMT


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail] (Andrew Boardman):

| In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] wrote:

| >You were probably confusing the demonstration FON card we carry, with
| >an actual card.

| Well now, that's what *I* thought.  Nevertheless, I've got a shiny new
| FONCARD in my wallet that worked 45 seconds after I got it!

I also saw folks pocketing FONcards as they walked away from the GTE stand.
No, I don't think I'm confusing those with demo cards.


-=> Brandon S. Allbery @ telotech, inc.   (I do not speak for telotech.) <=-
** [e-mail] ** uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!{allbery,telotech!bsa} **

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

Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 10:39:54 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


The National Research Council in Canada operates a time-of-day clock
at + 1 613 745 1576 (should still be the case). They run the CHU time
radio service on various (though rather uneven) frequencies on
shortwave as well.


|| David Leibold   [e-mail]

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV
Date: 5 Apr 90 04:32:26 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


plains![e-mail] (Glen Overby) writes in V.10, Iss 226, Msg 8 of 11

> In article <[e-mail]> Robert Gutierrez <gutierre@oblio.
> arc.nasa.gov writes:

> >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 guy from XPRESS told me that their "feed" was over CNN and WTBS

I should have clarified myself. CNN and WTBS are encoded using the
VC-II scrambling system. On a VC-II scrambled channel, a 9600 baud
data carrier can also 'ride' on the 'scrambled' portion of the channel
(actually, multiplexed into the audio PCM portion of the signal).

> and did not require any additional hardware at the cable company end
> (the person who responded to my net query said the cable company
> decodes the signal from CNN or WTBS).....

On a commercial VC-II, an FSK demod/modulator is needed, unless the
cable company gets a special model which includes such a beast inside.
For consumers, you can buy a Videochiper Data Receiver, and with a
subscription to CNN/WTBS, you'll get the basic X-PRESS service for
free (at least as of last year). Remember, you must already have a
satellite dish and a IRD (Integrated Receiver/Descrambler) or a
receiver with an external Videocipher descrambler.

> Their software would run on any
> PC with a IBM compatable serial port.  I didn't ask if it was ASCII so
> I could convert it to something inews could eat, allowing me to throw
> their software away and use rn.

Was somewhat ASCII when I monitored the RS-232 out of the demod box.
No LF/CR's though.

> Isn't Brad Templeton's ClariNet just getting the same kind of feeds
> from UPI, et al. and reselling them over News rather than cable?

Yep. I keep forgetting to write to him to see if he gets the same
'broadcast' versions or 'full-text' versions sent to the newspapers.
The only people I've ever seen with access to full-text versions is
either "Newsnet", which is a very good, and *very expensive*
commercial service (they also have just about every business and
communcations magazine articles, usually before the printing date), or
by searching for the SCPC carriers on the satellites (which, of
course, you're not *supposed* to do).


   Robert Gutierrez/NSI Network Operations/NASA Ames Research Center.

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

From: George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Date: 4 Apr 90 16:59:36 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I'm no expert, but a few additional comments:

1) If a PBX has a mix of trunk types (loop & ground) it might be smart
enough to check that whenever two trunks are connected together, at
least one will provide disconnect supervision and allow the
connection. It might also be possible to defeat this check. All
depends on the maker.

2) Depending on how bad glare is/ground start trunk availability/costs/etc.,
loop start trunks can be marked as one-way incoming or one-way
outgoing but now more trunks are needed. This feature also depends on
the brand of PBX.


George Horwath, Motorola C.I.D.            1501 W. Shure Drive
 ...!uunet!motcid!horwath            Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Disclaimer: The above is all my fault.

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitter (was: Ringing a Busy Phone)
Date: 4 Apr 90 02:52:30 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computing Science, University of Wollongong, Australia


[e-mail] (Johnny Zweig) writes:

>misunderstanding of the phrase "this device allows you to call up and
>listen through the handset mike without the handset being picked up"
>leads people to believe there is a device I can use on _my_ end to
>call an untampered phoneset and listen through the handset.

>The latter is obviously false since there is no electrical connection
>between the handset mike and the line in an on-hook telephone.  Just
>shows to go ya.

A British program broadcast in Australia stated that this is done by
tapping the wires leading into the property and applying a high
frequency AC signal to the line - at this frequency the switch hook
looks like a capacitor which conducts the AC which is then modulated
when it passes through the microphone.


David Wilson


[Moderator's Note: Larry Lippman has written us again! Some of you who
have been readers for at least a few months will remember his interesting
articles. He has submitted a lengthy article on Infinity Transmitters
and it will be the subject of a special issue this weekend.   PT]

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

From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries?
Date: 3 Apr 90 20:41:48 GMT
Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC


Does anyone have a list of toll-free services for foreign countries,
such as the 800 service in North America and the 0130 service in
Germany?


Peter Dotzauer, Numerical Cartography Lab, Dept of Geography, OSU, Columbus, OH
     VOICE [phone]      FAX [phone]       DATA [phone]
    BITNET pjd@ohstvmb       UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd
      FIDO 1:226/330   INTERNET [e-mail] [128.146.1.5]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 22:01 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why 911 Should Work From Outside Area Codes


In a previous news message someone mentioned emergency services being
available only via 911.  There is a problem with that.  What if
someone needs to reach an emergency responce activity from outside the
area served.

Why you might ask, would someone need to do that?  Well, several years
ago my girlfriend called me (in Ohio) from New York to tell me she was
committing suicide.  She had taken sleeping pills, plenty of alcohol
and slit both her thighs with a knife.  She wanted to talk with me on
the phone as she died.

Ever try to reach 911 in a different area code?

I got NY information to give me the Police non-emergency number; they
transferred me to 911.  NY's finest actually responded very quickly; I
called her back and we talked (for three minutes) until the Police
arrived.

p.s. She's now married to a boy from Bellcore.

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Billing
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 3:24:33 CDT


Recently the moderator reported that both cellular providers in the
Chicago area, Ameritech Mobile and Cellular One, don't charge for busy
or unanswered calls but backdate the airtime charges on completed
calls to when the caller pressed "send".  That is true only of
Ameritech Mobile; Cellular One does not charge for connection or
ringing time.  I'm not sure when airtime charges begin on incoming
calls.


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: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 3:24:33 CDT


On another subject, some Digest readers have written that they were told
that they were already approved for the AT&T Universal Card as soon as
they phoned, before they were even asked for their income.  I asked a
Universal Card rep about that; she said that if your calling number and
your name identify you as an established AT&T Long Distance customer,
then they already had obtained your credit history and have both that
report and your payment record with AT&T Long Distance since then on
file.

Many AT&T Long Distance customers were pre-approved for Universal
Cards; I'm not sure whether AT&T intended to mail out solicitations to
those people after a while or not, but apparently some of you have
been phoning in on your own and finding out that you are among the
pre-approved.


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: 950 Number For ITT
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 90 08:50:50 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


A previous posting mentioned ITT and their continued use of 950
numbers.  950-0ITT does not work from the Boston area, so the "950
advantage" doesn't cut it around here.  I thought that *all* LD
carriers were phasing out 950 as soon as they could ???


; Steve Elias, [e-mail].  !! MAIL TO [e-mail] ONLY !!
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, fax [phone]


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

From: Ron Watkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax/Phone/Ansmach Recommendations Wanted
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 09:43:37 EDT


I'm interested in getting a set up fax/telephone/answering machine and
would like to get recommendations.

Fax should be inexpensive, general purpose; the telephone and
answering machine should be one with a great sound quality. Thus when
someone gets my answering machine, it should be very clear as if a
real human answered the phone.

Wish List:

  1.  The phone has a "call forwarding" feature so that
      if needed, and if nynex doesn't support it (I'm not sure yet), I can
      forward my phone to some other specified number.

  2.  The answering machine can call me/page me to let me know I have a
      message.

  3.  I can manipulate the answering machine remotely (get messages,
      change messages, give the answering machine a new paging number
      etc.

Thank you for the recommendations and help.

[e-mail]

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

From: Ted Carlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telcos Entry Into Cable
Date: 4 Apr 90 14:36:34 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I am searching for information on telcos and their entry into the
cable television market.  Any information about the future of telcos
entering the cable world, either technical, regulatory, or societal,
would be of great help.  I am seeking position papers from all sides
of the issue in an effort to possibly forecast the role of telcos as
common carriers and/or content owners in the cable market.  I would be
very interested in sources of information as well as comments on this
topic.


Ted Carlin
Bowling Green State University
[e-mail]


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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where Did the Kids BBS Near Chicago Go?
Date: 4 Apr 90 14:56:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


[This was article <[e-mail]>, posted in
comp.sys.ibm.pc by [e-mail] (Gary Harrington).
I include it here because of the possible connection LoD BBS
crackdown.  --Paul]

Does anyone know where the Kids BBS near Chicago went?  It used to be
at [phone].  Last time I called, I got a recording saying that
the area code had changed, and when I called with the new area code, I
got a recording saying the number had been disconnected.

Has it closed down, or moved to another number?


[e-mail]
Wichita, KS


[Moderator's Note: I do not think there was any 'LoD connection' here.
The sysop probably burned out and turned it off. BBS' have a short
life and a high turnover rate here.  BBS' come, and BBS' go, but the bull
(as in bull board system) goes on forever. Boards close down, and
others take their place overnight.   PT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 13:36:06 EDT
From: Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Everyone Can Access Telecom Archives
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 225, Message 8 of 8

>A new program running at Princeton University now allows non-Internet
>sites to access ftp'able files from anywhere...

>1) Send a letter to:
>        (From Bitnet sites):     [e-mail]
                                         ^^^^
>        (From Fido/UUCP sites):  [e-mail]
                                         ^^^^
I'm pretty sure that "nucc" should be "pucc" (for Princeton University
Computer Center).  Also, my local internet nameserver doesn't know of
a "nucc.princeton.edu".  Are you sure you got this right?


[Moderator's Note: My thanks to the several others who pointed this
out. My face is permanently red.  The correct address is FTPBIT  at  PUCC.
Sorry about that!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #231
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13682;
          6 Apr 90 3:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09214;
          6 Apr 90 1:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00735;
          6 Apr 90 0:13 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Apr 90 0:04:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #232
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Apr 90 00:03:23 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 232

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Larry Lippman]
    Telephone Ground Question [George Horwath]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Dave Levenson]
    Dutch, British Telecom (was Billing and Answer Supervision) [Mike Olson]
    Looking For Introductory Books on Telephony [Mark Harrison]
    Questions About Error in CO [Steve Howard]
    Databit Alumni (was Let's Hear It For TELECOM Digest!) [Gil Kloepfer Jr.]
    Need Info on Getting Access to NPA/NXX Data Bases [Randy Peterson]
    Documentation Needed For ISOETEC EZ-1
    Re: "Flat rate" Long Distance Services [Douglas Mason]
    Face Red? You Bet! [Thomas Lapp]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: 5 Apr 90 23:43:43 EST (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> pixar![e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
writes:

> Some locations have armored pay phones connected to wimpy external
> bells.  One can simply unscrew the cover on the external bell, and
> complete the connection there (Of course I've got lots of dimes now,
> but I was a kid once). Of course, now that one can put an arbitrarily
> sophisticated program in the C.O., it shouldn't be to hard to track
> down abusers, but who wants to round up a bunch of kids?

    Most coin stations today are DTF (Dial Tone First) and no
longer resemble a ground-start line.  A DTF coin line behaves similar
to that of a loop-start line (it is actually more complex than that,
but this will suffice for the purpose of this discussion); i.e., a
ground on a DTF coin line will not facilitate any fraud.

    On pre-pay coin lines, a ground was required on the ring side
of the line to "start" the line.  However, the "fraud problem"
involving an external ground to the line (pin through transmitter, pin
through handset cord, pin through exposed station wire, etc.) was
solved MANY years ago.

    In the older multi-slot coin stations a contact was added
which required at least one coin to be present in order to open a
shunt contact across the dial pulse contacts (or DTMF dial);
therefore, the best fraud that one could commit was deposit a nickel
to make a dime call.  Not very worthwhile.

    In single-slot pre-pay coin stations, the totalizer provided a
shunt contact across the rotary or DTMF dial which was not removed
until the full initial rate was deposited.  No money, no dial.  End of
*this* :-) fraud problem.


<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700       {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488        "Have you hugged your cat today?"

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

From: George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Ground Question
Date: 4 Apr 90 17:18:20 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I recently had to do some plumbing repairs at home and had to move the
telephone ground wire clamp. The telephone line in the house is the
original (30+ years old - no "network interface" box). The ground wire
has a plastic tag that says something like "If this wire is loose or
must be moved, notify the telephone company." I was wondering, is this
considered part of the inside wiring (which I own) or is it part of
the telco outside plant? And yes, I did firmly reattach it to the pipe
when I was done - I don't want an exciting call during the next
thunderstorm.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Date: 5 Apr 90 14:22:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael A. Patton) writes:

> Now the main difference.  Ground Start does, and Loop Start does not,
> provide supervision and positive interlock on line utilization.  The
> main effects of this difference are seen on Loop Start trunks as
> "glare" and charges for calls based on a timer rather than actual
> completion.

No.  Not exactly.  Ground start is used to resolve glare contention.
It also provides a positive forward-disconnection to indicate that the
caller has dropped the line on an incoming call.  Ground start,
however, does not provide supervision.  It does not tell you that the
party you have called has answered.  It only tells you when the caller
who has answered has disconnected.  If the called party never answers,
you never get the disconnection.  That is why Mitel (and other PBX
vendors) don't allow trunk-to-trunk calls with no inside party unless
ground-start trunks are used.

Answer-supervision is a separate service, usually available at extra
cost, that may be provided on loop-start or on ground-start trunks,
but it is independent of the "start protocol".


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: Mike Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dutch, British Telecom (was Billing and Answer Supervision)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 90 09:17:44 PDT


In article <[e-mail]>, David Gast discusses the Dutch
PTT's call counters.  When I was in Holland, my phone had a counter on
the wall, although such a counter isn't required to get a phone
installed; the PTT will keep track of message units whether you have
one or not.  In either case, I suspect that they used the same
technology at the billing office.  You can hear pulses on the
telephone line whenever the counter increments; you can hear these
pulses at the same rate whether you have a counter or not.  This gets
pretty grim on a trans-oceanic call; the pulses come along at better
than one every ten seconds, and make it hard to hear what the person
on the other end of the line is saying.  The person on the other end
of the phone couldn't hear these pulses; someone who understands
telecom better than I do can probably conclude something from that
fact.  As a side note, I can't imagine using a modem over any distance
under circumstances like that.  Until recently, of course, modem use
was strictly controlled, so that wasn't an issue.

One other note on call counters: British Telecom used them to keep
track of message unit consumption and generate bills for subscribers
until very recently -- in fact, they may still do so.  A company I
used to work for offered a bid on an itemized billing system.  The
system we were to replace worked as follows: A bank of counters is
bolted to the wall.  Each has a telephone number written on it.  An
electromechanical assembly moves a *camera* around in front of this
bank.  The camera takes pictures of each of the counters.  A human
being comes and gets the film when it's all used up.  British Telecom
gets the film developed.  The prints are turned over to the billing
people, who use them (along with the previous month's photograph) to
issue the current month's bill.

I never saw this contraption myself, but I heard about it from
engineers who made the trip over there from our company.  Can anyone
confirm or deny this?  Also, I'm interested in what company finally
got the contract for British Telecom's itemized billing system.  What
sort of computer system will they install?  When will they be
finished?  Is the system described above still used?


Mike Olson   POSTGRES Research Group  UC Berkeley   [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Harrison <necssd![e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Introductory Books on Telephony
Date: 4 Apr 90 15:29:18 GMT
Organization: NEC America Inc. SSD, Irving, TX


Can anyone suggest some good books / references to introductory
telephony?  What are typical (college) course names that deal with
with this topic?

Mail to me and I will summarize and repost.

Thanks in advance,


Mark Harrison             [e-mail]
[phone]             {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison
standard disclaimers apply...

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

Subject: Questions About Error in CO
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 15:06:58 EDT
From: Steve Howard <[e-mail]>


I have a few questions about an error in my phone line --

Background Info: I used to have two phone lines in my home.  Line one
busy-hunted to line two.  Eventually, I had line two disconnected.  My
local telco didn't remove the busy-hunt setting in the switch.
Whenever line one is busy, callers get "The number you have reached
234-4567 is being checked for trouble.  Please try your call again
later."  The switch is a #1ESS.

And now for my questions:

1) Why hasn't my telco found this?  (I haven't gone out of my way to
tell them, I enjoy it the way it is :-) ).  Shouldn't a flag/bell/
whistle/alarm go off in the CO telling them of the problem?  Or do
they just ignore the alarms?

2) I called the repair service a few months ago to complain about data
errors on my line.  The rep. punched a few keys and said "your line
isn't showing any errors."  I could understand their inability to
detect data errors, but, they should have found the hunting error.
What type of error counter are they looking at?  (Or, was she faking
it just to shut me up?  :-) ).

Here is the best part: A friend was trying to call me from a local bar
while I was talking on the phone.  She found that if she dialed the
number from a (telco) payphone *without depositing a quarter*, she
would get the "number is being checked for trouble" message.  I
checked this out later ... if you call from my local area this is
true.  If my line is not being used, the recording is "please deposit
25 cents."  If it is in use, the recording is "...checked for
trouble."  So, it would seem that the CO checks out the line before
asking for the quarter.  This adds a new twist to the toll-saver/ "getting
information for free" debate -- you don't need a quarter or a
credit-card number to get your free information!!!

This "problem" has some interesting advantages -- I few months ago, a
date cancelled plans and claimed that she tried to call but said she
"kept getting a busy signal"!!!!  While this is possible, I find it
*highly* doubtful.  The only time I know of people getting a busy
signal was whe there was a cable cut and I couldn't even get a dial
tone.

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

Subject: Databit Alumni (was Let's Hear It For TELECOM Digest!)
Reply-To: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <think!ames!limbic![e-mail]>
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, NY
Date: 5 Apr 90 00:23:24 EDT (Thu)
From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <think!ames!limbic![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Donald E.
Kimberlin) writes:

> P.S. Any other members of the Databit Alumni Association out there?

Actually, yes I was!  I was a technician for Databit for a year about
eight years ago while in college.  What was funny was that I never knew
what I was working on until about two months ago while reading the
Digest and chatting with a telco friend of mine.

Could anyone out there tell me what those 208A (I think that was the
number) 300 baud modem boards were for?  A few years ago, I could
rattle off the number of every board I'd work on, what problems I'd
need to fix most often, and the kinds of stress-tests they'd need.

The modems mentioned above, by the way, were composed of a few
op-amps, TTL chips, and a bunch of discrete components.  There was one
gain resistor which needed to be set by hand using a resistor
subititution box.


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.
  ...!ames!limbic!gil  |  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 13:15:16 -0700
From: Randy Peterson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Info on Getting Access to NPA/NXX Data Bases


I need to determine how to get access to NPA/NXX and exchange data
bases. What is available and means to get access too. Thank you for
any info you might have.


Randy Petersen     [phone]    drp@genuke
Email Paths:  crdgw1!genuke!drp  {pyramid,sun,ames}!mips!genuke!drp

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

Date: 5 Apr 90 07:39:00 EDT
From: "VAXB::DBURKE" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Documentation Needed For ISOETEC EZ-1


I'm looking for any documentation for a small phone system called an
ISOETEC EZ-1.  The last time we had it serviced, the manuals vanished.
To be specific, I'm looking for Programming Guides, User Guides, and
if one exists, an Administrator's Guide.  Also I could use the
name/address/tele # of a reasonable place for service on this unit.
We are also looking for a location to possibly purchase a used NEC
NEAX system from.


Dave Burke  Aquidneck Data Corporation
170 Enterprise Center  Middletown, R.I. 02840
[e-mail]
[phone]

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Flat-rate" Long Distance Services
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 90 13:08:07 GMT


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

>A number of companies are advertising "unlimited long distance calling
>for fees on the order of $200.00/month.  Apparently they insert a
>"black box" in your telco line so that, when you dial long-distance,
>your calls are resent to a 950 number, and then you use one of the
>standard carriers at bulk-rates.

A friend subscribed to a similar service that instead called an 800
number and automatically entered a code and then the long distance
number, utilizing one of those "black boxes".

Problem was that the company oversold the service and I read that
there were only a handful of incoming lines, yet scores of callers!  I
was over many times, watching him redial literally for hours trying to
just get through to the SCC.  Connections sounded like he was calling
one of the Soviet Bloc countries.

I also remember that the "subscriptions" for these services were sold
on a pyramid type system, a-la Amway.

I wouldn't expect a whole lot for $200 a month.  If so I am sure some
of the people in accounting here at Upjohn would like to hear about
it!  :-)


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 12:33:42 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Face Red? You Bet!

> [Moderator's Note: My thanks to the several others who pointed this
> out. My face is permanently red.  The correct address is FTPBIT  at  PUCC.
> Sorry about that!

Yeah, but don't you just HATE when that happens?  Correct one mistake and
make another?  BITFTP was correct, not FTPBIT.  You know, I can almost see
the red glow from out here in Delaware!! ;-)

                         - tom


internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1
Location: Newark, DE, USA


[Moderator's Cuss:  @@#$$^%&**@.  Alright already!  **&%@!!  All
together now: The correct address for the ftp server which allows
Bitnet, Fido and UUCP sites to access Telecom Archives is
'[e-mail]' or '[e-mail]'.  Put standard
ftp commands in letter form, one command to a line.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #232
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15924;
          6 Apr 90 4:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00963;
          6 Apr 90 2:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09214;
          6 Apr 90 1:19 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Apr 90 1:00:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #233
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Apr 90 01:00:02 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 233

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller ID [[e-mail]]
    Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test [William R. Day]
    Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup - Can Someone Tell the Story [Ge' Weijers]
    Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Overhearing Conversations [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Master Clocks Around the World [Jamie Hanrahan]
    Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme [Brian Katzung]
    Re: The Card [Will Martin]
    Specialized Telephone Handsets [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 04 Apr 90 18:28:06 -0900
From: "Tony - Computer Consultant"  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID


Howdy.  I've seen the Caller ID issue spoken about a few times now,
but still have not seen any info I can use. Will someone please send
me info on how I can tell if my area (Anchorage) has this feature?
Also, is there an electronic device I can build that would work on my
residential phone line?  This would be an excellent device for
screening my calls.

                             Tony
                             AXACH@ALASKA     (bitnet)


[Moderator's Note: The easiest and fastest way to tell if your
telephone exchange is thus equipped is to call and ask the Business
Office. They will be more than happy to sell you an array of services
and features if they have them available.  By 'electronic device I can
build' I assume you mean a display box for Caller ID. Consensus is,
unless you subscribe to the service you won't get the information sent
to you; translation on receipt is a trivial matter.  PT]

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

From: microsoft![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test
Reply-To: [e-mail] (William R. Day)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


In article <[e-mail]> uop!quack![e-mail]
(Nick Sayer) writes:

>If I'm up late at night, I sometimes hear a short beep from the phone.
  ...
>Are they testing the line? Are they trying to tell me something? Is
>Charlie listening (or Gerry or Ivan for that matter)? :-)

Same here. It seems that every night at about 11:30pm the phones in
our house give a short half-ring. What is going on? I've decided the
regularity is too great for this to be random noise on the line.


Randy Day  microsoft![e-mail]    Standard Disclaimers.

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

From: Ge' Weijers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story?
Date: 5 Apr 90 09:58:10 GMT


[e-mail] (David M Watt) writes:

>I understand that modems faster than 1200 baud are illegal (!) in the
>FRG because of regulations that were promulgated and enforced by D.B.

Not really, but their regulations on non-DBP modems were horrible, so
no manufacturer got a modem on the market. The Hayes command set was
not approved because it was not a CCITT standard. Their prices were
also skyhigh.  Nowadays fast modems are possible thanks to (amongst
others) the announced EEC rules. Don't think you can just plug in a
TrailBlazer, though.

>I also heard that many, many people in Germany were disobeying those
>rules.  Could someone provide some background and history about all of
>this?  What does it mean to the German modem punter?

Disobeying the rules is not illegal at the moment, because a court of
appeal has deemed the current rule-giving practice to be
unconstitutional. The 'Grundgesetz' does not allow the parliament to
delegate legislating.  A journalist did fight the DBP on this subject,
and won.

All DBP regulations on telecom may be unenforcible. This is a good
thing, as they are usually on the ridiculous side. EEC rules will
replace them anyway.  The DBP has stopped prosecutions for the most
part. People might want to ask for their fines back.

On the subject of ridiculous rules, the DBP rules on radio receivers
are/were even more bizarre. You were not allowed to use an approved
radio set to listen to out-of-band transmissions, like the BBC and
(you guessed it!) the Deutsche Welle. Receiving transmissions on the
OIRT bands from countries in the east is still not legally possible,
although the European Court might think differently.  This looks like
censorship. The DBP is a bureaucracy with too much power, and a
paternalistic tradition.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With Mitel 200-D PBX
Date: 5 Apr 90 14:28:54 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Dan Margolis writes:

> > This is probably not bogus.  One problem with loop start trunks is
> > that they cannot be depended upon to give a reliable disconnect.

> This is not necessarily the case. Except for misprogrammed digital
> switches, sufficient loop current interruption is generated by
> virually all commonly used CO switching equipment on loop start trunks
> upon disconnect or dial tone reacquisition. 1 and 1A ESS equipment is
> especially good at this.

Not all customer lines are connected directly to CO ports by metallic
circuits.  If you are served by one of the "pair gain" multiplexing
systems, it may or may not repeat loop interruptions toward your PBX.
The problem is not that disconnections are never available, it's that
they cannot be depended upon on loop-start circuits.

> Furthermore, most PBX switches that allow unattended trunk to trunk
> communications also provide a "MAX TIME" for connection...
> In the case of the ITT 3100, you can even set ground start trunks for
> unlimited time and loop start for some reasonable value, such as 30
> minutes.

The ITT 3100 is nice, in this respect, but it's a crude hack.  If
parties on two trunks are happily involved in a conversation that
happens to last more than 30 minutes, it will apparently disconnect
them!  It's crude, but probably nicer than not allowing the
conversation to get started in the first place!

> BTW, my Panasonic KX-T1232 allows trunk to trunk transfer and
> unerringly disconects when the callers hang up. The Panasonic uses
> only loop start lines. My CO is a 1ESS.

I suggest that it is only unerring because you have metallic
connections to your local 1ESS.  We have 1A-ESS with SLC-96 between us
and the CO.  It happens to repeat loop-disconnects, so our Mitel SX-5
also unerringly disconnects when the CO wants it to.  SLC-96 is a
relatively recent type of subscriber loop multiplexing.  Some of the
older analog SLC systems are less PBX-friendly.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel A Margolis)
writes:

> John L. Shelton writes:

> >When I forward my line to an outside number, inside callers get my
> >voice mail, but outside callers get a busy signal.  My PBX service
> >provider says that's because we have "loop start" trunks instead of
> >"ground start," but this sounds bogus to me.

> >Anyone have experience with this scenario?

> This is probably not bogus.  One problem with loop start trunks is
> that they cannot be depended upon to give a reliable disconnect.  If
> your PBX were to forward an incoming trunk to an outgoing trunk with
> no in-system user and both trunks fail to disconnect, your system may
> never hang-up the trunks.  With at least one of the two being ground
> start, you can be sure one of the trunks will get disconnected...

Mitel requires that the _incoming_ call be from a ground-start trunk
when they forward off-premises.  It is not sufficient to have
ground-start on the outbound trunk.

Consider the case where the forward-to number is busy.  In most COs,
the outgoing trunk will never go off-hook, and therefore can never go
on-hook, and therefore will never drop.  If the inbound trunk cannot
drop the call (because it is loop-start and cannot be trusted to
provide open-loop forward disconnect) and the outbound trunk cannot
drop the call because it was never answered, you end up with two
trunks permanently connected and out of service.

Mitel also prevents the attendant or a station user from transferring
a trunk call to another trunk unless both trunks are ground start.
(Conferences are permitted, transfers are not.)

> Some PBXs let you override this restriction, but you run the risk of
> busying out your trunks.


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: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations
Date: 5 Apr 90 15:44:53 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I've had incredible crosstalk on a bunch of modem lines - turned out
the installer had punched the lines down on the 66-block off by one
(doubling up on the first one), so I had tip of one pair and ring of
the adjacent one appearing on each of my RJ-11s (except the last one,
which was dead because it had only one connected wire).

On the Ericsson switch we have here, that wiring error allowed any one
modem to work without a problem, or any two as long as they weren't on
adjacent pairs.

Repair service couldn't figure it out; I had to trace it out and show
them.  Now I own a punch tool.

    - Brian

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World
Date: 3 Apr 90 12:39:56 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

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

> Patrick missed a couple of other time sources...

> WWV-Voice (Ft. Collins) 303-499-7111
> WWVH-Voice (Kekaha) 808-355-4363

Which, in essence, let you listen to WWV without a shortwave receiver.

I've noted on several occasions in the past -- and also last weekend
when I was checking up on my "time stretch" program for VMS -- that
the local telco (Pacific*Bell) clock seems to be synched very well to
WWV (as received via shortwave).  Right to the tick, as far as I can
determine!  Do they run a receiver on WWV and automatically adjust
their clock according to the digital time signals buried in the
transmission (a la the Heath "Most Accurate Clock"), or do they just
use a very accurate timebase of their own?

    --- Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA
Internet:  [e-mail], or if that fails, [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 12:47:29 CDT
From: Brian Katzung <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF-to-Text Code Scheme
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL

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

|  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

I'm guessing that you have the wrong (highlights in the) mnemonic,
because now '.' and 'S' both have code 73.

|                   78         ?        QUestion mark (Q = 7)

A little food for thought: Suppose you minimize travel distances by
letting 1=4=7, 2=5=8, and 3=6=9 for the second digit (ie, 44=41=G,
89=83=V, etc).  If you don't force same-row second digit, you lose
most of your punctuation.  Even if you do, you lose 78/?.  However,
second letters are unique for the punctuation, so you could use
"one-codes": 15=bLank, 16=cOmma, 19=eXclamation, 13=pEriod, and
18=qUestion mark.  With a little practice, you could "touch touch
tone" (use the index, middle, and ring fingers with 4-5-6 as home
row).

I can see that single-digit drop-outs could garble things up a bit for
a few characters (in both schemes, but more so in mine).


   Brian Katzung  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 11:51:32 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Reply-To: [e-mail]

>I asked a
>Universal Card rep about that; she said that if your calling number and
>your name identify you as an established AT&T Long Distance customer,
>then they already had obtained your credit history and have both that
>report and your payment record with AT&T Long Distance since then on file.

Hmmm, interesting. I wonder just how they define "an established AT&T
Long Distance customer"...? I have AT&T as my 1+ and have a good
credit rating, as far as I know [does getting continually pestered
with "pre-approved" solicitations for various gold cards prove that?].
But we make very few interstate LD calls, mostly making intrastate
calls within SW Bell's billing area [and being grossly overcharged, to
reference another discussion thread :-)]. So we have few dealings with
AT&T.

I was asked the usual series of residence, employer, and income
questions that other netters reported already. The rep I spoke with
when applying did not seem to have access to personal data about me.
The first thing she asked was my telephone number (I called from a
work phone, so her display probably had either my real work number or
a generic number identifying this Defense Telephone Service exchange)
and I sort of expected her to follow up that initial query with
questions like "You still live at <address>?" indicating she was
looking at my data on her screen. But she did not, instead seeming to
be filling out a blank form.

So perhaps the only AT&T customers they have on their database are
ones who have done more than $X business with them in the past <n>
months, or some similar selection criteria?


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


[Moderator's Note: I think part of the discrepancy in who gets asked
which questions has to do with the status of the computer data base at
the time of your call.  People calling in the early morning hours and
on weekends don't have their files readily accessible to the
interviewer since the system is down for maintainence, etc.  PT]

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

Subject: Specialized Telephone Handsets
Date: 5 Apr 90 23:20:07 EST (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> tots![e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

> I saw a phone once (Bell System 2500) that had a push-to-talk swith in
> the handset, and was told that this was because the "infinity bugs"
> were still around.  Don't ask where, or when :-)

    This sounds like a G8A handset, which is used in telephone
installations with high ambient noise.  The G8A handset also has a
volume control for receive volume.  When the handset key is depressed,
it simultaneously reduces transmitter gain (to reduce sidetone) and
increases receiver gain.

    I'm afraid that this type of handset has a mnore mundane
purpose than electronic countermeasures against eavesdropping. :-)


<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700       {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488

[Moderator's Note: A special issue of the Digest this weekend will be
a lengthy article by Mr. Lippman on Infinity Transmitters, a topic
which has been recently discussed in the Digest.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #233
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17179;
          6 Apr 90 5:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04924;
          6 Apr 90 3:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00963;
          6 Apr 90 2:27 CDT
Date:     Fri, 6 Apr 90 1:47:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #234
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Apr 90 01:47:26 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 234

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    800 Service From AT&T [Don H. Kemp]
    New New England Tel Monitoring Center [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Hotel Charges - Wrap-up [Scott D. Green]
    What Are All the x/11 and x/12 Numbers For? [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: 800 Service From AT&T
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 14:05:39 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


AT&T's newest service assurance program ...


FOR RELEASE:  THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1990

     BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- AT&T today announced a new level of
built-in safeguards for its 800 service customers.

     As part of the company's continuing program to provide customers
with the highest call completion rates in the business, an array of
network enhancements and call routing options will be available
beginning in late spring.

     "To 800 service customers whose businesses depend on incoming
calls for orders or information, a lost call is lost revenue," said
Cliff Holtz, district manager, 800 services.  "Our goal is to continue
to deliver what customers tell us they value most -- call completion
reliability. These added safeguards do exactly that."

     The enhancements and features for AT&T 800 service include:

     o Adding alternate routing paths from the local company exchange
to AT&T's existing 800 network. By end of year, dedicated trunks will
be available to carry 800-only calls in the most active LATAs (Local
Access and Transport Areas served by a local telephone company)
nationwide.

     Currently, within these LATAs, trunks carry 800 calls along with
other long-distance traffic to the AT&T network.  These trunks will
continue to serve as an added measure of safety to the new trunk
options. The new alternate routing options added to carry only 800
calls will protect against switch and trunk disruptions.

     o A completely separate, signalling network, called Alternate
Signalling Transfer Network (ASTN), can take over for the primary
signalling network in a matter of seconds, leaving calling traffic
virtually uninterrupted.

     The signalling network does not carry the calls, it reads and
processes critical information about each call and informs the
transport switches of the destination of each call, mapping out the
route in advance in milliseconds.

     ASTN uses protocols and software that are independent of those of
the primary signalling network. It will be fully deployed by the end
of the year, providing back up signalling capacity for AT&T's 800
network traffic.

     o Duplicated Network Control Points (NCPs) deployed throughout
the AT&T network in geographically separate signalling regions.

     Unlike regular long-distance telephone calls, which have a
destination precoded into the number, 800 numbers must be translated
into special network routing numbers so the transport switch knows
where to send the call. Translations are performed in NCPs.

     Each NCP has its own built-in backup processor. In addition, NCPs
are deployed as mated pairs within the same geographic region. By
year-end, 1991, the company is planning to move the duplicate NCPs to
a separate signalling region.  This reduces the probability of NCP
congestion should there be trouble within a region.

     o An alternate number translation feature for customers willing
to purchase an additional backup database for critical 800 numbers.
All AT&T 4ESS(tm) transport switches are being fitted with an
emergency translation database that can store 800 service numbers,
like jewels in a safety deposit box.  The feature can be purchased by
year end.

     o Real Time Network Routing will make virtually the entire
network available for each call, starting in 1991.  New software will
give the network 114 ways to complete each 800 call, providing almost
unlimited ability to route calls around congestion or disruptions.

     Currently, AT&T's Dynamic Non-Hierarchical Routing (DNHR) sends
calls along one of 21 possible routes.

      o Fast Automatic Restoration (FASTAR) to restore network routes
with computer speed.  Beginning in 1991, FASTAR's software will enable
it to devise the most efficient route around disrupted transport
paths, using the same logic and processes as technicians, but with
computer speed.

     FASTAR, by drawing on reserve capacity, will be able to draw on
hundreds of possible routes to send calls.

     In addition, customers also can order two routing features to
ensure that critical MEGACOM (R) 800 calls pass safely from the AT&T
800 network to their offices.

     o Split Access Flexible Egress Routing (SAFER) allows the AT&T
4ESS switch that normally directs calls to the customer's location to
be programmed to redirect calls through an alternate switch if they
cannot be completed through the primary switch.

     Calls would be diverted automatically to the backup 4ESS switch
and from there delivered to the customer's location over an alternate,
physically separate trunk line.

     o Alternate Destination Call Routing (ADCR) for customers with
toll-free operations in more than one location. ADCR allows the AT&T
4ESS switch that normally carries the calls to the customer's location
to route incoming calls to another business location automatically if
there is a problem.

     For example, if the customer's Automatic Call Director (ACD) at
the main location is unavailable or busy, calls would be forwarded
automatically to an alternate location.  Calls would be directed
either through the original AT&T 4ESS switch or through an alternate
switch, protecting against disruptions in AT&T switches, local
exchange switches or customer equipment.

     SAFER and ADCR will be introduced in the marketplace by mid-year.

     "We made our commitment clear several months ago when we
introduced our AT&T 800 Assurance Policy. That guarantee, offered free
to every 800 customer, was the beginning of highlighting the built-in
protection behind AT&T's 800 service. In essence, the call must go
through.  These new features ensure more than ever that they will,"
said Holtz.

                    # # #


Don H Kemp  B B & K Associates, Inc.  Rutland, VT  uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 10:42:50 -0400
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: New New England Tel Monitoring Center


[Moderator's Note: This is from the April 5 [Middlesex News],
Framingham, Mass. Mr. Gaffin writes regularly for that paper, and
shares his telecom-related stories with us here at the Digest.  PT]


By Adam Gaffin
NEWS STAFF WRITER

FRAMINGHAM - It will look like something out of ``War Games.'' But a
control center now under construction on Rte. 30 will help route phone
calls, not thermonuclear weapons.

     New England Telephone is currently turning its old engineering
center on Rte. 30 into a network operations center that will let it
monitor phone lines and calling conditions in the five New England
states it serves (all but Connecticut).

     The expensive center, which the company says may be the first of
its kind in the nation, should start operating in June, according to
company spokeswoman Roberta Clement. ``We're talking very costly
technology,'' Clement said, adding she did not have a specific cost
estimate yet.  Roughly 350 employees will transfer to the site from
other company locations, she said Wednesday.

     The center, next to the Framingham Mall, will also house a
laboratory for testing new equipment, an employee wellness center and
a customer-service and new-product area for business customers, she
said.  Although computerized switches can automatically route most
calls, people are still needed to route calls during emergencies or
when lines become overloaded to keep the whole network from
collapsing, Clement said.

     Large, wall-mounted color screens will display the ``trunk''
lines and central switching stations that carry and route phone calls
from city to city across the region, while workers will be able to
monitor smaller, local circuits on other screens, she said.

     These and other indicators will help workers detect and fix
problems before they affect the network.

      As examples of the need for a human touch, Clement pointed to
last fall's earthquake in San Francisco and a 1988 incident in which
workers accidentally shorted out the Framingham central switching
station.

     ``You knew something is happening even though the board does not
show San Francisco,'' because worried New Englanders began trying to
call into the Bay area, and phone-company supervisors had to begin
choosing new routes for calls to take out of the region, she said.

     In the 1988 incident, it took workers several hours to restore
phone service to Framingham. By then, so many people were trying to
call into Framingham to see what had happened that workers had to
``choke off'' calls into town to keep local lines free for emergency
calls, she said.

     Network monitoring is now done at two separate facilities in
Boston, in conjunction with switching stations across the region. The
Boston centers had also run out of room for expansion and had limited
parking for employees, she said, adding local switching stations will
stay open.

     Even though the region's population is not growing much, call
volumes continue to increase dramatically, in large part because of
the growing use of computers, she said.

     ``The telecommunications industry is really in its infancy,'' she
said. ``Particularly with data and ISDN, it's exploding,'' she said,
referring to a relatively new phone technology that lets large
customers use phone lines for voice and high-speed data transmission
at the same time.


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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 09:51 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel Charges - Wrap-up

re:  Hotel/Motel Charges

Thanks to all who responded, both publicly and privately, to my
question of "What's Fair?" with regard to guest charges on a phone
bill.  Respondents included hotel guests (both satisfied and
dissatisfied), another hotel PBX administrator, and a vendor of
systems to hotel clients.  All most interesting.

Before I summarize, a bit about our property.  It is actually an
on-campus conference center - one price covers program, lodgings, and
board - so it's pretty much a captive audience.  Guests are here about
four nights, except for one program which runs about six weeks.  It's
a fairly prestigious University, so image is as important as the
actual services delivered to the guests.

My concern from the outset has been the apparent nickel-and-diming of
the guests over phone calls.  And for those six-week participants, it
turned out to be a lot more than nickels and dimes.

Our rate structure:                Our Cost        We Charge

Local Un-timed            $.07 (max.)        $.50

Local Timed            $.03-.21 min        Day Rate + $.50

Intra-Lata Long Distance    $.06-.24 min        Day Rate + $1.20

Direct Dial via AT&T        Pro-Wats        Day Rate + $1.75

0+ or 10xxx+0+    (AT&T)        -0-            $1

0- or 00- or 10xxx+0-            blocked

DA                $.60 (max.)        $.75

950-                -0-            $1

800-                -0-            -0-

700-, 900, 976-, etc.            blocked.

As of 3/30/90, the Business Office is cancelling the $1 levy on 0+ and
950- calls.  I'd also like to see the extra buck dropped from Direct
Dial, too.

By the way, on each floor there are several common rooms, each with a
PBX extension, and several extensions in our meeting room lobby area.
All allow *free* untimed local calls and non-sur-charged 0+ calls.
Inconsistent, you say?  You bet!  There are also several (genuine
Bell) pay phones in the house, using AT&T.

In reference to room-to-room dialling, we use just the room number.

Now to your comments.  Some emotional, some anecdotal.  Many
well-thought-out.

On the subject of Guest Relations:

[e-mail] - ". . .look, the hotel is supposed to be
'home-away-from-home' where we are 'honored guests' - when you have a
guest in your house, are you going to charge him for using the phone?
for a local call?  for making a long-distance call when he is using
his own charge-card?"

[e-mail] - "Most properties work like crazy to make a good
impression, then completely blow the guest relations aspect of
telecom. . .usually because they don't use it and therefore don't
understand it.

Something that really bugs us is the "surprise factor" upon checkout.
Caveat Emptor:

[e-mail] - "I do not object to any fee structure AS LONG AS I
AM INFORMED IN ADVANCE AND I FEEL I AM BILLED ACCURATELY."

[e-mail] - "I recall having appreciated a sign at the
Columbia River Gorge Hotel in Hood River (a '75-cent minimum' sign),
with the implication that further charges would apply to longer
calls."

[e-mail] - "Whatever policy, make absolutely certain that
it's given out in writing to everyone who checks in and that the hotel
staff understand it well."

And about rates in general:

[e-mail] - "if you charge more that a legitimate
pay-phone, then you are likely to give offense. . .I would expect the
surcharge to be roughly the same as the calling card sur- charge for a
0+ call."

[e-mail] - "I'll pay $.25/local call, and zero for
access.  Anything else is a rip, AND MAKES ME REEVALUATE IF I WANT TO
STAY THERE."

[e-mail] - "What's fair?  Telephone service at cost!  No
surcharges!!"

[e-mail] - "My preference is to have a flat $.50/.75 charge
for each call external to the hotel.  There should be no surcharge
over AT&T DDD rates."

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

My thanks for all of the well-thought-out comments and suggestions.
Thanks also to [e-mail] and JOYMRMN![e-mail] for
sending along "hospitality" pricing schemes.

My recommendation to my colleagues here will be, essentially, pay
phone rates from room phones.  That is, a continuation of untimed
local calling, DDD at Day Rate plus the OA charge, no surcharges where
they shouldn't be, free 950 calling, and no tone-blocking or 10xxx
blocking.  If we can encourage more use of Direct Dial calling by
pricing it competitively with credit card usage, we'll be coming out
ahead.  I will also renew my suggestion to add some of the overhead to
the room rates.


-Scott

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

From: the Watcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 90 01:57:25 PST
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM


Presumably the question of "what are all the x11/x00 numbers for" has come
up before, and if my site could ftp (perhaps this should be "if I knew how
to ftp from my site"), I could get them from the proper archives.
of x11, I know that:

        911     Emergency
        811     Pac*Bell billing/service numbers
        611     Repair
        411     Information
        011     International

I do remember some archaic mention to the effect that 211 was once
used for something, but it escapes me now. notice that 111, 211, 311,
511 and 711 aren't used, but they haven't been assigned either as
prefixes or area codes. 511 would be an ideal replacement for the
"555-1212" used to get information in another area code (ie, 1-617-511
for eastern MA information), while 711 could be used to get the
location of the nearest convenience store (ie. 711 would get you a
recorded message telling you where the nearest 7-11 to where you were
calling from was, pause so you could hang up, then ring you through to
that 7-11 [regionally this would be circle-K or equivalent].)
Admittedly, a strange idea.  of x00:

        900     Fixed-charge dial-in "services"
        800     Toll-free
        700     Reprogrammable destination (???)

The rest of them ([0-6]00) aren't used for anything (we know about). The
last discussion I remember about 700 numbers (some years ago, someplace
other than the Digest) was to the effect that it would connect you from
anywhere in the continental US to whatever number it was last programmed to
(ie. travelling salesman/phoneco employee/etc gets to omaha, programs in the
number to his hotel room to his assigned 700 number, you call the 700 number
and get that person wherever they are).

Any idea what these things may be intended for? Perhaps a nationwide
cellular service is in the works ...  and what about x10 numbers?
someone here mentioned 710.


[e-mail]                            ?_tW_?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #234
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19926;
          7 Apr 90 22:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27565;
          7 Apr 90 20:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08530;
          7 Apr 90 19:38 CDT
Date:     Sat, 7 Apr 90 18:30:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Infinity Transmitters
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Apr 90 18:28:00 CDT   Special: Infinity Transmitters

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The "Infinity Transmitter": Fact, Fiction and Fairy Tale [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The "Infinity Transmitter": Fact, Fiction and Fairy Tale
Date: 4 Apr 90 14:22:47 EST (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


    Some recent articles have made mention of an eavesdropping
device commonly called the "Infinity Transmitter", a/k/a the
"Harmonica Bug".  I will address some specific aspects of a few recent
articles in a moment, but first I'll provide some background and a
more accurate description of this device.

    The "infinity transmitter", in the form which has been known
to the general public, was developed around 1963 by an interesting
character from New York City with the name of Manny Mittelman.
Mittelman, whose knowledge of electronics was largely self-taught, ran
a small business called the Wireless Guitar Company.  The first
product of his company during the 1950's was, as readers may have
already guessed, a small FM transmitter with acoustic pickup that
transmitted the sound of a guitar to a companion receiver.

    Mittelman quickly learned, however, that there was more money
to be made selling a slightly modified version of this FM transmitter
for eavesdropping purposes than for music applications.  Mittelman
expanded his product line to include other types of eavesdropping
devices, and primarily sold his products to private investigators,
some local law enforcement agencies, and anyone who walked into his
store with money in hand.

    I am not certain what caused his "infinity transmitter" to
become a matter of public knowledge, but I suspect it was his
testimony before Senator Long's investigating committee, which was a
precursor to passage of the federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968.  One of the key provisions of this legislation
were various prohibitions against use, manufacture, advertising,
interstate transportation and sale of eavesdropping devices; these
laws are contained in U.S.C. Title 18, Sections 2510 to 2520.

    The "infinity transmitter", while a clever idea which
apparently captivated the public's vivid imagination, was actually a
rather crude eavesdropping device with extremely limited usefulness.
Not only could the device be detected by a subject's suspicion in
hearing occasional short rings of their telephone, but continued use
of the device would cause a subject's line to be busy for legitimate
callers.  It does not take much imagination to envision a caller
complaining to the subject that "your line has been busy for hours",
with the subject knowing full well that their telephone was not in
use.

    The "infinity transmitter" as produced by Mittelman, and later
cloned by other purveyors of eavesdropping apparatus, drew
approximately 3 milliamperes of current from the telephone line in an
on-hook state.  This corresponds to a loop resistance leak of
approximately 16,000 ohms, which can be readily detected by any
telephone company test board.  Anyone with a simple VOM could also
detect the presence of such a device on a subject's telephone line.

    In the on-hook state the primary source of power consumption
was the tone detector circuit, which consisted of a simple LC bandpass
filter with a center frequency of approximately 500 Hz, the output of
which went to a pre-amplifier, limiter and relay driver.  Bear in mind
that at the time this device was developed and sold, there were
neither CMOS IC's nor a practicable source of FET's which could
withstand the transient voltages of telephone applications.  The
circuitry was designed and built using discrete germanium and silicon
transistors of 1960's vintage; therefore, quiescent power consumption
was in the milliampere and not microampere range.

    The "infinity transmitter" only worked with certain central
office switching apparatus, typically SxS, panel, No. 1 XBAR, and
*early* No. 5 XBAR.  The infinity transmitter will not work with any
ESS apparatus, be it analog or digital.

    The "infinity transmitter" exploited a loophole in the design
of the SxS connector, and in panel and early XBAR interoffice trunks.
While the actual circuit description would be difficult to convey in
this type of forum, I will attempt a brief explanation.  In the above
type of CO apparatus no speech path exists between the calling and
called parties until the called party goes off-hook, operating a "ring
trip" relay during either the silent or ringing interval, which in
turn operates a called party supervisory relay which provides battery
feed to the called party and then remains operated by the loop closure
furnished by the called party's telephone being off-hook.  Operation
of the called party supervisory relay also completes the speech path
to the calling party, typically through a 2 uF capacitor on the tip
side, and a 2 uF capacitor on the ring side.

    Early telephone CO apparatus (SxS, panel and early XBAR)
utilized electromechanical ringing machines which were rich in audible
harmonics.  Audible ringback tone to the calling party was therefore
supplied by a capacitor (typically .04 to .05 uF) which was ALWAYS
connected between the ring side of the calling and called parties.
Therefore, the calling party heard an attenuated version of the same
ringing voltage which was actually ringing the called party's
telephone line.  During the silent ringing interval, a poor but
nevertheless real audio path did in fact exist between calling and
called party; this audio path probably resulted in an end-to-end
insertion loss of between 20 and 45 dB, depending upon loop length and
capacitance of calling and called parties.

    In the original Mittelman version, a loudly-blown harmonica
was used as a source of the 500 Hz trigger signal, hence the alternate
name for this device, "Harmonica Bug".

    As mentioned above, the "infinity transmitter" worked with
SxS, panel, No. 1 XBAR and early No. 5 XBAR.  However, a major ringing
and tone plant upgrade program by the Bell System during the 1960's
quickly rendered the "infinity transmitter" inoperable in most No. 5
XBAR CO's.  Changing to the precise tones necessary for touch-tone
service was a major factor behind the ringing and tone plant upgrade
effort.  The implication for No. 5 XBAR was that ringing current
obtained from solid-state supplies no longer had the harmonic content
necessary for for capacitively-coupled ringback tone.  As a result,
the intraoffice trunks in existing No. 5 XBAR, and in new No. 5 XBAR,
were modified to supply ringback tone from a dedicated source of
ringback tone, thereby eliminating the .04 uF capacitor mentioned
above.  With this capacitor gone, the "infinity transmitter" could no
longer function as there was longer any audio path in advance of
ring-trip.

In article <[e-mail]> tots![e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

> Has anyone actually seen one of these things, or is it just a myth
> that a *lot* of people believe in?

    It's not a myth.  I have seen one, and it was a rectangular
block potted with black Scotchcast resin, measuring approximately 3
inches by 1 inch by 3/4 inch.  It fit between the dial mounting
brackets and the network on a 500-type telephone.

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

> ... misunderstanding of the phrase "this device allows you to call up and
> listen through the handset mike without the handset being picked up"
> leads people to believe there is a device I can use on _my_ end to
> call an untampered phoneset and listen through the handset.

> The latter is obviously false since there is no electrical connection
> between the handset mike and the line in an on-hook telephone.

    Actually, there *is* a connection to the handset in an
unmodified 500-type telephone set; there is inductive coupling between
the bridged ringer and the transformer windings in the 425-type
network.  An eavesdropping device does exist to exploit this fact,
although its usefulness today is rather limited since telephone sets
with electronic networks are rapidly replacing the traditional
500-type set.  Effective use of this device requires that it be no
more than several hundred feet from the subject's telephone set, and
installation of this device requires that the subject's telephone pair
be broken and routed *through* a special device, which is rather
complex and not exactly small.  No entry to the subject's premises or
modification to their telephone set is required.  This device works
through sending short, fast risetime high energy pulses into a
subject's ringer at a multiple of a resonant frequency of the network
formed by the handset and 425-type network in an on-hook state.  These
pulses have too little average energy to cause any mechanical
operation of the ringer, in addition to being of a frequency
inappropriate for ringer operation.

     As far as I know, this device fortunately does not exist in
the private sector; however, there has been some disclosure in the
media over the years, although never with technical details of the
nature that I have just furnished (which is also the extent to which I
am prepared to disclose them).

In article <[e-mail]> pixar![e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
writes:

> I guess it sometimes took a few tries to get the
> connection, thus someone might get a lot of ring-and-hang-ups if they
> were bugged with this device.

> Do modern COs still work that way?

    Fortunately, no.

In article <[e-mail]> rsiatl![e-mail] (John G. De Armond)
writes:
    A Fairy Tale as follows...

> Yes these things do exist.  I used one in the early '70s to get the
> goods on my boss who was, it turns out, planning on having some pot
> planted in my car in order to have me fired.  I worked for the
> government at the time.  I got my infinity transmitter from a friend
> who worked for a well known government agency whose name begins with a
> "C" :-).

    Surely you are referring to the Civilian Conservation Corps,
since no other agency would use a device as crude and impracticable as
this one.

> The transmitter looked just like a regular phone network device.  It
> was installed inside a normal (at the time) dial phone.

    I have never known of this device to be built into a 425-type
network.  It would be *absurd* to go to the trouble of designing and
building such a device in a network since it can be so easily detected
by simple loop current and/or voltage measurement.  Furthermore, ever
look closely at a 425-type network in a 500-type station set?  The
network is *riveted* to the base, and it would not be that easy to
duplicate the riveting during a clandestine installation.
Furthermore, early 425-type networks had some wires from the
hookswitch soldered directly to them, further complicating a
clandestine installation.

    No one in their right mind would ever go to the trouble of
designing and building an "infinity transmitter" into a network; its
ease of detection through other means clearly negates such effort.

> The procedure
> when you want to monitor ambient conversations is to dial the number
> of the phone containing the infinity transmitter and apply a sequence
> of tones to the line as the last digit is completed.
> A sequence is used to keep amateur sweeps (and some sophisticated
> ones) from finding the bug by sweeping the line with a variable
> frequency tone.  The infinity transmitter detects these tones and
> picks up the line before the bell has a chance to ring.

    Please, spare us.  No "sequence of tones" was ever used to
hide the presence of this device, since it sticks out like a sore
thumb to other means of detection.  A simple voltmeter placed across
the subject's telephone line at their premises will show at least a 3
volt drop from expected on-hook voltage, on say, a 500 ohm CO loop.  A
simple milliammeter placed in series with the subject's telephone line
will show a 3 mA current flow where the expected value is *zero*.

    Furthermore, the "infinity transmitter" had enough trouble in
detecting a single tone without exceeding 3 mA on-hook loop current;
the thought of 1960's technology in detecting multiple tones with
appropriate combinatorial and timing logic without exceeding this
current flow is absurd.  Even 3 mA is enough current to cause dialing
trouble and premature ring-trip problems on some longer CO loops.

> I usually would just hang up, though it was recommended that
> the tapper go ahead and act like he had reached a wrong number so as
> not to raise alarm with the target with all the single and aborted rings.

    This, in Mr. De Armond's own words, is one fundamental reason
why the "infinity transmitter" is a largely impracticable device.

> The big limitation with these bugs was the quality of the handset
> microphone.

    Not true.

    The carbon handset transmitter is actually a rather decent and
sensitive microphone, if properly excited and coupled to a
well-designed pre-amplifier circuit.  The carbon microphone has one
thing going for it which balances other shortcomings - it has a large
diaphragm surface area.

> Oh yeah, about my problem.  I confronted my boss behind closed doors
> with those tapes and tapes from a phone tap I'd installed too and we
> reached an agreement on a truce until I could transfer to another agency.

    That's really great.  IF your alleged experience is true, then
YOU are the one who committed multiple crimes, not your alleged boss.
Eavesdropping of the nature you describe is a felony in most, if not
all states, in addition to violating U.S.C. Title 18 Section 2511,
which is of a felony nature.  While violation of the federal statute
is not always present in the absence of involvement with interstate
communication or interstate commerce, if we are to believe that your
alleged "government" employer is the U.S. government, or receives any
funding from the U.S.  government, then we have most likely attained
federal jurisdiction.

    Also, I note with interest that in his article Mr. De Armond
provided us with his amateur radio call sign, WD4OQC.  It may assist
Telecom readers in evaluating his story to know that according to the
amateur radio operator database available through ftp, Mr. De Armond
was a teenager until December 11, 1974.

    I'm sorry if I may appear harsh to Mr. De Armond, but there are
enough *real* problems in the world involving unlawful eavesdropping,
without the need to invent any more myths.


<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700       {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488        "Have you hugged your cat today?"


[Moderator's Note: Bravo! Mr. Lippman, this was indeed an excellent
presntation, and on behalf of all the readers -- the possible
exception being Mr. De Armond -- I thank you for sharing with us.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Infinity Transmitters
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20176;
          7 Apr 90 22:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27565;
          7 Apr 90 20:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08530;
          7 Apr 90 19:38 CDT
Date:     Sat, 7 Apr 90 19:09:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #235
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Apr 90 19:09:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 235

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Mercury in the UK: A Question [Dave Lockwood]
    Re: Mercury in the UK: A Question [Chris Davies]
    Re: US Sprint [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: The Card [Victor S. Schwartz]
    Re: Cellular Phone Question [Al Ginbey]
    Re: Cellular Billing [Karl Denninger]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [John Higdon]
    Re: A Small Simple Question [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Master Clocks Around the World [Linc Madison]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [John Cowan]
    Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Lockwood <vision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mercury in the UK: A Question
Date: 6 Apr 90 10:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Lockwood <vision![e-mail]>
Organization: VisionWare Ltd., Leeds, UK


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail] (woody) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 229, Message 7 of 10

>I have heard about this Mercury service in the UK, which is something
>like a competing phone company. Originally, I believe they were into
>public telephone service (like COCOTs or something like that).

>Are they into long distance, also, in the manner that Sprint or MCI
>would be in the US? If so, how would calls be dialed through (ie. what
>is the UK equivalent of 10XXX+ or 950 service, if any?).

Mercury provide several services in the telecommunications area. Each
service has a four digit number (most of which I can't remember) but
the services are basically:

1.  A dial-up (10XXX+ like) service. Here, you get a PIN (like a bank
card PIN 10 digits) from Mercury for about nine pounds ($13) per year.
To use the service, you dial "131" from a conventional (British
Telecom) phone, wait for the tone, enter your PIN followed by the
required DN.  The advantages are mainly on costs. Mercury charge each
call on duration (at different levels for different destinations) to
1/100th second, then round up to the nearest penny. British Telecom
charge everything in "units" which cost around 5p - in other words, if
a unit for a particular distance is 60sec in length, and you make a
61sec call, you'll be charged for two units.

Also, Mercury rates are cheaper than BT in most cases (including
International and Cellular). It's actually slightly cheaper to call
0898 numbers (same as 900 numbers) via Mercury, too!

2.  A Mercury "line" service. Actually this is a digital 2Mb/sec
private microwave link into the Mercury dial network. Costs around
32000 pounds to setup I understand and gives 32 64kb/s channels. (Yes
they do come and stick a microwave dish on your roof).

3.  Mercury local service. Only available in a very small part of the
UK.  Get a phone line (and phone) from Mercury!

4.  Mercury private circuits. National and International.

5.  Mercury X.25 network. Sorry, fairly new, know nothing about it.

Disclaimer: We are a user of service (1) above, and reduce our phone call
charges by 15 to 39% :-). Other than that, no connection.


    Dave Lockwood                      These opinions are shareware.
    Technical Consultant               If you like them, send $10...
    [e-mail]                  VisionWare Ltd,
    ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!vision!davel   57 Cardigan Lane, Leeds, LS4 2LE
    [phone] X224                United Kingdom
               VISIONWARE DOS/UNIX Integration

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

From: Chris Davies <vision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mercury in the UK: A Question
Date: 6 Apr 90 12:24:48 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Davies <vision![e-mail]>
Organization: VisionWare Ltd., Leeds, UK


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail] (woody) writes:

>I have heard about this Mercury service in the UK, which is something
>like a competing phone company.

Sort of.  The Home Office has only licensed British Telecom and Mecury
Telecommunications as public telephone operators.  Mercury leases
lines from BT and resells the capacity to domestic/business users.
However, Mercury is also installing their own (fibre-optic) lines
where possible.

>Are they into long distance, also, in the manner that Sprint or MCI
>would be in the US?

Yes, they are only Long Distance carriers.  To subscribe is easy (ish
:-) You call a freephone number (0800-424194) and they charge you ten
pounds, providing you with a 10/12/13 digit PIN in return.
Unfortunately you are only able to use this PIN from the city/town in
which you live (you are only supposed to use the PIN from your one
home/business phone number).

>If so, how would calls be dialed through (ie. what
>is the UK equivalent of 10XXX+ or 950 service, if any?).

Not everyone in the UK has access to Mercury when making a call, but
if there is a Mercury node in your town/city you can make a call to
anywhere else (whether or not there is a Mercury node at the
destination).

If you do have a Mercury node nearby, you dial 131 (a free BT number),
enter your PIN followed by the STD (long distance number) and, voila,
there you are: somewhat cheaper LD calls!


Chris
VISIONWARE LTD         | UK: [e-mail]     JANET: chris%vision.uucp@ukc
57 Cardigan Lane       | US: [e-mail]    OTHER: [e-mail]
LEEDS LS4 2LE          | BANGNET:  ...{backbone}!ukc!vision!chris
England                | VOICE:   [phone]   FAX:   [phone]
       "VisionWare:   The home of DOS/UNIX/X integration"

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint
Date: 7 Apr 90 00:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

>According to the alleged customer service people at Sprint...
   ...
>Didn't try to get into much detail with them, but I'd assume it would
>be cheaper for them to do their own billing than shove it through the
>local BOC.

Yup. Especially the way Sprint does it.

I've been a Sprint customer ever since they were owned by Southern
Pacific, and their excuse for their inferior audio quality was the
land lines they had to lease from Seattle to their San Francisco
satellite uplink.

I'm glad now that I stuck with them through all those years of lousy
audio, but I am yet continually amazed by the laxness of their billing
department.


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 6 Apr 90 05:22:54 PDT (Friday)
Subject: Re: The Card
From: [e-mail]


 Re: pre-approved cards

I also called the 800 number to apply for "The Card" and I was told
that I was pre-approved.

I asked for further details about the pre-approval policy, and I was
told it had very little to do with your financial situation or your
AT&T Long Distance usage history.

I was informed that these cards were pre-approved for customers who
are witty and good-looking.


[Moderator's Note: Then why wasn't I approved immediatly?  :)   PT]

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 90 21:27:50 EST
From: Al Ginbey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Question
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


Yes there is a limit to the number of cellular channels available.
The specific limit and the method used in the detection and use of the
next available channel differs by city/system.  I believe the limit of
U.S. West in the Omaha area is 10 channels.  The next available
channel is marked with a tone. When no channels are available the
handset probably generates the trunk busy signal.  It will be
interesting to see what happens in the futrue as more and users come
on-lline.

  --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
  * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Billing
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 13:39:08 GMT


David Tamkin wrote:

>Recently the moderator reported that both cellular providers in the
>Chicago area, Ameritech Mobile and Cellular One, ...backdate airtime
>charges on completed calls to when the caller pressed "send".  That is
>true only of Ameritech Mobile; Cellular One does not charge.

Used to be true.

Not any more.

We got a nice notice with our last bill that "To adjust our billing to
the standards in the industry, as of April 1, billing will commence
with the start of ringing on completed calls."

Thanks Cellular One.  Your telephone monopoly at work!


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Date: 5 Apr 90 21:55:44 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> 2) Depending on how bad glare is/ground start trunk availability/costs/etc.,
> loop start trunks can be marked as one-way incoming or one-way
> outgoing but now more trunks are needed. This feature also depends on
> the brand of PBX.

In the real world of modern CO switches (1ESS or newer) glare is a
negligible problem. Unlike SXS and crossbar, electronic/digital
switches apply ring current simultaneously with the connection to the
called party. Once any PBX sees that ring, the trunk is instantly
taken out of the pool for outside calls. Therefore, even systems with
loop start trunks need not segregate the available lines for incoming
vs outgoing. (It may not seem as though ring is applied instantly,
since all electronic/digital switches will at least occasionally
provide ringback which is out of phase with the actual ring voltage
cadence applied to the called line.)


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

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

From: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question
Date: 6 Apr 90 07:28:21 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


>One thought though, if this is for a school project, there's really no
>need to attach it to the phone lines.  You could attach it to the
>phone system in your school -- It may be easier to get permission to
>do this.  ...

This brings up another question: what happens to (a) the FCC type
registration requirement and (b) the requirement to notify the phone
company about attached equipment when the phone line in question is an
extension of a key system/PBX?  Presumably you told them about the
stuff directly attached (the key system) already.  What about new
extensions? I'm thinking of something like the KX-T61610 but if the
type matters, what about any type?

The phone company doesn't seem to care much about what's attached to
the line.  If you try to follow the directions in the instruction book
of your new phone/modem/fax machine/answering machine to tell the
phone company the FCC registration number of what you're connecting to
the line, the phone company (Southwestern Bell in this case) usually
says something like "we don't lease those", "talk to the company you
bought it from", and "it's not covered since you don't have Inside
Wire Maintenance", indicating they don't have the faintest idea what
I'm talking about.

This from the same customer service people who told me I'd have to
SCRAP every phone I had when I ordered another line, because if more
than one line goes to the same residence, only multi-line phones will
function.  Another one tried to convince me that someone else talking
on my line (over dial tone, very intelligible, and not someone in my
house) was a problem in my inside wiring, even while she was having
trouble hearing me over the other person.  (The repairman said there
was foreign battery on the line, and called back later saying a
problem had been found in the cable a few blocks away.  No problem
since.  I take that to mean one side of my line was connected to one
side of someone else's through rainwater and bad insulation.)


        Gordon L. Burditt
        sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 01:36:43 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Blake Farenthold ([e-mail])
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 227, Message 4 of 10

>There is also a "modem" clock operated by Leitech Video that gives the
>time at 300 baud (Eastern, I think) ... but when I ran my time-set
>program on the Mac it doesn't look like it made the switch last night as
>my -1 adjustment to Central time resulted in the clock being an hour
>behind.

Exactly right.  Both the Virginia and the Canada numbers are *always*
on Eastern Standard Time, so CDT is +/- 0 hours time difference.  One
nice feature about the program, though, is that if you adjust the time
difference setting, say from -1 hour to 0 hours, your clock is
adjusted automatically without another call to the master clock.  (If
you just change your clock by an hour from the Control Panel, you lose
a few seconds during the time you have the time selected.)

For any interested Macintosh users, I think the file is available as
some variation on "Set Clock" in the info-mac archives by ftp from
sumex-aim.stanford.edu.  The program just outdials at 300 bps on your
modem to the master clock in VA or Ont. and receives a series of ASCII
data lines along the lines of

023440
023441
023442
023443
900406

Your clock is then reset and you are told how much fast/slow it was.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]
Disclaimer: I have no connection to Leitech, and I *clearly* have no
connection to sumex-aim.snodfart.edu  ;-)

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 15:36:43 GMT

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

> You didn't ask, but I will. "How does the CO know  on  a  party  line
>which  party  is making a call?" Well, you all had untimed service and
>the operator asked you on long distance calls.  Newer  systems  put  a
>load  from tip or ring to ground to indicate which party you are. This
>was well beyond the old step-by-step we had, so "your  number  please"
>on all LD calls.

I have four-party service from Taconic Telephone at my summer house.
(Until the recent arrival of a new family on the road, we had
seven-party service, the maximum allowed by NY State.)  I believe the
"tuned ringing" method is used here, as we have been warned that
answering machines are forbidden -- they will pick up on calls to our
neighbors.  The filtering isn't perfect, though; when my neighbor gets
a call, my phone rings very softly.

Long distance calls are handled by dialing 1+7+number, where 7 is a
digit printed on the phone's number plate and labeled "DDD Code".  I
assume this code is different for all parties on the line, and signals
the CO who is calling.  Seems it would be awfully easy to cheat, but
of course I don't.  (no :-)).

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For?
Date: 6 Apr 90 05:25:23 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


The Watcher <[e-mail]> writes:

> Any idea what these things may be intended for? Perhaps a nationwide
> cellular service is in the works ...  and what about x10 numbers?
> someone here mentioned 710.

Well, since 310 and 510 have already been designated as new California
area codes, it would seem reasonable that 710 will end up in the same
boat.


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


[Moderator's Note: But 710 is currently designated 'Government Special
Services' is it not?  And no one has ever written an article here
explaining exactly what those services are. I wish they would.    PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #235
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22430;
          7 Apr 90 23:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24300;
          7 Apr 90 22:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27565;
          7 Apr 90 20:54 CDT
Date:     Sat, 7 Apr 90 20:16:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #236
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Apr 90 20:15:25 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 236

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number [Patrick Humphrey]
    Re: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number [Mary Martorelli]
    Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries [Wolf Paul]
    Re: Master Clocks Around the World [John Higdon]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Paul Colley]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [David Lesher]
    Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Info Request: TIRKS + Netview [Lance Michel]
    Dutch, British Telecom (was Billing and Answer Supervision) [John Higdon]
    AT&T Universal Card (I Received It!) [David Albert]
    AT&T's "One World.  One Card." Ad [Clayton Cramer]
    Dimension Call Waiting Tone [Ken Jongsma]
    Jim Van Houten  [Tad Cook]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Patrick Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number
Date: 6 Apr 90 08:16:02 GMT


Here in the 713 NPA (the part served by Bell, at least), you dial 380
 -- no * or # preceding -- to get your number read back to you.  On a
similar question, if you dial 325 you get a short sequence of about 15
DTMF tones -- does anyone know the purposes of that?


Patrick L. Humphrey  ([e-mail]) ([e-mail])
([e-mail]) UUCP: crash!pro-europa!paddyh
ARPA: crash!pro-europa![e-mail]  INET: [e-mail]

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

From: Mary Martorelli <tronsbox![e-mail]>
Subject: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number
Date: 6 Apr 90 22:02:22 GMT


>  Does anyone know the number to call that returns a voice recording
>of the number that you are calling from?  I threw the number away

I have the numbers used in several parts of the country: New York,
Michigan, parts of Texas, Atlanta, and area codes 919, 502, 213, 408,
and 604. If you live in any of those areas, let me know which one and
I can proabably furnish you with the number you ned to dial to get a
recording of the number you're calling from.


Mary

uunet!tronsbox!akcs.groundzero

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 12:56:41 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


In Telecom-Digest 10/231, Peter J. Dotzauer <[e-mail]>
writes:

> Does anyone have a list of toll-free services for foreign countries,
> such as the 800 service in North America and the 0130 service in
> Germany?

I know that in Britain, it is 0800, and here in Austria it is 0660.

You should also note that in most countries where all local calls are
charged according to duration, the equivalent of an 800-service call
is not really toll-free, but rather charged as a local call.


Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: [phone]     FAX: [phone]      UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: [e-mail]     BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Master Clocks Around the World
Date: 6 Apr 90 05:12:41 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> the local telco (Pacific*Bell) clock seems to be synched very well to
> WWV (as received via shortwave).  Right to the tick, as far as I can
> determine!  Do they run a receiver on WWV and automatically adjust

I am told that is what they do by my Pac*Bell friends. On the other
hand, there is GTE who allowed their Los Gatos time signal to get
several minutes off before a disgruntled subscriber finally called in
to complain!

Oh, well, I'm sure GTE would normally be happy if their time signal
indicated the correct century.


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

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 15:11:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
writes:

>In single-slot pre-pay coin stations, the totalizer provided a shunt contact
>across the rotary or DTMF dial which was not removed until the full initial
>rate was deposited.  No money, no dial.  End of *this* :-) fraud problem.

So, then, will my Casio Watch/Telephone Dialer work through the mouthpiece?

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Paul Colley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: 6 Apr 90 18:53:24 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
writes:

>    In single-slot pre-pay coin stations, the totalizer provided a
>shunt contact across the rotary or DTMF dial which was not removed
>until the full initial rate was deposited.  No money, no dial.  End of
>*this* :-) fraud problem.

I have a friend who can pulse-dial phone numbers by rapidly tapping
the hang-up button.  It's kind of impressive to see him dialling a
number with lots of 9's and 0's in it.  He has about an 80% success
rate (i.e., 20% wrong numbers).

He claims, though I've never seen it, that this works at pay phones
without having to pay.

It requires some co-ordination; I never managed anything better than
the last four digits of my old phone number (1222).

  Paul Colley
  Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
  Waterloo, Canada
  [e-mail] or .cdn or .ca

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 90 11:41:18 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


There was another type of fraud that seemed to be common a few years
ago in San Francisco. The {direct} victim, however was the user.
Someone was opening the one side of the line. Folks would come up, not
bother to listen for DTF, and drop in money. The powerless
one_arm_bandit would hold onto the money. After half a day or so, the
thief would come back, reconnect the pair, and collect all the money
spilling into the return chute.

I don't know if they ever caught him, but I noticed that motels along
Lombard Street had signs for the desk clerk expaining who to call if
the 'pay phone alarm' went off.

On a larger scale, every so often mention shows up of person/persons
unknown who can clean out a coinslot box in 30 seconds. Seems that the
powers_that_be have been chasing {him,her,them} from coast to coast,
following a string of now_empty slots.

Whoever it is, they must eat a lot of vending machine candy bars to
use up all those quarters.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Data Feed Over Cable TV
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 16:08:30 GMT


> The only people I've ever seen with access to full-text versions is
> either "Newsnet", which is a very good, and *very expensive*
> commercial service ...

I used to subscribe to Newsnet. Very expensive, yes. I wouldn't call
it all that good, though (this was over 6 years ago)... it ran on
PR1ME computers, and was really pretty clunky to use.

You could also break out of the program into the Primos monitor really
easily. Happened to me by accident all the time, and they never seemed
much interested in fixing it.


Peter da Silva. [phone]. <[e-mail]>.

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

From: Lance Michel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Request: TIRKS + Netview
Date: 3 Apr 90 12:09:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: CCI, Communications Systems Division, Rochester, NY


In article <[e-mail]> ttrnds![e-mail]
(Warren F. Seltzer) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 225, Message 2 of 8

>I am involved in developing a Network Mananagement application of the
>WAN/Telephony/Datacomm type (rather than LAN management).
  ....
>I lack some of the basic pointers to information.

I speak a little TIRKS, some SARTS and have a basic understanding of
WORD docs.  If there is something specific you are looking for, email
me and maybe I can point you in the right direction.


Lance Michel
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dutch, British Telecom (was Billing and Answer Supervision)
Date: 6 Apr 90 01:16:09 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Mike Olson <[e-mail]> writes:

> I never saw this contraption myself, but I heard about it from
> engineers who made the trip over there from our company.  Can anyone
> confirm or deny this?

I don't know about Great Britain, but such a contraption existed right
here in the US. Back when I used to be a CO groupie and had a friend
who was night supervisor at AXminster (Santa Clara), there was a
windowless room that had an entire wall of mechanical digital
counters.  I was told that these were for traffic analysis, not for
billing. Anyway, every few minutes the lights in the room would go
off, there would be a big flash, and the lights would come back on
again. Cameras were actually photographically recording the numbers on
the dial.

It can only be assumed that the film was ultimately developed and
scrutinized by some bean-counter types.


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

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 90 17:40:34 EDT
From: David Albert <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Universal Card (I Received It!)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Albert)
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab Harvard, Cambridge, MA


I just received my AT&T Universal Card, a week and a day after
applying for it -- what service!  It has the AT&T and VISA logos, the
16-digit VISA account number, and a 10-digit calling card number which
bears no relation to my telephone number.  The PIN is NOT on the card;
the accompanying literature states that it will be mailed to me under
separate cover.  The PIN will be useable both for placing calls and
for receiving cash advances at ATMs.

When I applied, I was told I had been preapproved for $2,000 (and this
despite the fact that she seemed to have no information on me -- at
least, she asked for my name, address, phone number, etc.); sure
enough, my initial credit limit is $2,000.  I wonder how they decide
these things.  Perhaps this is the minimum?

The credit agreement seems to be as previously described; 25-day grace
period on merchandise purchases if you always pay in full, 18.9%
initial interest rate if not paid in full (adjustable to 8.9% above
prime), 2% charge for cash advances (yuk!), and all calling- card
charges interest-free (if paid by the due date) even if you carry a
balance on your merchandise purchases.

Calls (and their costs, including the 10% discount) will be itemized
separately from purchases on the monthly statements.

Basically it looks pretty good; I shall shortly be cutting up my
previous card, which costs me $20/yr, and returning it to the issuer.
I shall also remove my old AT&T calling card, which has my telephone
number and the PIN both embossed on it, from my wallet.  Should I cut
it up and return it?

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T's "One World.  One Card." Ad
Date: 6 Apr 90 18:42:57 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


Do you ever wonder how much in touch with Middle America advertising
executives are?  My wife and I saw a pretty impressive demonstration
that AT&T's aren't in touch.  AT&T is pushing their international
calling card with the phrase "One World.  One Card."  Are they unaware
of how many Americans (and I suspect more than a few Canadians) are
going to start from the phrase, and look for "666" somewhere on the
cards?

Someone needs to get word to AT&T that this is going to make Proctor &
Gamble's problems seem pretty minor -- especially since such a minor
change in phrasing would do so much to avoid these problems.  "One
card calls the whole world."


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Subject: Dimension Call Waiting Tone
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 90 9:56:53 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I have a question for those of you familiar with the Dimension PBX
series. Our company has one of these and recently (about 6 months ago)
one of the features changed.

It used to be that if I was on the phone and someone called me (either
internal or external) I would here the call waiting beep (one beep internal,
two beeps external) and the caller would hear the normal ring with a
beep at the end. Kind of like "riiiiiing-beep pause riiiiing-beep"
etc. It didn't matter if the caller was internal or external, they
still heard the distinctive ring indicating I was on the line.

About six months ago, we received an update to the Dimension software.
Now, external callers no longer here the distinctive ring. Instead
they hear the normal ring.

Many of us have frequent callers that understand what the distinctive
ring meant and would wait for us to hang up. They no longer know if we
are in our office or not!

When I asked our office services people about the change, they said
that Dimension could no longer provide distinctive ringing for
external callers.  The best they could do would be to give the caller
a busy signal.

Does anyone know if this is true? Or are there magic words I can
incant and convince the office services people that it is possible?

Thanks!

Ken Jongsma                                    [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                              [e-mail]

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

Subject: Jim Van Houten
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 13:49:00 PDT
From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>


Yesterday my answering machine had a call from JIM VAN HOUTEN, who
said he was calling about a posting here in TELECOM Digest.  He left a
number for voice mail, but whenever I call it I get a pager for a
woman named Laurie.

I have listened to the tape several times, and he gives the number
very clearly as 202-917-2289.

Jim, are you out there?


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 #236
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24875;
          8 Apr 90 0:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13404;
          7 Apr 90 23:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24300;
          7 Apr 90 22:01 CDT
Date:     Sat, 7 Apr 90 21:10:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #237
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Apr 90 21:10:09 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 237

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Attempting Make-Busy on a CO Line [Larry Lippman]
    AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy [David Gast]
    Crosstalk on Long Distance [John Boteler]
    PC Voice Mail Card Instruction Set Needed [R. Steve Walker]
    Info Needed on ISDN 2B1Q Countries [Czeslaw Piasta]
    Re: Room to Room Dialing in Hotels [Jack Winslade]
    Sprint Pyramid Sales Plan [Jack Winslade]
    Questions About Error in CO [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Attempting Make-Busy on a CO Line
Date: 5 Apr 90 23:08:52 EST (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> You can make a line busy by taking it off-hook.  The telco will send
> you ROH tone, and may get annoyed if you do it a lot, however.  If
> you use a switch that connects a resistor of about 600 ohms between
> Tip and Ring, it probably won't affect a call in progress (may drop
> the audio level a bit).  When the call ends, the line will appear to
> remain off-hook, and the CO will just hunt around it.

    If you are implying that the above technique will NOT result
in a CO permanent signal (i.e., ROH), but that the line will still be
marked busy, then you are incorrect.

    Almost all CO apparatus (except perhaps some ancient SxS, XY,
North CX or Leich) today has timed disconnect on connectors (SxS and
XY) and intra and interoffice trunks (anything else).  If you are the
callING party, when the callED party answers and then eventually
disconnects, and if you remain on the line (which the 600 ohm resistor
will accomplish) timing (typically 20 to 30 seconds) starts to release
the switch train or intraoffice or interoffice trunk - you then get
dumped back to dial tone.  If you are the callED party and you fail to
disconnect after the callING party disconnects, you will be
immediately disconnected and dumped to dial tone.

    There is, in general, no way to make busy a CO line without
creating a permanent signal in the CO.  Most telephone companies have
a tariff for a make busy arrangement to avoid this problem, but you
don't even want to think about the cost of this service since it
requires a dedicated pair from the CO for a make-busy key.

    Incidently, newer ESS CO's even have a feature which
disconnects a callING party after a proscribed time (usually 3
minutes) if a callED party does NOT answer.

<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700      {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 03:52:54 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy


AT&T which has donated money to Planned Parenthood for years recently
decided to stop donating money.  I recently called AT&T to find out if
it was true that they had capitulated to right wing extremists.

After getting through a voice mail system (I despise all VM systems),
the operator asked me how I got the number.  (I told her it was common
knowledge).  She asked: "You remembered it?"  (Obviously, one of the
boxes on her form).  Yes.  Then she asked for my telephone number.  I
said I didn't want to give it.  She said she had to know before she
could answer any question.  I told her "123456789."  After typing that
number in, she told me that she really had to have it.  I suggested
that AT&T had ANI and so she she did not need to ask me for my number.
I also pointed out that AT&T advertises ANI and recently lowered it
rates for ANI.  She said that she knew what ANI was, but that she did
not have it.

I said I only want to know if it is true that AT&T really stopped
giving to Planned Parenthood.  She read me a press release stating all
sorts of things that AT&T supports.  When she had finished, I read her
a couple sentences from the paper and asked her if it was true that
AT&T had caved into right-wing extremists?  She found a few more
paragraphs in PR-speak to read to me about Planned Parenthood, but I
really did not think that she believed them.  I asked her if she
thought that denying a woman the right to make choices about her body
was a good decision?  She wanted to say no, but she finally said that
she did not want to comment, that it was AT&T policy.

I thanked her very much and hung up.

What I don't understand is why AT&T would cave into these right wing
extremists?  Could it be that one of the right wing extremists in the
proper bureaucratic channels (or elected ones) suggested that denying
funding to Planned Parenthood would result in favorable rulings?

I would not mind telling her my phone number as part of my call.  I am
pro-abortion and I don't mind admitting it.  I object to giving my
phone number as condition of speaking and as part of a marketing
survey, however.  I am opposed in particular since some unscrupulous
companies have been known to use that information to bill the customer
for unwanted services (like new long distance carriers).


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

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

Subject: Crosstalk on Long Distance
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 23:58:10 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


I accomodated the Moderator by not enclosing quoted text.

I also followed the age-old recommendation of USEnetiquette by reading
all replies to this message before replying myself. I am glad I did;
it was quite amusing to see how the discussion took on a tangential
life of its own :)

My best guess is that since the original poster described this as a
long distance call over AT&T, the microwave transceivers his friend's
call traversed were out of tune. This is not uncommon, even with
today's ubiquitous fiber circuits.

I have heard a similar occurence on many LD calls in the past, by and
large over AT&T.

The sidebands of adjacent channels could be heard, sometimes clearly,
many times sounding just like Donald Duck. Each path in such a call
occupies one multiplex channel, one going out and one coming back.
Stack them up on a wideband circuit and your path to Cornell is
sitting next to someone else's (who is talking to her Auntie May in
Kansas). You hear Auntie May and not her niece because only Auntie
May's channel is next to yours and the channels may be out of tune
enough such that her sideband slops over into your channel.

In any case, this is a much more likely explanation than getting
tephone calls from all over the world every time it gets the least bit
damp or wet.


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

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

From: "R. Steve Walker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Voice Mail Card Instruction Set Needed
Date: 6 Apr 90 16:10:07 GMT
Reply-To: "R. Steve Walker" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


I am trying to find out the instruction set used to control PC Voice
Mail cards.  The one I have is sold by PC Systems, but I think that
most of them are manufactured by the same company.  Does anyone know
how these cards work - voice digitization - or what the command set
is?  If not, how can these commands be intercepted?  Thanks.

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 90 15:40:28 EDT
From: Czeslaw Piasta - test <mitel![e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on ISDN 2B1Q Countries


I am gathering info on the use of the 2B1Q code:

   - 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' ?"

I am interested in the information from all countries: North & South
America, Europe (Eastern Europe incl.), Far East, Middle East,
Australia, N. Zealand, Africa ...

Please mail me your information, and I will summarize it to the network
or individuals, if there is an interest.

All input will be very gratefully received. Thank you very much everybody.


Czeslaw Piasta

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 90 21:59:44 EST
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Room to Room Dialing in Hotels
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


JSW> That chain ... made it a practice never to have a room numbered
JSW> 411, since with the PBX's they had, ... Anyone dialing DA
JSW> without dialing 9 first would therefore ring room 411, ...

PT> I've never seen any hotels which allowed room to room dialing
PT> strictly by the room number.

This was in the early 1970's.  The property consisted of one hotel
building and 8 detatched motel outbuildings for a total of just over
400 rooms.  The PBX was a 1950's vintage Ma Bell SxS switch using 3
digit dialing exclusively for extensions on the property.  The rooms
in the main hotel were numbered 1XX, as were those in the '100' motel
building.  The other motel rooms were numbered 2XX through 8XX
according to building.  There were no 9XX rooms.

PT> How do you dial rooms 911, 611, and such?

Yes, there was a room 611.  Not many guests would ever attempt to dial
repair service directly.

PT> The single digits '1' through '6' are things like room service,
PT> valet and front desk.  '8' starts off long distance calls ...

Front desk, room service, restaurant, gift shop, etc. were all unused
2XX and 3XX extensions.  Guest long distance was 9+0, and billed at a
special 'hotel rate' at that time.  Call details were printed on a
teletypewriter and added to the guests' bills.

Good Day!       JSW

  --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
  * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Apr 90 22:01:21 EST
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Pyramid Sales Plan
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


Last week at the Omaha Home Show, there was a booth full of middle-
aged cheerleaders waving silver FON cards like pom-poms and urging
attendees to sign up NOW for free FON cards.  (I don't know if these
were 'working' FON cards or samples.)  Since there was a traffic jam
in the aisle ahead of us, I was asked directly if I wanted to sign up.
I explained that I already had a FON card.  Then I was asked if I
would be interested in joining Network 2000 and getting some 'big
commissions' on FON card users I signed up.  I was given a Network
2000 brochure as well as a flyer inviting me to the Network 2000
'Spring Fling' at the local HoJo the next weekend.

Later when I inspected the literature, it was obvious that the 'big'
money would not come from the FON card customers I signed up, but from
residual 'overrides' from customers of OTHER marketing reps that I
sponsored ... and those they sponsored ... and those they sponsored
... up to six levels deep.  Sound familiar ??

So far I have been quite satisfied with Sprint and my FON card.  My
primary carrier is AT&T, but I got the FON card to avoid getting
ripped by hotel AOS services and COCOTs.  However (comma) I begin to
get a bit suspicious whenever these 'business opportunities' seem to
concentrate not upon selling the product at hand, but (iteratively)
recruiting others to sell the product and recruit others.  I am
surprised that Sprint would openly endorse this 'pyramid' scheme.

Good Day!        JSW

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
 * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About Error in CO
Date: 6 Apr 90 01:39:49 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Howard <[e-mail]> writes:

> 1) Why hasn't my telco found this?  (I haven't gone out of my way to
> tell them, I enjoy it the way it is :-) ).  Shouldn't a flag/bell/
> whistle/alarm go off in the CO telling them of the problem?  Or do
> they just ignore the alarms?

When a number is taken out of service, it is forwarded to the
auto-intercept. The number, as transmitted to the intercept machine,
is looked up to determine what message is to be played (referral,
disconnected, etc.). If the number is not in the data base, the
generic recording, "The number you have reached <blah blah blah> is
being checked for trouble" is played. This in itself would set off no
alarms, since it is a "normal" condition.

> 2) I called the repair service a few months ago to complain about data
> errors on my line.  The rep. punched a few keys and said "your line
> isn't showing any errors."  I could understand their inability to
> detect data errors, but, they should have found the hunting error.
> What type of error counter are they looking at?  (Or, was she faking
> it just to shut me up?  :-) ).

There was no hunting error. It was hunting perfectly to a number that
happened to be forwarded to the auto intercept. This is a perfectly
technically legitimate condition.

> Here is the best part: A friend was trying to call me from a local bar
> while I was talking on the phone.  She found that if she dialed the
> number from a (telco) payphone *without depositing a quarter*, she
> would get the "number is being checked for trouble" message.  I
> checked this out later ... if you call from my local area this is
> true.  If my line is not being used, the recording is "please deposit
> 25 cents."  If it is in use, the recording is "...checked for
> trouble."  So, it would seem that the CO checks out the line before
> asking for the quarter.  This adds a new twist to the toll-saver/ "getting
> information for free" debate -- you don't need a quarter or a
> credit-card number to get your free information!!!

Your observation is perfectly correct. A 1ESS does not check for
totalized deposit in a coin phone for a busy or intercepted line that
is within the switch itself. If you are not on the phone, the line is
available and subject to coin check just like any other working
number.  If you are on the phone, the system sees not your line, but
the intercepted line as the called number. No coin required for that.
As far as getting "free information" is concerned, all you will find
out is that the line is either busy or out of service--info that is
free anyway. This quirk only applies to calls within the same control
group.

You need to speak to a supervisor in the business office and get them
to clean up their line assignments. Don't expect that the problem will
go away by itself; the condition is well within the bounds of "normal"
programming.

> This "problem" has some interesting advantages -- I few months ago, a
> date cancelled plans and claimed that she tried to call but said she
> "kept getting a busy signal"!!!!  While this is possible, I find it
> *highly* doubtful.  The only time I know of people getting a busy
> signal was whe there was a cable cut and I couldn't even get a dial
> tone.

Try this sometime: in your 1ESS, forward two lines to each other. The
lines will, in effect, swap numbers. Calls directed to one will, of
course go to the other. Features, such as call waiting, stay with the
physical line. Now for the quirk--while each line will get the calls
directed to the other, any calls placed from a coin telephone from
within the switch to either line will get a busy signal. Weird, eh?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #237
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27392;
          8 Apr 90 1:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27567;
          8 Apr 90 0:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad13404;
          7 Apr 90 23:09 CDT
Date:     Sat, 7 Apr 90 22:06:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #238
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 7 Apr 90 22:05:51 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 238

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Brandeis Telephones: Radio Transcript [Scott Fybush]
    Re: Databit Alumni Association [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Early 1960's Vintage Telephone Answering Machines [Larry Lippman]
    Intrastate Rip-off: Local Phone Tax [Linc Madison]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Brandeis Telephones: Radio Transcript
Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 90 17:42:45 GMT


As promised, here is the transcript of the first story I did for Brandeis'
WBRS-FM on the problems with the Brandeis phone system.  This part aired
March 26.  Part two, which I'll post soon, aired April 5.

                            PART ONE

FYBUSH: Students using the Brandeis phone system in recent months have
experienced numerous problems with billing, connection quality, and
operator service.  In this series, we'll explore some of these
problems and show what Brandeis is -- or isn't -- doing to fix them.

The most obvious problem to many students shows up when they open
their bills each month: calls to cities -- or even countries -- that
they've never even heard of.  According to Director of Telecommunications
Virginia Baron Rude, those problems stem from a new billing system
implemented this semester.

BARON RUDE: We put in a new billing system ... we brought it in-house,
and there have been some problems with something called integration.
And so, what has happened, people are getting their roommate's calls,
because it's having trouble matching certain calls' authorization code
records with the actual call.  Basically, it loses the authorization
code and it defaults to the extension.  So the person who is
responsible for the phone is getting an extension-billed charge,
instead of the authorization charge that they should be.

FYBUSH: But some calls that show up on student bills were never really
made at all.  Many students have had calls to India appear on their
bills.  One student, who requested anonymity, had this experience:

STUDENT: Let's say I did call India for four minutes, for eight dollars.
And I just said I didn't do it.  They're so unsure of their system that they
just said "OK" and crossed it off.

FYBUSH: The calls to India that many students have been billed for
actually have a logical explanation.  To dial a long-distance call
from a campus phone, students must first dial 9-1.  9-1 is also the
country code for India.  The billing computers failed to drop the 9-1
from the number and billed the students for India.  But Baran Rude
says all students who complained about the India calls were credited.

BARAN RUDE: We have given everybody credit ... let me state up front
that we apologize for the situation ... it was bumpier around the
conversion than we thought.  We certainly will give everybody credit.

FYBUSH: Students who have had their roommates' calls show up on their
bills don't ususally get immediate credit, though.  Although most
students I talked to agreed that it shouldn't be...

STUDENT: ...our problem to have to go and play collection agency.

FYBUSH: Telecom's policy on roommate calls is more strict, though:

BARAN RUDE: If you're on good terms with your roommate, it would be
easier if you could just collect from them.  If that's not the case,
then we will give party A credit and run a check with the second
system and bill party B.

FYBUSH: But these are all examples of calls that were made
legitimately.  Brandeis uses a system of six-digit access codes to
place long-distance calls.  Students receive a code beginning with the
digits five through nine ... and according to Lisa Diamond, financial
analyst at Brandeis Telecommunications, those codes are assigned
randomly.

DIAMOND: They're completely random; there's no rhyme or reason to them.

FYBUSH: And director Virginia Baran Rude also claims that those codes
are randomly assigned.

BARAN RUDE: They are assigned randomly.  And again, part of the reason
we went to the new billing system is -- we haven't used it yet -- but
it will assign authorization codes randomly.  And it will also keep a
history file for us, so so we don't recycle a senior's auth code to a
freshman the next fall.

FYBUSH: But a WBRS News investigation has shown a different story.  Of
the five possible starting digits for the access code, two are
entirely unused, one is used very little, and the vast majority of
student access codes start with only two of those five digits.  In
fact, every first year student interviewed for this story had an
access code that started with the same number.

What this means to the system is that a student who knows the correct
first digit has only to pick four random digits to find a valid access
code -- and the odds of that may be as little as 100 to one.

According to Bill Wheeler, a Portland, Oregon telecommunications
consultant, that's not secure enough.  And Brandeis student Ofer Inbar
told WBRS News that with the help of an autodialer, he could have a
valid code within an hour -- without ever actually entering the
computer system in the telecommunications office.  And another student
says there are even easier ways to get a valid code:

STUDENT: As far as code security goes, I think they've got a major
problem down there.  Because I was sitting at a desk, waiting for the
nice lady to go and get a form approved, and I saw literally hundreds
of students' access codes, with names and things like that.  But they
swear that there is no security problem.

This student also says that it would not be difficult to get a valid
code by dialing randomly.

STUDENT: I was wondering how easy it would be to get one of those by
chance, and statistically the odds are not that low.  However, there
are certain prefixes -- I know my old code and my new code are both 99 --
And I know a student who lives off campus, who told me that when he
needs to make a long-distance call, he comes on campus and just plays
around with a phone, using known prefixes, and it takes him about 15
times to get a legit code.  So I don't know if some of the calls
people have been getting are from him, but I know it's very possible.

FYBUSH: Yet Brandeis Telecommunications is satisfied with the security
of the six-digit codes:

BARAN RUDE: I wouldn't want to go to seven or eight digits, let's just
say that ... although the system could handle it.

FYBUSH: Brandeis does have some security measures in place, according
to Diamond and Baran Rude.

BARAN RUDE: We also get the phone of origin...

DIAMOND: We have had a few problems, but word caught on that we, I'd
say 98% of the time, find out who's doing the calling ... not many
students have gotten away with that, and students have been fined for
doing that in the past.  And this year, I recall one incident where it
was a problem ... but we did catch the person and they did reimburse the
other person for the calls.  And we changed the other person's access
code.

FYBUSH: And while Brandeis Telecommunications _may_ have its billing
and security problems under control, it is still the only option
available to on-campus students.  On the next installment, I'll look
at the legal aspects of that situation and the problems it has caused.

For WBRS News, I'm Scott Fybush.

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

I'll post part two next week.  My thanks to all the TELECOM Digest
readers who so generously contributed their time and knowledge to the
story.


Scott Fybush
(Assistant News Director, WBRS-FM Waltham MA)

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 90 20:33 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Databit Alumni Association
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


Responding to: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <think!ames!limbic![e-mail]>

Kloepfer responded to my query:
> P.S. Any other members of the Databit Alumni Association out there?
Saying:

>Actually, yes I was!  I was a technician for Databit for a year about
>eight years ago ... I never knew what I was working on until ...
>...reading the Digest and chatting with a telco friend of mine.

I'm surprised, Gil, that a telco person would have any familiarity
with Databit TDM's, as they were a specialized unit built to handle
Telex and TWX switched teletype network functions.

There were _far_ more Databit TDMs around than many people ever knew,
in networks all over the world.  In fact, there are probably still
many in use, dating to about 1971.  How do I know?  I was the Databit
sales- man for Africa and the Middle East, and there alone something
in excess of 1,000 are probably still being used in the public Telex
networks.

In the U.S., the prime user was Western Union, to provide not only
trunk telegraph lines between exchanges but also what WUTCO called
"blockhouses" as unattended concentration points for groups of Telex
and TWX subscriber lines.

I'd like to hear if that's the sort of environment you found them in;
I was working overseas so only had hearsay knowledge of the WUTCo
application.  (Amendment: Others, like RCA, ITT, WUI and all the
"International Record Carriers" had lesser deployments in remote
locations as well.)

Then, Kloepfer asks:

>Could anyone out there tell me what those 208A (I think that was the
>number) 300 baud modem boards were for?

Well, the number you quote would only be the suffix of the whole part
number.  The Databit had a variety of low-speed line cards to suit
whatever the need.  (In fact, we found out that in each different
nation, the detail Telex subscriber line signaling varied enough that
we had to have a new card for every new country..just part of the job
I found out I had to do to sell American technology overseas.  Seems
the factories let their engineers make little "improvements" in each
nation they went to.  That, of course, not only added to my challenge
but also kept a Telex machine for Kenya from being usable in Botswana,
too!

The "300 Baud" modem cards were primarily for domestic use when and
where telcos couldn't (and wouldn't) provide DC telegraph circuits.
By providing the telegraph companies with this interface, they could
avoid hassle from the telco, saying, "just give us a two-wire VF pair."

The modem was actually a 103-type, run at either the 50 Baud of Telex
or the 110 Baud of TWX.  Running at so much less than its maximum
speed and able to handle losses of 30-35 dB on the VF line, they just
sang away.

Then, Kloepfer writes:

>A few years ago, I could rattle off the number of every board I'd work
>on, what problems I'd need to fix most often, and the kinds of stress
>tests they'd need.

The modems mentioned above, by the way, were composed of a few
op-amps, TTL chips, and a bunch of discrete components.  There was one
gain resistor which needed to be set by hand using a resistor
substitution box.

And there you describe some of the unique construction of the Databit
equipment.  In its earliest 1971 product, there was no such thing as a
microprocessor, so the designers built a 5-card set of "common equip-
ment." It was, pure and simple, a computer processor. But, there were
also no CMOS chips, so the equipment had to be built of TTL chips.

I do recall being around Databit when CMOS came along, and the usual
trade press "hype" stories started that _all_ TTL chip supplies would
be gone in a year.  The boss almost had a heart attack, but
fortunately it turned out to be just an earlier story of the hypes we
all take as normal nowadays.

As to making the modems from op amps, well, we didn't have any LSI
modems, either, so...if you want to sell a product, you build it from
what you have.  As you can fathom, 50 or 110 Baud was all that was
needed, so they could be pretty simple.

But, Gil mentions "stress-testing" cards in Databits and such.  In
fact, the President (who had been the engineer who dreamed it up) was
a fanatic for burn-in and QC.  My international units went through a
whole week of keying a single "Fox message" in and out of every port
looped back (a test much telegraph equipment can't pass on static
test), BUT in a _rapidly_cycling test chamber from (outside on Long
Island) ambient to 130 F. That test chamber had electric heaters to
raise the temp fast and fans to cool it right down.

 From my perspective, the Databit was overdesigned, overbuilt and
overtested to the point of perfection.  Reason: My units went for a
9500 mile plane ride to some customers.  Without fail, we uncrated
them, powered them up, and they played flawlessly.  We didn't want to
have to send a serviceman out there...and we rarely did.  The only
times I know of was so he could deliver a contractual "training
course."

About the only thing I ever knew of that hurt a Databit TDM was
physically destroying it (oh, you could crunch backplane connector
pins, but the cards so rarely required moving, that wasn't much). One
day at the plant, we got a TDM from WUTCo somewhere for "warranty re-
pair."  It was shipped without a carton, and by the time it got to the
plant, it had the shape of a football, and WUTCo tag said, "doesn't
work."  We had a bit of a time with WUTCo over that one!

So, how about it? Any more Databit alumni out there?


Donald E. Kimberlin, Databit Alumni # 000001, Class of 1971

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

Subject: Early 1960's Vintage Telephone Answering Machines
Date: 7 Apr 90 19:58:53 EST (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
writes:

> line.  Instead, the phone sat on a box with a speaker in the top of
> it. Two metal fingers were fitted under the receiver, in the middle
> section on top of the phone between the switchook buttons. Any loud
> noise in the vicinity (such as the vacuum cleaner in general, but the
> bell on the phone in particular) caused a relay in the box to close
> its contacts.

    The early 1960's vintage answering machines that I recall used
an inductive pickup coil which was slid under the telephone in order
to detect ringing.  This eliminated the, um, "vacuum cleaner problem".
Other answering machines also used the inductive pickup coil in place
of an acoustically-coupled microphone.

<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700       {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 90 03:02:08 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intrastate Rip-off: Local Phone Tax


Ah, leave it to the city of Berkeley to come up with an innovative
(but illegal) source of revenue.  The city has a 6.5% Utility Tax,
which is applied to phone charges as well as other utilities.  I
recently got my Sprint bill, and found that on $0.95 of in-state
calls, I was charged $2.10 in local tax.  That's 221% tax rate.
Either that, or the tax was applied to out-of-state calls as well.
But the city of Berkeley has no authority to tax those calls, in part
because they have no power to prohibit me from making them.  (The
power to tax is legally subsidiary to the power to destroy.)

I've called Sprint customer service, which is dutifully "looking into
it."  I can't say for sure yet whether Berkeley told Sprint to do
this, or whether Sprint just programmed the billing computer wrong,
but in this case it makes a difference of more than 5% to my phone
bill, since almost all of my calls are either intra-LATA or
interstate.

Mayor Tom McEnery of San Jose proposed applying that city's tax to
interstate calls a couple of years ago, but finally backed down when
the city attorney's office explained that it was unequivocally illegal
to do so, so I have great confidence in both Berkeley and Sprint to be
possible sources of this illegal billing.


Linc Madison   =    [e-mail]
                       UUCP: ...!ucbvax!euler!rmadison

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #238
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12607;
          9 Apr 90 0:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11831;
          8 Apr 90 22:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03402;
          8 Apr 90 21:29 CDT
Date:     Sun, 8 Apr 90 21:10:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #239
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Apr 90 21:10:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 239

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ringing in the Presence of Off-Hook Stations [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Ringing a Busy Phone [Ed Ravin]
    Anybody Need Labels For GTE 4200-series Telephones? [Brian K. Reid]
    AT&T Card Verification [Hagbard Celine]
    Cellular Channel Capacity [John R. Covert]
    Telemarketers Legal Battle [Pittsburgh Press via Thomas Neudecker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Ringing in the Presence of Off-Hook Stations
Date: 6 Apr 90 00:55:17 EST (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> I agree with you that that phone could not ring because of physical
> switching in the phone, but what about other phones on the same
> extension? If you send the correct signal (70volts AC??) through the
> lines, wont all the other phones ring that were not previously
> off-hook? Or would this cause considerable damage to the origional
> phone that was off-hook?

> [Moderator's Note: How about a technical reply on this from the
> experts?  PT]

    You rang? :-)

    In general, the ringing supply from an SxS or XY connector, or
from an intraoffice or interoffice trunk in any other type of CO, will
not operate bridged ringers on a station line where one station is
off-hook.  There are three reasons for this:

1.    First and foremost, if a station is off-hook, the line is
    already marked busy and an incoming call will not be permitted,
    although in a contention situation usually called "glare" the
    next two reasons come into play.

2.    The shunt resistance of the off-hook station will *immediately*
    operate the ring-trip relay or ring current sensing circuit,
    therefore removing the ringing supply connection.

3.    The current limiting provided by the CO apparatus does not allow
    enough voltage to develop across the shunt resistance of an
    off-hook station set to operate any bridged ringers.

    However, there are two circumstances in which bridged ringers
may operate in the presence of an off-hook station:

1.    A service bureau test position provides a ringing supply under
    manual control (without any ring-trip relay) having a higher
    current-limited value than found in normal CO switching
    apparatus.  Therefore, if a craftsperson "cords" a subscriber
    line to a test position and lays on their manual ringing key,
    a bridged ringer *may* operate in the presence of an off-hook
    station, if the CO loop resistance is not too great.

2.    Some DSA and toll trunks to some CO's have a manual ringing
    extender relay located in the remote CO recording-completing
     trunk circuit which can be operated by the DSA or toll board
    "ring forward", "ring reverse" or "re-ring" keys.  I remember
    a common recording-completing trunk circuit (SD-31180) from my
    SxS days which had a ring control relay operated by the DSA or
    toll position which connected continuous ringing supply
    directly to the subscriber line through a pretty healthy
    resistance lamp.  If any circuit could provide enough ringing
    current to operate a bridged ringer in the presence of an
    off-hook station, this one could!

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

> I have read the explanations of why it is impossible to ring a busy
> telephone with some interest, because I remember it happening in my
> parents' house a long time ago.  We had a party line, and the other
> party had left their telephone off-hook.  My parents called Indiana
> Bell from a neighbor's telephone.  There was a very strange ring in
> the house (a set of very short rings), and when I lifted the receiver
> of one telephone, the other one continued to ring.

    Party line ringing is often implemented using various
combinations of ringing in the presence of DC bias from GROUND to one
side of the telephone line.  While a call dialed through a multi-party
connector would probably not do what you describe since the ring-trip
relay would have operated, a call manually placed through an operator
(who had no ring-trip supervision) could result in *exactly* what you
describe.


<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700      {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488

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

From: Ed Ravin <cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing a Busy Phone
Reply-To: Ed Ravin <cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Organization: Rings Around the Rosies
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 90 21:38:36 GMT


I once lived in a residence hotel with a very old fashioned operator
switchboard.  The operator would hold down a key to ring a phone in a
room, and would pick up the key to listen if anyone had answered.  So
I often picked up my Radio Shlock one-piece phone with the automatic
chin disconnect button and heard the buzz of the ring voltage in my
ear until the operator finally noticed I had picked up the phone.  The
el cheapo phone is none the worse for the experience, and neither are
my ears (it wasn't that loud, mostly a scratchy buzz).

Though we couldn't make outgoing calls, if I held onto the line after
someone who called me hung up, I would get the CO dial tone in a few
minutes.  Luckily for the hotel, they didn't have touchtone service,
and pulsing the line usually made the operator pick up the phone
wondering why the light on the console was flashing.


Ed Ravin | hombre!dasys1!eravin | (BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)|
[e-mail] |

Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this
article.

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

Subject: Anybody Need Labels For GTE 4200-series Telephones?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 90 21:14:36 PDT
From: "Brian K. Reid" <[e-mail]>


Last year during a big sale, I bought a bunch of GTE 4200-series
telephones for my house (4250, 4275). I had a lot of trouble with them
and finally returned them; I've since bought AT&T 732's, which don't
have as many features but which have so far been more robust.

I'm somewhat of an amateur with telephones but I'm a pretty intense
PostScript hacker. So, while I had the GTE phones I developed a
PostScript file that makes very handsome labels to fit into the
various plastic inserts on the telephone, to label the memory-dialing
buttons and the line telephone numberrs.

I will happily mail a copy of this PostScript file to anybody who
wants it. I can't bring myself to delete it, given how much work I put
into making it. Unfortunately, the AT&T phones have an insert that is
full of holes and is practically impossible to print properly on a
laser printer.


Brian Reid
[e-mail]

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

From: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Card Verification
Date: 8 Apr 90 08:00:04 GMT
Reply-To: Hagbard Celine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester ,MA


   With regards to the questions about AT&T's card verification; when
I worked there, it was VERY easy to get complete information on ANYONE
who had an EQUIPMENT account; that is, anyone who leases one or more
tele- phones, or has purchased anything either via telephone, or an
AT&T Phone Center.  These accounts are all referenced by telephone
number (of course.)

   Since AT&T still bills through the LECs, anyone with strictly a
toll account might not have accurate information.  Most of them do,
but many do not.  The networked computer data base is up at all times
of every day.  It does go down for maintenance, of course, but times
are very unpredictable.


   Andrew Reynhout   (Internet: [e-mail])
                     (BITNET: [e-mail])
                     (uucp: uunet!wpi.wpi.edu!reynhout)

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

Date: Sun, 8 Apr 90 08:55:09 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  08-Apr-1990 1031" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Channel Capacity


Re: Al Ginbey's reply concerning Cellular channel capacity:

>The specific limit and the method used in the detection and use of the
>next available channel differs by city/system.  I believe the limit of
>U.S. West in the Omaha area is 10 channels.  The next available
>channel is marked with a tone.

You're describing the old IMTS (non-cellular) mobile system.  One of
the many major advantages of cellular technology is a drastic increase
in channel capacity.

U.S. West informs me that Omaha had three cell sites as of last
November, and may have a few more by now.  I am certain that the
channel capacity of _each_ of these sites is at least 12 channels, and
more likely is two to four times that.  In larger cities, each of the
two carriers has between fifty and one-hundred cell sites, with each
carrier planning the addition of new sites in 1990 at the rate of
about two per month.

The FCC has allocated 832 channels for use in cellular systems,
although few cities have expanded their systems beyond the 666
channels initially allocated.  This spectrum is divided in half, with
the "A" and "B" carriers each receiving half the channels.  Each
channel is a duplex channel using separate frequencies for transmit
(from the cellular phone) and receive (at the cellular phone).

In the initial channel allocation, channels were numbered 1-666.  The
"A" carriers had 1-333 and the "B" carriers had 334-666.

In the 832 channel system, the additional channels are numbered
667-799 and 991-1023.  The 33 channels from 991-1023 are allocated
_below_ channel 1 in frequency.  Channels 800-990 are not assigned.

I'm not sure exactly how the 166 additional channels were allocated by
carrier, but each carrier received 83 additional channels for a total
of 416.

The following formulas compute the phone's transmit and receive freqs:

receive_freq = (if channel<991 then 870.030 MHz else 869.04) !chan 1/991
        + 30kHz x (channel - 1 or 991)

transmit_freq= (if channel<991 then 825.030 MHz else 824.04) !chan 1/991
        + 30kHz x (channel - 1 or 991)

A cellular phone scans for the strongest set-up channel (334-353 on
the "B" carrier and 333-314 on the "A" carrier).  This channel
transmits a continuous 19.2 kbps data stream containing information
such as the system ID (a 16-bit number), sign-in requirements,
incoming call requests, and initial channel assignments for each call.

Cellular phones transmit on the set-up channel using a contention
protocol when they want to initiate an outgoing call or accept an
incoming call.  The cell site then sends a message in the data-stream
to tell the cellular phone which channel it should switch to for
processing the call.  Further channel switch requests or power
assignments during the call are sent to the phone on the same channel
as is being used for the voice connection (thus not every blip you
hear while using a cellular phone is a cell switch; many of them are
commands to increase or decrease transmit power).

The maximum channel capacity in any system will depend on the actual
engineering requirements of that system, determined by the terrain,
the cell placement, and marketing considerations.  The theoretical
maximum capacity of a single cell in a fully built-out system of
honeycomb-shaped cells over perfectly flat terrain would be one
seventh the total capacity available to each carrier, or about 56
channels per cell (after removing the set-up channels from the
calculation).  Cell size can be made almost arbitrarily small, since
transmit power can be limited by command from the cell site to as
little as 4.8 milliwatts measured at the antenna connector.

In practice, cell sites tend to have either less than or more than the
number above.  The system must be designed so that co-channel
interference is held to acceptable minimums.  The terrain and
placement of each cell will determine in which nearby cell it first
becomes reasonable to re-use a frequency used in some other cell.

Determination of the number of customers to accept requires a traffic
analysis considering the local market data.  People in Los Angeles
spend more time in their cars than people in New York; thus the amount
of traffic each customer offers to the network is greater.  On the
other hand, people in Hong Kong carry portable phones and use them
while walking down the street and while eating in restaurants, because
the system is well-designed for portables, the cost is less than 16
cents per minute, and fewer people have cars.

It should be obvious that a reduction in the cost of making cellular
phone calls in an existing system without an increase in the
associated channel capacity will quickly affect the system loading.
It should also be obvious that a lower call completion rate may be
more acceptable in some countries than in others.

For example, in Germany, where it is often necessary to redial several
times to complete a normal land-line call from Stuttgart to Munich,
customers will be more willing to retry calls to cellular phones, put
up with recordings announcing that the call is in a holding queue, or
accept a time limitation on the length of calls.

/john

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

Date: Sun,  8 Apr 90 14:03:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketers Legal Battle


The 4/8/90  issue of the [Pittsburgh Press]  (page D-20)
reports on the hobby of one S. Allen Sid Schreiber of suing
telemarketing firms.  To date he has won four suits and has
seven more in preparation.  Losers include MCI, The
Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team, and a local employment
service and a investment firm.

Schreiber who has several telephone lines into his home office
receives many telephone solicitations.  He refuses to listen unless
the caller identifies the company, themself, their supervisor,
telephone number and mailing address.  Sid then mails a certified
letter to the company demanding to be removed from the call list.
Further he states that if they call him again that they will be
considered to have entered into a contract with his listening service
and you have made the those call to him and expect him to listen on a
for hire basis.  Listening cost the telemarketer $100 per hour /$100
minimum due in seven days or be subject to a $90 late fee.

For $20 Sid can file a complaint with a local magistrate, served by
certified letter.  Failure to appear is a default with the right to
appeal within 30 days.  If appealed a panel of three volunteer
attorneys hear the case and render a judgement again subject to
another appeal.

Most of the cases Sid wins by default and the cost of appeal versus
the judgement doesnUt warrant appeal.  According to the news story one
case was won in arbitration because the defendant hired a major law
firm and the panel thought that it was over kill (Sid got $1 plus
$97.25 for costs) This then gave Sid more grounds for other actions.
A member of the panel is quoted as saying "God, I created a monster."
(Attorney Tom O. Schmitt).

Legal professionals on both sides of the issue question the validity
of the assigned contract between Sid and the telemarketing firms but
acknowledge the PR and economic costs of not appealing the case.  To
date Sid has received more than $360 in settlements for his claims and
believes that has reduced the calls by 80-90%.


[Personal note -- I hate telemarketing calls -- especially when they
drop my carrier -- but I also dislike frivolous litigation.]


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


Tom Neudecker
Carnegie Mellon University



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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #239
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16118;
          9 Apr 90 1:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06428;
          8 Apr 90 23:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11831;
          8 Apr 90 22:35 CDT
Date:     Sun, 8 Apr 90 21:35:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #240
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Apr 90 21:35:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 240

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    More on Remote Eavesdropping with an Unmodified Telephone Set [L. Lippman]
    Re: Crosstalk on Long Distance [Larry Snyder]
    Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Sprint Card Giveaways [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [John Higdon]
    Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test [Kee Hinckley]
    Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numers For? [Alex Zell]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card (I Received It!) [Robert Gutierrez]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: More on Remote Eavesdropping with an Unmodified Telephone Set
Date: 7 Apr 90 22:12:56 EST (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David E A Wilson) writes:

> >The latter is obviously false since there is no electrical connection
> >between the handset mike and the line in an on-hook telephone.  Just
> >shows to go ya.

> A British program broadcast in Australia stated that this is done by
> tapping the wires leading into the property and applying a high
> frequency AC signal to the line - at this frequency the switch hook
> looks like a capacitor which conducts the AC which is then modulated
> when it passes through the microphone.

    The above explanation is quite close; there are, in fact,
*multiple* mechanisms of coupling "around" the switchhook which
combine in a complex and unpredictable manner necessitating that any
apparatus used to eavesdrop based on this principle must be
empirically "tuned" to the characteristics of a particular telephone
set.  More often than not, for a variety of reasons (most commonly
inability to locate the apparatus close enough to the subject
telephone set), suitable "tuning" cannot be achieved and the apparatus
will not function in a usable manner.

    In the particular method mentioned in the referenced article,
the switchhook contacts themselves will be lucky to provide a few pF
of capacitance, which is far too much reactance to be useful at any
suitable frequencies.  There is more mutual capacitance in the wires
connecting the network to the switchhook than in the switchhook
contacts themselves.  However, the primary method of achieving
"coupling" across the on-hook contacts is magnetic coupling between
the bridged ringer windings and the transformer windings within the
network.  While the inductive reactance of the ringer windings in toto
is rather high at the frequencies being used, there is mutual
capacitance between ringer coil layers which creates a succession of
smaller LC networks and makes this approach more feasible than one
might first imagine.

    There is actually another methodology which can be applied to
eavesdropping on room conversations using an unmodified telephone set.
Most ringers will function as a variable reluctance microphone, if the
line from the telephone is amplified to an extreme degree, along with
application of suitable signal processing to eliminate an incredible
amount of noise.  As in the above methods, the necessary apparatus
must be within a few hundred feet from the telephone set, and the CO
pair must be broken during the operation (with circuitry to detect an
incoming call or outgoing call attempt and reestablish the CO line
continuity to avoid any suspicion on the part of the subject).  I am
not claiming that a ringer is a *good* microphone, but under some
selected circumstances this technique can provide useful intelligence.

    I may later regret this suggestion, but as an example to
illustrate this principle, here is an experiment that an enterprising
reader can perform using apparatus found in any well-equipped
electronics laboratory.  Take a 500-type or 2500-type set with a
bridged ringer and connect its tip and ring directly to the input of a
low-noise amplifier providing say, 80 dB of gain in the voice
frequency range.  A suggested approach is to cascade two
Hewlett-Packard 465A amplifiers, with each amplifier being set for 40
dB gain.  Take the 80 dB amplifier output and connect it to the input
of a variable bandpass filter having at least 20 db/octave attenuation
(like a Kron-Hite 3100, 3500 or 3700).  Take the output from the
bandpass filter and feed it to another amplifier providing 20 to 40 dB
gain and capable of driving a pair of headphones.

Tune the bandpass filter to reject powerline noise, and you have just
turned the telephone set into a crude microphone.  At that point it
does not take much imagination to realize that given some competent
engineering resources and a commensurate budget, this technique can be
refined into a practicable eavesdropping device.  The availability of
digital signal processing can also do wonders to eliminate the vast
amount of power line, impulse noise and other interference which
develops at the gain necessary for speech pickup sensitivity.

    While electromechanical ringers are becoming somewhat a thing
of the past, many electronic telephone sets with tone ringers will
function as an even better microphone.  Such tone ringers usually rely
upon a piezoelectric element as the loudspeaker, although a few
low-quality "drugstore-variety" one-piece telephones utilize the
receiver element as the ringer transducer.  As most readers of this
forum are no doubt aware, piezoelectric devices will generally
function as both a microphone and loudspeaker.  Even a piezoelectric
element optimized for tone ringer use, i.e., with resonance in the
range of 1.5 to 2.5 kHz, will still function as a usable microphone
for lower frequencies.

    An on-hook telephone set with electronic tone ringer, if
isolated from the CO line and connected to an ultra-high gain
amplifier with suitable bandpass filtering, and if also subjected to
an appropriate RF bias to cause conduction across the initial
full-wave bridge rectifier and subsequent semiconductor junctions, can
in many instances be turned into a microphone.  While this technique
will not work with all electronic telephones, it will work with a
significant number.

    The above technique of compromising a telephone with an
electronic tone ringer was first performed almost twenty years ago on
the Ericophone.  The Ericophone was an early one-piece telephone, some
models of which contained an electronic tone ringer.  While the
geometry of the Ericophone defies verbal description in this forum,
the overall design scheme may best be described as phallic in nature.
Those readers who are familiar with the Ericophone will no doubt
concur with this description :-).

    I have commented much more on the above topics that I had
originally intended.  However, since some of the above methodologies
have not only been mentioned in the media but are now well over 20
years old, I do not see any overt harm in my disclosure of some
further selected details in an effort to promote "awareness".

> [Moderator's Note: Larry Lippman has written us again! Some of you who
> have been readers for at least a few months will remember his interesting
> articles.

    I have been rather busy in the past several months with the
startup of a new division of my organization, and have not had time to
contribute to TELECOM Digest, but I'll see if I can keep up for a
while.


<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700      {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488

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

From: Larry Snyder <ndmath!nstar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Long Distance
Date: 8 Apr 90 19:51:03 GMT
Organization: Northern Star, Notre Dame, IN USA


> The sidebands of adjacent channels could be heard, sometimes clearly,
> many times sounding just like Donald Duck. Each path in such a call
> occupies one multiplex channel, one going out and one coming back.

One Saturday I was playing around and connected my Kenwood ham rig up
to the baseband output on the satellite receiver and tuned over to one
of the Westar Birds -- and sure enough -- I was able to pick up
complete telephone conversations in session being sent over the
satellite.  This one transponder seemed to be filled with
communications from Hawaii - which I assume is common.


 ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry  -or-  larry@nstar

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries
Date: 9 Apr 90 00:10:15 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computing Science, University of Wollongong, Australia


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

>You should also note that in most countries where all local calls are
>charged according to duration, the equivalent of an 800-service call
>is not really toll-free, but rather charged as a local call.

Here in Australia our toll free numbers (008) have just changed from
costing one local call fee (21c) to no charge to the calling party
(unless using a mobile phone).

In addition, a restricted range of numbers in my area now get fully
itemised IDD (international) billing at no charge. According to
Telecom, over the next few years this will be extended to all numbers
and also to STD (long distance) calls as well.


David Wilson    [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Card Giveaways
Date: 8 Apr 90 03:34:12 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

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

>> Several times now, in midtown New York City, agressive Sprint people
>> have been standing behind a small silver-grey desk thing in the Sprint
>> colors with lines like, "Get your phone card here!  They're free!"

>Same phenomenon at the weekly Sunday flea market in New Haven (CT).

    I was in Chicago briefly last week. While buying some
Kodachrome at the U of C bookstore, I was accosted by one of Sears'
aggressive card pushers, who evidently thought I was a U of C
undergrad.

    Having accepted a Sears card from one of these people back in
'79 or '80 when I was an undergrad at Northwestern, I was quite
familiar with Sears' campus marketing techniques.

    "Hey, buddy, d'ya have a Sears card?"

    "Yup."

    And then, as I turned up the stairs:

    "Have an AT&T card?"

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: 7 Apr 90 23:06:24 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Paul Colley <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have a friend who can pulse-dial phone numbers by rapidly tapping
> the hang-up button.

> He claims, though I've never seen it, that this works at pay phones
> without having to pay.

I would like to see him do this at pay phones. For one thing, why
bother? Use the TT pad; it works with or without coins being deposited
in dial tone first phones. The other problem concerns how the hook
switch is implemented in coin phones. To prevent (in the old days
before "real" dial tone first) fraud in the manner you describe, they
started using mercury switches instead of leaf contacts. The mercury
cannot possibly follow the speed required to pulse dial numbers with
the hook switch.

BTW, I've seen for myself the mercury switch used inside pay phones.


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

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

From: Kee Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test
Organization: asi
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 90 08:17:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William R. Day)
writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> uop!quack![e-mail]
>(Nick Sayer) writes:

>>If I'm up late at night, I sometimes hear a short beep from the phone.
>Same here. It seems that every night at about 11:30pm the phones in
>our house give a short half-ring. What is going on? I've decided the
>regularity is too great for this to be random noise on the line.

I get it around 12:30.  For me it's a full ring though.
I have a fax/modem switch on the line, and it things it's getting
a ring and passes it on.  It used to be on my house line and there
it would wake me up, usually every Sunday and Wednesday night.
I've got to assume that it wouldn't normally ring the phone, but that
either my switch is too sensitive, or they are out of spec.  I'd *love*
to know what it is though.


| Alphalpha Software, Inc. | Voice/Fax: [phone] |   Home: 617/641-3805   |
| 148 Scituate St.         | Smart fax, dial number. |                        |
| Arlington, MA 02174      | Dumb fax, dial number,  |   BBS:  617/641-3722   |
| [e-mail]     | wait for ring, press 3. |   300/1200/2400 baud   |


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

From: Alex Zell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numers For?
Reply-To: Alex Zell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 90 02:04:47 GMT


The Watcher <[e-mail]> says:

"I do remember some archaic mention to the effect that 211 was once
used for something, but it escapes me now."

   I don't know how far back "archaic" goes, but can't be much before
the Judge Green Disaster that 211 was used to call the Long Distance
Operator.  It may be that it disappeared with the advent of direct LD
dialing.

   However, if it is "archaic" one wants, I am happy to oblige on
another topic that has been addressed in recent notes.  In 1939 in New
York City in a phone booth at an outdoor parking lot I would see the
attendant make his calls by sticking a pin into the phone cable and
touching the pin with a wire attached to a grounded pipe.


Alex Zell  [e-mail]
Pictou Island, NS


[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, 211 called the long distance
operator in the pre-direct dial days, and was in use even after DDD
started for several years handling person-to-person, collect and
credit card calls. It was replaced by zero plus, then eventually by
double zero plus, which is what we have now.  811 was 'priority long
distance' during the Second World War; and it was 'Hotel/Other PBX
long distance service' from 1946 until 1975 when it was discontinued.
511, 711 and 911 were used by subscribers with automatic dialing to
call the operator on manual exchanges (not yet cut to dial) in the
1946-51 time period; then again in that capacity in certain suburbs
which did not 'go dial' until the late fifties or early sixties.  PT]

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card (I Received It!)
Date: 9 Apr 90 01:55:28 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office (NSIPO)


[e-mail] (David Albert) writes in V.10, Iss 236, Msg
11 of 14

> I just received my AT&T Universal Card,....

> I shall also remove my old AT&T calling card, which has my telephone
> number and the PIN both embossed on it, from my wallet.  Should I cut
> it up and return it?

Not recommended. If you do cut it up and 'return' it (mail back to
AT&T), they will probably make an assumption that you are cancelling
service.  They should call to confirm, but what if you're not home....

This is what we did in MCI Customer Service. Three attempts to reach the
customer, then the account was history.

If the card # is different, just call their customer service, explain
FIRST that you have two numbers, and then cancel one of them.

   Robert Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Project Office,
   Moffett Feild, California.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #240
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24051;
          9 Apr 90 5:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21003;
          9 Apr 90 3:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05867;
          9 Apr 90 2:47 CDT
Date:     Mon, 9 Apr 90 2:09:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #241
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Apr 90 02:08:29 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 241

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Loop Start and Ground Start Trunk Supervision [Larry Lippman]
    Glare on PABX Trunks [Larry Lippman]
    Caller ID Questions [James Cayz]
    Access to the 'BTX' Service of the West German Telco [Peter J. Dotzauer]
    Tone Dialing on DMS-100 Centrex  [Heath Roberts]
    Re: Need Info on AT&T Sceptre Teletext Terminal [Brad Simmons]
    PTT Phones [Robert Savery]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Loop Start and Ground Start Trunk Supervision
Date: 7 Apr 90 22:26:23 EST (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael A. Patton) writes:

> Loop Start provides no way to interlock against glare,
> Ground Start interlocks intrinsically in the protocol for picking up
> the trunk.

    However, glare cannot be totally eliminated, even with ground
start trunks.  A trunk for an outgoing call is selected by an idle
condition of open on the tip side of the line.  Depending upon the
type of PABX, there could well be a one second or more "window of
opportunity" for an incoming call to arrive on that very same trunk
before the PABX actually *seizes* the selected trunk by placing a
ground on its ring side.

    To quote Murphy's Law of Telephone Anomalies, "If it can
happen, it will happen, given enough traffic." :-)

> On the other hand Ground Start
> trunks can be configured (I don't remember if it's the default) to
> return positive supervision so accurate billing can be done.

    The only way that a ground start trunk can signal any type of
supervision is by means of T/R battery reversal.  Traditionally, T/R
battery reversal was provided on ground start PABX trunks as a
tariffed option *solely* for toll diversion purposes.

    I have personally never seen a PABX which considers a ground
start trunk T/R battery reversal as indicative of any type of answer
supervision, nor have I seen a tariff for this type of offering - by
New York Telephone, at least.  On the other hand, I don't exactly
claim intimate familiarity with all the new-fangled PABX's on the
market these days, so I suppose anything is possible.

> The lack of supervision also means that the PBX is solely at the mercy
> of the local user to know when a call is over.  If an outside caller
> calls you (or you call out), the switch will keep the circuit up until
> you hang up your phone, it can't tell when the outside party hangs up.
> This means that among other things --- if you leave your phone off
> hook rather than hanging up on an inbound call --- you are tying up a
> CO trunk.  In some cases the CO will detect this condition and drop
> the call on its side, opening the line up to glare or other problems.

    I have never seen a PABX without some type of CPC relay or
equivalent detector circuit which operates on CO trunk loop current.
Don't forget, loop current is loop current, whether the trunk is loop
start or ground start.  A momentary loop open on an outgoing call, as
created when a callED party disconnects, is detected by the PABX and
forces release of the station from the affected trunk.  The same thing
holds true for an incoming call, in which case the momentary loop open
is created when the callING party disconnects first.

> Now finally, in case you haven't figured it out, the above is the
> reason you can't forward incoming calls back out without Ground Start
> trunks.  The PBX has no one to watch for final disconnection.

    There is no reason why a PABX cannot consider a momentary loop
open on either the incoming trunk or outgoing forwarded trunk as the
basis to disconnect the forwarded call.  Even on a loop start line, a
momentary loop open WILL be provided when the incoming call
disconnects.  I won't disagree that the tip supervision on a ground
start trunk is better because it is a *sustained* rather than
momentary open, but there is no fundamental reason why loop start
trunks cannot function in this application.  Don't forget that
station-installed call diverters, such as those made by Ford
Industries, have been available for almost 20 years.  Such call
diverters *always* utilized two loop start lines.

> The reason I know all this is that I used to work as telecom manager
> (among other things) at a company that had a Loop Start only PBX which
> did allow forwarding to outside lines and I had to regularly go
> through all the trunks into the system to find the ones that were hung
> and fix them up (disconnection for about 5 mins seemed to do it).

    I don't doubt your experience, but I suspect it is the result
of a PABX which was poorly designed with inadequate CPC control, or
the result of an incorrect installation (i.e., perhaps wrong wiring
options).


<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700       {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488

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

Subject: Glare on PABX Trunks
Date: 8 Apr 90 11:08:49 EST (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> In the real world of modern CO switches (1ESS or newer) glare is a
> negligible problem. Unlike SXS and crossbar, electronic/digital
> switches apply ring current simultaneously with the connection to the
> called party. Once any PBX sees that ring, the trunk is instantly
> taken out of the pool for outside calls. Therefore, even systems with
> loop start trunks need not segregate the available lines for incoming
> vs outgoing.

    A well-designed ringup detection circuit in a PABX (or any
other device, for that matter) will provide a time constant of several
hundred milliseconds before furnishing a logical signal to the trunk
circuit that ringing is in fact detected.  The purpose of such delay
is to prevent line transients from being falsely detected as ringing.

    While it is true that ESS and some modified XBAR will supply
immediate ringing to the called party, the ringup detection circuit
time constant still offers a "window of opportunity" for glare on a
loop start trunk.

    The above condition is not a problem on a ground start trunk,
however, since the CO *immediately* supplies ground on the tip side of
the line to mark it busy.  Under these circumstances, ringup detection
delay is immaterial.  Ground start trunks have always worked this way,
even in SxS offices.

    Glare may still occur in ground start trunks due to delay in
the PABX between the time it selects an idle trunk (i.e., ascertains
that tip is open), and actually seizes the trunk (placing ground on
ring).


<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700       {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488

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

From: James Cayz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Questions
Date: 8 Apr 90 22:54:16 GMT
Reply-To: James Cayz <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Delaware


    Here in the land of 302 / Bell Atlantic / Diamond State Bell,
we are expected to get Caller ID on May 1 (pending FCC approval).
Before I run out and get it, I have a few general questions.  Please
reply to me directly - I can re-post to net or directly to others who
request a summary.

    1) The cost for the service is $5 for installation + $6.50 /
month, the $5 being the turn-on cost for any CLASS feature.  Isn't
this a little high, monthly (maybe I missed this, but I thought I had
seen some of you say it was free after activation charges)??? This is
not the charge for Privacy (which, although they don't have yet, they
are definately thinking of making available).

    2)  Caller ID Units - I have called the Bell Atlantic Consumers
Services group, and the only unit w/out a phone that they have in current
supply is their most expensive model, that holds 35 last numbers, read vs. new
numbers, etc, etc, and is $79...  Their other 2 models are so "sold out" and
so back-ordered that they don't even know when they will (if ever) have them
again.   Should I check elsewhere for these units, and how much do they cost
(where / general range / features ) ????

    3) Will we (ie, in the next 30 years) see Caller-ID
cross-country?  Not every number, but maybe all numbers on digital
CO's??

    4) Most important question, and most convoluted...  I want to
get Caller ID for home (302-737-XXXX).  No Problem.  However, I have
friends who live at the University of Delaware, as well as people I
would rather not talk to, but have the answering machine kick in :-) .
Now the university is on this mess of a system, with dorms (ie,
friends) on 302-738-XXXX and offices (ie, other people) on
302-451-XXXX, but they are cross-connected (so dialing '5' + XXXX gets
an office from a dorm and vice-versa).

I had heard that Caller ID sometimes displays the outgoing trunk line
# from a PBX, and wondered what I would get on my Caller ID box.  The
rep could not find out, definitively.  Now, since they are such a messy
system, would they share outbound lines?  Would I maybe get "451-0000"
for both a "738" and "451" call, or would I get "738-0000" for a "738"
call, "451-0000" for a "451" call?  Rep still didn't know.  But, she
did have a great piece of info - Call Block works fine this way - If I
Call Block'ed 451-1234, 451-1233 and 451-1235, as well as all other
451- & 738- numbers would still get through.  (ie, the Call Block part
of CLASS _can_ distinguish between separate extensions of a PBX).  The
Question Is - What does Caller ID do (both "supposed to" and "does
here in my area") with PBX and multi-exchange PBX calls (assuming the
Caller ID is connected to a number outside the PBX's).

    Thanx again for any replies -_please_send_them_directly_to_me,
I will summarize to net if I get > 10 requests (or 1 from the
moderator :-) ), otherwise I _will_ send each requestor a summary via
direct e-mail.


|James Cayz can be found via:    USPS: Educational Technology Laboratory,
|E-MAIL (ARPA): [e-mail]  : 203 Willard Hall Education Building,
|PHONE: [phone]              : University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716


[Moderator's Note: Yes, please post the summary here for us.   PT]

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

From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Access to the 'BTX' Service of the West German Telco
Date: 9 Apr 90 02:46:56 GMT
Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC


Is it possible to access the 'BTX' service (offered by the Bundespost,
the West German state telecomm. organization) from the U.S.,
preferably through means other than transatlantic phone calls?
It is probably similar to the French MiniTel system, which IS
accessible from the U.S.


Peter Dotzauer, Numerical Cartography Lab, Dept of Geography, OSU, Columbus, OH
   VOICE [phone]      FAX [phone]       DATA [phone]
  BITNET pjd@ohstvmb       UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd
    FIDO 1:226/330   INTERNET [e-mail] [128.146.1.5]


[Moderator's Note: I may be mistaken, but I believe they have a
network address on Telenet. I believe a network address for
information would be @C 026245621040000,NAME,PWD. No collect calls
accepted!  You will need the NAME,PWD following the address. You must
log in. To learn about the network, Login: ID INF300, Passwort: DATACOM
To learn about Telebox Mail........ Login: ID INF400, Passwort: TELEBOX-E

Connect time is free on the above two demonstration accounts, except
for the Telenet international connection. And I also believe there is
a German/English toggle, allowing you to read the demo information in
either language.  PT]

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tone Dialing on DMS-100 Centrex
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 03:19:57 GMT


There's been some discussion about short DTMF tones generated by
DMS-100 switches using Meridian Digital Centrex (MDC) service. We use
MDC at work (Northern Telecom) and although there are no touchtones
while dialing, after the call is completed, tones last as long as you
hold the key... works fine with voice-mail, answering machines, etc...


Heath Roberts
NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program
[e-mail]

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

From: Brad Simmons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Info on AT&T Sceptre Teletext Terminal
Organization: IEX Corporation, Dallas
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 05:13:32 GMT


Your terminal was designed to work with AT&T's LADT (Local Area Data
Transport) videotex service.  This service was put into commercial
service in Florida, with the Knight Ridder newspaper chain supplying
the database, from about late 1982 till sometime in 1984(?) (it's been
a long time ;-).  There were two versions of the terminal: one that
had a built in 9600 baud limited distance modem (for data on top of
voice that allowed both the customer's voice connection and data
connection to be sharing the same phone line), and one with a built in
1200 baud modem.  In either case they were designed to talk to
proprietary terminal concentrators located in the Central Office.  To
the best of my somewhat foggy rememberance at this point, there is no
compatibility of this terminal with any existing commercial modem
standards.


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

Date: Sun, 08 Apr 90 10:04:00 EDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: PTT Phones
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


Recently, Tom Perrine wrote :

>I saw a phone once ( Bell system 2500 ) that had a push to talk switch
>in the handset.....

When I was in the Air Force, I worked in a whole building of these
things. I can't remember who made them, but as the whole system was
older than the hills, I'm sure they were Bells.

As the entire building was a restricted area, quite often we'd be
discussing classified information when the phone rang. The PTT switch
was an added precaution to ensure that the person calling in didn't
hear anything they weren't supposed to. Since the phones were on
unsecure lines, you could never tell when Ivan might've been
listening!

As I said, the phones were older than dirt. As a result the switches
were often wore out and even squeezing the handset as hard as you
could, you'd still get times when your voice would drop out. It made
for interesting conversations when the person on the other end didn't
understand about the phones.

                          BOB

   --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
    * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #241
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15949;
          10 Apr 90 3:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07325;
          10 Apr 90 1:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10979;
          10 Apr 90 0:10 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Apr 90 0:10:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #242
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Apr 90 00:10:16 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 242

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Further Comments on Coin Telephone Fraud [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Paul Colley]
    Re: Dutch, British Telecom [Ge' Weijers]
    Re: More on Remote Eavesdropping with an Unmodified Telephone [J. Leichter]
    Re: Loop Start and Ground Start Trunk Supervision [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Mercury in the UK: A Question [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test [Nickolas Landsberg]
    Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Further Comments on Coin Telephone Fraud
Date: 8 Apr 90 11:07:03 EST (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
writes:

> >In single-slot pre-pay coin stations, the totalizer provided a
> >shunt contact across the rotary or DTMF dial which was not removed
> >until the full initial rate was deposited.  No money, no dial.  End
> >of *this* :-) fraud problem.

> So, then, will my Casio Watch/Telephone Dialer work through the mouthpiece?

    Yes, on a touch-tone coin station arranged for pre-pay
operation.  However, pre-pay coin stations have become rather rare, so
this type of fraud becomes almost a moot point.

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

> I have a friend who can pulse-dial phone numbers by rapidly tapping
> the hang-up button.  It's kind of impressive to see him dialling a
> number with lots of 9's and 0's in it.  He has about an 80% success
> rate (i.e., 20% wrong numbers).

> He claims, though I've never seen it, that this works at pay phones
> without having to pay.

    The above scenario requires a coin station arranged for
pre-pay service, which is no longer very common (at least in BOC
serving areas).  It is difficult, but not impossible to "pulse dial"
the switchhook on a single-slot coin station (i.e., like 1A or 1C type
coin telephone set).

The difficulty arises because the switchhook on these coin stations
has quite a bit of travel, and the "trigger point" has to be
identified in order to pulse fast enough with a % break that the CO
apparatus will accept.  In addition, the switchhook on these coin
stations has four sets of contacts, each of which has a different
timing, two of which are connected in *parallel* to frustrate would-be
switchhook dialers.

    As far as I am concerned, if your friend is adept enough to
"switchhook dial" one of these coin stations, he *deserves* to get the
call for free. :-)

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

> There was another type of fraud that seemed to be common a few years
> ago in San Francisco. The {direct} victim, however was the user.
> Someone was opening the one side of the line. Folks would come up, not
> bother to listen for DTF, and drop in money. The powerless
> one_arm_bandit would hold onto the money. After half a day or so, the
> thief would come back, reconnect the pair, and collect all the money
> spilling into the return chute.

    This fraud is almost as old as the coin station itself,
although it has become less of a problem since the extensive
introduction of DTF (Dial Tone First) service.  These perpetrators are
kept in business, though, because many people still drop a coin into a
DTF station without first listening for dial tone.

    This fraud reached its peak, however, during the 1960's in New
York City.  There were organized gangs of criminals who plied this
trade, aided by accomplices working for New York Telephone who
furnished pair assignment information.  A perpetrator could therefore
find a cross-connect box located a thousand feet or more from the
target coin station and lift the pair without there being any obvious
association between the perpetrator and the target coin station.

Since many telephone installation and repair personnel work in New
York City without a truck, there is almost never any suspicion upon
seeing a lone individual with a tool belt working on outside telephone
plant.

> On a larger scale, every so often mention shows up of person/persons
> unknown who can clean out a coinslot box in 30 seconds. Seems that the
> powers_that_be have been chasing {him,her,them} from coast to coast,
> following a string of now_empty slots.

    Manipulation of coin station locks is not easy because they
are intentionally designed to require a great deal of force to open
with a key.  The perpetrator of this larceny has obviously mastered
this art, since it is unlikely that he could have obtained duplicate
keys for the extensive geographical area in the Southwest which has
been hit by apparently one person.


<> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. - Uniquex Corp. - Viatran Corp.
<> UUCP {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
<> TEL  [phone] || 716/773-1700      {utzoo|uunet}!/      \uniquex!larry
<> FAX  [phone] || 716/773-2488

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

From: Paul Colley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: 9 Apr 90 12:07:42 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo


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

>Paul Colley <[e-mail]> writes:

>> I have a friend who can pulse-dial phone numbers by rapidly tapping
>> the hang-up button.

>I would like to see him do this at pay phones. For one thing, why
>bother? Use the TT pad; it works with or without coins being deposited
>in dial tone first phones.

I guess we're kind of primitive up here; Touch-Tone pay phones are
relatively recent...  (i.e., only common in the last 5-7 years, as I
recall)

There may be a correlation here; it was 1984 when we originally had
the discussion, which perhaps I should have mentioned in my post.  The
next time I see him I'll try to remember to ask if he's done this at a
pay phone recently.


Paul Colley   Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Canada     [e-mail] or .ca

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

From: Ge' Weijers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dutch, British Telecom (was Billing and Answer Supervision)
Date: 9 Apr 90 12:23:29 GMT


[e-mail] (Mike Olson) writes:

>When I was in Holland, my phone had a counter on
>the wall, although such a counter isn't required to get a phone
>installed; the PTT will keep track of message units whether you have
>one or not.  In either case, I suspect that they used the same
>technology at the billing office.  You can hear pulses on the
>telephone line whenever the counter increments; you can hear these
>pulses at the same rate whether you have a counter or not.  This gets
>pretty grim on a trans-oceanic call; the pulses come along at better
>than one every ten seconds, and make it hard to hear what the person
>on the other end of the line is saying.

Something is not quite right on the phone line in question. The
counter impulse is given on both lines, and the counter is connected
between the two signal lines and the ground line. The line transformer
(or it's IC replacement) is connected to the two signal lines only.
I've used a lot of phones, and usually you don't hear a thing.

A complaint would have been in order. Bad isolation might be the cause.

As an aside: the counter impulse is not available generally. You might
have to pay for it, depending on the age of the exchange and the
management of the district.


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

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

From: [e-mail]@venus.ycc.yale.edu
Subject: Re: More on Remote Eavesdropping with an Unmodified Telephone Set
Date: 9 Apr 90 08:34:53 EST
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)


Larry Lippman's recent comments - for which this reader says "much
thanks" - bring to mind a an old story.  It may be "urban legend", or
there may be something behind it.

It's claimed that the reason Ma Bell was so slow to replace the little
incandescent bulbs in multi-line phones with LED's was a security
problem.  It seems that voices on the line modulate the power
available to the indicators.  The reluctance of the old incandescents
was high enough that no useful information could be gotten from
them, but it was alleged that the LED's provided a nice clear signal
which could be read, say, with a decent telescope and a little
equipment, from the building across the street.

            -- Jerry

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start and Ground Start Trunk Supervision
Date: 9 Apr 90 15:42:54 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


Our Ericsson MD-110 switch seems to have at least two types of analog
line interfaces: one does not provide loop supervision to the called
extension when a callER disconnects.  Instead, the audio drops
immediately to a reorder tone and the line is marked out of service if
it does not go on hook within a few seconds.  Going on-hook for a
while (more than a few seconds) will return the line to in-service
status without manual intervention - a good thing, since our
switchroom is unattended from early evening on.

As you might guess, this lack of supervision is a major pain for
answering machines, modems, and such, requiring that they sense the
reorder tone and disconnect.  Luckily, the reorder tone (a high/low
warble) is not sensed as carrier for very long by most modems,
although many spew incredible amounts of garbage on the screen when
this happens.

It's even more annoying in that calls to out-of-service lines are
forwarded to the attendant's position, which if unmanned after hours,
either gives an inappropriate recording or just rings no answer.

I am told that the number of analog lines with loop supervision is also
quite limited - apparently the interface cards with loop supervision
can only support a few lines each, whereas they get several lines per
card for the non-supervised lines.
    - Brian

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mercury in the UK: A Question
Date: 9 Apr 90 18:54:05 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail] (woody) writes:

>I have heard about this Mercury service in the UK, which is something
>like a competing phone company. Originally, I believe they were into
>public telephone service (like COCOTs or something like that).

>Are they into long distance, also, in the manner that Sprint or MCI
>would be in the US? If so, how would calls be dialed through (ie. what
>is the UK equivalent of 10XXX+ or 950 service, if any?).

Disclaimer: I don't live in the UK; these observations are based on a
brief visit last year.

Mercury long distance service is available to individuals on a
subscription basis, analogous to US "dial 1" service. In order to
access Mercury away from home, you have to use a special Mercury
phone. In most of London that I saw, Mercury phones were much in
evidence, though not as plentiful (of course) as BT phones.

Don't know of much if any functional difference between the Mercury
and BT card phones; about half of BT's phones these days seem to use
phone cards.

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy
Date: 9 Apr 90 16:41:33 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> AT&T which has donated money to Planned Parenthood for years recently
> decided to stop donating money.  I recently called AT&T to find out if
> it was true that they had capitulated to right wing extremists.

Tell me, if a company decided to stop doing business with South
Africa, because of protests by customers, would you say they had
"capitulated to left wing extremists"?

Companies look for ways to avoid irritating any organized group.


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: Mon,  9 Apr 90 15:00:52 EDT
From: Nickolas Landsberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test


Hi Patrick,

A couple of articles have appeared where people question why sometimes
their phones ring in the middle of the night, apparently on some
scheduled basis.  While I'm not sure that this is THE explanation
for that behavior, it is a possible explanation.

Most switches can be programmed to perform a "line insulation test" on
subscriber lines.  In the days of #1XB and #5XB this involved actually
placing a special circuit on the line which measured the line
resistance, and there was a special "frame" installed in the switch to
do it.  (I had the pleasure of seeing one of these in operation about
10 years ago.  Still used vacuum tubes and a mechanical timer for when
to start the test.)  While I'm not familiar with the internals of how
the digital switches do it, I presume the general concept is the same.
Since measuring the resistance of the line requires placing some
voltage across it (no, I don't know how much), it is conceivable that
this voltage may be enough to trip the ringer on some newer phones.

This test was/is also used to determine patterns of trouble, such as
wet insulation in a cable.  If a number of lines in the same cable all
show low resistance, the chances are the cable has sprung a leak, and
particularly in old cable plant, the paper insulation is breaking
down.  The test is run at night because there is typically low traffic
volume and the testing doesn't have to complete with the dial-tone
provisioning which is first priority and, at least in theory, any
moisture in the cable will "condense" in the evening as the
temperature drops.


Nick Landsberg

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test
Date: 8 Apr 90 23:39:01 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> uop!quack![e-mail]
(Nick Sayer) writes:

>If I'm up late at night, I sometimes hear a short beep from the phone.

In many central offices, there is an automatic testing system that
goes through every idle line in the office and tests for resistance
between conductors (leakage) and resistance to ground. The voltages
used for the test will frequently cause "bell taps" or a short ring in
telephones that do not meet spec for ringer hysterisis and
sensitivity.

I have never experienced that phenomenon here, but then it's possible
my CO doesn't run the tests. Also, I have never had any [Time Magazine]
phones on the line, either.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #242
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20136;
          10 Apr 90 5:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29210;
          10 Apr 90 3:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16316;
          10 Apr 90 2:17 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Apr 90 1:18:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #243
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Apr 90 01:18:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 243

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Extended 911 Coverage [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? [Thomas J. Roberts]
    Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation [Stuart Lynne]
    Re: Access to the 'BTX' Service of West German Telco [John R. Covert]
    Re: Access to the 'BTX' Service of West German Telco [Wolf Paul]
    Re: The Card [Pat Luther]
    Is MCI Taking Over Telecom*USA? [David Tamkin]
    Southwestern Bell Imposes Ego Tax [Gordon Burditt]
    Eric{o,a}phone [Tom Ace]
    Quirk With "The Universal Card" [Gene Spafford]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Extended 911 Coverage
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 17:04:00 GMT

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

>I don't expect to see a state-wide (area-code-wide, LATA-wide, they're
>all the same for me) 911 coverage for quite some time unless some
>changes are made.

> [non-uniform dialing in different exchanges...]

>Until they get together and resolve this kind of problem there won't
>be any universal 911 for all of 603 (or even the southern NH area).
>This is complicated by the fact that there are a lot of towns in NH,
>including two covered by the Nashua phone book, that have independent
>phone companies.

N.E.T. WANTS to sell N.H. a statewide, E-911 system; They would like
SOMEONE [State of N.H., probably] to set up the P.S.A.P. and relay all
calls to the proper agencies.  This is not meeting with immediate
accepance: Most municipal and county fire and police agencies have
their own dispatch facilities or are tied in with area-wide dispatch
centers (including some existing basic 911); A central PSAP would add
new costs, proceedures, delays, and another level of
hardware-software-wetware subject to Murphy's Law; The lookup
database, including UNIFORM streets and numbers [largely not existing
now] is also mentioned as a sine-qua-non.

I have wondered why a slightly lower-tech solution utilizing existing
facilities could not be a valid, interim solution:

1.  Require 9-1-1 calls to be routed to a location specified by the
municipal authority for the origin of the call; N.H. law already
specifies different billing for in-town [free local calling] and
out-of-town calls, and they can deliver 1+ calls to different LD
providers on a per-number basis, so it should be possible to deliver
911 to the proper answering point.

2.  Provide calling number I.D.; some existing 911 systems here would
be happy just to get this feature; databases could be built up as
needed, correlating existing info with Telco info.

There would be some operational and technical problems to be solved
here, but it seems to me far fewer than there would be to implement
one statewide system, all at once, at least in N.H.


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

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

From: Thomas J Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For?
Date: 9 Apr 90 14:59:33 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> [Moderator's Note: But 710 is currently designated 'Government Special
> Services' is it not?  And no one has ever written an article here
> explaining exactly what those services are. I wish they would.    PT]

No one ever will.  710 WILL NOT be assigned as a geographical area code.


Tom Roberts
AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!ihlpl!tjrob


[Moderator's Note: *No one* ever will?  No one at all? Then perhaps
someday I will ... or perhaps another reader will provide some
information.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: US Sprint -- A Case Study in Misinformation
Date: 9 Apr 90 23:12:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


In article <[e-mail]> mtndew![e-mail] (Steve Friedl)
writes:

>> I assume fax machines use some sort of error-correction, so anything
>> but truly horrid phone lines shouldn't affect it.

>No, not at all.  Note here that "fax" means Group III, which is all I
>have substantial experience with.

>Group III fax has neither error correction nor flow control, so phone
>lines do definitely make a difference.  The data pattern is modified

Yes and no ...

Yes: most (if not almost all) Group III machines do not have error correction.

No: CCITT Group III specifications (as of 1988) do allow for an ECM
mode between two consenting machines.


[e-mail] ubc-cs!van-bc!sl
604-937-7532 (voice)    604-939-4768 (fax)

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 05:42:31 PDT
From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco


I'm certain that the German BTX system has an X.25 number, but the
number the moderator provided (26245621040000) is not the BTX system;
it is the Telebox Mail system (on which I have an account).  Telebox
Mail is a _completely_ separate system from BTX.

Remember that BTX, like all European videotex (not to be confused with
teletext or videotext) systems, does not speak normal ASCII.  It uses
the European CEPT graphics display language, usually built into
videotex-ready television sets.  Trying to talk to it without a
television set or other device containing a CEPT display translator is
doomed to failure.

Peter Dotzauer whetted our appetite with the statement that Minitel
can be accessed from the U.S.  Would he be willing to describe exactly
what's necessary to do so.


/john

P.S.: I'd like to ask the Moderator to please not refer to X.131
addresses on X.25 networks as "a network address on Telenet."  This
statement is the equivalent of saying that the telephone number
[phone] in London is a telephone number on US Sprint.  Telenet
is only one of several X.25 services in the U.S. providing access to
the worldwide X.25 network.  Neither X.131 addresses nor telephone
numbers outside the U.S. are "on Telenet" or "on US Sprint" anymore
than they are "on Tymnet" or "on AT&T."  They are, in fact, on some
local X.25 network or telephone network in the country in which they
are located.  Only numbers beginning with "3106" are "on Telenet."


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Dotzauer did indeed supply information on the
use of Minitel from within the United States. It is quite a lengthy
file and will be transmitted later this week.  PT]

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Access to West German BTX system -- supplement
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 14:49:02 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


I just tried the NUA supplied by the Moderator in response to
the above question, and it does NOT connect you to the West German BTX
system (which is a Videotex type service like French MiniTel), but rather
to the West German TELEBOX, which is an EasyLink or MCI-Mail type
commercial E-Mail service. Same supplier (German PTT), but different
service. Sorry.

In TELECOM Digest V10 #241, Peter J. Dotzauer <[e-mail]-state.
edu> asks if it is possible to access the West German BTX system from
the US, ideally without transatlantic calling, and refers to US access
for MiniTel.

I know that the Austrian and Westgerman BTX systems are interconnected,
and that the French MiniTel system is soon to join them in this
interconnection. Presumably at that time it should be possible to
access West German (as well as Austrian, Swiss, and Luxemburg) BTX
through MiniTel's New York access node.

I suspect that the Telenet connection mentioned by the Moderator would
be problematic because, to my knowledge, both the German and Austrian
BTX systems insist on billing to a telephone account under the
respective PTT, and presumably, US users would not have a West German
telephone number. This problem does not exist with the interconnection
mentioned above, since billing is taken care of via the user's home
system, i.e. MiniTel, if you have an account with them.


Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: [phone]     FAX: [phone]      UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: [e-mail]    BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

From: Pat Luther <uop![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 10 Apr 90 02:44:11 GMT
Organization: University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA


[e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:

> I have ... a good
>credit rating, as far as I know [does getting continually pestered
>with "pre-approved" solicitations for various gold cards prove that?].

Nope, sorry, not in the least ...  I also get constantly pestered with
"pre-approved" solicitations for just about every card I've ever heard
of and a lot I haven't. Often, I get these within days of letters from
the same company telling me to pay my past bill or they'll turn me
over to their collection agency.  Seems many of these companies do all
their mailing at about the same time, and don't have a whole lot of
correspondence between their various databases.

I know, something similar is mentioned in Douglas Adam's _Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_ but these things happen in real
life, too.

                pat

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is MCI Taking Over Telecom*USA?
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 11:03:26 CDT


This morning, on WMAQ Radio in Chicago, I heard a news item that MCI
was buying Telecom*USA.  Naturally, I was less than thrilled at the
news.

When I phoned Telecom*USA to ask how the takeover would affect my
customer account with them for residential long distance service, the
rep had heard nothing about being bought by up MCI, nor even about
being up for sale.  She asked her supervisor, but the supervisor
hadn't heard anything either.

Does anyone have any information on it?  Perhaps it will make the
newspapers by the time this goes out in the Digest, but perhaps not.


David Tamkin      [e-mail]    {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier
P. O. Box 813   Rosemont, IL  60018-0813   [phone]   [phone]

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

From: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Southwestern Bell Imposes Ego Tax
Date: 9 Apr 90 07:51:13 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


 From a recent Southwestern Bell bill insert, a new service I can't
see why anyone would want, unless you're a business that has thus far
gotten away with having a residence line, and you're cocky enough to
risk getting caught:

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

Increase the value of your ``Signature''

Your listing in the phone book's residence section can stand out like
never before.  Similar services once reserved for business customers
let your name be ``special''.  And you can choose from two Signature
Listings:

Contemporary Bold
[ Example omitted due to limitations of ASCII ]

Sophisticated Script
[ Example omitted due to limitations of ASCII ]

Being distinctive can:

- Help friends and business associates find your number.
- Make a common or unusual name easier to locate.
- Highlight your number or your teen's.

                                                                       SM
It's easy to be among the first in Fort Worth with a Signature Listing    .
Call toll free 1-800-325-2686, Ext 971, by April 17 to order or for more
information.

For $3 a month* you can set your ``signature'' apart.  Call today!

* Your Signature Listing will be renewed automatically each year
unless you cancel the service before the directory's closing date.
Information on directory closing dates is available by calling your
Southwestern Bell Telephone business office.

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

An example directory listing column is shown on the other side with
two signature listings mixed in with the ordinary ones.  It is
interesting that EVERY phone number mentioned has an "area-code-like"
N0/1X exchange.  I guess putting everything in the 555 exchange looks
too boring.  Since the type sizes differ, if there are many signature
listings, it's going to be difficult finding ANYTHING in the
directory.

I wonder why anyone would pay $36 a year for this.  (Directories do
not come out on a monthly basis, so unless you disconnect the line,
it's probably going to cost you at least $36).  When they develop an
ink that telephone solicitors can't see but it gives them a rash, then
maybe I'll bite.

            Gordon L. Burditt
                   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 11:44:52 PDT
From: Tom Ace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eric{o,a}phone


Larry Lippman wrote, about the design of the Ericophone:

>  ...the overall design scheme may best be described as phallic in nature.

It was a one-piece phone that would stand erect on a surface, kind of
a handset that included a enlarged flattened base.  I think it went
off-hook when you picked it up, and there was a dial on its underside.
The thing was far too ugly to deserve being described as phallic.

(BTW, I think it was spelled "Ericaphone".  I'm not certain, though.)

Of course, if you want a one-piece dial phone, you should (IMHO) have
the classic, i.e., a Western Electric model 1013 butt set, preferably
in orange.  Yes, I know, it doesn't ring very loudly.  :-)


Tom Ace
[e-mail]

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

From: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Quirk With "The Universal Card"
Date: 10 Apr 90 00:55:37 GMT
Reply-To: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


I just called to apply for "The Universal Card."  Everything went more
or less okay as the guy entered my name & address into the database.
Then he asked for my social security number.  Well, I haven't given
out my social security number in over a decade as a personal protest
against its use as an identifier.  It is abused far too often. If
someone doesn't pay me taxable income, they don't get the number.

Well, the entry clerk couldn't process the application without the
number (his program wouldn't allow it).  So, he refered me to customer
service.  At customer service I was told that it didn't matter if I
had any credit history with AT&T, or anyone else in the known
universe, without a SS# they would not process an application.

This is interesting.  I've had an AT&T calling card for a decade.
I've been able to get two Visa cards, a platinum AmEx, and various
other bits of plastic, but I have never had to give my SS# to do it.
My credit record isn't golden, but it's certainly up to getting one of
these cards ... if AT&T would cooperate.

The customer service person informed me that the only people who were
preapproved for cards had their SS# on file with the phone company
already as part of their customer record, so I didn't qualify as a
pre-approve!  Thus, those of you who were preapproved can take comfort
in knowing about the records the phone company keeps on you :-)

I asked that they send me a paper application.  I'll fill it out
(minus the you-know-what) and send it back.  If they deny it, I'll
file an appeal under the Fair Credit Act and see how they respond.
Neither Equifax nor TRW requires a SS# to pull a credit history, so
AT&T can't claim that it is required.  The last time someone tried
this, they sent me the card rather than answer the appeal (it was
Texaco, btw).

Anybody from AT&T out there who can comment on this?  (And maybe
comment on why the "customer service representative" was so haughty?)


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


[Moderator's Note: Probably the customer service representative was
'so haughty' because they perceived they were dealing with still
another in the growing number of people who mistakenly believe the
credit grantor *has* to give them credit no matter what. Credit
grantors are entitled to set any criteria they please -- save certain
illegal criteria -- and your options are to meet their criteria or do
without their credit. Credit is a privilege, not an automatic right;
and provided all applicants must meet the same requirements, there is
no unlawful discrimination; i.e. you have no valid complaint. You
chose not to identify yourself to their satisfaction.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #243
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20401;
          10 Apr 90 5:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29210;
          10 Apr 90 3:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16316;
          10 Apr 90 2:17 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Apr 90 2:13:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #244
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Apr 90 02:12:01 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 244

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Telecommunications Opportunities in the USSR [Paul Falchi]
    MCI Mail Introductory Offer [David Tamkin]
    Where Can I Buy a CLID Box? [Bill Berbenich]
    Looking For Cheap Front End For Phone Manufacturing [John R. St. Antoine]
    DTMF and Cindi [Pete Holsberg]
    On-line CCITT Standards?? [Mark C. Lowe]
    Searching For "Size of Market" Numbers [Mike Olson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 07:47:14 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Telecommunications Opportunities in the USSR


Note from Andrei:

This file will update the  status  of  telecommunications  in  the
USSR. Article will be published in  some  US  magazines.
                        Warning! Copyright.

[Moderator's Note: Used in TELECOM Digest / comp.dcom.telecom and
affiliated or associated telecom echos, or newsgroups with the
permission of the author. Permission is given to reprint anywhere
TELECOM Digest is normally distributed.  PT]


       NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SOVIET UNION

Paul Falchi, Deputy Director General
SOVAM TELEPORT  (Moscow)
and Director Marketing/Sales
San Francisco/Moscow  Teleport

o    Challenges in the Gorbachev Era
o    Current Telecommunications Project
o    Realizing New Ideas
o    Leap Frog and Customer Applications
o    Future is Bright for "Telestroika"

     The radical  political  changes  in  the  Soviet  Union  have
spurred new conditions and directions for economic  transformation
and  innovation.  A  dynamic  political  landscape  has  set   the
framework for an evolution of the national and regional  economies
to move to  a  mixed  economy  involving  better   conditions  for
implementing telcommunications technologies and  applications.  As
such, European, Japanese and  North  American  participation  will
increase  in  the  arena  of   engineering   feasibilty   studies,
international investment in facilities and manufacturing and joint
venture participation. Much commercial activity will  take  place,
as national economic policy is retooling from a  military-oriented
emphasis to a consumer production direction.

     800 services, telemarketing applications, answering machines,
photocopiers, fax machines and plain old telephone directories are
virtually nonexistent. All international  calls  placed  from  the
Soviet Union and many long distance calls withing the country must
be operator handled.

     By  the  year  2000,  the  Soviet  Union   telecommunications
infrastructure  will  require  massive  investments   to   upgrade
antiquated network facilities. This new emerging market translates
into a lucrative, large and  fast-growing  potential  for  foreign
participation.


                  Challenges in the Gorbachev Era

     The telecommunications market, in the Soviet Union,  both  in
terms of increased availability and improved  quality,  is  facing
tremendous changes for both providers and  customers.  The  Soviet
Union, today, has a very low  penetration  of  telephones  in  its
urban and rural areas --  less  than  10%  of  households  in  the
country have telephone sets. Of course, in major cities as Moscow,
Leningrad   and   Kiev,   household   telephone   penetration   is
significantly higher.

Serious supply constraints are to be found also, in switching  and
transmission facilities. Some  existing  network  facilities  date
back to the pre-1917 Revolution period; for example, single copper
wire placed in 1907 by the Swedish company Ericsson, is till being
utilized. As of 1989, only two major facilities in Moscow utilized
modern digital PBX facilities.

     However,  even  with   serious   supply   constraints,   some
interesting indications of tremendous market growth are  emerging.
In the last few years, US/USSR telephone traffic  has shown robust
activity. On the average, originating telephone traffic in the  US
to the USSR has increased about 35% per year,  and  voice  traffic
from the USSR to the US increased about 50%. Such growth  compares
favorably to other market growth.


             Annual Telecommunications Industry Growth

o    US Long Distance Voice Traffic               10%
o    US Enhanced Telecommunications Services      25/50%
o    RBOC Local Telephone Traffic                 5%
o    International Voice Traffic from US          20%
o    US/USSR Telephone Traffic:
     Originating in US                  Terminating in US
            35%                                50%

Demand for  telephone  traffic  between  the  two  countries  will
increasingly exceed capacity. This  should  result  in  growth  of
traffic in the 50% per year range.

The Soviet Union not only represents  a  huge  market  but,  aslo,
represents having a very low installed base  of  modern  equipment
and telecommunications infrastructure.

This has  prompted  some  perceptive  and  agressive  responds  by
Western firms,  which  even  a  few  years  ago  would  have  been
impossible.


                Current Telecommunications Projects

o    MCI has set up a deal to set up a satellite-based system  for
live video-conferencing between Moscow and US.

o    AT&T  is  actively  supporting  increased  telecommunications
circuits  between  the  two  countries   by   using   the   USSR's
Instersputnik satellite system for the first time.

o    US  West  International   and   seven   other   international
telecommunications companies want to develop a trans-Soviet  fiber
optic cable system linking Europe to Asia and  the  Pacific  Ocean
region.

o   Arthur D. Little, Inc., a management and technology consulting
firm, has formed a partnership to develop Soviet technology.


                        Realized New Ideas

     SOVAM TELEPORT is an example of a  small  player  recognizing
the immense needs, taking  risks  and  initiative  and  finding  a
market niche.  In  late  1989,  the  first  Soviet-American  joint
venture  in  telecommunications  was  formed  by   the   All-Union
Scientific  Research  Insitute  for  Applied   Automated   Systems
(VNIIPAS) and the San  Francisco/Moscow  Teleport  company,  which
have been collaborating closely since 1984. The joint venture  has
the financial support in the US from three leading  businessmen  -
George Soros, Alan Slifka, from New York, and Henry Dakin from San
Francisco. The Soviet parent,  VNIIPAS,  is  the  official  record
carrier in the field of data communications, packet-switching  and
various other computer/telecommunications projects. The new  joint
venture provides the following services:

o    Electronic mail between the Soviet Union and the US

o    Direct PC to Host Computer Service between US and USSR (*)

o    PC and Equipment Sales and Rentals

o    Telecom Consulting

o    Data Base Access

o    Direct Digital Private Lines


        Customer Applications and "Leap Frog" Possibilities

o    The focus on telecommunications market should be two-fold:

1) provide rapid technology development and deployment; and

2) investigate  market  sucess   in   developing   new   customer
applications.

In other words, technology innovation needs to  be  directed  with
very specicic  customer  benefits  in  order  to  gain  widespread
acceptance. At the same time, creative efforts  to  introduce  new
services,  effectively,  will  require  reorganization  of  unique
customer requirements, marketing approaches and specific  customer
applications orientation.

o    The Soviet Union has targeted telecommunications  as  one  of
their development priorities. Professor Y.U.Gulyaev,  chairman  of
the Telecommunications and Informatics  Committee  in  the  Soviet
Parliment and Director of the Institute of Radio Engineering, is a
key proponent of the new role of telecommunications development in
the Soviet Union. The  point  is  quite  clear  that  as  long  as
customers have to wait years for a phone line and frequently spend
significant portions of the day  trying  to  get  through  to  one
another, it will be  difficult  to  get  other  sectors  of  their
economies moving.

o   However, in the great efforts to build modern a communications
infrastructure, there is a risk that a PTT, in the Soviet Union or
Eastern Europe, will try to mirror  historical  technological  and
investment avenues provided by Western experience. The  option  to
follow the sequences of regulatory structures, network  facilities
strategies and product/service provisioning may be  shortisighted.
Countries such as the Soviet Union have the ability in many cases,
to leap-frog past business procedures in the West. For example, at
the technology level, a strong case can be made  for  implementing
mobile communications,  instead of  sticking  to  the  traditional
practice of hard-wire connections.  The  cost  savings  of  mobile
technologies and faster multiple  applications  possibilities  are
quite exciting. Since there is no huge amount  of  network  plant,
switches and transmission invested, to depreciate,  new  networks
are more attractive.  For a society which desperately  needs  fast
consumer-oriented   results,   mobile   communications    provides
additional impressive strategic and tactical benefits.  Some  form
of deregulation and  liberalization  is  very  likely  to  be  the
business context in  the  coming  transition,  with  the  help  of
foreign investment, from ancient to modern systems.

                Future is Bright for "Telestroika"

     With the US beginning to  pursue  expanded  trade  agreements
with the Soviet Union, a growth umbrella will  provide  impetus  to
telecommunications projects.  In recent times, trade  has  hovered
between $1 billion and $3 billion a year.  A massive  increase  in
US-Soviet trade may see annual trade grow to $10  billion  to  $15
billion, according to recent reports in the  Bush  administration.
Increased and improved communications will assist the exchange  of
information -- personal, cultural, commercial and governmental and
thereby, improving global relations.

     Although analog services dominate, strong potential exists to
leap-frog technologies  and  significantly  up-date  services  and
introduce  new  customer  applications.   Private  companies  from
outside the USSR will be increasingly invited to  both  build  and
opertate portions  of  domestic  telephone  systems.   The  Soviet
Union's PTT in this decade will concentrate on extending universal
service and drastically improving regional and  national  service.
Future  expansion  of  specialized  networks,  bypass  facilities,
value-added   networks   and   enhanced   services   will   create
opportunities for foreign operators and joint ventures.

                                =====EOF=====

Andrei

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Mail Introductory Offer
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 13:59:00 CDT


MCI Mail is running a special introductory offer; I'm not sure how
much longer it will be on.  They are waiving the $25 annual fee for
the first year of the account and posting a $100.00 credit usable
toward email and, I believe, paper mail (but not, I think, fax or
Telex).  The $100.00 credit expires at the end of one's second
calendar month as a subscriber.

They're a bit backed up in processing, so the time available to use
the $100.00 may not be as great as one hopes.  If you decide you don't
want to keep the account, you don't send any outgoing mail after the
$100.00 runs out or expires, and you cancel the account by the
anniversary date, it costs nothing to try (at least from inside the
U.S., where their system is accessible without connect charges by 800
numbers).

MCI Mail is reachable by voice at (800) 444-MAIL or [phone].


David Tamkin      [e-mail]    {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier
P. O. Box 813   Rosemont, IL  60018-0813   [phone]   [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 10:06:52 EDT
From: Bill Berbenich <bill@shannon>
Subject: Where can I buy a CLID box?


I may have missed an earlier posting to Telecom about this, but I was
wondering where I can buy a CLID box on the open market (read: from
someone other than local telco).

Are there any electronics or third-party companies that sell these
retail?

Replies to me please, I will post a summary to Telecom.


William A. Berbenich        Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill    Internet: [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: For starters, try the 'Hello Direct' people. Such a
device is in their most recent catalog. Phone 1-800-HI-HELLO.  PT]

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

Subject: Looking For Cheap Front End For Phone Manufacturing
Organization: Computer Science Club, University of Waterloo
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: 9 Apr 90 06:14:38 EST (Mon)
From: "John R. St. Antoine" <[e-mail]>


I'm looking for a cheap front end to meet FCC, CSA approval for
telephony type product.  Can any one out there suggest a manufacturer
of such components?  I need part numbers and costs; please reply via
email to: [e-mail] .  If everything goes well, you
may be looking at a new telephone toy at Christmas.


        Thanx in advance,
        John St. Antoine

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

From: Pete Holsberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: DTMF and Cindi
Organization: The NEW Home of the TRENTON COMPUTER FESTIVAL
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 14:50:45 GMT


We had a computerized telephone message system called Cindi (or Cyndi)
installed on campus recently.  It requires that each phone user POLL
Cyndi to determine if there are any waiting messages!  (Unless it can
do something that I don't know about -- a distinct possibility!)

Someone suggested that there might be a way to get mccc, a 3B2/400
running SV R3.1.2, to call Cindi and somehow pick up my messages (I
don't mind if the computer polls Cindi but I sure don't want to!).
Does anyone have any ideas on how to accomplish this?

Thanks for the help.


Prof. Peter J. Holsberg      UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Eng'g Tech'gy/Comp'r/Math    Mercer College - 1200 Old Trenton Road
Trenton, NJ 08690            Voice: 609-586-4800  FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 22:06 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: On-line CCITT Standards??


Good day, eh?

I wonder if anyone here is familiar with an on-line source ( perhaps
FTPable ) of CCITT standards?  Of all the available standards here at
Texas A&M, the CCITT ones are saddly missing!  As an Engineering
Technology Telecommunications major, I need to refer to these
standards frequently!

Any replies will be greatly appreciated ... by myself and others, I'm
sure!


Mark C. Lowe - KB5III

[e-mail]

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

From: Mike Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Searching For "Size of Market" Numbers
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 90 22:27:26 PDT


As color for a paper I'm writing on telecommunications systems, I
would like to give numbers for the following:

    +  Number of long-distance calls placed in the US on an average
       weekday.  Number completed.

    +  Number of such calls placed/completed world-wide.

    +  Total number of calls placed on an average weekday, both
       strictly within the US and worldwide.

    +  Number of companies in the business of moving signals --
       that is, common carriers, and not just answering machine
       manufacturers.  Again, both domestic US and world-wide
       numbers would be nice.

I started trying to cobble up numbers on my own, but the information
numbers for domestic long-distance carriers are not staffed with
people who have memorized statistics like these.  So much for the
glorification of trivia...

In any case, if you have *authoritative* numbers -- even just
authoritative ballpark numbers -- I'd be interested in hearing from
you.  Best would be if you could cite a source.  I do read this group,
but would prefer email responses.  I'll collect submitted statistics
and forward them to the group if interest warrants it.

Thanks in advance.
            mike olson
            uc berkeley
            [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #244
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12776;
          11 Apr 90 3:31 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30674;
          11 Apr 90 1:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15869;
          11 Apr 90 0:39 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Apr 90 0:17:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #245
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Apr 90 00:17:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 245

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    LD Billing Tale [Robert Savery]
    Caller ID on System 75/85's ? [Thomas Lapp]
    Sprint's Disconnections [John Higdon]
    Detroit Gets CO Voicemail [Ken Jongsma]
    FCC Approved Interface [Henning Schulzrinne]
    Line Status Indicator [Macy Hallock]
    Something New With Cordless Phones [Steck Thomas]
    Non-standard Codes in the UK (Was Re: London 071/081 Split) [Tim Oldham]
    Cheap Long-distance Pay Phones [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Cellular Tech Questions [Jim Rees]
    DNIC Slip (Was Access to the 'BTX' Service) [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Apr 90 10:01:33 EDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: LD Billing Tale
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In several recent articles, various people have commented on the way
they receive their bills ( either from the local telco or in a
separate bill from the LD carrier ).

Here's a tale I think might amuse y'all.

For quite some time, both my parents and I had MidAmerican Long
Distance as our primary carriers at home. About 6 months ago,
MidAmerican was bought out by Telecom USA. I was never notified that
my carrier was "changed". I only found out when my mom asked me if I
had looked over the info Telecom USA sent out. After my "huh?" reply,
she told me about the change. Looking it over, we decided there was no
real difference in service, so no need to change (unless rates went
up). I promptly forgot the whole thing.

About a month later, I got a call from a telemarketer asking if I'd be
interested in switching to Telecom USA for my 1+ long distance
dialing.I explained to him I already had Telecom USA. I also mentioned
that I had not received the info packet at the time of the switch
over. To make a long story short, I received an info package 2-3 days
later. A couple of days after that, another call from telemarketing
wanting to know if, after reviewing the info I requested, would I like
to sign up? Again, I explained I was already a customer. The response
was something like " Oh, well would you like to sign up for a calling
card?" Having reached the limit of my endurance with telemarketers (
@15 seconds ) I said no.  Every things back to normal right?  Wrong!!

A couple of weeks ago, Dad called to ask my opinion of the flyer
Telecom had sent with the latest bill. Knowing the teleco bill would
not arrive for another couple of weeks, I asked what bill? I turns
out, ever since the merger, they had been receiving a separate bill
from Telecom USA. I immediately checked my teleco bills, and sure
enough, there was my charges for the long distance calls I'd made.

As far as I'm concerned, I rather have the LD calls along with the
rest of the bill as this saves me money ( cost of stamps, check
charges, and time). It would also seem to me, the LD carriers would
want combined billing as a money saving measure. As long as the charge
the teleco wanted to do this was not more than the cost of maintaining
their own billing dept, then their profit margin would be higher.

                           BOB

  --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.2
  * Origin: [1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 22:09:34 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID on System 75/85's ?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


On the system I have at work (a System 85), we have a database with
names and basically have internal caller ID for those phones equipped
with digital displays (7404, 7406 AT&T).  If you dial someone else on
the switch, their display shows your name as translated by the switch
database.  (ie your telephone station is your name).  Since there are
trunk lines going between our switch and the local Telco (Diamond
State, same as a posting from the other day), what are the chances
that on May 1st, I will see a telephone number in my display from
outside callers rather than "INCOMING" which now displays?

PS: I always get a chuckle thinking that I should dive under my desk
when the phone rings and it says INCOMING!


                         - tom

internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1         Location: Newark, DE, USA

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

Subject: Sprint's Disconnections
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 10 Apr 90 00:51:02 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


While on a Sprint call this evening, I suddenly remembered why it is
that I don't use Sprint on a regular basis. About thirty minutes into
the conversation, there were some strange noises, I could no longer
hear the other end and finally we were disconnected.

Thinking back, I can't remember a single time when I *haven't* been
disconnected by Sprint during the course of a lengthy call. Has anyone
else noticed this?

With the media advertising by Sprint and MCI, as well as the pushy
salestypes who call at the dinner hour, I have had a thought.
Ninety-nine percent of the sales push is the "low rates". In other
words, the only real consideration when choosing a long distance
company is "how much does it cost?" Well, to this I take exception. I
don't own the cheapest TV set, automobile, watch, camera, etc. Why
not?  Because there are other considerations to be weighed when making
any purchase or contracting for any service. How does the product fill
my needs and how reliable is it? These and other considerations are
usually more important than cost.

As for me and my house, I'd rather pay a few cents more for the call
and be able to talk continuously.


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

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

Subject: Detroit Gets CO Voicemail
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 9:04:32 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


According to [Communications Week], 100,000 residents of Detroit can
sign up for a Central Office based answering service. The service
directs calls to a vioce mailbox when the line is busy or does not
answer. Options allow for seperate boxes for each family member and
the ability to specify a delivery date and time. A paging service is
also available. Charges range from $5.95 - $13.95/month residential
and $9.95 - $17.95/month on business lines.


Ken Jongsma                                      [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                                [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 11:31 EST
From: Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Approved Interface


Dallas Semiconductor (Dallas, TX) manufactures a device which allows
you to connect your own circuitry to the public telephone network. The
company can be reached at [phone]; prices depend too much on
volume/distributor to be meaningfully cited here. You may even be able
to talk Dallas Semiconductor into sending you a sample or you can talk
to your local distributor: Hallmark and Milgray (among others). I
vaguely recall also seeing ads for such devices in "Electronic
Design".


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: ncoast!fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Line Status Indicator
Date: Tue Apr 10 10:55:40 1990


Several requests for Line Status Indicators have been posted in the
past.  I am aware of a couple of units on the market, but this one is
a new model and appears interesting:

Line Status Indicator is the given model name.  Literature shows unit
the about the size of a 42A block (roughly 2" square) with in and out
RJ11 type jacks on the back.  Display appears to be a small LCD type
on the narrow front (not the top).  Also stated: Lifetime guarantee.
Available in 2500 faceplate.

Crest Industries, Inc.    [phone]
201 Frontage Road N.  Suite B
Pacific, WA 98047

Notes on this subject:

I have always disliked line status indicators that operate off the
telephone line voltage due to (IMHO) too high LED current draw.  One
company (KLF) made a unit that blinked an LED to reduce the current
consumption, but I could always hear a faint "tic-tic" when the LED
flashed.  My limited hardware engineering abilities always told me
that a LCD might just be the ticket, as they have much lower current
draw than a LED ... and might be more visible in bright light.

I have not tried out this product yet.  I have purchased (and sold)
other Crest products and found them to be OK.  I thought this info
might be of general interest to the Digest readership...of course, I
have no interest in Crest ... just trying to be helpful.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!usenet.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: Steck Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Something New With Cordless Phones
Date: 10 Apr 90 17:34:42 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Steck <[e-mail]>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University


Something I've been wondering about lately...

Cordless phones are a convenience and have many advantages over corded
phones - mostly the lack of cord, and the increased mobility over a
corded phone.  The drawbacks - interference with other devices in the
neighborhood on that frequency, florescent lamps, and signal
interference from buildings, trees, etc.

My proposal is this:  why hasn't someone done this with digital signals?

With the costs of digital technology plunging, and availability of
digital components increasing, why hasn't someone put a sampler the
handset, converted the signal into a digital stream (with error
correction..) and send that to the base, which could then convert the
digital stream to an analogg signal.

Sounds like a good idea.


Tom Steck

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

From: Tim Oldham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Non-standard Codes in the UK (Was Re: London 071/081 Split)
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 17:22:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ian G Batten) writes:

>But the dialing between Birmingham and its satellites is still pretty
>mystic.  One and two digit codes _not_ starting with a zero are the
>order of the day, and there seem to be n^2 ways to call between n
>areas.

Just to clarify Ian's point: most areas have additional codes which
can be used to connect with local areas; that is, non-STD (Standard
Truck Dialling) codes. While STD codes all begin with 0, these
additional codes begin with non-zero. For example, to call from Newark
to Nottingham, a distance of about 30 miles centre-to-centre, you can
optionally use the code 91 instead of the STD code of 0602.  The STD
code will of course always work.

I assume that these non-STD codes are anachronistic, and will
gradually disappear. I'm not sure what effect they have on charging.

I work for BT but have no involvement with the operation or management
of the UK or International networks, and do not speak for them on this
subject.


Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. [e-mail] or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo
Living in interesting times.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 17:20:57 -0400
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cheap Long-distance Pay Phones?


IMR Telecom, based in Waltham, Mass., has installed 600 pay phones
around Massachusetts from which you can call anywhere in the country
for 25 cents a minute.

``There isn't a better buy out there,'' IMR President Tom Biggins said
in a press release. ``Calling long distance from our pay phones is
cheaper than calling from your home or office. For a quarter,
customers can call Springfield, Mass. or Springfield, Ill. It is
simply the best buy in the telecommunications market today.''

The company apparently has contracts with Christy's (a chain of
convenience stores), Sears, Filene's, Showcase Cinemas and some
colleges and universities, and Biggins says that if the state DPU
agrees to allow intra-LATA competition this spring, it will start
local service for just 10 cents a call.

Since several of these phones are in my paper's circulation area (why,
the Mr.  Donut on Rte. 9 in Wellesley has two of them!), I'll be
writing about this.  Does anybody know anything about this company, or
this type of operation? Any help would most appreciated!


Thanks!


Adam Gaffin         Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass.     [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]        Fred the Middlesex News Computer: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Cellular Tech Questions
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 15:18:15 GMT


I enjoyed John Covert's rundown on cellular channel capacity.  A few
more questions/observations:

Does anyone have the new Motorola super-small $1400 shirt-pocket
cellphone?  Any opinions?  Does it work and do you like it?

I assume that any cellphone has to have an RF duplexor.  This is a
device that prevents the transmitted RF from overloading the receiver
front end, and lets you use the same antenna for transmit and receive.
These are usually mechanical cavity resonators.  At 900Mhz these would
be about 8cm tall.

But in a cellphone, they must use something more sophisticated,
because the transmitter and receiver both have to be frequency-agile.
And I don't see how they could fit a duplexor into those little $1400
Motorola jobs.  Any clues as to how these little guys work?

Regarding cellphone mecca, Hong Kong: You see people in the subway all
the time, impatiently jabbing at their phones, waiting for the
"service unavailable" light to go out, because the RF can't reach into
the tunnels.  I'm surprised the cell company hasn't put slotted coax
into the tunnels.  Also, from the top of Peal Rise, I would think you
could see/hear every cell in HK and Macau.  Do cellphones work up
there or is there too much adjacent cell interference?

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

[Moderator's Note: A reader has suggested a series of articles in the
Digest regarding how to program various models of cellular phones.
Included would be a discussion of security and supervisory techniques
used by the carriers to detect fraud. Both the reader and myself feel
that people who buy cell phones (like any other expensive electronic
equipment) are entitled to know how to program their phones and how
they operate. Both of us feel a cell phone user should not be at the
mercy of a salesman or dealer to handle the reprogramming in the event
a change of carrier is desired.  What do you think?    PT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: DNIC Slip (Was Access to the 'BTX' Service)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 16:06:41 CDT


And verily, it came to pass in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 243,
that John Covert did write:

| Only numbers beginning with "3106" are "on Telenet."

Surely, Mr. Covert meant "3110".  3106 is the DNIC for BT Tymnet.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #245
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16160;
          11 Apr 90 5:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26059;
          11 Apr 90 3:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00501;
          11 Apr 90 2:46 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Apr 90 1:41:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #246
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Apr 90 01:40:33 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 246

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Eric{o,a}phone [Jim Rees]
    Re: More on Remote Eavesdropping With an Unmodified Telephone [John Higdon]
    Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test [Bernie Roehl]
    Re: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy [Steven King]
    Re: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy [Leonard P. Levine]
    Re: Loop Start and Ground Start Trunk Supervision [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number [Lang Zerner]
    MCI Buys Telecom*USA [Ken Jongsma]
    Call Trace Question [Stan M. Krieger]
    Reinstalling Dial-Type Coin Phones [Allyn Lai]
    US West and the War on Drugs [TELECOM Moderator]
    Illinois Bell Operators Stage Informational Picket [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Eric{o,a}phone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 00:44:32 GMT


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

> It was a one-piece phone that would stand erect on a surface, kind of
> a handset that included a enlarged flattened base.

Watch old re-runs of "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." to see this phone in
action.  Mr. Waverly has one on his desk.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Remote Eavesdropping with an Unmodified Telephone
Date: 10 Apr 90 04:54:10 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail]@venus.ycc.yale.edu writes:

> It's claimed that the reason Ma Bell was so slow to replace the little
> incandescent bulbs in multi-line phones with LED's was a security
> problem.  It seems that voices on the line modulate the power
> available to the indicators.  The reluctance of the old incandescents
> was high enough that no useful information could be gotten from
> them, but it was alleged that the LED's provided a nice clear signal
> which could be read, say, with a decent telescope and a little
> equipment, from the building across the street.

Well, I hate to be the thrower of cold water on a great sounding
story, but whatever reason Ma Bell had for not modernizing their line
indicators wharn't that. The incandescent bulbs were powered from 10
VAC obtained from the KSU power supply. If anything, the bulbs were
modulated by other bulbs going on and off within the system. But
mainly, they were modulated with 60 Hz from the AC line. Voices on the
line had no effect on the bulbs.

GTE had key phones with LEDs for years that would plug into standard
KSUs. If you tried to "eavedrop" with a photodetector, all you would
get would be a big buzz.


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

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

From: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test
Date: 10 Apr 90 14:26:47 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William R. Day)
writes:

>>If I'm up late at night, I sometimes hear a short beep from the phone.
   ...
>Same here. It seems that every night at about 11:30pm the phones in
>our house give a short half-ring. What is going on? I've decided the
>regularity is too great for this to be random noise on the line.

It sounds like a hacker in your city trying to find systems to break
into.  They assume that computers will answer when they see the ring
voltage (i.e. instantly); they run through every phone number in each
of their local exchanges waiting for that instant answer, giving up
right away to avoid humans.

(Odd, though ... I assume you'd still get one complete ring, or none at
all ... maybe it's phone company testing after all...)


    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: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy
Date: 10 Apr 90 14:46:26 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Gast) writes:

>AT&T which has donated money to Planned Parenthood for years recently
>decided to stop donating money.  I recently called AT&T to find out if
>it was true that they had capitulated to right wing extremists.
>[gory details omitted]

Hey, chill out David.  From the sound of your letter, you were
connected to a low-level AT&T flunky.  Of *course* she wasn't able to
comment on AT&T policy regarding Planned Parenthood!  She read you the
press release excerpts; that's probably all she had to go on too.  For
all you know the person you talked to may have been pro-life to the
same rabid degree that you're pro-choice, but unable and unwilling to
debate it with you at length.  I suggest that there are better ways to
make yourself heard than browbeating the poor non-policy-making
operators.


Steve King, uunet!motcid!king

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy
Date: 10 Apr 90 18:09:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (David Gast):

> AT&T which has donated money to Planned Parenthood for years recently
> decided to stop donating money.  I recently called AT&T to find out if
> it was true that they had capitulated to right wing extremists.

What is their donation policy?  Can I get a list of those charities
that they do donate to?  There is no question of thier caving in, they
did; what is open to question is just what forces we can put on them
to cave in to the groups that we disapprove of?


  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: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start and Ground Start Trunk Supervision
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 23:41:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>kitty![e-mail](Larry Lippman)
writes:

>I have personally never seen a PABX which considers a ground
>start trunk T/R battery reversal as indicative of any type of answer
>supervision, nor have I seen a tariff for this type of offering - by
>New York Telephone, at least.  On the other hand, I don't exactly
>claim intimate familiarity with all the new-fangled PABX's on the
>market these days, so I suppose anything is possible.

The SX series of PBX's from Mitel do recognize answer supervision on
analog trunks.  I believe the SL-1 by Northern Telecom can also.

The reason they do is that answer supervision is tarriffed by Bell
Canada (and others I asume) in one case.  That case is metered local
service in a hotel environment.  You have the option of receiving TM3
trunks from Bell at no charge to you (they determine how many).  These
trunks are for local calling from guest rooms, the hotel is charged 3
cents per COMPLETED call.  The hotel passes the charges (inflated of
course :'>) back to the guest.


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

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

From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number
Date: 10 Apr 90 19:21:23 GMT
Reply-To: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc.


I'm in Pacific Bell's "East Bay 3" service area.  The ANI number here
is 760-2222.

Be seeing you.

Lang Zerner

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

Subject: MCI Buys Telecom*USA
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 8:55:58 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Our local paper had a small paragraph stating that MCI has purchased
Telecom*USA. No additional details were available.

Oh joy. The possibilities boggle the mind. Does MCI start charging
exhorbitant AOS rates?


Ken Jongsma                                    [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                              [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think you are mistaken. Telecom*USA is not an
AOS. It is a genuine long distance company, with very reasonable rates.
MCI has had an AOS provide their operator services in the past, however.
What MCI has done is made an offer of $42 per share for Telecom*USA
stock, which is well in excess of its present price of $22 per share.  PT]

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

From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Trace Question
Date: 10 Apr 90 16:12:05 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ


Along with the Caller ID feature, NJ Bell quietly implemented a Call
Trace feature.  By pushing a certain code (I think it's *79), the last
number that called will be saved and provided to the police; each
trace costs $1.00.

Now for my question: if the originating exchange does not support
Caller ID, etc., does anybody know what number will be provided if
Call Trace is activiated?  Obviously it can't be the phone number that
just called, but will it be a "blank", or will it be the last number
for which a trace was available (and if it is, I don't even want to
think about the legal implications of the telco reporting the wrong
originating number to the police)?


Stan Krieger Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Reinstalling Dial-type Coin Phones
Date: Tue, 10-Apr-90 22:01:39 PDT


I heard this on NPR (National Public Radio) this morning...

US West is replacing DTMF coin phones with dial-type coin phones in
certain neighborhoods that have a lot drug-dealing activity.  Why?
The dial-type phones prevent the use of paging systems (i.e. can't
punch in the call back phone number).

Details are sketchy since I didn't hear the whole report.  Sounds a
bit far-fetched to me.  Also, I was surprised that US West had any dial
coin phones left!

Did anyone else hear this report?


Allyn Lai
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 0:35:46 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: US West and the War on Drugs


US West in Minneapolis is taking a technological leap backward in an
effort to fight the drug problem in that community.

What they have done is replaced touch-tone pay phones with rotary dial
models at about eighteen locations in Minneapolis and St. Paul to make
it harder for drug dealers to conduct business with telephone pagers.

A common way of purchasing drugs is to telephone a drug dealer's pager
and then punch in a phone number or some other pre-arranged code,
according to police.  The dealer responds by calling back to the phone
number indicated on the digital pager, or by showing up with the drugs
in the manner prescribed by the coded message.

Because most pagers -- or at least the digital ones which require
numeric entry -- won't work unless the caller has a touch-tone phone
to use in entering the information, drug buyers and dealers cannot use
the rotary phones.

According to Minneapolis City Council member Jackie Cherryhomes, there
has been a noticable decrease in drug traffic at the locations where
the phones have been converted back to rotary.

But I always thought modern, well-equipped drug dealers carried
portable cellular phones with them, in which case the method of
dialing would not matter. According to Ms. Cherryhomes, this is not
the case. The use of digital beepers is far more common.

US West has also converted a number of payphones in the Minneapolis
area and elsewhere to be one-way outgoing lines. This has also helped
reduce drug traffic in the area where those phones are located.

Although there were requests to remove the pay phones entirely in
those locations, US West resisted doing so saying many poor people in
the community without phone service of their own depended heavily on
the ability to use a nearby pay phone.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 1:06:11 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell Operators Stage Information Picket


Illinois Bell telephone operators began informational picketing at the
headquarters of Ameritech/Illinois Bell in Chicago on Monday,
protesting what they believe will be a massive cut back in the number
of employees needed when the telco's new automated operator services
program begins here next month.

As TELECOM Digest readers know, automated operator service equipment
handles collect calls by tape-recording the name of the caller and
obtaining a yes or no answer (regards acceptance of collect charges)
from the called party.

The operators claim Bell wants to eliminate their jobs and is running
a risk of endangering callers in an emergency.

Illinois Bell officials quickly countered that the new service is
merely a technology upgrade that won't result in layoffs and won't
endanger the lives of any callers.  "Any caller dialing zero alone
will still get a live operator and not the automated system," said
Bell spokesman Larry Cose. "Only callers dialing zero plus an area
code and number will get the system."

Nevertheless, officials of the Communications Workers of America and
union members gathered outside 225 West Randolph Street in Chicago on
Monday to say they are beginning a media campaign that will urge Bell
customers to reject the new system.

Gayle Gray, a former Illinois Bell operator and president of CWA Union
Local 4211 claims that if Bell goes through with its plan to automate
more operator services, "anywhere from 35 percent to 75 percent" of
Bell's current 2500-person operator staff could and would be
eliminated.

Larry Cose denied any plans to eliminate operators. He did say,
however, that it was unlikely further operator hiring would be needed
in the near future, and that many operators filling traditional
operator roles would be transferred to Directory Assistance jobs.

This seems to me like the 1950's all over again: As central offices by
the hundreds cut over from manual service to dial service in the years
followintg the Second World War, rumors of layoffs were plentiful
among telephone operators everywhere. *None of it came to pass*.

The final central office in Chicago to be cut from manual to dial was
the AVEnue CO on the far northwest side of the city in 1951. The
conversion to dial had actually started here in 1939, but was
interuppted in early 1942 due to the shortage of equipment when
Western Electric was put entirely into wartime production work. The
conversion resumed in 1946.

The operators at that CO 'just knew' they would be out of work soon.
Six months after the dial cut was complete, Ohare International
Airport (served at the time from that CO) completed its first major
expansion. Nine months after the dial cut, AVEnue CO had fifty percent
*more* operator staff than it did in all the years it was a manual
exchange!

Today's operators at Illinois Bell might be very surprised to learn
how disproportionatly their ranks have changed in size over the years
when compared to manual phone traffic versus the highly automated
calling patterns of today.  I think maybe the members of the CWA ought
to read up on the history of their company, and its predecessor, the
Chicago Telephone Company (which became Illinois Bell in the late
twenties) before they complain too much about things of which they
don't have a complete understanding.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #246
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10258;
          12 Apr 90 2:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25644;
          12 Apr 90 1:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29579;
          11 Apr 90 23:59 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Apr 90 23:39:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #247
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Apr 90 23:38:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 247

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Dean Riddlebarger]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Rich Zellich]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Carl Moore]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Karl Denninger]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Tom Perrine]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Michael L. Ardai]
    Re: Sprint's Disconnections [David Robbins]
    Re: Sprint's Disconnections [Ranjit Bhatnagar]
    Re: Sprint's Disconnections [Steve Elias]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Todd Inch]
    Re: Loop Start and Ground Start Trunk Supervision [John Higdon]
    Re: MCI Buys Telecom*USA [Martin B. Weiss]
    Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries? [Piet van Oostrum]
    Re: Something New With Cordless Phones [Peter Thurston]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 20:56:30 EST
From: Dean Riddlebarger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs
Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN


Yeesh, what a PR gimmick!  It smacks of the bandwagon effect in terms
of moral content, but it is elegant in the way it calms the community
for a little while.  Now let's see ... if I'm a dealer using a paging
setup I'm probably not using it for major end-user sales, but rather
for a wholesale link.  So if this move screws with my logistics in the
short term, I just run down to the local electronic supply and grab a
handful of the hand-held tone units.  [Remember those?  Right after
divestiture people with rotary home phones were buying them like crazy
so they could access their new MCI etc. accounts.]

Kinda sounds like another situation along the lines of the '900
numbers for porn' controversy.  Pity the telcos have to get dragged
into the middle of it all.


dean riddlebarger
uunet!epicb!dean
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 6:48:40 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs


Sounds to me like the local Radio Shack should stock up on the little
credit-card-size tone generators/dialers ... it shouldn't be too long
before the drug dealers and/or their customers realize a $10 shirt-
pocket gadget is all they need to resume business as usual.

(I can see it now - the city council/aldermen/whatever trying to add
pocket dialers to the list of prohibited "drug paraphernalia", followed
by the police raiding Radio Shack, Target, and Venture electronics
departments.)

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 11:30:42 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs


I haven't seen the ideas in the moderator's message before, except
that I saw (on Washington [DC] Post microfilm) a move in some neigh-
borhoods in DC to change payphones to outgoing-only.

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

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 14:32:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:

>What they have done is replaced touch-tone pay phones with rotary dial
>models at about eighteen locations in Minneapolis and St. Paul to make
>it harder for drug dealers to conduct business with telephone pagers.

>A common way of purchasing drugs is to telephone a drug dealer's pager
>and then punch in a phone number or some other pre-arranged code,
>according to police.

But the "astute" drug customer does have a way to continue to reach
his or her dealer -- simply toddle down to the local Radio Shack store
and buy one of their $10.00 tone encoders.

Now you are independant of the Bell Co's DTMF pad, and you can still
page people.  With the amount of money that changes hands daily in the
drug trade, I wouldn't be surprised if some dealers start GIVING the
encoders to their "better" customers.  So much for that strategy.

I used to have one of these (before it broke) for a different purpose --
my home phone was rotary dial, and I wanted to be able to use some of
the 950xxxx numbers to make long-distance calls -- which required an
access code.  With rotary service, entering said code was impossible,
thus the encoder.

I wonder how many DTMF encoders Radio Shack will sell in the next
couple of months.  I can see it now -- some guy in Radio Shack wanting
to buy 100 DTMF encoder boxes....  :-)


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

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs
Date: 11 Apr 90 23:31:23 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


>A common way of purchasing drugs is to telephone a drug dealer's pager
>and then punch in a phone number or some other pre-arranged code,
>according to police.  The dealer responds by calling back to the phone
>number indicated on the digital pager, or by showing up with the drugs
>in the manner prescribed by the coded message.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See below.

>Because most pagers -- or at least the digital ones which require
>numeric entry -- won't work unless the caller has a touch-tone phone
>to use in entering the information, drug buyers and dealers cannot use
>the rotary phones.

I heard the whole story on NPR. One thing that was emphasized was that
is *was* still possible to use these phones, by using an outboard
(hand-held) touch-tone generator, but as the spokeperson explained,
"most of the dealers and buyers aren't sophisticated enough to know
that they can buy this device for about $14 at a phone store." They
are now :-).

>But I always thought modern, well-equipped drug dealers carried
>portable cellular phones with them, in which case the method of
>dialing would not matter. According to Ms. Cherryhomes, this is not
>the case. The use of digital beepers is far more common.

It appears that pagers are preferred because *no voice* need be
transmitted to set up a deal, e.g. wiretap evidence is just a set of
numbers. To be used as evidence, a prosecutor would have to prove that
those numbers meant "meet me at place X to do the deal", instead of
being just a phone number or "lets do lunch".


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

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

From: teda!maven.DNET![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 07:38:44 PDT
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs


This is from Tuesday's (4/10) [Washington Post]:

Dialing For Drug Dealers (Assoc Press, St. Paul Minn)

   "A telephone company is taking a technological leap backward in an
effort to fight the drug problem.

  US West has replaced push button pay phones with rotary models in
about 18 Twin Cities locations to make it harder for drug dealers to
conduct business with telephone pagers, US West spokesman Mike Breda
said.

  Because most pagers don't work unless the call comes from a
push-button phone, drug dealers with pagers can't use the rotary
phones.

  Pagers have become a way of life for dealers, who often fear their
telephone lines are tapped.  Customers order drugs by telephoning a
dealer's pager and then punching in a phone number or a prearrainged
code, police say. "

                    --------------------
I guess the police have never heard of those little tone pads that can
be picked up at RS!  Just another way for the phone company to
complicate the lives of average people without actually having an
effect on the real problem.


Michael L. Ardai   Teradyne EDA   ...!sun!teda!maven.dnet!ardai

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

From: David Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections
Date: 11 Apr 90 17:18:42 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John Higdon):

> Thinking back, I can't remember a single time when I *haven't* been
> disconnected by Sprint during the course of a lengthy call. Has anyone
> else noticed this?

I have been a Sprint user for approximately five years, and have
*never* experienced a disconnection such as you describe.  My volume
of usage is relatively low, but my calls tend to last from 30-60
minutes, and are made at all times of day.

The only problem Sprint has ever given me was a real winner, though:
on a Thanksgiving Day back in '84 or '85, I placed a call thru Sprint
that got hung up somewhere within their network -- it didn't complete
and it wouldn't let go of my line.  It took two calls to Sprint from a
pay phone, and about four hours, to get them to let go of my line!
But they were prompt and courteous about removing the charge from my
bill.


Dave Robbins     GTE Laboratories Incorporated      [e-mail]
40 Sylvan Rd.    Waltham, MA 02254               ...!harvard!bunny!drobbins
CYA:  I speak only for myself; GTE may disagree with what I say.

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

From: Ranjit Bhatnagar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections
Date: 11 Apr 90 18:51:48 GMT
Reply-To: Ranjit Bhatnagar <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]>
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 245, Message 3 of 11

>Thinking back, I can't remember a single time when I *haven't* been
>disconnected by Sprint during the course of a lengthy call. Has anyone
>else noticed this?

Just to add another data point, I've been using Sprint for an average
of three calls longer than 30 minutes each week, coast-to-coast, for
nearly three years, and I've never been disconnected.

    - r.

"Trespassers w"   [e-mail]    mailrus!eecae!netnews!eniac!...

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Disconnections
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 07:49:54 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


John Higdon writes about all sorts of "disconnects" while using Sprint
as an LD carrier.  Here's another datapoint:

I've been a long distance fiend, using US Sprint for about 6 years.
I've had a total of one call disconnected during those years.


; Steve Elias, [e-mail].  !! MAIL TO [e-mail] ONLY !!
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, computerfax 508 671 7447, realfax 508 671 7419


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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 21:57:24 GMT


This information on ground-start vs. loop-start has been great -
thanks all.  How 'bout some more details, please?  F'rinstance:

Whats the difference in the phone sets for ground start vs loop start?
(Does anyone even make a ground-start phone, or do they always get
"converted" to loop by the PBX's?)

For example, how would you use a butt set to connect and place a call
on a loop start line?  Do you need an earth-ground connection, or
temporary earth-ground connection?

If you were to build a ground-start phone, would it need three wires?

Also, are ground-start lines available from all CO's?  Are they the
same cost (typically) as a "business" POTS/loop-start line?

Are ground-start lines ever used for residential service?  Were the
grounds required on old phones just for the ringer?


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start and Ground Start Trunk Supervision
Date: 11 Apr 90 10:36:55 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Vance Shipley <[e-mail]> writes:

> The SX series of PBX's from Mitel do recognize answer supervision on
> analog trunks.  I believe the SL-1 by Northern Telecom can also.

Add to that list the ITT System 3100, as well as the Fujitsu Focus
Elite. The 3100 was designed in Canada (were reversal is available)
and the Focus is popular for Hotel/Motel service.


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

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

From: Martin B Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Buys Telecom*USA
Date: 11 Apr 90 12:21:59 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services


Telecom*USA does indeed provide operator services.  I spoke with a
representative at the ICA show, and he verified this (not only that,
he gave me sales literature).  He claimed that they were very
sensitive to the overcharges that have characterized the industry, and
claimed that, as corporate policy, they did not follow suit.  I have
no data to validate this claim, however.


   Martin Weiss
   Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh
   Internet: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
   BITNET: mbw@pittvms

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries?
Date: 11 Apr 90 16:47:59 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]>, pjd@hpuxa (Peter J. Dotzauer) writes:

 `Does anyone have a list of toll-free services for foreign countries,
 `such as the 800 service in North America and the 0130 service in
 `Germany?

In the Netherlands we have 06- numbers, which appear in three groups:

06-0 and 06-4 numbers are free, like 800-series numbers. These are
also called 'Green numbers'.  The numbers come in two sizes: small
ones, like 06-0418, which is the international directory, and large
ones, these currently are of the form 06-x22yyyy where x = 0 or 4.

06-3 or 06-9 numbers where the caller pays and the calle gets a share
of the money. These are usually used for sex lines or information
services.  The usual cost id Dfl 0.50 ($0.25) per minute. In
advertisements where these numbers are mentioned the price MUST be
stated.

06-8 numbers share the cost between caller and callee, usually
government information services, bus schedule information and things
like that.


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: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 10:33:09 BST
Subject: Re: Something New With Cordless Phones


Steck Thomas writes:

>With the costs of digital technology plunging, and availability of
>digital components increasing, why hasn't someone put a sampler the
>handset, converted the signal into a digital stream (with error
>correction..) and send that to the base, which could then convert the
>digital stream to an analogg signal.

The proposed system exists and is sold in Britain under the umbrella
name 'telepoint'. The handsets may be used at railway stations etc, in
the vicinity of specially placed basestations ... the call is billed
to you and is generally quite cheaper than using a cellphone. If you
buy a home basestation you may use it as an ordinary cordless. Up to
six handsets may be used with one basestation, you may call between
handsets too like a mobile intercom.

Signaling is time division multiplex digital, so no interchannel
interference. Cost of a handset, about 150GBP; the base station is
another 150GBP. If you use the handset in mobile mode, you need to
subscribe with one of the four telepoint operators.


Peter Thurston

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #247
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13137;
          12 Apr 90 3:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13688;
          12 Apr 90 2:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25644;
          12 Apr 90 1:04 CDT
Date:     Thu, 12 Apr 90 0:41:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #248
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Apr 90 00:40:56 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 248

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Call Trace Question [Heath Roberts]
    Re: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy [John Higdon]
    Re: A Small Simple Question [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Cellular Tech Questions [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Cellular Tech Questions [Christopher "Dude" Pikus]
    Re: Cellular Tech Questions [Ted Ede]
    Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Bill Nickless]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Trace Question
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 15:53:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S M Krieger) writes:

>Along with the Caller ID feature, NJ Bell quietly implemented a Call
>Trace feature.  By pushing a certain code (I think it's *79), the last
>number that called will be saved and provided to the police; each
>trace costs $1.00.

>Now for my question: if the originating exchange does not support
>Caller ID, etc., does anybody know what number will be provided if
>Call Trace is activiated?  Obviously it can't be the phone number that
>just called, but will it be a "blank", or will it be the last number
>for which a trace was available (and if it is, I don't even want to
>think about the legal implications of the telco reporting the wrong
>originating number to the police)?

Northern Telecom's software reports an error code if it's not able to
query the originating switch regarding Caller Trace or ID. This
(currently) shows up as asterisks on your display. I'm not sure how
AT&T switches handle this (I'm not even sure then can supply CLID, but
I'm sure they'll be able to soon).


Heath Roberts
NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Change in Corporate Donations Policy
Date: 11 Apr 90 10:27:54 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

> [in re AT&T]
> What is their donation policy?  Can I get a list of those charities
> that they do donate to?  There is no question of thier caving in, they
> did; what is open to question is just what forces we can put on them
> to cave in to the groups that we disapprove of?

Do you check out the corporate philanthopic policies of every company
you deal with or just the ones that get big, sensational press? Do
know that the firm that manufactured your toilet paper is donating to
all the politically correct groups? Or what about the soap you washed
with this morning? What would you do if you found out that your LEC
was donating to the "wrong" out outfit (ie, "groups that we disapprove
of")?

You are certainly free to take your business to whomever you please,
but to do so for reasons other than performance, cost, or value, is
allowing your attitude to get in the way of productivity. Why not
leave economic political coersion to the totalitarian countries where
it belongs? Or, if you feel that strongly that your political beliefs
must get in the way of doing business, at least be consistent and
check out *everyone* you do business with.


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

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Wed Apr 11 21:27:34 1990
Subject: Re: A Small Simple Question
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina (where's that?) Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 235, Message 8 of 11

>This brings up another question: what happens to (a) the FCC type
>registration requirement and (b) the requirement to notify the phone
>company about attached equipment when the phone line in question is an
>extension of a key system/PBX?  Presumably you told them about the
>stuff directly attached (the key system) already.  What about new
>extensions? I'm thinking of something like the KX-T61610 but if the
>type matters, what about any type?

Geez, its been a while since I have read Part 68, but as I remember it
 ... your extension is behind a "registered protective device" or some
such interpretation.

The idea was that equipment connected behind a registered product did
not itself have to be registered.  Now, you still have to comply with
all the requirements for the maximum level you can put on the line and
such, but that's the general idea.

I also know that there were conflicting opinions about this back when
Part 68 was new, and all the telco were still kicking and screaming
about "damage to the network".  (Has anybody noticed any damage to the
network since Part 68?  You mean all that stuff about couplers back in
the late 60's and early 70's might not have been true?  And with all
the research Bell put into it?)

It now seems the only people at the telco who care about FCC
registration numbers is COG (Centralized Operations Group), who are
the people interconnect co.'s are supposed to order lines through (not
the business office).  Since there is a blank on the COG form for FCC
Registration No., we HAVE to fill it out, or they will not order.
Twice the hassle, and we get the orders worked twice as slow, too...


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!usenet.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: Wed Apr 11 20:46:08 1990
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Question
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina (where's that?) Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 235, Message 5 of 11

>Yes there is a limit to the number of cellular channels available.
>The specific limit and the method used in the detection and use of the
>next available channel differs by city/system.  I believe the limit of
>U.S. West in the Omaha area is 10 channels.  The next available
>channel is marked with a tone. When no channels are available the
>handset probably generates the trunk busy signal.

Good grief! Does this mean US West has managed to make an IMTS system
out of a cellular system?  Telecommunications technology takes a giant
step backwards...

Seriously, this is a very basic description of IMTS (Improved Mobile
Telephone Servce), which until cellular service came online, was the
primary method of providing dial mobile service in the US.

Cellular has 832 channels, all of them of short range, available.  One
half of them are available to each of the two carriers in a market.
The actual number of conversations possible in a given cell area
depends on a great many design and propagation factors.

In the Cleveland area, the lowest capacity cell site I am aware of has
a ten simultaneous call capacity.  The largest can handle over one
hundred (achieved by using directional antennas to subdivide the
cell).  A number of schemes exist (and are being developed) to
maximize the capacity of cell sites in high density locations.  Talk
of micro-cells with 300 foot ranges (or less) is now heard.

Digital cellular telephony will be introduced in the US shortly.  This
will further increase the capacity of cell systems, often by threefold
or more.

I'll leave a detailed technical description of cellular system design
for traffic engineering to one of the experts ... I'm just an old pole
climber myself.  Yessir ... that's it ... life would be simpler if we
just went back to open wire and cans ... (does anyone here remember
"transpostion brackets" or frogs?)

> It will be interesting to see what happens in the future as more
> and users come on-line.

On an IMTS it was always interesting if too many phones were put on
the air ... and most cities only had two to six IMTS channels.

I'll start a discussion of IMTS if anyone is interested ... I spent
a few years working on these animals.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.      {uunet!backbone}!usenet.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: Christopher "Dude" Pikus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Tech Questions
Date: 12 Apr 90 02:36:10 GMT
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, Ca.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Jim Rees):

> Does anyone have the new Motorola super-small $1400 shirt-pocket
> cellphone?  Any opinions?  Does it work and do you like it?

    My boss had one and I spent a few days using it. It is as
small as they say, but has limited battery life. In the demo model the
battery is only 1/4" thick. With it you only get 15 min. talk time.
They have an optional battery (1" thick, 18 oz.) that provides the
standard 12 hr. standby, 70 min. talk time. If you use the optional
battery it is no longer really a shirt pocket phone.  With the small
battery, it is about 7/8" thick and weighs 13 oz.  Another complaint
(which is for most handheld phones anyway) is that the small antenna
limits performance. The Motorola phone compared unfavorably with other
handhelds that I have used. Packaging options severly limit design
choices.

> I assume that any cellphone has to have an RF duplexor.  This is a
> device that prevents the transmitted RF from overloading the receiver
> front end, and lets you use the same antenna for transmit and receive.
> These are usually mechanical cavity resonators.  At 900Mhz these would
> be about 8cm tall.

> But in a cellphone, they must use something more sophisticated,
> because the transmitter and receiver both have to be frequency-agile.
> And I don't see how they could fit a duplexor into those little $1400
> Motorola jobs.  Any clues as to how these little guys work?

    In a previous life I worked for a company that wanted to put a
cellular phone into a laptop computer. As such our group ended up
dissasembling several cellphones (including the Motorola above) to see
what was involved.  They all use duplexors. The bandwidth of both the
transmit and receive parts is 25 mHz each. Transmit is 836.5 Mhz +/-
12.5 Mhz, receive is 881.5 mHz +/- 12.5mHz. Murata actually makes
these parts with these specs. (3, 4, or 5 pole filters).

    The Motorola cellphone is just standard technology with much
emphasis on packaging technology man miniturization. It has a duplexor
that measures 1/4x3/4x2".

And the Moderator noted, regards programing of phones by end-users:

> they operate. Both of us feel a cell phone user should not be at the
> mercy of a salesman or dealer to handle the reprogramming in the event
> a change of carrier is desired.  What do you think?    PT]

    I feel that the carrier that is providing the service should
be the one programming the phone to make sure that it is not ac-
cidentally (or fraudulently) programmed wrong. Since you will be
daling with the carrier when contracting for service, why not have
them program it.


Regards,
Christopher J. Pikus, Esquire       Megatek Corp.
INTERNET:     [e-mail]      San Diego, CA
UUCP: ...!{uunet hplabs!hp-sdd ames!scubed ucbvax!ucsd}!megatek!cjp

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Tech Questions
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 14:49:15 EDT
From: Ted Ede <[e-mail]>


I'd be interested in knowing more.  I've tried to get the info from
the supplier of the phone (Novatel, what a surprise.) and they won't
give it out easily.


Ted Ede -- [e-mail] -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road
 linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B090 -- [phone]


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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 17:06:54 CDT
From: Bill Nickless--A Free Man <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Reprogramming


In TELECOM Digest Volume 10 : Issue 245 the Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: A reader has suggested a series of articles in the
> Digest regarding how to program various models of cellular phones.
> Included would be a discussion of security and supervisory techniques
> used by the carriers to detect fraud. Both the reader and myself feel
> that people who buy cell phones (like any other expensive electronic
> equipment) are entitled to know how to program their phones and how
> they operate. Both of us feel a cell phone user should not be at the
> mercy of a salesman or dealer to handle the reprogramming in the event
> a change of carrier is desired.  What do you think?    PT]

I recently purchased a cellular "handportable" telephone.  Being a
student, I found that there were as many as six numbers I would have
to provide to somone trying to reach me in an emergency.  I felt that
if I could get a cellular phone, I could set it to forward to a
landline phone local to where I was physically and not miss calls.

When I picked up the phone, the salesperson behind the counter faxed
in the credit application and received back from Ameritech Mobile a
credit authorization/agreement, which included a cellular number.  He
had obviously never programmed a cellular phone before (he said as
much) and had some difficulty following the one-sheet step-by-step
instructions provided by the store to program the device.

Although the instructions clearly stated "Not to be provided to
end-user" on them, he allowed me to copy down the important
information -- the "magic code" to put the phone into programming
mode.  (It's a Nokia Mobira handheld -- the same thing that Radio
Shack sells.  If anyone wants to know the code I'll E-Mail it to
them.)

I have the information I would need to reprogram my phone.  I would
suggest anyone else getting a phone programmed to request the same
information.

Interestingly, the GE Transportable cellular phone that someone
working in my office purchased provided the reprogramming instructions
in the owner's manual!  Of course, her machine came equipped with dual
NAM capability.  When it didn't work after being programmed
originally, she called the cellular company to ask about some of the
parameter settings.  Their response was incredulous: "You're trying to
reprogram the phone yourself?!!"

Now my observations:

By the very fact that someone is reading this Digest (or comp.dcom.
telecom) assumes a certain level of knowledge about computers,
communications, user authentication, and other issues.  However, there
is a market for cellular phones to people who don't have the
background in these areas.

I don't believe it is reasonable for the cellular phone companies to
expect the end-user to have to program the phone, as there are some
very technical parameter settings to worry about.  Also, the process
itself is rather daunting to someone who doesn't work with computer
equipment as a vocation or avocation.

Also, having dealt with complex systems (like a cellular phone really
is) I know that there are certain things to leave alone until I know I
can restore them to some known state.  If reprogramming information
was available to the general public, we would find a higher percentage
of phones being mis-programmed by people not careful or qualified to
restore the phones back to their proper state.  This would increase
the burden on the customer service departments of the cellular phone
companies.

In summary, I think the information could be made available, but it
might cost more to the cellular companies than they feel it is worth.


Bill Nickless             [e-mail] or [e-mail]

PS: I don't want to come across sounding elitist, but we must recognize
    systems and policies must be designed while cognizant of the level of
    sophistication of the individual user.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #248
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14534;
          12 Apr 90 4:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11584;
          12 Apr 90 3:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13688;
          12 Apr 90 2:08 CDT
Date:     Thu, 12 Apr 90 1:36:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #249
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Apr 90 01:36:15 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 249

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Electronic Surveillance (re: Infinity/harmonica Bugs, etc.) [Allyn Lai]
    Looking for PBX for Crisis-counseling Center [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
    Request: Info on German Telephone Connection(s) [Richard B. August]
    Networking in the Soviet Union [Robert Masse]
    Going From Two Lines To One: Rewiring The Connection [Clayton Cramer]
    MCI Advertising [Erin M. Karp]
    Dial `A' for Albania [Henry Mensch]
    Test and Other Mystery Exchanges [Dave Leibold]
    Outstanding Cordless Phone [Steve Elias]
    Credit Card ID [cpqhou![e-mail]]
    Ring, Then Fast Busy [Carl Moore]
    Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test [Thomas Neudecker]
    Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? [Dan Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Electronic Surveillance (re:infinity/harmonica bugs, et al.)
Date: Tue, 10-Apr-90 21:53:25 PDT


A few days ago I mentioned reading an article that described how an
"infinity bug" works.  I found the article:

    "Electronic Surveillance"
    Electronics World + Wireless World, October 1989

You should be able to find it at a local library.


Allyn Lai
[e-mail]

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for PBX for Crisis-counseling Center
Date: 11 Apr 90 07:56:14 GMT
Reply-To: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.


Hello,

I work at a crisis/peer-counseling center on campus here, and we
currently pay about $7000 a year for phone service from the
University. It's not only expensive, but inflexible, not all too
feature rich, buggy, and hard to use.

We're thinking of ordering just a set of POTS-like lines (we can't get
PacBell lines, but we can get vanilla lines from the University) and
hooking it up to our own PBX/key system/small switch -- like one of
the Panasonic deals that gets discussed here periodically.

We'd like to be able to dial internal extensions, be able to dial into
the PBX from the outside and get a PBX dial tone, be able to answer
incoming calls from any of the extensions *and use University-provided
features on those calls, such as call-transfer*...

By the way, the University supplies caller-ID to its digital sets.  We
don't really want it :-).

Do you know of any suitable systems? Or, do you know where I can
write/call for such information?

Thanks for any hints you can provide.


# Daniel M. Rosenberg    //  Stanford CSLI  // Eat my opinions, not Stanford's
# [e-mail] // decwrl!csli!dmr //  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 08:43:46 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Request: Info on German Telephone Connection(s)


I will be traveling in Germany for about a month.  I wish to keep
in-touch with my home office via electronic means. I will be taking a
Mac portable and my V.22bis compatible modem.

The question is: Which wires in the wall at the hotel to I use my
alligator clips on? More specifically, what is the color-code? Is
there a color-code use universally in Germany?

I will be leaving on 16-APR-90.

Thanks in advance,

Richard B. August
[e-mail]
[phone]

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

From: Robert Masse <[e-mail]>
Subject: Networking in the Soviet Union
Organization: None
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 17:23:15 GMT


Well, the USSR already has available X.25 communications.  The address
starts with 2502 and it's called (if I remember correctly) I.A.S., an
acronym for Integrated Automated Systems (not sure about the
Integrated part).


                  Robert Masse  [phone]/home
                 Internet: [e-mail]
                UUCP: uunet!philmtl!altitude!robert

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Going From Two Lines To One: Rewiring The Connection
Date: 11 Apr 90 21:53:07 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA



I used to have two phone lines into my house -- one for a business,
the other for personal use.  I have since dropped the business line,
but because I didn't want to pay Pacific Telephone an arm and a leg,
my business phone line (which terminates in my office) is now
inoperative, not connected to my personal phone number.  I would like
that phone jack on my personal phone number now.

When I look in the junction box, I can clearly identify the line going
from my business phone jack to the junction box.  I can also identify
the line going to the personal phone jacks.  There are four wires for
each, and it appears that at least two of the wires from the business
phone jack wiring are also going to the terminals of the personal
phone jacks.

Can someone provide a simple explanation of the connections involved
at the phone junction box?


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 08:27:52 JST
From: "Erin M. Karp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Advertising


  I found the following ad in yesterday's Japan Times (one of the
local English-language rags), and thought people might be interested.
The ad was a full-page, mostly graphics with the following text
practically as a sidebar. The list of numbers was formatted like a
coupon, presumably meant to be cut out and carried in one's wallet.

                Now that business
             has called you to Japan,
                 let us help you
                   call home.

     Just dial the MCI toll-free number from the country you're in
(0039-121 in Japan), and instantly you'll be conected to an English-
speaking MCI operator who will complete your call anywhere in the U.S.

    You'll always save money, too. Because with MCI CALL USA, you'll
avoid excessive hotel surcharges and AT&T's higher rates. Call collect,
or save even more by using your MCI Card or your local telephone company
card.

     No matter how you call, you'll find that MCI CALL USA is one long
distance service that will make you feel right at home.

     For more information in Japan, call 0031-12-1022. To order your MCI
Card, call us in the U.S. at 1-800-888-0800. [Of course this is NOT a
free call from Japan, as we well know - erin]



                         MCI CALL USA COUNTRY LIST
                         -------------------------

Australia__________________0014-881-100    Italy________________172-1022(+)
Belgium________________________11-00-12    Japan________________0039-121(++)
Brazil_________________________000-8012    Netherlands________06*-022-91-22
Chile__________________________00*-0316    Singapore_______________800-0012
Denmark_______________________8001-0022    Sweden_______________020-795-922
France________________________19*-00-19    Switzerland__________046-05-0222
Greece______________________00-800-1211    Taiwan____Special Airport Phones**
Guam___________________________950-1022    United Kingdom______0800-89-0222
Hong Kong______________________008-1121

    To get a free MCI Card in the US, call 1-800-888-0800

*Await second dial-tone  **Taoyuan and Kaohsiung Airports.
+Available in most major cities  ++From most phones

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 21:27:37 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial `A' for Albania
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[Picked up from the [New York Times]:


Albania, whose hard-line Communist government is known for jealously
preserving the country's isolation, will soon allow citizens to accept
telephone calls from the United States.

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. said Wednesday it will begin
offering operator-assisted calls to Albania next month.

Richard A. Wallerstein, spokesman for AT&T, said that on March 24
Albania began without explanation to allow its citizens to dial direct
to more than 50 countries.

The government agreed soon afterward to allow incoming calls from the
United States, he said.

Only three other countries still do not accept calls placed from the
United States: North Korea, Cambodia and Vietnam.

It is unclear how many Americans want to call Albanians or whether
they will be able to reach them.

Calls handled by AT&T will travel through a cable from Italy that
carries just 80 telephone lines.

Even AT&T has no idea how many telephones there are in Albania, a
country where the private ownership of automobiles is forbidden and
most people travel on foot or by oxcart.


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

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

Subject: Test and Other Mystery Exchanges
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 12:56:53 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


Some inquiries have been made recently as to what numbers were used for
ANI (Automatic Number Identification) that can read your own phone number
back to you. These vary from place to place, but here are a few that I've
come across:

Ontario & Quebec, Bell Canada often has these on the 320 exchange, but
you have to dial 320.xxxx where only one xxxx will hit the jackpot.
Exception is in Toronto (area 416) where 997 is used instead (such as
997.8123 or 997.1699). In Alberta, just dialing 999 from some phones
in Edmonton will get the ANI. I have read that you just dial 958 in
New York.

Exchanges common to area codes:

   - 958 and 959 are always reserved for testing purposes (not all area
     codes necessarily use both)

   - 555 is for directory assistance

   - 950 is for long distance carrier access (to Sprint, AT&T, etc)

   - 976 is the special charge announcements service

   - 970 is found particularly in Canada as a test exchange. In 416, dialing
     1 416 970.5xxx will get a recording identifying the toll office
     (accessible from most exchanges). 1 416 970 9xxx gets a recording about
     an "Inwats" (800) test and lists the Ontario 800 exchanges.
     1 416 970 0xxx gets a tone suitable for tuning pianos.

   - Other exchanges (such as 720 used for BC Tel's Partyline, or other
     such NX0 exchange) can vary from place to place.

   - 844 and 936 used to be reserved for time and weather, though these
     have fallen into disuse and can be used for regular exchanges in
     many places.

One guy told me about dialing 999.9999 from one exchange in Toronto
only to find that the phone went vary dead for most of a minute. 999
could be another test exchange here.

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

Subject: Outstanding Cordless Phone
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 07:54:09 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


I'd like to inform the readership of an incredibly good cordless phone
that I just got from Crutchfield (they have an 800 number).  It's a 10
channel 46/69 cordless.  The Cobra sound quality is absolutely
incredible -- as good as a direct wire phone!  The phone's redial
memory remembers how long a pause you have put between sets of digits,
a feature I had never seen before.  It's $140 from Crutchfield.  (I
had been waiting for the ATT 10 channel phone to go on sale, but it
never went less than $180.)  In my opinion, 10 channels are crucial
because of the increasing prevalence of these phones in populated
areas and the resulting interference.


; Steve Elias, [e-mail].  !! MAIL TO [e-mail] ONLY !!
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, computerfax 508 671 7447, realfax 508 671 7419


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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 09:46:59 -0400
From: cpqhou![e-mail]
Subject: Credit Card ID


In a related vein (to the problems about AT&T needing SS#), I recently
read an article that quoted the head of CitiCorp's credit security.
He said that thousands of retailers all over the country had started
asking purchasers to supply a home phone number along with credit card
purchases.  He stated that this had no purpose, because the merchant
is always payed by the card company, and that there was no need for
the merchant to call the customer.  The article went on to say that
the reason they ask is simple.  It is a great way to advertise.  If
they decide to run a phone solicitation, they don't have to go combing
through the phone book to attract customers.  They simply have to make
a list of all the numbers off their credit card receipts, and they now
have a much higher potential of attracting customers.

The CitiCorp guy said that he tells merchants that they don't need the
number, and that they should accept his work number or he'll go
elsewhere.

I asked a few of the local merchants in the Houston area why they
needed the phone number.  The most prominent answer from the sales
clerks was that they had been told to by management and they didn't
know why.  A couple of sales managers told me it was needed for
security (in case I wasn't who I said I was).  One store owner
admitted that he asked simply because that was what everyone else did.

Now I no longer give away my home phone for this purpose.  If they
ask, I politely give them my work number, without telling them what it
is.  If they were to actually need to call me about my purchase, they
would probably be able to reach me at work.  If they want to advertise
their product, I will tell them what they can do with it.  I used to
feel that the phone was a nice anonymous device that I would happily
give anyone, as opposed to my address, which I never gave out.  It
only took one month of prank calls to change my mind.  Now I gaurd my
phone number like my credit card numbers.  I only give it to people
who clearly have the need to know.  Am I paranoid?  Probably, but I
prefer "cautious".


+ Scott Shaffer @ SW Development @ Compaq Computer Corporation @ Houston, TX +


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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 9:53:20 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ring, Then Fast Busy


More problems ca lling the Bellcore number yesterday and today: I get
one ringing signal and then a fast busy!  (One case this morning
picked up a VERY brief fast busy, then that one ring and back to fast
busy.)

This, in case anyone is seeing it for the first time, is the number at
which I can punch in area code and exchange and then have the city and
state read back to me by an automated voice.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 12:57:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reverse-voltage Phone Line Test


>>If I'm up late at night, I sometimes hear a short beep from the phone.
   ...
>Same here. It seems that every night at about 11:30pm the phones in
>our house give a short half-ring. What is going on? I've decided the
>regularity is too great for this to be random noise on the line.

When I ask the 611 repair they said they would call back in a few
minutes.  They and said that I was correct -- they run line tests
between 12-5:00am.  The repair rep said that she could block my
number.  Its only been a few days now and no more early morning rings -
if the problem returns I will report back.

By the way the chance that it was a hacker power dailing for a carrier
is very remote because such programs require the receiving instrument
to answer and put up a carrier tone.  In my case, and in the others
reported, we receive one short ring.


Tom Neudecker
Carnegie Mellon University

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

From: Dan Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For?
Date: 11 Apr 90 16:45:17 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


[e-mail] (the Watcher) writes:

> 511 would be an ideal replacement for the "555-1212" used to get
>information in another area code (ie, 1-617-511 for eastern MA information)

Why not 411: 1-617-411 ?


[e-mail]    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #249
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23985;
          13 Apr 90 11:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21327;
          13 Apr 90 9:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04667;
          13 Apr 90 8:26 CDT
Date:     Fri, 13 Apr 90 7:58:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #250
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Apr 90 07:58:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 250

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Going From Two Lines to One: Rewiring the Connection [John Higdon]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [John Higdon]
    Re: Telephone Ground Question [John Debert]
    Re: Sprint's Disconnections [Steck Thomas]
    Re: Sprint's Disconnections [John Higdon]
    Re: Sprint's Disconnections [Dan'l DanehyOakes]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [John Debert]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Rob Warnock]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Dial `A' For Albania [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Overhearing Conversations [Ed Ravin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Going From Two Lines to One: Rewiring the Connection
Date: 12 Apr 90 13:22:56 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]> writes:

> Can someone provide a simple explanation of the connections involved
> at the phone junction box?

Only two wires are ever used for a telephone line ("tip" and "ring").
However, most station wire (the internal wire strung around the
premesis) has four conductors: red, green, yellow, black. Usually, the
red and green are used for an RJ11C jack. For expediancy, a second
line can be added to existing wiring by using the yellow and black
leads, and even the single jack can output two lines. When this is
done, the jack becomes a RJ14C.

It sounds as though someone has sent your personal line off on the
yellow/black leads of the wiring that was for your "business" line.
Simply put, if you can identify the two conductors bringing in your
personal line from telco and feed them to the red/green pair of all
your internal jack cables, your personal line should appear at all
existing jacks.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Date: 12 Apr 90 01:07:12 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]> writes:

> Whats the difference in the phone sets for ground start vs loop start?
> (Does anyone even make a ground-start phone, or do they always get
> "converted" to loop by the PBX's?)

Except for some lineman's sets, there are no "ground-start phones".
Ground-start trunks are for PBXs and other complex equipment, not for
ordinary telephone sets.

> For example, how would you use a butt set to connect and place a call
> on a loop start line?  Do you need an earth-ground connection, or
> temporary earth-ground connection?

Yes, it's as simple as that. You put a phone across the line in an
"off-hook" condition, then momentarily apply ring ground until dial
tone is seized.

> If you were to build a ground-start phone, would it need three wires?

Yes, but why bother?

> Also, are ground-start lines available from all CO's?  Are they the
> same cost (typically) as a "business" POTS/loop-start line?

Ground-start lines and trunks are generally available in the US. In
California, it matters not whether you order ground-start or
loop-start. There is no difference in cost. If you wanted ground-start
on your home phone it would be no problem. The difference in cost
(other than the difference between res. and bus. service) comes from
whether you want "design" circuits or not. Start type is not the
factor. There is a significant charge to change from one to the other
on an existing line, however.

> Are ground-start lines ever used for residential service?  Were the
> grounds required on old phones just for the ringer?

Ground-start has nothing to do with the ringer. I have had friends who
had ground start lines in their homes, but it was primarily for toy
value, or to service their prized vintage PBX.


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

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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Ground Question
Date: 12 Apr 90 08:04:21 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


Yes, the ground wire, from the interface is considered "outside plant"
in many areas. It is supposed to be part of the protective block and as
such is maintained by the telco.

jd
[e-mail]

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

From: Steck Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections
Date: 12 Apr 90 17:08:20 GMT
Reply-To: Thomas Steck <[e-mail]>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 247, Message 9 of 14

>John Higdon writes about all sorts of "disconnects" while using Sprint
>as an LD carrier.  Here's another datapoint:

Just last night, on a call from Maryland (Baltimore area) to Newport
Rhode Island, I was disconnected twice by US Sprint, and once by MCI.
I finally decided to complete the call through AT&T and had no
problems.  In all three cases, the call weas about 10-15 minutes long
when interrupted.  US Sprint disconnected completely, with no warning.
MCI suddenly gave me a dead phone, but my friend in Rhode Island could
hear me perfectly.

Strange happenings ... maybe the full moon has something to do with
it?

Tom Steck


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

Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 12 Apr 90 00:06:33 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Well, it's amazing what you can learn when you open your mouth in this
forum. My complaints about Sprint have triggered a flood (well, maybe
a small stream) of mail commenting about Sprint's service quality. My
observation is that they have never had good FGD service here, but in
other areas it is quite satisfactory.

Writers have indicated that when they lived in or near San Jose,
Sprint service was decidedly defective. Long conversations
disconnected repeatedly, the voice quality was not all that great, it
was frequently difficult to get through, and the whole system would
seem to go down occasionally. It has also been pointed out that when
these people would move out of the area, they found Sprint service to
be remarkably better in other areas.

The conclusion I am drawing is that one or more of the following
conditions exist. Sprint has inferior connections (maybe even analog)
to the San Jose area. Pac*Bell has provided Sprint with inferior
interfacing to the POP for San Jose. The incredibly ancient CO
equipment in this area cannot handle the more modern technology used
by Sprint. AT&T has been dealing with this area longer and somehow
makes do better.

Anyone really have knowledge about the inferior Sprint service in San
Jose?

David Robbins <[e-mail]> of Waltham, MA,
Ranjit Bhatnagar <[e-mail]> of Pennsylvania, and
Steve Elias <[e-mail]> apparently of Mass. have written:

To say that they have had great luck with Sprint. Do you notice
anything in common with all of the above? Hint: East Coast. Sprint has
apparently not put such care into its facilities out here, no?


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

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

From: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections
Date: 12 Apr 90 20:19:37 GMT
Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


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

>Thinking back, I can't remember a single time when I *haven't* been
>disconnected by Sprint during the course of a lengthy call. Has anyone
>else noticed this?

On a related note (no pun intended... you'll see why):

Some friends and I started a Dungeons & Dragons game back in '76.
Some years later (I'm not sure when, but it had to be approximately
'83), Peter da Silva was participating on a fairly-regular basis by
telephone (Houston to Berkeley), with a speakerphone at our end so he
could converse with the other players "as if" he were physically
present.  (Oh, boy -- telepresence in gaming.  A new first...)

We were using Sprint (still SPCC in those dim primeval days).  One
Saturday night, the game was rolling along.  My daughter, age approx.
1 year at the time, was sitting in her playpen in the living room,
wanting attention.  She let out a very high-pitched "eeeeee".

The speakerphone replied with dial tone.  We all wondered why Peter
had hung up on us.

Peter called back a few seconds later, and wondered why *we* had hung
up on *him*.

Anyone familiar with the exploits of my former employer, Cap'n Crunch,
or any other such telepirate will have already surmised what happened,
but it took us several more rounds of "eeee" - dialtone before we did.

Our daughter had, quite by chance, "eeee"ed at the disconnect tone for
the SPCC network signalling system.

And, finding that the speakerphone did something funny when she did
it, repeated the experiment.

*sigh*

        They say it's a fact that you head is cracked,
            I think that you are loco...
        Your cerebral vault has a single fault,
            I think that you are loco...
        You're a paranoid and your head's a void,
            I think that you are loco...


The Roach

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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: 12 Apr 90 08:02:20 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


 From article <[e-mail]>, by kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman):

> >Most coin stations today are DTF (Dial Tone First) and no
> longer resemble a ground-start line.  A DTF coin line behaves similar
> to that of a loop-start line (it is actually more complex than that,
> but this will suffice for the purpose of this discussion); i.e., a
> ground on a DTF coin line will not facilitate any fraud.

Grounding is still used on many coin phones to detect the presence of
coins. This in combination with a a sequence of idle tone pulses to ID
each coin dropped is used to validate a call. It is possible to fool
the phone into thinking that enough coins have been dropped through a
very simple procedure using one nickel. It is also possible to induce
the appropriate signals onto the line once ground has been
established, as was once demonstrated to me. Note, however, that this
does not work on COPT's or other "smart" coin sets. There are other
methods that apply to circumventing these.

jd
[e-mail]


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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 10:40:03 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator)
writes:

| US West in Minneapolis is taking a technological leap backward in an
| effort to fight the drug problem in that community.
| What they have done is replaced touch-tone pay phones with rotary dial
| models at about eighteen locations in Minneapolis and St. Paul to make
| it harder for drug dealers to conduct business with telephone pagers.

Minutely harder, maybe. But I've carried a Radio-Shack tone generator
pad in my briefcase for years (to pick up messages from my home
answering machine).  You hold it to the mike and DTMF all you like. At
a mere $20.00 (several years ago, gotta be cheaper now), the price
isn't gonna stop anyone who wants one...


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs
Date: 12 Apr 90 17:06:05 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

# Sounds to me like the local Radio Shack should stock up on the little
# credit-card-size tone generators/dialers ... it shouldn't be too long
# before the drug dealers and/or their customers realize a $10 shirt-
# pocket gadget is all they need to resume business as usual.

# (I can see it now - the city council/aldermen/whatever trying to add
# pocket dialers to the list of prohibited "drug paraphernalia", followed
# by the police raiding Radio Shack, Target, and Venture electronics
# departments.)

Don't laugh -- last year a Congresswoman from Maryland introduced a
bill that would make it a 3-year prison sentence for selling, renting,
or lending a pager to someone under 21.

These morons never learn, do they?

Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!


[Moderator's Note: And indeed, in the City of Chicago it is against
the law for a person of school age to carry a paging device on their
person when on school property. Exceptions are made in cases of
medical situations or other family emergencies which have been
verified. Their thinking was the kids were using the beepers for drug
running.   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 19:22:27 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial `A' for Albania
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


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

> [Picked up from the [New York Times]:

> Even AT&T has no idea how many telephones there are in Albania, a
> country where the private ownership of automobiles is forbidden and
> most people travel on foot or by oxcart.

According to a recent chart in the _Economist_, Albania's telephone to
population ratio is approximately 1%.  With a population of a bit over
a million and a half, this works out to about 15,000 telephones in the
entire nation.  Five-digit national phone numbers, anyone?


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

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

From: Ed Ravin <cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overhearing Conversations
Reply-To: Ed Ravin <cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Organization: Network Nitpickers of America
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 16:28:55 GMT


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

::Moderator's Note: Instead of crossed lines it may have been crosstalk. Wires
::get wet; insulation around old wires is sometimes poor, etc. On occassion
::when I have had to wait a few seconds for dial tone, the amount of crosstalk
::was incredible [...] It can be fun to listen to!

Oh dear, this is against the law!  The Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986 is pretty clear that it is illegal to listen to
"protected communications" (in this case telephone conversations)
without consent of the parties involved regardless of how you
encounter it: deliberately, accidentally, unwillingly, due to faulty
equipment, over your scanner, or over your TV set.  Your legal
responsibility is to turn off the offending equipment when you
discover that you are listening to "protected communications".


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.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #250
******************************