Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss251-300

Text File | 1990-04-30 | 909KB | 21,598 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27436;
          14 Apr 90 1:31 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04317;
          13 Apr 90 23:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13676;
          13 Apr 90 22:40 CDT
Date:     Fri, 13 Apr 90 21:49:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #251
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Apr 90 21:49:02 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 251

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Credit Card ID [Steve Glaser]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Mike Van Pelt]
    Re: Quirk With "The Universal Card" [C. Harald Koch]
    Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup [Jan Hinnerk Haul]
    Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco [Bob Stratton]
    Re: The Card [Dave Esan]
    Re: MCI Mail Introductory Offer [Paul Wilczynski]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Networking in the Soviet Union [[e-mail]]
    A Real "555" Exchange [Will Martin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 12:24:52 PDT
From: Steve Glaser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 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.

Actually, if you listen carefully, much of the time they ask for "a
phone number".  If they aren't specific about asking for "your phone
number", you can can follow their instructions to the letter and give
them any random phone number you feel like (though I think some
salespersons might notice something strange about getting a 976 or 900
number).  They may also ask for "a home phone number" instead of "your
home phone number".

I heard this from my boss who's been doing it for years.


Steve Glaser
[e-mail]

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

From: Mike Van Pelt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Date: 12 Apr 90 20:16:07 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Van Pelt <[e-mail]>
Organization: Video 7 + G2 = Headland Technology


In article <[e-mail]> cpqhou![e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 249, Message 10 of 13

>... the head of CitiCorp's credit security ... 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 ...

> ... the reason they ask is simple.  It is a great way to advertise.

I came across another reason a few weeks ago.  I went out for lunch
with several people at work, and one person paid with a credit card.
After we got back, he got a phone call telling him that he had left
his card at the restaurant.  At first he wondered how on earth they
had gotten his work number, then he remembered that that's what he had
written down when they asked for a phone number.

Almost every place that accepts credit cards asks for a phone number.
But I can't recall having gotten junk calls from any but a few big
chain stores.  Certainly not from restaurants.


Mike Van Pelt                     Windows + Icons + Mouse
Headland Technology/Video 7       + Pointer == WIMP.
 ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 13:58:22 EDT
From: "C. Harald Koch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Quirk With "The Universal Card"
Reply-To: "C. Harald Koch" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alias Research Inc., Toronto ON Canada


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

>[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]

[ While this does not have direct bearing on telephones, it is an
issue that has been brought up here a few times now. ]

In Canada it only legal to require a SIN (Social Insurance Number) for
things involving taxation or benefits from Revenue Canada (Canada
Pension Plan, Unemployment Insurance, etc). It is illegal to require a
SIN for any other purpose, including all credit applications (although
most companies have a SIN box on their forms).

I am not sure about the legality of requiring a social security number
for identification in the US, but for credit it is most certainly
unecessary and 'immoral'.

While I agree that a credit grantor does not have to give credit, they
certainly must have just cause to refuse you credit. If they do not
have a good reason, (and not giving your number is not a good reason)
then they are practicing discrimination, which I am lead to believe is
discouraged in the US... :-)


C. Harald Koch                        Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada
[e-mail]      [e-mail]      [e-mail]

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

From: Jan Hinnerk Haul <wedel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story?
Date: 10 Apr 90 21:25:35 GMT
Organization: Me, Myself, and I - Wedel, West Germany


[e-mail] (David M Watt) writes:

>I read elsewhere on the net that Deutsch Bundespost has recently been
>split into three parts, and is now competing under market conditions.

True.  One part for postal services ("Postdienst"), one for financial
services (no-credit checkbook and savings accounts, "Postbank") and
one for telecommunications ("Telekom").

>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 true.  You can rent modems up to 2400 bps (V.22bis) async and 4800
bps sync.  You can buy (sligthly modified) Trailblazer 2500s as "Logem
T2500" from Kabelmetal Electro here.

And you can (provided you live in one of the ten bigger cities, the
rest of the country following until '93) go ISDN and use a PC Board
(64 Kbit per second, about DM 2500, that's 1300-1400 US$) or terminal
adapter (38.4 kbps, about DM 1250) if you like fast transfer rates for
ordinary phone charges (national long-distance about 0.01 DM/second
peek time).

>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?

True :-)  Well, since the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional
Court, like the Supreme Court in the U.S.) cancelled the law the
Bundespost used to sue "inofficial" modem owners, subsequently another
court decided that the use of a modem (or other telephone device)
allowed by the P.T.T. of any European Community country is not legal,
but you cannot get punished for doing so :-) The legal hassles will be
somewhat unclear till midyear 1991, when all telephone equipment legal
in one EC country will be legal in Germany.

I hope this clarifies the situation a bit.


Jan Hinnerk Haul

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

From: Bob Stratton <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco
Date: 11 Apr 90 19:48:29 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Stratton <well![e-mail]>
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert) writes:


>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."

[excellent clarification deleted]

>Only numbers beginning with "3106" are "on Telenet."

Just a quick correction: The DNIC for Telenet is 3110, Tymnet's is 3106.


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: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 12 Apr 90 19:14:56 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Weiss) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 215, Message 2 of 12

>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.

I too applied for the card.  They wanted my social security number.
From too much reading of Misc.consumers I decided that it wasn't
required for them to know that.  If they were reporting interest paid
to me they would have legitimate claim, but they don't give me money,
I pay interest to them (if I am late with a payment).  So I told them
that I wouldn't give it to them.  Well, Jim-Bob Good-Ole-Boy, who
could barely read the prepared script, got real bent out of shape.

He sent me off to his supervisor (a man whose voice gave the mental
image of Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary) who told me that VISA
and MasterCard had given ATT permission to ask for SS numbers.  I
replied that requiring the number was a violation of federal law.  He
said everything was confidential.  I replied that only the IRS and
interest paying institutions required my SS number, and repeated the
federal law statement.  He again ignored me and told me that they
would not tell anyone, that it was okay, he was aware of this problem.
They decided to mail me an application.  Six days later I am still
waiting for that mail.

Sure would like that card.  Sure would like supervisors with some brains.


 -->     David Esan      {rutgers, ames, harvard}!rochester!moscom!de

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 14:53 EST
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Special Offer


David Tamkin <[e-mail]> writes ...

> 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 offer is good until the end of April (it was extended one month
from the end of April).  The credit is good until the end of May, so
the sooner you sign up the more time you have to spend the credit.

The credit is good on email, paper mail, fax, and telex.  The only
thing it's not good on is Dow Jones News Retrieval (and Tymenet access
to MCI Mail, which you don't need to do in the continental U.S.
because access is available via 800 numbers.

I'd be happy to provide more information ... drop an email note or
call [phone].


Paul Wilczynski
Krislyn Computer Services
Authorized MCI Mail Agency

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Wed Apr 11 21:16:42 1990
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina (where's that?) Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon writes:
Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 235, Message 7 of 11

>>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, what you say should be true.  Immediate ring is supposed to be a
feature on those new-fangled electronic CO's, but it doesn't seem to
work that way every time.

On most CO's, one of the design parameters involves distributing the
ringing load on the ring generator supplies.  This is done by only
ringing a portion of the lines at once...usually in four or five split
groups.  The "clocking" (if you will) of the groups always running, so
when a line is to be rung, the CO assigns it to one of these groups
(using whatever logic it has been given to select which group) and the
line rings when the ring cycle time (1 on, 4 off) comes around.

This is almost the same situation that would occur in Xbar and SXS
offices.  The primary difference is what happens during the glare
interval ... some electronics CO's are not supposed to "land" the call
until the ring cycle begins.

Now, one of the features that came out with the more sophisticated
Xbar system, and was to be continued with ESS was immediate splash of
ring.  This feature put a brief splash of ring out on the line just as
the call "landed".  This works well, but many newer CO's seem to drop
this feature when they are busy.  You often hear a funny, mis-timed
"ring-ring" when the call lands, the splash of ring occurs and then
the normal ring timing cycle takes over.

In the past few years, I notice that fewer CO's have this feature.  I
wonder if they are phasing it out in the new generics?

Another problem is intentionally slow ring sense in key systems and
PBX's.

Several people have mentioned in the Digest that their phones make an
odd sound (a beep or click) and any line loop status indicators they
have blink in the middle of the night.  This is caused by the telco's
automatic line test equipment, which changes the voltages on the line
when it scans the line.

This test scan voltage change can look like the first part of a ring
to a phone system, and if the system is not properly designed, a false
incoming ring state will occur.  (Just try and get the telco to take
the blame on this one!  I have a couple of residence key systems that
had this problem, and it was a real fight with the telco to prove
it!))

So most phone equipment manufacturers design their equipment to ignore
the first 0.5 second of ringing.  Some even ignore the first ring
altogether (Ugly! Ugly!) to prevent false rings.  The better designed
PBX's will prohibit an outgoing call from seizing a trunk during this
0.5 second interval, but its not too common.

So, ground start lives, and will be with us for quite a while yet.

It should be noted that I find very few lines give loop disconnect
supervision anymore, except in older offices.  The telco will
sometimes give you loop (CPC) disconnect on a loop start line, on
request, but don't count on it.  Ground start is still the only
reliable way to prevent call collisions and get reliable disconnect.


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")

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 08:35:27 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Networking in the Soviet Union


Yes, you are right Robert.  Complete name is Institute for Automated
Systems.  SovAm Joint venture occupied second floor at the same
building in Moscow, so I'm here right now  (-;


Andrei

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 8:15:55 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Real "555" Exchange
Reply-To: [e-mail]


We're going to move our offices in mid-summer, and all our phone
numbers will change. I just learned that our new Autovon exchange is
going to be "555". Now, nobody will believe us when we tell them our
Autovon numbers...  :-) :-) :-)


Regards, Will

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #251
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29101;
          14 Apr 90 2:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00284;
          14 Apr 90 0:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04317;
          13 Apr 90 23:44 CDT
Date:     Fri, 13 Apr 90 22:54:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #252
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Apr 90 22:53:01 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 252

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Urban Legend About Eavesdropping Using Key Telephone Lamps [Larry Lippman]
    Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective [Bruce Waldman]
    Telco Procedure for Installing DID [Steve Elias]
    Looking For Frequencies Used By Cordless Phones [John Hoekstra]
    Naushon Island, Mass. [Carl Moore]
    Telecommunications Standards [Paul Maclauchlan]
    Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries [John R. Covert]
    Voice/Modem Switches [[e-mail]]
    Band Aids (TM) For the "Drug War" Hemorrage [John Boteler]
    Ground Start *Phones* [Edward Greenberg]
    Need Translators [Leonard P. Levine]
    Looking For Modem Design [Mike Jarvis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Urban Legend About Eavesdropping Using Key Telephone Lamps
Date: 12 Apr 90 01:06:31 EST (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[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.

    Just when I thought I'd heard them all... :-)

    In a 1A, 1A1 or 1A2 key telephone system, which is the only
apparatus having incandescent lamps that fits your description, there
is absolutely *no* connection between any voice path and the 10 VAC
circuit which operates the lamps.  Replacing the 51-type lamp with an
LED isn't going to make any difference.

    The only device which *could* modulate lamp power is the
3-type speakerphone, where the lamp is powered from the same
unregulated, rectified DC which feeds the amplifier circuitry.
However, only gross variations on level with excessive receive gain to
the point of distortion (not likely) could cause enough supply voltage
fluctuation to be visible on the lamp.  Even under these extremely
rare circumstances, I doubt that any intelligence could be demodulated
using a photometric detector aimed at the ON lamp - even if the ON
lamp were an LED.  By the time LED's became common, the 4-type
speakerphone had already replaced its 3-type predecessor.

    Incidently, modulating lamps in a manner undetectable to the
human eye has been used as a transmission medium for eavesdropping
devices.  However, there is no factual basis or connection to the
particular urban legend which you relate.


<> 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?"

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 01:09:25 EDT
From: Bruce Waldman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective


I have recently been receiving various sorts of threatening calls from
an anonymous person.  I reported it to the police, and they offered to
put a tap on the phone, etc.  But I am wondering about the
possibilites.  One of my friends tells me she used to get regular
calls from someone where nothing was said, and the person then hung
up.

New England Telephone registered her line in some sort of "capture"
system.  After she got one of these calls, she was supposed to call an
800 number immediately, and the origination of the previous call would
be recorded.  She had to sign some sort of agreement stating that she
would press charges against the caller once he or she was identified.

My friend was told that the length of the call did not matter, this
would all be done automatically.  Is this possible, and how?  Only in
special exchanges?  (Apparently the caller was never identified or
else New England Tel did not choose to communicate this information to
my friend.)  In my own case, what are the possibilities?  How
difficult would it be for the phone company to identify callers?
Would it make a difference what sort of exchange the call originated
from?  Would it make a difference whether the call originated locally
or from a long distance carrier, and would it make a difference which
long distance carrier it was?

As you can see, I am rather naive about the capabilities of the phone
company.  In the movies, the police always try to keep the
ransom-demanders on the phone for enough time that they can physically
trace the calls I guess, but is this now unnecessary?  I'd be grateful
for relatively non-technical enlightenment.


Bruce Waldman, [e-mail]
               [e-mail]
               ...!harvard!husc4!waldman2

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

Subject: Telco Procedure For Installing DID
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 08:04:08 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


A friend of mine who makes voice mail & auto attendant systems for a
living told me the standard procedure for getting DID lines installed:

o  Telco person arrives and says he can't find your line and isn't
   really sure what DID is, anyway.

o  A few days later, telco person arrives and says you aren't providing
   battery.

o  A few days later, telco person arrives and says you aren't providing
   wink.

o  A few days later, telco person says everything is working,  but your
   equipment doesn't see any DID digits.

o  Telco person says, we are sending digits.  You say: aren't.  He
   says: are.

o  Finally, after a few weeks and possible iterations of all this,
   they get everything right!

Currently, I'm on step three above.  I'll have 100 incoming fax numbers
here at work if the telco and my operating system ever get it
together!  Now, that's a big opportunity for incoming junk fax, eh? :)


; Steve Elias, [e-mail].  !! MAIL TO [e-mail] ONLY !!
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, computerfax 508 671 7447, realfax 508 671 7419

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

From: John Hoekstra <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Frequencies Used By Cordless Phones
Date: 12 Apr 90 12:59:22 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Someone posted a little while ago the ten frequencies assigned to
cordless phones.  I thought that I saved that article but I apparently
failed to do so.  Could that person repost those frequencies again?
Mucho appreciated.

What are the optimal channels for cordless phones?

I just bought an AT&T 5200 cordless phone which uses channels seven
and nine.  When using channel seven I get an occasional buzzing hum
but I do not get that hum when using channel nine.  I first thought
the cause was our Fisher Price baby monitor which uses channels A and
D (I have no idea what the correlation of A and D have to the ten
channels that the FCC allocates).  The buzzing hum occurs for channel
seven regardless if the baby monitor is set to channel A or D or if
the baby monitor is turned off.  This eliminates our baby monitor as
the cause or so it seems.  This leads to some questions:

1. Does anyone have a good explanation to why channel seven may be
experiencing that buzzing hum?

2. Are there some of the ten channels that can be considered more
optimal than others?  The Phone Center that I went to only offered
phones that consisted of either the channels seven and nine
combination or the channels six and eight combination.  Not much of a
choice.  I still would like to know because I can always go to another
Phone Center store.

3. Does anyone know what frequency channels A and D use for the Fisher
Price monitors?

Any information would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.


John Hoekstra      Motorola, Inc.     General Systems Group      uunet!motcid!hoekstra

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 10:12:15 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Naushon Island, Mass.


There was a recent article about the 299 exchange on Naushon Island,
Mass. in this Digest.  (Now in area 508.)  I was again able to use the
Bellcore number for prefix punch-in, and got Falmouth (on the nearby
mainland) for 508-299.  Getting a town name does not mean that the
prefix serves the town proper.

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

From: Paul Maclauchlan <moore![e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications Standards
Organization: Moore Corporation Limited, Toronto ON, Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 15:26:32 GMT


We are in the process of establishing some minimum uniform standards
for telecommunications.  The standards are expected to define the
requirements for development, operation, reliability, effectiveness
and security.

Does anyone have published standards within their organization that
they would be willing to share with us, for the purpose of evaluation
and providing a guideline for our own document?

Our initial task is preparing standards for problem tracking.  After
that we plan to move onto other areas that should be addressed by the
standards.  Any suggestions?

Any general comments on how you have established standards will also
be appreciated.

Please email any information you are willing to share.  With
permission from the authors, I will summarize and post my findings.

Thank you.


 .../Paul Maclauchlan
Moore Corporation Limited, Toronto, Ontario [phone]
[e-mail]  -or-    ...!uunet!attcan!telly!moore!paul

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 20:35:10 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  12-Apr-1990 2335" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries


AT&T has begun direct dial service to the following ten countries:

964    Iraq (service being restored after several years of interruption)
95    Burma
685    Western Samoa
686    Kiribati Republic
262    Reunion
253    Djibouti
226    Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
232    Sierra Leone
223    Mali
248    Seychelles

The official due date is 15 April, but in most cases you'll find that
it's in.

I suspect everyone has heard the news that Albania will be able to be
reached by AT&T international operators (currently manual transit
through Italy is required) as of May.  Direct dial service (355) will
begin in September.

Likewise Mayotte, currently transiting through France, will get direct
operator service in May and then become dialable (269) at some future
time.  Mayotte has been dialable via Sprint for some time, but has
only been reachable on direct access lines or in a few places (states
near Minnesota) where the C.O.s put the code in without an order from
AT&T.

Sprint doesn't tend to request local telco installation of codes; in
addition to Mayotte, Sprint provides difficult to reach direct dial
service to 674 Nauru and 677 Solomon Islands.  With AT&T's addition of
Western Samoa and the Kiribati Republic, Sprint customers get access
to Sprint's previously difficult to use direct dial service.


/john

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Voice/Modem Switches
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-90 21:00:59 PDT


Here in Southwestern Bell country (Oklahoma), new to the CENTREX
offerings is Personalized Ring.  It is known under different names in
different locations, but what is offered (for a monthly fee, of course
here, $10/month for three) are two or up to four (maximum) distinct
rings/numbers via one telephone line.

I have a modem answering device; it will answer via modem and store
data in RAM to be retrieved later with your PC (or mini or frame).
Unlike a fax, a calling modem does not generate a tone to trigger a
switch, which is how ALL of the "automatic" fax switches work, i.e.,
the calling fax's tone switches the switch.

No manufacturer I have queried can provide me with an "automatic"
switch for a modem/voice line.  The closest to such is one which can
recognize a modem tone from the calling party, which means all users
would have to be trained to call me in the answer mode.  No way, Jose.
(I cannot even get my clients to sign their names on the correct
line!)

Does anyone know of a switch which can do what I need?  Or is my only
answer to mortgage my soul for eternity to Southwestern Bell at
$10/month for its Personalized Ring service (after buying an
appropriate switch to switch among the rings)?


[e-mail]

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

Subject: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 3:59:41 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


[ discussing US West's dial replacement program in the Minneapolis area
  to thwart drug dealers ]

With the cash these boyz carry around with them, it is trivial to walk
into Radio Shack, plunk down US$20 for a pocket tone dialer, and thumb
their coca-stained noses at US West and the knights in shining badges.

Changing the COS to outgoing only seems much more effective if
callbacks are the MO.

(Acronyms included for Robert's benefit.)


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

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

Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 10:10 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Ground Start *Phones*


John Higdon writes:

>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.

It's true that (almost) nobody would order a ground start line for a
POTS (plain old telephone service) line, but here's a situation where
a 2500 set (standard touch tone desk set) was equipped with a
grounding button:

In most PBX installations, when both power and backup power fails,
certain stations are direct-connected to certain trunks.  This allows,
for example, the main number to ring at security, and one phone in
each functional area to receive dial tone, for the duration of the
power outage.  This feature is called power fail transfer.

In one installation, the sets designated for power fail transfer were
equipped with grounding buttons, since the lines that they'd be
receiving in case of outage were ground start lines.  Those who
"needed to know" were briefed that in case of switch outage, they
needed to press the button to receive a dial tone.


[e-mail]

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Translators
Date: 14 Apr 90 01:27:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


A student of mine works in the Miwaukee Bone Marrow unit and recently
had a difficult experience with a patient who came from Brazil and
spoke no English.  No Portugese (sp?) speaking staff were available.

I recall that some arm of ATT supported operators who had multilingual
experience.  Might they be pressed into service in a medical problem
such as this?  What are they called, where, etc.

It is probably best just to email me this, as it did appear earlier
and may not be of general interest.


Leonard P. Levine                       e-mail [e-mail]
Professor, Computer Science             Office [phone]
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   [phone]
Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              FAX    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike Jarvis)
Subject: Looking for Modem Design
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 21:36:6 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mike Jarvis)
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407


I am looking for a modem kit to put together for a Manufacturing
Processes course here at Cal Poly.  If anyone has built their own
modem and would be willing to share the schematic and other info for
it, I would appreciate it.  I would also be willing to pay for it.

Plagiarism is not a factor here as this course emphasis production and
not design.  I will have to put the design onto our CAD/CAM system for
production so legible schematics are needed.

If you know of a design published in any magazines or kits available,
these would also work.

I am looking for a design for a 9600 bps (or 2400) external modem with
it's own power supply contained in it and working led's providing
status information.  The connection would, of course, be through a
RS-232 port using serial communications.

Hayes compatible command set would be nice, but is not necessary.

Please send all responses to [e-mail]

Thank you.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #252
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04066;
          14 Apr 90 4:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25300;
          14 Apr 90 2:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26706;
          14 Apr 90 1:49 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Apr 90 1:10:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #253
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Apr 90 01:08:34 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 253

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Toll Free Phone Numbers in South Africa [Shawn Lipman]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Leo Williams]
    Re: Call Trace Question [Eric J. Johnson]
    Re: Sprint's Disconnections [Andrew Freeman]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [John Higdon]
    Re: Dutch, British Telecom [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Kelly Goen]
    Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [John Boteler]
    Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 20:20:41 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria
From: tuvie!gargoyle.uchicago.edu!tabbs!shawn (Shawn Lipman)
Subject: Toll Free Phone Numbers in South Africa


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?

South Africa has been testing tollfree systems for a short while now.
The first test system (which will continue operating for approximately
six months) is the 0100 system.  This system allows users to call a
number anywhere within SA (which is registered as tollfree) for the
cost of a local call.  This is only a small system which allows 999
numbers ie 0100-xxx (where xxx is from 001-999)

A newer, more advanced system has just been introduced called the 080
system.  The country is divided into five regions, of which each is
assigned a region number (similar to that of the area dialing code).
As an example here is an imaginary tollfree Johannesburg number ..
08011-10001 (where the 080 is the tollfree identifier, 11 the region
code and the last five digits the actual number).

One thing that is different to other tollfree systems in other
countries is that the software running the system has been loaded onto
the existing exchanges ... ie;  no extra equipment has had to be put in
place.


Shawn

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: 11 Apr 90 19:16:49 GMT
Organization: COINS, UMass, Amherst


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.

An even simpler version of this scam is used in many countries - just
jamming the return path somehow.  Broken phones that appear functional
are favorite targets because none of the money is "lost" by the crook
to a completed call, but in lots of places you don't get a dial tone
until after you put in your money anyway. This scam is especially
common in places that have lots of foot traffic and people in a hurry -
train stations, info centers, etc.  You can be on the lookout for
such scams by noticing people hanging around waiting for a particular
phone even when another phone becomes free.  Another clue is when
someone in a phone line lets you go ahead of them.  These guys need to
hang around to watch the phone and grab the money after every few
attempted calls, otherwise some other con artist might beat them to
it.

In Amsterdam, it was a steady source of income for a bunch of train
station regulars - from teenagers to old folks. The phone company
keeps redesigning the phones to make it more difficult.  When they
made the return slot doors harder to jam, these guys started carrying
screwdrivers and bars and just bent the doors to jam the return.  When
they changed the doors again to a cast material to prevent bending,
they would jam the slot with gum or toilet/tissue paper coated with
various disgusting and discouraging matter.  The phone company
recently replaced half the phones in the city with phones that only
accept "phone cards".  These are paper cards containing a magnetic
strip with a number of pre-paid "call units" encoded on it. That way
the phone company gets its money in advance and there's no money in
the phone for the crooks. On the other hand, if you don't have a phone
card and the adjacent regular phone is broken (very common), you're
out of luck!

Vandalizing phones seems to be a national sport in Holland - but
that's another article.  Trying to find a functional phone is a city
can be very difficult.  Often the best solution is to use a phone in a
bar or hotel, but then you'll pay twice the normal rate. 8-(


Leo  c/o  [e-mail]

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

From: "Eric J. Johnson" <btni!null![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Trace Question
Reply-To: "Eric J. Johnson" <btni!null![e-mail]>
Organization: U S West Communications
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 15:20:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S M Krieger) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 246, Message 9 of 12

>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.

1. At least here, call traces cannot be provided
   to the police (or anyone else, for that matter) without
   a court order.  NO EXCEPTIONS.  To do otherwise would be
   an invasion of privacy.

2. COT traces will, however, be saved in a database to be used
   in the event of a security investigation/court order.

>Now for my question: if the originating exchange does not support
>Caller ID, etc., does anybody know what number will be provided if

COT does not depend on 'Caller ID' being available.

>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

If the traced call originated outside the common channel signaling
area, (SS7 area), the subscriber may receive an announcement
informing them that the trace could not be performed.  The current
recommended message is:

    'A complete trace cannot be generated for your last
     incoming call.  Please contact your telco for further
     assistance.'

In most cases, the fact that the trace was not complete will be
recorded with as much information as possible, for instance the
calling number may not be available, but the incoming trunk may be.
This is still quite useful in a security investigation.

>think about the legal implications of the telco reporting the wrong
>originating number to the police)?

I do not understand where you see a 'wrong number' being applied here.
All COT traces are logged separately.


Eric J. Johnson
UUCP: [e-mail]
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and in
no way reflect the will of Landru.  (or U S WEST Communications)

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Freeman)
Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections
Date: 13 Apr 90 03:36:08 GMT


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

I have Sprint and I have not ever been disconnected.  I guess that is
pretty strange.  I am probably going to subscribe to the AT&T new LD
service.  Pay $2 a month and receive 20-25% off all calls!  That is a
pretty nice deal.

Drew      uucp: crash!pro-europa!drew  arpanet: crash!pro-europa![e-mail]
     inet: [e-mail]  bitnet: pro-europa.uucp!drew@psuvax1
                         america online: Drew5

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs
Date: 13 Apr 90 10:51:29 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

I think US West (by installing rotary phones) and our congresscritters
(as mentioned above) are going about this all wrong. Without incurring
the ire of anyone except possibly the curmugeons reading this forum,
the area could be declared a "COCOT Zone" and only COCOTs would be
allowed there. This would effectively prevent any useful
communications to or from any drug dealers.

I don't know how many times a COCOT has prevented me from checking my
voice mail. The same roadblocks would also prevent activation of
pagers!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: Dutch, British Telecom (was Billing and Answer Supervision)
Date: 13 Apr 90 03:26:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> windowless room that had an entire wall of mechanical digital
> counters.  I was told that these were for traffic analysis, not for
> billing.

You are right, that's what they were used for.  Interestingly enough,
these counters were made in Geneva, Switzerland by SODECO.  They were
probably the same counters used by the PTTs for billing.  I still have
a few in a cigar box in my workshop.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming
Date: 13 Apr 90 09:21:39 GMT
Reply-To: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


Well Patrick, again you suprise me. Supporting end user programming of
cellular phones doesnt sound like you ... but I LIKE it ... Are we
allowed to publish openly for this contest??? I will contribute the
magic numbers and sequences for the GE Mini and the Mitsubishi 800 if
so.  Also there is a master guide for about 795.00 per year with
monthly updates available to service shops hard copy only as far as I
know at this point, but I am hoping to find it published on CD
ROM; I will let you know.

If enough people contribute we can have our own independent archive.
Seriously though I have found the best way to gain access and
photocopies of these instructions is to tell the dealer that you are
installing a dial tone simulator for cellular data transmission such
as a tellujak.  They instantly fall into NIH and hand over the
instructions as most of this equipment requires several custom options
you have to twiddle.


Cheers,
Kelly

p.s. There's hope for you yet...


[Moderator's Note: I'm glad you are optimistic about my condition. Do
I in general support the rights of cell phone owners to program their
units in a *non-fraudulent* way?  Yes. Am I naive about the use some
people would make of the programming information? No.  Read the next
message.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 4:05:13 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


It should no more be permissible for customers to be able to change
their cellular phone programming at will than it is for phone
customers to be permitted dialup access to their ESSs to change their
features at will, en masse. Unless chaos is the desired goal.

In fact, some user-interface features are programmable, especially in
the newer phones. The ones dealing with security and like concerns are
clearly not included in this set.


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

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90  23:00:00 CDT


There is no legitimate reason for a user to change the serial number
identification of his unit. There are legitimate reasons to be able to
change the phone number and Home Default, to name two options.

Consider this: If I travel frequently between two or three cities, and
I use cellular service in each, my options now are to have two or
three phones (one homed in each city), or have one home city and pay
(sometimes) outrageous roaming rates in the other two cities, or pay a
dealer to reprogram the unit for another city as its home in the event
I have an actual number there.

Why can't I subscribe to cellular service (and have an actual phone
number) in each city I routinely visit, with the numbers going to
voice mail when I am not in town?  When my plane lands, I, (me, myself
rather than a dealer) reprogram the phone to let's say home on 00020
for Ameritech/Chicago or 00001 for Cellular One/Chicago. I put in the
phone number I am paying for in this city, and proceed to do business
with my (now) home carrier. The carrier already has my serial number,
of course, since they got that when I first signed up for service in
their city.

Instead of roamer rates, I get home carrier rates. Why do I have to go
to a dealer for that?  Why would 'chaos' result from this any more
than it results from me moving my landline phone from one apartment to
another and plugging it in the jack?  Why did the telcos replace
hardwired phones with modular jacks if they were worried about chaos?

People with the knowledge of how to defraud the cellular carrier are
probably the same people who -- if they live in an older, rapidly
decaying inner city area like myself -- also know how to go to the
basement of their apartment building and snatch the pairs for anyone
in the building and half the people on the same block. Should I be
forced to live with a hardwired phone and a terminal box I can't get
into merely because I *might* put calls on your line?  Should I have
to call telco installation if I want to move the wires from one place
to another on my premises for the same reason? Does chaos result when
people run new wires from the telco demarc to their apartment?

If anything, cellular service is more secure than landline simply
because unlike the wire pair, the cellular equivalent of the pair (the
serial number) is virtually unchangeable. Program whatever phone
number you like; if the ESN does not match -- at least in local
service -- the call won't go through. I agree there are some problems
with the absolute use of the serial number as the identification of
last resort when roaming, but this is gradually being corrected by
most carriers.  Unlike what Geoff Goodfellow said in his article on
cellular security (see TELECOM Archives), the manufacturers now are
really keeping the serial number very secure. The chip is buried under
wax on my unit, for gosh sakes!  And even if it were not, would YOU
want a bunch of ostentatious dip-switches or micro-toggle switches on
your unit to show what you were up to?

A hard-core phreak can/will break into anything telecom-related. But
the honest cellular user should be able to adjust his phone for the
city he is in and carrier he is using in the same way a subscriber of
regular telco services picks up his phone, carries it across town and
plugs it in right away. If I go to New York or Boston, and have a
hardwired phone installed, I don't have to pay special 'roamer' rates,
nor do I have to pay an installer to put the phone in to insure I
don't cheat New York Tel of their due.

Of course, if there were detailed, descriptive messages here in the
Digest explaining how to do it model by model, it would only be a
short time until some nitwit at the [New York Times] ran an article
headlined 'Northwestern University computer used by phreaks to steal
cellular phone service.'  Mark my words.  Or else one of television's
Talking Heads; I call them the men with the fifty dollar hairdoos and
the fifty cent brains. I have limited financial resources: I cannot
afford a lawyer, and the cost of bribing a federal judge or the FBI
here in Chicago is more expensive than a lot of places.

I see nothing wrong with messages regarding topics such as the four or
five digit carrier identification numbers; how Access, Group and Class
values are assigned; or how Overload is handled. But let's keep quiet
about the actual keyboard sequences typed in to enter program mode,
eh?  Either you know them or you don't.  I haven't been in jail for so
long I've forgotten what a Bologna sandwich tastes like. I'd like to
keep it that way.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #253
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07671;
          14 Apr 90 7:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09654;
          14 Apr 90 3:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25300;
          14 Apr 90 2:54 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Apr 90 2:41:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #254
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Apr 90 02:40:21 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 254

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    PTT Station Sets; 4-Wire Circuits & "Hoot-n-holler Lines" [Larry Lippman]
    International TTY for the Deaf [Roy Smith]
    Duplexors (was: "Cellular Tech Questions") [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Don Lewis]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [John Higdon]
    What Long Distance Company Does Patrick Use? [Dan Jacobson]
    Special Issues This Weekend [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: PTT Station Sets; 4-Wire Circuits & "Hoot-n-holler Lines"
Date: 12 Apr 90 01:03:09 EST (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert Savery) writes:

> >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.

    While Western Electric and the Bell System had the lion's
share of the *fixed* installation military telephone communications
market, Stromberg Carlson (div of General Dynamics) and Automatic
Electric (later a div of GTE) were also well represented.  I
personally have a "souvenir" red secure telephone that I "rescued"
from a DPDO scrap pile many years ago; this is a 4-wire device with
PTT handset made by Stromberg Carlson.

> 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!

    While the PTT switch may have appeared to benefit security,
this was most likely not its intended purpose.  Chances are the
stations which had the PTT handsets were 4-wire with connection to
AUTOVON and/or dedicated command circuits.  While AUTOVON requires a
4-wire circuit and 4-wire station set, a PTT handset is not required.
However, dedicated command circuits (i.e., "hotlines" which ring a
predefined set of stations without requiring dialing), which are
invariably 4-wire, often create a fixed conference arrangement with a
large number if stations.  The PTT handset is used to eliminate what
could be a horrendous amount of background noise if the common receive
path summed the ambient noise from all of the station transmitters.

    In addition, dedicated command circuits usually have a
multiplicity of alternate routing possibilities to assure reliability.
Such routings may range from landline to HF to UHF to troposcatter to
microwave.  In the particular case of the HF and UHF options, the PTT
handset assures positive transmitter control instead of relying upon
VOX.  Since the telephone station set does not know what communication
medium it is feeding at a given time, a PTT arrangement assures
compatibility with all of the above media in a manner which is
transparent to the user.

    Furthermore, many military fixed installation station sets are
multiple-line, in which case if one line requires a PTT switch, then
its operation carries over to all lines appearing on such a station
set - even if they don't require it (like an AUTOVON line).  While I
have seen multiple-line station sets with an internal switching relay
for 2-wire/4-wire operation depending upon the line selected, I have
never seen one which enabled or disabled a PTT switch - i.e., the PTT
switch was always enabled.

    Incidently, 4-wire stations with PTT handsets are not limited
to the military, NASA or the FAA.  While they are now being replaced
with alternate methods of communication, for many years 4-wire
conference circuits were extensively used by interstate trucking
companies for coordination of dispatch, tracing and OS&D operations.
This type of 4-wire conference circuit was commonly called a
"full-period line" (somewhat of an anachronism) or "hoot-n-holler
line" :-) [really!].  The most common implementation of this circuit
involved one or more 4-wire station sets (sometimes with PTT,
sometimes not, at discretion of facilities design engineer) at each
location, along with 106-type loudspeakers in close proximity to the
stations.

The net result was that every station could be heard on *every* other
station and *every* loudspeaker.  When one station wanted to call
another, they would pick up their telephone and announce in a loud
voice whom they were trying to reach.  The recipient would hear their
name or location on the loudspeaker and then pick up their station to
converse.  Some of these circuits later used selective signaling (but
not selective *talking*) such as SS1 or later variants to eliminate
the loudspeaker.

    I betcha at least one TELECOM Digest reader has at one time
worked for an interstate trucking company and used a "hoot-n-holler"
line.


<> 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: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: International TTY for the Deaf
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 15:36:56 GMT

    One of our faculty here in New York wants to communicate with
his deaf parents in New Zealand.  They have some sort of modem-and-TTY
device, but we are unsure how to connect to it with the equipment we
have here.  Obviously, it would require an international phone call.

    I know that a similar service exists in the US (TDD, I think
they call it) but I don't know much about it.  Are the modems used
compatable with any of the common data modems (v.22/bis, 212A, or
103J)?  Is the system used in NZ the same as the system used in the
USA?

Roy Smith,
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue,
New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 10:27:24 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Duplexors (was: "Cellular Tech Questions")
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| I assume that any cellphone has to have an RF duplexor... 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.

No problem. All of the receiver freqs are above all of the transmitter
freqs, so each is agile only on it's own side of the fence. A simple
duplexor will do.

John Covert gave the formula for the frequencies in <[e-mail]>
(Telecom-Digest: V.10, I.239, Msg 5 of 6):

| 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)


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: Don Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne, FL
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 06:27:46 GMT


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

>Now, one of the features that came out with the more sophisticated
>Xbar system, and was to be continued with ESS was immediate splash of
>ring.  This feature put a brief splash of ring out on the line just as
>the call "landed".  This works well, but many newer CO's seem to drop
>this feature when they are busy.  You often hear a funny, mis-timed
>"ring-ring" when the call lands, the splash of ring occurs and then
>the normal ring timing cycle takes over.

This reminds me of a problem I was having with my home phones.
Periodically, I would get one of these funny rings, then silence.  It
sounded sort of like someone had called and hung up on the first ring.
I found out that if I answered the phone anyway, the party calling me
was still on the line.  I believe sometimes I didn't get a ring at
all.

Trying to explain this to the repair people was usually interesting.
What was frustrating was that this tended not to be very
reproduceable, and when the repair person called back it would work
fine.  Usually they would then go off and check it out anyway, and
then it would work for a few months before breaking again.

It seems to be fixed now, it's been working ok for the last nine
months or so.


Don "Truck" Lewis                      Harris Semiconductor
Internet:  [e-mail]     PO Box 883   MS 62A-028
UUCP:      rutgers!soleil!thrush!del   Melbourne, FL  32901
Phone:     [phone]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Date: 14 Apr 90 00:04:19 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


fmsystm![e-mail] writes:

> John, what you say should be true.  Immediate ring is supposed to be a
> feature on those new-fangled electronic CO's, but it doesn't seem to
> work that way every time.
> [...]
> Another problem is intentionally slow ring sense in key systems and
> PBX's.

Ah, this is where you have me! While I experimentally determined that
my CO (a 1ESS) hit the called line with ring voltage immediately 100%
of the time, sometimes it was very short indeed, sometimes not even
enough to be seen by my KX-T1232 (which is very quick). So if that
first ring is missed, it would be several seconds before the next ring
would come along and glare could easily occur.

> So, ground start lives, and will be with us for quite a while yet.

Just so there's no doubt, the two ITT3100s that I take care of have
nothing but ground-start trunks (and design trunks at that). That is
of course the real professional way to go. Naturally, glare is never a
problem and the system has positive sense of when dial tone is
actually seized. This makes things go much faster when the ARS works.

But there is a sad truth. Ground-start is a USA phenomenon. As I'm
sure our non-US readers will confirm, ground-start is not generally
available worldwide. (I'm sure it's available in Canada.) It might be
interesting to find out where, other than North America, a PBX user
can hook up to ground-start circuits.

> It should be noted that I find very few lines give loop disconnect
> supervision anymore, except in older offices.  The telco will
> sometimes give you loop (CPC) disconnect on a loop start line, on
> request, but don't count on it.  Ground start is still the only
> reliable way to prevent call collisions and get reliable disconnect.

More and more, I am hearing that telcos are becoming sensitive to
this.  There are just too many devices out there that depend on loop
current interruption for disconnect. Every switch used for CO service
is capable of providing it, assuming that it is equipped with the
proper line cards and the correct programming options are invoked.
Repair service will listen to you now about that.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 15:32 CDT
Subject: What Long Distance Company Does Patrick Use When He Calls Grandma?
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


OK, what long distance company does Patrick use when he calls grandma?
(I can't resist asking.)

[Patrick, honestly you had better not tell us for fear of never-ending
flame-wars, etc.]


[e-mail]    [phone]


[Moderator's Note: He who controls the mailbox never has to worry too
much about flame wars. Grandmother has been gone a few years now; she
left us December 31, 1986. I have AT&T Reach Out for my outgoing calls
on both lines. I have a couple of 800 numbers from Telecom*USA. I have
a Sprint FON card which was awarded to me for my achievements and the
depth of my knowledge of WD-40 and its many uses.    PT]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 1:46:57 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issues This Weekend


Two special issues of the Digest are planned for this weekend. You
will receive them sometime Saturday evening or overnight Sunday
morning most likely.

In one, Peter J. Dotzau has provided us with a comprehensive listing
of the Minitel dialup numbers (and the appropriate baud rates for
each) throughout the world. Yes, the whole world.  Most of you will
find a local access number to use in trying out the Minitel service.

In the other, John G. DeArmond takes considerable exception to the
remarks of Larry Lippman, which appeared in this space last weekend.
Here are just a few excerpts:

   >In this article, Larry the Lid, henceforth referred to as LL,
             ........
   >wrote a scathing personal attack against me regarding an article I
   >had posted earlier describing my use of an infinity transmitter in
   >my first job with the government in the mid 70's.  As if to
   >add credence to his story, he preceded this attack with an exposition
   >of his rather limited knowledge of the generic family of devices
   >referred to as "Infinity transmitters".
             ........
   >LL concluded his post with a couple of paragraphs of pontificating
   >regarding my obvious violation of the law by using this fairy tale
   >device
             ........
   >from the Ham Radio Database in some sort of effort to further discredit
   >me because of my age.
             ........
   >And yet he makes a slanderous attack on my character.  What a guy.
             ........
   >So here we have a situation where a pompous ass named Larry Lippman
   >has decreed from his throne that a rather detailed description of
   >an infinity transmitter I used years ago was a lie simply because
   >HE had never heard of it.
             ........
   >And finally to Pat The Moderator.  Let's see if you precede this posting
   >with all the fanfare and glee you greeted Larry's with. After all,
   >fair's fair.
   >John De Armond, WD4OQC

Of course I will! To me, glee is glee! Gimme a big stick and I'll always
stir the pot. As the headline on the [Honolulu Advertiser] said on
Saturday morning, December 6, 1941, the day ** before ** the
'surprise' bombing of Pearl Harbor, "Severe attack expected over weekend".
You betcha! Give 'em hell, John.

And so, with strains of Elgar's 'Pomp and Circumstance' in the
background, I invite you to call again tomorrow for another edition of
these pompous circumstances known as TELECOM Digest.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #254
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25794;
          14 Apr 90 18:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11656;
          14 Apr 90 16:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03446;
          14 Apr 90 15:00 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Apr 90 14:48:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #255
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Apr 90 14:47:22 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 255

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    List of Magazines and Publications [Dave Leibold]
    Sprint / Network 200 Marketing  [A Sprint Employee, via Steve Elias]
    More Comments From a US Sprint Employee [submitted via Steve Elias]
    Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries? [Marc O'Krent]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Mark Earle]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Charles Buckley]
    Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Mark Earle]
    Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Michael Gersten]
    New Areacode Script and Countrycode List [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: List of Magazines and Publications
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 11:42:19 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


I have a very partial list of periodicals and publications relating to
the telecommunications industry. This is incomplete, and has a leaning
towards Canadian sources.

I would like to form a larger list of these publications; if you see
anything that's missing or incorrect here, please mail me
([e-mail]) and I will collect the addresses. After a few
weeks, I can post a revised listing based on new contributions.

Submit these direct to me and I will make an updated article for the
Digest.

-=-=-=-=-=-=

Telecom Magazine and Newsletters

The following magazines are available for those interested in
telephones and telecommunications. Some of these free offers are
restricted to telephone professionals; but others are simply free for
the asking.  Thanks to Nigel Allen of 89:480/501 and Sir Dep for
supplying many of the addresses and publication names that you'll see
below...

     -----

If you would like to receive a free subscription to TELECOMMUNICATIONS
magazine, just write to:

Circulation Department
Telecommunications,
685 Canton Street
Norwood, MA 02062 USA.

They'll send you a questionnaire to fill out and return, and once you've
done that, you'll start receiving the magazine regularly.

     -----

CommunicationsWeek is a weekly tabloid newspaper for the telecommunications
industry.  It's free. If you'd like a subscription, just write to:

CommunicationsWeek,
Circulation Department,
P.O. Box 2070,
Manhasset, N.Y. 11030 U.S.A.

     -----

Bell Canada publishes Solutions, a free magazine distributed primarily
to its large business customers.  (You don't have to be a large business
customer to get Solutions, though.) It's obviously intended to get people
to buy or rent Bell equipment and services, but it's still fairly
interesting. If you'd like to receive a free subscription to Solutions
magazine, telephone toll-free 1-800-268-9100.

     -----

If you would like to receive a free subscription to Network World,
just write to:

Network World
P.O. Box 1021
Southeastern, PA 19398 U.S.A.

They'll send you back a questionnaire to fill out and return, so that
you can receive your free subscription.

     -----

Here's a magazine about telemarketing, and has features on automatic
call distributors (ACDs), 800/900 multi line services, how to keep people
waiting on hold, etc.

Address is:

Inbound/Outbound
12 W 21 Street
New York, NY USA
10160-0371

This address is for the Telecom Library folks who also publish magazines
called "LAN" and "Teleconnect". There may or may not be freebie deals on
those as well, depending on the type of work you do. Ask for subscription
information in any case if you're interested.

    -----

Telesat Canada, the company that operates Canada's domestic
telecommunications satellites, publishes a free newsletter called Telesat
Report.  If you would like a free subscription, write to

The Editor
Telesat Report, Telesat Canada
1601 Telesat Court
Gloucester, Ontario K1B 5P4
telephone (voice) 1-800-267-1870 or, in Ottawa, [phone].

     -----

Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory
phone [phone] or write to:

Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory
Editorial Services Limited
P.O. Box 6789
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906

     -----

Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory
telephone [phone]

or write to:

Editor, Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory
Gale Research Inc.
Book Tower
Detroit, Michigan 48226

     -----

Telephony Magazine is published weekly by Intertec Press. I must say
that while I don't see much change from the old company that used to
publish it, at least the last time I subscribed I didn't have to prove
that I did, like the previous two times before with the old company.

Anyway, the address for Telephony is:

Telephony
P.O. Box 12948
Overland Park, KS 66212-9940

The subscription rate is currently $35.00 per year. They no longer offer
2 or 3 year subscriptions.

     -----

Telecom Gear is a publication, published Monthly. It is a plain jane
newsprint type magazine (no slick pages). It runs $15.00 per year.

Telecom Gear has ads in it for various brokers, etc for almost any type
of telephone equipment ever made. (New and Used equipment.)

The address for Telecom Gear is:

Telecom Gear
1265 Industrial Highway
Southampton, PA. 18966

     -----

Subscriptions to Datamation, a U.S. computer magazine, are
available free by writing to:

Datamation
P.O. Box 17162
Denver, Colorado 80217  U.S.A.

This offer is not available to students.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint / Network 200 Marketing
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 15:21:03 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[ This message is from an anonymous source within US Sprint. ]

I don't quite understand what the deal is with these Network 2000 guys
to be perfectly honest with you.  I know that they are an outside
marketing organization for one thing.  I can only say that the
operation is probably not set up and managed by Sprint.  As a matter
of fact I'm fairly positive it's not -- it's too complicated for our
commission people.

What probably is happening is that Sprint is paying a revenue
commission of say 7% on any revenue generated by Network 2000 dudes.
They give it to Network 2000 to do with as they please.  Network 2000
gives 1% to each level down to 6 levels and keeps 1% for itself.
These percentages are hypothetical but I'm reasonably sure this is
what is going on.  It makes sense to get as many people working on
commission only plans as possible because it lowers overhead and only
pays for results.  Since Sprint doesn't have to deal with commission
distribution it makes it simpler for Sprint.  Believe it or not,
<other-source> says that we get less complaints about these guys than
most of our other marketing means.

[ end anonymous message ]

[Moderator's Note: Steve Elias asked me to note that this message, and
the one that follows were NOT written by himself but are merely being
passed along. He HAS agreed to forward replies to the originator, who
for whatever reason wishes to remain anonymous.  PT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 90 15:24:47 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[ this is from an anonymous source within US Sprint ]

A few months ago, ATT wiped out more than 50% of ITS TOTAL CUSTOMER
BASE, AND THEY COULDN'T MAKE CALLS FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 17 HOURS!!!!!!
SPRINT NEVER DID THAT!!!!!  A MONTH AFTER THAT, ATT DID THE SAME THING
WITH ONE OF THEIR 800 EXCHANGES!

Seriously, how quickly they (those who slam everyone but ATT) forget a
major catastrophe like that!  The fact remains - right now, we are the
only 100% digital fiberoptic network there is PERIOD.  ATT wrote down
losses of >$6billion at the end of 88 for accelerated depreciation of
old equipment for a REASON.  They just are not as great as everyone
thinks!  They have 10 times the money that we do, but if you think
they would have spent it on upgrading their equipment if they weren't
responding to competitive pressure, you're nuts!  Digital technology
has been around for a long time; certainly before Sprint started using
it.  ATT had the opportunity to upgrade to digital technology many
years ago, but they did not.

The fact is, Sprint, MCI, and ATT all offer quality service these
days.  That wasn't always the case.  But the service that you get from
any of these carriers now is much better than the service you would
have gotten from ATT six years ago.  You should thank Sprint, rather
than slamming them, for having the balls to push the modernization of
America's phone system.  And by the way, the probability of you
getting disconnected on a Sprint call is certainly no greater than
getting disconnected on an ATT call.

Also, the long distance calls you make today cost you on average 40%
less than they did six years ago.  Maybe you should ask ATT to give
you the service and higher prices that you had six years ago if that's
what you want.

(Note: The signalling system which ATT was deploying which caused the
crash of 50% of their network has already been deployed at US Sprint
for over a year!)

[ end anonymous message ]

; Steve Elias, [e-mail].  !! MAIL TO [e-mail] ONLY !!
; 617 932 5598, 508 671 7556, computerfax 508 671 7447, realfax 508 671 7419


[Moderator's Note: I think this person makes some valid comments worth
consideration. What I don't understand is why they felt it had to be
anonymous. Since Steve Elias has assumed responsibility for replies, I
agreed to post it, but Sprint employees should note they are as
welcome to participate here as anyone.   PT]


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

From: Marc O'Krent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll-free 800 Equivalents in Foreign Countries?
Date: 14 Apr 90 07:22:21 GMT
Reply-To: Marc O'Krent <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cochran&Associates, Menlo Park, CA


We have toll free service in the UK via an 0800 number.  This is
distingushed from their 0898 service which is the reverse: caller-pay.


Marc O'Krent
The Telephone Connection
Internet: [e-mail]    MCIMail: mokrent
Voice Mail: [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 08:47:45 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs


Patrick,

    Well, that's interesting. I wonder how quickly the paging
companies will offer rotary operated service. It is available, but not
generally used, because at peak times (lunch) it keeps the paging
terminal tied up; fewer people can complete pages, since it takes
longer w/rotary. But it *is* available.

    On a related note, in my little corner of Texas, built a decoder
which monitors the paging channel with a receiver, and displays on
screen what numbers were sent. The format is widely published. I
further ran it through a simple data base. This showed pager addresses
(no idea what phone number went w/what address; but it let me see who
got a lot of pages) and could flag other than seven digit entries,
i.e., non-phone numbers. Lots of fun. I suspect just from the traffic
pattern alone, lots of 'interesting' things must be done via pagers!

    I'm sure if I figured out how to do this, it can be done by any
professional/law enforcement type. Guess the rub would be getting such
collected data admitted as evidence, in light of the ECPA, Comm. act
of 1934 as amended, etc.

    I guess the drug dealers don't like voicemail, since retrieving
the messages would be admittable evidence if they did it from a court
approved wiretapped line ... no, wait, they could playback their
voicemail with a cell phone ... yeah, that's it, since cell phone calls
are sacred and private! <grin> Then all the 'customer' needs is a
phone, no signalling at all ... and the 'dealer' just uses his cmt, say,
once an hour, to scoop up the messages ... wonder if this will come to
pass ... you heard it here first.

     RE: voicemail. Here, most paging/cmt provideres offer voice mail
in conjunction with your pager/cmt, or as a stand alone, for about
$10/month per mailbox. It's a cheap way to get a remote-controlable
answering machine, special number for promotions, etc. I liked it in
lieu of giving out my digital pager number. The caller had time to
leave a detailed message, and I got the benefit of short term storage
for later replay, and all msgs were date-time stamped -- great for a
service person with a limited response time, prevents fudging the
'start of notification of trouble' time.


     Mark Earle
Pro-Sparlkin, Corpus Christi, Tx

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 11:24:26 PDT
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID

   From: [e-mail] (Steve Glaser)

   >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, . . .

   >Actually, if you listen carefully, much of the time they ask for "a
   >phone number".

As it has been explained to me, this is a writing sample - digits are
easier to use in forgery detection than a signature, which is so
different that it lends itself to being practiced.  One writes so many
digits in one's life that it's hard to unlearn, even with practice.

What kills me is that the merchants aren't told this by the credit
card companies, so some of the more obsequious ones, in trying to make
your job of purchasing lighter, ask you for the phone number, and
write it on themselves!

In my experience from having three credit cards stolen from my PO Box
before I could collect them, the fraudulent user unashamedly writes
another number, although I couldn't get the postal investigation
organization to verify if it belonged to the thief.  Guess they
protect their own.


[Moderator's Note: Addressing only the last paragraph of your message:
Not really, they don't. The Chicago Main Post Office has had a few
scandals over the years. The postal inspectors come down very hard on
postal employees who steal from the mail. A major ripoff of Amoco
Credit Cards by postal workers in the early seventies was dealt with
very harshly. In those days, the Amoco Credit Card Processing Office
was in downtown Chicago.   PT]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 10:42:11 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reprogramming Cellular Phones


I think it would be a good idea to collect/post the programming
information with regards to various cell phones programming. My
interest is from the viewpoint that the phones probably have a lot of
capabilities that advanced users may wish to enable, but the
dealer/service provider has no interest in turning on. At least being
*aware* of the capabilities might help one pursuade the dealer to turn
on that feature, or let the buyer make a more-informed purchase
decision. The decision to buy which unit would be influenced by what
features they all have.

I have a personal interest since in the next 60 days I will be buying
"something". Even with the possible advent of digital technology, I
need something now not later.


Mark Earle
Pro-Sparlkin, Corpus Christi, Tx

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

Date: 14 Apr 90 10:28:19 PDT (Sat)
From: Michael Gersten <[e-mail]>


I am in favor of posting information on reprogramming cellular phones.


        Michael

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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 14:02:08 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Areacode Script and Countrycode List


Alexander Dupuy of Columbia University has submitted a new areacode
script to the Telecom Archives for interested parties. This is far too
lengthy to include here (20K) and even includes a manual page, should
you wish to put it up on your site.

It is stored in the archives as 'areacode.script.new' if you wish to
get a copy.

REGULAR FTP:   ftp lcs.mit.edu
               login anonymous, then give [e-mail] as password
               cd telecom-archives
               get areacode.script.new

FTP MAILSERVER: Write to '[e-mail]' or 'bitftp.pucc.bitnet'.
Put your FTP commands in UPPER CASE at the left margin, one to a line,
i.e.:

FTP lcs.mit.edu
USER anonymous [e-mail]
ASCII
CD telecom-archives
GET area.code.script.new
GET index.to.archives
BYE

Within a few days -- maybe a week -- you will have the files.

This new file is rather nicely done, and I think you will like it.

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #255
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11808;
          15 Apr 90 2:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15155;
          15 Apr 90 0:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11402;
          14 Apr 90 23:17 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Apr 90 22:50:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: DeArmond Response to Lippman
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Apr 90 22:48:00 CDT    Special: DeArmond Response

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Infinity Transmitters, Larry Lippman and the BIG LIE [John G. De Armond]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Infinity Transmitters, Larry "the LID" Lippman and the BIG LIE
Date: 11 Apr 90 01:30:22 EDT (Wed)
From: "John G. De Armond" <[e-mail]>


To comp.dcom.telcom readers:

Over the weekend, Pat the Moderator posted an article from Larry
Lippman titled "Infinity Transmitter: Fact, Fiction, and Fairy Tale",
an article preceded with significant fanfare in the days beforehand.

In this article, Larry the Lid, henceforth referred to as LL, wrote a
scathing personal attack against me regarding an article I had posted
earlier describing my use of an infinity transmitter in my first job
with the government in the mid 70's.  As if to add credence to his
story, he preceded this attack with an exposition of his rather
limited knowledge of the generic family of devices referred to as
"Infinity transmitters".  In particular, he related the history, dated
in the 60's, of the originator of the infinity transmitter, Manny
Mittelman.

After this brief history lesson, LL proceeds to extrapolate from the
microscopic particular to the general and claim that the infinity
transmitter I described could have NEVER existed and that I had simply
made up a fairy tale (his words.). His justification was simply that
he had never heard of the device I described and therefore it could
not have existed.  He further justified his opinion by citing the
mid-60s technology he had previously described as making my kind of
device impossible to implement.

He went on to describe the details of a particular telephone switch
and then extrapolated again to the general and stated that when a
coupling capacitor was removed from a particular switch, no infinity
transmitter anywhere could work.  Even those connected to switches
quite dissimilar to the one for which he had purported knowledge.  And
of course, all of this was sprinkled with the glut of obscure
buzzwords, equipment model numbers, and figures for which LL is known.
Well Hey, it works for the government.

LL concluded his post with a couple of paragraphs of pontificating
regarding my obvious violation of the law by using this fairy tale
device (I'll bet LL NEVER phreaked - ever.)  He then made reference to
my age as gleaned from the Ham Radio Database in some sort of effort
to further discredit me because of my age.

Normally I ignore such LIDS as Larry when they make personal attack.
At the most, I'll post something argumentative back just to poke fun
at the poster.  But this case is different.  Larry is regarded in some
circles as a very knowledgeable person.  He is quite a prolific poster
and can usually obfuscate the the subject with obscure details.
Lastly, his attack was intensely personal.  He basically called me a
liar.  I don't quite understand this state of affairs.  Even though
I've seen Larry post some pretty bad data, I've never commented on his
postings either publicly or in private.  This was a shot literally out
of the blue.

This was the kind of attack for which there is little defense.  I
obviously do not still have the device in question, having left it in
place when I left the government service in 1979.  There was another
person involved in planting the device but since he still works for
the government and since revelation of his participation could result
in his being fired, I must respect his privacy and allow him to remain
anonymous.

Nonetheless, some important facts remain:

1)    Larry has absolutely no knowledge of my activities other than by
    my postings on the net.  He certainly knows nothing of my
    government career.

2)    Larry has absolutely no knowledge regarding the origin of the
    infinity transmitter I used. He knows not, for example, whether
    the device was purpose-built, was a prototype or was an "off-the-
    shelf" unit.

3)    Larry had absolutely no knowledge of the environment under which
    the device was used.  For example, it was used on the relatively
    controlled environment of an old crosspoint PBX and not a Bell
    subscriber loop or phone.  He did not know this, as evidenced by
    his description of a CO switch.

4)    Larry displayed a rather complete lack of knowledge of the then-state-
    of-the-art in infinity transmitters, particularly the ones that might
    not fit into his preconceived notion of what one is.

And yet he makes a slanderous attack on my character.  What a guy.

One of the central themes of LL's posting was that my device must be a
fairy tale because the technology did not exist to make such a not-
easily-detectable device.  After stewing on this for a day or two, I
decided to get proactive and prove that indeed such a device was not
only feasible but easy to make.  I decided to dig out the old
Proto-Board and dedicate an evening to the project. Here is what I
came up with in about 6 hours' work.

The design criteria for my "bug" are as follows:

1.    Be undetectable by DC means.  This implies a quiescent current draw
    under 100 microamps.

2.    Be undetectable by AC means applied to a subscriber loop.  This implies
    a high AC impedance, preferably over 100kohms.

3.    Be undetectable via emitted or induced EMI.  In other words, no
        oscillators and no inductors.

4.    Use technology available in 1975.  My device was probably built closer
    1977 or '78 but '75 is conservative.

5.    Be small enough to fit in a network.


An additional criterion was that I had to be able to breadboard it
from junkbox parts in an evening.

I modified the functional design a bit from the one I used a decade
ago in the interest of simplicity and perhaps in the interest of added
security.  This device is designed to respond to a pair of tones
alternately applied to the line at a moderate switching rate.  Out of
convenience, I used the tones of 1209 hz and 3266 hz alternated at a 7
hz rate. I'll explain why later.

The design I arrived at uses a pair of cascaded 2nd order bandpass
filters driving a precision rectifier whose output trips a micropower
relay.  One should note that the design presented here is meant to be
a proof-of-concept exercise and is by no means a finished product.

I have a HUGE "junk box" (actually, about 2500 sq feet of floor space)
and a large library so I have a wide selection of parts to choose from
and a good library that dates back to the late 60s (Yes, Larry, when I
was in my early teens.).

The filter design came from a book titled "Manual of Active Filter
Design" by Hilburn and Johnson, copyrighted in 1973.  This book is
essentially a collection of nomographs used to design filters
cookbook-style.  I modified the filter shown on page 100.

My active device is my old favorite of the linear devices, the 74C04
hex inverter.  Yes, sportsfans, a digital CMOS part.  This device,
when properly biased and fed-back, is an excellent low power audio and
low RF amplifier.

According to my 1975 edition of the National Semiconductor CMOS data
book, this device is rated at 0.01 microamp, 15 microamps max, with DC
input.  I would have expected the consumption to go up a bit when
linearly biased.  It does indeed but with the advances in processing
since the early 70s, the consumption is much lower.  I measured the
consumption at 5 volts with a Keithley Model 614 digital picoammeter.
With inputs grounded, this particular part consumed 0.002 microamp.
With an input tied to an output to bias the device linear, the current
rose to 0.015 microamps.  Nitpickers will note that I am characterizing
a modern part.  That is because I don't have an ancient specimen of
the part.

The circuit is as follows:

The input from the line is coupled in through a small capacitor
(selected, about 200-500 pf) to a resistive power divider that feeds 2
sets of bandpass filters.  Each set of filters uses 2 gates of the
74c04 The output of the filter drives a half-wave rectifier and
smoothing filter and the 2 smoothing filter outputs are summed into
another gate that serves as a summing junction.  The output of this
gate is fed to a last gate that is unbiased and serves as a
comparator.  The output of the comparator is fed to a sensitive relay
from the junque box.  This relay picks up at about 100 microamps and
probably came out of an old piece of process control equipment.  It
has 2 dpdt dry contacts.

The power supply for this device consists of 4 1n4742 12 volt, 1 watt
zeners in series feeding a bridge rectifier whose output is clamped by
a 1n4735 6.3 volt, 1 watt zener.  A 10 uf capacitor provides
sufficient reserve for switch activation and a 100 kohm resistor
limits current draw to about 20 microamps.  (A long ways from your 3
milliamps, eh Larry?)  At the currents involved, the 12 volt zeners
drop about 10.3 volts and the 6.3 volt zener drops about 5 volts.
Both diodes are characterized in my 1967 edition of the Motorola
Semiconductor Handbook.  Bridging the zener string and the 100k
resistor is one set of the relay contacts.  The second set of contacts
is used as seal-in contacts once the device is activated.

One should note that the entire device could be powered for months
from a 4.5 volt mercury battery that would fit inside the network.
There would then be ZERO load on the phone line.

The design purpose of this arrangement is for the circuit to draw zero
current until the applied voltage reaches about 40 volts.  This
prevents the device from being detected by applying an ohmmeter to the
terminals of the phone.  It also prevents the device from being
activated or detected by the application of 24 volts, a value common
to phone test boxes.  The relay contact is used to pick up the line
when the device activates and to draw loop current.  When activated,
the device represents about 6 extra volts' of drop across the set.
This could possibly be a detection avenue, though not very likely.
This design assumes that battery will be at least 48 volts, a safe
assumption in the era before solid state switches.  Voltage at the
facility in question ran nearer to 58 volts most of the time.

Not implemented in this mockup but necessary for a real device is a
block to prevent the simultaneous application of the 2 tones or white
noise from activating the device.  This could be implemented with a
couple of mosfet transistors or another cmos gate.  One should
probably budget another 10 microamps for this part of the circuit.

The tone activator for this circuit consists of an old touch-tone pad
incorporating a Motorola MC1440 T-T encoder (1976 Mot. CMOS data
book).  The 1209 hz tone is generated by grounding the C1 lead of the
chip.  The 3266 tone is the 2nd harmonic of the 1633 hz tone generated
by grounding the C4 lead of the MC1440.  The tones are alternated by
connecting 2n2222 transistors between the leads and ground and driving
them with the input and output of a 74C04 inverter.  The inverter is
driven with a 7 hz squarewave from a GC electronics bench function
generator.

The frequencies were chosen because:

a)    They are easy to generate for this test.
b)    They are not harmonically related.
c)    There is little speech energy in the 3266 hz range.
d)    There is little repetitive energy in speech in the 7 hz range.

The time constants of the filters and rectifiers are chosen so that
the comparator triggers when both filters detect energy in their
respective bandpasses.  As mentioned before, white noise or
simultaneous application of both frequencies would also cause
activation absent the interlock circuitry.

The remainder of the test setup consisted of 2 Western Electric Model
SD-81824-01 key system power units connected in series and powered
through a variac.  Each power supply produces 24 vdc.  The Keithley
614 picoammeter was placed in series with the ground return to measure
the current draw.  All component values were optimized using decade
boxes and substitution boxes to minimize quiescent current draw.  A
standard carbon microphone was wired in series with the loop to allow
testing for voice falsing.  The test tones were introduced with a 600
ohm 1:1 transformer in series with the loop.  The power supplies and
picoammeter were bypassed with 0.1 uF caps.

The vital statistics are:

1)     Quiescent current draw - 22 microamps.
2)    No current draw until the applied voltage reached 38 volts.
3)    Reliable activation with no voice-falsing occurred with about
    600 mv of tone.

Summary

I have proven that with about 6 hours of work and using components
from the junk box, a proof-of-concept Infinity transmitter can be
built that is substantially in conformance with the one I described in
my first article and which would be practically undetectable with
ordinary means.  It would certainly resist LL's VOM assault.  There is
one (or 2) chip(s) involved and a handful of discrete components.  All
would comfortably fit in a network housing.  Missing from this design
are stabilizing components, the hook interlock, spike protection and
the like.  Perhaps this could be added with another 6 hours' work.  A
bit more work would result perhaps halving the power consumption,
making the device even harder to detect.

One should note that the entire device could be powered for months
from a 4.5 volt mercury battery that would fit inside the network.

In terms of physical concealment, the whole works could be potted in
the network housing.  Potting is not atypical.  If one were worried
about X-Ray detection, a cadmium-copper-lead foil sandwich around the
inside of the box would stop all X-Rays in the range of about 30 to 80
kev and would severely attenuate higher energy rays.  The opacity
could arouse suspicion, of course, but if suspicions have been raised
to the point of X-Raying the phone, it is probable that other
techniques such as simply monitoring the line have already detected
something abnormal.

It is true that abnormal busy signals to callers could tip off the
target.  The solution is simply to use discretion when activating the
device.  In my case, I had a secretary who would tell me when a
certain individual would visit the target.  She was also the one who
alerted me to the developing problem after she overheard in person a
conversation about me.

Editorial and Ad Hominem Attack.

So here we have a situation where a pompous ass named Larry Lippman
has decreed from his throne that a rather detailed description of an
infinity transmitter I used years ago was a lie simply because HE had
never heard of it.  In reply to his accusations, I spent an evening's
worth of spare time and designed a device such as according to Larry,
could not exist and then built it using parts from the era.

I think that part of the problem is that Larry does not approve of my
use of the device.  If he had stated his case as such, we could have
acknowledged a difference of opinion and continued respecting each
other.  I rather imagine that Larry is being a bit two-faced about
this.  I'd not be surprised at all to find that Larry has phreaked as
much as I have.  I used phreaking as an educational tool, never stole
a dime's worth of services, and freely admit my activities.  I used my
knowledge outside of the law exactly once in order to protect my
career.  At that point in my life, I thought that my government job
would literally last me 'til retirement and that I would have to
protect it at all costs.  So I had a mistaken concept of work life.
After all, as Larry has so noted, I WAS young.

So Larry, let's get to the point.  I've not only demonstrated that an
"impossible" device could be built in an evening, I've also described
the use of a professionally built unit.  Let's see if you are as
assertive and aggressive in you apology and retraction as you were in
your slanderous assault on my character.

And finally to Pat the Moderator:  Let's see if you precede this
posting with all the fanfare and glee you greeted Larry's with. After
all, fair's fair.


John De Armond, WD4OQC                    Radiation Systems , Inc
...!emory!rsiatl!jgd                      Marietta, GA  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent presentation. I am left
speechless at this point.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: DeArmond Response to Lippman
******************************

From [e-mail] Tue Apr 17 23:07:08 1990
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU via TCP with SMTP
    id AA28944; Tue, 17 Apr 90 23:07:03 EDT
Resent-Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date:     Sun, 15 Apr 90 9:21:06 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #256
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 17 Apr 90 22:05:13 CDT
Resent-From: [e-mail]
Resent-To: [e-mail]
Status: RO


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Apr 90 09:20:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 256

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Press Release: Telecom*USA Merger [Curtis Abrue]
    More on Coin Telephone Fraud [Larry Lippman]
    Ordering Unix From AT&T [David Gast]
    Central Office Wiring [Ajai Steel]
    Re: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage [Glen Overby]
    Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee [John Higdon]
    Re: Problem With Northern Teleco [Patricia O'connor]
    Re: Us Sprint [Patricia O'connor]
    Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective [Robert Gutierrez]
    Re: Infinity Transmitters [David Gast]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 20:31 EST
From: Curtis Abrue / MCI ID: 278-8283
Subject: MCI Press Release: Telecom*USA Merger


Here's the press release on TELECOM*USA:


     CORPORATE NEWS BUREAU                            IMMEDIATE
     Kathleen Keegan
     1-800-289-0073

     TELECOM*USA, INC.
     Alysia Taylor  [phone]
     Mark A. Kaiser [phone]


         MCI COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION TO MERGE WITH TELECOM*USA


        WASHINGTON, D.C., April 9, 1990 -- MCI Communications
     Corporation and Telecom*USA, Inc. today announced the signing
     of a definitive agreement that will merge the two
     telecommunications companies.

         Under the agreement, MCI will acquire all outstanding
     shares of Telecom*USA's common stock for cash at a price of $42
     per share, for a total purchase price of approximately $1.25
     billion.

         The two companies' Boards of Directors have approved the
     transaction, which is also subject to Telecom*USA shareholder
     approval.

         "The prospect of merging two dynamic, high-growth companies
     with similar cultures is very exciting," Bert C. Roberts, Jr.,

     MCI president and chief operating officer, said.  "Both
     organizations have played a major role in advancing technology,
     developing innovative services, and meeting customer
     requirements.  Combining their strengths will benefit
     shareholders, customers and employees alike.

         "We look forward to having Telecom USA management and
     employees assume roles in the new structure, and welcome the
     opportunity to serve its customers."

         O. Gene Gabbard, Telecom*USA chairman of the board and
     chief executive officer, said, "MCI recognizes that
     Telecom*USA's creative approach to product development and
     marketing is invaluable in this marketplace.  Both parties
     stand to gain by teaming employees, facilities and services,
     and as a unified force, working to further enhance the ability
     to provide the highest value services in this rapidly growing
     and demanding industry."

         Merrill Lynch Capital Markets has acted as financial
     advisors to MCI in connection with the merger.

         Goldman, Sachs & Co., acted as financial advisors to the
     Telecom*USA Board of Directors.  The complete terms of the
     merger will be included in the proxy statement to be mailed to
     the Telecom*USA shareholders.

         The transaction is also subject to applicable regulatory
     approvals and Hart-Scott-Rodino Act clearance.  It is expected
     to be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

         MCI Communications Corporation, headquartered in
     Washington, D.C., is the nation's second largest long distance
     services provider.  With approximately 19,500 employees and
     1989 revenue of $6.5 billion, MCI serves residential and
     business customers with a wide array of long distance, voice,
     data and messaging services, both domestically and
     internationally.

         Telecom*USA, the nation's fourth largest long distance
     company, provides a wide range of telecommunications services
     to customers throughout the country.  Headquartered in Atlanta,
     GA, the company has 5,000 employees and 1989 revenue of $713
     million.

                                  # # # #

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

Subject: More on Coin Telephone Fraud
Date: 15 Apr 90 00:40:26 EST (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> > >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 not trivial to spoof the initial rate test on a DTF coin
station, but it is indeed possible.  The timing would be really tricky,
though.

    When the initial rate is deposited the totalizer operates a
contact which prepares a path from the network "B"-terminal through
the totalizer reset relay through the coin control relay through the
coin hopper trigger contact through a break contact of the "A"-relay
to ground.  The "A"-relay is operated by loop current of normal
polarity, so the ground is actually lifted during dialing and talking.

    The CO tests for initial rate by opening the ring lead, which
causes the "A"-relay to release, permitting the ground connection IF
the initial rate has been deposited.  The CO then applies -48 V battery
to the tip lead (reverse line polarity) and makes a test for the
presence of this ground.

    It's been a few years, but I seem to recall that during the
initial rate deposit test, the CO coin control trunk tests for ground
PRIOR to reversing polarity, meaning that it can ascertain if ground
is present at some time *other* than when it *expects* ground to be
present.  If such a foreign ground is detected, then a "stuck coin"
alarm may be indicated in the CO and the call may be routed to an
operator, or be not further processed.

    Given an understanding of the above conditions, it is going to
be difficult to achieve the timing necessary to spoof the coin control
trunk.  However, anything is possible when it comes to people bent
upon committing fraud. :-)

> It is also possible to induce
> the appropriate signals onto the line once ground has been
> established, as was once demonstrated to me.

    An experienced operator can usually ascertain if a coin is
actually deposited (as opposed to playing a coin tone simulator) since
the speech circuit is muted during legitimate totalizer tone readout.
The difference is background noise during totalizer readout can
usually be recognized by the operator.


<> 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?"

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 03:05:13 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ordering Unix from AT&T


Dave Levenson provided an interesting tale of trying to order Unix
from AT&T about two months ago.  In 1984 I went with a client to look
at AT&T's Unix machines.  Forget the fancy room where they showed this
vacuous movie (the kind designed to make you feel good about the
company without saying anything about the product you want to buy);
forget that the salesman crashed the system once perhaps five times
during his demo, and I had to show him how to do what he wanted to
demo.  The most interesting aspect of the entire meeting was that
their business cards did not have a phone number on them.  Let me
repeat: AT&T's business cards did not include the phone number of
their office.


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


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

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 18:56:30 PDT
From: Ajai Steel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Central Office Wiring


   In a typical C.O., when T-carrier trunks are MUXed by bays in the
switch it self do house cables carry the signal to the transmission
equipment in the Carrier room or are their special cables for this
task?

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

From: Glen Overby <plains![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage
Date: 14 Apr 90 20:02:26 GMT
Reply-To: Glen Overby <plains![e-mail]>
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo


In article <[e-mail]> csense![e-mail] (John
Boteler) writes:

[ discussing US West's dial replacement program in the Minneapolis area
  to thwart drug dealers ]

>With the cash these boyz carry around with them, it is trivial to walk
>into Radio Shack, plunk down US$20 for a pocket tone dialer, and thumb
>their coca-stained noses at US West and the knights in shining badges.

They could also easily add notch filters on the DTMF frequencies (even
just half of the frequencies should be enough to make it really
inconvenient) to prevent their pocket tone dialers from working
correctly.


        Glen Overby    <[e-mail]>
    uunet!plains!overby (UUCP)  overby@plains (Bitnet)

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee
Date: 14 Apr 90 18:38:15 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


An anonymous source within US Sprint writes:

> A few months ago, ATT wiped out more than 50% of ITS TOTAL CUSTOMER
> BASE, AND THEY COULDN'T MAKE CALLS FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 17 HOURS!!!!!!
> SPRINT NEVER DID THAT!!!!!  A MONTH AFTER THAT, ATT DID THE SAME THING
> WITH ONE OF THEIR 800 EXCHANGES!

No, Sprint just screws up in minor ways day, after day, after day.
It's hard to say where one case of trouble ends and another begins.

> Seriously, how quickly they (those who slam everyone but ATT) forget a
> major catastrophe like that!

No, but it WAS only one (or two), not continuous trouble. There are
several places in the country that I consciously avoid calling on
Sprint because the chances for screwup is so great. Calls to Sprint
repair are taken by bimbos who tell me they'll get right on it and
then nothing is ever done. I have yet to talk to anyone at that
organization who seems to feel that my calls (as opposed to my money)
have any importance to them whatsoever.

> The fact remains - right now, we are the
> only 100% digital fiberoptic network there is PERIOD.

Makes great advertising copy, but when I have been transmitting a
large file for an hour and suddenly the connection is broken (and the
hour's worth of time and money goes up in smoke), I really couldn't
care less whether it's digital, or tin cans and string.

> And by the way, the probability of you
> getting disconnected on a Sprint call is certainly no greater than
> getting disconnected on an ATT call.

Oh, yeah? Come use Sprint on my phone sometime. Talk for about an hour
and then tell me that again. Have I complained to Sprint? Of course.
Have they done anything about it? Hah!

> (Note: The signalling system which ATT was deploying which caused the
> crash of 50% of their network has already been deployed at US Sprint
> for over a year!)

Well, then it should just be a matter of time. Then let's see if it's
all brought up again within 17 hours, or whether it takes days or
weeks. Of course, I probably couldn't tell from here.


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

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

From: Patricia O'connor <sun!f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Patricia.O'connor>
Subject: Re: Problem With Northern Teleco
Date: 14 Apr 90 02:21:14 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA


Hi Jesse,
        What you describe is what happens when you enter your login ID in
upper case.  However, if you are using a four-digit number ...


Patricia O'connor - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!sun!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Patricia.O'connor
INTERNET: Patricia.O'[e-mail]

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

From: Patricia O'connor <sun!f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Patricia.O'connor>
Subject: Re: Us Sprint
Date: 13 Apr 90 14:47:58 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA


Until divestiture, the local companies did the billing for AT&T long
distance, so there were no billing mechanisms in place.  Since then,
AT&T has built some financial centers and intends (last I heard) to
begin doing their own billing soon.  Meantime, AT&T contracts billing
from the local companies.

                        PatiO

Patricia O'connor - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!sun!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Patricia.O'connor
INTERNET: Patricia.O'[e-mail]

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective
Date: 15 Apr 90 04:57:15 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (Bruce Waldman) writes:

> I have recently been receiving various sorts of threatening calls from
> an anonymous person...

> New England Telephone registered her line in some sort of "capture"
> system....

> As you can see, I am rather naive about the capabilities of the phone
> company.....

A 'call-record' as recorded on a telephone switch is very informative.

When I worked for MCI, I performed call-record 'searches' on our west
coast switches. I can basically search by _anything_ that is needed
(time, telephone numbers, circuts, type of call, route, etc...). Doing
a search on an "easy" switch (DEX-600) can be performed in about 10-15
minutes if you give a 5 minute window (plus or minus 5 minutes of the
time of the call) during the day, and 15 minute window on
nights/weekends.

The following is a possible situation. I receive a call saying that
somebody made a call from Oakland, Calif. to Los Angeles. I ask the
time and phone numbers ... hmmm, no numbers? Which circut did it come in
on (I can search down to the 'port', or individual T-1 channel). No
channel number ... well, which C.O.?  You'd be surprised on how *few*
calls could go with the above variables.  Try between 5-10 calls in a
10 minute span. Daytime? Say 20-40 calls. Lessee, CNA's on the line
also, well ... here's the closest call to the time you gave ... it
belongs to Ivan Boseky??? Well, as they say in Las Vegas ... Jackpot!

Did I say that the switch also records any uncompleted calls. You
wanted to call somebody, and, you dial their number ... ooops, forgot
that tap on the phone and the 40 FBI agents watching your house ... you
slam the phone down ... too late, we already got the MF digits from Pac
Bell, and now we got your number!

Oh, we can also tell which way answer supervision terminated (who
slammed the phone down first).


   Robert Gutierrez/NASA Science Internet Network Operations.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 01:07:05 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters


If I understand one of the objections to the device described by Larry
Lippman correctly, then I don't believe it is a significant problem.

> 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.

I don't believe that a clandestine operation at least as commonly
thought is really necessary.  Here's what did happen: the Agency
involved contacts the appropriate teleco; the teleco causes the
subject's line to go out of order; the subject calls up the phone
company, it sends out a repairman who installs a new, bugged phone,
everything is now fine.  (At least Briish Intelligence used this ploy
according to Peter Wright).


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


P.S. It may turn out that Lippman knows the device described by Armond,
only Lippman calls it a lexus, not an infinity.  :-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #256
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28583;
          17 Apr 90 3:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29989;
          17 Apr 90 2:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18365;
          17 Apr 90 1:11 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Apr 90 0:30:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #257
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Apr 90 00:30:10 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 257

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Jon Baker]
    Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective [Heath Roberts]
    Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud [John Higdon]
    Re: Sprint's Disconnections [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: LD Billing Tale [Lang Zerner]
    Re: Reinstalling Dial-Type Coin Phones [Lang Zerner]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Tom Neff]
    Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List [Norman R. Kraft]
    Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: The Card [Peter Weiss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Date: 16 Apr 90 15:28:49 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, gtisqr![e-mail]
(Todd Inch) 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?)

A ground start instrument will have some manner of button or switch on
it which connects tip to ground, signalling an off-hook.  The ground
source is local, not from the CO.

I have not found any manufacturer of ground-start phones.  However,
GTE supply (at least used to) sells a conversion kit for modifying a
typical (loop-start) instrument to ground-start.

> 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?

I assume you mean ground-start line.  Yes, you need some sort of
external ground.

> If you were to build a ground-start phone, would it need three wires?

Two wires to the CO; one wire to ground.

> 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 are available on the GTD-5.  Don't know about cost.

> Are ground-start lines ever used for residential service?

Yes.  Typically in rural applications, where the distance to the CO is
very great.


J.Baker.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Start vs Ground Start, a User Intro
Date: 16 Apr 90 22:13:55 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

         Mucho stuff deleted
> But there is a sad truth. Ground-start is a USA phenomenon. As I'm
> sure our non-US readers will confirm, ground-start is not generally
> available worldwide. (I'm sure it's available in Canada.) It might be
> interesting to find out where, other than North America, a PBX user
> can hook up to ground-start circuits.

    In the UK, Ground start is available. But you have to consider
that the Brits call Ground Earth. They call ground start "Earth
Calling".

    It may be available in other Euro countries. I must admit that
I have never seen a Ground Start line in the UK. But next time I am
over there near a PBX, I will sniff around.


Yours,

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

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 90 18:11:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bruce Waldman) writes:

>My friend was told that the length of the call did not matter, this
>would all be done automatically.  Is this possible, and how?  Only in
>special exchanges?  (Apparently the caller was never identified or
>else New England Tel did not choose to communicate this information to
>my friend.)  In my own case, what are the possibilities?  How
>difficult would it be for the phone company to identify callers?
>Would it make a difference what sort of exchange the call originated
>from?  Would it make a difference whether the call originated locally
>or from a long distance carrier, and would it make a difference which
>long distance carrier it was?

>As you can see, I am rather naive about the capabilities of the phone
>company.  In the movies, the police always try to keep the
>ransom-demanders on the phone for enough time that they can physically
>trace the calls I guess, but is this now unnecessary?  I'd be grateful
>for relatively non-technical enlightenment.

IF the call originates and terminates on the same switch and IF it's a
new (read digital) switch, call trace is very simple ... in fact, I can
sit down at a terminal, tell the switch to display the status of your
line, and tell when you pick up, when you get dial tone, when you're
connected to a tone decoder, what you dial, what the disposition of
the call is, etc ... (assuming I work for the telco and have access to
the switch) all in real time.

It's a bit more complicated if the call originates from another
switch, but still possible. If both are NT switches and directly
connected by fiber, it works basically the same way. (I don't know
about ATT switches-probably the 5ESS has a similar capability). If
it's another situation, the call may or may not be traceable ... it's
possible to go through call completion tapes and find out what trunk
the call came in on, then work your way backwards.

For a real case to be brought against someone, you need a voice
recording in addition to telco records to prove _who_ actually made
the call -- the switch only records what line it came in on.

Probably what happened when your friend called the 800 number is that
a computer recorded that she's called and time-stamped it. Then
someone had to look back for a call completed to her number right
before the computer record.

Generally traces are possible no matter the call duration. The movie
thing about keeping the caller on the line comes from step-switches,
when someone had to go through the frame with a test set and find each
switch that was part of the circuit and note what position it was in.
If the call went between CO's, it took longer, because the technician
had to call a buddy at the next CO and tell him what trunk it was on,
and the process starts all over.


Heath Roberts
NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud
Date: 16 Apr 90 13:36:46 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]> writes:

>     An experienced operator can usually ascertain if a coin is
> actually deposited (as opposed to playing a coin tone simulator) since
> the speech circuit is muted during legitimate totalizer tone readout.
> The difference is background noise during totalizer readout can
> usually be recognized by the operator.

Ok, but what about money collected by automatic equipment for
non-local calls? Virtually all station-to-station intraLATA and
AT&T-handled calls are completed without any operator assistance. No
one can convince me that the automatic "one dollah please" lady
listens to background noise or anything other than the coin deposit
beeps. What I would buy is if a ground or other signal is placed on
the line at the moment the beeps are transmitted. Is this the case?


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint's Disconnections
Date: 16 Apr 90 23:43:49 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

>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?

With all due respect to the redoubtable Mr. Higdon, I have to report
that, having been a Sprint customer since very near the beginning, I
have never (to the best of my recollection) been cut off by Sprint in
the manner he describes. This includes about seven years of service in
Seattle, and one year in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

In the early days, before the Fiber Optic Network, Sprint service to
Seattle was provided via leased land lines and a Bay Area satellite
installation. Then the quality was truly dismal at times.

When we switched our dial-1 service to Sprint from AT&T, the audio
quality *improved* considerably. Now all my LD calls sound local (just
like the TV commercial :')).

Since I'm ten miles from downtown Seattle, I assume that I'm pretty
close to the USWest/Sprint interface. I don't have any idea what
service would be like to outlying areas out here.


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Subject: Re: LD Billing Tale
Date: 13 Apr 90 21:16:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> Robert.Savery@p0.f666.n285.z1.
fidonet.org writes:

>...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.

In fact, this is not the case.  All those flyers your dad received
with his separate mailing generate revenue for the service provider by
increasing sales.  This is one reason AT&T is so hungry to sign up
Universal card holders; when billing through the local telco, they
cannot use the bills for direct mail marketing.  When Universal card
holders receive their bills, they can count on getting
ATT-revenue-generating tips and suggestions for making their lives
better.


Be seeing you.

Lang Zerner

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

From: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Subject: Re: Reinstalling Dial-type Coin Phones
Date: 13 Apr 90 21:50:17 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc.


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

X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 246, Message 10 of 12

>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).

There have been many attempts to curb drug sales by crippling public
phone service in areas where the phones are used by dealers or
customers.  This is another case of policy-makers trying to make it
look like they are coming up with solutions to problems in order to
hide the fact that they have created no solutions.  In parts of New
York, ringers on public phones were disabled when neighborhood
residents reported that dealers were taking calls on the phones.

As a result, in neighborhoods where public telephones are the only
incoming phone service that many residents can afford, the service was
denied.  "But the move will curb drug traffic."  Nonsense.  The
dealers then spent $10 extra a month to get pagers.  "Well, then, if
we further cripple public phones by removing DTMF, drug users won't be
able to page their dealers."  Great, so the dealers spend a few
dollars extra per month to get voice pagers, or voicemail systems
which will automatically notify the pager of a waiting message.  What
next?

"Umm, how about disabling the microphones on public phones so that
callers can't send voice messages to their dealers?"

The communication tools are not the problem, folks.

Be seeing you.

Lang Zerner

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs
Date: 16 Apr 90 03:04:55 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


Couldn't these rotary payphones also be set to block DTMF tones, like
some PBX's?  Then pocket DTMF generators wouldn't work either.

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

From: [e-mail] (Norman Kraft)
Subject: Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List
Date: 16 Apr 90 06:18:37 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA


Okay, now that we have the MINITEL phone number lists, what do we do
with them? All I get when I call is a # prompt that does nothing. Am I
missing something (obviously, since I don't even really know what
MINITEL is).

Thanks in advance for settling my curiosity.


Norman R. Kraft         | UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!nkraft
Kensington Data Systems | ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
P.O. Box 880762         | INET: [e-mail]
San Diego, CA 92108     | VOICE: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: Deutsche Bundespost Breakup -- Can Someone Tell the Story?
Date: 15 Apr 90 13:27:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, wedel![e-mail] (Jan Hinnerk
Haul) writes:

> The Bundespost used to sue "inofficial" modem owners, subsequently another
> court decided that the use of a modem (or other telephone device)
> allowed by the P.T.T. of any European Community country is not legal,
> but you cannot get punished for doing so :-)

It was explained to me in Germany as follows: While it is not illegal
to connect to the telephone line, it is also not allowed.  I also
noticed that a department store had a display of a large variety of
telephone sets for sale, with a sign that said: "These items may be
used for decorative purposes only."

As far as the distinctions between permitted and allowed go, I was
told the following story.

In Russia (this was before perestroika) nothing is permitted, not even
those things which are allowed.

In Germany, nothing is permitted, except for those things which are
specifically allowed.

In France, everything is allowed, except for those things which are
not permitted.

In Italy, everything is allowed, even those things which are not
permitted.


Herman Silbiger

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 15 Apr 1990 12:10:29 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to
emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)?

Does MasterCard need that info for something (or the sales clerk?)?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Peter M. Weiss                   |  (this line intentionally left blank)
31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | advertize here, reach Mega populi
University Park, PA USA 16802    | Disclaimer -* +* applies herein


[Moderator's Note: I can't imagine anyone giving an iota what the
sales clerk 'requires'. The reason for both numbers being present is
that the one is a VISA number; the other is a telephone calling card
number. It may be that the VISA number can be used for telephone calls
in phones with card readers; I do not know. But the vast majority of
phone calls would require the traditional, or standard phone billing
number and pin.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #257
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00249;
          17 Apr 90 4:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21463;
          17 Apr 90 3:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29989;
          17 Apr 90 2:15 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Apr 90 1:40:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #258
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Apr 90 01:40:10 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 258

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Operator Liability [Mike Riddle]
    Phone Replacement [Jeffrey Silber]
    What is a Switch 56 Line? [Dick Busch]
    Phone Management on Macs [Brian Capouch]
    IMTS: A Look Back [Larry Rachman]
    Rates For Cellular Phones [Michael Fetzer]
    Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Rob Warnock]
    Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee [John Higdon]
    DeArmond-Lippman Childishness [David Svoboda]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Apr 90 21:09:06 EDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Operator Liability
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns Of Court, Papillion, Ne. 402-593-1192


In researching some things recently I ran across leads to the
following articles.  Considering recent postings in this newsgroup, I
thought I'd pass them along.

Recommended reading list for sysops:

Hernandez, ECPA and Online Computer Privacy, 41 Fed. Comm. L.J. 17 (1989)

Comment, An Electronic Soapbox: Computer Bulletin Boards and the First
Amendment, 39 Fed. Comm. L.J. 217 (1987) (authored by Eric C. Jensen)

Comment, Computer Bulletin Board Operator Liability for User Misuse,
54 Fordham L. Rev. 439 (1985) (authored by Jonathan Gilbert)

Soma, Smith & Sprague, Legal Analysis of Electronic Bulletin Board
ACtivities, 7 W. New England L. Rev. 571 (1985)

I've read the Hernandez, Jensen and GIlbert writings, and found them
all to be of value in clarifying the liabilties we face and
precautions we could and arguably should take in operating our BBSes.
I'm searching for the Soma article, but expect it also to be of
benefit.

Check your local law library for the above.  The journals are
copyrighted, most of them aren't available in electronic form, and I
don't have a scanner.

Take care, y'all.

   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.07 r.1
 * Origin: [1:285/27@fidonet] The Inns of Court [phone]

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

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

From: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Replacement
Date: 16 Apr 90 13:48:21 GMT
Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


I have been asked to replace my mother's rented phone with a purchased
one.  I understand the ins-and-outs of typical phone service but this
has a wrinkle which confuses me -- she is on a four party line.  Are
there any do's or don'ts regarding the installation of phones on party
lines ... is the wiring the same?

Thanks for the advice.


Jeffrey A. Silber/[e-mail]
Business Manager/Cornell Center for Theory
& Simulation in Science & Engineering


[Moderator's Note: Am I mistaken, or are you not *forbidden* to hook
anything onto a party line except a phone provided by the local telco
itself? I know answering machines and modems are forbidden on
party-line service; what about just a typical Radio Shack phone, for
example?  Doesn't our reader, under law, have to keep his hands off
entirely when it is a party line?  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 00:20:16 -0400
From: Dick Busch <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is a Switch 56 Line?
Reply-To: Dick Busch <[e-mail]>
Organization: E.I.E. I/O


Can some one tell me what a switch 56 line is and how does it differ
from a four wire leased line (conditioned 3002 line?).  From what it
sounded like (that can be dangerous) the modem sales rep was saying
 ... a four wire leased line could act as a switch 56 line if it
happens to go through the right brand of central office switches.  But
thats sounds too far out since I though the conditioned 4 wire leased
line is analog and the switch 56 is digital.  See I'm confused -
please someone explain.  Also if you have any idea of the relative
price difference between the two services (is one a lot more, about
the same - ball park stuff).

Thanks in advance,


Dick Busch
[e-mail]
noao!asuvax!mcdphx!biff!rcb

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

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 22:34:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brian Capouch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Management on Macs


I read some time ago (and wish I could remember when) about a PC-based
call-management system.  I seem to remember that it had some
personal-type name, like "Herbert" or somesuch.  It handled incoming
call traffic, forwarded calls, etc.

Am I remembering this correctly?

Could anyone out there refresh my memory?  I'm starting a small
business, and need to find some friendly way to manage traffic on our
2-3 lines, which will have to handle a dynamic mix of voice/data
traffic, without spending a lot of $$. We are going to have a Mac,
with an Abaton fax modem.

Could some smart person out there point me in some starting
directions?  I know this message is a little vague; I wish I could
remember the system I read about here, because it looked like a
PC-based version of exactly what I'm after.


Thanks.
Brian Capouch    Networking Specialist   Saint Joseph's College
[e-mail]


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

Date: 15 Apr 90 20:58:16 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: IMTS: A Look Back


In a recent issue, Macy Hallock writes:

>I'll start a discussion of IMTS if anyone is interested ... I spent
>a few years working on these animals.

   Well, lets encourage him!! I first ran into IMTS when I was in high
school, and car phones were still the sign of 'having arrived'. I
lusted after one of these for more than a few years, finally finding
an old Motorola at a ham flea market.

   The beast was about 6" by 12" by 20", and consisted of a duplex UHF
tranceiver and a so-called sup-pack, a pair of hinged cards containing
many dozens of transistors set up as discrete logic. Fortunately, it
sat in the trunk, attached to a rotary dial (!) control head that
looked sort of like a princess phone with clamps to keep the handset
from falling off.

   I guess that the problem the design engineers had in the '60s was:
"We have to design an operator-less mobile telephone system, but
microprocessors won't be invented for another 10 years or so ... what
do we do??"

   The answer was fascinating -- data handshaking was done via 10/20
pps rotary-dial style FSK signalling. When idle, your mobile would
scan your 'home' channels for the calling channel, marked by a high
tone. Incoming calls were signalled by the tone shifting between two
frequencies at rotary dial rates, sending the area code plus last four
digits of the phone number. If the digits matched the wire jumpers set
in the phone, the phone would send a burst of tone back to the base,
which the caller would hear, along with a burst of squelch noise,
before the phone rang.  This was kind of neat, because the caller
could tell when you weren't there, before the recording came on.

  Picking up the handset sent yet another tone (memory fails me as to
the particulars) and you could begin talking.

  When you hung up, the phone would send a burst of tone that rapidly
shifted between two frequencies, and which the caller would hear for
about half a second before the equipment recognized it and
disconnected. The sound was neat way to punctuate the end of your
call, and I sometimes think of kluging a simulator onto my cellular
phone :-).

  Outgoing was equally interesting; when you went off hook, your
mobile handshook to seize the marked channel (and shake off the other
mobiles waiting for incoming), and then transmitted your area code
plus last four digits at 20 pps, toggling between high-tone-low-tone
and high-tone-no-tone, as a rudimentary form of parity checking for
billing security. If the base was satisfied, it returned dial tone,
and you could then dial the call. Pulling the dial away from the
normal position sent high tone, and the dial-pulsing contacts shifted
it to a lower frequency in time with the pulsing.

   I had great fun with this thing for several years, despite the fact
that the control head barely fit in the glove compartment of my
Toyota, and the radio took up most of the luggage space. Back then,
nearly everyone was impressed by the sound of a real metal telephone
bell issuing forth from the glove compartment.

   I could go on (and on, and on...), but I'll leave the next batch of
stories for other writers.


Larry Rachman 74066,[e-mail]  ...or fax, at 516-427-8705

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Fetzer)
Subject: Rates For Cellular Phones
Date: 15 Apr 90 06:36:08 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet12], Del Mar, CA


I may be mistaken, but I think I've made the observation that cellular
phones are much cheaper to own and operate in the Pacific North West
(read: Portland, OR) than in California (read Sandi Eggo).  When I was
up there (in Portland) a few weeks ago, I saw the basic cellular phone
for car installation on sale for less than 130 bucks.  Down here, SD,
the cheapest I see is over 400.  How can this be?

Also, I was told that the rates for cellular calls are fairly high in
SD, and I'm not sure about the monthly fee.  In Portland, on the other
hand, the monthly charge is supposed to be under $30 a month, and the
per minute charges are supposed to be low.

My questions: does anyone have factual information on the rates and
costs of phones?  Can someone tell me why there is this large
difference in cost for the basic phone?  The monthly charges?  The
call charges?


Mike

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 90 09:21:12 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| 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.

But it may not be exactly the same. A Mobira saleperson I ran into
said that the Radio-Shack unit is not a standard Nokia/Mobira model,
though it's close.  They sold R-S the design, and it's being
manufactured by a third party in Korea. (Still, I've been happy with
mine.)

However, as with any of their products, R-S will sell you a service
manual, which includes some (or all?) of the programming info (as well
as schematics, and lots of interesting details, like the transmit
power-limiting stuff).

But to do most of the interesting ops, the R-S phone has to be put
into a special "local" mode by grounding a pin on the battery pack
with a certain resistance, which *cannot* be done (at least, not very
easily) with the standard battery installed -- you have to use a
special bench power supply that plugs in where the battery goes, and
accesses extra pins the battery doesn't pass through to the outside.

By the way, the "security code" (that lets you change the "unlock
code") comes programmed as "12345", and the "unlock code" (that lets
you unlock the phone if you've locked it) comes as "1234". Shades of
"login: root, password: root"! And you can't change the "security
code" except in "local" mode. (And of course my R-S saleman didn't ask
if I wanted to change the "security code".)

But at least you can't change the unlock code without the phone being
unlocked, and the phone stays locked across power-down/up. So if you
change your unlock code to something other than "1234" (which a user
*can* do) and leave it locked all the time, there's *some*
protection...  if you believe 4 digits is "protection".


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


[Moderator's Note: Actually, in the Radio Shack CT-301, which is the
model you are referring to, the 'local mode' is entered through a very
simple entry directly on the keypad. This code which you enter on the
keypad includes the five digit security code (12345) when it comes
from the factory. But the five digit security code itself is one of
the parameters you can set while in local mode. And the schematics and
other technical data you can get on this unit does not include the
programming stuff. The Radio Shack Cellular Tech Support Line is
817-878-6980.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee
Date: 15 Apr 90 11:21:29 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Elias <[e-mail]> writes for an anonymous poster:

> Also, the long distance calls you make today cost you on average 40%
> less than they did six years ago.  Maybe you should ask ATT to give
> you the service and higher prices that you had six years ago if that's
> what you want.

This is the one point that must be conceded. Competitive forces have
no doubt improved service overall and caused the decline in long
distance rates. No one would disagree with that. But while MCI and
Sprint have been fighting their noble fight, AT&T has certainly kept
up with the pack.

But the lower rates simply cannot compensate for the non-AT&T
deficiencies. I just made some test calls to the east coast. All three
carriers (at least to NY) are now using digital technology. A month
ago, MCI was still analog. AT&T's setup time was consistently 3 times
as fast as either MCI or Sprint. One of the Sprint calls never went
through. Both MCI and Sprint were somewhat "grungier" than AT&T in
audio quality. And from past experience, if I had remained on the line
long enough, the Sprint calls would have suffered from
"auto-disconnect".

This brings up another important consideration: service. When I have
had difficulty with data transmission through AT&T, I have received
numerous call-backs and and resolution within twenty-four hours.
Recently, I discovered that no call placed to 704/648 would go through
on Sprint. Do you know what their service department's solution was?
Preceed my dialing with "10288"! When I pressed the matter, the answer
FROM A SUPERVISOR was, "well, there really isn't a lot of demand to
call that area [Canton, NC] so it will be much simpler for you to just
use AT&T for those calls." It certainly is reassuring to discover that
there are areas of this country that are not important enough to worry
about.

So while I concede that competition has benefitted the American
public, it must also be conceded that the competitors were given an
enormous amount of space to build their companies when AT&T was there
to handle calls when they really had to go through. Yes, AT&T had a
major 17 hour outage. But as I have explained to salestypes, better
one outage every 50 or 60 years than just generally mediocre service.

Granted, competition has kept AT&T on its toes. And when some other
company can demonstrate that it really is better, I will be first in
line to sign up. Until then, I'll just settle for the indirect
benefits.


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 90 11:16:15 CDT
From: David Svoboda <motcid!violet![e-mail]>
Subject: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness


I berate both of these gentlemen for their very childish attitude.  I
have great respect for their knowledge of telecommunications, but I
feel that the personal attacks in both cases were completely uncalled
for.  Perceived falsehood deserves correction, not slander, Mr.
Lippman, and one bit of slander needs not require another, Mr.
DeArmond, only the truth.  Your attitudes erode the strength of your
arguments, gentlemen.

And to the moderator: I read this forum regularly and feel in general
that the moderation of this group is superior to any other; but in
this case, I am disappointed that you did not save these gentleman
their embarrassment.


        -David Svoboda   uunet!motcid!svoboda


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Lippman has already responded to the rebuttal
by DeArmond with a follow up message 25 *thousand* -- count 'em! --
bytes in length.  I'll decide what to do with it soon.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #258
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19392;
          18 Apr 90 3:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02524;
          18 Apr 90 1:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15392;
          18 Apr 90 0:33 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Apr 90 23:52:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #259
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Apr 90 23:50:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 259

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Card [Peter Weiss]
    Re: The Card [Johnny Zweig]
    Re: The Card [Brian Kantor]
    Re: The Card [Matt Simpson]
    Re: Phone Management on Macs [Martin B. Weiss]
    Re: Phone Management on Macs [Michael Fetzer]
    Re: Phone Replacement [William Kucharski]
    Re: Phone Replacement [John Cowan]
    Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee [Mark Harrison]
    Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Robert Stratton]
    Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [John Higdon]
    Re: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Jim Gottlieb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 17 Apr 1990 08:26:43 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter Weiss) says:

>Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to
>emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)?

>Does MasterCard need that info for something (or the sales clerk?)?

>....that the one is a VISA number; the other is a telephone calling card
>number. It may be that the VISA number can be used for telephone calls
>in phones with card readers; I do not know. But the vast majority of
>phone calls would require the traditional, or standard phone billing
>number and pin.   PT]

Just for the record, _The Card_ does not mention VISA, only MasterCard,
and seems to be from the Universal Bank, POB 1977, Columbus, GA 31902.
MAC access is thru the Plus System; the operative phrase above is
_emboss_.


/Pete

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 15:21:52 GMT


[e-mail] (Peter Weiss) writes:

>Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to
>emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)?

>Peter M. Weiss                   |  (this line intentionally left blank)

>[Moderator's Note: I can't imagine anyone giving an iota what the
>sales clerk 'requires'. The reason for both numbers being present is
>that the one is a VISA number; the other is a telephone calling card
>number. It may be that the VISA number can be used for telephone calls
>in phones with card readers; I do not know. But the vast majority of
>phone calls would require the traditional, or standard phone billing
>number and pin.   PT]

Yes. The calling card number is different from the VISA account number
(they are unrelated and have a different number of digits). It may
even be that the VISA number is on a different track from the c-c
number so that the Right Thing happens when you stick it into a phone
with a swipe reader.

BTW, when I called [phone] to have them correct my name and
address (who the zark spells Jonathan as "Jonathon", anyway?!) the guy
had to ask me three times for the corrections, finally giving up on
entering the stuff into the computer and writing it on a piece of
paper.  He promised me he'd type it in later.  AT&T is batting 0 for
1000 as far as software goes lately, in my estimation.


Johnny

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 17 Apr 90 16:53:08 GMT
Reply-To: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


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

>Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to
>emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)?

I assume you are asking "as opposed to just printing it on the card".

That would take another pass through another machine, and then the
surface of the card would have to be protected in some way to keep the
printing from deteriorating in the harsh environment of the typical
wallet or purse.

It's much cheaper to just emboss ALL the individualized lettering on
the card.  Only the "boiler-plate" is laminated into the card at
manufacture.  That the embossing prints information on credit card
slips that isn't really needed there probably isn't their concern.
You are certainly able to peen it down so that it doesn't print if you
don't want it to.


    - Brian

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 15:41:27 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


I applied for the card immediately after reading about it on the
Telecom Digest, I think it was about 3 weeks ago. As I posted earlier,
as soon as I gave them my home phone , they already knew all about me,
and told me I was pre-approved for a $3000 credit limit. Meanwhile, I
have been enviously reading reports from those who have already
received The Card, while awaiting my own.

Yesterday, it arrived - or so I thought. Eagerly tearing open the
envelope, I found a computer-generated letter thanking me for
applying, and regretting that I couldn't have a card because "Your
credit history does not meet the program requirement" . They
generously provided the name and address of the credit bureau they
used, in case I wanted to contact them. And they sweetly told me that
if I had an AT&T Calling Card, I could of course continue to use it,
and that they valued my continued business.

So I called AT&T, and asked how I could be rejected after being
"pre-approved". The guy mumbled something about "pre-approved" just
meant they were looking at me, or something. Then he wanted to know
who told me I was pre-approved. Unfortunately, I didn't remember the
woman's name. So then I asked him just what "program requirement" my
credit history didn't meet. He asked my name again, although I'd given
it to him twice, then asked how to spell it. He appeared to be trying
to find me in some data base.

I heard him mutter something to himself that sounded like "closed".
Then he told me that due to overwhelming customer response, he was
unable to answer my question, but thought that maybe my credit history
just wasn't complete. I asked him how I could give him complete info
if he couldn't tell me what was missing.  At that, he told me to call
back in 7-10 working days. I wrote this guy's name down, in case the
next person asks me who I talked to, since that seems to be one of
their favorite questions.

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

From: Martin B Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Management on Macs
Date: 17 Apr 90 14:21:40 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services


I am not specifically familiar with this product, but I do wish to
refer you to the April 1990 issue of IEEE Communications.  One article
in this issue describes a Mac-based system for managing telephones and
voice mail.


   Martin Weiss
   Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh
   Internet: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
   BITNET: mbw@pittvms

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Fetzer)
Subject: Re: Phone Management on Macs
Date: 18 Apr 90 00:36:06 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet12], Del Mar, CA


Let me warn you about the Abaton FAX/modem.  It's a great unit, I have
one, but if it's turned on (i.e., if it's software tells it it's
turned on) it will answer all calls as though they were a fax.  The
only way to get voice is to pick up the phone before the abaton does,
or, if you've hooked your phone through the abaton, after it's annoyed
the called with fax noises.

What you need, I think, and what I'm looking for, is a device that
sits before the fax modem, and makes the decision whether to pass to
call to fax or voice.

Also not, you can't have your abaton answer both fax and modem calls.
Either, or.


Mike

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

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

From: William Kucharski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Replacement
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 14:32:45 GMT


I believe that installing your own phone is allowed, but modems and
answering machines are not for the simple reason that they are
incapable of surrendering the line in case an emergency call needs to
be made.


| ARPA:    [e-mail]                  |    William Kucharski             |
| uucp:    ...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk |    Solbourne Computer, Inc.      |
= The opinions above are mine alone and NOT those of Solbourne Computer, Inc. =

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Replacement
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 19:37:09 GMT


Our esteemed Moderator writes:

>Am I mistaken, or are you not *forbidden* to hook
>anything onto a party line except a phone provided by the local telco
>itself? I know answering machines and modems are forbidden on
>party-line service; what about just a typical Radio Shack phone, for
>example?  Doesn't our reader, under law, have to keep his hands off
>entirely when it is a party line?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.  Taconic Telephone 4- and 7-line
service, as I have noted before, uses different ringing signals
(whether voltages or frequencies, I know not, but I would conjecture
frequencies) to ring different parties on the line.  A phone cannot be
connected unless it is tuned to respond only to the correct ring.
Taconic Telephone permits the connection of foreign equipment only if
they themselves have checked it out and certify it suitable for their
lines; mere FCC certification will not cut it.  Furthermore, automatic
equipment cannot be used either, as it is unable to yield the line in
case of emergency as required by law.

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

From: Mark Harrison <necssd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee
Date: 17 Apr 90 13:37:37 GMT
Organization: NEC America Inc. SSD, Irving, TX


> [ this is from an anonymous source within US Sprint ]
> (Note: The signalling system which ATT was deploying which caused the
> crash of 50% of their network has already been deployed at US Sprint
> for over a year!)

Is this the Good News or the Bad News? (many :->)


Mark Harrison             [e-mail]
[phone]             {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison
standard disclaimers apply...

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

From: Robert Stratton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming
Date: 17 Apr 90 13:32:28 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Stratton <grebyn![e-mail]>
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA


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

>However, as with any of their products, R-S will sell you a service
>manual, which includes some (or all?) of the programming info (as well
>as schematics, and lots of interesting details, like the transmit
>power-limiting stuff).

>[And the schematics and
>other technical data you can get on this unit does not include the
>programming stuff. The Radio Shack Cellular Tech Support Line is
>817-878-6980.  PT]

At least they will sell you something now ... When I worked for good
old Radio Shark, as a management trainee (chuckle), we had memo after
memo warning us of nefarious characters who ripped off CMT's, and came
in to the Shack for all sorts of technical support.

These memos tended toward the histrionic, and in the event that
someone came in to get his/her PROM burned, without having bought the
phone at the store in question, I recall suggestions to run screaming
to the gendarmerie. It's good to find out who's making these phones,
as that's half the reason I worked there briefly (to find out who made
what in the product line).

I would simply caution those seeking tech support, especially those
who didn't buy a phone from R.S. - to be aware that there are a bunch
of paranoid managers out there, who don't understand the technology
and are afraid of those who do. (Why does that sound familiar..?)


[Moderator's Note: I note when you call them in Texas the first
question they ask is, are you a customer or a store.  If you claim to
be a store, they want the store ID, etc.   PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones
Date: 17 Apr 90 09:50:24 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Michael Fetzer) writes:

> My questions: does anyone have factual information on the rates and
> costs of phones?  Can someone tell me why there is this large
> difference in cost for the basic phone?  The monthly charges?  The
> call charges?

Pricing is based on "what the traffic will bear" as presented to the
individual state's PUC or eqivalent. The price of equipment is purely
"what the traffic will bear". I would imagine that Oregonians are
somewhat less eager to have that universal status symbol and hence
will not pay the usary rates charged in California.

In CA, the "standard" rate is $45.00 per month and $0.45 per minute on
peak and $0.20-$0.27 off peak. There are discount plans such as the
one that has $25.00 per month, $0.90 on peak, $0.20 off peak; or the
sign up for a year plan which has $39.00/month, $0.45 on, $0.20 off,
and included all custom calling.

These rates are among the highest in the nation for one simple reason:
utilities can get away with anything with the California PUC. Why do
you think they call it the "Public UTILITY'S Commission"? Why do you
think Pac*Bell can get away with its usary rates and its hopelessly
outdated plant? Why do think PG&E (Pacific Graft & Extortion) gets
away with not only the highest electric rates in the country, but a
level of service that makes one envy your average third-world country?
(My computer and phone system are powered through a UPS. It's not
luxury; it's survival.)

Anytime you have a rate or service question (or amazement) in
California, just remember that the Golden State has the most
incompetent, least public-responsive PUC in the country. We would be
better off to submit all matters to the monkey cage at the San Diego
Zoo. Whatever the output, people would be served more effectively.


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries
Date: 17 Apr 90 06:57:25 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert) writes:

>Likewise Mayotte, currently transiting through France, will get direct
>operator service in May and then become dialable (269) at some future
>time.  Mayotte has been dialable via Sprint for some time, but has
>only been reachable on direct access lines or in a few places (states
>near Minnesota) where the C.O.s put the code in without an order from
>AT&T.

    I'm sorry. I consider myself geographically well informed, but
I am completely stumped here. Where the hell is Mayotte?

    And is there some reason why people in Minnesota want to call
there?

    (Is Mayotte possibly out in the middle of Lake Superior?)

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Date: 17 Apr 90 10:23:32 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>you can can follow their instructions to the letter and give
>them any random phone number you feel like

When I'm in the U.S. and am asked to write down my number on a charge
slip, I always write "011 81 3 237 5868".  Not once has anyone said
anything.


[Moderator's Note: The way I usually avoid this is to tell them I
don't have a phone. There's a pay phone at the cut-rate liquor store
on the corner from my house; I go there if I need to make a call, but
I don't know what the number is. If they still don't catch on then I
become obnoxious and specifically challenge them,"Are you refusing to
make the sale?".  They always back down, just to get me out of the
store.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #259
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19412;
          18 Apr 90 3:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02524;
          18 Apr 90 1:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15392;
          18 Apr 90 0:34 CDT
Date:     Wed, 18 Apr 90 0:24:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #260
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Apr 90 00:23:47 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 260

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud [Wolf Paul]
    Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud [Karl Denninger]
    More on Coin Station Fraud Using Tone Spoofing [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco [Kristian Koehntopp]
    Re: Ordering Unix from AT&T [Thomas Neudecker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 12:08:49 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


This is about coin telephone fraud in Austria, and describes two
methods which no longer work.

Austria used to have pay phones for local calls which accepted the
standard phone coin, a one Schilling piece (currently about $ 0.09). You
had to insert a coin in order to get dial tone, and this would also
start a pointer moving across a semi-circular window; it would take 3
minutes to move all the way across, and then it would cut you off.
There was no way of adding more coins and thus extending the length of
the call; your money was held in a special receptacle until you
pressed the "pay button" or the three minutes was up, then it would
drop into the coin box.

Until you pressed the pay button, you could hear dial tone, ringing or
busy, or the answering party, but the answering party couldn't hear
you; and if you hung up without pressing the pay button before the
three minutes was up, your coin would be returned.

Among other things, this permitted toll-free access from pay phones to
a long list of taped messages, such as weather reports, snow reports
(during the ski season), APA-News (Austria Press Agency), etc., and
meant also that you didn't pay for no-answer or busy (there never was
any credit for wrong number, nor was there ever toll-free access to
emergency numbers).

As I said, these phones were intended for local use only, but the only
way this was enforced was that the one shilling deposit would not last
long enough on any long distance call to permit any reasonable
conversation.

A popular way of defrauding these pay phones consisted in drilling a
small hole through the pointer window about halfway across the path of
the pointer, and sticking a pin through, which would stop the pointer
moving and thus prevent it from cutting you off at the end.
Apparently there was no easy way of detecting this, short of
inspecting the phone physically.

A well-known case involved such a phone at the American International
School in Vienna. Postal officials noticed that even though the phone
was almost constantly off-hook, hardly any money collected in the coin
box. The hole had been drilled so skillfully, with such a fine drill,
and a pin inserted, that it was not immediatley visible.  Students
would take the phone off-hook at the beginning of longer breaks,
insert a shilling, and then proceed to make long distance calls,
usually to North America (the AIS is sponsored by the American and
Canadian embassies).

A more recent pay phone permitted the use of different coins, and
allowed cumulative insertion, for longer or long distance calls.  The
coins would increment an electronic counter, and the charge impulses
coming over the line from the CO would decrement it.  The counter
could be manipulated by means of piezo-electric cigarette and gas
stove lighters. Of course, the counter circuit was changed as soon as
the PTT realized that this was happening.


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: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Coin Telephone Fraud
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 14:38:36 GMT


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

>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 257, Message 4 of 11

>Ok, but what about money collected by automatic equipment for
>non-local calls? Virtually all station-to-station intraLATA and
>AT&T-handled calls are completed without any operator assistance. No
>one can convince me that the automatic "one dollah please" lady
>listens to background noise or anything other than the coin deposit
>beeps.

Correct.  The automated attendant ("please deposit one dollar and
twenty-five cents for the first three minutes") listens only to the
tones; it doesn't know whether you >really< inserted coins.  The same
holds true for the computer voice that tells you insert more money
during a long-distance call.

It is, however, highly sensitive to the tones being >exactly< correct.
If they're not, you get a real live operator who can check that there
are really coins in the slot, and/or refund them for you to re-insert
the coins.  If you get a real live operator then you can't play your
tape or device, as the operator can listen for background noise and
may also be able to query the totalizer directly.  The automated
equipment does not do this.

I've seen this technique demonstrated with a tape recorder; it worked.
It's rather commonly used at colleges and other places where you tend
to have a payphone that can't be connected to any particular person.

The person demonstrating it said that it does >not< work for local
calls on DTF phones -- only long distance "1+" calls, which of course
are the calls that most people are going to bother trying fraud with --
why bother getting caught and/or going to jail for a quarter?

This entire thing is, needless to say, rather risky unless you're
calling payphone-to-payphone; should you get caught doing it they'll
undoubtedly have some rather pointed questions for the person you were
calling, even if they can't identify the call originator. :-)


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: More on Coin Station Fraud Using Tone Spoofing
Date: 17 Apr 90 20:59:51 EST (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> >     An experienced operator can usually ascertain if a coin is
> > actually deposited (as opposed to playing a coin tone simulator) since
> > the speech circuit is muted during legitimate totalizer tone readout.
> > The difference is background noise during totalizer readout can
> > usually be recognized by the operator.

> Ok, but what about money collected by automatic equipment for
> non-local calls? Virtually all station-to-station intraLATA and
> AT&T-handled calls are completed without any operator assistance. No
> one can convince me that the automatic "one dollah please" lady
> listens to background noise or anything other than the coin deposit
> beeps. What I would buy is if a ground or other signal is placed on
> the line at the moment the beeps are transmitted. Is this the case?

    While I cannot speak from recent experience, I can speak with
familiarity from about 10 - 12 years ago when extensive implementation
of ACTS (Automated Coin Telephone Service) and LCOT (Local Coin
Overtime) began in many areas of the country.  Also, this information
has little or no applicability to COCOTS, and to other microprocessor-
based coin stations.  However, it should still be applicable to most
DTF (Dial Tone First) coin stations using WECO and Northern Telecom 1C
and 1D type or equivalent coin stations.

    In the case of ACTS, to which the above poster referred, the
coin station is connected to a coin control trunk which is part of the
TSPS Coin Station Signaling and Announcement Subsystem.  ACTS is a
part of TSPS, connects to the TSPS network, and is ultimately
controlled by the same No. 1 SPC (Stored Program Controller) which
runs TSPS.

    After ACTS makes the announcement as to the amount of the coin
deposit, the coin control trunk places +48 V (*positive* battery) on
the ring side of the line, while connecting ground to the tip.  This
action enables the totalizer for readout, and also operates the "B"
relay in the totalizer which *disables* the speech network.  The coin
control trunk then counts dual-tone pulses from one or more deposited
coins until the proper amount is entered.

If a preset time is exceeded before the required amount is deposited,
the coin control trunk aborts the collection effort and the call,
places a recorded announcement on the line, and refunds the coins
deposited so far.  After the requested amount is deposited, the coin
control trunk then applies -48 volt battery to the tip, with the ring
open, to check for the presence of a coin.  Admittedly the coin
control trunk will be satisfied on the latter test if only one coin is
present.

At this point, while the money is in the coin hopper, it has not been
collected.  If answer supervision on the call is detected, the money
is collected immediately after the call is completed.  If no answer
supervision on the call is detected, the money is refunded when the
handset is replaced.  Usually the collect or return function is
delayed until the handset is replaced, but it *can* occur with the
handset off-hook, and may do so in some CO's.

    The defense against fraud in the above scenario is that the
speech network is disabled by the CO during the coin deposit interval,
which precludes use of a tone generator held to the handset
transmitter.  Furthermore, the CO apparatus will not "listen" for coin
pulses until it is ready for them, so an attempt to introduce coin
tones through the handset transmitter prematurely will fail.  An
attempt to introduce coin tones late will also fail because the call
has already been aborted following timeout.

    LCOT is similar to the above, with the exception that LCOT
does NOT involve TSPS, but is provided through other CO coin control
trunks.  In addition, LCOT expects to collect only ONE coin, for which
it not only counts tone pulses but explicitly makes a ground test
(ring open, -48 V on tip) after each coin.  Furthermore, LCOT then
*collects* the coin on the spot, while the station is off-hook and the
call is in progress.  Some early LCOT apparatus did not count coin
pulses, but merely tested for the presence of a coin; this was before
inflation made the 5-minute LCOT interval more than a nickel in some
areas. :-)

    It is rather difficult to commit fraud under the above
conditions, unless one has access to the tip *and* ring of the coin
station line - a condition against which precautions are usually
taken.  Mere access to one wire somewhere in the speech network, as
from a pin poked through the transmitter, will not, to the best of my
knowledge, facilitate any type of fraud with this coin station.


<> 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: [e-mail] (Kristian Koehntopp)
Subject: Re: Access to the 'BTX' System of West German Telco
Date: 17 Apr 90 16:55:17 GMT
Organization: TopPoint/ix Mailbox, Kiel, BRD


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

> 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.

Though it is true that BTX uses the Europaen CEPT Graphics Standard,
nearly no one uses TV sets or special BTX equipment for connection to
the BTX System. In the last few years BTX-emulation-software for
standard computers has been developed and is available by commercial
and public-domain distributors. Complete BTX-Solutions are available,
among others, for the IBM PC, the Commodore Amiga and the Atari ST.

These "intelligent solutions" have many advantages to the "dumb
decoder" solution: a modem already at hand can be used (*) and the
advanced capabilities of a full-scale computer can be used to
automatize the dialogue to the BTX System. BTX-Emulators usually have
macro-capabilities, screen save-n-replay, hardcopy and some even have
a powerful batch-processing language. Have you ever thought of writing
a macro, which sends in 150,000 correct solutions of an "What is the
brand name of the spinach with the 'blub'"-quiz? Well, a friend of
mine did. The organizing company of this quiz was unable to download
the resonses they got to their local machine per X.25 and instead
decided to get a tape from German telecom. He got a special prize for
"the most correct solutions".

Hardware requirements for German BTX are fairly high: BTX offers more
than one characterset displayed at once, with parts of some even
rdefined and more than 2 colors per character. The color-palette is 16
fixed and 16-out-of-4096 at the same time at an effective resolution
of sowewhat about 480 by 280 pixels, so you need either VGA, Amiga or
Atari STE to get the full palette. As you can imagine, building up a
screen with loads of graphics can be sloooooooooow. Characters can be
two or three phase blinking, double height or width, hidden (shown,
when "reveal" function-key is pressed), so you obviously you better
have some cpu-seconds for decoding.

Since BTX is so colorful, it contains 90% ads. The remaining 10% are
chatting-lounges (of mostly sexual alignment) and the online phonebook
of German telco. Not so much use at all, if you don't want to shop.
This is also the reason, why BTX has not so many users as was
expected by German telco. The development of BTX user figures was
overestimanted by factor 5-10 by German telco.

Hope my English is not that bad, this is my first posting in a foreign
language,

    Kristian

(*) German telco, the "Bundespost", offers an absolutely Low-Cost-Modem
dedicated to communication with BTX. The infamous DBT-03 is a 1200/75 bps
Modem with no intelligence at all. When switched on, it dials BTX and sends
a hardware identification string, then goes transparent. If you have faster
modems at home, which also have the capability of sending *ANY* desired
identification instead of a built-in, why bothering with inferior equiptment?


Kristian Koehntopp | [e-mail]    == ...!unido!tpki!kris
Harmsstrasse 98    |
FRG-2300 Kiel      | ZERBERUS: [e-mail]
[phone] (v) | "There is more to it!"


[Moderator's Note: Your command of English is good, and I thank you
for writing and sharing with us.   PT]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 18:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ordering Unix from AT&T


In a recent posting from David Gast <[e-mail]>

>The most interesting aspect of the entire meeting was that
>their business cards did not have a phone number on them.  Let me
>repeat: AT&T's business cards did not include the phone number of
>their office.

Several of my friends who are sales reps for hardware and software
companies keep two sets of business cards.  The cards in the left
pocket has the phone number and address and the cards in the right
pocket do not.  If they get trapped by a pest at a trade show the card
from the right pocket is exchanged.  If a hot sales lead comes along
the cards comes out of the left pocket.


Tom Neudecker
Carnegie Mellon

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #260
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23943;
          18 Apr 90 5:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23119;
          18 Apr 90 3:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20455;
          18 Apr 90 2:43 CDT
Date:     Wed, 18 Apr 90 1:37:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #261
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Apr 90 01:37:19 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 261

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    File Recovery (was Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee) [Tom Neff]
    Telecom*USA Question [David Svoboda]
    MCI PrimeTime [[e-mail]]
    LD Land Lines [[e-mail]]
    AT&T Mail and GEIS QUIK-COMM Forge X.400 Link [[e-mail]]
    Mike Barnicle Story From the Boston Globe [Skip Morris]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [Douglas Mason]
    Information and Equipment Needed [The Blade]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: File Recovery (was Re: More Comments From a US Sprint Employee)
Date: 17 Apr 90 03:58:12 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


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

>Makes great advertising copy, but when I have been transmitting a
>large file for an hour and suddenly the connection is broken (and the
>hour's worth of time and money goes up in smoke), I really couldn't
>care less whether it's digital, or tin cans and string.

I just want to point out here, as a practical matter, that if you can
arrange to use ZMODEM file transfer, the hour need not be wasted.
ZMODEM has partial file recovery: you reestablish the connection and
start sending the file again with the -r switch and ZMODEM picks up
where it left off (after CRC'ing part or all of the file to make sure
it's the same one).  You lose only a few minutes that way.

ZMODEM file transfer is definitely available for UNIX, VMS and DOS --
maybe for other environments too, I haven't kept up 100%.

I am not defending inferior phone service. I'm just suggesting that
as a user the best strategy is to be able to cope with outages.


Chuck Forsberg
(UUCP ...omen!caf or try Internet [e-mail]) can answer
more authoritatively.  I have no affiliation except as a satisfied customer.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 09:35:51 CDT
From: David Svoboda <motcid!violet![e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom*USA Question


Several years ago I worked in Cedar Rapids, Iowa for the R&D
department of a long distance and telemarketing company called
Teleconnect.  When I started there, the company was privately owned
but went public soon after.  When I left, they neglected to cancel my
corporate long distance account.  This continued for about two years,
when I received in my bill a note that said that they had CHANGED
their name to Telecom*USA.  At that point they noticed my account and
changed it over to a public account.  I dropped them at that point.

Now I hear that MCI has (merged/bought-out) Telecom*USA.  And that
Telecom*USA is based in Atlanta, GA.  I seriously doubt that they
would move their (big) corporate offices from Cedar Rapids to Atlanta
if ownership were unchanged during the "name change".  My question is;
what is Telecom*USA exactly?  Did they buy out Teleconnect back then,
or was that actually a corporate name change?  Is this a different
company completely, or does the old Teleconnect have anything to do
with this?

        -Dave Svoboda   uunet!motcid!svoboda

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 1990 11:58:22 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI PrimeTime


MCI recently changed the hours of their discount PrimeTime plan to
compete with AT&T's Reach Out America.  The plan now starts at 5:00 pm
weekdays instead of 7:00 pm.


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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 1990 12:21:23 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: LD Land Lines


A friend wants to make some modem calls from Hawaii to the mainland
and wants to use land lines to avoid the satellite delay.  Is there
any way to ensure that a specific LD call does not travel via
satellite?

Do any of the LD carriers not use satellites?

Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Apr 17 15:26:22 EDT 1990
Subject: AT&T Mail and GEIS QUIK-COMM Forge X.400 Link


(The following is the text of a public announcement; the author said I could
send it out to the world.  It's obviously aimed at AT&T Mail users, but I
thought the information was of general interest to the Telecom Digest. Paul)


AT&T and GE Information Services (GEIS) have interconnected their
electronic mail services, allowing both companies' e-mail customers to
exchange messages for the first time. AT&T Mail and GEIS's
QUIK-COMM(TM) service have been interconnected using the international
X.400 standard for connecting dissimilar e-mail systems.

AT&T Mail NOW interconnects with thirteen major e-mail systems.  We
are the industry leader in providing domestic X.400 connectivity to
our customers.  For a complete list of commercial X.400
interconnections between AT&T Mail and other public service providers,
refer to the AT&T Mail on-line help files and type: help admds.

To address electronic mail messages to a GEIS QUIK-COMM(TM)
subscriber, you need their X.400 address.  The address includes:

Country Code =      US
ADMD Name =         Mark400
Personal Name =     Recipient's name as registered on GEIS
Organization =      QUIKCOMM
Organization Unit = Recipient's organiztion unit

Following are some addressing examples:

TO: mhs!mark400/pn=john_smith/o=quikcomm/ou=geis
     (Mark400 is a "gatename" assigned by AT&T Mail which includes a
      Country Code and an ADMD Name)

                     OR

TO: mhs/c=us/ad=mark400/pn=john_smith/o=quikcomm/ou=geis


For more information on addressing GEIS QUIK-COMM(TM) subscribers,
please contact the AT&T Customer Assistance Center: In the U.S. call
1-800-624-5672 and outside the U.S. call 201-668-6548.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 17:22:33 PDT
From: "Skip" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mike Barnicle Story From the Boston Globe


The following story was in the Boston Globe a while back (I just got a
chance to type it in).

I am under the impression that making any use of information gained by
listening in on a phone call is illegal.  And since the Globe is a
publishing business the printing of information gained by eavesdropping
on crosstalk would seem to fall in this category.  However since the
Globe interviewed Kevin White about the incident it may be that the
Globe could claim that the story is really the result of the
interview, not just the listening in on a phone conversation.

Anyone care to comment as to whether or not Mike Barnicle and the
Globe violated any laws?
                        /Skip Morris
                 ------------------------
 From the "Political Journal" on the Editorial Page (a while back).

The Loner in Love With His Phone         by Brian C. Mooney

    This story falls into the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction category.
Last week, Globe columnist Mike Barnicle was driving his wife's car in
the South End when the car phone rang.  Barnicle's wife's office was
trying to reach her.  In the background, Barnicle heard a familiar
voice and asked the caller to put him on hold.

    For the next few minutes, he listened to former Boston mayor Kevin
H. White giving advice to Democratic gubernatorial candidate John R.
Silber.  Among other things, White advised Silber on how to deal with
the Globe.

He also second-guessed Silber's decision to make Robert (Skinner)
Donahue his campaign director.  Donahue was a key operative of Joseph
Timilty in the bitter 1975 White-Timilty mayoral campaign.

    "What are the chances of that happening?" said Barnicle of
intercepting the call.

"Probably pretty good," White said in an interview, confirming
Barnicle's story.

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

[Moderator's Note: We ran this story earlier, but without the
questions you are posing.  Anyone have any comments?  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 04:29:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry
Lippman) writes:

>    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.

The Moderator refused an earlier submission giving details, but as of
the last time I tried it (2.5 years ago), this was not true for the
standard DTF, well-maintained, Ma Bell, touch-tone pay telephone in
downtown Toronto I used.  It may be a different trick, but I grounded
something and made a "25 cent" local call using no coins.  I learned
it from friends of my brother who did it habitually at his high
school.

(I only did it that once when I was out of change, but the one time I tried
it, it worked.)

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 didn't believe this, so I just tried it (the pay phone in question
is [phone], on the third floor of the University of Waterloo
math building), and it doesn't seem to work.  Calling 885-1211 by
tapping it out on the switchhook (the university switchboard; it
should give me a recording saying they open in the morning) waits for
seven digits and gives me fast busy.  So does dialling the same thing
using the touch-tone pad.

Misdialling the phone next to me (the funny looks from the janitors
made me pause in the middle of a digit) gives me an intercept
recording.  ("The number you have dialled is not in service; please
check the number and dial again.")  Switching to a spectator-free
location, calling from one pay phone [phone]) to another next to it
(746-9309), and again I got fast busy.  Just to check, I called 411
and 1-800-555-1212 (the last to make sure I could dial '0' reasonably
reliably) and got through fine.  So as far as my experimentation can
tell, there's no difference in the way tapping and touch-tones are
handled.

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

>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.

Well, you can always come and watch me.  The main giveaway is the loud
hammering as I pound away on the switchhook very fast.  But, despite
your experience, the pay phones around here have sufficiently fast
switches.  (It is not even that difficult.  Just tap as fast as you
can, get full travel and don't lose count - it works fine.)

Just another data point.


    -Colin

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 11:37:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael
Fetzer) writes:

I may be mistaken, but I think I've made the observation that cellular
>phones are much cheaper to own and operate in the Pacific North West
>(read: Portland, OR) than in California (read Sandi Eggo).  When I was
>up there (in Portland) a few weeks ago, I saw the basic cellular phone
>for car installation on sale for less than 130 bucks.  Down here, SD,
>the cheapest I see is over 400.  How can this be?

Here in Western Michigan you can purchase the newer three-watt GE
cellular phones for about $79 from most of the appliance stores.  The
catch that they and most everyone else uses is "service contracts."

Around here and in most places, when you buy the phone you have to
sign a contract with a local cellular service provider for anywhere
from about 90 days to a year or more.  In return, the cellular company
kicks back as much as $300 to the appliance store, which uses that to
bring the price of a $400 phone down to $100 or less.  While a long
contract can lock you into a bad deal, the shorter ones (ie: < 90
days) are worth the few hundred you save off the phone.

Around here, the two "biggie" providers are Cellular One and Century
Cellunet.  Their rates are identical and suprisingly haven't changed
since I first bought a cellular in 1986.  Rates are $7.50 a month for
basic service (no detail billing, etc) and $.00.35/minute peak and
$0.15/minute off-peak for air-time.

When I was in Ohio about a year ago their rates jumped from like $15 a
month to like $25 with .45/.18 for airtime.

What's it like in the "big cities"?


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |


[Moderator's Note: Our two providers here are Ameritech (telco) and
Cellular One (owned by SW Bell). Other than the occassional very
sleazy and misleading promotion (virtual giveaway of phone by Fretters
with an advance payment of $1000 to Ameritech for service), Ameritech
generally is good. The monthly basic fee is $29.95, and the rates are
in the 30/35 cent range for peak time, and the 20/23 cent range for
off-peak. The 'Ten Cent Plan' costs $19.95 per month and allows off
peak calls at 10 cents per minute, with peak minutes costing 65 cents.
Cellular One has slightly lower airtime rates; but they nickle-and-dime
customers with service charges and other fees. Off-peak time is very
skimpy for both: 9 PM to 7 AM plus weekends.   PT]

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

From: The Blade <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90 23:05:08 PDT
Subject: Information and Equipment Needed
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM


I am in great need of the following information for starting a
business:

I need equipment to do the following --

I need hardware (non-digital), preferably used, that can process calls
and bill them accordingly.  The switch needs to be able to handle up
to 100 calls at once (100 trunks) and it needs ONLY to be able to call
INTRA-LATA (within the area code) numbers.  I do not need equipment
for long distance, only local.  The switch also needs to handle
billing, being able to print billing also.

Here's what I want to happen:

Dial the 950 port (as long as Bell allows);
Enter subscriber code (i.e. such as 950 0488, 1022, 1033 etc..)
After code verify give another dialtone; then subscriber will enter
the seven digit (i.e. 234-1000) number. Then the system will complete
the call, and start billing accordingly.

I would like to do this as inexpensive as possible.  People have been
telling me that used equipment is the best bet.  I would think so
also, due to the fact I do not need any digital features (i.e. Feature
groups).  The equipment will be housed in NJ.

Would you know if NJ Bell allows other companies to re-sell intra-lata
service?  I would think they must, under the provisions of the tarrifs.

Do you know of any service that re-sells intra-lata service?

[To Moderator: If you can post this, that would be fine also, or maybe
you could direct me to someone who works with this type of equipment.
I am in the process of setting this thing up, and ANY information is
greatly appreciated.  This has nothing to do with Hacking or
Phreaking.  I guess you could say I am using my Telcom experience and
using it for good intentions.  I can't really say why I'm doing this
(you probably could figure it out) but that's why I'm trying to start
it up, becuase its a good idea.  I have financial backing, and again,
any information is GREATLY appricated.  Please respond.]


Blade
darkside.com

[Moderator's Note: Are you *sure* this has nothing to do with Hacking
or Phreaking? Do you think anyone reading this list would be smart
enough to figure it out, or just me?  No, I don't think telcos have to
allow competition in the local community as of now. Perhaps one or
more readers will respond directly to you and help you with your
project.  Why did you include the hacking/phreaking disclaimer in your
message, anyway?  If you reside in New Jersey, why do you correspond
through a site in northern California?  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #261
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13161;
          19 Apr 90 3:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27599;
          19 Apr 90 2:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10551;
          19 Apr 90 1:00 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Apr 90 0:35:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #262
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Apr 90 00:35:12 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 262

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cellular Service and Rates in Hong Kong [John R. Covert]
    Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [Robert Michael Gutierrez]
    Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 11:48:57 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  18-Apr-1990 1436" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Service and Rates in Hong Kong


Cellular Service in Hong Kong is the most impressive example of how
good the technology can be that I have ever seen.  People in Hong Kong
are in love with the phone, and it shows.  Landline phones provide
colony-wide unlimited service at an incredibly low price, prompting
shops and restaurants to provide banks of phones for their customers
to use as part of their service.

This addiction to telephones has helped to make cellular service
near-perfect in Hong Kong.  There are three carriers:

    Hutchison Telephone:    AMPS and TACS
    CSL (HongKong Telecom):    TACS
    Pacific Link        ETACS

They provide service to every inch of the colony; while roaming on
Hutchison during my week in Hong Kong my no-service light only came on
in tunnels or in the subway.  The phone worked every time I tried to
use it, and there was not a single person who called me who failed to
get through on the first try.

While walking around the streets of Hong Kong, everywhere I turned I
saw people talking on portables.  In restaurants, there were always
phones on many of the tables, and they were being used.  While riding
ferries to outlying islands, people (myself included) were making and
receiving calls.

Hutchison, the only carrier providing AMPS service, can provide
roaming service to North American customers.  CSL can provide service
to UK customers.  Details follow.

          AMPS roaming
          ------------

North American customers (and other people with AMPS phones) can roam
with Hutchison Telephone at the following rates:

HK$20   (US$2.56) per day            Billing is via
HK$2.50 (US$0.32) per minute            American Express only.

There are no roamer ports; you will be assigned a temporary local
number which callers may use to reach you.  You can be told your
temporary number in advance.

Customers of CanTel may make all their arrangements in advance by
contacting CanTel customer service; the phone will work upon arrival.

All other customers must present their phone at Hutchison Telephone's
offices and sign an agreement prior to activation.

At the time of my trip, Hutchison and NYNEX were involved in a joint
venture, and I was able to make special arrangements.  This required
me to get NYNEX customer service to send Hutchison a FAX with the
details of my phone and AMEX card, and I, too, was activated a few
hours prior to my arrival.


          UK <-> Hong Kong Roaming
          ------------------------

Racal Vodafone and CSL Hong Kong Telephone have a roaming agreement
(of sorts).

It works (in both directions) as follows:

    UK subscribers going to Hong Kong will contact
    Mr. Foxwell at 0635 55 0000 x5516.  He will obtain
    a Hong Kong number for you.

    You must take your phone to a service center to have it
    reprogrammed (unless you know how to do it yourself).
    This will cost about UKL25 (prices vary).
    (Apparently TACS switches cannot do number translation the
    way AMPS switches can -- my phone didn't have to be touched.)

    CSL will bill you through Racal Vodafone:

    Each Connection HK$500 (US$64, UKL37.35)
    Service charge HK$400/month (US$51.20, UKL31.90) prorated for
        time used.

    HK$1.50/minute (19", 11p)

    Hong Kong CSL subscribers going to the UK will contact
    Hilda Chan on 828-8492.

    No info on reprogramming charges.

    Racal Vodafone will bill you through CSL:

    Normal tariffs: UKL50 for the connection,
    UKL25/month (prorated),
    Call charges as normal.

Based on a conversation with Cellnet, it appears that Cellnet
customers in the U.K. do not have the option of roaming in Hong Kong,
nor do Hutchison's TACS customers or Pacific Link's customers in Hong
Kong have the option of roaming in the U.K.  If this is not the case,
an update would be appreciated.


          Comparison
          ----------

The AMPS prices from Hutchison can be compared with the TACS prices
from CSL.  The HK$500 connection charge is what really hurts UK
visitors who are there for a short stay.

My total bill for eight days was HK$576.54, US$74.53.  That includes
HK$160 in daily fees, HK$59.04 in IDDD charges, and HK$357.50 in
airtime, 143 minutes.

A U.K. visitor would have paid HK$500+(HK$400/30*8)+HK$59.04+HK$214.50
or HK$880.21, about US$112.70 or about UKL66.30.

For longer visits, it begins to get more economical for a UK visitor;
assuming four times the usage in a full month, I'd pay
HK$600+HK$236+HK$1430 = HK$2266, compared to the UK visitors
HK$500+HK$400+HK$236+HK$858 = HK$1994.


          Local Subcriber rates
          ---------------------

Hutchison Telephone provides three rate plans for local subscribers:

      Plan    Monthly Charge        Free    Extra Minutes

    A    HK$100.00  (US$12.80)    Nil    HK$4.00 (US$0.51)
    B    HK$450.00  (US$57.62)    100    HK$1.25 (US$0.16)
    C    HK$900.00 (US$115.24)    600    HK$1.25 (US$0.16)

Call Forwarding/Call Waiting/No Ans Xfr/Three-Way calling are each
HK$25/month or HK$75 for all three.

There is a HK$500 (US$32) connection fee if you purchase your phone
from them (typical price for a portable was around HK$12,000 or
US$1536).  If you were to bring a phone into the country, you would
have to provide proof that you had presented it to customs and would
have to pay a HK$3500 (US$448) activation fee.

CSL describes two rate plans:

    A. HK$400 (US$51) per month including three features.
       First 400 mins at HK$1.50 (19 cents).
       Additional time is HK$1.20 (15 cents).

    B. HK$400 with 75 mins of airtime but no system features.
       First 400 mins after the 75 included are HK$1.50.
       Additional time is HK$1.20 (15 cents).

The initial connection is HK$500 (US$64).

Pacific Link's plans and rates are similar to Hutchison's.  The first
two plans are identical; the heavy use plan is HK$600 with 250 minutes
included.

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

From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service
Date: 19 Apr 90 03:23:21 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


As promised, I said I would review cellular service for GTE Mobilnet
in the San Francisco area after I got my first bill.

My first bill was $117 and change. This, though, included two months of
basic charges because GTE bills in advance. I signed up for the
so-called Personal Club, which is a 1 year contract (and the contract
specifically states that I am automatically signed up for successive 1
year contracts if I do _not_ send in a notice requesting that I do not
want to continue ... you can bet the *registered* letter will be in the
mail 2 months before it's up!).

The 'Personal Club' knocks off $2/mo off Personal Basic service, and
gives the custom calling features free, along with billing detail.
Still, the daytime rate is the most expensive in the country (.90
cents/minute, 7am-7pm) except Los Angeles, which is the same. That's @
$23/month. The 'Business Club' rate is $40/mo, .45 cents/min daytime.
Both offerings charge .20cents/min at night/weekends. John Higdon went
through some of this in a previous posting.

The bill itself is a standard telephone bill. I was charged Federal
tax, but no state tax. No 911, Deaf Devices or Univeral (cheap service
subsidy) taxes.  Also, no FCC Access chages, even though I can call
long distance. I was charged City tax, but Hayward (California) has no
city tax. Forgot to ask about this...

The first page shows totals in minutes used and dollars for each for
Peak, Off-Peak, and Night ... but GTE has no night rate! Maybe something
in the future? I racked up 2 hours off peak and 1/2 hour peak (a lot
more than I expected!).

The following pages are the billing detail. Times are in 'military'
time (24 hour format). If somebody called you, it shows as a call to
your cellular number. It shows the time called as MM:SS (minutes and
seconds), but GTE bills in 1 minute increments. I assume they're using
a standard billing service that other companies also use (some
companies bill in 6 second increments).

The 'City Called' for my phone shows up as Palo Alto, but Pac Bell
shows it in their TOPS operator database as Oakland, and it shows as a
toll call (calls to both celluar carriers are considered 'toll-free'
from the celluar coverage area, basically all of the San Francisco
LATA). The operators will quote a toll rate to you if you ask if it's
a toll free call. None of this applies to BOC pay phones, as you're
charged the toll rate outright. (John H ... do you have a copy of
GTE's tariff or Pac Bell's???  Does it specifically exclude pay
phones?)

GTE will give you a 1 minute credit for a 'dropped call' if you call
the same number back within 3 minutes, and is indicated on the bill
with an asterik next to the call. For this to work, though, the called
party has to answer on the callback. If you get a busy signal or no
answer on the callback, you're charged for the call, then you have to
note it and call GTE when you get your bill. This happened to me on
this bill. This also works the other way when I called into a radio
contest, and made it into the contest lines twice (!) (I didn't win,
though). The first call was credited as a dropped call (showed up as
MIN-0:00, AMOUNT-.00), and the 2nd once charged like usual. They don't
charge for calling attempts to the 'choke' exchanges (415-478-XXXX and
408-575-XXXX in the Bay Area).

GTE says they do not charge airtime until the called party answers the
phone, but they will start charging if you let it ring more than 1 minute
(average 11 rings). Poo-poo! This is probably for calls to places that
don't return answer supervision (like 800-555-1212), so they have to charge
one way or another, or they fail to get supervision for any other reason.

Long distance is another can of worms. Of the 9 L.D. calls I made, 2
are for Directory Assistance (no, GTE does not give any 'free' D.A.
calls, you get charges airtime + D.A. charges @ .25/each), 3 regular
L.D. calls, and 4 for Mtn. View, California, a local call! Seems that
NASA Ames new prefix (415-604-XXXX) is giving fits to everybody
(including lots of COCOTS I've run across) including GTE, since it is
the first N0X prefix in the Bay Area. They credited me for that.

The 3 L.D. calls were to Upland (Rancho Cucomonga), California. 2
calls were made at 9pm & 10pm, on a Friday. The rate they charged was
.31/first, and .20/addtl.  AT&T's rate is .24/.16!!! Just what I need,
a COCOT on my celluar phone! So much for L.D. on my cellular phone.
I'll ask tomorrow if they admit to charging more than AT&T's rate.

The service itself is only O.K.  I use last years Panasonic
transportable (the ??-950, the one that takes Matsushita camcorder
batteries) and the Radio Shack 3db-gain rubber-duckie.  Usually, in my
car, I don't hook it up to an outside antenna (though one is mounted).
Reception on the Panasonic is poor, though it seems to transmit well,
and can get out of some solid concrete areas. The squelch circut is
set very high, hence I tend have a lot of cutting out (flutter, or
'picket fencing'), and this sometimes can get annoying. The other
called party can hear me fine, though.

I seem to meet with the all channels busy tone (a reorder tone
generated by the phone itself) when I initally power up or come back
'in service' (from a tunnel or BART [subway tunnels]). If I wait a
minute, it's not a problem.  I suspect this is because the phone
seized the first available paging channel, though it most likely is
not the closest, and fails on the handshake to open a channel. Then it
re-scans for a stronger paging channel, and it makes it though on the
next attempt. The handset of the Panasonic has a signal-strength
meter, but I've learned not to trust it, since it's the paging channel
it shows for, and not the actual channel you get assigned for the call
until the call is set up and voice is cut through.

Today, though, when I was calling Customer Service, I was dropped
(disconnected).  I was talking to the CSR, and then she could not hear
me, but I could hear her fine. Then I came back in, but cut back out
(for her) 20 seconds later. I then was outright dropped from the call.
I didn't hear any base commands to increase power, or hear a
termination command either, just complete silence.  Do I suspect that
I entered a cell that was 'maxed out' (no channels to allocate because
of excessive calls)? This may be possible, even though I could hear
her fine, the last cell I was being received was losing me, and could
not crank up power because of the same channel in use somewhere else,
or I just got too far from the cell and it lost me, period? I hope
this is not a common occurance. Maybe some new channels need to be
added to some exisiting cells sites for GTE.


Ja ne.   Robert Gutierrez/NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
        Moffett feild, California.

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 13:16:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, douglas@ddsw1 (Douglas Mason) writes:

| [Moderator's Note: Our two providers here are Ameritech (telco) and
| Cellular One (owned by SW Bell). Other than the occassional very

(Chicago area description followed)

Portland, Oregon, GTE Mobilnet, 1-year contract at $15.00/month,
$0.31/min prime (7am-7pm weekdays), $0.13/min non-prime; includes
voice-mail/call-forwarding package; calls are billed for actual
talk-time only (no pay for ring time).

Cellular One in same coverage area is slightly higher, I'm told, and
charges for air time (rings and no-answers), not talk time.

Just another addicted cell user (dunno how I got along without it :-),


  Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ==========\
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| [e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones
Date: 18 Apr 90 12:38:50 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Douglas Mason <[e-mail]> writes:

> Around here and in most places, when you buy the phone you have to
> sign a contract with a local cellular service provider for anywhere
> from about 90 days to a year or more.  In return, the cellular company
> kicks back as much as $300 to the appliance store, which uses that to
> bring the price of a $400 phone down to $100 or less.  While a long
> contract can lock you into a bad deal, the shorter ones (ie: < 90
> days) are worth the few hundred you save off the phone.

The Pretty Useless Comedians in California put an end to that practice
as a result of whining from independent service resellers. They
claimed that the equipment giveaway deals were stealing all their
business, since the ultra-low-appearing phone prices were attracting
all the customers away from dealers who couldn't respond in kind.

Now, when you go cellular phone shopping, you will see notices to the
effect that the price of the phone is not dependent on service
activation, but that service is available through [name of
provider/affiliate]. This disclaimer is also spoken on all radio
advertising for cellular phones.

Oddly enough, I do believe the kickbacks are still in place.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #262
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14931;
          19 Apr 90 4:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31136;
          19 Apr 90 3:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27599;
          19 Apr 90 2:06 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Apr 90 1:33:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #263
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Apr 90 01:33:12 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 263

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ordering Unix from AT&T [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List [Chris Davies]
    Re: Telecom*USA Question [David Tamkin]
    Re: Mike Barnicle Story From the Boston Globe [Evan Eickmeyer]
    Re: London Area Code Change [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: London Area Code Change [Carl Moore]
    Re: More Comments From A US Sprint Employee [Patricia O'connor]
    Re: Credit Card ID [W.L. Ware]
    Re: The Card [[e-mail]]
    Re: The Card [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective [Kim Long]
    Re: DTMF and Cindi [Steve Hoffman]
    Re: Information and Equipment Needed [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ordering Unix from AT&T
Date: 18 Apr 90 13:58:19 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> Several of my friends who are sales reps for hardware and software
> companies keep two sets of business cards.  The cards in the left
> pocket has the phone number and address and the cards in the right
> pocket do not.  If they get trapped by a pest at a trade show the card
> from the right pocket is exchanged.  If a hot sales lead comes along
> the cards comes out of the left pocket.

    What I would like to know is how these sales bi-peds can tell
the difference between a pest and a hot sales lead. It seems to me
that most sales dweebs spend much time "qualifying" sales leads. They
often get it wrong.

    In the early sixties a young boy from Kentucky walked into a
Jaguar showroom in Manhattan. He was wearing jeans and was polite and
rather shy. The salesman decided that he wasn't going to waste his
time with this hick and ignored him.

    In the young man's jeans was all the cash he needed for a new
Jaguar E Type. He made the money from making hit records - his name
was Phil Everly. He later bought a Cadilac.


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

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

From: Chris Davies <vision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List
Date: 18 Apr 90 14:06:20 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Davies <vision![e-mail]>
Organization: VisionWare Ltd., Leeds, UK


>     MINITEL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY
>Location                     Number
>United Kingdom -------------------
> +++ London            01-437-4393
> +++ London            01-439-4055

As from May 6th the 01-437-4393 number will become 081-437-4393.
As from May 6th the 01-439-4055 number will become 081-439-4055.

This is due to reorganisation of the London numbers, replacing 01 by
either 081 or 071.  Yes I'm sure (most of) you knew, but I thought I'd
better remind you :-)


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]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA Question
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 12:08:12 CDT


David Svoboda asked in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 261

| My question is; what is Telecom*USA exactly?  Did they buy out Teleconnect
| back then, or was that actually a corporate name change?  Is this a
| different company completely, or does the old Teleconnect have anything to
| do with this?

Telecom*USA is the name that came out of the merger of Teleconnect and
Southern Net in the spring of 1989.  I was already a customer of
Teleconnect at the time, and all advertising, bills, and
correspondence I've received have continued to come from Cedar Rapids.
I'd never heard of Atlanta as its headquarters until the announcement
about the MCI tender offer appeared in the Digest a few days ago.
(I'd heard news items about the offer but they did not say where
Telecom*USA was based.)

Perhaps there are offices in Cedar Rapids to serve the area
Teleconnect handled and in Atlanta for service to Southern Net's area?

[I'm not positive of the spelling of Southern Net; there might have
been no space or only one n.]


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCIMail:426-1818  GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN  CIS:73720,1570

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

From: Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mike Barnicle Story From the Boston Globe
Date: 18 Apr 90 19:47:09 GMT
Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California


The point of this story is that people on here have been saying how
interesting it is to hear other conversations sometimes . . . but we
have to remember that X people could be listening to our conversation
on any given phone call as well!


Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer          University of Southern California
[e-mail]                             Los Angeles, California

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 08:51:21 EDT
Subject: Re: London Area Code Change

As of a week ago, all three LD carriers I can try from home were
correctly putting through calls to 011-44-81-964-xxxx.  Sprint and MCI
both correctly report errors if you use the invalid 71 city code,
informing me that the "1" has been changed to "81" for the number I
was calling(*).  (Last time I reported Sprint just said invalid city
or country code.)  Sprint's recording is in its numbered series
(85-93) and is spoken with an American accent, but it uses the term
"city code".  MCI's recording is spoken with a British accent but
refers to the "area code".  Hmm.

AT&T continues to report as its error that "Due to the earthquake in
the area you are calling, we are unable to complete your call."  I am
curious to know if AT&T nationwide is reporting this peculiar
condition, or if only we in the northeast are getting hearing about
it.

    /JBL

(*)Of course this is not officially true till May.

Nets: [e-mail]
Pots: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 90 20:48:35 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London Area Code Change


(TELECOM readers: the number used here, which has appeared previously
in the Digest, is an office which is not answered after hours, and it
thus was OK to do the following at a ghastly hour for the UK.)

I tried calling the 941-2564 London-area number (U.K.) tonight various
ways.  Apparently both the old city code 1 and the new code 81 (for
outer London) are currently working.  (Inner London will become 71,
with 1 being discontinued.)  My home phone defaults to AT&T.

011-44-1 and 011-44-81 were OK (got ringing signal in UK).  011-44-71
got recording; I got (twice) "Due to circumstances beyond our control,
your call cannot be completed.  Please try again in 20 minutes; you
will not be billed for this call." followed by (twice) "Your call
cannot be completed at this time in the country you are calling.
Please try your call later."

10222-011-44-1 and 10222-011-44-81 were OK, as above.  10222-011-44-71
also reached the UK, judging from the accent in the recording: "The
London area code 1 has been changed to 81 [' eight one '] for the
number you have dialed.  Please redial, replacing 441 with 4481."  An
unusual (to me) thing here was that I got this message 2 times; i.e.,
I started off during the message, then got the message one whole time,
then the message cycled back again, and was cut off just a little
after I reached my starting point!

AT&T seems to be "smart" enough to catch the (in this case)
incorrect 71 city code at this end.  MCI is sending the call
thru to UK.

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

From: Patricia O'connor <farcomp!Patricia.O'[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Comments From A US Sprint Employee
Date: 16 Apr 90 19:15:12 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA


>Also, long distance calls made today cost you on average 40% less than
>they did six years ago.  Maybe you should ask AT&T to give you the >service
and higher rates that you had six years ago if that's what you
>want.

Our anonymous angry Sprint employee neglected to mention that AT&T was
heavily subsidizing local residence telephone service six years ago,
and to lessening degrees for four years thereafter - something Sprint
and MCI did not have to build into their rates.  It was an integral
part of the universal service concept that everyone should be able to
afford to have a telephone in their home.  Prices were kept low by
transferring revenues from AT&T long distance to local companies.


Patricia O'connor - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
    UUCP: ...!sun!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!Patricia.O'connor
INTERNET: Patricia.O'[e-mail]

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

From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Date: 19 Apr 90 00:29:27 GMT
Reply-To: ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.rit.edu![e-mail]
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


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

>>you can can follow their instructions to the letter and give
>>them any random phone number you feel like

On a similar note, here in Rochester when you buy things at large
department stores, with a check, they call DA to verify your phone #.
Unfortunatly mine is unlesited, and this inevitably causes a major
scene. I usually just tell them I can take my business elsewhere, AND
get better service ;)


*W.L.Ware                                             LANCEWARE SYSTEMS*
*WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu                    Value Added reseller*
*WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu                          Mac and IBM Access. *

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 19 Apr 90 00:51:43 GMT
Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, Va.


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

>Having recently received _The Card_, I was wondering why they chose to
>emboss the calling card number (which appears under the name)?

[Moderator's Note: I can't imagine anyone giving an iota what the
sales clerk 'requires'. The reason for both numbers being present is
that the one is a VISA number; the other is a telephone calling card
number. It may be that the VISA number can be used for telephone calls
in phones with card readers; I do not know. But the vast majority of
phone calls would require the traditional, or standard phone billing
number and pin.  PT]

I took the question to mean, "Why is the calling card number
*embossed*?", not why is the calling card number present on The Card.

Since the number is embossed, it is likely to show up on imprints made
of The Card, spreading calling card numbers (or their base phone
number) that many people would like to keep private.

Has anyone griped about this to AT&T?

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 18 Apr 1990 07:22:59 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Kantor) says:

>I assume you are asking "as opposed to just printing it on the card".
>That would take another pass through another machine, and then the
>surface of the card would have to be protected in some way to keep the
>printing from deteriorating in the harsh environment of the typical
>wallet or purse.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, and interestingly enough, on the
obverse side, they did EXACTLY that with the International C.C.
number!  i.e., printed the numbers (though slightly raised, but
certainly not embossed).  That print does not seemed protected.


Pete

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

From: Kim Long <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call *Captures* and the Modern-day Detective
Date: 18 Apr 90 22:43:46 GMT
Reply-To: Kim Long <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


One evening very late, I received a series of disturbing calls.  The
next day I talked to the phone company about what I could do.  My area
recently instutited caller-id and so there were several options I
could choose, rather than change my phone number.

1)  Buy the Caller ID equipment and install it on my phone.
    Monthly charge for service and initial outlay for the
    equipment.

2)  Call Trace: Dial a two digit code after the caller hangs
    up and you will hear a recorded message telling you
    the call was traced and logged.  $1 charge per trace,
    only charged if you have a "completed" trace.  Caller-ID
    has not been installed in all areas here so I was warned
    it may not work, yet.

3)  Call Block: Enter a four digit code after the call is
    completed and the number is blocked forever.  A $4 charge
    per month.  I don't know if this goes up if you block
    multiple numbers or not.  Also, this wouldn't work if
    the person originating the call didn't have Caller-ID
    in their area.


klong

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 16:07:56 PDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF and Cindi


Peter Holsberg asks, in TCD #244, about using DTMF with a Cindi
system.  Peter, you might want to contact Cindi's manufacturer,
Genesis (aka VCS), at 916-632-3232.


Steve Hoffman
"[e-mail]"

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information and Equipment Needed
Date: 18 Apr 90 16:17:27 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


The Blade <[e-mail]> writes:

> I need hardware (non-digital), preferably used, that can process calls
> and bill them accordingly.  The switch needs to be able to handle up
> to 100 calls at once (100 trunks) and it needs ONLY to be able to call
> INTRA-LATA (within the area code) numbers.  I do not need equipment
> for long distance, only local.  The switch also needs to handle
> billing, being able to print billing also.

Something this size to do what you describe later in your article will
probably end up being digital. Other than very small systems, where
digital speech is not practical, everything with any capability at all
will use digital speech. The only exception that comes to mind would
be some old crossbar equipment with major electronic add-ons. Even if
you could find such a beast, housing it would be a major concern. None
of the analog electronic switches that you might find would have the
physical capacity. Of course, you might be able to wait in back of my
CO when they toss the 1ESS in the trash :-) Be sure you don't get hit
in the head by the crossbar as it comes sailing out as well.

> Do you know of any service that re-sells intra-lata service?

A company call "Centex" resells intra-LATA service in the Bay Area. As
you might imagine from the name, it's done by reselling CENTREX lines
and then using the ARS capabilities of CENTREX to provide both intra
and inter-LATA long distance service. They use a combination of WATS,
FXs, and a host of carriers to accomplish this.

This is currently the only way that I am aware of that provides for
reselling intra-LATA service legitimately in California. Other states,
of course, may vary.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #263
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16821;
          19 Apr 90 5:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31003;
          19 Apr 90 4:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31136;
          19 Apr 90 3:07 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Apr 90 2:03:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #264
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Apr 90 02:02:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 264

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number [Kee Hinckley]
    Receiving German Teletext Into a PC [Joseph C. Pistritto]
    Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC [Joseph C. Pistritto]
 ==>Appeals Court Orders Seized Computer Returned [Clarinet]<== NOT AVAILABLE
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [Nigel Allen]  (SEE NOTES)
    Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? [Nigel Allen]
    Cellular Phone Service in Canada [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Radio Shack CT-300/301 and Nokia P-30 [John R. Covert]
    "Mileage" Charge Question [John Parsons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kee Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number
Organization: asi
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 00:27:15 GMT


This weekend I got an automated call from some company offering a list
of companies which would give me credit if I had trouble getting same.
My policy on those calls is to tell them that I will never do business
with any company that uses automated calling.  I usually do that
either when they ask for info in the call (in which case I'm sure my
comments just get ignored) or by calling the number they give and
telling them there.

This time however, I don't seem to have that option, at least not
cheaply.  The return number they gave was a 900 number with a $19.95
usage fee.  I called the operator and asked her how to get the address
associated with a 900 number.  She said that I could call 900
information, but that they wouldn't give it to me.  I called 900
information and discovered that "they" was a recording of all the 900
numbers (*that's* an information service?).

So.  How do I go about finding the address associated with a 900
number?

The company info, for what it's worth:
    Family Shoppers Union Credit Card Program
    1-900-741-GOLD (4653)    $19.95


| 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   |

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

Subject: Receiving German Teletext Into a PC
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 10:16:58 MESZ
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>


Does anyone know of an interface device to pick off the Teletext
signals that are sent over most European television channels and input
them to a PC?  I have a decoder in my television, but I thought it
would be neat to store the teletext info on my PC for searching, etc.


Joseph C. Pistritto ([e-mail] -or- cgch![e-mail])
 Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland
 Tel: [phone] (work) [phone] (home)   GMT+2hrs!


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

Subject: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 11:19:23 MESZ
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>


My Panasonic do-everything answering machine has four settings for
length of message, Fixed (1 minute), VOX, and the two I don't
understand, CPC1 and CPC2.  When I used this machine on a 5Xbar
exchange, I experimented and found that CPC2 gave the best performance
for always ending the recording when the caller hung up.  CPC1 didn't
work at all, and the VOX mode often recorded several seconds of 'if
you wish to place a call, please hang up...' before ending the tape.

In the manual it says that the CPC settings are for 'Calling Party
Disconnect which is provided by some exchanges'.  What is this?
Reverse battery perhaps?  And why are there TWO types of algorithms?


Incidentally, now that I live in Europe, neither of the CPC's
seems to work reliably ... What kind of Disconnect supervision
(if any) is returned by modern exchanges over here (Switzerland).
I belive the equipment we use is made by Siemans.


Joseph C. Pistritto ([e-mail] -or- cgch![e-mail])
 Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland
 Tel: [phone] (work) [phone] (home)   GMT+2hrs!


------------------------------
(Appeals Court Rules on Computer Seizure)

THIS ARTICLE NO LONGER AVAILABLE. IT WAS A COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE SENT TO
THE DIGEST BY AN ANONYMOUS PERSON. BRAD TEMPLETON, OWNER OF THE
COPYRIGHT COMPLAINED AND ASKED THAT IT BE REMOVED. SEE ISSUE 274 LATER
IN THIS FILE FOR SPECIFICS.   CLARINET OWNED THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE
WHICH APPEARED IN ONE OF THEIR NEWS GROUPS.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90  0:48:00 EST
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground


In a message of <11 Apr 90 12:16:49>, [e-mail] writes:

 >Vandalizing phones seems to be a national sport in Holland - but
 >that's another article.  Trying to find a functional phone is a city
 >can be very difficult.

This is why, when I'm feeling conscientious (or obsessive), I write
down the number of vandalized or otherwise non-functional pay
telephones, and report them to the telephone company's repair service.
Someone may need the pay phone in an emergency, and if I don't report
the out-of-service pay phone, nobody else will until a telco employee
visits a month later to empty the coin box.

There are no COCOTs (non-telco pay phones) in Canada yet, so I don't
have any horror stories about trying to get in touch with the owners
of COCOTs to ask them to fix their phones. As I understand it, COCOTs
tend to be located indoors, and hence are probably less likely to be
vandalized than ones on streetcorners.


Nigel Allen                    [e-mail]
52 Manchester Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3         voice: [phone]

 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ont. (1:250/438)

 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST
 Internet: [e-mail]
 UUCP:     ...tmsoft!masnet!f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org!nigel.allen

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 90  3:06:00 EST
Subject: Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For?


[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)

[e-mail] ([e-mail]) writes:

 >Why not 411: 1-617-411 ?

At one point, long distance operators used to dial directory
assistance calls as (area code) + (city code, sometimes) + 131.
Similarly, if the assistance of an operator at the distant end of the
phone call (an "inwards operator") was needed to complete the call, it
would be dialled as (area code) + (city code, sometimes) + 121. I'm
not sure whether 141, 151, etc. were meaningful in this context.

In Northwestel's operating territory (the Yukon, the western half of
the Northwest Territories, parts of northern British Columbia), 511
was the number you called to send a telegram, and 811 was the
company's business office. The three-digit number for the telegraph
office requires some explanation.

Telecommunications service in Northwestel's operating territory used
to be provided by CN Telecommunications, the telecommunications
division of the Canadian National Railway Company. CN
Telecommunications also provided telegraph and telex service in the
rest of Canada. (Subsequently, CN Telecommunications spun off
Northwestel to take over its northern Canada operations and Terra Nova
Telecommunications to take over its Newfoundland operations.

The remaining company was merged with Canadian Pacific's
telecommunications division to form CNCP Telecommunications.
Northwestel was eventually purchased by BCE Inc., the holding company
that owns Bell Canada and half of Northern Telecom Ltd.)


 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ont. (1:250/438)

 MaS Relayer v1.00.00
 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST
 Internet: [e-mail]
 UUCP:     ...tmsoft!masnet!f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org!nigel.allen

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Cellular Phone Service in Canada
Date: 19 Apr 90 01:13:54 GMT
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


Recently, there has been a lot of traffic on the subject of Cellular
Phone Rates and the wide variation in service levels between different
clellular carriers.  I thought that it might be interesting to give
this group the view from Canada.  Having travelled in the United
States with my cellular phone and also in Canada, I have found the
service levels to be far superior in Canada (and this isn't just a lot
of patriotic nonsense!)  Read on....

In Canada there are essentially only two nationwide cellular carriers:
The land-line telephone company (approximately 11 across the country
although there are a few dominant companies like Bell Canada which
provides all service in Ontario and Quebec) and the other cellular
company: Cantel.  I am a subscriber to the latter and I would like to
tell you what my service gets me.

Cantel has a nationwide network.  Obviously the network doesn't extend
into very sparsley settled areas of the country (at least yet!).
However, most major cities across the country are now covered and in
certain provinces extensive parts of those provinces.  For example, in
Ontario and Quebec, Cantel provides *continuous* service from Windsor
(next door to Detroit) through to Quebec city in the east (about as
far away from Detroit as New York city is!).

To the north the coverage reaches up to Sudbury (look it up on a map)
with continous coverage along all the major highways and pretty good
coverage along the lesser travelled areas.  WHen I say continuous, I
mean that you can start a call in Windsor and you won't have any drop
outs in the call all the way to Quebec (barring the usual gremlins).

If the area of coverage isn't surprising enough, then the call
following feature might grab your attention.  If you are on the Cantel
system *ANYWHERE* in the country where service is provided, the call
to your local number will find you without you having to punch in any
follow me codes in the out-of-town city.  The technological
implication is somewhat staggering - every time a call is made every
cell in the country can conceivably put out a page for the phone in
question! (Although I haven't verified this with Cantel, I think that
they are starting to use the registration system which is part of the
cellular protocol.)

Phone rates on Cantel are extremely reasonable 50 cents per minute for
the first 50 or 100 then 35 then 25 cents (There are actually a number
of different plans which include the base monthly rate and packages of
minutes so it is difficult to precicisely give details.)  And remember
these are Canadian cents!  Within Canada when in an out-of-town city
there are no roaming charges other than the obvious long distance
charges if you call back to your home district.  There are ROAM
numbers all throughout the system but these are little used as the
normal number can always get you in the country.

Then I go to the United States; (Minneapolis Minnesota) to be exact.
I notice from my roaming guide that there is service in both
Minneapolis and Rochester.  Since the town I am going to is half way
between on the major road between them, I figure there should be no
problem with service so I take my portable.  Needless to say, I was
extremely disappointed when 20 miles out of MSP, the phone goes
dead... not part of the service area!  I figure that this is because
Minnesota is a back water.  Then I travel from Detroit to Chicago the
next month and its tyhe same darn thing.  No problem in the major
cities, but get too far out of town and BANG -- no service.  How do
you guys live with it?  Of course, the big surprise was waiting for me
on my next bills when I get the roaming charges!!

Have you thought about complaining to the FCC about what is happening
in Cellular service?  After all, how could the Canadians be beating
you at something as simple as this??  (Lots of :-)'s and ;-)'s )


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm


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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 12:08:12 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  18-Apr-1990 1450" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Shack CT-300/301 and Nokia P-30


As an owner of a Nokia P-30 and a former owner of a Radio Shack CT-300
(the 666 channel version of the CT-301), as well as the service manuals
for both of them, I can provide facts:

>But [the setup code] may not be exactly the same. A Mobira saleperson
I >ran into said that the Radio-Shack unit is not a standard
Nokia/Mobira >model, though it's close.

It's very close.  The RS CT-300/301 and the Nokia P-30 are made in the
same plant in Korea.  And the code for going into setup mode is the
same in all three, and involves the original Radio Shack catalog
number for the CT-300.

>But to do most of the interesting ops, the R-S phone has to be put
>into a special "local" mode by grounding a pin on the battery pack
>with a certain resistance,

Nope.  Just has to be shorted, and this can be done with the battery
pack installed.

>[Moderator's Note: Actually, in the Radio Shack CT-301, which is the
>model you are referring to, the 'local mode' is entered through a very
>simple entry directly on the keypad.

_Actually_, Patrick, local mode does require the ground.  The mode you
are referring to only allows you to program the phone, not to do other
test operations available in local mode, such as taking signal
strength readings on specific cells' setup channels (which I often
provide to my carrier's engineering department when complaining about
service problems).

Both the RS and Nokia maintenance manuals are identical except for the
cover and the parts list at the end (different parts numbers for the
grey vs. black case, the keypads, and the battery pack and charger),
and both of them fully document setup and local mode.  The RS
maintenance manual costs $16, but the Nokia manual costs $30.

/john

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 13:07:23 mdt
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Mileage" Charge Question


I'm building a house in a small development 4 miles outside the
present city limits, and recently asked US West about initializing
phone service.

I was told that in addition to the usual one-time connection fees,
there would be a one-time "mileage" charge of $200 for the first line
(already paid by the developer).  I wasn't too surprised, since I know
it costs $$$ to run new cable.  But when I was told that there would
be an additional $450 fee for _each_ additional line, I nearly bruised
my jaw on the desktop.

I've lived in the city all my life.  How do these fees compare to
other rural areas?

Thanks,
John Parsons

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #264
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01816;
          20 Apr 90 2:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17512;
          20 Apr 90 0:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29289;
          19 Apr 90 23:21 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Apr 90 23:21:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #266
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Apr 90 23:20:53 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 266

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: London Area Code Change [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: London Area Code Change [John Pope]
    Another Area Code for New York City? [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: Phone Replacement [Daniel Senie]
    Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List [Lang Zerner]
    Re: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [John Higdon]
    Re: More on Coin Station Fraud Using Tone Spoofing [Karl Denninger]
    Re: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number [Skip Morris]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 09:10:02 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London Area Code Change
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


Concerning dialing U.K. city code 71 via ATT,  Joel Levin writes:

>AT&T continues to report as its error that "Due to the earthquake in
>the area you are calling, we are unable to complete your call."  I am
>curious to know if AT&T nationwide is reporting this peculiar
>condition, or if only we in the northeast are getting hearing about
>it.

Here San Francisco, dialing 011-44-71-974-0000# gets me the "Due to
the earthquake..." message too.  Using city code 81 instead of 71
gives me something like "Your international call cannot be completed
as dialed...."  which is the same message I get if I use city code 1,
presumably because 974-0000 is not a valid number.


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]

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

From: john pope <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London Area Code Change
Date: 19 Apr 90 14:30:40 GMT
Reply-To: john pope <[e-mail]>
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


I'll probably be lynched for sticking my head up but here goes:

On this side of the pond there's no problem dialing either

(0)1-254-xxxx or (0)71-254-xxxx, and similarly
(0)1-876-xxxx or (0)81-876-xxxx

From the provinces. I recently tried from Morocco and not only could I
not get a UK no., I could not get any (correct) number apart from some
obscure Moroccon banque - it was much easier to drive the 80km/50miles
to confirm the flight!

Perhaps the problem is at your end (some numbers, ie. the unallocated
new numbers, will be invalid).

There is at least one conversion programme I know of which tells you the
new number. If you haven't seen it already and I'm permitted to send it,
I will be happy to do so.

Perhaps then again I shouldn't have opened my news editor (especially
considering who I work for).


John Pope

 e-mail         [e-mail] (...mcvax!ukc!axion!jpope)
 'phone         UK [phone]
 Royal Mail     RT3114, BTRL Martlesham Heath, IPSWICH, Suffolk, UK
 in person      Room G24b SSTF

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

From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Area Code for New York City?
Date: 19 Apr 90 12:58:12 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ


I just heard on the news this morning that New York City will need a
third area code in three years (the area code they mentioned was 917,
but I thought that was already assigned?).

Despite the splitting off of Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens into
the 718 area code five years ago, the increase in telephone numbers due
to mobile phones and FAX machines is causing what is now 212
(Manhattan and the Bronx) to run out of central office codes.

The specifics of the split have not yet been determined.  According to
the news item, it could be as simple as just moving the Bronx to the
new area code, or having both area codes serve the same area, with the
new area code assigned to FAX machine and mobile phone numbers.


Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

From: Daniel Senie <samsung!uunet!lectroid!pwllheli![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Replacement
Date: 17 Apr 90 22:13:16 GMT
Reply-To: Daniel Senie <samsung!uunet!lectroid!pwllheli![e-mail]>
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


Having the misfortune to have dealt with four party service, I think I
can add something to this discussion. You are forbidden from hooking
up a phone to the line. BUT: You are allowed to use your own phone.
The TELCO will (for a fee, I believe) alter your telephone for four
party service.  Note that EACH phone on a four party service is wired
differently from the other three.

We did the wiring ourselves, and had no trouble. Since the phone was
rented from AT&T, it went back and that ended that. Since AT&T is no
longer connected to the local TELCO, the local folk got no report.

If you want additional phones in the house, you can pull the
appropriate wires so the bell doesn't ring.

A word of caution: DO NOT use electronic based phones. You need to be
able to get at the wiring to make the phone behave for the four party
service. Failure to do this will result in either no ringing or
ringing when any of the parties gets a call.

ALSO, never connect an answering machine to a party line. Someone did
this on our party line once. A quick call to the telephone company
yielded a man with a truck to CLIP THE WIRE to the offending house.


Daniel Senie               UUCP: uunet!lectroid!dts
Stratus Computer, Inc.     ARPA: [e-mail]
55 Fairbanks Blvd.         CSRV: 74176,1347
Marlboro, MA 01752         TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 18:24:32 PDT
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Minitel Access Phone Numbers List
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc.


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

>Okay, now that we have the MINITEL phone number lists, what do we do
>with them? All I get when I call is a # prompt that does nothing. Am I
>missing something (obviously, since I don't even really know what
>MINITEL is).

There is a free Minitel front end available for users of IBM PC, AT
and compatible machines which I have just obtained from a local BBS.
I will tar it and send it off to our moderator unless he requests
otherwise.  A Macintosh front end may also be available.  The only
voice contact number I have for Minitel (in the US) is 914/694-6266.

I've tried the front end.  Minitel is a no-minimum service
redistributor.  When you first log in, the system gets contact and
credit card info from you and gives you a temporary user ID and
password (permanent ID and password are mailed to you).  There is an
index of available services with rates set by the individual
providers.  You pay only for the services you use.  There is no charge
for examining the index of services.  Naturally, you are responsible
for the telco charges for connection to the Minitel system.

Like Prodigy, before Minitel will provide your temp ID and password,
you are walked through an on-screen agreement which does its best to
keep Minitel out of trouble.  You must type the word AGREE to get past
the last screen of the agreement or you are logged out of the system.
Unlike Prodigy, there is no minimum monthly fee; on the other hand,
there is no limit to what you can spend.

I did not have a chance to browse the service index, so I can't tell
you much more.  The front-end system is a little bit clumsy to use at
first, but it took me only a few minutes to grow accustomed to its
little quirks.


Be seeing you...

Lang Zerner

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ten New AT&T Direct Dial Countries
Date: 20 Apr 90 03:48:16 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, bcsaic![e-mail].
edu (Jeff Carroll) writes:

>And is there some reason why people in Minnesota want to call there?

>(Is Mayotte possibly out in the middle of Lake Superior?)


It's actually out in the middle of Lake Wobegon, isn't it?


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Date: 19 Apr 90 10:18:36 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> There are no COCOTs (non-telco pay phones) in Canada yet, so I don't
> have any horror stories about trying to get in touch with the owners
> of COCOTs to ask them to fix their phones. As I understand it, COCOTs
> tend to be located indoors, and hence are probably less likely to be
> vandalized than ones on streetcorners.

Sorry to report that the distribution of COCOTs relating to location
is similar to BOC phones. In other words, there are plenty of COCOTs
located in outdoor locations. One of the spotting techniques is to
look for funky walk-up enclosures.

There is, however, a greater percentage of COCOTs vandalized, for
reasons that should be obvious.


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

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

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Coin Station Fraud Using Tone Spoofing
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 16:14:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry
Lippman) writes:

Not to argue with Larry, but his description is in conflict with that
I have experienced around the country; including Michigan, Illinois,
Florida, and elsewhere.

>    After ACTS makes the announcement as to the amount of the coin
>deposit, the coin control trunk places +48 V (*positive* battery) on
>the ring side of the line, while connecting ground to the tip.  This
>action enables the totalizer for readout, and also operates the "B"
>relay in the totalizer which *disables* the speech network.  The coin
>control trunk then counts dual-tone pulses from one or more deposited
>coins until the proper amount is entered.

This is not in line with my experience.  Try it in your area of the
country; after the announcement, blow into the mouthpiece.  I've
always been able to hear sidetone (the echo of your noise), which
tells you the voice circuit is quite open!  If it wasn't, how would
you hear the recorded announcement?

Granted, the "mic" side wouldn't have to be open, but it always has been in
my experience.

The only exceptions, in the last five to seven years, have been in
GTE-served places that don't complete the "mic" circuit until you
deposit coins.  Those are real annoying, as your called party often
hangs up before you can finish depositing the local-call money
("Hello.... hello?  Click!") and leaves you with a call you paid for
but didn't get any utility from.

>If a preset time is exceeded before the required amount is deposited,
>the coin control trunk aborts the collection effort and the call,
>places a recorded announcement on the line, and refunds the coins
>deposited so far.

This is also not in line with my experience.  In my experience (which
occurs when I'm short of change!) after a short delay I'll get a
recording which says something to the effect of "deposit thirty more
cents for the first three minutes please", followed about fifteen
seconds later by a (live) operator who will repeat the request.  You
can then say "I don't got it" and change the billing to credit-card or
collect (the operator then refunds the already-collected money you had
inserted, presumably by manipulating the ring/tip voltages to tell the
phone to give back the cash).

>At this point, while the money is in the coin hopper, it has not been
>collected.  If answer supervision on the call is detected, the money
>is collected immediately after the call is completed.  If no answer
>supervision on the call is detected, the money is refunded when the
>handset is replaced.  Usually the collect or return function is
>delayed until the handset is replaced, but it *can* occur with the
>handset off-hook, and may do so in some CO's.

It usually is delayed.  The only exception I've seen is if you go
"overtime", in which case the CO will collect the funds you have
already deposited just prior to the (computer) voice coming on the
line to ask for more money.

>    The defense against fraud in the above scenario is that the
>speech network is disabled by the CO during the coin deposit interval,
>which precludes use of a tone generator held to the handset
>transmitter.

Again, not in my experience.  The speech circuit is muted DURING the
deposit of coins, presumably to prevent you from taping the coin
sounds locally.  But that muting doesn't occur until you actually
deposit the coin into the slot, and un-mutes immediately after the
tones are sent over the line.  You >can< hear them nonetheless,
although the level is low enough to be useless for anything other than
confirming that the coin didn't get stuck.

That doesn't stop someone from calling one pay phone from another and
taping from the >second< phone's handset.

>Furthermore, the CO apparatus will not "listen" for coin
>pulses until it is ready for them, so an attempt to introduce coin
>tones through the handset transmitter prematurely will fail.

Correct.

>An attempt to introduce coin tones late will also fail because the call
>has already been aborted following timeout.

Actually, you usually are connected to a real live operator at that
point, so attempting to introduce coin tones to defraud late will
probably bring the blue-and-red lighted cars to your location rather
quickly -- and you will then get what you deserve.  :-)

>    It is rather difficult to commit fraud under the above
>conditions, unless one has access to the tip *and* ring of the coin
>station line - a condition against which precautions are usually
>taken.  Mere access to one wire somewhere in the speech network, as
>from a pin poked through the transmitter, will not, to the best of my
>knowledge, facilitate any type of fraud with this coin station.

I've never seen one of these coin stations you have described.  In my
travels, which included Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Michigan,
Illinois, and many other states, all DTF (dial tone first) phones
operated by a Bell phone company behaved exactly as I have described
above -- both rotary and touch tone units.  The only exceptions have
been COCOTs and GTE-served units, which are often real strange (and
skilled at collecting money and delivering NOTHING to the caller).


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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 08:03:30 PDT
From: "Skip, @BUO/E54, DTN 249-4704" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number


>This weekend I got an automated call from some company offering a list
>of companies which would give me credit if I had trouble getting same.

>The return number they gave was a 900 number with a $19.95 usage fee.

>So.  How do I go about finding the address associated with a 900 number?

What I would do is to:

    1. Call the 900 number, ask to speak to a supervisor, and
inform them exactly why you don't intend to do business with them, and
additionally you don't intend to pay for this call. (Get the name of
the supervisor too.)

    2. When the phone bill comes refuse to pay that portion of the
bill that contains the charge for the 900 call.

The phone company will simply report the payment as "uncollectable" to
the 900 service.  If the 900 service sends you a bill (since the phone
company couldn't collect), refuse to pay it on the grounds you didn't
receive or make use of the service.

/Skip

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #266
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02229;
          20 Apr 90 2:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17512;
          20 Apr 90 0:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29289;
          19 Apr 90 23:21 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Apr 90 22:47:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #265
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Apr 90 22:45:54 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 265

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint Employee's Response to Mr. Higdon's Comments [via Steve Elias]
    Yet Another Sprint Comment [Joel B. Levin]
    Local Subsidies For LD Carriers [via Steve Elias]
    Symposium: Broadband Fiber to the Home and Office [Jane M. Fraser]
    Special Test Numbers [Joel B. Levin]
    ATT Billing via Local Telcos [David Barts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Employee's Response to Mr. Higdon's Comments
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 08:21:39 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[Hhere's a rather long response from our Sprint pal. He uses some
terminology below (PDD for one) that I don't understand.  eli]

     ---- begin forwarded (and slightly edited) text ---

It certainly would make sense that ATT should keep up with its
competition and do what's best for their customer base.  Had ATT been
proactively attending to these all important customers, making sure
that they were correctly suited with the proper products, there really
wouldn't have been a need for the largest customer in the country, the
Federal Government to even think about rebidding to redesign its
antiquated telephone network.  (The FTS contract was the largest
non-military contract ever awarded by the Federal Government).

Honestly, it is absolutely astonishing that this actually happened.  I
can assure you that Sprint was not chosen because we were the lowest
bidder (we weren't).  You would not believe the number of banded
circuits, a truly outdated product, which still exist out there.  I
personally consider this to be a serious deficiency in the area of
service.

In response to your statements concerning your test calls, I cannot
speak for MCI, (although I am sure that they are using digital).  I
can assure you that the entire US Sprint network is entirely digital.
I am sure that there are pockets of accessibility where we utilize the
facilities of other providers (MCI, AT&T, Lightnet)?  Canton, NC may very
well be one of those.  I know that Charleston, WV is one until we put
in our own point of prescence.  We are in the phase of fine tuning the
domestic network and I admit, during the past five years we have not
been able to amass the equivalent amount of route endpoints (central
office termination points) that ATT has amassed over the last 100
years.  But we're working on it.

You [Mr. Higdon] stated that call setup time was consistently three
times that of ATT for both MCI and Sprint.  I would have conceded this
without an argument two or three years ago but at present I have a
real hard time accepting it -- unless something is dreadfully wrong.
I am sure that we are originating and terminating in all likelihood
through a tandemed arrangement with the local telcos at both ends
simply because the number of central office specific termination
points we have to date is very limited.

In other words, you are probably going through anywhere from three to
eight central offices in the local networks on both ends during the
course of your call.  (I know specifically of a circuit in Houston
that does in fact go thru eight c.o's at 1.544mbs before getting to
the customer).  This of course adds to increased call setup time as
well as degraded line quality at times.  But we're working on these
situations and even so, the overall advantage that ATT has over us,
nationwide, according to the PDD tests that are run every month, is
less than one second for 10333 dialup access.

PDD tests that have been run out of my office to over 200 plus
responder numbers accross the country found that we did better than
those guys by a fraction of a second!  Hence, I think something else
is probably amiss.

I am however glad to find out that you receive good quality service
when you call the AT&T boys.  Coming from the customer service
environment myself originally, I feel that it is very important.  I
however, usually did not usually achieve as fortunate results when
interfacing with AT&T on behalf of my customers.  (In fact, in certain
instances involving a mutual customer for which AT&T was also the
equipment vendor, we uncovered blatant sabotage moves by the r-mats
guys, ie: not setting up the Sprint T1 for slip/error detection,
maintenance mode etc, while the megacom sitting behind it was.)  In
general, we are not ashamed to admit when we have a problem.

It would be silly to think that any carrier would be problem free.
And to that end, it is common practice for our acd customer service as
well as our star account customer service groups to recommend using
the 10288 carrier code.  The philosophy is that the most important
thing is that you get your calls through.  And quite honestly, we
don't have a problem referring you to the competition if that's what
needs to be done.  When you think about it, it makes good business
sense to piss you off as little as possible if you help pay our bills.
If I recall correctly, it took ATT approximately twelve hours to come
to this conclusion during their crisis.

I can't explain the reaction John got from the Sprint supervisor.  The
supervisor may be a bonehead; there are definitely some in this
company, as I'm sure there are in every company.  But then again,
maybe he just wanted to get off the phone with John because he didn't
understand why John was hassling him for recommending to use the
competition while he investigated your problem.  We are not perfect.
But overall, we try damned hard.  And all things considered, we still
have a lot to do, and a lot of our people still have a lot to learn,
but we're eons ahead of where we were just three years ago and we're
proud of it.  I assure you, we worry about all areas of the country
twenty-four hours a day.

We were given a lot of leeway to develop.  But then again, I don't
think you could beat a Harley with your ten-speed either.  And to be
perfectly honest with you, one of the primary reasons for divestiture
was to bring on the information age by pushing the deployment of new
technology thru competition (for this reason, Charlie Brown, former
chairman of ATT, eventually welcomed it).  Had AT&T aggressively
deployed the technology they admittedly had a large hand in developing
in the first place, there probably never would have been a
divestiture.

I know I sound like I'm knocking AT&T a lot, but it's obviously a
tremendous company.  It's just that with $36+ billion in annual
revenues, they should have been doing a hell of a lot more a long time
ago.  Therefore, I just don't think they are *the greatest*.  I have a
lot of respect for the Esreys and the Hensons and the Smiths
[executive dudes] of US Sprint for really taking the tremendous risks
that they did by sinking so much money into the "bleeding edge" of
technology (as it was referred to here in the early days) before even
making a dime.

I will leave you with one final note: we don't claim to be the best in
everything, but we are working to be.  And to that end, if you ever
want want a company to demonstrate superiority in video conferencing,
give us a call.  AT&T's Accunet reserve can't even come close.


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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yet Another Sprint Comment
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 08:52:48 EDT


Yet another comment on Sprint's quality of service:

I have been using Sprint casually for some years and switched to it as
default when they offered $25 of free calls for signing up for their
discount plan.  In the area of price, I have no basis for judging; I
went from no discount plan to an appropriate discount plan which is
surely an improvement regardless of which companies were involved.

In the area of performance, three things:

    (a) I have not suffered disconnection (on any LD company).

    (b) Audio performance is not so much better or worse that it calls
    itself to my attention; it has been acceptable, neither superb nor
    terrible, for all the companies since I stopped having to use
    FG-A(?) access (call a local number, get a tone, dial eighteen
    digits).

    (c) Connection time is noticeably longer with Sprint and MCI than
    with AT&T.  I timed calling Arizona from the click that "accepts"
    the number locally to the sound of distance on the line (you know
    when you have a trunk) before it starts to ring.  True, it's twice
    as long, but normally I don't care about four seconds instead of
    two.  (Ten instead of five I would probably notice.)

Of Mr. Higdon's possible reasons that he is getting such poor
performance from Sprint, I think the problem is most likely the
interface provided to Sprint by Pac*Bell in his area.  As to service,
I am sure that AT&T is best equipped and if one thinks one is likely
to require service, that is an important consideration.

    /JBL

Nets: [e-mail]
Pots: [phone]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 16:27:46 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[ from US Sprint employee  -- in response to someone who claimed
  the 'alternative' carriers had some sort of subsidy advantage
  with regard to local access charges for long distance calls. ]

Although it is true that AT&T did heavily subsidize the local telcos
before divestiture, it is absolutely incorrect to say that MCI and
Sprint did not have to "bake" these subsidies into our rate
structures.  All LD carriers, including Sprint and MCI are charged by
the telcos for the originating and terminating portions of every
single long distance call.  It has always been this way and remains so
today.

We pay a tremendous amount for access charges but interestingly
enough, it is vastly less expensive today than it was right after
divestiture.  I am fairly sure that when divestiture first became a
reality, the local telcos were not regulated too strictly with regard
to the level of access charges they could bill the L.D.  carriers
simply because there was no way to adequately break down the extremely
complicated system of cross-subsidization.  The Ma Bell operation
itself was not exactly efficient from the business perspective.  This
is evident from the numerous layoffs that have occurred within these
companies in the past several years.

It is also interesting to note that in recent months, the federal
Justice Department has ordered a number of operating companies, NYNEX
being one of them, to rebate a substantial amount of "overbilled"
access costs that were passed on to consumers (L.D. carriers are also
considered to be consumers).


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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 14:32:22 edt
From: "Jane M. Fraser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Symposium: Broadband Fiber to the Home and Office


The Center for Advanced Study (CAST) at the Ohio State University
announces a one-day symposium ``Broadband Fiber to the Home and
Office: Economic, Political and Cultural Implications."  The symposium
is May 15, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM on the OSU campus in Columbus.

Registration (including lunch) is $20.  Send a check made out to
CAST/OSU to CAST, 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH 43210-1271.

Parking is available at the Ohio Union Garage.

A nearby, reasonable hotel is the Holiday Inn on the Lane: 328 West
Lane, Columbus, 614-294-4848.

For more information, call Jane Fraser at 614-292-4129.

Preliminary program:

Morning session and lunch at The South Terrace, The Ohio Union, 1739
N. High Street.

8:00 AM - Coffee, juice, muffins.
8:30 AM - Welcome and introduction.
9:00 AM - ``Framing the Broadband Issues -- The Players and the Stakes."
          Robert Pepper, Acting Chief, Office of Plans and Policy,
          Federal Communications Commission.
11:00 AM- Top industry spokesperson look at the issues. Speakers include:
          Barry Nelson, Senior Director of Broadband Technologies,
          Ameritech Services.
          Cable industry representative.
          Chuck Sherman, Senior Vice President, Television NAB.
12:30 PM- Lunch.

Afternoon session is at The Wexner Center for the Visual Arts, 30 West
15th Avenue (short distance from the morning session).

1:30 PM - ``Framing the Cultural and Social Issues -- New Technologies
          in Old Bottles." James Carey, Dean, College of Communication,
          University of Illinois.
3:00 PM - The Year 2010 -- which future will emerge for broadband fiber
          to the home and office. Academic, industry and government
          researchers respond to possible broadband futures. Panelists
          include:
          John M. Fraser, Telecommunciations consultant, Bell Labs, Hughes
          Communication Satellites, retired.
          Raymond W. Lawton, Associate Director, National Regulatory
          Research Institute.
          P.T. Lele, Telecommunications marketing consultant, AT&T, retired.
          Christopher H. Sterling, George Washington University.

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Test Numbers
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 08:55:28 EDT


New England Telephone (well, at least eastern Mass. and southern New
Hampshire) seems to like area code 200 for this function.  Twenty
years ago, I think you could get your own number in Cambridge
identified by dialing a three digit code (225 sounds right) if you
were on an older switch (one that could still have letters in the
exchange).  About the time Harvard went Centrex the rest of Cambridge
modernized to ESS of various types.  We somehow discovered that
1-200-NXX-XXXX provided the function; probably the seven digits were
irrelevant, but we assumed the NXX had to look legal.  As far as I can
tell this is still true.

When I moved to Dunstable, Mass. (Tyngsborough exchange 617-649, now
508-649) in 1983, the above number didn't work.  However, a friendly
NET installer putting in my second line told me that while it was
supposed to work, the number that did work was 200-2622.  As far as I
know this is still the case.

Now I'm in New Hampshire (603-880), it took me a long time to figure
it out (a little bit of "Duhh!" factor, if you know what I mean).
Whenever I dialed 1-200-NXX-XXXX I got a recording that said I had to
dial a 1 to call beyond the local area!  Finally I got wise and dialed
200-NXX-XXXX and got my number back.  (1 is required on all L.D.
calls.)

Ringback is a different proposition.  Everywhere I have been in
eastern Mass it has been (a) dial 981-XXXX (where XXXX MUST BE THE
SAME as the calling phone's last four digits); (b) receive a tone
(maybe dial tone) (c) dial a digit or pulse the line (d) hang up and
listen to the ringing.  In some places, if at (b) you received a
standard DTMF dial tone you could dial all the digits on the keypad in
a certain order and receive back two pulses in the dial tone to
signify correct reception.  Here in NH I always receive a standard
busy signal when I try 981- plus my last four digits.

    /JBL

Nets: [e-mail]
Pots: [phone]
63

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 10:00:19 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT billing via local telcos


Patricia O'connor writes:

> Until divestiture, the local companies did the billing for AT&T long
> distance, so there were no billing mechanisms in place.  Since then,
> AT&T has built some financial centers and intends (last I heard) to
> begin doing their own billing soon.  Meantime, AT&T contracts billing
> from the local companies.

Well, billing via the local telco is *the main reason* that ATT is my
long distance company.  Less bother, paperwork, and postage stamps for
me to hassle with.  If ATT starts doing their own billing, I'll just
switch to Metromedia<>ITT or Sprint, thank you.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #265
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03814;
          20 Apr 90 3:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10879;
          20 Apr 90 1:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac17512;
          20 Apr 90 0:29 CDT
Date:     Fri, 20 Apr 90 0:17:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #267
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Apr 90 00:17:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 267

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Service in Canada [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Phone Service in Canada [Jeff Wasilko]
    Why Cellular is Screwed Up in the U.S. [John R. Covert]
    Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming [Rob Warnock]
    Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Service in Canada
Date: 19 Apr 90 10:30:02 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes:

> Have you thought about complaining to the FCC about what is happening
> in Cellular service?  After all, how could the Canadians be beating
> you at something as simple as this??  (Lots of :-)'s and ;-)'s )

This is one of those cases where we diehard supporters of the free
enterprise system have to look the other way. Since the implementation
of cellular service has been a project of private enterprize, first to
last, the inferior service we have in the US is much to be expected.

Considering the capital expenditure to set up cellular systems, you
would have to expect that investors want large returns quickly. This
means putting efforts in large population centers and more or less
ignoring the backwoods. Eventually, this could change as companies see
new revenue opportunities from say, traffic on I-15 between LA and Las
Vegas. Or if they are forced to respond to heat from subscribers who
are tired of the limited use of their phones.

The terms "universal service" and "private enterprise" are largely
mutually exclusive. Since cellular is regarded as anything but a
necessity, one of the last concerns of the FCC would be whether the
service is comprehensive or convenient.


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

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 17:47:02 EDT
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Service in Canada


In his posting to the Digest, Marcel D. Mongeon talked about the
large coverage area that Cantel provides.

The reason that US coverage isn't as good right now, is that the FCC
only sold licenses (or whatever) for the the metro areas. Now that the
Rural Service Area (RSA) lottery has been held, I'm sure that the US
metro situation will improve.

This will be a godsend for the upstate NY area, where there is almost
complete coverage from Buffalo to Albany on the Celluar One network.
Right now, there is a brief period between cities where calls can't be
placed, or are dropped.  When the rural sites are up and running, it
should be possible to drive from Buffalo to Albany without re-placing
the call.

Also, as it stands right now, Cellular One customers can have their
calls automatically follow them in any of the Empire cities (Buffalo,
Rochester, Syracuse/Rome/Utica*, Albany). If the customer chooses,
they can also be paged over the Cantel network.

*(While Syracuse/Rome/Utica are a Cellular One affiliate, they are not
owned by the same company as Buffalo, Rochester and Albany. Due to
this and the fact that they are using Motorola switches instead of
those Swedish wonders (-: Ericsson, the paging system is a bit more
clunky and troublesome. The interface to Cantel is very clean due to
their usage of Ericsson switches.

This mini-follow me roaming package costs $9.95/month, and gives
discounted roam rates in the Empire area ($.55/min, no per day
charge), 50 free minutes of long distance (which almost/does cover the
$9.95 cost, depending on usage) and the full Roam America Caller
Notification and Transparent Call Forwarding.)


Jeff

| RIT VAX/VMS Systems: |     Jeff Wasilko     |     RIT Ultrix Systems:     |
|BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:[e-mail]|
|UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:[e-mail]____+
|INTERNET: [e-mail]                |'claimer: No one cares.      |

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 15:25:41 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  19-Apr-1990 1756" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Cellular is Screwed Up in the U.S.


>Have you thought about complaining to the FCC about what is happening
>in Cellular service?

Yes.  But it will do little good.  There are two parts to the problem.
The first part is the lack of coverage outside major metropolitan
areas.  The second part is the lack of interconnection between the
systems in different areas.

The FCC bears the full responsibility for the first part.  Unlike
Canada, where the decision was made to grant the cellular licenses for
the "B" carrier to the local phone company and a nationwide "A"
carrier license to CanTel, the FCC decided to go through either a
competitive bidding process or a lottery in each of several hundred
metropolitan service areas (MSAs) followed by a lottery in each of
several thousand rural service areas (RSAs).

The MSAs were all licensed a few years ago, and by now, both carriers
are operating in almost all of them.  The RSAs were only licensed
within the past few months, and construction will not begin for
another three or four months, until an appeals period ends.

Judge Greene bears most of the responsibility for the second part.
One of the restrictions placed on Baby Bell companies as part of the
break up of the Bell System is a prohibition on carrying inter-LATA
traffic.  This means that, except in a few cases where the Justice
Department has granted waivers, a cellular company owned by one of the
RBOCs is prohibited from networking with adjacent systems outside the
LATA.

For example: The "A" carriers from Connecticutt to Delaware are fully
networked, even though this involves more than five different
companies.  However, this interconnection ends before reaching Boston
or Balto-Wash, because in both of these cities the "A" carrier is
Southwestern Bell, doing business under the name Cellular One.  On the
other hand, the Justice Department _did_ grant a waiver to NYNEX to
operate a single system which covers all of two LATAs (Eastern Mass
and Rhode Island) and part of another (Rockingham County, NH).  But
permission has been denied to interconnect with Contel in Hillsborough
County, NH.

I have written to Judge Greene, to the FCC, and to Senators and
Representatives about the problem.  The only reply I've received was
from Fritz Hollings, who wrote to tell me that cooperation between the
carriers would end the problem.  I wrote back and pointed out that the
carriers were being prohibited from cooperating, and that NYNEX and
Contel were simply waiting for an approval from Judge Greene to
connect their fully compatible systems together.  Fritz again replied
that he believed that cooperation would solve the problem.  I also
called the chief of the mobile services division of the FCC, who was
amazed that there was a consumer who understood the problem or even
cared, but told me that it was not the FCC's prerogative to override
the rulings of a federal judge.

There is one more element to the interconnection problem, and it's
evident in Canada as well, on the "B" carrier side.  Cellular switches
from different manufacturers are not yet technically fully compatible.
A standard called "IS 41" is being worked on by several switch
manufacturers and is in early implementation stages.  So far it only
addresses hand-off from one system to another, but in another few
years it should address call delivery.

I don't expect the cellular mess in the U.S. to be straightened out
before 1995.


/john

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 18:26:34 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones


[e-mail] (Michael Fetzer) writes:

>I may be mistaken, but I think I've made the observation that cellular
>phones are much cheaper to own and operate in the Pacific North West
>(read: Portland, OR) than in California (read Sandi Eggo).

It is my understanding that the California PUC has outlawed kickbacks
for "contracts", but U.S. West is still appearantly paying a
"commission" for each "new number".  The contract we signed when we
got our service didn't have a minimum time associated with it.
However, the price of the phone would lead be to believe that we
didn't provide the dealer with all his profit.


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 03:45:25 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Reprogramming
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> Rob Warnock <[e-mail]> and
the Moderator write:

| ...But to do most of the interesting ops, the R-S phone has to be put
| into a special "local" mode by grounding a pin on the battery pack
| with a certain resistance, which *cannot* be done (at least, not very
| easily) with the standard battery installed -- you have to use a
| special bench power supply that plugs in where the battery goes, and
| accesses extra pins the battery doesn't pass through to the outside.

| [Moderator's Note: Actually, in the Radio Shack CT-301, which is the
| model you are referring to, the 'local mode' is entered through a very
| simple entry directly on the keypad. This code which you enter on the
| keypad includes the five digit security code (12345) when it comes
| from the factory. But the five digit security code itself is one of
| the parameters you can set while in local mode. And the schematics and
| other technical data you can get on this unit does not include the
| programming stuff....

Well, I have the CT-301 Service Manual (catalog number
17-1050/604/602) right here, which I bought quite openly from my local
Radio Shack by simply asking them to order it for me, and I have a
CT-301 Model 17-1050 in my hand, and the service manual *does* contain
the "programming stuff".

And to do anything but function 48 (NAM programming), you do in fact
have to ground the LOCAL line (and then type a short code given in the
book).  [If someone knows differently *for sure*, please let me know.
There are some read-only things I'd like to get to from the keyboard
-- see below.]  Maybe the confusion was over what I considered "most
of the interesting ops".

It is true that the 15-key-sequence-which-includes-your-security-code
(call this "key-local" mode?) can be done without grounding LOCAL, and
it gets you straight to function 48 (NAM programming), and that lets
you examine/change:

    - home system identification (5 digits)
    - access method (1 or 0)
    - local control option (1 or 0)
    - mobile number (10 digits)        a.k.a. "NAM"
    - home paging channel (3 dig)
    - overload class (2 dig)
    - group identification (2 dig)
    - security code (5 dig)

But there are another 32 (documented) functions besides NAM
programming, which *do* require the hardware grounding of LOCAL, and
do such "interesting" things as:

    - ROAST: Transmits at maximum power on Channel 1 until you hit "END"
    - LOAD-SYNTH: Type in a 4-digit channel number to select
    - SET-ATTN: Select R.F. power level (0-8) [seems to be ~4dB steps up
      to the max for the unit, which for the CT-301 is step 6 = 480 mW]
    - DTMF: Type a digit or # or * and get continuous DTMF until "END"
    - IC test: continuously test RAM, serial number, and NAM memories.
    - Display the output of an A/D converter on one of:
        - Battery
        - Xmt power
        - Rcv signal
        - STAT (a wire that external options pull on with various R's)
    - Display the manufacturer ID and serial number (NIM?)
    - Turn on&off various things: TX audio path, RX audio path,
      external speaker, external mike, loudspeaker volume, supervisory
      audio tone, etc.
    - Display the locking code
    - Activate continuous transmission on the data sub-channel of a
      48-bit test pattern
    - Channel flip: set synthsizer alternately to channels 991 and 799
    - Display software version & date

Obviously, many of these can do anti-social (and/or illegal) things
unless your antenna is terminated in a dummy load. But I was just a
lttile bit disappointed that harmless things things like "display A/D
converter" couldn't be done from the keyboard: I'd really like to be
able to know how the battery was doing sooner than the infamous
"3-minute warning" chirps you get (when the battery drops below 7.0
volts).

And receive carrier level might help one to know whether the weird
reception you're getting is from a weak signal or from bad multipath.
Etc...


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 23:57:07 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones


Something of interest has been noted about Cellular One service in
Chicago, and perhaps someone has an answer.

I think I am correct in saying that when you place a call on a
cellular unit, both the phone number (easily changeable by experienced
users) and the serial number (usually not so easily changeable) are
transmitted to the carrier. If the serial number is on a 'hot list',
or otherwise does not match up on the carrier's records, then the call
is denied.  Right so far?

Reports have reached me that certain telephone numbers at Cellular One
here (and perhaps other carriers?) are set to *not bother checking serial
numbers*, but to simply accept the transmission and place the call.

Tests showed that when the phone (in this case, a CT-301) was
otherwise 'properly' programmed to show Cellular One as the home
carrier -- meaning the Home Default was set to 00001 -- and the phone
number programmed were certain numbers on prefixes assigned to that
carrier, calls both into and out of the phone were processed without
question!

If someone from a landline dialed the newly programmed number, the
cell phone rang. If the cell phone made a call out, it was processed.
In many cases, long distance access was restricted, however, for lack
of choosing an LD carrier.  In the test, the cell phone would then be
immediatly programmed to another number in the same exchange, the
landline would dial that number, and the same thing would happen.

On most Cellular One lines, the serial number obviously was checked,
since the cell phone dialing a number would result in a tower picking
up the call, followed by perhaps five seconds of air time and then the
tower would drop the connection. But that handful of numbers, in both
the 312 and 708 areas would always place calls and receive calls, no
questions asked, provided the cell phone at least was programmed to
give the same phone number.

Any ideas why some numbers are apparently exempt from serial number
checks? Could it be they are used by employees at Cellular One who
want to be able to use several phones at their disposal without having
to reprogram the system each time?  Could it be the 'free lines' are
used for promotional purposes by dealers who would have several phones
to demonstrate, each with different serial numbers?  What about
numbers used for temporary assignment to roamers in the area using
something like Ameritech's 'follow me' and 'Fast Track' services?
There is no practical way to check serials on those lines either, is
there?

Of the lines found which are apparently not checking serial numbers,
some, but not all, were found to have a subscriber identified with the
line. This was noted when a landline dialing the number while the
experimental cell phone was turned off reached a voicemail box of
someone. Yet, turn the phone on, and subsequent incoming calls came to
the falsely programmed phone.

Ideas and comments welcome.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #267
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08657;
          20 Apr 90 5:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18525;
          20 Apr 90 3:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26812;
          20 Apr 90 2:35 CDT
Date:     Fri, 20 Apr 90 1:46:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #268
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Apr 90 01:46:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 268

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Credit Card ID [John Higdon]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: The Card [Tom Neff]
    Re: The Card [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card (I Received It!) [John Braden]
    Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For? [Carl Moore]
    Re: LD Billing Tale [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground [David Leibold]
    Request For Switch Manufacturers [C. David Covington]
    716-789 in Steadman, NY [Carl Moore]
    A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? [Brad Templeton]
    WANTED: BBS Near Monroe, Michigan [Jan Steinman]
    Area Code 917 in New York City [David Tamkin]
    Specials This Weekend [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Date: 18 Apr 90 12:26:36 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]> writes:

> When I'm in the U.S. and am asked to write down my number on a charge
> slip, I always write "011 81 3 237 5868".  Not once has anyone said
> anything.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but over the years I have put my
true and correct [listed] phone number on charge slips. Two calls have
resulted from this "naive" practice. One was from the merchant who
requested that I return to the store *at my convenience* to have my
card run through again because the number had been mutilated. When I
went back, he showed me the slip and tore it up in my presence and
imprinted another slip. Completely legit.

The other was from the restaurant that I had patronized. The caller
wanted to inform me that I had left my cellular phone in the booth and
that it was being held at the podium for me.

Have people really had bad experiences in putting phone numbers on
charge slips?


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

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

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Date: 19 Apr 90 19:18:40 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


>[Moderator's Note: The way I usually avoid this is to tell them I
>don't have a phone.

I just write 555-1212


Steve Wolfson
uunet!motcid!wolfson


[Moderator's Note: Has anyone ever questioned this at all?   PT]

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 19 Apr 90 02:54:42 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


I wonder if you could put something like clear nail polish or epoxy on
top of the embossed calling card number on THE CARD and thus keep it
from appearing on pressure sensitive charge slips.  If it's not
officially required as part of the transaction, it shouldn't matter.


[Moderator's Note: I wonder if you could get in trouble on the federal
level for tampering with a credit card to change the manner in which
it prints out?  I've seen cases where people tried to blitz the part
of the imprint which gave the (long since passed) expiration date of
the card. I'd be careful about using a credit card I had altered in
any way.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 08:05:03 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


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

>Since the number is embossed, it is likely to show up on imprints made
>of The Card, spreading calling card numbers (or their base phone
>number) that many people would like to keep private.

My calling card number is not the same as my phone number, and I can't
imagine why I should care if other people get it.  The PIN is not
printed on the card, and although I haven't received my PIN yet, I
expect it will be at least four digits, which, although not perfectly
secure, seems like it would be good enough.  N'est pas?


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

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

From: <samsung!uunet!lectroid!lincoln.hw.stratus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card (I Received It!)
Date: 16 Apr 90 17:48:54 GMT
Reply-To: John Braden <samsung!uunet!lectroid!lincoln![e-mail]>
Organization: Stratus Computer, Hardware Engineering


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

>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
 ...
>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.

I also received my card, and agree it's a good deal, but there is one
item in the small print which made me sit up & take notice.  Failure
to pay the minimum amount due by the due date results in a "late
charge" of $10.00 (in addition to any interest which may be due).
This could come as a nasty shock to those of us who occasionally
procrastinate a little too long in getting the payment in the mail.
You would need a balance of $635.00 to rack up $10.00 in interest (at
18.9%), so get those payments in on time!!!

At least I'll now have access to all of those blue AT&T card-only
phones which seem to be popping up in convention centers & airports...
There are places my MCI card just won't work.


    John Braden, Stratus Computer, Marlboro, Massachusetts
    [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 14:11:56 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are All the x11/x00 Numbers For?


I believe 511 was used, at least in Philadelphia, for information
regarding the Bicentennial in 1976.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD Billing Tale
Date: 20 Apr 90 04:01:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> ....  This is one reason AT&T is so hungry to sign up
> Universal card holders; when billing through the local telco, they
> cannot use the bills for direct mail marketing.  When Universal card
> holders receive their bills, they can count on getting
> ATT-revenue-generating tips and suggestions for making their lives
> better.

When we get billed by NJ Bell, they include the MCI inter-lata billing
on a separate page.  We always get two stuffers: one from NJ Bell, and
one from MCI.  Are you trying to tell us that NJ Bell is unwilling to
stuff for AT&T but they'll stuff for MCI?


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: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Station Fraud Using External Ground
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Leibold)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 03:36:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Colin
Plumb) writes:

>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 didn't believe this, so I just tried it (the pay phone in question
>is [phone], on the third floor of the University of Waterloo
>math building), and it doesn't seem to work.  Calling 885-1211 by
>tapping it out on the switchhook (the university switchboard; it
>should give me a recording saying they open in the morning) waits for
>seven digits and gives me fast busy.  So does dialling the same thing
>using the touch-tone pad.

It used to be that the Northern Telecom payphones would allow coinless
calls to operator, 411, 611, 911 by allowing only the first three
digits to be dialed before cutting off the connection. In some areas
where 4104 is used for repair, this was four digits. Because of the
timing of the switchook used in the payphones, it wasn't terribly
possible to pulse out anything other than '1' (ie. attempting to pulse
out a '2' resulted in disconnection, or '11', or just a long '1').

Thus, if K-W payphones allowed for four digits, getting to 885.1211
would have been possible.  However, Bell Canada cut over the payphones
using this method on the 88x exchanges (which were crossbar) onto new
digital 746 numbers. This meant that the 411, 611, etc pass-through
would be done at the switch and no longer at the payphone. Thus, the
fast busys when a local number was attempted (the switch needs to be
pacified with coin signals).

Areas that used to have digit-absorbing step-by-step systems could be
prone to this kind of bypass, depending on how many digits were
allowed, and how many 1's in the number.

(A side effect is that, if long distance calls were dialable, you
would need coin deposit first).

Meanwhile, perhaps someone should take the trouble to tell Northern
Telecom that the Canadian Mint has just introduced dollar coins. They
have only been out for the past two or three years or so, with much
advance fanfare. Meanwhile, Bell has been busy fitting many of their
Toronto area phones with metal touch tone keypads (perhaps to go along
with the changeover requiring the area code to be dialed within 416??).

Meanwhile, in Australia, I know someone travelling through there who
had stories about payphones that allowed overseas calls to go through
without charge or interruption. This situation was apparently fixed up
eventually.


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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 17:06:43 -0400
From: "C. D. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For Switch Manufacturers


I would like a list of switch manufacturers with call processing
capability.  The switch can be either analog or digital.  I am
particularly interested in low-end machines (read cheap).


C. David Covington (WA5TGF)      [e-mail]    [phone]
Asst Prof, Elec Eng              Univ of Arkansas       Fayetteville, AR 72701

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 22:03:20 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: 716-789 in Stedman, NY


Does anybody know where Stedman, NY is?  I cannot find it in the
Buffalo, NY area, and I'm rather limited by distance in my access to
phone books for western New York state.  I'd ap- preciate receiving
mailing addresses for places served by that exchange (it does not
necessarily mean that I will call, write, or visit such).

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

Subject: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 2:04:30 EDT
From: Brad Templeton <[e-mail]>


Can anybody suggest a good introductory work (if any exists) on the
nuts and bolts of telecom and particularly datacom these days?  I
don't work directly in that industry, so I've had to learn everything
hit and miss.

Or if there isn't one, perhaps somebody might write a short one for
the TELECOM Digest.

For example, I know what a T-1 is (1.54 mb/s digital circuit) but just
how is it implemented in a physical sense in most places?  What sort
of modems, if you can call them that at that speed, interface to hard
physical wires and send data along at those speeds?  How do those
modems talk to computers?  (Only through special interfaces, I assume,
but what are they like?)  What about at the lower speeds of 56 kbps
and ISDN's 64kbps?

I have a 4 wire unconditioned line from my office to my house that I
run at 4800 bps using some cheap pseudo-modems.  What can you pull out
of these 4 wire circuits?  Are there modems that give you 56 kbps out
of them?  If not, how does Bell do it at their overpriced rate?  What
are the different types of conditioning that go on a line?  What kind
of equipment multiplexes these faster lines to share them and how does
it work?  How do smaller networks work that establish "points of
presence" in telco switching offices and then lease out lines to
customers connected to that office?

etc., etc. etc.  Too many questions to ask in one posting, which is
why I wonder if there's a book of some sort...

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

From: Jan Steinman <[e-mail]>
Subject: WANTED: BBS Near Monroe, Michigan
Date: 18 Apr 90 18:58:08 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.


I just bought my Dad a Mac XL and modem, and would like a few BBS
numbers in southeast Michigan so he can bootstrap into the wonderful
world of computer bulletin boards.

Although I subscribed to the groups queried, please reply via email,
since this is not of general interest.  I'll forward what I discover
to anyone expressing interest.  Thanks!

               Jan Steinman - N7JDB
              Tektronix Electronic Systems Laboratory
          Box 500, MS 50-370, Beaverton, OR 97077
             (w)503/627-5881 (h)503/657-7703

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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 17:33 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code 917 in New York City


There have been news reports today that, like Los Angeles's need for
area code 310, New York City may require a third area code to
accommodate the growing numbers of beeper, fax, modem, and cellular
numbers.  NYTel apparently has NPA 917 reserved already.

There was no mention of which geographic areas or which types of
customers would get the new area code.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCIMail:426-1818  GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN  CIS:73720,1570

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 0:27:22 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Specials This Weekend


One of the special issues planned for this weekend is the Spring, 1990
issue of [Telesat Report], forwarded to us by Dave Leibold (woody).
You will receive your copy sometime Saturday.

'Larry the Lid', as he is now known :) agreed to greatly reduce and
edit his response to the rebuttal from Mr. DeArmond. On publication,
that will make two each: DeArmond's original article, Lippman's reply,
DeArmond's rebuttal, and Lippman's rebuttal. And that will close the
topic.  This will also be a special issue, to be filed wherever you
keep these things.

Another topic being closed at this time: 'The Card', and variants.
This is not a forum to discuss credit card billing practices, and in
the past few days over a dozen messages have had to be declined and
returned to the senders because they were at best marginally related
to telecom. No offense, folks, but misc.consumers is a better forum
for it.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #268
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10328;
          20 Apr 90 6:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02967;
          20 Apr 90 4:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18525;
          20 Apr 90 3:40 CDT
Date:     Fri, 20 Apr 90 2:35:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #269
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Apr 90 02:35:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 269

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    FTS 2000 Privacy Issues [Will Martin]
    Re: Radio Shack CT-300/301 and Nokia P-30 [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [John Higdon]
    You Asked To Be Reminded [Tom Ace and the Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 13:21:48 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTS 2000 Privacy Issues


Ran across the following short piece while scanning this
several-issues-back periodical prior to disposing of it; thought the
list might find this interesting:

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER NEWS, March 5, 1990, p. 24:

FTS 2000 POSES PRIVACY PROBLEMS

By S. A. Masud, GCN Staff

The General Accounting Office has recommended the development of a
policy to protect the privacy of federal employees because FTS 2000
will track individual long-distance calls closely.

Unlike the old Federal Telecommunications System, which the General
Services Administration is phasing out, the new one generates
call-detail records with much more information about individual
employees' telephone calls, a recent GAO report said.

The new system's database will record for all calls placed through the
system the calling number, the number called, the time, date, and
duration of the call and the location of the number called.

The availability of the detail records could cause legal conflict, GAO
reported. The Freedom of Information Act could cause some call detail
records to be made public. At the same time, the Privacy Act could
allow agencies to protect such information.

GSA, in light of the privacy concerns, has indicated to GAO that the
FTS 2000 contractors could omit the last four digits of called numbers
from the call detail reorts.  However, this would be contrary to federal
requirements that agencies maintain enough details of transactions to
support their expenditures and permit audits of the transactions, the
report pointed out.

GSA has established an advisory committee to consider whether the agency
should issue guidelines regarding the privacy of call detail records.

***End of article***

As a federal employee, I find this sort of mystifying.  All
long-distance calls are already supposed to be solely on government
business, and we are supposed to log (on paper) and report each month
to our supervisor's office any and all LD calls made, including
WATS-line calls; these records are then bounced against the
telco-provided LD billing and any LD calls billed for but not so
reported show up on a list and have to be justified.  If it turns out
to have been a personal call, not only does the employee have to
reimburse the gov't for the cost of the call, but there is also a
surcharge ($7 or $15, I forget which) as a penalty and to cover the
bookeeping costs.

So all the data cited above is already being kept. Actually more, because
the calling individual's name is on our reporting now, in addition to
all the data listed in the article.

Maybe this is because DoD always was more hard-nosed about this than
the civil agencies?  I suppose the people at HUD who were lining their
pockets with embezzled funds didn't stay virtuous about using their
phones...  :-) And when you get up to upper-level political-appointee
managers, I guess the line between what is "official" and what isn't
gets pretty fuzzy.


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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 05:36:31 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-300/301 and Nokia P-30
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Covert  18-Apr-1990 1450) writes:

| As an owner of a Nokia P-30 and a former owner of a Radio Shack CT-300


You may be interested in the scheme I devised for deep-discharging the
batteries to "cure" them of memory problems. Since the phone warns you
at 7 volts, and since the really sharp knee in the discharge curve is
down below the phone's cutoff voltage of 6.4 [I have seen a badly
"memorized" battery hold at 5.7 volts for an hour at ~100ma
discharge(!)  before it suddenly sagged for real], the batteries can
easily develop the classic NiCd "memory" problem, which is a sudden
drop of about a volt just as you hit the spot in the curve where you
stopped the last several discharge cycles (curve not completely to
scale):

    7.9 |+
        |+
    7.7 | +                                            "true"
        |   +                                         discharge
    7.3 |       +   +   +   +   +  +                      |
        |                           +                     V
    6.9 |                             +    +    +   +   +
        |                                                 +
    6.5 |                            A                     +
        |                            |                     +
    6.3 |                         "memory"                 +

Unfortunately, that one volt drop can often look to the phone like low
battery (or even "shut down"), so if you recharge it just as it starts
"chirp"ing, it just reinforces the problem. The most noticable symptom
is that the batteries "just don't seem to keep a charge like they used
to". So every so often, one should discharge the batteries down below
the "real" knee.

WARNING: Never discharge a multi-cell NiCd battery below about 1.0 * (N - 1)
     volts, N = #cells (6 for the CT-301 ==> 5.0v), or one of the
     cells might become reverse-biased, which really *can* damage
     it permanently.

Anyway, I discovered that when the phone (or just the battery by
itself) was plugged into the charging stand, two of the pins on the
RJ-45 on the back (that normally goes to the "hands free" interface)
are connected to the battery (which is convenient, since the actual
battery connector is so weird). So I cobbled together a few resistors
and LEDs on a piece of perf-board, and put a modular plug on the end.
Sort of like this:

   +V --+-------+-------+-------+-------+
        |    |    |    |    |"+5"
    \    \    \    \    \
    / 330    / 680    / 1k    / 1.5k    /       40 ohm 2 watt, made out of
    \    \    \    \    \ <--- a 16-pin "220/330" terminator
<-- to     /    /    /    /    /      resistor pack == 550 / 14 ohms
 RJ-45  |    |    |    |    |"GND"        (gets HOT!)
    +-->|---+-->|---+-->|---+-->|---+--+
       Red     Red    Green   Green    |
       LED     LED     LED     LED     |
                       |
   -GND -----------------------------------+

When you plug this into the charging stand -- WITH THE A.C. ADAPTER
INPUT CABLE DISCONNECTED -- for a fully charged battery, all four LEDs
come on (maybe a little too much). If the phone has started "chirp"ing
about low-battery, the leftmost red LED will be out (or nearly).  When
the battery's down to about 5 volts, both red LEDs will be out, but
the greens will still be on. STOP HERE! (DON'T let either of the green
LEDs go out.) Then unplug the RJ-45, and plug in the A.C. adapter
power cord, and charge normally.

This "treatment" will cure a battery, and you'll start getting the
full 16 hours of standby time again ... until a few more cycles go by.
Then it's time for another treatment.

Radio Shack *says* they're coming out with a discharging accessory
"real soon now".  Theirs will probably have some shut-off protection
against discharging too far, which my little kludge doesn't. You have
to check on it every 10 minutes or so. (I have forgotten, and in fact
have discharged a battery "way down", without apparent ill effects...
but I may have been lucky. Don't risk it yourself!)

Similar "dischargers", adjusted for battery voltage and drain, can be
built for nearly any device that uses NiCd batteries, and can
substantially increase the battery's apparent life.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service
Date: 19 Apr 90 02:13:46 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]> writes:

> $23/month. The 'Business Club' rate is $40/mo, .45 cents/min daytime.

My "Business Club" bill shows the monthly at $39.

> The bill itself is a standard telephone bill. I was charged Federal
> tax, but no state tax. No 911, Deaf Devices or Univeral (cheap service
> subsidy) taxes.  Also, no FCC Access chages, even though I can call
> long distance. I was charged City tax, but Hayward (California) has no
> city tax. Forgot to ask about this...

Don't know about the city tax, but since GTE Mobilnet is not a LEC, it
is not obligated to collect for 911, Deaf, Lifeline subsidy, or FCC
Access charges. Remember, the FCC Access charges have nothing to do
with whether you call long distance or not, but rather to subsidize
and protect the revenues of local telcos. GTE Mobilnet is not a local
telco.

> Peak, Off-Peak, and Night ... but GTE has no night rate! Maybe something
> in the future? I racked up 2 hours off peak and 1/2 hour peak (a lot
> more than I expected!).

No one offers a "night rate" in California. The airtime rates, the
same for both Bay Area providers, have not changed since day one. BTW,
cellular usage racks up quickly, doesn't it?

> I assume they're using
> a standard billing service that other companies also use (some
> companies bill in 6 second increments).

GTE does its own billing, as well as the billing for Cellular One, the
other provider.

> The 'City Called' for my phone shows up as Palo Alto, but Pac Bell
> shows it in their TOPS operator database as Oakland, and it shows as a
> toll call (calls to both celluar carriers are considered 'toll-free'
> from the celluar coverage area, basically all of the San Francisco
> LATA). The operators will quote a toll rate to you if you ask if it's
> a toll free call. None of this applies to BOC pay phones, as you're
> charged the toll rate outright. (John H ... do you have a copy of
> GTE's tariff or Pac Bell's???  Does it specifically exclude pay
> phones?)

This has been a major irritant. I don't have the tariff at hand, but
it is the same for both providers and does not exclude pay phones. To
the best of my knowledge, calls dialed to any Mobilnet prefix from any
Bay Area non-coin phone is treated as Zone 1 (local). BOC pay phones
should allow the call as local ($0.20) as well. Remember, Pacific
Telesis is the major owner of Cellular One. Conveniently, there has
been a "programming error" in most of the Pac*Bell pay phones since
the beginning. In fact, you will probably have difficulty even dialing
your prefix from pay phones that are physically within Zone 1 of your
cellular assignment. This was the case for months here in San Jose.
After literally weeks of harrassing repair and others within Pac*Bell,
they finally fixed the San Jose pay phones so that one could dial my
San Jose Rate Area 2 cellular prefix without having to go through the
operator.

It was so much trouble getting that fixed that I haven't had the
motivation to get all the Bay Area pay phones programmed properly.
Besides, since I'm sure the "mistake" is intentional, it would just be
spinning my wheels for the most part anyway.

> (average 11 rings). Poo-poo! This is probably for calls to places that
> don't return answer supervision (like 800-555-1212), so they have to charge

Point of order: 800 555-1212 does supervise.

> I seem to meet with the all channels busy tone (a reorder tone
> generated by the phone itself) when I initally power up or come back
> 'in service' (from a tunnel or BART [subway tunnels]). If I wait a
> minute, it's not a problem.

You might look to your phone on this problem. I carry my GE Mini
everywhere, including on BART trains and have never experienced this.
In fact, I have had my finger poised on the s(p)end button waiting to
come out of the Lake Meritt station and pressed instantly when the
'nosvc' goes away. No problem.

> Maybe some new channels need to be
> added to some exisiting cells sites for GTE.

A friend who works for Mobilnet assures me that they are very
sensitive to this. GTE has far fewer subscribers than Cellular One,
more cell sites and uses the extra channels as well. With my GE, I
rarely get dropped, have one-way calls, or any of the problems that
you have described. Also, I use the unit in my truck without any
outside antenna and have no complaints about its coverage.

Visitors from the LA area who come up here with their handhelds and
roam on GTE remark on how much better the coverage is, how much better
the audio quality is, and how much faster the setup time is than on
PacTel down in LA.


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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 90 10:38:23 PDT
From: Tom Ace <[e-mail]>
Subject: You Asked to be Reminded


Patrick:

Back in TELECOM Digest V9 #253 (25 Jul 89), you wrote:

   In defense of Sprint/MCI et al, I must say that for the first forty years
   or so of its corporate existence, AT&T was just as bad, or maybe worse
   in terms of sheer greed. Remind me to post an article sometime on their
   reaction to the companies which manufactured telephones in the early years
   of this century after Mother's patent expired. Talk about ruthless!

I'd be interested in hearing the story.

Tom Ace
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well, to make a long story short, AT&T
representatives went to small towns all across America right after the
turn of the century and offered first to buy out the local telephone
company. That's fair, I suppose, and they did (at first) offer top
dollar. Remember, in those early days, the local 'telephone company'
was usually little more than a switchboard sitting in an already
established business place. Often times a local pharmacist, insurance
agent, or perhaps the telegraph office served as the telco. They
bought their equipment wherever they liked, and not always from
Mother. Sometimes the switchboard sat in the living room of the
owner's house: wife and daughter were the operators, father and son
were the repairmen.

There was a certain pride in being independent. You see, even by the
early years of this century, AT&T had started to get on people's
nerves a little, you might say. Even with the top dollar AT&T was
offering to buy up the local operation, many of them flatly refused to
sell. City Councils voted on resolutions that said "keep the Bell out
of town".

Needless to say, Ted Vail (chairman of AT&T in those years) was
furious. His solution was to set up a competitive telco in town, and
if necessary *give the service away free* to drive the competition out
of business. And if that didn't work, his orders were to refuse to
interconnect. So when his agents were turned down in little towns by a
farmer whose life savings were tied up in the telephone equipment he
had installed for the community because he had his pride and wanted to
stay in business independently, the AT&T guy would say, "Well, see how
much good your phone system does you when you can't call anyone
outside of your own town ... we won't connect with you."  And many a
farmer-telephone businessman was driven out of business by such
tactics.

All the while Ted Vail would sit in his office and say, "One System,
and one way of doing things."  The advertisements of that era for the
Bell System noted that you could call Long Distance on their
instruments.  And when they set up shop in a town which already had an
independent telco, *they* would be the ones to interconnect with other
towns on their wires; the local guy suddenly found his switchboard was
good for calling locally only. Before long, he was out of business,
and AT&T claimed yet another victory in the aquisition of telcos
across America. If they couldn't buy you off, they'd run you off!

An organization was formed many years ago called "United States
Independent Telephone Association", or USITA for short, whose main
purpose at the time was to fight Bell and protect the rights of the
independent telcos who were threatened by the practices of Mother.
Today USITA and Bell are the best of friends. Bell executives
frequently are the keynote speakers at USITA conventions, etc.

Say Tom, thanks for reminding me!  :)      PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #269
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00536;
          21 Apr 90 19:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27865;
          21 Apr 90 17:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30528;
          21 Apr 90 15:54 CDT
Date:     Sat, 21 Apr 90 15:18:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #270
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Apr 90 15:18:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 270

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Terri Macko]
    Re: FTS 2000 Privacy Issues [Dennis G. Rears]
    Re: You Asked to Be Reminded [David Tamkin]
    Re: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? [Chuck Bennett]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Mary Culnan]
    Re: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom? [Steve R. Levitt]
    Re: Area Code 917 in New York City [Carl Moore]
    Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC [Tom Gray]
    Re: ATT Billing via Local Telcos [John R. Covert]
    Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 18:43:57 CDT
From: Terry Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, Mr. Mason's address got munged
somehow and is unavailable.  PT]

In comp.dcom.telecom you write:

>Reports have reached me that certain telephone numbers at Cellular One
>here (and perhaps other carriers?) are set to *not bother checking serial
>numbers*, but to simply accept the transmission and place the call.

I work for a cellular carrier, so I can only tell you how our system
works. If the subscriber's serial number is '00000000' in the database
the system doesn't check it against the actual serial number. I don't
know if this is a standard or not. We also have a generic flag to turn
all serial number checking on and off.

Consider a brand new system going online. Historically, all the little
shops selling and programming mobiles haven't hired "experienced
people" to do this work. I've seen some very irate subscribers,
because the shop mixed up the mobile telephone numbers and serial
numbers when submitting the order for the subscriber entry into the
database. It's easier for the system operators to change the database
to zeroes on the serial number, and let the subscriber entry people
sort things out with the shop the next day. Possibly you've found some
lines that were never given a 'final update'.

I have heard of some subscribers who have multiple mobiles, but want
the same telephone number for both. Although not an elegant solution,
ignoring the serial number will do the trick. Some test mobiles may
fall into this category also.

I understand that we're finally going to implement a feature called
subscriber capture where if the serial number is entered as zeroes
into the database, the first call will update the database with the
proper serial number. I have no idea if this will be system wide or
per subscriber.

>Any ideas why some numbers are apparently exempt from serial number
>checks? Could it be they are used by employees at Cellular One who
>want to be able to use several phones at their disposal without having
>to reprogram the system each time?  Could it be the 'free lines' are
>used for promotional purposes by dealers who would have several phones
>to demonstrate, each with different serial numbers?  What about
>numbers used for temporary assignment to roamers in the area using
>something like Ameritech's 'follow me' and 'Fast Track' services?
>There is no practical way to check serials on those lines either, is
>there?

You can bet someone was billed for those calls!

We have both a telephone number and serial number database for Roamers
and denied service.

>Of the lines found which are apparently not checking serial numbers,
>some, but not all, were found to have a subscriber identified with the
>line. This was noted when a landline dialing the number while the
>experimental cell phone was turned off reached a voicemail box of
>someone. Yet, turn the phone on, and subsequent incoming calls came to
>the falsely programmed phone.

Interesting, that you did find a real subscriber. Maybe the CHI system
has one of the "features" I covered above.  Of course, the falsely
programmed phone gets the call when turned on because it answers the
page from the cell site.  Whereas, when turned off, the system
no-answer-transfers to the voice mail.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 15:58:56 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FTS 2000 Privacy Issues


Will:

   I think the privacy issue here is not to protect the federal
employee but the agency.  A lot can be determined by what companies
are being called by who.  I bet some drug dealers would love to have
copies fo phone bills by the DEA and FBI.  Contractors would like to
know who the KO is calling and for how long.  Also, I as a federal
employee have no right to privacy but what about the person I call.
How does John Doe or Acme Car Dealership know I am misusing goverment
resources?  Thanks to our lawsuit happy citizens, things are no longer
as simple as they seem.

   The main difference between the FTS 2000 system and the current
system is that the data is now kept at each phone instead of
centrally.


Dennis

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 15:45 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You Asked to Be Reminded


At Tom Ace's reminder, Patrick Townson wrote in Telecom Digest,
Volume 10, Issue 269:

| All the while Ted Vail would sit in his office and say, "One System,
| and one way of doing things."

And Bob Allen says, "One world.  One card."  The more things change...


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCIMail:426-1818  GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN  CIS:73720,1570

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 08:01 EST
From: "Chuck Bennett [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom?


Brad Templeton <[e-mail]> writes,

> Can anybody suggest a good introductory work (if any exists) on the
> nuts and bolts of telecom and particularly datacom these days?  I
> don't work directly in that industry, so I've had to learn everything
> hit and miss.

I'll let someone else handle that one.

> For example, I know what a T-1 is (1.54 mb/s digital circuit) but just
> how is it implemented in a physical sense in most places?

The T-1 line is not the expensive part the equipment on each end of
the line gets to be REAL quick, $$,$$$$ range.

> I have a 4 wire unconditioned line from my office to my house that I
> run at 4800 bps using some cheap pseudo-modems.  What can you pull out
> of these 4 wire circuits?  Are there modems that give you 56 kbps out

Black Box has a CSU/DSU (Customer Service Unit/Data Service Unit) and
LDM (Limited Distance Modem) combination that offers 2400 bps to 56
kbps on either the telco DDS (Digital Data Service) network or via a
4-wire unloaded copper circuit to a distance of about 5 miles.  It has
both a V.35 and a RS-232 interface.  The model number is MD790-986 and
its cost is approximately $750/each (you need two).  We use a pair of
these here a UNC (University of North Carolina) in conjunction with a
4-wire line to connect our IBM 3174 Control Unit to the IBM maniframe
at the 56 kbps rate, V.35 interface and they function flawlessly.

> etc., etc. etc.  Too many questions to ask in one posting, which is
> why I wonder if there's a book of some sort...

Me too ;-).


Chuck Bennett
Director, Medical CAI
UNC, Chapel Hill

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

Date: 20 Apr 90 08:40:00 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID


This is in response to the moderator's query about people questioning
the request for a phone number when you sign a credit card slip.

I have started to question when a merchant does *NOT* ask for the
phone number.  Responses include, "We don't need it because the charge
is pre-approved."  I asked the same question in a Tower Records store
and received the following replies from the clerk and the people
standing in line: 1) It's up to the clerk 2) It's a [new] federal law
3) It's a local law.  4) The store policy changed.

I once checked out after a credit card purchaser in a Dansk store --
the credit card person was asked to put her address and phone number
on the slip.  I paid cash and was then asked if I would fill out a
card for their mailing list.

In New York state, it is now illegal for a merchant to request a phone
number and/or address on pre-approved credit card purchases.

In my opinion, we are asked to give our phone numbers purely to update
somebody's database.  I am always amazed that people who would never
give their social security number out will readily give out their
phone number which can also serve as a database key if you don't move
often.

I either give a 555-1212 number or don't write a number at all,  The
clerks never check.

Mary Culnan
School of Business Administration
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.
(MCULNAN @ GUVAX.GEORGETOWN.EDU)


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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 08:28:38 EDT
From: "Steve R. Levitt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Primer on the Nuts and Bolts of Telecom/datacom?


Brad Templeton was looking for a primer on telecom and datacom.  I'm
not an engineering type, so I'm not sure if this is exactly what you
are looking for...however I've made good use out of two books which
cover (I think) what you need.  Both are entitled "Business
Telecommunications":

Stanford H. Rowe II (1988). Published by Science Research Associates,
  Inc. -- ISBN# 0-574-18690-5
  This book covers the basics, voice comms, coding and
  digitization, data terminals, data transmission and modems,
  circuits and networks, data link protocols, connections,
  architectures and standards, and management issues (regulatory
  influences, staffing, project management, etc.)

Jay Misra & Byron Belitsos (1987).  Published by Irwin -- ISBN#
  0-256-05617-X.
  This book has chapters on basics, LANS, PBX's, Public
  networks, ISDN, Micro-mainframe links, e-mail, videotex,
  teleconferencing.

I recommend the Rowe book myself ... keep in mind of course, that
niether will cover recent issues such as T1 fractional services.  Hope
these help.


Steve Levitt  University of Kentucky Dept. of Telecommunications
218 Grehan Bldg. Lexington, KY 40506-0042  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 10:35:32 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 917 in New York City


What are your sources for the reports re: 917?  For sake of review:
All the areacode splits, as far as I know, have been geographical, and
no place, at least since 1965, has had its area code changed TWICE due
to splits (although 305 has split twice, and 213 will undergo a new
split when 310 is formed).

New York City is currently split into 212 and 718 along borough/water
lines (the only land boundary between boroughs that I know of is
Queens/ Brooklyn, both in 718 along with Staten Island).  Only
Manhattan and Bronx remained in area 212, but I noticed a while back
that the present 212 is more crowded than 718.  How full are the areas
now?  (It's a good question as to what geographical areas would go
into 917.)

New York City message-unit zones are as follows:
1,2 in Manhattan
3 split between Manhattan and Bronx
4,5 in Bronx
6,7 in Brooklyn
8,9,10,11,12,13 in Queens
14,15 in Staten Island

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC
Date: 20 Apr 90 12:27:14 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!halligan![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


Calling party disconnects can be of three types that I know about.
Other people will obvioulsy send in many more:

1) reception of dial tone - your machine has a dial tone detector
                            when the calling party hangs up, he
                            will release his trunk and your exchange
                            will provide your line with dial tone.
                            Your machine detects this tone and releases.

2) open circuit on release - when the calling party disconnects, your
                             exchange will momentarily open the tip
                             connection on your loop. Your machine can
                             detect the loss of loop current and release.
                             This is an application of ground start like
                             techniques to loop start lines

3) reversal on answer - the line circuit can be configured to provide a
                        reversal of battery when the calling party releases.


I would suppose that your machine is configured for methods 1) and 2).
Europeans telcos typically use single frequency dial tone rather than
the two frequency tones typical in North America. The dial tone detector
in  your machine may not be able to detect single frequnces as dial tone.

I know that method 2 is used in the UK. You should ask your telco if they
tarriff it.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 10:42:18 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  20-Apr-1990 1334" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT Billing Via Local Telcos


David Barts writes:

>Well, billing via the local telco is *the main reason* that ATT is my
>long distance company.  Less bother, paperwork, and postage stamps for
>me to hassle with.  If ATT starts doing their own billing, I'll just
>switch to Metromedia<>ITT or Sprint, thank you.

You'll find that Sprint already bills all its own customers directly,
and I suspect that ITT does as well.  They only use Telco billing for
occasional customers.

AT&T is my main company, but I have a Sprint account (and they seem to
think I'm a Sprint dial 1 customer, though I only was for a short
period after they changed my account against my explicit instructions
not to).  10333+ calls are billed directly by Sprint.

No extra paperwork, though, because the monthly (well, in those months
where I have a Sprint charge) Sprint statement is automatically billed
to my Amex card.

I have this sneaking suspicion that AT&T is going to notify me at some
point that AT&T charges generated against my normal phone will be
charged to my AT&T One Card account.  10% discount?  We'll see.


/john

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service
Date: 20 Apr 90 20:53:22 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]> writes:

> None of this applies to BOC pay phones, as you're
> charged the toll rate outright. (John H ... do you have a copy of
> GTE's tariff or Pac Bell's???  Does it specifically exclude pay
> phones?)

Update:

Today I was able to contact the very same people who worked with me on
correcting the programming in the San Jose area pay phones. They have
promised to, with tariff in hand, test each and every pay phone
exchange, using both GTE and Cellular One prefixes and see that all of
the Bay Area BOC pay phones handle the calls properly.

To the best of my knowledge, this means that calls to GTE Mobilnet (as
well as Cellular One) mobile phones will cost $0.20 from any Pac*Bell
pay phone in the Greater Bay Area. Or it means that you will have to
pay full toll, but whatever the outcome, both cellular companies will
be treated equally.

It is interesting to note that I have called GTE Mobilnet on this
topic on several occasions. They have been sympathetic but have said
that their hands are tied; that a customer such as myself would have
to be the one to pressure Pac*Bell into making any changes on their
pay phones. They were the ones who told me that the tariffs were
identical for both providers, so that what worked for one should work
for the other.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #270
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01988;
          21 Apr 90 19:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14042;
          21 Apr 90 18:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27865;
          21 Apr 90 17:02 CDT
Date:     Sat, 21 Apr 90 16:00:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #271
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Apr 90 16:00:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 271

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    NiCad Battery "Memory" on Nokia P-30 [Bill Nickless]
    GTE Cellular Purchase [Thomas Neudecker]
    Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [Jeff Carroll]
    Request For Info on Cellular Phones [Marc Rassbach]
    A Scanner Fix Wanted [Doug Thackery]
    Effects of Competition in US Telecom [Macy Hallock]
    AT&T's Wrong Recordings For Misdialled Calls to London [John R. Covert]
    International TDD Calls [Ken Harrenstien]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 09:21:20 CDT
Subject: NiCad Battery "Memory" on Nokia P-30
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 269, Bob Warnock
<[e-mail]) provides a very useful circuit for
discharging the battery for a Radio Shack CT-300 to avoid NiCad
"memory" problems.

When I purchased my Nokia P-30, I discovered that there was a switch
provided on the bottom of the recharging stand specifically for that
purpose.  In fact, the documentation encourages the user to use that
switch to discharge the battery.  (Interestingly, they say that the
power supply *must* be connected and powered up.)  When discharging,
the red/green LED on the charging stand turns yellow.

Once the battery is discharged (the documentation recommends leaving
it on discharge overnight once a month) the switch is reversed to the
normal charge position.  Within about an hour the battery is fully
charged.

Very intelligent design, I think.

I'd like to thank the TELECOM Digest for all the neat information I've
found out about my phone -- I think I'll have Radio Shack order me a
service manual!


Bill Nickless     [e-mail] or uunet!sharkey!aucis!bnick

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 12:06:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Cellular Purchase


GTE issued a press release announcing a $710 million purchase of the
Providence Journal cellular properties in North Carolina, Virginia,
South Carolina, and Georgia.  The purchase, subject to federal
approval will be made in cash and should be complete by the end of the
year.

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones
Date: 20 Apr 90 20:43:40 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


>[Moderator's Note: Our two providers here are Ameritech (telco) and
>Cellular One (owned by SW Bell). Other than the occassional very
>sleazy and misleading promotion (virtual giveaway of phone by Fretters
>with an advance payment of $1000 to Ameritech for service), Ameritech
>generally is good. The monthly basic fee is $29.95, and the rates are
>in the 30/35 cent range for peak time, and the 20/23 cent range for
>off-peak. The 'Ten Cent Plan' costs $19.95 per month and allows off
>peak calls at 10 cents per minute, with peak minutes costing 65 cents.
>Cellular One has slightly lower airtime rates; but they nickle-and-dime
>customers with service charges and other fees. Off-peak time is very
>skimpy for both: 9 PM to 7 AM plus weekends.   PT]

Cellular One (unless there is more than one company using the service
mark) is owned and operated by McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., of
Kirkland, Washington. (If they were owned by SW Bell, they wouldn't be
a "non-wireline" carrier, would they?)

McCaw has gotten quite a bit of financial-market press lately about
their heavily-leveraged hostile takeover of LIN Broadcasting of NYC,
with the objective of acquiring enough non-wireline franchises accross
the country to establish a "nationwide" network, whatever that means.

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: 'Cellular One' is a trade-name or service mark used
by various cellular services. McCaw uses it in some places; SW Bell
uses it here. What other examples are there?  It is a common name for
cellular companies. SW Bell is of course the wireline carrier in many
parts of the southwest where they otherwise provide phone service.  PT]

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

Subject: Request For Info on Cellular Phones
Date: Sat Apr 21 00:01:25 1990
From: Marc Rassbach <[e-mail]>


Hello all,

     I have a need for a 'brief' description of 'all one needs to
know' about cellular phones as 'someone who knows nothing'.

(I got a call from an associate of mine who's father is going to buy a
cellular phone, but has no clue even what to look for.  Anything would
be helpful.)

     If what you know is REALLY GOOD, send it to the Digest or just
E-Mail it to me at the noted address.

     Thanks!

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

From: Doug Thackery <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: A Scanner Fix Wanted
Date: 20 Apr 90 18:23:45 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I recently bought a handheld scanner from DAK, Regency R 4030 that
boasted 800 MHz band reception, however the 825 - 890 MHz portion has
been "locked" out.  I was wandering if anyone new of a fix for
Regency/Bearcat scanners, something along the lines of changing a
resistor value or eliminating a jumper or somthing like that that
would be like a service mode or something, to get these frequencies
back. I'd heard this might be possible but I was afraid maybe these
freq's were locked out by firmware control or something.

Is there anyone who can help with this problem?


doug

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Fri Apr 20 11:02:14 1990
Subject: Effects of Competition in US Telecom
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


[The subject was US Sprint vs. AT&T service, but I'm expanding it a bit]

In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 258, Message 8 of 9

>Steve Elias <[e-mail]> writes for an anonymous poster:

>> Also, the long distance calls you make today cost you on average 40%
>> less than they did six years ago.

>This is the one point that must be conceded. Competitive forces have
>no doubt improved service overall and caused the decline in long
>distance rates.

>[...text deleted...]

>Granted, competition has kept AT&T on its toes. And when some other
>company can demonstrate that it really is better, I will be first in
>line to sign up. Until then, I'll just settle for the indirect
>benefits.

OK, he has a choice, and can vote with his checkbook.  And we all
benefit from this.

[Wait a minute while I drag out my soapbox out and climb on....]

One of the biggest problems we face is the lack of competition in the
local loop and switching, i.e. the local telephone companies.  For
various reasons, real and unreal, local rates have climbed in the past
few years while the IXCs have dropeed their rates.  Now, I can write a
very lengthy article on this topic, but most of us are at least
familiar with some of the basic arguments...

When divestiture was upon us, the general feeling was the AT&T was
going to benefit greatly and the Baby Bells were to become poor,
pennyless orphans.  The reality has been nearly the opposite.  The
LEC's are now thriving and cash rich.  AT&T has still not completed a
very traumatic adjustment to a competitive environment and has seen a
drop in earnings while learning some very expensive lessons.

The LECs have learned their lessons well.  They spend a great deal of
time and money on regulatory, legislative and lobbying efforts.  The
strategies used by AT&T during the late 60's and 70's to impede
competition and increase revenues have not been forgotten by the
LEC's.  They have used and expanded these strategies with great
success.

One recent article in the April 1990 issue of _Networking Management_
entitled "Are the RBOCs Padding Their Embedded Base?" discusses some
of the questions now being raised concerning this topic.  A few of the
actions taken by regulatory bodies are also discussed.

There may be some hope for change: Ameritech, for one, has asked the
question "Can the local loop be deregulated?"  While I am not sure
deregulation similar to that granted the CATV companies a while back
by Congress is desirable, its time to begin looking at the possible
deregulation of these monopoly services.

There's little question that there will be (and should be) a long and
hard debate by _everyone_ involved.  There are many vested interests
to be examined and, in some cases, protected.  The best way to
motivate the LECs to allow the process is to restrict their entry into
CATV, info services and manufacturing until the questions are
addressed.

Now, I have my own vested interests here.  I am:

    - A user of regulated LEC services, residentially
    - A user of regulated LEC services, commercially
    - A competitor with the LEC's deregulated telephone
      equipment sales operation (which I feel is cross
      subsidized by ratepayers without PUC authorization)
    - A user of deregulated LEC services (Yellow Pages, etc)

Now, which is to cross subsidize what?  Right now, there is evidence
that the LEC accounting methods are poorly controlled, and the PUCs
(and FCC) can only make decisions based on what (and how) the LECs
show them.  The Ohio PUC, for one, does not have the staff to conduct
its own audit of any _one_ major utility in the state, much less
control all of them.  Repeated examples of creative and distorted
accounting procedures have cropped up all over the US.  It would
appear that the regulatory bodies set up to control the LECs simply
are over- whelmed by the challenge of combined above the line/below
the line LEC operations and only react when public outcry demands
action.

So, while competition is benefitting us in the long distance services
we use, the cost of local service is rising faster than ever, and with
little control.  The attitude of the voters in this country does not
seem to recognize the need for change, yet.  Politicians seem to be
influenced primarily by:

    - LEC lobbyists
    - LEC controlled PAC money donations
    - consumer advocate groups concerned only with residential
      rates
    - lobbyists from large coporate users
    - lobbyists from large manufacturers
    - absolutely no one from small business users

Where do we go from here?  Is this really the best way to deliver
local loop services in this country?  Does the present system
encourage the continued modernization of our local phone services?
There's evidence the US is falling behind several other countries in
offering ISDN and data switching services at reasonable rates
thoughout the country.

Will we lose the lead in the telecom industry though inaction, too?
Are our legislators capable of dealing with this issue until a crisis
occurs? Or will the lobbying efforts of the LECs ultimately dictate
our national telecom policies?

Note:  LEC = Local Exchange Carrier, the regulated monopoly local telcos.
       IXC = Interexchange Carrier, the deregulated long distance carriers.

Disclaimer:  I am biased.  The questions are just as valid, though.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.   {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: Fri, 20 Apr 90 06:34:04 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  20-Apr-1990 0910" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T's Wrong Recordings For Misdialled Calls to London


It's fairly common for AT&T's translation folks to load translations
that specify "send this to special message n" and for the folks in the
4Es to forget to change the contents of special message n.

I notice the following behaviour:

 From City    Should dial 71            Should dial 81

Boston        Congratulations, you have    Due to the earthquake
        successfully reached the    in the area you are
        MultiQuest test line.        calling, your call
                        cannot be completed
                        at this time.  Please
                        try your call later.

NYC        Due to the severe weather    Due to the earthquake
        conditions... [rest same    ...
        as earthquake.]

Wash., DC    Dialling to Denmark has        Due to circumstances
Minneapolis    been changed.  Please        beyond our control, your
        check the number and dial    call cannot be completed.
        again, or call your AT&T    Please try again in 20
        operator for assistance.    minutes.  You will not
                        be charged for this call.

I have reported this to AT&T Long Distance Repair (800 222-3000) and
have received ticket number 1b0420520.  Troubles reported this way are
_always_ fixed.

Sprint and MCI afficionados will note that there seems to be no
equivalent trouble reporting service, especially not providing a
ticket number for future tracking of the trouble report.  I have been
unable to get Sprint or MCI to fix their problem with failing to
complete calls to any German cellular phone (+49 161 nnn nnnn).  Yet
another reason to use AT&T.


/john

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 12:27:58 PDT
From: Ken Harrenstien <[e-mail]>
Subject: International TDD Calls


A while back, Roy Smith asked about placing international TDD calls,
specifically to New Zealand.  I don't know the answer to the question,
but since apparently no one else does either, I can explain what I
know and give a number to try calling for more information.  I'd
appreciate additional enlightenment, of course.

As far as I know there is no "international" TDD standard.  Different
countries have different systems.  The three possible parameters are:

    (1) Code (ASCII, Baudot, variations thereof)
    (2) Speed (45.45, 50, 110, 300, ...)
    (3) Modem (Weitbrecht, Bell 103/202/212, CCITT V.*)

In the U.S., the de facto standard evolved around the "American
Communications" variant of Baudot at 45.45 baud (US Govt and Bell
System 60wpm speed), using the half-duplex 1400/1800 Hz modem
developed by Robert Weitbrecht in 1964.  Last I heard, the TDD
manufacturers were working with the EIA to come out with a definitive
official standard, but I haven't seen it.

A supposedly "international" version exists, which I gather is based
on CCITT Alphabet #2 at 50 baud, but using the same Weitbrecht modem.
I don't know how widespread this kludge is.  I do know that ten years
ago, most European countries appeared to be settling on ASCII (the
international subset thereof) at 110 baud, using something like CCITT
V.21.  In Sweden, Televerket had the "Visual Text Telephone", in
Germany the "Schreibtelefon", in Switzerland the "Teleskrit".  All
were supposed to be compatible under the "European Deaf Telephone
Standard".  Bear in mind this was a while ago and I haven't looked
recently.  However, since their approach made much better technical
sense than the historical pastiche in the US, I would expect most
governments in need of a standard to adopt the European model.

To confuse the issue a little further, nothing appears to stop
individuals from importing their own TDDs of whatever type they want.
So in practice, there is a diffusion of US-type TDDs out into the
world simply because in many cases nothing else is available.  If a
particular country hasn't adopted any official policy regarding deaf
telecommunications, and in particular is not providing any assistance
whatsoever, then it's up to the individual to find the cheapest TDD
possible (typically a US-made Baudot-only frob, I imagine).  As long
as clusters of friends all get the same models, they can talk to each
other regardless of standards.

With regard to New Zealand, you'll just have to find out exactly what
model of "modem-and-TTY" is involved.  For kicks, here is the 800
number of one popular TDD manufacturer, Ultratec in Madison, WI:
800/482-2424.  You are unlikely to get anyone with a technical
vocabulary, but they are so marketing-oriented that they will probably
know whether NZ is one of the places good for dumping cigarettes, uh,
I mean Baudot TDDs.


Ken

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #271
******************************

ISSUES 272-273 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 272 WILL FOLLOW 273.












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04171;
          21 Apr 90 20:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03458;
          21 Apr 90 19:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac14042;
          21 Apr 90 18:12 CDT
Date:     Sat, 21 Apr 90 18:01:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #273
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Apr 90 18:00:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 273

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Infinity Transmitters [[e-mail]]
    Re: Infinity Transmitters [Vance Shipley]
    Re: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Credit Card ID [[e-mail]]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Eric Black]
    Re: The Card [Will Martin]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Dayton Hamfest [Macy Hallock]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 18:43:46 EDT


In several recent issues of TELECOM Digest John DeArmond and Larry
Lippman have shared descriptions of similar telephone room bugging
devices with us.  In the last Larry calls John's description a fairy
tale.

I am not sure why I should defend John but...

Larry,

You are jumping to some poor conclusions if you think John's device
was not practical.  You have compared a 1963 commercial device made in
a garage workshop, with what would have been available in 1972 to a
high tech (high budget) government agency.

Now I have no specific knowledge of John's sources but, I was building
many electronic devices back then...

Many advances in low power and complexity of IC's had been made
between those dates.  CMOS logic was available, which would easily
allow lowering the on hook current to a few micro amps, which would be
undetectable, and allow a complex enable code.  Building it into a
network would make the installation much easier.  Just swap the dial
and plastic cover, any telco tech can do it in about five minutes.
There is no need to do a field rivet job and even if the target opened
the phone there would be no obvious extra circuits.

Now would it work?  Your main point is it won't work with a modern CO.
The question is would it work with the PBX? Remember it only had to
work within the same office.  Around 1972 a tremendous number of
ancient PBXs were still out there, It didn't really matter what the CO
equipment was.  Perhaps the reason it was available to be "borrowed"
was that it was not universally useful anymore.

Also I don't see your point in John turning twenty in 1974, I had my
first "high tech" job at sixteen and had worked at several others before I
got my BSEE at twenty-one.

As for the ethics/legality - what about the action of the boss?  Do
you really think he would take it to court and risk having the
evidence played?  However, you are right it was illegal.  Be sure to
see your lawyer before doing anything ;-).

Now the real question ... why was it necessary to use such a device ?
The Telephone Company provided a much better way to bug most executive
offices, with out ever entering the room, as a stock feature of many
instruments of that era.

We discovered it quite by accident in 1968 while installing some newly
acquired 2564 HK touch tone sets on a previously rotary only, 1A2 key
system at my college radio station.  A couple of the spare pairs had
been used for a custom intercom/signalling system.  On plugging in
the new sets the intercom and the new phones stopped working.  The
problem was traced to a continuous connection of the earphone to the
vi-sl pair (??  I don't have my old notes here and it has been twenty
years) which we had used for signaling!  This pair was brought out in
any instrument set up for speaker phone operation.  It allowed
mounting the speaker phone control box in the remote telephone closet.
I was never clear as to why it was a necessary connection, however
most five line 2564 sets, I have seen, have it connected.

Now if it isn't obvious - the earphone makes an excellent dynamic
microphone !!  A quick test (with a couple of the radio stations
drypairs looped back from a remote dorm, and a common balanced input
mike amp) demonstrated it would work quite well at least up to a mile
away. All someone had to do is bridge a pair across vi-sl and properly
terminate the remote end.  It would make no noticeable difference in
the phones operation and would work even when the phone was in use.
Of course we never bugged anyone, we only did some experiments in the
station's studios.

I do however recall a couple years ago, hearing about some state
governor who had caught someone bugging his office, The newspapers
were quite specific that no physical access was gained to the office;
only to the phone closet in the hallway.

I am surprised that more bugging wasn't done this way.  I know I was
always careful to see that pair was disconnected on any set in my
office.

Now that 2500 sets are being replaced by new digital sets the problem
may be moot ;-).  Then again who knows what is on the digital line
with the set hung up.  The hook switch on the brand new IBX set on my
desk doesn't disconnect anything, it only sends a code down the line!

Note: 2564's are the common old style (1965 - 1985) 5 line office
phones made by ATT and others.  Each has a 25 pair cable running to a
Key System box which controls hold and common ringing etc.

While it is not telco stock, it wouldn't take much to wire the
earphone directly out on the unused pair of the currently popular
modular jack on a single line 2500 set. :-(


            73 Steve F
               W1GSL

[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I thought Mr. Lippman's reference to
DeArmond's age as a likely reason the story was fraudulent was in
itself not very valid. My first employer, when I was a junior in high
school, age sixteen, was the University of Chicago, where I worked in
the old phone exchange, at 5801 South Ellis Avenue. When I was 18-20
years old, I was in charge of the facility overnight, which basically
meant I was the overnight campus phone operator. Of course, times were
different; it was certainly not 'high-tech' as we think of it today,
thirty years later; but it was sophisticated equipment in its era, and
a responsible position.  PT]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 02:36:52 GMT


In recent articles infinity transmitters and other methods of
monitoring rooms through the telephone were discussed.  A number of
years ago, when I was younger and had more time to kill, I thought
about the legends I had heard and decided to find out for myself how
it could be done.

What I ended up doing was rewiring a 500 set to connect the second
pair of the station wire to the transmitter when the phone was on
hook.  Usually both sides of the line are disconnected by the hook
switch, this is not entirely necesary and it is common practice to
rewire the hookswitch to use redundant contacts for other gains.  An
example is installing a 500 set on a 1A2 key system where the second
pair of the station wire should be shorted out when a station is in
use.

With this scheme I could monitor outside the house (or in) with only a
battery and a regular telephone set!  It required access to the
telephone (and possibly the network access or entrance terminal) but
required only a couple minutes and no addition of parts to the phone,
only rearrange what is already there.


vances
(if CLID detects flames call forwarding to /dev/null is in effect :'> )

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Fri Apr 20 11:30:07 1990
Subject: Re: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


The recent exchanges between two valuable contributers to this Digest
saddens me.  These two gentlemen have both made a great many
constructive and useful postings to the Digest over the past two years
I have been fortunate enough to receive it.

If only both had put nearly as much effort in educating us on the
topic rather that berating each other, all the Digest readers would be
the better.  This flame fest benefits no reader.

I have been in the telecommunications industry for twenty years now.
While I may not be as learned or experienced as either of these
gentlemen, I have learned one thing:

No one knows everything in this industry.

I have no problem with either gentlemen's knowledge or doubts.  I just
wish they would spend more time sharing their knowledge and less time
denigrating the other.

Geez, guys, you ain't Chicage aldermen.  Act like the professional
engineers we know you are.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.   {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!fmsystm!macy
150 Highland Drive      Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
Medina, Ohio 44256 USA   Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 at tone)
(Please note that our system name is "fmsystm" with no "e", .NOT. "fmsystem")


[Moderator's Note: A follow-up reply by Larry will be issued Saturday
evening, making a final rebuttal in this series, which has thus far
included two articles by Mr. De Armand and one by Mr. Lippman, plus
the assortment of miscellaneous articles such as the above. The
follow-up will be a special issue.   PT]

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

Subject: Phone Numbers Not Required for Credit Cards
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 14:48:27 -0700
From: [e-mail]


In reaction to stores asking for your phone number when using your
credit cards the following was published:

[Moderator's Note: The way I usually avoid this is to tell them I
don't have a phone.

[Moderator's Note: Has anyone ever questioned this at all?   PT]

There is a woman who writes a national home finance column.  I don't
remember her name but she has lately been making a big deal in her
column about how both Visa and Mastercard do not require a phone
number for the purchase to be valid.  She's been encouraging people to
not give out their phone number.

A few times, when I have felt ornery, I've told the clerk that I don't
have to give them a phone number and they say fine.  I've never been
hassled about it.

I've found an easier solution is to just put down the number for my
modem.  It is amazing how many times I've found a use for a phone
number that is sometimes busy but never answers :-).

Cheers.

Malcolm

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 10:49:46 PDT
From: Eric Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID


Nowadays, when I'm asked for my phone number when signing a credit
card slip, I've taken to putting down [phone].  They're free to
call that number and ask for me!

No amount of explaining/arguing with the person behind the counter is
effective; just give them a phone number, and they'll be happy.

If the number is, in fact, used as another handwriting sample, as has
been suggested, then it still serves that purpose (as long as the
other person doesn't write it down for me).

If the number is to "protect" the merchant against a bad charge, the
authorization number they called in to get serves that purpose, as has
been pointed out.  If they want my number, they can call Directory
Assistance to get it!


Eric Black    "Garbage in, Gospel out"
Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089
Email: [e-mail]     Voice: [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 9:55:42 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: The Card
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The history of comments from people on this list regarding the AT&T
credit card has been interesting. The initial press release referred
to it as a card which "will be accepted by VISA and MasterCard
merchants"; it did not actually state it would be a "VISA Card" or a
"MasterCard". One poster received his card in a week, and stated it
bore the VISA logo.  Then another just posted that he received his
during the past few days (about 2 weeks after the other person) and it
bore a MasterCard logo.  [Local newspaper ads for The Card show only a
MC logo pictured.]

I applied during the first week and have not yet received anything
from AT&T on this. But I find this difference fascinating. I had sort
of expected to get a VISA card; I already have two different
MasterCards but only one VISA so wanted to equalize them... :-)
Perhaps we can collect some data on this via the list and get some
idea as to what determines whether the card issued is VISA or MC --
would it be geographic, or based on some financial level such as the
credit limit?  Or perhaps it is simply random; maybe AT&T has some
agreement with the creditcard people that it will distribute its
enlistees amongst them equally or at some percentage to one or the
other. Maybe it is time-based; one week they issue VISA, the next MC?
Any other possible factors?

[I'm also somewhat confused by the whole concept of "VISA" and
"MasterCard" as entities in and of themselves. After all, when you get
a bank credit card, though it has one of these logos, it comes from a
specific bank, and that's who handles your correspondence and who you
pay. There must be companies somewhere that own the trademarks of VISA
and MC, and license them to the banks, and, I suppose, act as a
clearinghouse to route transaction slips sent from the merchants to
their own banks to get to the bank where that particular creditcard
account resides. Does anyone out there know who and where they are?
Are VISA and MC actually separate competing companies, or two halves
of the same entity? I'd like to be able to write the HQ offices with
suggestions I have for policy changes and improvements...]

A side note to the person who reported getting the rejection letter
even though he was told he was "pre-approved" -- I think this can be
valuable to you. With that rejection, you are entitled to a free copy
of your credit-rating report from the credit bureau that was cited on
that letter.  Without this rejection, you'd have to pay for a copy. If
you write and request a copy of the report (enclosing a copy of the
letter as evidence) I believe the current federal law on credit
requires them to send you a copy and then accept info from you to
corect errors or omissions on that report which might have been the
cause of the reject. It can be enlightening to see a copy of such a
report on yourself; I've never been able to bring myself to pay for a
copy, and haven't been rejected so couldn't get a free one, but always
wanted to see my credit-report data.

I'll report to the net if and when I get my cards, and what form they
are.

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

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

From: [e-mail] (herman.r.silbiger)
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Date: 21 Apr 90 21:41:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> I just write 555-1212
> Steve Wolfson
> uunet!motcid!wolfson

> [Moderator's Note: Has anyone ever questioned this at all?   PT]

I also have had a call at least once that I left my credit card
behind, but in general I don't believe they ever look at what you
write.  A few times, when the salesperson says: Please put yourname
and youraddress on the slip, I write "Yourname Andyouraddress" and
nobody notices.

Herman Silbiger

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Dayton Hamfest
Date: Fri Apr 20 12:31:14 1990


The Dayton Hamfest, largest of its kind is April 27-30 this year.  I
will be there at booth 2409, along with a couple other Digest
readers/contributors (who shall remain nameless, wb8foz?)  If you're
not going, you are missing a unique telecom event.  If you are going,
stop by and say hello.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.   {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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")

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #273
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04880;
          21 Apr 90 21:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14042;
          21 Apr 90 18:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27865;
          21 Apr 90 17:02 CDT
Date:     Sat, 21 Apr 90 16:43:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #272
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Apr 90 16:42:53 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 272

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: PTT Station Sets; 4-Wire Circuits & "Hoot-n-holler Lines" [M. Hallock]
    Party Lines (Was Phone Replacement) [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Phone Replacement [Peter Da Silva]
    Four Party Service and Your Own Phones [John R. Covert]
    Modem Problems on Sprint [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: Sprint Employee's Response to Mr. Higdon's Comments [John Higdon]
    Sprint's "Deep Throat" [Hector Myerston]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Thu Apr 19 09:20:14 1990
Subject: Re: PTT Station Sets; 4-Wire Circuits & "Hoot-n-holler Lines"
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> Larry Lippman writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 254, Message 1 of 7

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

[ discussion of PTT handsets and FP lines deleted...]

>The net result was that every station could be heard on *every* other
>station and *every* loudspeaker.

>    I betcha at least one TELECOM Digest reader has at one time
>worked for an interstate trucking company and used a "hoot-n-holler"
>line.

You bet ... except I got install and fix 'em.  Most of the systems I
saw were hoot-n-holler circuits for junkyards (auto parts recyclers
for those under 30 :-)) used for parts location.  We didn't put PTT
handsets on those circuits, though ... the users couldn't figure out
how to use them.  These circuits were also common for FAA sites.  When
noise cancelling mics became available, we found them to be most
useful on these circuits.

SS-1's were another thing entirely.  Talk about a hack!  These things
were basically conference circuits with rotary dial/sf-type selective
signalling added.  Invariably, the customer would want us to connect
these circuits to key systems or PBX's.  Possible, but ugly, ugly!!

Thanks to advances in transmission equipment, conference circuits can
now be designed with conventional two wire station equipment at the
station ends.  My interconnect co. still works with these from time to
time, and they do serve a purpose.  We even tied one of these systems
to a two radio system a while back, so the junkyard owner could use it
while he was wandering around the premises!

[I would like to thank Larry for his frequent and informative postings
to the Digest.  He's one of the reasons I read and contribute.]


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.   {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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 Apr 20 09:17:44 1990
Subject: Party Lines (Was: Phone Replacement)
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> our esteemed Moderator writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 258, Message 2 of 9

>[Moderator's Note: Am I mistaken, or are you not *forbidden* to hook
>anything onto a party line except a phone provided by the local telco
>itself?

IT is my understanding that only telco provided phones are allowed on
party lines, per Part 68.  GTE Ohio rents and sells phones for party
lines here, and allows customer (plug-in) installation.

I used to believe customer owned sets were not allowed at all.  GTE
told me they interpret the rules to say telco provided, not telco
owned.  Answering machines, alarm jacks, and anything other than telco
provided telephone sets and extension ringers are not permitted.

GTE no longer uses harmonic ringing for party lines (this is frequency
selctive ringing as previouly discussed).  The GTD-5 electronic CO's
now only seem to support conventional split party ringing requiring a
ground.  This is the same scheme Ohio Bell has been using for years.
(I always found it hard to believe that Automatic Electric designed a
CO without harmonic ringing ... it was almost a "trademark" of their
CO's ..)

GTE used to offer up to eight party rural party line service, but
several years ago a PUC mandate to reduce all party lines to four
party maximum was passed.  At present, most party lines are two party
max, though four party is still tarriffed, but soon to be eliminated.
This is part of a PUC statewide program to reduce party line service.
The recent low income phone line discount bill passed by the
legislature appears to be intended for single party service.

Anyone familiar with the billing and identification problems
associated with party lines will not be surprised to hear that GTE has
had fits with enhanced 911 service and party lines.  Also, 1+ carrier
selection is not available for party line users, you have to take
GTE's assignment.  I have not tried 10XXX dialing on GTE or Ohio Bell
party lines.

And a decimonic ring to all of you, too...


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.   {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Phone Replacement
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 21:52:29 GMT


What I don't understand...

Why would anyone be using a party line service in 1990?


Peter da Silva. [phone]  <[e-mail]>
             <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: People have opinions, organizations have policy.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 10:49:32 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  20-Apr-1990 1346" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Four Party Service and Your Own Phones


If your central office supports automatic identification of outgoing
long distance calls (i.e. you don't get a "What number are you calling
from" operator on every outgoing long distance call) you _must_not_
ever make a long distance call from a phone not supplied by the telco.

Doing so is likely to charge the call to one of the other parties on
your line.


/john

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 00:53:28 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Problems on Sprint


A few weeks ago I had an interesting problem using Sprint to make
Telebit Trailblazer modem calls.  I learned later that this problem
affects fax modems as well.

Thursday, at 1:30 AM, I queued E-mail to my company's mail hub in
Florida.  I did not force a poll, since I knew that between then and
the morning there would be two polls, one outgoing and one incoming.
To my surprise the next morning, the mail was still queued.  I tried
several times to force the poll, and each time UUCP reported that the
call failed at some point after the modems had connected and trained.

I checked with the mail administrator at our hub machine and found
that they were apparently having no problems, so I proceeded with some
additional tests.  I set my Trailblazer Plus's S registers to leave
the speaker on during the entire connection and tried polling our mail
hub again.  It became immediately obvious that the modem was
retraining over and over again, sometimes only getting a few bytes
through between retrains.

I tried calling several Trailblazers in San Diego county (local calls)
and had no problems.  This seemed to indicate that my modem and the
"local loop" to the Central Office was OK.  I normally dial Sprint
vial 1-800-877-8000 and use my FON card number.  I next tried 1+
dialing, routed through Sprint.  No improvement.  I then routed
through AT&T and everything worked fine.  Now I was pretty sure there
was no "local loop" or modem problem at either end.

I called the mail administrator at our mail hub and found out how to
report the problem to our telecommunications department.  The
telecommunications department said they would call Sprint and get back
to me.

Meanwhile, I called Telebit, thinking that I better have something
intelligent to say to Sprint.  After all, the voice quality was very
good.  Telebit called me back and I talked to them at some length.
They said that they had seen a lot of trouble with micro-packets on
Sprint, as they said they were having trouble keeping Sprint's echo
cancelers turned off. They suspected my problem was due to echo
cancelers as well.

I don't use micro-packets (my firmware is too old), so they suggested
I change a magic, undocumented, S register.  This S register changes
the length of the guard-tone at the beginning of each regular packet.
We determined that setting this value to 4 at both ends seemed to
compensate for whatever had changed on Sprint, although at some cost
of bandwidth and especially interactive response time.  They said that
they preferred I didn't quote them when I talked to Sprint.

Our telecommunications department called back and said "we are a
Sprint national account and Sprint will call you right away to get
more information".

Sprint did call right away.  They took down the symptoms and said
someone from the switch would call me back.  They also gave me a magic
800 number I could call 24 hours a day to get someone who would know
about this problem.  It turned out that having this number made it
extremely easy to get hold of the right people without going through a
lot of layers of hierarchy.

The switch-woman called me back and took more information about the
symptoms, type of modems, etc.  She seemed to understand my
explanation of the Trailblazer's PEP mode. She offered that they had
been upgrading the echo cancelers and asked if "echo canceler
problems" could be my problem.  I said "it wouldn't surprise me", not
wanting to quote Telebit.  She went on to say that the new echo
cancelers were coming strapped differently from the factory than the
old ones and they weren't sure if the new strapping was appropriate.
She said that they had been having problems with other half-duplex
modems as well (faxes, specifically).  She decided that she wanted to
search the call records to see if my calls had gone on the new
equipment.  I gave her the phone numbers involved calls and she said
she would call me back.  She called me back while I was at a dinner
party, but she left a message on my answering machine.

When I got home, I called the 800 number. It was now night shift, and
my call went directly to the Rialto switch (near LA).  The night crew
was expecting my call. The switch-man had me explain to him about PEP
mode on the Trailblazer.  He seemed to understand, and expressed
strong suspicions about the new echo cancelers.

He said said they had been unable to find the call records.  We
figured out right away that they had searched for 1+ calls instead of
FON card calls.  Had they known, they would have been able to find the
records.  We talked about it for a few more minutes and decided that
since the problem was easy to duplicate, he would just have me
"demonstrate the problem".

While I was setting up the first call, he volunteered that they had
been installing a new "rev" of Tellabs echo cancelers, and that the
latest batch had been configured differently from the factory.  He
went on to say that they had been having trouble with other
half-duplex modems (specifically, faxes) and they were very interested
in my problem.

By this time it was after 11pm, and the traffic to the Orlando switch
was quite modest, so he busied out all but one bank of channels to
Orlando and had me attempt my call again.  Same problem.  At this
point, he started experimenting with different echo canceler options.
He even tried installing one of the old cards for a while.

He found two ways to make the problem go away.  One was by installing
the old echo canceler card.  The other was by re-strapping the new
echo canceler card.  The new echo canceler has two relevant options.
One is whether the echo canceler should stay off for the duration of
the call if it has been turned off at the beginning by a 2100 HZ tone.
If not enabled, some audio-dead time will turn the echo canceler back
on.  The amount of dead time for the new canceler appears to be
shorter than the old card.  The second option is how long a "sample"
to take of the echo before deciding what echo cancellation function to
use.  I was told that the old cards were strapped to 36ms, and the new
ones were strapped to 96ms.  I gather that strapping the new cards to
36 ms solved the problem.

The switchman was at a loss to explain why setting the echo canceler
to the "end of call" mode didn't solve the problem.  He set all the
echo cancelers to the mode that "works", and all but one of my calls
went through on Friday (the next day) without problems.  On Friday
they officially closed my trouble call, but they opened an "internal"
trouble call to continue researching the problem.  They gave me the
new internal, "ticket number" and invited me to call the magic 800
number at "any time" to get status or report additional problems.  The
problem has not returned.


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Employee's Response to Mr. Higdon's Comments
Date: 20 Apr 90 01:00:45 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Elias <[e-mail]> writes (for a Sprint employee):

> [a well-reasoned reply to my rantings on Sprint]

In all fairness, there is some new information concerning the Sprint
vs AT&T long distance service. It appears that all problems may
actually be nothing more than my local office. I have friends in the
San Jose ALpine office and they have an entirely different point of
view. From their perspective (and I have confirmed this by my own
experimentation) Sprint is fine and AT&T absolutely stinks.

When I tried to make some AT&T calls from a 408/370 number, every
single connection was noisey and highly distorted. Attempts to place
the call through the AT&T operator resulted in even worse connections.
This lousy quality was pointed out to the operator who promised to
report it, but I was informed by my friends that this has been going
on for some time amist many promises by operators to get the problem
repaired.

A comparison of setup times revealed that Sprint was actually faster
than AT&T(!) from the ALpine office. And an informal check indicates
that the disconnection problem is non-existent.

The long and the short of it is that Sprint isn't nearly as bad in my
CO as AT&T is in the ALpine office. If someone is going to compare
long distance companies, an eye must be kept on the terminating
office!


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 20 Apr 90  08:57 PDT
Subject: Sprint's "Deep Throat"
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


The anonymous Sprint "spokesman" seems to be a "True Believer" and
suffers from too many delusions to address in detail. However the
comment about video-conferencing is too much to pass up.
Sprint provides on-demand video-conf bandwidth through an outfit
called The Meeting Channel in Atlanta.  I don't know what the exact
relationships are, but I DO know that:

     o  Any question about video-conf is referred to Atlanta. Local
        Sprint people do not have a clue.

     o  The access link to The Meeting Channel can NOT be shared
        with any other Sprint service. (ie if the access is T-1 for
        384Kbps once a week the circuit idle the rest of the time.)

So much for High-Tech!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #272
******************************

ISSUES 272-273 WERE REVERSED. ISSUE 273 APPEARS BEFORE ISSUE 272.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06197;
          21 Apr 90 21:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19720;
          21 Apr 90 20:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03458;
          21 Apr 90 19:18 CDT
Date:     Sat, 21 Apr 90 18:52:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Infinity Transmitters - II
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Apr 90 18:50:13 CDT   Infinity Transmitters - II

Inside This Issue:                            Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Infinity Transmitters", John De Armond and the BIG LIE [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "Infinity Transmitters", John De Armond and the BIG LIE
Date: 21 Apr 90 14:33:50 EST (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> "John G. De Armond" <[e-mail]>
writes:
     ...and writes and writes and digs himself a deeper hole...

    Before delving into Mr. De Armond's new morass, I would like
to state that TELECOM Digest has to date one of the best signal-to-noise
ratios of any group distributed through Usenet or the Internet, and I
would not like to see it degenerate through the nonsense started by
Mr. De Armond.  This will be my last comment on this issue, and it
should provide TELECOM Digest readers with sufficient information as
to form a belief on the matter.

    Quoted article sources are keyed as follows: ">" refers to the
most recent article from Mr. De Armond; "$D>" refers to Mr. De Armond's
original article; and "$L>" refers to my original article.

> After this brief history lesson, LL proceeds to extrapolate from the
> microscopic particular to the general and claim that the infinity
> transmitter I described could have NEVER existed and that I had simply
> made up a fairy tale (his words.).

    My credibility assessment of Mr. De Armond's original story is
now strengthed to a virtual certainty based upon the content of his
second article.  The basis for my belief includes but is not limited
to:

I - IMPRACTICABLE DEVICE WITH IMPROBABLE CLAIM AS TO ORIGIN

    The "infinity transmitter" is a largely impracticable device
creating an unacceptable risk of detection by the subject.  For any
dialup connection to the device, there is at *least* a 25% chance that
the subject's telephone will emit a full or partial ring, thus raising
suspicion.  The subject's telephone line will be busy to outside
callers during the entire time that "infinity transmitter" is in use;
such a false busy condition is likely to be noticed by other callers
who may alert the subject to this anomaly.  Furthermore, the quiescent
current consumption of such a device is readily ascertained using
simple test apparatus available to the telephone company or others.

$D> I got my infinity transmitter from a friend who worked for a well
$D> known government agency whose name begins with a "C" :-).

       This is not credible since the "government agency" alluded to
above would not utilize such a crude device when alternative devices
of a superior nature with virtually no risk of of detection are
available.  Furthermore, Mr. De Armond embellishes his story by not
only claiming that the device was built into a telephone network, but
by claiming that the device utilized a multi-tone actuation method.
The claim of a multi-tone actuation method is akin to building a bank
vault with one wall made of plywood.  While it is possible to design
and build such a device into a network, this would have required a
considerable effort, with such design and packaging being improbable
for this type of device.

II - CONTRADICTORY TIME FRAMES

$D> I used one in the early '70s to get the
$D> goods on my boss who was, it turns out, planning on having some pot
$D> planted in my car in order to have me fired.

        This is improbable since Mr. De Armond was fifteen years old in
1970, and even if "early 70's extends to 1974, it is still improbable
that at 19 years of age Mr. De Armond would hold a "government job"
and have connections to a "government agency whose name begins with a
'C'".

    In his second article Mr. De Armond substantially alters time
frames of his alleged experience in a contradictory and inconsistent
manner, in an apparent after-the-fact effort to reconcile his story
with available technology and the revelation of his age at the time of
his original claim.

> with the government in the mid 70's.

> obviously do not still have the device in question, having left it in
> place when I left the government service in 1979.

> 4.    My device was probably built closer
>     1977 or '78 but '75 is conservative.

> I modified the functional design a bit from the one I used a decade
> ago in the interest of simplicity and perhaps in the interest of added

    The time frame of Mr. De Armond's story now varies as much as
*TEN YEARS* from "the early '70s" to "mid 70's" to "1977 or '78" to
"1979" to "a decade ago" [1980].

III - IMPROBABLE COMBINATION OF "INFINITY TRANSMITTER" WITH WIRETAP

$D> Oh yeah, about my problem.  I confronted my boss behind closed doors
$D> with those tapes and tapes from a phone tap I'd installed too and we
$D> reached an agreement on a truce until I could transfer to another agency.

    Now here is an interesting point not raised in my original
article.  Mr. De Armond claims to have also installed a "phone tap",
which implies that he already has access to the tip and ring of the
subject's telephone at some remote location.  If this were the case,
then no one in their right mind would risk detection by using an
infinity transmitter since by using just one resistor and one
capacitor, the transmitter in the telephone handset could be made live
ALL OF THE TIME.  All one would need is a high-gain amplifier bridged
across the tip and ring of the subject's telephone line to detect the
resultant sound.  No false rings or unusual line busy conditions to
create suspicion.

    Surely Mr. De Armond's "friend who worked for a well known
government agency whose name begins with a 'C'" could have informed
him about this simpler, safer and more effective alternative.

IV - SERIOUS TECHNICAL INCONSISTENCIES IN MR. De ARMOND'S SECOND ARTICLE

> 3)    Larry had absolutely no knowledge of the environment under which
>     the device was used.  For example, it was used on the relatively
>     controlled environment of an old crosspoint PBX and not a Bell
>     subscriber loop or phone.  He did not know this, as evidenced by
>     his description of a CO switch.

    Ahh, a "crosspoint PBX"!  Perhaps an AE/Leich 40, 80 or
100-series?  The AE/Leich crosspoint PABX is a bit unusual in many
respects, one of which pertains to PABX station-to-station dialing
(which is what I presume Mr. De Armond now claims to have done).

    I have some truly devastating news for you, Mr. De Armond.
Station-to-station dialing on a AE/Leich crosspoint PABX is
accomplished through a "link circuit" (H-850289).  Unlike any SxS, XY,
XBAR or ESS apparatus, the Leich link circuit functions under LAST
PARTY CONTROL.  This means that while an "infinity transmitter" would
have answered, it could NEVER HAVE DISCONNECTED UNDER CONTROL OF THE
CALLING PARTY.  Not a very wise or useful situation.  In fact,
depending upon circumstances, it is possible that once activated, the
device could not be released by ANY MEANS other than the subject
having to physically disconnect their telephone set!

    Oh well, maybe it wasn't an AE/Leich crosspoint PABX after
all.  But that doesn't seem very likely since AE/Leich made the only
"crosspoint PBX" I can think of which might have been sold to the U.S.
government, or to the state of Tennessee, for that matter.

    Or maybe it was an AE/Leich PABX and Mr. De Armond modified
the link circuits for calling party control.  That's it!  Yeah, that's
right, that's the ticket! :-)

> One of the central themes of LL's posting was that my device must be a
> fairy tale because the technology did not exist to make such a not-
> easily-detectable device.  After stewing on this for a day or two, I
> decided to get proactive and prove that indeed such a device was not
> only feasible but easy to make.

    I'm impressed.  Mr. De Armond wasted time in allegedly
designing and building a device which will today work on less than 5%
of all CO and PABX lines in North America.  And he used circuit
technology which did not exist for several years following the date
when he originally claimed to have used such a device.

> The design criteria for my "bug" are as follows:
> 1.    Be undetectable by DC means.  This implies a quiescent current draw
>     under 100 microamps.

    I wonder if Mr. De Armond has ever seen any countermeasures
apparatus built by F. G. Mason Engineering?  I suspect not.  But if he
did, he would realize that quiescent current drain must be << 100 uA
to avoid detection.

> 2.    Be undetectable by AC means applied to a subscriber loop.  This implies
>     a high AC impedance, preferably over 100kohms.

    So what?  The telephone set is already sitting with a bridged
ringer that is going to have an AC impedance of << 1000 ohms.

> 3.    Be undetectable via emitted or induced EMI.  In other words, no
>         oscillators and no inductors.

    Mr. De Armond slipped up.  Later in his article he talks about
a relay in his circuit.  Last I knew, relay windings were "inductors".

> This device is designed to respond to a pair of tones
> alternately applied to the line at a moderate switching rate.  Out of
> convenience, I used the tones of 1209 hz and 3266 hz alternated at a 7
> hz rate. I'll explain why later.

    7 Hz?  Poor choice of frequency, Mr. De Armond.  I bet I could
spoof your alleged device with a 76C Cable Splicer's Test Set.

> I have a HUGE "junk box" (actually, about 2500 sq feet of floor space)
> and a large library so I have a wide selection of parts to choose from
> and a good library that dates back to the late 60s (Yes, Larry, when I
> was in my early teens.).

    I'm turning green with envy.

> My active device is my old favorite of the linear devices, the 74C04
> hex inverter.  Yes, sportsfans, a digital CMOS part.  This device,
> when properly biased and fed-back, is an excellent low power audio and
> low RF amplifier.

    I can't imagine why anyone could want to diddle with a 74C04
as an amplifier when manufacturers such as National and GE/Intersil
have a wide variety of CMOS and JFET devices which are far superior
and have quiescent supply currents of 10 uA or less.

> I measured the
> consumption at 5 volts with a Keithley Model 614 digital picoammeter.

    Is Mr. De Armond *sure* that he used a Keithley Model 614?  My
organization has one, and the last time I saw it the front panel said
"ELECTROMETER".  Keithley does have other models, though, which are
called "picoammeters".

    I wonder if Mr. De Armond will now want to change the model
number?

> With inputs grounded, this particular part consumed 0.002 microamp.
> With an input tied to an output to bias the device linear, the current
> rose to 0.015 microamps.

    Inputs grounded, eh?  Not a very useful measurement condition,
Mr. De Armond.  How much *noise* do think is going to be present when
your alleged device is connected to a real telephone line?  Especially
when the bandpass filter has to operate in the presence of 80 to 110
volts RMS of 20 Hz AC signal during ringing while still *rejecting*
such a huge signal.

> The output of the comparator is fed to a sensitive relay
> from the junque box.  This relay picks up at about 100 microamps and
> probably came out of an old piece of process control equipment.  It
> has 2 dpdt dry contacts.

    This is interesting.  Assuming that Mr. De Armond has 6 volts of
DC power as stated below:

> The power supply for this device consists of 4 1n4742 12 volt, 1 watt
> zeners in series feeding a bridge rectifier whose output is clamped by
> a 1n4735 6.3 volt, 1 watt zener.

    Mr. De Armond's DPDT relay is picking up at 100 uA at 6 VDC
for a power consumption .6 mW.

    That is a truly *AMAZING* relay, Mr. De Armond!  I, along with
perhaps other TELECOM Digest readers, would sure like to know its
manufacturer and model number.

    You see, Mr. De Armond, here's the problem: A sensitive DPDT
subminiature relay, like the Teledyne Centagrid [tm] mil-spec series,
rated at 6 volts DC requires at least 30 MILLIamperes of pickup
current.  Mr. De Armond's alleged relay is at least 300 times MORE
SENSITIVE than any DPDT relay that I can think of.  And I can think of
a *lot* of relays.

    Now, Mr De Armond did mention above that the relay "probably
came out of an old piece of process control equipment".  So, perhaps
he was referring to a Weston Sensitrol [tm] or Barber-Colman
Micropositioner [tm] series relay.  These are the most sensitive
relays that I can think of offhand which might be found in process
equipment.  (See, I'm trying to lend credibility to Mr. De Armond's
story, nice guy that I am.)  Except there are three new problems
created with *this* scenario: (1) these relays were never available in
a DPDT configuration, being SPDT only; (2) the Sensitrol relay had
magnetic latching contacts in the microampere ranges; and (3) even
these relays are no where near as sensitive as the one in his claim (6
VDC @ 100 uA).

    If Mr. De Armond had any knowledge of eavesdropping devices
beyond what he was able to glean from my article, he would not even
*think* of using a relay (which I mentioned *only* because it was
employed in the original Mittelman "infinity transmitter").  He would
have instead used what anyone else would have used after 1970 or so -
an SCR.

> The design purpose of this arrangement is for the circuit to draw zero
> current until the applied voltage reaches about 40 volts.  This
> prevents the device from being detected by applying an ohmmeter to the
> terminals of the phone.  It also prevents the device from being
> activated or detected by the application of 24 volts, a value common
> to phone test boxes.

    Telephone company subscriber line test apparatus does not use
less than 48 volts for test purposes.  Neither does any electronic
countermeasures test apparatus.  No reliance on a traditional ohmmeter
circuit would ever be made by a knowledgeable person conducting any
electronic countermeasures inspection.

> When activated,
> the device represents about 6 extra volts' of drop across the set.

    6 volts drop on say, 50 mA of loop current is 300 mW of power
dissipation in your device.  Since Mr. De Armond's alleged relay and
linear circuit consumes, say 1 mW maximum, what circuit elements
dissipate the other 299 mW of power?

> 3)    Reliable activation with no voice-falsing occurred with about
>     600 mv of tone.

    How about in the presence of 90 volts RMS at 20 Hz?

> I have proven that with about 6 hours of work and using components
> from the junk box, a proof-of-concept Infinity transmitter can be
> built that is substantially in conformance with the one I described in
> my first article and which would be practically undetectable with
> ordinary means.
> It would certainly resist LL's VOM assault.

    No, it wouldn't.  I would start on a 200 mA scale and work
down to 200 uA.

> There is
> one (or two) chip(s) involved and a handful of discrete components.  All
> would comfortably fit in a network housing.

    How about the, uh, "micropower" relay?

> In terms of physical concealment, the whole works could be potted in
> the network housing.  Potting is not atypical.

    Many an eavesdropping device has been potted into a network.
Of all the devices which *could* be installed within the confines of a
station network, the "infinity transmitter" is unquestionably the
least useful and one most prone to inadvertent detection.

> So here we have a situation where a pompous ass named Larry Lippman
> has decreed from his throne that a rather detailed description of an
> infinity transmitter I used years ago was a lie simply because HE had
> never heard of it.  In reply to his accusations, I spent an evening's
> worth of spare time and designed a device such as according to Larry,
> could not exist and then built it using parts from the era.

    Quite frankly, I don't believe that the circuit Mr. De Armond
alleges to have designed and built in six hours exists, either.

V - MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

> And yet he makes a slanderous attack on my character.  What a guy.
                                             ^^^^^^^^^
    What "character"?!  Mr. De Armond admitted to having committed
a *felony* violation of both state and federal law, for which there
was no lawful justification.  He should have been indicted, convicted
and appropriately sentenced.  Period.

> I used phreaking as an educational tool, never stole
> a dime's worth of services, and freely admit my activities.

    Where have we heard that line before?

> So Larry, let's get to the point.  I've not only demonstrated that an
> "impossible" device could be built in an evening, I've also described
> the use of a professionally built unit.  Let's see if you are as
> assertive and aggressive in you apology and retraction as you were in
> your slanderous assault on my character.

    I am now "assertive and aggressive", but not in the manner which
Mr. De Armond naively expects.

$L>     I'm sorry if I may appear harsh to Mr. De Armond, but there are
$L> enough *real* problems in the world involving unlawful eavesdropping,
$L> without the need to invent any more myths.

    I no longer feel sorry about being harsh to Mr. De Armond.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
UUCP:    {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
TEL: [phone] || FAX: [phone]      {utzoo|uunet}!/     \aerion!larry


[Moderator's Note: Well readers, YOU be the judge. This concludes the
publication in the Digest of the debate between the gentlemen.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Infinity Transmitters - II
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28341;
          22 Apr 90 10:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28820;
          22 Apr 90 8:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09785;
          22 Apr 90 7:26 CDT
Date:     Sun, 22 Apr 90 7:02:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Telesat Report - Spring 1990
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Apr 90 07:00:00 CDT    Special: Telesat Report

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telesat Report - Spring 1990 [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Telesat Report - Spring 1990
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 00:00:00 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


[Here is the PR letter from Telesat Canada... latest edition]

Telesat Report

Vol 5  No 1

Telesat Canada, Satellite Communications Newsletter, Spring 1990

Inside:

* Helicopter Giant Links Operations Via Satellite
* Telesat Welcomes Government Divestiture
* Advanced Television Trial Underway
* Telesat Ready for Future With New Control Centre
* Radio-Quebec Renews Uplink Agreement

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Helicopter Giant Links Operations Via Satellite

By: Darren Kelly, Telesat Vancouver Sales

Canadian Helicopters, Canada's largest helicopter company, has joined
Telesat's family of Anikom 500 customers with the completion of its
voice and data satellite network.

During the last quarter of 1989, Canadian Helicopters completed voice
and data links between its head office in St John's Newfoundland and
its Pacific and international headquarters in Vancouver. An Edmonton
link was also part of phase one. February marked the completion of
phase two with the additon of Toronto to the network, which provides
Canadian Helicopters with a complete dedicated voice and data network.

Canadian Helicopters operates 265 aircraft in 60 locations in Canada
and 15 centres around the world, making it the largest helicopter
company in Canada.

"Both financial and value added features led us to make the decision
to go with Telesat's Anikom 500 service," says Ian Hogg, Management
Information Services Manager, Canadian Helicopters. "We now have the
ability to link our offices together at a lower fixed cost and, in the
future, we can add services like video conferencing, transportable
services, or Business Television."

The Canadian Helicopters network includes voice circuits at 24 kbps
and 32 kbps. Data circuits are provided at 19.2 kbps and 9.6 kbps.
"With the multiplexers on site, we can change the configuration to
meet our future requirements" says Hogg.

"Initially, we will link our offices via satellite, but one day we
want all our aircraft to be linked to head office using satellite
technology. We believe we have selected the right technology for our
company's current and future operations."

This contract is unique for Telesat because while Canadian Helicopters
makes use of Telesat services, Telesat also uses the helicopter
service.

"The helicopter lift for our Vancouver Common User Facility went off
like clock work", says Charley Clarke, Telesat Installation
Specialist. "A helicopter picked up the antenna at the harbour, and
safely deposited it on the roof of the facility in downtown Vancouver
five minutes later.  Canadian Helicopters did a super job!"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Telesat Welcomes Government Divestiture

Over the past few years, Telesat has been implementing a strategic
plan which has quickly established it as Canada's third national
telecommunications carrier. Key to the success of this program has
been Telesat's increasing independence, which has resulted in greater
choice and selection for Canadian businesses in the growing
telecommunications markets. The Government of Canada's recent
announcement to sell its 50 per cent stake in Telesat is a positive
step in this direction. The following is Telesat's corporate position
on the divestiture.

Commentary By: President Eldon Thompson

Telesat welcomes the recent announcement that the Government of Canada
intends to sell its shares in Telesat. While the government has
expressed its intentions to divest its shares on numerous occasions,
the Budget Speech implies a timetable that, we hope, will see Telesat
stock publicly traded within the current term of office.

Telesat is the third national telecommunications carrier in Canada,
providing a portfolio of high quality, competitively priced business
communications services. We offer a broad range of services, have a
large customer base, a national marketing and service infrastructure,
and are seeing ever-increasing acceptance of satellite networks as the
answer to many business communications needs.

With the fulfilment of all the government's original policy objectives
in relation to satellite communications, our successful penetration of
the business communications marketplace, and the dynamic growth in the
use of satellite networks for many mainstream applications, it is now
an appropriate time for the federal government to divest its shares in
Telesat. There is no longer any policy reason requiring government to
participate in ownership of the company.

In his Budget Speech, Finance Minister Michael Wilson stated that "the
government's privatisation objective has been to sell investments
where government ownership is no longer required and to rely on market
forces to spur Canada's competitiveness."

Telesat fully supports these views and endorses any divestiture plan,
such as a public share offering, that will maintain or increase
competition in the telecommunications marketplace, and stimulate the
company's will to succeed in that marketplace. In the course of the
divestiture, Telesat would like to see the government - and,
therefore, the Canadian taxpayer - maximise the return on its long
investment in Telesat, and we are prepared to advise the government on
the method and timing of its divestiture with that objective in mind.

Telesat further welcomes the introduction of a new telecommunications
policy that will ensure interconnection to network services throughout
Canada, and allow carriers and service resellers to compete on an
equal basis. A new policy along these lines, and the legislation which
will apply it, will help Telesat remain competitive under private
sector ownership.

Our experience within Telesat is that efficient telecommunications
provides a competitive edge to businesses, cutting decision-making
time, significantly improving productivity, and reducing the cost of
information transfer. Our goal is to remain a world leader in
satellite communications, and to continue to furnish unique solutions
to business needs.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Advanced Television Trial Underway

By: Mike Bryan, Telesat Public Affairs

Telesat's two-year Advanced Television (ATV) trial moved into the
limelight with several major events at the close of 1989, including a
three-day HDTV (High Definition Television) production seminar at the
National Arts Centre (NAC) in Ottawa, and an exclusive closed circuit
HDTV broadcast of a middleweight boxing match from Las Vegas.

By next month, Telesat's ATV production mobile will be complete, and
will be available on a rental basis for commercial productions, as
well as for experimentation, demonstrations, and tests.

HDTV Seminar

To introduce the technology in Canada, some 80 television and film
industry directors, producers, technical specialists and executives
attended a three-day production seminar at the NAC in Ottawa on
November 21-23.

Co-sponsored by Telesat and the NAC, the event was telecast to the
Banff Centre for The Arts in Alberta via an inaugural Telesat HDTV
satellite feed - the first to use the Canadian-developed HDB-MAC
compression and scrambling system.

The seminar was also the nation's first tele-education event in HDTV.
Half the participants were in Ottawa, and half gathered in Banff to
participate on a wide-screen display system with their comments and
questions flashed back to Ottawa via a return audio link.

Seminar participants received hands-on instruction and experience in
handling HDTV cameras and hardware, and experimented with lighting and
related subjects in theatrical settings. HDTV technical and production
experts from across North America were also on hand to present
lectures at the session.

At an Ottawa press conference on November 23, President Eldon Thompson
said Telesat intented to "act as a catalyst" in introducing advanced
television in Canada. The company would become Canada's foremost
authority in end-to-end ATV transmission, satellite distribution, and
applications, and both new and existing customers would benefit.

Main Event

Telesat's ATV calendar also included the exclusive HDTV exhibition in
Canada of the December 7 super middleweight boxing match in Las Vegas
between Roberto Duran and Sugar Ray Leonard. Telesat displayed the
event to an audience of 300 which enjoyed the television of the future
on a 25-foot screen at Toronto's Queen Elizabeth Theatre.

Another major event on Telesat's ATV calendar is the HDTV colloquium
in June. Telesat will be a major participant in this summer's Fourth
International Colloquium on advanced television systems, to take place
at the Ottawa Congress Centre June 25-29. Telesat President Eldon
Thompson will be conference chairman.

Mobile Ready

To stimulate the emergence of new business ventures exploiting ATV and
build applications and technical experience in ATV systems in Canada,
Telesat has built a complete, satellite-based closed-circuit ATV
network consisting of: a production mobile, a transmission system (The
mobile will actually be equipped with two distinct transmission
technologies - the "MUSE" system, developed by the Japanese state
broadcaster, NHK, and Toronto's Digital Video Systems "HDB-MAC"
system.), a satellite uplink truck and a small network of
transportable receive-only sites. Most of the hardware is also capable
of broadcasting in the conventional NTSC TV standard.

Canada's first multi-camera ATV production mobile will be ready to go
on the road in April, 1990.

For the next two years, the mobile and other equipment will roam the
country telecasting special events, concerts, business meetings, and
promotions.  It's also expected to be involved in a number of regular
film and television productions projects. By the time the trial is
over, Canada will be positioned in the forefront of nations adopting
the new technology.

Open Invitation

Telesat invites enquiries from current customers concerning potential
new business television, broadcasting, and special event applications
which might be evaluated during the trial.

HDTV is a revolutionary new form of television with pictures larger,
wider, and twice as sharp as today's TV, better colour rendition and
multi-channel, CD quality, digital sound.

Japan, the European community and the United States are all very
active in developing ATV technologies. The U.S. is expected to adopt
standards for HDTV transmission within two years. The Japanese are
already broadcasting in HDTV via satellite every day, and are
following Telesat's activities with keen interest.

Regardless of when it eventually replaces today's NTSC television sets
in the home, Telesat believes some form of ATV is the future of
television.

The program will promote development of satellite-based ATV
applications by giving producers, broadcasters and closed-circuit
television programmers working experience with advanced video formats.

The company expects early Canadian introduction of ATV systems will be
in the area of closed-circuit broadcasts of sports and entertainment
special events to large screens in clubs, pubs, small theatres, and
similar venues.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Telesat Ready for Future With New Control Centre

By: Daryl Lee, Telesat Public Affairs

Telesat's new satellite control centre, buried in the circular
appendage of the Telesat headquarters, looks appropriately space-age.
Banks of monitors stretch across the oval-shaped room while two
vertical control consoles sit on either side. Almost lost in the maze
of hardware are the two satellite controllers who watch over the five
Anik satellites hovering in precise positions some 36 000 km above the
earth.

The muted lighting of the control centre complements its atmosphere.
The room is quiet, not at all like the bustling space centres scripted
in Hollywood movies. But behind the scenes are over 100 specialists in
satellite operation and control, along with 14 computers and two
tracking antennas located across Canada and in Australia.

"The old control centre, although adequate for what we were doing in
the past, was getting to the point where it was totally inadequate for
what we have to do in the future," explains Ron Costanzo, Manager of
System Software for Telesat. "The computer system that ran the whole
thing was based on a computer that has become obsolete. We reached the
limits of that system."

So with two Anik Es on their way, plus MSAT scheduled for launch in
1993, and the possibility for controlling RADARSAT - the new remote
sensing satellite - it was deemed time to retire the old SCC and build
a new one.

Design and construction took four years, and the new SCC is a
reflection of Telesat's expertise in satellite control systems.

The SCC, along with its software and most of the specialised hardware,
was designed and built in-house. At present it is controlling three
Anik C satellites and two Anik D satellites, with room for the two
Anik E satellites or reasons why Telesat needed a new SCC. The old
centre simply could not handle the complexity of the new satellites.

"We recognise that they're not going to be easy satellites to
operate," says Costanzo. "The manoeuvres are much more complex and
require an awful lot more processing time. A north-south manoeuvre on
an Anik C or D takes at most 10 minutes. On the Anik E the same
manoeuvre could take up to an hour and a half."

Telesat designers took advantage of the situation to build more
flexibility into the new satellite control system.

"Now we should be able to whip changes into the system to meet
changing requirements far faster than we ever could in the past," says
Costanzo.  "And the system is a lot more user-friendly."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Radio-Quebec Renews Uplink Agreement

By: Joe Aragona, Telesat Marketing Communications

Radio-Quebec, Quebec's French-language, educational and cultural
television network has renewed its transmit agreement with Telesat for
another three years beginning January 1990.

Under the terms of the agreement, Telesat will continue to provide
Radio-Quebec with three uplink services at the network's headquarters
in Montreal. The first uplink will be used by Radio-Quebec, the second
will be leased by Radio-Quebec to Te'le'vision Quatre Saisons, and the
third will be used as a standby service and for occasional use.

"With our satellite link and our 17 transmitters we can continue to
broadcast throughout the province," says Radio-Quebec representative
Jean Lajoie, P Eng.  "Also, we can continue to transmit to a network
of cable operators, and close to 150 000 TVRO (Television Receive
Only) owners who receive our signal directly from the satellite. This
means that our programming reaches almost 95 per cent of the Quebec
population."

As Quebec's educational and cultural television network,
Radio-Quebec's programming consists of current events and public
affairs, social and public service programs, general cultural and
instructional television.  Lajoie explains that each program is
targeted at specific audiences, and adds that the reasons for the
network's original decision to switch to satellite in 1985, are still
valid today.

"Originally it was pure economics," says Lajoie. "We opened our first
transmitters in Montreal and Quebec City in 1975, and we were using
terrestrial microwave links. But in 1985 the operating costs, and a
mandate which required us to broadcast more regional programming, made
it too expensive to continue in that way. Satellite became the best
way for us to transmit our signal. It was easier, it was cheaper, and
it was reliable."

The network leased three uplink services, and the intention was to use
one for the main broadcast, and the two others for regional
transmissions. By 1987, Radio-Quebec decided that its regional
broadcasts were becoming too costly, and that the same programming
could be broadcast from the main office in Montreal. The changes were
implemented at the time that Te'le'vision Quatre Saisons was ready to
go to air, and Radio-Quebec began leasing its second uplink service to
Quatre Saisons.

"Even with the changes in our operating policy it still made sense to
stay with satellite, and with Telesat," adds Lajoie. "We originally
looked at other suppliers, including Bell and CNCP, but Telesat was
the best choice.

"We haven't had any major problems, and we just started to broadcast
on a quarter Canada coverage. This gives us a great improvement in our
signal.  With the new Anik E series of satellites which will soon be
available for use, our signal should improve even more."


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Telesat Report is published by the Business Planning Division of Telesat.

Telesat believes the information contained in this publication to be
accurate as of the date of publication. Some information is subject to
change without notice. Telesat is not responsible for any inadvertent
errors.

All correspondence should be addressed to:

The Editor, Telesat Report
Telesat
1601 Telesat Court
Gloucester, Ontario
K1B 5P4
Tel. [phone]
Toll Free: 1-800-267-1870
Fax: [phone]
ENVOY: ANIK

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Telesat Report - Spring 1990
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01666;
          22 Apr 90 12:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02645;
          22 Apr 90 10:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac28592;
          22 Apr 90 9:32 CDT
Date:     Sun, 22 Apr 90 9:10:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #274
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Apr 90 09:09:41 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 274

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: My Crime I Must Confess [TELECOM Moderator]
    AT&T and Internet Gateway [William Degnan]
    The Many Faces of Cellular One [John R. Covert]
    Looking for Ordering of New NPA Codes [Dave Leibold]
    Rumor: COCOTS Getting Coin Lines? [John Higdon]
    Re: Rates For Cellular Phones [John Higdon]
    Re: The Card [[e-mail]]
    Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [Linc Madison]
    Re: Area Code 917 in New York City [Dave Leibold]
    Book Review: Megabit Data Communications [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 7:47:46 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: My Crime I Must Confess!


In Volume 10, Issue 264 of the Digest, dated Thursday, April 19, 1990,
issued at 2:02 AM, Article 4 was an item entitled "Appeals Court
Orders Seized Computer Returned". This same item was transmitted to
the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup with identification of
[e-mail].

The item was sent to me by (apparently) a daemon which handles
Clarinet news items called '[e-mail]'. The item looked
interesting to me, and since we have recently had stories in the
Digest about site administrators and sysops who have had legal
difficulties involving their computer, I decided to include it in the
Digest.

In several letters in the days which followed, Brad Templeton
([e-mail]) wrote me to complain that the item was actually a
copyrighted article which had been used in Clarinet, and that I should
not have published it here; and that by doing so I violated his
copyright on the item.  He denied that anything was amiss in his
software or mailer, and that the item had to have been sent by some
actual person who simply diddled up the header and forwarded it to me.

He said he would overlook this transgression of his copyright if I
would publish an article (conveniently submitted with his complaint)
which described Clarinet and the benefits of subscribing to same.

What I suggest instead is that the item be removed from circulation.
Please put issue 264 in your editor and zap article 4, inserting this
note you are reading now in its place. It is not my intent to run
articles copyrighted by Clarinet in the Digest, so obviously the item
should not have appeared here.

Site administrators: Please remove [e-mail] from
comp.dcom.telecom at your site if in fact it has not already expired.
I stress that folks who keep archives of TELECOM Digest should
likewise remove it.  Thank you, and my apologies for the inconvenience.

Mr. Templeton has also asked to have the person who mailed the article
to me to please get in touch with him. If you are that person, please
contact him at '[e-mail]'.


Patrick Townson


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

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 13:57:09 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T and Internet Gateway


In correspondence, recently, the Moderator and I discussed the fact
that AT&T had blocked traffic, which formerly flowed between AT&TMail
and the Internet -- despite of the clear benefit to AT&T.

I have sent several inquiries to AT&TMail and have, at last, received
a coherent reply. It is quoted here, for your information:

   Date: Wed Apr 18 11:31:55 EDT 1990
   From: Madeline  Sorrentino <!msorrentino>
   Phone: [phone]
   Subject: Internet Gateway
   To: William S Degnan <!wdegnan>
   Cc: Customer  Assistance <!atthelp>
   /electronic/cod
   Cc: Patti  Contey <!customerserv>
   Content-Length: 1412

Mr. Degnan

AT&T's Research and Development Division currently has UNIX gateways
to the Internet.  In the past, these gateways were also connected to
AT&T Mail.  Because Internet is a free messaging network, all messages
generated by Internet users to AT&T Mail users thru the use of these
UNIX gateways, were automatically charged to the AT&T department that
owned the UNIX gateway.  AT&T Mail had no way of knowing that these
messages were generated by Internet users.  Therefore, we had to block
these gateways.

AT&T Mail is in the process of establishing an AT&T Mail gateway to
the Internet, to satisfy customer requirements to communicate with
Internet users.  We will not charge Internet users to deliver mail to
AT&T Mail users.  These charges will be rightfully absorbed by AT&T
Mail and not charged to AT&T's Research and Development organization
who happens to have a number of Internet gateways.

The AT&T Mail gateway has already been registered with the Internet
network and is currently in system test.  We are also reviewing the
Internet commercial requirements agreement. Once the Gateway is
commercially available, we will announce it to our customers. I expect
it to be available within two to three months.

Thank you for your interest.  If I may be of further assistance,
please feel free to e-mail me directly.


Madeline Sorrentino
AT&T Mail Gateways Manager

          -----------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.
William Degnan                   | [e-mail]
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!WDegnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 21:13:25 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  21-Apr-1990 2305" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Many Faces of Cellular One


It would be nice if people making postings about Cellular One would
list the ownership, and not just "Cellular One."

Cellular One was a name invented by the first cellular company in the
country, the original "A" carrier in Balto-Wash (which was operational
under a test and developmental license to field test the first
Motorola hardware).

The name was licensed to any "A" carrier who wanted to use it for some
very low fee, (I've heard $1/year).  The name is currently owned by
Southwestern Bell (ever since they bought the "A" license in
Washington).  They, of course, only operate as the "A" carrier and use
the Cellular One name outside the Southwestern Bell wireline service
area in D.C., Boston, and Chicago.  Otherwise they use Southwestern
Bell Mobile Systems and operate as the "B" carrier.

McCaw uses it at almost all of its licensees (in more than 90 cities),
sometimes in direct competition with Southwestern Bell.

Vanguard Cellular uses it in about 15 cities in Maine, Pennsylvania,
Florida, West Virginia, and New York.

Providence Journal Cellular (just bought by GTE Mobilnet, I think)
uses it in about nine cities in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia.

United States Cellular uses the name in many cities.

Other Cellular Ones are Amarillo Cellular Telephone Company,
Bakersfield Cellular One, Cellular One of Beaumont, Billings Cellular
Corp., Bauce Communications (Cumberland, Md., Rapid City, SD), Crowley
Cellular (FL, TX, IL, NY), Radiofone, Inc. (LA, TX), PacTel Cellular
(Cellular One of Detroit, Bay Area Cellular), Palmer Communications
(Fort Myers, Fla.), Indianapolis Telephone Company, Richmond Cellular
Telephone Co., Cellular One of Jacksonville, NC, Cellular One of the
Rio Grande Valley, Roanoke Valley Cellular Telephone Co., Cellular
Corp. of Sioux Falls, The Southern Ohio Telephone Company, Syracuse
Telephone Company, Buffalo Telephone Company, Genesee Telephone
Company (Associated Communications), Midwest Cellular Telephone
(Oklahoma City), Portsmouth Cellular Limited Partnership, and many
more too numerous to mention and constantly changing ownership.

PacTel Cellular is the "A" carrier in Atlanta, Georgia, but doesn't
use the name Cellular One in that market.


/john

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

Subject: Looking For Ordering of New NPA Codes
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 90 23:56:20 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


I noticed somewhere that when the existing style of NPAs runs out (ie.
the N[0/1]X-type), the initial batch of interchangeable NPAs will be
of the form NN0 (like in 220, 650, 990, etc). There was a certain
order in which those would be assigned when the time comes; does
anyone have this on hand (or in the archives or something)?

P.S. ... still time to mail any Telecom magazine to [e-mail]
before a revised list of magazines is sent down the line, perhaps in
the next week or so.

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

Subject: Rumor: COCOTS Getting Coin Lines?
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 21 Apr 90 22:44:39 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Anybody know anything of a rumor that COCOTs will in the forseeable
future be issued genuine coin lines? You know, the kind that the
telcos use for their own phones. The way I hear it, the COCOT owner
makes all the necessary arrangements with the telco, LD carrier, etc.
and then collects the cash out of his phone and well as getting a bill
by the telco, and a settlement with the LD company. "Smart" phones
will no longer be necessary.

Think how great this would be. No more (or at least little more)
misprogramming, no more gouging, no more "guessing" at supervision, no
more blocking of "10XXX", etc. In short, except for actual rates,
COCOTs could work as well as telco pay phones.

Of course, this could all be like the rumor that Pac*Bell was buying
out GTE in Los Gatos. The COCOT thing comes from people who generally
know about these things (well, so did the GTE rumor), so my question
is: does anyone know for sure?


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Cellular Phones
Date: 21 Apr 90 18:12:35 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]> writes:

> Cellular One (unless there is more than one company using the service
> mark) is owned and operated by McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., of
> Kirkland, Washington. (If they were owned by SW Bell, they wouldn't be
> a "non-wireline" carrier, would they?)

I had always been told that McCaw owned the Cellular One service mark,
but was corrected by another reader "off line" and told that it was
actually SW Bell that owned it. In any event your logic as to what
does or does not constitute a "non-wireline" carrier breaks down here
in the Bay Area. The "non-wireline" carrier major owner is Pacific
Telesis (the rest is owned by McCaw). My dial tone comes from Pacific
Bell, a fully owned subsidiary of Pacific Telesis. If that isn't
"wireline" then what is?


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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 1990 21:07:44 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Card


The AT&T Card application specifies that the card will be a MasterCard
unless you check a box indicating your preference for a Visa.  You can
request them to send you an application instead of providing the
information to them on the phone.  They also offer a free Gold
Visa/MasterCard.

As of Jan 1, 1990, it is illegal for merchants in NY State to require
customers to provide address/phone info if they receive electronic
authorization of the purchase.  Last year NY State banned credit card
transaction forms that have separate carbons.

MasterCard and Visa are separate companies and offer different
benefits to their card holders.  You can call 800 MC ASSIST or 800
VISA 411 to find out about the various benefits/programs offered.

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 04:13:30 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Robert Gutierrez writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 262, Message 2 of 4

>Seems that NASA Ames new prefix (415-604-XXXX) is giving fits to
>everybody (including lots of COCOTS I've run across) including GTE,
>since it is the first N0X prefix in the Bay Area. They credited me for that.

I don't want to seem nitpicky, but it's not the first, only one of the
early ones.  The very first ones were 302 (Oakland), 502 (San
Francisco), and 709 (Pittsburg).  Specifically, those three are the
only ones shown in the current S.F. directory, publ. date September
'89.

BTW, I tried to use the Bellcore number posted here to do a
comprehensive current listing of N0/1X prefixes in 415, but got a
rather curious result: dialing 415-N0/1X -- even for prefixes I know
are operational -- gave me dead silence for a location.

I ran across 415-604 a couple of months ago in a mis-transcribed
phone message.  I called Pac*Bell, and was told it was a Mountain View
exchange, and was Zone 2 (8-12 miles) from my Berkeley location, some
40 or 50 miles away.  Hmmm.  Maybe there is some jinx on that
exchange.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Interesting that you mention the 'dead silence'
when trying to ascertain the location of the prefix. Here in Chicago,
no one yet has been able to tell me which CO serves 312-415, a prefix
used by Ameritech Mobile. I'd like to know, for example, if it is in
my local (from home) calling area, or where it is. Even Ameritech
can't tell me. The best they can say is that it is 'in the Washington
tandem'. My Illinois Bell service rep doesn't know the answer either.  PT]

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 917 in New York City
Reply-To: [e-mail] (woody)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 02:27:32 GMT


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

>numbers.  NYTel apparently has NPA 917 reserved already.

Does anyone (Bellcore, whoever) know if any other area codes have been
reserved recently: like 909, or perhaps even re-issuing Mexico codes
706 or 905? Any further N10 codes (apart from 310 and 510 in
California?).

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 8:14:13 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: Megabit Data Communications


"Megabit Data Communications: A Guide For Professionals"
Authors: John T. Powers, Jr. / Henry H. Stair II
Publisher: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Division of Simon & Schuster
Copyright: 1990
ISBN: 0-13-573569-6

An interesting book explaining T-Carrier in some detail has recently
been published entitled, "Megabit Data Communications". Subtitled, "A
Guide For Professionals", this book describes practical applications
of megabit-speed digital transmission technologies, products, products
and services. It is directed at managers, engineers, planners and
designers who deal directly with digital communications.

The authors, Jack Powers and Pete Stair, note that the book results
from their reflections on the data communications business and seeing
the surprising difficulty which even simple tasks require. When it
became apparent to them that information needed to plan, specify,
engineer and install high-speed facilities was spread thinly over a
variety of sources -- some of which were quite obscure -- they decided
to write this book and bring the information together in one place.

They do not discuss prices, delivery or vendor performance, simply
because such information would be obsolete before the book was
published. What they do discuss in detail include --

   -- ISDN networks
   -- T-Carrier services and related hardware
   -- AT&T's Dataphone digital services
   -- Telex and TWX
   -- Voice technologies
   -- Fiber optic transmission techniques
   -- Private digital services
   -- Multivendor integration

There are numerous charts, diagrams, drawings and other illustrations
to assist in understanding what they have written.

You might find this book to be a valuable and useful addition to your
telecom library. It certainly will assist in evaluating vendor's
claims as to equipment performance and compatibility.

It should be available at this time in the technical department of
bookstores in your community.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #274
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12504;
          22 Apr 90 17:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04728;
          22 Apr 90 15:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07306;
          22 Apr 90 14:46 CDT
Date:     Sun, 22 Apr 90 13:56:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #275
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Apr 90 13:55:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 275

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Cordless Telephones [Robert D. Greene]
    Re: The Card [David Tamkin]
    Re: 716/789 in Stedman, NY [George L. Sicherman]
    Wiring Standards for RJ-11/RJ-12 [Ken Levitt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 22:31 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...)
Organization: Telecom Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


   Part I:  Party Lines (also Phone Replacement)

In several articles, our esteemed Moderator and Contributors seem to
have identified another one of America's cans of local Telco worms.
Opening, our Moderator raises the commonly-held view:

>[Moderator's Note: Am I mistaken, or are you not *forbidden* to hook
>anything onto a party line except a phone provided by the local telco
>itself?

Macy Hallock adds from Ohio:

>IT is my understanding that only telco provided phones are allowed on
>party lines, per Part 68.  GTE Ohio rents and sells phones for party
>lines here, and allows customer (plug-in) installation.

>I used to believe customer owned sets were not allowed at all.  GTE
>told me they interpret the rules to say telco provided, not telco
>owned.  Answering machines, alarm jacks, and anything other than telco
>provided telephone sets and extension ringers are not permitted.

John Covert adds the classic technical reason...billing problems:

>If your central office supports automatic identification of outgoing
>long distance calls (i.e. you don't get a "What number are you calling
>from" operator on every outgoing long distance call) you _must_not_
>ever make a long distance call from a phone not supplied by the telco.

Peter da Silva adds the typical question of a "high-tech" person:

>What I don't understand...
>Why would anyone be using a party line service in 1990?

 ..In the truest spirit of the fabled radio reporter, Wally Ballew,
Telecom Digest has gone to practically no expense (as educators always
do) in search of another viewpoint and further confusion. The Digest
found it right here in rural Mississippi, on the edge of Appalachia.

 ..As we type these words to you, South Central Bell is replacing
hundreds of 1950's-generation Community Dial Offices (known in the
trade as CDO's) with electronic Digital Remote Switches made by GPT
(GEC-Plessey, now also partly Siemens)/Stromberg-Carlson.  Reason: SC
Bell has still to provide Equal Access to all these localities in
Mississippi, and must do it by the end of 1990.

 ..Answering the last question first, there's still not enough cable
along many of these rural roads to provide private line service to
everyone.  Also, many incomes in areas like this fall well below
poverty levels, and discounted party line rates are all that can be
charged.

 ..The result: The state-of-the art digital remotes we are now burning
in and testing all over the state are equipped for "superimposed
ringing," the Bell style of multiparty ringing.  The limit is four
parties, however, as Bell party line ringing always was limited to
four, simply ringing tip or ring to ground with each possible polarity
of ringing signal. (This compared to the several "harmonic, Synchronic,
Decimonic" and other varieties of tuned ringers often used in innovative
ways by non-Bell companies to pile a reported dozen or so parties on
some lines, using as many as five frequencies and then ringing some
balanced; some tip to ground and some ring to ground.  It seems that
at a dozen or so, the whole mess gets too many wrong ringers
responding faintly, not to mention unbalancing long loops rather
messily, creating hum and noise.)  So, "party line ringing" lives on,
right along with Call Waiting and the whole packet of new value-added
things SC Bell will soon have for sale here.

 ..to answer the first question last, South Central Bell has some
unique marketing problems for station equipment here, in such a sparse
marketplace.  So, they have established "agents" for the sale and
rental of telephone sets. Now, these agents cannot keep "tip" `and
"ring" parties straight, so this reporter learned that they use an
interface device on party lines that makes the line into a staight
balanced loop at the customer premises. thus, _all_ phones, whether
party line or not, are regular balanced loop telephone sets.  A check
of the SCBell directory for Leake County, MS, shows only one sentence
regarding providing telephones for _any_ sort of line service, saying
(sic), "You must arrange for provision of your telephone."  It has no
wording about party line telephone sets or provision of telephones by
either SC Bell or by Southern Bell Advanced Systems (considered in
some quarters to be another oxymoronic term)>

 ..So, that's the status from here in rural Mississippi. It may be the
last place in America still having CDO's, considering telephones were
manual here until the mid-1950's...and those chattering switches will
go silent this year.  Step switch nostalgists may want to fly to New
Orleans and rent a car to drive 50 or 150 miles north to this region
to see the last of them.

 ..There is one post-script to the technology of this report: Most
localities even have a few ports of T-1 interface to work to SLC-96
lines.  However, very few pairs seem likely to be able to support the
operation, So, until new cable is placed, it's not likely there will
be much use of it.  In keeping with that, there are no ISDN BRI cards
in the new exchanges.

Local residents, asked their opinions about ISDN, universally responded,
"What?"  Fishing for 40-pound bass and shooting wild turkeys is much
better understood here.

 ...We now return you to Evanston and our Moderator......

    Part II: City Boy Meets Country Coin Phones

 ..If readers can egage some vicarious imagination, they'll enjoy this
experience:

 ..Landing in the tiny town of Walnut Grove, Mississippi after dark
and looking for a way to get accommodations on a Sunday evening, I
located a pay phone outside the only open business, a country version
of a convenience store.  It was a current-generation single-slot
phone, but there was no dial tone.  I entered the store to tell the
lcerk her phone was out of order.  She expressed surprise, saying
someone had used it only a few hours ago ... which is a short time in
these parts. She pointed out another payphone inside the store, but I
found it provided no dial tone, either. Asking her if there was
another, she said there was one more in town, along the town square
off the main highway.

 ..Over in the darkened town square, I found the phone in the
moonlight (no lighted booths here, either).  It provided no dial tone.
I made a note to report every coin phone in Walnut Grove, Mississippi
out of order, having dark thoughts about the poor social responsibility
of the phone company.

 ..On Monday, I told the local police chief and a local telco
repairman;  both seemed puzzled I should have any question, saying
they saw people using the phones.

 ..Finally, on Tuesday, I got my answer: Taking a moment to notice,
the instruction card was brown instead of blue, I found it read,
"Deposit 25 cents to get a dial tone.  If your call is a free call,
your money will be returned."

 ..Sonofagun!  The city boy never knew there was such a thing as a
single-slot _pre-pay_ coin phone!  And he hadn't been in a town with
pre-pay coin phones since the era of the old 200-type "three-hole"
coin phones!

 ..So, around these parts you have the _trust_ the phone company for
your quarter, even in 1990!  (Those of us who have worked in the "Big
City" have to make a real leap of faith with our quarters out here!)

 ..Our Esteemed Moderator often makes his telephonic age known here; I
wonder if he is old enough to remember pre-pay public phones....


[Moderator's Note: Yes indeed I do remember three-slot coin phones
which remained dead until you made a *five cent* deposit. Furthermore,
the return slots did not have trap-doors; the handset cords were
uncurled and covered with brown *cloth* (no armored handset like now);
and the *wooden* phone booth had a door on the front with a glass
window in it, a little seat inside it, and an overhead incadesent
light which went on or off when the door was opened or closed, like a
refrigerator light. Most payphones were made not by Western Electric,
but by the Elisha Gray PayStation Company, which held the patent on
this type of phone for years and years. Elisha Gray was the fellow,
you may recall, who complained for years that Alex Bell had cheated
him out of his patent and got to the Patent Office first. The last
time I saw a Gray payphone was in the fifties; but the wooden booths
and three slot phones (via Western Electric) remained for another
twenty years or so.  PT]

    Part III: Billing and Idenification Problems

>Anyone familiar with the billing and identification problems
>associated with party lines will not be surprised to hear that GTE has
>had fits with enhanced 911 service and party lines.  Also, 1+ carrier
>selection is not available for party line users, you have to take
>GTE's assignment.  I have not tried 10XXX dialing on GTE or Ohio Bell
>party lines.

 ..Your point may be of interst in other rural areas, Macy. It caused
me to wonder if South Central Bell had an answer to the problem of
identifying party line callers.  Engaging some country housewife
researchers with a couple of local calls here in rural Mississippi, I
found that even though ANI has long been added to CDO's, party line
subscribers still have only ONI.

 ..This despite the vaunted ability of our electronic exchanges now in
testing to provide E911 service. It simply looks like ONI will be
needed on calls to 911, in order for Telco to pass the digits along to
the database and PSAP....

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 10:11:50 CDT
From: "Robert D. Greene" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Telephones


I have recently purchased a Radio Shack Model ET-421 Cordless
Telephone and have a few questions about it and cordless telephones in
general.  Since purchasing this phone, I have set it up and connected
it as the instruction manual suggested. My environment is not the
cleanest in the world (I have a bunch of computer equipment on the
other side of the room [about 10'] from the base station) and I have
noticed that I get really dirty connections even when using the phone
within about 6 inches of the base station. Is this normal even at
those ranges?

Also, my owners manual claims that this phone has "the highest legally
allowed transmitting power"; however I have been unable to get the
phone to function at more than about 200 feet (I have seen ads for
other phones claiming ranges of 1000-1500 feet). The 200 feet range is
for the phone going out through a window and then out into an empty
yard. For realistic uses, adding a few walls/doors between the handset
and the base station nets me about a 20' range. In any event, this
prompts me to wonder (a) what exactly is the legal limit on cordless
telephone transmitter power and (b) what kind of range does this net
and under what conditions? Finally, nimbly sidestepping questions of
legality, how difficult would it be to boost the power of the handset
and base, and would this sacrifice call clarity for added range?

Thanks.

Robert D. Greene
[e-mail]                Sunspots (comp.sys.sun) Moderator
[e-mail]              ONCS, Rice University
 ...!psuvax1!rice!ricevm1!rgreeneb      Houston, Texas 77253
   "Arouse a bee and it will come at you with the force of a dragon..."

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 12:21 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


Will Martin wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 273:

| Perhaps we can collect some data on this via the list and get some idea
| as to what determines whether the card issued is VISA or MC -- would it
| be geographic or based on some financial level such as the credit limit?

When I phoned about it, the customer service rep asked me whether I
was interested in a MasterCard or a VISA, and after I explained that I
was looking for both but that I wanted to read more about them first,
she promised to send out one packet with a MasterCard application and
one for a VISA.  The two that arrived (in separate envelopes) were
identical, both bearing the MasterCard logo on the front, each with a
small box at the top of the questionnaire reading "Please check here
if you would prefer a VISA card rather than a MasterCard card."  The
applications were both titled "AT&T Universal Card Application --
MasterCard" with the implication that there was an alternate form
titled "VISA" with a box to check if you'd rather have a MasterCard,
but that I'd been sent two of the same in non-fatal error.

| [I'm also somewhat confused by the whole concept of "VISA" and
| "MasterCard" as entities in and of themselves.  There must be companies
| somewhere that own the trademarks of VISA and MC, and license them to
| the banks, and, I suppose, act as clearinghouses to route transaction
| slips sent from the merchants to their own banks to get to the bank
| where that particular credit card account resides.

You're pretty much answering your own question, Will.

| Are VISA and MC actually separate competing companies, or two halves of
| the same entity?]

As I understand, they are separate.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCIMail:426-1818  GEnie:D.W.TAMKIN  CIS:73720,1570

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

From: George L Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 716/789 in Stedman, NY
Date: 22 Apr 90 14:13:59 GMT


Stedman is an unremarkable township on the SW shore of Chautauqua
Lake.  Its coordinates are 42 09' N, 79 31' W, more or less.  As I
recall, most of Chautauqua County is served by an independent
telephone company, not N. Y. Telephone.


[Moderator's Note: I believe Chautauqua Institution (ninety-nine
percent of the rationale for the existence of the village of
Chautauqua, NY) operates its own telephone system. And sorry to
disagree, but the summer programs at Chautauqua are quite remarkable
at times. It is the summer home of the Eastman-Rochester Symphony
Orchestra among other things. The art exhibits, lectures, theatre and
recitals make the gate fees worth every nickle. I love visiting
Chautauqua. If I visit this summer I will look at the phone setup.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 13:42:32 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wiring Standards for RJ-11/RJ-12


I am about one month behind in reading Digests, and just came across
two requests for information about sending RS-232 data to RJ-11/RJ-12
type connectors.

I did some looking into this some time back and found that there is no
"official" standard for how this should be wired.  In the end, I
decided to use the same standard used by Digital Equipment Corporation
(DEC) and Emulex.

If you assume a six conductor connector, the following set-up will
allow you to construct a normal data cable or a null-modem cable just
by inverting the connector on the cable.

     RJ-12 Pin          DB-25 Pin         EIA Name
     ---------          ---------         --------
        1                  20             DTR - Data Terminal Ready
        2                   2             TXD - Transmit Data
        3                   7             SG  - Signal Ground
        4                   7             SG  - Signal Ground
        5                   3             RXD - Receive Data
        6                   6             DSR - Data Set Ready

The above setup will work for most devices, but one or more of the
following modifications may be required:

    1.  Bridge "Request To Send" (RTS - DB-25 Pin 4) to "Clear To Send"
        (CTS - DB-25 Pin 5).

    2.  Bridge "Data Set Ready" (DSR - DB-25 Pin 6) to "Data Carrier
        Detect" (DCD - DB-25 Pin 8).

    3.  Bridge "Signal Ground" (SG - DB-25 Pin 7) to "Frame (Protective)
        Ground" (FG - DB-25 Pin 1).

    4.  In really weird situations, you may have to connect "Ring
        Indicator" (RI - DB-25 Pin 22) to something like DCD.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #275
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02128;
          23 Apr 90 0:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30675;
          22 Apr 90 22:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12917;
          22 Apr 90 21:52 CDT
Date:     Sun, 22 Apr 90 21:18:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #276
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Apr 90 21:17:50 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 276

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Index to TELECOM Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service [John Higdon]
    NYNEX Not Forwarding Calls to ATT Correctly [Seshashayee Murthy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 12:10:19 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Index to TELECOM Archives


Here is the most recent index to the files in the TELECOM Archives. In
addition to the articles in the main directory, we have a few
sub-directories also: these include minitel.info, with files about
that system, and scripts to use when loggin in; a sub-directory of
Canadian areacodes, with their prefixes and assigned place names; and
a sub-directory called 'oldarc', which contains old files from the
Boston University telecom archives which we have been unable to
reconstruct in readable format.

All users are urged to check with their site administrator before
pulling the large files. This is particularly true if you pull them
using the mail server instead of ftp.

Using FTP:
  -- ftp lcs.mit.edu
  -- login anonymous [e-mail]
  -- cd telecom archives
  -- dir
  -- get (your selections)
  -- bye

Using the Mail Server:

Send a letter to one of these addresses (same site, same machine):

  [e-mail] (Fido, UUCP and non-ftp Internet locations)
  [e-mail] (Bitnet sites)

The subject does not matter.

Put your FTP commands along the left margin one after the other in
upper case letters. Leave a blank space, then type the argument. Here
is an example:

FTP lcs.mit.edu
USER anonymous [e-mail]
ASCII
CD telecom-archives
GET index.to.archives   (or other file name, as you select them)
GET    (if more than one file requested, list 'gets' one after another)
BYE

Mail your letter, and allow a few days for return mail. Large files
will be returned in parts. For example, one of the files containing
issues of the Digest from the past would come in several separate
mailings. In addition, the bitftp mail server itself will confirm the
transaction with a letter to you showing how your commands were
interpreted by the ftp server at lcs.mit.edu.

Here is the current index, to help in making selections. Remember, to
get a file from one of the sub-directories (npa.canada or minitel.info)
you will need to insert an extra 'CD' command in your letter, because
you want to move in one directory further.

total 19190
drwxrwxr-x  5 telecom  telecom      3584 Apr 22 12:49 ./
drwxrwxr-x 20 root     wheel         512 Apr 19 23:04 ../
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       718 Jan 27 17:33 1981.Intro.to.archives
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     94485 Jan 14 22:32 1981.vol1.iss004-020
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     33063 Jan 20 19:29 1982.vol2.iss001-003
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    382277 Jan 14 22:09 1982.vol2.iss089-141
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    191518 Jan 20 17:59 1983.vol3.iss001-021
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     63880 Jan 14 22:53 1983.vol3.iss083-095
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16811 Jan 15 01:08 1984.vol4.iss001-002
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    121389 Jan 15 01:04 1984.vol4.iss076-093
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    180604 Jan 20 18:29 1985.vol4.iss155-184
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       658 Jan 27 17:23 1985.vol5.READ-ME-FIRST
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    623292 Jan 27 17:08 1985.vol5.iss001-076
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    861286 Jan 27 18:05 1986.vol5.iss077-161
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    639112 Jan 26 03:07 1987.vol6.most.issues
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    274580 Jan 20 16:09 1987.vol7.complete.set
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21596 Jan 20 16:06 1987.vol8.iss003-004
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    137265 Jan 20 15:36 1988.vol8.iss070-083
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    724832 Aug  1  1989 1988.vol8.iss140-189
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    227589 Aug  1  1989 1988.vol8.iss190-213
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    577173 Jan 15 00:01 1989.vol9.iss001-049
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    564262 Jan 14 23:28 1989.vol9.iss050-100
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    653097 Jan 14 21:32 1989.vol9.iss101-150
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    637611 Jan 15 00:24 1989.vol9.iss151-200
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    744800 Jan 14 21:33 1989.vol9.iss201-250
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    787166 Jan 14 21:35 1989.vol9.iss251-300
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    805328 Jan 14 21:54 1989.vol9.iss301-350
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    780366 Jan 15 00:08 1989.vol9.iss351-400
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    784366 Jan 15 00:09 1989.vol9.iss401-450
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    758330 Jan 15 00:09 1989.vol9.iss451-500
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    794183 Jan 14 16:44 1989.vol9.iss501-550
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    856691 Jan 14 16:48 1989.vol9.iss551-603
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    861272 Jan 28 18:03 1990.vol10.iss001-050
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    820574 Feb 14 19:40 1990.vol10.iss051-100
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    842877 Mar  8 02:53 1990.vol10.iss101-150
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    855090 Mar 24 23:47 1990.vol10.iss151-200
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    853551 Apr 13 22:57 1990.vol10.iss201-250
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       953 Jan 31 23:56 READ.ME.FIRST
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21264 Apr 14 16:00 area.code.script.new
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      8147 Aug  1  1989 areacode.program.in.c
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       474 Feb 11 10:49 att.service.outage.1-90
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     18937 Aug  1  1989 auto.coin.collection
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     15141 Aug  1  1989 cellular.sieve
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16292 Mar 18 21:48 class.ss7.features
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13343 Feb 25 23:01 computer.fraud.abuse.act
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     23944 Aug  1  1989 computer.state
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9150 Jan 31 23:12 country.code.list
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11370 Feb  9 06:03 country.codes.revised
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11267 Feb 25 01:46 cpid-ani.developments
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       436 Feb 23 02:50 deaf.communicate.on.tdd
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39319 Aug  1  1989 docket.87-215
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      3422 Jan 20 19:52 early.digital.ESS
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug  1  1989 ecpa.1986
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27 18:47 enterprise-funny-numbers
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     33239 Aug  1  1989 fcc.policy
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     19378 Aug  1  1989 fcc.threat
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       484 Jan 14 17:02 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9052 Aug  1  1989 find.pair
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     47203 Aug  1  1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1998 Jan 27 18:25 fire.in.st-louis.1-90
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       377 Jan 27 18:40 fires.elsewhere.in.past
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1247 Feb 10 22:32 first.issue.cover
-rw-rw-r--  1 map      telecom     45459 Feb  5 14:24 glossary.acronyms
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67113 Jan 14 16:56 glossary.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     32645 Aug  1  1989 guide.to.areacodes
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68804 Feb  2 00:03 hi.perf.computing.net
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2337 Jan 27 19:00 history.of.digest
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32625 Mar 29 20:02 how.numbers.are.assigned
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Apr 22 12:49 index.to.archives
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     30751 Mar  7 20:33 jolnet-attctc.crackers
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43365 Jan 28 17:59 kevin.poulsen.comp.crimes
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4816 Aug  1  1989 lauren.song
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       801 Aug  1  1989 ldisc.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2271 Aug  1  1989 ldnotes.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     13675 Aug  1  1989 ldrates.txt
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35612 Apr  1 21:30 legion.of.doom
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12260 Jan 20 00:43 london.ac.script
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12069 Mar  5 00:02 london.codes.script
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15604 Aug  1  1989 mass.lines
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       463 Aug  1  1989 measured-service
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Apr 22 11:04 minitel.info/
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     36641 Aug  1  1989 mnp.protocol
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2450 Jan 20 19:47 modems.and.call-waiting
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      7597 Feb 10 22:30 named.exchanges
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3014 Jan 27 18:56 newuser.letter
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32815 Mar 25 20:47 nine.hundred.service
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Apr 14 16:10 npa.exchange.list-canada/
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16534 Feb 11 23:44 nsa.original.charter-1952
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9886 Jan 23 23:37 occ.10xxx.access.codes
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8350 Jan 28 10:57 occ.10xxx.notes.updates
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27 18:43 old.fashioned.coinphones
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2756 Jan 27 18:52 old.hello.msg
drwxrwxr-x  2 jsol     telecom       512 Jan 27 17:50 oldarc/
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70153 Aug  1  1989 pc.pursuit
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      5492 Aug  1  1989 pearl.harbor.phones
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     42188 Jan 14 16:58 phrack.acronyms
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38772 Aug  1  1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17950 Jan 14 16:51 rotenberg.privacy.speech
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9764 Jan 20 19:50 starline.features
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     46738 Jan 18 22:29 starlink.vrs.pcp
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39610 Apr 22 11:09 under.construction
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3857 Aug  1  1989 tat-8.fiber.optic
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27533 Feb  9 05:55 telco.name.list.formatted
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31487 Jan 28 18:11 telco.name.listing
-rw-rw-rw-  1 ptownson telecom    476526 Apr 22 12:15 telecom-recent
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     11752 Aug  1  1989 telstar.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       298 Aug  1  1989 west.german.cellular
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     37947 Aug  1  1989 wire-it-yourself
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4101 Aug  1  1989 wiring.diagram
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24541 Aug  1  1989 zum.debate

Enjoy your visit to the Archives!

Patrick Townson


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service
Date: 22 Apr 90 10:23:12 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Apr 22 at  8:50, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Interesting that you mention the 'dead silence'
> when trying to ascertain the location of the prefix. Here in Chicago,
> no one yet has been able to tell me which CO serves 312-415, a prefix
> used by Ameritech Mobile. I'd like to know, for example, if it is in
> my local (from home) calling area, or where it is. Even Ameritech
> can't tell me. The best they can say is that it is 'in the Washington
> tandem'. My Illinois Bell service rep doesn't know the answer either.  PT]

Are you rip roaring sure that a CO is involved? Back when GTE Mobilnet
began as the first provider in the Bay Area (and of course I
immediately signed up) my prefix was 408/234. When you dialed this
number from landline, you heard the connection into the terminating
office, then another ka-chunk which was the end-of-signaling into the
DID trunk. At that point you would hear the tick-tick-tick of the
Motorola EMX. I found out, with the greatest of ease that the
terminating office for 408/234 was Santa Clara AXminster.

Then a strange thing happened. Shortly after the appearance of
Cellular One (Bay Area Cellular, J.C.), the "DID sounds" went away.
The tick-tick-tick sound appeared immediately out of silence when you
dialed 408/234-XXXX. What happened? 408/234 is no longer served out of
any switching at Santa Clara AXminster. Both cellular providers have
direct tandem connections, as if they were local terminating offices.

If you try to determine the CO for a particular cellular exchange now
you get the same informational void described by Mr. Townson.


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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 14:53:39 EDT
From: Seshashayee Murthy <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: NYNEX Not Forwarding Calls to ATT Correctly.


We have had problems with international calls ever since we moved into
out new house in September 1987. (914-736-xxxx)

1. For a few months, we would get a message saying that we needed a
password or that we could not dial international calls from this
telephone. (can't exactly remember which) After repeated calls to
NYNEX and ATT this problem went away.

2. About a year back, we started having problems with ATT operators
saying that they could not give us credit for international calls to
India because we were not ATT customers.  After a while an operator
told us that the way to resolve this was to ask the operator to call
us back and give us credit.  This was a hassle but it worked.  ATT
operators have become extremely friendly and courteous in the last
year or so, so it was still bearable.

3. After putting up with this for a few months, I called NYNEX.  They
said that they had checked and everything was fine.  Calls were being
handed to ATT correctly.  After they finished checking, I never had a
problem getting credit.  However a brand new problem arose.  I could
not dial a number in Bangalore India, 011-91-812-xxxxxx.  I would get
a message, "Your call cannot be completed as dialled. Please check the
number and dial again. 914-1T" This used to drive me nuts.  I knew the
number.  It was correct.  I had to call the ATT operator and explain
the problem.  The operator would dial for me and of course I would get
through.

Of course this was a gigantic hassle; yet it was bearable because the
ATT operators were always nice and courteous.

I finally called the ATT business office, on 4/17.  The supervisor,
was very nice and called ATT long lines repair.  After trying
unsuccessfully to fix the problem for two days, they called NYNEX.  Of
course it was NYNEX's fault.  They were not forwarding my calls
correctly.  They claim to have fixed things now.

I would like to know two things:

1. What sort of mixup in forwarding calls could result in such
peculiar behavior.  I could dial the UK, Hong Kong, and parts of
India, but not this number in Bangalore.  All calls within the US were
handled correctly.

2. I would like to get NYNEX to refund part of my telephone bill.
After all they were not providing the services I contracted for.  Do I
have a case.  Should I pursue this with the PUC?


Sesh Murthy

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #276
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17225;
          23 Apr 90 8:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25206;
          23 Apr 90 7:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10820;
          23 Apr 90 6:00 CDT
Date:     Mon, 23 Apr 90 5:34:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #277
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Apr 90 05:33:55 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 277

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) [John Higdon]
    Re: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers [Paul S. R. Chisholm]
    Re: NYNEX Not Forwarding Calls to ATT Correctly [John Higdon]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Fubar]
    Re: Request For Switch Manufacturers [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Receiving German Teletext Into a PC [Ash Nallawalla]
    Re: Infinity Transmitters, Larry Lippman and the BIG LIE [Mark Harris]
    The Great Debate [Mark C. Lowe]
    Panasonic KXT-3900 Problem [Ken Jongsma]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...)
Date: 22 Apr 90 17:26:05 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]> writes:

>  ..Answering the last question first, there's still not enough cable
> along many of these rural roads to provide private line service to
> everyone.  Also, many incomes in areas like this fall well below
> poverty levels, and discounted party line rates are all that can be
> charged.

To the northeast of Victorville, CA (southern California's High
Desert), is a little widespot in the minimally-maintained two-lane
highway called Helendale. This little burg grew from a population of
about 10 to many hundreds of people when someone decided to build a
retirement community. There is a community center surrounded by many
homes. This residential hideaway is located over twenty miles from
Victorville, with nothing in between but sand and Joshua trees.

In the old days, there were party lines radiating out from Victorville
for the surrounding areas, one of which went to Helendale. Now there
are so many upstart residential enclaves surrounding Victorville that
the party lines have long since been scrapped. Contel solved the
problem by installing remote COs as an adjunct to its existing DMS
plant in the center of town. In the case of Helendale, there is a
small cinderblock building, about the size of a tool shed, that
provides private line service to each of Helendale's residents.
Prefixes are, of course, Victorville. So, over the same inadequate
wire plant that used to (poorly) serve a number of party line
subscribers, Contel is serving many, many times the former number of
subscribers and is giving each a genuine private line. Ah, the magic
of digital technology!

On Apr 22 at 13:56, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Yes indeed I do remember three-slot coin phones
> [...]
> and the *wooden* phone booth [that] had a door on the front with a glass
> window in it, a little seat inside it, and an overhead incadesent
> light which went on or off when the door was opened or closed, like a
> refrigerator light.

You forgot about the omni-present exhaust fan which also came on when
you closed the door. In addition to making conversation difficult in
those selected booths that had an especially noisy one, more than one
classic movie had the major crime solved because someone could
identify the unique noise of a particular fan located in a particular
booth somewhere that was critical to the crime.


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

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers
Date: 23 Apr 90 04:53:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve Elias)
writes that he's passing along information from a U.S. Sprint
employee.

> Although it is true that AT&T did heavily subsidize the local telcos
> before divestiture, it is absolutely incorrect to say that MCI and
> Sprint did not have to "bake" these subsidies into our rate
> structures.  All LD carriers, including Sprint and MCI are charged by
> the telcos for the originating and terminating portions of every
> single long distance call.  It has always been this way and remains so
> today.

True, as far as it goes.  Let's go a little further.

AT&T's predivesture rates, local (for the regional Bell operating
companies) and long distance, were tariffed with the intent that long
distance calls would be expensive and local calls would be cheap,
relative to the cost of providing the respective services.  Consumers
would have a low rate for the "necessary" local calls, and a high rate
for the "luxury" long distance calls.  If you wanted to communicate
with someone on the other side of the country, you could phone 'em if
you could afford it, and write 'em (with a ten cent stamp; ah, those
were the days:-) if you couldn't.

For a while after divestiture, AT&T's long distance rates were *not*
allowed to fall as quickly as their lowered costs (by not providing
local access) would have allowed.  Yes, the tariffs had the same
built-in access charges that other long distance providers were
paying; but they also had some pre-divestiture bias about how high
they should be.  As a result, AT&T had real problems competing on
price.  This has changed somewhat in the past few years.

Disclaimer:  I write e-mail software for AT&T; when it comes to long
distance services, I'm only a customer.  I'm *not* a spokesperson!


Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm

(Pat, has any AT&T employee ever had articles distributed anonymously?)


[Moderator's Note: I don't think there has ever been a case, during my
tenure at the Digest, of an AT&T employee making an anonymous posting
here. I have mentioned to Steve Elias that there is really no reason
for the Sprint employee to post in this manner, and that it is against
our editorial policy for it to occur on a regular basis. He quoted to
me the Sprint employee's concern about being identified for some
reason. Take that for whatever it is worth.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Not Forwarding Calls to ATT Correctly
Date: 22 Apr 90 23:14:36 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Seshashayee Murthy <[e-mail]> writes:

> 1. What sort of mixup in forwarding calls could result in such
> peculiar behavior.  I could dial the UK, Hong Kong, and parts of
> India, but not this number in Bangalore.  All calls within the US were
> handled correctly.

Since your local (NYNEX) office has to store all the digits you dial
and then translate them to meaningful stuff for the carrier (AT&T)
opportunities for screwup do exist. Back in the old days, the local CO
had to bring up a "sender" (point of exit from the US), wait for tone,
then redial your international call removing or adding digits here and
there for routing purposes. This may all be different now and is
probably much simpler, but the bottom line is that it is entirely
possible for NYNEX to have screwed up the calls to a specific area.

> 2. I would like to get NYNEX to refund part of my telephone bill.
> After all they were not providing the services I contracted for.  Do I
> have a case.  Should I pursue this with the PUC?

Don't bother. You got your calls through ultimately, and there is no
specific amount of your bill that you pay that allows you to dial
international calls directly. The only time you might pursue a refund
would be for a total service outage that lasts in excess of
twenty-four hours.


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 02:41:16 -0700
From: Fubar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID


[e-mail] said:

>I've found an easier solution is to just put down the number for my
>modem.  It is amazing how many times I've found a use for a phone
>number that is sometimes busy but never answers :-).

I, too, do this often. I also have another use for the modem line: on
those reader information cards in the back of magazines. On occasion
they ask for your phone number. After I received a number of calls
from salesmen who assumed that since I owned a company I would like to
buy 6000 of their product (in reality, I produce shareware, and have
never bought anything in quantities over 3... no big sale for them
here), I took to putting the modem line down.

Now, if when they hear the nice carrier, they decide to call back and
connect, they are plenty welcome to leave a message for me on my BBS :-)


     Sig: ++Christopher();            | Fubar Systems BBS
Internet: [e-mail] | [phone] 3/12/24 8-N-1
    Also: [e-mail]    | finger [e-mail]
     Bix: cambler                     | Home of the 13K .plan (and growing)

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sun Apr 22 17:49:15 1990
Subject: Re: Request For Switch Manufacturers
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> WA5TGF writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 268, Message 9 of 14

>I would like a list of switch manufacturers with call processing
>capability.  The switch can be either analog or digital.  I am
>particularly interested in low-end machines (read cheap).

I don't know how to answer this questions.  By "Call Processing" do
you mean the ability to process local calls?

I rather suspect you are looking for a specfic feature but have not
used industry standard (?) terms and you have failed to give any
details of your requirements.  This is a good place to a question such
as yours, and many will help, but give us some details, please.

Boy, these hams...if it doesn't have an antenna, they don't know
how to talk about it ;-)  (See you in Dayton, guys!)


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.   {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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] (Ash Nallawalla)
Subject: Re: Receiving German Teletext Into a PC
Date: 22 Apr 90 09:25:50 GMT
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joseph C. Pistritto)
writes:

> Does anyone know of an interface device to pick off the Teletext
> signals that are sent over most European television channels and input
> them to a PC?  I have a decoder in my television, but I thought it
> would be neat to store the teletext info on my PC for searching, etc.

I know of two devices but have no personal experience of them:

1. OPT-II teletext card from Optimum Technology Ltd London number
01-446-2223 (That 01 might now be a new prefix - see this newsgroup
for that prefix). Cost Pounds Stg 195 +VAT. Reviewed in Connectivity,
April 1990 the magazine of the UK IBM PC Users Group. Send mail to
[e-mail] or ring UK 081-863-1191 to get a copy of the
magazine.

2. Do it yourself approach - Kit costing NZ$400 from New Zealand radio
amateur ZL3AAI Gordon Grey. Can dig out address. Circuits and
descriptions are being published in a series in the magazine Break-In,
and still continuing I think.

I suspect that the UK ready-made approach will be cheaper unless you
have access to parts and like building your own. The NZ project is
strictly roll your own, as I see no offer by the offer to supply a kit
in the April 1990 issue, although he must be able to offer the EPROMs.
The software is available for Epson QX-10, IBM-PC and Commodore 64.


Ash Nallawalla        Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
ZL4LM/VK3CIT          Postal: P.O. Box 539, Werribee VIC 3030, Australia.

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

Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters, Larry Lippman and the BIG LIE
From: Mark Harris <omhftre![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 90 00:00:00 EDT
Organization: Omhftre BBS


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes about being speechless
after reading Mr. DeArmond's rebuttal:

Whew!  You're not the only one left speechless.


Mark Harris

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

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 05:28 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Great Debate


I hate to say this, but my respect level for Larry dropped several
degrees after all this.  I believe him to be the senior of the two
parties, and I think he could have handled this in a better way than
to immediately put the other party on the defensive, thus causing the
all-too-familiar flame war that we are all so sick of.  After spending
several years on BBSs and putting up with this kind of thing, imagine
my sorrow when I still have to tolerate such activity on a
professional telecom list!

Larry, if you have need to doubt someone's story in the future, just
ask a few pointed questions of the individual and inform them of the
aspects with which you find fault.  No name-calling or outright
discrediting of the person's claims without really knowing for sure
will serve to put you on more credible grounds!  I don't think anyone
would make up a story like that.  What has he to gain from such a
thing?  I think most people on this list have experimented with
"devices" of one sort or another over the years.  I doubt that he was
trying to impress anyone as most people read the article and forget
about it when they read the next one.

Also, I think you cloud the issue more than help your point when you
name several brands of equipment that he MAY be talking about, because
you can't be sure.  Why waste the space talking about equipment that
probably wasn't involved?  Someone mentioned this point before.  We
know you are familiar with a lot of equipment, and this just looks
like bragging on your part when you mention five model numbers every
time a class of equipment is mentioned.


I am about to graduate from the Engineering Technology Telecommunications
program at Texas A&M.  I hope to work with someone that knows there
stuff like you do.  But I hope they will listen with an open and
patient mind, too!

How about putting this war to rest and sticking to your nice informative
articles?


Mark C. Lowe                            Texas A&M University
[e-mail]                 Engineering Technology Dept.
                                        Telecommunications specialty
                                        Best in the land.

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

Subject: Panasonic KXT-3900 Problem
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 16:20:31 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Help! Based on the glowing reports about the Panasonic KXT-3900
cordless phone from several Digest readers, I went and purchased one
today. I'm having some difficulty with it.

When it is set to dial in Tone Mode, the "2" will not break dialtone
when dialed from the remote. The base works fine as do all the other
digits from the remote. The tones sound ok to me, but I called Sprint
Customer Service and asked them to check. The rep had me push all the
buttons and said they all registered correctly, though she did hear a
slight "beep" just prior to hearing the actual tone. I assume that was
the handset talking to the base.

A related problem: This is the second unit I've tried. The first unit
would not break dialtone from the base with the 2 digit. The current
unit did the same *until I unplugged the little answering machine
override "y" jack I had on that line.* (The jack prevents the phone
from grabbing the line when my modem is on it.) How would that jack be
interfering with the audio signal?

By the way: All the other TouchTone phones in the house work fine.
With or without the "y" jack.

My wife is not impressed with my telecom abilities! Any help would be
appreciated.


Ken

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #277
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02097;
          24 Apr 90 3:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10986;
          24 Apr 90 2:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25871;
          24 Apr 90 1:08 CDT
Date:     Tue, 24 Apr 90 0:42:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #278
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Apr 90 00:42:16 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 278

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Jeff Wasilko]
    Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Kelly Goen]
    Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Irving Wolfe]
    RoamingAmerica Description [Jeff Wasilko]
    Information on Cellular Phones [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC [Ken Thompson]
    Re: Panasonic KXT-3900 Problem [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 00:24:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones


Patrick mentioned that certain telephone numbers at Cellular One in
Chicago are set not to check the ESN. Then Terry Mason added that on
their switch, if the expected ESN is '00000000' the system doesn't
check it against the actual serial number.

I just thought I'd throw in my two cents about our setup here in the
Empire Area (Buffalo, Rochester, Albany). If the ESN is not entered
when the subscriber is activated (or it is cleared out), the ESN from
the next call will be entered into the database, and all future calls
will be checked against that ESN. If the ESN's don't match, the call
will fail. This is convenient for conversions (when a customer
switches from one carrier to another) since the customer usually
doesn't know the ESN, and the dealers, well, they're just dealers...  (-:

I'm trying to get together some information on the PRV (the roamer
validation system used by the majority of the non-wireline systems),
so I'll try to write up something in the near future.


| RIT VAX/VMS Systems: |     Jeff Wasilko     |     RIT Ultrix Systems:     |
|BITNET: jjw7384@ritvax+----------------------+INET:[e-mail]|
|UUCP: {psuvax1, mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!JJW7384 +___UUCP:[e-mail]____+
|INTERNET: [e-mail]                |'claimer: No one cares.      |


[Moderator's Note: And in fact, Jeff wrote up his research, and it is
included later in this issue.  PT]

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

From: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones
Date: 23 Apr 90 18:00:56 GMT
Reply-To: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


OOPS... guess I won't be publishing those sequences Patrick:) ... I
didn't realize that they had indeed left so many open holes.


Cheers,

Kelly


[Moderator's Note: As you know, I was never really in favor of
publishing the actual sequences anyway; it just seems too risky to me
in view of the large number of people who look for ways to make
trouble for Usenet these days. We can talk theory without getting too
specific.  PT]

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

Date: 21 Apr 90 20:10:17 PDT (Sat)
From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones
Organization: SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's
 intelligent investors


You obviously guessed the reason, convenience.  In a sense, this is
quite a security risk but not really, since although the value of a
minute on the air may be high, the cost to provide it incrementally is
about zero.  Thus if a service thief got free time, it was time that
not only cost the company nothing, but also would not have been sold
otherwise (since the crook would not have made the call without it
being free) hence no revenues were lost.  Of course, this is only true
if the practice remains rare.  It is too long since I had a loaner
unit for me to remember any of the numbers, so I can't do any testing
for you in this region.  However, some of the company-owned loaners, I
remember, officially belonged to some employee or other and incoming
calls would (if not answered) go to that employee's voice mailbox.


Irving Wolfe            [e-mail]              206/463-9399 ext.101
Happy Man Corp.   4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road,  Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399
SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 00:27:57 EDT
Subject: RoamingAmerica Description


Here is a description of RoamingAmerica, the nationwide roaming system
that is used by the majority of the non-wireline carriers.

 ................

APPEX Corporation's RoamingAmerica System has been operating
successfully in over ten cities for several months. The carriers
operating in these markets have been offering RoamingAmerica to their
entire subscriber base. More than a dozen markets are scheduled to
receive RoamingAmerica service in the next couple of months. {The
number of participating cites is much higher now.}

RoamingAmerica provides both Transparent Call Forwarding (TCF) and
Caller Notification services.

Transparent Call Forwarding enables a subscriber to receive incoming
calls while roaming in a foreign area by conditionally transferring
these calls from the subscriber's home switch to the serving Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA).

Caller Notification allows a roamer to have the incoming call
conditionally transferred to a voice announcement on the home switch.
The announcement tells the calling party what city the roamer is in
and provides instructions (including long distance phone number for
the foreign switch's roamer access port) for calling the roamer on the
foreign system.

RoamingAmerica provides several methods by which subscribers can
activate RoamingAmerica services. Carriers can elect to have their
subscribers activate the system by placing a call from a foreign
market. Alternatively, carriers can elect to have subscribers
explicitly activate and deactivate the system by dialing 'star' codes.
It is even possible to combine these methods so that a subscriber is
activated by placing a call, and yet can explicitly deactivate or
change service by dialing a star code. RoamingAmerica is very flexible
in this respect,a dn can be easily customized to fit a carrier's
specific needs.

The start codes that RoamingAmerica uses are:

     *31:    Activate TCF
    *310:     Deactivate TCF
     *32:    Activate CN
    *320:    Deactivate CN
    *300:    Deactivate All RoamingAmerica Service

To implement the above features, RoamingAmerica uses the stream of
call set-up data from the PRV port {PRV stands for Positive Roamer
Verification, the system that the majority of the non-wireline
carriers use for subscriber validation.} on the serving cellular
switch to initiate the automatic roamer registration and activate the
roamer's call transfer. On switches that provide the dialed digits as
part of this information, the star codes can be detected in this
manner. For switches that do not provide the dialed digits to the PRV
system, APPEX has developed the APPEX Voice Response System (AVRS),
which enables explicit activation and deactivation of RoamingAmerica
services.  The AVRS also provides the voice storage and retrieval
system for caller notification.

When RoamingAmerica detects that a subscriber is requesting activation
of RoamingAmerica service, the system checks the NPA/NXX of the
roamer's phone to identify the roamer's home switch. It determines if
the home system is a RoamingAmerica participant, and if the home
system's subscribers are to receive RoamingAmerica service in this
particular foreign market. Last of all, it determines what type of
service the subscriber has chosen to receive.

In parallel with the above activity, APPEX's PRV system performs a
check of the APPEX National Negative file and performs a positive
validation check on the subscriber. If the subscriber has not been
validated on the switch within 24 hours, an inquiry is performed on
the home switch to verify that he is active and has good credit. In
addition, PRV performs a MIN/ESN mismatch check to detect fraudulent
cellular phones. If any of these validation procedures fail, the
subscriber's RoamingAmerica service is immediately aborted and
deactivated.

Meanwhile, if the subscriber has chosen to activate transparent call
forwarding, RoamingAmerica sends a message to the serving switch
directing it to assign a temporary number to the roamer and insert
this number into the the serving switch's database.  The temporary
number is assigned from a block of temporary numbers that have been
reserved on the switch to serve roamers.  When RoamingAmerica receives
confirmation that the serving switch has assigned the temporary number
to the roamer, it sends a command to the roamer's home switch
directing it to deactivate any existing call forwarding and to
establish a conditional call forwarding {forward on no-answer/busy} to
the temporary number assigned by the foreign switch.

If the subscriber has chosen to activate caller notification,
RoamingAmerica sends a message to the home switch directing it to
conditionally transfer the subscriber to a contrived phone number that
consists of two parts: the routing prefix and the switch code
identifier. The routing code is common to all numbers used in caller
notification, whereas the switch code varies depending on the foreign
market in which the subscriber is currently located. When an incoming
call is received, it is transferred to this number. The routing prefix
directs the switch to route this call to the trunk group that connects
the switch to the AVRS, and outpulse the switch code identifier
portion of the number. The switch code identifier tells the AVRS which
message to play back to the calling party.

If a subscriber does not explicitly deactivate the system as described
above, RoamingAmerica will deactivate his service X hours after his
most recent call was placed form the foreign market. This time span is
referred to as the cancellation time, and can be set on a per carrier
basis.

When a roamer registers successfully on RoamingAmerica in a particular
serving system, he stays registered and continues to receive incoming
calls that are forwarded to his temporary number until one of the
following events occur:

1.  The roamer fails to place a call at least once during the
    cancellation time interval.

2.  The RoamingAmerica operations staff manually deactivates
    the roamer.

3.  The roamer dials one of the deactivation codes in any
    system. Deactivation will only occur from his home system
    if the home system provides an AVRS system.

4.  The roamer goes to another foreign system and places a
    call, thereby registering in the new foreign system (and
    terminating his registration in the previous foreign system), or

5.  The roamer fails any PRV validation check on any roamer
    call he places while active on RoamingAmerica.

Whenever RoamingAmerica is deactivated, the subscriber's originally
call forwarding and call transfer settings are retrieved from the
system's internal database, and restored on the home switch.

RoamingAmerica consists of application software that runs in a VAX/VMS
environment and uses the existing APPEX national network
{packet-switched, I believe} for communicating to switches across the
country.

 ...........

| 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] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Information on Cellular Telephones
Date: 24 Apr 90 04:42:47 GMT
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


Two books relating to Cellular 'phone service that I have found to be
most interesting are:

"Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems" by William C.Y. Lee.
McGraw-Hill 1989 ISBN 0-07-037030-3  (Dreadfully expensive > Can$75)

This is an excellent book detailing more than you would ever want to
know about Cellular Phone Systems.  The book, at times, gets heavilly
into the engineering details but is very useful if you have an
"Inquiring Mind" that want's to know!  The only drawback is the book's
price.

"The Cellular Telephone Directory"
Communications Publishing Service
(206-232-3464 US$14) ISBN 0-945592-02-7

Although there are plenty of directories that are available that
catalogue (or at least attempt to catalogue) all the different cell
systems in North America, this one includes maps with coverage areas
indicated.  Obviously, such information is constantly subject to
change, but for a general idea of what's out there, it is a useful
addition to one's cellular library.


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm


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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC
Date: 23 Apr 90 14:46:39 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


Ever since I moved within my exchange neither of the CPC settings
works on my Panasonic machine.  The phone pair to my house comes from
an underground vault that is tied to the CO by fiber.  For a year I
had problems with noise and hearing other conversations (only at my
end).  ATT's new technology is not what it used to be.


Ken Thompson     N0ITL
NCR Corp.  3718 N. Rock Road
Wichita,Ks. 67226  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panasonic KXT-3900 Problem
Date: 23 Apr 90 11:13:41 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]> writes:

> Help! Based on the glowing reports about the Panasonic KXT-3900
> [...]
> When it is set to dial in Tone Mode, the "2" will not break dialtone
> when dialed from the remote. The base works fine as do all the other
> digits from the remote. The tones sound ok to me, but I called Sprint
> Customer Service and asked them to check. The rep had me push all the
> buttons and said they all registered correctly, though she did hear a
> slight "beep" just prior to hearing the actual tone. I assume that was
> the handset talking to the base.

I own two of those phones, and both have never given me any trouble
whatsoever. Except for the time I dropped one and its battery popped
out causing it to forget its security code. After reprogramming, it
worked fine.

Anyway, it has been my experience that a "2" is a troublesome digit
and seems to be most suceptible to distortion and something called
"twist".  Although it is not common, it is possible for a phone line
to have anomolies in its frequency response that cause one of the two
tones that make up a DTMF digit to appear at the receiver lower than
the other. Depending on the amount of the discrepancy, this can cause
the receiver to ignore the digit entirely. The KX-T3900 will sound a
digit continuously; have you tried holding down the button to break
dial tone? BTW, the little beep preceding each digit is normal.

The fact that other phones don't have this problem can be due to many
factors, such as overall DTMF transmit level, balance, etc.

> A related problem: This is the second unit I've tried. The first unit
> would not break dialtone from the base with the 2 digit. The current
> unit did the same *until I unplugged the little answering machine
> override "y" jack I had on that line.* (The jack prevents the phone
> from grabbing the line when my modem is on it.) How would that jack be
> interfering with the audio signal?

By simply causing that frequency response problem that I mentioned
above. If you hadn't discovered the problem for yourself, my next
suggestion would have been to remove everything else connected to the
line, and then add things one at a time until the culprit was located.
An extreme measure if all else had failed would have been to contact
your telco and have them sweep your line -- even POTS lines have
certain standards they have to meet!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #278
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03986;
          24 Apr 90 5:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10830;
          24 Apr 90 3:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10986;
          24 Apr 90 2:14 CDT
Date:     Tue, 24 Apr 90 1:30:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #279
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Apr 90 01:30:46 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 279

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt [Jody Kravitz]
    MCI Customer Service (was: AT&T's Wrong Recordings) [Dennis Brophy]
    Digest questions [Jody Kravitz]
    Cellular Programming [Dean Sirakides]
    The Other Cards [Carol Springs]
    Pay Phone Nostalgia [Edward Greenberg]
    Transmitting Video Over Phone Lines [Nutsy Fagen]
    Call Metering, and Charges:  What's the Chances For Error? [Anthony Lee]
    S.F. Bay Area Telecom Gathering [Edward Greenberg]
    Semantics re: London Area Codes [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 15:31:51 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt


Quoted from an ad in [Working Woman], page 45:

    Take your MCI Card.            | 1/2 tall type
    Or take your chances.            | 1/2 tall type

   All across America, business is calling on MCI.  You should, too.

   Unlike the AT&T Card, with the MCI Card(r) there's never a chance
of hidden charges, whether you dial direct or use an operator.  And
you never have to read payphone labels, listen for special recordings,
or dial differently from different phones.

   What's more, you can use your MCI Card from any phone in the U.S.
to virtually any phone in the world.  And when you're traveling, you
can use your MCI Card with MCI CALL USA(sm) from a growing number of
countries all over the world to get back home.  You'll always get an
English speaking operator, and save money, too.

   Of course, using the MCI Card assures you of unsurpassed call
quality.  As well as savings over AT&T's standard rates month after
month.

   So if you're not calling with the MCI Card, call us at 1-800-888-0800.

    MCI                    | Inch tall type
    Let us show you(r).            | 1/4 inch tall type

 -- end quote --

I find it interesting, but a bit misleading, that MCI is running this
ad.  Clearly COCOT's and AOS's make this ad hit close to home for
those out there that don't consider phones "just another computer
terminal".  The fact part about "Unlike the AT&T Card", however is a
bit misleading.  I believe that it is only because AT&T and the local
operating companies "share" a database using the same pins that your
AT&T card can be involved in billings from other LD and AOS companies.


Jody

internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 09:30:37 PDT
From: Dennis Brophy <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Customer Service (was: AT&T's Wrong Recordings)


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 271, Message 7 of 8

>Sprint and MCI afficionados will note that there seems to be no
>equivalent trouble reporting service, especially not providing a
>ticket number for future tracking of the trouble report.  I have been
>unable to get Sprint or MCI to fix their problem with failing to
>complete calls to any German cellular phone (+49 161 nnn nnnn).  Yet
>another reason to use AT&T.

I would have shared your views had a recent experience at work not
happened.  (My employer has had MCI handle dial 1 long distance for
about two years now.)

I needed to reach a FAX machine in Madrid, Spain, but my machine was
never able to complete the call.  I dailed the number by hand and
listened for the call to complete.  It did not.  The phone simply went
dead.  I dialed 001+ for operator assistance to complete the
international call.  She tried to complete the call and got the same
problem.

"Let me transfer you to customer service, and they will be able to
help you," she said.  Of course, no company can beat AT&T's service,
so I asked her if I would have to wait 30 minutes or more for help.
This is what I have heard and read before.  "No, there will be no wait
since *I* am transfering the call."

So I thought, should I just hang up and use 10288+ or wait and she if
she is telling the truth.  I waited and on the second ring I got a MCI
customer service representative.  She asked if this was a business or
home.  I told her a business.  She asked for the number I was calling
from and verified the number I was calling was in Spain.  I guess the
number I was calling from did not show it as a MCI account and she
asked for the main company number.

With that number she found that MCI had to take immediate action to
cure the problem.  She told me that what she was reading gave MCI 30
minutes to fix the problem before "other actions" are taken.  I never
asked her what those were.  But...

She tried to dial the number and got the same problem.  She asked me
to hold the line while she arranged to have the problem verified and
fixed.  About 1 minute or so later, she came back on the line to say
that it now rings, but it was never answered.  (They probably turned
their FAX machine off for the night.)

She said I should have no further problems reaching this number.  Just
in case, she gave me a "special" 800 number to call if I had this or
other problems again so I don't have to go through the *normal*
channels. Given the arrangements MCI has with my employer, she was
quite accommodating.  This was all completed in about 5 minutes.  I
attempted the call myself, and moments later it did ring.

Now, if they could only make this level of service universal to all
their accounts...


Dennis Brophy                           UNIX: ...!mntgfx!dennisb
Mentor Graphics Corporation         INTERNET: [e-mail]
8500 SW Creekside Place                VOICE: [phone]
Beaverton, OR 97005-7191                 FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 00:19:08 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Digest questions


There was a long discussion about ringing a phone that was off-hook.
Today all bells are connted from TIP to RING; the talk path through
the off-hook phone effectively "shorts out" all the bells.

If memory serves me correctly, the bells on 500 series phones
installed on non-party lines in Illinois circa 1960 were installed
with the bell connected between Red and Yellow.  This would be TIP and
Ground, right ?  While the switch-hook may have disconnected the bell
while off-hook, the extension phones would still have their bells
connected.  The off-hook phone puts a low-impedance path between TIP
and RING, but would not prevent ringing voltage from being applied
between TIP and GROUND the RING lead were "lifted" at the CO.  This
would cause all the other extensions to ring even while one phone was
off-hook.  I suspect that the test board (and possbily the operator)
could have accomplished this in a #5 crossbar office.


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

From: Dean Sirakides <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Programming
Date: 23 Apr 90 14:56:56 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


There seems to be a growing interest among the telecom group for
cellular phone programming codes. I can't say I agree with general
idea that manufacturer's codes should be made generally available.
Hopefully, however, the interest in this group is purely for academic
purposes.

I thought I'd pass along an ad I saw in a trade journal.  It touts two
book that may be of interest to this group:

"Product Operation Handbook" (c. 1990, 130 pages)

This book has the codes to adjust various user features, i.e. hands
free, call timers, system selection...  This is, of course, the boring
stuff that is in most user manuals.

"NAMFAX Cellular Program Manual" (c. 1990, 240 pages)

This is basically a shop manual for dealers and installers.  It claims
to have all the codes for programming, including the NAM options for
over a 100 models. This seems to be all the "good stuff" thats not
normally given by the manufacturer.

I've never seen the books, but if you're interested, the books are
offered by "Communications Publishing Service".


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

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: The Other Cards
Date: 22 Apr 90 02:05:46 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


Jane Bryant Quinn's column this week contains a description of
Sprint's and MCI's answers to The Card.  The Visa card offered by
Sprint carries no discount on calls, but Sprint is considering
instituting one.  From the article:

     ...You get a single card that's a Visa on one side (with
     a Visa number) and with a Sprint Foncard number on the
     other.  Right now, your "secret" four-digit Foncard PIN
     is also printed on the card.  But starting in May, Sprint
     says, new cards issued won't show the PIN.  (The older
     PINned cards won't normally be replaced until your regular
     renewal date.  But you can get a new one, if you call.)...

     ...Unlike AT&T, Sprint charges no fees for taking a cash
     advance, no extra fees for paying bills late, and no fees
     for going over your credit limit....  Sprint will waive
     its $25 fee for the first year.

     MCI is playing the game differently.  It's starting a
     program to convert the Visa card that's already in your
     pocket into an MCI card, and at no extra charge.  So far,
     20 banks are participating, and more are being signed up.
     When MCI customers dial a call, they'll be able to enter
     their Visa number plus their PIN, and the bill will show
     up on their credit card....

     ...Sprint charges 17.99 percent interest; with MCI,
     you'll pay whatever rate is already on your Visa card
     [assuming in both cases that the LD charges are rolled
     over, rather than paid off during the grace period.  The
     Sprint Visa does have a grace period].

Quinn also points out that whereas the Sprint Visa explicitly allows
customers to carry over their phone bills, the AT&T Universal card
includes the LD portion of the bill in the regular minimum payment for
that month.  Thus, the AT&T card might be better for people who want
to continue to be "encouraged" to pay off their phone bill in full
each month.  I assume that paying less than the minimum on the AT&T
card causes one to be hit with (in addition to interest charges) the
$10 late fee of which I've heard tell.

The Sprint Visa is issued by State Street Bank and Trust Co. in
Boston.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 08:51 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Pay Phone Nostalgia


    [Moderator's Note: Yes indeed I do remember three-slot coin phones
    which remained dead until you made a *five cent* deposit.
    Furthermore, the return slots did not have trap-doors; the handset
    cords were uncurled and covered with brown *cloth* (no armored
    handset like now); and the *wooden* phone booth had a door on the
    front with a glass window in it, a little seat inside it, and an
    overhead incadesent light which went on or off when the door was
    opened or closed, like a refrigerator light.

Patrick,

You forgot the little fan that went on when the light did, that was
switchable by the user via a toggle switch.

We must also mention the metal "SORRY, TEMPORARILY OUT OF SERVICE"
sign that was usually found tucked behind the phone.  This device,
complete with metal strap to go behind the coin slots, had a hole in
it to allow the phone man to bolt it in place.  Since it was there,
the user, who found the phone broken could put it in place to warn
others.

Finally, we must recall the 6 x 9 frame on the wall that would hold an
advertisement for Long Distance, "Why not make that other call while
you're here" or <shudder> a reminder to "Wait for Dial Tone."

On a similar subject, does anybody remember the little half moon
crescents that were mailed out in the early 60's containing the newly
publicised "Area Code?"  You were supposed to slip this onto your dial
and tuck it under the black plastic number card retainer.


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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 18:09 EST
From: Nutsy Fagen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transmitting Video Over Phone Lines


I'm interested in obtaining information on ways to remotely view a
computer screen.  I do not require computer-level interaction, only a
'copy' of the display.  A telephone-line connection would be best
since the remote site will be about 1/4 mile from the source.

My source computer is a Tandy 1000 SX with both RGB and RCA-video
outputs.  Using the RCA output would be preferred (the RGB is already
being used for the 'local' monitor).

A 'quick and dirty' solution would be great.  We'll be using this
setup to remotely view a fire/security alarm screen during periodic
special events where multiple 'command posts' are set up.

Please reply directly to me (mjb8949@ritvax). TELECOM Digest is
normally relayed to me by someone who is out of town for several
weeks.

Thanks!


Mike

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

From: Anthony Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Metering, and Charges:  What's the Chances For Error?
Date: 24 Apr 90 01:33:44 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Could someone please explain how calls are metered?  I presume on
SPC switches accounts can be read from a terminal.  On what switches
do accounts have to be read from meters?  How accurate are the
meters?

On two successive telephone bills I have noticed that the number of
local calls that the Telecom metered was about 40% higher then I
expected.  Anyway I talked to a sales rep about it and he kept
insisting that there is nothing wrong with Telecom equipment.  I have
heard of people who have changed their numbers and finding their new
account was significantly lower than under their old number.  Is it
possible that they have changed to a digital exchange were number of
calls made are stored in the switch's memeory rather than a meter ?


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: Mon, 23 Apr 90 09:00 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: S.F. Bay Area Telecom Gathering?


I was thinking that we are becoming a community of regulars here, and
wonder if a gathering or two is in order.

Since I live in San Jose, I'll start by suggesting a Bay Area
gathering, perhaps for dinner or dessert at a local Lyons or that sort
of place.  Somewhere where we can get a long table, or even the back
room if there are enough of us, and swap stories for an hour or two.

Rather than flood the Digest with responses, please mail a response to
me at the address below and advise me of:

    1.  Who you are
    2.  Your location
    3.  How far and in which directions you'd be willing to come
    4.  What nights of the week are best
    5.  Whether you prefer dinner, dessert, or have another suggestion
    6.  Whether you think we can get together without killing one
        another :-)

Another possibility is a TELECOM Digest outing to a baseball game!  We
could probably get group tickets for a weekend game later this season.

                            -edg

Please respond to:  [e-mail]

If your mail bounces, call me at 408-283-0184.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 14:18:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Semantics re: London Area Codes


Given that the new codes 71 and 81 for London area (U.K.) work now,
the split, as defined in the U.S. splits referred to many times in
this Digest, has already occurred.  When the old code 1 goes away,
that will be the "full cutover".  (Even though the language is
English, you still have to watch out for different ways of saying the
same thing.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #279
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05275;
          24 Apr 90 6:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19355;
          24 Apr 90 4:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10830;
          24 Apr 90 3:21 CDT
Date:     Tue, 24 Apr 90 2:17:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #280
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Apr 90 02:16:59 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 280

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    British Telecom Conversion Brochure Available [TELECOM Moderator]
    Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro [Greg Monti via John R. Covert]
    Data Collection for Telemarketing [John R. Covert]
    LD in 1962 [Lawrence M. Geary]
    Splitting Area Code 416? [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    More Test Numbers [David Leibold]
    Modifying Telephone Sets for Eavesdropping [Larry Lippman]
    Answering Machines - How to Force Answer on 1st Ring? [David A. Roth]
    Re: Request For Switch Manufacturers [Jon Baker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 1:38:16 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Telecom Conversion Brochure Available


British Telecom has published an attractive brochure which describes
in detail the conversion to 71/81 going on at present. The brochure
includes a complete listing of prefixes, and to which new code each is
assigned. In addition, a small map illustrates the geography of the
conversion.

This brochure was mailed recently to businesses and other heavy phone
users in the United States. If you did not receive a copy, you might
like to have one.

In an accompanying letter, Mr. James M. Pickard asks that questions
about the conversion be directed to his personal attention. To receive
a brochure, or discuss the conversion with Mr. Pickard, contact him at
his office:

      James M. Pickard
      British Telecom, Inc.
      100 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10017

      Telephones: 212-297-2700  /  800-331-4568  / FAX: [phone]


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 13:05:15 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  23-Apr-1990 1603" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro (Greg Monti)

   From:  Greg Monti
   Date:  23 April 1990
   Re:  Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in Washington Area

C&P of Virginia (and possibly other Bell Atlantic operating companies)
has quietly loosened its stranglehold on intraLATA, interstate calls,
at least in the Washington area.  Toll calls within the Washington
LATA formerly could only be direct-dialed via C&P, paying its hefty
rates.  Dialing 10XXX first in an attempt to use another carrier,
would result in a "it is not necessary to dial a carrier access code
to make this call; please dial again without the access code"
recording.  Now, such calls, as long as they are interstate, can be
dialed on any carrier that will accept your business by using 10XXX
dialing.

An intraLATA toll call from Arlington, VA, to Ridge, MD, about 60
miles, at C&P daytime rates is $0.51 for the first minute and $0.33
each additional minute!  I don't have any competitive LD carrier rate
cards in front of me, but I'll bet AT&T, MCI and Sprint charge only
about half that, especially for the first minute.  You must know of
the existence of 10XXX dialing to get the discount.

Oh, by the way, 10XXX now also works on *local* interstate calls
within the Washington LATA.  A call from Arlington to DC, less than
half a mile, can now be dialed on a competitive LD carrier.  Why one
would want to is another question, although, for a party with local
measured service, which is available as an option in Virginia, the
per-minute rate might be cheaper for a certain number of minutes.  I
assume the mileages are calculated as for any other call, using V&H
tables and the actual NPA+NXX's.

Toll or local calls within the Washington LATA *and* within Virginia
cannot be 10XXX'ed. The same old intercept recording still comes on
for those.  Not that it's a big deal.  From most of Norhtern Virginia,
the only exchange within Virginia and within LATA which is toll is
Stafford (703-659 and 703-720).  Everything else is either Extended
Area or Local.

I've been trying to figure whether there is any advantage to this for
pay phone users, but can't think of one.  The only competitive LD
company that accepts coin payment is AT&T, and they charge a large
first-minute premium for the luxury of having a mechanical voice tell
you how much money to put in.  You might as well use an MCI or Sprint
card.  Of course, MCI's "Around Town" beats all of them.

I made a coupla intraLATA LD and local calls using competitive
carriers from home.  We shall see what the bill says.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 19:09:19 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  23-Apr-1990 2142" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data Collection for Telemarketing


What's the real reason for Caller ID?

Why is AT&T offering the Universal Card for free?

The answer?  Data collection for your telemarketing dossier!

Skeptical?  Think I'm paranoid and looking for telephone solicitors
under every transaction?  Just because I'm not paranoid doesn't mean
the phone companies aren't out there looking for a new way to make a
buck.

Recently Dan Moffat, spokesman for the Independent Telecommunications
Network, a consortium of independent phone firms, announced that ITN
has started offering its own TelCard calling card and plans to arrange
for the centralized collection of Caller ID information, allowing the
sorting of incoming call records for all businesses in a particular
area and the use of that data to create telemarketing databases that
can be sold back to member companies for use in telephone
solicitations.

ITN is considering expanding the TelCard calling card to make it a
credit card like AT&T's Universal Card.  This will further enhance the
telemarketing database by including not just call records but purchase
records as well.

Ray Donnelly, VP of Sales and Marketing for ITN, confirmed that the
independent telcos, like the RBOCs, are opposed to the idea that their
subscribers should be able to block the transmission of their calling
numbers to the merchants and to the centralized data collection
systems.

TELECOM Digest readers -- mark my words: It's time for some serious
nationwide data privacy laws.  The collection, sorting, and selling of
personalized data is getting out of control in this country.  No one
should have the right to sell data about your phone calling and
purchase habits to anyone!


/john

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

From: [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary)
Subject: LD in 1962
Date: 23 Apr 90 14:03:18 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


While browsing through some old magazines from 1962, I noticed that
the ads all had 7 digit phone numbers. No area codes. I find it hard
to believe that the US had so few telephones in 1962 that there was no
need for area codes. So how did one make a long distance call?  Was it
all operator assisted?


     Larry: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Until about the middle 1950's, all long distance
calling was operator assisted. Until a few years prior to that, the
operators passed the calls long distance to each other, i.e. your
local operator handed you to a long distance operator; she in turn
went on the wire to the operator in St. Louis; that one connected to
an operator in Denver; she got the one in Los Angeles, and the
operator in Los Angeles passed you to the local operator who then
connected you to the local number, lets call it Hollywood 2300.
Eventually your local (long distance) operator could dial direct to
Los Angeles 'inward', cutting out the operators in the middle.  I
could tell you some stories that would curl your hair.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Splitting Area Code 416?
Date: 24 Apr 90 04:33:17 GMT
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


Recently, everyone in the 416 area code (Toronto, Hamilton and the
Niagara Peninsula) was required to dial 1-416- for any calls within
the area code.  Ostensibly, the reason given (through a *lot* of
pretty stupid ads) for the change was that 416 was running out of
numbers and this would let them introduce N1X and N0X exchanges.

Now I thought that all of the CO equipment in use was pretty smart and
could keep up with something like a N1X or N0X exchange within the
area code just by using time outs or whatever it is that they use on
international calls.  Is this all in fact a ploy by Bell Canada to get
us all used to dialing 1-416- to get Toronto and then they are going
to split the Area Code (Toronto keeping 416 and everyone else getting
something else)???

Has anyone got any gossip that would verify this?

***DISCLAIMER***  This is all just my own idea -- I have not heard
anything else to substantiate it (But when you think about it it almost
makes sense!! :-)  )


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm

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

Subject: More Test Numbers
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 23:40:42 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


In Ontario (Canada), many exchanges have a ring back code that is
activated by dialing 57 + last 5 digits of phone number. Sometimes, 99
+ last 5 digits will also work. In Nova Scotia, 575 + 7 digits of
phone number seems to work, at least to get a touch tone test (get a
new dial tone, dial digits 1, 2, 3, ... 9, 0 (without breaking the
dial tone) and get rewarded with a couple of differing beeps). 871 in
British Columbia might do the same thing, as it seems to require 871 +
7 digits.

Of course, you can get a little night music in Saskatchewan if you
dial 990.1111 ... dialing this in Regina results in the phone system
singing a happy tune a few moments thereafter.

Years ago, BC Tel used to have the Telex testing line a.k.a.
conference call facility. It was accessed by (604) 2111 (perhaps with
trailing digits to terminate the dialing). It, and other phreaker
things, was discussed in an article in the now-defunct
_Canadian_Magazine_ (a roto included with major Canadian dailies)
years and years ago. (Incidentally, (604) 2111 would have been defunct
for years as well).


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

Subject: Modifying Telephone Sets for Eavesdropping
Date: 23 Apr 90 23:36:30 EST (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> The Telephone Company provided a much better way to bug most executive
> offices, with out ever entering the room, as a stock feature of many
> instruments of that era.

> We discovered it quite by accident in 1968 while installing some newly
> acquired 2564 HK touch tone sets on a previously rotary only, 1A2 key
> system at my college radio station.  A couple of the spare pairs had
> been used for a custom intercom/signaling system.  On plugging in
> the new sets the intercom and the new phones stopped working.  The
> problem was traced to a continuous connection of the earphone to the
> vi-sl pair (??  I don't have my old notes here and it has been twenty
> years) which we had used for signaling!  This pair was brought out in
> any instrument set up for speaker phone operation.  It allowed
> mounting the speaker phone control box in the remote telephone closet.
> I was never clear as to why it was a necessary connection, however
> most five line 2564 sets, I have seen, have it connected.

    The violet-slate pair corresponds to AG, and LK, respectively,
and is used for speakerphone ON/OFF latch control.  There is no
standard pair assignment which provides access to the receiver element
only, except in the case of an external repertory dialer; even such a
connection is useless for eavesdropping *without* set wiring changes,
for the reason below.

    In *any* standard 500-type telephone set (I consider the
2565HK to be in this category), the receiver element is shorted by the
break contacts (break last) of the hookswitch, which means while the
handset is on-hook, the receiver element is shorted.  The purpose of
such wiring is to eliminate the loud click when occurs when the
hookswitch is operated.

    The violet-green pair provides T1 and R1, respectively, and is
the tip and ring of the line selected by whichever button is depressed
on the 634A key.  While this pair has been used for wiretap purposes,
i.e., during a telephone conversation on a given line, it is not
generally useful for live microphone use.

> Now if it isn't obvious - the earphone makes an excellent dynamic
> microphone !!  A quick test (with a couple of the radio stations
> drypairs looped back from a remote dorm, and a common balanced input
> mike amp) demonstrated it would work quite well at least up to a mile
> away.

    The receiver element does indeed make an excellent microphone.
However, in order to have it functional the break contact wiring from
the hookswitch must be disconnected.  This has been done in the past
for eavesdropping purposes, with generally good success.  However, an
astute (or paranoid) subject may notice the increased level of the
on-hook/off-hook click, and consequently may become suspicious.

    The required wiring change is also obvious to anyone skilled
in the art who opens the set housing.

> I do however recall a couple years ago, hearing about some state
> governor who had caught someone bugging his office, The newspapers
> were quite specific that no physical access was gained to the office;
> only to the phone closet in the hallway.

    Since we have no specific details, I suspect a more likely
scenario was that the telephone was not used as a live microphone, but
that connection was made across the T1/R1 leads (violet-green) which
would give an eavesdropper access to whatever line the subject was
talking on at a given time.  As I said above, the receiver element is
shorted when the set is on-hook, and its leads are not brought out in
any standard pair arrangement, anyhow.

> I am surprised that more bugging wasn't done this way.  I know I was
> always careful to see that pair was disconnected on any set in my
> office.

    It *has* been done the way you describe, but a brief one-time
access to the telephone set is required in order to effect the
necessary wiring changes.  That is the only way, unless we consider
more esoteric possibilities, which are not the topic of this
discussion.

> Now that 2500 sets are being replaced by new digital sets the problem
> may be moot ;-).  Then again who knows what is on the digital line
> with the set hung up.  The hook switch on the brand new IBX set on my
> desk doesn't disconnect anything, it only sends a code down the line!

    The new electronic sets are definitely a whole new ballgame.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
UUCP:    {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
TEL: [phone] || FAX: [phone]      {utzoo|uunet}!/     \aerion!larry

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

From: [e-mail] (David A. Roth)
Subject: Answering Machines - How to Force Answer on 1st Ring?
Date: 23 Apr 90 17:16:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David A. Roth)
Organization: Columbus, Ohio


I have an answering machine with a two position switch allowing
pick-up on either 2nd or 4th ring. I would like to know if it can be
modified without much trouble to pick-up on the 1st ring (instead of
the 2nd.)

Thanks in advance.


David

att!osu-cis!david!david

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Request For Switch Manufacturers
Date: 23 Apr 90 15:33:23 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (C. D.
Covington) writes:

> I would like a list of switch manufacturers with call processing
> capability.  The switch can be either analog or digital.  I am
> particularly interested in low-end machines (read cheap).

AG Communication Systems
PO Box 52179
Phoenix, Arizona  85072-2179

Manufactures and sells the GTD-5 digital switching system.

Other potential vendors in the U.S. : Redcom, Siemens, Ericcson.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #280
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08119;
          25 Apr 90 17:05 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag23815; 25 Apr 90 11:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05238;
          25 Apr 90 1:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20098;
          25 Apr 90 0:21 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Apr 90 0:11:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #281
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Apr 90 00:10:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 281

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    One Reason For Phone Numbers on Credit Card Sales [David E. Bernholdt]
    Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts [Steven King]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Dave Tiller]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Douglas Mason]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    Re: The Card [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    Mastercard or Visa?  (was Re: The Card) [Mike Olson]
    Re: Phone Replacement [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage [Ed Ravin]
    Re: Area Code 917 in New York City [Gary L. Dare]
    Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) [Nick Pine]
    Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...) [Peter da Silva]
    Minitel Supports English [Lang Zerner]
    Re: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness [John DeArmond]
    Re: Infinity Transmitters - II [Steve Wolfson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: One Reason For Phone Numbers on Credit Card Sales
Date: 23 Apr 90 17:17:26 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 273, Message 4 of 8

>There is a woman who writes a national home finance column.  I don't
>remember her name but she has lately been making a big deal in her
>column about how both Visa and Mastercard do not require a phone
>number for the purchase to be valid.  She's been encouraging people to
>not give out their phone number.

Straying from the group's charter somewhat, but it seems worth
pointing out...

Years ago, I used to work in a computer store.  When we took credit
cards, we asked for a phone number.  The reason for this was for the
store's and the customer's protection.

Case 1:  The clerk forgets to get a signature on the charge slip --
you can call the customer & re-do it as a phone charge.

Case 2: The customer forgets to pickup the card & leave the store
before anyone notices it. You can call the customer & tell them you
have their card.

Those who've never had these experiences shouldn't be too quick to
laugh.  In the 2-3 years I worked at that store, I think we had one
instance of case 1 (the clerk messed up) and a handful of case 2 (the
customer neglected to pickup the card).  You'd be amazed how relieved
people are when you call them & tell them their card isn't lost & they
can stop by and pick it up.  If they gave a bogus or non-answering
number, we can't help & their card is probably as good as lost unless
they come back around & look for it.

I can't say what other companies may or may not do with phone numbers,
but I give my phone number in the hope that the same courtesy might be
extended to me if I goof some day.


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

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts
Date: 23 Apr 90 17:27:01 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


This isn't really the correct newsgroup for this question, but it's
related to a topic that's been bandied about here lately.  I'm
referring to putting your phone number on credit card slips.

Am I naive or are you paranoid?  I've been putting my honest-to-god
phone number on credit card slips ever since the day I first got a
card, with no ill effects.  I'm really curious, just what is everyone
so worried about?

 From your reactions you sound like a bunch of ancient wizards afraid
to death about letting your True Name slip out.  :-)


Steve King, uunet!motcid!king

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

From: Dave Tiller N2KAU <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Date: 23 Apr 90 20:51:50 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Oceanport NJ


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

>Have people really had bad experiences in putting phone numbers on
>charge slips?

YES!!!  I've been badgered by rude salesmen, polluted with completely
unsolicited junk mail, etc.  I _really_ object to someone requiring me
to put down my address on a charge slip and then MAKING MONEY selling
my name on a mailing list.  It is interesting to put different
renditions of your name and address on different slips and watch the
lists propagate.  On a related note, I also hate unsolicited FAX
advertisements.  I paid for that paper, dammit!!  I have more than
once written "I do not appreciate you wasting my FAX paper" on a
six-foot sheet of computer paper and fed it continuous form through my
FAX machine overnight to offending buisnesses.  To say the least, they
don't call back!


David E. Tiller         [e-mail]  | Concurrent Computer Corp.
FAX:  [phone]      Ph: [phone] (w) | 2 Crescent Place, M/S 117
UUCP: ucbvax!rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!davet        | Oceanport NJ, 07757
ICBM: 40 16' 52" N      73 59' 00" W           | N2KAU @ NN2Z

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 13:50:46 GMT


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

>I either give a 555-1212 number or don't write a number at all,  The
>clerks never check.

For some time some friends and I had this thing where we would never
ever write our real name on the charge slip.  First we just scribbled
things but after a while I was signing names of former presidents,
not-so-catchy phrases, etc until I just plain became bored of thinking
up something original.  It was amazing that never once did any clerk
even give it a second glance.  Attention to detail, huh?


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 13:59:25 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID


John Higdon ([e-mail]) writes:

> I don't mean to be argumentative, but over the years I have put my
> true and correct [listed] phone number on charge slips. Two calls have
> resulted from this "naive" practice.

This does sound naive.  Yes, you may have only had two of the
merchants call you directly, BUT how many telephone solicitations have
you received from solicitors who got your phone number from a
merchant?


Benjamin Ellsworth     [e-mail]     All relevant disclaimers apply.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 13:37:44 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


> MasterCard and Visa are separate companies and offer different
> benefits to their card holders.  You can call 800 MC ASSIST or 800
> VISA 411 to find out about the various benefits/programs offered.

Although VISA and MC offer different products to their respective
customers, I am quite certain that they are both owned by the same
parent company.  It's kind of like the difference between Kentucky
Fried Chicken and Pizza Hut (they're both owned by Pepsico).


Benjamin Ellsworth   | [e-mail]    All applicable disclaimers apply.

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

From: Mike Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mastercard or Visa?  (was Re: The Card)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 08:17:28 PDT


In message [e-mail], Will Martin asks how AT&T decides
whether to send you a Visa or Mastercard.

I applied about two weeks after the card was announced.  At that time,
they asked me which of the two I wanted.


Mike Olson    [e-mail]

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Replacement
Date: 24 Apr 90 01:17:51 GMT
Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Organization: SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's
 intelligent investors


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

>What I don't understand...
>Why would anyone be using a party line service in 1990?

Because there are still garbage phone companies throughout the
country, like Telephone Utilities here, who won't string new lines as
an area grows unless they absolutely have to; even then, it takes
forever.  Except for business lines at business rates, they are
apparently free to say, "You can have a party line in a couple of
weeks.  If you want a private line, we can put your name on a list to
get one when someone relinquishes one."  When there's enough backlog
to generate an instant payback on the new lines, they'll finally send
a crew out to do something.

Does anyone know anything about starting a local telephone cooperative to
wipe these bums out of business, or is that a pipe dream?


Irving Wolfe            [e-mail]              206/463-9399 ext.101
Happy Man Corp.   4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road,  Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399
SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors

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

From: Ed Ravin <cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Band Aids (TM) for the "Drug War" Hemorrage
Reply-To: Ed Ravin <cmcl2!dasys1![e-mail]>
Organization: Tin Cups & String, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 90 01:53:56 GMT


In article <mumble@mumble> John Boteler writes:

>[ discussing US West's dial replacement program in the Minneapolis area
>  to thwart drug dealers ]

>Changing the COS to outgoing only seems much more effective if
>callbacks are the MO.

At the behest of local City Council members, NY Telephone did exactly
this at various payphones in the Upper West Side that were being used
by drug dealers for callbacks.  However, in typical telephone company
sluggishness, disabling incoming calls was the LAST thing they tried:
they first removed the phone numbers from the payphones so that the
dealers wouldn't know what numbers to tell their customers to call
back.  That didn't work, of course, since the druggies knew about how
to use ANI to discover the payphone's number.


Ed Ravin                  | hombre!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing
(BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| [e-mail]   | to waste-- boycott TV!"

Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article.

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

From: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 917 in New York City
Reply-To: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Ghostbusters Institute at Columbia University
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 17:01:27 GMT


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

>What are your sources for the reports re: 917?  For sake of review:
>All the areacode splits, as far as I know, have been geographical, and
>no place, at least since 1965, has had its area code changed TWICE due
>to splits (although 305 has split twice, and 213 will undergo a new
>split when 310 is formed).

Last Wednesday's (or Thursday's) New York Times mentioned this in
their Metro ("B") section, which I usually throw out unless it has the
Sports section.  I don't know where the original posting was derived
from.


Gary L. Dare
 [e-mail]
 [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Apr 90 20:40:26 EDT
From: Nick Pine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...)
Organization: Villanova Univ. EE Dept.


One should mention International Mobile Machines, near Philadelphia, in
connection with this thread...

Nick Pine


[Moderator's Note: I believe they were the inventors of 'Privecode',
the device which requires the caller to insert a three digit security
code to reach you before your phone will ring.  Nice little gimmick.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Rural America Speaks! (Of Telecom, that is...)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 14:30:59 GMT


The Moderator talks of the good old days, when Superman could still use
a phone booth:

> ... the handset cords were
> uncurled and covered with brown *cloth* (no armored handset like now);
> and the *wooden* phone booth had a door on the front with a glass
> window in it, a little seat inside it, and an overhead incadesent
> light which went on or off when the door was opened or closed, like a
> refrigerator light.

Well, the last time I was in such a phone booth was less than 10 years
ago, in Sydney, Australia.

I guess such conveniences aren't cost-effective in the fast-paced
United States. The only places you can sit down to make a phone call
from a public phone are airports and the "TGI Fridays" on Bissonet.


Peter da Silva. [phone].      <[e-mail]>
Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>

Disclaimer: People have opinions, organisations have policy.


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

Date: Sat, 21 Apr 90 15:33:50 PDT
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minitel Supports English


By the way, I probably should have mentioned that Minitel in the
United States supports an English language front end.  Though I have
not examined the services offered, I assume that some are in French,
while others are in English.  Perhaps another telecom reader can
report on Minitel.  I would gladly do so, but recent events have made
it difficult to use the front end software (I no longer have the
necessary computing hardware at my disposal).


Be seeing you...
Lang Zerner

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

Subject: Re: DeArmond-Lippman Childishness
Date: 23 Apr 90 17:18:36 EDT (Mon)
From: "John G. De Armond" <[e-mail]>


In comp.dcom.telecom you write:

>The recent exchanges between two valuable contributers to this Digest
>saddens me.  These two gentlemen have both made a great many
>constructive and useful postings to the Digest over the past two years
>I have been fortunate enough to receive it.

>If only both had put nearly as much effort in educating us on the
>topic rather that berating each other, all the Digest readers would be
>the better.  This flame fest benefits no reader.

I agree with you that this whole affair has been unfortunate, and one
that I'd have rather not engaged in.  My only comment is to ask you to
put yourself in my shoes for a moment.  If the assault had not come
from someone as respected as Lippman, I would have ignored it.  To
have done so with him involved would have been tacitly admitting that
he was correct and that I was lying.  A response had to me made.  I
would have hoped it would have ended there but apparently it has not,
as I see Lippman at it again.  Oh well, I will be the one who lets it
die this time.


73 john

John De Armond, WD4OQC  Radiation Systems, Inc.  Atlanta, Ga
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 09:07:47 CDT
From: Steve Wolfson <motcid!marble![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infinity Transmitters - II


    Perhaps the real way to resolve the debate is for Mr. DeArmond
    lend his latest construction to an impartial third party which
    could then verify the claims from both sides.


    - Steve Wolfson
      Motorola Cellular
      uunet!motcid!wolfson


[Moderator's Note: I think he said he hasn't had this device in his
possesssion for several years now. In any event, as the impartial third
party of record around here, I say enough is enough, and both of the
participants have agreed there is little more to be said.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #281
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08181;
          25 Apr 90 17:08 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad22937; 25 Apr 90 16:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02566;
          25 Apr 90 2:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05238;
          25 Apr 90 1:30 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Apr 90 0:40:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #282
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Apr 90 00:40:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 282

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: A Few ISDN Questions [Ernie Bokkelkamp]
    Re: ATT Billing via Local Telcos [David Barts]
    Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC [John Romine]
    Re: MCI Customer Service (was: AT&T's Wrong Recordings) [John Higdon]
    Re: Area Code 917 in New York City [John Cowan]
    Re: Special Test Numbers [John Braden]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Bernie Roehl]
    Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [Carl Moore]
    Touch-tone Frequencies [Kemi Jona]
    Emergency Interuppt on PBXes [Scott Fybush]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Subsidies for LD Carriers
Date: 24 Apr 90 15:52:15 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


I'll follow up on the Chisolm/anonymous discussion by pointing out the
tariff/legal basis of the subsidies that the different carriers paid
to the local telcos.  (Yes, AT&T paid more.)

MCI invented switched dial-in dial-out service with Execunet in 1975.
The FCC didn't really approve of it; MCI snuck the tariff by them and
when the FCC realized what it said, they tried to stop MCI and failed.
At that time, MCI paid zippo subsidy to the local telcos; they paid
local business line rates for their incoming and outgoing access, and
got (crappy) local business lines!

In 1979, as part of the settlement (the court ruled in MCI's favor),
the FCC established "Exchange Network Facilities for Interstate
Access" (ENFIA) tariffs.  These included both line-side access (all
that the OCCs then had) and trunk-side access (950).  Rates were
federally tariffed so they didn't have wide state by state variations,
and were generally way higher than 1MB or 1FB rates.  This provided
some subsidy to the local telcos.

In 1984, as part of the Equal Access program, the old "separations"
payment system was scrapped.  AT&T became just another carrier; all
carriers were then subject to paying "Carrier Common Line Charges"
(CCLC) for originating and terminating access.  AT&T's "Feature Group
C" service carried a higher rate than line-side "Feature Group A", but
with equal access, everybody moved to Feature Group D.

So before 1984, MCI, Sprint et al really did pay less, and got
somewhat inferior service.  Since 1984, they get either inferior
service (FGA/FGB) at somewhat lower prices, or equal service (FGD) at
the same price as AT&T.  MCI and Sprint, being concerned about
quality, have a lot of FGD.  Some of your resellers and AOS-pondscum
rely on cheapo FGA.

Incidentally if you have an interstate tie line and "leak" to the
local exchange, you either pay a surcharge on the tie line or route
interstate calls (ONLY) onto FGA-tariffed trunks, which are the same
as regular trunks in all but tariff.  FGA is generally cheaper than
toll or in-state WATS for non-local calls, btw, so it's not such a bad
deal.  The Bells do get upset if you use interstate FGA for intrastate
calls.


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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 20:07:00 EDT
From: Ernie Bokkelkamp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Few ISDN Questions


On 02 Jan 1988 08:48, Jason Zions (1:105/42) wrote:

 >Okay, so a B channel is raw 64kb/s. Is there any way to signal,
 >end-to-end, the higher-level meaning imposed on those bits? For

 >other junk. Is it possible to send other setup information
 >end-to-end through D channel? The idea would be that the 2B+D line gets
 >plugged into a really smart box. When a call comes in, the smart box
 >knows what data is about to come in on the B channel; fax, voice,

There is no need to re-invent the wheel, also no need for a black box
as the switch does it all. I have been working with ISDN for the last
six months and I was the fortunate position to have very little
knowledge about telecoms when I started (I have a System Programmer /
Data Communication background).

First you must forget all you know about setting up a call using a
normal switch, there is no similarity when we look at the protocol
between the terminal and switch. (I ignore trunks on purpose).

I assume that a call is setup using a Fax.

When a call is setup over the D-Channel, the terminal must tell the
switch what service is required and B-number. The switch will then
setup the call to the B-subscriber (assuming same switch). If the
B-subscriber is authorised for the class of service "Fax" then it will
broadcast message on the D-Channel of B-subscriber that there is an
incoming call using a service indicator "Fax".

Any FAX device can now react and answer the call, if no reaction the
switch will report back to the A-subscriber that the call could not be
completed.

There are a number of service indicators used: X21, X25, AB, VOICE,
TELEFAX etc. The principle is that a terminal has a service indicator
which is used to setup a call to another terminal with the same
service indicator.

Therefor you will have no problem with a Fax answering a Voice call.

I have played with X21bis over ISDN and it works like a dream,
transfering Megabytes between 2 PC's with out any errors beats any
high speed modem. The drawback is that the X21bis adaptors I used have
a keypad and I have to setup the call manually. I have not heard of
any Hayes compatible X21bis adapters yet, if anybody knows please send
me some information via E-mail.

The real problems with ISDN start when an analog modem is used to
setup a call using a terminal adaptor a/b or over a normal analog
switch. I have not seen any possibility of interworking between X21bis
and analog modems. This means that if you would like to communicate
over X21bis you will be restricted to X21bis and will need an
aditional terminal adaptor / analog modem to communicate with the rest
of the world.

I would appreciate if anybody could give me some information on this.


Ernie Bokkelkamp Fidonet: 5:491/22       EWSD System Design Authority
*** Standard disclaimer applies  ***     PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa

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]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 10:11:53 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT Billing via Local Telcos


[e-mail] (John R. Covert), in response to my comment
 on ATT phasing out billing via local telcos:

> You'll find that Sprint already bills all its own customers directly,
> and I suspect that ITT does as well.  They only use Telco billing for
> occasional customers. . . .

I guess I was unclear in my original posting.  What I meant to say was
something along the lines of:

Since I enjoy the convenience of getting a single, combined monthly
telephone bill, I'm willing to pay a little more for an LD carrier
that gives me this service.  However, if no carrier is willing to give
me the billing service I want, then I'll pick one mainly on the basis
of price.

Things like direct-dial service to the Maldives, reliable FAX/modem
connections, and the ability to talk three hours without a disconnect
are not an issue for me, since I almost never make international
calls, rarely make an LD call longer than 20 minutes, and all my modem
calls are local.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

From: John Romine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panasonic Answering Machines and CPC
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Date: 24 Apr 90 18:30:14 GMT


>My Panasonic ...answering machine has four settings for length of
>message, ...and the two I don't understand, CPC1 and CPC2.

While I don't have my Panasonic's manual handy, I do recall it
cryptically mentions that these settings are for lines with Call
Waiting and without (though I can't remember which is which).


/JLR
John Romine

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Customer Service (was: AT&T's Wrong Recordings)
Date: 24 Apr 90 11:27:03 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dennis Brophy <[e-mail]> writes:

> Given the arrangements MCI has with my employer, she was
> quite accommodating.  This was all completed in about 5 minutes.  I
> attempted the call myself, and moments later it did ring.

> Now, if they could only make this level of service universal to all
> their accounts...

In the world of business telephone service, I am quite aware of the
level of service that most companies give to their major accounts.
When a company spends thousands of dollars a month on long distance or
other services, any enterprize with sane management will go to some
trouble and rightly so, to keep this business. Hence, this
extraordinary effort to correct a problem on the part of MCI for a
major customer is not terribly impressive.

What is impressive to me is that I have had that same level of
attention to my home account by AT&T. Whereas the "who cares" waveoff
has been the order of the day on my personal Sprint account, AT&T has
opened tickets, called me back with progress reports, and in general
provided speedy correction to relatively minor problems.

One of my larger clients has Sprint Pro Wats. When I call on their
behalf, the red carpet service is rolled out. My previous posting have
described their attitude when presented with problems on my personal
account.


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

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 917 in New York City
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 16:52:56 GMT


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

>New York City is currently split into 212 and 718 along borough/water
>lines (the only land boundary between boroughs that I know of is
>Queens/ Brooklyn, both in 718 along with Staten Island).

Not strictly true.  Part of the Borough of Manhattan (New York County)
is physically connected to the Bronx, due to a relocation of the
Harlem River a few decades back.

>New York City message-unit zones are as follows:

Message-unit zones no longer mean anything.  All calls within New York
City are now considered to be "local" and are charged per-call only.
(There is an option whereby you can pay per-call-plus-per-minute even
on local calls, in exchange for a lower monthly service charge; I
doubt if this option is very popular.)

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 16:05:30 EDT
From: John Braden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Test Numbers


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B. Levin) writes
that calling number identification could be reached from eastern
Massachusetts via one of the following two numbers:

>1-200-NXX-XXXX provided the function; probably the seven digits were
>irrelevant, but we assumed the NXX had to look legal.  As far as I can
>tell this is still true... When I moved to Dunstable, Mass... the number
>that did work was 200-2622.  As far as I know this is still the case.

I just tried this from a Metropolitan Boston (617)259 exchange, and
get a "sorry your number cannot be completed as dialed for the 1-200
case and a "circuit busy" signal for the 200-2622 case.  Joel further
asserted that ringback could be accomplished in Eastern Mass.  by
dialing 981-XXXX (where XXXX MUST BE THE SAME as the calling phone's
last four digits.  Unfortunately, in eastern Massachusetts
(617)981-XXXX will get you one of the many phones in the town of
Lexington, or possibly a "not in service" message if you don't hit a
valid number.  Does anybody know which numbers WORK for eastern Mass.
exchanges?


    John Braden, Stratus Computer, Marlboro, Massachusetts
    [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]

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

From: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 13:14:30 GMT


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

>In my opinion, we are asked to give our phone numbers purely to update
>somebody's database.  I am always amazed that people who would never
>give their social security number out will readily give out their
>phone number which can also serve as a database key if you don't move
>often.

>I either give a 555-1212 number or don't write a number at all,  The
>clerks never check.

Same here.  If there's a problem with processing, they can call the
credit card company (who have my phone number on file).  They can also
look me up in the telephone book.

I've heard rumours (perhaps just urban legends) about stores selling
lists of names, phone numbers and purchase amounts to telemarketers.
I can't verify this, but I seem to have gotten a lot fewer
telemarketing type calls since I started putting down bogus numbers.


    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, 24 Apr 90 10:44:26 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416?


Gossip?  No, that's happened some places in the U.S. (refers to
1+NPA+7D for ALL toll calls, even within your own area code).  It
happened very recently, or will happen, in 919/704 areas in North
Carolina (I assume that's BOTH areas in N.C.; which one is running out
of prefixes?).  It is also the case in: 214 in Texas (to become
214/903) 301 in Maryland and 703 (not 804) in Virginia, due to use of
N0X/N1X prefixes in DC area.  The next step, which will be fully cut
over by the end of 1990, is to require NPA+7D, with no leading 1, for
DC-area local calls which cross NPA border (this should also mean that
incoming toll calls for Va. and Md. suburbs will no longer be able to
use area code 202).  404 (not 912?) in Georgia.

Calling instructions are always set up so that direct-dial (or, on pay
phones, "cash" call) never requires a time-out, probably for areawide
and/or statewide uniformity, and because in general some equipment
can't handle certain time-outs.  This means that if your area code has
N0X/N1X prefixes, you can no longer have 1+7D for toll calls within
it; instead, you have to have 7D (as is done in New Jersey) or
1+NPA+7D.  Usually, 0+ calls will require 0+NPA+7D for all calls,
because some equipment can't handle time-out other than for 0 by
itself (gets local operator).  But I noticed that LA area, even with
N0X/N1X prefixes, used to require only 0+7D for 0+ calls within area
213.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kemi Jona)
Subject: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 24 Apr 90 21:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kemi Jona)
Organization: Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University


This is a very strange request, but I hope someone will be able to
come thru and help me with it nonetheless.  I need to find out what
the frequency of the tones that a touch-tone phone makes.  Every last
one of them.  Does anyone know these numbers?

Any info, or pointers to info, would be greatly appreciated.


Kemi Jona     [e-mail]
Institute for the Learning Sciences
1890 Maple Ave.; Room 304
Evanston, IL  60201    [phone] ext. 7100

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 11:31:11 edt
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Emergency Interrupt on PBXes


A question for knowledgeable PBX users:

Can an outside (telco) operator perform an emergency interrupt on a
PBX extension?  Here at Brandeis, we have an in-house operator on duty
during daytime hours only, and I know the in-house operator can
interrupt an extension, but what if my mother needs to interrupt while
I'm on the modem?:) Does the operator know that [phone] is a PBX
extension, or can the operator treat it like any other number?


Scott Fybush

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #282
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08263;
          25 Apr 90 17:10 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae22937; 25 Apr 90 16:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02566;
          25 Apr 90 2:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05238;
          25 Apr 90 1:30 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Apr 90 1:17:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #283
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Apr 90 010:17:38 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 283

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Info Needed on Call Processing and Telco Interface [C. D. Covington]
    Chautauqua Institution Telephone System [Larry Lippman]
    CLASS vs. Class Of Service [John Boteler]
    Toll Free Phone Numbers in South Africa [Ernie Bokkelkamp]
    WD-40 FONCARD Offer:  Hidden Charges [Carol Springs]
    Unique and Profitable Use of 9000 Number [Wayne E. Sanders]
    Rochester, NY Area [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 17:37:18 -0400
From: "C. D. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on Call Processing and Telco Interface


     Last week I submitted a request for information on cost effective
low end equipment for interfacing with the telco and performing simple
call processing.  The request was intentionally short since I was in
the process of writing up a business plan and wanted to avoid a lot of
details.

     In response to Macy Hallock's request for a bit more detail
please, let me submit the following story.  I will try to cover my
background (so you will know where I am coming from) without wasting
too much news bandwidth.

life_history(ON);

     I grew up here in Fayetteville, Arkansas, went off to Rice
University 1971-1976 to get bachelors and masters degrees in
electrical engineering, got married in 1976 and went to work for
Motorola in Ft. Worth for 4 years in 2-way FM radio design.  During
1980-1984 I finished up a PhD at SMU in Dallas culminating my research
in speech recognition.  During this same time period I worked for
Texas Instruments, United Technologies, and Commodore Business
Machines in various capacities.

     My family and my wife's family being in Fayetteville, we decided
to move back to Fayetteville and try being a professor.  Here, I have
introduced and taught graduate courses in digital signal processing
and speech technology.  I have also conducted research in DSP and
speech with funding from government and industry.

     Effective last November, my last bid for tenure failed.  The bad
news - you're fired; the good news - you've got about 18 months to
transition into something else.  I'd like to stay with my family, but
that may not be possible.  What's my number one choice?  Telecom!  My
experience with United Technologies includes writing firmware to
implement 3-way digital conferencing, generate call progress tones,
generate and decode DTMF, and implement a 1200 baud modem feature.  So
I have some experience to build on.

life_history(OFF);

     I have filled up two notebooks with local contacts, employment
opportunities, and marketing leads.  At this time I have had no
success with the major industrial players here: Wal-Mart, J. B. Hunt
Trucking, and Tyson Foods.  They seems to prefer to handle their
telecommunication needs internally.  This has forced me to consider
other alternatives.  One of these possibilities is
aggregating/reselling long distance.

     At this point I have no problem spilling out business plans since
I think the chances of pursuit are probably small at this point.
Anyone who does pursue the following business opportunity has their
work cut out for them anyway - no free lunch here.

  For purposes of the following discussion, I offer two definitions.

  Aggregating:  Taking financial responsibility for a group of businesses'
                phone bills in return for a discount from the carrier, which
                discount will be shared with the end users.  Customers continue
                to receive bills from AT&T/OCC.

    Reselling:  Installing a switch and convincing end users to use your
                service (FGA, FGB, FGD) and usually billing the customer
                directly.

     Everybody and his pet rock seem to be aggregating these days, so
I don't know if there is really much opportunity for me there.  What I
am really interested in is reselling.  My question last week then is
how to set up the world's cheapest switch.  I understand that good
off-the-shelf switches cost $250K to $500K.  Why can't I parlay my
technical background by locating an FCC approved T1 interface and
building a PC based call processor around it?

     I have located several possibilities for the T1 interface, one of
which is a PC based DACS by Frederick Engineering which can be RS-232
controllable.  This device can handle 4 T1's for $5000 and 16 T1's for
$10,000, switching at the DS0 level.  All I need now is to be able to
route incoming calls into a DSP processor which can handle A/B or MF
signaling (I don't know the available formats of FGD yet.  A friend at
a PBX company tells me it's all MF).  The DSP processor will need also
to monitor the call for answer supervision/disconnect supervision if
not available otherwise.

     Thus it appears possible to put together an all digital call
processing switch with a budget of around $10K.  The configuration
would be to order a T1 to the telco (FGD), a second T1 to AT&T/OCC,
and put the switch inbetween.  One would then need to start signing up
customers like mad to avoid instant Chapter 11.  The real problem with
this plan is that I don't think I can get the LD from the carrier
cheap enough to make a go of it.  I will probably need to get it at
less than half price.  While possible, it's really iffy.

     After getting a rating of about 6 out of 10 on the crazy scale
from some respected colleagues I submit this plan to telecom readers
for comments or general enlightenment.  [P.S. Resume available on
request :-) :-)]

     My original posting dealt with finding sources of equipment like
the Fredericks box which can serve as building blocks for a complete
call processing switch, assembled at very low cost.


C. David Covington (WA5TGF)  [e-mail]     [phone]
Asst Prof, Elec Eng          Univ of Arkansas        Fayetteville, AR 72701

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

Subject: Chautauqua Institution Telephone System
Date: 24 Apr 90 23:40:29 EST (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> the TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I believe Chautauqua Institution (ninety-nine
> percent of the rationale for the existence of the village of
> Chautauqua, NY) operates its own telephone system. And sorry to
> disagree, but the summer programs at Chautauqua are quite remarkable
> at times. It is the summer home of the Eastman-Rochester Symphony
> Orchestra among other things. The art exhibits, lectures, theatre and
> recitals make the gate fees worth every nickle. I love visiting
> Chautauqua. If I visit this summer I will look at the phone setup.  PT]

    The Chautauqua Institution is in the telephone serving area of
ALLTEL, which operates what was formerly Jamestown Telephone Corp.
ALLTEL's regional office is in Jamestown, NY.

    Chautauqua & Erie Telephone Company is an independent
operating telephone company, but it serves Clymer, NY, and not
Chautauqua, NY.  To add further confusion, though, all of the above
places are located within Chautauqua County, NY.

    I suspect that the Chautauqua Institution may have a large
interconnect PABX, but it is not an operating telephone company.

    If you do visit Chautauqua, give me a shout - I live only
about an hour's drive away.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
UUCP:    {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
TEL: [phone] || FAX: [phone]      {utzoo|uunet}!/     \aerion!larry

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

Subject: CLASS vs. Class Of Service
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 3:56:32 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


The following situation occurred recently in a ESS#1A.

I attempted to add a couple numbers in the same serving central office
to the CLASS calling list. Some numbers were accepted as normal;
others were denied: "The number you have added is not available with
this service."

Does this indicate that the number to be added was associated with an
ACD or other multi-terminal device not identifiable by telephone
number, or is it possible to prevent the addition of a number to my
list by a COS flag?


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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 21:57:00 EDT
From: Ernie Bokkelkamp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll Free Phone Numbers in South Africa


On 15 Apr 1990 12:57, USENET News SystEm (1:105/42) wrote:

 >South Africa has been testing tollfree systems for a short while now.

 >A newer, more advanced system has just been introduced called
 >the 080 system.

 >08011-10001 (where the 080 is the tollfree identifier, 11 the
 >region code and the last five digits the actual number).

And for national VideoText access (Beltel) the toll free number 080 00
1111 will give access country wide. Because of this the Beltel port
time has been increased and a logon charge is levied. The toll free
access is necessary because the administration is changing the
metering for local calls. In the past a fixed number of meter pulses
was charged depending on the distance between the subscribers for
local calls. Now the calls are charged according to duration depending
on distance and the time of day. Due to the metering change a
connection to Beltel had become expensive due to double charging, once
for the call and then port time on top of it.

 >One thing that is different to other tollfree systems in other
 >countries is that the software running the system has been
 >loaded onto the existing exchanges ... ie;  no extra equipment has
 >had to be put in place.

Correct, and the changeover was so smooth, I didn't even notice and it
happened right under my nose ;-)


Ernie Bokkelkamp Fidonet: 5:491/22       EWSD System Design Authority
*** Standard disclaimer applies  ***     PO Box 7055, Pretoria, South Africa

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: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: WD-40 FONCARD Offer:  Hidden Charges
Date: 23 Apr 90 22:40:48 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


So how 'bout that li'l $10 "FON card non-recurring charge" on the
first bill from US Sprint for accounts created as part of the WD-40
"free hour" offer?

Now I wish I hadn't told my friends about the quiz.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think something must have gone wrong in the way
your account was set up. I have recieved two billings now on the Sprint
account, and no such charge as you describe above occurred on mine. In
the beginning, I received two cards. They have not yet given me the
one hour credit either, but they say that comes on the third billing.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 13:35:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rochester, NY area


This is from Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]> (actually,
Scott Fybush) and took a while for me to post because I was checking
this against my notes.  Area code 716 unless otherwise noted.

ROCHESTER (includes the city of Rochester and portions of towns of
Greece, Gates, Chili, Henrietta, Brighton, Penfield, and all of
Irondequoit): 221, 222, 238, 253, 255, 262, 263, 274, 477, 588, 722,
724, 726, 777, 781, 955, 987: Assigned for CENTREX services and the
like.  777 is used right now exclusively for Rochester Tel, but that
may change -- it is brand new exchange.  253-477-588-781 and much of
722-4-6 are used by Eastman Kodak Co.  222 is the radio stations'
request lines.  221 was in disuse for many years; 221-1111 used to be
the *free* time-and-temp until about 1982 when it was replaced with
974-1616, which costs $0.083/min.  [777 appeared as BUFFALO on a phone
bill of mine.]

225, 227, 723: Western portion of the town of Greece.

232, 262, 325, 423, 454, 546: Central Business District.

235, 328, 436, 464: Town of Chili and SW part of city.

244, 256, 271, 442, 461, 473: Town of Brighton and SE part of city

247, 426: Town of Gates and S Central part of city

254, 458, 647, 663, 865: Eastern part of town of Greece and NW part of city

255, 429, 959, 975: Just added as of late 1989; I don't know yet what
they will be used for. [On March 20, 1990, I punched in 959 at
Bellcore and was given BUFFALO instead of Rochester.]

266, 336, 338, 342, 467, 544: Western part of Irondequoit and N Central city.

272, 292, 424, 427: Northern part of Henrietta; these phones all had
 244-271-442-461-473 #s until about 1983 when the area began to grow.

475 is primarily Roch. Inst. of Technology.

275, 277: University of Rochester.  275-9xxx used to be used for some
customers in the town of Brighton until UR needed more numbers and
added the 277 exchange, allowing 5-digit on-campus dialing.  WWWG-AM
radio was 275-9212; all those numbers are now 461-9xxx.

323: Eastern part of Irondequoit and a small part of NE city.

428: City and county government

288, 482, 654: Extreme N portion of Brighton, western part of Penfield,
 and E Central city.

428: City and county government.

721, 783: Rochester Telephone Mobile Communications

729, 732: Genesee Telephone cellular

921: Roch Tel paging

974: Roch Tel's equivalent of 976.

OUTLYING AREAS:

223, 377, 388, 425: Fairport

226: Avon (just added to Rochester's local calling area)

229: Honeoye

237: Perry

248, 381, 383, 385, 586: East Rochester-Pittsford (and Penfield.)

293: Churchville
334, 359: Henrietta (except N of Thruway, which is in Rochester exchanges)
335: Dansville
346: Livonia (see note on 226)
367: Hemlock
374: Naples
382: Leicester
384: Cohocton
394, 396: Canandaigua (was in 315 NPA until 1976)
395, 637: Brockport (395 is the state college)
398, 924: Victor
468: Nunda
493: Castile-Gainesville-Silver Springs
494: Bergen
495: Wyoming
533: Rush
534: Atlanta
538: Caledonia

582, 624: Honeoye Falls-Lima (until 1976 these were separate; 582 was
 Lima and 624 was Hon. Fls.)

584: Pavilion
658: Mount Morris
669: Springwater
671, 787: West Webster
728: Wayland
768: Le Roy
786: Warsaw (used to be 796 until 1976, likewise 226 was 926)
964: Hamlin

[ 229 is already listed FURTHER above ]

The Rochester LATA also includes 229 Honeoye, 289 Shortsville, 526
Stanley, 554 Rushville, and 657 Holcomb which are served by Seneca
Gorham Telephone Co., which Roch Tel purchased not long ago; 352
Spencerport, 392 Hilton, and 594 North Chili which are served by Ogden
Tel; and 476 Dalton-- I don't know who serves that exchange.

 From Rochester phones, the local calling area includes 548 Byron, 638
Holley, 659 Kendall in the Buffalo LATA and 986 Macedon, 524 Ontario,
483 Sodus and 589 Williamson (all 315 NPA) in NYTel's Syracuse LATA.
483 and 589 require dialing 1-315 before the number, 986 and 524 can
be dialed 7 digits.  *** [ Scott Fybush then goes on to say:] This
list is based on my own observations and also on the 1990 Roch Tel
white pages.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 90 16:17:21 -0400
Subject: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number


I thought this was an interesting use of a 900 number.
As seen on one of local (LA) news casts on Sat the 21st.

Someone is offering a 900 service that you call and receive a "tone"
and then dial the the number you want to call.  The service you are
buying is keeping your number from being delivered by caller id.  The
caller id box will see "all zeros" according to the company.  Current
cost is $2/min.  The service was founded by a "former secret service
agent".


Sandy

| Wayne E. Sanders Jr.      | Voice:    714-952-5773
| Currently on contract to: | Internet: [e-mail]
| McDonnell Douglas M&E Co. | UUCP:     uunet!dev3f.mdcbbs.com!sandy
| Cypress, CA               | PSI:      PSI%31060099980019::SANDY

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #283
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26029;
          26 Apr 90 2:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02898;
          26 Apr 90 0:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01518;
          25 Apr 90 23:46 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Apr 90 23:36:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #284
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Apr 90 23:35:34 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 284

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cellular Telephone "Experimentation" [Larry Lippman]
    On Liking or Disliking Mr. Lippman's Comments [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Dave Mc Mahan]
    LD & International Charges / X75 [Nick Jagger]
    You Think YOU Have Problems With Your Telephone Company? [Peter Neumann]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Cellular Telephone "Experimentation"
Date: 24 Apr 90 23:55:20 EST (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> the TELECOM Moderator writes:

> Of the lines found which are apparently not checking serial numbers,
> some, but not all, were found to have a subscriber identified with the
> line. This was noted when a landline dialing the number while the
> experimental cell phone was turned off reached a voicemail box of

> Ideas and comments welcome.

    You won't like my comment.

    As I see it, this "experimentation" constitutes theft of
services, and is no different than say, hacking telephone credit card
numbers until one finds one that works.

    The position taken in a recent related article that such use
of "air time" really costs the cellular company nothing is no
different than if applied to a long distance carrier.  I don't believe
that anyone in this forum would fail to agree that the latter
situation clearly constitutes a theft of service, with a past record
of successful prosecution.

    There is also the issue that a cellular telephone user
operating in an unauthorized fashion with other than an mobile
identification number issued by and/or known to the cellular company
is operating a radio transmitter which is no longer covered by the
station license of the cellular company.  Such operation may be
considered one or more violations of FCC statutes pertaining to
operation of an unlicensed transmitter and/or willful interference to
a licensed FCC station (i.e., the cellular provider).


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
UUCP:    {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
TEL: [phone] || FAX: [phone]      {utzoo|uunet}!/     \aerion!larry

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: On Liking or Disliking Mr. Lippman's Comments
Date: Wed 25 Apr 1990 20:23:00 CST


What I 'did not like' about Mr. Lippman's comment was his (it seems to
me) assumption that I had a pro-phreaker/hacker attitude in the
original report, and that I 'would not like' his reply.  I guess that
would make it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy by himself.  Larry is
correct of course in his *moral and ethical* assessment of the
activity. But to point out security holes in cellular systems --
without being too precise in exactly how it is done -- is really no
different than discussing ways in which pay phones have and are being
defrauded, or ways in which people abuse and mis-use phone calling
cards. All are unethical activities, but it was necessary for
*someone* to report it and talk about it in order for corrective
actions to be taken.

Now some have said it is illogical to say, "crackers and phreaks have
no business being on sites where they do not belong" while at the same
time condoning such cellular 'phreaking'. I have said the former, and
would seem to be condoning the latter, but the difference is in the
end results. I report what I see, hear, and experience, and would hope
that my sphere of influence, however little that might be, would lead
Cellular One/SW Bell to correct its deficiencies. I don't think this
is true of people who routinely hack away at phone systems and
computer sites; I don't think they have any interest whatsoever in
seeing the holes plugged, and in fact, rather hope they are not fixed.

If/when you see a comphrensive article or series of articles under my
name describing in precise detail how to defraud a telecom service,
repleat with phone/code numbers to use, etc, then by all means let's
discuss the morality of it. Until then, you might assume we are of a
similar mind.

Finally, I think it is important to remember that while *you, and I*
and all the other good guys in the world would never trespass on
someone else's property -- except maybe long enough to tell them their
barn door was standing wide open and all the cows had run off -- a
message on ethics and the law rarely if ever influences the bad guys
to change their behavior one iota.  *We* don't need the Sunday
sermons, and *they* aren't inspired by them. So instead of telling the
burglar he is breaking the law and hoping he has a conscience and
reforms before he gets to our house, we make things more inconvenient
for him to start with. In the context of the present discussion,
Cellular One needs to audit every line and make sure it is the way it
is intended to be. Something tells me their record-keeping is in a
mess in more ways than just a handful of phone numbers left unguarded.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones
Date: 24 Apr 90 21:06:43 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Irving Wolfe) writes:

>You obviously guessed the reason, convenience.  In a sense, this is
>quite a security risk but not really, since although the value of a
>minute on the air may be high, the cost to provide it incrementally is
>about zero.  Thus if a service thief got free time, it was time that
>not only cost the company nothing, but also would not have been sold
>otherwise (since the crook would not have made the call without it
>being free) hence no revenues were lost.  Of course, this is only true
>if the practice remains rare.

This is not how it was explained to me in my former days as a
(not-so-clever) computer hacker.  I took the same approach to CPU
time, reasoning that if I didn't use that CPU-Second, it would be lost
anyway.  They aren't going to shut down the mainframe for that
millisecond if I didn't use it, they can't bill it, so who does it
hurt?  I assumed that since time can't be accumulated for future use,
it was ok.  I assumed wrong.  The computer adminstration at the school
this occured at took a VERY dim view of my attitudes.  I'm sure the
cellular company would do the same.  If service theft became more
prevelant, there is a very real possibility that paying customers
would be blocked in certain cells.  This does cut directly into
revenue.

As a side note, I always wondered what would happen if several
cell-fones located in close proximity (the same cell) were all called
at once.  Would this freeze out any incoming/outgoing calls until the
call was completed or aborted?  It would seem that if one knew the car
phone numbers of several employees at the same company and called them
during work hours when they were all in close proximity, it would play
hell with call completion statistics for other phones in the same
cell.  Kind of a dirty way to annoy the cellular company.  Does anyone
know what the maximum number of phones per cell is?  What would be the
theoretical maximum and what do most cellular companies support?


dave

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

From: Nick Jagger <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 14:05:45 +0100
Subject: LD & International Charges / X75


As a contribution to the debate about long distance costs you might be
interested in the debate just starting in the UK about the role of the
CCITT in regulating and setting a structure whereby international call
charges are allocated between the various national Telecoms
Administrations.

The Financial Times (the UK's Wall Street Journal) has been running a
sustained series of articles and editorials accusing the CCITT of
operating a cartel aimed at keeping international call charges high.
This obviously is more important in Europe where London to Paris is
international while Los Angeles to New York is LD.  This campaign has
been taken up first by the opposition Labour Party and now by OFTEL
(the UK's telecoms regulatory body) who have launched an investigation.

There are two strands to the argument the first is that international
call charges have not dropped in line with international call costs.
This it is then argued is due to the way the call initiating (and
billing) country compensates the receiving country for the costs of
terminating the call.  At the end of each month it is assumed that the
traffic came from each country equally and accounts are settled on the
basis of the 'Accounting Rate' which is meant to be equal to the cost
of making the calls.

These accounting rates are often actually more than AT&T charges their
customers for the call so given that on most international routes the
US initiates more calls than it receives the US LD companies are
subsidizing other world phone companies.  A estimate suggests that the
US phone companies lost a net $2bn in 1988.

The defence against this is that the local switches which enable IDD
are necesarily much more complex and hence more expensive than they
would be if the where only supporting local dialing so international
calls should 'subsidise' these switches as they contain the features
necessary for the calls to occur in the first place.  The same
argument applying to LD and Local calls.  If anything given that the
local switch and loop are fixed costs while LD and International calls
are capacity limited the local costs should be based on fixed
connection/rental charges while LD should be based on usage.  If
anything there seems to have been a reversal of this process in the US
as a result of the disvestiture.

This CCITT/Cartel debate seems to have been initiated by information
comming from the FCC and a US based consultant named Greg Staple.  Does
anyone know any more background to the US side of this debate?  For a
variety of reasons we feel that the whole story has been initated by
AT&T, but I haven't space to go into them here.

On a completely different subject although I know that X75 is the
standard that links differnt national public X25 networks what is its
significance.  Does a lot of the network management information get
lost going through a X75 gateway.  I am asking this because in the
early days of X25 the European commision set up an Europe wide X25
network 'Euronet' but as the national Telecom Administrations
developed there own public X25 networks Euronet was removed.  Has
Europe lost funcionality to nationlism?


Nick Jagger    Centre for Information and Communication Technologies
Science Policy Research Unit     University of Sussex
BRIGHTON UK BN1 9RF

 from UK [e-mail]
 from US [e-mail]
or if you are desparate and not expect me to find the mail for a
month
        [e-mail]
standard disclaimers


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

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 1990 15:45:46 PDT
From: "Peter G. Neumann" <[e-mail]>
Subject: You Think YOU Have Problems With Your Telephone Company?


[Moderator's Note: This was kindly passed along to the Digest by Ken
Yep <[e-mail]> who received permission from Mr. Neumann to
share it with us.  It originally appeared in RISKS. PT]

A woman in Kissimmee, Florida, sent me a dossier that she has compiled
over the past few months, carefully documenting an alarming sequence
of problems.  It is one of the most bizarre cases I have ever seen.
The problems are still continuing, unresolved.

She runs a business out of her home, and has an 800 number that rings
onto one of her two home phones -- although the problems began BEFORE
the 800 line was connected.  Her local phone company is United
Telephone Company.  The list of anomalous events is somewhat
incredible, but is supported by many witnesses, including law
enforcement people.  It includes the following types of incidents.

   Calls billed to her 800 number from parties that never called her (in one
   case from a phone in Chicago that was not equipped for outgoing calls!).

   Calls billed to one of the home phones when there was no phone activity,
   that is, for calls that were never made to people who never received them.

These troubles with the phone company have resulted in huge bills for
calls that apparently were never made.  Even more fascinating
incidents were these:

   Frequent incoming calls that were wrong numbers -- usually in large batches
   on the same day -- to similar 800 numbers, originally THREE numbers in
   particular, and then suddenly TWO new numbers after some problem was
   allegedly fixed.

   With alarming frequency, apparently crossed lines resulting in two parties
   BOTH getting ringing tones, answering, and finding themselves talking to
   each other.

   Crossed lines such that multiple conversations could be heard clearly at the
   same time.

   Repeated calls to 911 attributed to her phone, even when no one was home.

The most interesting and best documented single incident was probably this:

   On 27 Feb 90, a local Kissimmee police officer was in the house trying to
   make sense out of what was going on.  ``He picked up the phone and dialed
   the police department, however he reached Yellow Cab.  He put down the phone
   ... not understanding how he reached the Yellow Cab company when [about
   three minutes later] the telephone rang and [the officer] answered the phone
   only to be connected to a Howie, a dispatcher at the police department,
   only neither of them had called one another...''

It's only a software problem?  With remotely reprogrammable call
forwarding, speed dial, redial, automatic dialing units, etc., in
central offices, almost anything seems possible these days, especially
when you consider the possible interactions among these features.  One
could program up some of the above incidents as combinations thereof.
However, she did not subscribe to any of these features -- although
the mechanism to turn them on is itself programmable.

If these were the only problems, the logical choice would be a
messed-up central office and monumental incompetence on the part of
the telephone company in fixing the problems.  Apparently the
telephone company has been baffled, with even the trap-and-trace
efforts seemly not having been consistent with observed reality.  Some
observed calls were not trapped, and some trapped calls were never
placed!  But compounding the situation have been a variety of
apparently genuine threatening and/or harassing phone calls.  From
that we consider the tentatative conclusion that there are either at
least TWO COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT PHENOMENA, telephone system problems
plus malicious human agents, or ONE SET OF INTERRELATED PHENOMENA
caused by a malicious person who has access to and knows the telephone
hardware/software system, with any of a variety of motives.  I have
several (unpublished) reports about how easy it is for outsiders to
hack telephone switches, but it is obviously even easier when an
insider is involved.

The RISKS archives include quite a few cases of intentional hacking of
telephone systems, as well as numerous cases of accidental misbilling
and other screwups.  But above all, RISKS readers know how easy it is
for things like that to happen.

Is it possible that we might be able to provide some help for this
person in Kissimmee, who seems to be a victim of many problems --
including the "computer is never wrong" syndrome on the part of the
telephone company, whose employees have had difficulty believing that
any of these things could actually happen?  My main question to you
all is this:

   Do you know of other cases of unintentional (or intentionally caused)
   rampant deviations from expected normal behavior that have been attributable
   to a telephone system and its operation, as a result of scrambled software,
   miswired switching gear, inept personnel, etc.?  Has anything like this
   happened to you?

Please try to provide as much detail as possible.  Also, avoid
speculation on this particular case unless it is VERY WELL INFORMED.
The dossier is very thoughtfully constructed, and the complexity of
the case suggests that an adequate explanation may be nontrivial,
although -- as we all know by now -- a small software flaw can go a
long way.  PGN

   [P.S.  I have omitted her name and phone numbers, because that might only
   tend to worsen the problem for her, and for you -- were you to call her.]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #284
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27415;
          26 Apr 90 3:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14461;
          26 Apr 90 1:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02898;
          26 Apr 90 0:50 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Apr 90 0:17:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #285
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Apr 90 00:15:26 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 285

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Jon Baker]
    Re: Phone Replacement (was re: Party Lines) [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Answering Machines - How to Force Answer on 1st Ring? [Linc Madison]
    Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [David Leibold]
    Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Credit Card ID [David Tamkin]
    Re: Modem Problems on Sprint [John Higdon]
    Re: Emergency Interrupt on PBXes [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: MCI Ad Hits below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 25 Apr 90 20:46:49 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> This is a very strange request, but I hope someone will be able to
> come thru and help me with it nonetheless.  I need to find out what
> the frequency of the tones that a touch-tone phone makes.  Every last
> one of them.  Does anyone know these numbers?

Each of the twelve numbers/symbols used for DTMF signalling actually
produces two tones :

  1 - 697Hz & 1209Hz
  2 - 697Hz & 1336Hz
  3 - 697Hz & 1477Hz
  4 - 770Hz & 1209Hz
  5 - 770Hz & 1336Hz
  6 - 770Hz & 1477Hz
  7 - 852Hz & 1209Hz
  8 - 852Hz & 1336Hz
  9 - 852Hz & 1477Hz
  * - 941Hz & 1209Hz
  0 - 941Hz & 1336Hz
  # - 941Hz & 1477Hz


[Moderator's Note: And thanks also to Chuck Bennett <[e-mail]>,
Steve Levitt <[e-mail]>, John Higdon <[e-mail]>
and others who submitted identical responses to the question.  No
further replies will be printed, unless something significantly
different is added to the message.

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Replacement (was re: Party Lines)
Date: 25 Apr 90 18:11:40 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(William Kucharski) writes:

>I believe that installing your own phone is allowed, but modems and
>answering machines are not for the simple reason that they are
>incapable of surrendering the line in case an emergency call needs to
>be made.

Consumers are NOT allowed to connect ANYTHING to party lines for
several reasons.  1) Nobody will SELL you a phone properly equipped
for party line service.  2) There is no universal standard for ringing
and station ID so even if you could get the proper phone, it is
unlikely that you could make it work right (indeed, a lot of telco
"technicians" even have trouble with this).  3) If you want to
purchase your own phones, the telco will be more than happy (in most
cases) the upgrade the line to single party service (at a slightly
higher monthly rate, of course).

In summary, if you have a party line, don't mess with the instruments.
It is likely that you will mess up the service for all the people on
the line and (if that occurs) you may be liable for damages from the
other parties if they should have an emergency while the line is
out-of-service and the telco will probably charge you to come out and
fix it.


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 00:33:41 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machines - How to Force Answer on 1st Ring?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>I have an answering machine with a two position switch allowing
>pick-up on either 2nd or 4th ring. I would like to know if it can be
>modified without much trouble to pick-up on the 1st ring (instead of
>the 2nd.)


Well, I can't help you with modifying an existing machine, but I can
tell you about my first answering machine, way back in 1985.  It had a
switch for selecting the ring it answered on: "immediate" (first ring)
or "delay" (second ring).  Yes, you had the option of adding a whole
six seconds to the time before it answered.  It had no remote
capability, so "toll-saver" wasn't relevant.

The real fun came with the outgoing messages, though.  It used a
single cassette, with the outgoing messages interspersed amidst the
incoming messages.  All outgoing were EXACTLY 14 seconds, and all
incoming were EXACTLY 40 seconds.  Add 6 seconds for beeps and dead
space, repeat 30 times, and you have a half-hour tape.  Thus, if you
want your machine to be able to take a full complement of calls, you
must record your outgoing message 30 times (or 30 different ones,
which was the most fun!), waiting as the machine spaced over the blank
for incoming messages each time.

As I said above, the best feature was having friends call back to
finish their message (having been cut off at 40 seconds) and getting a
completely different outgoing message.


Linc Madison    =   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (woody)
Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (woody)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 04:12:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
writes:

>the area code.  Ostensibly, the reason given (through a *lot* of
>pretty stupid ads) for the change was that 416 was running out of
>numbers and this would let them introduce N1X and N0X exchanges.

Despite all the ads, a lot of people still bothered the operators
wondering what had happened to the long distance dialing.

>Now I thought that all of the CO equipment in use was pretty smart and
>could keep up with something like a N1X or N0X exchange within the
>area code just by using time outs or whatever it is that they use on
>international calls.  Is this all in fact a ploy by Bell Canada to get

Notes on the Intra-LATA BOC Networks (formerly Notes on the Network
(formerly Notes on Distance Dialing, i think)) has a discussion on the
use of dialing area code always, plus use of timeouts. It seemed that
the dialing of area code always outweighed the time spent waiting for
a timeout, especially with faster call completion expected with CCS7
and touch tone services (though they could terminate with '#' like
overseas calls do).

>us all used to dialing 1-416- to get Toronto and then they are going
>to split the Area Code (Toronto keeping 416 and everyone else getting
>something else)???

>Has anyone got any gossip that would verify this?

The recent Bell News hinted at the area code split that will
eventually happen, though no date has been set for it. It depends on
how fast the N[0/1]X exchanges are used up. How exactly it will be
split is not too known or certain at this point.

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416?
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 14:16:00 EDT


>From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)

>Now I thought that all of the CO equipment in use was pretty smart and
>could keep up with something like a N1X or N0X exchange within the
>area code just by using time outs or whatever it is that they use on
>international calls....

This is in fact the old way of doing things in areas where a '1'
prefix was not required.  I had an old (pre divestiture) AT&T book
which discussed such things* which described the use of time-outs as
an alternate means of detecting the end of a number.  It was
considered a stop-gap measure at best due to (a) the delays and (b)
the indeterminacy.

I don't have it handy or I'd identify it better.  It also had things
like the list of (then) remaining area codes that would be assigned and
the list of exchanges that would be last assigned in an area.  Of
course, since this dates well before Bellcore's existence, and changes
have been since made to the numbering plan, much of that is probably
out of date.


/JBL
Nets: [e-mail]
POTS: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 17:51 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID


Benjamin Ellsworth wrote in Digest Volume 10, issue 281 in reply to
John Higdon's statement that in all Higdon's years of putting his real
phone number on charge slips, only twice have merchants called him:

| This does sound naive.  Yes, you may have only had two of the merchants
| call you directly, BUT how many telephone solicitations have you
| received from solicitors who got your phone number from a merchant?

Since telemarketers don't tell you where they got your name, there's
no real way to find out, is there?  In all my years of giving my real
phone number out, I don't think I've ever been phoned from a charge
slip.  Now, magazine subscriptions, being on that night's lucky
prefix, and the actual credit card account itself (directly from the
card issuer, not from a merchant) have been reasons my phone has rung.


David Tamkin      [e-mail]    {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier
P. O. Box 813   Rosemont, IL  60018-0813   [phone]   [phone]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Problems on Sprint
Date: 25 Apr 90 15:15:26 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]> writes:

> A few weeks ago I had an interesting problem using Sprint to make
> Telebit Trailblazer modem calls.  I learned later that this problem
> affects fax modems as well.
> [...]
> He found two ways to make the problem go away.  One was by installing
> the old echo canceler card.  The other was by re-strapping the new
> echo canceler card.

I have made some observations recently that would tend to support this
course of action. Lately (and more and more frequently) I am noticing
an echo cancelation problem when making Sprint voice calls. On recent
calls to NJ and to the Boston area, while the connection seemed clear
enough at first, if the two of us started talking simultaneously the
voices would deteriorate to garbled mush. The moment one of us would
stop talking, the other voice would clear up.

As you might imagine, this would be murder on modems, since both
modems are, in effect, always speaking simultaneously. This is, as
pointed out by Jody Kravitz, most likely an echo-cancellation problem.
The problem is severe enough that it can easily be detected on voice
calls. I haven't tried data to those locations (long ago having found
out the hard way to only entrust that to AT&T), but I suspect that on
any circuit where that distortion occurs data throughput would be
minimal to nonexistent.


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

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Interrupt on PBXes
Date: 25 Apr 90 17:59:46 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Robert Kaplan) writes...

>Can an outside (telco) operator perform an emergency interrupt on a
>PBX extension?  Here at Brandeis, we have an in-house operator on duty
>during daytime hours only, and I know the in-house operator can
>interrupt an extension, but what if my mother needs to interrupt while
>I'm on the modem?:) Does the operator know that [phone] is a PBX
>extension, or can the operator treat it like any other number?

The operator probably doesn't know it's a PBX extension when you first
call him, but when the call reaches the position serving Waltham, it
probably becomes obvious that it's a DID trunk into a PBX.

The Bell operator can not verify (break in) a PBX extension.  The
operator has no more access to it than anyone else outside of the
site.  If you think that's a problem, then you should advise campus
security (since they're on duty 7x24) to have a telephone with such
privileges installed.  I'm not sure offhand how that's done on an
SL-1, but I suspect (but am not sure) it's possible, even without an
operator's console.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone, sharing requires permission

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 17:54 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Ad Hits below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory


Jody Kravitz wrote in Volume 10, issue 279, about a sleazy ad from MCI.

AT&T has been no better.  Even though they did a slight cleanup on the
Matthew (or is it Mitchell?) Laurance commercial (instead of getting
Fiji instead of Phoenix twice because the carrier can't process his
dialing, he now gets Fiji once because he misdialed, still implying
that the unnamed other carrier's dialing instructions for Phoenix and
Fiji are similar), there are two others currently running that are
just about as bad:

In one the narrator says that her new carrier promised her that she
would "save, save, save."  Her first bill comes with no savings; the
solicitor for the new carrier had been comparing their discount plan
with AT&T's full rates, but Reach Out America had been saving her the
same money all along.  So now she is going to "leave, leave, leave."
First, if the rates are the same, why switch back?  After all, the
commercial doesn't stress any of AT&T's other purported advantages.
Next, why did she listen to percentages when the droid for the unnamed
other carrier solicited her?  Why didn't she ask for actual prices for
typical calls she might make?  That's what I do when I call carriers
to inquire about their services.  (None has ever solicited me.)

In another John Hancock (or maybe James Avery: those two look more
alike than the Laurance twins) double parks and runs into an outdoor
phone booth with a closable door, believe it or not.  But he is using
"this other long-distance company" and has "to dial all these numbers
just to reach" them, and then the number he wants to call, "and then
all these other numbers!"  In the meantime a meter maid tickets his
illegally stationed vehicle.  "I made the call all right, to the tune
of $35.00."

And then, as always, Cliff Robertson's voice-over tells us that those
who switched are coming back.  So let me get this straight: AT&T is
targeting the misdemeanor market here?  AT&T helps you stay ahead of
the law!  Good ploy.  And where is the big dialing advantage?  He
still would have had to dial the destination number and his Calling
Card number with AT&T.  Other carriers have 10XXX codes and if the
coin phone had a stripe reader, it could have read other carrier's
cards.  At most he might have had to dial an 800 or 950 number instead
of 102880, and what do you know, it was just long enough for the law
to catch up with him.  With AT&T Long Distance, commit all the crimes
you like and still get away in time!  I guess that their admission
that the call was successfully connected is an improvement over the
original Laurance ad.

Neither of those commercials (none, if we count Laurance's calls to
Fiji) aims for the intellect that AT&T assumes consumers to lack.
They're geared to say that telephony is a cold, vicious world and
you're in danger if you stray from Mother's protecting bosom.

AT&T's ads are written by mothers all right.


David Tamkin      [e-mail]    {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier
P. O. Box 813   Rosemont, IL  60018-0813   [phone]   [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #285
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29174;
          26 Apr 90 4:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03992;
          26 Apr 90 2:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14461;
          26 Apr 90 1:53 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Apr 90 1:27:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #286
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Apr 90 01:27:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 286

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T/France Telecom Announce International ISDN [TELECOM Moderator]
    Card Update: Banks Unhappy, Pulling Business From AT&T [TELECOM Moderator]
    Real Phone Booths (was re: Rural America Speaks) [Larry Campbell]
    Party Lines [Joel B. Levin]
    72 & 73 From Rotary Dial Phone [Carl Moore]
    Need Help Finding a Device [James Van Houten]
    Questions on Personal Communications Networks [Hector Salgado-Galicia]
    I Need NEC Electra Info [Steve Swingler]
    ANI for Washington, DC ? [James Van Houten]
    Re: One Reason for Phone Numbers on Credit Card Sales [David Tamkin]
    Re: Emergency Interupt on PBXes [Miguel Cruz]
    Re: LD in 1962 [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Modifying Telephone Sets For Eavesdropping [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 0:26:00 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T/France Telecom Announce International ISDN


AT&T and France Telecom announced the first international ISDN
(Integrated Services Digital Network) service between the U.S. and
France will begin May 15.

The service, known as Switched Digital International Service, will be
used to support new international communications applications such as
high-speed facsimile, video conferencing, electronic data interchange
and high-fidelity audio.

AT&T and France Telecom demonstrated the capabilities of the new
service by conducting a video conference between Jean-Jacques
Damlamian at the SICOB trade show in Paris and John Berndt at AT&T's
offices in New Jersey.  Damlamian is France Telecom's Director of
Industrial and International Affairs.  Berndt is president of AT&T's
International Communications Services.

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Card Update: Banks Unhappy, Moving Away From AT&T
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 1990 00:00:00 CST


A story in [Communications Week], 4/23 reports that at least five of
the nation's top ten banks are thinking about shifting portions of
their long-distance traffic away from AT&T to show their displeasure
at the carrier's decision to enter the credit card business.  Last
week Citicorp did just that when it said it would take $30 million
worth of communications traffic from AT&T and give it to MCI.  Now
other banks appear to be giving some thought to following suit.  "I
have been contacted by at least half of the ten largest banks in
America, who want to know what the other half of the banks are doing,"
said Henry Levine, communications counsel for bank clearing
associations.

Most bank officials admit they are concerned about having AT&T as a
competitor, but refused comment on whether they would re-evaluate
their long-distance contracts.  AT&T is aware of banking industry
concerns, a spokesman said.  The company expected some anger, but it
doesn't think banks will base their buying decisions on "vengeance,"
he said.  "Unless AT&T stays only in the markets it is in today, it
will always be entering businesses where it will compete with its
customers," the AT&T spokesman said.


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Subject: Real Phone Booths (was Re: Rural America Speaks...)
Date: 26 Apr 90 01:45:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.


At the risk of overpopulating my favorite hangout, I'd like to
describe the most amazing phone booth I've ever seen.  It's at a
restaurant and bar called Doyle's, in Jamaica Plain (Boston).  Doyle's
opened in 1882, and the phone booth doesn't look much newer.  It's
dark oak, with cut glass windows.  It is *huge* -- five people can fit
inside it comfortably (verified experimentally).  The niftiest part,
though, is that the entire thing is double-walled and double-glazed --
almost like a phone booth inside a phone booth.  The door is really
two completely independent doors linked by a slider contraption that
insures that they open and close together.  As a result, no matter how
noisy the bar is, inside the phone booth it's quiet.  The time we had
five people in the booth, we called my brother and sang him a song at
the top of our lungs.  My mother was standing outside the phone booth
and said she could barely hear us.

Doyle's also has the best beer selection in Boston (with the
*possible* exception of the Commonwealth Brewery), but that's straying
 from the topic of telecom...


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

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Party Lines
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 15:10:08 EDT


As I have mentioned in other posts, I mostly grew up in a city which
prior to 1960 had manual calling instead of dial service: you picked
up the phone, the operator came on and queried "Number, please?" and
you spoke the number you wished to ring.  Two- and four-party lines
were common; in the period I remember best we shared a two-party line
with our next door neighbor (frequently, though, parties were not
directly next door to each other).

Telephone numbers were all numeric (I remember someone with the number
1524 and someone else with the number 2) or two to four digits with a
single letter.  We were 447-J, and our neighbor was 447-R.  Legend had
it that "J" meant "Jack" and "R" meant "Ring" indicating which of two
named buttons the operator had to push to ring one of our phones.  On
four-party lines the suffix letters were -J, -R, -M, and -W.  I have
no idea what, if anything, these were supposed to stand for.

The procedure for calling our neighbor was to tell the operator that
this was what we wanted to do.  She would have us hang up and ring
both phones.  When the ringing stopped, the neighbor had answered, and
we could pick up our phone and talk.

Outside the city, in the farm country, really old types of party
lines, often with six or more parties, were in use.  A typical number
was 172-R3 which meant, I was told, that they should answer the phone
only if it rang three times because otherwise it went to a neighbor.
In light of what I have been reading here, the "R3" may have been a
cue to teh operator as to which frequency to ring, or something like
that.  I was never in someone's house long enough to learn about stuff
like that.

    /JBL

Nets: [e-mail]
POTS: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: There were several replies asking for more details
on the handling of calls via the old manual switchboards of years
past. In the next issue of the Digest I will discuss this at length.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 21:10:44 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 72 & 73 From Rotary Dial Phone


Subject was: Re:  Finding Numbers of Phones That Don't Show A Number

This message was originally from Patrick Humphrey <paddyh@pro-europa.
cts.com>.  As I notified him, I am adding a comment (at the bottom).
The NPA he refers to is 713 in Texas.

We have quite a few 72x and 73x prefixes in use in this NPA right now
 -- 12 of 20 possible, in fact -- but if you want to enable/disable
call-forwarding using a tone phone, you dial a "#" after the 72 or 73.

I don't know how SWBT has it set up here for rotary-dial phones -- it
could be that they just assumed that there aren't enough left in the
Houston area to worry about.  (I wonder if it's possible to substitute
"12" if using a rotary?  That's the rationale offered for using "11"
as a substitute for "*", at least from Bell...)

My (Carl Moore's) comment: 72 and 73 also work from rotary dial
phones.  It did so for me in Newark, Del. (area 302), which has 731,
733, 737, 738 when I had (until recently) rotary dial.  You have to
use time-out to distinguish 73 from 73x-xxxx.


[Moderator's Note: To avoid that problem, use 1172 and 1173 in most
areas. You will avoid the delay caused by time-out. A couple other
undocumented time-outs you can avoid are the ones caused by entering
only the four digits of your PIN when calling the number assigned to
the card (enter a # at the end to kill the time-out and start the
processing), and the one caused by the 0 operator, which has to
time-out to see if you want the operator or are actually zero-plussing
a call. In Chicago (and perhaps other places), 0# shoves the call
straight to the operator without waiting for more.   PT]

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

Date: 25 Apr 90 10:24:12 EDT
From: James Van Houten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Help Finding a Device


I am trying to find a device that will perform the following:

1.  Connect to a CENTREX line using a RJ11C;
2.  Answer the phone when it rings;
3.  Send a tone;
4.  Receive a 4 digit code number;
5.  Send a tone;
6.  Receive a 11 Digit Phone Number;
7.  HOOKFLASH;
8.  Dial the 11 Digit Phone Number;
9.  HANGUP.

That is all.  I know a call diverter would do about the same but I
would like to use it on one line with CENTREX TRANSFER feature.  Is
there such an animal or has someone built one??  Please send you reply
to [e-mail].  I will compile them and post to the Digest.

Thanks,


Jim Van Houten  [phone]  Voice Mail  72067,[e-mail]
[e-mail]     [e-mail]    KA3TTU @ N4QQ

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 21:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Hector Salgado-Galicia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions on Personal Communications Networks


Could you give me some opinions on the new european services such as
telepoint and personal communications networks (PCN)?  What kind of
problems do you think are likely to be found when those services will
be implemented in the US?


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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 10:44 CDT
From: Steve Swingler <[e-mail]>
Subject: I Need NEC Electra Info


     I am trying to help a local high school with a NEC Electra 616
key system.  But, they have no manual and the installer won't provide
one.

     I need to know if a trunk can be assigned to only appear on one
phone, and if so, how this is done.

     Please repond via direct e-mail since this is probably of little
interest to the entire group.

Thanks for the help,


Steve Swingler
Center for Computing and Info Systems
Baylor University

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

Date: 25 Apr 90 21:53:49 EDT
From: "James Van Houten, Exec VP" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI for Washington, DC ?


Does anyone now of the ANI number for the Washington, DC area??

Thanks,


James Van Houten
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 17:52 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One Reason for Phone Numbers on Credit Card Sales


David E. Bernholdt wrote in TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 281:

| You'd be amazed how relieved people are when you call them and tell them
| their card isn't lost and they can stop by and pick it up.  If they gave
| a bogus or non-answering number, we can't help and their card is
| probably as good as lost unless they come back around and look for it.

You can still help people who have listed numbers in the printed
directory, but I guess that those who are insisting zealously on the
privacy and secrecy of their telephone numbers would be unlisted.

Citibank and American Express print their customer service numbers on
the cards.  A merchant can call the issuer.  Although, if you've tried
the number that the cardholder wrote on the charge slip, and it was
false, you as the merchant may be ill-disposed to phoning the issuer,
especially at your own expense for the call as well as the time.

I generally supply my voice mail number.  It's a valid place to get in
touch with me, automated telemarketing recordings cannot use it (so
far), and if I do get a telemarketing message on it (never yet, though
I've had them on my answering machine at home), one keypress and it's
gone without my having to hear it through.  [On my answering machine,
if the indicator says I have two messages and the first turns out to
be a junk call, I have to sit through it in full to hear the second
message.  That's not a problem with the voice mail service.]


David Tamkin      [e-mail]    {clout,obdient}!gagme!dattier
P. O. Box 813   Rosemont, IL  60018-0813   [phone]   [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 12:25:32 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Emergency Interupt on PBXes


Robert Kaplan (or is it Scott Fybush) asks about whether a telephone
company operator can perform an emergency interrupt on a
university-type PBX.  Theoretically, yes... but the operator has no
way of knowing WHICH of the PBX's zillion trunks you're using.  So
from the TOPS console, no.  Your mother would need to know whom you're
speaking (modemming) with, and someone else at the telco would have to
try to track the line down that way.  (This assuming no cooperation
from the university.)

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD in 1962
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 14:09:07 EDT


 From: [e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary)

>While browsing through some old magazines from 1962, I noticed that
>the ads all had 7 digit phone numbers. No area codes. I find it hard
>to believe that the US had so few telephones in 1962 that there was no
>need for area codes. So how did one make a long distance call?  Was it
>all operator assisted?

I lived in one of the last substantial sized towns to convert from
manual to dial operation in July of 1960, I think; a city of at least
18000 citizens and a university.  In addition to getting dial service,
we also got DDD -- Direct Distance Dialing, the first in the state and
(I thought at the time) the first in the country.  At least one of the
first in the U.S., probably.  DDD spread pretty rapidly through the
country after that.

    /JBL

Nets: [e-mail]
POTS: [phone]


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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Modifying Telephone Sets for Eavesdropping
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 19:24:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
writes a whole bunch of stuff about eavesdropping...

> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
                                                        ^^^^^^

Uh, in context... shouldn't that be "bugged"?

Peter da Silva. [phone].      <[e-mail]>
Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: People have opinions, organisations have policy.


[Moderator's Note: Hey, don't laugh too much at that ... In about
1965, the CIA investigated the possibility of inserting a tiny
transmitter in the shoulder of a cat -- a Russian Blue in fact! --
which would be conveniently deposited on the grounds of a Soviet
embassy. I have no record of how the experiment turned out, but it
was seriously pursued for awhile.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #286
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06193;
          27 Apr 90 0:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10049;
          26 Apr 90 23:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14066;
          26 Apr 90 22:03 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Apr 90 21:46:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #287
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Apr 90 21:25:39 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 287

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [William R. Pearson]
    "The Telephone Hour" - AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls
Date: 26 Apr 90 18:00:00 CST


Following a short blurb by myself several days ago regarding the way
long distance calls were handled in the past, several notes came to me
asking for more specifics.  An excerpt of these follows:

 From: Mark Harrison <necssd![e-mail]>

 > [Moderator's Note: Until about the middle 1950's, all long distance
 > calling was operator assisted. [...]                        I
 > could tell you some stories that would curl your hair.  PT]

 Please Do!
 Regards, Mark

 From: John Owens <[e-mail]>

 Please do, if you find the time!  (My hair's a bit straight; it could
 use it :-)

 From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>

 Umm.... My hair is a pretty straight .... but "good old days" stories
 I seem to have an intense attraction to.

 From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>

 Please do!

 From: [e-mail]

 Go ahead, Patrick,  Curl our hair.  We love this sort of thing.

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

Okay, here is aqpproximatly what happened when a call was placed in
the era prior to automatic dialing:

LOCAL CALLING:
==============

Each central office had several dozen operators on duty at any given
time of the day or night. The operators sat in front of a switchboard
which was rather tall, and typically ran the entire length of a long
room. Each portion of the switchboard, or 'position', had two types of
circuits connected to it, and some had more than that.

The lower half of the backboard had the wire pairs which ran to the
subscribers in the exchange. The top half of the backboard had wires
which ran to other central offices; the long distance center; and to
other 'positions' in the same room.  The wire pairs going from the
switchboard to the subscribers were multipled, or repeated, every
third position. That is to say, an operator, and her counterpart
immediatly to her left and immediatly to her right had the entire
exchange between them.  From where she sat, each operator could insert
a plug into the backboard directly in front of her, or in the
backboard immediatly to her left or her right.  Likewise, her
neighbors to the left and right could access the lines of the one in
the center by reaching in front of her to plug the cord in.

If the operator in the center (of any group of three) was busy with
calls while still other calls were waiting for attention, then her
neighbors to the left and right generally would NOT take the calls.
You were supposed to only *accept* calls from the lines right in front
of your face, but you could connect calls to those lines or to the
lines immediatly to your left or right.  Since what came up on your
board likewise came up on every third position all the way around the
room you would see a signal light come on, then perhaps immediatly go
out even though you did not personally take the call; some other
operator in the room had accepted it. If you were busy with calls when
one of your existing calls disconnected, as shown by the lights on the
panel in front of you, then you yanked the cord out while you were
talking to some other party. Or, an alert operator would see her
neighbor quite busy with a disconnect waiting to be pulled, and she
would reach over and pull the cord for the other lady.

Calls to numbers on the exchange you were working were quite simple.
You saw a signal light, plugged in a cord, flipped the associated key
and asked, "what number please?".  Within the exchange, you simply
either plugged in the other half of the cord to another place in front
of you or directly to your left or right.  The cords were
spring-loaded and when not plugged in somewhere would automatically
rewind themselves back up and fall into a slot in the board.

The top half of the board were tie-lines, or circuits to other central
offices, and you used these when the subscriber wanted to call someone
on the other side of town, in some other central office.  Operators
were trained to be very quick. As soon as the operator heard the
exchange name given, she immediatly plugged the other end of the cord
into the associated circuit on the top. By the time the subscriber had
finished reciting the number, the operator was already waiting for the
distant central office to answer, which they did with just a 'click'
on the line. Normally, operators locally or in the same central office
did not say "what number, please" to each other ... they simply
appeared on the line.

So the subscriber asked for, let's say, Rogers Park 1234. As he was
saying the '1234' part, the operator was already plugging into the
circuit to Rogers Park waiting for an answer. On hearing the 'click'
she would repeat '1234' ... the exchange name would have been
unneeded, and assumed by the distant end. The distant operator,
hearing your operator say '1234' immediatly plugged into that one and
started the ringing. Then your operator thanked you, and left the
line.

When either end disconnected, the associated operator got a light
signal on the panel in front of her, and she pulled the cords down.
The disconnection from the circuit to the other central office caused
that end to give a disconnect signal to that operator, who would
likewise pull her cords down.

If you wanted to speak to the supervisor, the chief operator, the
business office or repair service, you simply asked for these things.
There were connections on each position of the board which went to
them.  Likewise, information requests went to lookup clerks in a room
near the switchboards on wire pairs to them. Long distance call
requests went on circuits to the long distance center, wherever that
might be. Usually one or two central offices were equipped for it.

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE
====================

They did not call it that; it was just 'information' or 'number
inquiry'.  Your operator would pass you, as noted above, to another
room full of people who wore headsets with *very long* cords on them.
They walked around the room looking at directories and 'recent-change'
lists (which were published weekly), and on finding your number, gave
it to you and offered to have you connected. They would 'flash'
(actually toggle a little button on their headset line) to bring your
local central office operator back on. When she answered, they would
say 'connect to Rogers Park 1234' or similar, and vanish from the
line.  Information service of course was free.

LONG DISTANCE CALLING
=====================

When you asked your operator for 'Long Distance', she connected you on
one of the circuits on her board to the long distance center. She
would stay on the line long enough to pass your number to the operator
who answered, then leave the line. The long distance operator would
handle the call from that time forward.

As an example, Chicago number 'Rogers Park 1234' wants to call
Hollywood, California, number 'Hollywood 2300'. Unlike the local
exchange operator, the long distance operator had the circuits to
other central offices on the bottom part of her board, and lines to other
cities on the top. Otherwise, the operating procedures were about the
same.

Each city had long distance lines to the dozen or so cities closest to
them. For example, Chicago had lines to St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit,
Kansas City, and a few more places. As a large city, Chicago had more
long distance circuits than a small town would have.  Larger cities
were what might be termed, in Usenet parlance, 'backbone sites'.
Calls were routed through the large cities along the way.

To reach Hollywood, we want to go west :) ... the operator would plug
into the line to St. Louis ... after a few seconds, St. Louis would
answer, and our long distance operator would ask for Denver.  St.
Louis would connect to Denver, and when that operator answered, our
operator would ask to be connected to Salt Lake City ... When Salt
Lake City answered, she would ask for Los Angeles .... and when that
operator answered, she would ask for Hollywood 2300. Like any well
trained operator, the one in Los Angeles heard the 'Hollywood' part
and was already plugged into the circuit to that office by the time
the rest of the number was recited ... and she would get a 'click'
from Hollywood and repeat the number, '2300'....

Total time to set up the call: on an average, about 30-45 seconds,
depending on how busy things were along the way.  Local calls, by
comparison, completed in about ten seconds -- not much different than
in many exchanges today still using older automatic equipment. The
operators, or 'human switches' were nearly as fast as the automatic
ones, but not quite; and that margin of difference came to be very
important over the years as telephone traffic volumes increased.

But back to the long distance call for a minute:  So your connection
went through to MGM, and the local operator there would in turn accept
your call and plug you into the desired extension. If you were calling
from a hotel on this end, add one more operator to the link. You'd
talk for five minutes or so, and suddenly the line would go dead.

Flash your switchhook furiously! "Operator, you cut me off!!" Of
course, you were talking to your local operator, and she would
invariably deny it and say, "I didn't cut you off! You are still up
here."

And she would jerk the ringing key like a crazy lady and get Long
Distance on the line saying "Operator! You disconnected my party!!!!".
Long distance would say "No I did not operator! Your party is still up
here!". And she would ring St. Louis and repeat the allegations. Again
denied. Then Denver, then Salt Lake, then Los Angeles, then the
Hollywood central office, then the MGM switchboard operator; and one
and all would say they did not do it; why, we still have the
connection up here!"  Not a single one would admit to accidentally
pulling the cords. But the connection would be re-established and the
conversation continued.

BILLING FOR LONG DISTANCE CALLS
===============================

Long distance operators kept little paper 'tickets' for all calls. The
tickets sat in little slots at the bottom of the switchboard. Each
operator had a time clock, and the ticket would be stamped with the
time when the call began, then stamped again when the call was
finished. The operator had to write in all the details on the ticket.
She did not have to figure the charges however; that was done by
clerks. A clerk came around roughly every five minutes and collected
the completed tickets from each operator position. If the ticket was
marked 'time and charges' or 'hotel service' then the clerk had to get
the charges on that one right away and call back the subscriber (or
the hotel) with the charges for the call. Otherwise the tickets were
calculated, and the results sent periodically (about every hour or
two) to the appropriate business office.

OPERATOR DIRECT DIALING
=======================

It finally became possible for the long distance operators to dial
direct to the city involved, although they could not always dial the
actual number desired. Sometimes the best they could do was dial
direct to a nearby city and have that operator pass them along. There
were special codes dialed to reach 'inward' (the actual operator in
the place where the call was to terminate); information in the city
desired, and other things like the supervisor in that city, etc. But
they still had to keep their paper tickets and time each call.

BUSINESS OFFICE KEPT PAPER RECORDS
==================================

Each subscriber had a manila folder in which his records were kept
along with  current charge tickets for long distance calls, etc.
Posting clerks received the long distance charges as they came
through, and went around the room continually pulling folders and
posting charges. If you called the business office to talk about your
account, the service rep (wearing a headset with a long cord) walked
over to the shelf where your folder was hanging with thousands of
others and pulled it down to read through it.  The posting clerks were
considered supreme; their work took priority over everything. Thus the
service rep could be standing in front of the shelf where your file
was stored discussing it with you. The posting clerk would come up,
take the file from her, scribble in a new charge just received, hand
it back to the service rep and move along to the next folder desired.

Accounts were billed in cycles, as now. Several thousand folders were
pulled each day and taken away, to be returned to the shelves the next
day. When your folder (account) was in bookkeeping, the service rep
had no way to discuss your account with you, except she could look at
last month's folder and figure out a few things in most cases.

OPERATORS WERE EXPECTED TO WORK FAST
====================================

Operators in the local exchange were expected to handle *on an average*
about 800 call requests per day each, or about 100 calls per hour
during their eight hour shift. Since some more complicated calls took
a minute or more to handle, others were alloted about fifteen seconds
each. They just kept plugging one call after another, never stopping.
Supervisory positions were set up to allow monitoring any other
position, and in addition, the supervisors would 'prowl' the room,
seeing everything, missing nothing. Each position had two headset
jacks; one for the operator working there and one for the supervisor
who would suddenly show up unannounced to plug in and listen for awhile.

Each position had fifteen cord pairs for the operator to use in
connecting calls. Maybe the operator had a difficult call which took a
couple minutes to handle, and during that time she got lots of
disconnects, i.e. idle cords, but no new traffic due to the call she
was on. Yet the supervisor would say something like, "How come the
operator on either side of you had twelve calls working, and you only
had two working?"  The supervisors were tough, and the operators
complained about them continually.

That's enough for this article. I will write more at another time.


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (William R. Pearson)
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia
Reply-To: [e-mail] (William R. Pearson)
Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 19:48:53 GMT


    My favorite (?) ancient pay-phone experience took place in
Beaver (I believe) Utah, which is in the Southwestern corner on the
route from Los Vegas to Salt Lake (near Nevada).  My car died about
10:00 at night after running very poorly, but I got to a pay phone.  I
put in my dime, but got nothing.  After looking around for a while, I
found the crank for the (?) generator.  After cranking and another
dime, I got the operator, who seemed to not know how to find the
AutoClub.  In the end, she found a service station with a tow truck,
the man adjusted my points, and I was off.  This was in 1971 or so.

    A crank for the pay phone was bad enough, but no Auto Club!


Bill Pearson

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 18:17:02 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts


As long as we are on this nostalgia theme in this issue, I should
mention that Sunday is the fiftieth anniversary of the first broadcast
of "The Telephone Hour," which made its debut on April 29, 1940, went
on to a 28-year run on national radio and then television, introduced
millions of Americans to the world's most distinguished classical
artists, and marked the beginning of a half-century commitment to the
performing arts by AT&T, the company whose own technological advances
made modern-day communications possible.  Fifty years later, AT&T has
maintained its commitment to supporting an astonishingly wide variety
of arts, in nearly every possible medium all the while promoting
itself at the same time.  It was indeed a very sad occassion when "The
Telephone Hour" went off the air for the last time in 1968.  Do any of
you readers remember this fine series of programs on television a
quarter century ago?


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #287
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08010;
          27 Apr 90 1:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02109;
          27 Apr 90 0:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10049;
          26 Apr 90 23:08 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Apr 90 22:30:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #288
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Apr 90 22:30:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 288

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: You Think YOU Have Problems With Your Telephone Company? [John Higdon]
    Re: Persistent Wrong Number [Carl Moore]
    Re: MCI Ad Hits below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory [John Higdon]
    Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [Gregory G. Woodbury]
    Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts [Karl Denninger]
    Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts [Phillip Harbison]
    Re: Real Phone Booths (was Re: Rural America Speaks...) [Steve Wolfson]
    Information Needed: 8700bps de/moduler [Shyue Chin Shiau]
    Re: More Test Numbers [Jim Small]
    Voice Mail on Mac [Charles H. Hemstreet]
    Special Issue This Weekend [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You Think YOU Have Problems With Your Telephone Company?
Date: 26 Apr 90 01:30:38 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Peter G. Neumann" <[e-mail]> writes:

> A woman in Kissimmee, Florida, sent me a dossier that she has compiled
> over the past few months, carefully documenting an alarming sequence
> of problems.  It is one of the most bizarre cases I have ever seen.
> The problems are still continuing, unresolved.

Missing details in the mysterious case of the Florida woman
experiencing much trouble with her telephone service make intelligent
comment impossible. Probably most the most important consideration
would be the type of central office switch involved. Since we are not
dealing with an RBOC, it could be anything; some of those off-the-wall
switches are capable of some rather bizzare behavior. Also, it is
significant if this is rural service.

The "crossed line" problems sound like difficulties associated with
"pair gain" equipment. To make an outdated, undersized outside plant
serviceable, telcos sometimes resort to concentrators. These are
devices that allow many subscribers to have what appear to be private
lines over a somewhat smaller number of actual circuits. This is not
to be confused with digital "remote" offices, which actually provide
the functional equivalent of private lines (within their blocking
factor limitations) over digital carrier back to the host central
office.  Concentrators are fraught with difficulty, most of it similar
to the "crossed wire" effect observed by our subject.

All in all, it sounds as if our hapless woman is plagued with problems
resulting from multiple causes: difficulty with the 800 carrier,
possible CO trouble, possible outside plant trouble, etc. In my
library of telephone experience, I have never had anything to compare
with our Florida victim, but my universal solution might be something
to consider.

On several occasions, I have had difficulty of one sort or another
that the telco simply has not been able to correct. Either it has been
of an intermittant nature and not detectable by test personel or the
solution has just simply eluded the maintenance staff. When it appears
that the difficulty cannot be corrected in a timely manner, I order a
new service. After the new service is completely installed, the old
(and troublesome) service is disconnected. This ensures that no part
of the old service remains; not the cable pair, CO line equipment, nor
any line conditioners or loop extenders. This tactic has not failed to
correct seemingly "insoluble" problems.

Another consideration: if this woman is the victim of someone's
maliciousness (a real possiblity) then the solution might be elusive.
This "someone" obviously has software (and most likely hardware)
access to the telco and could be very hard to track down. A second,
more likely but almost as difficult to deal with, possiblity is that
the telco is just plain messed up. In that case my "universal
solution" might correct her current problems and bring on others.

In any event, I would be very interested in getting further details.
If her area code/prefix could be revealed, I can determine what type
of CO switch is involved. Also, it would be interesting to research
what type of outside plant we are dealing with. Solutions are not
guaranteed, but the finger pointing might become a little more
educated.


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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 10:25:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number


This follows up on article sent by John Higdon <[e-mail]> on
March 6.  He wrote of getting persistent calls from someone who even
read his number to him!  Just this week, I had a case which started
out like it, w/r to one of the extensions in my office (on 301-278
exchange).  On what was apparently the third such call, I answered
only with "Hello" and was able to hold the caller on the line and try
to help her.

She was trying to call someone in Patterson (sp) (I was thinking of
avenue and/or area in Baltimore), and when I asked what number she was
trying to reach, I got the full 10-digit number (including area code)
read to me; it was the number I had answered.  I asked if she was
referring to Baltimore, and she said no, she was calling Paterson, New
Jersey.  At that point I was able to explain that she had reached
Maryland, not New Jersey, and that she probably wanted area code 201,
not 301.  I believe there is 201-278 in Paterson, NJ.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Ad Hits below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory
Date: 26 Apr 90 01:54:18 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Tamkin <[e-mail]> writes:

> AT&T has been no better.  Even though they did a slight cleanup on the
> Matthew (or is it Mitchell?) Laurance commercial (instead of getting
> Fiji instead of Phoenix twice because the carrier can't process his
> dialing, he now gets Fiji once because he misdialed, still implying
> that the unnamed other carrier's dialing instructions for Phoenix and
> Fiji are similar), there are two others currently running that are
> just about as bad:

What is particularly amusing about this "Fiji" business is that AT&T
is implying that you won't get Fiji by accident if you are dialing
Phoenix on AT&T. This is absolutely correct. To the best of my
knowledge AT&T's IDDD is blocked from coin phones. So while it may be
possible to misdial overseas to some place like Fiji on "one of those
other carriers", it won't happen on AT&T since you can't dial outside
of North America from a pay station!

Now that's what I call truth in advertising.


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

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

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416?
Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 04:46:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 282, Message 9 of 11

>Gossip?  No, that's happened some places in the U.S. (refers to
>1+NPA+7D for ALL toll calls, even within your own area code).  It
>happened very recently, or will happen, in 919/704 areas in North
>Carolina (I assume that's BOTH areas in N.C.; which one is running out
>of prefixes?).

    The crunch is in the 919 (Eastern NC) NPA.  The NPA line and
the LATA lines in NC place the least populous 1/3rd (but the largest
city) in the 704 code.  As is usually the case, the LATA lines are
generally contiguous with political boundaries, but there are some
outrageous exceptions.  Orange Count NC is split NE-SW placing the two
population centers (Chapel Hill/Carrboro and Hillsboro) in the RTP
area LATA and relegating the rest to the Greensboro/Triad LATA

    Dialing in Durham to the extended calling area is still only
7D.  All other calls are 1+NPA+7D.  Duke University, embedded in
Durham's GTE satrapy, is not participating in the extended calling
area and all calls beyond the traditional local area are 1+NPA+7D.
Makes for a confusing situation when dialing Chapel Hill from home
versus calling from Duke.  The ability to use N0/1X exchange numbers
will only set back the need for another area code in NC for 4 years!

    Is there any technical reason that an NPA code could NOT span
a state political boundary?  It might have releived a lot of pressure
on the system to have allowed Vermont and the upper New York region
(802 and 518 respectively) to have used the same NPA.  As another
example, the 704 code could have been expanded west into Tennessee to
relieve pressure in the 615 area code.  I'm sure its too late to
change it, but that would have been nice.


Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...mcnc!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]     [e-mail]
[The line eater is a boojum snark! ]           <standard disclaimers apply>


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

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. - Mundelein, IL
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 18:02:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 281, Message 2 of 15

>This isn't really the correct newsgroup for this question, but it's
>related to a topic that's been bandied about here lately.  I'm
>referring to putting your phone number on credit card slips.

>Am I naive or are you paranoid?  I've been putting my honest-to-god
>phone number on credit card slips ever since the day I first got a
>card, with no ill effects.  I'm really curious, just what is everyone
>so worried about?

I'm not worried, but I AM damn annoyed.

I used to never have to worry about Telemarketers.  Then I started
putting my home phone number on the charge slips.

Guess what?  I started getting those darn calls at the dinner hour.
Sure, I can be rude, but I'd rather not get the calls in the first
place!

So I counteracted.  When I moved last, I forwarded my voice line to my
data line.  Now, this works great, because there's a 2-line answering
machine there, and anyone >legit< who gets it will leave a message.  I
then call back and explain that the right number to use is xxx-yyyz.

I can't explain, however, the 3-5 hangups a day that are on that
machine -- unless it's those darn telemarketers again!  Now, I give
them my >data< phone number.  They can call it all they want, it will
get them nowhere.

If I leave the card in the store, the store can call me, and leave a
message.  If a telemarketer calls I can ignore him, since my (voice)
phone never rings.  If I'm on the modem, too bad for him/her.


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

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

Date: 26 Apr 90 17:35:40 CDT (Thu)
From: Phillip Harbison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Reciepts


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

>In my opinion, we are asked to give our phone numbers purely to update
>somebody's database.  ...
>I either give a 555-1212 number or don't write a number at all,  The
>clerks never check.

A restaurant I frequent had the annoying habit of asking for a phone
number, despite the fact that I had dined there several times a week
for several months without a bad credit incident.  I took to writing
my phone number in binary (actually, BCD).  After all, they never said
I had to used base 10!  I've even thought of extending this practice
to my annual Form 1040.  Do the instructions specify that one must use
base 10?  I'm sure this would provoke an audit, but imagine the
confusion of an IRS employee trying to decode a return filed using
octal numbers.  :-)

Just for the record, the waiter/waitress never bothered to check the
number.  I'm sure if they had, they would have immediately noticed
something was amiss, but I never received a complaint.


Live: Phil Harbison, Xavax, P.O. Box 7413, Huntsville, AL 35807
Uucp: [e-mail]
Bell: 0010-0000-0101-0101-0011-1001-0001-0110-0111-0010  :-) :-)

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

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real Phone Booths (was Re: Rural America Speaks...)
Date: 26 Apr 90 14:24:08 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Larry Campbell) writes:

>At the risk of overpopulating my favorite hangout, I'd like to
>describe the most amazing phone booth I've ever seen.  It's at a
>restaurant and bar called Doyle's, in Jamaica Plain (Boston).  Doyle's

    In Milwaukee Wisconsin, there is another bar with a spy theme.
    (it is lableled International Exports on the front).

    Their phone booth is also pretty neat.  It also is a sitdown
    closable door, and it has another 'secret' door on the backside
    that lets you exit to the outside.  The phone itself will let
    you inject sound effects of gunshots, screams etc.

            - Steve Wolfson
              Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Div.
              uunet!motcid!wolfsons

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

From: Shyue Chin Shiau <shiau@ka>
Subject: Information Needed: 8700bps de/moduler
Date: 26 Apr 90 22:17:39 GMT
Reply-To: Shyue Chin Shiau <shiau@ka>
Organization: Excelan, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


I am looking for and/or obtaining informations about 8700bps de/moduler
for video telephone use.  Anybody out there can help me on this
subject, please contact me.


Enginering Dept, 2180 Fortune Dr., San Jose, CA 95131
UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco}!novell!shiau  Chin Shiau
BARRNet/Internet: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: More Test Numbers
Date: Thu Apr 26 16:17:42 1990
From: Jim Small <[e-mail]>


Would you happen to have any test numbers for the Los Angeles area?

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

From: charles he hemstreet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail on Mac
Date: 26 Apr 90 19:23:29 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, CS Dept.


I am looking for a product(s) that will handle voice mail on my Mac.
Does anyone know of any products that are available.  I know that
there are some fairly inexpensive ways to go on the IBM's.  Any
information would be helpful.  Please respond via Email.


Thanks,

CHip

! Charles H. Hemstreet IV       !internet: [e-mail] !
! Colorado State University     ! "stay out of trouble!" -RoboCop           !

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 1:50:06 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue This Weekend


The Special Issue of TELECOM Digest for this weekend is another
article by Larry Lippman on coin phones. It is a lengthy and rather
detailed look at their operation. It will be out to you sometime
Saturday.

A new item of interest in the Telecom Archives (NOT shown in the index
which was distributed to you a few days ago) is a report on the
liability of site administrators and sysops when libelous comments are
published on their systems. Presented by John Kahn for the Computer
Law Seminar in February, 1988, and presented to Telecom Archives by
Lang Zerner, this essay tells what the law says about sysops who find
libelous matter on their machines, and what must be done with it. You
might want to read it and be prepared for such a situation. The
article is not intended to provide legal counsel, and in the event you
have legal problems of this nature, you should consult your own
attorney.  Call in the archives for 'sysops.libel.liability'.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #288
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10561;
          27 Apr 90 3:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14839;
          27 Apr 90 1:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02109;
          27 Apr 90 0:12 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Apr 90 23:47:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #289
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Apr 90 23:47:26 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 289

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Programming [Douglas Mason]
    Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Douglas Mason]
    Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: Review: San Fransisco Cellular Service [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: LD in 1962 [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Ken Donaldson]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Robert Stratton]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Paul Elliott]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Programming
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 12:25:13 GMT


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

>I thought I'd pass along an ad I saw in a trade journal.  It touts two
>book that may be of interest to this group:

>"Product Operation Handbook" (c. 1990, 130 pages)

>"NAMFAX Cellular Program Manual" (c. 1990, 240 pages)

Something to add about those books: They are quite expensive.  I have
seen them in trade mags and they go for about $100.  A little steep
for someone like me that wants to change the lock code without
spending $25 at a local dealer.


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |


[Moderator's Note: This of course has been one of my main objections
to the secrecy surrounding cell phone programming. There is no reason
at all most users cannot be trusted to handle re-programming of *some*
aspects of their service without having to pay a dealer for it.   PT]

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 90 12:20:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff
Wasilko) writes:

>I just thought I'd throw in my two cents about our setup here in the
>Empire Area (Buffalo, Rochester, Albany). If the ESN is not entered
>when the subscriber is activated (or it is cleared out), the ESN from
>the next call will be entered into the database, and all future calls
>will be checked against that ESN. If the ESN's don't match, the call
>will fail. This is convenient for conversions (when a customer
>switches from one carrier to another) since the customer usually
>doesn't know the ESN, and the dealers, well, they're just dealers...  (-:

Oddly enough, I have three cellulars (that's only part of the oddity!
:-) ) and while two have service, a portable doesn't.  I called
Cellular One and asked them what it would take to get the portable
working and billed to one of the other phones for just a week while I
went to SC with some friends.

They said that about all I could do is sign up for service, pay all
the various (required) sign-up fees, programming fees (even though I
do it myself), etc.

With this in mind, I reprogrammed the portable anyway so that
everything in the NAM was identical to that of one of the subscribed
phones, except for the serial number (ESN) of course.  I tried to make
a few calls from home, and it was most definately locked out of the
system.  I threw the phone in the trunk anyways, thinking I could use
it to call *911 at worst.

Well, as soon as I was out of state the phone worked like a charm.  I
could make all the calls I wanted, everything worked peachy.  When I
got my Cell-One bill the calls were on there just as if I had taken
the other phone down.

I would imagine it was due to the Cellular One being a franchise-type
company and that their "service agreements" with other providers
didn't check back on the ESN; they just took the rest of the info and
read it as valid.


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |


[Moderator's Note: And yet some would scream about this being illegal.
I think it is about time for cell customers to begin turning the
screws on the carriers, to the extent provided by law. I think what
you did (reprogrammed phone used in roaming service) should be totally
legal, provided of course you intended to pay the bill when it arrived
and were not making those changes to defraud the carrier. Why should
you have to pay for some dealer to punch a few buttons on your phone
when you can do the same thing yourself and report it to the carrier?
Why should you even have to pay 'roamer rates' in cities you regularly
visit when you could have local service instead, and program the phone
yourself on arrival in those cities?  PT]

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

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones
Date: 26 Apr 90 14:03:09 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


>know what the maximum number of phones per cell is?  What would be the
>theoretical maximum and what do most cellular companies support?

The current US standard analog system using 60 degree sectors per cell
have 4 frequency reuse groups.  These contain 89 channel, 75 channel
and 2-74 channel groups.  Omnidirectional cells can have 90 channels
in each.  But mixed systems with both Omni and Sectors must use the
sector frequency plan.

The actual limit depends on the cellular system involved and depends
on the overall pattern of the system for the avoidance of adjacent
channel interference problems, and expected density of the system
subcibers.

There is an extended set of channels adding 3 or 4 more channels to
each group, though I don't know which systems are up with these (if
any).

          Steve Wolfson
          Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div.
          uunet!motcid!wolfsons

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Tue Apr 24 13:14:11 1990
Subject: Re: Review: San Francisco Celluar Service
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 270, Message 10 of 10

[...Discussion of cost of pay phone call to SF cellular phones...]

OK, now here in the Cleveland SMSA you can call the B carrier (GTE
Mobilnet) on their 216-389 and 299 exchanges from an Ohio Bell pay
phone at no cost.  For the A carrier (Cellular One - CCA) its costs
the same as a local call to call their 216-469 exchange.

I asked once, and was told that Mobilnet pays for Feature Group type
trunk access, while Cellular One uses conventional DID trunks for
access.  This does not sound right, but I do not know the real story.
I will try to get the lowdown, I have technical contacts in both CO's,
but they do not know about the access tarriffs involved.

Also, both carriers have their Cleveland exchanges (cited above)
available as a local call (7 digit) from areas outside the Metro
Cleveland dialing area.  I live in Medina, OH (Cleveland SMSA, but
Akron LATA, served by GTE Ohio), which is NOT local to Cleveland but
can call my cellphone in the 389 exchange as a local call.

As the newly elected president of the Advanced Computer Society of
Northern Ohio, whose primary responsibility seems to be remarkably
similar to that of Program Chairman, I trying to arrange a tour of the
new Cleveland Mobilnet switching office and computer center.  This
should give several of us a chance to ask these questions.  And, yes,
I am warning Mobilnet that we would like to ask technical questions.
That's why its taking so long to set up ;-) I'll let the Digest
readership know what we learn...


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.   {uunet|backbone}!usenet.ins.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: 26-APR-1990 03:27:52.83
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number


Hi-

I've been getting a lot of 900 "promotion" calls lately - you know,
like what's been mentioned here before ... calls where they usually
have some silly trivia question, and if you call back within X minutes
you "may be eligible" to win a prize! And all for just $5.95!

Now besides just being plain annoying, they also call at times when I
have my number forwarded to another number some distance (hence a toll
call) away.  At times, it's forwarded to a carphone, making it even
more expensive if I (or whoever) picks up the call while in the car.

Since these calls are annoying, a nuisance, and if repeated enough
times, harassing, I was wondering if notification to the company
sponsoring these "ads" (in Reno, Nevada) would be an effective legal
way to terminate such calls at their end.

Ie, if I sent them a letter claiming that:"...your calls are annoying,
harassing, and a nuisance, as I and others who use said phone numbers
have repeatedly been bothered by such calls sponsored by your firm or
such firms which you have appointed to call said numbers locally.

     "To make matters plain - we no longer wish to receive and we
emphatically do not solicit any calls your firm. We request that the
aforementioned numbers be removed from your calling list, and that no
further attempts be made to contact us at said numbers. Should you
need to contact us, you may communicate with us in writing at the
adress below, and not by phone. We explicity deny your firm, and
employees thereoff, the authority to communicate with us by phone at
any of numbers enumerated above. Should you continue to call after
receipt of this notice, we shall take further action to insure that
the calling cease.

    "Thank you for your time..." etc.

Now I realize that this is a legal question, so what I'm really
wondering (from any of you lawyers out there) is if this is an
acceptable action on my part. Ie, can I send them something like this
and expect them to pay attention, or do they have the right to call as
much as they want as long as they are not obscene, etc.

I guess the question really falls on what courts will define
"harassment", "nuisance" and "annoyance" calls. If they say that state
statutes against such calls were intended to prevent "obscene"
callers, then I guess I can't get very far. However, if they have a
more expansive interpretation,( ie, that "harassment" etc. is ANY sort
of call that, after repeated calls, gets to be annoying, even though
the party calling has been made aware of how annoying he/she is and
fails to stop calling) , they perhaps I can get them to stop by
sending a letter like that.

Anyhow, if anyone has any experience or suggestions, I'd really
appreciate your input...!

Thanks in advance,


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-)  )


[Moderator's Note: There are a couple organizations doing just what
you suggest: A fellow in one of the northwest suburbs here is a
paralegal. He sends out letters to phone solicitors telling them if
they call him he will bill them for the time he spends listening to
them. And he does it; and he wins and collects from them in Small
Claims Court if they continue calling after notice has been given.  PT]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD in 1962
Date: 26 Apr 90 22:32:23 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> I lived in one of the last substantial sized towns to convert from
> manual to dial operation in July of 1960, I think; a city of at least
> 18000 citizens and a university.  In addition to getting dial service,
> we also got DDD -- Direct Distance Dialing, the first in the state and
> (I thought at the time) the first in the country.  At least one of the
> first in the U.S., probably.  DDD spread pretty rapidly through the
> country after that.

Thanks for making me feel young again!

I've been taking an American History class at Sonoma State University,
and the shocking realization that events I remember were in a history
book was beginning to make me feel my age.

Then I read this!

I guess my first phone calls were about 1964, or 1965, and I can
honestly say that I can't remember a time when DDD wasn't available.
Though I am old enough to remember when phone numbers were still
written EXbrook 3-0911.


Clayton E. Cramer
{pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Politicians prefer unarmed
peasants.  Ask the Lithuanians.

Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like
mine!

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 07:00 EST
From: Ken Donaldson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies


Actually there are sixteen tone combinations.  The four not given are:

A       697 & 1633
B       770 & 1633
C       852 & 1633
D       941 & 1633

The above are not normally used on a "2500" telephone. However a Hayes modem
will generate them.


[Moderator's Note: How does Hayes do it?  What is the command string?
I would be very interested in knowing. "ATDT xxxxxxxxx" is only good
for the ten digits, the # and * keys, I thought. How do you tell it
to 'dial' the A, B, C, and D, for whatever it would do?   PT]

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

From: Robert Stratton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 26 Apr 90 17:38:55 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Stratton <grebyn![e-mail]>
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA


Don't forget the ubitiquous _fourth_ column!

I've seen the keys labelled either 'A','B','C','D', or on
AUTOVON phones - 'FO','F','I','P' (I may have the order of the last 2
inverted), which stand for "Flash Override", "Flash", "Immediate",
and "Priority".

If I'm not mistaken, the column tone for these keys is 1633 Hz + the
appropriate row tone.

Does anyone know is these are included in whatever specification is
trademarked as "Touch-Tone" (tm)? I've always wondered about that...


Bob Stratton       | INET: [e-mail]; UUCP: grebyn!strat, well!strat
Stratton Sys.Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32;    DELPHI: RJSIII
Alexandria, VA     | PSTN: [phone] (H)  [phone] (W)

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

From: Paul Elliott x225 <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 26 Apr 90 16:31:35 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


There is one more tone possible, assigned to the "A", "B", "C", "D"
keys on the DTMF pad What? your phone doesn't have these keys?  Well,
actually, I've never seen one that does (in person), but they are
specified.

The freqs are:
    A - 697Hz & 1633Hz
    B - 770Hz & 1633Hz
    C - 852Hz & 1633Hz
    D - 941Hz & 1633Hz

Here is a map of the keypad showing how the frequencies are assigned
to rows and columns:

        Col 1    Col 2    Col 3    Col 4

Row 1    [1]      [2]      [3]      [A]     697Hz

Row 2    [4]      [5]      [6]      [B]     770Hz

Row 3    [7]      [8]      [9]      [C]     852Hz

Row 4    [*]      [O]      [#]      [D]     941Hz

        1209Hz   1336Hz   1477Hz   1633Hz

(thanks to the _Motorola_Telecommunications_Device_Data_ book,
MC145436 DTMF receiver chip).


      Paul M. Elliott      Optilink Corporation     [phone]
            {uunet, pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott
    "Less than perfect, that's what I've been aiming for all along."


[Moderator's Note: And thanks also to Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail], Chuck Bennett <[e-mail]>
and others who sent messages and drawings of keypads, etc.    PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #289
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25308;
          28 Apr 90 2:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08482;
          28 Apr 90 1:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05747;
          28 Apr 90 0:02 CDT
Date:     Fri, 27 Apr 90 23:05:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #290
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Apr 90 23:05:43 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 290

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Douglas Mason]
    Irish Phone Service [Kevin Hopkins]
    NTI CLASS Integrated Telephone Set [Don H. Kemp]
    Stromberg Carlson DLI [Richard O'Rourke]
    Nonlocal Calls in the UK (was Re: LD in 1962) [Piet van Oostrum]
    Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Scott D. Green]
    Why Do I Have to Look Under 'H' to Find a Mobil Station? [Stan Krieger]
    Update on BBS Bus/Res Situation Wanted [Thomas Lapp]
    Directory Assistance Problem [[e-mail]]
    NETel to Settle With COCOTS [Adam M. Gaffin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Mundelein, IL
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 15:33:13 GMT


Well, I too got my AT&T "Universal" Visa card.  While we have beat
that subject into the ground, I have some very interesting points to
add about it.

Although I didn't request it, I got their "Gold Card".  This also has
no fees, and after looking through all the various documentation it
seems that there is nothing that it offers over the standard card
except for it's "status" of being a "gold card".

Now, most interesting is the "agreement" that came with it.  I, like
most people normally throw these things away assuming that it say the
usual things like "If you go bad on this debt we will take your
firstborn, etc.."

On the way to the bathroom I picked up the little agreement for
reading material.  I wish I had remembered to bring it to work so I
could quote it, but I'll remember it tomorrow.

There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By
using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone
conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer
satisfaction."

Whoa, what a stipulation, huh?

Since I used the card for dinner last night, it probably isn't safe
for anyone to call me.  :-)


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |

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

Subject: Irish Phone Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 18:20:25 +0100
From: Kevin Hopkins <[e-mail]>


I have just come back from the Republic of Ireland and they have
introduced a few changes in their phone service.

Their latest change seems to have been introduced at the beginning of
April 1990 by the looks of the newspaper advertisements.  It is an 800
style freephone service and they use the number 1-800-6D (6 digits).
The choice of 1-800, as in the States, is odd as Ireland uses the
British (European?)  style of using 0 as an exchange access code; 0800
would have been the expected code.

Maybe they use 1 as the initial digit as all other numbers beginning
with 1 are operator services and are free, except for 16 which is the
international access code (there's always an exception). I don't know
if they use the same split for the 6D as in the UK, where the first 3D
are the service providers' number and the next 3D are the service
number.  In the UK BT uses 800 as their service provider number, so
giving themselves the number 0800-800-800, as well as 0800-800-xxx.

Last summer Ireland's telephone company Telecom Eireann, introduced a
03000-5D (oh three thousand) service.  The 5D seems to be split 2D-3D
for provider-service numbers. This is a value added service where the
service provider receives a sum of money for each call, as well as
Telecom Eireann.  The current cost to the caller is 48p/36p/24p per
minute for peak/off-peak/economy periods (4/3/2 meter units). This is
a similar service to the UK's 0898-6D service where the cost is
38p/25p per minute for peak/other times (7.5/5 meter units), except
that the Irish don't seem to have any of the sex lines and are mainly
using the service for sport results at the moment.

Both 03 and 08 are normally used as quick access codes to the UK
(excluding Northern Ireland) and Northern Ireland phone systems
respectively from the Republic of Ireland.

The final change I have noticed, which also seems to have only
occurred recently, is that Dublin (area code 01) is starting to move
to 7D subscriber numbers. The only 7D numbers currently in use seem to
be on the 679 exchange, and one of the companies that was advertising
that their number had changed used to be on the 77 exchange. The four
digits after the exchange code also changed in the move from 6D to 7D
for the above company.  The 679 numbers seem to be near the centre of
Dublin, where you would expect the exchanges to run out of numbers
first. They are writing their numbers in the style 01-679 xxxx.

I notice that someone from Ireland contributes to the Digest every now
and then, maybe the can inform us (or me) of the change to 7D in
Dublin. Maybe Telecom Eireann have issued details of which exchanges
are to be changed from 6D to 7D in the near future?

            Kev.

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

Subject: NTI CLASS Integrated Telephone Set
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 10:25:38 EST
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


I just received Northern Telecom's latest Product/Service Update, and
found a goodie in it to make any phone-techno-freak drool.

    [loosely paraphrased from the NTI blurb]

The Maestro (tm) telephone set has a 16 character LCD screen, for
Calling Number Display, stores the last 15 unanswered incoming numbers
and allows automatic dialing from the unanswered call log.  It also
has a LINK (timed hookflash) key, ten speed-dial keys and a lamp which
indicates when call-forwarding has been activated from the set.
There's also a line-in-use/visual ringing indicator and handset volume
control.

The set has been available since Jan 7, 1990, comes in Almond, White
or Charcoal and has a "Commercial List Price" of $136.00.

Looks like a neat toy to me.  Now if we'd only get CLASS up here in
the boonies :-(.


Don H Kemp      B B & K Associates, Inc.     Rutland, VT
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

From: Richard O'Rourke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stromberg Carlson DLI
Date: 26 Apr 90 07:40:07 GMT
Organization: Grass Root Systems, Burnaby, B.C., Canada


The company I work for (an LD reseller in Canada) would like to
connect our billing computer directly to our (soon to be installed)
tandem switch.  The switch might be a Stromberg Carlson DCO-CS with
software release 9.  We want to use the DLI interface on the switch to
grab toll tickets in real time.  We will use two 9 track tapes on the
switch.  The toll ticket tapes from the switch will be used for
verification of call records during the billing process, and also for
short term archiving.  We still want the DLI direct connect for a
variety of reasons.

I will skip pages of painful details and get to the point: Can anyone
out there give a plus or minus rating on the useability and
reliability of the DLI interface on a SC switch?  Special
consideration given to anyone who has the DLI interfaced to a *nix
box.

Many thanks!


Richard O'Rourke - [phone] | 436-1995 - Grass Root Systems
uunet!van-bc!mplex!grassys!ror [e-mail] grassys![e-mail]

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nonlocal Calls in the UK (was Re: LD in 1962)
Date: 26 Apr 90 15:38:16 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


I read an article in the paper last week that said that in the UK
today still one million people have to go through an operator (I
suppose for non-local calls only, although the article didn't say
this). I can hardly believe that the UK is THAT oldfashioned. Does
somebody know the truth? Are there places in the UK where you cannot
automatically reach any other number in the UK? It must be more than
25 years ago since we dumped the last juman-operated switch here in
the Netherlands.


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')

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 11:50 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Teletronics Answer Detection Unit


My call accounting system vendor called to offer me a device to
monitor my outgoing trunks on a System 75 that essentially will
provide answer supervision on the lines.  The claim is that it is
98.5% accurate, can recognize the various voltage states on the trunk
(idle, answered, intercepted [boop, boop, BOOP]), thus eliminating the
need for a 45 second threshold before a call is billed.  The claim is
that a hotel property can expect a 15-25% increase in revenue, simply
by recovering all those <1 minute calls ("Hi, honey, call me back at
room 223."  Click.)

Anybody with experience with this or similar devices?


scott

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

From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station?
Date: 26 Apr 90 16:12:01 GMT


Of all the great mysteries of life, and the telephone book, one stands
out; specifically, if I want to call the Mobil gas station about a
mile from my home, why is it listed under "H" in the phone book
instead of "M"?  The same goes for the Exxon station ("K" instead of
"E") and the Amoco station ("B" instead of "A").

Especially for a person who is new to an area, I'm sure they easily
see the big Exxon, Mobil, and Amoco signs on the local gas stations,
but how is anyone supposed to know to find the listing under "K&A
Exxon, Harry's Mobil, or Benham's Amoco?  Or, by scattering the
listings for gas stations in what amounts to some random order, do the
telcos figure they can get some extra Yellow Pages money to list them
under headings that people would expect (the brand of gas they sell)?


Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk


[Moderator's Note: They do not 'scatter the listings in some random
order.' They use strict alphabetical order. The name of the place is
'Benhams Amoco' -- not 'Amoco'.  Why are all the people with the first
name 'Stan' scattered throughout the book instead of being listed
together?  Why can't all the 'Stans' be listed together regardless of
last name?  The purpose of the Yellow Pages (in which any business
phone can have one *free* listing if desired) is to accomodate those
folks who do not know one Amoco from another.  I've heard frivilous
complaints before. This one takes the cake.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 06:15:38 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Update on BBS Bus/Res Situation Wanted


Could anyone provide an update to the situation where BBS owners were
being charged business rates for their phone lines?  I believe it was
a Southwestern Bell vs. BBS operators situation.

I've heard a RUMOUR! from a local BBS operator that the situation was
solved and that the BBS operators lost.  Could anyone verify or tell
us otherwise?

Thanks
                         - tom

internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1      Location: Newark, DE, USA

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 1990 3:07:49 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Directory Assistance Problem


I dialed directory assistance in Framingham, MA on Wednesday night and
the phone was answered by a woman pretending to be a recording.  She
claimed that the computer was down and that I should look up the phone
number in my directory unless it was an emergency in which case I
should wait for an operator.

I patiently waited for her to repeat the "recording" and then she said
hello and asked if she could help me.  I explained that there was no
phone book at the pay phone and that I needed a number.  She said she
couldn't help me unless it was an emergency.  I told her that it was
and she hung up!

I called back and got a different woman who also pretended to be a
recording.  This time I interrupted the "recording" and she
transferred me to a service assistant who looked up the number for me.

Very few pay phones seem to have phone books.  Calls to directory
assistance are still free.  Also, most of the pay phones in the Boston
area don't permit incoming calls.  This is a royal pain!

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 21:42:10 -0400
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: NETel to Settle With COCOTS


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Gaffin writes a column regularly for the
[Middlesex News], and frequently shares it with us at the Digest.  PT]

Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 4/27/90:

Remember the nickel phone call? A Waltham telecommunications company
says it could lower the cost of local calls at some of the pay phones
it runs to that amount, under a proposed agreement between New England
Telephone and several small pay-phone companies.

The company, IMR Telecom, now owns roughly 600 pay phones in
Massachusetts - including several in MetroWest - and recently began
offering 25-cent-a-minute calls to anywhere in the country outside the
local calling area - the result of discounts given the company by
long-distance carriers.

The agreement, which will reduce the amount independent pay-phone
companies now pay for many phone calls routed through New England
Telephone, could cost the utility millions of dollars in lost revenue,
spokeswoman Roberta Clement said. The company agreed to a potential
settlement, because it ``recognized there are inequities'' in the way
it now charges these companies.

Clement said consumers, however, will see no impact on their bills or
in rates at New England Telephone pay phones. ``We have no intention
of filing a (proposal) to increase rates at all,'' she said.

Richard Thompson, president of Paynet Communications in Londonderry,
N.H., which sells pay phones, said New England Telephone could
eventually wind up making money on the deal, because his clients and
those of other companies are installing more pay phones than New
England Telephone ever did.

New England Telephone now charges each ``customer-owned coin- operated
telephone'' considerably more than it ``charges'' its own coin-phone
division. [Roughly $26 a month plus message units that cost between 11
and 33 cents per five-minute call, compared to about $19 a month and a
flat 10 cents per call for NET].

IMR Telecom President Thomas Biggins said these charges are the real
reason calls from non-New England Telephone pay phones cost a minimum
of 25 cents, compared to the 10 cents charged by New England
Telephone.

Biggins and IMR Vice President George Niden said that with the
agreement, they will be able to reduce their local charges at many
phones to 10 cents, and that at some high-use locations, such as
hospitals, they will be able to go as low as five cents and still make
a profit.

Rather than reducing its rates for non-New England Telephone pay
phones, the company will provide ``commissions'' to the smaller
companies for pay phones that exceed certain monthly revenue figures,
Clement said.

Niden said the proposed agreement essentially means a 20-percent
commission on all New England Telephone credit-card calls made within
the company's ``local-access telephone areas'' from non phone-company
phones. In Massachusetts, there are two of these zones: one is covered
by the 413 area code, the other is a combination of the 508 and 617
areas.

Clement said a final version could be ready for state approval within
a month.

Niden said the agreement is not as much as the smaller companies
wanted but called it a ``good settlement.''

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #290
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27408;
          28 Apr 90 3:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11898;
          28 Apr 90 2:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08482;
          28 Apr 90 1:09 CDT
Date:     Sat, 28 Apr 90 0:13:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #291
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Apr 90 00:13:02 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 291

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [John Higdon]
    Re: US West and the War on Drugs [Carl Moore]
    Re: Persistent Wrong Number [Ralph Hightower]
    Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro [[e-mail]]
    Re: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number [Bill Crane]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Steven King]
    CCITT Recommendation Q.31 -- The Touch-Tone Standard [John R. Covert]
    Re: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number [Peter Weiss]
    Bay Area Cellular/Payphone Update [John Higdon]
    Bong Tones [Adam M. Gaffin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts
Date: 26 Apr 90 23:54:13 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Apr 26 at 21:46, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> It was indeed a very sad occassion when "The
> Telephone Hour" went off the air for the last time in 1968.  Do any of
> you readers remember this fine series of programs on television a
> quarter century ago?

I certainly do. And being a classical music enthusiast, I would agree
that the passing of "The Telephone Hour" was a sad occasion. And now
here's one for you:

Do you remember the "Bell Science Series"? These were one-hour
programs hosted by Dr. Frank Baxter and actor Richard Carlson and had
episode names such as "Our Mr. Sun" and "Hemo, the Magnificent". I'll
never forget the use of the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth
Symphony during a mention of the vastness of the universe. (I was an
impressionable kid.)

These programs were in color (pretty avant garde for late-fifties) and
were later made available on 16mm film for schools. I would kill for a
video cassette of some of these programs.

As you may have noticed, AT&T still from time to time presents high
quality TV programs.


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


[Moderator's Note: Those were also very good programs. In addition to
a few things on television, AT&T is an occassional sponsor of the
Sunday afternoon opera on radio station WFMT here in Chicago; and they
are a corporate patron of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 11:20:51 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US West and the War on Drugs


You refer to US West resistance to removal of pay phones due to their
being needed by poor people without their own phone service.  How
would they get incoming messages?  (You've already noted that some pay
phones were changed to outgoing-only.)


[Moderator's Note: They probably would not get incoming calls in any
event unless they stood around the pay phone waiting for them. Who is
going to take a message and deliver it down the block to their home?
But at least if the phone is there, they can make urgent outgoing
calls.  PT]

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

From: Ralph Hightower <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Persistent Wrong Number
Date: 27 Apr 90 18:15:32 GMT
Reply-To: Ralph Hightower <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC


The exchange that I'm on does not offer Caller ID or any of the other
CLASS features, Call-Trace, Repeat-Dial, etc.  But I have been plagued
by this little kid that keeps calling for "Katie".  Katie's family's
number has the same last four digit sequence but on a different
exchange, their number on the same exchange I'm on has the same
digits, but the inside numbers are transposed.

I have gotten tired of this kid calling for Katie that I have gotten
rude, "Is Katie there?"  "No. <click>".  I've even left as my
answering machine greeting "If you want Katie or any of the other
Dowlings, you either dialed the wrong exchange or transposed two
digits.  Look it up in the phone book and watch your fingers do the
dialing."

But lately, since we have experience some wierd calls and have had a
recent break-in, I've initiated Caller-ID where the person making the
call gives me their number (I wish I had telco installed Caller-ID).

Here's the script:

Caller:    "Is so-and-so there?"
Me:    "Wait a minute."    (I go off like I'm calling for them to come
                to the phone.  Wait a few seconds.)
    "He/She is busy right now.  Can he/she call you back?"

Caller:    "Well, OK."        And I get their name and number or . . .

Caller:    "Well, I'll just call back later."
Me:    "Well, So-and-so is in the bathroom.  It'll only be a minute."

                To which I either get their name and number
                or they don't want to leave the info.  In
                which case, I'll just pull the same
                script.

        [e-mail]  <Ralph M. Hightower>
        NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC


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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro
Date: 28 Apr 90 01:02:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, Va.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Monti)
writes:

>Toll calls within the Washington LATA [...] , as long as they are interstate,
>can be dialed on any carrier that will accept your business by using 10XXX
>dialing.  Toll or local calls within the Washington LATA *and* within Virginia
>cannot be 10XXX'ed. The same old intercept recording still comes on for those.

 From some C&P Maryland exchanges within the Washington LATA, local
calls within the state can now be 10XXX'ed.  Previously, the intercept
recording mentioned would be heard.

>I made a coupla intraLATA LD and local calls using competitive
>carriers from home.  We shall see what the bill says.

I found I could make instate, intraLATA, local calls using competitive
10XXX carriers.  For example, I can call from home ... to home,
'answering' myself using call-waiting.  [The next best thing to being
here ?]  While I can't find any real use for this, I must admit to
being somewhat curious to see how calls with matching origination and
destination numbers are billed.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 01:30:29 EDT
Subject: Re: Recorded Calls With a Return 900 Number
Organization: Days Inns of America Inc., Atlanta GA


For what it's worth I got a similar phone call about a month ago,
probably from the same people.  I typically tell operators the same
thing that you do, and I was also dismayed that the return number was
a 900-number.

Two things crossed my mind then --

1) I keep secretly hoping this organization will call me at work
across one of our ISDN trunks where I can read the caller ID off of
the display on my phone.  (this is a long shot, as the ISDN trunks are
subject to special routings).

2) Southern Bell offers a number of ISDN services which they name
'Touch Star' Services.  Among these services is auto-call back which
enables the subscriber of the service to automatically call back the
last number that called him.  In hindsight, such a service might have
been handy when I recieved my call, but it could have been that there
was not a human voice at the other end anyway.

I share your frustration.


Bill Crane        ...!gatech!daysinns!bill
Days Inns of America Inc., Atlanta GA


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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 27 Apr 90 18:38:15 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System


>[Moderator's Note: How does Hayes do it?  What is the command string?
>I would be very interested in knowing. "ATDT xxxxxxxxx" is only good
>for the ten digits, the # and * keys, I thought. How do you tell it
>to 'dial' the A, B, C, and D, for whatever it would do?   PT]

Getting the modem to dial the 'extra' codes is trivial on my modem.
(I have an Everex Evercom 24E+, but I think the principles are the
same for Hayes) Just stick the code in the dial string!!!  For
instance:

ATDT12234ABCD

will dial eight tones, four of which are out of band.  It's even
documented in the owners manual!!  I have heard from various phreaks
that sending the 'extra' codes while dialing thru the local CO is
HIGHLY frowned on.  Any phone that generates these tones is doing
something they probably shouldn't and the call is red flagged for
later security processing.  I believe these are codes that might get
you noticed in a big hurry if you are phreaking!!  On the other hand,
once the call is completed, you can send any tones you want and the
phone company won't care.  Just don't try and get the phone company to
recognize the 'extras'.  DTMF decoder chips should be able to handle
this extra decoding with no problems, assuming you pick the right
chips.


dave


[Moderator's Note: That's all quite interesting, but see my reply to
the next article.   PT]

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 27 Apr 90 21:05:38 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

>[Moderator's Note: How does Hayes do it?  What is the command string?
>I would be very interested in knowing. "ATDT xxxxxxxxx" is only good
>for the ten digits, the # and * keys, I thought. How do you tell it
>to 'dial' the A, B, C, and D, for whatever it would do?   PT]

I can't vouch for an honest-to-goodness Hayes(R) modem, but my
Prometheus claims to be Hayes-compatible and will accept A, B, C, and
D as regular numbers in the ATDT xxxxxxxx string.  At least the manual
claims it will, I've never put it to the test.


Steve King, uunet!motcid!king


[Moderator's Note: Now look, guys: In a modem command line, ala Hayes
or others on the 'Hayes standard', a "D" means "Dial".  An "A" (in
other than the "AT" preface) mean "Answer mode". Some variations on
the 'Hayes standard' use "C" to mean turn the transmitter off. ("C1"
means turn it on.). So if I enter 'ATTD 123-4567A' I am saying I want
the modem's attention; I want it to tone-dial 123-4567; then I want it
to go into answer mode, rather than staying in originate mode. How
does the modem tell the difference between <A>nswer mode and <A>-key?
I don't think it can. I tried this just now on five modems: US
Robotics Courier 2400; Hayes Smartmodem 300; Rixon Intelligent Modem
in the 'Hayes mode'; and a couple others. None of them understood what
ABCD meant at the end, other than the usual command string meaning for
"A" and "D".  Since your manual documents this, how about typing it in
here for us?  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 06:38:02 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  27-Apr-1990 0933" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CCITT Recommendation Q.31 -- The Touch-Tone Standard

>Don't forget the ubitiquous _fourth_ column!

Hmmm.  Ubiquitous means "present everywhere."

>Does anyone know if these are included in whatever specification is
>trademarked as "Touch-Tone" (tm)? I've always wondered about that...

Yes.  It is part of CCITT Recommendation Q.31, the international
standard defining subscriber tone dialing.

/john

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Friday, 27 Apr 1990 07:32:16 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unique and Profitable Use of 900 Number


I wonder what happens when one 900 telemarketer calls a _real_ 900
number service -- do they self-destruct?

Peter M. Weiss
31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people)
University Park, PA USA 16802    | Disclaimer -* +* applies herein


[Moderator's Note: Self-destruct! Ha ha ... we should be so lucky!  PT]

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

Subject: Bay Area Cellular/Payphone Update
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 27 Apr 90 12:19:07 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


It finally appears that the disparity in Pac*Bell payphone charges
resulting from calling the different cellular mobile phones may be
coming to an end. As you recall, when calling a GTE Mobilnet mobile
phone from a Pac*Bell payphone the caller must deposit any toll,
whereas an equivalent call to a Cellular One mobile is a flat Zone 1
(local-charged) call.

I have just been notified by my contact at Pac*Bell that this has
finally reached upper levels at "headquarters" who have directed that
this problem be corrected by 5/14/90 in all Pac*Bell Bay Area
payphones. Two supervisors have been assigned the responsibility of
correcting this condition (which has existed for years) in the entire
region.

Unfortunately, "correcting the problem" may mean that callers to
Cellular One mobiles may have to begin paying toll charges rather than
GTE Mobilnet callers paying $0.20. This is the current debate in the
conference rooms: does the cellular "Zone 1" rule extend to
paystations? If yes, then both providers will get the advantage; if
no, then all non-local calls to mobiles will have to pay toll from
payphones. It is important to remember that this entire matter applies
only to payphones and does not effect billing from non-coin business
or residence telephones. Calls to GTE and Cellular One mobiles have
always been billed as Zone 1 calls from non-coin telephones.

Naturally, I'll be reporting on the outcome.

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 21:45:02 -0400
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bong Tones


[Moderator's Note: Here is another of Mr. Gaffin's columns in the
Middlesex News.  PT]


From the Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 4/27/90:

BOSTON - They're called ``bong tones'' and they're the funny tones you
get when you try to make a collect or credit-card phone call. Now
they're at the heart of a case that could determine the types of
services available at many pay phones across the state.

Last fall, the state Department of Public Utilities charged that a
Waltham company, IMR Telecom, was illegally operating several hundred
pay phones in the state because it had never sought state permission
to install the phones.

The state charges that the software used in the pay phones provides
some of the same services as traditional operators and therefore
requires prior state approval because the state still regulates
companies that provide operator services.

The company counters that because no operator is actually involved in
these calls and because the software does not need to connect with the
regional phone network for billing purposes that the phones are
therefore just fancy ``customer-owned coin-operated telephones,''
which are not regulated by the state.

New England Telephone pay phones are essentially dumb terminals
connected to a central switching office that sends out the ``bong
tones'' to begin prompting the caller for his credit-card number - and
takes care of billing. This is how the company completes so-called
``0+'' calls.

Many independent pay-phone companies now contract with companies that
provide similar services, but IMR has purchased a number of ``smart''
phones that generate their own ``bong tones'' and then store
information on credit-card calls, including the user's credit-card
number and the length and distance of the calls.  Periodically, an IMR
computer calls the pay phone, downloads this information and then
forwards it to a billing company.

IMR and other companies with similar phones say they were essentially
forced to go to this technology because New England Telephone would
not provide operator assistance services to them after the state
opened the pay-phone market to competition in 1985.

The outcome of the IMR case could determine the fate of these
``smart'' pay phones in the state, according to papers filed in
connection with the case.

DPU spokeswoman Maggie Carvan would not comment on the case. She said
there are now 19 companies besides New England Telephone that provide
pay-phone service in Massachusetts and that there are roughly 4,500
pay phones altogether in the state.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #291
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28496;
          28 Apr 90 4:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14002;
          28 Apr 90 3:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11898;
          28 Apr 90 2:14 CDT
Date:     Sat, 28 Apr 90 1:23:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #292
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Apr 90 01:23:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 292

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Area Codes and Political Boundaries [Carl Moore]
    Obituary of John C. Lobb [Tom Gray]
    Line Trouble Detection Program [Bruce Perens]
    Playing Matchmaker [Bruce Perens]
    More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? [Steve Elias]
    Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys [Joseph C. Pistritto]
    Hardware Modification Gets ABCD Frequencies [Mark Earle]
    Making a Call in 1966 (was: LD in 1962) [Carl Moore]
    International Portability of Cellular Phones  US->UK [Kenneth G. Cochran]
    Re: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory [Peter da Silva]
    Miami Test Number? [Ron Schnell]
    Re: More Test Numbers [Tom Ace]
    Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts [Andrew Peed]
    Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) [Gregory W. Isett]
    Re: The Card [Brian Matthews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 9:58:42 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Codes and Political Boundaries


In Canada, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are both in the 902 area.

There are a few special cases where area codes cross state lines in
the U.S.:

  A certain prefix in Carter Lake, Iowa (on "wrong" side of Missouri
River at Omaha, Nebraska) can be reached in either area code 402 or
712.

  All but the outermost suburbs of Washington, DC can be reached in
area code 202.  This was retained when it became necessary to use
N0X/N1X prefixes in DC area, but apparently will go away by the end of
this year in the next step in dealing with that shortage.  (Incoming
toll calls to Md. and Va.  suburbs would then have to use area codes
301 and 703 respectively.  Local calls in the DC area which cross NPA
border will require NPA+7D, without leading 1.)

Galestown, Maryland area (near Seaford, Delaware) was or is using
Seaford mailing address and phone prefix.  (I have no way of knowing
about any other cases like this.)

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Subject: Obituary of John C. Lobb
Date: 27 Apr 90 17:10:51 GMT
Organization: MITEL Corporation, Kanata, Ontario, Canada.


 In the April issue of TE&M, I noticed with regret an obituary for
John Lobb.  In his tenure at Nothern Electric which later became
Northern Telecom, Mr.Lobb guided that company from a captive equipment
supplier to being a world leader in telephone technology. He was
president of Northern when the DMS and SL1 families of switches were
conceived and developed.

Prior to this, the North American switching market was static with
very little real innovation. AT&T was only interested in producing
gold plated switches for its monopoly market. Other players in the
market were as bad or worse. The management of Northern lead by Mr.
Lobb changed all of this. The DMS family made digital switching
practical and opened the telephone market to true competition. If it
had been left up to AT&T, there wouldn't have been a digital class 5
until the 1990's.  Think of our industry if only now we were field
trialling digital switches.

It is sad to note the passing of someone who did make the telephone
industry different from what he found it.

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

Reply-To: Bruce Perens <pixar!pixar![e-mail]>
From: Bruce Perens <pixar![e-mail]>
Subject: Line Trouble Detection Program
Date: 27 Apr 90 07:10:46 GMT
Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California


Earlier, I noticed someone's CB leaking into my phone line. I know how
to get rid of that kind of interference, but before doing that I tried
to listen for a few minutes, just out of curiousity. I dialed 1 to
break the dial tone, listened until the off-hook signal started, and
then hung up the phone. I dialed the touch-tone 1 most of the time,
but once or twice dialed 1 just by flashing. After repeating this
cycle about 10 times, the dial tone didn't come back. I could hear the
loop current going on and off about 5 times, at about 1 Hz. I hung up
the phone for a minute. When I picked it up again, I had to wait for
dial tone, and then the phone acted normally.

Did I trigger some trouble detector? Was the loop interruption done by
some program, or was it manual?

PS: Can someone tell me the PacBell test numbers for Marin County?
I'd like to know the number identification, short-circuit,
open-circuit, 440 tone, etc. There's a tombstone (outdoor telephone
junction box) across the street, and I've heard the lineman working
with some kind of interactive voice-response system from there. What's
that system for?

                Bruce Perens
                pixar![e-mail]
                ucbvax!pixar!bp


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

Reply-To: Bruce Perens <pixar!pixar![e-mail]>
From: Bruce Perens <pixar![e-mail]>
Subject: Playing Matchmaker
Date: 28 Apr 90 00:14:02 GMT
Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California


Back in the late '70s, my college had a Centrex. We found that you
could dial an external number and conference it to an internal number
while both were still ringing, and hang up. The connection would
persist until the internal number was answered and hung up. You could
thus play matchmaker: set up a connection so that both ends would ring
and be connected to each other. You could connect two internal numbers
this way by dialing out and back in.

One boring weekend I was the only person in one of the campus
buildings.  From one of the offices, I used this trick repeatedly,
until I ran out of circuits and almost every phone in the building was
ringing. They stayed that way until Monday morning.

WARNING TO PBX DESIGNERS: Some PBX systems that are vulnerable to this
trick could be congested by it, unless there is a limit on the
proportion of resources that can be used by "conference" connections.

                Bruce Perens

[Moderator's Note: I once had some fool use his three-way calling to
connect me with some other party. We both got rung and picked up at
about the same time, then sat there and accused each other of being
the one to place the call. ("But it was MY phone that rang, sir!").
The moron who did this then did it a second time to me the next day:
that time I took his fun away. When the other party answered, after
the obligatory accusations toward each other I said, "Well, as long as
we are connected, want to chat for awhile? What shall we talk about?"
I'm sure he must have thought me to be the daft one! :) PT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ??
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 10:38:01 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


My local telco representative is telling me that there are now two
kinds of DID service: Analog and Digital.  This is in addition to the
other parameters for DID: Wink/Immediate, Pulse/Tones, #-of-digits.

He claims that the reason that they can't get the DID line working for
me is that we ordered "digital DID" when we really wanted "analog
DID".  I told him flat out that I thought (and at least one
knowledgable friend o mine thought) that this was a crock.

Have you heard of such a beast?  Digital DID???  Is this some sort of
ISDN stuff?  Is my local telco staffed by pinheads?  Or am I truly
uninformed about this DID stuff?


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone)

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

Subject: Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 10:02:14 MESZ
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>


Several years ago, I bought some cheapie phones from DAK Industries.
When they arrived, I noticed that they had the 'ABCD' keys on them, so
the touchtone pad was a 4x4 instead of 3x4.  This was just perfect for
me, as the amateur radio club I belonged to uses these as control
tones on our autopatch capable repeater.  A 'phriend' also showed me
that you can call the operator and knock her off the line by sending
one of these tones at the start of the call.  Apparently this was
useful to phreaks at one time, as you used to be able to get a
dialtone (from the operator position) this way.

[Before we get moralistic here, he showed me this once, and we neither
got the dial tone or repeated the test].  They definitely do use these
keys on AUTOVON phones, you do this to clear people off of trunks when
you need them (assuming your a command officer or something, and have
a phone with those keys on them).

Also worth noting that the commercial touch tone generator chips ALL
have the capability to generate these tones, it's just they aren't
usually wired up to buttons.


Joseph C. Pistritto ([e-mail] -or- cgch![e-mail])
Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland
Tel: [phone] (work) [phone] (home)   GMT+2hrs!


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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 19:32:03 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Hardware Modification Gets ABCD Frequencies


Patrick, I have a Toryo phone purchased from DAK a while ago. It is
'princess' styled with two lines, hold for each, separate BELL ringers
for each line w/disable switch ... and has a 16 button (!) pad. I use
it to call remote radio systems (amateur/commercial) and control them,
add numbers to the auto-dialers, etc. By using the extra four digits
as part of the security combination, many (most) phones won't be able
to get access. It's a little more secure.

Of course, my pocket dialer (Tandy) has been suitably modified. Most
DTMF generation chips have the capability. I just added a SPDT switch.
To the left, 3 6 9 #, and to the right A B C D. I try to pick
'combinations' to sorta minimize throwing of the switch. So my
modified dialer has 12 buttons, but can generate more tones. Most
electronic phones could do the same. Also note, the older toroid based
encoders in "real" telephone instruments will also do this -- they
have the extra tone in the scheme, just missing four buttons or a
switch.  :-)


 | [e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]     |
 | CIS 73117,351                MCI Mail to: MEARLE     |
 | My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0         |
 | 'Opinions Expressed are mine, unless we're on clock' |
 | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University   |
 | Now becoming part of the Texas A&M System            |

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 9:41:19 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Making a Call in 1966 (was: LD in 1962)


In 1966, I remember making a collect call from Yonkers, NY to
Wilmington, Del. -- my first use of 0+ call.  The Wilmington, Del.
phone book published later that year was the first there NOT to use
exchange names (for example, what had been OLympia 4 became simply
654).

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

From: Kenneth G Cochran    <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Portability of Cellular Phones  US->UK
Date: 27 Apr 90 20:03:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Are US cellular phones compatible with the cellular service offered in
other countries (Particularly the UK).

Would an 832 channel US phone need modification or reprogramming to
work or is this just not cost effective.


Thanks,

Ken Cochran     att!mtdca!kwmc

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 13:34:27 GMT


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

> To the best of my knowledge AT&T's IDDD is blocked from coin phones.
> So while it may be possible to misdial overseas to some place like
> Fiji on "one of those other carriers", it won't happen on AT&T since
> you can't dial outside of North America from a pay station!

I'm sure I've called home (Australia) direct via my AT&T calling card
on occasion. Are you sure of this?

Peter da Silva. [phone].  <[e-mail]>
            <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: People have opinions, organisations have policy.

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

From: Ron Schnell <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!eddie.mit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Miami Test Number?
Organization: MIT
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 01:43:05 GMT


Does anyone know of a test number in the Miami (Southern Bell) area
which I could use to find out the number from which I am calling?  I
don't know the prefix, but it's in the same CO as (305) 935.

Alternatively, if anyone out there with Caller ID would be willing to
let me call you from there and tell me what number shows up, that
would do as well.

Thanks.


Ron         (you may call me at (800) 321 - 1767)

    #Ron#
    (ronnie@mit-eddie.{UUCP,ARPA})
    Home: (213) 470 - 9639
    Office: (213) 338 - 7834

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

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 11:25:31 PDT
From: Tom Ace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Test Numbers


Jim Small <[e-mail]> asked:

> Would you happen to have any test numbers for the Los Angeles area?

I'm not sure if these still work, but a few years ago ANI used to be
600 or 6102 in most of the exchanges served by ESS switches, and 113
in non-ESS exchanges.  This was in Pac Bell territories only.

When I moved from New York to Los Angeles, I noted that the ANI
equipment in L.A. gave the digits at a slower pace than the N.Y.
equipment did, in character with the prevailing mentalities of the two
areas.


Tom Ace
[e-mail]

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

From: Andrew Peed <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Numbers on Credit Card Receipts
Date: 27 Apr 90 14:37:50 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:

>I'm not worried, but I AM damn annoyed.

>I used to never have to worry about Telemarketers.  Then I started
>putting my home phone number on the charge slips.

    I used to get a fair bit of harrasment from telemarketers
until I started taking the following approach:

    Me:    "My last name is spelled P - E - E - D..."
Their thoughts: "Peed?"
    Me:    "But it's pronounced "Stoatgobbler Mangrove."
    Tt:    "WHAT??"
    Me:    <CLICK.>

    None of them has ever had the courage to call back.


Motorola, Inc.                            Andrew B. Peed
Cellular Infrastructure Division              ..!uunet!motcid!peed

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

From: "Gregory W. Isett" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card)
Organization: HRB Systems


> In message [e-mail], Will Martin asks how AT&T decides
> whether to send you a Visa or Mastercard.

> I applied about two weeks after the card was announced.  At that time,
> they asked me which of the two I wanted.

I just got my Mastercard version.  I called AT&T and told them that I
swore I applied for a VISA.  They (very politely) said they'd
immediately "invalidate" my Mastercard and send me a new VISA card in
"10 to 20 days".

They also said they had a "gold" VISA card that had a higher credit limit.


Gregory W. Isett        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:            [e-mail]
State College, PA. USA         UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!gwi
[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Matthews)
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 25 Apr 90 20:54:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Brian Matthews)
Organization: PolarServ, Seattle WA


Speaking of the card, has anyone called for just information and
gotten it?  I called when the card was first announced here (three,
four weeks ago?), and told the operator I just wanted information.
She took my name and address, but I haven't received anything.  Are
they just slow, or have they already decided I don't qualify? :-)


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #292
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03142;
          29 Apr 90 0:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16899;
          28 Apr 90 23:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16723;
          28 Apr 90 22:23 CDT
Date:     Sat, 28 Apr 90 22:02:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Coin Station Fraud
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Apr 90 21:58:30 CDT    Special: Coin Station Fraud

Inside This Issue:                              Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Yet Even More on Coin Station Fraud [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Yet Even More on Coin Station Fraud
Date: 23 Apr 90 20:58:08 EST (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> Not to argue with Larry, but his description is in conflict with that
> I have experienced around the country; including Michigan, Illinois,
> Florida, and elsewhere.

    I will get to the specific issues raised by Karl Denninger in
a few moments.  Please bear with me while I provide some introductory
material.  This discussion is also starting to get complex, and it is
becoming increasingly difficult for me to explain in a succinct
fashion all that is necessary to effect an understanding of the
specific issues at hand.  If you are hopelessly confused after reading
this article, I am sorry - I tried. :-)

    I suppose a bit of qualification is in order.  During the
1970's a group within my organization at that time provided
consulting, R&D and contract engineering services to various
manufacturers of CO apparatus and accessories.  Almost all of this
effort was focused on conversion of electromechanical CO apparatus so
that it could provide "new-fangled" :-) features not possible in its
native design.  One of our specialties was coin control applique
circuits to permit SxS and XY CO's to offer DTF (Dial Tone First)
service, LCOT (Local Coin Overtime) charging, and TSPS compatibility
for independent operating telephone companies whose DSA and toll
operator functions are provided by a [then] Bell System facility.

    As an example, in the case of the SxS CO, we developed various
microprocessor-based (the first used an 8080 - how time flies! :-) )
circuits which connected between the linefinder and first selector in
a coin station linefinder shelf.  An installation consisted of a card
cage containing one card per equipped linefinder, appliques to permit
inband coin control signaling on existing recording-completing trunks,
plus common DC-DC converter apparatus.  Some of the resultant products
were sold by others to the Bell System, although much of the marketing
was aimed at independent operating telephone companies.

    During the course of these projects my organization amassed
considerable engineering documentation from WECO, AE, SC, North
Electric and Northern Telecom, not to mention a formidable collection
of coin stations and CO apparatus.

    The point I am trying to make is that the information I have
provided is based upon *explicit* knowledge of actual CO apparatus,
and is not inferred from empirical observations or "less-than-lawful"
means.

    The basic principles behind the operation of "ordinary" DTF
coin stations *are* as I have represented them, and they *cannot*
change for many years so as to ensure compatibility with the 1C-type
and 1D-type coin stations remaining in service (at least in BOC
areas).  By the use of the term "ordinary" I exclude COCOT's and any
coin stations with special features such as digital displays, credit
card readers, toll carrier selection keys, etc.

    For the sake of simplicity, I have in recent articles
described DTF operation as it applies to a 1C-type coin station.  15
years ago the 1C-type coin station comprised the vast majority of DTF
coin stations in service, since the 1D-type coin station was still in
an introductory phase.  Today, the 1D-type coin station or its
equivalent probably constitutes the most commonly found DTF coin
station in BOC areas, but I have no current knowledge as to the
percentage distribution of DTF coin stations by coin station type.

    From an interface and functional standpoints, the 1C-type and
1D-type coin stations are virtually identical.  From an internal design
standpoint, the 1C-type and 1D-type coin stations are vastly different.
 From a user standpoint, the 1C-type and 1D-type coin station should
be indistinguishable.

    The 1C-type coin station has an electromechanical totalizer
providing two major functions: (1) a "readout" of the value for each
deposited coin in the form of dual-frequency tone pulses; and (2) the
totalization of deposited coins until an "initial rate" amount is
reached, at which time a contact operates that permits the CO
apparatus to conduct a ground test to ascertain if this initial rate
has been deposited.  The 1D-type performs the same functions as above,
except that the totalizer is completely solid-state, being replaced by
coin proximity sensors for nickels, dimes and quarters, with the
required logic contained in one 40-pin hybrid integrated circuit.  A
second integrated circuit functions as the coin signal oscillator.
Other new circuit functions arbitrate dialing and coin tone signaling,
provide improved CO loop signaling performance, and create an
automatic circuit reset each time the station goes on-hook.

    Everything I have stated in previous articles should apply to
both of the above types of coin stations.

    With respect to the above coin stations, here are the functions
which pertain to this discussion:

1.    Provide dual-frequency tone pulses to indicate denomination of
    deposited coin (one pulse per five cents).  The speech network
    is disabled (NOT just muted) during coin tone readout.

2.    Permit the CO apparatus to conduct an Initial Rate Ground Test
    (IRGT) to ascertain if the initial rate has been deposited.

3.    Permit the CO apparatus to reset the totalizer so that the
    IRGT can *again* be performed on a new coin(s) on the same
    call.  The collect/return function has nothing to do with
    IRGT.

4.    Permit the CO apparatus to conduct a Stuck Coin Ground Test
    (SCGT) to ascertain if *any* coin is in the coin hopper.

5.    Permit the CO apparatus to collect all coins in the coin hopper
    at any time during or after a call.

6.    Permit the CO apparatus to refund all coins in the coin hopper
    at any time during or after a call.

    The differences in coin station characteristics as reported by
Karl Denninger are no doubt the result of different coin control
trunks in different CO's, and in different TSPS generic versions
and/or hardware with respect to the TSPS ACTS Station Signaling and
Announcement Subsystem.

    It is important to understand that while 1C-type and 1D-type
coin stations provide certain capabilities which may be used as a
defense against fraud, such capabilities may not always be utilized by
the associated coin control apparatus in the CO.  Many variations
exist throughout the continental U. S. in CO apparatus, associated
TSPS facilities, and coin station "policy" which result in minor, but
nevertheless different operating characteristics.

    Here is an example of what I mean.  The coin control apparatus
associated with ACTS counts the number of dual-frequency tone pulses
to ascertain the amount of money deposited.  The CO apparatus,
depending upon type and options, could elect to perform ANY of the
following:

1.    Just count tone pulses until it *believes* enough money has
    been deposited.

2.    Count tone pulses until it believes enough money has been
    deposited, followed by a SCGT to verify that at least ONE
    coin has been deposited.

3.    Count tone pulses for coins until an initial rate amount is
    deposited (fairly simple if a quarter is involved), perform
    an IRGT, then continue counting tone pulses until it
    believes enough money has been deposited.

4.    Count tone pulses for coins until an initial rate amount is
    deposited (fairly simple if a quarter is involved), perform
    an IRGT, then continue counting tone pulses until it
    believes enough money has been deposited, followed by a SCGT
    to further verify that at least ONE coin has been deposited.

5.    Count tone pulses for coins until an initial rate amount is
    deposited (fairly simple if a quarter is involved), perform
    an IRGT, reset the totalizer, then continue counting tone
    pulses *and* perform successive IRGT's until it believes enough
    money has been deposited.

6.    Count tone pulses for coins until an initial rate amount is
    deposited (fairly simple if a quarter is involved), perform
    an IRGT, reset the totalizer, then continue counting tone
    pulses *and* perform successive IRGT's until it believes enough
    money has been deposited, followed by a SCGT to further verify
    that at least ONE coin has been deposited.

    Scenario #6 may seem complex, but it is *exactly* this
scenario that is performed in most Local Coin Overtime applications.
Not only that, but the coin is usually collected right on the spot.

    In my travels, I have seen implemented *all* of the above
scenarios - and more!

> >    After ACTS makes the announcement as to the amount of the coin
> >deposit, the coin control trunk places +48 V (*positive* battery) on
> >the ring side of the line, while connecting ground to the tip.  This
> >action enables the totalizer for readout, and also operates the "B"
> >relay in the totalizer which *disables* the speech network.  The coin
> >control trunk then counts dual-tone pulses from one or more deposited
> >coins until the proper amount is entered.

> This is not in line with my experience.  Try it in your area of the
> country; after the announcement, blow into the mouthpiece.  I've
> always been able to hear sidetone (the echo of your noise), which
> tells you the voice circuit is quite open!  If it wasn't, how would
> you hear the recorded announcement?

    I may have been unclear in my original article; the speech
network is disabled *only* during the actual coin tone signaling
interval.

    If the CO apparatus performs the IRGT with totalizer reset for
each deposited coin, then fraud through coin tone spoofing is
virtually impossible because the proper value of coins *must* be
*physically* present to satisfy the IRGT.

> The only exceptions, in the last five to seven years, have been in
> GTE-served places that don't complete the "mic" circuit until you
> deposit coins.  Those are real annoying, as your called party often
> hangs up before you can finish depositing the local-call money
> ("Hello.... hello?  Click!") and leaves you with a call you paid for
> but didn't get any utility from.

    Well, GTE/AE apparatus operates on similar principles, but
there are differences.  Especially because GTE/AE has their own method
of providing a TSPS equivalent.

> >If a preset time is exceeded before the required amount is deposited,
> >the coin control trunk aborts the collection effort and the call,
> >places a recorded announcement on the line, and refunds the coins
> >deposited so far.

> This is also not in line with my experience.  In my experience (which
> occurs when I'm short of change!) after a short delay I'll get a
> recording which says something to the effect of "deposit thirty more
> cents for the first three minutes please", followed about fifteen
> seconds later by a (live) operator who will repeat the request.

    What you state is not the case in some areas.  There is a
growing trend to reduce TSPS operator staffing requirements, and in
some areas a decision has been made that if the user cannot deal with
ACTS in making the initial deposit, then the user will not deal with
ACTS at all, and will have to start over with a O+ call.  I have not
seen such a rigid attitude with overtime arising out of ACTS
origination, though.

> >At this point, while the money is in the coin hopper, it has not been
> >collected.  If answer supervision on the call is detected, the money
> >is collected immediately after the call is completed.  If no answer
> >supervision on the call is detected, the money is refunded when the
> >handset is replaced.  Usually the collect or return function is
> >delayed until the handset is replaced, but it *can* occur with the
> >handset off-hook, and may do so in some CO's.

> It usually is delayed.  The only exception I've seen is if you go
> "overtime", in which case the CO will collect the funds you have
> already deposited just prior to the (computer) voice coming on the
> line to ask for more money.

    One of the reasons why overtime is collected on a
pay-as-you-go basis is to eliminate a large buildup of coins in the
coin hopper, a condition which can result in malfunction if it got out
of hand.

> >    The defense against fraud in the above scenario is that the
> >speech network is disabled by the CO during the coin deposit interval,
> >which precludes use of a tone generator held to the handset
> >transmitter.

> Again, not in my experience.  The speech circuit is muted DURING the
> deposit of coins, presumably to prevent you from taping the coin
> sounds locally.  But that muting doesn't occur until you actually
> deposit the coin into the slot, and un-mutes immediately after the
> tones are sent over the line.

    You are partially correct, and I was also unclear in what I
had stated.  The speech network is muted for two reasons: (1) to
prevent ambient sounds (not necessarily fraud) from interfering with
coin signal detection; and (2) to prevent coin signal sounds from
annoying the user (the local tones are loud).  What I had really meant
to say was that if the IRGT is made by the CO apparatus following the
deposit of each coin, then spoofing coin tones will *not* facilitate
fraud, because only real coins of the proper denomination (or slugs
:-) ) can satisfy the IRGT.

    A point to remember is that if the coin control trunk detects
coin tones, but the IRGT fails, this *could* be used as an indication
that a fraudulent call is in progress.

    There is another type of coin station fraud that no one has
yet mentioned - spoofing coin tones using the touch-tone dial.  This
was a problem with 1A2 and 2A2 pre-pay coin stations.  The initial
solution to the problem in the 1C2 and 2C2 coin stations was to use
+48 V positive battery when connected to TSPS, with such positive
battery having the effect of disabling the touch-tone dial.  1A2, 2A2,
early 1C2 and early 2C2 coin stations used single-frequency coin
signal oscillators.  When ACTS was implemented, coin stations in the
serving area were required to upgrade to 1C2 and 2C2 coin stations
which utilized dual-frequency coin signal oscillators to work with
improved CO apparatus which would not false on DTMF signal tones.
Also, many coin stations no longer disable the touch-tone dial, with
this requirement having occurred to facilitate continued DTMF digit
entry on calls to alternate toll carriers.  The 1D-type coin station
was always equipped with the dual-frequency coin signal oscillator,
and I believe its touch-tone dial was always enabled.

    I suspect that I have now beat this topic to death. :-)


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
UUCP:    {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
TEL: [phone] || FAX: [phone]      {utzoo|uunet}!/     \aerion!larry

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Coin Station Fraud
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05380;
          29 Apr 90 2:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22593;
          29 Apr 90 0:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16899;
          28 Apr 90 23:28 CDT
Date:     Sat, 28 Apr 90 22:52:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #293
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Apr 90 22:52:44 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 293

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Steven King]
    Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Steve Kass]
    Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) [Roy Smith]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [Steven King]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [P. Wilczynski]
    Re: Irish Phone Service [Linc Madison]
    Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro [Linc Madison]
    Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries [Linc Madison]
    Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Julian Macassey]
    Re: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory [John Higdon]
    Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones [Marcel D. Mongeon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother
Date: 28 Apr 90 17:11:59 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

>There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By
>using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone
>conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer
>satisfaction."

>Whoa, what a stipulation, huh?

I would have thought that this stipulation was a condition of using
the PHONE in the first place, regardless of whether or not you used
The Card or anything else.  Maintenance is necessary, and sometimes
it's convenient or even necessary to "tap" a conversation to provide
maintenance.  Sorry, but that's life.


Steve King, uunet!motcid!king

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 19:37 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother


In TELECOM Digest Volume 10 : Issue 290, Douglas Mason writes:

> Although I didn't request it, I got their "Gold Card".  This also has
> no fees, and after looking through all the various documentation it
> seems that there is nothing that it offers over the standard card
> except for it's "status" of being a "gold card".

Most standard cards don't offer the extended warranty, rental car
insurance, travel insurance, and 90-day replacement insurance that the
gold card gives.  I don't know if the Universal Card does or doesn't
in its non-gold version.  The list of services you get with the card
comes a couple of weeks after you get the card.

> There is a section in there that has a flat statement saying that "By
> using this card you agree to allow us to monitor your telephone
> conversations periodically to maintain our line quality and customer
> satisfaction."

> Whoa, what a stipulation, huh?

Whoa yourself.  This monitoring is restricted to calls you make to
AT&T customer service.  It's a common practice for large organizations
to do spot monitoring of calls to check up on employees.  My New
Jersey Bell telephone directory precedes numbers with such monitoring
by a special symbol.  No comment from me as to the reasonableness of
such a practice.  Big brother is probably out there, but its acronym
isn't AT&T.  I once made a joke during a call to a friend in the US
Foreign Service who clammed up and said coolly, "You shouldn't say
things like that on the phone."


Steve Kass/Math+CS Dept/Drew U/Madison, NJ/07940/2014083614/[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 13:19:42 GMT


    When I first heard of the card, I called and asked for an
application form with a copy of the Rules And Regs so I could read
them all carefully before I applied.  They promised they would send it
out, but I never got it.

    Meanwhile, my wife (some weeks later) called and applied for
the card over the phone.  She got her VISA Gold a week or two ago.  We
also could not figure out what makes a gold card gold other than the
color of the plastic.  What she didn't get was any description of the
interesting stuff like the buyer protection plan and calling
discounts, just the "retail credit agreement", the other stuff is
supposed to come later under separate cover.  Then, yesterday, she got
a letter from AT&T apologising for the delay in processing her
application and promising that her card would arrive in a few weeks.
I hope their billing is more together.


Roy Smith,
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station?
Date: 28 Apr 90 17:33:59 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S M Krieger) writes:

>[Complaint about not being able to find "Benham's Amoco" under "Amoco"
>in the phone book.]

>[Moderator's Note: They do not 'scatter the listings in some random
>order.' They use strict alphabetical order. The name of the place is
>'Benhams Amoco' -- not 'Amoco'.  Why are all the people with the first
>name 'Stan' scattered throughout the book instead of being listed
>together?  Why can't all the 'Stans' be listed together regardless of
>last name?  The purpose of the Yellow Pages (in which any business
>phone can have one *free* listing if desired) is to accomodate those
>folks who do not know one Amoco from another.  I've heard frivilous
>complaints before. This one takes the cake.  PT]

It's a valid complaint, Pat, though of course it's not a telco
problem.  I had a devil of a time trying to find what I refer to as
"The Starship Hilton" and most others refer to as "the Hilton on
Euclid" in the phone book.  It wasn't mentioned in either the white
pages or the yellow pages.  I *knew* it had to be there, so I started
scanning the yellow pages hotel listing until I found "Woodfield
Hilton" (under "W", of course).  It would be quite helpful if the
BUSINESSES would request an entry as "Hilton -- Woodfield Hilton" or
"Amoco -- Benham's Amoco".  Neither the telco nor the publisher of the
directory should take the initiative to change a business's entry, but
the world would be a happier place if the businesses would submit a
different entry.


Steve King, uunet!motcid!king

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 04:55 EST
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station?


S M Krieger <[e-mail]> writes ...

> Of all the great mysteries of life, and the telephone book, one stands
> out; specifically, if I want to call the Mobil gas station about a
> mile from my home, why is it listed under "H" in the phone book
> instead of "M"?

Our moderator is correct, of course, in saying that businesses are
always listed under the name of the business and not their product
line(s).  If I sold IBM computers, I wouldn't not expect to be listed
in the telephone book under IBM.

However, I have to confess to some empathy with the writer.  I tried
to find the number for my local Shell station, and looked, of course,
under Shell.  No luck.  Unfortunately, the owner's last name started
with a letter late in the alphabet and it took me quite some time to
find the listing.  People don't normally ever consider the name of the
owner of a gas station - they think of the brand.

Perhaps the owner could spring for another 10-12 dollars a month and
get a listing under the brand name as well.


Paul Wilczynski

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 16:12:10 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Irish Phone Service
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>The choice of 1-800, as in the States, is odd as Ireland uses the
>British (European?)  style of using 0 as an exchange access code; 0800
>would have been the expected code.

I think it's actually the "Everywhere but North America" style, isn't it?

BTW, I especially like Australia's equivalent: since everything else
"down under" is "backwards," toll-free "800" numbers are toll-free
"008" numbers.  (According to the Australian version of the NPA
scheme, "008" would be in Tasmania, but I doubt they'll run out of
area codes there any time soon.)


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 16:16:27 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling in DC Metro
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> mperka writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 291, Message 4 of 11

>While I can't find any real use for this, I must admit to
>being somewhat curious to see how calls with matching origination and
>destination numbers are billed.

Well, not to spoil your surprise, but it will be billed as a call to
your number, from your number, and will be at whatever your carrier's
in-state "0-10 mile" or "0-12 mile" or similar rate is.  I
occasionally use this with my MCI card for very short calls from
payphones when I'm "Around Town" -- 9c or 18c for a one-to-two minute
call still beats 20c for the payphone.  Of course, I only do it if I
feel sure that I'm not going to be on for more than two minutes.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 16:24:32 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 292, Message 1 of 15

>In Canada, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are both in the 902 area.

That and area code 809 are the only exceptions.

>There are a few special cases where area codes cross state lines in
>the U.S.:

>  A certain prefix in Carter Lake, Iowa (on "wrong" side of Missouri
>River at Omaha, Nebraska) can be reached in either area code 402 or
>712.

But I'll bet that if you're calling from outside either area code
(say, from California) that there is one "true" area code for the
spot, and it's 712.

>  All but the outermost suburbs of Washington, DC can be reached in
>area code 202.

This is a hazier one, since it is possible to reach them from "the
outside world" at 202.  However, that is merely a hack, not an actual
case of an area code crossing a state line.

>Galestown, Maryland area (near Seaford, Delaware) was or is using
>Seaford mailing address and phone prefix.  (I have no way of knowing
>about any other cases like this.)

Is the whole town?  I'd be very surprised.  It might just be something
like the fact that the "Metro" number for the Dallas County Community
College District is in 817 (Fort Worth) because the phones you
actually reach are across the line into Tarrant County.

The original reason for the prohibition was, I expect, to make it
idiotically simple to distinguish interstate and intrastate calls, for
reasons of differential rate structures.  They figured that the people
in N.S. and P.E.I. could handle it among themselves.


Linc Madison    =    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Actually 809 and 902 are not the only examples of
this. 403 is shared by Alberta, Northwest Territories and Yukon. 819
is shared by Quebec and Northwest Territories.  Other than 809, every
instance of this is in Canada. I am not including cases of border
towns in the USA which may extend an area code by a half mile or so
into another state.  PT]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit
Date: 28 Apr 90 23:33:18 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott D.
Green) writes:

> My call accounting system vendor called to offer me a device to
     [stuff deleted]
> need for a 45 second threshold before a call is billed.  The claim is
> that a hotel property can expect a 15-25% increase in revenue, simply
> by recovering all those <1 minute calls ("Hi, honey, call me back at
> room 223."  Click.)

    Wow! Does this mean that if I make a call attempt from my
hotel room in future I won't be billed? It is not amusing to have the
desk dweeb tell you that you owe $45 in phone charges when all you did
was call some numbers that didn't answer.

    If the hotels get honest with their phone charges - real
costs, same price as telco etc - looks to me like they can expect a
200% drop in revenue.

    I now only make calls from lobby payphones, and not if they
are slimeball COPTS.

    Hoping that in the future honesty will return to hotel phone
bills.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Ad Hits Below the Belt, Down in AT&T Territory
Date: 28 Apr 90 02:48:51 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


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

> I'm sure I've called home (Australia) direct via my AT&T calling card
> on occasion. Are you sure of this?

Prompted by a letter from another reader, I checked this out again. On
my way to San Francisco yesterday, I stopped at the Hillsborough rest
area (415/348) and tried calling my favorite Japanese number referral.
It worked fine on my calling card, but not as a coin-paid call.

I stand corrected. The AT&T ads are really stupid, after all!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Checking the Serial Number on Cellular Phones
Date: 27 Apr 90 21:49:27 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> claris!netcom!mcmahan@ames.
arc.nasa.gov (Dave Mc Mahan) writes:

>As a side note, I always wondered what would happen if several
>cell-fones located in close proximity (the same cell) were all called
>at once.  Would this freeze out any incoming/outgoing calls until the
>call was completed or aborted?  It would seem that if one knew the car
>phone numbers of several employees at the same company and called them
>during work hours when they were all in close proximity, it would play
>hell with call completion statistics for other phones in the same
>cell.  Kind of a dirty way to annoy the cellular company.  Does anyone
>know what the maximum number of phones per cell is?  What would be the
>theoretical maximum and what do most cellular companies support?


Chapter 2 of W. Lee's book "Mobile Cellular Telecommunications
Systems" answers this question with an example that uses the following
assumptions:

    50 Radio channels per cell
    100 Second average call length
    2 percent Blocking Probability
    7 cell reuse pattern

On these assumptions a cell can handle 1451 Calls per hour.

How fast can you dial???  And how long can you then hold the line???


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #293
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10308;
          29 Apr 90 4:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25719;
          29 Apr 90 2:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25064;
          29 Apr 90 1:33 CDT
Date:     Sun, 29 Apr 90 0:31:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #294
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Apr 90 00:30:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 294

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Re: Touch-Tone Frequencies [Erik Naggum]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Bill Fenner]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Steven King]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Miguel Cruz]
    Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Modem Problems on Sprint [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 28 Apr 90 08:41:52 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System


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

>[Moderator's Note: Now look, guys: In a modem command line, ala Hayes
>or others on the 'Hayes standard', a "D" means "Dial".  An "A" (in
>other than the "AT" preface) mean "Answer mode". Some variations on
>the 'Hayes standard' use "C" to mean turn the transmitter off. ("C1"
>means turn it on.). So if I enter 'ATTD 123-4567A' I am saying I want
>the modem's attention; I want it to tone-dial 123-4567; then I want it
>to go into answer mode, rather than staying in originate mode. How
>does the modem tell the difference between <A>nswer mode and <A>-key?
>I don't think it can. I tried this just now on five modems: US
>Robotics Courier 2400; Hayes Smartmodem 300; Rixon Intelligent Modem
>in the 'Hayes mode'; and a couple others. None of them understood what
>ABCD meant at the end, other than the usual command string meaning for
>"A" and "D".  Since your manual documents this, how about typing it in
>here for us?  PT]

Well, I just double/triple checked the modem manual AND the modem
functionality.  I had to logout to do it right, but it REALLY does
work.  (Ain't ya' ever heared of context sensitive parsing?)  I typed:
ATDT1234ABCD and got 8 tones.  Just to make sure I heard right, I
typed, ATDTABCD and got 4 tones.  Still, just to verify, I typed,
ATDTA and got 1 tone.  To quote the Everex Evercom 24E+ owners manual
(EV-947, Version 1.0) page 4-9 paragraph 5 states:

       "Software developers should note that the fourth row
        of DTMF tones is permitted in a dial string; i.e., in-
        cluding A-D in the dial string produces the cor-
        responding DTMF sounds."

It _REALLY_ does work.  I just hope the phone company doesn't label me
an active phreaker because of these little experiments!!  (-;     I
have a feeling that when the modem sees the dialing command sequence,
it interprets the 'A' character as a dialing code and requires a
SPECIFIC non-ambiguous command after the dial sequence (like '\V0') to
go back to the normal parse mode.  It is one of those "do what I mean"
kind of software implementations.  I have been very happy with the
modem since I got it in January.

It even has a built in speaker phone and MNP-5 error correction.  Nice
little package, all for $185.  I don't work for Everex, I just like my
modem.  I'll do some more experiments to figure out what trips the
modem back into the normal command parse sequence, but you could
probably assume that it is the non-ambiguous sequence unless you hear
from me in the future on this matter.


dave

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 1990 19:22:57 +0200
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Frequencies


 From my modem manual, which is a UniMod 4161 a.k.a. EB 2424, of
Norwegian make, purportedly Hayes compatible, I read (and translate,
for the benefit of those among us who can't read this miniscule
language):

D    Dial

    The modem dials the telephone number after pausing according
    to the S6 and/or X setting.

    Usage:

        [A] [T] [D] n [CR]        Dial number _n_.

    Parameters:
    T    Tone dial subsequent symbols.  Allowable symbols are
        digits 0-9, A, B, C, D, *, and #.
    P    Decadic pulse dialing.  Allowed symbols are digits 0-9.
    R    Call in B-channel.  (Reverse calling.)
        Must occur last in the phone number dialled
    W    Wait for new dial tone
    ,    Wait number of seconds specified in S8 register
    ;    Returns modem to command state, allowing further
        (dialing) commands
    S    Dial stored number (see &Z command)
    @    Wait during number of seconds specified in S7 register
        for one or more ring indications followed by 5 seconds
        of silence before next command character is processed.
        Also: Waits for voice before proceeding.  [Norwegian
        pager services can be used this way, as well as
        automatic bank statement reports and/or transactions.]
    %    Waits for receipt tone [two tones alternating] from
        pager service [and others].  Returns OK if receipt
        tone is detected, otherwise NO ANSWER.
    <    Detection of dial tone from INMARSAT earth station.
                             ------------------

Dialling the "extra" tones severely screwed up a German PBX we had for
a while waiting for the ISDN connection at my office building.  I've
promised not to tell in which way it did, but it was entertaining to
listen to the explanations from the manufacturer.  Apparently, no one
is supposed to dial those "extra" tones, so they don't prepare for
them.

Finally, I don't know what, if any, correspondence the above
parameters have to "ordinary" Hayes command-sets, but at least the
Hayes dialer worked (before I switched to V.25bis).  I just tested the
V.25bis interface, and it too sends distinct tones corresponding to
the A, B, C, and D keys.  (V.25bis itself does not mention Q.31 or
these "extra" tones.)


[Erik]

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

From: Bill Fenner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 28 Apr 90 17:53:28 GMT
Organization: Penn State University Engineering Computer Lab


My ATI 2400etc understands ABCD as dialing characters. If you want to
give it a command after the dial string you must end the phone number
with a ; and then give it the command.  Anything between ATD and ; is
taken as either a digit or a dialing command (pause [,], tone [T],
pulse [P], reverse mode [R]).  The ; is only necessary if I want to
add commands after the end; I can just hit enter after the phone
number and it'll dial just like any other Hayes-ish modem.  So, if I
dail ATDT 123-4567A it will send 8 digits, but if I say ATDT
123-4567;A, well, it'll dial 7 digits and then do something ... what, I
couldn't tell you. :-)  Probably hang up and then try to answer.


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

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 28 Apr 90 18:26:26 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Ah, abuse.  But your wish is my command ...  From the manual for the
Prometheus ProModem 2400G:

 Dn    _Forces the ProModem 2400G into Originate Mode and Dial a Number_

   Parameters: n = the digits of a telephone number and special commands
                   to tell the modem how to dial the number

               P    Pulse Dial
               T    Tone Dial
               R    Originate Call in Answer mode
               W    Wait for dial tone before dialing
               ,    Pause in dial sequence
               ;    Return to command mode
               0 through 9    pulse and tone dialing digits
               A,B,C,D,# and *    tone dialing digits
               @    Wait for quite Answer Before dialing
               !    Initiate a flash
               S    Dial a stored number

 In a simple dial string, s would be the number that you wished to dial.

 The comma, W, R, and semicolon commands can also be put into the dial
 string to pause two seconds, wait for dial tone detection, dial in answer
 mode and return to command mode after dialing respectively.  These commands
 are described in greater detail under their respective headings in this
 section.

 To dial a stored number from the nonvolatile RAM (see &Z command to see
 how to store a number in the nonvolatile RAM) you use the D command but
 followed immediately by the command S.  For example:

     ATDS<cr>         (This dials a number stored in nonvolatile RAM)
     ATS0=1DT9WS<cr>  (This dials out a tone digit 9 then waits for dial
                      tone and then dials the stored number.  This may be
                      used when dialing from PBX's)

 The S command will display the number when it is dialed allowing you to
 see what number is stored in the nonvolatile RAM.

 Each of the other dialing commands are explained in detail by themselves
 in this chapter.  See Dialing Commands at the beginning of this chapter for
 page reference.
                      -----------------------

It's not explicitly stated, but I believe the semicolon is used after
a dial string to allow you to enter other commands.  From another
section of the same manual:

 multiple commands   Multiple commands may be entered on one command line.
                     It is not necessary to separate multiple commands on
                     the line, but you may insert a space for clarity if
                     you wish.  All command lines must begin with AT, but
                     only one AT is allowed for each command line.  Multiple
                     commands may be no longer than 40 characters.
                     (ex. ATDT6519196; E0 O)
                     To dial number longer than the command buffer length
                     you can use the ; command at the end of the dial
                     string.  The ; causes the modem to return to command
                     state so that a second dial string can be issued.

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

I can't find any other references to the semicolon command.  Index?
We don' need no STEENKING index!

I tried dialing A, B, C, and D today.  No problem.  The following
strings all seemed to work:

    ATDTA
    ATDTB
    ATDTABCD
    ATDT123ABC
    ATDT11AA11

I didn't recognize the tones the modem generated for A, B, C, or D so
I assume it's generating the right stuff.  Since I couldn't bend the
modem to my will to make it dial before it gets a dialtone I just sent
those digits to the local telco.  The phone cops are probably on the
way to my apartment right now!  :-)


Steve King, uunet!motcid!king

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 17:39:32 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies


Our Moderator, Patrick Townson, asks (EXTREMELY loosely paraphrased)
in Telecom Digest 10.291: 'But how can the Hayes modem tell an
'A' in 'AT DT 994 2341 A' as a command to dial the A touch-tone
frequency pair rather than to switch to answer mode?'

Basically, the same way that a BASIC interpreter can tell what you
mean when you say 10 PRINT "GOTO 10" ...  If the A, B, C, or D comes
after the D ('dial') command on the line but before the semicolon (;),
it knows that you want to dial it.  Really simple context-sensitive
parsing.

Sorry, that was the least clear I've been in a long time.  But I think
the point comes across.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls


Replying to: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>, in V.10, Iss. 287

 ..In a concise description of manual "long distance" traffic
operations, our Moderator includes:

>Larger cities were what might be termed, in Usenet parlance, 'backbone
>sites'. Calls were routed through the large cities along the way.

In fact, Patrick, operation of telephony and data networks is exactly
analagous, except that "phone people" insist on their use of the term,
"tandem" for a switching point that makes through connections and does
not necessarily service end users.  For whatever reason, it seems very
difficult to get the Yin and Yang of Voice and Data together to admit
they perform many directly equivalent processes.


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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 12:53:24 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem problems on Sprint


   What I didn't say in my article is that I called the vendor of the
Echo Canceller (Tellabs) and received a practice sheet (actually, more
like a thin book) on it.  The canceller handles an entire T1 channel,
and has many many programming options which can be set via the front
panel or through an RS-232 port.  The echo canceller is an adaptive
digital filter which computes coefficients to cancel the echo.  V.32
modems already have cancellers built in and don't want any help.  The
Trailblazer is 1/2 duplex and doesn't need cancellation, but it does
need consistant gain.  The problem seems to come from two things.  One
is that the new cancellers can use a longer coefficient matrix to
handle delays as long as 96ms.  Unfortunately, they seem to be set up
so that if there is silence, they trash the old set of coefficients
and retrain on the next sound. If they are also set up to support the
longest delay (96ms), the training period can be quite long.

Unless the digital routing of the circuit changes dynamically, I fail
to see why it should be necessary to set the thing up to retrain at
all, unless it is likely that the original training coefficients are
frequently derived incorrectly.

What do you think ?


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia


Replying to: [e-mail] (William R. Pearson)
 in Digest V. 10, Iss. 287, 26 Apr 90

Pearson writes:

>My favorite (?) ancient pay-phone experience took place in
>Beaver (I believe) Utah.....I put in my dime, but got nothing.  After
>looking around for a while, I found the crank for the (?) generator.
>After cranking and another dime, I got the operator......

That compares with my nostalgia for the old British Post Office "A and
B-button boxes" now off the scene in a technology putsch that swept
England.  Long after STD (Subscriber Trunk Dialing for you Americans
with prurient minds!) was common, remote parts of England still had
these boxes in country hotels and the like.  They could accept only
the huge old English pennies and the brass 3d coins, but a call might
add up to a pound if you talked a while to London.  The result: the
sucker required 240 coins inserted!

The operation was simple, "Insert the amount of money for your call.
Pick up the handset and dial your desired call, STD or otherwise.  If
you hear the party you want answer the call, press Button A to be able
to speak to them.  (It collected the coins and enabled your
transmitter.)  If you do not hear the party you want, press Button B.
(It disconnected the call and returned the coins.)

This operation had been so widespread in England that most people
answered their telephone by stating their number as an accommodation
for the likely caller from a coin phone.  The technical beauty was, of
course that the "A and B Button" boxes could operate on any ordinary
exchange line.  The potential for fraud is of course, equally obvious.

Nevertheless, I really wanted to get one of those here for use as a
nostalgia phone out by the pool in Florida. but was saddened to find
that British Telecom ripped them all out and trashed all but a very
few museum pieces some years ago.  I have a thread that some few might
still be found in Ireland, but have no route to research that.

The British "A and B button boxes" had a minor parallel here in some
rural American areas where the caller controlled collection of the
coin(s) if the desired party was heard answering. I have very vague
recall of encountering these once or twice 40 or 50 years ago.

In fact, answering with one's number probably would be a good move in
today's confused world of change in telecommunications.  It is no real
harm for a published number, and subject only to the paranoia level of
the called party, where only a small probability exists that the
caller didn't know what number they wanted, anyway.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #294
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10405;
          29 Apr 90 4:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25719;
          29 Apr 90 2:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25064;
          29 Apr 90 1:33 CDT
Date:     Sun, 29 Apr 90 1:01:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #295
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Apr 90 01:00:33 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 295

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Party Lines [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Larry Lippman]
    No Cellular Compatibility, US <--> UK [John R. Covert]
    Question Regarding Code-a-phone Service [Steve M. Kile]
    How to Simulate a Telephone Line? [Ross Oliver]
    ``Thank you for using AT&T'' [Steve Friedl]
    AT&T IDDD From Payphones [Linc Madison]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Party Lines


Responding in part to Mr. Levin's remarks:

> We were 447-J, and our neighbor was 447-R.  Legend had
>it that "J" meant "Jack" and "R" meant "Ring" indicating which of two
>named buttons the operator had to push to ring one of our phones.  On
>four-party lines the suffix letters were -J, -R, -M, and -W.  I have
>no idea what, if anything, these were supposed to stand for.

While I can not name a source, the early Bell "letter suffixes" for
party line ringing codes probably were no more than legend.  Here's my
parallel reasoning:

The much-mentioned "meanings" of the "E and M" signaling leads for
toll circuits were no more than a happenstance of being named wires
"E" and "M" on drawings of their first use.  The drawing number was
once named to me by an "old-timer."  However, over the years, people
attached meanings to them, largely in an effort to provide "memory
hooks" for students to learn the function.  Hence, it is commonly said
the E and M designations were "chosen" to stand for "RecEive" and
"TransMit," or even "Ear" and "Mouth," which is descriptive of their
function.

However, I feel quite confident the author of the terminology had no
such intent.  The apparent randomness of the sequence "J,R,M,W" leads
me to suggest that as with examples like the E and M leads, the party
line "ringing codes" were merely wire designations on the schematic
drawing of the switchboard; nothing more.

Later, Mr.Levin says:

>The procedure for calling our neighbor was to tell the operator that
>this was what we wanted to do.  She would have us hang up and ring
>both phones.  When the ringing stopped, the neighbor had answered, and
>we could pick up our phone and talk.

And today, right here in Safety Harbor, with nice, new, modern
Northern Telecom electronic exchange equipment,the same procedure
still applies, except that you dial the number of the party you want.
The result will be a recording that tells you what the operator once
said, and you follow the same procedure and assumptions Mr. Levin
described in the manual era.

Ain't it marvelous how in reality all we really accomplish with our
vaunted "high technology" is the automation of manual tasks?  If you
think you can do _any_ better, just _try_ to get the boss to approve
developing a product that does anything different ... unless you can
make the process look like something the boss never saw before.

But, that has happened, too.  If you _do_ know the way it was once
done, you can see some products that are really a different approach
at performing a former manual function.  The problem here is that if
you really study the history of the process, these often turn out to
be a discarded method that was once identified to have some
shortcoming by the earliest experimenters.  The whole matter places
developers in a real Hobson's Choice situation when it comes to
effecting significant improvement in how we do things.

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

Subject: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Date: 28 Apr 90 15:32:32 EST (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Irving Wolfe) writes:

   (quoting Peter da Silva)

> >What I don't understand...
> >Why would anyone be using a party line service in 1990?

> Because there are still garbage phone companies throughout the
> country, like Telephone Utilities here, who won't string new lines as
> an area grows unless they absolutely have to; even then, it takes
> forever.  Except for business lines at business rates, they are
> apparently free to say, "You can have a party line in a couple of
> weeks.  If you want a private line, we can put your name on a list to
> get one when someone relinquishes one."  When there's enough backlog
> to generate an instant payback on the new lines, they'll finally send
> a crew out to do something.

    I don't believe there is an operating telephone company
anywhere that does not share your desire to replace party lines.
Party lines require more complex CO apparatus, are a CO maintenance
headache, and are an outside plant maintenance headache since
generally when one subscriber goes down, all subscribers go down.
Many 4-party circuits still require ONI for toll call identification.

    What you totally fail to comprehend, however, is the
significant costs associated with extending outside cable plant.  Let
me give you an example of what it would cost to extend a 100-pair 24
AWG cable on an aerial route a total of JUST 2 MILES.  I am assuming
H88 loading because you probably wouldn't have party lines if you are
less than 20 kft from the CO, anyhow.

10,560 ft     24 AWG 100-pr "figure-8" self-supporting
        cable                    $  17,000

50 sets        Pole hardware                $   1,000

20 sets        Ready access boots & hardware        $   1,500

8 sets        Splice cases with splices        $   1,500

2 sets        H88 loading coils with cases        $   2,000
                                                        ---------
        Materials subtotal            $  23,000


200 man-hr    Installation of pole hardware and
        running of unterminated cable        $   4,000

80 man-hr    Install 8 splice cases and 2 loading
        coil cases, and make splices        $   1,600

80 man-hr    Install 20 ready access boots        $   1,600

20 man-hr    Test all 100 pairs from CO to end of
        circuit, and create outside plant
        records                    $     400

75 man-hr    CO work to rewire 50 subscribers and
        assign to new line equipment        $   1,500

150 man-hr    Outside plant work to reterminate
        drop wires, cut-in pairs at ready access
        boots and rewire or replace 50 subscriber
        stations                $   3,000
                                                        ---------
        Labor subtotal                $  12,100

        Grand total                $  35,100

        Investment for 50 subscribers, per line    $     702

NOTE:    The above labor rate is $ 20.00 per hour with some burden
    thrown in.  This may be reasonable for a smaller independent
    operating telephone company, but it is absurdly low for say
    a BOC or GTE.  In general, my estimate should be on the
    *low* side of actual cost.


    The above scenario assumes a 50% future growth, which is a
reasonable reserve for rural cable plant installation.  Revenue to
offset outside plant investment is assumed from 50 subscribers.  The
investment cost, based upon 50 subscribers is $ 702.00 per subscriber.

    How quickly do you think a small independent operating
telephone company can recoup the $ 702.00 per subscriber?  If the
party line service were forcibly withdrawn and monthly rates raised by
$ 10.00 per subscriber (which would create a minor revolution in most
communities!), it would still require SIX YEARS to recover the cost of
investment.

    Actually, it is neither reasonable to assume that all 50
subscribers can be made to subsidize the cost of investment, nor is it
reasonable to assume that rates can be increased by $ 10.00 per month.
Some subscribers will *insist* upon retaining the party line at party
line rates, so no new revenue will come from them.  The result is that
the return on investment period is closer to TEN YEARS.

    Even if the telephone company elected to make the outside
plant upgrade, it has to *borrow* the money from somewhere, usually
from the REA or through issue of bonds.  So now we have an interest
expense that I have not even considered.

    Many people have the false impression that an independent
operating telephone company is making oodles of money and that failure
to provide equipment and plant upgrades are the result of *greed*.
Wrong.  Times have changed.  Materials are expensive.  Labor and
burden is expensive.  Look at my example above, and tell me where the
money is going to come from?  Santa Claus?

> Does anyone know anything about starting a local telephone cooperative to
> wipe these bums out of business, or is that a pipe dream?

    You obviously feel that you know more than the "bums" running
your local independent operating telephone company.  Why don't you
simply tell them your "secret" of circumventing the economic realities
that I have outlined above?  With the benefit of your sage advice, I'm
certain they'll begin the job forthwith.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
UUCP:    {boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
TEL: [phone] || FAX: [phone]      {utzoo|uunet}!/     \aerion!larry

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 07:31:02 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  28-Apr-1990 1019" <[e-mail]>
Subject: No Cellular Compatibility, US <--> UK


>Are US cellular phones compatible with the cellular service offered in
>other countries (Particularly the UK).

The U.S. and U.K. systems, although similar, are completely
incompatible.  Both channel assignments and protocol differ.  The U.S.
uses a system called "Advanced Mobile Phone System" (AMPS); the U.K.
uses a system called TACS (compatible with ETACS).  In a few years,
all of Europe will be using a system called "GSM" (Global Standard
Mobile?), but it is not likely to be compatible with the digital
system expected to be used in the U.S. in the same time frame.

You can rent a portable from various car rental agencies upon arrival
in the U.K., Germany, and some other countries.

The following chart indicates cellular compatibility.  Note, however,
that the existence of compatible systems does not guarantee that the
cellular provider in that country will provide service to a phone not
purchased through one of their dealers nor that it is even legal to
bring the phone into the country.

American Samoa        AMPS        American Samoa Government (PTT)
Argentina        AMPS        Companie de Radio Commun. Mobiles (CRM)
Australia        AMPS        Telecom Australia (PTT)
Austria            NMT-450        PTV
Bahamas            AMPS        Bahamas Telecomms Corp.
Belgium            NMT-450        PTT
Bermuda            AMPS        Bermuda Telephone Co., Ltd.
Brazil            AMPS
British Virgin Islands    AMPS        CCT Boatphone
Canada            AMPS        Cantel (A) or Local Telco (B)
Cayman Islands        AMPS        Cable & Wireless
China (PRC)        TACS/NMT    PTT
Denmark            NMT-450/900    PTT
Dominican Republic    AMPS        Codetel
Finland            NMT-450/900    PTT
France            Radiocom 2000    PTT
            NMT-450
Hong Kong        AMPS & TACS    Hutchison Radio
            TACS        Hong Kong Telephone
            ETACS        Pacific Link
Iceland            NMT-450        PTT
Indonesia        NMT        PTT
Ireland            TACS-900    PTT
Israel            AMPS        Motorola Tadiran
Italy            RTMS        SIP
Jamica            AMPS        JTC
Japan            NAMTS        NTT & others
Kenya            AMPS        Kenya PTC
Kuwait            NAMTS        PTT
Luxembourg        NMT-450        PTT
Malaysia        NMT-450        JTM
Mexico            AMPS        DGT
Netherlands        NMT-450        PTT
Netherlands Antilles    AMPS        East Carribean Cellular, N.V.
New Zealand        AMPS        PTT
Norway            NMT-450/900    PTT
Oman            NMT        PTT
Panama            AMPS
Philippines        AMPS        1) PLDT 2) Express
St. Kitts & Nevis    AMPS        CCT Boatphone
Saudi Arabia        NMT        PTT
Singapore        AMPS        The Telecommunications Authority
South Korea        AMPS        Korea Telecomms Authority
Spain            NMT-450        La Co. Telefonica Nacional de Espana
Sweden            NMT-450/900    PTT
Switzerland        NMT-900        PTT
Taiwan            AMPS
Thailand        AMPS        CATS
            NMT-450        TOT
Tunisia            NMT-450        PTT
Turkey            NMT-450        PTT
United Arab Emirates    TACS        PTT
United Kingdom        TACS-900    1) Cellnet 2) Vodaphone
Venezuela        AMPS        CANTV
West Germany        C-Netz        PTT
Zaire            AMPS        Telecel

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question Regarding Code-a-phone Service
Date: Sat, 28-Apr-90 12:03:21 PDT


I have a Code-a-phone model 2570 answering machine that recently went
belly up.  The problem is in a clutch mechanism on the incoming
message tape.  I've called Code-a-phone twice and they claim that they
do not provide service for this unit any longer (it's only about four
years old.)  They also refused to sell parts for this unit.  They
referred me to a service center in my state (Jay-En in Duluth, MN) but
those folks didn't seem too interested in my problem either.

I was wondering if anyone out in netland knew of a service center for
Code-a-phone products (specifically the model 2570) or knew where I
could obtain parts.  I would be interested in a defective unit that I
could disassemble for parts.

Thanks.


Steve Kile
[e-mail]
N0FBL @ WA0CQG

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

From: Ross Oliver <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Simulate a Telephone Line?
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 90 22:49:23 PDT
Reply-To: Ross Oliver <[e-mail]>


I am getting ready to demonstrate a fax device at a trade show.  Since
there will be no phone lines available at the booth, I need some sort
of black box to go between my fax device and a regular fax machine.
From a company called Teltone, I have located a telephone line
simulator.  This device presents two regular phone line connections.
DTMF tones on one line cause a ring signal on the other.  However, the
device costs $379, which is more than my budget allows.  Are there
less expensive devices available?  I don't really need ring signals or
DTMF decoding.  Are there any devices that provide a minimal
connection?  How difficult would it be to build a box that would do
this?

Thanks for any info,


Ross Oliver
[e-mail] or ..uunet!sco!rosso

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

From: Steve Friedl <mtndew![e-mail]>
Subject: ``Thank You For Using AT&T''
Date: 28 Apr 90 17:04:05 GMT
Organization: Steve's Barnburner 386


Hi folks,

     Is there *any* place in the country where a 0+ payphone call will
be routed over AT&T but will say just "Thank you"?  I was at a
payphone in the Ft. Myers, Florida airport, and it was marked that
AT&T would handle 0+ calls.  When I dialed my number, I heard just
"thank you" after my number.  Thinking that they were lying about the
carrier, I dialed 10288 before, but I got the same thing.  I finished
my call, and then called the operator with 10288 00.

     I asked if this was the AT&T operator, and she said it was.  I
asked why the thank-you message didn't include "for using AT&T", and
she said that it was not turned on yet.  After a while, it turns out
that they provided services to AT&T on contract in that part of the
country, and that they weren't actually AT&T.  I suspect that it's
United Telephone.

     Is there something funny going on here?


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

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 16:06:09 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T IDDD From Payphones
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 288, Message 3 of 11

>To the best of my
>knowledge AT&T's IDDD is blocked from coin phones. So while it may be
>possible to misdial overseas to some place like Fiji on "one of those
>other carriers", it won't happen on AT&T since you can't dial outside
>of North America from a pay station!

Someone else mentioned that, yes, indeed, AT&T *does* allow
international calls from pay phones.  I think that the blocking that
AT&T does is that some countries and/or some payphones are blocked, in
response to an unusually high number of fraudulent calling card calls.
So, for example, you might not be able to call Sri Lanka from Port
Authority Bus Terminal, but you could call Australia from a payphone
in an office building.

As to the issue of coin calls, I tried once dialing 011+etc. from a
pay phone, just to see what the mechanical voice said.  ("Please
insert $375.35 for the first three minutes...")  A real-live operator
came on to inquire as to whether I really was trying to call Sweden.
I didn't have oodles of pocket change and wasn't really calling
anyone, so I said it was a mistake.  However, I did see someone once
at a payphone with about three $10 rolls of quarters.  A friend who
lived in the apartment complex where I saw this said that some other
residents sometimes called home to India.  Of course, that was in
1982.


Linc Madison    =   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #295
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11688;
          29 Apr 90 5:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29094;
          29 Apr 90 3:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25719;
          29 Apr 90 2:42 CDT
Date:     Sun, 29 Apr 90 2:01:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #296
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Apr 90 02:00:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 296

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [TELECOM Moderator]
    "End of Number" Time-Out [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Dimension (tm) Features? [Mark Earle]
    ANI Note/Question [Mark Earle]
    Re: AT&T TV Ads [[e-mail]]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [D. Kimberlin]
    New Lows in 900 Service [Lang Zerner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 1:26:47 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant


In Volume 10, Issue 295 Larry Lippman discusses the high cost of labor
and materials involved in upgrading a telephone company these days. He
is right, it does cost a lot of money.

What he neglects to mention though, is that eventually it is paid for,
and the continuing revenue at that point is almost pure profit. While
the economics were quite a bit different in the early years of this
century, still, AT&T spent a heck of a lot of money both on inside and
outside plant. The first transcontinental cable (was it the early
twenties?) cost a fortune -- even by money standards seventy years ago
 -- but it finally was amortized.

And the millions of dollars telcos are spending to upgrade from
crossbar to ESS: where is that money coming from?  Part of it comes
from the folks who buy all the fancy new features available, and the
rest comes from investors and telco reserves.  Who paid for TAT-8 when
it was installed a year ago?  AT&T and their several partners paid
millions for that fiber-optic underseas cable, but the assumption is
when it is paid for, it will start making a mint for everyone
involved.

People (and that includes telco investors) put their money into what
they think will eventually bring a profit. Larry's calculations are
probably correct, assuming subscriber rates could be raised to pay for
it. Suppose they can't be, and instead of it paying for itself in ten
years, it takes almost twenty years?  The point is, we've got outside
plant in Chicago which has been in use for *sixty* years. The wire
lasts a long, long time. And once it is paid for, it keeps right on
turning an almost 100 percent profit for its owners, allowing for what
repair is required from time to time.

I think the same consideration has to be given to party line service.
The conversion would cost an arm and a leg, but if they plan it right,
and install enough new cable to account for anticipated needs -- not
for today -- but the next half century or so -- it will pay off.

Speaking of foresight: In the 1920's - 1930's, Illinois Bell was
installing *two* pairs to every apartment in new buildings constructed
in that era. Yet who in those days had two residence lines? Today, I
can go into an old apartment-hotel highrise, and the jack on the wall
in almost every apartment will have two pairs. If I want a second line
for my modem, etc ... no sweat. The phone is turned on with little
effort, and Illinois Bell charges an 'installation fee' which is
mostly profit.  That is how it is done.

If those little independent telcos want to go with private service, as
Larry contends, then they would be working up a master plan to carry
them through the year 2050 at least, installing the cable and doing it
right. Even assuming zero profit for many years on this, there will be
at least twice as many more years of *big* profits. It will average
out in telco's favor.


Patrick Townson


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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "End of Number" Time-Out


Replying to: Moderator's remarks supplementing " 72 & 73 From Rotary
Dial Phone, from Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>, Digest V. 10,
Iss. 286, 25 Apr 90

In adding to the discussion, our Moderator brings up the issue of how
to handle "End of Selection" or "End of Number" time-out delays one
can encounter in various situations, for example, dialing simply "0"
and waiting:

>[Moderator's Note: A couple other undocumented time-outs you can
>avoid are the ones caused by entering only the four digits of your PIN
>when calling the number assigned to the card (enter a # at the end to kill
>the time-out and start the processing), and the one caused by the 0 oper-
>ator, which has to time-out to see if you want the operator or are actually
>zero-plussing a call.  In Chicago (and perhaps other places), 0# shoves the
>call straight to the operator without waiting for more.   PT]

In fact, while the earliest Bell Labs remarks are always cited to say
that the characters * and # on subscriber keypads were simply "left
for future use," the use of # for "End of Number Selection" has become
rather widely used, but not promoted to the public very much.  I have
some recall that on items like DDD user instructions, the use of # has
been at times in the past mentioned ... perhaps even in directory
instructions, but as is typical in local telephone satrapies, not
placed on instruction cards in booths apparently because no one put it
on the standard, orderable instruction card that came with the coin
phone.

I am stranded here without a reference set of the CCITT Recommendations,
but if one of our equipped participants will kindly check the CCITT
"E" and "Q" Series, I think it will be found the CCITT adopted "#" for
a standard "End of Number" character some years ago.  It would simply
parallel the "+" standardized in Telex in the "S" Series for "End of
Number" on a Baudot Telex keyboard.

And, while meandering these dusty halls, I wonder how many computer
users know that most of the <control> characters in our ASCII
character set are really rather direct translations of teleprinter
operations from the 1930's?  Example: <ctrl-G> is really a direct
translation of "Who Are You?" <figs-D> in Baudot Telex operations.
Users of CrossTalk comms software are often puzzled, because the stock
software comes with the phrase "Crosstalk-(whatever)" written in it,
and it will respond to a received <ctrl-G> from the far end ... any
time, just like an old Telex machine.  Why?  Because the writers of
Crosstalk are simply being "standards-compliant" and providing the
"answerback" the standards call for in ASCII (CCITT International
Telegraph Alphabet 5) as regards the use of <ctrl-G>.

What amazes me is that so many computer users have no knowledge of
these provisions already in the standards to perform some routine
functions.  Rather, they go off to higher levels of their networks, at
more tenuous layers of the connection, to perform such checks.  Then,
they wonder why it's so difficult and indirect to "manage" data
networks.  I often chuckle at the CrossTalk "answerback problem" they
cite.  It only shows they have yet much to learn about some real
basics of managing communications networks.

But, don't we all quote Professor Santayana's, "Those who refuse to
learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them (sic)"?  When
will people learn the same applies to telecommunications technology?


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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 19:55:28 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dimension (tm) Features


Do any readers have (in brief) good/bad points of AT&T's Dimension,
and capabilities? We seem to have:

Call waiting
Call forwarding immediate
Call forward after 3rd ring
Hold
Access to local lines (dial 9+) instate long distance (dial
5+) and AT&T ld (dial 8+)

The first three are on/off controlled by the user at each station,
with no easy way to, say, change forwarding from a remote phone, or
disable call waiting while on an "important" call.

Things I've really wanted to change:

Number of rings before the no answer forward. Three is too short to
get across the room sometimes, and then the call bounces to the
attendant, who bounces it back to me. Many folks just hang up if they
don't get me (or others in the building).

Cancel call waiting while on a call. At least it is possible to
permanently cancel call waiting!

Forward to an off-campus number.

Are there any things the user can typically do from a normal station?
Are there other 'goodies' that the administrator might be pursuaded to
enable? (If I knew what they were!)

Oh: an interesting quirk. We use instruments with an electronic (1 IC)
tone pad. As long as you press a button, it makes tone. Great for
checking answering machines, etc.  But, to get an outside line, it
seems to *always* give me a line if I press 9 for as short a time as
possible. Leaning on the 9 gives me a reorder/fast busy 99.9% of the
time.  Interesting, no?

Also, on campus calls are dialed with just the last three digits of the
"real" number.....  I.E., the number is 994-2xxx we can dial xxx on
campus.  994 is not used at all in the rest of town, so I guess we
could potentially go beyond 999 phones by using something other than
that '2' someday.


 | [e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]     |
 | CIS 73117,351                MCI Mail to: MEARLE     |
 | My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0         |
 | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University   |
 |Now in the A&M System [] "The System is The Solution  |

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 19:54:01 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI Note/Question


ANI for numbers in my area (Corpus Christ, TX 512-) seems to be on any
9xx exchange, dial 980, get rings, and voice made up of live (female)
voice segments to read back the number.

But that's the older exchange. (It is being upgraded to allow cancel
call forwarding, etc. It has call forwarding, conference calling,
speed dial.)

On the newer exchange, 8xx, I can't seem to find an ANI number. I know
you probably don't know, but if the 980 tips you to anything....

Anyhow -- I wish it would have worked. We (at work, CCSU) have
developed several crossed lines of late, some from 9xx and some from
8xx. The 9xx are easy to figure out. This is a result of AT&T being
the PBX (dimension) vendor, and Southwestern Bell being the local
operating company ... both guys seem to be in our phone closets often,
and apparently this makes things "interesting".


 | [e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]     |
 | CIS 73117,351                MCI Mail to: MEARLE     |
 | My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0         |
 | Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University   |
 |Now in the A&M System [] "The System is The Solution  |

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 1990 7:25:09 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T TV Ads


David Tamkin <[e-mail]> writes:

> AT&T has been no better. Instead of getting Fiji instead of Phoenix
> twice because the carrier can't process his dialing, he now gets
> Fiji once because he misdialed, ...

There are several versions of this commercial still being run
including the version with two misdialed calls to Fiji.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station?


Mr. Krieger writes:

>Of all the great mysteries of life, and the telephone book, one stands
>out; specifically, if I want to call the Mobil gas station about a
>mile from my home, why is it listed under "H" in the phone book
>instead of "M"?  The same goes for the Exxon station ("K" instead of
>"E") and the Amoco station ("B" instead of "A"). ....<and continues
>along this line.>

In response, our usually right-on-target Moderator comments:

>[Moderator's Note: They do not 'scatter the listings in some random
>order.' They use strict alphabetical order. The name of the place is
>'Benhams Amoco' -- not 'Amoco'.  Why are all the people with the first
>name 'Stan' scattered throughout the book instead of being listed
>together?  Why can't all the 'Stans' be listed together regardless of
>last name?  The purpose of the Yellow Pages (in which any business
>phone can have one *free* listing if desired) is to accomodate those
>folks who do not know one Amoco from another.  I've heard frivilous
<complaints before. This one takes the cake.  PT]

Well, I agree with the "strict alphabetical order," Patrick. But, the
nature of your response indicates you likely have never been exposed
to some of the more famously scurrilous characters of the industry,
known as "Yellow Pages salesmen."  They are famous for taking
advantage of the "strict alphabetical order" and stretching it to any
limit that will get a business to buy additional entries under every
conceivable heading in the book.

Think of a new heading?  They will _love_ you for it, because every
other similar business can now get harangued that they need to buy a
listing there, too.

Case in point: I had a career-girl aunt who dealt in ladies'
unmentionables for some seventy years of her very long life.  When it
became a fashion for women to wear "girdles," but not "corsets,"
(never!), the Yellow Pages people had only a listing for "corsets,"
for obvious historical reasons.  At that point, the trade had
innumerable small businesses in every town.  The nationwide story from
Yellow Pages sales people was, _your_ business is _corsets_, and
_that_ is where you get your free listing.  If you want women to know
you sell girdles, you will _have_ to buy that as an extra listing.
(Accompanied by some excuse about it being company policy, carrying an
implication that the always-unregulated Yellow Pages business had
God-given tariff protection and the PUC had something to do with it
and if you got into that, you might get your phone disconnected for
being a bad citizen and such ... the intimidation level from Yellow
Pages salesmen is horrendous, as are the rates!)

Anyhow, Aunt Lal learned the same thing about "hosiery" versus
"stockings" and the whole schmier of feminine finery.  There were two
names for everything and it was certain the Telco's only "free"
listing was the archaic name.

Now, I realize the parallel is not precise; that you are speaking of
alphabetizing the business owner's name, versus the brand name.
However, if you'll note, Yellow Pages have a similar offering within
the heading, with a box for all the dealers under their brand name.
But, the same applies.  Their basic "free" listing _cannot_ be in the
brand-name box.  They must pay extra for that one, usually at rates
you would not want to know about!

Frivolous?  Well, perhaps. But trivial?  Not in any monetary terms of
the revenues telcos pull out of setting business up so they almost
always need to buy multiple listings in the fabled Yellow Pages!

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 12:49:40 PDT
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Lows in 900 Service

 From [e-mail] Fri Apr 27 02:44:47 1990
Originally from: Nick Thompson ([e-mail])
Found across from Zippy in the Phoenix's NewPaper (Providence's weekly
entertainment/politics rag) this week:

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

                WOMEN IN JAIL
             Seek Boyfriends and Husbands

    Introducing America's most exciting dateline - for women who
will soon be released from jail . . . and men who want to meet them!

They're young and attractive.  They're sorry for what they've done.
And they haven't been with a man in a long, long time.  Can you help
them out?  Do you want to meet a woman who will really appreciate
being with you?

               CALL NOW - WOMEN IN JAIL

                1-900-535-JAIL
            THAT'S 1-900-535-5245

    THEY'RE GETTING OUT SOON AND THEY *NEED* YOUR COMPANY

         $1 min., $2 the first.  ADULTS ONLY


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #296
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22378;
          29 Apr 90 12:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06856;
          29 Apr 90 10:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01060;
          29 Apr 90 9:47 CDT
Date:     Sun, 29 Apr 90 9:42:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #297
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Apr 90 09:41:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 297

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID [D. Kimberlin]
    Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID [John Covert]
    Re: Directory Assistance [Andrew Boardman]
    Re: The Card [Andrew Boardman]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Roy Smith]
    Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls (Yin and Yang) [Roy Smith]
    Now It Can Be Told [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Living at Public Phones [Andrew Boardman]
    Service Manual For CT-301 [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ??


Steve writes:

>My local telco representative is telling me that there are now two
>kinds of DID service: Analog and Digital.

>He claims that the reason that they can't get the DID line working for
>me is that we ordered "digital DID" when we really wanted "analog DID".
>Have you heard of such a beast?  Digital DID???  Is this some sort of
>ISDN stuff?  Is my local telco staffed by pinheads?  Or am I truly
>uninformed about this DID stuff?

I suuspect that what has happened is that to get the cheapest price
for you in some bulk pricing deal, the tariff specifies that the Telco
will use T-1 facilities to get the lines to your premisies.  This is
tghe basis of things like AT&T's Megacom or MCI's Prism, and the same
technology could equally well be used tohaul a bulk of DID trunks to
you.  Now, of course, that means special arrangements to get a T-1
span line to you, and perhaps some channel banks on your premises to
break them all back out to individual analog lines, so it looks the
same as copper pairs.

As poorly-educated about the technology they sell as most Telco "sales
reps" are, there's a good chance, this is what you're being told is
"Digital DID."

Whose fault is it?  Well, you could be as culpable as that sales rep,
if you don't know any better than that they can do this.  If you
didn't you could have just said "yes" at the cheapest price for bulk,
and sent that rep off keying in a USOC code that got you all kinds of
neat technology.  If that's the case, you got what you ordered,
through your own lack of knowledge.

And, by the way, there are legal cases cropping up around the nation
that the Telcos are winning on, claiming that you, the buyer, are
presumed to have "constructive knowledge" about what you are buying.

If you aren't smart about these matters, get smart ... or get someone
who is smart about them to support you. It could get very expensive.

At the risk of extreme triteness, I will say, "This is _not_ your
father's phone business anymore!" (Apologies to Oldsmobile TV
commercials.)

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 05:53:16 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  29-Apr-1990 0843" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ??


>My local telco representative is telling me that there are now two
>kinds of DID service: Analog and Digital.  This is in addition to the
>other parameters for DID: Wink/Immediate, Pulse/Tones, #-of-digits.

Your local telco is correct.  Although they may be confused about many
things, in this particular case they are not pinheads.

Modern PBXs are now capable of accepting full T1 connections directly
from the C.O. rather than requiring a separate trunk card for each
trunk.  If your serving central office is a No. 5 ESS, you get a truly
digital connection, possibly all the way from an originating PBX on
the other side of the country, if it is making its outgoing calls on a
service that is also truly digital, such as AT&T Megacom.  If your
serving central office is an analog C.O., such as a No. 1 ESS, the
telco may still provide you digital DIDs, but in that case the telco
will have combined them from the individual analog lines at the C.O.

One nice thing about the digital DIDs from No. 5 ESSs: they also allow
outgoing calls, and they return proper answer supervision.  The bad
news is that although they're cheaper than the same number of analog
DIDs, in N.E.T. territory they're still more expensive than normal
C.O. PBX trunks, so we tend to provide enough to handle incoming
traffic to our PBXs, and use regular analog DODs for outgoing local
service.


/john

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 06:20:45 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Directory Assistance
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters


[e-mail] quoth:

>Very few pay phones seem to have phone books.  Calls to directory
>assistance are still free.  Also, most of the pay phones in the Boston
>area don't permit incoming calls.  This is a royal pain!

Down here in the New York Telephone half of the NYNEX empire, part of
the brutal new tarriff that is being requested of the PUC specifies a
50 cent charge on directory assistance from coin phones.  Of course,
the sum total of the changes is an *incredible* price hike on
everything (with the exception of cuts on touch-tone and such things
that NYNEX wants people to pick up; I haven't been able to talk to NYT
staff lately without being offered free hook-up to lots of "Custom
Calling" features); the general consensus seems to be that they are
requesting the world, and hoping that the PUC gives them anything.  If
my basic line charge goes from $7.55 to $15.03 (plus FCC, taxes, ad
nauseam) it will no longer profitable to use New York Telephone over
the local (awful) ROLM-provided service.  (You just have to love that
forced disconnect at 4:21 every morning while the switch goes to
lunch.)

If any fellow NYTel types missed the proposal, ask the PUC or NYT for
it.  A complete listing appeared in NY Times (and is hanging on my
office door) -- although the pamphlet mailed to NYT subscribers
contained no false information, it sort of glossed over the major
damage.  All this to make NYT (or was it NYNEX) "more attractive to
investors" -- there is no mention of an actual need for more $$$...


Andrew Boardman     no mail to [e-mail], MIT's ITS's are going to die
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 06:36:33 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters


[e-mail] quoth:

>Speaking of the card, has anyone called for just information and
>gotten it?  I called when the card was first announced here (three,
>four weeks ago?), and told the operator I just wanted information.
>She took my name and address, but I haven't received anything.  Are
>they just slow, or have they already decided I don't qualify? :-)

I doubt it.  Of the 3 people I know of who requested written
information (including me) *none* of them received it.  (For the
record, I requested it on or about the Thursday of the week that "The
Card" was first available.)

I'd love to hear some contradictory experiences, but I just read two
more cases in TELECOM of exactly the same thing happening.


Andrew Boardman     no mail to [e-mail], MIT's ITS's are going to die
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 10:22:29 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


Larry Lippman says:

> What you totally fail to comprehend, however, is the significant costs
> associated with extending outside cable plant.  Let me give you an example
> of what it would cost to extend a 100-pair 24 AWG cable on an aerial route
> a total of JUST 2 MILES.

    And then gives a cost breakdown totalling $35k, half of which
is the cost of the copper-conductor cable itself.  What I'm wondering
is if there is some cheaper way of doing it.  How much would it cost,
for example, to run a single pair (possibly stealing an existing
party-line pair) and run T2 over it, giving you 96 voice circuits (if
I'm not mistaken)?  Obviously you need a mux at both ends (the
SLC-96's discussed on this list a few months ago?) and power at the
remote end to make it work, but it sounds like it might be a lot
cheaper than the route Larry described.  Maybe you could do it even
cheaper and just use T1 to get 24 virtual pairs, if that's all you
need for the next couple of years.


Roy Smith,
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls (Yin and Yang)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 13:56:20 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

> it seems very difficult to get the Yin and Yang of Voice and Data together
> to admit they perform many directly equivalent processes.

    I just came back from the PSINet/NYSERNet internetworking
tutorial meeting.  During one of the talks, Marty Schofferstall said,
with great conviction and authority, that if you took all the other
networks in the world (Bitnet, UUCPNet, all the X.25s, MCIMail, etc)
and put them together, they wouldn't even come close to the size of
The Internet.  I was tempted to ask what would happen if you compared
all of those (including The Internet) to the wordwide telephone
network, but didn't have the heart.  My guess is that from the phone
on my desk, I can ring O(1e9) telephones, but from my Sun workstation,
I can only ping O(1e5) IP objects.


Roy Smith,
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy

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

Date: Sat, 28 Apr 90 15:00 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Now It Can be Told


Replying to: Telecom Moderator, in Issue 287, 26 Apr 90, on Manual
Long Distance Operations.

In the cited remark, our Moderator says:

>It finally became possible for the long distance operators to dial
>direct to the city involved, although they could not always dial the
>actual number desired. Sometimes the best they could do was dial
>direct to a nearby city and have that operator pass them along. There
>were special codes dialed to reach 'inward'
(and our Moderator goes on to describe other functions.)

In fact, the universal code for the "inward" (assistance) operator was
(and is) 121 ... but hold it phreakers ... dialable only on a trunk,
and in need to being preceded by a "TTC Code" to steer the call to any
other than the major center of an area code.  As an example, dialing
312121 would get the Chicago Inward Operator, while to do the same for
Peoria, might, for example, require 312495121, to steer the call to
Peoria via Chicago.

Being assigned to the Private Line Testboard at Miami in the mid-
1960's meant that Sunday was a day at premium pay to read the entire
newspaper or whatever one chose to do, for essentially the PL Board
went crazy 8 to 5 Monday to Friday, then idled down for the weekend as
business went home.  Even the 7-day, 24-hour businesses like airlines
and hospitals had few failures, because nobody had their fingers in
the Telco plant, pulling down circuits or messing up adjustments.

The construction industry wasn't even around to dig up cables nor were
the intercity microwave people out there messing up systems. Pretty
good watch, really, exceeded only by the night shift, at which people
really _did_ sleep.  (Our highest-seniority man held onto that shift,
on which he developed the skill to sleep on 4 operator's chairs lined
up along the testboard.  We'd find him there snoozing each morning.

He was getting ready for his day in his stockbroker's office, trading
his way to riches.)

Anyhow, in support of our deadly serious work of being able to reach
other cities even if the local Southern Bell network failed, we had a
couple of direct accesses called ATOC's in local parlance.  These were
manually dialable lines hardwired right to the 4A switching ma- chine
across the street, and we could manually input anything a local sender
or an operator position might send to the machine.  Of course, we had
a small handbook sized directory of the various TTC codes and service
functions for the nation.

The story gets really good when we discovered that we could dial Area
Code 809 (Puerto Rico) and Area Code 808 (Hawaii) on the ATOC and put
in service codes.  Now, the poor operators who were stuck with
answering 121 to "assist" other operators in completing troubled
connections never knew who would be calling them.  (And, in real
truth, Lily Tomlin's "Ernestine the Operator" characterizes many of
them.)

So, our "idle hours" trick was to dial 809121 on one ATOC and 808121
on the other, then connect the two together as the calls completed,
while we listened on the loudspeaker monitor as two Inward Operators
nine time zones (and often many cultures) apart argued about which had
called the other and who was going to assist who.  Diabolical, weren't
we?

(I sure hope the Statute of Limitations has run out on this story!)

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 06:31:37 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Living at Public Phones
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters


>[Moderator's Note: They probably would not get incoming calls in any
>event unless they stood around the pay phone waiting for them. Who is
>going to take a message and deliver it down the block to their home?
>But at least if the phone is there, they can make urgent outgoing
>calls.  PT]

When I was situated in Paris, I saw quite a few people (in an average
neighborhood, not the destitute or any such) who did not have a home
phone; I distinctly remember one man who was reliably in the same
phone booth at the same time each evening, doing his day's busness
with his papers spread about him (and perhaps receiving calls too).
With France Telecom's phone cards, calling from a public phone was the
same cost as calling from home, so using public phones was (pricewise)
a big win, quite unlike the US situation in that respect.  Finding a
public phone in Paris that takes coins (and is working!) is virtually
impossible nowadays.


Andrew Boardman     no mail to [e-mail], MIT's ITS's are going to die
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 9:22:44 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Service Manual For CT-301


My service manual for the Radio Shack CT-301 showed up in the mail
Saturday, and as you might suspect, it gave me a couple hours of good
reading and experiments last night.

I could hardly wait to get home from the post office box before I had
that jumper installed from Local to Ground ...  :)   More reports later
if I have any questions for you cellular experts out there.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #297
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16993;
          29 Apr 90 23:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24622;
          29 Apr 90 21:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16047;
          29 Apr 90 20:53 CDT
Date:     Sun, 29 Apr 90 20:12:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #298
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Apr 90 20:12:44 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 298

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Opt In America: Fiber Optics For All [Nigel Allen]
    Voice Information Services [Frank G. Kienast]
    Futzing With Your Cellular [Mark Seiden]
    Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [William R. Pearson]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [John Higdon]
    Re: Touch Tone Frequencies [Erik Naggum]
    Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: The Card [David Tampkin]
    Re: AT&T's Universal Card [Gary L. Dare]
    Re: ``Thank You For Using AT&T'' [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 12:55:39 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Opt In America: Fiber Optics For All


I've just received some literature from a Washington, D.C.-based lobby
group which calls itself "Opt In America: The Public Interest
Organization for the Information Age". (I don't think it's a public
interest organization. I think it's a telephone company front group.)

Opt In America wants to "remove the legal and regulatory boundaries
that are depriving Americans of the full benefits of a fiber optic
public telecommunications network." In other words, it wants to let
the telephone companies get into the cable television business.

The list of executives and board members on the organization's
letterhead includes the executive director of the NAACP, the sheriff
of Dallas County, and assorted broadcasters, ex-politicians and
lobbyists.  There are no telephone company officials listed.

I wouldn't mind telephone companies building and operating new cable
television systems, but if they were allowed to purchase existing
ones, I'm afraid the telcos would just bid sale prices up for cable
television companies, which would eventually result in higher monthly
cable rates.

I have heard enough horror stories about U.S. cable companies that I
suspect they may be fairly vulnerable on this issue.

If you want more information on Opt In America, write to:

 Mr. Greg Liscomb, National Coordinator
 Opt In America
 P.O. Box 18958
 Washington, D.C. 20036
 or telephone ([phone] or 800-321-6782.


 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (1:250/438)

Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:221/171
UUCP: uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!250!438!Nigel.Allen
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: Frank G Kienast <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Information Services
Date: 29 Apr 90 22:38:11 GMT


A recent article in [Computerworld] (Apr 2, p63) talks about dial-up
voice information systems.  It says that over fifty newspapers in the US
have some type of dial-up service where touch-tone users can retrieve
such things as recent news, weather reports, stock quotes, trivia,
etc.

I know of one such number, ran by the Virginian Pilot in Norfolk VA.
Services include news, weather for major US cities, stock quotes,
jokes, and horoscopes.  Of course, you get a commercial with each one.
[phone].

For fun, I'd like to compile a list of numbers for similar services.
If you know of one, please respond by E-mail.  Please include a brief
description of the service, and of charges if there are any besides
applicable long distance rates. If there is sufficient interest, I
will post the list.


In real life: Frank Kienast
Well: well![e-mail]
CIS: 73327,3073
V-mail: 804-980-3733

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 16:26:33 EDT
From: Mark Seiden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Futzing With Your Cellular


Watch out, your cellular provider is extending credit to you, and
so I'm surprised that you're not willing to accept whatever rules
they make for the purpose of extending credit.

It doesn't matter whether you intend to pay your bill or not, if
you're violating their rules you should go to jail.

Or am I not correctly remembering your argument re Lottor et al
a few weeks ago?


Mark Seiden, [e-mail], 203 329 2722


[Moderator's Note: Credit is a priviledge, not a right. So you accept
the creditor's lawful requirements or go without.  I didn't say go to
jail, I said go without (credit). But in my cellular service contract,
which would take precedence in any court of law over what some service
rep may or may not have said on the telephone, I see nothing about who
must or must not program the radio-phone. I see things about paying
the bill. The contract does say I cannot disrupt the service of
others, or disrupt the service in general, so I would assume if the
phone caused disruptions I'd be in violation. Any radio on which the
antenna has been replaced by a dummy-load during testing and
measurements is unlikely to disrupt.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)
Subject: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product
Date: 29 Apr 90 14:49:38 GMT
Organization: Summit NJ


It looks like the telcos are going to try to shove their latest
invasion of our rights, aka Caller ID, down our throats one way or
another.

During yesterday's New York Mets vs Houston Astros game on WWOR, I saw
two commercials for this totally useless (except for Police and Fire
Departments and Rescue Squads) feature.  In the ad I saw, NJ Bell is
trying to create a "market" for Caller ID by having an older brother
"teach" a younger sister to answer calls only from their mother's or
father's work number.  As I've said before about many of the other
fictitious reasons for Caller ID, an answering machine would serve the
exact same purpose, and would not violate my own rights as a caller.

I probably won't go through with it, but I'm toying with the idea of
writing a letter to WWOR informing them that Caller ID is a very
controversial topic, and not just a product being offered (the
difference between the two being that the purchase of most products
affects only the buyer, while Caller ID affects even those, like me,
who want nothing to do with it), and that if they continue to take ads
for this product, would they then please provide free air time for
opponents of the product to explain why it should not have ever been
allowed to see the light of day.


Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk


[Moderator's Note: The Digest will entertain *a few* (very few,
depending on my exact degree of crankieness at the time) replies to
Mr. Krieger. Probably the first half-dozen or so will be printed.
Please *do not quote him*. Paraphrase him, or better still, just
respond. More than a line or two of quotes will be removed.  Shorter
messages (not longer than his original text) will be given priority in
printing.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (William R. Pearson)
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant
Reply-To: [e-mail] (William R. Pearson)
Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 18:12:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:

>If those little independent telcos want to go with private service, as
>Larry contends, then they would be working up a master plan to carry
>them through the year 2050 at least, installing the cable and doing it
>right. Even assuming zero profit for many years on this, there will be
>at least twice as many more years of *big* profits. It will average
>out in telco's favor.

    Our moderator seems to suggest that a small local telephone
company should be able to make the same investments in the '90's that
Illinois Bell made in the '30's.  I suspect that, in some sense, they
are.  Interest costs were perhaps 2-3% per year then, so it made sense
to make an investment that might not pay off for 30 years.  Today,
they are 10% minimum.  And in the 30's, it would have been hard to
loose money investing in cities.  In the '90's, one would have to
question an investment in rural Alabama, or even rural southern
Illinois for that matter.  There are many places in this country where
there simply is not going to be any substantial growth for the next 50
or 100 years, if the trends for the past 10 - 50 years are any
indication.

    When you put the low propects for pay back together with the
fact that there just aren't many investors in small local phone
companies, I can certainly see why party lines persist.

    By your argument, every individual, regardless of his means
(or credit rating), should purchase the most reliable automobile and
own it forever.  I suspect that it makes better economic sense, and is
much more practical, to buy a $500 junker and drive it till it dies.
(Wouldn't make for very good phone service though.)


Bill Pearson

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant
Date: 29 Apr 90 12:30:02 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Apr 29 at  2:01, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> What he neglects to mention though, is that eventually it is paid for,
> and the continuing revenue at that point is almost pure profit. While
> the economics were quite a bit different in the early years of this
> century, still, AT&T spent a heck of a lot of money both on inside and
> outside plant. The first transcontinental cable (was it the early
> twenties?) cost a fortune -- even by money standards seventy years ago
>  -- but it finally was amortized.

What he also neglects to mention is the vastly improved technology for
delivering dial tone available today. As I mentioned in a recent post,
Contel delivers literally thousands of private lines to subscribers
more than twenty miles away from the CO through the same wire plant
that provided just a few multi-party lines a few years ago.

Growth usually occurs in pockets, and it is a relatively simple (and
inexpensive) matter to place digital remote offices in the growth
areas. Contel seems to be able to do it.


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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 1990 19:38:33 +0200
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch Tone Frequencies


To those who have tried to find out whether your modem sends anything
useful with the "ABCD" tones, please do NOT send the tones to your CO
or PBX.  You can disrupt service for other telephone users in strange
ways.  You can, for instance, disable echo suppression filters or
cause the routing tables to be, uh, disturbed.  Just Don't Do it.

Since I have two phone lines and two modem lines, it was pretty easy
to call around and test things.  I gave my modem these commands:

    ATDT<phone>,,147*,2580,369#,ABCD
    ATDT<phone>,,123A,456B,789C,*0#D

<phone> is any random number to a telephone close to your terminal.
Pick it up and see if you can hear all the sixteen distinct tones in
batches of four.

Incidentally, I also tried with the CCITT V.25bis protocol:

    CRN<phone>==147*,2580,369#,ABCD
    CRN<phone>==123A,456B,789C,*0#D

And even that worked!  Probably not the intention of the CCITT guys,
but my modem manufacturer probably has the same dial code for both the
Hayes and the V.25bis user interface.


[Erik]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries
Date: 29 Apr 90 17:16:31 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


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

>In Canada, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are both in the 902 area.

>There are a few special cases where area codes cross state lines in
>the U.S.:

>  A certain prefix in Carter Lake, Iowa (on "wrong" side of Missouri
>River at Omaha, Nebraska) can be reached in either area code 402 or
>712.

>  All but the outermost suburbs of Washington, DC can be reached in
>area code 202. [ etcetera ... ]

Another interesting system occurs in the National Capital Region of
Canada (Ottawa on the Ontario side of the border Area Code 613 and
Hull on the Quebec side of the border Area Code 819).  The Federal
Gov't Centrex exchange (99X although I think they may have recently
changed it) can be reached through either area code (ie. 613-99X-XXXX
or 819-99X-XXXX).  In addition, this exchange is a local call on both
sides of the boundary.

An interesting side issue is what number would show up with Caller
Identification??


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm

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

From: David Tampkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 14:09:55 CDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 297, Andrew Boardman {B} wrote:

B> [Brian Matthews {M}] quoth:

M> Speaking of the card, has anyone called for just information and
M> gotten it?  I called when the card was first announced here (three,
M> four weeks ago?), and told the operator I just wanted information.
M> She took my name and address, but I haven't received anything.  Are
M> they just slow, or have they already decided I don't qualify? :-)

B> I doubt it.  Of the 3 people I know of who requested written
B> information (including me) *none* of them received it.  (For the
B> record, I requested it on or about the Thursday of the week that "The
B> Card" was first available.)

B> I'd love to hear some contradictory experiences, but I just read two
B> more cases in TELECOM of exactly the same thing happening.

Gee, this makes me feel repetitious.  Are Digest feeds slow, or do the
readers who are interested mostly in the tech stuff gloss over my sub-
missions (in which case why am I trying again?), or are there a lot of
brand new readers?

I phoned for information on Tuesday, March 27, requesting two copies.
The two copies were mailed in separate envelopes, postmarked in
Jacksonville on Friday, March 30.  I received them, despite AT&T's
having seriously mangled the address, on Monday, April 2. In previous
submissions to the Digest I have commented on the enclosures.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL 60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCIMail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card
Reply-To: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Ghostbusters Institute at Columbia University
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 20:27:37 GMT


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

>Most standard cards don't offer the extended warranty, rental car
>insurance, travel insurance, and 90-day replacement insurance that the
>gold card gives.  I don't know if the Universal Card does or doesn't
>in its non-gold version.  The list of services you get with the card
>comes a couple of weeks after you get the card.

How does the fee waiver on this card work?  Do they charge you up
front and credit you later when you make the obligatory yearly
purchase for the free status?  Or, do they hit you with the user fee
at the end of the year if you don't use the card at all?


Gary L. Dare
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ``Thank You For Using AT&T''
Date: 29 Apr 90 11:54:19 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Friedl <mtndew![e-mail]> writes:

>      Is there *any* place in the country where a 0+ payphone call will
> be routed over AT&T but will say just "Thank you"?

Yes, many. A lot of GTE is still that way, as well as many
independents. In Contel territory that includes California's high
desert; it is this way.

There is also a backwards situation. If you dial "0" in Los Gatos
(GTE) for the "telco" operator, you get "Thank you for using AT&T, may
I help you?" In other words, the local telco in Los Gatos has no
operators but rather contracts with AT&T to provide local operator
service. I believe they used to use Pac*Bell and before that (before
GTE took over) had their own.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #298
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05684;
          30 Apr 90 10:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27766;
          30 Apr 90 9:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19187;
          30 Apr 90 7:59 CDT
Date:     Mon, 30 Apr 90 7:46:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #299
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Apr 90 07:44:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 299

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Numbers in 1962 (Was: LD in 1962) [Nigel Allen]
    Automated Telemarketing Hoot of the Month [David Tamkin]
    Richard Berendzen Arrested For Obscene Phone Calls [TELECOM Moderator]
    Sources for TDD Modems [Joe Stong]
    Re: Data Collection for Telemarketing [Todd Inch]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [S. Fybush]
    Re: Device to Connect Two Fax Machines [Miguel Cruz]
    Re: Credit Card ID [Paul S. R. Chisholm]
    Re: The Card [Ravinder Bhumbla]
    Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Dave Horsfall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 12:55:19 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Numbers in 1962 (Was: LD in 1962)


[e-mail] (lawrence.m.geary) writes (re: LD in 1962):

 >While browsing through some old magazines from 1962, I noticed that
 >the ads all had 7 digit phone numbers. No area codes.

To me, the surprising thing is that the numbers were all 7 digits. I
would have expected some to be two letters and five digits.

Some older small stores in Montreal and Toronto still have signs
giving a two-letter and five-digit number (obviously, HUnter 6-5226 =
486-5226; EMpire 8-6041 = 368-6041). While telephone companies may
have made the switch to all-numeric codes in the late 50's or early
60's, individual habits (of writing 2L+5D phone numbers) die hard.

I lived in Halifax for four years, and never saw any old signs with
letter-and-number telephone numbers. Perhaps Halifax went directly
from two-letter, four-digit numbers to seven-digit numbers. All
Halifax telephone numbers begin with a 4.

Truro, Nova Scotia is served by a step-by-step office with two
prefixes, (902)893- and (902)895-.  You will sometimes see advertising
giving only the last five digits (5-1497 for 895-1497) and indeed
dialling 5-1497 locally will connect you to 895-1497.  Rural
communities outside Truro (Brookfield, Debert) that got dial telephone
service after my family moved to Truro in 1969 are served by
electronic switches, and you have to dial all seven digits from and to
those exchanges.

A glance through a northeastern Nova Scotia telephone directory for
1970 will show a lot of small manual exchanges, with numbers like
5-R-2.  The last manual exchange in Nova Scotia was Northport, which
went dial in 1979 or 1980, I think.


 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ont. (1:250/438)

Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:221/171
UUCP: uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!250!438!Nigel.Allen
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 00:20 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated Telemarketing Hoot of the Month


I hope you're comfortable, readers; this requires some background.

Recently there have been submissions to the Digest that people were
receiving phone calls consisting of recorded sales pitches which gave
only a 900 number for the solicitee to call back if he or she is
interested.  The costs of these 900 calls are usually a good deal
steeper than those to the talk lines.  It's hard to believe that
anyone falls for the high cost of seeing if one has won, but somehow
these operations must be turning a profit.

Now for more background: I have two phone numbers at home, numerically
close on the same prefix.  I give one out for incoming voice calls and
make most outgoing calls on the other.  The incoming line is picked up
by an answering machine if I don't get to it first, and it hunts on
busy to the outgoing line.  Except for rare, brief intervals, my
outgoing line is forwarded to my voice mailbox from my local telco,
Central Telephone of Illinois.  The voice mailbox's direct phone
number is on a different prefix.  Heck, it's in a whole other area
code.

Sunday I checked my voice mailbox for messages and had one timestamped
Saturday afternoon.  It was a recorded sales pitch: to see if I'd won,
I could call 1-900-226-TRIP for only $19.95.  Yeah, right.

Now there are three ways to dial into my voice mailbox: to call its
direct number, to dial my outgoing line, and to dial my incoming line
when it is busy.  If the sales pitch dialer was calling my home
prefix, it should have called both my home numbers: there would have
been an additional recording of the pitch on my answering machine if I
wasn't home, or I would have picked up my incoming line to hear it, or
there would have been two copies of the pitch (well, of its first
sixty seconds, since that is the time limit on my box) in the voice
mailbox.

But I didn't answer the phone to hear that sales pitch, nor was there
a copy on my answering machine, and there was only one recording in my
voice mail.  So either they were skipping around and taking only
selected numbers on my home prefix or, more likely, they were calling
the prefix of my direct voice mail number.

When I thought of that, I burst out laughing.  One thousand lines on
that prefix are dedicated to the voice mail service, so here was that
silly sales pitch recording dialing into box after box, only to get
interrupted upon playback by people reaching for the 3 key on their
phones.  What's yet funnier is that many, many of the phone numbers in
that block lead to front-end boxes from whose menus one must select a
specific subaccount box.  Since the recorded pitch can't do that, a
large number of its calls must have gone into the catchall box, where
messages go if you talk after a front-end box's menu instead of
selecting a live box from it.  The catchall box is also where messages
left outside business hours for Central Telephone go, so come Monday
morning, some Centel employee will go to check the catchall box and
have a few hundred new messages, almost all of which are this fool
recording.

Don't you just love it?  I think I want to call Centel myself Monday
morning to make sure they know about it.  When you consider how many
copies of that pitch will be jamming the same voice mailbox where
customer service calls go and how many of the directly dialable boxes
belong to Centel employees, maybe they'll bitch out the telemarketing
firm and refuse to fork over the $19.95 they want for a call to 1-900-
CAN'T-RIP.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  MCI Mail: 426-1818  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 20:32:54 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Richard Berendzen Arrested For Obscene Phone Calls


Richard Berendzen, the 51-year old president of American University in
Washington, DC for the past ten years was arrested last week, and
charged with making obscene phone calls over a long period of time.

Following his arrest, he was afforded the opportunity to resign and
leave the University, or face dismissal. He chose to voluntarily
leave, and be hospitalized for treatment of his illness, which is
technically known as telephone scatologia, or more commonly as making
anonymous obscene phone calls.

Mr. Berendzen, a noted educator and scientist, was caught in the act
of making such a call following a successful trace of an earlier call.
Several women in a nearby suburb later identified him as the person
who had tormented them with lewd calls at night from his home.

Although other prominent figures have fallen from grace because of
sexual peccadilloes, Mr. Berendzen is the only one I can recall to be
linked to obscene phone calls.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 03:15:09 PDT
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sources for TDD Modems


Who manufactures TDD modems?  Are there any which will do TDD AND
ordinary modem standard calling (103,212) with maybe even Hayes
compatible dialing commands?

Please mail to me, and I'll post a summary.


    Joe Stong    [e-mail]

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

From: Todd Inch <rutgers!nsr.bioeng.washington.edu!gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Collection for Telemarketing
Reply-To: <rutgers!nsr.bioeng.washington.edu!gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 21:50:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R. Covert
  23-Apr-1990 2142) writes:

> No one should have the right to sell data about your phone calling and
> purchase habits to anyone!

So what your saying, John, is that calling and purchasing should be
COVERT activities?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.  And with MY last name, I felt a little
bit justified. :-)


Todd Inch, System Manager,
Global Technology,
Mukilteo WA
[phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi   ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 21:27:42 edt
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station


Another thing to remember is that a lot of gas stations have no
telephone at all.  I worked for eight months in an Atlantic station in
Rochester NY.  We had a phone line that was used by the credit-card
machine ... listing that one would have done no good as there was no
way to hear that line ring.  And, naturally, we didn't want to connect
a voice phone to that line, since it would get in the way of
credit-card transactions.  All our voice business was done via the pay
phone in the gas station's front room (there was another phone
connected to the pay line also, but of course used only for incoming
and 800# calls).  We gave out that number as our business phone when
people asked, but there was of course no way to list it ... and no
reason why we'd want to.

BTW, that station is company owned, so it's not "Joe's Atlantic," it's
just "Atlantic."  Most dealer-owned stations, and any station which
provides service and not just gas, have their own phone lines with
listed numbers.  I too think that those numbers should be cross-listed
under the brand of gas, since that's how most people identify the
station.  A very different situation from, say, "Bill's Sony;" where
people think primarily of the store identity and secondarily of the
brands sold there.  And I do concur with our Moderator that it's an
extremely minor complaint and probably not worth even this much space :)


Scott Fybush

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

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 90 23:10:00 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Device to Connect Two Fax Machines


Ross Oliver asked for a device to connect two fax machines, further
qualifying that the device didn't need to interpret DTMF or provid
ring signals.

That device will cost you about $4.00.  It's an RJ11 cord.  Fax
machines don't depend on telephone line voltage, and if you just
connect a cord from the phone line jack on one to the same jack on the
other, they will be able to communicate.

Actually, I misspoke myself with the above $4.00 estimate.  Effective
immediately, this type of inter-device connection falls under my
(to-be-filed-tomorrow-morning) patented "ProxiNet" service, so the
necessary equipment may only be purchased from me.  As a Digest
reader, you will be eligible for a 25% discount off the $110.00 "null
switch" retail cost, and carrier access fees (which you must report)
of $1.40 per minute.


Miguel Cruz ([e-mail] / user6FUA@umichub)

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit Card ID
Date: 30 Apr 90 04:42:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


(Why is it that we keep mentioning credit cards in this group/list?  I
know, the AT&T Universal Card sparked the latest round of discussion,
but it's popped up before.)

In a previous article, someone who should prefer to remain nameless
wrote:

> For some time some friends and I had this thing where we would never
> ever write our real name on the charge slip.  First, we just
> scribbled things, but after a while, I was signing names of former
> presidents, not-so-catchy phrases, etc., until I just plain became
> bored of thinking up something original.  It was amazing that never
> once did any clerk even give it a second glance.

First and foremost, you are either walking right on the line with
regard to the fraud laws, or crossed 'way over to the un-comfy side
long ago.  Don't *do* that!

When checked right (though quickly), signatures offer good protection
against fraud.  Some people can learn to forge signatures, but it's a
lot harder (maybe impossible) to do it in real time, without a sample
in front of you.  A good salesperson won't give you back your card
until you've signed the slip, and will take a second or three to
compare the card against the slip.

There's been discussion in the "Dear Abby" column about whether it's
safer not to sign your cards, since someone might steal your purse and
have a chance to copy your signature.  This makes about as much sense
as leaving your car keys in the ignition, so a pickpocket can't take
them from you.  I imagine most thieves would rather have a blank spot
they can fill in themselves (with a signature they *can* duplicate in
real time without a sample) than a real signature.

Disclaimer: A few years ago, I worked on software for a plastic card
authorization network.  I'm no longer in the industry; I'm just
repeating a few things I heard from Al Brown, a pioneer in the field.


Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm


[Moderator's Note: You are correct that we have just about milked this
topic to the max, at least where a connection to telecom is concerned.
It should be moved elsewhere.   PT]

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

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 30 Apr 90 05:19:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


In article <[e-mail] [e-mail] (Andrew
Boardman) writes:

>>Speaking of the card, has anyone called for just information and
>>they just slow, or have they already decided I don't qualify? :-)

>information (including me) *none* of them received it.  (For the
>record, I requested it on or about the Thursday of the week that "The
>Card" was first available.)
>I'd love to hear some contradictory experiences, but I just read two
>more cases in TELECOM of exactly the same thing happening.

    I had also requested the information the same week that it was
advertised.  After about 10 days, I received a package which included
a letter from Paul Kahn, President and CEO, AT&T UNiversal Card Corp.,
and, an application for the card.

    The letter from the Mr. Kahn listed benefits like - free for
life; buyer's protection(*) and extended warranty(*); upto $100000 in
automatic travel accident insurance, collision/loss damage
insurance(*) for rental cars, etc.  [* - coverage underwritten by ...
 ... Details to be provided when you become a cardmember]


Ravi Bhumbla ([e-mail])-

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

From: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia
Date: 30 Apr 90 02:06:55 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Donald E.
Kimberlin) writes:

| That compares with my nostalgia for the old British Post Office "A and
| B-button boxes" now off the scene in a technology putsch that swept
| England.

Ah yes, those old behemoths ... Australia had them for quite some time
too.  I understand it was a simple matter to manipulate the coin gate
with a lolly-pop stick, not that I ever did it of course. You could
also go around to every box in the area, pressing button "B", on the
off-chance that the previous user forgot to after making an STD call,
and getting the "change."  Sure kept me in soft-drinks as a kid!

There was also a unit where you put a sixpence into a slot, and rolled
it to the left when the called party answered.  They were particularly
unreliable, and many a call was placed to the operator when the box
swallowed your sixpence and the call wasn't completed.


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)  Alcatel STC Australia  [e-mail]
[e-mail]  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #299
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10129;
          30 Apr 90 23:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17960;
          30 Apr 90 22:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09627;
          30 Apr 90 21:08 CDT
Date:     Mon, 30 Apr 90 20:55:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #300
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Apr 90 20:54:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 300

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station? [John Kurzman]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [John Higdon]
    Re: Irish Phone Service [Dave Horsfall]
    Re: ATT Billing via Local Telcos [John R. Levine]
    Re: Touch-tone ABCD Keys [Douglas Mason]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Tom Perrine]
    De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [Dave Horsfall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Date: 30 Apr 90 18:52:03 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes...

[with regard to why it costs too much for rural telcos to provide
1-party service]

>...The wire
>lasts a long, long time. And once it is paid for, it keeps right on
>turning an almost 100 percent profit for its owners, allowing for what
>repair is required from time to time.

>I think the same consideration has to be given to party line service.
>The conversion would cost an arm and a leg, but if they plan it right,
>and install enough new cable to account for anticipated needs -- not
>for today -- but the next half century or so -- it will pay off.

Actually, it's not as easy as Patrick makes it sound.  The simple
arithmetic "payback time" is mathematically wrong, as it fails to take
into account interest rates.

A telco makes something like 12% return on investments.  That's set by
the state and FCC.  (Usually it's a bit higher.)  Rates are set in
order to generate that rate of return on the invested Rate Base, which
is the sum total of all nondepreciated capital investment, after
paying off all expenses (which includes depreciation).

How long would it take to pay off a home mortgage if you paid the bank
the equivalent payment of 5% interest, but it accumulated "negative
amortization" based on an interest rate of 10%?  It doesn't work.
We're asking telcos to do something that even a Texas S&L wouldn't
have tried!  :-)

If a telco can only recover 5% of the cost of something in a year,
then for every $1000 that goes into the rate base, $120 of Revenue
Requirement is generated, but that is matched by only $50 of income.
Thus the telco actually loses $70.  If the depreciation is, say,
20-year straight line (which is VERY slow, but some states do this
sort of thing to hold down the revenue requirement and thus local
rates), then $50/year is an expense, and that cancels all of the
income.  Thus there is exactly 0% return on investment for 20 years,
and $120 of Revenue Requirement that _will_ get made up elsewhere.

Rural telcos get far more than urban ones in their "separations" (now
collected via access charges for calls terminating from LD carries).
Sometimes AT&T pays the local telco twice as much as it charges the
caller!  This goes to subsidize the very expensive local plant.  Such
subsidies are responsible for the drastic reduction in party line
service that we've seen in the past two decades.

As a matter of public policy, the FCC has chosen to allow toll to
subsidize rural telephony in that way.  However, cost-based pricing is
gradually whittling down the subsidies.  We city slickers may not be
paying quite as much for Farmer Jones' line in the future.  Some
subsidies, however, will persist, as there is an explicit
toll-financed fund for that purpose as well as the "hidden" subsidies
in the toll rates.


Fred R. Goldstein
[e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission


[Moderator's Note: Fred, the problem I have with your figures is that
if the circumstances were exactly as you describe them, how could
*any* major expenditure at a telco be justified?  What was the
justification for the millions spent converting old offices to ESS?
And what about ISDN?  The new technology is taking BIG $$ to install
and maintain. When is the payback? In some cases, years away. I
realize there is not a direct correlation between conversion from
party line to one party service and some of the other new-fangled
hi-tech stuff, but still -- why does any modernization go on at telcos
if the scenario is as grim as you paint it?  PT]

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Date: 30 Apr 90 15:19:43 GMT
Reply-To: 0000-Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Organization: SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's
intelligent investors


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry
Lippman) writes:

>The result is that
>the return on investment period is closer to TEN YEARS.

I have no contest with Mr. Lippman's construction cost numbers.
Probably his background is in that field.  It certainly isn't in
utility finance.

Ten years is not such a terribly long period for return of investment
for a phone company, in fact it is probably close to the legal limit
in most states.  Mr. Lippman seems to imagine that in business a one
or two year return of invested capital is normal.  That is not so
except for very small projects that remove bottlenecks in large
plants.  While ten years is somewhat long in a regular business because
of risk, a business with a guaranteed-by-law profitability and freedom
from competition accepts ten year returns as a normal, enjoyable part
of life.

Actually, the money should come back in far less than ten years
because, as Mr.  Lippman points out, he only put fifty subscribers on
equipment that would handle one hundred.  During the ten year period,
the monthly revenue would gradually double, producing a far more rapid
payback.  Of course, revenue would be twice as high at the end of the
period than at the beginning, so in future years, the phone company
would indeed be making money hand over fist.  That's the nature of the
utility business.


 Irving Wolfe            [e-mail]              206/463-9399 ext.101
 Happy Man Corp.   4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road,  Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399
 SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors

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

From: John Kurzman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station?
Date: 30 Apr 90 15:51:43 GMT
Reply-To: John Kurzman <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp, Woodbridge, NJ


Why not list Gas stations as if their last name was the brand?  ie.
Mobil, Henry's. Amoco, D&S.

Just because it's Henry's Mobil doesn't mean they couldn't be listed
as 'Mobil, Henry'. Clever gas stations should be more careful about
how they specify their name when subscribing for service. I think of
Exxon or Mobil sort of like a last name anyway. It's not like looking
up 'Stan', since if anything, being listed under D&S or Henry is more
like being listed under Stan.  The brand should be the gas station's
last name, and Henry, D&S, or whatever, is the station' first name.

This also reminds me of an accident that happened to me when I had my
phone listed with a spelling error in my last name. I wrote the first
letter of my last name sloppily, ie. H instead of K, and so was listed
under 'Hurzman' instead of 'Kurzman'. This might have been a small
typographical error, but it put me in a totally different section of
the Manhattan Phone Book. In effect, I had a free unlisted number, but
better yet, I could tell someone how to look me up if I wanted them
to.

The real irony here was that I had used my previous phone number (under
Kurzman) as a credit reference, but there still was no problem with my
new Hurzman phone number. (And no deposit required because of my good
credit reference from the Kurzman phone).

So I think its up to the gas station to be creative with how they
bill/list their phone, not the responsibility of the Telco.  So what
if Henry's Exxon starts getting junk mail addressed to Mr. Henry
Exxon?


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station
Date: 30 Apr 90 11:39:21 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]> writes:

> All our voice business was done via the pay
> phone in the gas station's front room (there was another phone
> connected to the pay line also, but of course used only for incoming
> and 800# calls).  We gave out that number as our business phone when
> people asked, but there was of course no way to list it ... and no
> reason why we'd want to.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If this was your "business" telephone,
why wouldn't you want it listed? If you received incoming calls at
all, why wouldn't you want the public at large to be able to call in?
Were these only personal calls that had nothing to do with the
business?

Concerning listing a pay phone -- I can cite many, many business
listings in the directory that are, in reality, pay phones. For one,
there's The Cats, an off-the-wall restaurant that I frequent. Another
happens to be --- you guessed it --- a service station that I
patronize.


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

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

From: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Irish Phone Service
Date: 30 Apr 90 02:19:10 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


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

| BTW, I especially like Australia's equivalent: since everything else
| "down under" is "backwards," toll-free "800" numbers are toll-free
| "008" numbers.

It is quite a laugh, isn't it?  By the way, until recently those
"toll-free" numbers actually cost the caller a local call fee; and the
callee picked up the rest.  Now, they are free to the caller.

|                 (According to the Australian version of the NPA
| scheme, "008" would be in Tasmania, but I doubt they'll run out of
| area codes there any time soon.)

Huh?  Last I looked, Tasmania had two area codes - 002 for the Hobart
area (south) and 003 for the Launceston area (north).


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)  Alcatel STC Australia  [e-mail]
[e-mail]  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

Subject: Re: ATT billing via local telcos
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 30 Apr 90 01:56:49 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Well, billing via the local telco is *the main reason* that ATT is my
>long distance company.

Gee, billing via the local telco is the main reason that AT&T is not
my LD company.  I have two lines at home here in Cambridge and two at
my beach cottage in New Jersey.  Sprint is happy to bill all four of
them on one bill, combining all of the calls for the Sprint Plus
volume discount.  In fact, I also have three other numbers on the bill
where Sprint is the secondary carrier, two at my father's house in NJ,
and one at a family house in Vermont.  I was impressed that Sprint
could put seven numbers at four locations in three states on one bill
with no trouble.

MCI said that they couldn't, since Mass. and NJ are in different
billing regions, and AT&T could only give me a combined bill by
subscribing to some business service at a monthly cost considerably
greater than my entire bill.  When AT&T starts sending out their own
bills, I'll look at them again.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Subject: Re: Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 13:34:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph C. Pistritto) writes:

>one of these tones at the start of the call.  Apparently this was
>useful to phreaks at one time, as you used to be able to get a
>dialtone (from the operator position) this way.

Ah, the another 'phreak' misconception.  Should have read Phrack a
little more, huh?  :-)

Years ago you could call up a DA operator and hit the 'D' key when she
picked up.  This dropped you into limbo and you would hear some soft
white noise.

If you had a friend do the same thing with the same NPA DA and hit 'D'
then the '7' key while you hit '8' you could be connected together in
a sort of loop fashion.  This was first thought to be The Way to be
able to talk to other people without giving them your phone number, ie
"Meet me on the 312 DA loop".

While I don't think that most switch software will pick up on the
infamous 'fourth row' tones, I think that you will trip something by
spending excessive time on the DA loop, as I would imagine that the
switch would view that call to DA as still being open.

Speaking of Directory Assistance, a few years ago (like two or three)
there was a bug in the 504 directory assistance that you could call
them up and let them answer, and when they hang up (position release)
you could stay on the line and a few seconds later be connected to a
dialtone which you could apparently call anywhere on.  Although I
never made any calls I did find this to be true.  I was quite tempted
to call me house collect and accept charges just to find out what the
originating number was.

As I said, both of these tricks are no longer effective.


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 30 Apr 90 21:57:04 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


I have a 16-key touch-tone pad that I acquired from a friend in 1977.
In its previous life, it was attached to his 2-meter FM handy-talky.
Currently it lives on an old TT-based robot controller I built in high
school. I used to carry it to do touch-tone from dial phones at
school. I never got any useful or noticable response when trying the
ABCD keys on these phones.

The friend and his ham club used the ABCD keys to access and control a
private repeater and automated telephone patch. This apparently
afforded some measure of security for the telephone patch. (Security
through an uncommon hardware key.) I guess that 4x4 pads were fairly
uncommon then.


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: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Subject: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution
Date: 30 Apr 90 10:11:00 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


On the off-chance that this topic may not have been beaten to death,
permit me to offer a solution in the finest traditions of King
Solomon.

John De Armond claims such a device can be built today, using
technology available then.  I say unto him: let him build it, and
submit it for peer review.

Larry Lippman claims such a device cannot be built.  I say unto him:
let him compensate John De Armond for expenses incurred, should said
device be practical after all (as determined by peer review committee
acceptable to both parties).

Then we can all get some sleep.


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)  Alcatel STC Australia  [e-mail]
[e-mail]  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #300
******************************