Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss301-350

Text File | 1990-05-15 | 874KB | 21,236 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12443;
          1 May 90 0:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32118;
          30 Apr 90 23:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17960;
          30 Apr 90 22:12 CDT
Date:     Mon, 30 Apr 90 21:56:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #301
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Apr 90 21:55:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 301

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Card [Steven Gutfreund]
    Re: The Card [Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer]
    Re: The Card [Roy Smith]
    Re: Sources for TDD Modems [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: Local Telco Boneheadisms / Digital DID [Steve Elias]
    Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Eduardo Krell]
    Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [John Higdon]
    Caller ID and Privacy Sources Needed [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Selective Call Waiting [Paul Wilczynski]
    Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Tom Perrine]
    SprintMail & the Internet [Ken Jongsma]
    DTMF Hi-Group Mungs Some Losing PBXs [John R. Covert]
    'cu' Question [Mark Earle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven Gutfreund <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 30 Apr 90 20:09:09 GMT
Reply-To: Steven Gutfreund <[e-mail]>


I started calling the first day, and got through on the third day.
Ten days later I got the application which gave me a choice of Visa
and Mastercard; I chose Visa.  As of yet (29-Apr-90) I have not yet
received it.

But here is the twist: April is my renewal month for my FirstCard
Visa. It has a $20 annual fee. (FirstCard is a subsidary of the First
National Bank of Chicago). The main reason why I chose ATT was so I
could cancel the FirstCard.  So I give a call and tell them to cancel
it. I got some sort of confused story from the FirstCard operator, but
I verified at the end of my call that my card was going to be
cancelled.

Last Friday I get a letter from FirstCard congratulating me on
retaining my FirstCard. With the letter was enclosed a $20 voucher. In
letter they said that they were giving me this voucher as a courtesy
and that I could use it to pay the annual fee or apply it against any
balance.

Looks like the AT&T offer is putting pressure on the other card
providers.


Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund                   [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA                harvard!bunny!sgutfreund


[Moderator's Note: Not only is the AT&T offer putting pressure on the
other bank cards, but the major banks across the United States are
retaliating against AT&T by taking their phone business away and
giving it to MCI or Sprint. One recent example was Citibank, which
pulled a multi-million dollar long distance deal from AT&T and gave it
to MCI, noting specifically when doing so that they were angry with
the new competition.   PT]

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

From: Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Date: 30 Apr 90 21:33:40 GMT
Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California


Brief message on the AT&T Universal Card: I called their 800 number
and asked for an application for a Visa *or* a MasterCard to be mailed
to me.  About a week later I received an envelope with two
applications in it, one with a Visa picture on it and a box to check
if I want a MasterCard instead, and the other with a MasterCard
picture on it and a box to check if I want a Visa instead.  In
summary, two different applications do exist, but either will allow
you to request either a Visa or a MasterCard.

As a public service for any fellow students, I asked the AT&T person
for a student card application.  He informed me that none existed, but
that I should be sure to enclose proof of being a student (i.e.
photocopy of student ID card), and that the minimum income standard
("I'm not supposed to be telling you this . . .") for students is
$3,000.


Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer               University of Southern California
[e-mail]                                  Los Angeles, California

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 17:18:49 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


My wife reports that her brand-spanking-new AT&T Gold Visa card was
rejected on her first attempt to use it!


[Moderator's Note: *Please* send more details on this! How was that
explained-away by AT&T, or did they bother?  Is the card working now?  PT]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 30 Apr 1990 14:42:38 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sources for TDD Modems


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

>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?

Though this does not answer your question, it seems like a good time
to re-post some useful info on TDD from the Telecom-archives FTPable
from LCS.MIT.EDU.  This short file is called

        deaf.communicate.on.tdd

and the file name is case sensitive.  I've included it here since
it shouldn't waste too much bandwidth -

          --------------------clip here----------------------

Volume 10, Issue 102 of the Digest, dated 2/14/90 is devoted mostly to a
discussion of TDD machines and services. Most of the information in this
issue was provided by Curtis Reid, himself a deaf person. Also see issues
98 through 101 for a few other articles on TDD's.  Then,  see issue 123
for a further followup, and a dissent on the quality of AT&T's service
to deaf persons via 800-855-1155.


P. Townson
TELECOM Moderator
2-23-90

          ---------------------clip here-----------------

Peter M. Weiss
31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people)
University Park, PA USA 16802
Disclaimer -* +* applies herein


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for the plug for the Archives. And of course
everyone by now knows the Telecom Archives can be obtained via mail
server (to [e-mail])  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit
Date: 29 Apr 90 17:32:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey) writes:

>    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.

>    Hoping that in the future honesty will return to hotel phone
>bills.

As the administrator of a Hotel PBX, I do have to take some offence at
the foregoing remarks as to the "honesty" of hotel phone charges.  Has
any hotel ever refused to give you an accurate description of the
charges when you ask?  I would be very surprised if this were so;
therefore, how can you describe this as dishonest?  In fact, I would
be willing to bet that in the hotel room there was a very detailed
explanation of rates and charging methods available.

While we are on the subject, I would like to mention one of the
rationales (I do not necessarily agree with it) for charging a local
call at a rate higher than a pay phone call -- pay phones don't answer
incoming calls and take messages for you when you are not in your
room.  Granted, you are paying good money for the hotel room no doubt;
however, is it fair to those who do not use a hotel phone very much,
if at all (for example a family just passing through a city) to jack
up their hotel rates to pay for the switchboard operator to take your
phone calls??  In actual fact, I have never seen a hotel's financial
statements that show the telephone operation for guests running at a
profit.  This is usually break-even at best.


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Local Telco Boneheadisms / Digital DID
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 08:50:39 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


I'm a bit confused by the recent responses to my query about Digital
DID.  I did not order T1 service from the phone company.  Actually, I
didn't order anything: the telecom group here at Bull ordered one DID
trunk, Wink Start, three digits -- exactly what I requested.  This
service is not being connected to a PBX, it is being connected to a
computerfax board.

Bull does actually have direct T1 service into their PBX, but this
should have nothing to do with DID trunk I've been trying to get for
the last three months.  An engineering foreman (woman) is supposed to
call me today to get this whole thing straightened out.

If the two readers who alleged that there is something called Digital
DID could respond further, I would appreciate it.  What digital
protocol is used on such trunks?  If it's T1, then it is not a DID
line, it's a T1 line!  ???  Thanks for any additional replies...


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 10:58:04 EDT
Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product


When someone calls me, he/she knows my number.  Don't I have a right
to know their number before I answer the phone?  If Caller ID is
offered with a blocking feature so that your number doesn't go out,
then I want a feature to know when someone who's number is blocked
from Caller ID is calling me so that I have a choice of answering or
not.

The Big Brother concerns should be addressed with proper laws (as in
AIDS hotlines can't have Caller Id), not by banning the service and
thus keeping all of us who are good guys from using it.


Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product
Date: 30 Apr 90 11:22:28 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Stan Krieger) writes:

[The usual verbage about how Caller ID is "unnecessary".]

I will spare you the infinitely long list of technological offerings
in the marketplace that were originally pronounced as "unnecessary"
that are now considered to be essential. (The telephone is one.)

 From this point forward could we avoid this short-sighted and
Luddite-style view of the world?


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

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID and Privacy Sources Needed
Date: 30 Apr 90 14:23:26 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I am working on a project concerning the issues involved with caller
ID services and privacy.  I believe this has been an issue on the east
coast.  I am now doing some background research on the area (which is
fairly new to me), and would appreciate some help on sources
(including trade and business press articles as well as possible law
journal articles).

Thanks for any help.  Please post or respond by email.


Bruce C. Klopfenstein          |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
318 West Hall                  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University |  [phone]; 372-8690
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  fax [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 16:33 EST
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Selective Call Waiting


I just had an interesting conversation with a business office person
in an office that handles the Brockton, MA area.

I asked about the availability of pressing a * sequence to temporarily
disable call waiting for the period of one call.  "It's not available
in Randolph".  When might it be available? "Never".  Why not?  "It's
available in towns with older switches" (that's not a mistype) "but
not in towns with newer switches".

Hmmm ... isn't that a little strange?  "No - it's not in our future plans."

Why not?  "Too many people have missed important calls by disabling
call waiting".

Can you tell me the kind of switch handles Randolph?  "No, we don't
give out that kind of information - why do you want to know?"

<sigh>

Paul

[Moderator's Note: You should have immediatly asked this person for
their name, then asked for the Business Office Manager. The person who
'assisted' you (I use the term very loosely) is badly in need of
training.  PT]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]>
Subject: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Date: 30 Apr 90 22:08:01 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it
appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number.

How can I put my number in a database, so that it can be extracted and
dialed properly anywhere in the world? It seems that there is a great
deal of "local" knowledge that must be built into the dialing software
(probably on a per-country basis) in order to turn +1 xxx yyy zzzz
into something that can be dialed anywhere in the world.

If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country,
I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for
international dialing access", the country code (which you just have
to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct?

The reason I am asking is in support of a small project that wants to
do "dial-SMTP" for email, so that addresses of the form
[e-mail] can be used to deliver e-mail in the same
manner that FAX is used now.

I guess I am looking for an international phone number format that can
be written into a spec for addresses in "dial-SMTP".


Tom Perrine (tep)
Logicon (Tactical and Training Systems Division) San Diego CA [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]        GENIE: T.PERRINE
UUCP: nosc!hamachi!tots!tep -or- sun!suntan!tots!tep

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

Subject: SprintMail & the Internet
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 20:51:52 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


A single sentence in an unrelated article in this week's issue of
[Communications Week] mentions that SprintMail (formerly known as GTE
Telemail) is now providing a connection with the Internet. No details
were given on the addressing procedure from either end.


Ken Jongsma

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 05:47:29 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  30-Apr-1990 0834" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DTMF Hi-Group Mungs Some Losing PBXs


We have seen two messages (in #294 an #298) from Erik Naggum telling
us that we should not send the DTMF Hi-Group tones to COs or PBXs:

>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.

If you are served by a CO or PBX made by AT&T (or probably by any
other North American manufacturer), you need not worry.  There is a
cultural difference here: our manufacturers expect customer provided
equipment to be connected and will not do anything strange based on
signals coming from a CO subscriber line or a PBX station.

Any manufacturer who allows modifications to the routing tables or to
other parameters of the switch merely by sending Hi-Group tones from a
station is selling losing equipment, IMHO.  Commands of this sort
should always be password-protected.  I hope that what Erik has
discovered is merely a poor choice of password (such as ABCD, just as
bad a choice as 1234), and that the local switch can simply be given a
new password that is less likely to be accidentally or deliberately
dialled.

/john

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 08:03:39 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'cu' Question


Patrick, a dumb question --- and y'all are about the only *.nix guys I
correspond with. I use cu -lttya2 dir to get to a modem on a 386 w/sco
xenix. Just use ATDT to issue commands. Is there a standard way to
route the incoming text to a file for later review, using some variant
of piping or something? So far if so I've not looked in the correct
spot in the cubic feet of manuals! Thanks!


 | [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  |

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #301
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23064;
          1 May 90 7:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08644;
          1 May 90 4:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04586;
          1 May 90 3:18 CDT
Date:     Tue, 1 May 90 2:22:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #302
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 1 May 90 02:21:38 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 302

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [TELECOM Moderator]
    Personally Reprogramming Cellular Phones [Bill Nickless]
    Line Status Indicator Lamp [Stephen Fleming]
    New Telecom*USA Calling Cards [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Splitting Area Code 416? [Henry Troup]
    Re: Selective Call Waiting [John Higdon]
    Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 22:19:21 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes


I think I have a love/hate relationship with Ameritech Mobile. About
the time I declare they are the sleaziest people in the industry, they
do something to restore my goodwill.

Consider:

  o  They eliminated their 'ten cent plan', which cost $10 per month
and allowed off-peak calls at ten cents per minute (sicty-five cents
in peak time.)        **  BOO, HISS **

  o  They grandfathered the plan to existing customers who had the
service, however, incuding yours truly, but raised the rate to $19.95
per month.

  o  Under the grandfathered plan, although the recurring charge is
now $19.95 per month, they reduced the off-peak rates slightly. They
now charge ten cents *for the first three minutes*, and ten cents
thereafter; meaning if I am willing to talk to you for three minutes,
hang up and dial over again as a fresh call, I can talk to you for six
minutes for only twenty cents. That is a very inexpensive rate.

  o  They also eliminated all call-forwarding fees on calls forwarded
from the cell number to elsewhere in the local area. Previously, they
had been charging about between five and fifteen cents per call
transferred, based on what Illinois Bell was charging them for a local
area call. Now they give those away free, for just the two dollars per
month otherwise charged for 'transfer on busy/no answer'. Since I
leave my cell phone forwarded all the time to my Centel Voicemail box,
this is a nice savings for me.

  o  Although they are now getting $9.95 per month more on basic
service than they were in the past, unlike Cellular One, they do not
charge separately for 'transfer on busy' and 'transfer on no answer'
at $2.00 each. Neither do they, like Cellular One, charge airtime for
calls being forwarded (to another landline number) or double airtime
for three-way calling and calls accepted from call-waiting.  Yes, you
read that correctly: Cellular One/Chicago charges *double* airtime
when you make a three-way call from your cell phone or accept a call
waiting. You cannot convince them that only one over-the-air channel
is being used and that only one actual radio transmission is going on.
The third caller in either direction is handled from their switch --
not from your cell phone or the tower!!

So it seems I get ripped one way with Ameritech, and another way with
Cellular One ... thus my pleasure at receiving the message which
follows from someone who travels out of town a lot, reprograms his own
phone with the cell carrier's blessings, and saves BIG $$ each time he
does it. Read on ....


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 18:11:02 CDT
Subject: Personally Reprogramming Cellular Phones
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>


In regards to the Moderator's question about reprogramming your own
cellular phone when moving between cities to avoid roaming charges:

I currently reside in or near Chicago.  Recently I purchased a Nokia
Mobira "handportable" cellular phone.  As I mentioned earlier in this
forum, I learned from the dealer the "secret code" for entering
programming mode, as he signed me up with Ameritech Mobile
Communications, Inc.

Every weekend I return to a little town in southwest Michigan called
Berrien Springs.  (Girlfriend lives there, etc.)  I take my cellular
phone with me.  This last weekend I received a bill from Ameritech,
and of $80 in charges, $35 were for roaming in Michigan.  And that $35
was for approximately 10 calls, none more than 2 minutes.

Ameritech is the wireline carrier in Chicago, I believe.  The wireline
carrier in southwest Michigan is Century Cellunet.  Century Cellunet
concentrates their coverage on the I-94 corridor through Berrien
County, resulting in poor coverage for Berrien Springs, and much of
the rest of Berrien County.  So that $35 was for substandard quality
service!

Last week I found myself in Berrien County on Wednesday instead of
Friday, due to some equipment failure where I work.  I called Cellular
One, the non-wireline carrier in Berrien County.  They liked the idea
of having a new subscriber, but explained that the person who usually
reprogrammed phones was out of the office that day.

I explained that I would be using their service only when in Berrien
County, and that when I returned to Chicago during the week I would
reprogram my phone back to Chicago service.  They agreed to my plan,
and invited me to their office.

After filling out the requisite forms, they assigned me a phone
number.  I put the phone into programming mode.  I had written down
the settings for Ameritech in Chicago, and they pointed out the
differences (paging channel number, system ID, group number, NAM)
between their system and Ameritech's.  I reprogrammed my phone, they
read the ESN from their switch right there in the office, and I walked
out of the office with full cellular service in Berrien County,
including a new number.

One of their customer service reps said that "it's good you know how
[to reprogram your own cellular phone].  You'll save quite a bit of
money that way."

They charged me $25 for service activation, but not the $20
reprogramming fee.  Their service cost is quite reasonable:
$7.50/month, .35/minute peak, and .15/minute off-peak.  Peak times are
8-8, Monday-Friday except holidays.  I use the $2/month forwarding
option to forward my cellular number to my home when I'm there, or
office at school, or Grandmother's house for lunch, or whatever.
Cellular One has excellent coverage all over Berrien County.

So now, when I travel I-94 between Berrien County and Chicago, I stop
at the rest areas near the Michigan/Indiana border, and reprogram the
phone.  It takes all of 30 seconds to do, my service isn't
interrupted, and I don't pay those incredible roaming charges.  To
avoid missing calls, I could forward the Chicago cellular number to
the Berrien County number just before I reprogram the phone.

My experience with multiple cellular services has been quite
favorable.  I'd like to hear about other people's experiences, and
maybe the Digest would as well.


Bill Nickless    [e-mail]  or  uunet!sharkey!aucis!bnick


[Moderator's Note: Yes, please, more stories would be welcome. I think
it is time to begin cutting dealers and their exhorbinant fees out of
the picture, as well as cellular carriers who won't work on a
reasonable basis with their customers.  PT]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Line Status Indicator Lamp
Date: Mon, 30-Apr-90 06:09:43 PDT


Some time ago, there was a flurry of questions and answers about a
gadget to light a lamp when another extension was off-hook.  I didn't
follow the discussion, not needing such a gadget myself, but I thought
the following advertisement might be of interest:

    LINE STATUS INDICATOR (Line Powered)
    o   Know at a glance if a line is busy
    o   Know at a glance if your fax or modem is in use
    o   Ideal for workstations or part line
    o   Ready to use in minutes
    o   Available in 2500 faceplate
    o   Made in USA; lifetime guarantee

    Crest Industries, Inc.
    201 Frontage Road North
    Suite B
    Pacific, Washington  98047
    [phone]

    (Network World, 23 April 1990, page 50)

The ad shows two versions ... one is a box about the size of a pack of
cigarettes with two modular jacks on the back.  The other is a lamp
built into the faceplate of a standard 2500 set with a couple of spade
lugs coming off it.  No mention of price.

Disclaimer:  I've never heard of these people, I don't have any use for the
device, and the only thing I can say for sure is that they have enough money
for a small (1/6 page) ad in the back of -Network World-.  Caveat emptor.


| Stephen Fleming                 |  Internet: [e-mail]   |
| Director, Technology Marketing  |  CI$: 76354,3176    AOL: SFleming   |
| Northern Telecom                |  BIX: srfleming     X.500:  ???     |
| Eastern Region  / Federal Ntwks +-------------------------------------|
| McLean, Virginia  22102-4203    |    Opinions expressed do not        |
| [phone]                  |    represent Northern Telecom.      |


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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 1:58:21 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards


Did anyone else get a new Telecom*USA Calling Card in the mail this
past week besides myself?

You dial the 800 number, enter the seven digit authorization code on
the face of the card, and proceed. They give you free of charge a ten
number personal speed dial directory tied into your account. To call a
number on your list, you dial *91 through *99. To program it, dial
*90.

In addition, *1 gets you their version of 900/976 stuff, at 39 cents a
minute. *2 gets conference calling, *3 gets voicemail, which is tied
into an 800 number for incoming calls to your box; *4 is used for
store and forward.

It seems like a pretty nice little card. They have a thirty cent
surcharge on calls.

 From the looks of the mailing, these things went out in bulk over the
past couple weeks to whoever is (a) defaulted to Telecom*USA or (b)
has 800 number through them, as I do.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Splitting Area Code 416?
Date: 30 Apr 90 13:56:51 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


The 'Bell News' a Bell internal newsletter, said that this change
affected 152 Bell switches (can't find it for the break down of
types).  Only about half of these were digital - the others were 1ESS,
#5 crossbar, and some really odd ones.

A DMS or 5ESS can play tricks based on timing - but not many of the
other switches.  Then there are the vast number of different PBXes...

Dial plan changes will make 1 + NPA + 7 digits universal for all of
North America soon, anyway!


Henry Troup
BNR owns but does not share my opinions
 ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 or  [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Selective Call Waiting
Date: 30 Apr 90 23:24:08 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]> writes:

> I asked about the availability of pressing a * sequence to temporarily
> disable call waiting for the period of one call.  "It's not available
> in Randolph".  When might it be available? "Never".  Why not?  "It's
> available in towns with older switches" (that's not a mistype) "but
> not in towns with newer switches".

This could be true, but if so indicates that your telco is a little
backward. Cancel Call Waiting (CCW) was first made available in the
1AESS (unfortunately the 1ESS doesn't have the room in its generic for
this feature). Later, the generics for the DMS and 5ESS switches were
updated to provide CCW. What is probably the case is that they offer
it in the 1AESS but haven't updated the generics in their digital
switches yet.

> Can you tell me the kind of switch handles Randolph?  "No, we don't
> give out that kind of information - why do you want to know?"

This is essential information. Many types of CPE need to be set up
based upon the type of serving CO. I agree with Patrick; ask to speak
with a supervisor. FYI, anyone with any knowledge and a good ear can
identify most popular types of CO switches. Keeping that information
"secret" went out with the Bell System.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit
Date: 30 Apr 90 23:13:27 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes:

> Granted, you are paying good money for the hotel room no doubt;
> however, is it fair to those who do not use a hotel phone very much,
> if at all (for example a family just passing through a city) to jack
> up their hotel rates to pay for the switchboard operator to take your
> phone calls??  In actual fact, I have never seen a hotel's financial
> statements that show the telephone operation for guests running at a
> profit.  This is usually break-even at best.

So how, pray tell, does an operation such as Motel 6 manage to provide
clean, reasonable rooms, free local calls, no surcharge on long
distance calls, for such low rates? As the administrator for several
large business PBXs, I know what it costs to man and maintain the
phones. It isn't that much.

At large hotels (where the room prices are certainly high enough to
cover things like phones) there are "operators" who put incoming calls
through to the restaurants, reservations desk, shops, general hotel
services, as well as to the rooms. Outgoing calls from the rooms are
handled AUTOMATICALLY -- personel cost: $0. Phone system maintenance
is part of hotel cost of doing business (or at least it has been so
historically before the bean counters found a new revenue scam).

At small operations, the person at the desk usually answers the phone.
Cost of switchboard attendance: $0. And again, outgoing calls are
handled automatically (or by the AOS).

Folks, this hotel phone ripoff charges thing is relatively new.
Somehow the hotels and motels managed to survive in the past without
pulling this garbage. Oh, they do it to keep the general room rates
low? That's a laugh!


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


[Moderator's Note: My only disagreement with John's article is his
saying the hotel phone ripoff is relatively new. Years ago, when the
hotels were still running manual cord boards, the operators were (to
be charitable) very casual about timing the calls, checking to see if
the called number answered or not, and billing them correctly. I agree
with the original author: the switchboard is a loser in any hotel, not
a money maker, but this does not mean they couldn't take a little
better care of how they treat the guests who make calls. What has
happened is hotels are trying to make the switchboard into a
profitable thing for the hotel. A better way to do it would be by
careful billing, good operator service and reasonable pricing, to
encourage more people to make calls from their rooms, not fewer.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #302
******************************

ISSUE 303 - 304 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 303 WILL FOLLOW 304.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14608;
          2 May 90 4:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20540;
          2 May 90 2:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01511;
          2 May 90 1:26 CDT
Date:     Wed, 2 May 90 0:57:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #304
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 2 May 90 00:56:55 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 304

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [Carl Moore]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [Scott Fybush]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [Paul Sawyer]
    Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Kee Hinckley]
    Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries [David Leibold]
    Re: ``Thank You For Using AT&T'' [John R. Levine]
    Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Dan'l DanehyOakes]
    Caller-ID For Modem Dial-up Security [Troy Monaghen]
    Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [John R. Levine]
    Hotel Phone Charges (was Re: Teletronics) [S. Kass]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 10:51:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station


I believe that cross-listing service/gas stations by brand of gas is
done elsewhere.  For example, it was in a 1979 Northeastern Md. phone
book I just looked up.  Apparently some places do not do such cross-
listing?

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 14:57:36 edt
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station


In reply to John Higdon: There are a number of reasons why a *gas*
(not a service) station wouldn't need or want a listed number.  If
there's only one person staffing the station, which is frequently the
case, a ringing phone can be both a distraction and an impediment to
serving the customer.  Besides, why would you need to call a gas
station, especially (as mine was) a 24-hour one..."Hi, how much is
your regular unleaded this week?"

Also, I am reasonably certain that Rochester Tel will not allow pay
phones to be listed as business lines.


Scott Fybush

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 12:09:11 GMT


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

>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?

This brings to mind Aubuchon Hardware -- an old New England chain
whose policy is NO TELEPHONES!  Have you ever been at a checkout, with
one or two items, and had the clerk stop to answer the phone and chat
for five minutes with someone who is only checking prices of widgets
in every store in a ten mile radius?  Mr. Aubuchon decided years ago
that the store personnel had a responsibility to give their full
attention to the customer in the store.


Paul S. Sawyer              uunet!unh!unhtel!paul     [e-mail]
UNH Telecommunications        attmail!psawyer       [e-mail]
Durham, NH  03824-3523      VOX: 603-862-3262         FAX: [phone]

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

From: Kee Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia
Organization: asi
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 17:41:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donald E.
Kimberlin) writes:

>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

I rather prefer the pay-phone at the country store near my parents in
Maine.  There you dial the number, wait for the party to answer, and
then insert the coins.  For a short amount of time you can both
converse without inserting any money, after which they can talk, but
they won't be able to hear you.  Needless to say, this is great if
you've forgoten what you were supposed to get at the store.

(It's not a Bell system, but rather Community Service Telephone, which
covers 5 or 6 towns in their area.)

                -kee

| Alphalpha Software, Inc. | Voice/Fax: [phone] |   Home: 617/641-3805   |
| 148 Scituate St.         | Smart fax, dial number. |                        |
| Arlington, MA 02174      | Dumb fax, dial number,  |   BBS:  617/641-3722   |
| [e-mail]     | wait for ring, press 3. |   300/1200/2400 baud   |

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Codes and Political Boundaries
Reply-To: [e-mail] (woody)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 14:50:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon) writes:

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

Interesting indeed, considering that Ottawa is the first in Bell
Canada's territory to have Caller ID in regular service... however,
the exchanges generally follow certain sides of the creek:

Ottawa-side (613 Ontario): 943, 945, 951, 952, 954, 955, 957, 990, 991, 992,
                           993, 995, 996, 998
Hull-side (819 Quebec):    953, 956, 994, 997

Another strange occurrence is that St Regis Quebec has the exchange
613-575, 613 of course supposed to be representing eastern Ontario, an
exception to the political boundary situation.

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

Subject: Re: ``Thank You For Using AT&T''
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 30 Apr 90 18:00:21 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> mtndew![e-mail] (Steve
Friedl) 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"?

Another such place is Lake Buena Vista FL, served by Vista-United, the
phone company with the mouse ears on the phone book.  This company,
which seems to be related financially to both United Tel and the
Disney people, exists solely to serve Disney World and the related
businesses in its immediate area.  As far as I can tell, it has no
residential subscribers.

In any event, if you dial 0 from either a payphone or a hotel, you get
an AT&T operator who doubles as the local operator.  (A real local
operator, too, I called to report that I always got fast busy when
trying to call the number to make dinner reservations at EPCOT, and as
soon as I told her the number, she recognized it and told me that it's
extremely overloaded, she didn't have any way to get in either.)
Dialing 0+number gets a bong with no "AT&T" recording, but after you
enter the card number a funky local sounding recording thanks you for
using AT&T.  Unless, of course, you're using one of the COCOTs at the
non-Disney owned hotels which thank you for being a sucker and using
their AOS company.


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

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

From: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product
Date: 1 May 90 18:50:42 GMT
Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stan Krieger)
writes:

>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.

Mr. Krieger it's apparent that you are not a parent.  CID is
definitely prefer- able to an answering machine for this purpose, for
a number of reasons. . .  but since most of them are emotional, I
won't go into them.

But I have to observe that there is no need to create a market for
CID.  Businesses want it badly.  The advantage to (for example) a
broker is obvious: route the CID information to your data base, and by
the time you pick up the phone, the name and account summary of your
client are on the screen in front of you -- you can answer the phone,
"Hi, George.  Did you want to sell that Ameritech today?" [or
whatever].

The advantage to 911 services also seems obvious; and this alone
justifies the service, imao.

Finally. . . the "invasion of privacy" argument is nothing but a red
herring.  The caller has chosen to invade the callee's privacy by
ringing the phone; I suggest that the callee has the right to know
who's ringing the phone so s/he can make an informed decision about
whether to answer or not.  Claiming that CID invades the caller's
privacy is like saying you should have the right to knock on doors
wearing a mask and disguising your voice.  Fooey.

By the way, I wouldn't bother writing to WWOR.  I guarantee they know
the topic is controversial.


Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

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

Subject: Caller-ID For Modem Dial-up Security
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 14:13:34 EDT
From: Troy Monaghen <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]


After reading several articles about Caller-ID on the mailing list I
started wondering if it could be used for dial-up modem security.  It
would seem to be a step above a system where the modem calls the user
back at an authorized number.  With Caller-ID it could be set up so
that the modem never even answers the phone unless the call is from an
authorized number.  This way a hacker would never even know that a
modem was on the other end of the the number they are calling.

Any comments on how well this would work?  Does anybody know of a
Caller-ID device with an RS232 port so I can connect it to my
computer?  Is caller ID really secure or is there a possibility of a
phone hacker somehow faking it out?

Thanks in advance for any information.


 Troy Monaghen, Motorola, Inc.      |\|  Internet:               [e-mail]
 General Systems Sector             |/|  UUCP:       ...!mcdchg!amtfocus!troym
 Advanced Manufacturing Technology  |\|  Local:                 troym@amtfocus

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

Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 1 May 90 13:33:45 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Has any hotel ever refused to give you an accurate description of the
>charges when you ask?

Yes, I have had hotels try to charge me ten bucks for a call to
950-1022 because "the computer said so."  Every time I check out, I
have to look at the bill to remove calls placed from other rooms,
calls that got a busy signal, you name it.  It's a major pain in the
neck.

>In fact, I would be willing to bet that in the hotel room there was a very
>detailed explanation of rates and charging methods available.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  They tend to be particularly vague when
it comes to charges for calling card and direct dial long distance,
and 800 calls.  I bet there isn't one hotel in 10 that could tell you
what a calling card call would cost unless they are among the few that
still charges the flat AT&T rate.

The claim that you should pay extra for your room phone because it
costs the hotel is self-serving twaddle.  Hotels put phones in the
rooms because it makes it more likely for people to stay there, the
same reason they provide towels, soap, and furniture, none of which
cost extra at any hotel with which I am familiar.  Personally, I find
the current situation little better than no phone since to know what
I'm going to pay I have to go to the lobby and use a pay phone, which
as often as not is a misprogrammed COCOT.

Hotels are driving away clients by nickel and diming them to death and
I am increasingly inclined to stay at the Motel 6 where you pay what
you pay and that's that.  A Travelodge where I stayed last month had
pay movies on the TV instead of free HBO, overpriced coke machines
masquerading as in-room refrigerators, 75 cent local and 800 calls
from room phones, COCOTs in the lobby, and even attempted to make me
pay a "mandatory" dollar per day surcharge for the local paper and an
in-room safe, neither of which I wanted.  They won't be seeing me
again, even though the hotel and its restaurant were otherwise pretty
nice.

If hotels wised up and made calls from room phones cost the same as
calls from a pay phone, e.g. 25 cents for a local call, direct dial
rate plus 75 cents for a long distance call, no surcharge for 0+ or
800 calls, they'd probably make out as well as or better than now.  I
expect MCI or Sprint would be happy to come up with an arrangement at
those rates that still gave some revenue back to the hotel.  Customers
would make more calls, and they'd be more likely to come back, too.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 17:00 EDT
From: "No gas will be sold to anyone in a glass container." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel Phone Charges (was Re: Teletronics...)


In Telecom Digest, Issue 301, [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey) writes:
                <quote of original post deleted>

> As the administrator of a Hotel PBX, I do have to take some offence at
> the foregoing remarks as to the "honesty" of hotel phone charges.  Has
> any hotel ever refused to give you an accurate description of the
> charges when you ask?  I would be very surprised if this were so;
> therefore, how can you describe this as dishonest?  In fact, I would
> be willing to bet that in the hotel room there was a very detailed
> explanation of rates and charging methods available.

<FLAME ON>

I've never, in many attempts, gotten an accurate disclosure of hotel
phone billing charges when checking in, verbally or in writing, even
though I always ask.  On the other hand, before I got wise and stopped
using phones in hotel rooms, the manager always came up with an
explanation of all charges after the fact, usually a clumsy one, based
on his or her interpretation of the surprise bill.

> While we are on the subject, I would like to mention one of the
> rationales (I do not necessarily agree with it) for charging a local
> call at a rate higher than a pay phone call -- pay phones don't answer
> incoming calls and take messages for you when you are not in your
> room.  Granted, you are paying good money for the hotel room no doubt;
> however, is it fair to those who do not use a hotel phone very much,
> if at all (for example a family just passing through a city) to jack
> up their hotel rates to pay for the switchboard operator to take your
> phone calls??  In actual fact, I have never seen a hotel's financial
> statements that show the telephone operation for guests running at a
> profit.  This is usually break-even at best.

<SARCASM ON>

You should charge more for outgoing calls because incoming calls take
time and money to service?  Gimme a break.  If you want to recoup the
cost of the receptionist's time, charge $1 for each incoming message.
This whole idea that phone charges should pay for the entire hotel
phone system is phony.  Why not put pay TV, pay hot water and pay
electrical appliances in the hotel, so that the TV, hot water and
electrical operations break even.  Of course maybe that would be a
good idea.  It would be "fairer" to those customers who don't shower
or who don't watch TV, or who don't use the lights.

<FLAME AND SARCASM OFF>

S.Kass|Math&CS Dept|Drew U|Madison NJ 07940|2014083614|[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #304
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14640;
          2 May 90 4:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20540;
          2 May 90 2:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01511;
          2 May 90 1:26 CDT
Date:     Wed, 2 May 90 0:27:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #303
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 2 May 90 00:27:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 303

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [John Cowan]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Joel Spolsky]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Context=dependent Phone Numbers? [Chris Ambler]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [Bob Haddleton]
    Re: Automated Telemarketing Hoot of the Month [Ralph Hightower]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 16:13:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]> writes:

>If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country,
>I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for
>international dialing access", the country code (which you just have
>to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct?

Not quite.  The + all by itself means "local international access
code".  The 1 is the country code for USA/Canada/Caribbean nations.
So, for example, if 00 is the international access code, then you
would dial a U.S. number as 00-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX.

>I guess I am looking for an international phone number format that can
>be written into a spec for addresses in "dial-SMTP".

All countries everywhere that are direct-dialable at all can be
handled with at most 3 digits of country code and at most 12 digits of
intracountry phone number.  (In fact, I doubt any country actually
uses more than 10 digits, the U.S. maximum, but 12 digits are allowed
for by relevant CCITT standards).

What does require local adaptation is deciding what to strip off the
front when calling a number that is in fact local.  This can be done
with a set of "rewrite rules" of the form X -> Y, which means: "If the
international phone number begins with X, remove the X and substitute
Y."  These rewrite rules must be applied in order to get the right
results.  Here are the rewrite rules for me in 212-land:

"+1212" -> ""        ; rewrite intra-NPA with no prefix
"+1" -> "1"        ; rewrite intra-country with 1+ prefix
"+" -> "011"        ; rewrite international to use 011 dialing

These are easy to modify to adapt to other area codes, countries,
phone services, etc. etc.  Naturally, you need to strip out all
hyphens, parentheses, etc. etc. before applying these codes.

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 15:07:43 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, tots![e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

> As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it
> appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number.

Au contraire, mon ami.

> How can I put my number in a database, so that it can be extracted and
> dialed properly anywhere in the world? It seems that there is a great
> deal of "local" knowledge that must be built into the dialing software
> (probably on a per-country basis) in order to turn +1 xxx yyy zzzz
> into something that can be dialed anywhere in the world.

This is actually a different (and harder) problem than specifying a
phone number in a universal manner.  See below for more discussion.

> If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country,
> I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for
> international dialing access", the country code (which you just have
> to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct?

You're on the right track, but that's not quite right.  It's the "+"
*alone* that means "dial the international access code".  Here in most
of the NANP (North American Numbering Plan, which encompasses the US,
Canada and most of the Caribbean), "+" should be translated to "011".
In the UK, "+" equals "010".  In West Germany, it's "00".  In other
words, the international access code varies from country to country.

The number immediately *after* the "+" is the country code, a unique
number with one, two, or three digits.  We in the NANP happen to be
graced with the country code "1", which is one of only two
single-digit country codes in the entire system (the other being the
USSR, which has "7").  It's mere happenstance that our country code is
identical with the inter-area-code prefix that we use to dial long
distance *within* the confines of the NANP.  (Note also that even
though country codes have variable length, there's no ambiguity.  This
is because no two-digit or three-digit country codes have as their
first digit any of the one-digit country codes, and no three-digit
country codes have as their first two digits any of the two-digit
country codes.)

So, yes, there is a "universal" way to unambiguously specify a
telephone number, and the example you give is correct for a number in
the NANP.  But knowing the exact sequence of digits to dial is
slightly harder, since some additional knowledge is needed to fully
parse a "+" format phone number:

1)  You need to know if you're already *inside* the destination
    country code.  For example, if I try to dial 011-1-919-248-6231
    from my home phone, it won't work -- Southern Bell and AT&T won't
    let me dial a domestic call as if it were an international call.

2)  If you are in some other country than your call destination, you
    need to know if direct international dialing is even available
    from your phone (and if it is, whether the country you're calling
    is reachable).  Equipment capabilities and international politics
    can make this a non-trivial question.

3)  Assuming that's okay, you still need to know the international
    access prefix in use in the country from which you're calling.


Assuming that your database will stay in one particular country, items
2 and 3 can be taken care of just once.  But you'll probably still
have to special-case item 1, so that domestic calls get dialed
correctly.  And there might even be another layer or two of
special-casing under that, to handle the difference between local and
long-distance domestic calls.

To give you a concrete example, here's how I would set up such an
autodialing system if I had one in my office:

1)  Strip off the leading "+" and examine the number to be dialed
    If it doesn't begin with "1", then dial "011" and then the entire
    number.  Otherwise, strip the leading "1" off the number and
    continue to the next rule.

2)  Examine the first three digits.  If they're not "919", then dial
    "1" and then the number.  Otherwise, strip off the leading "919"
    and continue to the next rule.

3)  Examine the first three digits.  If they're "248", "481", or any
    of the many other exchanges available in my local calling area,
    then just dial the number.  Otherwise, dial "1919" and then the
    number.


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

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

From: Joel Spolsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Date: 1 May 90 15:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: Joel Spolsky <[e-mail]>
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158


In article <[e-mail]> tots![e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

>As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it
>appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number.

>If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country,
>I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for
>international dialing access", the country code (which you just have
>to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct?

Nope. The "+" means "dial whatever your telco requires for int'l
dialing access". The 1 means your country code is 1 (US). So numbers
in England are +44.City Code.Phone Number. This is, fortunately,
becoming something of a standard in Europe.


|  Joel Spolsky  | bitnet: [e-mail]     uucp: ...!yale!spolsky |
|                | internet: [e-mail]     voicenet: 203-436-1538 |

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 16:41:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, tots!tep@logicon (Tom Perrine) writes:

| If a person sees this number: +1 xxx yyy zzzz, in some other country,
| I *think* that the "+1" means "dial whatever your telco requires for
| international dialing access", the country code (which you just have
| to "know", and then xxx yyy zzzz. Is this correct?

No.  The "+" is the indication for a canonical international phone
number (exactly what you asked for), and is immediately followed by
the country code.  In this case, "1" is the country code for the US!
The similarity to how we US-residents access a non-international
long-distance phone number probably confused you.

In other countries, they would dial whatever sequence they need to get
to "international long distance", then "1 xxx yyy zzzz".  Think of the
"+" as a macro that expands to the "international long distance access
function".

Just another telephone user,


 =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 |


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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 10:16:12 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?


Tom Perrine <tots![e-mail]> writes "+1 xxx yyy zzzz".  But that
IS the form used for displaying your phone number in U.S., Canada, or
Caribbean area (which all lie in country code 1) in other areas!  The
1 also happens to be the long- distance access code in much of the
area served by country code 1.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 8:43:57 GMT
Organization: Dr. Ho's secret laboratory and day care centre.


tots![e-mail] (Tom Perrine) recently informed us:

>As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it
>appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number.

>How can I put my number in a database, so that it can be extracted and
>dialed properly anywhere in the world? It seems that there is a great
>deal of "local" knowledge that must be built into the dialing software
>(probably on a per-country basis) in order to turn +1 xxx yyy zzzz
>into something that can be dialed anywhere in the world.

I, too, could use something that would help out in this case. In my
case, I am writing a BBS and get frequent overseas callers. The way I
do it now is as what country the caller is from. If it's the USA, I
know that the phone number is (XXX) YYY-ZZZ (canada and a few other
places too). Otherwise, I just give them a 25 character string to
fill. I'd like to know the formats so I could prompt for them.


++Christopher(); --- [e-mail] --- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 21:57:39 GMT


>     What you totally fail to comprehend, however, is the
> significant costs associated with extending outside cable plant.

    [ comprehensive cost estimate for extra lines deleted ]

But what about new technology? Suppose you put some sort of
multiplexors on those lines, and ran a bunch of digital voice over the
major portion of the existing plant? How does that change the
economics?


Peter da Silva. [phone].      <[e-mail]>
Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address is acceptable.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 20:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


Patrick: I haven't been reading this newsgroup too long, but I
followed this topic from the beginning, and one thing that people seem
to have overlooked is the following:

Telcos are not ALLOWED to force people to change from multi-party
service to (more convenient) more expensive single line service. It
may have been part of the MFJ or some other rulings, (FCC? PUC?) but I
have been told that the reason that the latest and greatest digital
switches have to provide multi-party service is because the telcos
cannot simply replace all of the party lines with individual lines
when they go digital due to the rulings. This prevents the telcos from
forcing rural customers to pay higher rates for services they may not
really need.

This is good for the customers, but tends to make life difficult for
the telcos/switch vendors.


Bob Haddleton
[e-mail]

Bob Haddleton        AT&T Network Systems    [phone]
att!nwgpb!bobh        Lisle, IL        [e-mail]

My opinions are my own, if I could only remember where I left them...

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

From: Ralph Hightower <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Telemarketing Hoot of the Month
Date: 1 May 90 15:22:34 GMT
Reply-To: Ralph Hightower <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC


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

>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
> :

I've gotten mad at these telemarketers using "prizes" as an incentive
for you to visit their time-share condos and get some cheap prize for
listening to the sales pitch.

I got one call from Awards Verification Service in North Carolina
(area code 919) telling me that I had won a Suzuki Samarai (isn't that
the one that flips over?) on my answering machine.  So I called them
direct (my dime) and learn that it's a sleazy time-share condo deal in
Santee SC; well I told them that I was never interested in a
time-share anything and I thought that was that.

Two days later, another message on the machine from AVS giving me the
same pitch.  Well, I'm smarter now; I didn't use my money to make the
call.  I called COLLECT.  It turns out that Awards Verification
Service will not accept collect calls, but they pull my name & number
out of their "records" and call me back.  That's when I told them that
I never was, not now, and never will be interested in time-shares and
NEVER EVER CALL ME AGAIN!  She snidely replied "Have a nice day!"

So I wonder, is it possible to call a 900 number collect?


            [e-mail]  <Ralph M. Hightower>
            NCR Corp., Engineering & Manufacturing - Columbia, SC
                               Home of THE USC!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #303
******************************

ISSUES 303 - 304 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 304 APPEARS IN FRONT
OF 303 IN THIS ARCHIVE. THE NEXT ISSUE HERE IS 305.












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16724;
          2 May 90 5:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31373;
          2 May 90 3:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac20540;
          2 May 90 2:33 CDT
Date:     Wed, 2 May 90 1:50:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #305
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 2 May 90 01:49:55 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 305

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Card [Dennis Brophy]
    Re: The Card [Roy Smith]
    Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Peter da Silva]
    Re: The Card (details) [Johnny Zweig]
    Re: The Card, TDD Style [Ken Harrenstien]
    Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card) [Kim Long]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card  [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards [Mark Robert Smith]
    Re: Playing Matchmaker [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [David E. Martin]
    Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone [Douglas S. Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 11:38:16 PDT
From: Dennis Brophy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card


Why not apply I thought?  A chance to combine a charge card with the
bulky calling card is wonderful.  Yes, AMEX has MCI, but I have failed
to use it.  Perhaps this will make it easier for me.

But of course, nothing can be simple.  With two Dennis Brophy's in the
same small Oregon town, there is going to be some problems.  I've
already been asked to pay this guys 1-year overdue energy bills.  I
wonder if AT&T will know the difference between us?

I guess they don't (at least not yet):

    "Thank you for applying for the AT&T Universal Card.

    "We regret that we are unable to grant your request at this time
     because:

        YOUR CREDIT HISTORY INCLUDES SLOW AND/OR PAST DUE PAYMENTS
        YOUR CREDIT HISTORY INCLUDES DEROGATORY PAYMENT HISTORY
        YOUR CREDIT HISTORY DOES NOT MEET THE PROGRAM REQUIREMENT

    "This information was provided by..."

So, I called AT&T and ask out of curiosity if my CREDIT HISTORY is
tarnished with failures to pay the gas/electric companies?  Because if
that is so, they really belong to someone else.  One moment and let me
see what we have here...  Based on what I see and what you have said,
I will forward this to our Credit Manager for review... Has a person
looked at this before I asked?  No, the authorization process is
computerized, but mistakes do happen...  What are you reading about my
CREDIT HISTORY, I ask.  I'm not permitted to give you this
information.  You may ask for a full report from the company giving us
this information which should be on the letter you are reading.

Well, I really don't need The Card.  I usually only use AMEX and keep
a MC as a backup.  Perhaps I have more time to decide if I want it or
not.  The saga continues...


Dennis Brophy          INTERNET: [e-mail]
Mentor Graphics Corp.  MCI MAIL: 4222648 (...!uiucuxc!mcimail.com!0004222648)
8500 SW Creekside Place   VOICE: [phone]
Beaverton, OR 97005-7191    FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 12:06:26 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


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

> [Moderator's Note: *Please* send more details on this! How was that
> explained-away by AT&T, or did they bother?  Is the card working now?  PT]

    I'll send a note for distribution on the list when all the
dust settles.  AT&T is supposed to be calling us back when the figured
out what went wrong.


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane?  Did you say arcane?  It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 90 15:24:53 GMT


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 suspect your contract with the local operating company has similar
wording. I also suspect that this only refers to calls you make on the
AT&T card, not your local phone.


Peter da Silva. [phone].  <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address is acceptable.

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card (details)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 19:13:00 GMT


I just got my packet of information about the AT&T Universal Card. The
deal with the calling-card number is that these calls appear on the
same bill as your VISA purchases, but form part of the monthly minimum
payment (i.e. you can't let the balance slide and pay interest as you
can with credit purchases) -- they are separate but included, as it
were.

Also the Buyer Protection (tm) is part of every purchase on every
card, not just a goodie for Gold VISA carriers.


Johnny Card

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 15:10:56 PDT
From: Ken Harrenstien <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card, TDD Style


I thought I would throw in another tidbit about AT&T's Universal Card.
When I finally got the brochure info, a week after receiving the
actual card (itself about 3 weeks after telephonic application), I
found that buried near the end was a TDD number for customer service
(800/367-8997), and called that just to check it out.

At first I got an auto-answer TDD announcement asking callers to leave
a message.  However, when I started typing what was to be a grumble
about their "service guarantee", I was interrupted by a live person.
It turns out that they have 6 TDDs online; I don't know how that
compares with the number of voice lines, but at least it's more than
just one.  These lines are also supposed to be staffed 24 hours a day,
just like the voice lines; this is very good, since in my experience
most TDD numbers that parallel 24-hour services are in truth only
active during normal work hours for that timezone.  On the other hand,
he may just have meant that calls would be answered by something,
rather than someone.  Maybe I should test it at 2am to find out.

In the middle of our conversation we were cut off (gee, and I could
have sworn I was using AT&T...) and my attempts to call back were met
with nonsensical noise signals, which I later found were saying "All
lines are busy, please hold and blah blah etc" -- not real helpful for
TDD callers.

On the other hand, a few minutes after I gave up trying, I received a
call back from the service agent who was using the number I had left
at the start of my message.  He apologized for the disconnect, said he
had tried calling back immediately but kept getting busy signals
(telephone tag, I guess) and said they were working on the
busy-message problem.

So I'd rate their service as promising ... not perfect, but they seem
to be trying.  They did misspell my name on the first card, but I
received a corrected card one week after calling them about it; good
enough.  I just wish they would publish the TDD number alongside the
voice number, since the latter is printed in literally hundreds of
different places, whereas the TDD number only appears in one place.
In particular, it is not printed on the card itself.  Oh well, what's
a little more consciousness raising.

Aside from that, it looks like a GREAT deal, especially for someone
like myself who has a completely null credit history (long story).  I
was concerned about having the calling card # embossed, but it turns
out that they just assigned me what appears to be an arbitrarily
generated 507-nnn-nnnn number (I'm sure someone can tell us what it
means), with a 4-digit PIN mailed in a separate letter.  The brochure
does say you can ask to be assigned a specific PIN, but since one of
its uses is calling-card identification, I doubt they'll allow using
more than 4 digits (my bank card has 7, which I'd prefer).  What I
find most interesting is that the same PIN is supposed to be used both
for calling-card calls and ATM transactions!  Since the PIN can be
changed anytime by calling Customer Service, this implies a degree of
cooperation between the telephone and banking industries I didn't
realize existed.

Anyway, I'm very happy to have it and am very, very glad that I saw
the original news release in TELECOM, courtesy of Don H. Kemp!


Ken

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

From: Kim Long <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mastercard or Visa? (was Re: The Card)
Date: 2 May 90 01:12:12 GMT
Reply-To: Kim Long <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


Roy Smith wrote:

>    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

I worked for Chevy Chase Visa as a customer service rep for about six
months.  The main difference between one of our Gold cards and the
Silver was the line of credit.  I think to get Gold you had to be
approved for $5000.  I believe the "buyers protection" and other
options were expanded to include all card holders in order to compete
with American Express.


[e-mail]

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

Date: 1-MAY-1990 22:32:23.22
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card


Re the AT&T Universal Card: I first got through at 4:00 am of the
morning after their first day.  I asked for, and got, a complete
explanation of their requirements, fees, charges, and perks right on
line, and then applied, all in the same call.  By April 10, AT&T had
sent me a letter explaining why I didn't qualify.  By April 20, I had
a brand spanking new AT&T Universal Card (yes, I had meanwhile called
to "explain away" my "bad credit history").  My first charge, in area
603 country on April 28, was troublefree.


Prof. F.E.J. Linton    [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.    [e-mail]          attmail!fejlinton
Middletown, CT 06457      1 203 347 9411 x2249 (w)         1 203 776 2210 (h)


[Moderator's Note:  And with this final series of messages, we must
end the 'Card' discussion, and side-threads which  have started on the
topic. It simply is going too far away from our theme of telecom. Of
course, you may wish to write to each other, but nothing further can
appear here on on the topic.  Thanks.   PT]

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 11:23:40 EDT
From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards


Can anybody get one of these Telecom*USA cards?  It sounds like I
might want to?  Is there a number to call?


Mark Smith, KNJ2LH                All Rights Reserved
RPO 1604               You may redistribute this article only if those who
P.O. Box 5063                 receive it may do so freely.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063              [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You have to be a customer of theirs; either through
their 800 service (as am I), or a dial 1+ customer. They are located
in Cedar Rapids, IA, and have an 800 number for their customer
service.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Playing Matchmaker
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 00:37:47 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: I once had some fool use his three-way calling to
> connect me with some other party.

I had someone do that to me recently. I apparently upset some bozo
charging their calls to our number by telling on them, so they started
3-waying us to various automatic messages (phone-mail systems, and the
like). Your bozo was obviously not that inventive.


Peter da Silva. [phone].      <[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: commercial solicitation by email to this address is acceptable.

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

From: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit
Date: 1 May 90 20:28:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David E. Martin)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marcel D.
Mongeon) writes:

>As the administrator of a Hotel PBX, I do have to take some offence at
>the foregoing remarks as to the "honesty" of hotel phone charges.  Has
>any hotel ever refused to give you an accurate description of the
>charges when you ask?  I would be very surprised if this were so;
>therefore, how can you describe this as dishonest?  In fact, I would
>be willing to bet that in the hotel room there was a very detailed
>explanation of rates and charging methods available.

I have been on the road a lot during the last few months and I have
rarely found a desk clerk that can give a good explanation of a
hotel's charges for using the telephone.  Quite often I have been told
that using my calling card will not result in any charges when upon
checkout there is a $1.00 charge for every call.  It usually takes a
manager to get the charges removed after a lot of arguing.  Finding a
printed and understandable list of charges almost never happens.

On a related note, few hotel operators have any clue how to reach AT&T
if their default carrier is something else.  The dialing instructions
they give me usually get me a local operator or a reorder tone.

Interestingly enough, the expensive chains (Hilton, Omni, Hyatt, etc.)
are the worst for bad explanations and bizarre charges.  Motel 6, on
the other hand, has free local calls and no charge for using a calling
card.  You'd think the big ``service oriented'' hotels (that charge
five times as much) could match Motel 6.


David Martin    AT&T Bell Laboratories      Naperville, IL   [e-mail]

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

Date: 2-MAY-1990 01:35:01.28
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone


I've seen recent discussion about reprogramming Cell Phones, and would
like to try it out myself.

I'm particularly interested in this as I frequently travel down to
Washington DC from Connecticut, where I have service.

I don't encounter any daily roam charges or very high-priced roam
charges until I get out of Northern New Jersey, but once I enter South
Jersey, I go through * 4 * different systems until I get to the DC
system.

       Cell One South Jersey / Monmouth County - $3 Roam charge, $.80 min.
       Cell One South Jersey / Mercer City     - $3 Raom charge, $.80 min.
       MetroPhone / Philadelphia               - $3 Roam charge, $.90 min!
       Cell One / Wilmingotn, DE               - $3 Roam charge, ? min.

Also note that Cell One Monmouth County and Mercer city are the SAME
system, ie, Cell One of South Jersey, but they are slimey enough to
charge me a daily charge for each area!

As Cell One South Jersey has DMX/special Roam agreements with all the
above systems (as well as Orange County, NY, with another $3 a day
charge, and nice $.75 per min rates ... :-( ), if I could get a $19.95
account with Cell One South Jersey, within one round trip I'd save
money, assuming I made calls in each system, from Wilmington to NY,
along the way.

So ... if anoyne knows how to reprogram an Audiovox CMT-450 cell
phone, I'd love to hear about it ... I know the System ID# for both
systems involved (Cell One Jersey and Metro Mobile/CT), my ESN, etc.,
and the rest of the info I can get from Cell One. (They didn't care
who did it, as long as I forked over the $19.95 per month!)

Anyhow, if anyone has any info, please let me know or just post to the
Digest...

Thanks in advance,

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...! :-)   )


[Moderator's Note: Whenever you make any changes in programming, be
certain to obtain the carrier's approval and permission before
actually using the instrument. And I hope that anyone responding
publicly or privately to Mr. Reuben will include a disclaimer in their
message like this one pointing out that it is illegal to reprogram
your cell phone to avoid the lawful charges of a carrier.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #305
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14534;
          3 May 90 2:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22039;
          3 May 90 0:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21602;
          2 May 90 23:54 CDT
Date:     Wed, 2 May 90 23:50:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #306
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 2 May 90 23:49:44 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 306

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ring Amplification [Phillip Wherry]
    Party Line Interface [David Brightbill]
    Free Unlisted Numbers [Gary Segal]
    x11 Numbers in San Diego [Douglas W. Martin]
    Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool [Jim Gonzalez]
    Long Distance Down the Street [Robert M. Hamer]
    Q's About Northern Telecom SL/1 and VRV [John E. Girard]
    A Coat Hanger [Edward Greenberg]
    State Computer Networks For Small Businesses? [Alex Cruz]
    Canada Calling [David Leibold]
    Calling Card Billing to Visa (not The Card) [Joseph C. Pistritto]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phillip Wherry)
Subject: Ring Amplification
Date: 1 May 90 16:42:55 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Phillip Wherry)
Organization: Mitre Corporation


I have a Viking FaxJac III on my telephone line (this is one of those
gadgets which answers the telephone and listens for an automatic fax
send (CNG) tone or DTMF call routing digits; it then rings the fax
line or the voice line as appropriate.

The problem I've encountered with the device is that it is only
capable of driving two or three REN 1.0 loads; if you have more than a
few phones connected downstream of the device, it can't generate
enough current to ring all of them.

Does anyone know of a device which sits in between the line and the
telephones which is designed to boost ringing current locally?  I
would appreciate specific references if possible.

My guess is that this topic is not of overwhelming interest; send
e-mail replies directly to me.  If you're interested in hearing how
all of this works out, feel free to drop me a note and I'll send you a
summary once I have some answers.  As always, if demand warrants, I'll
happily post a summary.

Thanks!


Phil Wherry    The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA    [e-mail]
voice/fax: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 12:20:33 -0400
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Party Line Interface


While doing some electrical work on a neighbor's house, I came across
an interesting device.  At one time, the neighbor, like most folks in
our neck of the woods, had a 4 party line.  Now almost everyone has
single party service.  Anyhow, next to the service
entrance/protector/demark box was a small black potted box the size of
a pack of non-filter camels.  It is labeled Transcom Tip Party
Identifier - TPI 5/CL - A 1/0.

It has a red led on the bottom and a five conductor cable (r/g/b/y/w).
The cable was cut and the neighbor never remembered it being
connected...of course there is a lot she dosen't remember ;-).  My
guess is that the r/g pair went to the protector box, the b/y pair to
the inside plant, and the white to gnd.  My guess is that it
functioned as a ring filter and also provided a signalback to the co
identifying the subscriber.


David B.

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Free Unlisted Numbers
Date: 1 May 90 16:25:28 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (John Kurzman) writes:

>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.

This to reminds me of the method my brother used to obtain a psuedo
unlisted number.  Some years back when he was a student, he ordered
phone service.  When the rep asked what name he wanted listed, he said
"Lages" (the alert reader will notice that this is my last name -
backwords).  The rep asked him if this was a stage name or such, and
he told her the truth - he just wanted a different listing.  To his
surprise, she accepted the explaination, and entered the backwords
name!

As with Kurzman's listing, my brother was able to tell people how to
find him when he wanted to.  The most usefull feature of his listing
was when telemarketters called and asked for "Mr. Lages", he knew
right away what was calling, and what to do with it... :-)

I've always wondered why the rep allowed him to use the reverse name.
Was she just amused by his idea, and decided to let it go?  Or was
there some regulation that allows individuals to use psuedo names for
non business purposes?


Gary Segal, Motorola CID
1501 W. Shure Drive
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
the above is my opinion only, not Motorola's -----| ...!uunet!motcid!segal

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 10:28:04 PDT
From: "Douglas W. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: x11 Numbers in San Diego


     Here is a list of what the x11 numbers in San Diego, (area code
619) do.  I hope someone can explain the purpose of some of these
numbers.

311 rings and is never answered.
511 is always busy.
711xxxx gets a recording that "the call cannot be completed as dialed."
811xxxx connects to various Pac Bell offices.

and:
211xxxx usually gets a very loud pulsing tone.  This is true for
2112222 and 2113333.  Dialing 2119999 waits for more digits.
It does not appear to time out, and dialing four more digits gets the same
loud pulsing tone mentioned above.
211-1111 gets a quiet line, which eventually times out and disables the keypad.

Can anyone explain the purpose for 211, 311, and 511 here in San
Diego.  Furthermore, I would be interested in knowing any test numbers
for this area.


Doug Martin
[e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool
Date: 1 May 90 17:29:28 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA


I've gotten no replies in sci.electronics to my inquiry about
inexpensive punch-down tools.  I think I've located one, though.
Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45, but
they also offer a less expensive one for $16.

My question is, has anyone used this less expensive tool?  It is a
Siemon (*not* Siemens) S66MT.  They warn that it is only suitable for
occasional work, since it lacks the spring-loading of other tools, and
therefore presents a greater risk of damage to the block.  Is this a
serious risk?

                -Jim.

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 14:23 EDT
From: "ROBERT M. HAMER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Down the Street


"Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]> writes:

>    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!

If I am remembering correctly what I read occasionally down there,
there are plans (perhaps already implemented) to make dialing the
Research Triangle Park local from Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill,
and vica-versa.  Or maybe making the entire triangle area some sort of
extended local area.

I suspect some of the difficulties stem from different telephone
companies.  Back when I was in school there, the Chapel Hill Telephone
Company was owned by the University -- it supplied service to the
entire town; not just the University.  Similarly (if I remember
correctly), so was the electric / power company.  Sometime around 1970
the University divested itself of both properties.  Durham telephone
service is supplied by GTE.

For a while (1974-1977) I lived in a house on a street which I think
was inside Chapel Hill city limits, but was less than one block from
where Durham County began.  (Actually, I think I was about 3 houses
from Durham county -- it was a short block, about 4 fairly widely
separated houses: there was my house, a hundred feet or so of woods,
another house, and then across the street from that house: Durham
County.  It was a long distance phone call from my house to another
house 2 houses away and probably not more than a couple of hundred
feet away.  I would be interested in what things are like there now.

Also, the various branches of the University (UNC Chapel Hill, UNC
Greensboro, NC State in Raleigh) had some sort of system they called
"Telpac (or Telpak)."  By dialing, say, 125 (say, for Raleigh, from
UNC) one would be presented with a Raleigh dial tone, and one could
dial out.  This was only supposed to work from UNC office phones, but
somehow (God knows how; I was an undergraduate and should be forgiven
for both stupidity and a lack of moral sense) I discovered that from a
pay phone with the same exchange as UNC (933) I could dial 1-9, wait a
few seconds, and then dial 1-2-5, and get a Raleigh dial tone.

Furthermore, I discovered that one could then dial LONG DISTANCE using
that Raleigh dial tone, and it would go through.  God knows to where
it was billed.  When some of my friends and relatives began getting
calls asking if they knew anyone in Raleigh from the phone company, I
stopped doing it.  I went to the business office and offered to pay
for any calls I had made, but they couldn't find but perhaps one or
two.  Considering it from the present, I wonder at the sort of moral
"hole" in my reasoning that allowed me to think that was right.

Another Chapel Hill particularity was that all Chapel Hill prefixes
started with 9 (e.g., 933-, 942-, 968-), but one had to only dial the
last 6 digits (e.g., 42-5432) would connect you with 942-5432.
Another was that accessing long distance required a 3-digit access
code, different for different phones, and some phones (this is 1968)
still required operator intervention.  (All required it when the
access codes didn't work, which they often didn't).

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

From: "John E. Girard" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Q's About Northern Telecom SL/1 and VRV
Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 17:13:17 GMT


I am working with a company that has 10 Northern Telecom SL/1s, and
are installing VRVs (voice response).  These will be connected to
SNA/CICS applications and integrated with ACD for backup routing.

The questions:

1.  Who, other than Northern Telecom knows how to program the VRV?

2.  Any advice/caveats before it gets rolled out to 300,000+ users?

Please repond to:

John Girard
415-968-3324
[e-mail]

Thanks!


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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 00:21 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A Coat Hanger


Found on a wooden coat hanger, here at work:

    H. C. Nahman
    Merchant Tailor
    Est. Since 1906
    807 Divisadero St.
    San Francisco, Cal.
    Phone WEST 1393

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

From: Alex Cruz <[e-mail]>
Subject: State Computer Networks For Small Businesses?
Date: 1 May 90 19:42:18 GMT
Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC


Dear Telecom readers:

I am currently doing some research in the possibility of establishing
a state wide computer network in the State of Ohio to aid small and
medium size industries.

I am looking for past experiences in other states.  If you are aware
of any state or person that I could contact regarding a
failed/successful state funded or state run computer network, could
you please send me some e-mail.  I am aware of the Cleveland FreeNet
and I know that State of Washington had a task force in 1989
suggesting such an idea.

This network would have 5 main features:

    + e-mail with gateways to major networks.
    + bulletin boards/discussion groups.
    + electronic file exchange:
        - an extremely refined FTP
        - any size, any format, any where
        - automatic encryption/decryption included
    + database access:
        - gateways to major databases
        - databases with State of Ohio information:
            . representatives addresses
            . product index
            . industry index
            . researchers index, etc
    + access to remote computers:
        - basically a TELNET clone.

If anybody has any comments on this, please feel free to get in touch
with me or post them.  I am very interested and apparently, so are a
lot of other people.  I just happen to have the time and resources to
investigate this issue (and meanwhile, make a Master's thesis out of
it).

Thanks in advance,


**         Alex Cruz - Graduate Associate          *   1971 Neil Avenue **
** Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications *  210 Baker Systems **
**                                                 * Columbus, OH 43210 **
** INTERNET: [e-mail]        *                    **
** BITNET:   [e-mail]                   * Ph: [phone] **
** UUCP: ..!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!cruz * Fx: [phone] **

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

Subject: Canada Calling
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 22:58:13 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


Some items from the north:

1) I have just sent the latest NPA 709 (Newfoundland) exchange chart with
   place names and everything. Latest available info, and first update of
   this in about 8 months.

2) ALEX has officially started in Toronto. For some in the States, it is a
   SourceLine clone started up by Bell Canada. I have just picked up the
   free software package that Bell is giving out, and should be able to
   comment on the services a little more intelligently as time goes by.
   In general, there are some weird and wonderful service providers from
   Southam's "star" news/info line to various on-line games, message networks,
   university info/correspondence course (i think University of Waterloo
   has actual correspondence courses on-line, four of them if the ALEX
   docs are not mistaken). All in all, about 300 services on line, or
   soon to be on line.

   One unfortunate aspect of their service listings is that it was a bit
   difficult to tell which services contained the so-called "adult
   entertainment" or some more details on some of these things. The
   service level (and hence the price) was there, but it's a bit
   difficult at first to translate that into dollars and cents without
   thumbing back through the catalogue to find the rates.

   For those interested, the order # for ALEX (voice) is (416) 350.ALEX
   The ALEX service itself is on [phone], though you will likely
   need to have an access code plus software that can handle the NAPLPS
   graphics format.

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

Subject: Calling Card Billing to Visa (not The Card)
Date: Wed, 2 May 90 13:06:05 MESZ
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>


Unrelated to the ongoing discussion of the The Universal Card, I have
had for sometime an AT&T calling card that I got while living
overseas.  Its a fake number card (starts with area code 503, but the
NXX is illegal), that is billed to my non-AT&T Visa card.  At the time
I got it, the USA DIRECT operator explained that was the ONLY billing
option available, no cash billing, just MC or Visa.

The question is, I had tried to get AT&T to do this earlier, while
living in the States, and could never get it done.  Does anyone out
there know if this option is in fact available to US resident
subscribers?  I think its great, as the Visa card is actually a debit
card, so I get no montly bill to pay, just a list of charges.  (I'm
into reducing the number of transactions/month I have to be involved
in).
                                                -jcp-

Joseph C. Pistritto ([e-mail], cgch.uucp![e-mail])
Ciba Geigy AG, R1241.1.01, Postfach CH4002, Basel, Switzerland
Tel: [phone] (work) [phone] (home)   GMT+2hrs!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #306
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17013;
          3 May 90 3:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05586;
          3 May 90 2:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac22039;
          3 May 90 0:59 CDT
Date:     Thu, 3 May 90 0:33:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #307
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 May 90 00:33:09 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 307

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Caller ID Boxes [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Tom Gray]
    Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product [David Tamkin]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Info on PC's and Modems in the Home [Chuck Bennett]
    Northern Virginia Dialing Procedures [Greg Monti via John R. Covert]
    Nationwide Phone Directory? [Trepla Trawets]
    How Do I Get a 900 Number Installed Quickly? [The Blade]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 16:19:23 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product


John Higdon writes: (in response to a posting opposed to Caller-ID) >I
will spare you the infinitely long list of technological offerings >in
the marketplace that were originally pronounced as "unnecessary" >that
are now considered to be essential. (The telephone is one.)

Caller-ID is one of those products which will make itself necessary:
Since now everyone will have more information about me, I'll want to
have Caller-ID so that I can screen out the calls from people I don't
know.  Then I'll have to buy still more services, like call-blocking,
so that I'm not interrupted at dinner by sales pitches, but friends
can still get through.  Maybe I'll even be able to buy some gizmo
which will send all calls from unrecognized numbers to my answering
machine.


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]

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

From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Boxes
Date: 2 May 90 14:04:14 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Berbenich <eedsp![e-mail]>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


As promised, here is a summary of all the places that I was responded
to as being suppliers of CLID boxes.  It'll be easy, 'cuz I only got
one reply. The lone reply was from our esteemed Moderator and I thank
him. :-)

Hello Direct of Santa Clara, Ca. has two AT&T boxes. One has 35 number
recall, the other has 70 number recall. The phone number for Hello
Direct is (800)HI-Hello - they have a lot of good telecom equipment in
their catalog and will send you a free catalog for the asking.

I also suspect NT has a few units, but have been unsuccessful in
finding a distribution center for them which sells to the public.
Anyone got a number for Northern Telecom?


William A. Berbenich
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product
Date: 2 May 90 12:03:56 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!halligan![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


For the discussion on Caller ID, people should not be forced to
provide their Caller ID to the parties they call. In the same manner,
people should be free to automatically block calls from parties who
are unwilling to give Caller ID.

This is a new ISDN service - Automatic Blocking of Unidentified Calls.
This will stop the boiler room operators in their tracks.

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:28 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product


Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote in volume 10, issue 304:

DDO> Claiming that CID invades the caller's privacy is like saying you
DDO> should have the right to knock on doors wearing a mask and disguising
DDO> your voice.  Fooey.

But you *do* have the right to knock.  And the resident has a right to
refuse you enty.  But as the masked knocker you have no right to be
surprised at such refusal.

I've said before that the analogy (that answering a phone without
knowing who is calling is like letting an unidentified stranger into
your home) is fallacious.  A telephone caller can say mean words and
make you hang up in disgust.  A stranger in your home can rob you,
kill you, and kill anyone else present.  But Mr. Danehy-Oakes carries
it farther: that you don't even have a right to knock [much less be
let in] if you're unwilling to identify yourself, which I suppose
corresponds to saying that you don't even have a right to ring someone
if you're unwilling to give your own phone number.

Listen, people (yes, Herman's Hermits song from the mid-1960's),
before the pro/con CLID blocking fights start afresh and Pat has to
declare another moratorium, consider these:

Most of the opponents of blocking are saying, "When I _receive_ a call
at my _home_ I want to know who is calling."

Most of the proponents of blocking are saying, "When I _place_ a call
to a _business_ I don't want them to be able to add me to the
telemarketing lists that they sell to other businesses, nor even to
their own."

There's no conflict there, readers!  The people who like their bananas
ripe are quarreling with the people who insist on dimpled golf balls.
Can most of us agree on the following?

1. If you are dialing to someone's residence, except for such special
cases as the battered women's shelter example, there is no reason to
block Caller-ID nor to be surprised, should you block it, if no one
answers or you get shunted to a machine.

2. If you are dialing to a business where you are an established
customer and where you have previously given your telephone number for
their customer recrds, _perhaps_ letting them know the number from
which you are calling will help identify you faster and speed up the
service.  Block it if you want to, but you aren't barging into
anyone's home without an invitation.

3. If you are making a cold call to a business with whom you have not
dealt much before (if at all), and you don't know how they use
callers' phone numbers, you have every right to block Caller-ID if you
so choose.

4. If you have CLID and you receive a call where the calling number is
unavailable because it is inter-LATA or because the caller's CO
equipment can't provide it, it's ok to shunt the call to an answering
machine for screening but not to grab the phone and start screaming at
the caller for obviously being a criminal because there was no
telephone number on your CLID display.

5. Calls mean customers and customers mean profits, so most businesses
will answer calls where CLID is blocked.

6. CLID isn't evil as long as it can be blocked, and blocking isn't
evil as long as calls where CLID is blocked can be left unanswered.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: Donald E. Kimberlin, TNA, Safety Harbor, FL (via MCIMail 413-3373)
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Date: Wed, 2 May 90 00:00:00 GMT


Mssrs. Goldenstein and Wolfe, each in their own way, seem to pro-
liferate a misconception oeprating telephone companies want us to
hold: That the capital cost of building new transmission facilities
with today's technology is as heavy a burden as it has always been.

        Not true!  In fact, the base capital cost of providing added
transmission facilities has plummeted in recent years, often to
factors one-tenth or less of what they were even a decade ago ... and
even in unadjusted-for-inflation figures.

        I note some remarks about understanding the "costs for
utilities," but these seem also to prolong the 1913 point of view that
set the Bell interests off on what was at that time a very clever
national project and development plan; one in need of massive amounts
of capital.

        However, today, the telephone industry uniquely has benefits
of technology not yet published that make it feasible to abandon an
entire old plant and build a new one.  That is what is being done all
over the nation at this very moment.  Not only the reduced investment
capital cost is significant, but the improved level of reduced oper-
ational overhead and maintenance cost is so great that you observe
huge reductions in employment throughout the industry.

        This a _very_ different from the "other utilities" that do not
have the benefit of such reductions.  Power companies must still
purchase tons of copper, place it and maintain it.  We don't (to my
knowledge) have plastic or fiberglass pipe for water, gas or sewage
utilities. These businesses have yet to benefit from any great
tehcnology breakthroughs.

 ..But the "phone companies?"  There, some entirely new economics are
at play; economics that require some new understandings and a new view
from all of us, if we are not to be willing payers of prices and costs
taht are not real in view of the very real and different investment
costs that now apply to telephone utilities.

        We _all_ need to constantly examine every statement of the
established "telecommunications companies" to see if we are properly
seeing the figures or if we are prolonging the 1913 attitudes in a
wrong way.

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

From: Donald E. Kimberlin, TNA, Safety Harbor, FL (via MCIMail 413-3373)
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Date: Wed, 2 May 90 00:00:00 GMT


Mr. Perrine writes:

>As near as I can tell (not being a frequent overseas traveller), it
>appears that there is no "universal" way to write my phone number.

 ..au contraire, Monsieur!  The CCITT long ago wrote a standard for
ways to express dialable numbers on every sort of public network,
telephone, Telex, packet, you-name-it, even the upcoming ISDN.

        These exist in the appropriate CCITT Recommendations for each
sort of network.  There are even standardized non-verbal symbols for
printing, to avoid need for the words "telephone, Telex," or such on
letterheads in those "standards."  By now, every American has probably
at least once received a European letterhead containing these
CCITT-standardized symbols and merely overlooked them.

        Our Bell-shaped heads of course, do not accept them as we
weren't told there was any "standard" other than what Ma Bell saw fit
to impress on us..including our insular, non-world-standard numbering
scheme.

        Now that we Americans are being dragged into the larger whole
world, I urge you to get hold of the appropriate CCITT Series E, F, Q
and X standards and fit your planned numbering scheme into them.  It
will certainly give your product more acceptance in the world market;
closer in the future than most Americans can appreciate.  (As a hint
to telephone number style, from this disadvantaged point 600 miles
from my library, the CCITT actually specifies that you should print
your number in two formats: national and international, because some
nations do use different "internal" and "external" routing codes. If
your nation's are the same for both, you still print it twice.  You
_do_ print the "access code" on your national version, so your
"national" version for the US 1 npa nxx nnnn, using spaces for
separators with no parentheses or other Bell inventions.  You _do_not_
print your access code for your "external" version; rather the symbol
"+" means add these digits to the other nation's access code. For
North America, this is "+1" because it happens our own access code is
the same as our World Region Code, which is 1.  Then you follow with
the routing codes and numbers, which makes the whole format +1 npa nnx
nnnn, again with no parentheses or dashes.

        Perhaps the "confuser" for Americans is the happenstance of
our access code we use only internally being the same as our World
Region Code used only externally.  The CCITT _does_ expect that
persons who are able to dial from one nation to another should have
the means to understand that each nation has different access codes.
(Examples: In France, one dials 19+1 npa nnx nnnn, while in England,
it is 010+1 npa nnx nnnn for the same US number.  Thus, your printing
in CCITT format tells each what goes after the "+," while they should
know what goes before the "+.")

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

Date: Tue, 01 May 90 16:53 EST
From: "Chuck Bennett [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on PC's and Modems in the Home?


The town of Chapel Hill, NC is considering a public BBS for the
desemination of public info/databases, library catalog, etc.  One of
the proponents and information specialists who has set up a similar
system for the university posed the following question to the staff
here in the university.  Obviously (maybe), I would not expect any
response regarding this specific locale, but possibly someone might
have some numbers for the nation as a whole????


Chuck Bennett
University of North Carolina

          --------------- Text of forwarded message -------------

  Date: Tue, 01 May 90 15:38 EST
  From: Judy Hallman <HALLMAN>
  Subject: Info on PC's and modems in the home?
  To: support@UNCVX1

Do any of you know where I might find an estimate of how many homes
have PCs and how many have modems?  I am particularly interested in
"our" area (how many would have access to the proposed town/county
Public Information Network) but nationwide would be helpful.

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 18:15:24 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  01-May-1990 2114" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Northern Virginia Dialing Procedures

 (From: Greg Monti, to the Digest)

One year after us Telecomers knew that area code dialing was coming to
local calls in the Washington, DC, area, the letter announcing the
change was finally sent to C&P subscribers in Northern Virginia last
week.  Local calls outside one's own area code will require ten digits
(the "1" will not be necessary).  The new dialing plan becomes
mandatory 1 October 1990.  Intra-NPA local calls will still be seven
digits.  Toll calls are not affected.

The letter also mentions, "Calls made from Northern Virginia to Prince
William County will remain the same; that is, 1 + 703 + phone number.
This procedure will change in 1991."

It doesn't say what the 1991 change will be but the smart money will
bet that these Extended Area calls will be reduced to seven digits.
They stayed at 1 + 10 digits from a previous era when these calls were
toll.  The 1 + 10 procedure also removes ambiguity with duplicated
prefixes in the local portion of the 301 NPA which are currently
dialable with seven digits.  The ambiguity will disappear when the
locals to 301 change to 10 digits.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

From: Trepla Trawets <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nationwide Phone Directory?
Date: Tue, 01 May 90 12:23:16 PDT
Reply-To: Trepla Trawets <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.


Is there any company that offers a nation-wide phone directory service
that could be searched for a list of names?


[e-mail]    or    ...!uunet!sco!stewarta         or

@ucscc.ucsc.edu:[e-mail]

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

From: The Blade <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 90 15:21:05 PDT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM
Subject: How Do I Get a 900 Number Installed Quickly?


I've been inquiring about setting up a 900 number lately, and the best
installation time I could get was 30 to 60 days via Sprint.  AT&T was
around 45 to 90 days.  Does anyone know a way (not using a company
that is a '900 dealer') do get a 900 set up under 3 weeks?


Blade


[Moderator's Note: That is the purpose of a '900 dealer'. Some of them
can have you set up and operating within a day or less provided you
are willing to have the 900 number ring in on an existing line already
in place. You get the service you pay for, and some of the brokers are
very expensive.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #307
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18762;
          3 May 90 4:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25024;
          3 May 90 3:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05586;
          3 May 90 2:03 CDT
Date:     Thu, 3 May 90 1:21:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #308
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 May 90 01:20:38 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 308

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [John Higdon]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [D DanehyOakes]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [B. Ellsworth]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [David Tamkin]
    Re: Irish Phone Service [Colum Mylod]
    Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [Marvin Sirbu]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station
Date: 2 May 90 11:09:39 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]> writes:

> This brings to mind Aubuchon Hardware -- an old New England chain
> whose policy is NO TELEPHONES!

As a customer who has had to twiddle my thumbs waiting for a clerk to
get off the phone, I would say "right on". However, there is a social
consciousness aspect to this as well. Isn't it a little more cost
effective (as well as energy-efficient) to let your fingers do the
walking rather than drive all over trying to find a particular item at
a particular price?

Perhaps community-minded merchants might figure out a way to handle
both telephone and walk-in customers.


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

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

From: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station
Date: 2 May 90 18:20:51 GMT
Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


Lord. . . Haven't any of you people ever heard of the YELLOW PAGES?


Dan'l Danehy-Oakes


[A Note From the Lord Thy Moderator: If you read the first message in
this thread, you should have noticed the author's belief that the
telephone company deliberatly confused the user of the white pages by
failing to list businesses under their brand names in order to force
the business to purchase more Yellow Pages advertising.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:39:52 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station?


> ... Have you ever been at a checkout, with
> one or two items, and had the clerk stop to answer the phone and chat
> for five minutes with someone who is only checking prices of widgets
> in every store in a ten mile radius? ...

A very close relative of mine once waited several times for such calls
each lasting several minutes during a wait in a particularly long line
at a hardware store.  When his turn at the checkout stand came up, the
phone rang.  Before the clerk could get it, my relative grabbed the
phone and answered it approximately "We're too @#$%& busy right now to
talk on the phone!!" and hung up.  The clerk was aghast, but my
relative got through the checkout without further delay.


Benjamin Ellsworth       [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:30 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station


Scott Fybush wrote in volume 10, issue 304:

SF> Also, I am reasonably certain that Rochester Tel will not allow pay
SF> phones to be listed as business lines.

In metropolitan Chicago many service stations do include the payphone
in their directory listings.

Paul Sawyer wrote later in the same issue:

PS> This brings to mind Aubuchon Hardware -- an old New England chain whose
PS> policy is NO TELEPHONES!  Have you ever been at a checkout, with one or
PS> two items, and had the clerk stop to answer the phone and chat for five
PS> minutes with someone who is only checking prices of widgets in every
PS> store in a ten mile radius?  Mr. Aubuchon decided years ago that the
PS> store personnel had a responsibility to give their full attention to the
PS> customer in the store.

Whereas I fully agree that the customer who has come to the store
deserves priority, having no way for potential customers to call is
gross, coarse overkill!  So the stores have no listed telephone
numbers at all?  A far more sensible solution is either (1) for
different personnel from those serving the customers who are present
in the store to answer the telephones or (2) to ask a telephoning
customer to hold until someone is available and to offer to take the
caller's number and call back when there is a lull if the caller does
not wish to hold.

In fact, the latter alternative could be automated: if a line is not
answered in, say, five rings, a recording apologizes that all personnel
are busy with customers and instructs the caller to hold until someone
can answer or to dial 1 at any time to leave a message.  A glowing light
on the telephone indicates to the staff that a caller is holding.

If the caller does not wish to hold any longer, dialing 1 will connect
the caller to a device that will accept a voice message; during
slacker hours in the store, clerks can return calls, or clerks can be
scheduled to leave the floor and return calls at specific times.  If
there are not enough waiting messages, the clerk returns to the floor
early; if there are too many, unreturned calls can wait or the clerk
can clear the queue, as the shift supervisor deems appropriate based
on the in-person traffic.  Of course, if the floor is too busy to
spare a clerk, returning the messages just has to wait: customers who
come in person get priority.

Now, Aubuchon Hardware has no locations in my part of the country, so
I've never seen it for myself.  If Mr. Sawyer means that there are "NO
TELEPHONES!" in the retailing area but personnel other than sales
clerks and cashiers can answer incoming calls without imposing on
customers who are in the store, then I heartily agree with the policy.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Irish Phone Service
Date: 2 May 90 17:37:18 GMT
Reply-To: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]> K.Hopkins%computer-science.nottingham.
[e-mail] writes:

[intro deleted]

>Telecom Eireann's
>[...] 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.

Indeed it is an odd code. Like most of the world, 0 is the trunk
access code.  Most PTTs use a trunk code lookalike for their freephone
numbers, but exceptions do exist: 11-5D(?) in Belgium, 167+5D in
Italy. Not 100% sure about the number of digits. However the use of
0800 might have lead to confusion (and a high incidence of
wrong-dialled calls) with the British Telecom freephone -- remember
many British magazines and newspapers are sold in Ireland. In my
tender youth 18-3D was used in some automatic areas to call nearby
manual-exchange operators (now extinct in Ireland). As DTMF is rare,
it would have been better to have the freefone code 18-6D (save 20
pulses).

>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).

And 2 more exceptions are time on 1191 and weather on 1199 -- both are
local charges.

>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 [...]

>the Irish don't seem to have any of the sex lines and are mainly
>using the service for sport results at the moment.

Sex lines are "Not Approved" if I remember rightly. Major revenue lost
in that case! Busiest 03000 service is "Dial-a-Prayer" ! (Possibly
needed when the bill comes in!)

>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.

Ah! At last! A simple explaination of 08- and 03-. Unfortunately it is
not possible to dial British numbers using 16-44-area code-number like
it is from Ireland to the rest of the world. This means that you have
some thinking to do before chosing one of those 03/08 codes. The logic
is as follows: Given a British number +44-area code-number:

  - is it Belfast (+44-232 and a few outlying special cases): dial 084-number.
         (i.e. area code ignored)

  - is it in N.Ireland outside Belfast, dial 080-area code-number.
         (check big directory if you don't know if area code is in N.Irl)

  - is it (post May 6 London split allowed for) +44-21,+44-31,+44-41,+44-51,
        +44-61,(but NOT +44-71, +44-81, +44-91) then dial 03-[2|3|4|5|6]-number

  - else dial 030-area code-number.

Dial 08 where 03 should be used, or vice versa, and the system goes
do-da-de.

Clear? It isn't for a lot of people. If Bournemouth (+44-202) becomes
030202, why does 03021 not work for Birmingham (+44-21) to make life
easier? Remember there's no easy way to recognise a N.Irl area code
distinct from an English/ Scottish/Welsh/IOM/Channel Islands one. The
important difference between 08- and 03- is cost: N. Irl is much
cheaper. But I'd have liked it if TE did the logic to cost the call
for me rather than me having to check directories and guess codes.

>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...

Strictly speaking the _area code_ for Dublin is 1, the STD (subscriber
trunk dial) code is 01. Some people find it heartbreaking having to
drop that leading zero dialing in from another country! Since April
all numbers beginning with 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 70 and 79 must prepend
a `6' to make them 7D. The 2x are not in the centre of Dublin. No
warning is given if you dial an old 6D from Holland to Dublin -- just
the old reliable do-da-de tone is given. The remaining numbers will go
seven digit over the next 4 years (source TE ad.)  This number
changing is an on-going scenario: Cork and Limerick have been moving
to 6 digits over the last 6 years. Almost everybody else has 5D
numbers, except some funny 3D ones. Numbers in some parts of Dublin
have regularly being changing, especially south city as new exchanges
have been brought into use: they retire old exchanges in many cases by
moving people to new numbers.

>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.

Stand up and be counted! I would like to know. According to the ad
I've seen, you can ask Telecom Eireann via their freefone on
1800-202020. BUT we abroad can't call that number! Just like +1-800 to
USA doesn't work. Pity.


Colum Mylod      [e-mail]     The Netherlands     Above is IMHO

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Wed, 2 May 90 06:23:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> our moderator Patrick writes:

>Okay, here is aqpproximatly what happened when a call was placed in
>the era prior to automatic dialing:

When I was a boy (my two year old says she likes the stories best that
begin with those words) I lived on a farm in Denmark. Telephones there
were a lot like here, except that the urban ares were a bit behind
here, and the rural areas were not quie as backwards.

My parents' farm was in a rural service area belonging to the
Copenhagen Telphone Corporation (KTAS), our number was (still is, in a
way) Allindelille 110. The Allindelille exchange had about 300
subscribers, in an area about 5 miles from the excahnge, which was
housed in the residence of the operator. I think the company owned the
house.

When you wanted to place a call, you'd turn the crank, and then lift
the receiver and wait for the operator to come online and announce
"Allindelille", and you'd say the number you wanted, or - for a long
distance call - what exchange and number. And everything would work
pretty much as Patrick describes.

Around 1958 the procedure was changed, and we'd do our own long
distance routing. When the operator came on, we'd say "Frederikshavn"
or whatever city, and they'd give you the next hop; the operator there
would come online and say "Ringsted" and you'd say "Frederikshavn"
again, until you got to Frederikshavn and you'd tell the operator
there the number.  To disconnect, you would just hang up.

In 1960 they decided to go all-automatic, rural areas and all, and
they started out by installing an all-new underground cable plant to
replace the overhead wires. When that was all in place, they went
around and installed phone jacks at everybody's house to replace the
screw terminal hookups, and changed at the same time from battery at
the subscriber location to CO batteries. Finally, they went around and
handed out the new Ericsson dial phones, and the number became "(03)
60 01 10".  I think the cutover was in 1961 or 1962.


Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer
CMC Rockwell  [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Manual (Operator) Routing of Phone Calls
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
Date: 3 May 90 13:36:43 JST (Thu)


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

>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.

What was the sound quality like on a connection like that?  As bad as
Metrofone?  There must have been some loss at each cross-connection
along the way.


[Moderator's Note: All phone connections in those days were very tinny
sounding. Long distance calls were frequently very faint and distant.  PT]

>So your connection went through to MGM,

But MGM is (and was) in Culver City, quite a ways from Hollywood (OK,
I'm being picky).

Jim Gottlieb                     Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
    <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: (011)[phone]            Voice Mail: (011)[phone]


[Moderator's Note: Yes, you are being very picky.   PT]

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

Date: Wed,  2 May 90 12:22:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant


Patrick argues that after the outside plant is amortized, the
continuing revenue is "pure profit".  Under Rate of Return regulation,
the LECs are allowed to earn an authorized percentage (12-16%) on
investment NET OF DEPRECIATION.  Once the plant has been fully
depreciated, they are no longer entitled to earn any return on it, and
telephone rates are adjusted downward accordingly.  (In practice, of
course, investement in new plant is pickedto provide additional
services -- e.g. SPC switching--allows the phone companies to avoid
reducing the rates.

Larry's original message assumed the additional $702 per subscriber
investment would have to be paid for by the specific subscribers
served.  For the larger carriers at least, the PUCs support rate
averaging, and the additional cost is picked up in part by ratepayers
in low cost areas.  For independents serving only high cost areas,
there is a Universal Service Fund supported by contributions from
interstate long distance call revenues which helps keep the costs
down.  Some states have intrastate versions of the USF as well.


Marvin Sirbu

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #308
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20797;
          3 May 90 5:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08338;
          3 May 90 4:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25024;
          3 May 90 3:08 CDT
Date:     Thu, 3 May 90 2:30:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #309
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 May 90 02:30:23 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 309

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: SprintMail & the Internet [Peter J. Dotzauer]
    Re: SprintMail & the Internet [Steve Elias]
    Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards [[e-mail]]
    Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards [David Tamkin]
    Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [portal!cup.portal.com!mmm]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Roni Plachta]
    Re: AT&T Billing via Local Telcos [David Tamkin]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Directory Assistance Oddity [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: The Card, TDD Style [Curtis E. Reid]
    Verifying Carrier Switch-over Requests [CharlieShub]
    Eastern Montgomery County Unused Prefixes [Carl Moore]
    NC and GA Dialing [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SprintMail & the Internet
Date: 3 May 90 03:18:41 GMT
Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC


In article <[e-mail]> wybbs![e-mail] (Ken
Jongsma) writes:

>A single sentence in an unrelated article in this week's issue of
    .....
>Telemail) is now providing a connection with the Internet. No details
>were given on the addressing procedure from either end.

The Commercial Mail Relay service provides (at least provideD) mail
relay functions between the Internet and Telemail.

More information from [e-mail] or from Chloe Holg
([e-mail]).


Peter Dotzauer,
Analyt.Cartography & GIS,
Dept. of Geography, OSU, Columbus, OH

TEL [phone]    FAX [phone]              FIDO 1:226/330
BITNET pjd@ohstvmb       UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd
INTERNET [e-mail] or  [e-mail] [128.146.1.5]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SprintMail & Internet
Date: Tue, 01 May 90 09:57:35 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Sure enough, there is a link now between Telemail and the Internet.
One complication is that you must know the "organization name" as well
as the username of the Telemail person you are writing to.  I have
instructions online somewhere about how to mail to Telemail.  If you
send me email, I'll dig them up and send them to you.  The basic
addressing format is like so:

"[J.DOE/ORGANIZATION]TM22/USA%TELEMAIL"@INTERMAIL.ISI.EDU

Is that a strange email address or what?  I'm not sure about that TM22
thingy -- that might vary according to destination as well.


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 2 May 90 11:57:29 -0400
Subject: Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


>Did anyone else get a new Telecom*USA Calling Card in the mail this
>past week besides myself?

I've been using mine for over a month now.  It is a nice card.  The
price structure is very simple:

    ATT direct-dial rates + 30 cent surcharge

For 800-number access, that's a pretty good deal.  I even used it to
outwit the nasty COCOT's in the West Palm Beach airport!  [About which
expect an update shortly.]

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 18:26 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Telecom*USA Calling Cards


Mark Robert Smith asked in Volume 10, Issue 305:

| Can anybody get one of these Telecom*USA cards?  It sounds like I
| might want to.  Is there a number to call?

I just checked with Telecom*USA about that.  They do offer the calling
card, with all the features il Moderatore mentioned, to anyone with a
billing address in the United States, even in the areas where they do
not yet offer 1+ or 10XXX service.  You can call their marketing
division at 1-800-728-8888 to start an account.  The customer service
number is 1-800-728-7000.

I'd received one two or three weeks before, perhaps because I am a 1+
customer of theirs.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution
Date: Tue,  1-May-90 22:00:12 PDT


I have an even simpler solution.  Let DeArmond send the alleged
"micropower" relay to someone trustable for verification.  If it
exists, DeArmond was telling the truth and Lippman is a liar.
Otherwise, vice versa.

(It seems reasonable to me that a relay could work on 100 uA.
D'Arsnoval meter movements can work on more than an order of magnitude
less.  A reed relay with a bias magnet might also be a contender.  LL
seemed to think that 100 uA was about two orders of magnitude beyond
reality.)

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

From: Roni Plachta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Date: 2 May 90 17:39:20 GMT
Reply-To: Roni Plachta <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara


I would like if someone ever had the experiance to connect between two
PC's ACROSS the GLOBE (using two identical american made 1200 bps
modems and direct phone lines between ISARAEL and the US).

I have tried it!

Calling from the US to the other PC (on host mode) is a smooth
operation.  The modems handshake and data transfer is possible (I use
a script file through the KERMIT program). I can upload and download
files with automaticly if the file names are agreed upon, even in non
ASCII or binary.

When the call comes from outside the US and my PC is at host mode I
wasn't able to get the modems to handshake.

Is there any one out there who knows WHY and what can be done so they
will?

Please send responds to: [e-mail]

Thanks,

RONI P.

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 22:16 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing via Local Telcos


John Levine wrote in volume 10, issue 300:

| MCI said that they couldn't [put multiple originating phone numbers on
| the same long-distance account to share one minimum and to be figured
| together for volume discounts], since Massachusetts and New Jersey are
| in different billing regions,

MCI told me that they couldn't put my parents' telephone numbers and
mine, which are in bordering rate centers in the same city, onto the
same account because they were not at the same address.

| When AT&T starts sending out their own bills, I'll look at them again.

In 1988 a US Sprint customer service representative told me that come
January 1, 1989, AT&T would have to do its own billing, and that
employees of the competitors were waiting to see AT&T fall on its
face.  Yet sixteen months later it still hasn't come to pass.

There is one way to get separate billing from AT&T: coax a Universal
Card out of them.  There's a 72c surcharge but a 10% discount on every
call you make with it.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: 1-MAY-1990 22:32:23.22
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies


Re dialing "letters" with a modem: I briefly owned several 2400 baud
plain vanilla external modems on a trial basis (a Spartan, a newish
Zoom, and a Best, all of which were returned to their vendors as
somehow defective), one of which was organised to translate
dial-string letters to the corresponding numerals.  For example, ATDP
SPRINGS pulse-dialed 777 4647, which, whoever it was requested such
data please take note, is the SNET Co.'s area 203 time-of-day line.

(BTW, "somehow defective" means: the Spartan couldn't CONNECT at 300;
the Zoom couldn't reliable detect NO CARRIER after a session, and had
to be told +++ ATH to force a disconnect; the Best detected RING every
time I pulse-dialed a digit (yes, I have a rotary line) and would thus
autoanswer before I had even finished dialing my outbound voice calls!
So much for $100 modems.)


Prof. F.E.J. Linton    [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.    [e-mail]          attmail!fejlinton
Middletown, CT 06457      1 203 347 9411 x2249 (w)         1 203 776 2210 (h)

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

Date: 1-MAY-1990 22:32:23.22
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Directory Assistance Oddity


Needed DA in area 603 last Thursday.  Dialed 1 603 555 1212, 7:03 pm
EDT.  Operator told me: sorry, our database computer is down, for the
past 20 minutes, call back in half an hour.  Thanked her, hung up,
dialed 10288 1 603 555 1212, 7:05 pm EDT.  Operator (completely
different voice) gave me the number I was after without a moment's
hesitation.  My dial-1 carrier is MCI, so now I wonder: could MCI be
running their own DA service in 603 these days?  And was that in fact
down on 1990.04.26, while AT&T's was OK?


Prof. F.E.J. Linton    [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.    [e-mail]          attmail!fejlinton
Middletown, CT 06457      1 203 347 9411 x2249 (w)         1 203 776 2210 (h)

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 12:12 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Card, TDD Style


>From: Ken Harrenstien <[e-mail]>

>found that buried near the end was a TDD number for customer service
>(800/367-8997), and called that just to check it out.

        Thanks for posting it.  That was a valuable information!!
Pat, thanks for posting this even though you said you don't want any
more articles on Universal Card.  I would have never gotten this
information from other means.  Actually, ATT Universal was surprised
that the number was distributed in an "electronic digest" even though
it is only about 3 weeks old!

>At first I got an auto-answer TDD announcement asking callers to leave
>a message.  However, when I started typing what was to be a grumble
>about their "service guarantee", I was interrupted by a live person.

        I got the same thing.  They did call back in less than 5
minutes!  I think all of their TDDs are set up excatly that way.

>In the middle of our conversation we were cut off (gee, and I could
>have sworn I was using AT&T...) and my attempts to call back were met

        First, I was put on hold ... I got disconnected (however, I
did not get the dial tone back -- just a dead line).  The
representative tried to reach me but my phone was busy because I
thought I was on hold.  She apologized for this problem but did not
offer any explanation.

>So I'd rate their service as promising ... not perfect, but they seem
>to be trying.  They did misspell my name on the first card, but I

        They couldn't locate my filled-out application which I
returned by mail in their computer system.  They said that the
application processing may actually take 3 weeks due to high volume.
I hope that when I call next week my application would be entered.

>Aside from that, it looks like a GREAT deal, especially for someone
>like myself who has a completely null credit history (long story).  I

        It's nice to know some VISA banks offer TDD services.  As far
as I know only Citibank, ATT Universal, and CoreStates offer TDD
services.  I hope that ATT Universal will iron out these "knicks"
(i.e. disconnects) soon.

>Anyway, I'm very happy to have it and am very, very glad that I saw
>the original news release in TELECOM, courtesy of Don H. Kemp!

        I'm glad I read your article!  After I read it, I immediately
called them!  And here I am reporting the results.


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

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

From: Charlie Shub <[e-mail]>
Subject: Verifying Carrier Switch-over Requests
Date: Tue, 1 May 90 1:14:49 CDT


[Moderator's Note: This is part of a recent discourse in misc.consumers
between myself and others. Someone had written about being converted
to MCI service without their knowledge. He said he did not plan to pay
for the calls; I said he had to pay for the calls, but not the
swithch-over fee.  The message below defends marketing practices by
the OCC's, and explains how it is done.   PT]

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

>You can write a nasty letter to MCI about their marketing practices;
>you can write a complaint (formal or informal) to the FCC; you can
>sue MCI for the 'inconvenience of dialing 10ATT' a dozen or so times
>in the five days interim, but you CAN NOT lawfully refuse to pay the
tarriffed charges of >the long distance carrier.

>I might add that AT&T has accidentally done the same thing to subscribers,
>although not with the frequency of MCI, who I am sure would likewise claim
>it was merely an accident.

Patrick,

I can't let this pass. Feel free to post this to telecom if you feel
it is relevant.

My wife spent about 3 1/2 months working for Pioneer TeleTechnologies,
a company that solicits conversions to MCI. I thus have good knowledge
of their procedures.

Contact is made by a sales person (like my wife) and if the client
agrees to change over, there is a verification step performed before
any changeover is ordered. Specifically, the verification section
calls the client and assures the client really did understand the
change and really did agree to it. Only after that step occurs is the
change order sent in. The verification folk do not get bonuses for
verifying, and the sales people do not get credit until after
verification has verified the sale. I thus tend to view with some
skepticism the claims made by some posters.


charlie shub  [e-mail]  -or-  ..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!cdash
   or even     cdash@colospgs (BITNET)     -or-  [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 1 May 90 23:03:29 EDT
From: MOORE <[e-mail]>
Reply-to: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eastern Montgomery County Unused Prefixes

Updating via Feb. 1990 Eastern Montgomery County call guide, here are
unused NNX that I currently find in area 215 (southeast Pa.):

220      239-240      260      292      325      392-394      396-397
420-421  428-429      442      450-451  454      460          470
475      478-479      490      529-530  550      571          573
575      594          599      633      651-652  654-656      658
669      680          695      730-731  733      738          761-762
764      771-774      792      798      832      840          850
859      880          882-883  888      954-955  958-960      984
989-990  992          994-996  998-999


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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 00:52:19 EDT
From: MOORE <[e-mail]>
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Subject: NC and GA Dialing


I thought I'd look up dialing instructions previously discussed in
this Digest.

The January, 1990-91 call guide for Savannah, Ga., on page 13,
explains that there is telephone number shortage in 404 area, and that
all long-distance calls from that area now require area code.  And it
ALSO says: "Customers making calls within the 912 area code may also
use the 912 area code when dialing, although it is not required."
Huh?

Feb. 1990 Raleigh (N.C.) call guide, on page 7, refers to shortage of
telephone numbers in N.C.  It says you now need 1+704+7D or 1+919+7D
for direct dialing (and 0+704+7D or 0+919+7D for 0+) within NC, but
does not specify what area it is to originate from.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #309
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13656;
          4 May 90 1:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15640;
          3 May 90 23:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28840;
          3 May 90 22:21 CDT
Date:     Thu, 3 May 90 22:00:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #310
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 May 90 22:00:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 310

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Left Town [David Lesher]
    MCI Around Town Surcharges [George S. Thurman]
    MCI Card Charges [Andrew Hastings]
    Foncard to USSR:  Why not? [Mark Wilkins]
    Fax Directories [Nigel Allen]
    A So-called "Prize" Notification [Carl Moore]
    CCITT Standards, &c. [Jerry B. Altzman]
    Public Loops (was TT Freqs) [John Parsons]
    Basic 2nd Phone Line Question [Graham Murphy]
    DID and Distinctive Ringing [Chris Elmquist]
    Area Code 905/706 [Ken Jongsma]
    Toll-free Calls in Various Countries [Mark Brader]
    What is 660 at New York Tel? [Laurence R. Brothers]
    Calling Collect / DID Telecom Boneheadisms [Steve Elias]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Left Town
Date: Thu, 3 May 90 19:52:39 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Without ANY written notice, MCI has (in effect) abolished "Around
Town". This was/is a feature that made 950-1022 calls from your local
area (I never could find out how THIS was defined ;-[) the same price
as 10222 calls. As of 1 May, such calls have a $0.25 surcharge.  While
far less steep than Sprint's or ATT's, it still hurts.

I consider it especially sneaky that they provided NO notice.  The
supervisor I talked to agreed to refund the charges I have already
incurred. Grrrrrrr.


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

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 15:30 EST
From: George S Thurman <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Around Town Surcharges


This is only to inform the members in this group who are MCI Long
Distance costomers, that starting MAY 1, 1990, a .25 Cent surcharge
will be applied to all calls placed with a MCI Telephone Credit Card
if the call is placed from the subscribers local (billing address)
area.  Previously, as we all know, there was no surcharge.

I think it is very S----Y that MCI would do this without informing the
customers.

I will start using my ALLNET account ... they do not have a "local
Surcharge".


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI Card Charges
Date: 3 May 90 19:20:58 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI


    I signed up for the MCI "Call Europe" plan at the end of
March.  Yesterday, I got the first bill (from Bell of PA) which
includes calls made under the plan.  One curiosity is that the
itemized listing of eligible calls includes the usual number,
time-of-day, and duration, but a charge of $0.00!  The summary at the
end of the MCI section of the bill includes an item charge for
"additional minutes" which covers the cost of the calls.

    In any case, I was surprised to find a call to Europe I made
with my MCI card (in my "Around Town" area) charged at the normal
rates, not the "Call Europe" rates.  I called MCI to inquire
(800-444-3333) and discovered that "Call Europe" rates only apply to
calls made from my home phone.

    The MCI person also said that MCI has instituted a surcharge
of $0.25 for "Around Town" calls effective 5/1/90.  She said that they
are notifying customers who call MCI.

    I don't like surprises like this.

Andy Hastings            [e-mail]            412/268-8734


[Moderator's Note: David, George and Andrew -- Welcome to the
wonderful, whacky world of MCI-isms. What you have experienced is
nothing new: MCI was pulling stunts like that fifteen years ago in the
early days of the Execunet program. Rate changing at will; notice to
no one until the bill came and you see the charges there, etc. Heck,
if they don't tell you when they snatch your dial one plus business,
why should they bother with something minor like an extra two-bits
every time you use their credit card?  You boys had better learn one
thing now: These are not the good old days where everytime Ma wanted
to make a slight change she had to file a thousand page tariff in
quintuplicate with the FCC and fifty state agencies. The rule of thumb
now is the public be damned!  Right, Mr. McGowan?  PT]


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

From: Mark Wilkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Foncard to USSR:  Why Not?
Date: 2 May 90 06:29:08 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711


  Why is it that one can dial the USSR direct, without operator
assistance, on Sprint, but one cannot use a Foncard?  Is there some
fundamental difference in the switching mechanism used or is it a
business decision?


Mark Wilkins

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 1 May 90  8:50:00 EST
Subject: Fax Directories


 Anyone with a telex machine usually receives one or more mailings a
year from publishers of "unofficial" telex directories. By
"unofficial", I mean one that does not get its listing information
directly from the telex administration (such as Western Union or the
international telex companies in the U.S., or CNCP Telecommunications
and some small regional companies in Canada). Instead, they copy the
information from an authorized directory.

The solicitations often closely resemble invoices, and I'm sure some
of these pseudo-invoices get paid purely by accident. The "unofficial"
directory publishers are presumably acting within the law (the
pseduo-invoices admit to not being invoices), but they're sleazy.

A relatively new development is the fax directory. Some companies that
publish fax directories are entirely legitimate; others are crooks. I
think that the New Brunswick Telephone Company Ltd. (NBTel) in Canada
is the only telephone company that has a separate section in its
telephone directory for fax numbers, and as far as I know no U.S.
regional holding company has gotten into the fax directory market.

This means that publishers of fax directories have to compile their
listings from sources other than telephone company records. They do
this by distributing questionnaires that often double as order forms
through fax machine dealers, office-management magazines and trade
shows, through telephone contacts, and perhaps through going through
trade magazines and membership lists which include fax numbers in
listings or advertisements.

In Canada, there appear to be two viable fax directory companies, both
under the same ownership. Dialadex Communications publishes a free
Canada-only fax directory (one copy to every company listed in it;
additional copies are about $40 Canadian). This directory, Business
Connexions, evolved out of the telex directory that Dialadex publishes
unnder contract with CNCP Telecommunications, and also lists
subscribers to CNCP's Telex and Dialcom services.  Fax Directory Inc.
publishes the "Official Fax Directory" which lists both Canadian and
U.S. numbers, and costs about $100 Canadian.

Two other apparently legitimate Canadian fax directory publishers have
dropped out of sight, or at least don't answer my letters. FaxList
published one free, rather slim directory. Dial-A-Fax, originally
based in Montreal, moved to Florida and then to Pennsylvania.

The Montreal telephone directory lists two other fax directory
publishers, but neither number works.

In the U.S., there is a Los Angeles company listed as "Fax Directory"
(at least the L.A. directory assistance operator provided me with a
number when I asked for "Fax Directory").  I left a message on the
company's answering machine, but never got an answer back.  When I
called a Philadelphia-area company listed as "Fax Directory", I got a
rude man who refused to send me any information on his directory, and
who seemed convinced that I wanted to publish a directory myself.

A less-than-honest individual using aggressive sales tactics could
certainly make a substantial amount of money selling over-priced
advertising in a fax directory. You may want to warn your accounts
payable staff to be extremely careful in dealing with invoices for
directory advertising of all kinds.

Some companies may find it to their advantage to be listed in fax
directories, particularly if they sell to other companies, and want to
be accessible to purchasing agents.  However, being listed in a fax
directory guarantees you that you will get some "junk fax" messages,
particularly if you are in a community where the telephone company
does not charge for local calls.

I would like to compile a list of U.S. fax directories.  If you know
of one, please send me its address, phone number, fax number, and I
will summarize. Value judgments about the company will also be
appreciated.


Nigel David Allen   voice telephone [phone]
52 Manchester Avenue    fax [phone]
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6G 1V3


 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (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


[Moderator's Note: Some *legit* directory publishers catch these
crooks with copyright violations if nothing else by inserting
'ringers' in the directory -- that is, deliberatly false listings that
no one could ever create unless they were simply copying the book.
Illinois Bell does this, as does Western Union, to name two.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 17:26:32 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: A So-called "Prize" Notification


I received a phone call in my Maryland office today which told me
about calling 800-752-7979 and giving a 2-character code.  This is a
"prize" notification (I take it to be "so-called").

The phone call, by the way, was a recorded message.  (I don't know how
it picked my office telephone number.)

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

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CCITT Standards, &c.
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Wed, 2 May 90 07:16:12 GMT


With all the talk about international dialing and non-ambiguity,
someone brought up the catchy phrase "CCITT standards"

Could someone enlighten me (via Email, please) whence these marvelous
items are available?

Thanks!


//jbaltz
jerry b. altzman      "On USENET, no one can hear you scream"    212 854 8058
[e-mail]                                      jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
 ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)                    NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 11:44:12 mdt
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Loops (was TT Freqs)


Speaking of telecom.nostalgia, Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail]
or dtmason@m-net | writes:

> 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  .....  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".

Reminds me of a GTE exchange in Redondo Beach, CA (213 area) in the
early 1970's.  From anywhere, dialing 4 digits, 5455 or 5465 or
something (my memory's fading, and I only tried it once or twice,
honest!), would connect you to some sort of loop.  It had a fair
amount of noise and audio levels varied greatly, but you could hear
lots of people yakking at each other.

I don't know how long it existed, but apparently many people knew
about it.  Any of them on the net now?  Are/were similar situations
common?


John Parsons  [e-mail]

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

From: Graham Murphy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Basic 2nd Phone Line Question
Date: 3 May 90 00:10:18 GMT
Organization: High Alititude Observatory/NCAR, Boulder CO


In Australia, the 3rd and 4th lines of a standard 4-line residential
telephone cable are used for an extension bell and, more importantly,
avoiding bell ringing during pulse dialing.

I am planning on installing a second telephone line in my house here
in Denver and I was wondering ...

    Do I need to install a second 4-line cable in the house or can I
instead use the 3rd and 4th lines as neither Australian consideration
is relevant? If I must install a second cable, what are the uses of
the 3rd and 4th lines in the US telephone system?

Any advice would be appreciated.


Graham Murphy
High Altitude Observatory
National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000, Boulder CO 80307-3000. Ph:[phone]; Fax:[phone].
INTERNET: [e-mail]; Solar PO: [e-mail]

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

From: Chris Elmquist <[e-mail]>
Subject: DID and Distinctive Ringing
Date: 3 May 90 02:32:29 GMT


Where can the average telco end-user get technical information on how
DID and Distinctive Ringing work?  Specifically, I'd like to know if
there is a standard for the ringing patterns used for Distinctive
Ringing (and how many patterns exist). For DID, I'd like to know how
the called number information is passed to the 'callee'.  I saw some
other disussions on here about DID (analog vs.  digital, tone/pulse,
etc)...  These are things I'd like to find out.

My local U.S. West rep. was completely dumbfounded when I called
asking about these services.  I was transfered seven levels deep only
to find that "someone would try to call me back tomorrow."

I'm guessing I have called the wrong people ... but then, I don't know
*who* I should be calling for this information.

Thanks.

[e-mail]


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

Subject: Area Codes 905/706
Date: Thu, 3 May 90 8:27:31 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


A small blurb in this week's issue of [Business Week] mentions that
Area Codes 905 and 706 will be "reclaimed" from Mexico starting next
February. They also mentioned that (as previously mentioned here) New
York has been promised 917.


Ken

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll-free calls in various countries
Date: Thu, 3 May 1990 15:08:11 -0400


I'm told that New Zealand, like Britain and unlike Australia, uses
0800 for toll-free, but they only introduced it recently.  Until then
they only had "Freefone" numbers, which you had to ask the operator
for; this is again British style.  (It is of course the same thing as
the North American "Zenith" or "Enterprise" numbers.)


Mark Brader, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]        C unions never strike!

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

From: "Laurence R. Brothers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is 660 at New York Tel?
Date: 3 May 90 20:58:37 GMT
Reply-To: "Laurence R. Brothers" <[e-mail]>


I suppose I could call someone at NY Tel. and ask but ... Does anyone
know offhand what system you connect to when you dial 660 at NY Tel?


             Laurence R. Brothers ([e-mail])
      Bellcore -- Computer Technology Transfer -- Knowledge-Based Systems
"We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed."

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

Subject: Calling Collect / DID Telcom Boneheadisms
Date: Thu, 03 May 90 09:36:22 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


A previous posting axed if it was possible to call a 900 number
collect.  I doubt it, but it sure would be nice!

Another question:  What if one recorded the greeting of their DID
voice mail to be "blah blah blah I accept all charges", and then
called the DID number collect?  Would that call be billed as a collect
call on the trunk owner's DID phone bill?  (I haven't seen a DID phone
bill in years, so I don't know if that's possible.)

By the way, NE Tel finally got their stuff together and hooked up my
DID line properly.


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone)


[Moderator's Note: Since the operator placing the collect call would
have no way of knowing the called line was a DID trunk, she would
write it up to that number. It would go to whoever owned the line(s). PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #310
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16301;
          4 May 90 2:19 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23655;
          4 May 90 0:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15640;
          3 May 90 23:27 CDT
Date:     Thu, 3 May 90 22:50:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #311
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 May 90 22:50:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 311

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Magazines and Newsletters - A Bibliography [David Leibold]
    Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory [Nigel Allen]
    Cellular Reading [Pete Ferris]
    What Voice Mail System is Best? [Harrison Spain]
    Baltimore & Washington Pseudo-Foreign [Carl Moore]
    Free Unlisted Numbers [Eric Hughes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Telecom Magazines and Newsletters - A Bibliography [David Leibold]
Date: Thu, 3 May 90 17:48:11 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


                   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.  Some of the 800 numbers listed may be restricted in
certain regions (eg. Canada-only, U.S.-only, etc). Note that
information listed here is subject to change; any changes or
corrections to the list would be appreciated via [e-mail] or
TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom.telecom).

Thanks to Nigel Allen of 89:480/501, Sir Dep, Will Martin and William
Degnan and John Boteler for supplying many of the addresses and publication
names that you'll see below ... apologies if anyone has been missed out
in the credits.

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

Bell (Canada) News

Bell News is a publication printed out by Bell Canada Public Affairs,
Ontario Region. Copies of this biweekly may be found in some places in
the Bell Canada Trinity Square tower, adjacent to and west of the
Eaton Centre in Toronto. Look for boxes that say 'Bell News', either
in the mall or near the Bell public office.

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

Communications

Communications, The magazine of mobile radio professionals
Cardiff Publishing Company
6300 S. Syracuse Way
Ste. 650
Englewood, CO 80111
303 220-0600

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

Communications News

Communications News
Circulation
1 East First Street
Duluth, MN 55802

Editorial Offices
7500 Old Oak Blvd
Cleveland, OH 44120

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

CommunicationsWeek

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.

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

Datamation

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.

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

Directories

Here are the addresses of two directories you or your company can be
listed in free. Write to them or phone them (not me) to request a
questionnaire, then fill it out and return it. The directories
themselves can be consulted at most public and college libraries.

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

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

Inbound/Outbound
(plus Teleconnect)

Inbound/Outbound is a freebie magazine subscription that certain
people can receive. These certain people are telemarketers,
telephone-type people, sellers/distributors of phone equipment,
especially for marketers. The magazine deals with the business of
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. They also have published
"Teleconnect", another industry magazine. There may or may not be a freebie
deals on that, depending on the type of work you do. Ask for subscription
information in any case if you're interested.

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

LAN

LAN Magazine has apparently changed hands. I recently received a
subscription offer ($19.97/year). It had a return address of 500 Howard
St., San Francisco, CA 94105.

It was signed by Steve Schneiderman, Publisher -- who is apparently
_not_ Harry Newton. This is evidenced by the fact that in the entire
mailing, no phone numbers (of any kind) appear.

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

Lightwave

Lightwave
Subscription Inquiries
1421 South Sheridan
Tulsa, OK 74112
918 832-9262

Editorial offices
P.O. Box 988
Westford, MA 01886
508 692-0700

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

Mobile Product News

Mobile Product News
Phillips Publishing, Inc.
7811 Montrose Road
Rockville, MD 20850
301 340-2100

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

NASA Tech Briefs

NASA Tech Briefs
41 E. 42nd St.
NYC, NY 10017-5391
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

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

Network World

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.

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

Network World

If you would like to receive a FREE subscription to Network World:
The Newsweekly of User Networking Strategies, write to:

 Subscriptions Department
 Network World
 161 Worcester Road
 Framingham, MA 01701-9172

or telephone [phone].

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

Networking Management

Here's another free one:

NETWORKING MANAGEMENT  (A PennWell Publication; formerly TPT)

Publisher's offices: 1421 South Sheridan
                     Tulsa, OK  74112

Editorial offices: One Technology Park Drive
                   PO Box 988
                   Westford, MA  01886
                   [phone]

Circulation & subscription requests:
                PO Box 2417
                Tulsa, OK  74101

One of the advantages this magazine has (for US readers) is that the
bingo card for reader-service is Business-Reply Mail, so it doesn't
require postage. This is an edge over competitors like "Telecommunications."

This magazine has had some good articles on things like the AOS and COCOT
mess, which were ignored in other magazines I see.


Regards, Will Martin

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

Phone +

Phone +, The monthly journal for the public communications industry
13402 N. Scottsdale Road
Suite B-185
Scottsdale, AZ 85254-4056
602 483-0014

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

(Communication & Computer)
Product & Software News

Freebie publication:

COMMUNICATION & COMPUTER PRODUCT & SOFTWARE NEWS  (abbreviated "P&SN")
685 Canton St.
Norwood, MA  02062  USA

This is described as a new publication published by Horizon House (the
people that put out TELECOMMUNICATIONS) devoted to current and
late-breaking news and trends in both voice and data communications
areas, directed to a wide ranging audience, from the BOCs and PTTs to
OEMs and users of telecom services. I think it is a tabloid; the
illustration seems to indicate this but it isn't clearly stated. The
first issue is supposed to be (have been) Jan/Feb '90.

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

Public Communications Magazine

Public Communications Magazine
P.O. Box 42371
Houston, TX 77242
Tel   [phone]
Fax   [phone]

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

Solutions

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.

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


T.A.S. Trader

T.A.S Trader, Equipment and Services for the T.A.S. Insustry (Telephone
Answering Service)
P.O. Box 2095
Fullerton, CA 92633

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

Telecom Gear

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.)

Also has apparently changed hands -- and has changed it's look and feel --
Now with a mixture of glossy pages and newsprint.

The address for Telecom Gear is:

Telecom Gear
Prestonwood Place
15400 Knoll Trail
Dallas, TX 75248
Tel   [phone]
Fax   [phone]

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

Telecommunications

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.

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

Teleconnect

(see Inbound/Outbound)

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

Telephony

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 two or three year subscriptions.

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

Telesat Report

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, or telephone (voice) 1-800-267-1870 or,
in Ottawa, [phone].

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

TPT

TPT, The magazine for Networking Management
Subscription Inquiries
1421 South Sheridan
Tulsa, OK 74112
918 832-9262

Editorial offices
P.O. Box 988
Westford, MA 01886
508 692-0700

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

4th Media Journal

Name:   "4th Media journal"
Address:13402 N Scottsdale Road  B-185
        Scottsdale AZ 85254
Phone:  [phone]
FAX:    [phone]

Frequency: monthly

Rates: Domestic = US$45/year, "Foreign" = US$110/year

Theme: Covers the use of primarily 900 services to sell information
        provided by media outlets: radio stations, magazines, television
        stations, newspapers, etc. Both technical and non-technical
        articles and editorials appear, as well as submissions by
        and interviews of prominent industry leaders.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 1 May 90  8:25:00 EST
Subject: Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory

Gale Research Inc. publishes a Telecommunications Systems and Services
Directory, which lists telecommunications service providers (but not
manufacturers), consultants, trade associations, government agencies
and the like.

If you would like some free publicity for your organization, you might
want to request a free listing in the directory.  I would particularly
encourage organizations outside the U.S. to request listings.

For more information, write to:
 Editor
 Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory
 Gale Research Inc.
 835 Penobscot Building
 Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094
 or telephone [phone]

You may prefer to pass this note along to your company's marketing
department.

Telecommunications consultants may also want to request a free listing
in the Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory. For more
information, write to:

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

It's probably easier to communicate with both these directories in
writing than by phone.

The directories themselves can probably be consulted in most major
academic and public libraries.


 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Ontario (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: Pete Ferris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Reading
Date: 2 May 90 19:07:55 GMT
Reply-To: Pete Ferris <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore MRE


For those stout hearted souls that like programming their own (or
others) cell phones, you must obtain a copy of "NAM Facts" by Curtis
Electro Devices, Inc. [phone].  No ISBN # - sorry. VERY
expensive @ $159, BUT it's the end all, be all guide to programming
"all known" cellular phones. Mfrs.  secret codes, etc.

They'll fax you a poop sheet on the book.

Cheers,

Pete Ferris

P.S.: Please don't hammer me for more info - I just ordered (not yet received)
my copy!  The poop I saw looked <<very>> interesting.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: What Voice Mail System is Best?
Date: 3 May 90 08:58:47 GMT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas M&E, Cypress CA


We are trying to select a Voice Mail system for our company.  Knowing
nothing about them, we would like to hear from satisfied users.

Has your company implemented Voice Mail?  Are you happy with the
system?  What system did you pick?  Why?  Our company has about 500
employees and we are trying to figure out the *right* system (argh)  :-)

Please respond via E-Mail (although I follow this conference for
followups that others may find useful).

Thank you very much for your help!


 | Harrison M. Spain III |    Voice: [phone]            |
 | Sr. Section Manager   |      Fax: [phone]            |
 | McDonnell Douglas M&E | Internet: [e-mail]          |
 | 5701 Katella Ave.     |     UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs.com!spain    |
 | Cypress, CA  90630    |      PSI: PSI%31060099980019::SPAIN |


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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 11:38:05 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baltimore & Washington Pseudo-Foreign


I called the Bellcore number and punched in some of those
pseudo-foreign prefixes in the DC and Baltimore local areas.
Parentheses indicate the place name from phone bills and/or AT&T V&H
tape.

301-575 Fork (Aberdeen)
301=557 Fork (Jarrettsville)
301-679 Fork (Edgewood)
301-953 Berwyn (Laurel)
301-621 Bowie-Glenn Dale (Laurel)
301-261 Bowie-Glenn Dale (Annapolis)
301-858 Bowie-Glenn Dale (Parole?)
301-792 Laurel (Laurel)--but Bellcore, for the state name, had something
        like "Hahn" instead of saying the letters "M D".
        I would have expected Bellcore to say "Waterloo".

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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 17:04:48 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Free Unlisted Numbers


I have a friend who had himself listed variously under the following
two names:

    Hugo Fockaseff
    Ima Sue Doanem

No lie.

Eric Hughes
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #311
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19066;
          4 May 90 3:19 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01592;
          4 May 90 1:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23655;
          4 May 90 0:34 CDT
Date:     Thu, 3 May 90 23:38:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #312
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 May 90 23:37:51 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 312

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Little Moderation [Christopher Owens]
    Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product [Steve Friedl]
    Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product [David Tamkin]
    Caller-ID For Modem Dial-up Security [William Degnan]
    How Toll Busy Line Verify and Emergency Interuppt Work [Raymond J. Rueb]
    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Fred Goldstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 13:01:02 199
From: Christopher Owens <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Little Moderation


Hi Patrick,

I vote that you be a little more iron-fisted in your suppression of
the endless discussion of Caller-ID. I think most of the opinions that
we're seeing are repeats and minor variants of the four or five basic
opinions on the topic:

CLID is good
CLID is good if caller can block number delivery
CLID is bad
CLID is bad but acceptable if caller can block number delivery
CLID only gives to the individual something that owners of 800 and 900
   numbers already have anyway

Or, at least be sure that all messages about Caller-ID have some
common phrase in the subject line so that kill files are effective.

Thanks,

/c

[Moderator's Note: Your summary above is about the most succinct I've
seen. When this topic first came up for the upteenth time last week, I
said we would have a half-dozen replies more or less, and the four
which follow will conclude the discussion here, until next time. :)
Next time? !  A decent interval might be three or four months at
least.  Bonafide technical messages/questions are the exception.  PT]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product
Date: 3 May 90 16:01:55 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I don't mind people knowing who I am when I call them or when I knock on
their doors.  I do mind them having my telephone number or address.

My opposition to Caller-IDd would nearly vanish if the string
delivered to the called party was by default the listing in the phone
directory, or for unlisted people, a string that I had specified
(default might well be "unlisted" or such).

Further, if I could CHANGE that string myself (by dialing a number,
then entering the new ID string as digit pairs or some such), I'd be
much happier.  That way I may identify myself in any way I choose -
same as I may in person.  I suspect a difficulty here is that so many
telephone people have a mindset which cannot separate a person's
number from his identity.

But as it stands, it seems to me to be a "feature" only half-engineered -
I suspect it was designed as a calling-number-delivery service rather
than a calling-party service - probably with an aim to selling the
service to subscribers who wish to collect telephone numbers, rather
than to identify callers as one person or another - that is,
telemarketing businesses.  And that I oppose.


Brian

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

From: Steve Friedl <mtndew![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creating a Market For an Unneeded Product
Date: 3 May 90 16:42:49 GMT
Organization: Steve's Barnburner 386


Tom Gray writes:

> This is a new ISDN service - Automatic Blocking of Unidentified Calls.
> This will stop the boiler room operators in their tracks.

So what's next?  "Automatic Fake Caller ID for Non-ID-Blocking
Recipients" ??


     Steve ;-)

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

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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 18:06 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creating a Market for an Unneeded Product


Tom Gray wrote in volume 10, issue 307:

| This is a new ISDN service - Automatic Blocking of Unidentified Calls.
| This will stop the boiler room operators in their tracks.

Hmm ... first, we now have a new source of confusion: a caller who
enters a code to refuse delivery of Caller-ID and a callee who keys
his or her system to reject calls that lack Caller-ID information are
both said to be "blocking."

Anyhow, there's a big problem with automatic blocking of unidentified
calls: inter-LATA calls and those placed from switches that cannot
supply CLID info are also unidentified.  Are callers who cannot supply
CLID to be treated the same as those who refuse to?


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: Wed, 02 May 90 22:46:31 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID For Modem Dial-up Security


In a message of <May 01 18:13> Troy Monaghen ([e-mail] ) writes:

 TM>Any comments on how well this would work?  Does anybody know of a
 TM>Caller-ID device with an RS232 port so I can connect it to my
 TM>computer?

There are a bunch of BBS operators (me too) waiting for Caller ID to
be available from their telco for just this reason. SWB is waiting
until the heat dies down elsewhere before implementing. We expect
Austin to be a logical first site for SWB in Texas, since they are
trialing other CLASS options here.

And so it also seems logical that we have a local firm with the product
you describe.

I got to fondle one recently. It is cute. What else can you say about
a device that is self-contained ... in a DB-25 shell?

Anyhow, these are the folks:

        Rochelle Communications, Inc.
        8716 N. Mopac, Suite 200
        Austin, Texas 78759
        [phone]
        416-9820 @MCIMAIL.COM

Regards,

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]

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

From: "Raymond J. Rueb" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: How Toll Busy Line and Emergency Interrupt Work
Date: 2 May 90 19:00:33 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


After reading the previous discussions, I think there is some
confusion about what the operator is capable of during BLV and EI
situations. So,

     "How Toll Busy Line Verify (BLV) and Emergency Interrupt (EI) Work"

I worked on OSPS BLV & EI for AT&T, and I became familiar with how
TSPS works also. For TOPS info, ask someone else (though this
information should be close).

The best way to understand BLV and EI is to run through a customer to
operator to termination scenario.

1) After repeatedly receiving a busy signal from their intended
forward number, a customer calls the operator and asks if the operator
can help.

2) The operator enters "VERIFY mode". On TSPS this is done by
accessing a separate call loop and performing the VERIFY on that loop.
On OSPS the operator has a separate VERIFY key to press which causes
the switch to perform the following checks:

  a) Is there a valid forward number?
  b) Is the forward number within this operator's VERIFY network? If
     not, the operator must go inward to the local operator who can
     then perform the VERIFY. More about VERIFY networks later.
  c) Is the forward number verifiable? ie: is it on the list of numbers
     of which the operator is not allowed to perform BLV and EI. I never
     understood this idea, maybe the CIA might rest easier, but it really
     is a security redundancy.

3) If this operator can perform the VERIFY, then the operator presses
send.

  a) The call begins to route over the VERIFY network.
  b) The back party is automatically split from the connection (for
     security reasons, OSPS only; in TSPS the operator is performing the
     VERIFY on a separate loop and there is no back party on that loop)
  c) The operator's talking path is disabled.
  d) A voice scrambler circuit kicks in (in TSPS this is a physical
     circuit attached to the trunk, in OSPS this is firmware in the
     operator's VDT). The scrambler allows the operator to tell IF
     conversation is taking place, but not WHAT is being said.
     It kinda sounds like ducks talking.

4) The call arrives at the local Central Office (CO) on an incoming
BLV trunk.  This is where my knowledge is a little weak. If the number
to be verified is a line loaded on that switch, then we're home free.
The switch automatically causes a test trunk to bridge the port
associated with the number being called and the operator is now
connected with all forward parties associated with the call. If,
however, the line is on a PBX connected to the CO, the connection MAY
be verifiable. I believe all true PBX's must have incoming VERIFY
trunks and be capable of performing BLV bridging. I know that some
PBX's can do this (a 5ESS Switch (tm) can be a PBX), but I don't know
whether ALL PBX's can do this. It works on centrex.

5) The operator listens to the scrambled connection to determine if
the line is in-service or not. This method of determination has the
following drawbacks:

   a) If there is a long lull in the conversation when the operator
      performs the VERIFY, the operator might assume that the number is
      out of service.
   b) Most operators don't seem to be able to recognize data connections
      through the scrambler (what's that funny noise???)
   c) A pre-howler announcement, "please hang-up the phone" sounds like
      conversation. There's actually a lot of debate as to what constitutes
      in-service; if the telco's product is working, but the person has
      recently left the phone off-hook, is it in-service?

6) The operator splits the forward connection, unsplits the back party
(TSPS operators change loops) and informs the customer of the status.

7) The customer requests an EI.

8) The OSPS operator presses the EI key.

   a) The back party is split.
   b) A two second long 440Hz tone is applied to the forward connection.
   c) The scrambler is deactivated.
   d) The operator's voice path with the forward connection is restored.
   e) Every 10 seconds, a 0.5 second tone is repeated to serve as a
      reminder to the forward parties that their conversation is no longer
      private. This tone continues until the operator breaks the EI bridge.

9) The operator can now talk with the forward party and request that
they hang-up so that the back party can call them.

10) The operator relays the response to the back party.

At this point the operator will charge the customer for the VERIFY and EI.

If they have been taught well, the operator will ask if the back party
wants the operator to connect them with their intended forward party.
This will result in additional charges for an operator assisted call.

NOTES about BLV and EI service:

1) BLV and EI are separately tariffed services, but are always flat
rate. Some states, like Michigan, don't allow charging for BLV but do
allow EI charges.

2) During VERIFY and EI, the back party and forward party are NEVER in
contact.

3) Calls CANNOT be completed across the VERIFY network.

4) The VERIFY network USUALLY crosses LATA boundaries.

5) The VERIFY network is often BOC owned, and often only the BOCs are
allowed access to them. This means that BOCs frequently are in the
position of providing INTER-LATA BLV and EI services. Since BOCs are
forbidden from providing inter-lata services like COLLECT and CARD#,
why is inter-lata BLV allowed?

NOTES about the VERIFY network and security:

1) The VERIFY network is separate from the toll network.

2) Routing on the VERIFY network cannot occur from a customer's phone.
If you're accidently routed to a VERIFY trunk, your signaling will be
wrong.

3) Much emphasis has been placed on operators being able to break into
private phone conversations as a breach of privacy. Given the way BLV
and EI perform (with the scrambler and tones) I don't feel that this
is an issue.

            HOWEVER....

4) Craft test sets have special software to prevent routing on trunks
MARKED as VERIFY trunks, but there is NOTHING to prevent a craft
person from modifying how a trunk is marked, and then routing (of
course it is still special routing signalling that must be used, but
them craft seem to know about it).  I was appalled to find out that
this is common practice when testing the BLV trunks. What this means
is that a skilled, but unscrupulous, craftsperson has the
unsupervised, unmonitored, unscrambled ability to listen in on ANY
active phone conversation anywhere their VERIFY network reaches. Guess
you gotta trust them.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Date: 3 May 90 17:35:08 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, Donald E. Kimberlin, TNA, Safety
Harbor, FL (via MCIMail 413-3373) writes...

>Mssrs. Goldenstein and Wolfe, each in their own way, seem to pro-
>liferate a misconception oeprating telephone companies want us to
>hold: That the capital cost of building new transmission facilities
>with today's technology is as heavy a burden as it has always been.

>        Not true!  In fact, the base capital cost of providing added
>transmission facilities has plummeted in recent years, often to
>factors one-tenth or less of what they were even a decade ago ... and
>even in unadjusted-for-inflation figures.

Mister Kimburling (sic) seems to have a great faith in the ability of
technology to overcome economics.  Sometimes it's true.  Sometimes
it's not.

This thread began, if you recall, with a comment about rural
multi-party telephones.  Not city or suburb, but serious boondock
country where the local telco doesn't even ask you if you want
single-party lines.

In such cases, the latest and greatest telco transmission technology
can help a little, but not a lot.  This is an especially serious
problem in America, due to the rural land pattern.  In Europe, for
instance, most agricultural areas are arranged village/farm, where
everybody lives in the village and farmers commute (maybe less than a
mile) to their fields.  In America, small farmers tend to live on
their land, amongst the pigs and chickens.

In the homesteaded areas of the country (i.e., the Great Plains), land
tenure was created in units of 40 and 160 acres, so the houses tend to
be evenly spaced every half-mile or so.  Only the center of each
Township (usually a 6x6 mile square) has a village.  In northeastern
areas, rural areas are marked by natural boundaries (mountains,
rivers, etc.) and houses are scattered willy-nilly along winding
roads.

It's these customers who are hardest to serve.  When you are within a
road-mile of only three or ten neighbors, who is there to mux your
line with?  Muxes require a "star" configuration at the
pedestal-point.  Sure, that works in villages, and it allows the
telcos to substantially reduce the distances they have to go.  But the
"last mile" is a lonely, costly one, with maybe a 25-pair aerial cable
serving a few road miles.

I did run into one interesting technological advance aimed at such
markets.  A little start-up developed a fiber optic mux system with a
very low cost, weather-safe (mount atop the pole) terminal, designed
to work in a tree-topology exchange plant.  For various reasons it
isn't suitable for the US market and I don't know how they're doing,
but it's not like nobody's thinking about the problem.  It's just that
the really spread-out customer base in rural areas isn't easy to serve
with any available technology.

(Yes, there are a few technologies that have been suggested but for
various reasons, like the FCC, not approved.  Radio local loops (fixed
cellular is a fancy version) are sometimes useful.  Cable TV can carry
telephone channels too, if you solve the privacy issues (i.e.,
digitizing and encrypting).  But that still requires physical copper,
not cheap to pull.)


Fred R. Goldstein
[e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
disclaimer:  opinions are mine alone, sharing requires permission

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #312
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21401;
          4 May 90 4:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00994;
          4 May 90 2:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01592;
          4 May 90 1:41 CDT
Date:     Fri, 4 May 90 0:41:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #313
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 4 May 90 00:41:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 313

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    More Cell Phone Reprogramming [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Reprogramming Your Cellular Phone [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [David Tamkin]
    Re: Long Distance Down the Street [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [John Higdon]
    Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2-MAY-1990 17:23:30.26
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Cell Phone Reprogramming


Hmmm..

(In response to what the Moderator noted at the end of my last post
about reprogramming my Audiovox Cell Phone...)

Is it indeed still possible to reprogram your phone, thus enabling you
to make calls for free?

After visitng my cell phone store a few months ago and talking with a
guy there, I got the impression that it was no longer possible unless
you went out and copied someone else's ESN *and* phone number into
your phone. IE, you need to get some other, *valid* user's ESN and
number, and then use it until said other customer gets his or her
bill, and has his number changed.

So if I'm in my home system, (non-Roam), it's not very easy to get
"free" service since I'd need this info, and it's doubtful anyone
would just tell me their ESN and #.

I was told that the trick would be to go Roaming somewhere, since
foreign systems didn't immediately check to see if you had a valid ESN
/ Phone number match, and thus would, for a while at least, allow you
to make calls without having a valid billing number. However,
according to what I was told at the store, most systems do a check the
first time you use them after you have entered their "roam area", so
it has become just as hard to cheat in a Roam area as it is your home
area, and hence it is now quite difficult to reprogram your phone in
an effort to make free calls with it.

(Oh, and of course I wouldn't cheat on my cell phone - I'm not a big
fan of being pulled over on the freeway by the police, and don't want
to give them a reason to do so: "Sir, do you know you were ROAMing
into a new service area with an invalid ESN? I'll have to write you up
a citation for that!" Errr...how many points is that?? :-) )

-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!!  :-)  )


[Moderator's Note: Normally you cannot make local calls with a serial
number mismatch. The serial number is difficult/impossible to change,
and if it does not match the phone number being used on the carrier
records, the call will be rejected. You can get away with a few things
roaming that you can't do locally, but someone will eventually scream
about that and your ESN will go on a fraud list.

But ... some cellular carriers, or at least Cellular One in Chicago,
have a few numbers 'laying around' on which the serial is NOT checked,
for whatever reason. These might be numbers used by the employees of
the carrier using several phones on the same line; they may be numbers
used by dealers to demo their products; or they may be instances of
the carrier just doing a sloppy job of record keeping and guarding
their network against abuse. In any event, people find those numbers
and soon learn that LOCAL calls (rarely does an LD carrier seem to be
assigned) can be made or received via that number with relative
impunity, particularly if they watch their mouth on who they call via
that number and what they talk about.  Illegal? Of course.  Being
done?  I am told it is happening.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone
Date: 4 May 90 01:29:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]) (DOUGLAS
SCOTT REUBEN) writes:

>So ... if anoyne knows how to reprogram an Audiovox CMT-450 cell
>phone, I'd love to hear about it ...

>[Moderator's Note: Whenever you make any changes in programming, be
>certain to obtain the carrier's approval and permission before
>actually using the instrument. And I hope that anyone responding
>publicly or privately to Mr. Reuben will include a disclaimer in their
>message like this one pointing out that it is illegal to reprogram
>your cell phone to avoid the lawful charges of a carrier.  PT]

I have purposely left in the Moderators remarks as requested.

I have an Audiovox CT5000 (The portable, in car and transportable set
which I consider one of the most versatile on the market).  Assuming
that the CMT-450 is closely related, try the following:

    Punch in your lock code.
    Press Function then "#" then 1.
    From there on you can reprogram all sorts of different
    things with the first location (Number 1) being the 10
    digit 'phone number.
    Punch in the new authorized number then press enter.
    The display cycles to Number 2.
    Then punch in Function Clear.
    The phone resets in you should be back in business.

*WARNING and DISCLAIMER*  Like I said this is for the 5000 series.
You are on your own!!  However, Good luck!


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 22:18 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes


Patrick Townson wrote in volume 10, issue 302:

| Unlike Cellular One, they do not charge separately for 'transfer on busy'
| and 'transfer on no answer' at $2.00 each.

Patrick is a bit confused here.  Ameritech Mobile has two kinds of
Call Transfer: Immediate (unconditional forwarding until you enter the
deactivation code) and Busy/No Answer.  They charge $2.00 a month for
each.  Southwestern Bell's Cellular One in metropolitan Chicago
charges $2.00 total for a package that includes all three.

Cellular One had sent me some literature, and I read the appropriate
parts of it to Pat over the phone.  When I explained to him that Busy
Forwarding and No Answer Forwarding were separately activated and
deactivated (unlike being a single feature as with Ameritech Mobile)
he must have misunderstood that they were also separately billed.
They aren't.  Ameritech Mobile charges $2.00 per month for Immediate
and $2.00 for Busy/No Answer; Cellular One charges $2.00 total for
Immediate, Busy, and No Answer Transfer.

| Neither do they, like Cellular One, charge airtime for calls being
| forwarded (to another landline number)

Nor does Cellular One; in fact, they weren't charging for the landline
cost either back when Ameritech Mobile still was.

| or double airtime for three-way calling and calls accepted from call-
| waiting.  Yes, you read that correctly: Cellular One/Chicago charges
| *double* airtime when you make a three-way call from your cell phone or
| accept a call waiting.

Yes, that they do.  If you answer Call Waiting without terminating the
interrupted call, Cellular One does charge double airtime for as long
as you have both calls going; the same goes for using Three-Way
Calling.  Unless Cellular One has just changed that, that is one
aspect in which they do charge more than Ameritech Mobile, who do not
charge for double simultaneous airtime.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 17:07:12 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Down the Street
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (ROBERT M.
HAMER) writes:

> "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]> writes:

> >    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!

> If I am remembering correctly what I read occasionally down there,
> there are plans (perhaps already implemented) to make dialing the
> Research Triangle Park local from Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill,
> and vica-versa.  Or maybe making the entire triangle area some sort of
> extended local area.

Actually, Research Triangle Park has been a local call from all three
cities for many years now (and vice versa; all three cities are local
calls from RTP as well).  Conceptually, one can think of RTP as being
in 3 different calling areas at once.

A couple of years ago this approach was extended to Raleigh/Durham
International Airport as well.  Until then, you would see banks of
payphones in the airport, each with a sign above it: "Raleigh calls",
"Durham calls", or "Chapel Hill calls".  If you wanted your call to be
charged as a local call, you had to use the right flavor of payphone.
There were special arrangements to run the lines for the Durham and
Chapel Hill payphones back to the appropriate central offices, since
the airport is in Wake County (adjacent to Raleigh, and thus in the
Raleigh calling area).

Also making its appearance in the last two years was the extended
calling area concept.  The problem is that there are more extended
calling area plans than there are telcos, and there are way too many
telcos!  (Southern Bell in Raleigh and most of the rest of Wake
Country, and also in Chapel Hill & Carrboro; GTE in most of Durham
County; Carolina Telephone for Oxford, Pittsboro, Angier, Clayton,
Fuquay-Varina and Wake Forest; Mebane Home Telephone Co. in
Hillsborough and environs; and I think one or two others that I can't
remember.)

Each company has its own extended calling plan, and some have more
than one plan!  Southern Bell, for instance, offers at least three
different plans, ranging from unlimited exended calling (for a higher
monthly fixed charge) to a fixed per-call charge (regardless of call
duration) on extended calls (with a slightly higher monthly fixed
charge).  GTE appears to offer just one plan (called TriWide).

> I suspect some of the difficulties stem from different telephone
> companies.  Back when I was in school there, the Chapel Hill Telephone
> Company was owned by the University -- it supplied service to the
> entire town; not just the University.  Similarly (if I remember
> correctly), so was the electric / power company.  Sometime around 1970
> the University divested itself of both properties.  Durham telephone
> service is supplied by GTE.

Chapel Hill is now served by Southern Bell.  Apparently, it and Duke
followed the same basic plan in divesting themselves of their telcos.
I still find it incredibly annoying that the area is covered by a
patchwork of different telcos instead of just one monolithic one.  The
boundaries of local calling areas (and thus the factors that
distinguish a free call from a toll call) are based more on phone
company rivalries than on solid geographic or business considerations.

For illustrative purposes, consider the differences between the
Raleigh/Cary and the Durham/Chapel Hill areas.  Raleigh (pop. 240,000)
sits on the other side of Interstate 40 from Cary (pop. 45,000); the
city limits touch, and it's about ten miles from one city center to
the other.  Both cities are in the same Southern Bell calling area, so
they're served by the same phonebook (the two-inch thick Raleigh
directory) and calls between them are free.

Now travel about 20 miles west on I-40.  Again we find a small city
(Chapel Hill, pop. 40,000) sitting across the highway from a larger
neighbor (Durham, pop. 130,000).  Again, we have two municipalities
whose borders are immediately adjacent and which have little more than
ten miles separating their central areas.  But in this case, it's as
if they were on opposite sides of the globe!  Each city has its own
telco (GTE for Durham, Southern Bell for Chapel Hill), its own phone
book (the 1-inch thick Durham directory and the 3/4-inch thick Chapel
Hill/Carrboro directory) and its own small calling area.  Unless you
subscribe to one of the extended calling area plans, calls between the
two cities (not to mention to "distant" Raleigh) are long-distance!

If I could magically redraw the telco map, I would wish for one big
calling area, served by a single company with a single phonebook, for
the whole Triangle area.  But barring that, even a reduction to just
two areas (Wake County, and Durham & Orange Counties) would be a
blessing.  Unfortunately, I just don't see it happening.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution
Date: 3 May 90 14:23:34 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail] writes:

> (It seems reasonable to me that a relay could work on 100 uA.
> D'Arsnoval meter movements can work on more than an order of magnitude
> less.

Quite right; there are commonly available meter movements that operate
at 10 ua full-scale. But a D'Arsonval meter movement is *not* a relay.
It is a carefully crafted watchlike movement, using jeweled bearings,
that has a design function to simply "move" a pointer with minimum
friction across a meter face. If you were to try to put any current
whatsoever across the bearing, the unit would become inoperative in a
very short time. And the addition of a "strap" to carry the load
current would inhibit the movement.

A cursory examination of the catalogs has not been able to turn up a
relay that can operate on 0.5 mw. Remember the issue is not whether
there is a relay that will operate on 100 ua, but whether there is one
that will operate at that current *at 5 volts*.

As a kid, I remember seeing some very sensitive relays. They were
large, can-enclosed, shock-mounted devices used in some CO
application.  They would not have worked (or fit) inside a telephone
instrument.

I know that in my various tinkerings over the years, it would have
been very helpful to have a relay with the discussed sensitivity.
Unfortunately, none has ever been found. Of course, I never had access
to secret government agencies, either.

> A reed relay with a bias magnet might also be a contender.  LL
> seemed to think that 100 uA was about two orders of magnitude beyond
> reality.)

No, not really. I would assume that you would want the relay to
release when the current was removed. A bias magnet is not an
amplifier.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 May 90 15:18:11 GMT


> > In actual fact, I have never seen a hotel's financial
> > statements that show the telephone operation for guests running at a
> > profit.  This is usually break-even at best.

How about the elevators? Do the elevators run at a profit? Maybe the
maid service makes a net profit off tips? Hotel phone service isn't a
separate profit-making operation. It's (as John says down lower) part
of the cost of doing business.

> So how, pray tell, does an operation such as Motel 6 manage to provide
> clean, reasonable rooms, free local calls, no surcharge on long
> distance calls, for such low rates?

Perhaps they don't try to shove internal bookkeeping considerations in
their guests' faces.


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone].      <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #313
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21534;
          4 May 90 4:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00994;
          4 May 90 2:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01592;
          4 May 90 1:41 CDT
Date:     Fri, 4 May 90 1:34:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #314
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 4 May 90 01:33:51 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 314

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    What Does a Real Hayes Modem Do? (Was Re: Touch-tone) [Pat Cain]
    New Illinois Bell Services [Steven King]
    Running Out of Phone Numbers [Wally Kramer]
    Australian NPA System [Linc Madison]
    Alphabetical Frivolity [J. Stephen Reed]
    DTMF and Other Phone Tones [Ray Dueland]
    Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-down Tool [Roy Smith]
    Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-down Tool [Eric Hughes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Pat Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Does a Real Hayes Modem Do? (Was Re: Touch-tone)
Reply-To: Pat Cain <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.
Date: Wed, 02 May 90 20:40:24 GMT


About a week ago I was reading a few articles about dialling the extra
DTMF tones using Hayes modems.

My modem is a "MicroLink Multi-Speed Modem" manufactured by PACE
Communications in the UK.

The documentation for dialling is as follows...

ATD

followed by:

telephone number

N  (eg. ATDNCave searches for the string "Cave" in the modem dialling
        directory the modem and dials that number, alternately ATDN7
        dials directory entry 7.)
P       Dial number using PULSE dialling
T       Dial number using DTMF tones
R       Reverse mode (switch into answer mode when call is answered)
W       Wait for a dial tone (eg. ATD 1W661231 dials 1, waits for dial
        tone then continues dialling)
,       Cause a delay whose length is determined by register S8
;       Force modem to return to local mode at end of dial command.

So, it isn't possible to make my modem answer by typing ATDT A.  If
you do this, it just sends the DTMF tone for A.  So as a few other
people have said, "telephone number" can be {0..9, A..D} to represent
all the 16 tones.  I'm not saying this is the case with all modems,
obviously just some.

Incidently, the manual doesn't mention that ABCD can be used to dial
the other four tones.  What does a real Hayes modem do?


Pat Cain
Sideways BBS {BBC, Archimedes} [phone]
[e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: New Illinois Bell Services
Date: 2 May 90 22:36:03 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I just found (in my phone bill) a quick rundown on new features being
implemented in certain areas covered by Illinois Bell.  I'd never
heard of some of these before, and I figured the rest of the group
might be interested in the information.  So without further ado...

                           ----------
ADVANCED CUSTOM CALLING NOW GETTING UNDERWAY IN SOME SERVICE AREAS

    In limited service areas, Illinois Bell(R) Advanced Custom Calling
Services are now becoming available.

    Advanced Custom Calling Services take up where Custom Calling
leaves off.  The give you even greater control over your phone -- from
any phone in your house.  To receive a free, no-strings demonstration
over the phone, just call Quick Teach toll-free at 1-800-678-9868.

    Here's how these services work:

ILLINOIS BELL(R) AUTOMATIC CALLBACK.  Eliminates the worry of missing a call
    if you don't get to the phone on time.  It returns the last call --
    automatically.

ILLINOIS BELL(R) REPEAT DIALING.  Your phone will re-dial a busy number for
    up to 30 minutes.

ILLINOIS BELL(R) DISTINCTIVE RINGING.  Lets you know that someone special
    is calling even before you pick up the phone.  You can program up to
    ten numbers.

ILLINOIS BELL(R) CALL SCREENING.  Protects you from nuisance callers.  Once
    you program their numbers, they can't get through to you.  They get
    a recording instead.
                             ----------

The only new feature I recognize is distinctive ringing; the rest are
news to me.  Auto callback and call screening look like interesting
preludes to/ replacements for Caller*ID.


Steve King, uunet!motcid!king


[Most of the city will have these features during the third quarter,
1990. In Chicago-Rogers Park, Chicago-Edgewater, and Chicago-Newcastle
they will be implemented in the fourth quarter, 1990.  A few areas
have the full complement of features already.   PT]

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 14:00:27 PDT
From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Running Out of Phone Numbers


Seems to me, all this trouble of splitting phone area codes is a short term
solution for an inevitable problem which requires a better solution.

    Digit legend:  N = 2-9  P = 0,1   X = 0-9

Near the beginning of DDD (direct distance dialing) the numbering
scheme was NPX-NNX-XXXX.  (Some combinations such as area codes 211,
311, etc. were reserved but this doesn't affect my point.)

Some areas (circa 1977) exhausted possible exchanges.  The "solution"
was NPN-NXX-XXXX (allowing exchanges to have zero or one as the middle
digit).  This minor change surprised some phone equipment vendors (and
maybe a telco or two) who assumed exchange numbers would never have a
zero or one for the center digit.  Mildly inconvenient, but not
tragic.

Next, we had area codes "split".  Splitting an area code means
something like half the exchanges within an area code are moved to an
unused or sparsely used area code.  This was easy on the software, but
rather annoying for the phone system users.

A possible (but likely?) future expansion would be to allow more area
codes by removing the middle digit restriction.  A densely populated
city could conceivably have 35 area codes.  This shouldn't present any
particular problem, but more assumptions likely will be violated.

        Exchanges    Area Codes    Total        Total
 Type        Per Area Code    Possible    Exchanges    Numbers
 NPN-NNX-XXXX    640        128         81,920        819 M
 NPN-NXX-XXXX    800        128        102,400        1024 M
 NXX-NXX-XXXX    800        800        640,000        6400 M
 NXX-XXX-XXXX    1000        800        800,000        8000 M

Now, eight BILLION phone lines seems like plenty.  But history
suggests this is not so.  (Remember when 64 kbytes of computer memory
was "more than you could ever use?")  No doubt we'll find some way to
gobble up phone numbers, too.  (Perhaps connecting every household
device [toaster, heating/cooling] to the network.  Sure, it's science
fiction now--or is it?--how about that BSR remote control system?)
Enough is never enough for long.

Eight billion lines distributed perfectly to North America with say, a
population of half a billion, is only 16 lines per potential
subscriber.  That's a margin too close for comfort.

The basic problem then is:  How do we add more digits?

A radical approach is to forget the current system.  [I'd expect a
little opposition to this suggestion :-).]  We could say that area
codes will have say, five digits, and look like NXXXX.  Zero and one
can still have their current special meanings to resemble other
countries.  Might as well make exchanges five digits, too.  And four
digit numbers within an exchange (extension?) seems reasonable so lets
make it five.  Holy digits, Batman!  15-digit phone numbers!  For half
a billion subscribers, this equals 1.6 million lines per potential
subscriber.  Problem solved.  Maybe until the 22nd century.

A (little) less radical approach is to add a third heirarchy of zones:
perhaps between area codes and exchanges.  Since we like groups of
three, phone numbers would look like NXX-NXX-NXX-XXXX for a total of
5120 billion numbers or about ten thousand per subscriber.  Probably
adequate, but this might be a radical change from the telco's
viewpoint.

Okay, how about abandoning a fixed-number-of-digits dialing system.
Let's just add to the current system.  For example, you dial
NXX-XXX-0000 and then you can dial more digits.  The number of digits
depends on the particulars of the line.  If it's home, maybe only 4
more digits access the refrigerator (it would, of course, demand a
password after you connect to it).  If it's work, 5 digits accesses
your (inner) office, and 3 more your electronic concierge.  Some of
the problems which come to mind: When should answer supervision start?
Should the system interact "before" placing the call (like finding out
how many more digits are needed)?

So, does anyone know what's going to be done?

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


[Moderator's Note: 'What is going to be done' at least for the next
three or four years is use up the traditional supply of numbers still
left. Then a couple more may be slipped in of the X11 or X00 variety
not in use anywhere. A couple numbers of the X10 variety are free to
use. Then, maybe five years down the road from now, area codes will
look like regular prefixes. That should last until long after all of
us have departed this veil of tears.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 01:57:12 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Australian NPA System
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Dave Horsfall ([e-mail])
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 300, Message 5 of 9

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

>|                 (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).

Sorry -- I guess my comment wasn't clear.  What I was referring to is
that the capital cities in Australia have area codes 0N, and in
general the area codes are then 0NX for other cities in the same
state.  For example, 07 - Brisbane, 070 - Cairns, 07X - the rest of
Queensland.  Of course, there are other exceptions to my very general
rule (089 -- which would be in South Australia -- is the entire
Northern Territory).  Since N.T. used to be part of S.A., though, in
general all area codes with the same first significant digit are in
the same state.

(Oh, again another exception: Canberra, which is treated as N.S.W.)

Well, anyway, you see what I meant....

00X - Tasmania, Toll-free numbers*
01X - unused
02X - New South Wales
03X - Victoria
04X - N.S.W., Capital Territory
05X - Unused
06X - Victoria
07X - Queensland
08X - South Australia, Northern Territory
09X - Western Australia

*It just occurred to me that this would also include things like 0011
for international dialing, but that leads me right to my disclaimer:
I've never lived in Oz, so I only know a little bit about what I'm
talking about.


Linc Madison   =  [e-mail]

P.S. Are there any 02X or 03X area codes except 02 and 03 for Sydney
and Melbourne, respectively?  Also, isn't Launceston 004?  Nitpicky
minds want to know.... ;-)

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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 23:56 EST
From: "J. Stephen Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alphabetical Frivolity


Patrick had a msg (about ten days back, I'm lax on catching up with
the TELECOM mail) where he reacted to the complaint of a reader about
such businesses as "Harry's Amoco" being listed under "H," not "A."

I would agree that "for frivolous complaints, this takes the cake," as
Pat said.  But I was reminded of a country that DOES invert the issue
at hand, and that is Iceland.

The Icelandic custom is to make all last names involve the father's
first name.  For example, Sigurd's son Sven would be "Sven
Sigurdssohn."  Sven's son Njorl would be "Njorl Svenssohn."  For
women, Sigurd's daughter Brunne would be "Brunne Sigurdsdotter."  Etc.
The "-ssohn" and "-sdotter" are continued to the umpteenth generation.

Not the same as in most cultures, right?  Neither are the phone
listings.  All those with the first name Sigurd are grouped together,
and then alphabetized secondarily by last names.

(This was publicized about four years back when the Reykjavik summit
was held on the Iceland tundra between Reagan and Gorbachev.  The
country's president, a woman, had many questions directed to her from
feminist-thinking newsies about why this archaic patronym system still
existed.  She saw it as entirely natural.)

I daresay the correspondent would have much less trouble finding out
where the BP, Q8, or Shell station was listed that he saw in downtown
Reykjavik, but I don't know whether gas stations have fathers or not.
8-) 8-)


Steve Reed * Liberty Network, Ltd. * P.O. Box 11296, Chicago, IL 60611
[e-mail] * [e-mail]

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

From: Ray Dueland <[e-mail]>
Subject: DTMF and Other Phone Tones
Reply-To: Ray Dueland <[e-mail]>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 3 May 90 05:35:11 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David J Bell)
writes:

>This wont work, though, if the telco locks out DTMF service on
>the affected lines. Then, *only* pulse (rotary) dialers will work!

Electronic switching equipment is getting more and more sophisticated.

This isn't really appropriate for alt.drugs, but I thought this rebel
group might enjoy knowing about the phone switching tones.  Many times
you can hear faint tones in the background while you're talking long
distance.  If you listen carefully, you'll notice that the tones are
not the standard DTMF Touch Tone sounds, although they are similar
(both use a pair of tones).  A small device similar to the inexpensive
DTMF dialers (a blue box) allow free LD calls to be made (illegally).

Another interesting way to phuck with the phones is to use the A-D
tones on the DTMF tones (DTMF is a 16 tone-pair standard, the vast
majority of phones can only generate 12 of the tones, but most can be
modified to generate the other 4).  If the D tone is active while
calling long distance directory assistance, your call is switched out
to another switching system.  From here you can set up conference
calls from around the country for the 50 cent charge of calling
directory assistance.

I've left out some important details, so it would be impossible to
make use of the above information.  I just find it fascinating that
there are weak spots in the phone system that can be exploited.

It turns out the Ma Bell doesn't take such things lightly.  Pacific
Bell in particular is fascist and has used its power to have BBS
systems carrying the "blue box" frequencies confiscated.  Modern ESS
phone switches detect the use of these frequencies and take
appropriate action.


[Moderator's Note: I'm a facist myself. That's why I strongly
discourage your efforts. Anyway, don't you think lots of calls to DA
lasting several minutes each look sort of odd?  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Thu, 3 May 90 13:08:13 GMT


Jim Gonzalez <[e-mail]> writes:

> has anyone used [the Siemon (*not* Siemens)] S66MT.  They warn that it
> is only suitable for occasional work

    I've got one.  It works, but it's not very much fun to use.  I
very quickly went out and bought a real spring-loaded one to replace
it, so the $16 or so I spent on the cheap one was essentially a waste.
Come to think of it, virtually every cheap tool I've ever bought has
eventually been replaced by a good one; cheap tools just aren't worth
it.

    In a real emergency, you can probably manage to get a wire
into a 66 block with some needle-nose pliers and a bit of care.


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane?  Did you say arcane?  It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"

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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 17:02:22 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool


In Telecom-Digest: V10 I306 M5, Jim Gonzales writes:

>My question is, has anyone used this less expensive tool?  It is a
>Siemon (*not* Siemens) S66MT.  They warn that it is only suitable for
>occasional work, since it lacks the spring-loading of other tools, and
>therefore presents a greater risk of damage to the block.

The risk is danger to your hands.  I used one of those non-spring
loaded types once for a couple dozen blocks and you get really sore
heels in your hands.  If you have only a small amount to do, though,
it's probably OK.


Eric Hughes
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But remember folks, a good workman never complains
about the Tool he has been given to work with!   :)  Pay no attention
to me: Its Friday, thank goddess!  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #314
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05359;
          5 May 90 19:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06121;
          5 May 90 18:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24363;
          5 May 90 17:05 CDT
Date:     Sat, 5 May 90 16:44:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #315
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 May 90 16:43:50 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 315

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant [Peter da Silva]
    Re: A Coat Hanger [Peter Desnoyers]
    Re: A Coat Hanger [Roger Haaheim]
    Re: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [John Opalko]
    Re: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool [Julian Macassey]
    Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [John G. De Armond]
    Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Fax Directories [Hector Myerston]
    Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: MCI Around Town Surcharges [Mark Robert Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Costs of Expanding Outside Plant
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 May 90 15:31:31 GMT


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

> Telcos are not ALLOWED to force people to change from multi-party
> service to (more convenient) more expensive single line service.

Are they not allowed to change the service type, or are they just not
allowed to charge more for the service?

> This is good for the customers,

Is it? Wouldn't it make more sense to just grandfather the lower rates
in on those lines, and then convert them as it becomes feasible, with
the idea of eventually phasing out party lines altogether.

> It's these customers who are hardest to serve.  When you are within a
> road-mile of only three or ten neighbors, who is there to mux your
> line with?  Muxes require a "star" configuration at the
> pedestal-point.

Sounds like a perfect market for a bus-style device, like Ethernet but
tuned to voice requirements. 3 KHz, sampled 8 bits wide at 6 KHz,
using something like fibonacci delta compression gives a data rate of
24 Kbit/second. Times 4 (4-party lines, remember) you get 96 kbaud.
Plus protocol overhead. Over these long lines collission detection
would probably be a loss, but there are only 4 of them so let the CO
poll them for data. Maybe once a second when a connection's not
open.

Doesn't sound like that expensive a box in quantity. How much would such
a beast cost?


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone].      <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.


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

From: Peter Desnoyers <codex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Coat Hanger
Date: 4 May 90 13:03:05 GMT
Organization: Codex Corp., Canton MA


[e-mail] writes:

>Found on a wooden coat hanger, here at work:

>    H. C. Nahman
>    Merchant Tailor
>    Est. Since 1906
>    807 Divisadero St.
>    San Francisco, Cal.
>    Phone WEST 1393

Pretty old if Divisadero Street is "WEST" - only about 50 more blocks
until you hit the ocean :-)

What I have always wanted to find out is what 75 stands for in S.F.
"ParK" maybe? All the older numbers (and most new ones) in the area I
used to live in (Haight near Stanyan) had 75x-xxxx numbers, and I'd
like to find out definitively what station that used to stand for.


                          Peter Desnoyers
                          [e-mail]

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

From: Roger Haaheim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Coat Hanger
Date: 3 May 90 15:34:57 GMT
Organization: HP Design Tech Center - Santa Clara, CA


Wide or narrow lapels :^}

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

From: "John Opalko, N7KBT" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts
Date: 4 May 90 20:13:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle


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

>Do you remember the "Bell Science Series"?

>I would kill for a video cassette of some of these programs.

I'm taking the "Weather" course given by the United States Power
Squadrons (national safe-boating group) and was loaned a tape of "The
Unchained Goddess", a "Bell Science Series" program about weather from
1958.

Fun stuff!!

The tapes apparently are available, but I don't know where you'd find
them.  Perhaps give AT&T a jingle?

If anybody finds a source for the tapes, let us know!!  I'd like to
see the rest of them.


            John Opalko
            [e-mail]

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

From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts
Date: 4 May 90 12:51:15 GMT
Reply-To: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 291, Message 1 of 11

|Do you remember the "Bell Science Series"? . . .

Yes, yes, YES!  I remember Dr. Baxter very well.  We saw these when
they were first broadcast on TV and on 16mm in elementary through high
school at various times.  I have thought about these a number of times
since then and of course when the "Telephone Hour"(*) was mentioned.

I remember
  "Our Mr. Sun"
  "Hemo the Magnificent"
  "Meteora the Unchained Goddess"
  and at least one on the subject of language modelled on ALICE IN
    WONDERLAND, where Dr. Baxter answered a lot of questions about
    language.

|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.

So would I-- boy-oh-boy.  My little girl would love them (I think).

    /JBL

(*)I also remember these, though when they were on regularly we also
   had Playhouse 90, the Kraft Playhouse and other very fine regular and
   special television shows; and at this distance I can't separate one
   from another.  Who broadcast Groucho Marx as Ko-Ko in THE MIKADO?


Nets: [e-mail]
 or {...}!bbn!levin
POTS: [phone]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool
Date: 4 May 90 13:34:38 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> I've gotten no replies in sci.electronics to my inquiry about
> inexpensive punch-down tools.  I think I've located one, though.
> Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45, but
> they also offer a less expensive one for $16.

> My question is, has anyone used this less expensive tool?  It is a
> Siemon (*not* Siemens) S66MT.  They warn that it is only suitable for
> occasional work, since it lacks the spring-loading of other tools, and
> therefore presents a greater risk of damage to the block.  Is this a
> serious risk?


    I have a selection of punch down tools. I have the cheapie
S66MT type, I have the Harris/Dracon D714 and I have the Harris/Dracon
D814.  The S66MT is spring loaded - sort of. There is another tool I
have that is not spring loaded, which is obsolete.

    If you only intend to make one termination every six months
and would rather not use your needle-nose pliers to do that, get the
S66MT. If you are considering punching down at least one 25 pair cable
worth of connections, get a real punch-down tool.

    The D714 has a nice spring in the handle. It does require a
screwdriver to change the blade from insert to insert & cut. But the
best tool is the D814. It has manual blade change - no screwdriver
needed - and it has adjustable punch pressure. It is a far better tool
than the D714. Price between the two is about the same.

    But my opinion is, if you are going to buy a tool, get the best. Your
work will be of better quality and the tool will last forever.

    If you were located near me, I would invite you over for a
test drive. After a couple of terminations with the cheapie tool, you
would happily pay $125 for the Dracon D814. Spend the money, your hand
and blood pressure will thank you.

    My Alltel Catalogue lists the D714 and D814 at $45.40. The
S66MT is $14.13.


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

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

From: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution
Date: 4 May 90 04:44:21 GMT
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car
 and gun works facility)


>(It seems reasonable to me that a relay could work on 100 uA.
>D'Arsnoval meter movements can work on more than an order of magnitude
>less.  A reed relay with a bias magnet might also be a contender.  LL
>seemed to think that 100 uA was about two orders of magnitude beyond
>reality.)

I was hoping the Moderator was going to let this die but since he has
not, here is the poop on the relay.  It was made by Leeds & Northrop
and was used as a galvo null detector in the old "sexy crab" type
stripchart recorder.  (I'm not 100% sure that this is an accurate
discription of the instrument; I've only seen one at a distance but
this is what I've been told.)  It is a dual-coil, magnetically biased
relay with micrometer thread adjustable armature gap, spring bias and
contact gap.  It is physically a bit smaller than a standard plugin
control relay.

I got it back out tonight in order to measure the characteristics.
Unfortunately, I damaged the windings on one coil when I threw it back
in the relay box so I could only measure one coil.  Again, using my
trusty Keithely digital picoammeter, I determined that the relay pulls
in at about 220 uamps with only one coil energized.  Corrispondingly,
with both coils energized, the pullin current would be around 110
uamps.  Not a bad guess on my part!

This relay is, of course, simply a typical example of instrumentation
galvo relays.  I have other relays that will actuate on as little as
10 uamps.  These consist of compact metermovements with the pointer
acting as a contact instead of an indicator.  Most anyone who has some
instrumentation experience will have seen many of these.  They used to
be quite popular (not necessarily in these sensitivity ranges) for
process control.  I have a nice one here that takes a thermocouple
input and is an alarming pyrometer.  I use it to control my bar-b-que.

Finally, and I hope this is the last word on the subject, regarding
the suggestions that I fabricate another infinity transmitter and send
it to some peer review person.  While that idea is intriguing,
especially the suggestion that Lippman pay me for my time.  At my
standard consulting rate of $120/hour, I could enjoy the money.  But
some practicality has to enter into the equation.  When we get right
down to it, Lippman, this spat, comp.dcom.telecom, and the Usenet in
general rate as pretty trivial in my life.  Idle entertainment.  It's
fun to debate and useful in that it keeps the skills sharp.  But
treating the net as reality is a whole 'nuther matter.

SO...

This is the end of this issue as far as I'm concerned.  Those of you
that think my experiment and historical account are accurate get my
thanks and appreciation.  Those that believe Lippman.. well...  Enough
said..


John

concerned

John De Armond, WD4OQC
Radiation Systems, Inc.
Atlanta, Ga
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd

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

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 08:46:35 -0700
From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: De Armond vs. Lippman - a Solomon Solution
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


D'Arsonval meter relays do exist.  They are little used nowadays,
since most modern plant instrumentation is digital, but I have seen
one and two-pole "meter-relays" in service.  They have some small
contacts on the indicator pointer, and these are usually capable of
carrying a few mA to switch external relays.  One very common past
usage of such things are setpoint controllers on thermocouple
indicators for furnaces and such.  They are not small.

    - Brian

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 4 May 90  08:39 PST
Subject: Re: Fax Directories
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


     Phony invoices for Telex directories has been a
telecommunications cottage industry for some time.  For some strange
reason it seems centered in Amsterdam, Vaduz Liechstenstein and
BEVERLY HILLS!.  There are several orders of sleaziness from not
publishing anything to actually publishing some sort of a listing and
thus being marginally legit.

     On the other hand... in the US the concept of one domestic
(Western Union) and a limited set of International Record Carriers for
Telex is a dead duck.  No Telex directory can claim to be more legit
than any other although Jaeger and Waldmann (Switzerland) publishes
the most authoritative version.

     Fax directories, as mentioned, are difficult to assemble as any
phone line can be used by "normal" (Groups I - III) fax machines.
More than junk faxes the threat to most people is that many Fax
salespeople used the directories as "lead listings" particularly if
you listed the type of machine you had.  This was pretty common before
Group III machines simplified inter-operability.

     Re the phony invoices, >someone< must be paying them, the flow
shows no signs of slowing down.  An associated scam is the fax paper
supplier, one casual call and pallets of paper appear at your
doorstep...


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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 21:10:10 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Teletronics Answer Detection Unit


I travel quite a bit for business.  Most hotels that cater to business
travelers 'stick it' to business traveler on their phone calls.  Its
bad enough when you get charged as much as $1.20 per 800# call
(Washington DC), but one time I was in Sunrise Florida and I dialed
8-800-877-8000 instead of 8-1-800-877-8000.  I eventually got a
recording ... and a charge for $3.92 on my bill for my mistake.  I
obviously use the # key whenever possible.

There was one surprise in all of this.  I stayed at Nendell's in
Portland OR, just outside of Beaverton.  They were running a
promotion.  All local calls were free, and "One hour of long distance
per day, free".  They had just signed up with "some mystery carrier"
who's name I didn't recognize.  I suspect they were a reseller.  The
deal was that the front desk would subtract off the cost of up to one
hour of calls each day you were there, but there was no carry over.
So for my three nights there, I got "four hours" of calls.

I deliberatedly placed some of the calls during the day to see what
they would do with them.  I used a stopwatch to make sure I didn't go
over my alloted time.  All charges were backed off my bill at
checkout.  The hotel has a ski lodge atmosphere, with most of the
rooms wrapped around a central pond.  The restaraunt was nice, and the
room bill was under $40/night.  Ol' Conrad ought to think about that.


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

From: Mark Robert Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Surcharges
Date: 4 May 90 16:23:49 GMT
Organization: Rutgers - The Police State of New Jersey


As I was told by MCI Customer Service (when I called about something
else), the notification will take place in your next billing, and all
people billed after 5/1 will have their bills adjusted to remove the
surcharge from calls made before the billing date.


Mark Smith, KNJ2LH                All Rights Reserved
RPO 1604               You may redistribute this article only if those who
P.O. Box 5063                 receive it may do so freely.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063              [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #315
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08409;
          5 May 90 20:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31055;
          5 May 90 19:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06121;
          5 May 90 18:09 CDT
Date:     Sat, 5 May 90 17:12:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #316
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 May 90 17:10:59 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 316

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Verifying Carrier Switch-Over Requests [David Tamkin]
    Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [David Tamkin]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Mike Riddle]
    Re: What is 660 at NY Tel? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: AT&T Billing via Local Telcos [Robert Gutierrez]
    Re: Ring Amplification [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ?? [Ken Abrams]
    Re: NC and GA Dialing [John R. Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 18:09 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Verifying Carrier Switch-Over Requests


In an article from misc.consumers reposted in TELECOM Digest, Volume
10, Issue 309, Charlie Shub described the procedure when his wife
worked for

> Pioneer TeleTechnologies, a company that solicits conversions to MCI.
> Contact is made by a sales person and if the client agrees to change
> over, there is a verification step performed before any changeover is
> ordered.  Specifically, the verification section calls the client and
> assures the client really did understand the change and really did agree
> to it.  Only after that step occurs is the change order sent in.

Let's accept Mr. Shub's description on faith.  Still, MCI believes the
solicitation firm unquestioningly and the customer's telco believes
MCI unquestioningly.  Is Pioneer TeleTechnologies the only firm doing
this for MCI, though?  Perhaps there are no complaints from the
customers reaffiliated by their telcos because Pioneer said so, but
what about those whose supposed reaffiliation requests were reported
by solicitation firms with looser controls or looser ethics than
Pioneer has?

A few months back a TELECOM Digest or comp.dcom.telecom reader who
truly did want to change to MCI reported that MCI said, "You'll have
to tell your telephone company yourself.  They don't believe us any
more."  Somebody out there was not as pure as Ms. Shub (if she uses
Charlie's surname) and her coworkers at Pioneer TeleTechnologies.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 00:05 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card)


Joseph C. Pistritto wrote in volume 10, issue 306:

| I had tried to get AT&T to [bill long-distance charges directly to a
| bank charge card, not counting their own] earlier, while living in
| the States, and could never get it done.  Does anyone out there know
| if this option is in fact available to US resident subscribers?

I don't know about AT&T, but MCI will gladly bill your usage to VISA
or MasterCard.  My MCI billing goes straight to MasterCard, and it
saves me a check and a stamp every month.


David Tamkin  PO Box 813  Rosemont IL  60018-0813  708-518-6769  312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 3 May 90 16:41:02 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


We had several US Robotic Courier 1200 modems that would dial a * when
sent a # and vice versa.  Later firmware corrected that problem, but I
found that USR didn't have that listed as a bug that their firmware
upgrade would fix!  I suspect someone in USR engineering just noticed
the problem and repaired the software before anyone had gotten a
problem logged as a trouble call.

Really confused our long-distance billing system here!


    - Brian

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

Date: Fri, 04 May 90 09:20:29 EDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns if Court, Papillion, Ne.


Recent articles have commented on the four "extra" (A,B,C,D) keys on a
16-key keypad.  Several contributors have talked about telco use in
selective signalling/operator unique functions, and at least one
mentioned radio-control circuits.

There was also one mention of the DOD Autovon usage.  The physical keys
are labelled:  FO - Flash Override
                F - Flash
                I - Immediate
                P - Priority

and used for multi-level precedence preemption.  The switch is
programmed to accept only certain precedence levels from particular
lines.  If, for example, a typical "four-wire" user hit FO nnn-nnnn,
they would get a recording to the effect of "You have dialed an
unauthorized precedence level.  Please place your call again using the
appropriate precedence or contact your operator for assistance."

The F, I and P all cause the switch to search for open paths to the
destination, in accordance with a preplanned routing scheme (at least
they used to.  It's been a while.)  If all paths are busy, they pick
the lowest possible call to preempt. (The lowest level, Routine, has
no associated key -- the default condition.)

The FO, on the otherhand, is a "ruthless preempt."  It finds the
quickest possible path, checks the usage, and if it isn't another FO
it's history.  Even if it was a Flash call.

At one point in my career I was authorized FO (under certain
conditions, of course.  There's a well-defined protocol, probably
honored more in the breach than the observance, over which precedence
is appropriate in a given situtation.)  I never could get over my
amazement at picking up a phone on a airplane, dialing FO nnn-nnnn,
and having 37 phones ringing even as I dialed the last digit.

It was also amusing as virtually everyone else on the airplane had at
least one of their circuit paths preempted (assuming calls in
progress), as the ground entry point reached out and seized what it
needed.

Just as an aside, does anyone who knows and can comment say whether
there is a similar capability in the "civilian" world?  [Note I did
NOT ask for particulars that would help a "phreaker."  I'm merely
curious whether the capability exists.]



   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3
 * Origin: [1:285/27@metronet] The Inns of Court [phone]

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

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

Date: 4-MAY-1990 02:47:39.72
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is 660 at NY Tel?


Hi-

In response to the question raised about dialing "660" in New York City:

 From what I know it used to be ringback, and probably still is.

You used to dial 660, waited for a dial tone, dialed "112" or "2#"
(but NOT "*2", which SHOULD be "112", but anyhow..), waited for a
second dial tone, flashed the hookswitch, got a "ringback tone", and
hung up. Very much like the 99x ringbacks they have in New England Tel
and Southern New England Tel territory (ie, 99x+your last 4 digits),
but different digit format.

They changed this about a year and a half ago (or more, I tried it a
year and a half ago and that was the first time I noticed that it no
longer worked), so I dunno what the new code to replace "2#" is now.

You can also dial 660 <wait for dial tone> then "4#", and this will
hang your phone for a while. About 1 min or so on a Crossbar, 4-6 mins
on a 1/1AESS, and I dunno if it even works on a DMS-100/200 or 5ESS.
(I don't think there are and Step-by-Steps in the NYC area where 660
would work, so I'm not sure if this would work on a SxS if one exists
there...)

There are lots of other codes you can dial to get "weird" recordings,
such as 99999 (lots of "9"s) will get you "<Alert tones> Your call can
not be completed as dialed. Check the number, and dial again. If you
are calling a number in the 212 area, dial again w/o using the 212
area code or ask your operator to help you", but this works even if
you are NOT calling from the 212 area.

By the way, the "dial tone" you get after the 660 isn't a "real" dial
tone, ie, you cant make calls over it for free or anything, nor can
you dial 958 for ANI (the thing that reads you your number?), nor "0"
for operator, nor 10xxx/950 codes, etc. It seems to be just for test
purposes and nothing else.

I've been meaning to try to hack out the new ringback number through
660, but as I have 3 lines down in New York, it's not really worth it
for the short time that I spend there...(I can just call myself!)


-Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to lcoals...!!  :-)  )

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing via Local Telcos
Date: 4 May 90 06:54:16 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


David Tamkin writes in Volume 10, Issue 309, Message 7 of 13:

> John Levine wrote in volume 10, issue 300:

> | MCI said that they couldn't [put multiple originating phone numbers on
> | the same long-distance account to share one minimum and to be figured
> | together for volume discounts], since Massachusetts and New Jersey are
> | in different billing regions,

Yes, this is true (I started in Customer Service).

> MCI told me that they couldn't put my parents' telephone numbers and
> mine, which are in bordering rate centers in the same city, onto the
> same account because they were not at the same address.

What a bunch of sh....(err)...I mean, No, this is not true.

MCI has had problems in the past with RBOC's rejecting PIC requests
with different locations on the PIC request (PIC = Primary
Interexchange Carrier).  So, they just reject the PIC request and the
customer keeps on calling without dialling the 700 test number,
thinking he/she is on MCI, and ... oops ... what's this AT&T bill!!!

Do this: Call MCI. Establish the account with the primary phone (and
the address it's to be sent to). Wait a week ... this will give the
billing center time to generate the PIC request tape to the RBOC with
just that one number.  Call back Customer Service and tell them you
want to add a number (reason: you got a second phone in the house).
The rep will say the phone is not in the local area (MCI's computer
prints a warning on the bottom of the screen "Number entered is not in
the same area" or something like that...).  You say: That's the number
they gave me. They say: OK, and hit enter on their 3270 terminal and
volia, it's added to the database.  The billing center will create
another PIC change request, and yes, the RBOC will "reject" the
request, but it will *NOT* be rejected from MCI's billing database.
The reject will be on MCI's OCIS system (On-line Customer Information
System), but it's just a transaction indicator. If you call back, the
rep will mention this, but just say it works fine and you dialed the
700 test number ... blah, blah, blah.

Oh yes, *YOU* have to call the local telco on the *2nd* line and tell
them you want MCI on it. Since the address won't match, the telco
won't take the PIC change request from MCI's tape. Do this *AFTER* you
call MCI to add the 2nd line on the account, or the local telco will
generate an account request to MCI, with the name and address of the
telephone number included, and you'll be stuck back at square one.

Have fun.

   Robert Gutierrez
   NSI Network Operations Center/NASA Ames Research Center.
   Moffett Feild, California.

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Amplification
Date: 4 May 90 01:56:53 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]
(Phillip Wherry) writes:

>My guess is that this topic is not of overwhelming interest; send
>e-mail replies directly to me.

Nonsense!  Sure we're interested, or we wouldn't have been reading your
posting in the first place.

Not only that, you'd probably filter all the not-quite-relevant
answers that wouldn't mean much to your problem but would really do
wonders with mine out of the summary!  (After all, they weren't
relevant.)

What I want, is a device that would detect incoming ring and generate
enough ring power (off a 110 VAC outlet) to make something REALLY loud
go off (only as long as ring is on the line), without presenting much
load at all to the line.  In fact, a near-zero REN would be ideal,
because there are already too many conventional telephone bells on
this line.  (It's a single Panasonic key system extension being used
to signal "incoming call" in 3 different buildings; anyone wanting the
call dials [or hits a button programmed to mean] 4111, to grab the
call ringing on extension 111.)

There's also an answering machine/phone combo on this extension, but
it is normally answered by the appropriate person hitting 4111
elsewhere.  My problem is we are overloading the more-or-less 5 REN
capacity of the Panasonic, and need more.


 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: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ??
Date: 3 May 90 15:58:29 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

>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.

The local Telco will (in most cases) deliver ANYTHING to you on a T1
span if you want it that way.  I assume that this is what they mean by
"digital DID".  In this case, you provide the terminal equipment (or
an appropriate digital switch) to de-mux the T1 line into individual
circuits.

>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.

Obviously somebody screwed up the order.  It could have been the
person in your company that placed it but it is probably more likely
that it got hosed up somewhere inside the Telco.


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

Subject: Re: NC and GA Dialing
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 4 May 90 12:21:18 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>"Customers making calls within the 912 area code may also use the 912 area
>code when dialing, although it is not required." >Huh?

Presumably this means you're allowed to dial 1-912-NNX-XXXX when all
you need is 1-NNX-XXXX.

On the other hand, if you live in Attleboro MA or neigboring towns in
Rhode Island, your local calling area includes some towns in the other
state which are in a different NPA and LATA, even though all are
served by New England Tel.  The phone book specifically says that if
you dial a local call with 1 + the area code, rather than just the 7
digits, your call may get routed to your long distance carrier and
incur a toll charge.  So much for consistent dialing.  I presume this
is because there are still some obsolete SxS exchanges in small towns
down there.  Would crossbar have the same problem, or is it smart
enough to understand multiple ways to dial the same number?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #316
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08612;
          5 May 90 20:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31055;
          5 May 90 19:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06121;
          5 May 90 18:10 CDT
Date:     Sat, 5 May 90 17:46:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #317
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 May 90 17:45:21 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 317

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Maureen Behof]
    Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Running Out of Phone Numbers [Carl Moore]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Long Distance Down the Street [Stephen Tell]
    Re: London Code Changes [John Pope]
    Re: London 071/081 [Scott D. Green]
    Re: DTMF and Other Phone Tones [John Higdon]
    Re: What Does a Real Hayes Modem Do? (Was Re: Touch-tone) [Wm. Kucharski]
    Re: New Illinois Bell Services [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Maureen Behof <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification
Date: 4 May 90 14:27:19 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>I received a phone call in my Maryland office today which told me
>about calling 800-752-7979 and giving a 2-character code.  This is a
>"prize" notification (I take it to be "so-called").

>The phone call, by the way, was a recorded message.  (I don't know how
>it picked my office telephone number.)

I too received an identical call at my home. After reading all the
telemarketing scams in progress, I decided to call to see what this
one was about. I was first asked what my two-character code was (mine
was C2). Then I was asked what number I was called on. I gave him my
number (I am sure I will live to regret this.) He then asked if I
could take a four day trip to the Bahamas within the next two years
(sure, who couldn't). Then I was asked if I was a card holder of
either Visa or MasterCard. Again yes. Now, they wanted to know my
number so they could verify my card was good.

I told the person I was speaking to I would not give my cardnumber
until he answered some questions. He agreed. The company name is
United Telemarketing. When asked who they were affiliated with, the
reply was United Telemarketing. When asked how they got my number to
call, he replied that they randomly take an area code and phone
number, and begin subtracting one digit and dialing.

I then told him I suppose this means that whomever answers the phone
and is stupid enough to call this 800 number 'wins' this trip.  He
says no, only a few do (sure). When I asked if I would now be deluged
with telemarketing calls now that I gave him my number, he said no
(we'll see about that). My final question was if all this is on the up
and up, as you are trying to assure me of, why do you want my credit
card number? His reply was 'why did you call anyway? When I answered
that I wanted to find out what the scam was, he said 'you b****', and
hung up on me. I guess I'll never get that free trip to the Bahamas.

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Fri, 4 May 90 16:43:38 GMT


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

| I received a phone call in my Maryland office today which told me
| about calling 800-752-7979 and giving a 2-character code.  This is a
| "prize" notification (I take it to be "so-called").

| The phone call, by the way, was a recorded message.  (I don't know how
| it picked my office telephone number.)

I got one that was a 900 number.

The mechanized voice asked me to press "1" if my phone number was
"six" "four" "three" "...".  How did it know that?  "Called party
identification?" :-)

Since the number matched (what technology), I pressed "one", and it
told me that I had a chance to win a travel package to one of seven or
eight neat places, but I had to call back before "nine" "fourteen"
"tonight" at 1-900-don't-remember.  (This was at 8:59, so it looks
like a computed figure fifteen minutes into the future.)  After
repeating the number four times, they say in the vocal equivalent of
small print: "$6 per minute will be charged to your phone bill ... your
call will take approximately two minutes".  If I failed to call back
by "nine" "fourteen" "tonight", my chance at winning was automatically
"erased from the computer" (their words).  Wow.

That means they're bilking about $12 to $18 out of each dupe that
hurridly calls back.  Sheesh.

On top of that, they violated Oregon law by not identifying themselves
within the first thirty seconds of the call, but that's another
matter.

If I knew who to complain to, or how to followup on it, I would.  But,
not having remembered the phone number, it's a little tough.  Now I
know what those people feel like that beat up on ATMs for telling them
what they don't want to hear.


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

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

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 10:36:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Out of Phone Numbers


To summarize earlier postings:

When area codes of the N0X/N1X form run out, area codes will have to
generalize to the NXX form.  There was posted to this Digest a while
back a list of the first area codes which are to be used when this
happens, and they were all of the NN0 form, prompting a suggestion
that some area codes may be able to avoid changes in dialing require-
ments by not allowing NN0 prefixes within them.  But watch out if you
end up in the first NNX area code!

There were occasional postings to this Digest about problems in
reaching new areacodes and prefixes, including one from me which
suggested that some operators here on the East Coast did not know
about N0X/N1X prefixes (in use in Los Angeles area) until New York
City had to prepare for such prefixes in 1980.

The first NNX area code I saw listed was 260, so when it comes into
use, watch out for some people trying to "correct" it to 206.

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Date: 4 May 90 18:49:59 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> Donald E. Kimberlin, TNA, Safety
Harbor, FL (via MCIMail 413-3373) writes:

>_do_ print the "access code" on your national version, so your
>"national" version for the US 1 npa nxx nnnn

But in the U.S., this isn't quite correct, because we have the option
of using a '1' or a '0' before the area code.  This is why I feel that
a '1' should never be included except when indicating the North
American country code or for a toll-free number (which can not have
special billing).

Including the '1' all the time starts to make people believe that it
is part of the area code.  Then when they want to call with special
billing, they dial 01-NPA-XXX-XXXX and wonder why the call goes to
Fiji (Ahh, that explains the commercials :-).


Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
V-Mail: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  The-Real-Me: 824-5454

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Long Distance Down the Street
Date: 4 May 90 20:28:19 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob
Goudreau) writes:

X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 313, Message 4 of 6

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (ROBERT M.
>HAMER) writes:

>> "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]> writes:

>> >    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!

>Chapel Hill is now served by Southern Bell.  Apparently, it and Duke
>followed the same basic plan in divesting themselves of their telcos.

UNC Chapel Hill has Centrex service from Southern Bell, with 5-digit
dialing on campus since they use parts of several prefixes.  More than
one of those prefixes also has numbers off campus, I think.  This is
obviously a remnant of the days you mention when UNC ran the whole
system.

Duke, on the other hand still runs its own phone system.  They have a
5ESS as their PBX, with the 919-684, 681, and 660 prefixes all to
themselves.  Dialing on campus is 7 digits, as are local Durham
numbers.  Calls beyond Durham are 1+NPA+7d, as I think is the case
from off campus when you haven't subscribed to an extended calling
area.  (I haven't lived there since they went from 1+7D to 1+NPA+7D
for long distance calls).

Duke also does their own least-cost routing and bulk long-distance
service, so your bill from Duke Telecom says "BlueNet long distance."
Last I heard most things were routed through SoutherNet.  10XXX is not
available.  The one 0+ inter-lata calling card call I've made from
campus showed up as AT&T on my bill.

Their 5ESS is connected via fiber to GTE.  They offer call-waiting as
standard on student lines.  They're actively marketing voice mail to
faculty, staff, and students.  They had ISDN sets for people in the
telephone system office, but I don't know if or when they're planning
to offer that to everyone.

>If I could magically redraw the telco map, I would wish for one big
>calling area, served by a single company with a single phonebook, for
>the whole Triangle area.  But barring that, even a reduction to just
>two areas (Wake County, and Durham & Orange Counties) would be a
>blessing.  Unfortunately, I just don't see it happening.

Unfortunatly, I don't see any of this happening either.


Steve Tell                    [e-mail]
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.        [phone]

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

From: john pope <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London Code Changes
Date: 4 May 90 07:54:29 GMT
Reply-To: john pope <[e-mail]>
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


Just a reminder folks:

The 6 of May is nigh.


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

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

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 11:05 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: London 071/081


It was reported in the Phila. Inquirer yesterday that British Telecom
is using billboards to be sure that Londoners are aware of the
official cutover on Sunday:

"071 for Shirley in Temple, 081 for Eric in Clapton"
"081 for Robert in Mitchum, 071 for Burt in Lancaster Gate"
"071 for Whitney in Euston [ouch! - sg], 081 for Harry in Enfield"
(a London comedian).
"071 for James in Bond Street, 081 for Kew" (Bond's gadget maker).

scott

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF and Other Phone Tones
Date: 4 May 90 13:47:54 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ray Dueland <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've left out some important details, so it would be impossible to
> make use of the above information.  I just find it fascinating that
> there are weak spots in the phone system that can be exploited.

One of the major details is that "blue boxing" hasn't worked for about
fifteen years. Ever since Ma Bell went to common-channel out-of-band
signaling, blue boxing has become nothing more than a phone-phreak's
memory. Yes you may still hear MF tones in the background, and indeed,
they are still used widely for inter-office signaling, but the key
element, inband supervision control (the infamous 2600 Hz) is missing.
If you can't dump the call mid-stream and end up looking into the
mouth of an MF receiver, there is nothing you can do.

> It turns out the Ma Bell doesn't take such things lightly.  Pacific
> Bell in particular is fascist and has used its power to have BBS
> systems carrying the "blue box" frequencies confiscated.  Modern ESS
> phone switches detect the use of these frequencies and take
> appropriate action.

This is utter baloney. The MF frequencies, including those for all
digits, Code 11, Code 12, KP, KP2 (there were damn few of us who knew
what that was for), and ST have been listed in every edition of
_Reference Data For Radio Engineers_ (Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc., New
York) since 1956. Since there is precious little you can do with MF
tones anymore, I'm sure Pac*Bell couldn't care less. (I'd list the
frequencies here, but you can go out and get your own damn copy of
this widely available book.)

Isn't it amazing how people stumble onto "new" things that have been
dead for years?


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

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

From: William Kucharski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Does a Real Hayes Modem Do? (Was Re: Touch-tone)
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont CO
Date: Fri, 4 May 90 20:48:35 GMT


I've got a Hayes Smartmodem 2400 at home, and it does dial the DTMF
tone for ABCD, e.g. "ATDT ABCD" sends four (unfamiliar sounding)
tones.


| 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. =

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

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 19:06 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Illinois Bell Services


In volume 10, issue 314, Steven King lists some new Advanced Custom
Calling features announced by Illinois Bell, including

| ILLINOIS BELL(R) DISTINCTIVE RINGING.  Lets you know that someone special
|    is calling even before you pick up the phone.  You can program up to
|    ten numbers.

The implication of "you can program up to ten numbers" is that it is
different from the distinctive ringing discussed in the Digest
recently.  In the other form, your line is assigned several incoming
telephone numbers.  The rhythm of ringing (or Call Waiting beep) that
you hear depends on which of your incoming numbers the caller dialed.
Unless you also have Call Waiting, if you are on an incoming call
dialed into any of your phone numbers or on an outgoing call, calls
dialed into your line's aliases receive a busy signal.

I get the feeling that Illinois Bell is offering a different version.
Your line is still assigned only one incoming telephone number.  The
rhythm of ringing or of Call Waiting beep that you hear depends on the
number *from which* the caller is dialing.  If your SO calls from a
payphone, your telephone doesn't ring out the love call that you hear
when he or she dials from home or work.  On the other hand, you do get
more specific identification of a caller when one of the special
sequences rings (instead of just "it's to Sue's number" or "it's to
Jack's number") and telephone numbers don't get used up so fast.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #317
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12831;
          5 May 90 21:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16639;
          5 May 90 20:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31055;
          5 May 90 19:16 CDT
Date:     Sat, 5 May 90 18:51:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #318
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 May 90 18:50:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 318

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Long Distance Down the Street [Gregory G. Woodbury]
    Re: What Voice Mail System is Best? [Mike Gilbert]
    Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station [S. Forrette]
    Re: Fax Directories [Larry Lippman]
    Re: `cu' Question [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Directory Assistance [Carl Moore]
    Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [John Higdon]
    Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone [Max Southall]
    Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone [Mark Earle]
    Re: Alphabetical Friviolity [Will Robertson]
    Re: Touch Tone ABCD [Mark Earle]
    Collect Calls to DID or Any Other Number For That Matter [James Van Houten]
    Sprint / Sprint Plus [Steve Elias]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Down the Street
Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS
Date: Sat, 5 May 90 05:20:32 GMT


[e-mail] (ROBERT M. HAMER) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 306, Message 6 of 11

>    <variety of questions about Chapel Hill phones>
>    <extended calling area plans?>

    The RTP exchanges are provided by GTE but are "local" from
most of the R/D/CH area (including Creedmore and Apex, etc.)  There
has been a lot of activity recently here in providing extended area
coverages from various towns to various others and perhaps in making
the majority of the capital region LATA into an extended "local" zone.

    GTE and SBT do have a "usage sensitive service" that extends
the "local" calling area, but it really just a metered service plan.

>    <Former University ownership of CHTC>

    Correct, the State PUC encouraged the University to divest
itself of the CHTC which was bid for by both SBT and GTE.  SBT won by
throwing a very attractive rate on LD for the University (This was
pre-divestiture).

>    <question of geographic proximity>

    It is still much the same or worse.  Chapel Hill has annexed
part of Durham Co. and Durham City has annexed into several parts of
Orange County (and Raleigh decided to get into the act as well).  The
result is a very gerrymandered political boundary and the telephone
boundaries were left pretty much alone.  It is fairly easy to get FTX
lines if you are near a border, but the measured service plans are
cheaper in the long run.

>    <University corporate network "Telpac" questions>

    Telpac (or TelPACK as we called it at NCSU ;-) was an early
corporate network that the UNC system had SBT develop for them.  It is
a little more sophisticated now and includes all sorts of extensions
all over the state and is still the target of student cracking.

>Another Chapel Hill particularity was that all Chapel Hill prefixes
>started with 9 (e.g., 933-, 942-, 968-), but one had to only dial the
>last 6 digits (e.g., 42-5432) would connect you with 942-5432.

    Chapel Hill is still only using 9nn exchange codes, but the
University has three with the rest of the area sharing five others.
Since it is now also driven by all-digital switches, the old fewer
digits tricks no longer work.  It is universal 7D or 1+NPA+7D now.

        I have a rather long description of the dialing plan from
Durham to the region in preparation if you want it. Includes exchange
numbers and all sorts of trivia.


Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...mcnc!wolves!ggw           [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Anyone who wants a copy of your material can, I
assume, contact you directly for a copy when it is finished.   PT]

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

Date: Sat, 5 May 90 14:28:36 edt
From: Mike Gilbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Voice Mail System is Best?
Organization: Software Leverage, Inc., Arlington, MA


>We are trying to select a Voice Mail system for our company.  Knowing
>nothing about them, we would like to hear from satisfied users.

>Has your company implemented Voice Mail?  Are you happy with the
>system?  What system did you pick?  Why?  Our company has about 500
>employees and we are trying to figure out the *right* system (argh)  :-)

I'm looking for voicemail recommendations, too, but for a smaller
operation.  I need a capacity to handle two or three different
telephone lines, with twenty or more mailboxes.

Any recommendations or dis-recommendations greatly appreciated.


Mike Gilbert  [e-mail]
Software Leverage

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

Date: Sat, 5 May 90 14:38:41 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do I Have to Look Under "H" to Find a Mobil Station
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


It was mentioned that the directory was prepared in strict collating
sequence.  Of course, there are common exceptions, such as listing
"St. John's" as if it were "Saint John's" or "20th Century" under 'T'.
But look at this one: In the June 1989/90 Oakland (CA) White Pages,
"H's Lordships Restaurant" is listed bewteen "His & Hers Painting" and
"Hisa, Litsu".  I had always assumed that "H's" stood for "His", but
thought I'd have a problem when I had to look it up a couple of months
ago.  But, it was right there where I first looked.  Since I can't
imagine that some general algorithm would collate "H's" as "His",
mustn't there be some sort of way for the business office to force an
alternate placement?

On an unrelated note, I once tried to find a business called "AAA Foto
& Postal" with Directory Assistance.  I didn't know it was spelled
with an 'F', and neither did the operator.  Businesses should consider
that their name, no matter how clever, determines whether or not their
customers can find them.

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

Subject: Re: Fax Directories
Date: 4 May 90 23:02:03 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> Anyone with a telex machine usually receives one or more mailings a
> year from publishers of "unofficial" telex directories.
> ...
> The solicitations often closely resemble invoices, and I'm sure some
> of these pseudo-invoices get paid purely by accident. The "unofficial"
> directory publishers are presumably acting within the law (the
> pseduo-invoices admit to not being invoices), but they're sleazy.

    My favorite one is "Telex/TWX Directory Publishers" of
Hollywood, CA.  An uninformed person has to look pretty hard to
realize that this outfit has nothing to do with Western Union.

    My organization gets an average of one phony telex directory
invoice per month.  Not only that, but we get various solicitations
from all over the world.  Two of the most regular are to buy suits
direct from a tailor in Hong Kong, and to buy lottery tickets in the
West German national lottery from a third party broker.  Those lottery
tickets are damned expensive, too!  Can anyone possibly be naive
enough to send money to a firm in West Germany to buy lottery tickets
 - and expect to get anything back even if the ticket won?


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: Re: `cu' Question
Date: 4 May 90 23:14:49 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark
Earle) writes:

> Patrick, a dumb question --- and y'all are about the only *.nix guys I
> correspond with. I use cu -lttya2 dir to get to a modem on a 386 w/sco
> xenix. Just use ATDT to issue commands. Is there a standard way to
> route the incoming text to a file for later review, using some variant
> of piping or something? So far if so I've not looked in the correct
> spot in the cubic feet of manuals! Thanks!

    While there is more than one method to accomplish what you are
desire, the simplest is probably:

    cu -lttya2 | tee filename

where both sides of the session are placed in the file "filename".
Depending upon your system configuration and version of UNIX, you may
then have to edit the file to strip an extraneous newline character.
Using `vi' this can be done with:

    : % s / CTRL-V CTRL-M / / g

(ignore spaces in the above, with CTRL-V and CTRL-M meaning the actual
control characters).


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: Fri, 4 May 90 11:26:24 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Directory Assistance


The reason local directory assistance has been free from pay phones is
that phone books are usually not available there.  Has anyone in NY
accounted for this?

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes
Date: 4 May 90 13:21:17 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Tamkin <[e-mail]> writes:

> Ameritech Mobile has two kinds of
> Call Transfer: Immediate (unconditional forwarding until you enter the
> deactivation code) and Busy/No Answer.  They charge $2.00 a month for
> each.  Southwestern Bell's Cellular One in metropolitan Chicago
> charges $2.00 total for a package that includes all three.

The two Bay Area providers have come to the (enlightened, IMHO)
conclusion that it is more profitable to throw in ALL custom calling,
including voice mail, at no extra charge, at least on contract
customers. If the features are available, customers will use them and
generate air time revenue. After all, it costs the providers
absolutely nothing to provide everyone with custom calling, and the
monthly charges are peanuts compared to the air time that is used when
most features are activated.


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

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

From: Max Southall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone
Organization: U of Miami Dept. of Math. and Computer Science, Coral Gables, FL
Date: Sat, 5 May 90 14:07:30 GMT


Without a NAM programmer (the NAM is actually a PROM) I managed to
reprogram my Novatel unit for use with BellSouth mobility, after I
moved from Toronto to Miami. What I did was trace the circuitry on the
phone's CPU board to determine the address of the PROM, then popped
the EPROMS and looked at the references to those addresses with an
8080 disassembler (the unit uses an 8085 CPU). With the help of the
manufacturer's engineering department, which gave me the code
interpretations for the NAM programmer manufacturers, I created
software to make the transformations. I then programmed new EPROMS,
with the info stored in unused address space in the EPROMS, and with
all address references to the NAM (PROM) changed to addresses in the
EPROMS where the new info is stored!  (And if any thieves steal my
phone (common in Miami) good luck trying to rip off the phone company -
changing the NAM WON'T do it!!!)


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

Date: Sat, 5 May 90 08:12:52 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reprogramming Your Cell Phone

Well -- all the recent discussion about cellular reprogramming
prompted me to get the RS portable. I would encourage more stories
about folks reprogramming, with blessing of providors of service, or
at least non-hassles, to avoid the outragious roamer charges. Planning
on the same thing, since I am based in Corpus Christi, but regularly
travel to San Antonio, and want coverage w/out roamer rates in both
cities. Having citable references and examples of "they're doing it
there" help.

I haven't got the phone yet -- gave 'em a layaway amount till next pay,
to get it at sale price and make sure that they had one when I got the
$. Will post a summary of charges here, from what is being posted,
we're toward the low side of the range.


 | [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  |


[Moderator's Note: Good for you! I think you will probably love the
phone when you get it. At the greatly reduced prices for the CT-301
being offered by Radio Shack these days, I can't understand why more
people aren't walking around with them.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Will Robertson)
Subject: Re: Alphabetical Frivolity
Date: 5 May 90 08:16:37 GMT


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

Of COURSE gas stations have fathers!  What do you think oil rigs are?  =)


Will

UUCP: crash!pro-europa!willr
ARPA: crash!pro-europa![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 5 May 90 08:09:59 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch Tone ABCD


Patrick: I have received about eight requests via mail for info on
modifying dialers to make ABCD. Since this seems to be of interest,
I'll prepare a short article the first part of next week and submit
it. There are only about four major TT generator IC's, and I have the
references at work.

Another interesting variant for control is to use a chip like the
SSI-202 (Radio Shack sells this as their TT decoder IC) and make the
decoder and your encoder reference some odd frequency by changing the
reference crystal. "Standard" is 1 Mhz xtals; 1.1 or .99 Mhz shift
things so it still "sounds normal, but un-modified encoders won't work
your decoder.

I'll cover this and some real-world uses. Mark


 | [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  |


[Moderator's Note: I'm sure many folks will be looking forward to your
article. Having those additional four tones available for use would
be an excellent way to add some security to passwords on 'bank by
phone' services, among other things.  PT]

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

Date: 04 May 90 02:30:02 EDT
From: James Van Houten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Collect Calls to DID or Any Other Number For That Matter


There was a question asked about calling collect to 900 and DID
numbers.  I used to have the number [phone] and I was always
getting collect calls from people that were trying to reach the old
owners of the number.  I called my local telco and they made my line
deny collect calls.  Yes that is right.  When I tried to call home
from Seattle, WA collect the local AT&T operator said "Sir, That
number does not accept collect calls."  So it is possible.  For anyone
in the Bell Atlantic service area call your business office for
details.  Also my voice mail box is [phone] and I have tried to
call it collect to no avail.  I just tried to call my Voice Mail thru
Sprint and MCI and they get messages on there screen that says that
the number does not accept collect calls.


James Van Houten
[e-mail]
[phone] (collect ;-)  )
KA3TTU@N4QQ

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

Subject: Sprint / Sprint Plus
Date: Fri, 04 May 90 08:16:12 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Sure enough, when my Sprint account was switched from Sprint to Sprint
Plus, their billing tried to hose me out of of $8.00 minimum charge
even though the first billing period was not a full month.  I called
them and the eliminated the entire charge without an argument.  Later
this month, now we'll see if my bill *really* indicates the credit...


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone)
; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7419 (hard copy fax)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #318
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18115;
          5 May 90 23:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07646;
          5 May 90 22:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad21534;
          5 May 90 21:20 CDT
Date:     Sat, 5 May 90 21:00:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #319
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 May 90 21:00:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 319

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Service Observing Activities of Telcos [Macy Hallock]
    IEEE Spectrum Article on COCOT's [John Bruner]
    Legislation Regulating COCOTs & AOSs [IEEE Spectrum via Michael Katzmann]
    Minitel and On-line Phone Books: Legal in the US? [John R. Galloway Jr.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Fri May  4 12:02:52 1990
Subject: Service Observing Activities of Telcos
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]>:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 305, Message 3 of 11

>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 suspect your contract with the local operating company has similar
>wording. I also suspect that this only refers to calls you make on the
>AT&T card, not your local phone.

Hmmm ... all this sounds similar to the "service observing" problems
the telcos have had in the past.

Telephone companies are very interested in the grade of service they
provide to their customers.  This includes several factors: dial tone,
sound quality, call setup time, reorders, busy tones, noise, etc.

This information is difficult to obtain by just looking at the dry
traffic statistics spit out by call processing equipment (ticketers,
CAMA, AMA, etc).  In fact, many of the possible malfunctions that can
occur simply do not show up on the normal traffic outputs.  The only
real way to get complete information is to listen to the calls as they
process through the network. (When I was faced with troubleshooting a
complex customer problem, I would often have to monitor the lines and
trunks involved until I heard a call fail.  The call progress tones
and other noises often helped me find the problem.)

The telco traffic department can obtain information using some low
technology equipment: Special tape recorders with line scanning
equipment are hooked up somewhere in the switching chain to observe
the calls.  Typically these are not tied to specific customer lines,
but rather to equipment common to a group of lines (know what a first
selector is in a SXS office?).

These recorders only record the first 45 seconds or so of a call: just
enough to allow determination of the dispostion of a call.  They are
never used to record an entire call; it is only the setup time and
first few seconds that are useful, anyway.

These tapes are then taken away to the traffic study department.  This
is a group of trained people who listen to each recorded call setup
and tabulate the various types of call dispostions for use by the
Traffic and Plant department.  Note that although the dialed number is
recorded on the tape, the calling number identity is not on the tapes.
Remember, these are for statistical use, not the location of a
specific line's problem.

The results of these studies are immensely useful to the telco and
directly influence the total quality of service involved.  We would
see the results of these studies in the form of orders to "clean up
the office" and in other maintenance related activites.  Traffic
engineering would use the information to design the office for optimal
operation as well.

The telco management was very paranoid about this form of service
observing.  They knew this was a very controversial subject and
engaged in the practice because it was so effective in assuring the
overall quality of the services provided to the subscribers.  We were
told not to discuss this practice with _anyone_ including wives and
law enforcement personnel.  In fact, we were told that this was most
likely an illegal practice, but it was the only way they knew to gain
complete control over the quality of service provided.  All the telco
personnel I knew disliked this practice, but agreed it was both useful
and ulimately benefited the customer, and kept their silence.

The telco was _very_ careful about maintaining security over these
tapes, and tried to keep them "blind" from the people who listened to
them: each tape was serial numbered, but bore no markings about which
exchange they came from.  Only after the tapes' statistics were
tabulated, did the information go to someone who had the listing
showing where they came from.  I was told the tapes were always
promptly erased by the tabulators immediatly after they were scanned.
This was all to ensure that no abuse of the possible contents (first
few seconds of a conversation) occurred.

We were told these tapes were _not_ for use by the Security Department
and were not to be given to them (or anyone else) under any
circumstances.  (The Security Department had their own equipment and
methods...)  I am not aware of any abuse of these tapes ever
occurring, either.  Everyone involved took the practice and security
issues very seriously and acted accordingly.

Every telco I know of has used this type of service observation, and I
suspect most still do.  Before anyone starts flaming away, please
understand that this is the only way to gather a _complete_ picture of
the behaviour of a switching system, and is essential to the complete
control of the quality of servce.  I still know of no substitute for
it.  (How many of you can troubleshoot a modem connection with your
modem speaker turned off?)  It's still viewed as a necessary evil by
all involved.  Anyone you talk to at a telco or carrier will disavow
knowledge (for good reason, given the paranoia of the uninformed
public).

Of course, service personnel still have to listen to trunks/lines
routinely ... I still do every almost every day ... but we are all
made aware of our responsibility to maintain privacy.  (As I recall, a
telco craftsman lost his job after going to the police about a murder
conspiricy he overheard while servicing a line.)

This may help explain the disclaimers that have been noticed by Digest
readers.  Note that several state PUC's have _not_ permitted the
telcos to include this specific provision in their tariff due to fear
of public paranoia.  What usually happens is the inclusion of a more
general disclaimer and limitation in the tariff.  If you haven't read
a telco general tariff, you may be surprised.  They disclaim as much
responsibilty as possible in them.  Most large telco business offices
are required to keep a (often outdated) copy available for public
inspection.

I have trapped the telco in violation of their own tariffs a few
times, too ... interesting reading, really.  The plot is little dry,
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, 4 May 90 11:19:23 CDT
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: IEEE Spectrum Article on COCOT's


The May, 1990 issue of IEEE Spectrum contains an article on COCOT's
(which they call PPP's (private pay phones): "New Pay Phones Hit the
Street", pp. 28-31.  (This issue of Spectrum has a picture of a
dismemberred NYNEX payphone on the cover.)  The editor's introduction
says that the article in this issue is the first in a series on the
changes in the telephone industry resulting from the breakup of AT&T.

It's easy reading, and I learned a couple of things which I haven't
seen in this forum.  For instance, it lists the names of the big four
COCOT suppliers (one of whom -- Intellicall, Inc -- has over 50% of
the market) and states that AT&T has a COCOT product.  I'd also not
heard about "forward splashing" before, in which a non-local AOS
connects a payphone customer to (e.g.) AT&T at the AOS's location
rather than in at the payphone's site.  If the AOS is a long distance
from the COCOT this can significantly affect the long-distance rates
AT&T charges.

Also, I didn't know that Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and
Hawaii have banned COCOT's.


John Bruner    Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois
    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: 5 May 90 15:52:11 GMT
From: Michael Katzmann <fe2o3![e-mail]>
Subject: Legislation Regulating COCOTs and AOSs
Organization: Rusty's BSD machine at home


The first in a series of articles on technical advances and changes in
the regulatory environment in US telephony since the AT&T divestiture
appears in the May edition of IEEE Spectrum.  It is on the subject of
pay-phones. Since there has been some discussion in TELECOM Digest on
the subject of COCOTS, much of this article would be of interest to
readers. Here is some of what it said:

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

Some entrepreneurs in the new field, eager to recoup their
investments as quickly as possible, charged exorbitant rates for
credit-card calls.  According to Consumer Action and the
Telecommunications Research and Action Center, both consumer advocacy
groups in Washington D.C., charges for AOS-assisted calls made with
private pay phones were, in some cases, 500 [sic] times more expensive
than comparable calls made via AT&T on a telephone company pay phone.

As of Febuary 1990, the FCC had received 4000 written complaints from
consumers regarding AOS-assisted calls, according to Thomas Wyatt of
the commission's common carrier enforcement division.  Complaints come
in steadily at a rate of about 125-150 a month.

Two bills before the Senate would force owners of PPPs to identify
clearly, on every phone, which AOS the instument is connected to, and
inform users of their right to choose a carrier other than the one the
telephone is connected to. The phones would also have to display a
telephone number for information on rates for long-distance calls.

That legislation would also put an end to "blocking", a practice
considered particularly nefarious by consumers, which makes it
impossible for a pay phone user to access certain long-distance
carriers, such as AT&T or US Sprint. In effect, it ensures that most
calls are handled by whichever carrier the phone is connected
(presubscribed) to, often an AOS. It occurs regularly in some regions,
despite having been declared unlawful by the FCC in response to the
formal complaints made in July 1988.

Another common consumer complaint involves splashing, also known as
forward splashing. It works like this: a person using a PPP in Kansas
City, Mo., calls a number in St. Louis, using the services of an AOS.
The caller asks to be transferred to AT&T, but does not know that the
AOS is based in Dallas and that he or she is being connected to an
AT&T operator there.  Thus the AT&T operator, unaware of the situation
and unable to rectify it in any case, bills for an interstate, long
distance call from Dallas, rather than a relatively inexpensive call
within Missouri. Unfortunately for the user, the situation does not
become clear until the telephone bill arrives."

Mainly because of unresolved problems like blocking and splashing,
the states of ALaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Hawaii have
banned PPPs.

The difference between the two bills, S.1660 and S.1643, is that the
latter would penalize AOS companies and PPP owners and operators
caught blocking or splashing. The bill, introduced by Senator Alan J.
Dixon (D-Ill.), would prevent the owners from receiving commissions
from AOS companies, and force AOS companies that engage in blocking to
charge the lowest rates of all carriers then prevailing in the area.

  "The FCC order of Febuary 1989 is basically being ignored." said
Bill Kolloff, a member of Senator Dixon's staff. "A year's gone by,
and we are still getting 150 complaints a week. Senator Dixon feels
it's about time we put some teeth into the legislation."

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

As the AT&T ads say PROCEED WITH CAUTION !!!!!  Here are two pieces of
legislation that deserves our support.


Michael Katzmann.            Amateur Radio Stations

Broadcast Sports Technology        Australia    VK2BEA
2135 Espey Ct. #4.,            United Kingdom    G4NYV
Crofton. Md. 21114            United States    NV3Z

uucp    ....uunet!mimsy!arinc!vk2bea!michael


[Moderator's Note: The complete text of the FCC vrs. AOS/COCOT
decision is on file in the Telecom Archives if you want a copy.  PT]

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

From: "John R. Galloway Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Minitel and On-line Phone Books: Legal in the US?
Date: 5 May 90 20:36:28 GMT
Organization: Galloway Research


    I just saw an issue of "The Computer Cronicles" on one of the bay
area PBS stations, which was all about the French Minitel system (also
available in the US now, see past postings).  First a little Minitel
info:

    Minitel, in France, is owned by the government-run phone company.
A Minitel terminal costs about $200.00 (to make I presume) and is
given away free to anyone that wants one, they have now given away
5,000,000 which is about 30% of all residents (15M seems small but..).
There are now over 12,000 information providers ranging from banks, to
news servies, restaraunts, shops, etc.  You pay only for what you use.
A new graphics Minitel which can transmit/display halftone images is
just being introduced.  As a bi-product of this effort France is well
on its way to a nation wide ISDN based phone system (I don't know what
that means, each house wired for ISDN?  major trunks? or what).

    They mentioned that one of the keys to getting started was that the
phone company was their own information provider (the phone books) and that
this allowed a very easy simple mode to use the system in as well making
it easy for early, computer leary people, to use the system.  Now the
question:

    They also said that putting the system in the US is particularly
challenging due to regulations, among which is one/some which PREVENT
the phone books from being offered on-line.  There was no explanation
of this other than the one sentence.  Is this really true?  Seems
really stupid if so.  What exactly is the regulation?  I'll be happy
to blast off some mail to the feds asking for it to be changed if I
can find out what I want changed (mail merge is so great!).  Actually
one of the services one of the French newspapers offers on Minitel is
access of some sort for voters to various goverment officials!!


    -jrg

internet     [e-mail]      John R. Galloway, Jr.
(soon to be) [e-mail]
applelink    d3413              CEO..receptionist         795 Beaver Creek Way
human       [phone]      Galloway Research         San Jose, CA  95133

These are my views, NOT Apple's, I am a GUEST here, not an employee!!


[Moderator's Note: Some people object to the telco being an
'information-provider', and take this to the extreme of wanting to
prohibit telephone directories *maintained by the telco* from being on
line. If they don't want the telcos to provide 'information' (if such
a thing as phone book listings qualify under the definition), then why
don't they go one step further and get Judge Greene to ban *printed*
phone books published by the telcos also? The information therein is
the same, and if the cable operators are so terrified by the Sisters
Bell as a competitor, then maybe the various private directory
publishers of America are likewise unhappy. And why do the telcos get
to operate 555-1212 or '411' if having them as an 'information provider'
is such a bad thing?  Surely some private company could take over that
function also. *Then* listen to the folks who complain about Big
Brother-ism grouse about the mis-use of their phone numbers!

In case you cannot discern it from this comment, I have no sympathy
for the people who do not want the Bells to provide information on
line, even to the extent they cannot provide their own directory
listings to modem users. If telcos can distribute information about
phone numbers in two mediums now (printed books and via 555-1212),
then there is no reason they should not be able to give the same
information in a third media (online data base for modem users).  As a
matter of fact, AT&T does have the 800 listings on line at Compuserve.
I am surprised the AT&T Haters of America let them do that much.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #319
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20955;
          6 May 90 0:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16685;
          5 May 90 23:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07646;
          5 May 90 22:24 CDT
Date:     Sat, 5 May 90 21:56:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #320
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 May 90 21:55:15 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 320

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    More on Austrian Phones [Steve Gaarder]
    Line Slip [William M. Hawkins]
    MUX/DEMUX For Local Phone Lines [John Palmer]
    I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [Brian Litzinger]
    Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Diomidis Spinellis]
    Electronics to Busy Line When DTR is Low? [Tom Hampton]
    U of Washington - A Big Centrex [Sam Ho]
    Party Line Ringer Devices [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 11:37:25 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: More on Austrian Phones


Wolf Paul's recent article about pay phone fraud in Austria takes me
back to the days when I lived in Vienna and attended the American
International School there, some 20 years ago.  I remember the pay
phones he describes very well - maddening things - you put in your
Schilling, dial, wait for the party to answer, press the pay button,
and watch the little pointer move across the dial towards the (usually
too soon) cutoff of your conversation (no extension possible).  It
took a while for a foreigner to get into the habit of pressing that
pay button; sometimes the other party would hang up before I
remembered to push the button.  When I got a phone call, and no-one
was on the line, I got in the habit of yelling "push the button" in
English and German.

The method of cheating described by Mr. Paul (using a pin to stop the
pointer from completing its appointed path) had not yet been
discovered when I lived there, or was at least not known at the AIS.
One question about that: he says that the only thing that normally
stopped one from making international calls was that the pointer would
move so fast you couldn't get a conversation in.  This suggests that
the pointer was driven by some signal from the CO.  Anybody know more?

Another interesting item was the "Vierteltelefon," a type of
four-party line.  We had one of these; it differed from the standard
line in several ways.  The phone numbers for these phones had seven
digits instead of the usual six; I suppose the last digit served as a
party identifier.  The telephone set itself was equipped with a small
button and a large sealed relay box.  When you wanted to make a call,
you lifted the handset and pressed the button.  The relay box would go
klunka-klunka thunk, and you'd get dial tone.  Sometimes it would just
go thunk, and no dial tone; this was when the line was in use.  Under
no circumstances could you hear someone else's conversation.

The box also klunked just before the phone rang, or any other phone on
the line rang.  So we'd be eating dinner, hear the klunka-klunka, and
have a few seconds of suspense wondering whether it would ring or not.
I don't know how the system worked; I was pretty young then, and the
relay box was sealed shut to prevent tampering.  Anyone have more
info?

The most interesting quirk of these lines was something I read about
in the local paper.  Seems that if you took the phone off-hook without
pressing the button, any incoming calls would simply be connected
without ringing.  The article imagined a scenario in which "Herr X"
gets mad at "Herr Y", who is supposed to call him, and takes his
Vierteltelefon off the hook.  Herr Y calls, and is immediately
connected, and gets to overhear Herr X telling his wife just what he
thinks of Herr Y.  A phone with a built-in infinity transmitter!


Steve Gaarder


[Moderator's Note: The old-style payphones here (three slots on top;
no dial tone until deposit) had a funny thing about them: Leave the
receiver off-hook with no money deposited and walk away. From
elsewhere, call the number of the payphone. With the receiver
off-hook, the bell would not ring; the phone would just make a 'click'
sound and come to life. You could then listen to conversations in the
background until someone noticed the payphone had been left off-hook
and came over to hang it up.  Another infinity transmitter!   PT]

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

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 00:13:10 CDT
From: "William M. Hawkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Line Slip


I have been using a Prometheus modem to talk to MultiTech modems at
work.  Sometimes there would be an excess of "}" characters on the
line.  If I hung up and redialled, that connection would be OK.  Ah,
this is at 1200 baud, 300 baud is OK, as is voice (but useless for the
volume of News).  Three weeks ago, it got hot in Minnesota, and then I
couldn't find a line that didn't have "}" problems.

I've been told that this is "line slip", which I assume is in the
trunk multiplexers.  Yes, the machine at work is in a different
exchange.  My problem is, Repair Service doesn't seem to know what
Line Slip is, or what to do about it.

I expect that this august group thoroughly discussed line slip back
when 1200 baud was the top, but I would appreciate some help with
dealing with Repair Service.


[e-mail]
Fax [phone], Voice 2085
Burnsville, Minnesota USA

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

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: MUX/DEMUX For Local Phone Lines
Date: 4 May 90 11:46:43 GMT
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Detroit, MI


I've got a four line hunt group and would like to expand it to twenty
lines.  The problem is that there are no more free circuits out on the
pole back behind my house.

Is there some sort of multiplexor that the phone company can hook up
at their end and at my end of the line in order to make one line
behave like twenty (or four lines like twenty)?

I'm using these lines for data communications (dialup modems) at
speeds up to 19200 baud? Just curious. Michigan Bell says that it will
still only cost $42 installation per line, regardless of how much work
they have to do to get the lines to me. Somehow, I find that
unbelievable.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And those of us who have to pay $42 'installation
charge' to get a clerk in the Business Office to push his pencil --
and nothing else -- to get our line turned on find it equally
incredible.  I don't think telco comes out on the short end where
installation charges are concerned.  PT]

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

From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier
Date: Fri, 4 May 90 2:05:32 PDT


I wasn't sure if this could happen but it can.

My home has no default long distance carrier.  When I dial a 1+ or 0+
long distance call I get a non-discript message that doesn't really
say anything is wrong.  Just that things aren't working and that I
should call my long distance carrier.

Of course, I don't have one.  I didn't exactly mean to end up without
a long distance carrier, but these things just always seem to be
happening to me.

In any case I can still dial 10288 1+, or 11111 1+, etc, which
actually seems a little more "equal access" than the default carrier
scheme so I'm not going to complain.

And besides, now the less informed can't make long distance calls from
my home.

Just though you might like to know.

One question though: Who is providing the vanilla message that I get
when I try to use the default long distance service?


<>  Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
<>  [e-mail]      {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian

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

From: D Spinellis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain
Date: 4 May 90 16:55:15 GMT
Reply-To: Diomidis Spinellis <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK


I recently tried to connect a Pacific Bell wireless phone bought in
Britain on a two wire socket on another European country.  To do this
I removed the British modular socket and connected the two outer
cables to the continental socket.  This got me dialtone and the
ability to dial.  Unfortunately the phone refused to ring.  I removed
all other phones from the circuit thinking that the problem was a high
REN, but it still wouldn't ring.  I tried all the other cable
combinations to no avail.

I also tried to connect some of the cables together, but that also
didn't work.  When I opened the phone I found that the two middle
cables were indeed connected somewhere, so they were of some use.
This made me try to connect a 5.6K resistor between one of the middle
and one of the out cables and this convinced the telephone to start
ringing.  It also made it refuse dialing.

One more attempt was to connect it to another phone line.  That fixed
the problem, but it was not the line I want to have the phone
connected to.  The only difference between the two lines is that the
first one supports a third line ! via a frequency modulation scheme
installed by the phone company.  At the point where the line enters
the house it passes though a band pass filter and at some other point
a mains supplied box creates the third line.

When I returned to Britain I opened a modular socket and found that
there were THREE wires coming into it.  It also included some
circuitry (some of it sealed) which must be doing something useful.
(Could it be ring supression for parellel connected phones?  When I
dial from the one the other doesn't churn.)

My question is:

How can I connect a British four wire socket to a continental two wire
plug?  What circuit is needed?  I would also appreciate if someone
could enlighten me as to the uses of the other wires.

(For American readers:  British modular sockets are physically not the
same as the American ones. )

I have already posted this with UK distribution is sci.electronics, but
I didn't get an answer for anyone in Britain, so if anyone on the other
side of the pond knows something, please reply.

Many thanks,


Diomidis Spinellis                  Internet:                 [e-mail]
Department of Computing             UUCP:                    ...!ukc!iccc!dds
Imperial College                    JANET:                    [e-mail]
London SW7 2BZ                      #include "/dev/tty"

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

From: tom hampton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Electronics to Busy Line When DTR is Low?
Date: 4 May 90 19:50:09 GMT
Reply-To: tom hampton <[e-mail]>
Organization: Litle & Co.


Our customers reach us through a rotary, but we can't be sure that all
the modems attached to the rotary will be ready to serve them.  What
we'd like to do is busy out lines that aren't ready so that those
calls are passed over to ones which are.

A simple relay which sensed DTR would do the trick.  Does anyone make
such a thing?

Thanks in advance.


 Tom Hampton, Mgr. New Technology, Litle & Co. | POB A218, Hanover, NH 03755
 603 643 1832
 [e-mail]  [e-mail]  {backbone}!dartvax.dartmouth.edu!litle!tom

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

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 14:59:32 PDT
From: Sam Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: U of Washington - A Big Centrex


I thought I'd tell you about the phone system at the University of
Washington.  This is a big university (37,000 students), with a lot
of phones.  This a bit long, but if you ever come to UW and can't find
a phone book...

The university and the surrounding area (U-district) have about a
half-dozen prefixes:

U-district:  545, 547, 548, 632, 633, 634
University:  543, 545, 548 (hospital using 4xxx and 6xxx)

The 545 and 548 exchanges are split between inside and outside
numbers.  The University's 545 numbers are moving to 685.  We are in a
permissive dialing period, right now.

There's also another affilated hospital, Harborview, on 223, and
physically several miles away.  They use the 3xxx, 4xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx
and 8xxx numbers

Most of the U-district is apparently served by a #1A ESS, judging by
the clunk-clunk call waiting and MF signalling.  The University
prefixes, including outside people on 545 and 548 are on a digital
switch, a #5 ESS, I think.

The dialing plan must be close to a record for complexity:

 From the University:
0: Campus Operator (also 543-2100)
111: Campus Conferencing
12: Charge-a-call outbound
222: Police (although 9-911 is now recommended)
3-xxxx,5-xxxx: University 543,545 numbers
6-xxxx: Hospital 548 numbers (soon to be 8-xxxx)
7: University WATS outbound
9: Local outbound

 From the Hospital:
0: Hospital operator (also 3300)
190, 199, 222, 244: Paging, Code (cardiac arrest), Police, Fire respectively
4xxx,6xxx: Hospital
7-xxxx: Harborview 223 numbers
88: University WATS
9: Local outbound

 From Harborview:
0: Hospital Operator
147, 199: Paging and Code, respectively
2-xxxx: UW Hospital 548 numbers
301: Emergency
3,4,5,6,8: Harborview
7: SCAN (State of Washington WATS service)
9: local

What gets me is that the three places all have different dialing
instructions.  Worse, the UW Hospital and the UW Health Sciences
building are physically connected, but have different phone systems.
I guess that's what happens when the phone systems just keep growing,
and interconnections are hacked in.

Oh, and for those dorm residents who complain about ACUS, the UW
solves that problem simply.  All dorm rooms come with an RJ11 jack and
wiring down to a phone closet.  You arrange for your own phone
service.  I assume US West is raking in a bundle in service order
charges.


Sam Ho

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

Subject: Party Line Ringer Devices
Date: 5 May 90 12:11:24 EDT (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> While doing some electrical work on a neighbor's house, I came across
> an interesting device.  At one time, the neighbor, like most folks in
> our neck of the woods, had a 4 party line.  Now almost everyone has
> single party service.  Anyhow, next to the service
> entrance/protector/demark box was a small black potted box the size of
> a pack of non-filter camels.  It is labeled Transcom Tip Party
> Identifier - TPI 5/CL - A 1/0.

    While I cannot recall seeing the particular model which you
describe, I am familiar with similar devices, which are usually called
"ringer isolators".  The WECO equivalent is probably the 28A Ringer
Isolator.

    The purpose of the device is to eliminate the impedance path
to ground presented on multi-party lines employing grounded ringing.
The presence of multiple grounded ringers causes longitudinal
impedance imbalance on the telephone pair, resulting in hum, noise and
transmission impairment.  While this may be of a tolerable level on
shorter loops with a small number of stations, the problem is more
severe as the loops becomes longer and/or more stations are added.

    A ringer isolator uses a high impedance electronic circuit to
sense presence of ringing and superimposed DC polarity, and if the
configured conditions are met (i.e., the four conditions of + or -
superimposed voltage combined with ringing on tip or ring side of
line), the ringer is then connected.  Therefore, in the non-ringing
state there is an impedance to ground through an electronic circuit
which is too high to result in noticeable imbalance.  While ringer
isolation can be accomplished with a three-element cold cathode tube,
ringer isolators in recent years have generally been solid-state.

    In the particular case of two-party service the requirement
also exists for the "tip party" to have a *DC* balanced ground in the
off-hook state to permit ANI, thereby allowing message and toll call
accounting.  Since ringer windings are used as part of the tip party
station wiring scheme, a ringer isolator usually provides an alternate
means of providing this balanced ground during the off-hook state.


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 V10 #320
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24768;
          6 May 90 15:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01380;
          6 May 90 13:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06890;
          6 May 90 12:29 CDT
Date:     Sun, 6 May 90 11:48:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #321
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 6 May 90 11:48:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 321

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Touch-tones and Musical Tones [Carl Moore]
    Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-tone Service [Steve Forrette]
    Area Code and Major Cities List Wanted [Steve Huff]
    Richard Young Products Catalog [TELECOM Moderator]
    DMS Imitates ESS [John Higdon]
    No ISDN for GTD-5 !! [Macy Hallock]
    Custom Ringing [[e-mail]]
    MCI Aggregation (Was AT&T Billing via Local Telcos) [David Tamkin]
    Blocking Toll Calls (Gadget Needed) [[e-mail]]
    Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [John Higdon]
    Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 May 90 5:00:05 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Touch-tones and Musical Tones


I have seen these displayed for the touch-tone frequencies.

697Hz  770Hz   852Hz   941Hz  1209Hz  1336Hz  1477Hz  1633Hz

In the above list, each frequency is about 1.1053 times the one
preceding (except in going from 941 Hz to 1209 Hz).  But a half step
in equal musical temperament uses the factor equal to 12th root of 2,
which is about 1.0595.  (Yes, I am also thinking of the phone number
654-5666 = "Mary Had a Little Lamb" thing which caused a few people to
change their phone numbers when many others played that excerpt on
their touch-tone phones.)

I cannot fit the above to the musical scale which I derive as follows
(please don't take this on a musical-discussion tangent): I started
with the A above middle C on a piano.  That is 440 Hz.  Then I stepped
up the chromatic, equally-tempered scale (each frequency being higher
than the last previous one by a factor equal to the 12th root of 2).

 440.0000000000 for A
 466.1637615181 for A sharp/B flat
 493.8833012561 for B
 523.2511306012 for C
 554.3652619537 for C sharp/D flat
 587.3295358348 for D
 622.2539674442 for D sharp/E flat
 659.2551138257 for E
 698.4564628660 for F
 739.9888454233 for F sharp/G flat
 783.9908719635 for G
 830.6093951599 for G sharp/A flat
 880.0000000000 for A (octave)

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

Date: Sat, 5 May 90 14:47:28 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-tone Service


There's been talk about the rip-off of charging extra for touch-tone
service when it really reduces the phone company's cost.  Here's the
description of Touch-Tone that's in the front of the Pacific Bell
directory:

"This service together with your Touch-Tone phone makes dialing easier
and faster.  It also allows you to hook your phone up with a personal
computer and access data bases, pay bills through your bank, and even
shop electronically where these services are available."

Really?  All that for only $1.20 a month?  What a deal...

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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code and Major Cities List Wanted
Date: 5 May 90 18:10:18 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


I am looking for a list of area codes and major cities.  For example,
913 would generate Kansas City (and maybe Topeka).

Does anybody have such a list, so I don't have to copy it out of the
phone book?  The C program will not produce the output I am looking
for without reprogramming, and I don't know C (keep that a secret --
it's embarassing).

An e-mail reply is appreciated.  Thanks.


Steve Huff, business grad student, University of Kansas, Lawrence campus
Internet:  [e-mail]      EmCon:   K1TR or KW02
Bitnet:    [e-mail]
UUNet:     uunet!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu![e-mail]
Snail:     P.O. Box 1225, Lawrence, KS  66044-8225


[Moderator's Note: Two sources come to mind: In the Telecom Archives
two files are named 'area.code.script.new' and 'areacode.program.in.c'
which would be useful. Even though you are not familiar with
programming in c, you could take these files, strip away the
programming code and simply use the extensive text which accompanies
each -- a complete list of area codes everywhere, with major cities.
The other source is a book from AT&T called 'Area Code Handbook'. The
1990 edition is available now for just a couple dollars plus tax. This
64 page book includes lots of details on area codes and international
dialing. Order by calling the AT&T Customer Information Center,
1-800-432-6600. Inquire about Select Code 999-600-111.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 5 May 90 23:12:11 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Richard Young Products Catalog


I've been meaning to mention this for awhile, but always had full
Digests with no room for more messages --

I received a catalog in the mail a couple months ago which is an
attractive and comprehensive listing of computer supplies of all
sorts.

Called the "Richard Young Journal: America's Choice For Computer Supplies",
this glossy and thick (111-page) catalog covers a very wide range of
supplies of all sorts, from many different manufacturers.

I recieved 'Edition XIII', but there is no indication how frequently
the catalog is published. The firm has been in business about ten
years.

If you would like to receive a catalog and be on their mailing list,
write or call them:

     Richard Young Products, Inc.
     508 South Military Trail
     Deerfield Beach, FL  33442  USA

     Phone:  [phone]  (National IN-WATS line)
             1-305-426-8100  (Callers from outside USA)

The catalog alone -- like the one from 'Hello Direct' -- makes good
reading in and of itself.  To whoever sent it to me, thanks!


Patrick Townson

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

Subject: DMS Imitates ESS
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 6 May 90 01:48:19 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


I am informed by another Digest reader (who is too lazy to write about
it himself :-) that Northern Telecom has released a generic for its
DMS switches that contains a "1AESS Transparency Package". This allows
the DMS to offer feature implimentation that mimics the feature
implimentation in a 1AESS. Example: a phone user has the ability to
receive call-waiting while talking as the center party on a three-way
call. Formerly, this was only possible on a 1/1AESS.

Since the feature implimentation on the 1AESS is considered to be the
standard, it might be worthwhile for those served out of DMS COs to
encourage telcos to install this package. Now if they could just
duplicate the clunks...


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

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: No ISDN for GTD-5 !!
Date: Sat May  5 14:06:26 1990


Per an article in the most recent issue of _Communications Week_, GTE
has cut off the development of ISDN for the GTD-5 by AG Communications.
AG, based in Phoenix, has laid off staff in response to this move,
with more layoffs expected.

GTE PR sez that since AT&T and NTI have demonstrated ISDN
functionality, they do not need another vendor.

Comment:

Well, since GTE has forced the GTD-5 to be used by its own telco's,
and since almost no one else would buy it, this seems to mean that
many GTE customers will not see ISDN for quite a while.  I understand
the GTD-5 will be manufacturer discontinued within the next two years.
Many GTE CO upgrades ordered recently are now scheduled for NTI DMS
machines, which confirms the rumor that GTE will go for NTI stuff in a
big way, not AT&T (which seemed to be the case when AG Communications
was formed).

GTE is selling NTI PBX's and key systems almost exclusively as
customer premise equipment now.

Has anyone seen any CLASS-type features actually operate on the GTD-5?

They have been rumored for two years, but never seemed to work.  They
have only brought up Centrex services on the GTD-5 in the last year,
and even that appears brain damaged.  The GTD-5 hardware design seemed
good, but the software has always been a problem.  GTE's withdrawal of
further development seems to confirm this.

Well, I guess that those of us that are stuck in GTE territory will
continue to exist in the hinterlands of telecom for a while longer.
GTE always has seemed to drop the ball when it came to telecom
manufacturing.


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: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Custom Ringing
Date: Sat,  5-May-90 15:43:33 PDT


Does anyone know what is actually done by the local TELCO to provide
one of the newest "custom services", known by various names depending
upon your TELCO, e.g., Custom Ringing, Ident-a- Ring, Distinctive
Ringing etc., but which provides more than one telephone nummber (up
to four in some areas) on a single line each with a separate,
identifiable ring?

I ask as I recently ordered it for one line to separate fax, voice and
modem and was somewhat ticked at the $23 installation charge, thinking
that all the said "installation" required was a software flag in the
TELCO switch.  But, while I was out of the office, a TELCO installer
actually came by and did something on the frame.  The visit made me
feel a tad bit better about my $23, but I am now most curious WHY the
guy actually came by and physically "diddled" with the line.


       [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 6 May 90 04:35 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Aggregation (Was AT&T Billing via Local Telcos)


In volume 10, issue 309, I had written:

> MCI told me that they couldn't put my parents' telephone numbers and
> mine [onto one MCI account] because they were not at the same address.

Robert Gutierrez responded in issue 316:

| What a bunch of sh....(err)...I mean, No, this is not true.

The excreta are MCI's, Mr. Gutierrez; that IS what they told me.

| MCI has had problems in the past with RBOC's rejecting PIC requests with
| different locations (PIC = Primary Interexchange Carrier).  The customer
| keeps on calling without dialing the 700 test number, thinking he/she is
| on MCI, and ... oops ... what's this AT&T bill!!!

Robert, as a former MCI employee, assumes that we were trying to get
MCI as PIC, forgetting my long submissions in the past in complaint
that MCI were repeatedly telling my parents' telco and mine to switch
us behind our backs.  You can take the employee out of MCI, I guess.
The problem was the opposite: MCI kept using our different addresses
as excuses to create new accounts and to sneak 1+ service onto them.
It was more a risk of thinking 1+ would connect to AT&T and "oops ...
what's this MCI bill???"

| Establish the account with the primary phone.  Wait a week.  Call back
| Customer Service and tell them you want to add a number (reason: you got
| a second phone in the house).  The rep will say the phone is not in the
| local area.  You say: That's the number they gave me.

That won't work.  My parents and I are served by different telcos and
the prefixes give that away.  Oh, you say, in that case we CAN'T be
put on the same account, but merely having two different addresses
wasn't the reason?  Gee, that isn't what the MCI reps told me.  They
said it was just because we weren't at the same address.  Even next
door would be too far away.

| Yes, the RBOC will "reject" the request, but it will *NOT* be rejected
| from MCI's billing database.

One of the telcos is an RBOC subsidiary (a BOC itself); the other is
an independent.  RBOC and telco are synonymous only for Southwestern
Bell.

| blah, blah, blah.

Yes, that sounds just like what MCI says all the time.

| Oh yes, *YOU* have to call the local telco on the *2nd* line and tell
| them you want MCI on it.

The only reason to say ANYTHING to our telcos would be to get MCI as
PIC, and that was NEVER our intention.  It was solely for 10222.

| Have fun.

"Fun."  Right.  Go to the archives and read my tale of fun with MCI.
US Sprint and Telecom*USA were able to do it without trouble or
trickery.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Blocking Toll Calls (Gadget Needed)
Date: Sat,  5-May-90 17:26:23 PDT


Is there any such thing as a gadget I can put on my line to prevent
people from making long distance calls?  I'm talking about something
to be located in some non-obvious place, like where the service comes
into the house.  It would detect attempts to call long distance, and
break the connection for several seconds (or some equally effective
strategy).

If not, this seems like a sure winner of a product for somebody to make.

I can see problems with keeping the device from being hacked, like
asking the operator to complete the call.  But I don't see any
insurmountable problem.  At worst, the device could be programmed with
all the local prefixes, and it could allow only calls to those
prefixes and 911.

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

[Moderator's Note: Toll-restrictors are old-hat. They have been on the
market for twenty years or more. In the past, they were less
sophisticated, but the newer ones do all you are asking and lots more.
One model, shown in the 'Hello Direct' catalog, is very small, and
discreet; it is attached on the line in series (but ahead of) the
phones it is to service. More information on this is available from
1-800-HI-HELLO.  There are several sources for these devices however.
Another method is to have telco remove the default, or dial-one-plus
carrier from your line, as per the next two messages in the Digest
today.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier
Date: 6 May 90 01:35:45 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]> writes:

> My home has no default long distance carrier.  When I dial a 1+ or 0+
> long distance call I get a non-discript message that doesn't really
> say anything is wrong.  Just that things aren't working and that I
> should call my long distance carrier.

This is a perfectly "orderable" condition with Pac*Bell. When they ask
you for your default carrier choice, you can say "none". Thereafter,
if you dial any number out of the LATA, dial "00", or anything else
that is normally routed to a carrier, you get a recording that says,
"It is necessary to dial a long distance company code when calling
this number."

> And besides, now the less informed can't make long distance calls from
> my home.

This is frequently the reason people specify "none" for their default
carrier.

> One question though: Who is providing the vanilla message that I get
> when I try to use the default long distance service?

Your local telco.


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

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

Date: Sun, 6 May 90 04:30 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier


Brian Litzinger wrote in volume 10, issue 320:

| My home has no default long distance carrier.  When I dial a 1+ or 0+
| long distance call I get a non-discript message that doesn't really say
| anything is wrong.  Just that things aren't working and that I should
| call my long distance carrier.

| One question though: Who is providing the vanilla message that I get when
| I try to use the default long distance service?

It's the local telco's job to figure out who is to handle the sequence
dialed.  "Call your long distance carrier" without naming them is a
sure sign that the message is from the local exchange carrier.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #321
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28533;
          6 May 90 16:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22947;
          6 May 90 14:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01380;
          6 May 90 13:34 CDT
Date:     Sun, 6 May 90 12:45:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #322
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 6 May 90 12:45:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 322

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool [William Degnan]
    Re: Verifying Carrier Switch-over Requests [Rajeev B. Patil]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [John Higdon]
    Re: MCI Around Town [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother [Gregg Townsend]
    Re: Ring Amplification [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Playing Matchmaker [Doug Lee]
    Re: Australian NPA System [Ash Nallawalla]
    Re: A Coat Hanger [Joe Talbot]
    Re: A Coat Hanger [David Tamkin]
    Cellular Pricing (Was Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes) [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 May 90 08:08:34 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool


In a message of <May 01 17:29> Jim Gonzalez ([e-mail] ) writes:

 JG>I've gotten no replies in sci.electronics to my inquiry about
 JG>inexpensive punch-down tools.  I think I've located one, though.
 JG>Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45,
 JG>but they also offer a less expensive one for $16.

Specialized Tool has pretty pictures. Often their prices are "a little higher"
than I'm willing to pay. Check the supply houses.

 JG>My question is, has anyone used this less expensive tool?  It is
 JG>a Siemon (*not* Siemens) S66MT.6

Yes. I've been told that there are some who actually prefer it. But, I
suspect that it is because that is what they have.

 JG>They warn that it is only suitable for occasional work, since
 JG>it lacks the spring-loading of other tools, and therefore
 JG>presents a greater risk of damage to the block.  Is this a
 JG>serious risk?

Well, I read this and thought that the people who buy tools are not
always the people who use them, and therefore buyers might be more
impressed with hardware damage than people damage -- thus the
emphasis. But it is true. You might be OK for a couple of connections.
After your arm gets tired from the impact, you might have to rock the
tool on the terminal beam to cut the wire -- resulting in a groove in
the block. This might make the next connection to the terminal beam a
little sloppier. But no big deal.

I think the real damage is to your arm after more than a couple of
connections.

I think you are already taking a step down using the S714. I prefer
the Harris/Dracon D814, with interchangeable blades (90-degree twist
to remove), and dial-adjustable impact setting.


Regards,
Bill

   QM v1.00
 * Origin: Private Line - Stealth Opus in Austin (1:382/39.0)

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]

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

From: Rajeev B Patil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Verifying Carrier Switch-over Requests
Date: 4 May 90 13:18:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> [Moderator's Note: This is part of a recent discourse in misc.consumers
> between myself and others. Someone had written about being converted
> to MCI service without their knowledge. ..]

> The verification folk do not get bonuses for
> verifying, and the sales people do not get credit until after
> verification has verified the sale. I thus tend to view with some
> skepticism the claims made by some posters.

 From one short experience with one of the many telemarketers, you are
being a skeptic?  At least one of the persons that complained of such
a switchover was an AT&T employee who gets re-imbursed for the LD
calls.  Why would this employee agree to and verify the switchover?
Why should this person (who normally does not pay for significant
portion of residential personal LD calls) be liable for paying to MCI?


Rajeev
[phone]
att!io!raj

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Date: 5 May 90 18:51:42 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]> writes:

> Including the '1' all the time starts to make people believe that it
> is part of the area code.  Then when they want to call with special
> billing, they dial 01-NPA-XXX-XXXX and wonder why the call goes to
> Fiji (Ahh, that explains the commercials :-).

Not to mention areas (like mine, although I understand it's now rare)
that do not yet use a "1" for long distance in the US or Canada. "1"
is an access code that can vary from area to area and telco to telco.
No access code is used here.

Nevertheless, most exchanges in town will absorb the "1" (none require
it). On a client's PBX I have, just to be ornary, set up the ARS so
that if any one dials a "1" before a station-to-station call, they are
sumarily sent to a recording that says, "It is not necessary to dial a
'1' when calling this number. Please hang up and try your call again."


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

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

Date: Fri, 4 May 90 20:10:52 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
cmu.edu writes:

>    The MCI person also said that MCI has instituted a surcharge
>of $0.25 for "Around Town" calls effective 5/1/90.  She said that they
>are notifying customers who call MCI.

>[Moderator's Note: David, George and Andrew -- Welcome to the
>wonderful, whacky world of MCI-isms. What you have experienced is
>nothing new: MCI was pulling stunts like that fifteen years ago in the
>early days of the Execunet program. Rate changing at will; notice to
>no one until the bill came and you see the charges there, etc. ....
>The rule of thumb now is the public be damned!  Right, Mr. McGowan?  PT]

I have been an MCI customer for years, and I have not ever had the
problems you guys are discussing.  I was told when I signed up for
MCI's Call California plan that it would not cover calls made with my
MCI card.  I also received notice in my April phone bill that Around
Town was 25 cents as of 5/1/90. I was surprised only because I have
BOC billing (from Pacific Bell), and I didn't realize that MCI could
get Pac Bell to include an MCI Flyer with the bill.

My favorite, though, is that "to simplify the confusing rate
structure" (or some such nonsense), the previously effective
surcharges for MCI card calls (50 cents from 950-1022, $1.00 from
1-800-950-1022) will be replaced with new charges (75 cents from
either access number) effective May 15.

I'm as disappointed as anyone about the rate hikes, especially since
I'm used to charging all payphone calls to my MCI card (saves carrying
coins and it used to be cheaper, too), and of course I can't speak for
the unauthorized changeovers in dial-1 service, either, but I can say
they *have* been fair in telling me what's going on.  Perhaps David,
George, and Andrew just aren't reading their phone bills carefully.


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

Disclaimer:  It is illegal to reprogram your cellular telephone in order to
    avoid paying all or any portion of fees resulting from use of any
    (cellular telephone carrier's) service.

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

From: Gregg Townsend <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Universal Card and Big Brother
Date: 6 May 90 05:24:35 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


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."

Since nobody else has done so, and since the subject won't die, I'll
type in the exact quote as it is printed on my copy.  It is buried in
section 16, entitled "credit reports":

    From time to time we may monitor telephone calls
    between you and us to assure the quality of our customer service.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I added the emphasis, but it's clear that the circumstances of this
monitoring are limited.  This is not to say that I didn't enjoy Macy
Hallock's article, though!

Also, there was much discussion about Visa vs. MasterCard, but I don't
think anyone pointed out that the series of ads in Time magazine
featured Visa the first week and MasterCard the second, without at all
being obvious about it.


    Gregg Townsend / Computer Science Dept / Univ of Arizona / Tucson, AZ 85721
    [phone]     [e-mail]     110 57 16 W / 32 13 45 N / +758m

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Amplification
Date: 6 May 90 06:18:00 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I've seen "ring repeaters" and "ring relays" in the various telecom
supply catalogs.

The older non-digital ring relays generally consist of a relay with
characteristics similar to a ringer, with a slugged solenoid so that
they'll not chatter on and off with the 20Hz ringing voltage, and a DC
blocking cap.  The relay contacts are either brought out for the
customer (to run 115VAC into a klaxon, for example).

A ring repeater is a ring relay plus a ring generator, plus some
off-hook sensing and bypass circuitry to allow it to regenerate the
ringing but will switch itself out of the way when the called party
goes off-hook.

As a matter of practical cheesiality, many off-the-shelf low-current
115VAC relays designed for 60Hz won't really chatter much on the 20Hz
ringing voltage, so you can build yourself a ring relay with just such
a relay and a 2uf 600v non-polarized capacitor.  About $5 worth of
parts at your local electro-junk store, or $25 if you buy them new.
Since the relay can have contacts capable of switching an arc welder
on and off, you can activate just about any signaling device you want,
from a tiny feeper to a submarine DIVE horn.  Or play "La Bamba" on
one of those fancy car horns from J.C. Whitney.  Note that if you do
it yourself it's not FCC part 68 approved.

Building a ring repeater is too complicated to describe without a
blackboard and lots of handwaving.


Brian

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

From: Doug Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Playing Matchmaker
Date: 6 May 90 09:11:33 GMT
Reply-To: Doug Lee <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, IL


Several articles have appeared in this Digest concerning calls
established between two people by a third party.  The following is a
true and rather weird variant:

Last semester at the University of Illinois, I was obliged to receive
a call late at night when my roommate was sleeping.  I told the caller
in advance to call me in the dorm lobby at a certain time and gave her
the number of one of the lobby phones.

Unfortunately, I remembered a little too late that the phone whose
number I had given her was one of two phones connected to that number,
the other being in the main entrance to the dorm.  This extra phone is
in a box, and when a user forgets to stuff the stiff handset cord back
into the box when finished (more of a rule than an exception, I fear),
the phone remains off-hook.  Thus, I was quite nervous that I would
miss the call and decided to keep a close watch on the indoor phone,
running out into the rather cold entrance area only if necessary to
hang up the extra phone.

On one of my occasions to pick up the indoor phone to check for a dial
tone, I heard ringing.  I also had JUST enough time to hear the
outdoor phone being hung up before someone answered the call made from
that phone.  Since I was now the only other person on the line with
the receiver of the call, I was obliged to try to explain to a VERY
angry girl what had happened.  I can't really blame her for thinking I
was the craziest pranker in the campus for claiming I was not, in
fact, the one responsible for waking her up after 1:00 AM.  I
continued waiting for my call -- OUTSIDE!  (Of course, as luck would
have it, no one else even approached the outdoor phone thereafter, and
my call never arrived.)


Doug Lee  ([e-mail] or uunet!pallas!dgl292)

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

From: [e-mail] (Ash Nallawalla)
Subject: Re: Australian NPA System
Date: 6 May 90 06:38:34 GMT
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Melbourne


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

> P.S. Are there any 02X or 03X area codes except 02 and 03 for Sydney
> and Melbourne, respectively?  Also, isn't Launceston 004?  Nitpicky

I couldn't find any 02X or 03X numbers during a very quick scan of our
phone book.

Launceston is 003.

The same quick scan suggests:

01XX - Telecom services
02 - Sydney
03 - Melbourne
05X - VIC
06X - NSW and ACT
07X - QLD
08XX - SA
09X - WA

There are many omissions in my list, but undoubtedly others will fill
in the gaps. The STD list in our phone book shows only the town, not
the state, unless the name occurs in two states. I saw many 04X
listings but I'd be guessing if I said they're in NSW.  The 00XX
listings are too diverse to be given one label.


Ash Nallawalla Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] ZL4LM/VK3CIT
Postal: P.O. Box 539, Werribee VIC 3030, Australia.

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Coat Hanger
Date: 6 May 90 08:23:30 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


I noticed old protectors in San Francisco that said "Western Union" on
them. Does anybody know why that would be?


joe@mojave


[Moderator's Note: These protectors would have serviced Western Union
telegraph lines going to the subscriber's premises (where you found
them), or they might have been for the Western Union Clock Service. PT]

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

Date: Sun, 6 May 90 04:29 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Coat Hanger


Peter Desnoyers wrote in volume 10, issue 315:

| What I have always wanted to find out is what 75 stands for in S.F.
| "ParK" maybe?  All the older numbers (and most new ones) in the area I
| used to live in (Haight near Stanyan) had 75x-xxxx numbers, and I'd like
| to find out definitively what station that used to stand for.

When a 75X prefix has a name, it begins with PL, SK, or SL.  PLaza is
especially common.  In 312, 752 is PLAza in Dorchester; in 708, 754,
755, and 756 are SKyline in Chicago Heights and 758 is SKyline in Ford
Heights.

75X could not be ParK.  In 708, Glenview's 724 and 729 are PArk.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: Sun, 6 May 90 04:31 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Pricing (Was Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes)


John Higdon wrote in volume 10, issue 318:

| The two Bay Area providers have come to the conclusion that it is more
| profitable to throw in ALL custom calling, including voice mail, at no
| extra charge, at least on contract customers.

Cellular One (as the name is used by Southwestern Bell in metropolitan
Chicago) has a similar package for large corporate customers.  It has
a name something like The One Club; customers with ten (?) or more
telephone numbers get perks including free custom calling.

I've not yet seen any literature from Ameritech Mobile that describes
a counterpart.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #322
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00919;
          6 May 90 17:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19391;
          6 May 90 15:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22947;
          6 May 90 14:38 CDT
Date:     Sun, 6 May 90 14:00:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #323
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 6 May 90 14:00:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 323

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Really About Relays and Reality :-) [Larry Lippman]
    Reality, DeArmond, Lippman, Relays, This Digest [TELECOM Moderator]
    Looking for Key System Recommendations [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Julian Macassey]
    Re: IEEE Spectrum Article on COCOT's [John Higdon]
    Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool [Bruce Perens]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Really About Relays and Reality :-)
Date: 6 May 90 12:11:37 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


    A few readers have gone off on a tangent concerning relay
types and their sensitivity.  Before presenting a few more details to
put this issue to rest for the *last* time, I would like to refresh
certain reader's memories with respect to what was actually stated:

In article <[e-mail]> I quoted Mr. De Armond:

}} > 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.

In article <[e-mail]> I responded:

}}     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

    Please read both the above claim and my response above
*carefully*, and in particular note that Mr. De Armond's claim was
that the relay "has 2 dpdt dry contacts".

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

> It seems reasonable to me that a relay could work on 100 uA.

    Of course relays can operate on 100 uA and even less!  I can
tweak a common 280-type WECO polar relay to operate at well under 50
uA.  Look in a Sigma Instruments catalog for a 5F-10000SS-PAL relay,
which is their most sensitive, with a maximum pickup current of 300
uA.  By tweaking the contact screws and adjustment spring, this relay
can be made to pick up at 100 uA.

    But Y'all who are quick to point out that relays exist which
pick up at 100 uA are forgetting something rather important: SENSITIVE
RELAYS ARE *NOT* DPDT!  They have ONE MOVABLE POLE.  Just like the
WECO 280-type, or the above Sigma model.

> D'Arsnoval meter movements can work on more than an order of magnitude
> less.  A reed relay with a bias magnet might also be a contender.

    The Weston Sensitrol [tm] relay to which I referred in my
response to Mr. DeArmond *is* a D'Arsonval meter relay.  So what?
These meter relays are only available as SPST and SPDT.

> LL seemed to think that 100 uA was about two orders of magnitude beyond
> reality.)

    For a DPDT relay, it is beyond reality.

    Sensitive relays, be they meter-type or otherwise, have all
they can do to drive a *singular* movable contact with enough
mechanical force to ensure a reliable connection when the relay is at
its operating setpoint.  There is no way that a sensitive relay in the
uA range has the mechanical force necessary to drive *two* movable
contacts, with these contacts insulated from each to form a DPDT
configuration.  And we won't even consider the mass and complexity of
such an arrangement to provide separate insulated connections to the
movable portion of such a hypothetical relay.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes:

> D'Arsonval meter relays do exist.  They are little used nowadays,
> since most modern plant instrumentation is digital, but I have seen
> one and two-pole "meter-relays" in service.  They have some small
> contacts on the indicator pointer, and these are usually capable of
> carrying a few mA to switch external relays.  One very common past
> usage of such things are setpoint controllers on thermocouple
> indicators for furnaces and such.  They are not small.

    Brian Kantor is quite correct, and he brings up another point:
the low current-handling capacity of meter relays dictates that they
be used to drive an external relay.  The external relay can readily be
DPDT or have even more poles, which is why sensitive relays in the uA
range are *always* SPST or SPDT, since there is no reason to even
*think* about designing a sensitive DPDT relay in the uA range.

    And now we have Mr. De Armond coming back for more embarrassment
[drum roll inserted here]..

In article <[e-mail]> rsiatl![e-mail] (John G. De
Armond) writes:

> I was hoping the Moderator was going to let this die but since he has
> not,

    This is one statement I agree with!

> here is the poop on the relay.  It was made by Leeds & Northrop
> and was used as a galvo null detector in the old "sexy crab" type
> stripchart recorder.  (I'm not 100% sure that this is an accurate
> discription of the instrument; I've only seen one at a distance but
> this is what I've been told.)  It is a dual-coil, magnetically biased
> relay with micrometer thread adjustable armature gap, spring bias and
> contact gap.  It is physically a bit smaller than a standard plugin
> control relay.

    Sounds like the Barber-Colman Micropositioner [tm] relay that
I mentioned in my original response.

    But guess what?  This relay was only SPDT.

    Also, this must have been a pretty old relay to have been
furnished by Leeds & Northrup.  L&N had true servobalance
potentiometric recorders and indicating controllers before World War
II.  Offhand, I cannot recall any L&N "Speedomax" series recorder or
indicating controller which was NOT controlled by an electronic servo
amplifier, with such an amplifier no longer requiring such a sensitive
relay as has been described.  Bristol Instruments was one of the last
holdouts to use a contact galvanometer as a null detector, having
manufactured such a recorder or process controller until around 1950.

> This relay is, of course, simply a typical example of instrumentation
> galvo relays.  I have other relays that will actuate on as little as
> 10 uamps.  These consist of compact metermovements with the pointer
> acting as a contact instead of an indicator.

    Perhaps Mr. De Armond can explain to us how the "pointer" on
these "compact metermovements" can provide TWO isolated movable poles,
and thereby form a DPDT contact arrangement?

> some practicality has to enter into the equation.  When we get right
> down to it, Lippman, this spat, comp.dcom.telecom, and the Usenet in
> general rate as pretty trivial in my life.  Idle entertainment.  It's
> fun to debate and useful in that it keeps the skills sharp.  But
> treating the net as reality is a whole 'nuther matter.

    Mr. De Armond's statements have clearly demonstrated that he
does not treat the Net as "reality".

    Some people, however, upon reading a technical newsgroup such
as this one, would like to believe that there is a reasonable
expectation of technical accuracy and "reality" contained in articles
therein.


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: Reality, DeArmond, Lippman, Relays, This Digest
Date: Sun, 6 May 90 13:00:00 CDT


Thanks to this latest response in the Lippman/DeArmond battle, the
topic will be closed at this time.

Lippman quotes De Armond:

>> I was hoping the Moderator was going to let this die but since he has
>> not,

Then makes a response:

>    This is one statement I agree with!

The quickest way to get the conversation stopped is by refusing to
continue responding. The half-dozen or so responses made by other
readers, when taken as a whole, don't total but a fraction of the
bandwidth given over to you two in recent weeks.

Lippman explains why the replies, particularly those from DeArmond
should be halted:

>    Some people, however, upon reading a technical newsgroup such
>as this one, would like to believe that there is a reasonable
>expectation of technical accuracy and "reality" contained in articles
>therein.

Am I as Moderator expected to verify the technical accuracy of
commentaries prior to publication? How is this possible?  The Digest
has in excess of 60 K of messages *per day*. Saturday we published
just under 100 K of stuff.  Is it up to me to say Lippman is right and
DeArmond is wrong? I make no claims or warranties as to the accuracy
of any information published here. The truth becomes known after an
exchange of thoughts and ideas between the readers.

Since everytime these fellows write they have to add personal attacks
on each other, ie.

>    And now we have Mr. De Armond coming back for more
>embarrassment [drum roll inserted here]..

My answer is cut them both off. I need this like I need another 60 K
of messages to be processed seven days a week.


Patrick Townson
Signature: Have you bugged your Moderator today?

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

Subject: Looking For Key System Recommendations
Date: Sun May  6 00:46:3 1990
From: colin_plumb <contact![e-mail]>


Some relatives will soon be needing a telephone key system for their
office.  I have noticed the salesmen indulging in such tactics as
implying that the system won't work without their custom expensive
feature phones and the like, so I have undertaken to do a little bit
of research, and would like to ask the dissembled TELECOM gurus what
to look out for, on both the good and bad sides.

If anyone would like to recommend something, here are the desired
parameters.  Most are negotiable.

- 16 (now) to 24 (maximum future) extensions

- 6, with expansion to about 10 outside lines, all in a
  single hunt group (unless there's a good reason not to
  connect the fax directly)

- The usual forwarding, pickup, call waiting features

- Interface to a P.A. system ("Joe, wherever you are, there's
  a call for you on line 3.")

- The ability to auto-retry a busy outside line would be nice

- I'll probably be setting it up initially and can cope with
  most anything (like harassing Bell Canada about not breaking
  loop current on disconnect), but nobody who'll be using it
  is any good with things programmable, so it needs a near-infinite
  MTBF.

Because of that last point, Centrex might be a good idea; I haven't
priced it yet.

Does anyone have any advice they'd like to share?

(P.S. As I understand things, besides PBX's being larger, the primary
distinction between the terms "PBX" and "key system" is that PBX's
expect significant in-house traffic, while key systems expect most
calls to be external.  Have I got it right?)


Colin

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 6 May 1990 11:32:11 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card)


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

>Joseph C. Pistritto wrote in volume 10, issue 306:

>| I had tried to get AT&T to [bill long-distance charges directly to a
>| bank charge card, not counting their own] earlier, while living in
>| the States, and could never get it done.  Does anyone out there know
>| if this option is in fact available to US resident subscribers?

I successfully used an AMEX card in an AT&T logo payphone at the
Greater Pittsburgh International (sic) Airport.

By *IN*, I mean that the magnetic stripe reader accepted my card, I
completed the call, and the charge found its way to my monthly AMEX
statement.


Peter M. Weiss | 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) |
University Park, PA USA 16802 | Disclaimer day of rest

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain
Date: 6 May 90 16:17:40 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(D. Spinellis) writes:

> My question is:
> How can I connect a British four wire socket to a continental two wire
> plug?  What circuit is needed?  I would also appreciate if someone
> could enlighten me as to the uses of the other wires.

    For the edification of the group below is a description of the
Jack wiring. In the UK jacks and three pair wire can be purchased in
"Electrical shops". Electrical shops will also terminate wire with
phone plugs to fit the jacks they sell. The UK jack by the way is
designed to pull out of the wire at a certain pull pressure. This is a
safety feature to prevent broken necks and phones.


               British Telecom Auxilliary Jack Wiring

        British phones have 3 wires. There are two wires A & B (Tip &
Ring) coming into a house.  There is no protector. In the primary jck
in the house is a 2 uF capacitor. On the end of this cap is the third
wire. The AC ringing signal is fed to the phone on this wire and its
DC counterpart. See diagram:


                  ----| |------O (3)
                  |
                  |
    (A) O----------------------O (2)



    (B) O----------------------O (5)

        Note: The Numbers in the diagram are the numbers engraved on
the jack terminals. If the phone rings continuously, reverse 2 and 5.
The ringer is fed by AC current on pins 3 and 5.

        BT  consider the A terminal to be ground. B is measured as 45
to 50 volts above ground.

        Wiring Colour Codes:
        The standard inside wire is classic "3 pair". A jack is wired
as follows:

        Pin #               Wire colour

        2                   Blue/White
        3                   Orange/White
        4                   White/Orange
        5                   White/Blue


                                END

Note this was written with a "US" perspective, but should be
understandable in the UK.


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: IEEE Spectrum Article on COCOT's
Date: 5 May 90 22:45:04 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John Bruner <[e-mail]> writes:

> Also, I didn't know that Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and
> Hawaii have banned COCOT's.

What? The way it has always been explained to me by Pac*Bell types and
PUC dweebs is that COCOTs are MANDATED by the MFJ. Due to the access
requirements to the interstate network or some such, states supposedly
CAN'T ban COCOTs.

If this is true, how did they do it legally? And what's more
important: how can it be done here?


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


[Moderator's Note: In the next issue (sometime Sunday evening), Macy
Hallock responds to the original comment and this reply in an article
too lengthy to be included in this issue. Watch for it in #324.  PT]

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

From: Bruce Perens <pixar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap (Telephone) Punch-Down Tool
Date: 6 May 90 17:52:27 GMT
Organization: Pixar -- Marin County, California


[e-mail] (Jim Gonzalez) writes:

>Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45, but
>they also offer a less expensive one for $16.

Back when I had more traffic with professional installers, I noticed
that some "old pros" used a SCREWDRIVER to punch down wire. They had
expensive spring-loaded punch-down tools, but they preferred the
screwdriver.  They placed the screwdriver on the to-be-cut side,
pushed down the wire, and used a bit of angular motion to cut it. The
screwdriver might have been sharpened.

Someone might write in and say that these guys were responsible for
300 million poor connections per year. I don't know how effective this
method is, I just saw it done.


Bruce Perens

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #323
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24878;
          7 May 90 3:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30172;
          7 May 90 1:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26046;
          7 May 90 0:45 CDT
Date:     Mon, 7 May 90 0:26:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #324
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 7 May 90 00:25:41 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 324

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Solution to COCOT Problems: Fair Treatment by Telco [Macy Hallock]
    Georgia Strikes at COCOTS [John G. De Armond]
    AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.? [Joel Yossi]
    Princess Phone Query [Jeff C. Glover]
    Party Line Ring Codes [Larry Lippman]
    Re: MCI Aggregation (Was AT&T Billing via Local Telcos) [Robert Gutierrez]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sun May  6 13:34:04 1990
Subject: Solution to COCOT Problems: Fair Treatment by Telco
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> :
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 319, Message 3 of 4

>[Quotes from IEEE Spectrum May issue's article about pay phones...]

>Mainly because of unresolved problems like blocking and splashing,
>the states of ALaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Oklahoma, and Hawaii have
>banned PPPs.

>The difference between the two bills, S.1660 and S.1643, is that the
>latter would penalize AOS companies and PPP owners and operators
>caught blocking or splashing. The bill, introduced by Senator Alan J.
>Dixon (D-Ill.), would prevent the owners from receiving commissions
>from AOS companies, and force AOS companies that engage in blocking to
>charge the lowest rates of all carriers then prevailing in the area.

And the real winners from all this ill-advised and uninformed
legislation will be the telcos.  What these bills really seek to do is
force COCOT's and AOS's to operate "just like the phone co. pay phones
do" without solving the _real_ problem.

One of most fundimental problems will be left unresolved: COCOT lines
do not receive the same services as those provided to the telco's own
pay phones, and therefore COCOT lines cost more for less service.

The legislation should require equal services be provided at equal
costs for _all_ pay phone lines.  Giving COCOT's answer supervision,
CO based network class marks and services would make a huge difference
in the operation all COCOT's. ALL pay phones, telco and COCOT, should
receive the same services at the same costs.  Right now the telco's
charge themselves internally much less for the CO supported lines used
for their pay phones than they do for the dumb COCOT lines tarriffed
for their competitors.

At least one state has begun to see the light and restructured the
basic cost and service arrangements for ALL pay phones.  (CA, I think)

Passage of these bills would be another example of telco lobbying for
"lets keep things the old familiar way they used to be" with the
result to the telco's exclusive advantage.

I agree that AOS's and COCOT's are often operated in a less than
desirable fashion, but these bills do not attack the fundemental
causes and issues involved.  They instead seek to placate the public
by attacking only the symptoms.  When, oh when, will the telco's stop
seeking to return to monopolistic practices instead of seeking to
create an open system of telecom transport thru innovation rather than
legislation?

To answer my own question: It will happen when our legislators and
regulators begin to understand that "open" systems work to everyone's
benefit in the long run, and begin to sturcture policy accordingly.
In this age of special interests and big money, the thought of a
coherent nation telecommuncations policy that promotes innovations and
service seems to elude most politicians.  And its the public that will
have to solve that.

And that's why I get so irritated whenever I hear someone whining "It
was so easy before divestiture, let go back to the old way".  Sure the
old was easier: you took what the telco offered or you didn't.  No
other choices were available.  Are the informed readers of this Digest
to believe that the benefits of competition in the telecom marketplace
are not to our benefit?

To take this point a bit farther:

Apply the same arguments and logic to the recent hotel/motel
discussion.  The issue is really shaped by the inablitly of most AOS's
and hotel to get truly equal telco connections (again, no answer
supervision, toll access settlements, etc.)  If the CO based services
built into the CO's were available to the hotel operators and AOS's
then much of the justificaton for the absurd rates we see would
dissappear.  The telco's would also make money on the deal, too, by
tarriffing these services like they do for CLASS.  I think the telco's
would be surprised at how many of these type of lines they would sell,
once COCOT's and PBX's were programmed to use these features..

The fact is: equal access is still very unequal, especially for small
time resellers of telcom services, i.e. COCOT's, AOS's and
hotel/motels.  That factor, combined with the American investors'
demand for a quick return on investment capital (and/or greed)
accounts for most all the abuses occurring out there.

If legislation for a short term fix is required, then let it be
designed to inform the public, not limit options.  I would like to see
a rate card posted next to each pay phone and hotel station showing
costs.  The public would then solve some of the abuse problems by
voting with their wallet.  This should not substitute for a long term
solution of the equal access to services/equal costs problem, 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")

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

From: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Georgia Strikes at COCOTS
Date: 6 May 90 20:51:51 GMT
Reply-To: "John G. De Armond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility)


There was a small footnote in the paper (Atlanta Constitution) which
should warm the hearts of telcom readers.  The article noted that the
PUC has set up a COCOT strike force. (Can two people constitute a
force?).  These two inspectors are charged with driving around the
state and trying every payphone they come to.  They are looking for
overcharging or violation of the FCC COCOT orders.  One of the
inspectors noted in a masterful stroke of understatement that the job
was probably bigger than the two of them could address.  He asked that
all concerned citizens of Georgia report COCOTS in violation to the
PUC directly.

There is justice in this state after all!


John De Armond, WD4OQC  | We can no more blame our loss of freedom on congress
Radiation Systems, Inc. | than we can prostitution on pimps.  Both simply
Atlanta, Ga             | provide broker services for their customers.
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd|  - Dr. W Williams |                **I am the NRA**

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

From: "Yossi (Joel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.?
Date: 6 May 90 18:18:58 GMT
Reply-To: "Yossi (Joel" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. Tech., Haifa Israel


What I want to do is make a call, say, to France when I'm in England
and charge it to my AT&T card (or, for that matter, charge it to
anything).  Can I do that?

Thanks in advance.  Please e-mail any respones.


Joel
([e-mail] -or- [e-mail])


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

From: "Jeff C. Glover" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun,  6 May 90 14:52:09 PDT
Subject: Princess Phone Query


I bought a couple of Princess Phones at a recent swap meet.  The
touch-tone section doesn't work.  The receiver gets disconnected when
I push the buttons, yet the tones aren't generated.  Upon dissasembly
there are two disconnected spade leads inside.  They are a "gray" and
a "gray-red".  They lead directly to the ringer coil.  Could these
have been disconnected to prevent tone dial-out?

I'm able to jog the hook to dial, but that's getting old really quick. :-)

Any other ideas of where to look are welcome as well.


Jeff
[e-mail] -or- ...!uunet!tektronix!orca.wv!jeffg


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

Subject: Party Line Ring Codes
Date: 6 May 90 22:25:14 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donald E.
Kimberlin) writes:

> > 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 four-party grounded ringing scheme used for selective
ringing, being the same scheme which survives today, was developed by
A. S. Hibbard of the Chicago Telephone Company in 1896.  Some time
between that year, during which the WECO No. 1 Switchboard was
introduced, and 1924, during which year the WECO No. 11 Switchboard
was introduced, the four party designations of M, R, J and W were
introduced.  Without doing some explicit research, I cannot be more
precise than that.  The WECO No. 11 Switchboard employed machine
ringing, and its "B" terminating position contained four keys which
were labeled "M", "R", "J" and "W".

    From a technical standpoint, the M, R, J and W have a precise
definition (valid today), which is as follows:

    "M" = + superimposed ringing on TIP
    "R" = + superimposed ringing on RING
    "J" = - superimposed ringing on TIP
    "W" = - superimposed ringing on RING

> 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:
> ...
> 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.

    This could well be the explanation.  Offhand, I cannot ever
recall encountering an explanation of the letter designations.  CO
apparatus that I can remember from years ago (like 4-party SxS
connectors or a test trunk ringing circuit) simply used the letter
designations above with the understanding that everyone knew what they
meant.


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: Illinois Bell historians (Chicago Tel was the predecessor
to IBT) say the letter choice was made since those four letters sounded the
'least like each other' to an operator who had to ring one without making
a mistake. A/K/J sound much the same, as do B/C/P/E. They did not want the
operator to be confused.  Thus, four 'different sounding' letters.  PT]

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Aggregation (Was AT&T Billing via Local Telcos)
Date: 7 May 90 03:27:23 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] (David Tamkin) writes in V.10, Iss 321, Msg 8 of 11:

> In volume 10, issue 309, I had written:

> > MCI told me that they couldn't put my parents' telephone numbers and
> > mine [onto one MCI account] because they were not at the same address.

> Robert, as a former MCI employee, assumes that we were trying to get
> MCI as PIC, forgetting my long submissions in the past in complaint
> that MCI were repeatedly telling my parents' telco and mine to switch
> us behind our backs....

I remember that. Your problem was the moronic reps you kept gettting.
You just wanted MCI as an alternate carrier, but they kept getting you
signed up as 1+ customers.

> | Establish the account with the primary phone.  Wait a week.  Call back
> | Customer Service and tell them you want to add a number (reason: you got
> | a second phone in the house).  The rep will say the phone is not in the
> | local area.  You say: That's the number they gave me.

> That won't work.  My parents and I are served by different telcos and
> the prefixes give that away.  Oh, you say, in that case we CAN'T be
> put on the same account, but merely having two different addresses
> wasn't the reason?  Gee, that isn't what the MCI reps told me.  They
> said it was just because we weren't at the same address.  Even next
> door would be too far away.

I only wish I saved the screensaves from MCI's customer service system
to explain this....

MCI is divided up into seven billing centers. MCI calls them divisions
(like the Pacific division is #7, and encompasses California, Nevada
and Hawaii).  The billing center does not care less where it gets it's
information from (eg: billable calls), just as long as it is from the
same division. Now, MCI tells its reps that, no, you cannot have two
phones from different addresses on the same account because "the
telephone records will not match up", which, yes, that is one reason
(which can be gotten around), but the main reason was the possible
*fraud* that could be committed.

The same computer also takes care of so-called "corporate" accounts,
which have _hundreds_ of telephone numbers on the same account, all
from different places (sometimes), and because the same computer
system tracks all of this (OCIS), if you had the right security level,
you could add your phone number right on there, and theoretically bill
somebody else for all of your L.D. calls.  This was something MCI was
very nervous about, and the front line reps did not have the security
level to do this, but there were always mistakes ... and sometimes they
were not mistakes (ie: deliberate).

It was just a lot easier to implement a division policy in not having
multiple phone numbers from different places on the same account.

I know it worked, because I had it on my employee account (one number
was in Marin county, under my fathers name!, and the other was mine in
Hayward, 40 miles away).  When OCIS did a lookup against the V&H
database (LERG), it did give me a warning, but it was just that...a
warning. I hit enter again and it was made permanant.

I also did another workaround to have a calling card for each number,
and their own around-town areas! But I hear Around-Town is going away :-(

> The only reason to say ANYTHING to our telcos would be to get MCI as
> PIC, and that was NEVER our intention.  It was solely for 10222.

Yes, I know.  The reps just kept putting the "X" in the 'Dial-1' field
instead of the '10XXX Service' feild.  I think that was just the
beginning of your troubles....

> "Fun."  Right.  Go to the archives and read my tale of fun with MCI.
> US Sprint and Telecom*USA were able to do it without trouble or
> trickery.

MCI *HATES* doing 'secondary access' accounts ('10XXX accounts' as
they call it), because of, again, their billing computer.  What would
happen is that you had a 10XXX account, and you decided to move, and
disconnected your phone.  Since MCI was not your primary carrier, the
BOC would _not_ inform MCI you disco'd your phone, and then 3-6 months
later, you old phone number is recycled. The new customers decide to
get MCI as their PIC. But wait ... your old MCI account is still active
because you didn't call MCI to cancel and the BOC didn't even have a
clue you used MCI as an alternate. So, the new people make L.D. calls,
but they don't see a bill. Hmmm ... strange.  This goes on for three
months (MCI goes through 2 billing cycles of non-payment before
cancelling you on the 3rd cycle). You have, of course, moved, and the
bills didn't forward for some reason or another. Well, 2 collection
notices go out, then the account goes to North American Collections in
Concord, CA.  Well, all of a sudden, you apply for an AT&T VISA card
and they say "DERROGATORY PAYMENT HISTORY" as they deny your VISA card,
and why ... something about unpaid MCI long distance bills ... "But I
paid them!!!"..........

And you think Sprint's billing computers are bad....

   rob.  <---Patrick once said to keep our sig's short....:-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #324
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27175;
          7 May 90 4:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06826;
          7 May 90 2:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30172;
          7 May 90 1:51 CDT
Date:     Mon, 7 May 90 1:15:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #325
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 7 May 90 01:14:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 325

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Australian NPA System [Phil Clark]
    Re: Australian NPA System [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Australian NPA System [Jim Breen]
    Re: Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-tone Service [John Higdon]
    Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID [Macy Hallock]
    Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Clark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Australian NPA System
Date: 6 May 90 23:48:28 GMT


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

(Lots of stuff deleted)

> Sorry -- I guess my comment wasn't clear.  What I was referring to is
> that the capital cities in Australia have area codes 0N, and in
> general the area codes are then 0NX for other cities in the same
> state.  For example, 07 - Brisbane, 070 - Cairns, 07X - the rest of
> Queensland.  Of course, there are other exceptions to my very general
> rule (089 -- which would be in South Australia -- is the entire
> Northern Territory).  Since N.T. used to be part of S.A., though, in
> general all area codes with the same first significant digit are in
> the same state.

The NT has not been part of SA for quite some time! Like about eighty
years!

> (Oh, again another exception: Canberra, which is treated as N.S.W.)

No longer true, see below.

> Well, anyway, you see what I meant....

> 00X - Tasmania, Toll-free numbers*
> 01X - unused
> 02X - New South Wales
> 03X - Victoria
> 04X - N.S.W., Capital Territory
> 05X - Unused
> 06X - Victoria
> 07X - Queensland
> 08X - South Australia, Northern Territory
> 09X - Western Australia

I'm afraid that you have blown it again. In Oz, telecom boundaries are
NOT state boundaries. The STD codes often overlap state borders.

The code 05X is used mainly in Victoria. 04X is used in NSW and NOT in
the ACT.  Until recently, the ACT and surrounding are was code 062,
but this has now been changed to 06 with the introduction of seven
digit numbers in the area.

Some 08X codes are in NSW, some 05X codes are in NSW, etc.

While the pattern outlined in your list may have been the intention
when direct trunk dialling was introduced in Australia, it is becoming
more corrupt as the need for numbers grows. I think that Dave only
mentioned that 002 and 003 were used in Tas when they are now using
003 & 004 as well.

It seems likely that there will be more changes in some of the more
densely populated areas as Telecom runs out of numbers as happened in
the Canberra area recently. This may require wholesale revision or
changes to the STD codes.  area.

> *It just occurred to me that this would also include things like 0011
> for international dialing, but that leads me right to my disclaimer:
> I've never lived in Oz, so I only know a little bit about what I'm
> talking about.

> P.S. Are there any 02X or 03X area codes except 02 and 03 for Sydney
> and Melbourne, respectively?  Also, isn't Launceston 004?  Nitpicky
> minds want to know.... ;-)

No there are no 02X or 03X codes as all of the following digits are
assigned to exchange prefixes for seven digit numbers in those areas.
In other areas you will find that not all digits are availble for use
as some digits are already used, as in Adelaide which has 08 prefix
but the numbers are prefixed with 2 & 3 and I understand that Telecom
is now looking for more.


Phil Clark,
Department of Computer Science,
ADFA,
Canberra, Australia.
[e-mail]

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Australian NPA System
Date: 6 May 90 03:33:26 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computing Science, University of Wollongong, Australia


[e-mail] (Linc Madison) writes:

(giving list of area codes, per previous message)

>P.S. Are there any 02X or 03X area codes except 02 and 03 for Sydney
>and Melbourne, respectively?  Also, isn't Launceston 004?  Nitpicky

Close, but no prize. Yes: 004 is Launceston. No: 02/3 anything is
Syd/Melb..  The following is an incomplete list of 0xxx codes for
Australia.

000    Emergency # (like US 911)
0011    Overseas Direct dial
0012    "    "    "    with auto callback with cost
0014    Special overseas services (0014 881 011 is USA Direct)
0015    Overseas Direct Dial FAX
002    Southern Tasmania (Hobart etc)
003    Northwest Tasmania (Burnie etc)
004    Northeast Tasmania (Launceston etc)
007    [was mobile phones before 018 cellular]?
008    Toll free numbers (like US 800)
0100    Overseas Operator
0101    Overseas Bookings
0102    Overseas Charge enquiries
0103    Overseas Directory Assistance
0107    Overseas Bookings from a payphone
0108    Calls to ships at sea
011    Operator
013    Local Directory Assistance
016 020    Telefinder Radio Paging Operator
0173    Wake up calls
0175    Non Local DA
0176    Operator from a payphone
018    Mobile Phones
02    Sydney [New South Wales]
03    Melbourne [Victoria]
04x    New South Wales
05x    Victoria
06    Canberra & Australian Capital Territory
06x    New South Wales
07    Brisbane [Queensland]
07x    Queensland
08    Adelaide [South Australia]
080    Broken Hill & surrounds [New South Wales]
089    Darwin & Northern Territory
08x    South Australia
0848    Kangaroo Island [South Australia]
09    Perth [Western Australia]
09x    Western Australia

Note: The 05x & 06x codes cross the NSW/Vic boarder in some areas.


David Wilson    [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Australian NPA System
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Mon, 7 May 90 02:02:18 GMT

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

  (see previous message in this issue)

Sorry, Linc. I admire your courage in making this statement, seeing
you've never lived in Australia, but most of the above is *wrong*.

The only "rule" is that Australia uses a 9-digit "national number";
i.e. the local number and the STD prefix adds up to 9 digits. There is
no rule that country areas in a state use the same first two digits as
the capital city. Many rural zones cross state boundaries.

> (Oh, again another exception: Canberra, which is treated as N.S.W.)

No it isn't. Canberra (i.e. the Australian Capital Territory) happens
to share the same zone as some neighboring NSW towns. It is soon to
get the 06 prefix, i.e. the numbers that were 062 xx xxxx will become
06 2xx xxxx. The change will provide expansion ranges.

> Well, anyway, you see what I meant....
> 00X - Tasmania, Toll-free numbers*

   Plus IDD 0011, etc. etc.

> 01X - unused

    WRONG! 01x is used for directory assistance, operator calls, etc.

> 02X - New South Wales
> 03X - Victoria

   WRONG! 02 is Sydney alone. 03 is Melbourne alone!

> 04X - N.S.W., Capital Territory

   WRONG! See above.

> 05X - Unused

   WRONG! 05x is mostly rural Victoria

> 06X - Victoria

   And NSW!


Jim Breen ([e-mail]) Dept of Robotics &
Digital Technology. Chisholm Inst. of Technology
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
(ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-tone Service
Date: 6 May 90 22:03:25 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes (quoting from
a Pac*Bell directory):


> "This service together with your Touch-Tone phone makes dialing easier
> and faster.  It also allows you to hook your phone up with a personal
> computer and access data bases, pay bills through your bank, and even
> shop electronically where these services are available."

Isn't that special. I wonder why I have this knawing feeling that the
average customer would not have a clue that little of the above has
ANYTHING to do with the service that Pac*Bell provides; namely, the
acceptance of DTMF as dialing commands.

That reminds me. What happened to the great promise of the removal of
touch tone charges when Pac*Bell got its extort-the-public plan
through the CPUC bozo factory? I guess they were just kidding. Maybe
they were kidding about everything else, also. Oh, I forgot. They have
a pending rate increase they claim is necessary to offset the revenue
reduction from the removal of the touch tone charges. I guess they're
waiting for that to clear first.


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

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sun May  6 17:36:59 1990
Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ??
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> :
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 316, Message 8 of 9

>>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.

>The local Telco will (in most cases) deliver ANYTHING to you on a T1
>span if you want it that way.

Perhaps that is true in some more enlightened areas, but not in Ohio
(at least as of a few months ago)

Ohio Bell will not deliver local trunks via a T1.  This includes DID
and standard bothway trunks.  The business office says that no tariff
exists.  GTE Ohio says the same thing, yet I have seen GTE take a
fiber to a customer premise, install mux equipment and then state all
local lines must interface as regular metallic two wire trunks.

Now, both telco's have tariffed Centrex at rates lower than standard
business lines, i.e. Ten centrex loop start lines (free TT) cost less
than ten loop start business lines w/TT.  T1 transport to a premise
using Centrex using standard 2500 sets or key systems is never an
issue, you want two wire metallic lines to support those sets.  Only
PBX customers want T1 local trunks (and/or DID), so I surmise the
failure of these telco's to file a local access T1 tariff is a move
to "protect" Centrex, which they are promoting heavily.

T1 service for point to point use is readily available, but the costs
are higher than most other major cities.

I still do not understand why a loop start Centrex line costs less
than a regular business line.  I do not think Centrex requires less CO
capacity.  Sure sounds like cross-subsidized service to me.  Of
course, the telco's argument is "economy of scale", but ten lines is
ten lines, right?  I can understand, perhaps, ten vs. ten thousand.

If this follows the same path as similar other situations, when the
telco offers local service via T1, it will cost more than metallic
based trunks, not less.  The Ohio PUC seems to buy most of what Ohio
Bell presents in these cases, unless the Ohio Consumers' Counsel
intervenes on residential rates.  Cost based service does not exist in
this state.

Oh, BTW, installation for standard DID trunks is twice (about $250) as
much as regular Ohio Bell trunks, with a longer interval, too.  The
monthly charge is roughtly the same as a regular trunk.  Number blocks
cost $.50/mo per number, in blocks of twenty.

There are a few other practices occurring that appear discriminatory
as well:

We just received Ohio Bell DID service for a customer (eight trunks,
forty numbers) and got forty random numbers, instead of a sequentially
numbered group of forty.  I complained about this, and was told the CO
was tight on numbers (I found a couple blocks vacant just by looking
at the reverse listings in the Criss-Cross directory).  I called the
PUC and was told "the phone co has the right to assign any numbers
they wish, its in the tariff".  (I have installed other DID groups in
Ohio Bell territory without encountering this problem.)

GTE practices are worse yet.  They charge about $2000 installation for
the first three trunks, which is the minimum number you can order (which
effectively prevents the installation of small DID based fax or voice
mail systems)  In GTE territory, it cost less to install a point to
point T1 (same CO) than it does to install three conventional DID trunks.

This high DID install rate also helps make DID based PBX's look
expensive next to their Centrex services.  GTE quotes six week
installation intervals for DID trunks, provided the CO can provide the
service at all.  Whether the service is available is strictly a GTE
decision, and they do not hesitate to tell you.  They also say Centrex
is avialable in CO's I know not to have the correct software generic.
It appears that they are trying not to provide DID in a CO until
Centrex is also available.  (ALL GTD-5 generics support standard DID,
only the newest supports Centrex services)

Also: Ohio Bell is required to have a Centrex agency program, but GTE
refuses to allow or appoint Centrex agents, you gotta go to their
people ... the same ones who sell telephone equipment.  I have heard a
rumor that this may change ... GTE is also rumored to be separating
their telephone sales operations from "above the line" services.

Is Ohio the only state with this kind of telco nonsense?


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")


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

Subject: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud
Date: 6 May 90 22:28:27 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray Dueland) writes:

[Some generally outdated comments about Blue Box fraud deleted]

> It turns out the Ma Bell doesn't take such things lightly.  Pacific
> Bell in particular is fascist and has used its power to have BBS
> systems carrying the "blue box" frequencies confiscated.  Modern ESS
> phone switches detect the use of these frequencies and take
> appropriate action.

> [Moderator's Note: I'm a facist myself. That's why I strongly
> discourage your efforts. Anyway, don't you think lots of calls to DA
> lasting several minutes each look sort of odd?  PT]

    Even during the mid-1970's before CCIS was widely implemented,
and while Blue Box fraud was still a problem, fraud detection methods
were implemented in ESS offices which were based solely upon message
and toll accounting data.  Only in comparatively few instances was it
necessary to actually scan subscriber lines and/or interoffice trunks
for the presence of subscribed-furnished SF and/or MF tones.  Tone
detection apparatus was generally used to gather corroborating
evidence for a prosecution when the identity of a suspect subscriber
was already known.

     How was the identity of offending subscribers ascertained?  By
looking for anomalies of the nature mentioned by the Moderator,
including but by no means limited to: unusually long and frequent DA
calls; unusually long toll call "attempts" where no answer supervision
was ever returned; toll calls of a comparatively short distance where
answer supervision was unusually delayed; 800 calls with anomalies in
answer supervision; etc.

    What many Blue Box toll fraud perpetrators failed to realize
was that in an ESS office the toll accounting software always knew
that the subscriber was connected to a toll trunk, and only three
conditions could exist: (1) answer supervision was returned and the
subscriber was getting billed for the call, which was just fine and
dandy; or (2) there was *no* answer supervision and the call was
taking much longer than "normal"; (3) answer supervision occurred,
dropped, and occurred *again* - which is real suspicious.

    It is possible that any of the above circumstances could arise
during legitimate calling.  However, repeated occurrences of anomalies
would generate exception reports which could then result in
investigation directed against a specific subscriber.


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 V10 #325
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20011;
          8 May 90 2:40 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21116;
          8 May 90 1:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17327;
          8 May 90 0:01 CDT
Date:     Mon, 7 May 90 23:56:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #326
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 7 May 90 23:55:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 326

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: DMS Imitates ESS (but can GTE do it?) [Macy Hallock]
    Re: `cu' Question [Stephen Friedl]
    Re: Solution to COCOT Problems: Fair Treatment by Telco [David Gast]
    Re: Pricing Versus Cost of Touch-Tone Service [David Tamkin]
    Re: Touch-tone ABCD [Mark Earle]
    Re: MCI Around Town [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Really About Relays and Reality :-) [John Debert]
    Re: Custom Ringing [Jim Gottlieb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sun May  6 18:13:35 1990
Subject: Re: DMS Imitates ESS (but can GTE do it?)
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon (Fellow GTE Critic) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 321, Message 5 of 11

>I am informed by another Digest reader (who is too lazy to write about
>it himself :-) that Northern Telecom has released a generic for its
>DMS switches that contains a "1AESS Transparency Package".

>Since the feature implimentation on the 1AESS is considered to be the
>standard, it might be worthwhile for those served out of DMS COs to
>encourage telcos to install this package. Now if they could just
>duplicate the clunks...

I'd be just as happy is GTE could get these GTD-5's to imitate the
reliablilty of the "obsolete tehnology" of the 1A ESS machines.

We have had several outages on this 25,000 line class 4 machine in
Medina since it was cut in a couple of years ago.  All of the smaller
GTD-5's in the area have been down a couple of times, too.

(I always thought the Intel 8086, on which the GTD-5 is based was a
decent chip, it always worked OK in my AT&T 6300 ... 'course I never
tried putting 100 or so of them together in one machine and making
them cooperate, either...:-) )

GTE also still has routing errors in the Equal Access configurations
in most of their CO systems in the area.  When I report these, I am
told that no problem exists (by the CO supervisor!), but sure enough,
a couple weeks later things start working correctly....

All GTD-5 database changes are now batched in by Fort Wayne's regional
database group.  Local people claim they have no control over this,
and are absolutely not permitted to do any database entry locally.
This can be really absurd at times.  Example: conversion of trunks
from loop start to ground start (which requires similar database
changes in the customer PBX or call won't process)...we order the
conversion, and are told "It will happen sometime on Thursday"... and
sure enough it happens, but none knows when ... And don't even suggest
that Fort Wayne would make an error ... they messed up the carrier
selection at one of our Holiday Inns recently and effectively removed
operator assisted calling from the property for a weekend because only
Fort Wayne could fix it, and they don't work nites or weekends.  I got
to overhear an AT&T testboard supervisor chew out a GTE nite on-call
supervisor about this screw-up (to no avail, BTW)

I know I pick on GTE a lot, but all of this is absolutely true, I
swear!  If they spent as much money on employee training and decent
people as they do on PGA tour and NFL sponsorships, this might not be
the case.  GTE Mobilnet is a different story, they seem to do things
right.  All of the stuff I describe is local telephone operating
company problems I have personally been involved in.

Then again, I sometimes have problems with United Telephone, Centel
and Alltel, too.  Even with Ohio Bell from time to time, but none of
them is as tough to work with as GTE (or harder to get to fix their
screw-ups).  The GTD-5 isn't all that bad, considering what preceeded
it here, though.  The quality of the local people has a lot to do with
all this, though, but I sure do like 1A's 5's and DMS's better,
though.

I'm sure glad John Higdon has posted a few of his GTE problems,
otherwise I might sound like was the only one who deals with this
crap.  You readers out there with semi-decent local telcos don't know
the fun you are missing!  Please ignore the flecks of foam that form
around my mouth when I talk about GTE. ;-)   I'll go lie down now...


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]
Date: Sun, 6 May 90 23:57:47 -0400
Subject: Re: `cu' Question


> "how do I save the output of a cu session?

Larry Lippman responds:

> While there is more than one method to accomplish what you are
> desire, the simplest is probably:

>     cu -lttya2 | tee filename

> where both sides of the session are placed in the file "filename".

It would be a good idea to use ``tee -i filename'' instead because
this will cause tee to ignore your interrupt character.  Otherwise you
hit your ^C key to stop a command on the other end and you find
yourself logged off :-(


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

"AT&T computers - we're not THAT bad" - Bob Kavner


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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 01:37:11 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Solution to COCOT Problems: Fairness by Telco


(Another title might be:  Subject: Just say NO to COCOTs)

In article fmsystm![e-mail]

> The real winners from this ill-advised and uninformed legislation will be
> the telcos.  One fundamental problem left unresolved: COCOT lines do not
> receive the same services as those provided to the telco's own pay phones,
> and therefore COCOT lines cost more for less service.

I fail to see how the telcos will be the real winners; it strikes me
that the consumer will be the real winner (but then I don't sell my
body to the COCOT industry).  If they cost more, they should be
illegal.  If they would cost less if there were truely equal access et
al, then telco should be ordered to provide said service provided that
COCOT provide lower prices than telco.  All telcos shold be prohibited
from kickbacks and euphamisms for kickbacks.

> At least one state has begun to see the light and restructured the
> basic cost and service arrangements for ALL pay phones.  (CA, I think)

I think he is refering to CA (based on previous messages to the
Digest), but that statement only makes clear that he has not visited
CA.  Pay phones here are just as bad as elsewhere.  All the COCOTs
that I have noticed charge more than the PUC allows.  (Good to see
they have seen the light; I thought you meant all COCOTs were fiber
optic.  :-) )

> I agree that AOS's and COCOT's are often operated in a less than
> desirable fashion, but these bills do not attack the fundemental
> causes and issues involved.

The fundamental problem is that owner's of the property and the COCOTs
and AOSes are taking advantage of their monopoly location in order to
charge more than a competitive rate.  The issue is that the consumer
gets ripped off.  Could you provide one example of an AOS or COCOT
that does not operate (pun intended) in a less than desirable fashion?

> When will the telco's stop seeking to return to monopolistic practices?

The COCOTs and AOSes take advanrtage of their monopolistic location.
Don't just blame the local operating companies.  I don't particularly
care for the latter either, but at least they are regulated (to a
minimal extent).

> It will happen when our legislators and
> regulators begin to understand that "open" systems work to everyone's
> benefit in the long run, and begin to sturcture policy accordingly.

First off, I want to use the phone in the short run, not 3000 years
from now.  Second, open systems may work to everyone's advantage, but
call blocking and the like are not open.  If the COCOT and AOS phones
were truely open (and there was full information), there would be no
problem--these organizations would shrivel up and die from lack of
use.

> In this age of special interests and big money, the thought of a coherent
> national telecommuncations policy that promotes innovations and
> service seems to elude most politicians.  Its the public that will
> have to solve that.

When you are counting the special interests don't forget to include
the COCOTs and AOSes.  I am not really interested in all sorts of
unneeded innovation, I would much prefer lower prices.

> Are the informed readers of this Digest to believe that the benefits of
> competition in the telecom marketplace are not to our benefit?

There have been no benefits that I am aware of from COCOTs and AOSes.
They charge more and provide lower service.  They take advantage of
their monopoly position and avoid regulation.  I don't buy the
argument that prices would come down if these operators had all CO
services; I think they would just raise prices more.

Allowing scams under the guise of competition does not provide a
rational telecommunications policy.

David Gast

P.S. Some quoted statements were edited to shorten them and to correct
spelling and grammatical errors.

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

Date: Sun, 6 May 90 20:25 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing versus Cost of Touch-Tone Service


Steve Forrette wrote in volume 10, issue 321:

| Here's the description of Touch-Tone in the Pacific Bell directory:

| "... It also allows you to hook your phone up with a personal computer
| and access data bases, pay bills through your bank, and even shop
| electronically where these services are available."

| Really?  All that for only $1.20 a month?  What a deal...

And of course Pac*Bell implies (and Illinois Bell employees have
*insisted* to me) that unless you pay for tone dialing service, your
telephone instruments lose the capacity to generate tones.  Their
former parent manufactures telephones specifically designed to pulse a
number, send tones after connecting, and reset automatically to pulse
when you hang up; but the BOC's still lie and say that such a thing
cannot work: to use automated banking, voice mail, or "alternative"
long distance companies they'll swear that you need not only a
tone-producing phone but also tone-dial service on your line!

Thank God I'm served by an independent.  In my book, BOC stands for
"bites off and chews."  (OK, so I cleaned that up a little.)


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: Sun, 6 May 90 20:49:51 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone ABCD


Two minor nits: As pointed out to me the RS TT decoder uses a 3.58
color burst crystal, as do many encoder chips. The motorola family of
encoders and the Mitel decoder use 1 mhz chips (references still at my
office)

My Hayes Smartmodem 1200 dials ABCD with ATDTABCD * and # also work
correctly. My USRobotics HST 9600/450 dials only 1-0, * and #.
However, if one enters "EATHERE" i.e. ATDT"EATHERE" it translates the
portion in the " to the appropriate numbers.

Short article still forthcoming on TT encoder modifications.


 | [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  |

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 7 May 90 14:36:00 GMT


Sounds like MCI would make a great topic for a "frequently asked
questions" posting... I had a problem with them myself, when they
billed me for services but never supplied them.


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone].      <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.

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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Really About Relays and Reality :-)
Date: 7 May 90 06:55:27 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


I don't intend to get suckered into a "I'm right and you're wrong"
type of debate but I would like to point out that a certain sensitive
DPDT relay does (or, at least, did) exist.

I had purchased an old homebrew ham transceiver that had with it a
direct-connect phone patch (homemade of course,) which had two
sensitive relays which were DPDT. These were hermtically sealed cans
of a mil-spec style.  Now, how do I know that they were DPDT and
sensitive all in one package?  The diagram and description of the
relay were too obviously marked to miss, fortunately. A test of the
relays showed one to operate at 47 microamps and the other operated at
45 microamps. The minimum current went up with temperature. They were
made by Leeds & Northrup and were in grey rectangular cans about
1x1x2.5 inches in size.

Concerning D'Arsonval meter relays, I have seen several types from the
Simpson temperature meters (type K TC, with low voltage control
outputs) to Varian's 810 series TC pressure gauges that use one or
more poles, with options for combinations of one or more poles,
throws, whether a combination of SPST NO & NC, make-before-break,
break-before-make, et cetera, ad nauseum.  BTW, don't forget the small
specialty meter companies who will make any kind of meter-relay
combination a customer could want. A company in the Los Angeles area
provided my company with special meters for some old Davis-Wilder
metal evaporation equipment that used an obsolete type of multi-pole
meter relay after D-W was bought out and shut down by TRW.

It might be safer for some to admit to the possibility of something
rather than be so adamant that something cannot be. MOre often than
not, it seems that they tend to be proven wrong.


jd
[e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Custom Ringing
Date: 7 May 90 07:39:41 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]>:

>I ask as I recently ordered [Distinctive Ringing]...
>while I was out of the office, a TELCO installer
>actually came by and did something on the frame.  The visit made me
>feel a tad bit better about my $23, but I am now most curious WHY the
>guy actually came by and physically "diddled" with the line.

He may not have really.  When I converted my lines to Centrex (on
1AESS in GTE-land), an installer came out "to explain the features to
you".  I told him to just give me the codes and get lost.

When my bill came, they had charged me big bucks for a premise visit.
They insisted the installer must have done something.  _I_ insisted
that only CO work was required and I refuse to pay for a premise
visit.  They finally gave in and credited me the charge.   




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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #326
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24421;
          8 May 90 4:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14057;
          8 May 90 3:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21721;
          8 May 90 2:08 CDT
Date:     Tue, 8 May 90 1:53:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #327
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 May 90 01:50:08 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 327

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Dennis Brophy]
    Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Carl Moore]
    Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification [Shamim Zvonko Mohamed]
    Re: More on Austrian Phones [Wolf Paul]
    Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID [John Higdon]
    Re: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud [John Higdon]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers? [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Ring Amplification [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Caller ID Boxes [Henry Troup]
    Buying Telecom Tools [Edward Greenburg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 09:44:53 PDT
From: Dennis Brophy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification


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

>If I knew who to complain to, or how to followup on it, I would.  But,
>not having remembered the phone number, it's a little tough.

If you get the "prize" notification again, you will want to remember
the number and notify the Oregon Department of Justice, Consumer
Protection in Salem, OR at 378-4320.


Dennis Brophy           INTERNET: [e-mail]
Mentor Graphics Corp.   MCI MAIL: 4222648 (...!uiucuxc!mcimail.com!0004222648)
8500 SW Creekside Place      VOICE: [phone]
Beaverton, OR 97005-7191       FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 14:22:00 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification


In that phone message telling me to call 800-752-7979 (which, by the
way, was busy when I tried it), I was also given 2-character code C2.

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

From: Shamim Zvonko Mohamed <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A So-called "Prize" Notification
Date: 8 May 90 01:49:48 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


Unfortunately, I wasn't home, but my girlfriend answered this call. It
was almost identical to these:

[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>I received a phone call in my Maryland office today which told me
>about calling 800-752-7979 and giving a 2-character code.  This is a
>"prize" notification (I take it to be "so-called").

Yup, same 800 number...

motcid![e-mail] (Maureen Behof) writes:

>one was about. I was first asked what my two-character code was (mine
>was C2). Then I was asked what number I was called on.

and same two-character code!

>United Telemarketing. When asked who they were affiliated with, the
>reply was United Telemarketing.

They said United Marketing Group, of Independence OH. The scam was
slightly different: `you have already won one of these 4 prizes!' - a
TV (56"!!!), a trip to Hawaii, $2500 in cash or a $1000 savings bond,
provided we paid $379 for a cruise to the Bahamas (that's what the
VISA number was required for). Also, she spoke to two different
voices, both identifying themselves as `Tim.' They reassured her that
she could call back within 30 days and cancel the whole schmeer, but
non toll-free at [phone].

We will, of course, stop payment on the VISA and call them tomorrow to
call the whole thing off. What do you think of (say) letting the OH
Attorney General know about these people?


Shamim Mohamed / {uunet,noao,cmcl2..}!arizona!shamim / [e-mail]

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Austrian Phones
Date: Mon, 7 May 90 11:05:06 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


In TELECOM Digest 10/320, [e-mail]
(Steve Gaarder) writes:

> move so fast you couldn't get a conversation in.  This suggests that
> the pointer was driven by some signal from the CO.  Anybody know more?

Yes. The pointer is driven by the same impulses from the CO which
drive the optional unit displays you can get from the PTT to attach to
your line, and which were discussed here recently.

> Another interesting item was the "Vierteltelefon," a type of
> four-party line.  We had one of these; it differed from the standard

They are still around, although these days there are at most two
parties connected per line, and in some instances only one; but they
still work the same way.

> The box also klunked just before the phone rang, or any other phone on
> the line rang.  So we'd be eating dinner, hear the klunka-klunka, and
> have a few seconds of suspense wondering whether it would ring or not.

The klunka-klunka sounds differently depending on whether the incoming
call is for you or for one of the other parties on the same line, and
with some practice one can tell if it's going to ring. There is also a
tiny noise whenever one of the other parties obtains dial tone, and
again when they hang up.

Party lines are being phased out here in tandem with the conversion
from mechanical to digital CO equipment: the PTT has lowered the fixed
monthly charge for so-called "full lines", and conversion from party
to full connection is free of charge when performed (forcibly) in the
context of a CO conversion (normally, they charge AS 400/$35 for the
conversion).

You need a full line for almost all phone accessories, with only
answering machines (rented from the PTT) being allowed on a party
line; you also need a full line in order to obtain an account for the
PTT's videotext service, BTX. One of the annoying side effects of the
mechanical-to-digital CO conversion is that if your CO is scheduled
for conversion within a year, they will no longer do on-demand
conversions from party to full lines, so you have to wait until its
your turn; never mind if you need to use certain accessories or
services only available with a full line.

The new digital CO equipment being installed here comes from Northern
Telecom, and is here referred to as the "OES" switch, which seems to
be a designation thought up by the Austrian PTT; I have been unable to
get information on the NT designation of that same switch. If there is
anyone among the readers of this digest who knows about NT's Austrian
project and can provide more technical info on the equipment involved,
I'd appreciate it.

Just one more sample of prices here: the Austrian PTT now offers Call
Forwarding, either to a single phone number, where all you do is
enable or disable it at will, or like the American version, to any
number of your choice everytime you enable it. There is a $30 charge
to turn on the feature, a monthly charge of about $35, and of course,
since Austria has no unmetered calling, you also pay the call charges
for all forwarded calls, even local ones (They are in effect charged
twice, once to the calling party, and once to the forwarding party!).
I might get around to entering a few more interesting price items, but
not today.


Wolf Paul

Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: [phone]     FAX: [phone]      UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: [e-mail]    BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Local Telco Boneheadisms: Digital DID / Analog DID ??
Date: 7 May 90 11:23:41 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


fmsystm![e-mail] writes:

> I still do not understand why a loop start Centrex line costs less
> than a regular business line.  I do not think Centrex requires less CO
> capacity.  Sure sounds like cross-subsidized service to me.  Of
> course, the telco's argument is "economy of scale", but ten lines is
> ten lines, right?  I can understand, perhaps, ten vs. ten thousand.

You betcha it's cross-subsidized service. We "standard service"
suckers are served from the same switch the Centrex people are, but we
have to pay more. Centrex is what the telcos use to compete with PBX
vendors, who must depend on trunk service for their product to work.
Guess who provides trunk service (or lack thereof when the mood
strikes.)

In the case of Pac*Bell's mini Centrex (Commstar II), the cost is much
more than regular service. You pay full freight on the line and then
they add an $8.00 charge to that. Is standard Centrex vulture priced?
Naww...

BTW, Pac*Bell does not deliver standard service on T1, either. What's
more, the only proposed ISDN offerings are for (hold on to your hat)--
CENTREX customers!


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud
Date: 7 May 90 11:48:05 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


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

>      How was the identity of offending subscribers ascertained?  By
> looking for anomalies of the nature mentioned by the Moderator,
> including but by no means limited to: unusually long and frequent DA
> calls; unusually long toll call "attempts" where no answer supervision
> was ever returned; toll calls of a comparatively short distance where
> answer supervision was unusually delayed; 800 calls with anomalies in
> answer supervision; etc.

Quite right. This is why no phreak with any brains would ever use his
own phone, a phone served from an ESS office, DA as the dialed call,
or his blue box repeatedly from the same phone. Originally, DA did not
supervise and one of the "gotchas" was when a DA call showed up as
supervised on the AMA tapes. Also, it was suspected that a completed
call to a non-working 800 number would sound the alarm.

A favorite of blueboxers was a tandem on the east coast that, while
difficult to route through, would not pass supervision. This would
allow mean-spirited people to call a number (through this tandem) and
hold it up indefinately.

>     What many Blue Box toll fraud perpetrators failed to realize
> was that in an ESS office the toll accounting software always knew
> that the subscriber was connected to a toll trunk, and only three
> conditions could exist: (1) answer supervision was returned and the
> subscriber was getting billed for the call, which was just fine and
> dandy; or (2) there was *no* answer supervision and the call was
> taking much longer than "normal"; (3) answer supervision occurred,
> dropped, and occurred *again* - which is real suspicious.

Many perpetrators did, indeed, know this, but there were other reasons
that ESS offices were generally avoided. One was the fact that ESS
recognizes supervision much faster than SXS or Crossbar. Some of the
distant tandems returned a somewhat protracted wink and that would be
enough to convince the originating office that a call had supervised.
The hapless toll cheat would "blow off" the 800 call, only to find
himself listening to dial tone twelve seconds later.

For a number of years, Los Gatos was the cheaters paradise. The
directorized SXS would send local calls outside of Los Gatos through
the San Jose local tandem. However, its release time was much greater
than the release time of the tandem, so it was only necessary to flash
the hookswitch after dialing a local call. You would hear a "ka-plunk
klunk" and then silence. At that point, standard MF signaling would
send you anywhere on the planet Earth. Since these were local trunks,
and were for "internal" telco use, there was no ticketing. No SF was
required to drop the call, which was a major plus for perpetrators who
were convinced at the time that a primary method for trapping
blueboxers was 2600 Hz detectors.


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

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 14:57:06 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?


01-NPA-XXX-XXXX?  Recall the Digest article which had someone reaching
Adelaide, Australia, when area 618 in Illinois was intended?  61 is
the country code for Australia.

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 03:02:51 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Context-dependent Phone Numbers?
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| Nevertheless, most exchanges in town will absorb the "1" (none require
| it). On a client's PBX I have, just to be ornary, set up the ARS so
| that if any one dials a "1" before a station-to-station call, they are
| sumarily sent to a recording that says, "It is not necessary to dial a
| '1' when calling this number. Please hang up and try your call again."

That's nasty, John! Given that all us poor folk in (415)-land [right
next door, for those of you who don't know the Bay Area] *have* to
dial the "1" to get to anybody in (408)-land, and given that many of
us live in one world and work (or at least visit) in the other, such
"ornariness" is nothing but cruel!

Remember the first rule of good protocol implementations, "Be strict
in what you emit, but generous in what you accept."


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: Tue, 8 May 90 03:55:49 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Amplification
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes:

| Building a ring repeater is too complicated to describe without a
| blackboard and lots of handwaving.

Besides, you can go down to Radio Shack and buy one that you can plug
a 110v lamp into. (It's intended for the hard of hearing, but any app
will do.)


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: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Boxes
Date: 7 May 90 16:17:38 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> Bill Berbenich <eedsp![e-mail]>
writes:

>I also suspect NT has a few units, but have been unsuccessful in
>finding a distribution center for them which sells to the public.
>Anyone got a number for Northern Telecom?

1-800-NORTHERN
which is
1-800-667-8437

For non-800 users:
Canada 1-416-670-8115 (Customer Service Division)
U.S.   1-919-481-8000 (Customer Services (NTI))
Austria      715-1212 (NT Liason Office (Europe))
England       81-3000 (Maidenhead, England: NT Europe Office)
Hong Kong    831-2888 (NT Asia)

Note: I'm not sure that the Canada and U.S. numbers are really direct sales.
I'd start in the phone book, or 1-800-NORTHER(N).
Read the disclaimer.


Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 or  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 00:45 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Buying Telecom Tools


I recently tried to go shopping for some telecom tools and supplies.
I wanted to get a tracing beeper, an inductive pickup, and a modular
adapter (to bring the modular pins out in order to attach a test set.)

I found that Graybar in San Jose won't sell to anybody who doesn't
have a California resale certificate.  I thought that the days of
phone-paranoia were over.

Does anybody know of a source that publishes a catalog from which I
can mail order items such as these?  Hello Direct just won't cut it.


                               -e

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #327
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26071;
          8 May 90 5:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24727;
          8 May 90 4:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14057;
          8 May 90 3:14 CDT
Date:     Tue, 8 May 90 2:35:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #328
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 May 90 02:35:15 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 328

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Questions About Audiovox CMT-450 [W. L. Ware]
    Programming Guide for Audiovox CMT-350 [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Telephone Tools and Workmanship [Macy Hallock]
    Splashing (was Re: Legislation Regulating COCOTs) [Evan Eickmeyer]
    Questions About Ultraphone 100 [George Pell]
    Toshita Business Phone Systems [John Marvin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About Audiovox CMT-450
Date: 7 May 90 23:49:40 GMT
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


Thanks to Marcel Mongeon's infomation on entering programming mode on
this phone I have managed to do so. However of the 20-odd parameters I
can only deduce what 3 of them do. I would appreciate any information on
what the other parameters control.

Anyone know?

Lance

*W.L.Ware                                             LANCEWARE SYSTEMS*
*WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu                    Value Added reseller*
*WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu                          Mac and IBM Access. *

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

Date: 7-MAY-1990 15:40:13.08
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programming Guide For Audiovox CMT-450


Hi again-

To follow up on my earlier posting about reprogramming an Audiovox
CMT-450 Cell Phone, I found out a few things which may be of interest:

1. Thanks to Marcel M. @ joymrmn , I managed to look at the resigsters
in my phone. To do this, (and to recap), you enter your LOCK code,
press FUNC then "#" and then "1". You should see the registers listed
as:

      01C- 555
      02C- 1212
      03C- LOCK code (normally the last 3 digits of your number, in this
                      case 212)
      04C- Area Code
      05C- Home Code (I *think*- 00119 is what my cell co. told me, and
                      it's what the phone had, so I figure it is my home
                      code.)
      06C to 09C are all "1". (I have no idea what these are for.)
      10C - 10                (Again, no idea)
      11C - 00                ("")
      12C - 0000              ("")
      13C - 1                 ("")
      14C - 1                 ("")
      15C - 333               (This LOOKS like something to do with what
                               channels I can use...Anyone have any idea
                               what this number really is?)
      16C - 1                 ( Again, no idea...)
      17C - 008               ("")
      18C - 000               ("")
      19C - 000               ("")
      20C - 00021             (What's this? Looks like another Cell System
                   ID code...(I don't have a dual-NAM...))
      21C - 00               (Again, no idea...)
      22C - 00                ("")
      23C - 000               ("")
      24C - XXX               (LOCK code, again...)
      25C - 000               (?)
      26C - 3F                (This one is odd - it seems to change when I
                               implement changes to other registers, such
                   as the phone number or area code. )
      27C - 80                 (?)


      The first register that comes up after you enter FUNC - # - 1 is 01C.
      You can use the "*" and the "#" buttons to go sequentially down or
      up through the registers.

      One thing that I did notice that was different from the procedure for
      storing any new information entered into the registers was that unlike
      the CMT-5000, you need to press STORE, then FUNC - SEND, then FUNC -
      CLEAR. (You can alternately just turn the phone off after pressing
      FUNC and then SEND.) This differs from the CMT-5000 as there you need
      only enter STORE and then FUNC-CLEAR.

2. I also noticed that if you change your home system ID code, and thus your
   phone thinks you are ROAMing at home, it looks first for the Bell-B carrier,
   and if it can't find that it looks for the "A" (non-wireline) carrier.

   IE, I changed my home code to 00555, and instead of getting my
   (non-wireline) carrier's "New Roamer Info" Message I got the Bell
   carrier's. I had to switch over to get the non-wireline's message.

   Is this so for all Cell phones? If so, doesn't it give the Bells (or
   whomever the "B" carrier is) an advantage over the "A"/non-wireline
   carriers? Lets say I ROAM into an area that my "A" company doesn't have
   an agreement with. (Unlikely nowadays, but anyhow...).  Will I always
   automatically get the "B" carrier first? Or is this also a feature that
   one can program into their phone? (IE, there is some register which tells
   the phone "I am to look for the 'B' system first, then 'A'." which can be
   adjusted to do the reverse?)

3. After speaking with someone in the switchroom at my cell co., they told
   me it really doesn't matter what I designate as my home system ID code
   when I am in my own system. As long as the phone number and ESN are correct,
   the phone will work, and I will pay *home* rates, even if my phone says
   ROAM on it. They said while the ID makes a difference for roaming purposes
   when I ROAM into other systems, at home the code is basically used
   by my Cell Phone to tell it when to turn off the ROAM indicator/"light".
   Is this correct, or does the home system ID serve some other purpose
   in terms of usage in my home area?

   (Interestingly, the switchroom staff were quite helpful, and not really
    surprised that I wanted to know this stuff. They did, however, caution
    me not to mention too much of this to customer service, because once
    they found out that I needed service elsewhere, "they'll probably try to
    sell you a dual-NAM phone!"...I guess this does deprive them of some
    revenue in a way! :-)  )

If anyone has any further insight about this, I'd appreciate hearing about
it..!

Thanks,


Doug

[e-mail] / @wesleyan.bitnet


[Moderator's Note: 15-C = 333 means channel 333 is the default place
to start looking for a paging signal. It works backward from 333, then
forward again. The A carriers seem to start at 333 and work backward
while the B carriers start at 334 and word forward. Also, A carriers
always have an odd carrier code, i.e. 00177 or 00253. B carriers
always have an even code, i.e. Ameritech is 00020. Depending if you
are programmed to an even or odd number, when your home carrier (as
indicated by the five digit number) cannot be reached then the attempt
to roam is first tried on that type of carrier. For example, your home
carrier is an A, then first 'right of roaming' will be some other A
carrier. Likewise for B. The A/B roam default depends on whether you
were on an odd or even, i.e. A or B, carrier for home purposes.  I
think the 10-C = 10 is saying your phone is capable of using all 832
channels instead of the older style which could only use 600+. You
have to keep the value 10 there to tell the tower you can use the
so-called 'spectrum' channels. At least two of the registers with '1'
are toggles allowing 0/1 only. These tell the tower what 'access' and
'local' handling is to be applied to your call in the event of heavy
call volume requiring some calls to go unserviced.  ** REMEMBER: DO
NOT RE-PROGRAM YOUR PHONE WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CARRIER YOU
WILL BE USING. SHOW THEM YOUR WORK; HAVE THEM OKAY IT. **  PT]

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Subject: Telephone Tools and Workmanship
Date: Mon May  7 09:17:35 1990
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> :
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 322, Message 1 of 11

>In a message of <May 01 17:29> Jim Gonzalez ([e-mail] ) writes:

> JG>I've gotten no replies in sci.electronics to my inquiry about
> JG>inexpensive punch-down tools.  I think I've located one, though.
> JG>Specialized Tool (800-527-5018) has the usual Dracon 714 for $45,
> JG>but they also offer a less expensive one for $16.
[ additional discussions about punch down tools deleted....]

I'm glad to see this information being discussed.  Here are my thoughts:

Everyone who wants to control and work with telecom stuff needs:

    - A butt-in (hand test telephone)
    - A 714-type puch down tool
    - Short-nose pliers (narrow nose for use in between
      rows of a 66-type block)
    - Tone trace generator
    - Inductive trace tone amplifier (banana)
    - Modular plug crimp tool
    - A Sanford Sharpie (fine point) to write on the wire
      (This is the only marker we have found to do this well)
    - Other basic tools (screwdriver, meter, etc)
    - A little training from a REAL telecom installer
      (some things you just cannot get from books)
    - Gray electrical tape (you tell a real installer by
      color of his electrical tape...)

If you don't have all this, you are not prepared to do any decent
telecom work.

However...

The world is changing.  There are a couple of new types of connecting
blocks out there that will not work with a 714 tool (BIX, ATT's new
PDS block to name a couple).  Of course, fiber is a whole specialized
field in itself, too.  T1 services and twisted pair type LAN's require
more equipment, too.

Moral of the story: When you wire a building, think of the tools you
will need to service the system.  Observe good practices from the
start.

To expand on this point:

The fact is: the wiring is the most expensive part of the system.
Phone systems (and computers) may come and go, but the wiring you live
with for years and years...

I find the wiring system to bo the most neglected part of systems I
inspect in the field.  Since it is hidden away in closets and behind
walls, no one thinks of it as the "glue" that holds all our wonderful
technology together.  Bad wire = lousy communications.

Far too often I find the wiring is left to a untrained building
maintenance type who just "throws" the wire in, with no regard for
appearance, operation, or records.  I find plant electricians to be
the worst offenders, they do not take low voltage wiring seriously.  I
have charged customers thousands of dollars to clean up other peoples
messes ... and suddenly everything starts working right again.

Did you know the National Electrical Code says:
    - you cannot attach wiring to electrical conduits
    - you cannot lay wiring loose on top of a suspended
      ceiling.  You must support the wire off the ceiling.
    - specific types of wire must be used in certain
      areas.

Do you know the difference and application of these wire types:
    - CMR
    - CM2
    - CMP
    - CMX
    - CLR
    - CL2
    - CLP      (I may have missed a couple...)
    - CLX      (I'm working from memory, here)

So, use good tools.  Know what you are doing.  Label wires and jacks.
Work neatly.  Remove old, dead jumpers. Observe Code.  Clean things up
as you go.  Keep records.  It may not make a difference the day you
make the changes, but quality and well-thought-out work will always
pay in the end.  (Isn't it interesting that the same rules apply to
Unix systems administration and so many other technical things?)

Just a few thoughts from someone out on the front lines every day.


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: Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Splashing (was Re: Legislation Regulating COCOTs)
Date: 7 May 90 21:20:00 GMT
Organization: 1990 Rose Bowl Champions (USC), Los Angeles, California


In article <[e-mail]> fe2o3![e-mail] (Michael
Katzmann) writes:

>Another common consumer complaint involves splashing, also known as
>forward splashing. It works like this: a person using a PPP in Kansas
>City, Mo., calls a number in St. Louis, using the services of an AOS.
>The caller asks to be transferred to AT&T, but does not know that the
>AOS is based in Dallas and that he or she is being connected to an
>AT&T operator there.  Thus the AT&T operator, unaware of the situation
>and unable to rectify it in any case, bills for an interstate, long
>distance call from Dallas, rather than a relatively inexpensive call
>within Missouri. Unfortunately for the user, the situation does not
>become clear until the telephone bill arrives.

I have encountered splashing only once (to my knowledge), last year at
the Super 8 Motel next to Nellis AFB at Las Vegas (in case anyone
wants to stop by and check :-).  Their COCOT was connected to some
AOS, and I wanted to use AT&T to call school (Los Angeles) and home
(near Palm Springs).  I dialed 00, informed the "operator" that I
wanted an AT&T operator.  I was instructed to move the telephone
handset away from my head, which proved to be good advice as a VERY
LOUD tone of approximately 5 seconds duration followed.  This tone
somehow succeeded (can someone tell me how?) as I then had an AT&T
operator.

I explained to the operator that I was at a COCOT and did not want to
be charged for operator assistance.  Fine, no problem.  I gave the
operator my Los Angeles telephone number, and the operator said "Sir,
you can't call Los Angeles long distance from Los Angeles."  I said,
"OK, I'm in Las Vegas."  The operator said, "On my console, I show you
as calling from area code 213."  I could not get the operator to
connect the call for me.  Then I asked her if she could connect the
call to Palm Springs (now being a different LATA from Los Angeles
thanks to GTE and Pacific Bell, but I digress).  She said that she
could not only connect the call, but that I would actually save money
because I would be billed for a Los Angeles to Palm Springs call
rather than a Las Vegas to Palm Springs call, and she was right when
the phone bill came!  So, in some cases, splashing can actually save
you money (but I agree that it should be prohibited).


Evan "Biff Henderson" Eickmeyer               University of Southern California
[e-mail]                                  Los Angeles, California
Apparently off to McGeorge School of Law (Univ. of the Pacific), Sacramento, CA

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

From: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About Ultraphone 100
Date: 8 May 90 00:29:08 GMT
Reply-To: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


Does anyone have any information on the "Ultraphone 100" system?

The system serves the high desert in eastern Oregon, replacing the
hard wired multi-party lines which were a constant maintenance
problem.  It consists of a couple of boxes of equipment, and a
vertically polarized yagi antenna marked 430 - 477 Mhz.  I was unable
to pick up any recognizable transmissions using a scanner while the
phone was in use, except there was a lot of digital signals at various
frequencies.

Is this system digital, and therefore relatively secure?  What else
can anyone tell me about it.

The customer (brother in law) was told that it was experimental, and
had been also tried out in Texas.

geo

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 15:56:23 mdt
From: John Marvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toshiba Business Phone Systems


    Does anyone have any good/bad experiences with Toshiba business
telephone equipment?  My church is in the process of deciding on a
business phone system to buy, and other members are pretty much sold
on a Merlin Plus system.  I was looking into Panasonic systems since I
had seen so many recommendations here in TELECOM Digest.  A
Communications World salesman (nationwide business telephone dealer)
explained that Panasonic had a hole in its offerings between their
lower end key systems and their DBS (Digital Business System).  He
said that Toshiba had something that competed directly with AT&T
Merlin systems and that Toshiba offered discounts to non-profit
organizations.

    Since our previous business system was a repair nightmare (Paragon
by TIE Communications), we really want to make sure that we buy a
quality system this time. Also, I would appreciate hearing about any
experiences you may have had with Communications World (they claim to
be the 5th largest Toshiba dealer in the country).

    Since I am kind of in a hurry for information, I would appreciate
replies mailed directly to me.

    John Marvin
    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #328
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16195;
          9 May 90 3:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29101;
          9 May 90 1:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19459;
          9 May 90 0:24 CDT
Date:     Wed, 9 May 90 0:15:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #329
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 May 90 00:15:29 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 329

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    DID / Local Telcos [Steve Elias]
    Phones in Yugoslavia [Jeffrey Silber]
    Re: Toll-free Calls in Various Countries [Pat Cain]
    Automatic Phone Number Identifier [Joe Wiesenfeld]
    Two Phone Lines on a Single Pair [[e-mail]]
    Privacy Revelations [John Higdon]
    Northern Telecom Phone Numbers [Wolf Paul]
    AT&T Services, Missing Information, Thank-you... [David R. Haller]
    "Slate vs. Gray" & Polarity-Sensitive Touch-Tone Dials [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: DID / Local Telcos
Date: Mon, 07 May 90 07:06:22 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Macy's Ohio telco sure does sound nasty and boneheaded, to be sure.
Why is it that GTE switch telcos are so damned nasty?  The switch
technology is unreliable, as shown by Mr. Higdon's repeated reports
about the idiocy he has to deal with in California, but what's the
Ohio telco's excuse for those nasty policies regarding DID lines?

I'd say that a complaint to the state DPU (or whatever it's called in
Ohio) would be reasonable.  I don't feel so bad about the 3 months it
took to get my DID line installed, after hearing about all the telco
silliness in Ohio!


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone)
; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7419 (hard copy fax)


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

From: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phones in Yugoslavia
Date: 7 May 90 15:00:49 GMT
Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


My sister recently took a phone to use in Yugoslavia.  She said it
worked for two weeks and then stopped.  Does anyone know if the phone
system in Yugoslavia should work with U.S. phones (pulse type)?

Thanks.


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

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 16:21 M
From: Pat Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll-free Calls in Various Countries
Organization: Actrix Public Access UNIX, Wellington, New Zealand


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:

>I'm told that New Zealand, like Britain and unlike Australia, uses
>0800 for toll-free, but they only introduced it recently.  Until then
>they only had "Freefone" numbers, which you had to ask the operator
>for; this is again British style.  (It is of course the same thing as
>the North American "Zenith" or "Enterprise" numbers.)

The 0800 system was introduced a few months ago.  Before that there
were free phone numbers where you would dial the area code and the
phone number.  I'm almost certain that there was no operator
involvement - I never spoke to an operator when I used the service and
wasn't billed for the calls.

Recently Telecom have introduced the 0900 system here too.  The first
service available on it was an accurate talking clock which had
previously been free.  I have only seen one more 0900 number
advertised so far, but I suppose the 0900 service will become more
popular as time goes on.

Just as a side note, NZ Telecom has started changing all the phone
numbers here over to seven digits (phone numbers were previously three
to seven digits).  They are also changing area codes (previously one
to five digits) so that they are all one digit.  There will only be
five area codes to cover the whole country whereas before there were
over eighty!  This will mean most of the country will have new phone
numbers between 1990 and 1992 which will probably create a lot of
confusion.

I suppose all these changes have got something to do with the fact
that Telecom are facing some competition -- currently they are a
monopoly.  NZ Railways have installed fibre optic links along their
trunk rail lines and plan to compete for toll calls (NZR are in
partnership with some big US company, MCI I think).  Another company
have announced they intend to compete for tolls too (but they will use
microwave links rather than cables).


patrick cain
e-mail: [e-mail]    or  [e-mail]
bbs   : [phone] {Sideways BBS, BBC & Archimedes}

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 14:45:32 PDT
From: Joe Wiesenfeld <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automatic Phone Number Identifier


I just had my phones moved from one building to another.  The phone
man dialed 200-222-2222 and a computer generated answer gave the phone
number.

This was the test that was run by the installer.

I'm going to try it at home - also a NYNEX line but a different
central office.


Joe Wiesenfeld
TRW IND
[phone]
Framingham, MA  01701

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Two Phone Lines on a Single Pair
Date: Mon,  7-May-90 22:18:53 PDT


What with all the talk about A) running out of wires to connect a
phone B) Installation costs; I thought I would relate my most recent
experiences.

I moved to the small town of Ellensburg, Washington and wanted a
second line installed in the house. The phone company is a small
independent, which even has its own museum! Credit card calls still
require operator intervention. Direct dialed long distance calls used
to require the operator to ask you for your home number, and manually
enter it to generate the correct billing, but that was automated a few
years ago.  The house was on a dead-end street where all the wires
were used up, and they had no plans to ever string any more wires. So
they hooked me up on the same set of lines that already hooked up the
house, frequency multiplexing it on the existing pair of wires. The
installer said he knew of some rural areas that had eight phones
connected to the same single pair of wires.

This enabled me to get a dial tone, and I called lots of places with
both voice and modem without any trouble (including USR HST at the
14,400 bps rate.) But it did not provide line power to make my fancy
phone remember numbers, or light the in-use lights, etc. Also, days
when I made hours or more of calls, the battery would get run down and
my phone quit working! The battery was trickle charged off of the
regular line's power. There was no provision to power it from house
A.C. power. Furthermore, the equipment box was mounted outside and was
thus subject to large temperature extremes which must have effected
the battery.

Well, I moved to Oakland, California. Twice before I had second lines
installed in Oakland with no trouble and only the standard ($34.75
plus $3 more for touch tone) installation fee. But this time they were
out of pairs (again.) The installer told me the street had only sixteen
pairs and there are about sixteen houses on the street, but many of the
houses have converted basements for apartments, and several people
have home office lines, etc.

So once again, they frequency multiplexed me on to the existing house
line (for my first line.) But then they did drag another pair of wires
up the street about 175 feet to give me an "official" pair of wires,
so at least my phone more or less works.  I use a Panasonic two line
phone that has nice line-in-use lights to remind me my modem is
off-hook and all that. Except now both lights go on when I pick up one
line, and neither light goes on when the modem picks up its regular
line. Oh, well, that's progress. When the lines were connected, the
installer said, "we were told we weren't going to have to use these
things anymore" (the box that frequency multiplexed.) He said they may
eventually rewire the block I am on.

Anyway, I conclude that those places lacking sufficient wires can use
the same box I have used in two different states as they seem to be
readily available. I can find no part number on my box. It is about
the size of a full sized modem, and also had a small isolation
transformer attached to the phone lines before the wires go into the
bigger box. A small (lead-acid?) battery is contained inside the
larger box, which seemed to be mostly empty. I suppose I can rip it
apart if anyone is especially curious as to the details as it is
mounted inside the house in a closet.

As a side note, I had the installer reverse the pairs of wires on the
second, regular line where it came into the house, so that when both
the regular line coming in from the pole, and the other line that was
multiplexed on to the existing house wire, were all joined together,
that I would have both lines on the four wire cord run through out my
basement apartment. Upon reflection, it may have been better to leave
it alone and just switch the wires internally so as not to confuse
future occupants. I think I will try and switch it back when I leave.

To further confuse things, it worked out much better for me to swap
pairs on one of the house internal connectors so that my modem could
be on the default line one pair. If I don't reset everything when I
leave, the next poor person will have some trouble-shooting to do.
Also, while each line seemed to have worked fine at the time the
installer left, the entire arrangement of connecting five pairs
together left some slight short so that the lines experienced cross
talk to the point my modem would not work correctly on one line when
the other line was picked up.  I disconnected everything and
reconnected them and now things work fine (famous last words, I know!)

The next week my home fax machine died, but that is another story.


[e-mail]   Some words are worth a thousand pictures.

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

Subject: Privacy Revelations
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 7 May 90 23:14:46 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Tonight in the first of a series on the 11 o'clock news on Channel 7,
the breach of privacy through technology was discussed. This report
dealt with cellular phones. With tones of shock and surprise, the
reporter revealed that conversations on cellular (and cordless) phones
can be monitored by others. Faith 'n beghorra, what's next?

The reporter, cameraman in tow, rode around with a "scanner freak" who
tuned in various calls and talked about how easy it was to get a radio
that could receive these frequencies or how to modify radios that had
the frequencies blocked. There was one mention that the practice was
"technically illegal", but then the reporter added that the law was
unenforceable.

Really, now, are there still people who don't know that cellular calls
are "on the air"? Well, judging from what is freely talked about on
the cellular bands, apparently so.


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

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Northern Telecom Phone Numbers
Date: Tue, 8 May 90 12:42:49 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


In TELECOM Digest V10 #327, Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
writes:

> >Anyone got a number for Northern Telecom?

> For non-800 users:
> Canada 1-416-670-8115 (Customer Service Division)
> U.S.   1-919-481-8000 (Customer Services (NTI))
> Austria      715-1212 (NT Liason Office (Europe))
> England       81-3000 (Maidenhead, England: NT Europe Office)
> Hong Kong    831-2888 (NT Asia)

I don't know about Hong Kong and England, but the Austrian number also
needs a city code, 0222 for Vienna. Or, in the much-discussed
context-independent format: [phone]. That number is indeed
answered, in English, but with a strong Austrian accent, "Good
afternoon, Northern Telecom" ( or rather, "Norzern Telecom" :-)).


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: uunet!stsusa.com![e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Services, Missing Information, Thank-you
Date: 1 May 90 14:13:41 GMT
Organization: Siemens Transmission Systems, Albuquerque, NM


I have a couple of experiences to relate and a couple of questions
that have risen from them.

I recently moved into an apartment with a roommate.  When our phone
service was started (US West), we chose to use AT&T as our primary LD
carrier.  We did not immediately sign up for any other "advanced
services".  My roommate and I make 90% of our calls outside the US and
had discussed signing up for "Reach out World (sm)" ... sometime...

A couple of weeks later, unknown to me, my roommate phoned AT&T to
sign up for the ROW program.  They told him "no problem, my
information shows that we can have you signed up at midnight tonight."
When first contacted and given our phone number, area code and billing
name, they then asked us if AT&T was our primary carrier!

    Q1) Why does AT&T not know that we chose AT&T?

They seem to be anxiously waiting to say "Thank-you for choosing AT&T"
[ does the operator just push a button that injects his/her personally
recorded version of the motto out the line? :-) ]

My roommate forgot to tell me about signing up for the service.  A
week later, I called and joined ROW too.  They gave me the standard
questions and again thanked me for choosing AT&T, not knowing that we
a) already had joined ROW or b) had chosen AT&T as our primary LD
carrier.

    Q2) Why did AT&T not know that we are already members of
            the ROW program?

In addition, the operator told me (paraphrased) ... "that the billing
arrangements had not been completed between AT&T and US West for the
program and it may take 2-3 months before a credit for our LD calls
are credited to our account resulting from the reduced rates."

    Q3) Why didn't my roommate get told that the phone bill would
            be no different for 2-3 months?

Sounds to me that AT&T does not have a very good information system to
back up the very polite and courteous operators.  Maybe the
information systems have been re-allocated to process VISA and MC
signups :-)

We are just waiting to see what happens with our billing to see if we
have duplicate charges!


   Daniel R. Haller              | USENET: [e-mail]
   Siemens Communication Systems |
   8620 N. 22nd Avenue           |
   Phoenix AZ U.S.A. 85021       | VOICE: [phone]

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

Subject: "Slate vs. Gray" & Polarity-Sensitive Touch-Tone Dials
Date: 8 May 90 22:01:04 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff C.
Glover) writes:

> I bought a couple of Princess Phones at a recent swap meet.  The
> touch-tone section doesn't work.  The receiver gets disconnected when
> I push the buttons, yet the tones aren't generated.  Upon dissasembly
> there are two disconnected spade leads inside.  They are a "gray" and
> a "gray-red".  They lead directly to the ringer coil.  Could these
> have been disconnected to prevent tone dial-out?

    There is no such wire color as "gray" in the telephone
world...  It is called "slate". :-)

    Assuming that you have a WECO 2702-type touch-tone one-line
Princess telephone set with a P1A or M1A ringer, the slate and
slate-red ringer leads are used only for tip party identification on
two-party lines.  Therefore, they should be properly insulated and
stored.

    I betcha a cup of coffee, though, that your problem is a
simple reversal of tip and ring.  Most Princess telephone sets did not
have a polarity guard on the touch-tone dial, and therefore were
polarity sensitive in dial operation.


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 V10 #329
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18502;
          9 May 90 4:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03057;
          9 May 90 2:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29101;
          9 May 90 1:30 CDT
Date:     Wed, 9 May 90 0:57:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #330
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 May 90 00:57:20 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 330

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Touch-tone Frequencies [Robert Gutierrez]
    Re: Touch-tones and Musical Tones [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [R. Hamer]
    Re: What Voicemail System is Best? [Steve Elias]
    Re: Public Loops (was TT Freqs) [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [John R. Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone 'ABCD' Keys
Date: 7 May 90 20:06:07 GMT
Reply-To: Andrew Payne <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joseph C. Pistritto)
writes:

>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.

    You used to be able to hold down the 'D' key, and when a
directory assistance operator picked up, you would be dumped into a
pulsing dial tone.

>[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

    After it went to a pulsing dial tone, it would eat one touch
tone digit and dump you to a reorder, busy, or unanswered ring.
Nothing useful at all.

>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.

    Every touch tone generator (and decoder) chip I've seen
implements the fourth column.  However, some of the older COs didn't
RECOGNIZE the fourth column tone at all.  So what?

    Back in my younger years I was on a campus where you could
dial a particular code and get an outside dialtone.  However, if you
attempted to dial any touch tone digits, the campus PBX would cut in
with a reorder.  Don't know what it was used for, but it was there.

    I took this as a challenge, and built a box that made the
touch tones + the fourth column tone (1633hz).  The campus PBX saw
THREE valid ROW/COLUMN tones and didn't recognize the tone.  The Bell
CO, however, being 1633hz deaf, took the touch tone.  I was able to
cut the Bell dial tone, but the local PBX cut in after 45 seconds.

    I don't think this technique is too applicable today, as just
about everything may not implement the fourth column, but they all
seem to recognize it.


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

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tone Frequencies
Date: 8 May 90 00:34:07 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA ARC


[e-mail] writes in V.10, Iss 316, Msg 4 of 9:

> Recent articles have commented on the four "extra" (A,B,C,D) keys on a
> 16-key keypad.....

> There was also one mention of the DOD Autovon usage....

> ....and used for multi-level precedence preemption.

> Just as an aside, does anyone who knows and can comment say whether
> there is a similar capability in the "civilian" world?  [Note I did
> NOT ask for particulars that would help a "phreaker."  I'm merely
> curious whether the capability exists.]

Not at MCI.  No need to, with redundancy (supposedly) available.
Preemption is strictly a military beast.

There are times, though, when you need a set of circuts immediately to
test with. Usually with inter-switch circuts, you just take them 'out
of service' on the switch, and wait for the callers to drop off as
they complete the calls.  Sometimes, though, you're testing with the
local telco craftperson, and he/she can't wait for the calls to drop
off...it's time for your own preemption.  Well, lets see...  this T-1
runs into this jackfield, and what if I accidently plug right into
that plug ... OOPS! Red Alarm on the T-1.  Sorry guys, my mistake, oh
well ... oh, and by the way, all the calls are gone on the T-1 now,
gee ... I can test it now since the calls 'dropped' off....

No jackfeild close by??? Well, there's always that LL switch on the
T-1 interface card.....  (LL=Local Loopback).


   Robert Gutierrez
   somewhere at NASA....

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 04:28:00 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-tones and Musical Tones
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| I have seen these displayed for the touch-tone frequencies.
| 697Hz  770Hz   852Hz   941Hz  1209Hz  1336Hz  1477Hz  1633Hz
| I cannot fit the above to the musical scale which I derive as follows...

The reason is that the Touch-Tone freqs are *not* a musical scale!

Those frequencies were picked to minimize the possibilities of false
selection due to harmonics of each other and of other tones such as
dial tone, busy, and 60 Hz hum, and other single-frequency signals,
such as might be generated by harmonic distortion in the transmission
path.

Recalling an illustration I once saw in an old Bell System Technical
Journal, if you plot an X-Y chart of the DTMF frequencies, you will
have a small square around each correct "pair", representing the range
of frequencies which will cause that pair (key) to be accepted by the
decoder. The plot is *not* dense: There is a goodly amount of empty
space around each pair's "square". Now if you plot where various
harmonics of single frequencies go, you'll get a series of slanted
lines. For example, consider the third and fifth harmonics of various
pure tones. That will be a slanted line at 59 degrees
[==arctan(5/3)].  If you plot a whole bunch of "probable" or "common"
distortion products, you'll get lines at various angles and slants.

The Touch-Tone frequencies were chose such that *none* of these
unwanted pairs (slanted lines) goes through a "correct" pair's square,
with the exception (as I recall) of the 5:7 line which nicks the
lower-right corner of the pair for the "1" key (or something similar,
you get the idea).

And that was viewed as o.k., because there's *another* criterion which
is used to exclude bad signals from decoding as DTMF tones, and that's
that the tones being decoded must be a large part of the total energy
of the incoming signal, *except* for the other band.

That is, the DTMF pairs are not separated with band-PASS filters, but
with band-REJECT filters. What you do is take the whole signal, put it
through a (say) upper-DTMF band-reject filter, *then* limit (clip) it,
then pass it through the four low-DTMF specific detectors (and
vice-versa for low-reject/ upper-pass). This will ensure that if there
are significant signals *except* in the "other" DTMF band, the signals
in the band you're decoding won't be a large enough fraction of the
(clipped) signal to trigger the decoder.  Or saying it another way,
not only must there be sufficient energy *in* the target pair of
frequencies, there must *not* be very much energy *outside* the pair
 -- the tones must be fairly "pure".

So it is not surprising that the DTMF frequencies aren't "musical"...
they were chosen for an entirely different set of criteria.

p.s. I believe that BSTJ issue may have been the "Special Issue on ESS-1",
but I'm not sure. Anyway, the article itself was all about the design of
the "Touch-Tone" (DTMF) system.

p.p.s. The article included all sixteen frequencies, and gave some
mention to the use of the A, B, C, and D keys. So again, that info has
been publicly available for at least two *decades*!


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: Mon, 7 May 90 12:14 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

>There's been talk about the rip-off of charging extra for touch-tone
>service when it really reduces the phone company's cost.  Here's the
>description of Touch-Tone that's in the front of the Pacific Bell
>directory:

Which brings to mind a question I have asked before, although not in
exactly the form I will ask it now.  I have never seen an answer I
have understood.

Is it necessary to subscribe to the touch-tone service in order to use
it?  In other words, if I tell the telco to stick the touch-tone
service, along with their monthly charge, will my touch-tone dialing
still work.?  I understand that in the good old days, the telco may
have had to have a special switch that would recognize touch tones and
take appropriate action; in these days of all digital switching
equipment (at least here) and lots of extra services (call waiting,
distinctive ringing, automatic callback, callerid, itc) is that just a
spurious charge?

Second, even if it were the case that I couldn't use touch tone
dialing to the telco, once connected to whatever (a remote answering
machine, voice-mail, etc) that required touch tone, couldn't I then
just switch my phone from pulse to tone and use the services?

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What Voicemail System is Best?
Date: Mon, 07 May 90 07:56:48 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


For those of you looking for voice mail systems, take this advice!  Be
sure to get a system which uses PCM voice compression (AD-PCM) and
DON'T get one which uses CVSD.  This recommendation rules out the
voice mail company I used to work for, which I won't name here!  If
you want to hear how good an AD-PCM voice mail system sounds, check
out the greeting on my 5598 number below.  I've recorded a segment
from a movie some of you might remember...  If you want to hear how
lousy and noisy CVSD voice mail sounds, try calling 617 859 1389 --
it's a friend's mailbox, so be nice!


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone)
; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7419 (hard copy fax)

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 09:29:27 PDT
From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Public Loops (was TT Freqs)]

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

# Reminds me of a GTE exchange in Redondo Beach, CA (213 area) in the
# early 1970's.  From anywhere, dialing 4 digits, 5455 or 5465 or
# something (my memory's fading, and I only tried it once or twice,
# honest!), would connect you to some sort of loop.  It had a fair
# amount of noise and audio levels varied greatly, but you could hear
# lots of people yakking at each other.

# I don't know how long it existed, but apparently many people knew
# about it.  Any of them on the net now?  Are/were similar situations
# common?

Indeed, there were a lot of such phone numbers in the 213 area code.
They were commonly called "party lines", in the sense of "party!"
There were all sorts of juvenile adolescent behavior attached to them,
and were used for purposes quite similar to the TalkLine services that
are now offered on a more formal basis today.  It seemed that there
were anywhere from two to forty parties present at any given time.

Such memories of my youth!

Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 03:25:11 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| The two Bay Area providers have come to the (enlightened, IMHO)
| conclusion that it is more profitable to throw in ALL custom calling,
| including voice mail, at no extra charge, at least on contract
| customers. If the features are available, customers will use them and
| generate air time revenue...

Well, the notice I got from PacTel Mobile Services (a reseller of Bay
Area Cellular == "Cellular One" == child of Pacific Telesis) said that
the custom features were "free for one year", so we'll see what
happens next December.

However, just after the big hoopla about "free custom features", I
noticed that they had not only stopped charging me for the two
features I had before, but that they had *stopped* charging me
anything for fowarded calls! They used to be straight airtime, which
means $.45 minimum (day).  (They still list them on the bill,
so-and-so minutes, with $0.00 charged.)

Now this is a big win for me, as I was paying for the dozen or so
calls from the many Determined Wrong-Number Callers [see previous
articles on 999-xyzw vs. 99x-yzwN] that I was getting per month. Since
most (not all) of those go to the tape, it's saving me some $10/mo.

[Hmmm, I wonder if that might had something to do with about the same
time moving the forwarded-to number from a 415-572 to a 415-960
exchange...???  Naah... Probably coincidence...]


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card)
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 7 May 90 14:30:43 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>I successfully used an AMEX card in an AT&T logo payphone at the
>Greater Pittsburgh International (sic) Airport.

Most airports and large hotels have phones with card readers that let
you bill calls to credit cards.  There are two main types, the black
phones which belong to AT&T, and the various ones that usually belong
to the local telco and let you pick any of a variety of carriers.

I have seen at least three models of the latter variety: a regular
AT&T payphone with a card reader shoehorned into the dial found in
Ameritech territory, a really zoomy looking model with an LED display
used by Pac Bell, and an older coinless model with a vertical card
slot on the right used most other places.  Every carrier seems to
program them differently, some only accept cards like Visa and Amex,
some accept those and "real" calling cards from local telcos and AT&T,
some accept all of those as well as OCC cards from MCI and Sprint.
The Pac Bell phones have really lousy card readers and usually don't
accept any cards at all.  The coinless model is reputed to be so
confusing that only about one caller in three can figure out how to
swipe a card through, it certainly takes me two or three tries.

On these phones you have to physically insert a bank or T&E card to
bill the call to that card, but for the telephone cards you can dial
your number like on any other phone.  This seems not to be a law of
nature -- I found a COCOT at a rental car place near the Denver
airport that let you dial your MC or Visa number.

I note that in every case the card number is passed by the phone as a
flurry of DTMF digits.  Is there any compelling reason that you can't
dial your Amex or Visa number yourself to charge a call?  The fraud
potential doesn't seem any greater than for telco calling cards.


Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #330
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04058;
          10 May 90 1:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23078;
          10 May 90 11:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14772;
          10 May 90 10:30 CDT
Date:     Thu, 10 May 90 10:28:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #332
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 May 90 10:28:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 332

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: "Slate vs. Gray" & Polarity-Sensitive Touch-Tone Dials [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: Pricing vs. Cost of Touch-Tone Service [David Tamkin]
    Re: Princess Phone Query [Gary S. Mayhew]
    Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Telephone Tools and Workmanship [George Horwath]
    Re: Fax Directories [Tim Oldham]
    Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes [Terri Macko]
    Re: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud  [David Lesher]
    Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Tom Gray]
    Re: x11 Numbers in San Diego [Bob Hale]
    My Previous Voice Mail Recommendations [Steve Elias]
    Info Needed on ANI for Area 202 [W. L. Ware]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Slate vs. Gray" & Polarity-Sensitive Touch-Tone Dials
Date: 9 May 90 14:06:27 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman) writes:

>simple reversal of tip and ring.  Most Princess telephone sets did not
>have a polarity guard on the touch-tone dial, and therefore were
>polarity sensitive in dial operation.

    Could be it was even done on purpose: I remember many moons
ago that was how Illinois Bell (at least in the exchange serving
Highland Park) authorized you for touch-tone service.

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

Date: Wed, 9 May 90 17:20 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vs. Cost of Touch-Tone Service


[e-mail] asked in volume 10, issue 330:

| Is it necessary to subscribe to the touch-tone service in order to use
| it?  In other words, if I tell the telco to stick the touch-tone service,
| along with their monthly charge, will my touch-tone dialing still work.?

Most telcos will accept tones from anyone.  Some, however, will
specially shut it off and force you to use pulses (at greater cost to
them) in an attempt to strongarm you into paying for tone.

My parents were put through this with Illinois Bell.  A salesdroid
called them, asking them to subscribe to tone service.  My father said
no thanks.  IBT started charging them for tone dialing nonetheless.
When the charge appeared on their next bill, I called IBT for them and
complained.  The charge was removed, but so was the free tone dialing
capability that they hadn't been using: I found that if I dialed into
an audio response system from their home and forgot to switch the
telephone instrument back to pulse when I hung up, tone signals would
not break dial tone any more; previously tone dialing had worked under
those circumstances -- my parents still have two rotary instruments
and didn't make a habit of tone dialing back when they could.

| Second, even if it were the case that I couldn't use touch tone dialing
| to the telco, once connected to whatever (a remote answering machine,
| voice-mail, etc) that required touch tone, couldn't I then just switch my
| phone from pulse to tone and use the services?

Yes, of course, but the employees of some telcos will tell you that
you cannot because they are trying to soak you for the fee for tone
service.  That, in fact, was what IBT told me when I called about the
charges for it.  (The rep's viewpoint was very much like the one from
New England Telephone who told a Digest reader that Call Waiting
Suspension no longer worked there because people who used it were
missing important calls: that Mother knows what is good for us better
than we know ourselves.)


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: "Gary S. Mayhew" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Princess Phone Query
Date: 9 May 90 13:25:45 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff C.
Glover) writes:

>Upon dissasembly there are two disconnected spade leads inside.  They
>are a "gray" and a "gray-red".  They lead directly to the ringer coil.
>Could these have been disconnected to prevent tone dial-out?

These leads have been disconnected by the manufacturer. Several
different networks were used in this model, some requiring different
ringers as well as ringer hookups.

I would bet that the dial is in dire need of replacement or maybe
repair.

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card)
Date: 9 May 90 15:20:07 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <denwa![e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


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

>the various ones that usually belong
>to the local telco and let you pick any of a variety of carriers.

>I have seen at least three models of the latter variety: a really
>zoomy looking model with an LED display used by Pac Bell...

According to a Pac*Bell person, they designed these phones themselves
and then tried to find a company in the U.S. to build them.  Every
manufacturer they contacted refused to build it to their
specifications, so they had to look overseas and found a company in
Japan to build them (I wish I knew who it was).

By the way, when they were first installed, they had major problems.
Trying to make a call using the credit card reader would usually fail.
More recent tests have been more successful.

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

From: George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Tools and Workmanship
Date: 9 May 90 14:13:04 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


fmsystm![e-mail] writes:

>Did you know the National Electrical Code says:
>    - you cannot attach wiring to electrical conduits

I saw an even BETTER installation one time - the installers used cable
ties to attach the telephone cable to the fire sprinkler piping! The
inspector had a fit when he saw it.


George Horwath, Motorola C.I.D.    I said that, not my company.
 ...!uunet!motcid!horwath

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

From: Tim Oldham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax Directories
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
Date: Wed, 9 May 90 12:06:11 GMT


In the UK, there would seem to be only 1 fax directory, produced by
British Telecom. It's free, both to place an entry and to receive a
copy. A card comes with it offering a free entry in the directory,
promising a free copy of the directory and subsequent editions ``until
BT changes its policy''.

While the directory contains international dialling codes, it contains
only UK fax numbers. A warning ``Beware Bogus Fax Books'' is also
included, together with instructions on what to check up on if you are
offered an entry in (other) fax directories. I certainly haven't seen
any other fax directories.

At a rough estimate, the directory contains c. 100,000 fax numbers.
This is the Nov. 1989 edition.


Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. [e-mail] or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo

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

From: Terri Macko <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes
Date: 9 May 90 23:10:15 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (David Tamkin) writes:

>Patrick Townson wrote in volume 10, issue 302:

>| or double airtime for three-way calling and calls accepted from call-
>| waiting.  Yes, you read that correctly: Cellular One/Chicago charges
>| *double* airtime when you make a three-way call from your cell phone or
>| accept a call waiting.

>Yes, that they do.  If you answer Call Waiting without terminating the
>interrupted call, Cellular One does charge double airtime for as long
>as you have both calls going; the same goes for using Three-Way
>Calling.  Unless Cellular One has just changed that, that is one
>aspect in which they do charge more than Ameritech Mobile, who do not
>charge for double simultaneous airtime.

Hmm, I can understand under the pay as you use philosophy, that the
mobile party in a three-way land-mobile-land call ought to pay for the
two voice channels required by the call. However, a three-way
mobile-mobile-mobile call seems like highway robbery ;-).  Am I
understanding correctly that Cellular One/Chicago charges four times for
two voice channels? For that matter, why should a mobile-mobile call pay
twice for only one voice channel!

Why doesn't the billing follow the land network philosophy of the
originator for that segment of the call pays?


Terri Macko,  Motorola Cellular        1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2237
 ...!uunet!motcid!macko                Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497

[Moderator's Note: Last question first: Some cellular prefixes are set
up so that the originator pays for the call, including air time.
Others are not. When getting the phone turned on, order the type of
service you want; you will be assigned the appropriate prefix, however
this is not available in all cities. A mobile-to-mobile call incurs
two air time charges since one channel is used by the originator to
call the base to place the call and another channel is used by the
base to connect with the party being called. With three-way calling
and call-waiting however, there is only one channel, or period of air
time being used. To accept a call-waiting, for example, there are not
two radio transmissions sitting out in the ether, waiting for me to
toggle something on the phone allowing one in and shutting the other
one out. The waiting call is being held by the cellular carrier's
switch, waiting for a signal from me to transmit one or the other to
me. At any time I have only one connection with the switch, and should
only have to pay for one period of air time.  PT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Detecting Blue Box Toll Fraud
Date: Wed, 9 May 90 19:45:33 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Larry Lippman mentioned:

>Only in comparatively few instances was it
>necessary to actually scan subscriber lines and/or interoffice trunks
>for the presence of subscribed-furnished SF and/or MF tones.  Tone
>detection apparatus was generally used to gather corroborating
>evidence for a prosecution when the identity of a suspect subscriber
>was already known.

I do have knowledge of one such device. A friend, who worked for
Mother in a mundane dept, once had a security type come to his
office/lab. He had a mini-box in hand.  {My asides in [] al_la PT.}

Security Type        It's broke, and Joe at the Main [CO]
            thought you could fix it.

EE Friend        What's it supposed to do?

ST            Can't tell you--it's classified [SURE]

EE            How do you expect me to...never mind,
            let's see it.

Looking inside, he saw three 88mh cores, caps, several transistors,
and a relay output. EE soon figures out the relay driver Q is dead and
replaces it. He thought for a minute, then turned on an audio
generator, and fed 2600 into the box. The relay closes.

ST            Hey, what are you doing, you can't use
            that note....

EE            It works, are you happy?

ST            This stuff is SECRET...You better not
            say anything...

EE            Tell Joe I said hello.....


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

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain
Date: 9 May 90 12:12:38 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


re - wiring of a British Telephone

The question of the wiring of the ringer for a british telephone also
caused me some trouble.

In North America, the telephones are wired with a blocking capacitor
in the ringer to prevent the telephone from drawing battery when on
hook.

In the British system this cpacitor is wired into the modular jack and
three (three! count them!) wires are taken to the telephone. These are
designoated A - our tip, B - our ring and C (maybe) to carry ringing.

I suppose this practice was used to reduce costs or eliminate some of
the REN of the line. Some BT telephone contain a blocking capacitor
and can be wired for North American use - others can't.

The only reliable way to solve this problem is to create a UK jack
with the blocking cpacitor and a connection to a standard North
American jack. If this is of interest to you, I can dig out the wiring
required for this.


[Moderator's Note: Not too many of you folks remember when here in the
USA the phones used three wires. Red and green served their usual
purpose, and the yellow wire went (I think) especially to the bell.
The black wire went no-where. I have an old black rotary dial phone
here with three wires (r/g/y) coming into it. At the terminal block,
the yellow was tied in with the red wire.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 9 May 90 12:57:38 PDT
From: Bob Hale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: x11 Numbers in San Diego
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego


Hi,

I saw your posting asking about test numbers in San Diego.  It's been
a *long* time since I was into finding and using these but here's a
recap of what used to work:

Find the root prefix for an exchange (example: 286-) and follow it
with 000x. Frequently x=2 would give a 1kHz test tone and x=3 would
give a sweep tone.

By root prefix I mean the one most fundamental prefix handled by the
plant; the only way I know to find these is to try all the prefixes
handled by the plant.

BTW, sometimes the -000x numbers will connect you to the test board -
the person on the test board might want to know what the #@%! you are
doing calling that number and if he doesn't like your answer you might
lose control of your phone for a while as he traces the number. I took
up the policy of hanging up if the number rang more than twice. 8-)


Bob Hale                        ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234                    ...!btree![e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: My Previous Voice Mail Recommendations
Date: Wed, 09 May 90 08:51:57 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Murphy's law has struck again.  I pointed readers at the 617 932 5598
voice mail number so they could hear an example of awesome AD-PCM
voice quality, and 617 859 1389 so they could hear an example of the
far less awesome CVSD voice quality.  Unfortunately, the owner of the
voice mail system which runs my 5598 number has accidentally deleted
all of the files in the root directory (it's a DOS machine).  He is
currently trying to recover everything via Norton Utilities.  So, the
5598 number will be busy for a while.  Hopefully it will be back later
today (5/9).  Bad timing, eh?


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7556 (work phone)
; 508 671 7447 (SCO Unix fax); 508 671 7419 (hard copy fax)

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

From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on ANI For Area 202
Date: 9 May 90 21:48:16 GMT
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


Does anyone know the ANI number for the 202 area code?

Lance

*W.L.Ware                                             LANCEWARE SYSTEMS*
*WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu                    Value Added reseller*
*WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu                          Mac and IBM Access. *

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #332
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04344;
          10 May 90 1:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23078;
          10 May 90 11:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14772;
          10 May 90 10:30 CDT
Date:     Thu, 10 May 90 9:44:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #331
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 May 90 09:44:20 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 331

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI Aggregation [David Tamkin]
    Re: Ring Me (was Re: What is 660 at NY Tel?) [Ron Pfeifle]
    Re: Princess Phone Query [Henry Troup]
    Re: Cellular Reading [Eric Varsanyi]
    Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia [Neil Readwin]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.? [John R. Covert]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.? [Michael C. Berch]
    Re: Toshiba Business Phone Systems [John Higdon]
    Re: Programming Guide for Audiovox CMT-450 [David Tamkin]
    Re: Caller ID Boxes [[e-mail]]
    Re: Buying Telecom Tools [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 02:19 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Aggregation


[Moderator's Note: Article could be retitled, "MCI Aggravation"  :)  PT]
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
In volume 10, issue 324, Robert Gutierrez explained some of MCI's twisted
reasoning that led to the problems I've had with them.

| Now, MCI tells its reps that no, you cannot have two phones from
| different addresses on the same account because "the telephone records
| will not match up," which, yes, is one reason, but the main reason was
| the possible *fraud* that could be committed.

Although later Robert did give an example of the risk run by having
accounts with 10222 service without 1+, he didn't say where the risk
of fraud is in having numbers at different addresses, easily traced to
close relatives, on the same residential account.  It doesn't bother
US Sprint; it doesn't bother Telecom*USA.

| It was just a lot easier to implement a division policy in not having
| multiple phone numbers from different places on the same account.

 ... and apparently another division policy of promising to open the
account that way regardless, and then, instead of contacting the
customer to say oops, we weren't supposed to have done that, of
severing the addresses and surreptitiously telling the telcos to
switch both locations to MCI 1+ under a pretense that the customers
want the change.  Let's not forget the third policy here of repeatedly
assuring the customer that all has been corrected when in fact nothing
has been changed at all.  Grrr...

| MCI *HATES* doing 'secondary access' accounts because ... [detail of
| long, involved, highly unlikely scenario requiring either fraud or
| stupidity by customer, many chance occurrences, and U.S. Postal Service
| error].

So on the grounds that requesting a 10222 account proved my intentions
a priori to be either fraudulent or stupid and under the superstition
that the entire fortuitous chain would follow by curse, MCI kept
telling my parent's telco and mine to switch us, claiming in outright
lie that it was our idea.  The best defense against imagined potential
fraud is a real live fraudulent offense?

[None of this is directed at Robert Gutierrez but at MCI Long Distance in
general.]

If MCI doesn't like 10222 accounts, they should simply not provide
them.  (10XXX, like multiple addresses, doesn't bother US Sprint or
Telecom*USA.)  Give customers a choice of MCI 1+ service, only a
calling card, or no MCI service at all.  That last choice sounds
better all the time.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: Ron Pfeifle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Me (was Re: What is 660 at NY Tel?)
Date: 8 May 90 18:54:26 GMT
Reply-To: Ron Pfeifle <watmath!tslwat![e-mail]>
Organization: Teleride Sage, Ltd., Waterloo


When I was younger (not very much, say 12 years ago), I recall being
able to dial 41091 on our party line and it would ring our phone.  Of
course it rang at least one other party on our party line too.  Could
their have been a range of service numbers 410xx?

As far as party lines go, my parents still have theirs--they have
never wanted the rate increases involved in changing service to a
private line.


Ron Pfeifle : Teleride Sage Ltd : Waterloo, Ontario : watmath!tslwat!ronp

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Princess Phone Query
Date: 8 May 90 20:56:28 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff C.
Glover) writes:

>I bought a couple of Princess Phones at a recent swap meet.  The
>touch-tone section doesn't work.  The receiver gets disconnected when
>I push the buttons, yet the tones aren't generated.

I seem to remember that early touch tone stuff was polarity sensitive.
Try swapping tip and ring.  I have a 1982 DigiPulse(tm) from NT that
has this behaviour.  As most modern hardware doesn't case about
polarity, telco installers tend not to observe any fixed convention (??).


Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
 ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 or  [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 16:09:33 MDT
From: Eric Varsanyi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Reading


I called Curtis Electro Devices and they have a smaller 'handbook'
version of 'NAM Facts' for $129. The woman I spoke to indicated that
it was the same info, but in a smaller format.

I've been trying to pry the neat info out of Motorola for my 750
handheld, but they won't even sell the manuals to the service centers
(like my local McCaw/Cellular One outlet).

Sadly, the phone locks out after three reprogrammings of the NAM info
(which they do tell you how to do) and becomes useless. A nice tech
from Motorola told me to short pin six on the diagnostic connector to
ground and key in a certain sequence to completely clear out the
phone, but would not tell me the codes to do other interesting things
(he mentioned changing the six digit security code, monitoring signal
strength on given channels, and something that sounds like the Radio
Shack ROAST mode).


Eric Varsanyi
Cray Computer Corporation
[e-mail]

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

From: Neil Readwin <miclon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Nostalgia
Organization: Micrognosis, London, UK
Date: Tue, 8 May 90 18:12:32 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donald E.
Kimberlin) writes:

>[Description of English "A and B button coin phones" deleted]
>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.

This is still a common habit and phones where this is useful were
still standard when I last used a coin phone (a year or two ago). More
recent phones would not allow you to insert a coin until the remote
phone was answered. You could (can ?) here the answering party for a
couple of seconds before the 'pips', giving them time to recite (part
of) their number. Modern phones require you to insert coins before you
dial, thus making sure that BT get the money for the call :-\


Fact: The above does not reflect the opinions or policy of Micrognosis.
[phone]                      ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!miclon!nreadwin

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 19:25:43 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  08-May-1990 2155" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.?


>What I want to do is make a call, say, to France when I'm in England
>and charge it to my AT&T card...  Can I do that?

With the AT&T card (or any local exchange carrier card), your example
works, but it's a rare example.

Until just recently, with the exception of Canada and a few Caribbean
points (and not all of 809!), you could only use these cards to call
back to the U.S.

Due to agreements recently executed by AT&T with BTI and NTT, you are
now able to use your AT&T card in Japan and the United Kingdom for
calls to other countries, but not for calls within those countries.

In the U.K., you dial 155 and give the BTI operator the number you
want to call and your _domestic_ card number and PIN.  The automated
144 system does not yet accept U.S. cards, and I don't know if/when it
will.

Neither AT&T's International Information Service at [phone] nor
the BTI operator currently knows the rates.  We'll see what happens
when I get the bill for the London to Paris call I recently placed.

>(or, for that matter, charge it to anything).

There are lots of phones in the U.K., Hong Kong, and more and more
countries that are willing to accept bank or travel and entertainment
cards.  A very short call from HK to the U.S. I recently charged to my
AMEX card was 65 cents.


/john

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

Date: Wed, 9 May 90 01:12:38 -0700
From: "Michael C. Berch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Outside of the U.S.?
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, Calif. USA

Joel <[e-mail]> writes:

> What I want to do is make a call, say, to France when I'm in England
> and charge it to my AT&T card (or, for that matter, charge it to
> anything).  Can I do that?

The dialing instructions on the back of the insert that my new AT&T
Universal Card arrived in explain how to make international calls to
and from the USA, including the use of AT&T's USADirect service.
After that, the last paragraph states:

"Your AT&T Universal Card can also be used to call from a number of
overseas countries to countries other than the U.S."  (Presumably this
includes normal AT&T Calling Cards as well.)

Following this is the number for AT&T International Service
information, [phone], which you will probably not be able to
dial from Israel, but you might try to get information from the
nearest USADirect operator.

In late 1988, however, I was on a business trip to West Germany, and
needed to make a whole lot of calls to England and Belgium, trying to
chase down some vendor support and make further travel arrangements,
and the Deutsches Bundespost telephone people did not accept my AT&T
calling card for those calls, made from a coin phone.  I ended up
making some from my hotel (for which I was not ridiculously
overcharged) and some from the US Army base I was doing work at, using
some incredibly bizarre patch-through using AUTOVON, the German
railway private phone network, and finally DBP international circuits.
I assume the Army paid for those calls (which is fine since it was DOD
business and they would be billed for them ultimately anyway).

I hope things have improved since then.  Even if various PTTs and
random international-service carriers don't accept AT&T cards for
calls to countries other than the U.S., one would hope they would
start accepting VISA/MC/AMEX as a convenience for business travelers.


Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toshiba Business Phone Systems
Date: 8 May 90 10:04:30 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John,

Frankly if you like the TIE, you'll "love" the Toshiba. I have
peronsally used the Strada and have found it to be one of the most
unintuitively designed systems on the market. It sends out little
short DTMF tones that are not necessarily synchronized with your
button-pushing. To send a "#" you must first press "*" then "#". I sat
at one of those phones trying to access my voice mail for fifteen
minutes until someone from the business I was visiting showed me the
"secret". The phones are huge and ugly.

If the Strada is too small, then you would be looking at the
Perception. I don't have any personal experience with it, but a good
friend of mine is maintaining two of them nearby. He is constantly
complaining about it and I understand it is quite costly. I have used
it once and it didn't "feel" quite right. The tone plant was screwy,
and once again, it had those stupid little short tones regardless of
how long you push the button.

If you are too large for the Panasonic KX-T1232, then you might want
to look at the Northern Telecom Meridian I. Not only is there a hole
between the Panasonic hybrids and the digital switch, the two lines
are made by separate divisions. The division that puts out the digital
system has come up with some pretty lame stuff in the past.


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

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 23:16 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Programming Guide for Audiovox CMT-450


In volume 10, issue 328, Douglas Scott Reuben was listing the registers
in an Audiovox CMT-450, including:

|     26C - 3F              (This one is odd - it seems to change when I
|                            implement changes to other registers, such
|                            as the phone number or area code.)

Perhaps it holds some sort of checksum?

Later in that same issue, John Marvin submitted an article headered:

| Subject: Toshiba Business Phone Systems

But the issue's table of contents read:

|   Toshita Business Phone Systems [John Marvin]

Was there a transmission error in my copy or was the Digest software
editorializing?  We know Patrick would never do such a thing.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570


[Moderator's Note: Ordinarily, the Digest-making software reads each
header and constructs the opening Table of Contents. Some manual
reconstruction has to be done from time to time; this is generally if
the incoming raw message itself has to have the address reconstructed
by me, etc. In the case at point, the error was a typographical one by
myself, sorry.  PT]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Boxes
Date: 8 May 90 06:18:23 GMT
Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc., Vienna, Va.


In article <[e-mail]> Bill Berbenich <eedsp!bill@gatech.
edu> writes:

>As promised, here is a summary of all the places that I was responded
>to as being suppliers of CLID boxes.  [...]

>Hello Direct of Santa Clara, Ca. has two AT&T boxes.

The two "AT&T" boxes are manufactured by Colonial Data Technologies,
with a CDT warranty card included in the carton.  The 35 memory
version is Incoming Call Display Unit "Model 125B, CDT P/N 60-200".

While shopping around the DC Metro area looking for CLID boxes, I
found that no local retailer carried anything other than the CDT/AT&T
boxes, with all stores charging the same price for the 35 memory model
(the same as Hello Direct's price).  One store did go to the effort of
placing inflated price stickers on their stock and then 'discounting'
the boxes down to everyone else's price ... Another store with the
AT&T labeled boxes had a sales varmit who insisted the AT&T boxes "are
more reliable" than the CDT boxes carried by other stores.  [It's
amazing what a logo can do :-) ]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Buying Telecom Tools
Date: 8 May 90 03:09:44 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> I found that Graybar in San Jose won't sell to anybody who doesn't
> have a California resale certificate.  I thought that the days of
> phone-paranoia were over.

That's really strange. I've gone in there a number of times to buy
"tools of the trade", and they took my check for a taxable sale, no
questions asked. In fact, I had them show me a couple of things before
I decided on what I really wanted. No problem.

The Graybar of choice (if that's not a contradiction of terms) is S.
San Francisco. They are really easy-going there and have a better
selection.

> Does anybody know of a source that publishes a catalog from which I
> can mail order items such as these?  Hello Direct just won't cut it.

Well, if you must order stuff -- Alltel (near Industry), Procom in San
Diego, and NTD (somewhere in Washington) all sell by mail.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #331
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05508;
          10 May 90 2:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28569;
          10 May 90 12:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23078;
          10 May 90 11:37 CDT
Date:     Thu, 10 May 90 10:33:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Clock Is Twelve Hours Ahead
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

To Subscribers of TELECOM Digest (mailing list readers only):

YES, I am aware the system clock here at eecs is out of step and
exactly twelve hours ahead of schedule.

Issues 331-332-333 were produced and transmitted Wednesday evening,
exactly twelve hours to the second prior to the time shown on the
Digest and in the envelope. The same thing applies to this note,
obviously. I don't have root privileges here or I would reset it myself.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08316;
          10 May 90 3:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00618;
          10 May 90 13:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac28569;
          10 May 90 12:41 CDT
Date:     Thu, 10 May 90 12:28:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #334
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 May 90 12:28:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 334

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Hacker/Phreak Crackdown Underway [AT&T News Briefs via Don H. Kemp]
    More on Illinois Bell Advanced Custom Calling [David Tamkin]
    Eight-digit Telephone Numbers in Stockholm Area! [Dan Sahlin]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Paul Colley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: New Hacker/Phreak Crackdown Underway
Date: Wed, 9 May 90 15:55:32 EDT
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


AT&T NEWS BRIEFS via Consultant's Liason Program

Wednesday, May 9, 1990

HACKER WHACKER -- The Secret Service is conducting a coast-to-coast
investigation into the unauthorized use of credit-card numbers and
long-distance dialing as well as illegal entry into computer systems
by hackers, according to sources. ... AP ...  Authorities fanned out
with search warrants in fourteen cities Tuesday in an investigation of
a large nationwide computer hacker operation.  Officials of the Secret
Service, U.S. Attorney's Office and Arizona Attorney General's office
scheduled a news conference Wednesday to release details of the
operation.

UPI, 5/8 ... A Long Island [NY] teen, caught up in [the investigation],
dubbed Operation Sun Devil, has been charged ...  with computer
tampering and computer trespass.  State Police, who said [Daniel
Brennan, 17], was apparently trying to set up a surreptitious
messaging system using the [computer system of a Massachusetts firm]
and 800 numbers, raided his home Monday along with security officials
of AT&T. ... [A State Police official] said that in tracing phone
calls made by Brennan ... AT&T security people found that he was
regularly calling one of the prime targets of the Sun Devil probe, a
... hacker who goes by the handle "Acid Phreak."  ... New York
Newsday, p. 31.


Don H Kemp
B B & K Associates, Inc.
Rutland, VT
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 23:19 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on Illinois Bell Advanced Custom Calling


Several issues back, Steven King mentioned the Advanced Custom Calling
Features currently being advertised by Illinois Bell.  I called the
toll-free number for more information about them.  Here is what I
found out:

1. Automatic Callback redials the last number that rang your phone,
whether the call was answered or not.  It overlooks any number that
dialed you but received busy.  If *it* receives busy, it keeps trying
for up to a half hour, as in Repeat Dialing.  *69 to make it dial; *89
to make it stop trying if it's been getting busy signals and you've
lost interest or patience.

2. Call Screening blocks out incoming calls from up to ten outside
numbers.  *60 gives instructions for editing the list (adding known
numbers, adding the last one that rang you whether you know the number
or not, and deleting numbers).  *80 temporarily suspends Call
Screening and allows anyone to ring you without erasing the current
contents of the list.  Apparently *60 reactivates it after *80.

3. Repeat Dialing will redial a number that gave you a busy signal.
It will continue to try for thirty minutes.  When it finds the other
line free, you hear a special ring and can pick up your phone; that
will ring the called line.  *66 to use it; *86 to tell it not to
bother any more.

4. Distinctive Ringing is, as I guessed, based on the number that
dialed you rather than on which of your numbers was dialed.  There is
only one special ring rhythm, and you can program up to ten calling
numbers to trigger it.  *61 to edit the list (instructions are given
when you press *61 for adding known numbers, adding the last number
that rang you whether you know the number or not, and removing
numbers); *81 to shut off Distinctive Ringing without erasing the
current contents of the list (all callers will sound the same).
Apparently *61 reactivates after *81.

5. Multi-Ring is what others have called Distinctive Ringing.  Your
line is assigned up to three incoming numbers, and calls to each of
them ring in different rhythms.  If you also have Call Forwarding, you
can forward all three numbers or only the main number (so that calls
from people who know either of the other numbers will still come
through while calls from the great unwashed get forwarded to voice
mail or to a busy signal: quite useless when a telemarketer is bombing
the entire prefix).  In their example, one of the special numbers was
reserved for household members to call home.

Multi-Ring was not listed in the article in the bill stuffer.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570

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

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eight-digit Telephone Numbers in Stockholm Area!
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 9 May 90 17:47:37 GMT


The following is a summary of information I have got from Swedish
Telecom (Televerket).

In April, 1992, the area codes 07XX will be incorporated into the 08
area.  Those telephone number will also be changed from being five-digit
into eight-digit numbers.

Some six-digit numbers in the 08-area will also be changed into
seven-digit numbers. When the change is finished, telephone numbers in
the 08 area will have six, seven or eight digits.

Below, I will give full details of the reform. But first, as I am
quite critical to the reform I have some questions to comp.dcom.
telecom readers:

- Do you know of any other area in the world where six, seven and
  eight-digit numbers are used at the same time?

I believe that owners of six-digit numbers will have a lot of problems
with with people dialing the wrong number as there are so many similar
eight-digit numbers. For each six-digit number, there are 100
eight-digit numbers that differ only in the first digit!

- Televerket claims that eight-digit numbers are necessary.  The
  population in the Stockholm area is less than two millions.  How
  many telephone numbers are actually used in other areas in the
  world where seven-digit numbers are used?

I have found it quite simple to modify the proposed reform so that
everbody gets a seven digit number.  For example, you can just remove
the third digit in all eight digit numbers, and still get unique
numbers.

Before giving all details of the reform, I will briefly describe the
Swedish numbering plan.

Area codes consist of two to four digits. The length of the telephone
number depends on the length of the area code:

    Area code + number
    0XXX + 5 digits       (used in the countryside)
    0XX  + 5 or 6 digits  (used in some cities)
    0X + 6 or 7 digits    (used in Stockholm, all 7 digit numbers
               start with the digit 6 or 7)

This means that the total length is eight or nine digits, but the
change is meant to increase this to a total of ten digits. This would
make it possible to have seven-digit numbers in the other cities. In
particular in Gothenburg there has been a shortage of numbers.

The Stockholm 08-area is surrounded with ten areas having area codes
of the form 075X or 076X. For a long time there has been shortage of
five-digit telephone numbers in some of these areas. Many companies
located just outside Stockholm would also prefer an 08 area code. The
solution chosen has been to incorporate these areas into the 08 area,
giving them all eight-digit numbers.

Below I have copied the table, giving full details of this part of the
reform, scheduled to take place in April 92.

Area            Area code       First digit(s)          New area code
                in phone number         and number

Haninge         0750            1-4,6,7                 08 500 + old number
                5                       08 501 + old number
Nynashamn       0752            1-4,6                   08 520 + old number
Tumba           0753            1-4,6                   08 530 + old number
                5                       08 532 + old number
                7-9                     08 531 + old number
Sodertalje      0755            1-3,42,44,49,6,8,9      08 550 + old number
                40,41,43,45-48          08 552 + old number
                5,70-75,79              08 551 + old number
Ekero           0756            2-5                     08 560 + old number
Jakobsberg      0758            1-3,8                   08 580 + old number
                4                       08 582 + old number
                5                       08 583 + old number
                6,7                     08 581 + old number
Sigtuna         0760            1,2,4                   08 591 + old number
                3,7-9                   08 590 + old number
                5                       08 592 + old number
                6                       08 593 + old number
Vallentuna      0762            1,2,5                   08 510 + old number
                3,4,9                   08 512 + old number
                7,8                     08 511 + old number
Vaxholm         0764            2,6,8                   08 540 + old number
                3,7                     08 541 + old number
                4                       08 542 + old number
                5                       08 543 + old number
Varmdo          0766            1-3                     08 570 + old number
                4-6                     08 571 + old number


The other part of the reform concerns numbers in the 08-area, and it
takes place earlier to make room for the new 8-digit numbers, so that
all numbers starting with the digit 5 will be freed.

Number in 08-area       New number      Change takes
starting with                           place in

4 or 5                  6+old number    Jan 91


In the middle of all this confusion, some new exchanges will be
opened, and some numbers will be changed. The table below cannot be
used to detemine the new number, as there is no general rule.  I don't
see what this has to do with the other parts of the reform, but the
changes are as follows:

For SOME numbers in     New number may be totally       Change takes
08 area starting with   changed and will start with     place in

10-11,14,20-24,         611,678,679                     Oct 90
700-701,723,762,
763,769,780,781,
786-791,796

30-34, 728-729,736      673                             April 91

28-29,98,757,764,       628                             July 91
797,799

733                     627,629                         July 91


So what do you think about this reform?  I am particularly interested
to hear what people in Denmark and France think of having eight-digit
telephone numbers, and if it is much harder to remember such a number
than a seven-digit number.


    /Dan Sahlin

email: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Colley)
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 9 May 90 14:15:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 330, Message 4 of 8

>Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

>Is it necessary to subscribe to the touch-tone service in order to use
>it?  In other words, if I tell the telco to stick the touch-tone
>service, along with their monthly charge, will my touch-tone dialing
>still work.?

First of all, let me start by saying that I'm no lawyer, but I would
expect that would be illegal (theft of services?).  Also note, I'm in
Canada, so even if I were a lawyer I wouldn't be familiar with U.S.
law :-)

On to the answer:

My pulse phone line here in Waterloo (519)-746-.... ignores tone
dialing.

However, when I bought a phone for my girlfriend when she was living
in Markham (416)-294-.... I set it to tone, because it worked where
she was boarding (I assumed they had paid for the service).  A month
later, the people she was living with got a phone call from Bell
saying ``we notice you are enjoying your new touch tone phone, would
you like us to provide touch tone service?''.  They said no (``Huh?
We don't have a touch tone phone!''), and the touch tone stopped
working a few days latter.  At which point I heard about it (``the
phone you gave me is broken!''), and I eventually found out what had
happened.

Also, going farther back into my past: I remember that there where two
major changes to the phone service in Unionville, where I grew up.
One was a change in phone number from (416) 297-.... to (416)
477-...., the other was an upgrade in the switch with very noticeable
changes in what you heard placing a call.

I don't remember which order they occurred in :-( but during the year
or so in between the changes, touch-tone worked whether or not you
asked for it; after the second change, it just stopped working.  (I
didn't know anyone then who _paid_ for touch tone).

Also, back in those ancient days (10-15 years ago), you could dial any
phone number 297-1xxx as 297-0xxx instead.  I always wondered if this
was related to pay phones, as every one I remember seeing then had a
phone number of the form 297-0xxx and was marked as ``this phone can
not receive calls''.  Probably just a coincidence.

Also, you could move from one extension to another by just hanging up
the first phone, walking to another extension and picking it up; if
the caller stayed on the line, you had lots of time (60 seconds?).
Annoying if you were trying to hang up on someone, though...  the new
switch drops the call very quickly if you hold the switch hook,
removing what was a nice feature.

>Second, even if it were the case that I couldn't use touch tone
>dialing to the telco, once connected to whatever (a remote answering
>machine, voice-mail, etc) that required touch tone, couldn't I then
>just switch my phone from pulse to tone and use the services?

Yes.  The two of the three different makes of phone I own have this as
a feature, and automatically insert a 4 second pause where you switch
from tone to pulse.  The third (my two-line phone) will switch from
pulse to tone, if you wait for the pulse dialing to finish before
dialing the tone digits.

Unfortunately, my two-line phone doesn't recognize the switch back
from tone to pulse unless you hang up.  One line is pulse only, one
allows tone dialing (why pay for it twice?  I only place one call at a
time!  :-) I normally leave the phone set in touch tone, and dial from
the tone line.

When I try to dial on the pulse only line, it ignores me, I get
frustrated, throw the switch to pulse dialing, dial again ... it stays
in tone dialing, and the phone line continues to ignore me.  I get
more frustrated, and switch to the touch-tone line (which the phone
recognizes as hanging up the first line), and dial a third time, and
voila! pulse dialing on the tone line!  So far the phone has withstood
the ensuing physical abuse ... it doesn't happen often enough for my
reflexes to learn the right action.

After the second line was installed (for my modem), we found out that
directory assistance was only giving out the modem number.  Some
friends finally complained about our never being home, and we
discovered they were calling the modem, which doesn't answer.  When I
called Bell to complain, I had a friendly discussion with the service
representative.  She and I agreed to have the modem number
``unpublished''.  This is apparently different from ``unlisted'', but
means that directory assistance will no longer know about the modem
number, and it won't appear in the phone book.  This service is free
(unlisted costs money).  I don't know what unlisted gives you that
unpublished doesn't.

It made me recall a small scandal a few years ago, about a politician
who discovered that his campaign headquarters and home phone numbers
had been unpublished by some malicious person.  Because it is free,
all that person had to do was call Bell and ask for the number to be
unpublished, making it difficult to trace when discovered, and nothing
on the victim's phone bill to notify them that the listing had been
removed.  The politician was upset, since it affected his desired
image of being ``open to the people'' or something similar.

Sorry about the long answer to two simple questions.


  Paul Colley
  Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
  Waterloo, Canada
  [e-mail] or .ca

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #334
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08671;
          10 May 90 3:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00618;
          10 May 90 13:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28569;
          10 May 90 12:40 CDT
Date:     Thu, 10 May 90 11:45:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #333
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 May 90 11:45:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 333

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    London Codes Snobbery [Tim Oldham]
    AOSs, COCOTs and Hotels [Kevin Oberman]
    Motel Charges (was Re: Splashing) [Carl Moore]
    "The Game" [Hector Myerston]
    The Answer [John Higdon]
    Press "1" Now [Joel Yossi]
    Become an Information Broker [Ron Chibnik]
    Special BOC Pay Phone Installation [Scott D. Green]
    Special Issue: Expansion Costs [TELECOM Moderator]
    Directory Assistance -- NYT Tariff Changes [Andrew Boardman]
    Pay Phone Company [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Ring Amplification [Tad Cook]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tim Oldham <[e-mail]>
Subject: London Codes Snobbery
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
Date: Wed, 9 May 90 12:29:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott D.
Green) writes:

>It was reported in the Phila. Inquirer yesterday that British Telecom
>is using billboards to be sure that Londoners are aware of the
>official cutover on Sunday:
>[amusing billboard quotes deleted]

The newspapers are full of interesting articles about the snobbery the
new codes will or won't cause, and indeed this is used to good effect
in the most recent TV advertisement on the code changes.

Historically, London districts had their own three-letter code which the
(then phone company) GPO chose. Areas like MAYfair and BELgravia were
fine: giving your phone number away showed that you lived in the Right
area of Town. Other areas, such as Brixton, decided that they didn't
want anybody to know that they actually came from Brixton and so they
chose other codes: LIBerty, OPHelia etc.

The change from three-letter codes to three-digit codes stopped all of
that, and the only snobbery was in having the ``best'' national code,
01. This was used to good effect; everybody knows the (obsolete)
phrase ``01 if you're outside London'' from the media (with the
implication that 01 is for outsiders, those not in the clique etc.),
and even a TV programme called ``01 for London''.

The point about 071/081 is that those people who live close to Town
but have been given an 081 (outer) number are rather upset: everybody
will think they live in Sidcup or somewhere else equally far out of
Town. There's also the point that the City and the new yuppie area of
Docklands are all 071, as there is a higher number requirement density
in those areas. Having an 071 number is therefore seen as being The
Only Way To Be by some people who identify with yuppiedom.

However, there is another way it can be viewed: 071 for the Inner City
(images of grime, industrial wastelands, urban decay) and 081 for
Greater London (obvious connotations of power).

In my opinion, the London code change also has another win, which I
haven't seen commented on: the International dialling code (used
before country codes) is now completely unambiguous, as it was and is
010.

Oh, and of course it's about time those Londoners were shown that
they're nothing special: Birmingham now has The Best Code.

Disclaimer: my opionions do not reflect the official policy of my
employers, British Telecom, except by coincidence. This is not a
policy statement.


Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. [e-mail] or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo

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

From: [e-mail] (Oberman, Kevin)
Subject: AOSs, COCOTs and Hotels
Date: 9 May 90 08:56:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-Engineering


I'm rapidly getting fed up with the lack of teeth in FCC (and CPUC)
rulings on AOSs and COCOTs. I recently had the "pleasure" of staying
at the Dunes Hotel in Las Vegas. While the place was not too bad over
all, the phones were a real pain.

At check in I asked about the charges and carriers for the in-room
phones. I was given a list of almost reasonable charges. $.50 per call
plus charges for ANY call including 800. The woman suggested using a
pay phone in the lobby because the AOS (not her term) charges way too
much.

I was impressed. Not only did she seem to know the situation
(unusual), but was willing to suggest an alternative (unheard of)!
Well, I was supposed to call the office, so I ran down to the lobby
(really the casino) and hit the pay phone. The COCOT was the same as
the AOS. And there was a fine print notice that there was a .50 charge
for all non-local outgoing calls (inc. 800). I tried 10xxx and 950.
Both were blocked. I called the operator (surprise, surprise! No
charge.) and was informed that the phone switching equipment prevented
them from connectting to any but their own long distance lines and the
charge (.50) was only to cover the Centel charge for the connection.
(Expletive deleted.)

When I pointed out the FCC regulation on carrier blocking, she was not
helpful.  (Surprise, surprise.) She suggested I write Centel.

Is there any possible grain of truth to all this? Could the CO for a
city the size of Las Vegas really be that bad? My natural tendency is
to blame the COCOT, but I've found phone sevice in Vegas very bad in
the past, so maybe there is at least some truth to this. Anyone know
for sure?

            R. Kevin Oberman
            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
            Internet: [e-mail]
            [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my
typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.


[Moderator's Note: The best solution with offending COCOTS is to place
them out of service with a gummy, gooey lable which goes across the
coin slot, and reads: 'PHONE OUT OF ORDER DUE TO INCORRECT INTERNAL
PROGRAMMING OF RATES AND ROUTING PROCEDURES.'  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 9:47:37 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Motel Charge (was Re: Splashing)


I saw Super 8 motel in a message dated 7 May in Telecom.  I was just
at a Super 8 in Culpeper, Va., and got charged for an (incompleted)
long-distance call within area 703, and was told that it's standard
practice at motels to charge for calls after the 5th ring.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 8 May 90  17:04 PST
Subject: "The Game"
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


The object of "The Game" is to successfully answer 10 simple
questions.  The Prize is $1,000,000.  To play you dial a 900 number
and get conferenced in with nine more players.  A question is asked
and the >first< person to punch in the correct answer advances to the
next round.  Typical questions: How many minutes in the popular CBS
Sunday evening show?.  A "computer" arbitrates who wins ("Oooops...
your answer is correct but not the first").  Please feel free to try
another $2 call at any time...  and you thought COCOTS were sleazy.

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

Subject: The Answer
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 8 May 90 11:42:54 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


For those of you who have been sitting on chair's edge waiting for the
outcome to the great Bay Area Cellular One vs GTE Mobilnet payphone
situation, here it is. As you recall, when using utility payphones you
can call any Bay Area Cellular One prefix from any Bay Area payphone
and the call is $0.20, untimed. Making the same call to a GTE Mobilnet
prefix will cost whatever toll is applicable, timed in the usual
manner. (Calls to mobiles served by either provider are always zone 1
[local] from non-coin phones.)

I am informed that this is correct. The "contracts" with the different
providers call for the disparate handling of coin-paid calls. And now
for the editorial comment. My first reaction was that GTE Mobilnet was
being "cheap" in not subscribing to the (probably) more expensive
contract. But if you think about it, Bay Area Cellular (Cellular One)
gets its Pac*Bell access for free no matter what they pay or what
contract they subscribe to. Since Cellular One is owned by the same
holding company as Pac*Bell, the money simply goes from one pocket to
another. While GTE Mobilnet has to pay its connection fees from money
collected solely from its subscribers, Cellular One just shuffles
Pacific Telesis money around.

Just another form of cross-subsidization, folks. And you thought that
those industries that the RBOCs were now trying to enter were full of
paranoid people who just didn't want any competition. I think it can
be adequately demonstrated that the Bells have the ability to unfairly
dominate any market they might enter, be it information providing,
cable TV, cellular service, telephone equipment vending, you-name-it.
If it relies on the switched network, or is even loosely associated
with it, the RBOC can and will perform whatever manipulations are
necessary to "win".

We have cut the behemoth Ma Bell into seven Baby Bells that are well
on their way to each becoming as big and powerful as Mother. We
(through our regulatory agencies) seem to be willing to let the
children get away with far more that we ever allowed the old Bell
System to even think about.

I'm looking for the day when Pacific Telesis will handle all of my
electronic needs, whether I like it or not.


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

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

From: "Yossi (Joel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Press "1" Now
Date: 7 May 90 17:24:08 GMT
Reply-To: "Yossi (Joel" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. Tech., Haifa Israel


"Press 2 for an on-line tutorial [of our phone system]" That's the
message that greated me when I called Seagate out in California two
weeks ago.  An "on-line tutorial"?  For the PHONE??  Are they serious?

I had a specific question, and knew that I had to ask Tech. Support
for an answer.  As always, when the pre-recorded voice answered my
call, I refused to press "1," preferring to get a person who could
route my call efficently.  That didn't work -- they hung up on me.

So I called again, and waded through some menus, (one of which offered
me the tutorial) and finally got the "tech support menu," where they
asked AGAIN if I was calling from a push-botton phone.  Aha!  I'll
just wait for a person, I thought.  I waited about thirty seconds and
was told, in a kind, pre-recorded electronic voice that my "call is
being disconnected now."  And indeed it was.

So, I put in five more minutes, and tried again.  This time I was
forced to press "1," and discovered that tech. support has their own
menu-driven phone system.  After ANOTHER five minutes, I >finally<
reached Tech Support, AND WAS TOLD THAT THEY WEREN'T OPEN YET!

Am I imagining things, or does technology sometimes make things just a
wee bit harder...?


Joel
([e-mail] -or- [e-mail])

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

From: Ron Chibnik <althea![e-mail]>
Subject: Become an Information Broker
Date: 9 May 90 02:03:32 GMT
Organization: Shakedown St. Public Access Unix - New Brunswick, NJ


            START A NEW BUSINESS WITH YOUR MODEM
            ====================================

  NEW TELECOMMUTING CARRER - Become an INFORMATION BROKER!
  ********************************************************


Information brokering is one of the hottest entrepreneurial
opportunities of the Information Age.  Microcomputer and
telecommunications technology, wedded to the traditional skill of
research and analysis, have given birth to the INFORMATION BROKER.

Not a librarian-for-hire or a freelance researcher, the information
broker is a specialist who can help business people identify and meet
their information needs.

Now there are two ways to start learning about this new industry:

     * Register for The Information Broker's Seminar

              Dallas June 2nd, Orlando June 9th,
          Los Angeles Sept 15

     * Request a FREE copy of Information Broker's Resource Kit

Info about the seminar and the kit is available via BBS:

415 524 9625 via modem, 24 hours, 2400-8-N-1, to sign on, enter
INFO NET for first & last name and GO for password.

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

Date: Wed, 9 May 90 09:45 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special BOC Pay Phone Installation


Bell of PA is currently installing banks of coin phones on campus to
accommodate a large alumni influx.  My (naive) question is, hasn't
cellular technology progressed to the point where it is more practical
to develop cellular portable pay stations?  If priced like standard
wired (BOC) pay phones, would the loss in coin box revenue (compared
to what cellular air time costs on the open market) be made up by the
reduced installation costs?  Is it a potential capacity problem for
the cell site?

Scott

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 10:40:09 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: Expansion Costs


This weekend, there will be a special issue of the Digest consisting
of a lengthy essay by Larry Lippman discussing the costs faced by
telcos who wish to expand their facilities. This will be distributed
sometime Saturday afternoon or evening.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 9 May 90 15:41:27 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Directory Assistance -- NYT Tariff Changes
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters

In article <[e-mail]> cmoore wrote:

>The reason local directory assistance has been free from pay phones is
>that phone books are usually not available there.  Has anyone in NY
>accounted for this?

[After some research...]

New York Telephone claims to want to be able to charge for DA in the
same way that COCOT's do, even if there is no phone book.  The PSC
gives them "a snowball's chance in hell" of getting away with this.
How anyone can find anything, I don't know, as NYT's tariff is *17*
fat binders of small print.  As for COCOT regulations, the PSC people
said "we don't regulate those!" and referred me to the FCC, who
referred me to the PSC.  Someone here is obviously not terribly
competent (or lying), and I'd appreciate anyone who knows how the
system operates sending me some mail telling me who *does* regulate
COCOTS in New York, and where to get said regulations.


Andrew Boardman     no mail to [e-mail], MIT's ITS's are going to die
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pay Phone Company
Date: 9 May 90 15:39:37 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


While at Wendy's last night I noticed that the pay phone had a Wendy's
sign around the top of it, instead of the Southern Bell. So I went up
to the phone to look at it and on the name card it said that it takes
Bell or ATT calling card. It also stated that the long distance
company was AT&T or TELECOM*USA. How can a pay phone have two long
distance carriers?  When I dialed 00 it took about thirty seconds.
Then a normal busy signal.  I could not dial the 700 test number as it
was 'Not a valid number'.  Also 10XXX was blocked.


Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Ring Amplification
Date: 9 May 90 21:28:59 GMT


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

> Does anyone know of a device which sits in between the line and the
> telephones which is designed to boost ringing current locally?  I
> would appreciate specific references if possible.

Proctor & Associates makes an OPX/Long Loop adaptor that should do the
job.  It is the model 46222, and it will boost the output of the fax
switch such that all devices downstream will see 48 VDC loop voltage
and ringing voltage at 105 VAC @ 20 Hz.  It will pass hookflash
signalling the other direction, but not rotary dial pulses.  It is
compatible with tone dialing only.  It should support a ringing load
of greater than 5 REN.


Tad Cook
Seattle, WA
Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544
Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad
or, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #333
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10156;
          10 May 90 4:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09646;
          10 May 90 14:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac00618;
          10 May 90 13:47 CDT
Date:     Thu, 10 May 90 13:37:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #335
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 May 90 13:36:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 335

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Local Telco Relationship With Ohio PUC [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Line Slip [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Buying Telecom Tools [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Buying Telecom Tools [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes (Correction) [Terri Macko]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Wed May  9 11:49:30 1990
Subject: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> Steve Elias writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 329, Message 1 of 9

>Macy's Ohio telco sure does sound nasty and boneheaded, to be sure.
>I'd say that a complaint to the state DPU (or whatever it's called in
>Ohio) would be reasonable.

I've been involved with the Public Utilites Commission of Ohio (PUCO)
on complaints and rate cases several time.  Its a very frustrating
experience.

First, quite a few PUCO people are ex-telco staff. A few are Ohio Bell
retirees.  They have a number of young, just out-of-school lawyers and
staffers, due to the low pay levels, as well.

Second, they always assume the telco is telling the truth and the
whole story.  The burden of proof is upon the public.  The telco
usually holds most of the information needed to make your case, and
won't let you see it, either, unless the commission so orders.

Third, the telco has all the experts.  Just ask them. Just ask the
PUCO.  I have to be qualified as an expert witness to testify against
the telco postion (i.e. be a PE, how long have your been in telecom)
and then the telco is allowed to ask me "how do you know about OUR
operations better than us?"  The telco's people are considered expert
just because the telco says they are (and they do, at great lenght,
when challenged).  All the outside consultants the telco's use are
ex-employees, too.  I can hire consultants with my own money, of
course...

Since the PUCO accepts the accounting info the telco provides at face
value (unless challenged with overwhelming evidence), AND only the
telco has the staff to deal with the special world of utility
accounting, AND the PUCO does not have the staff to audit the telcos,
there is no real way to examine or challenge the telco cost figures.

Fourth, the telco ALWAYS gets the last word.  The telco has a staff of
lawyers and clerks dedicated to PUCO relations.  They know the system,
in fact, they shaped the system.  They always rebut in deep
regulatory legalese.  They "spin" the information they present to fit
their argument , and will not explain it.  The attitude the PUCO
encourages is "We are the phone company, and we know these things
better that anyone else."

Fifth, no one else seems to give a damn.  The state legislature only
cares about politcal issues, and has responded to the telco lobbyists
when they requested a deregualtion bill. They got involved in a 911
bill, after all the TV stations in the state started howling. Although
an indvidual state representitive will call and complain to the PUCO
in response to your letter to him, the PUCO always retreats into
legalistic and bureaucratic procedure after he hangs up.  Result: the
telco knows how to work the system and wins in all but the most
blatant cases (in which case they say that someone made a mistake,
this is not policy.)

The Ohio Consumer's Counsel is overloaded and underfunded.  They see
their mission as protection of the residential user, and do not
respond to small business type complaints (unless they interlock with
a consumer issue they are working on).  The OCC regularly intervenes
in rate cases, and has had some effect.  They are the only agency that
seems to fight telco rate increases and procedures.  They are too
small to carry on any long, complex fights, though.  The PUCO is
obligated to consider their evidence by law.  What the PUCO acts upon
seems to be another matter entirely.  The PUCO commissioners in this
state are politcal appointees.

Sixth, I do not have enough money to hire the lawyers and consultants
to deal with items one through five.  I have talked to a couple of
legal firms about dealing with the telco problems, tarriff inequities,
harrassment, and anti-trust violations I have to work with.  The
answer: you have a good case, we will do it at $150/hour and it will
take two+ years...  allow us a couple months to research the
issue ... we will bill you monthly.

The attitude of the PUCO in this state reflects the attitude of its
politicians: they would prefer all that messy competition stuff in
telecom would go away.  Ohio Bell and the other telcos contribute a
considerable amount of money to polticians in this state though telco
controlled PAC's (some of it in apparent violation of law, per a
recent series in the [Akron Beacon Journal]). AT&T gives out a lot of
PAC money, too.  The effect has been predictable.

Since the U.S. does not even have a coherent National
Telecommunications Policy (and the few attempts to do so have been
heavily influenced by the BOC's and carriers), the general public is
getting only a small portion of the possible benefit of the
technology.  The political and regulatory bodies are responding to the
loudest voices they hear: the BOC's and carriers with the staff and
money to be heard.

Frankly, I am quite fed up with the system, and how its stacked, I am
seriously considering changing the course of my career.  The small to
medium sized interconnect contractor has to market the daylights out
of himself in order to succeed.  The level of technical expertise of
the smaller contractor has little to do with it anymore (as long as he
can put systems in fast and cheap).  The conditions created by the
telcos, competition, and uninformed customers (who buy either the low
bid or "safe") are squeezing out the quality oriented smaller
contractors, who cannot also be the low bidders due to their higher
overhead.

It is the vendors who market form over substance who best succeed in
the current market.  If you are not a marketing oriented contractor
with a professional sales staff (who are sales oriented, with little
technical expertise), you will not succeed.  The Japanese telecom
equipment manufacturers' preoccupation with sales volume encourages
this attitude.  This also means that there are few contractors who can
afford to take the time and money to deal with the larger problems of
the industry.  The "big guys" in the industry (Rolm, NTI, AT&T) have
no need to fight the PUC's directly ... they have established a
relationship with the telcos, carriers and Fortune 500 and have little
need to fight these issues out.

Frankly, the point of this discussion, and several others I have
posted in the Digest is that the benefits of current telecom
technology are not reaching the general public due to regulatory and
political reasons, not technical reasons.  The reasons for this are
many and complex, but the backwards attitudes of the vested interests
have much to do with this.


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: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Slip
Date: 9 May 90 20:46:49 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois



In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William M.
Hawkins) writes:

>I have been using a Prometheus modem to talk to MultiTech modems at
>work.  Sometimes there would be an excess of "}" characters on the
>line.  If I hung up and redialled, that connection would be OK.  Ah,
>this is at 1200 baud, 300 baud is OK, as is voice (but useless for the
>volume of News).  Three weeks ago, it got hot in Minnesota, and then I
>couldn't find a line that didn't have "}" problems.

>I've been told that this is "line slip", which I assume is in the
>trunk multiplexers.  Yes, the machine at work is in a different
>exchange.  My problem is, Repair Service doesn't seem to know what
>Line Slip is, or what to do about it.

I have several comments; I hope they can, in some way, be helpful
instead of just throwing fat on the fire.

Because of the circuit design, 1200 baud modems are more prone to the
most common types of circuit "noise" than any other speed of
operation.  I know this because of technical publications and personal
experience.  When this "noise" creeps in, the "}" character is the one
that most often appears (but I have no idea why that particular
character).

I think it is counter productive for you to try to tell the telco what
is causing your problem (line slip).  The odds are that this is not
the cause at all; this is just one of MANY things that can cause the
kind of "noise" that you are having.

The most telling piece of information in your description of the
situation is the change in symptoms when it "got hot three weeks ago"
and you couldn't find a clean line by re-dialing the connection.  This
would tend to point to a problem in the physical line (or station
equipment) at one end of the call or the other.  When the weather got
hot outside, did it also get hot INSIDE one of the buildings housing
the computers?

The first thing I would do is try to borrow a different brand of 1200
baud modem to put at one end (or both) of the connection for a few
days to see if the symptoms change.  Some modems are just more
sensitive to "things" than they should be and changing out the modem
can sometimes fix the problem.

That failing, try to call some other places to see if the problem is
associated with the originating end of the call or the terminating
end.  Once you convince yourself that there may be some noise
associated with the LINE at one end or the other, then call telco
repair.  Tell then you HEAR noise on the line; don't tell them about
"line slip" and don't mention a modem or data.

Alas, most telcos are not enlightened enough to take dial-up data
reports from John Q. Public and do them justice.  This is partly the
telco's fault and partly the customer's fault but that is fodder for
another whole discussion.  Also tell them that it is worse under
certain weather conditions.  It may be necessary to make the same
report several times a week or so apart over a couple of months before
they get serious and find something.

I must emphasize, though, that you need to hold up your end of the
bargain also by doing some cable and modem testing to be sure that the
problem is not in YOUR equipment before you insist on blaming the
nasty big telco for all your problems.  I have even heard of some rare
cases where the only thing that solved a modem "noise" problem was
changing out the serial port on the computer; if it is integrated on
the mother board, this amounts to getting a new computer!

Good luck in your quest.  I would have sent mail but I thought others
might find this discussion informative/interesting/amusing.  Feel free
to reply by mail if you wish.


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 02:37:43 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Buying Telecom Tools
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| I found that Graybar in San Jose won't sell to anybody who doesn't
| have a California resale certificate.  I thought that the days of
| phone-paranoia were over.

It's probably not phone paranoia, but Franchise Tax Board paranoia.
Graybar, like many "wholesale"-style shops, may not be set up to
collect/report/pay retail sales tax. So they simply refuse to sell to
you.

Possible solution, get *anybody* you know with a resale number to buy
it for you, then sell it to you at cost *plus* sales tax.


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: 9 May 90 10:22:32 EDT (Wed)
From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Buying Telecom Tools
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services


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

>I recently tried to go shopping for some telecom tools and supplies.
>I wanted to get a tracing beeper, an inductive pickup, and a modular
>adapter (to bring the modular pins out in order to attach a test set.)

>I found that Graybar in San Jose won't sell to anybody who doesn't
>have a California resale certificate.  I thought that the days of
>phone-paranoia were over.

More likely it's tax-form-paranoia or undercutting-our-regular-
customers-paranoia, found at many wholsalers.  GrayBar has "nationwide
service with over 190 locations" which gives good service to anyone
big enough for them to bother with.

>Does anybody know of a source that publishes a catalog from which I
>can mail order items such as these?  Hello Direct just won't cut it.

Jensen Tools, Inc
7815 S. 46th Street         602 968 1690 - Phone orders
Phoenix, AZ  85044-5399     602 438 1690 - Fax orders

Get their catalog.  Their prices are not what I call discount, but
I have usually been satisfied with their quality and service.


Paul S. Sawyer              uunet!unh!unhtel!paul     [e-mail]
UNH Telecommunications        attmail!psawyer       [e-mail]
Durham, NH  03824-3523      VOX: [phone]    FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 00:13:14 CDT
From: Terri Macko <motcid!ivory![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ameritech Mobile Pricing Changes (Correction)


My previous message in issue 332 of TELECOM Digest had errors in it.
This is a correction, plus some additional comments.

Each mobile is on a separate frequency channel so M-M uses two
channels; M-L or L-M-L uses one channel; and a M-M-M call uses three
channels. On three-way calls the controlling party can be doubly
billed. I guess I'm surprised they don't itemize the land trunk usage
as well!!

It's always irritated me, that a cellular customer might have to pay
for air-charges on calls they didn't originate. If you had your
cellular phone forwarded to a land line, and some buffoon kept calling
you, you'd have to pay for the nuisance calls! You might not suspect
he was calling your cellular number until you got the bill. Even
worse, a few carriers charge air time for call attempts, so even if
you don't answer, you get charged for the priveledge of having your
phone paged!!!

  here's the original miscue:

[e-mail] (David Tamkin) writes:
>Patrick Townson wrote in volume 10, issue 302:

>| or double airtime for three-way calling and calls accepted from call-
>| waiting.  Yes, you read that correctly: Cellular One/Chicago charges
>| *double* airtime when you make a three-way call from your cell phone or
>| accept a call waiting.

>Yes, that they do.  If you answer Call Waiting without terminating the
>interrupted call, Cellular One does charge double airtime for as long
>as you have both calls going; the same goes for using Three-Way
>Calling.  Unless Cellular One has just changed that, that is one
>aspect in which they do charge more than Ameritech Mobile, who do not
>charge for double simultaneous airtime.

Hmm, I can understand under the pay as you use philosophy, that the
mobile party in a three-way land-mobile-land call ought to pay for the
two voice channels required by the call. However, a three-way
mobile-mobile-mobile call seems like highway robbery ;-).  Am I
understanding correctly that Cellular One/Chicago charges four times for
two voice channels? For that matter, why should a mobile-mobile call pay
twice for only one voice channel!

Why doesn't the billing follow the land network philosophy of the originator
for that segment of the call pays?


Terri Macko,  Motorola Cellular        1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2237
...!uunet!motcid!macko                 Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #335
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11325;
          10 May 90 5:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11556;
          10 May 90 15:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09646;
          10 May 90 14:48 CDT
Date:     Thu, 10 May 90 13:42:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Clock Still Off ...
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

As reported a couple issues ago, the system clock is still off by
twelve hours to the second, and will probably remain that way until
sometime Thursday when Bill L. comes into the office.

Issues 334-335 were produced and transmitted Thursday MORNING (just
after midnight) and you should re-date your copies accordingly. This
note is likewise twelve hours fast, in effect getting to you before I
sent it out!  :)


Patrick Townson
The Immoderate Moderator











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05048;
          11 May 90 3:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21237;
          11 May 90 1:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08755;
          11 May 90 0:50 CDT
Date:     Fri, 11 May 90 0:38:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #336
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 May 90 00:38:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 336

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Buying Telecom Tools [Peter Quodling]
    Re: Buying Telecom Tools [Edward Greenberg]
    Re: Buying Telecom Tools [John Higdon]
    Re: Telephone Tools and Workmanship [Terri Macko]
    Re: Telephone Tools and Workmanship [Roy Smith]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Jeff Mischkinsky]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Jon Baker]
    Re: Party Line Ring Codes [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Phones in Yugoslavia [[e-mail]]
    Re: Line Slip [Peter da Silva]
    Re: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts [John G. Young]
    Re: Pay Phone Company [David Tamkin]
    Use of U. S. Phone in India [William A. Shirley]
    Availability of CCITT Standards [Yoram Eisenstadter]
    Re: Become an Information Broker [Macy Hallock]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter Quodling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Buying Telecom Tools
Date: 10 May 90 11:25:37 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


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

>I recently tried to go shopping for some telecom tools and supplies.
>I wanted to get a tracing beeper, an inductive pickup, and a modular
>adapter (to bring the modular pins out in order to attach a test set.)

>Does anybody know of a source that publishes a catalog from which I
>can mail order items such as these?  Hello Direct just won't cut it.

I have in front of me, a catalog from Specialized Products Company
[phone]. They have a section devoted to linesmans tools, and a
quick glance shows tracing equipment and modular adaptors. And a whole
lot of other nice tools (albeit expensive).


Peter Quodling                 Internet:     [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation    UUCP: ...!decwrl!blumon.enet!quodling
Nashua, NH.                      I disclaim everything!!!

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 09:32 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Buying Telecom Tools


Rob Warnock writes:

>It's probably not phone paranoia, but Franchise Tax Board paranoia.
>Graybar, like many "wholesale"-style shops, may not be set up to
>collect/report/pay retail sales tax. So they simply refuse to sell
>to you.

An interesting point, but I don't think so.  If I have a resale
certificate for my business, that doesn't mean I don't have to pay
sales tax on everything I buy, just on things bought for resale.

If a telecom business goes in and buys 100 BIX blocks for a customer,
then, of course, they don't pay sales tax, but if they need three Butt
Sets for their employees, they'd better.

Also, if they take ten of those bix blocks (purchased for resale) out
of stock and mount them in their own phone room, they'd better account
for the sales tax on those 10 and pay it themselves.

I'll accept that they don't want to do business with small potatoes
though, or accept personal checks, but the sales tax issue isn't.

Thanks for a good try though.

                                 -edg


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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Buying Telecom Tools
Date: 10 May 90 20:23:29 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Rob Warnock <[e-mail]> writes:

> It's probably not phone paranoia, but Franchise Tax Board paranoia.
> Graybar, like many "wholesale"-style shops, may not be set up to
> collect/report/pay retail sales tax. So they simply refuse to sell to
> you.

First, it's not the Franchise Tax Board (I always wondered how I could
get a "tax franchise":-), but the Board of Equalization. Second,
Graybar has always held a valid resale permit and is perfectly capable
of conducting retail transactions. Everything I have bought from them
for my personal use has had sales tax collected by Graybar.

Sorry, that's not the reason.


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

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

From: Terri Macko <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Tools and Workmanship
Date: 10 May 90 16:31:56 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In comp.dcom.telecom you write:

>I saw an even BETTER installation one time - the installers used cable
>ties to attach the telephone cable to the fire sprinkler piping! The
>inspector had a fit when he saw it.

I once did some eng support at a class 5 office that grounded the
entire CO to the water pipes. It must've taken four years for the
hardware engineers to coerce them to change, but the still weren't
convinced. Another amusing sidenote: This CO was in the basement of a
downtown building. Apparently, there was a spring under the building.
Water began leaking up through the concrete, and every hour or so, the
floor around the switch would have to be wet-vac'd. They finally
drilled holes and installed sump pumps ... which they also had to
connect to the power generator.


Terri Macko,  Motorola Cellular        1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2237
 ...!uunet!motcid!macko                Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Telephone Tools and Workmanship
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 15:22:46 GMT


> I saw an even BETTER installation one time - the installers used cable
> ties to attach the telephone cable to the fire sprinkler piping! The
> inspector had a fit when he saw it.

    Why?  Perhaps I'm being thick, but what possible harm can come
of attaching phone wire to the outside of the pipes that feed a
sprinkler system?  How could that possibly interfere with the
operation of the sprinkler?


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane?  Did you say arcane?  It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"

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

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 18:58:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 330, Message 4 of 8

>Which brings to mind a question I have asked before, although not in
>exactly the form I will ask it now.  I have never seen an answer I
>have understood.

>Is it necessary to subscribe to the touch-tone service in order to use
>it?  In other words, if I tell the telco to stick the touch-tone
>service, along with their monthly charge, will my touch-tone dialing
>still work.?  I understand that in the good old days, the telco may
>have had to have a special switch that would recognize touch tones and
>take appropriate action; in these days of all digital switching
>equipment (at least here) and lots of extra services (call waiting,
>distinctive ringing, automatic callback, callerid, itc) is that just a
>spurious charge?

My experience has been that touch-tone phones will work even if you
don't subscribe to touch-tone service.  I have never had touch-tone
service (i.e. I have always refused the service, and have never paid
for it), but have used touch-tone phones/modems for years with no
problems, and not in pulse mode.  This has been both in Ca and in MA.

A few years ago I received a letter from Pac Bell saying that it has
come to our attention that you do not have touch service and that if I
didn't immediately sign up for it, I would no longer be able to use a
touch tone phone.  As usual, I ignored the dire warnings, and as
usual, nothing changed.

I don't know whether my experience generalizes.  I live close to, but
outside of Sacramento.  I know that we were one of the last areas to
get equal access -- something about how our switches were too new to
upgrade, but too old to install equal access.  In MA, I lived in
Amherst, which is in the rural western part of the state.


Jeff Mischkinsky        internet: [e-mail]
Unify Corporation                  ...!{pyramid,csusac}!unify!jeff
3870 Rosin Court        voice: [phone] fax: [phone]
Sacramento, CA 95834        ICBMS: 38 38 40 N / 120 28 10 W

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Date: 10 May 90 22:28:36 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> Is it necessary to subscribe to the touch-tone service in order to use
> it?  In other words, if I tell the telco to stick the touch-tone
> service, along with their monthly charge, will my touch-tone dialing
> still work.?  I understand that in the good old days, the telco may
> have had to have a special switch that would recognize touch tones and
> take appropriate action; in these days of all digital switching
> equipment (at least here) and lots of extra services (call waiting,
> distinctive ringing, automatic callback, callerid, itc) is that just a
> spurious charge?

No.  Special equipment is needed to detect the tones.  The database
dictates allowed dialing methods from your phone :

   a) DTMF only
   b) Dial pulse only
   c) DTMF or dial-pulse

If you tell the telco to 'stick it', and they modify your database
accordingly, then DTMF frequencies from your phone will NOT break
dial-tone.

> Second, even if it were the case that I couldn't use touch tone
> dialing to the telco, once connected to whatever (a remote answering
> machine, voice-mail, etc) that required touch tone, couldn't I then
> just switch my phone from pulse to tone and use the services?

Yes.  The tones will, of course, continue to be passed normally
through the talk-path, along with all other voice-band frequencies.

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

From: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Party Line Ring Codes
Date: 9 May 90 23:13:24 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


>    From a technical standpoint, the M, R, J and W have a precise
>definition (valid today), which is as follows:

>    "M" = + superimposed ringing on TIP
>    "R" = + superimposed ringing on RING
>    "J" = - superimposed ringing on TIP
>    "W" = - superimposed ringing on RING

Could there be any significance to the fact, which just struck me
while I was reading this, that pairs of letters from switching leads
and polarity (M-W and R-J) that M rotated 180 degrees looks like W,
and J rotated 180 degrees looks a little like an R with a piece
missing?

It sounds a little silly, but it might make it easier to remember.


        Gordon L. Burditt
        sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 13:00:55 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phones in Yugoslavia


Yes, Yugislavian phone system works with U.S. phone sets, the only thing
is - pulse dialing.
all best,


andrei
SovAm Teleport,
Moscow


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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Line Slip
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 01:59:03 GMT


We have similar problems, but at 2400 baud. The sequence of characters
is always "~r" or "<DEL>{". The same behaviour has been observed with
Anchor Automation Signalmans, Anchor Automation Patriots, Telebit
Trailblazers, and Evercom 24+ modems on the computer end, and
Prometheus Prmodems, Anchor Automation Patriots, Evercom 24+, and one
other modem on the calling end. The same behaviour is observed on both
lines at the calling end and all 6 lines at the recieving end. Two
computers and four brands ov terminals are involved. Before bitching
to the phone company, what else should I try?


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone].  <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Commercial solicitation *is* accepted by email to this address.

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 14:32:44 EDT
From: John G Young <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "The Telephone Hour" -  AT&T Support of the Fine Arts
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Opalko, N7KBT) writes:

> If anybody finds a source for the tapes, let us know!!  I'd like to
> see the rest of them.

    *** CELEBRATION -- A retrospective of radio and television
    programs presented on "The Telephone Hour" from 1940 to 1968 is
    under way at the Museum of Broadcasting, New York, through October
    27.  The retrospective is part of a year-long series of events
    sponsored by AT&T in celebration of 50 years of arts sponsorship.
    [NY Times]

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 18:35 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Company


Bill Huttig <[e-mail]> wrote:

| I went up to the phone to look at it and on the name card it said that it
| takes Bell or ATT calling card.  It also stated that the long distance
| company was AT&T or TELECOM*USA.  How can a pay phone have two long
| distance carriers?

Perhaps it uses one carrier for inter-LATA calls within area code 407
and one for the rest of the world, or one for calls within Florida and
one for outside Florida.  Perhaps it even has internal routing tables
for selecting one carrier or the other, depending on destination of
the call, but it's hard to imagine that so much programming effort
went into it, considering Bill's next couple sentences:

| When I dialed 00 it took about thirty seconds.  Then a normal busy
| signal.  I could not dial the 700 test number as it was 'Not a valid
| number'.  Also 10XXX was blocked.

There's a special place in hell for COCOT owners and programmers.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  MCI Mail: 426-1818  CIS: 73720,1570


[Moderator's Note: Remember, when you see a phone which is/might as
well be out of order due to severe misprogramming (based on FCC rules)
such as you describe above, why not mark it out of order, as a
courtesy to the next person who might attempt to use it. A sticky
label of some sort, placed across the coin slot with OUT OF ORDER
written on it will warn those who later might waste money trying to
place a call to 'not a valid number'.  :)  PT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Use of U.S. Phone in India
Date: 10 May 90 10:04:20 GMT


    Will a cheapy speakerphone which draws its amps from the
phone line work in India?  Does India use the same pulse/tones
that we do?


William Arthur Shirley
Wesleyan University


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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 10:57:31 EDT
From: Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Availability of CCITT Standards


Does anybody know where the texts of the CCITT standards can be
obtained (specifically the ones pertaining to ISDN protocols)?

Thanks, Y

P.S. Please reply directly to me; I will post a summary to Telecom.
(UUCP: ...!rutgers!cs.columbia.edu!yoram)


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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Thu May 10 10:57:22 1990
Subject: Re: Become an Information Broker
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]>:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 333, Message 7 of 12

>            START A NEW BUSINESS WITH YOUR MODEM
>            ====================================

>  NEW TELECOMMUTING CARRER - Become an INFORMATION BROKER!
>  ********************************************************

I am already an information broker. For $120./hr I'll tell you
anything you want to know about telecom and/or Unix.  Buy me a beer
and I'll tell you anything about anything ... for hours.


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 #336
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07974;
          11 May 90 5:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05660;
          11 May 90 2:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21237;
          11 May 90 1:55 CDT
Date:     Fri, 11 May 90 1:14:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #337
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 May 90 01:13:22 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 337

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Service Observing and the Law [Larry Lippman]
    900 Number For Stopping Caller ID? [Carl Moore]
    Flip Side of Caller-ID [Jerry Leichter]
    NY Tel to Sell Numbers to Telemarketers [Yoram Eisenstadter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Service Observing and the Law
Date: 10 May 90 00:08:34 EDT (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> fmsystm![e-mail]
writes a pretty good description of service observing activity by
operating telephone companies and communication common carriers.

    The existence and extent of service observing ranks among the
darkest and deepest secrets of any operating telephone company, along
with that of line load control (which I wrote about last year).

> >> 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?

    The communication common carrier providing the above statement
is not *obligated* to make it, since service observing is specifically
permitted under federal eavesdropping statutes.  The applicable law is
18 USC 2511 (2)(a)(i), which states:

    "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator
    of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a
    provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose
    facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication,
    to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal
    course of his employment while engaged in any activity which
    is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to
    the protection of the rights or property of the provider of
    that service, except that a provider of wire communication
    service to the public shall not utilize service observing or
    random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality
    control checks."

> >I suspect your contract with the local operating company has similar
> >wording. I also suspect that this only refers to calls you make on the
> >AT&T card, not your local phone.

    There is probably more service observing performed on the part
of local operating telephone companies than long distance carriers.

> The telco traffic department can obtain information using some low
> technology equipment: Special tape recorders with line scanning
> equipment are hooked up somewhere in the switching chain to observe
> the calls.  Typically these are not tied to specific customer lines,
> but rather to equipment common to a group of lines (know what a first
> selector is in a SXS office?).

    In my own travels in years past, most service observing was
performed "live" by a specially-trained clerk.  A group of trunks
would be temporarily terminated in a console with status indicators
and listen keys.  A headset was used, but there was a one-way bridging
amplifier which prevented the service observing console from causing
any sound on the subscriber line.  In larger metropolitan areas the
service observing apparatus was more sophisticated and employed ACD
(Automatic Call Distribution), so the service observing clerk just
stayed on the line and took notes with each new call.

    In general, there was no way for the service observing clerk
to ascertain the identity of the calling or called parties.

    As I briefly mentioned in a recent article, I was once
involved with the development of microprocessor-based coin control
circuits to provide DTF and LCOT in SxS and XY CO's.  The manufacturer
we were working with was testing our designs in cooperation with some
operating telephone companies, and much coin telephone service
observing was performed to gather statistics on how long it took for
customers to dial digits, deposit money, respond to "insufficient
deposit" or "overtime" recordings, etc.  All I can appropriately say
is that coin telephone service observing is the creme de la creme of
all service observing, and that it is *not* boring. :-)

> The results of these studies are immensely useful to the telco and
> directly influence the total quality of service involved.

    We learned a *lot* about customer habits in using coin
telephones with LCOT.  The biggest surprise was that in order to
maximize revenue and get the customer to deposit the nickel for the
next five minutes, we had to provide a "grace period" of over a minute
following the overtime recording.  There was more revenue if we gave
the customer time to react to the recording and dig out the extra
nickel than if we cut him off.  Most LCOT non-payment cutoffs do NOT
redial.

    As a parenthetical aside on LCOT, we provided a firmware
jumper option on the LCOT board as to when the five-minute interval
started following deposit of the nickel: (1) immediately following
nickel deposit; or (2) *exactly* five minutes into the call.  The real
issue was whether the 1+ minute grace period was free.  The
overwhelming telephone company response was that it was *not* free, so
the second firmware revision deleted this option.  So, if the customer
deposited his LCOT nickel six + minutes into the call, he only got
four minutes of additional time.  Oh, well, *I* tried to be fair...

> The telco management was very paranoid about this form of service
> observing.
> ...
> In fact, we were told that this was most likely an illegal practice

    It is not at all unlawful, provided it is performed for the
legitimate purpose of assuring service quality.

> Every telco I know of has used this type of service observation, and I
> suspect most still do.  Before anyone starts flaming away, please
> understand that this is the only way to gather a _complete_ picture of
> the behavior of a switching system, and is essential to the complete
> control of the quality of service.  I still know of no substitute for it.

    This is indeed true!  On our coin control projects we learned
things about how the public uses a coin telephone that a group of
engineers sitting around a conference table could never have foreseen
in a dozen years of brainstorming.

> (As I recall, a
> telco craftsman lost his job after going to the police about a murder
> conspiracy he overheard while servicing a line.)

    Under federal law and under most state laws the actions of a
telephone company employee who notified police of criminal activity
overheard during the normal course of their employment is not only NOT
UNLAWFUL, but in some states it is a crime to FAIL to report such a
conversation to police!

    In New York State, as an example, Penal Law 250.35 states:

    "1.  It shall be the duty of a telephone or telegraph
    corporation and of any employee, officer or representative
    thereof having knowledge that the facilities of such
    corporation are being used to conduct any criminal business,
    traffic or transaction, to furnish or attempt to furnish
    to an appropriate law enforcement officer or agency all
    pertinent information within his possession relating to such
    matter, and to cooperate fully with any law enforcement
    officer or agency investigating such matter.

    2.  A person is guilty of failing to report criminal communi-
    cations when he knowingly violates any duty prescribed in
    subdivision one of this section.  Failing to report criminal
    communications is a class B misdemeanor."

    How's that for a surprise?  As far as I know there has never
been any appellate cases, let alone a constitutional test of this law
in New York State.  However, from a federal law standpoint (18 USC
2511) there are ample appellate cases which support both the
lawfulness and admissibility of information about criminal activity
furnished by a telephone company operator or craftsperson to a law
enforcement agency as a result of the incidental overhearing of a
conversation by such operator or craftsperson.

    Also, on the topic of toll fraud and service observing, there
is a *large* body of federal appellate case law which supports the
right of a telephone company or communication common carrier to tape
record calls made through fraudulent means, and turn over such
recordings to a law enforcement agency for use as evidence in a
prosecution.  A telephone company or communication common carrier may
in effect install a wiretap on a toll fraud perpetrator without court
authorization, and use the results from such wiretap as evidence.  A
law enforcement agency would require an eavesdropping warrant to
conduct the same activity; of course, they don't, and just let the
telephone company do it for them.


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: Thu, 10 May 90 10:27:46 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Number For Stopping Caller ID?


On KYW news-radio out of Philadelphia this morning, I heard of a 900
number that is to be used for stopping caller ID. (Two of the given
reasons were having an unlisted number and calling a telemarketer --
the latter presumably would put your number, if available via caller ID,
on a list of some sort).

The number given was 900-STOPPER, which would translate to
900-786-7737.  (If you're in Philadelphia area: KYW is at 1060 on AM
dial.)

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

Date: Wed,  9 May 90 22:23:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Flip Side of Caller-ID


It's one of those inexorable laws that for every action there's a
re-action. [The New York Times] (8-May-1990, Page D7) has an article
titled "Now, a Way to Conceal Identification of Caller."  A company
called Private Lines Inc. in Beverly Hills is offering an anonymous
calling service.  The service is accessed through a pair of 900
numbers.  One, 900-STOPPER, costs $2.00/minute and provides access to
"domestic" telephone numbers.  The other, 900-RUNWELL, costs
$5.00/minute but allows international calls.  In each case, the
charges cover both legs of the call.

Implementation is simple: You dial the 900 number and receive, from a
"phone switching computer in the Midwest," a second dialtone.  You
then dial the number you really wanted to reach.  The computer retains
no records indicating which calls went where, and your billing record
shows only the call to the 900 number.  The company deliberately
avoids keeping any records so that there is nothing to be subpoenaed.
In fact, one of the advantages cited for using the service is that
"Companies and professionals could ... use the numbers to guard
against the unintended disclosure of client lists when telephone
records are subpoenaed during civil lawsuits...."

The use of this system also prevents law enforcement authorities from
tracing calls.  New York and Federal authorities "say this could slow
some investigations."  A spokesman for the FBI says "We do subpoena
toll records and those are valuable to us ....  ... Marvin L. Rudnick,
the chairman of Private Lines and a former assistant United States
attorney who spent most of his 15 years at the Department of Justice
investigating organized crime, argued that [mem- bers of the mob]
would not trust the 900 numbers.  'The crooks want the protection of a
pay phone,' he said."

The Department of Justice and the SEC declined to comment on the
service.  An FCC official says it is legal.

Privacy advocates had reservations about the system.  The ACLU, which
has argued that Caller-ID blocking should be offered wherever
Caller-ID is, expressed concern because they "require individuals to
pay for a level of privacy that was free before the introduction of
caller identification."  "The mere fact that some entrepreneur will
restore that privacy to you for a fee is negative, because it lets the
telephone services off the hook," according to Gary T. Marx, a
professor of sociology at MIT.

According to Berge A. Ayvazian, a vice president of the Yankee Group,
a Boston telecommunications consulting firm, few individuals or
companies are likely to be willing to pay $2 or $5 a minute for
routine calls.  "They are more likely to use it for a phone call that
involves some sort of litigation risk."

AT&T has contracted to provide the inbound and outbound long-distance
telephone service for the new numbers.  A company that AT&T and
Private Lines refused to identify will operate the switching center.

Private Lines is trying to patent the idea "to prevent the proliferation of
identical 900 services and competition on price," though they concede that
getting such a patent might be difficult.

Some comments:

        - It's interesting how these things develop.  Some of the "exposure"
    has been there for a long time - toll records have been kept
    for many years; 800 providers have been able to receive caller
    identification for a while; etc.  However, it took the attempt
    at widespread introduction to Caller-ID to inspire the crea-
    tion of this service.  It's a one-way transition, though - no
    one will ever look at their phone in quite the same way any
    more.  The very existence of such services will make people
    aware of the potential exposures they face - the client-list
    exposure is an interesting one, for example.

    - One non-obvious thing about such a service is that, if you want to
    use it to make UNTRACEABLE calls, it can ONLY work if it has a
    lot of subscribers.  Whether or not the forwarding system
    keeps records, it is possible to take a given caller's toll
    records, plus the service's outgoing toll records, and match
    the time of calls made TO the service with the calls made BY
    the service.  Unless the service is quite busy, there are
    likely to be very few outgoing calls that could correspond to
    a given incoming call.

    - David Chaum introduced the idea of a "mix" a number of years ago.
    A "mix" is a service provided in a network to allow anonymous
    communication.  It is simply a packet forwarder - but one
    which will modifies packets it forwards to point back only to
    itself, not directly to the original sender.  The mix will
    forward packets back along the reverse channel, but will not
    reveal to anyone which of its ports are connected to each
    other.  Chaum discusses a number of issues related to the
    security of mixes, including the "must be busy enough" condi-
    tion I mentioned above.  (This is a classic traffic analysis
    problem, and can be dealt with by classic anti-traffic analy-
    sis techniques:  A mix continuously generates and sends random
    traffic to multiple destinations.  Of course, this is a bit
    easier on a packet net than for a phone line forwarder....)

    Chaum also points out that you don't actually have to trust
    any particular mix, as long as there are enough of them out
    there and you trust that they are not all in cahoots.  Simply
    route your message in sequence through several mixes; if ANY
    of them is trustworthy, you are safe.  You aren't likely to
    be able to apply that technique here, even ignoring what it
    would cost you, since the forwarder is unlikely to let you
    call out to a 900 number - he'd be stuck with the charges!


            -- Jerry

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 11:23:26 EDT
From: Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY Tel to Sell Numbers to Telemarketers
Reply-To: [e-mail]


My last phone bill from New York Telephone (subsidiary of NYNEX)
included the following message:

    ``Subject to Public Service Commission approval,
    New York Telephone plans to make available
    telephone listings (customer's name, address and
    telephone number as provided in the White Pages
    directory) for direct mail and telemarketing
    purposes.''

They provide a form to return if you want your name withheld from the
lists.  (Unpublished and unlisted numbers are automatically withheld.)

While I'm aware that other companies routinely sell my name and
address, I find the phone company's indulgence in such a practice to
be particularly objectionable (especially since they are also selling
my phone number).  Of course, a large percentage of the annoyance
calls I've received in the past have been from (you guessed it) NY
Telephone, which aggressively hawks their custom calling services via
telemarketing.

(Note that NYTel doesn't expect to make enough money from such
services to keep itself suitably profitable: they will request a 100%
increase in the basic cost of residential phone service for January
1991.)

Cheers..Y

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #337
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09684;
          11 May 90 6:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29622;
          11 May 90 4:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05660;
          11 May 90 2:59 CDT
Date:     Fri, 11 May 90 1:58:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #338
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 May 90 01:57:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 338

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Panasonic System Coming (Was: Toshita Business Phone) [Macy Hallock]
    Interesting DMS Trick [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    RPE for SL1 XL [Michael Sauer]
    Request For RS-232 Line Distributor/Monitor [Ueli Buechler]
    Re: Questions About Audiovox CMT-350 [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: Motel Charge (Was re: Splashing) [Russ Kepler]
    Name-Place Listings For Area 809 [TELECOM Moderator]
    BBS Handshaking [Thomas Summerall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Thu May 10 10:45:10 1990
Subject: New Panasonic System Coming (Was: Toshiba Business Phone)
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


[Well, since the Digest has been good to me, I'll return the favor.
Here's something I bet you all didn't know...]

In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon (fellow GTE victim) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 331, Message 8 of 11

>If you are too large for the Panasonic KX-T1232.....

OK, folks, here's some news:

The Panasonic KX-T series system will get another larger system in the
series this year.  In the past, the largest KX-T system you could get
was the 1232.  This new system, code named "Excelsior" will come in 96
port cabinets, and can be stacked for 192 port total capacity.

Standard KX-T proprietary sets from the 308, 616 and/or 1232 can be
used, in addition to single line 2500 compatible sets.  There will be
three types of station cards: Hybrid (2500 or proprietary sets),
proprietary only and 2500/SLT only.  Trunk cards will be available in
loop start or ground start versions.

A new, optional attendant console is being introduced that looks like
the voice/data CRT/telephone previously made by Panasonic.  It's
really neat.  It has some programming functionality built in, too.
Panasonic is separating customer programmable stuff (station numbers
and restrictions) from the esoteric/complicated/dangerous programming
with different passwords to make customer programming less risky.

Conventional DSS units from the 616 and 1232 will also be usable for
those applications not requiring the expense of the CRT based console.
Lots of added functions for the telephone sets themselves, too.  Sets
can be key-per-trunk or pooled dial access in any mix via programming.
A new low end "single-line" proprietary set is planned, with feature
buttons, too.

The beta software I saw is smarter than the KX-T1232-11 and well done.
RS-232 outputs for SMDR are standard.  Auto-attendant, remote
maintenance, and a couple of other neat features are optional.  An
integrated voice mail system is planned, but was not working when I
played with the system (also optional).

Plans are underway to make the voice mail systems retro-fittable to
KX-T1232 systems.  Nice touch!  Many more features are planned.
Panasonic knows that you gotta have lots of features to compete in the
key system market, like ARS with call pricing.

Efforts have been made to make this system function very tightly with
other KX series stuff (ans. machines, phones, etc.)  All Panasonic
cordless phones work with this system, and will be able to access most
every system feature, as will most any other single line set.  They
are considering a special cordless multi line set for the KX series
KSU's, but don't hold your breath...

I have asked them to add T1 capability and some switched data, but no
word on this yet ... they've got their hands full just getting
everything ready for formal introduction, I think.

Also new will be a couple of fax machines from the KX group.  (Other
Panafax machines from the UF group will continue to be distributed
through the Office Automation dealers as before).

Because this will be a much more complicated system that the 1232 this
system will be sold only thru dealers with certified technicians on
staff.  This will help deal with their overloaded tech assist 800
number, I hope.  They are also sensitive to mail order discounters
cutting the throats of their dealers and want to find a way to keep
the products widely available without killing local dealers off.

My company, for one, takes in any Panasonic KX-T KSU on trade in for a
larger model.  (We sell the used ones fast, too.) This will help make
the Panasonic KX-T series tough to outgrow for a while.

My guess is deliveries will start in the fall ... pricing is not yet
set.  Panasonic knows the market is competitive, but I don't think
they intend to underprice the market, either.

This thing beats the daylights out of the older VA series DBS.  Those
KX-T guys write some nice software!

I saw this product in its first stages, and made several suggestions.
Panasonic looks like they've done their homework on this one.  The
system I used last week was a pre-production beta unit and is very
close to the final version.  The manuals I saw consisted of three
volumes, of which two are installation/maintenance and programming.
These are being written by their staff in New Jersey this time.

So there you are ... the Digest just scooped everyone else on this one.

I have tried to give you all an idea of what's coming without
compromising my position as a Panasonic dealer.  I am not an official
Panasonic spokesman.  I have not betrayed any confidences here,
either.

Don't get me in trouble by bugging Panasonic and/or distributors about
this ... there isn't even any literature printed for it yet.


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: 10-MAY-1990 16:13:14.05
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting DMS Trick


Hi-

I'm not sure if this is "common knowledge" or if it has been mentioned
before, but I noticed that on a DMS-100, if you have three-way
calling, you can use your three-way calling feature to put a caller on
hold and go to another extension.

For example, I call my friend Bob. I connect to him (ie, supervision
is returned, or whatever "supervision" is called on a local call).  I
then decide to go to another extension. I place a three-way call to
some busy number, and then I hang up. I *DON'T* flash back to join the
second ("busy") call with Bob, so I am basically hanging up on the
second ("busy") call.

After I hang up, the phone starts to ring, and continues like a
regular ring until I pick it up, when my conversation can then resume
with Bob from whatever extension I pick up.

I *think* this won't work on a 1ESS, as I vaguely recall trying it out
a while back, and was under the impression that a DMS couldn't do it
either.  I came to discover this quite accidentally when I hung up on
the "second" prong of a three way call unintentionally!

(Of course my DMS is so messed up maybe it's just something local -
For example,if you hit *70 to block Call-Waiting, when you are done
with the *70 call, the DMS *forwards* your future calls to whatever
number you had your calls forwarded to last. I've told the Phone co.
about this, and they said they know about the problem, but since it's
intermittent, they are having a really hard time fixing it...)

I believe Pac*Bell offers a 'service' such as this, where you can
flash the hookswitch, enter a code, hang up, and the phone will then
ring so that you can pick up another extention. I'm not sure if they
charge for this or not, but somehow I think they would! :-) (This may
also be an intercom service, so maybe they are justified in charging
for it ... I dunno...)

If you are 'fortunate' enough to be served by a DMS, and want to try
this out without bothering somene else to be the first prong of the
call, you can use your calling card to call a busy number
(0-201-752-9970 comes to mind), and then as the second prong (the one
you will hang up on) just dial it direct, (ie, (1-)201-752-9970) and
hang up. For some reason, the DMS doesn't seem to care about
supervision on Calling Card calls (or any 0+ calls?), and assumes that
once you get 0+ you are connected. (Sort of like my cell phone - 0+
bills immediately even if you don't do ANYTHING afterwards, such as
enter your card number or talk to an operator. Hmmm...can 0+ calls
even return supervision to the cell switch at all? To the DMS? )

Anyhow, give it a try ... if your DMS is even half as messed up as mine,
well, who knows ... it may work!  :-)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!!  :-)  )

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

From: MICHAEL SAUER <[e-mail]>
Subject: RPE For SL1 XL
Date: 10 May 90 23:09:37 GMT
Reply-To: MICHAEL SAUER <[e-mail]>
Organization: Univ of Nevada Las Vegas - Management Services


Does anyone have any experience distributing their SL1 traffic using
remote peripheral equipment?

Please respond by email.


Michael L. Sauer                                   BITNET:  [e-mail]
University of Nevada Las Vegas                      Internet:  [e-mail]
4505 Maryland Parkway                                             [phone]
Las Vegas, NV  89154

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

From: Ueli Buechler <cgch![e-mail]>
Subject: Request For RS-232 Line Distributor/Monitor
Organization: CIBA-GEIGY AG, Basle, Switzerland
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 10:04:19 GMT


Hello,

In order to monitor all traffic on some RS-232 lines I am looking for
a device to tap the data:

    +-----------+             +-----------+
------->|  tap box  |----> RX       ---->|  tap box  |----> RX
<-------|           |<---  TX       <----|           |<---  TX
    +-----------+             +-----------+
     RX |  | TX                        | RX/TX
        v  v                           v
    +-----------+             +-----------+
    | monitoring|             | monitoring|
    | computer  |             | computer  |
    +-----------+             +-----------+
         (a)                  (b)

I can think of two possibilities:

a) a dual port connection (tapbox - monitor) where RX and TX lines
   are transferred separately.

b) a single port connection, where RX and TX data would have to
   carry a marker for later separation.

Flow control between the box and the monitoring computer should be
possible and the tap box should be fully transparent to the tapped
line (i.e. modem and flow control on the tapped line still work).

Thanks for any help.


Ueli Buechler                 |  cgch![e-mail]
CIBA-GEIGY AG                 |  tel [phone]
R-1045.3.32                   |  fax [phone]
CH-4002 BASEL, Switzerland    |

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Questions About Audiovox CMT-450
Date: 11 May 90 00:20:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> W.L. Ware writes:

>Thanks to Marcel Mongeon's infomation on entering programming mode on
>this phone I have managed to do so. However of the 20-odd parameters I
>can only deduce what 3 of them do. I would appreciate any information on
>what the other parameters control.

Here we go (as best as I have been able to figure them out) (and also
with the Moderator's standard disclaimer that none of this should be
done without proper authorization!).  On my CTX-4500 (I lied about a
5000 - I was never any good with model numbers!) the cells in the
programmable memory have the following functions as far as I can
figure:

    01  -  Your 10 digit telephone number
    02  -  Your 3 digit "LOCK" number
    03  -  The 5 digit system number of your prime carrier (This
        one is used mainly for the 'Roam' display)
    04  -  No idea.
    05  -  No idea.
    06  -  No idea.
    07  -  No idea.
    08  -  The first channel to start searching for the carrier
        channel of a cell on.  If you are on System A:333
    09  -  No idea.
    10  -  No idea other than the numbers look like they can
        only be a 1 or a 0 and therefore it probably sets
        some of the different features referred to in the
        instruction manual as NAM option.
    11  -  Same as 10.
    12  -  Same as 10.
    13  -  No idea.
    14  -  No idea.
    15  -  Another Lock number.
    16  -  5 digit system number of a system you want to lock out
        from being used.  Very useful if you don't wan't to get
        dinged by any roam charges from an adjacent system.
    17  -  Same as 16.
    18  -  Same as 16.
    19  -  Same as 16.
    20  -  Same as 16.
    21 to 25  -  No idea.
    26 and 27 -  Not programmable.  These are like check digits for
        the rest of the programming that you have done.

I realize that there is a lot of "I have no idea".  On the other hand
maybe it's all for the best.  Needless to say if you bugger up the
programming royally, you will have to explain to an authorized shop
what you have been up to!


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm

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

From: Russ Kepler <bbx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motel Charge (was Re: Splashing)
Date: 10 May 90 20:55:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Russ Kepler)
Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM


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

>I saw Super 8 motel in a message dated 7 May in Telecom.  I was just
>at a Super 8 in Culpeper, Va., and got charged for an (incompleted)
>long-distance call within area 703, and was told that it's standard
>practice at motels to charge for calls after the 5th ring.

But sometimes it works the other way around.  A hotel in Sunnyvale has
a rather bad COCOT on its' default service.  I bitched at the hotel
operator and got an access number (00?).  The only problem (from
*their* point of view) is that calls made using that access don't get
billed to my room ... but I'm easy on 'em.

For someone that spends as much time out of town as I do the hotel
ripoff on LD calls is a real pain.  On a trip that I just returned
from I got a bill for 110,000 lira (about 90 USD) for one five minute
call to home to have my wife call me right back.  Seems that they've
caught on to the tactic of calling just long enough to tell 'em to
call back.  Later in the trip I had the pleasure of using a hotel that
said they didn't add anything to the call - and don't.  A ten minute
call to the office was billed as 65 French francs, about twelve
dollars.  I'm writing a note of thanks to the hotel management.

BTW - European hotels seem to *really* stick it to you on the phone
thing.  Local call charges of $1-$2 and some real steep tariffs on LD
calls - like 600% on already steep (relative to US AT&T) PTT rates.  I
try to make all kinds of calls from clients offices - but it's a bit
hard to hang around the office 'till 9PM (2100? not back long enuf) to
make those west coast calls.


Russ Kepler -  Basis Int'l     SNAIL:  5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
UUCP: bbx.basis.com!russ                                    PHONE: [phone]


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

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 1:21:41 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Name-Place Listings For Area 809


Our Canadian reader Woody has supplied another interesting file to the
Telecom Archives. This file is a cross reference to prefixes in the
809 area code. This area covers Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and
other islands in the vicinity.

This file will be available in the Archives sometime after this
weekend. The file will be named 'npa.809.prefixes'.  My thanks to
Woody for sending this along.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Thomas Summerall <[e-mail]>
Subject: BBS Handshaking
Date: 10 May 90 17:35:44 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


Hi, I am starting a new BBS and am wondering what the standard
handshaking is for a dialup service.  Are there default values for
xon/xoff, 7/8 bit, stop bits, etc. Or do the callers have to do trial
and error until they get it right?


Thanks in advance,
Thomas Summerall
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #338
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12953;
          12 May 90 2:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12232;
          12 May 90 0:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03754;
          11 May 90 23:11 CDT
Date:     Fri, 11 May 90 22:43:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #339
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 May 90 22:42:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 339

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Alternative to Touch Tone [Paul Colley]
    Coexistence of Six, Seven, and Eight Digit Numbers [John R. Covert]
    Re: No ISDN for GTD-5 !! [Jon Baker]
    T1 Boards/ Platforms [Mike MacGregor]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Roy Smith]
    Re: DMS Imitates ESS (But Can GTE do it?) [Jon Baker]
    Solution to the COCOT Problem [David Lesher]
    Re: Ring Me [Mike Coleman]
    Re: Flip Side of Caller-ID [Martin B. Weiss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Paul Colley)
Subject: Alternative to Touch Tone
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 13:08:42 GMT


The articles on using touch tone without paying for it reminded me of
something else from about 5-6 years ago.

Let's say you want touch-tone _speed_, but don't want to pay
touch-tone charges, and you are on some type of digital switch.
Nothing mechanical is moving at the switch, right?  Let's say you have
a 300 baud Commodore modem...

Such a modem doesn't know how to dial.  It can answer a phone;
software recognizes a ring signal, and tells it to ``lift the switch
hook''; software detects the carrier drop, and tells the modem to hang
up.

People, of course, immediately wrote software to pulse-dial using
software; just look up the specs on make/break times and dial.

Some speed freak (don't ask me why a speed freak would own a C-64 :-)
wondered: ``phones are mechanical, and would thus vary in dialing
speed ... I wonder what speed range the switch recognizes...''

Depending on the relay in your modem and the type of switch (and
software?) the telephone company had, it could be _rather_ fast!  A
friend demonstrated this for me, and you could get reliable
pulse-dialing about as fast as I could manually touch-tone dial an
unpracticed phone number.  Sounded more like buzzing on the line then
clicking: blt-bzzzzt-blt-bt-blzt-blt! sort of noise for a series of
digits.  I wonder if there would be a market for such a commercial
dialer?

Of course, reliability is suspect in any procedure where you crank the
speed up until it stops working, and then back it off a tad.  But
again, would you buy a C-64 if you wanted reliability?  :-)


Paul Colley
Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Canada
[e-mail] or .ca


[Moderator's Note: In the years before touch tone, the rotary dial on
an operator's switchboard would spin back *super fast*; about twice as
fast as the rotary dial on a regular subscriber's phone.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 05:01:29 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  10-May-1990 0731" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Coexistence of Six, Seven, and Eight Digit Numbers


Dan Sahlin asked if there were places in the world where six, seven,
and eight digit numbers coexist.  The answer is a resounding YES.  The
practice is very common in Germany and Austria (and probably many
other places as well).

In almost any major city in Germany or Austria, there will be a large
variety of number lengths.  A mix of six and seven digit numbers is
most common for regular phone connections.  PBX prefixes can be as
short as two digits or as long as five digits followed by either one
digit for the attendant and anywhere from two to four digits for
extensions.

For this reason, many city codes have recently been changed from three
digit codes to two or one digit codes since the CCITT recommendations
do not require numbers longer than a total of twelve digits (country
code plus national significant number) to be dialable from outside the
country.  Thus Frankfurt was change from 611 to 69, Berlin from 311 to
30, Munich from 811 to 89, and most interestingly Vienna from 222 to
1, but _only_ for international calls!

Some example numbers in Vienna:

Alba Hotel: 58850
Academia Hotel: 431661
AEZ Zentrum Hotel: 7122116
DEC Country HQ main number: 69010
DEC Country HQ extension: 6901-xxxx
DEC City Branch main number: 866300
DEC City Branch extension: 86630-xxxx (yes, NINE digits)

In the case of Vienna, any of the numbers up to seven digits may be
dialled from outside the country with +43 222 ..., but the eight and
nine digit numbers will not work from many countries unless dialled
with +43 1 ...  Austrian PBXs tend to drop the call on the attendant
if too few digits are dialled, so calls go through, but callers don't
understand why they reach the attendant and not the extension.

Karlsruhe has a three digit city code (721), preventing any eight
digit numbers from being reached from outside the country.  German
PBXs do not usually implement the timeout like the Austrian ones, and
the calls simply don't go through unless you dial the shorter number
for the attendant.

By the way, hotel PBXs in Germany now very often have direct inward
dialling to the rooms, usually with three ring and busy transfer to
the switchboard.


/john

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No ISDN for GTD-5 !!
Date: 10 May 90 22:03:13 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> Per an article in the most recent issue of _Communications Week_, GTE
> has cut off the development of ISDN for the GTD-5 by AG Communications.
> AG, based in Phoenix, has laid off staff in response to this move,

This is true.

> with more layoffs expected.

This is rumour.

> Comment:
> Well, since GTE has forced the GTD-5 to be used by its own telco's,
> and since almost no one else would buy it, this seems to mean that
> many GTE customers will not see ISDN for quite a while.  I understand

Not necessarily.  No ISDN on GTD5 does NOT imply no ISDN for GTE telco
customers.

> the GTD-5 will be manufacturer discontinued within the next two years.
> Many GTE CO upgrades ordered recently are now scheduled for NTI DMS
> machines, which confirms the rumor that GTE will go for NTI stuff in a
> big way, not AT&T (which seemed to be the case when AG Communications
> was formed).

Don't count on it.

> Has anyone seen any CLASS-type features actually operate on the GTD-5?

Yes.  Quite nicely.

> They have been rumored for two years, but never seemed to work.  They

CLASS services are available for the GTD-5.  To find out when they
will be deployed in your area, call your local GTE telco.

> have only brought up Centrex services on the GTD-5 in the last year,
> and even that appears brain damaged.  The GTD-5 hardware design seemed

Centrex for the GTD-5 has been available since around 1987, and it
works quite well.  However, there can be difficulties engineering the
features; this may lead to the perception that 'Centrex doesn't work',
when in fact the problems lie with the database.

> good, but the software has always been a problem.  GTE's withdrawal of
> further development seems to confirm this.

On what facts do you base this assertion that the hardware is good but
the software has 'always been a problem'?  Further, GTE has not
withdrawn all further development on the GTD-5.  Feature development
continues, just not on ISDN.

> Well, I guess that those of us that are stuck in GTE territory will
> continue to exist in the hinterlands of telecom for a while longer.

Those of you in GTE territory generally are in the hinterlands and
nether regions of our country.  Features such as Centrex and ISDN
don't tend to sell too well to a rural population, so don't expect
these features to be deployed as soon or quickly as they are in urban
areas, with high business-related customer density.

> GTE always has seemed to drop the ball when it came to telecom
> manufacturing.

Looking at the history of telecommunications over the last 100 years,
GTE has not been manufacturing telecom equipment for very long.  It's
equipment was previously manufactured by Automatic Electric, just as
AT&T's was manufactured by Western Electric.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 16:43:21 MDT
Subject: T1 Boards/ Platforms


I am looking for a platform for some experiments in T1 restoration.
The only thing I have seen so far is a board for IBM PC's called the
micro-DACS (from Frederick Engineering).  It allows you to terminate
and crossconnect several T1's.  Ideally, what I'd like is a device
which handles extended superframe (ESF) format, and gives access to
the overhead bits in the ESF frame.  Sun or PC add-ons would be
preferred, but I'm interested in anything that's out there.  Mail
direct and I'll summarize if interest warrants.


Thanks,

Mike MacGregor

uucp: [e-mail]  analog: [phone]  snail:   Dept of Comp. Sci.
ean:  [e-mail]                    U of Alberta, Edmonton AB, T6G 2H1

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 11:18:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Mischkinsky) writes:

> My experience has been that touch-tone phones will work even if you
> don't subscribe to touch-tone service.

    A few random data points.  In my old apartment (we moved there
in 1984 or so) we ordered a single non-TT line, and got just that.  A
TT phone wouldn't break dial tone.  Some time (one or two yrears?)
later, I noted TT worked.  Maybe they upgraded the CO?  A second line
we had put in after we had been there a while was ordered non-TT, but
TT worked fine from day one.

    In my new place, we ordered two non-TT lines when we moved in
(1986) and to this day, TT won't break dial tone.  A third non-TT line
we had put in a couple of months ago also won't break tone.

    A friend of mine also has non-TT service.  He says that most
of the time his TT phone works, but sometimes it doesn't and he has to
switch to pulse.  All of these phone lines are in Brooklyn (NYTel).  I
won't pay for TT as a matter of principle (and neither will my
friend).  Most of our friends probably think we're troglodytes.  I
fully expect some day to have a visiting child ask to use the phone
and not know what to do with the funny round thing with all the holes
around the edge.


Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[e-mail] -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane?  Did you say arcane?  It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DMS Imitates ESS (But Can GTE do it?)
Date: 10 May 90 22:20:57 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> We have had several outages on this 25,000 line class 4 machine in
> Medina since it was cut in a couple of years ago.  All of the smaller
> GTD-5's in the area have been down a couple of times, too.

And, I assure you, every 5ESS near you has been down a few times in
the last few years.  "If a switch goes into outage in a forest, but
there's no press around to hear about it, did it really have an
outage?"

> (I always thought the Intel 8086, on which the GTD-5 is based was a
> decent chip, it always worked OK in my AT&T 6300 ... 'course I never
> tried putting 100 or so of them together in one machine and making
> them cooperate, either...:-) )

The reliability of the GTD-5 is completely unrelated to the reliability
of the 8086, just th 5E's reliability (or lack thereof) is unrelated
to the reliability of the 680X0.

> If they spent as much money on employee training and decent
> people as they do on PGA tour and NFL sponsorships, this might not be
> the case.

Might not be a bad idea.  Try forwarding your complaints to the local
PUC, rather than usenet.

> Then again, I sometimes have problems with United Telephone, Centel
> and Alltel, too.  Even with Ohio Bell from time to time, but none of
> them is as tough to work with as GTE (or harder to get to fix their
> screw-ups).  The GTD-5 isn't all that bad, considering what preceeded
> it here, though.  The quality of the local people has a lot to do with
> all this, though, but I sure do like 1A's 5's and DMS's better,
> though.

Every modern digital switch has its problems, including 5E's and
DMS's.  Without a doubt, GTD-5 outages and problems are far more
widely publicized than 5E outages.  I know from personal experience
that my local 5ESS has its share of troubles, caused both my the
manufacturer and the local folks.  Very little of it makes it to the
press.  AT&T and RBOC's seem to be much more protective and secretive
about outages and other troubles than GTE/GTOC's.  Thus, there is a
perception that GTE/GTD-5 have more troubles, simply because you hear
about it more.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Solution to the COCOT Problem
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 21:13:11 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


First, let me say that Macy is a friend of mine, so I am biased.  But I
also hate ripoffs, so that's a reverse bias.

The two viewpoints presented are NOT mutually exclusive, to my mind.
Macy is correct. LEC's won't allow full-blown access to COCOT's but
they sure give themselves it for the 'company store' phones. With
such, COCOT's *could* choose to compete on rates with the LEC. Whether
they WILL or not is another story.

For the free market to work, you need a uniform set of rules AND
informed consumers. But you cannot have real competition if one side
has to run with broken ribs. In our moderator's perception,
One_owner_Bell was better than any free market. I disagree. But I
think it will take a long time before the public gets smart enough to
shop for telephone service the way they do for gasoline -- how much does
it cost, and are there any funny noises when I use it? ;-]

On a different topic: If you are annoyed at Macy for GTE_bashing; just
be glad he has not started telling you about the service in Columbia
Station, North Eaton, and other burgs in his area. My experiences in
some of those make GTE-Medina look like a Western Electric showcase
system.


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

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

From: Mike Coleman <twinsun!![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Me
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 00:13:29 GMT


For what it's worth, 410411 generated a "ring me" in the seventies in
a small town outside of Kansas City.  I was a kid at the time, and
didn't bother to try out variations.


"The views expressed within solely my own."             ([e-mail])

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

From: Martin B Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Flip Side of Caller-ID
Date: 11 May 90 12:29:57 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services


Interesting that such a service is in existence.  My colleagues and I
postulated and discussed such a service over lunch some months back.
Instead of a 900 number, we had discussed a pre-subscription approach,
and we did conclude that the recordkeeping part was critical to
safeguard against "crank" and obscene calls.

I believe that the best overall solution to the Caller-ID dilemma is
to require a disabling code for each call, and that a disable would
cost a nominal amount, say $.20, to deter people from doing it
routinely.  In this case, the benefits to industry of Caller-ID would
be retained, but it would give consumers control over the revelation
of their telephone number.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #339
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16358;
          12 May 90 4:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21351;
          12 May 90 2:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27634;
          12 May 90 1:18 CDT
Date:     Sat, 12 May 90 0:20:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #340
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 May 90 00:20:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 340

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The AT&T Science Series [J. Stephen Reed]
    Sun Devil Hackery: $50 Million Lost Revenue? [AT&T News via Don H. Kemp]
    High Tech and Law Enforcement [John Higdon]
    "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code" [Business Week via Paul Chisholm]
    NT Meridian 200 DataStar Phones [Wolf Paul]
    DMS/Flash Question [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Phone Moan [Peter van der Linden]
    Special Issue: AT&T Tech Journal [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 02:44 EST
From: "J. Stephen Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The AT&T Science Series


I have additional notes on the "AT&T Science Series" that some TELECOM
folk dug out of memory from their school days, in partial response to
Patrick's earlier msg about AT&T support for the fine arts.

For those who hadn't followed, this series of programs (one hour each)
included "Our Mr. Sun," "Hemo the Magnificent," "Meteora -- The
Unchained Goddess," and (I believe) two others.  All dramatized
aspects of science with live characters and animation.

These shows were originally carried in color in 1956-58 over CBS and
NBC, in prime time.  Later they were circulated in 16mm prints to any
school system that wanted to show them and were targeted to 4th to 6th
graders, although they were far from being written "just for kids."

What few may know was that this series was co-written, directed, and
produced by none other than Frank Capra, the three-time Oscar-winning
film director who gave us classics such as "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington," "It Happened One Night," and "It's a Wonderful Life."  He
was commissioned for it by Cleo Craig, then president of AT&T.

(This threw Capra for a loop when it was first broached to him.  As he
remembered in his memoirs: "Salvatore Capra's youngest son -- that
feisty, ragged, snot-nosed newskid -- sat down as the special luncheon
guest of the president and Board of Directors of AT&T, the world's
richest corporation.  Hot damn! I sent a silent message [to his late
parents]: 'Papa!' She won't believe it, but tell Mama about it
anyway.'"  Capra first refused the assignment and, after a trial-run
script, was reluctant, for he was a highly religious man and felt
unable to do the series without making it "illumined by a touch of the
Eternal."  He felt awed in the presence of scientists, although he had
a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from Caltech.  And he warned
that he couldn't keep a bit of side perspectives out.  But AT&T loved
his treatments and asked him to proceed.)

The series of specials took from 1952 to 1956 to develop.  AT&T took
this very seriously -- two others commissioned to try scripts were
Aldous Huxley, of "Brave New World" fame, and Willy Ley, a famous
writer/theorist on rocketry.  Capra wrote what he called a "showman's
treatment" with the live-action characters of "Dr. Research" and a
"Fiction Writer" to spur the telling of the story.  The AT&T committee
unanimously chose Capra's ideas.  And so this man with three Oscars
behind him plunged in.  (It didn't hurt that his individualistic style
of filmmaking had fallen out of favor with Hollywood executives.)

As he noted in his memoirs: "These films about science, hand-woven
with bits of celluloid, were sprightly patterns of poesy and fact;
fresh ideas were their main charm, a rather elegant charm, we thought;
much like the light hearted but disciplined charm of a Mozart
composition.  By weaving together live scenes, fantasy, traceries of
diagrams, animated characters, puppets, and -- above all -- humorous
illustrative parables, metaphors, similes, and analogies, we reduced
the complex to the simple, the eternal to the everyday.  In short,
though it took five years, I built a small bridge that spanned the
gulf twixt scientist and commoner.  Spanned it by making education as
exciting and entertaining as any comedy, drama, or whodunit."

It got good ratings, too.  "Our Mr. Sun" trounced the variety shows
that ran against it.  AT&T eagerly supported production of the other
shows.  And Capra got the biggest audience he had ever had, in the
nation's schools.  He related later in his memoirs that a group of
kids visiting his California ranch in 1969 were unfazed by his wall
photos with Colbert, Gable, Stanwyck, Cooper, Stewart, Barrymore ...
but were ecstatic when they saw a "cel" of Capra with Mr. Sun.  "They
touched me, and I touched them. For, each year, 12 million such lively
American and Canadian fifth- and sixth-graders still see my
educational films and now call them 'groovy.' Film IS a magic carpet."

(Quoted from "The Name Above the Title" by Frank Capra, Macmillan, 1971.)

I remember these films vividly, too, from my days in school in the
'60s.  And they sparked an interest in science that has not died but
persists as an avocation to this day.  (It also, sadly for Capra's
cause but not for mine, helped spark an aversion to religion on my
part -- specifically for equating religious belief with science.
Sorry, Frank, I love your films, but saying that "Prayer is research,
too" made me gag at 12 as it gags me to remember it now.  And if you
had let go of it, the films could still be running today in the
schools.  Wouldn't work in what is now a more secular age.)

All considered, though, an excellent achievement and (mostly) a very
fond memory.  I hope this bit also demonstrates that AT&T's commitment
to quality had gone far beyond the phone network.  They had the good
sense to hire a man like Frank Capra to dramatize science.


Steve Reed * Liberty Network, Ltd. * P.O. Box 11296 * Chicago, IL 60611
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for a very interesting message. But
knowing Capra's style, I must wonder how he managed to avoid working
"Auld Lang Sine" into each show. He never could do anything in
Hollywood without using it at least once in each movie.  :)  PT]

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


Subject: Sun Devil Hackery: $50 Million Lost Revenue?
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 8:41:00 EDT
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


     AT&T NEWS BRIEFS via Consultant Liason Program

     Thursday, May 10, 1990

     SUN DEVIL -- An interstate probe of computer hacking has uncovered
     losses that may reach millions of dollars and could be "just the
     tip of the iceberg," federal law enforcement officials said
     Wednesday. ... 27 search warrants served in a dozen cities were
     served by 150 Secret Service agents and police on Tuesday. ...
     Secret Service officials declined to release any specifics, saying
     the two-year investigation, code-named "Operation Sun Devil," was
     continuing. ... Much of the alleged loss stems from unpaid
     telephone and computer access charges, the officials said. ...
     AP, 5/9.  ... The Secret Service said that hackers had stolen and
     disseminated long-distance phone access codes. ... New York
     Newsday, p. 8. ...The nation's telecommunications industry felt it
     had lost as much as $50 million from hacking activities. ... AT&T,
     US Sprint and MCI [among others] provided technical assistance
     during the investigation. ... Newark Star Ledger, p. 1.  Also UPI.



Don H Kemp
B B & K Associates, Inc.
Rutland, VT
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

Subject: High Tech and Law Enforcement
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 11 May 90 12:19:03 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


It is surprising to see that the events of the last few days have
inspired so little comment from the dennisons of this cave. We have
been discussing the inability of regulators to properly influence the
industry that they oversee due to incompetence, but not a word (except
for the AT&T press release) about incompetence and ignorance in law
enforcement with regard to technology.

This is in reference, of course, to the recent sting operation,
"Sundevil", in which 150 secret service agents swooped down on the
citizenry and confiscated much computer equipment without making a
single related arrest. In the absence of other information ("All I
know is what I read in the papers," --Will Rogers), it appears that
our Federal gendarmarie are seizing property to collect evidence.
Whatever happened to "probable cause"? Will any of these citizens have
their property returned? Can we trust the competence of those
examining the equipment to come to warranted conclusions? Upon what
basis did they select those who were to be denied use of their
property?

This leads to some interesting paranoia. My hobby is computers. My
computer has five telephone lines for its exclusive use, and in
addition to assisting me in my work, provides Usenet and INTERNET
service for a handful of my friends who all have logins. *To my
knowledge* there is nothing of any clandestine nature on the machine.
But I lack the resources to police every byte of data that goes in and
out of here, nor do I snoop through the private files of my users. A
considerable amount of third-party mail passes through here that has
nothing to do with me or anyone else with a login.

What if some "nasty stuff" passes through here? Let us even suppose
that the next site cannot be contacted and the "hot" files repose here
for awhile. Am I liable for a battering ram through my front door and
the confiscation of my property? Do they look at a message full of
illegal codes or whatever and then go back through the header and
"visit" every site named therein?

No, if we can't trust our regulators to have a clue, then we have to
assume that enforcing computer fraud statutes is going to end up
looking like a Keystone Cops movie. Under the current atmosphere, the
last thing I would want to do is set up a BBS of any kind. Between the
telcos' manipulations with phone classes of service and the apparent
war on BBSs by law enforcement having a BBS could be injurious to
one's health. I'm sure that residences with multiple lines and modems
at least will eventually come under scrutiny by the "tech squad".

I used to ignore the incoming calls as indicated by the SMDR that have
no corresponding successful login in wtmp. Now I'm beginning to
wonder...


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

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 20:33 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code"


(From the Information Processing page in the May 7, 1990, issue of
BUSINESS WEEK, p. 140I.  Other articles of interest to Telecom Digest
readers are on the cc:Mail update after their encryption algorithm was
broken, a short piece on videotex, how the inventor of token-ring is
analyzing corporate DP shops, and the future of the Nintendo
Entertainment System.  The following is copyright (C) 1990 by (I
think) Time-Life, and is quoted here as a excerpt for review
purposes.)

"Here's another shortage to worry about: North America is running out
of area codes.  Now that New York City has been promised 917, there
are only five unassigned codes left for the North American Numbering
Plan, which covers the U.S., Canada, and most of the Caribbean.  Bell
Communications Research, which administers the plan, will reclaim 905
and 706 from Mexico next February.  But that's okay with the Mexicans,
who don't use the codes internally anyway.

"Fortunately, this is one shortage that really has a quick fix.
Starting July 1, 1995, Bellcore will open up a reservoir of 640 area
codes, four times the number now in use.  Existing codes must have
zero or one as a second digit, but the new ones won't need to, thanks
to new equipment.  Get ready for some odd-looking area codes --
perhaps 777 for Las Vegas?"


Paul S. R. Chisholm
att!pegasus!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: NT Meridian 200 DataStar Phones
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 16:02:36 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria

Does anyone have information on programming the "Auto Call" feature of
the Northern Telecom Meridian 2000 async option?

I need to use two such phones to establish a TCP/IP SLIP connection
but seem to be unable to program this.

When connecting (with kermit, cu or similar program) to the Meridian,
I get a help menu with an item "Modify". Upon selecting this, one is
presented with Baud Rate, etc, as well as "Auto Call".  However, I get
no success message after typing in the number of the far end of the
connection, and a later "Display" command still shows the Auto Call
field empty.

Any and all information, especially C code designed to establish a
connection through these phones, would be highly appreciated. The
company which sells these phones here, Kapsch, has not been too
helpful in getting them to work.


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]

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

Date: 11-MAY-1990 14:51:14.44
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DMS/Flash Question


Hello again,

I was wondering if that new generic for a DMS which emulates a 1AESS
will take care of the problem of "flashing" if you have three-way
calling.

As an example, on a regular (non three-way calling feature) line, I
call directory assistance in some non-International Direct Distance
Dial country.  The AT&T operator connects me, they take ten minutes to
answer ( :-) ), and after I get the number I want the AT&T op. to
connect me to that number.  So I "flash" the hookswitch, and the AT&T
op comes on the line, drops the DA call, and connects me to the
International Center or does whatever is necessary to process my call.
There are other, less esoteric situations as well where I may need to
recall an operator in such a manner.

However, if you have three-way calling, this becomes a problem. If you
try to "flash" the operator, you get a three-way tone, but it won't
flash! On the 1ESS and 1AESS exchanges I've used, you can dial "110"
after you get the three-way tone, which will "flash" the operator on
the first call, and then drop you back to that first call.

IE, I'm on a op. call, I want to call her back. So I flash the
hookswitch, and since I have three-way calling, I get the three-way
dial tone. So I then dial "110", and it flashes the operator, and
drops me back to the operator call.

This works fine on 1/AESSs, but I can't seem to get it to work on a DMS.

Is this feature available? If not, will the new generic correct this?
Or is this such a limited problem that it's not worth bothering the
Telco over?  (Maybe I should ask for 1AESS Foriegn Exchange
service...! :-) )

Thanks,

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!  :-)  )

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 11:58:36 PDT
From: Peter van der Linden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Moan

[e-mail] (Tim Oldham) reminds us

>  Other areas, such as Brixton, decided that they didn't
>  want anybody to know that they actually came from Brixton and so they
>  chose other codes: LIBerty, OPHelia etc

LIBerty wasn't Brixton; it was Raynes Park, four post codes away in
London SW20, and adjacent to Wimbledon (of tennis fame).

I speak as the one-time party at LIBerty 8345.


Disclaimer: Ha!  As if anybody cares!
[e-mail], 415 336-6206.

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 23:24:10 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: AT&T Tech Journal


A special issue of the Digest planned for this weekend is the
January/February, 1990 issue of the AT&T Tech Journal. We will be
running abstracts from this publication from time to time in the
future. This will be transmitted sometime Saturday.

A second special issue, already announced, is a piece by Larry Lippman
discussion the costs of expansion for telephone companies. This will
also be transmitted Saturday.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #340
******************************

ISSUES 341 AND 342 WERE REVERSED IN MAILING. NEXT COME TWO SPECIAL
ISSUES TEHN ISSUE 342 WILL FOLLOW. AFTER 342 WILL COME 341.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05843;
          12 May 90 14:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21583;
          12 May 90 13:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10296;
          12 May 90 12:25 CDT
Date:     Sat, 12 May 90 11:26:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #342
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 May 90 11:25:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 342

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Las Vegas Payphones [Ron Schnell]
    Re: Pay Phone Company [Ranjit Bhatnagar]
    Re: Pay Phone Company [John Cowan]
    Re: Legislation Regulating COCOTs and AOSs [Will Martin]
    CNCP Update [David Leibold]
    999 Caller ID in the UK [Peter Thurston]
    Canada Caller ID Approved [David Leibold]
    Re: Flip Side of Caller-ID [John Higdon]
    Re: Call Trace Question [Subodh Bapat]
    Cost to Telcos for Caller ID/Blocking [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: Princess Phone Query [Tad Cook]
    Re: Ring Amplification [Tad Cook]
    Billing Airtime to the Calling Party [Glynne Tolar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie.gatech.edu!mit-eddie![e-mail]>
Subject: Las Vegas Payphones
Reply-To: <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie.gatech.edu!mit-eddie![e-mail]>
Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 16:41:14 GMT


It seems that almost all of the payphones in Las Vegas are alternate
(not Centel).  It also seems that none of them allow 10XXX dialing.  I
can say for sure that at Caesar's, Barbary Coast, and Mirage this is
true.  One notable exception is the airport.  I used one of these
phones in one of the hotels this weekend, when I HAD to make a long
distance call.  When the person answered, he could not hear me
although I could hear him.  So, knowing I had just been charged around
$3 for a 5 second bad connection, I figured I would call "00" for fun.
I told the operator what happened, and he asked me what kind of
billing I used for the call.  I told him it was a calling card, and he
asked me what kind.  When I told him it was "AT&T", he replied (to my
surprise), "Well, you'll have to call them for the credit."  Talk
about blatant lying.

Isn't there anyone to call to report all of the payphone and long
distance company violations (besides my congressman).  I mean someone
who can do something about it immediately.  I want to be able to call
someone and say, "There are 150 phones at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas
at the following locations which do not allow 10XXX dialing" and
someone will go there with a police truck and tear them all out of the
wall.


            #Ron
            (ronnie@mit-eddie.{UUCP,ARPA})
            Home: (213) 470 - 9639
            Office: (213) 338 - 7834

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

From: Ranjit Bhatnagar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Company
Date: 11 May 90 19:51:08 GMT
Reply-To: Ranjit Bhatnagar <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


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

>[Moderator's Note: Remember, when you see a phone which is/might as
>well be out of order due to severe misprogramming (based on FCC rules)
>such as you describe above, why not mark it out of order, as a
>courtesy to the next person who might attempt to use it. A sticky
>label of some sort, placed across the coin slot with OUT OF ORDER
>written on it will warn those who later might waste money trying to
>place a call to 'not a valid number'.  :)  PT]

Is this really a courtesy to the person who needs the phone in an
emergency, and doesn't care how much it costs?  I can't imagine
thinking "Oh no!  Mom's coreopsis is acting up, and the phone is out
of order!  Well, maybe I'll try peeling this big orange sticker off;
perhaps it was placed there by a disgruntled Telecom reader."  Better
would be a sticker which does NOT cover the coin slot, but warns

    THIS IS NOT A BELL PHONE.  YOU PAYS YER MONEY
    AND YOU TAKES YER CHANCES.  SO THERE.


   -- ranjit

"Trespassers w"   [e-mail]    mailrus!eecae!netnews!eniac!...

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Company
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 15:29:00 GMT


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

>[Pay phone instructions] also stated that the long distance
>company was AT&T or TELECOM*USA. How can a pay phone have two long
>distance carriers?

No problem.  Only AT&T can support long-distance cash calls from
payphones (why is this, anyone know?), so payphones typically support
AT&T for 1+ calling and the chosen carrier (AT&T or otherwise) for 0+
calling.  This refers only to real BOC payphones, not COCOTs.


Internet/Smail: [e-mail]    Dumb: uunet!hombre!marob!cowan
Fidonet:  JOHN COWAN of 1:107/711    Magpie: JOHN COWAN, [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 10:48:44 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Legislation Regulating COCOTs and AOSs


>Another common consumer complaint involves splashing, also known as
>forward splashing. It works like this: a person using a PPP in Kansas
>City, Mo., calls a number in St. Louis, using the services of an AOS.
>The caller asks to be transferred to AT&T, but does not know that the
>AOS is based in Dallas and that he or she is being connected to an
>AT&T operator there.  Thus the AT&T operator, unaware of the situation
>and unable to rectify it in any case, bills for an interstate, long
>distance call from Dallas, rather than a relatively inexpensive call
>within Missouri. Unfortunately for the user, the situation does not
>become clear until the telephone bill arrives."

No quarrel with the intent behind this statement from the IEEE
Spectrum article, but the author used a *terrible* example in the
above! :-)

As a Missouri resident, I can testify that ALL calls within Missouri
cost *far* more than interstate calls, so the example shown in the
above would result in savings to the consumer -- the cost of the call
from Dallas to St. Louis will be less than the cost of an intrastate
Kansas City-to-St. Louis call, and the consumer comes out ahead.

There is no such thing as a "relatively inexpensive call within
Missouri", sad to say... :-(, unless you are comparing the rate with
overseas rates or other high-cost services.

I suppose the fact that SW Bell has its headquarters here contributes
to their power and influence over the state utility regulators; even
though there are headlines now and then about rate-increase proposals
being stopped, or even rollbacks in rates for certain specific
services or areas, the actual fact is that SW Bell owns the Public
Service Commission here, and the higher-than-interstate continuing
intrastate rates prove that.


Regards, Will Martin

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

Subject: CNCP Update
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 23:17:44 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


* CNCP gets new name, expected to bid for long distance competition:

CNCP Telecommunications has just announced a name change to 'Unitel'.

CNCP is the communications company handling Telex and data circuits in
Canada, plus a fax service. They are expected to apply to the CRTC for
competing long distance service by the end of May.

CNCP failed in its last bid for competitive long distance a few years
ago, largely on the basis that the CRTC was suspicious of how CNCP
could achieve calls 30% less than Telecom Canada, the current long
distance monopoly.

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 11:20:27 BST
Subject: 999 Caller ID in the UK


Last night (May 10th) a TV Crime Report (Crimewatch UK) showed how a
whitness saw a would-be murderer report his crime from a given
payphone. Given that the whitness would not know who the caller was
(from the other side of the road he cannot hear him) and if the caller
was the murderer he would not I assume give his location, ie number ...
how do the police know which payphone he called from?  Does anyone
know therefore whether 999 in the UK uses Caller ID?


Peter Thurston

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

Subject: Canada Caller ID Approved
Date: Thu, 10 May 90 23:17:44 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


CRTC Approves Caller Management Services (a.k.a. CMS, a.k.a. Caller ID)
for Bell Canada:

Yesterday, Bell Canada got official approval to launch its CMS package
of features, most notably Caller ID. As reported in TELECOM Digest
before, Ottawa will be one of the first areas to get the Caller ID
(and I believe Quebec City). Toronto and Montreal are slated to get it
in 1991.

To overcome concerns about those with unlisted numbers not wanting to
give out their number, or from facilities like women's shelters where
it could be dangerous to have the number sent out on a call, the CRTC
(Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) wants
Bell Canada to file tariffs to provide for local calls dialed through
the operator. For those with unlisted numbers, there will be a
per-call fee. For social agencies like the shelters, such operator
calls are to be provided free.

Too bad they don't use a *## code to inhibit number transmission and
run the billing accordingly.

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Flip Side of Caller-ID
Date: 11 May 90 10:51:22 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> Private Lines is trying to patent the idea "to prevent the proliferation of
> identical 900 services and competition on price," though they concede that
> getting such a patent might be difficult.

You bet it will be difficult. You can't patent an idea, only a device.
And it's jolly too bad if there is competition on price, isn't it? A
couple of other reasons it might be difficult to get a patent is that
there are other ways of accomplishing the same thing. There are WATS
lines that have no itemization, just hourly usage. No records to
subpoena there. Oh, I know that the records exist, but it would be
damned difficult to get them, even for a law enforcement agency, just
a few months after the fact.

While I agree with the ACLU on many issues, I think they are spinning
their tires on this one. What they are saying, in effect, is, "We
don't want any service that compromises privacy, and we don't want any
service that restores it, either." In other words, they want
technology to grind to a halt. It won't happen.

I'm very surprised that the Feds do not object more. When you consider
that the trend is to have every move you make reported or traceable by
some agency or another, it seems they would at least snort at this
"threat" to government security.


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

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Trace Question
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 10:30:28 EDT


Some time ago, Stan Krieger asked:

> Now for my question: if the originating exchange does not support
> Caller ID, etc., does anybody know what number will be provided if
> Call Trace is activiated?  Obviously it can't be the phone number that
> just called, but will it be a "blank", or will it be the last number
> for which a trace was available (and if it is, I don't even want to
> think about the legal implications of the telco reporting the wrong
> originating number to the police)?

In the Southern Bell calling area, activating call trace after an
annoyance call in which ANI is not provided, produces a recording
which says "Call Trace cannot be activated for this number." On
enquiring further with Southern Bell, it turns out that Call Trace
only works for annoyance calls placed WITHIN YOUR LATA (and not within
the calling area), and then too only from exchanges that do support
ANI.

Even if Call Trace can be provided, Southern Bell's policy is NEVER to
let the subscriber know the name or telephone number of the annoyance
caller.  After two confirmed traces, Southern Bell will trigger a
warning letter to the annoyance caller, and after one additional
confirmed trace, a police complaint will be filed. But in no event
will the subscriber be told who it was. (Of course, Caller ID - once
deployed - will obviate this policy as well as the need for the Call
Trace service altogether.)

Interestingly, this raises the question of the regulation of
interstate and inter-LATA delivery of ANI. Since the availability of
Caller ID is generally regulated by state and local-level PUCs, what
happens in situations where the PUC decides it is not in the public
interest to permit Caller ID? Does this mean (a) ANI cannot be
delivered out of the state and/or that (b) ANI coming into the state
cannot be used ?


Subodh Bapat        novavax!rm1![e-mail]     OR     [e-mail]
                    Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale                [phone]

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Cost to Telcos for Caller ID/Blocking
Date: 12 May 90 15:26:11 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I am not certain as I write this what the monthly fee is to subscribe
to Caller ID.  Whatever the fee is, does anyone know what the actual
cost to the telephone company is?  My guess is that billing for the
service might be the biggest expense item for the phone company.

Beyond this, what would it cost the phone company to provide Caller ID
blocking services?  WIll this present a "significant" economic burden
on the phone company?  In other words, how reasonable is it to require
any phone company which markets a Caller ID service to provide other
subscribers a Caller ID blocking capability free?


Bruce C. Klopfenstein          |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
318 West Hall                  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University |  [phone]; 372-8690
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  fax [phone]


[Moderator's Note: It is probably not very reasonable at all. The
critics of Caller ID might be able to pick up on this as still another
reason to simply not offer the service at all!  :)  Will readers wishing to
respond to this latest group of Caller-ID related messages please
respond to one another, and NOT to the Digest.  Thanks.   PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Princess Phone Query
Date: 12 May 90 01:29:09 GMT


For touchtone phones that don't dial, could it be that tip/ring (the
phone line coming in) needs to be reversed?


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA   Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad    or, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Ring Amplification
Date: 12 May 90 01:42:34 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes:

> | Building a ring repeater is too complicated to describe without a
> | blackboard and lots of handwaving.

> Besides, you can go down to Radio Shack and buy one that you can plug
> a 110v lamp into. (It's intended for the hard of hearing, but any app
> will do.)

I don't think this will solve his problem.  He wanted to power the
ringers in several phones from his fax box, and adding one of these
ringing lamps will probably add a load that is at least as heavy as
one of the ringers.


Tad Cook  Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544  Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad    or, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Glynne Tolar)
Subject: Billing Airtime to the Calling Party
Date: 12 May 90 06:16:08 GMT


In-Reply-To: motcid!ivory![e-mail] (Terri Macko)

>Why doesn't the billing follow the land network philosophy of the originator
>for that segment of the call pays?

Here is the new service Houston Cellular has going: You can now get
free incomming phone calls to your cellular phone for just $10 more a
month.  Sound great ha?  Now for the fine print.  You are then
assigned a 976 number and the people who call you get to pay for your
air time.


UUCP: {nosc, nosc] ..!crash!pro-europa!gtolar
INET: [e-mail]
ARPA: crash!pro-europa![e-mail]
BITNET: pro-europa.uucp!gtolar@psuvax1
AO: GlynneT / CI$: 73557,2316 / BBS: [phone], User #2.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #342
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16802;
          12 May 90 20:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03110;
          12 May 90 18:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24875;
          12 May 90 17:30 CDT
Date:     Sat, 12 May 90 16:43:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Expansion Costs
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 May 90 16:28:44 CDT    Special: Expansion Costs

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    More Comments on Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: More Comments on Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Date: 8 May 90 13:58:56 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


    In one fell swoop, I am going to address issues raised in
various articles which responded to my posting about the costs of
expanding outside telephone plant.

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

>     And then gives a cost breakdown totaling $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.

    First of all, from the tone of the original poster's article,
I made the assumption that he was referring to an independent
operating telephone company in a largely rural area.  If we are going
to refer to a largely "suburban" rather than "rural" setting, then
much of what I have stated will not be applicable.

    There are *many* options available to effect "pair gain" in
outside telephone plant.  Unfortunately, for a largely rural CO
serving area with a generally uniform distribution of subscribers
beyond say, a 3 mile radius of the CO, *none* of the many pair gain
alternatives may be as practicable as simply expanding the cable
plant.  Let's look at some of these pair gain options and see why:

1.    One-channel subscriber line carrier, like Continental AML,
    SSL or equivalent, is an analog FDM system designed to
    piggyback one carrier subscriber on top of one physical
    subscriber.  This type of carrier cannot be used on loaded
    cable because of transmission loss at the FDM frequencies in
    the range of 28 kHz to 80 kHz.  Besides, this stuff is real
    crap.  We can rule out this option because of distance
    limitations, if no other reason.

2.    Four or six channel subscriber line carrier, like Continental
    CM-4, CM-6 or equivalent, is an analog FDM system designed to
    provide four to six subscriber line circuits on one pair of
    wires dedicated to the carrier circuit.  This type of carrier
    cannot be used on loaded cable because of transmission loss at
    the FDM frequencies in the range of 28 kHz to 150 kHz.  While
    there are repeaters available for this type of carrier, a system
    installation is generally limited to an overall loop resistance
    of 2,400 ohms or around 140 dB total loss at the highest carrier
    frequency.  Such loop restrictions quickly eliminate use in many
    rural environments.  This stuff is only marginally better than
    than AML in (1) above.  We can also rule out this option,
    primarily because of distance limitations.

3.    Analog space-division technology like the WECO 1A Line Concentrator
    is dead.

4.    Okay, state-of-the-art time.  Let's talk about digital subscriber
    line multiplex, line the WECO SLC-96 or its non-WECO equivalents
    (like apparatus made by Digital Telephone Systems).  This type
    of apparatus uses 2 to 6 T1 pairs, depending upon configuration
    and whether automatic span protection is employed.  We can obtain
    up to 96 subscriber lines from no more than 6 T1 lines using this
    approach.  Assume for the moment that I am referring to digital
    multiplex which is standalone in the CO; i.e., there is a physical
    loop terminal for each line in the CO multiplex apparatus which
    directly connects to the MDF for each and every working line.

    Sound pretty good so far?  Well, first question is: does it
    really help to provide a quantity of new subscriber lines at
    *one* specific location remote from the CO, bearing in mind
    that we have a rural situation with a generally uniform
    distribution of subscribers?  When one considers the additional
    cable necessary to route subscriber lines to the field location
    of this apparatus, it may no longer be so attractive.

    Second problem: we are now going T1 where T1 has not gone before,
    so what will we need?  Regenerators, spaced every 6,000 feet.
    Now we have a lot of cable work (splices, removing loading
    coils, multiples and bridge taps, etc.), cost of regenerators,
    and the cost of the multiplex apparatus itself.  This is no
    longer sounding so great.

    Third problem: if we are really in the boonies, we may not have
    regular alpeth cable, but we may instead have one or more strands
    of "REA cable".  REA cable typically consists of 12-pairs of
    19 AWG which are loosely twisted together about a suspension
    strand with individual pair color coding, but with no outer
    sheath.  Ain't no way to *reliably* run T1 through REA cable.

    Fourth problem: digital subscriber line multiplex is not that
    inexpensive.  Assuming that the multiplex is of the variety which
    creates individual physical pair terminations in the CO (i.e.,
    not for direct T1 interface to a digital ESS switch), installed
    costs can range between $ 400.00 and $ 600.00 per line.  Actual
    costs depend upon the particular type of apparatus, the capacity
    of the apparatus, the number of initial working lines, remote
    site power options, etc.  Adding costs of cable preparatory
    work and installation of T1 regenerators may place the cost of
    this apparatus on par with expanding physical cable plant.

    Fifth problem: resistance to "new-fangled" technology from
    independent operating telephone companies still operating
    "old-fangled" CO's with SxS, XY or other electromechanical
    technology.  This may seem hard to believe to some Telecom
    readers, but there are independent operating telephone companies
    today who do not even own an oscilloscope, with their most
    sophisticated piece of test apparatus being an old TTS-4.
    How can such a company survive?  Simple, AT&T provides intertoll
    and DSA trunks using T1 or N-carrier and terminates them on their
    *own* apparatus frame in the independent telephone company's CO.
    So, AT&T does all the "electronic" troubleshooting in their own
    apparatus.  All of the independent telephone company's own
    apparatus may not have a single digital IC.

5.    The other type of digital subscriber line multiplex employing
    T1 lines terminates directly in digital ESS, with no physical
    pairs existing in the CO.  It is a fairly safe assumption that
    an independent operating telephone company saddled with many
    multi-party lines will not have this type of ESS CO.

6.    For options such as fiber optic cable, see (4) and (5) above.

7.    A remote CO suffers from many of the disadvantages of (4) and
    (5) above.  Furthermore, increasing sophistication of subscriber
    line multiplex which terminates directly in a digital switch
    makes these two options almost one and the same.

8.    Rural Radio Service is not applicable to this discussion.

    Unfortunately for those who espouse (myself included) digital
technology and an SLC-96 approach, common old cable pairs are still
often the only practicable solution in a rural environment.

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

    I didn't mention it because I was trying to make a simple
point and did not want to confuse the issue.  I have mentioned it now,
though, and as you can see, it did not change my final assessment.

> 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.

    Not true of the serving area in many rural operating telephone
companies!

In article  <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Irving Wolfe) writes:

> 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.

    You're right.  I am an engineer and not much of an accountant.
In fact, I detest accounting and consider it beneath me. :-) However,
at one point in my somewhat varied career I spent quite some time as a
consulting engineer serving the needs of a small retinue of
independent operating telephone companies, none of whom had a degreed
engineer on staff.  During that period, I spent a not insignificant
amount of time helping these telephone companies deal with state
PUC's, banks and the REA with respect to plant expansion.  By the
process of osmosis, if no other means, some aspects of the reality of
utility finance rubbed off on me.

    As some other readers have pointed out, the final assessment
in my original article is not far off the mark.  Times have changed in
the independent telephone industry and are economically difficult for
small independent operating telephone companies.

    Consider a trivial example of say, a hypothetical 1,000 line
independent operating telephone company.  Let's be generous and say
that local exchange service with some message units and toll revenue
(don't forget, some small independent operating telephone companies
are isolated communities and have less toll traffic to the "outside
world" that one may think) averages $ 25.00 per subscriber per month,
which is $ 300.00 per subscriber per year, and $ 300K per year in
revenue.  How far do you think $ 300K per year is going to go
supporting at least 4 full-time employees (minimum by rule of thumb
for this size independent operation), overhead, repair costs,
interest, principal on previous loans, taxes, insurance, etc.?  How
much money do you think will be left over for plant expansion?

    As I said above, this is a tough situation - which is also why
many small independent operating telephone companies can no longer
survive and are bought out by larger conglomerates.  This may be good
news for some, but from my standpoint (admittedly prejudiced) it is
sad because truly independent operating telephone companies of less
than 2,500 lines are becoming an endangered species.

> 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.

    The problem is, today, many independent operating telephone
companies are facing more *serious* issues involving plant expansion.
Like how long can they keep the SxS or XY going, and how long can they
hold out from PUC pressure to provide subscribers with features most
of us take for granted: like alternate long distance carrier service,
911, DTF coin telephones, DTMF dialing, etc.  We're talking about much
more serious money to replace the whole CO, and the issue of where's
it going to come from.  The days of 1% REA loans are long gone.

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

> But what about new technology? Suppose you put some sort of
> multiplexors on those lines, and ran a bunch of digital voice over the
> major portion of the existing plant? How does that change the
> economics?

    See beginning of article.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] sheds further
light on a point made in my original article:

> Telcos are not ALLOWED to force people to change from multi-party
> service to (more convenient) more expensive single line service.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin Sirbu) writes:

> Patrick argues that after the outside plant is amortized, the
> continuing revenue is "pure profit".  Under Rate of Return regulation,
> the LECs are allowed to earn an authorized percentage (12-16%) on
> investment NET OF DEPRECIATION.  Once the plant has been fully
> depreciated, they are no longer entitled to earn any return on it, and
> telephone rates are adjusted downward accordingly.

    Good point.  Contrary to what some people believe, NO ONE gets
rich running a small independent operating telephone company.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred R. Goldstein) expounds upon the frustration shared by *all*
parties in this kind of rural situation:

> This thread began, if you recall, with a comment about rural
> multi-party telephones.  Not city or suburb, but serious boondock
> country where the local telco doesn't even ask you if you want
> single-party lines.
> In such cases, the latest and greatest telco transmission technology
> can help a little, but not a lot.


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 Issue: Expansion Costs
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16837;
          12 May 90 20:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03110;
          12 May 90 18:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24875;
          12 May 90 17:31 CDT
Date:     Sat, 12 May 90 17:07:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: ATT Tech Journal
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 May 90 17:05:00 CDT    Special: ATT Tech Journal

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Abstracts from AT&T Tech Journal, Jan/Feb 1990 [Steve Friedl]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 18:36:05 -0400
From: mtndew![e-mail]
Subject: Abstracts from AT&T Tech Journal, Jan/Feb 1990


Hi folks,

     The Jan/Feb 1990 issue of the AT&T Technical Journal just
came out (they are always way behind) and I typed in the abstracts
for the Digest; AT&T specifically permits this.  Typos, if any,
are mine only.

     Steve


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

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

AT&T Technical Journal, January/February 1990
"Protocol Testing and Verification"

Copyright 1990 by AT&T, these abstracts reprinted with permission

Protocol Testing and Verification Within AT&T
    -- Alfred V. Aho, Barry S. Bosik, and Stephen J. Griesmer
    [ these were the Technical Reviewing Editors for this issue ]

This issue of the _AT&T Technical Journal_ emphasizes the importance to
AT&T of industry-standard protocols in the design of communications
networks.  The articles describe the broad range of work conducted within
the company in the development of procedures and tools to verify and test
communications protocols.



Overview of Protocol Testing programs, Methodologies, and Standards
        --- Herbert V. Bertine, Wolfgang B. Elsner,
            Pramode K. Verma, and Kamlesh T. Tewani

The twin developments of sophisticated communications protocols and a
multivendor environment are revolutionizing the world of data
communications and telephony.  Protocol testing will have a significant
role in this evolving environment, for it helps ensure interoperability
between and among systems from multiple vendors and service providers.
AT&T, in its role of service and product provider, has a keen interest in
protocol testing to ensure the interoperability of its products and
services, alone and in concert with those of other vendors.



Algorithmic Verification of ISDN Network Layer Protocol
        ---  M. Umit Uyar, Aleta Lapone, and Krishan K. Sabnani

This paper presents an algorithmic procedure for checking logical
correctness of communication protocols and discusses its application to the
Q.931 Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) network layer protocol.  A
protocol is specified as a collection of communicating finite-state
machines (FSMs).  The procedure described here consists of two steps.  In
the first step, the FSMs in the protocol are composed into a global FSM
using the _incremental composition and reduction_ (ICR) method.  This
method minimizes the state explosion problem by reducing the number of
states in the global FSM by approximately one to two orders of magnitude
while maintaining its observational equivalence.  The second step checks
whether the behavior of the service FSM, and FSM that models the services
expected from the protocol, is a subset of the global FSM's behavior.  A
software tool, called APROVE (A Protocol Verifier), implements this
procedure.  We present the formal specification of Q.931 as a collection of
14 communicating FSMs.  The results of its verification using APROVE are
also reported.  Several cases of incompleteness in the English language
specification of Q.931 were detected in this exercise.


Algorithms for Automated Protocol Verification
        --- Gerald J. Holzmann

This paper studies four basic types of algorithms that, over the last 10
years, have been developed for the automated verification of the logical
consistency of data communications protocols.  The algorithms are compared
on memory usage, CPU time requirements, and the quality of the search for
errors.  It is shown that the best algorithm, according to the above
criteria, can be improved further in a significant way, by avoiding a known
performance bottleneck.  The algorithm derived in this manner works in a
fixed-size memory arena (it will never run out of memory), it is up to 2
orders of magnitude faster than the previous methods, and it has superior
coverage of the state space when analyzing large protocol systems.  The
algorithm is the first for which the search efficiency (the number of
states analyzed per second) does not depend on the size of the state space:
there is no time penalty for analyzing very large state spaces.  The
practicality of the new algorithm has been tested in the verification of
portions of AT&T's 5ESS(r) switch.  The models analyzed in these tests
generated up to 250 million composite system states, that could be analyzed
effectively in an hour's worth of CPU time on a large mainframe computer.


Software for Analytical Development of Communications Protocols
        --- Zvi Har'El and Robert P. Kurshan

We describe a way to develop and implement communications protocols so they
are logically sound and meet stated requirements.  Our methodology employs
a software system called the _coordination-specification analyzer_ (COSPAN)
to facilitate logical testing (in contrast to simulation or system
execution testing).  Logical testing of a communications protocol is
carried out on a succession of models of the protocol.  Starting with a
high-level model (e.g., a formal abstraction of a protocol standard),
successively more refined (detailed) models are created.  This succession
ends with a low-level model which is in fact the code that runs the
ultimate implementation of the protocol.  Tests of successive models are
defined not by test vectors, but by user-defined behavioral requirements
appropriate to the given level of abstraction.  Testing a high-level design
permits early detection and correction of design errors.  Successive
refinement is carried out in a fashion that guarantees properties proved at
one level of abstraction hold in all successive levels of abstraction.  We
recount the experience of an application of this methodology, employing
COSPAN, to develop (analyze and implement in software) a new session
protocol at an interface of an AT&T product called the Trunk Operations
Provisioning Administration System (TOPAS).


Protocol Modeling for Conformance Testing: Case Study for the
ISDN LAPD Protocol
        --- Mostafa Hashem Sherif and M. Umit Uyar

In this paper, we present a generic approach for modeling a communications
protocol with state transitions and window and timer mechanisms, and for
generating conformance test sequences automatically.  Based on this model,
minimum-cost (i.e., minimum run time) conformance test sequences can be
generated by a method based on _unique input/output_ sequences and the
_Rural Chinese Postman_ tours.  As a case study, this method is applied to
the Integrated Services Sigital Network link-access protocol on the D
channel.


Conformance Testing Methodologies for OSI Protocols
        --- Matthew Bush, Kris Rasmussen, and Fai Wong

As open systems interconnection (OSI) protocol standards mature and systems
are developed to implement them, facilities to test protocol
implementations for comformity to relevant international standards and
recommendations are becoming the key to vendor interoperability.  This
paper examines the test methods applicable to OSI conformance testing as
defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the
CCITT. The advantages and disadvantages of each test method are discussed.
Each test method is analyzed in terms of its technique in providing
synchronization between the test system and the system under test (SUT),
and its ability to supply a controlled environment for comprehensive
protocol testing.  We also discuss the applicability of each test method to
different OSI protocols, and the generic aspects of test systems
architecture common to all test methods.  Specific attention is paid to
those test methods that will be used to test X.25 implementations and
network management protocols.


Algorithmic Generation of Protocol Conformance Tests
        -- Anton T. Dahbura, Krishan K. Sabnani, and M. Umit Uyar

With the recent expansion of data communications networks, computers and
terminals from different manufacturers must be interconnected.  Before
being connected to the network, these interacting elements should be tested
to ensure that they conform to the network's protocol specifications.  We
describe an algorithmic method (which is based on unique input/output
sequences and Rural Postman tours) for generating conformance- test
sequences that require minimum cost (i.e., run time) and completely cover
the state transitions defined by the protocol specification.  The
technique, which has been implemented as the POSTMAN software package, has
been widely used in AT&T Bell Laboratories to generate protocol-conformance
tests.  This approach can be used to generate tests for valid, inopportune,
and illegal messages for error recovery; and for window-flow- control
procedures.


Deterministic Execution Testing of FSM-Based Protocols
        --- Darrell Hubbard

This paper discusses how the deterministic execution testing approach can
be applied to solve the synchronization and nondeterminism problems in
protocol testing.  Deterministic execution testing is achieved by
incorporating test coordination procedures to control the execution of the
test system and to control specific non-deterministic behavior in the
implementation under test.  The deterministic execution testing approach is
applied to the Open Systems Interface Class 0 Transport Layer Protocol.

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

AT&T Technical Journal (ISSN 8576-2324) is published six times
a year by AT&T.  Individual subscriptions:

    U.S.    - 1 year $45; 2 years $81; 3 years $106
    Foreign - 1 year $56; 2 years $92; 3 yea^dk rs $117

Subscriptions:    AT&T Technical Journal / AT&T Bell Laboratories
        Circulation Group, Room 1K-424
        101 J. F. Kennedy Pkwy
        Short Hills, NJ  07078-0905

Back issues:    AT&T Customer Information Ctr
        Box 19901
        Indianapolis, IN  46219
        [phone] US
        [phone] elsewhere

AT&T permits royalty-free distribution of these abstracts.


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

End of TELECOM Digest Special Issue: ATT Tech Journal
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18956;
          12 May 90 21:01 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18987;
          12 May 90 19:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03110;
          12 May 90 18:39 CDT
Date:     Sat, 12 May 90 17:59:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Issue 341 Delayed; On the Way Now
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

It has come to my attention that issue 341, originally transmitted
Saturday morning, did not in fact make it out to everyone. It did get
to Usenet, but apparently not to the mailing list, at least entirely.

It is on the way now. You should have in the interim received issue 342,
as well as two special issues.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator






ISSUE 342 APPEARS <BEFORE> THE TWO SPECIAL ISSUES, IMMEDIATLY AFTER
340. NEXT COMES 341, THEN 343 AND 344 FOLLOW.















Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19416;
          12 May 90 21:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18987;
          12 May 90 19:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad03110;
          12 May 90 18:39 CDT
Date:     Sat, 12 May 90 18:04:48 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #341
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 May 90 10:28:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 341

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ohio Telco/Politics BS [Steve Elias]
    Ohio Bell and Slippage (was Re: Line Slip) [Jeffri H. Frontz]
    Re: Line Slip [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Line Slip [Fred E. J. Linton]
    Re: Party Line Ring Codes [C. David Covington]
    Exchanges in 908 [George L. Sicherman]
    LD Services Like PC Pursuit [Jason Bowling]
    Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code" [Piet van Oostrum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Elias)
Subject: Ohio Telco/Politics BS
Date: 11 May 90 11:41:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I was sorry to read about all the hoopla and the "machine" that Macy
has to fight regarding telco policies and the Ohio PUC.

 From what I've heard about the Mass. DPU, I can tell you that things
are VERY different here in Mass.  It sounds like the Ohio PUC is
basically in bed with the Ohio telcos.  This isn't all that
surprising; we see similar BS on a national level.  Some people think
the FCC is in bed with "alternate" long distance carriers, others (me)
think that the FCC is in bed with ATT, as well as various other
industries which I won't mention in public.

Now, the Mass. DPU is definitely *not* in bed with the telcos or any
long distance company.  In fact, at least one long distance company
gives up the fight as soon as they get involved with the Mass. DPU.
Customer service types and telco tariff writers cringe when they have
to go up against the Mass. DPU.

One of my contacts within US Sprint has told me a few anecdotes about
some of the customer complaints about Sprint from within Mass.  The
bottom line is that the Mass. DPU has rules and regs which favor the
consumer *far* more than most other state's PUCs.  Because of these
restrictive rules, US Sprint will just let the customer have his way
(his money, that is.)

One example of this is supposedly a little known Mass.  state law
which requires the long distance carrier to bill directory assistance
calls within one or two months, rather than the two years that the FCC
allows.  During some of Sprint's nastier billing problems, they
couldn't even come close to billing this quickly.  Mass. customers who
refused to pay for these calls had Mass law on their side.  (I believe
this law is for directory assistance calls only, but this whole story
was related to me a few years ago, so I'm probably not 100% accurate
here -- yet another thing Mr. De Armond and I have in common!
(yikes!)).

All of this stuff is in keeping with the reputation of Mass. state law
and state government. They do lean heavily towards consumers.
And I don't recall much trouble with them when I was part of a
start-up telecom (voicemail) company.  So, Macy, perhaps instead of a
change of career, a change in locale would suit you.  Massachusetts
may not be the place to go, given the hurting local economy, but
perhaps there are better telecom climates than Ohio!  How about it?
I'll meet you in northern California in a couple years, hopefully
somewhere that doesn't have GTE switching equipment.


/eli

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

>From: [e-mail] (Jeffri H Frontz)
Subject: Ohio Bell and Slippage (was Re: Line Slip)
Date: 12 May 90 04:30:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio


In article <[e-mail]> Ken Abrams <pallas!kabra437@uunet.
uu.net> writes:

>When this "noise" creeps in, the "}" character is the one
>that most often appears (but I have no idea why that particular
>character).

My understanding is that this is representative of a single bit error
which is, in turn, indicative of slippage.

>I think it is counter productive for you to try to tell the telco what
>is causing your problem (line slip).  The odds are that this is not
>the cause at all; this is just one of MANY things that can cause the
>kind of "noise" that you are having.

Oh, I don't know about that -- you just have to be able to tell the
*right* person what is causing your problem.

After I moved into my new apartment, I started experiencing lots of
squigglies on my 2400 baud connections, but *only* on calls to a
certain exchange.  To me, this indicated a slip on the trunk(s)
between my CO and the CO serving the far end.

So, I called Ohio Bell to report the problem.  I went through their
fancy trouble reporting system ("Press "1" to report trouble...)  and
was eventually connected to a customer service rep.  I explained the
problem as best I could ("So, Mr. Frontz, you say there is noise on
the line?  But that you can't *hear* it?!?!").  The rep said that a
repairperson would come out and check my line.  I again explained that
the problem wasn't with my loop, but with a trunk -- I only got the
noise when I called a specific exchange.  The rep repeated that
someone would be out to check my line.  "Oh well," I thought "they'll
come out and not find anything, call me back and *then* I'll be able
to talk with someone who will understand my problem."

No such luck.  The next day, I got home from work and found a completed
work order from Ohio Bell on my front door.  Apparently there *was* a
slight problem with my local loop (something was *slightly* shorted).
So, Ohio Bell swaps my pair for another one -- they make the change
outside my apartment.

I went inside to check things out -- the first thing I did was fire up
my mac and try to make a connection to the exchange in question.

Nothing happened. No dialtone -- nothing.  I tried the phone -- same
thing. I plug a phone into the NI -- nothing.

The work order gave several numbers to try (a local one and a
toll-free one) in the event that I should require further service.
So, I hopped in my car and zoomed to a payphone.  I tried the local
number, but get no answer.  I called the toll-free one -- it ends up
being the same menu-driven madness that started the whole mess.  I
completed a trouble report and the computer tells me that someone
would be out bright and early the next morning.

In the meantime, I'm without phone service.

The next day, I got a call at work.  It's a repair person asking what
the problem is.  I explained and he said he'll check it out and call
me back. He calls back later -- apparently, when they swapped my pair
at my apartment they forget to make the corresponding swap back at the
CO.  He's made the swap and everything works (he's called my answering
machine to verify the connection).

While he's on the line, I explain the original problem to him.  He
assures me that there really was a problem with my local loop.  I say
fine, but the problem I'm concerned with is the bad trunk.  He
understands slippage and says that he'll talk to one of the
craftpeople and have it checked out.  I thank him.  I figured that
nothing will happen and that I'll have to go through the whole
rigamarole again, this time escalating to a customer service
supervisor.

I went home and tried out the line.  Everything was back to "normal"--
I have dialtone and the good old squigglies still show up on my
favorite exchange.

Lo and behold, a week later the squigglies go away.  Apparently my
repairperson spoke to someone and got the trunk back in sync.

The moral is if you speak to the *right* people, telling them about
potential causes of your problem can be very productive.  You can also
find out lots of neat info -- I found out that my #5 Crossbar CO will
be cutover to a 5ESS before the end of the year.


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

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

>From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: Line Slip
Date: 11 May 90 09:12:41 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
writes:

| In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William M.
| Hawkins) writes:
| >I have been using a Prometheus modem to talk to MultiTech modems at
| >work.  Sometimes there would be an excess of "}" characters on the line...
| Because of the circuit design, 1200 baud modems are more prone to the
| most common types of circuit "noise" than any other speed of
| operation.  I know this because of technical publications and personal
| experience.  When this "noise" creeps in, the "}" character is the one
| that most often appears (but I have no idea why that particular character).

Like most modems over 300 baud, they internally use so-called
"scramblers", designed to turn long strings of ones or zeros into many
transitions on the line, so as not to lose clock phase when the line
is idle. (Note: Even though the RS-232 side is "async", the analog
side runs fully synchronous. Some 1200-baud modems will even allow
access to the sync mode, allowing a 25% increase in the effective data
rate *if* both ends can handle some sync protocol/clocking instead of
async.) The "scrambler" is very similar to a CRC generator, and
consists of a few bits of shift register with some feedbacks lines and
some XOR gates, etc. And of course there has to be a corresponding
descrambler on the receive end.

This is why an "idle" connection sounds like "SCCCHHHHH..." instead of
the 300-baud "TWEEEE....".

The kicker is this: A single-bit error on the analog side (noise,
digital cross-connect slip, step change in an SSB receiver local
oscillator, or whatever) will be "expanded" by the descrambler to an
error burst of about the same length as (or sometimes a good deal
longer than) the scrambler shift register. Fortunately, the length of
the error *is* limited! In coding terms, the scrambler is
"self-synchronizing".

Since the descramblers response is deterministic, isolated single-bit
errors will result in a consistent burst-error pattern characteristic
of that particular scrambler design. For the 1200-baud modems, that
seems to show up as "}". As I recall, the 2400-baud guys seem to favor
"}rX" (I forgot what "X" was).

One of the ways to recognize "slip"-induced errors is when the burst
repeats on an *exact* schedule. I once had to edit a file on a line
that was giving "}rX" every 37 seconds. ("Vi" users: What does "}rX"
do? Riiiight!)  Type-a-type, pause, wait-for-the-error, "undo",
type-a-type, pause, wait,...  Reminded me of using the busy-signal bus
as a talk line when I was a kid. ;-}


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: [e-mail] (Fred E.J. Linton)
Subject: Re: Line Slip
Date: 12 May 90 15:59:43 GMT


When I first signed up with AT&T Mail, perhaps three years ago, I was
using an AT&T 1300 "Video Display Terminal" -- a keyboard-cum-300-
baud-modem box various banks were offering for home banking customers.

After a few weeks of service, all sorts of spurious characters started
appearing during my connections with AT&T Mail, sometimes generated in
the link to AT&T Mail and echoed back to me, sometimes only appearing
at my end.

After eight months of this, during which AT&T Mail (i) had me several
times dial in on their (201) modem test line, (ii) sent service reps
to the switch at the local BOC that serves my line to test the line,
(iii) sent service reps to my premises to inspect/test my 1300
KB/modem, phone plant, and wiring (and everything was always up to
spec), the problem cleared up.

Upon inquiry, I learned that a short new stretch of fiber optic cable
somewhere near Bridgewater, N.J., had needed to be replaced.  It (or its
terminations) had evidently been installed in a somewhat misaligned way,
and optical reflections crossed channels, or some such.

Service since then has been clean as a whistle, not only at 300 on the
old 1300, but also at 1200 and 2400 on more recent equipment -- up
until the squirrels started chewing on / nesting in the takeoff point
on the pole in my back yard where the line takes off towards my house.
But that's another story, much more easily resolved: a SNET lineman
rewired that junction, end of problem, no charge to me.

Anyway, it doesn't _have_ to be "line slip" -- and it doesn't have to
be a problem "at one end or the other" -- and it can easily take
months (I can suppose even years) to find and solve, particularly when
it's _not_ at one end or the other.  Hang in there.


Fred (Fred E.J. Linton) <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

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

From: "C. D. Covington" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Party Line Ring Codes
Date: 11 May 90 05:47:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, sneaky![e-mail] (Gordon
Burditt) writes:

> >    From a technical standpoint, the M, R, J and W have a precise
> >definition (valid today), which is as follows:
 ...

> Could there be any significance to the fact, which just struck me
> while I was reading this, that pairs of letters from switching leads
> and polarity (M-W and R-J) that M rotated 180 degrees looks like W,
> and J rotated 180 degrees looks a little like an R with a piece
> missing?

    I don't think so.  As a speech scientist, I am very aware of the
so-called E set confusion problem. That is, {b,c,d,e,g,p,t,v,z} all
end in the E sound.  The M, R, J, and W avoid the E set entirely as
you can see.  The M is a nasal, the R is a unique retroflexive, the J
ends in the E sound but is clearly a diphthong (glide), and the W is
three syllables.  The likelihood that this set was chosen to minimize
spoken confusion is very high IMHO.


C. David Covington (WA5TGF)  [e-mail]     [phone]
Asst Prof, Elec Eng          Univ of Arkansas        Fayetteville, AR 72701

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

From: George L Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Exchanges in 908
Date: 11 May 90 16:48:24 GMT
Organization: DALEK Reproducing Equipment, Inc.


The 908 area code for central New Jersey is to be phased in over the
next year.  A press release said that the counties to be left in 201
would be Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Passaic, Sussex, and most of Morris.
Does anybody know which exchanges in Morris will be in 908?

I would guess Long Valley and maybe Netcong, but somebody ought to
know for sure.


Col. G. L. Sicherman
[e-mail]

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

From: Jason Bowling <[e-mail]>
Subject: LD Services Like PC Pursuit
Date: 11 May 90 20:20:39 GMT


I am planning on doing alot of LD calling and I'm wondering what other
services are there like PC Pursuit? Anything cheaper? Anyone heard of
Starlink? What are the prices?  Please respond.  See Ya!


[Moderator's Note: We had a series of messages many months ago here
about Starlink. They are filed in the Telecom Archives under that
name. I've not heard anything about them lately, and do not know if
they are still operating. They use Tymnet circuits in about the same
way as PC Pursuit uses Telenet facilities. Whether Starlink or PC
Pursuit would be less expensive for you is strictly an applications
problem, based on your calling patterns. Read the archives file for
more details.  PT]

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code"
Date: 12 May 90 10:46:43 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


I suppose an easy way to get a bunch of new area codes would be to assign
Canada its own country code. Is that a contemplated option?


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')


[Moderator's Note: I think you meant 'assign the United States its own
country code'. That would recover about a dozen area codes, which
given the current rate of depletion should last about twenty years. PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #341
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21913;
          12 May 90 22:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29641;
          12 May 90 20:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18987;
          12 May 90 19:44 CDT
Date:     Sat, 12 May 90 18:44:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #343
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 May 90 18:43:49 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 343

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [John Higdon]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [William Degnan]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Mark Harris]
    Re: Alternative to Touch Tone [John L. Shelton]
    Re: Buying Telecom Tools [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: No ISDN for GTD-5 !! [John Higdon]
    Re: High Tech and Law Enforcement [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC [John Higdon]
    Re: Name-Place Listings For Area 809 [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Date: 11 May 90 10:22:57 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jeff Mischkinsky <[e-mail]> writes:

> A few years ago I received a letter from Pac Bell saying that it has
> come to our attention that you do not have touch service and that if I
> didn't immediately sign up for it, I would no longer be able to use a
> touch tone phone.  As usual, I ignored the dire warnings, and as
> usual, nothing changed.

This is Pac*Bell's usual tactic when they find customers using touch
tone from a crossbar office. Back in the dark ages, there were
originating registers that were TT-receiver equipped and those that
weren't. If you were not paying for TT, they would arrange in your COS
to select a non-equipped register. Later on, the volume of TT use
demanded that all registers be equipped with receivers, at which point
it was no longer possible to "turn off" TT service. All of the
electronic switches, both analog and digital, can be set to provide a
receiver on your line or not.

> I don't know whether my experience generalizes.  I live close to, but
> outside of Sacramento.  I know that we were one of the last areas to
> get equal access -- something about how our switches were too new to
> upgrade, but too old to install equal access.

This confirms that you had crossbar. The last Pac*Bell areas to become
equal access were crossbar and the equal access magic was done with
CONTAC, a stored-program adjunct that provides FGD. Unfortunately, it
also becomes the TT receiver and since all registers must be so
equipped, once again TT is universal. Utimately, when the CO is
upgraded, a letter will go out telling subscribers that if they have
not subscribed to TT in the past and are using tone phones, they will
have to subscribe after the cutover.


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

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 14:20:27 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service


In a message of <May 05 21:47> Steve Forrette ([e-mail].
edu) writes:

 SF>"This service together with your Touch-Tone phone makes dialing
 SF>easier and faster.  It also allows you to hook your phone up with a
 SF>personal computer and access data bases, pay bills through your bank,
 SF>and even shop electronically where these services are available."
 SF>Really?  All that for only $1.20 a month?  What a deal...

Sounds like a potential false advertising claim to me.

You don't have to have DTMF service from the local exchange carrier to
use your personal computer, etc...

You can pulse dial the call and switch to DTMF to talk to the
interactive service (assuming a switchable phone or external DTMF
source).

You could also turn 'em in to AT&T for misuse of the trademark,
Touch-Tone*.

     * Trademark of AT&T.


Regards,

Bill

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]


[Moderator's Note: Actually, AT&T no longer owns the 'touch-tone'
trademark. I think it was abandoned at the time of divestiture.   PT]

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

From: harrism@omhftre (Mark Harris)
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Date: 11 May 90 00:47:45 GMT
Organization: Omhftre BBS


[e-mail] writes:

> Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> Is it necessary to subscribe to the touch-tone service in order to use
> it?

Growing up in Boone, NC, it was fairly common knowledge that
subscribers received touch-tone service whether they paid for it or
not.  When I later moved to Clemson, SC I thought I would see if the
same thing worked there. No dice. If you didn't pay for it, you didn't
get it.


Mark Harris
UUCP: ...!uunet!knuth!raider!omhftre!harrism

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 11:09:34 PDT
From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternative to Touch Tone


Many telco switches are capable of handling dial pulsing at both 10pps
(pulses per second) (normal speed) and 20pps.  I have seen a number of
phones that have switches to change the dialing from tone to 10pps to
20pps.


=John=

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Buying Telecom Tools
Date: 10 May 90 02:20:31 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] writes:

>I found that Graybar in San Jose won't sell to anybody who doesn't
>have a California resale certificate.  I thought that the days of
>phone-paranoia were over.

It isn't phone paranoia.  Graybar is a wholesaler, so they won't sell
to anyone who's not a retailer.  LOTS of wholesalers do that, even if
they'd really be happy to sell whatever it is they sell to retail
customers.  They're afraid (with good reason) that if the true
retailers, installers, etc., who provide the bulk of their business
knew that Graybar was acting as a competitor for retail business and
not just as a wholesale supplier, they'd take their orders elsewhere.
At least if Graybar asks for a resale certificate, it can legitimately
claim to its regular customers that it had no way of knowing you were
buying the stuff for your own use and don't really resell it, you only
resell peat moss.  In your case, you don't resell anything, so they
can't pretend not to know.  You are a big risk and a small reward.

I don't mean this to sound negative, it's just the truth.

Go get yourself a resale certificate.  It's probably $25 a year.  If
you don't buy enough weird stuff to warrant the expense and quarterly
filings, offer to pay in advance at 120% of his cost, and someone in
your area with a resale certificate will go to Graybar and pick it up
for you.  They are not good about extending credit to small customers,
so he'll need your cash up front to buy the things.  Don't forget to
thank him for the favor.  20% of a few bucks is nothing!


 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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No ISDN for GTD-5 !!
Date: 12 May 90 02:03:07 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]> writes:

> Not necessarily.  No ISDN on GTD5 does NOT imply no ISDN for GTE telco
> customers.

Maybe not, but on what will they provide it? Directorized SXS, their
most popular switch? EAX1? EAX2? (hee hee) Maybe 1AESS with an
adjunct?  Most likely, GTE will take its usual stance and "wait and
see".

> CLASS services are available for the GTD-5.  To find out when they
> will be deployed in your area, call your local GTE telco.

I did. They hadn't a clue what I was talking about. BTW, my area is
100% GTD-5.

> Centrex for the GTD-5 has been available since around 1987, and it
> works quite well.  However, there can be difficulties engineering the
> features; this may lead to the perception that 'Centrex doesn't work',
> when in fact the problems lie with the database.

Somebody is smoking something here. Centrex became available in this
GTE area around late 1988, and it works like crap.

> On what facts do you base this assertion that the hardware is good but
> the software has 'always been a problem'?  Further, GTE has not
> withdrawn all further development on the GTD-5.  Feature development
> continues, just not on ISDN.

Yeah! What do you base that on? How do you know the hardware isn't
garbage as well. I couldn't swear that it wasn't. If feature
development continues, maybe they can perfect 3-way calling. As it
stands right now, the feature is completely unusable. If two parties
try to talk at once, one of them sounds like Donald Duck.

> Those of you in GTE territory generally are in the hinterlands and
> nether regions of our country.  Features such as Centrex and ISDN
> don't tend to sell too well to a rural population, so don't expect
> these features to be deployed as soon or quickly as they are in urban
> areas, with high business-related customer density.

Well, I have a friend in Los Angeles. Los Angeles, for those of you
who don't know just where in the sticks that is, is in southern
California and is part of a metropolitan area containing lots of
people. He lives in GTE territory. His CO is a GTD-5. He pays for
foreign prefix so that he can actually get service out of a 1AESS. Now
that is casting a vote for GTD-5 with the pocketbook :-)

> Looking at the history of telecommunications over the last 100 years,
> GTE has not been manufacturing telecom equipment for very long.  It's
> equipment was previously manufactured by Automatic Electric, just as
> AT&T's was manufactured by Western Electric.

So what was Automatic Electric? Chopped liver? I believe it was the O
and O manufacturing arm of General Telephone & Electronics. Just like
Western Electric was the fully owned manufacturing subsidiary of AT&T.

I don't want to be rude, but this whole response is permeated with the
company line. Reminds me of the installer who, when I complained about
no dial tone at the demark, became indignant and, pointing to the GTE
CO across the street said, "Don't you know that the most modern
switching equipment in the world is right there across the street?" An
observation that was certainly debatable, but the fact was that I
didn't have any telephone service. That was for sure.


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

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: High Tech and Law Enforcement
Date: 12 May 90 18:49:19 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


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

>*To my knowledge* there is nothing of any clandestine nature on the machine.
>But I lack the resources to police every byte of data that goes in and
>out of here,

And if you did, you'd be arrested for violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.

Either way, you lose.

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

Subject: Re: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 10 May 90 23:53:51 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


There is little to add to Macy Hallock's piece on the state of the
technicalities and politics in the telecommunications industry other
than to say that he is right on the mark and that his comments apply
probably to all areas of the country, not just Ohio. Every comment
made applies with full force to Pac*Bell and the PUC here in
California.

For several years, I had a stake in a moderately-sized equipment
vending company. Our beginnings were service-oriented and technical in
nature in that the bulk of our income came not from sales but from
service and repair of existing systems. We were looking for a system
to sell that wasn't sold by everyone else and that would uphold a high
standard of technical excellence.

The system that struck our fancy was the ITT System 3100. It has
always had a superior hardware capability with the firmware being the
weakness. Naturally, the manufacturer assured us that all would be
wonderful in short order. But even with its problems, we found that it
was quite easy to place a good sized system at least every couple of
months. That combined with the ongoing service income made us rather
lean and mean.

Mind you, I got into this end of the business from a technical
orientation; being for want of a better term, a "telephone
enthusiast", this was the perfect opportunity for "hands on". My
business partner had other ideas. Not being content with an
"occasional" sale, he campaigned for "real" sales. This meant the
hiring of a "director of sales", and an army of "suits" who went out
into the field armed with feature lists, "knock-off" sheets, and the
complete look of Kirby vacuum cleaner salesmen.

We went from providing solutions for needs and problems to being a
"shmooze" central. It was no longer about telecommunications, it was
about networking and projections and contacts and closings. I got out
and shortly thereafter the whole thing collapsed of its own weight.
But I remember that even though we were selling ITT, it was all an
uphill battle against (at that time) Rolm, AT&T, and Mitel. These were
the names, and it was generally accepted that equipment from them was
flawless; anyone else had to prove themselves -- big time.

The state PUCs might just as well be disbanded. They are all
inadequate to the task of regulating telcos in this era of
deregulation. Twenty years ago, all telecommunication expertise WAS in
the hands of the telcos and it was long before that when the PUCs were
created in the various states. The crippling layers of bureaucracy
will continue to keep our telecommunication substandard until and
unless it is completely restructured. Example: the FCC mandates COCOTs
and comes up with some weak and unenforceable regulations to go with
them. The state PUCs are confused as to what, if any, regulations they
can pass and enforce concerning COCOTs, so they do nothing. The FCC is
not staffed to enforce COCOT regulations nationwide, so they do
nothing. Result?  The current COCOT mess.

I am not encouraged. There are too many people and entities who have a
major stake in the status quo. At the top of the list you will find
the RBOCs, who are making their stockholders very happy with fat
dividends.  Then you have tactics such as those of AT&T who sues its
competitors for being too good and too cheap. And intertwined with it
all is the army of suits who know nothing about telecommunications,
but they're out there selling it just the same. Not to mention that I
have yet to talk with anyone in the PUC who seems to know anything
about anything.


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

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 12:34:55 EDT
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Name-Place Listings For Area 809
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Speaking of 809, where is it? Not the destination{s}, but the toll
switch{s}.

When you call 809-xxx-zzzz, where does your call get processed? Is
there one switch that then passes calls to the {other} islands?  Or do
the sending offices have to be smarter, and look at the prefix, too,
and then send the call?

{This is a good thread for Mr. Central Office, Larry. He likely
designed it.......}

Oh, and do '809'ers have to dial 1+ for {ahemm} inter-LATA calls?


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


[Moderator's Note: I know that 809 Directory Assistance started out in
South Carolina for many years (maybe still?).  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #343
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24195;
          12 May 90 23:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15471;
          12 May 90 21:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29641;
          12 May 90 20:47 CDT
Date:     Sat, 12 May 90 19:51:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #344
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 May 90 19:50:58 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 344

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CNCP Telecommunications Becomes Unitel [Nigel Allen]
    Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID [Nigel Allen]
    SLC 96 Carrier [Jody Kravitz]
    KXT3900 Help Needed [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: Toshiba Business Phone Systems [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Interesting DMS Trick [Mark C. Lowe]
    Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Tom Ace]
    T1 Tutorial Wanted [David Dodell]
    Re: Press "1" Now [Gary Korenek]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 11:45:13 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: CNCP Telecommunications Becomes Unitel


CNCP Telecommunications, the Canadian telecommunications company that
wants to become Canada's MCI, announced on May 9th that it was
changing its name to Unitel Communications Inc. [Editorial comment
from NDA: Sounds too much like United Telecommunications or United
Telephone to my ears.]

The old name, CNCP, reflected the initials of Canada's two major
railway companies, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific.  It was
initially a marketing name used by the telecommunications divisions of
both railway companies, and later (1980?) was taken as a corporate
name after the two telecommunciations divisions merged.

CN subsequently sold off its holdings in a number of non-rail
companies, including CNCP and two small telephone companies. CP bought
out CN's half-share in CNCP, and later sold a 40% interest in the
company to Rogers Communications, a major player in the Canadian cable
television and cellular telephone markets.

Out of pure spite, I think I'll continue to refer to the newly-renamed
Unitel as "the telegraph company".  Unitel continues to provide Telex
and public telegraph services, altough the volume of those lines of
business continues to drop relative to more modern telecommunications
services.

In other Unitel news, A.G. Duncan, the company's director of
regulatory matters, has been promoted to general manager of regulatory
matters.


 * 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]


[Moderator's Note: You make note of 'Rogers Communications ... a major
player in the Canadian cable television and cellular phone markets',
and I would like to point out that Rogers Communications is a perfect
example of an American success story. Thirty years ago, when I first
met the fellow who started the firm then known as Rogers Telephone
Answering Service (some twenty years before that), I was impressed
with his business savvy. I used Rogers to answer my phone in the
middle sixties. They were located in the Chicago Temple Building
downtown. He started Rogers Radio Paging, then Rogers Communications.
He sold the answering service to his main competitor downtown, Annex
Telephone Answering, and went into telephone equipment sales and
leasing.  And look at them now, a quarter century later!  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 11:44:55 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID

Bell Canada has won its bid to offer a call screening service that
civil liberties activists consider an invasion of privacy.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on May
9th issued a 25-page decision authorizing Bell Canada's "Call
Management Service".  Bell's proposal to introduce the service sparked
written interventions from a number of groups and individuals,
although the CRTC did not hold a public hearing.

Callers will only be able to keep their number private by placing
their calls through the operator, for a fee, according to press
accounts. Apparently the service will be available in Ottawa, Quebec
City and Hull later this year and in Montreal and Toronto next year.

I don't know how much Bell Canada will be charging for caller-ID or
for call blocking.

Bell Canada uses Northern Telecom's DMS-100 series of switches ... not
surprisingly, since Bell Canada is owned by BCE Inc., which owns just
over half of Northern Telecom.

If you want a copy of the decision, write to:

  Rosemary Chisholm
  Acting Secretary General
  Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
  Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2
  Canada
  or telephone [phone], or fax [phone].


Disclaimer: I don't work for Bell Canada or the CRTC.  I didn't even
get around to filing an intervention in this proceeding.

 * 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]

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 10:20:10 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: SLC 96 Carrier


Some months ago SLC 96 Carrier was the topic of some discussion.  I
recently came across a North Supply catalog which devotes two full
pages to SLC 96 Carrier.  They give the following description:

    SLC 96 Carrier

    The SLC 96 carrier systems can provide for up to 96 subscriber
    channels.  These channels can serve single-party, multi-party,
    coin, Voice Frequency special services circuits, and up to
    56/Kb/s data.  Single-party and multi-party plug-ins provide
    two circuits per plug-in.  The system can operate on copper at
    the DS-1 rate using T1 digital lines (1.5 Mb/s) or on fiber at
    the DS-2 rate (6.2 Mb/s) on either multi-mode or single mode
    fiber.

    The SLC 96 carrier provides automatic protection on the
    digital lines and will operate in an uncontrolled environment
    (-40 C to +65 C).  The SLC 96 carrier can change its mode of
    operation by changing plug-ins.  The three modes of operation
    are:

        Mode I - Carrier only system for high usage
        environment.  The system operates on four T1 lines with
        one optional protection line.  All subscribers have
        constant access to the central office terminal (96
        channels available to 96 subscribers).

        Mode II - Concentrated configuration operates on two T1
        lines with one optional protection line; this provides
        48 channels to serve 96 subscribers.  This provides a
        fixed 2:1 concentration for single and multi-party
        channel units.  When operating in Mode II, the system
        can provide special service capabilities for up to 16
        circuits.  The special service circuits are not
        concentrated.

        Mode III - Special Services only configuration operates
        on two T1 lines with an optional protection line.  D4
        Plug-ins provide only one circuit per plug-in, thereby
        when all D4 specials are used, 48 circuits can be
        served full time on the SLC 96 system.  To make
        efficient use of the T1 when there is a high special
        service circuits demand Mode III should be considered

    The SLC 96 carrier is connectorized for easy and quick
    installation.  The SLC 96 system has a complete family of
    enclosures designed specifically to mount as many SLC 96
    systems with each enclosure as practical.

    MFR: AT&T Technologies, Inc.

The rest of the two pages are consumed by photographs and module part
numbers.  Of particular interest to me are:

    North Supply    Vendor
    Part Number    Part Number             Description
        -----------     --------------          -------------------------
    S-699047    700-546/SLC-96        Documentation and Practices
    S-699052    700-548            Schematic Drawings

If there is a Digest reader who has an account with North Supply and
would be willing to look into this, I would appreciate hearing from
you via e-mail.


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Subject: KXT3900 Help Needed
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 14:45:33 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Some of you may recall my previous post about this particular phone.
To summarize, I bought a Panasonic KXT3900 cordless phone a few weeks
ago.  While the base works fine, the handset dials correctly only when
in pulse mode. Certain tone digits do not seem to register with our
local Central Office.

I went back to the store and tried five other units. They all worked
fine on the store PBX, but had the same problem accessing the CO.
Dialing pulse from the remote is not a large problem, and since we
liked the phone in all other respects, we decided to keep it.

Before I send the unit in to Panasonic to have them look at it, I was
wondering if someone on the net would help me out. Does anyone have
access to a test board where I could call you up and have you check
each digit as I press it? It would be a lot easier if I could send a
note along to Panasonic saying that "the 2 digit is 5hz low on one
freq" or something similar.

I treid getting Michigan Bell to do this for me, but the supervisor I
spoke with kept insisting that if my other phones worked, that it
wasn't their problem, missing the point entirely! I _know_ the problem
is with the phone, I just would like to know exactly what the problem
is.

Thanks!   Ken

[e-mail]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toshiba Business Phone Systems
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - Linton Technology
Date: Sat, 12 May 90 21:04:08 GMT


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

>peronsally used the Strada and have found it to be one of the most

It's Strata not Strada.

>unintuitively designed systems on the market. It sends out little
>short DTMF tones that are not necessarily synchronized with your
>button-pushing. To send a "#" you must first press "*" then "#". I sat
>at one of those phones trying to access my voice mail for fifteen
>minutes until someone from the business I was visiting showed me the
>"secret". The phones are huge and ugly.

Do you really think that fifteen minutes with a lobby phone entitles
you to publicly ridicule a manufacturers product?  Someone as
experienced as yourself should realize that features and configuration
are not written in stone!  The things you mention included.

"To send a # you must first press * and #":

    The # is the redial feature access key by default.  The * is the
    repetory dialling feature access key by default.  For a user with
    only a few keys on his phone this is ideal.  If you would rather
    have them as buttons the # and * are normal DTMF keys.
    (this type of thing is standard practice)

"It sends out little short DTMF tones that are not necessarily
sychronized with your button-pushing":

    The system gathers the digits dialled and sends the information to
    the DTMF generator.  It's job is to signal the CO.  The duration of
    DTMF tones needed to be recognized has a minimum and this is ensured.
    If you press the phone pad long enough to be recognized by the set then
    that digit will be dialled properly (ie. long enough to be recognized
    by the CO).  What this means is that you can dial as quickly as you
    can.  Why should the DTMF tones sent to the CO be synchronized with
    your button pressing?  The DTMF is not heard at the set, instead a key
    press aknowledge tone is heard in sync with your presses.  You don't
    like the tone?  It can be removed.  You want longer DTMF durations?
    It is adjustable.  You want DTMF generated in the set?  Use a 500 set.
    (again this is standard practice)

>If the Strada is too small, then you would be looking at the
>Perception. I don't have any personal experience with it, but a good
>friend of mine is maintaining two of them nearby. He is constantly
>complaining about it and I understand it is quite costly. I have used
>it once and it didn't "feel" quite right. The tone plant was screwy,
>and once again, it had those stupid little short tones regardless of
>how long you push the button.

This is quite a nice piece of advice for a potential customer.  Do try
to give accurate accounts of these "screwy" things when trying to help
out someone who has asked for advice in the purchase of a phone
system!


Vance Shipley
vances@ltg
[I don't work for Toshiba or any PBX manufacturer or dealer.]

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 01:52 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Interesting DMS Trick


Doug Reuben comments about the ability to switch to another extension
on his DMS-100.  I am unsure of the particular switch we have here in
College Station (Texas and GTE), but we have been using that trick for
a few years.  I ALSO discovered it by accident.  I am pretty sure it's
just a feature to keep you from accidentally forgetting that you have
someone on the other line.

In fact, now I recall exactly HOW I discovered this.  I was talking to
a girl in Connecticut when her father got a call on the other line
(call-waiting).  I decided to be funny and wait out his call to see
what happened (it was only a plumber).  They clicked over to converse
with the plumber.  As soon as they finished and hung up, the phone
began to ring again!  Surprise!

Anyway, as I said, it's handy in case you were actually rude enough to
forget the other person when answering a second call.  We don't have
to call another number to switch extensions, though.  Just try
flashing, and when you get the second dial tone, hang up then.  It
should commence ringing at that point!

Nice trick to know, isn't it?  EVERY lazy person should know this one!
It beats running across the house/apartment several times or yelling
"HANG UP NOW" to some poor person in the other room.


Mark C. Lowe - KB5III

As of today ... graduate of Texas A&M Engineering Technology-Telecom

[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: May I speak for everyone reading this to
congratulate you and wish you the best in your future endeavors.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 10:40:00 PDT
From: tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers


I'm going to be moving soon, and I'm considering getting a phone
number ending in -0000 at my new residence.  I'm concerned about
"wrong numbers" and other unwanted calls; I can picture local kids
dialing their own prefix followed by 0000 just to see what happens.
Are there any readers who have/had such a number (or are familiar with
the experiences of someone who did) who can report on any problems
they had?  Thanks in advance.


Tom Ace
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 13:00:36 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: T1 Tutorial Needed


I am interested in getting some more information on T1 circuits ...
does anyone have any recommendations on where I can get some
information explaining exactly what a T1 circuit is, and what its
capabilities are?

Thank you,

David

          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
    Internet: [e-mail]       FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Korenek)
Subject: Re: Press "1" Now
Organization: Ferranti Int'l Controls
Date: Fri, 11 May 90 22:37:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, joel%TECHUNIX.BITNET (Joel Yossi)
writes:

> Am I imagining things, or does technology sometimes make things
> just a wee bit harder...?

For me, versatility makes things a wee bit (or more) harder.  So if
technology begats versatility, then we are saying the same thing.

If something is versatile, then you have to know how to make the thing
do what *you* want it to do.  Lots of options (buttons to push, codes
to punch in, things to memorize or know where to look up).

It's a tradeoff.  We get products that have more bang-for-the-buck
(than previous).  And, we have to learn (and remember) how to use it.

It's my choice that I do not make full use of the phone system's
capabilities (here at work), and of my answering machine at home.  I
know the basics of what it takes to operate them.  I can remember
that.  :-)


Gary Korenek ([e-mail])
Ferranti International Controls Corp.
Sugar Land, Texas       [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #344
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02498;
          13 May 90 17:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05114;
          13 May 90 15:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01348;
          13 May 90 14:52 CDT
Date:     Sun, 13 May 90 14:16:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #345
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 May 90 14:15:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 345

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    State_of_the_Art, They Say [David Lesher]
    Re: More Comments on Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant [D. Lesher]
    Re: Special BOC Pay Phone Installation [Nigel Allen]
    AT&T Educational Films [Thomas Neudecker]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [David Tamkin]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Tom Lowe]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Mike Koziol]
    Re: Alternative to Touch Tone [J. Eric Townsend]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: State_of_the_Art, They Say
Date: Sun, 13 May 90 10:22:33 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


As part of another well written post, Larry mentioned:

|  Fifth problem: resistance to "new-fangled" technology from
|  independent operating telephone companies still operating
|  "old-fangled" CO's with SxS, XY or other electromechanical
|  technology.  This may seem hard to believe to some Telecom
|  readers, but there are independent operating telephone companies
|  today who do not even own an oscilloscope, with their most
|  sophisticated piece of test apparatus being an old TTS-4.
|  How can such a company survive?  Simple, AT&T provides intertoll
|  and DSA trunks using T1 or N-carrier and terminates them on their
|  *own* apparatus frame in the independent telephone company's CO.
|  So, AT&T does all the "electronic" troubleshooting in their own
|  apparatus.  All of the independent telephone company's own
|  apparatus may not have a single digital IC.

Sad but true.

Not all those many years ago, I had to drive from the Twin Cities to
Nealsville{sp}, WI (pop 1242) one COLD Friday night. Our four-wire
1200 baud data loop with a drop in the Cristie {a 'suburb' of
Nealsville) was down. BTW, At that time, the big rumor in town was
that the undertaker had been 'caught' with a farmer's wife -- and the
widower almost killed him. Shades of telco history -- only ONE
undertaker?;-}

Of course, ATT test board says "It MUST be your equipment. The audio
from it {on the send side pair} won't let me get the term set into
loopback". {Aside: some/all? four wire loops end up in term sets,
supplied by the telco. These are not the modems, but rather in my case
hybrids that made the two wire we wanted out of the four the telcos
furnished. If fed the proper magic tone, the term set would hook the
two pairs together, and you could test total testboard->site->
testboard loss.  This trick would have been far more useful if it
really worked ;-[)

Well I got to the site, and sure enough, the incoming level was -55
dbm or so, a mite on the low side (like about 45 db low).  So the ATT
board in Stevens Point said "Oh, well, we'd better get somebody out."
It was about 7:30 PM, and he started calling employees of the
Nealsville Telephone Company. The first didn't answer, the second was
down with the flu, but the third agreed to meet me at the CO "as soon
as I finish dinner". I found out the CO was behind the department
store, and drove back into town.

It was a Stromberg XY office. I'd seen crossbar and some Stroger in a
friend's basement, but never one of these.  The first problem was how
DO you talk? The noise is, well, noisy. The second problem was: what's
the audio level at the CO?  No problem, I thought. Just measure it.

Wrong.

This company had only ONE VOM capable of measuring audio level.  It
was eighteen miles away in their other CO. While we could tell from a
butt set that the problem was upstream, ATT wanted numbers. I got my
TM-500 out of the truck, and sure enough! It WAS 50 odd db below what
it should be. Intensive discussion followed between the craftsman, the
ATT board, the ATT board in St. Paul that held the trouble ticket, and
somebody else. (Never DID figure out who -- I couldn't hear a thing....).

All of a sudden the audio level jumped to -5 dbm or so. I yelled. The
plant guy looked at it, and told all the rest. Seems as if the back
contact on the test jack in the ATT office was dirty. The ATT testman
could make the problem repeat by going into the pair and coming out.
He sprayed the jack, I guess, and I could go home.

But for those of us used to 0-22 ghz spectrum analyzers, exotic BERT
testers, and Sparc Stations with 400 meg of disk and 8 of RAM, and
such: It's important to remember that LOTS of things in the world get
fixed with an orange stick and a pair of pliers.

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

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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Comments on Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
Date: Sun, 13 May 90 14:24:24 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Larry's article brings up the point about SLC-96's and such not doing
the job in rural Telamerica.

ISTM what IS needed is a distributed network. In other words, an
Ethernet size tap, with an address, outside each sub's house {or
barn}.  Each tap extracts only the traffic for it, not others. This
avoids the density problem. A big box @ the CO stuffs the cable with
all the proper signals and provides remote maint. features.

Of course, it must run on rotten old cable for miles on end, and not
need external power and cost about $100/pair. Be sure it works with
300 RD sets, (if not magneto) but also has call waiting, and caller-id
;-].

And, as far as I know, it doesn't exist.

I do know what Larry means about REA cable. But don't knock it TOO
hard.  Last time I checked, the site I used to go:

    "just outside of beautiful Downtown Burbank {Ohio}"
still had several miles of OPEN LINE from the West Salem CDO feeding it.
And yep, every time the wind came up, it would swing and short........

The point in general is that most of us don't stop to consider the
enormous capital investment in outside plant. A new #13ESSDMS250-
whatever can be seen in one eyeful. It gives sexy new dialtone, and
makes for good press. But that raggy old fifty pair running along River
Road costs money too, and the only time IT'S in the news is when it
rains and does not work. Then there is hell to pay.

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 11:43:37 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special BOC Pay Phone Installation


In a message of <09 May 90 06:45:00>, [e-mail] (Scott
D. Green) writes:

 >Bell of PA is currently installing banks of coin phones on campus to
 >accommodate a large alumni influx.

I think that Bell Canada has truck units with about ten pay phones
each for temporary or emergency setups... natural disasters,
agricultural fairs, that kind of thing.  Bell has had the pay phone
trucks for years.  They use conventional wiring, not cellular or other
radio.

 >My (naive) question is, hasn't
 >cellular technology progressed to the point where it is more practical
 >to develop cellular portable pay stations?

This is a regulatory and perhaps anti-trust question.  In the U.S.,
telephone companies usually don't provide cellular telephone service.
Instead, the FCC licenses two companies in each serving area, one
affiliated with one or more of the local telephone companies
[wireline], and a second one not affiliated with the local carrier(s)
[non-wireline]. However, the non-wireline company may well be owned by
a company which has telephone interests in another state.

In Canada, some smaller telephone companies provide cellular service
themselves, although Bell Canada does not.

Perhaps your suggestion will be adopted by the New Brunswick Telephone
Company, or Maritime Telegraph & Telephone Company Ltd.

Hungary and possibly other eastern European countries are considering
using cellular as a substitute for new conventional telephone service.


 * 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]

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 22:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Educational Films


I too have still vidid memories of the AT&T education films as a
student of the 1960's.  But I also remember and still appreciate the
science kits Bell donated

There was a series of homebrew projects with specs and basic materials
they gave to schools.  For some reason I located a local manager who
would send me one of the kits when they were released.  A friend and I
spent a lot time polishing Bell supplied silicon wafers making solar
cells. Sputnik and these Bell programs are the forces that pushed and
pulled me to try to understand the science.  Thanks AT&T.

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 19:19 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service


Roy Smith wrote in volume 10, issue 339:

| I won't pay for TT as a matter of principle (and neither will my friend).
| Most of our friends probably think we're troglodytes.  I fully expect
| some day to have a visiting child ask to use the phone and not know what
| to do with the funny round thing with all the holes around the edge.

Be that as it may about the confused visiting child, do you actually
prefer rotary dials to push buttons for pulse dialing?  Push-button
pulse phones are not only easier on the fingers but they are also
faster because one doesn't need the time to bring the correct hole to
the finger stop and then withdraw one's finger directly outward.  Many
also pulse a lot faster because the pulsing speed isn't limited to the
mechanical return speed of the dial.  In addition, how many rotary
dial telephone sets have internal number memories?

But even if speed is not an issue, kindness to the fingers and ability
to switch to tone for audio-response services put keysets way out in
front.

It's one thing to speak up for pulse dialing on principle; in fact, I
fully agree (despite having to prepend the long-to-pulse sequence
"1708" to roughly half my outgoing calls).  But on rotary dials Roy
and I part company.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708-518-6769 312-693-0591
[e-mail]  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  MCI Mail: 426-1818  CIS: 73720,1570

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

Date: 12 May 90 21:21:12 EDT (Sat)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service


[e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:

>I fully expect some day to have a visiting child ask to use the phone
>and not know what to do with the funny round thing with all the holes
>around the edge.

Sadly, it has happened here.  A neighbor's fourteen-year old son was
locked out of his house after school because he forgot his key and
came to our house to use the phone.  I have (and pay) for touchtone,
but in the kitchen I have one of the old three-slot payphones with a
rotary dial.  (Retrofitted with modern electronics since the original
electronics (except the coin mechanism) were torn out.)  My wife had
to show him how to dial the phone!  Seems they only have push-button
phones in their house.

The moral: Parents: Make sure your children know how to dial a rotary
phone in case they are ever in an emergency situation!


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

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 90 08:52:13 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service


     Last month I spent two weeks with a friend near Jackson, MS. She
had, prior to my arrival, a rotary dial phone. Since I wished to
access my answering machine I installed a touch tone phone on her line
when I arrived and it worked just fine. Early (8am) the next morning
the local phone company called and said that they had "detected the
use of touch tones" on her line and for $1.50 a month she could
continue to use her touch tone phone or have the tone capability
disabled.

     Due to the mail she has started receiving lately promoting Custom
Calling features I speculate that a new electronic switch was recently
put into service and it is allowing everyone to use touch tone phones
with some way of detecting their use so the phone company can call you
and get you to agree to pay the extra money every month.

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

Date: Sun, 13 May 90 01:09:09 CDT
From: "j. eric townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternative to Touch Tone
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics


In article <[e-mail]> somebody wrote:

>Some speed freak (don't ask me why a speed freak would own a C-64 :-)

>Of course, reliability is suspect in any procedure where you crank the
>speed up until it stops working, and then back it off a tad.  But
>again, would you buy a C-64 if you wanted reliability?  :-)

Before you slam the C64...

It had a three voice sound chip.  I have software that will put out
just about any tone you like: ABCD, KP, KP-break, etc etc etc.  As I
understand it, Ma Bell recently rigged things so that you could only
do operator-things from certain physical connections.  But before they
got that accomplished...

I have (in a well-hidden place, ie: I forgot where I put it) a little
phreak guide that shows the layouts of various operator consoles, what
all the buttons mean/do, and how to use them.  I have corresponding
software (for the C64) that has all sorts of wonderful little screens
with items like "coin inserted sounds", "operator sounds", "<n> box
sounds" etc etc.  With a little luck, you could use the C64 to do all
sorts of c00l :-) things to the phone system.  (Just put the reciever
on the C64 speaker and type things on the keyboard.)  I used this
software in legal ways when I lived in a dorm that had rotary-only
lines.  When I wanted to use my Sprint card (no flames :-), I would
manuall dial for an off-campus line and put the mike of the phone over
the C64 speaker.  I would then dial the 800#, my sprint card number,
and the number I wanted to connect to.  (All this to avoid paying Rat
Shack $15 for a beeper thingie.)

Anyway... The C64 was an amazing tool for hacking phone lines.  If you
ever find a copy of a terminal program called "PhoneMan", take a good
look at it.  It could do amazing things before Ma Bell tightened up
all the holes.


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet: jet@UHOU                 "If your neighbor doesn't want it,
Skate UNIX(r).                   there won't be any peace." -- Russian proverb


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Townsend is, of course, quite correct about the
capabilities of the C-64. I know the elitists and snobs in the
computer world used to laugh themselves spastic about such instruments
but the fact is computers like the C-64 and the Apple II were more
than adequate for most applications. My Bell & Howell/Apple II+ (the
model we nicknamed the 'black Apple') is still sitting here doing all
my graphics and music projects, and my word processing.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #345
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07283;
          13 May 90 19:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09194;
          13 May 90 18:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20513;
          13 May 90 16:57 CDT
Date:     Sun, 13 May 90 16:36:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #346
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 May 90 16:35:44 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 346

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: High Tech and Law Enforcement [Gregory G. Woodbury]
    Re: KXT3900 Help Needed [John Higdon]
    Re: Toshiba Business Phone Systems [John Higdon]
    Re: Ring Me [Kelly Goen]
    Re: Interesting DMS Trick [William Degnan]
    Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card) [William Degnan]
    Re: Pay Phone Company [Bill Huttig]
    Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code" [John R. Levine]
    Sprint Card / WD40 Update [Andy Malis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: High Tech and Law Enforcement
Reply-To: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <wolves.uucp![e-mail]>
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX BBS
Date: Sun, 13 May 90 03:09:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 340, Message 3 of 8

>This leads to some interesting paranoia. My hobby is computers. My
>computer has five telephone lines for its exclusive use, and in
>addition to assisting me in my work, provides Usenet and INTERNET
>service for a handful of my friends who all have logins.

>What if some "nasty stuff" passes through here? Let us even suppose
>that the next site cannot be contacted and the "hot" files repose here
>for awhile. Am I liable for a battering ram through my front door and
>the confiscation of my property?

    Well, in some cases (at least one ;-) AT&T decides not to
proceed with a confiscation or other action.

    I was unpleasantly shocked to learn last week that "AT&T
Investigations" (out of the Guilford facility) had allegedly been
investigating me and this site (wolves) for possible prosecution for
illegally "selling UNIX" according to some "anonymous" tip.  As near
as I can tell, some other BBS sysop in the area (disgruntled by
something) told AT&T that I was dropping my BBS access (which was
free) and instead, was selling UNIX.  What is the case is that the BBS
has been severely cut back to give room for as full a Usenet feed as I
can handle and a few user accounts are available and those people are
encouraged to contribute for the enhancement of the system.

    During the investigation, someone entered the BBS, managed to
break out of the program (via rn and vi and shell escapes ;-( and run
through the system examining everything they could read in a search
for "evidence".  Fortunately, having heard of the problems that Jolnet
and other "public access" UNIX sites have had with AT&T and law
enforcement, I have been very careful to make sure that no illegal
materials were sent to the machine.  They (reportedly) did find an
oversight in that I was not properly licensed for this machine, but
that was rectified quickly.

    Mentioned prominently by the person who finally told me about
the investigation (after AT&T reportedly decided not to prosecute) was
that "their rules say that anyone accepting money for computer access
via modem and telephone has to have a business line for the computer."
Fortunately, this is GTE country, and they tend to balk if AT&T
demands something that they don't feel like doing something about.
Local inquiry did reveal that the NC 919 telcos do not have any
problems with putting residential lines and business lines into the
same premises.  They will not reclassify a business line to
residential under the same number except under special circumstances.

    This comment says allegedly and reportedly with care.  So far,
there is only ONE person who claims to have talked to AT&T about my
site and their investigation.  None of the people in the local area
that I know, and whom I would expect AT&T to question in regards to
this site will admit to any knowlege or contact with AT&T (most
emphatically deny any contact.)

    The recent reports about "Operation Sun Devil" make me wonder
if they were fishing around here for a "Blue Devil" linkage ;-)


Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw  ...mcnc!wolves!ggw [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]  [e-mail]
<standard disclaimers apply>


[Moderator's Note: Isn't it inspiring how they work undercover, based
on lies and innuendo? If you find out *who* made this false report
about you, I hope you will sue them and otherwise make them wish they
have never heard of you or your site. When I was running one of my
very first BBS programs, about ten years ago, I had some phreak who
used a stolen Sprint code call the board on a regular basis. Of course
I did not know *how* he was choosing to route or 'pay' for the call.
One day a real arrogant, pushy type from Sprint called me demanding a
copy of my entire user log and password file, etc. His every word
begged for an obnoxious confrontation so I gave him one in return. My
attorney wrote him a letter advising him he was to either produce a
court order for what he wanted and direct all future contacts through
his (the attorney's) office, or he was to get lost and keep his mouth
shut. In any event, a future call to the BBS by anyone from Sprint
would result in a suit as soon as the courthouse opened the next day.
They backed off and I heard nothing further.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: KXT3900 Help Needed
Date: 12 May 90 23:41:38 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]> writes:

> I tried getting Michigan Bell to do this for me, but the supervisor I
> spoke with kept insisting that if my other phones worked, that it
> wasn't their problem, missing the point entirely! I _know_ the problem
> is with the phone, I just would like to know exactly what the problem
> is.

HOW do you know it's the phone? If five phones don't work on your line
and work fine elsewhere, I would still be looking for trouble on the
line. Just because other phones happen to work on you line doesn't mean
there isn't something out of spec in the audio response or
conditioning. Of course the person from Michigan Bell would tell you
that the problem is in your equipment; that's the telco montra.

The TT frequencies in the Panasonic (as in all modern phones) are
determined by a master crystal oscillator. If one frequency is off,
then they are all off. You can't have just one tone off frequency.
Berry Electronics makes an instrument that could test your line, but
it costs over $3,000.

If I were you, I would beat on the telco a little more. Really now,
what are the chances of five instruments being defective? I'll bet my
two KXT3900s (which work just perfectly on my PBX and my outside
lines) wouldn't work on your line, either.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toshiba Business Phone Systems
Date: 13 May 90 00:12:28 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Vance Shipley <[e-mail]> writes:

> It's Strata not Strada.

Sorry.

> Do you really think that fifteen minutes with a lobby phone entitles
> you to publicly ridicule a manufacturers product?  Someone as
> experienced as yourself should realize that features and configuration
> are not written in stone!  The things you mention included.

No, it actually wouldn't take much more than five minutes. The only
reason I wasted fifteen was that my pager went off and I had to deal
with the call. In the thirty-five years that I have been installing,
repairing, marketing, designing, and using telephone equipment, I have
developed a remakably well-tuned intuition for how a telephone should
look, feel, behave, and sound. These things may not be written in
stone, but in the last four or five decades of telephone progress,
some standards have emerged.

[long, drawn-out justification for Strata non-standard behavior,
deleted]

>It is adjustable.  You want DTMF generated in the set?  Use a 500 set.
>(again this is standard practice)

A 500 set doesn't generate any tones at all. It has a rotary dial. I
think you mean 2500 set. In any event, the Strata won't support it.
Other systems with proprietary sets manage to maintain a reasonably
"standard" feel to the touch pad and give the usual feedback to the
user. There are those of us who use the actual DTMF in the ear as
confirmation of correct dialing. Little "beeps" don't make it.

>This is quite a nice piece of advice for a potential customer.  Do try
>to give accurate accounts of these "screwy" things when trying to help
>out someone who has asked for advice in the purchase of a phone
>system!

If the person who originally posted wanted amplification of that
remark, I am always available via e-mail. As many on the forum will
confirm, my private responses are swift and detailed.

I was one of the few people who responded to this inquiry. My
impressions of the system (and since you managed to figure out that I
haven't had extensive experience with the Strata I apparently wasn't
misleading anyone) were offered as just that: impressions. I would be
happy to spend more time with it and give a detailed report on the
product if it weren't for the fact that I believe that it's
unwarranted. It's superficial deficiencies don't have to be tolerated;
there are many other products out there that don't suffer from them.

If you like the product, that's just fine. If you are in the business
of telecommunications consulting, then we obviously have a
professional difference of opinion. But my request is that you don't
begin taking me to task by declaring that my opinion is void because I
didn't spend enough time (in YOUR opinion) evaluating something.


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

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

From: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Me
Date: 13 May 90 07:38:48 GMT
Reply-To: Kelly Goen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


The same worked for OKS, OK and Norman 1969-1976 (when I left).
We also used to be able to get inward by 914-213-1210 from 405...


Cheers,

Kelly

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 90 11:09:43 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting DMS Trick


In a message of <May 11 08:27> DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN (DREUBEN@eagle.
wesleyan.edu) ) writes:

DS>if you have three-way calling, you can use your three-way calling
DS>feature to put a caller on hold and go to another extension.

But aren't you going about it the "hard" way, by dialing a second call?

I just hookflash, listen for stutter dial tone and hang up. Then, the
first call recalls to me.

One of the best part of this is that I work at home and folks think
they are being transfered to another department (rather than just from
the kitchen to my office).


Regards,

Bill

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]


[Moderator's Note: One of the nice things about Starline, the home
centrex from Illinois Bell is that we can place a call on hold by
flashing, dialing *8 and hanging up. The call rings back, it can be
pulled automatically by any phone in the system.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 13 May 90 01:47:15 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Billing to VISA (Not The Card)


In a message of <May 09 15:20> Jim Gottlieb ([e-mail] ) writes:

JG>According to a Pac*Bell person, they designed these phones
JG>themselves and then tried to find a company in the U.S. to build them.
JG>Every manufacturer they contacted refused to build it to their
JG>specifications, so they had to look overseas and found a company
JG>in Japan to build them (I wish I knew who it was).

The manufacturers probably _knew_ that it was an MFJ violation for the BOC to
design CPE!


Regards,

Bill

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]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay Phone Company
Date: 13 May 90 15:41:00 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

(I wrote about a payphone having two LD companies)

>No problem.  Only AT&T can support long-distance cash calls from
>payphones (why is this, anyone know?), so payphones typically support
>AT&T for 1+ calling and the chosen carrier (AT&T or otherwise) for 0+
>calling.  This refers only to real BOC payphones, not COCOTs.

This was a COCOT.  I beleive in Florida (SoutherBell) you can use cash
for any pay phone company.  You must use your SouthernBell/AT&T card
for 0+ calls.


Bill

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

Subject: Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code"
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 13 May 90 13:30:41 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]> writes:

>I suppose an easy way to get a bunch of new area codes would be to assign
>Canada its own country code. Is that a contemplated option?

It wouldn't help much.  For one thing, Canada doesn't use very many
area codes now.  For another, it seems that there are at least as many
toll calls across the border as there are from one part of Canada to
another.  Canada is a huge country, but practically the entire
population lives in a strip 100 miles high and 3000 miles wide
adjacent to the US border.  If you drew a circle 500 miles in diameter
around a typical Canadian's house, it would contain considerably more
US residents than Canadians.

Direct dialing of toll calls within the NANP is available essentially
everywhere in the US and Canada.  Direct dialing of international
calls is widely available, but far from universal.  If calling between
the US and Canada required international dialing, it would be an
inconvenience to people who had to dial a lot of extra digits, but it
would be a disaster for phone companies if a renumbering suddenly made
a lot of calls non-dialable and required operator assistance.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: Sprint Card / WD40 Update
Date: Sun, 13 May 90 11:42:20 -0400
From: Andy Malis <[e-mail]>


My third Sprint invoice just arrived, without the WD-40 60 free
minutes credit.  I called to complain, and after a few minutes of
checking, he told me that there was a problem with the WD-40
promotion, and that it would be posted to my account in ANOTHER three
months.  However, he added that because of the problem, he was also
manually posting an additional $7.49 credit to my account, which
should show up on my next invoice.  The $7.49 is based upon a rate of
$.125 per minute to call the west coast from my location (greater
Boston).

So, if you didn't get the credit, by all means call and complain.


Andy


[Moderator's Note: I hate to say 'I told you so', but many issues ago
I said it was likely the third billing would come and go without the
credit promised unless users 'reminded' them to issue it. The original
promotion, you will recall, said nothing about 'credit on the third
billing', but rather that if you won the contest, you would receive a
Sprint FON card with one hour of free calling. It was only after the
first billing arrived that we were told it would be the third billing,
etc. And they say they can't trust their customers without all sorts
of personal credit information. Tsk, tsk.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #346
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01677;
          14 May 90 4:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02936;
          14 May 90 3:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30385;
          14 May 90 2:02 CDT
Date:     Mon, 14 May 90 1:52:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #347
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 14 May 90 01:51:58 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 347

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Voice Information Services [Frank G. Kienast]
    Re: Line Slip [Mike Gardner]
    Re: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC [Steve Howard]
    Re: Party Line Interface [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Alternative to Touch Tone (Rotary Speed Dialing) [Andrew Boardman]
    Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code" [Rabinovitch Isaac]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Rabinovitch Isaac]
    Re: "End of Number" Time-Out [Dr. T. Andrews]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Edward Greenberg]
    The Great Mother's Day Fire [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frank G Kienast <well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Information Services
Date: 13 May 90 18:32:16 GMT


A couple weeks ago, I posted an article stating that I wanted to (for
fun) compile a list of voice information services that can be accessed
using a touch-tone phone.  I received the following responses.  Thanks
to everyone who contributed.  My two favorites are the [San Francisco
Chronicle's] Cityline (lots of good quality news info, especially
business/stock market, and commercials are short) and the one ran by
the Gazette in Ontario Canada (it's neat to hear it in French - beware
though that it costs about 3X as much per call as calling within the
US).

The [San Francisco Chronicle] has a similar service at 415-512-5000,
with a wide range of information, including weather and stocks and
I don't know what all else.  No charges other than applicable tolls.

We have a number of "free" information services here in Atlanta (404)
area provided by the [Atlanta Journal and Constitution] newspapers.  All
can adressed by dialing 404-222-XXXX where XXXX=

2000 - talking yellow pages with live operators.
2020 - stock quotes.
2030 - sports.
2040 - Atlanta weather.
2050 - soaps.
2060 - Atlanta traffic info.

In Montreal, Canada:

Phone #:[phone]. After pressing 1 for English or 2 for French,
enter 1000 (or other four-digit address) to hear everything from
business to weather to entertainment to horoscopes.

Los Angeles:

(213)777-FILM  Movie info (theaters, showtimes, etc.)

In the Boston area, there is radio station KISS's CityLine at
(617)395-KISS (free).  It includes news, weather, sports,
entertainment, financial, and special categories (like jokes, soaps,
astrology, etc).  There is also Boston CitiNet (also free) if you'd
like to use a terminal & modem to access lots of information.  You can
reach them at [phone] (300-1200 baud 8-N-1).

Two of the STRANGEST "Voice Information Service" numbers I've noted
are 407/837-4636 and 407/837-4749.  This service is -- or so I have
been told -- operated by "The Florida Pennysaver (a weekly shopper)."
Call these numbers and hear the on-going saga of Betty Sue and Bubba.
No commercials, either.

We have an interesting service here -- the "Cincinnati Bell Talking
Yellow Pages" (513)-333-4444.  You call up and enter a four digit code
that gives weather, news, movie/theatre listings, stocks, lotto, or
info about a particular company's product/service.  If you don't enter
a code, you get an operator who will find a product/service that you
are looking for.  (i.e. I want a pipe fitting company in the Clifton
area that delivers and is open past midnight on weekends -- or
whatever other weird thing you are looking for). It is a handy
service.


In real life:  Frank Kienast
Well:  well![e-mail]
CIS:  73327,3073
V-mail:  804-980-3733


[Moderator's Note: A few Chicago numbers (although not interactive
calls) to add to your collection are these: Conspiracy Theories, Court
Corruption and the impending collapse of banks across America:
312-731-1100; An inspirational message from the First Church of
Religious Science: 312-HARMONY; Gay News and Activities Calendar:
312-975-1212; Cultural Events Line: 312-FINE-ART.  The Illinois Bell
Communicator is 312-368-8000.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 13 May 90 15:14:25 -0500
From: Mike Gardner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Slip


>I have several comments; I hope they can, in some way, be helpful
>instead of just throwing fat on the fire.

Some fires should be allowed to burn.....

>The first thing I would do is try to borrow a different brand of 1200
>baud modem to put at one end (or both) of the connection for a few
>days to see if the symptoms change.  Some modems are just more
>sensitive to "things" than they should be and changing out the modem
>can sometimes fix the problem.

We had a similar problem when Illinois Bell installed a DMS-100 for
our campus switch.  Despite prior warnings from the campus that there
would be problems, when the switch was cut over, nearly EVERY 1200
baud modem on campus was rendered incapable of providing a clean
connection.  Several months of cleaning up the DMS-100 line card
configurations made intra-campus calls useable, but it took several
more months to reliably make calls to and from the city and even more
months for the long distance lines to become useable.  Seems to me,
the problem was unofficially called "sync slip" i.e.  that
multiplexors/line cards were not properly sync'ed with other
equipment.

>Alas, most telcos are not enlightened enough to take dial-up data
>reports from John Q. Public and do them justice.  This is partly the
>telco's fault and partly the customer's fault but that is fodder for
>another whole discussion.  Also tell them that it is worse under
>certain weather conditions.  It may be necessary to make the same
>report several times a week or so apart over a couple of months before
>they get serious and find something.

Absolutely, and as the reply said, try to isolate and collaborate.
Find someone else in a different location.  He can call your host and
your terminal.  Hopefully only one will show the noise.  This problem
however is not indicative of a "problem on your mother board".


    University of Illinois, Computer Services Office
    1304 W Springfield, Urbana, Il 61801
    Michael G. Gardner, Assistant Director, 173 DCL
    [phone]    [e-mail]
    FAX [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC
Date: 13 May 90 22:35:57 EDT (Sun)
From: Steve Howard <[e-mail]>


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

> I've been involved with the Public Utilites Commission of Ohio (PUCO)
> on complaints and rate cases several time.  Its a very frustrating
> experience.

   Lots of stuff deleted

This brings to mind an incident where the PUCO actually did an
outstanding job (probably one of the few times :-( ).

I worked for a small company in Brunswick, Ohio (served by
GTE-Medina).  (This was 1982 or '83 so all the information is from
memory).  We had a single business line.  Our line was "muxed" with
some of the other subscribers nearby.  The line had terrible sound
quality.  It constantly had a light hissing/static in the background.
During wet weather it would get considerably worse--sometimes
rendering the phone unusable.

I called GTE repair several times to get the line fixed.  They would
usually send dumbone out to look at it -- but nothing would change.
After going through repair a few times, I began asking for a
supervisor when I called.  This produced the same effect -- they would
come out-look at phone, replace some of the equipment and then go on
their way, leaving my problem unsolved.

Out of frustration I finally sent a letter to the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio explaining my situation.  The *day after* I mailed
the letter I came in to work to find a "We were here" sticker on the
door.  GTE appeared again later and removed the mux equipment and put
our line on a regular pair.  A week or two later someone from the PUCO
called.  She said that she had read GTE's report of the problems/repair
and just wanted to insure that it was in fact repaired!!  She left her
name & number and said that if I had any further problems to call her
directly and she would get it taken care of immediately!!!!!  We
didn't have any more problems!!!

This was several years ago and it sounds like things at the PUCO have
changed considerably since then.  It is unfortunate that things have
changed--it sure was nice to have somebody push GTE around (instead of
the vice-versa).


Steve Howard
Univ of Cincinnati   College of Business Administration
([e-mail])   UUCP: {osu-cis,decuac,mit-eddie}!uccba!showard

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

Date: Sun, 13 May 90 20:42:03 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Party Line Interface
Reply-to: Jack [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


(I don't think I am giving away any secrets, but this is not for the
purpose of billing calls to your line-mate's account.  ;-)

The way two-party identification works, at least in the Ma Bell
family, is that the tip party is identified by a conductive path to
ground when the tip party is off hook.  I forget all of the intimate
details, but the ringer on the 500 series sets, in conjunction with
the network, is set up to provide a balanced circuit to ground, thus
cancelling out any ground- loop hum.  If I remember correctly, there
were two options for different ground resistance.  The switch then
checks for the tip party id circuit and bills/processes the call
accordingly.  That's the way I remember it, anyway.

That 'box' probably does something similar.  I would suspect it
provides the tip party ID ground upon any off-hook downstream of the
box.  I know at one time that Ma Bell prohibited the el-cheapo phones
on two-party lines due to the fact that they (among other things) did
not have the capacity to do this type of ID.

Again, I am just passing this on as one techie to another.  I'm not
trying to promote any party-line toll fraud.

Good Day!        JSW

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


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

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

Date: Sun, 13 May 90 23:25:59 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternative to Touch Tone (Rotary Speed Dialing)
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters


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

>A friend demonstrated this for me, and you could get reliable
>pulse-dialing about as fast as I could manually touch-tone dial an
>unpracticed phone number.  Sounded more like buzzing on the line then
>clicking: blt-bzzzzt-blt-bt-blzt-blt! sort of noise for a series of
>digits.

When calling many places in 212 from many places in 914 (I know it's
vague, but it's not dependent on switch type or location or time of
day; maybe traffic patterns...?) some of the background noise one
hears from switching is the 212 number, without 212 prepended, being
pulsed out *very* fast.  I've always wondered why...  Any ideas?

(BTW, in the usual case, this is from a "legal" tone line.)


Andrew M. Boardman  no mail to [e-mail], MIT's ITS's are going to die
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]

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

From: Rabinovitch Isaac <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code"
Date: 14 May 90 04:04:15 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


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

> (From the Information Processing page in the May 7, 1990, issue of
> BUSINESS WEEK, p. 140I.)

> Starting July 1, 1995, Bellcore will open up a reservoir of 640 area
> codes, four times the number now in use.  Existing codes must have
> zero or one as a second digit, but the new ones won't need to, thanks
> to new equipment.

And also thanks to changed rules for dialling.  I had thought that
computerized phone exchanges would eliminate all those silly little
rules.

  In my area (near 408/415 boundary), we now have to dial one for all
out-of-areacode calls -- which includes some local calls.  Just to
indicate how choked up we are: a few years ago, some 415 to 408 calls
were allowed without having to dial the code.  Now, not only do I have
to dial 1-408 for some local calls, but they will soon split off the
east bay from my area code.

It seems to me that the big culprits are CBX customers, who get big
blocks of numbers, even though they only have a few actual lines.  Is
that fair?

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

From: Rabinovitch Isaac <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Date: 14 May 90 03:48:36 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


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

> I  won't pay for TT as a matter of principle (and neither will my
> friend).  Most of our friends probably think we're troglodytes.

Naw.  A little obsessive, maybe.

> I fully expect some day to have a visiting child ask to use the phone
> and not know what to do with the funny round thing with all the holes
> around the edge.

Actually, you can get push-button phones that generate those same
"mechanical" pulses.  (Anything a machine can do, a computer can
simulate!)  They even have models that switch back and forth between
tone and pulse -- very handy for phone banking and such.  Judging from
the percentage of phone ads mentioning such a feature (most), there's
a big market for troglodyte products.  Then again, there are a lot of
people who don't know a tone from a pulse.

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

Date: Mon, 7 May 90 00:14:39 -0400
From: "Dr. T. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "End of Number" Time-Out
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


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

) Example: <ctrl-G> is really a direct translation of "Who Are You?"
) <figs-D> in Baudot Telex operations.

This comes as a surprise to me, since <ctrl-E> is called "enq" and
used to be marked as "w-r-u" on some ASCII teletypes.  These devices
were equipped with an electro-mechanical device which could be
programmed by breaking off pegs to signal '1' bits, and the programmed
answer was typed by the machine in response to the <ctrl-e>.  An
unprogrammed device would have a message of all NUL characters, and
the answerback therefore normally caused only an interesting bit of
noise.

Had I been making guesses about these things, I should surely have
guessed that <ctrl-G> (which does the moral equivalent of ringing the
bell on every ascii terminal I have ever owned or used heavily) was a
translation of <figs-J>, which is marked "SGL" on a model 15 in this
room and which rings a rather loud bell.

) 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

Yes, I guess I'd be surprised also.  I should have expected the
<ctrl-g> to be passed through to the user's output device, where it
would likely produce a noise of some sort.


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

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

Date: Sun, 13 May 90 16:19 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Problems With NXX-0000 Numbers


    Tom Ace Writes:

    I'm going to be moving soon, and I'm considering getting a phone
    number ending in -0000 at my new residence.  I'm concerned about
    "wrong numbers" and other unwanted calls;

Once I had 541-2345.  It wasn't pleasant.  A few adolescents found me
and my answering machine, and gave me no piece.  I recommend a less
distinguished number.

                                -edg

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 1:48:23 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Great Mother's Day Fire


Just a reminder that this week is the second anniversary of the Great
Fire of 1988; the incident which knocked out phone service for
thousands of Chicagoans for almost a month.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #347
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01463;
          15 May 90 2:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05740;
          15 May 90 1:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28760;
          15 May 90 0:08 CDT
Date:     Mon, 14 May 90 23:44:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #348
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 14 May 90 23:43:21 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 348

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Rotary Telephones [Andrew Boardman]
    Toll Switching Centers for Area Code 809 [Larry Lippman]
    Carter Lake, Iowa [Jack Winslade]
    Telecom*USA [Leroy Donnelly]
    Cellular Rural Service Area Lottery for New Hampshire [John R. Covert]
    Home Wiring Advice Sought [John Parsons]
    Area 908 Prefix Listing [Tom Lowe]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 May 90 22:43:56 EDT
From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rotary Telephones
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters


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

>My wife had to show him how to dial the phone!  Seems they only have
>push-button phones in their house.

>The moral: Parents: Make sure your children know how to dial a rotary
>phone in case they are ever in an emergency situation!

Indeed.  Many (most, around here) of the pay phones not in very high
volume places in New York are rotary.  Finding a new touch-tone phone
in my lobby last fall was a pleasant surprise.

(And yes, the switch that serves these phones isn't some archaic
holdback that has problems with DTMF.)


Andrew Boardman     no mail to [e-mail], MIT's ITS's are going to die
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Toll Switching Centers for Area Code 809
Date: 13 May 90 23:16:01 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> Speaking of 809, where is it? Not the destination{s}, but the toll
> switch{s}.

    That's a good question.  According to my U.S.-Canadian toll
and tandem switching directory, there is no entry for area code 809.
This directory is from 1982, though; since I have not had much
involvement with the operating telephone industry for some years now,
AT&T has not bothered to keep me on their mailing list for these
publications :-).

    However, one would think that if a toll switching center of
any significance existed for area code 809 it would have already
existed by 1982.  As an example of an arcane fact, I can tell you that
the Whitehorse, Yukon Territory XBAR tandem is located at 206 Elliot
St. in Whitehorse and that it gives announcement code 40322 - but from
this directory I can't tell you a thing about area code 809!

> When you call 809-xxx-zzzz, where does your call get processed? Is
> there one switch that then passes calls to the {other} islands?  Or do
> the sending offices have to be smarter, and look at the prefix, too,
> and then send the call?

    As far as I know, your local four-wire toll switching office
knows all of the valid area code 809 CO prefixes, and will abort your
call at that level if an invalid prefix is dialed.  Where a valid area
code 809 call goes from there, I am not certain.

    I can offer only one clue remembered from the 1970's.  A data
circuit which ran to Hato Rey, Puerto Rico was routed through a toll
center in North Miami, FL called Ojus.  I dimly recall that Ojus
functioned as a toll switching center for DDD calls to Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, etc.

    Since David Lesher gives a telephone number with area code
305, perhaps he can check this out for us!

> {This is a good thread for Mr. Central Office, Larry. He likely
> designed it.......}

    I feel honored at your comment, but unfortunately I cannot
give a definitive answer.  I have thrown the ball back in your lap,
though. :-)

> [Moderator's Note: I know that 809 Directory Assistance started out in
> South Carolina for many years (maybe still?).  PT]

    I don't know.  I looked through descriptive listings for toll
centers in Columbia, Greenville, Charleston, Florence, Rock Hill,
Orangeburg, Myrtle Beach, Spartanburg, Greenwood, Sumter and
Lancaster, but I can find no clues as to whether they support 809
information, or 809 tandem switching for that matter.


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: Sun, 13 May 90 20:40:42 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Carter Lake, Iowa
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


I know I responded by mail to this question a few months back -- about
the Omaha-area 347 prefix that is (supposedly) dialable in either the
402 or 712 area code.  At that time, I tried it from home (Omaha
prefix 895) using 1-402-347-xxxx, 1-712-347-xxxx, 10333-1-712, etc.
and reached the conclusion that it WAS a 712 prefix and not dialable
as 402.

Since reading that last chain of messages, curiosity got the best of
me, and I tried a few other things (this time from the 559 prefix in
midtown Omaha).  1-712-347-xxxx (as expected) resulted in the
no-such-number intercept.  (The xxxx was a known unassigned number.
The call made it to the 347 switch.)  So did 1-402-347-xxxx.  I then
pulled out my FON card, dialed into the 800 number and tried it both
ways.  712 went right through and reached the no-such-number intercept
at the 347 switch.  However, when using AC402 through Sprint, the call
was intercepted in the Sprint system.

One curiosity was that when I dialed 1-402-347-xxxx, the intercept I
received was '.. boop boop BEEP The numberrrr you have reaaached,
three-four-seven x x x x is not assigned in area code
seven-one-two...'.

I have a feeling that this is one of the ambiguous situations in the
great Telecom network, and it depends on what switch is programmed
what way as to whether 402 will work for that particular CO.

For those who do not know the local geography, the Omaha-Council
Bluffs metro area straddles the Nebraska-Iowa border, with AC402 on
the Ne. side and AC712 on the Iowa side.  Seven-digit local calling is
used throughout the metro area for both sides of the border.

The area in question is a 'tongue' of Iowa which is geographically on
the Nebraska side of the river (surrounded on three sides by Omaha)
but politically in Iowa.  It is served by the 347 office out of
downtown Omaha with the rest of the 34x prefixes serving the downtown
area.

Good Day!       JSW


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

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

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

Date: Sun, 13 May 90 20:41:42 EDT
From: Leroy Donnelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom*USA
Reply-to: Leroy [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


The only problem I had with Teleconnect/Telecom*USA was with their
way of billing.  Omaha, Nebraska has a local access number and the
surrounding cities also have a local access number to get into the
network.  You are surcharged if you you use the 800-ALL-CALL service.
So I asked for the local access numbers for all cities within a 200
mile range of Omaha.  I was told this could only be done if I paid a
$15.00 fee for each city (I was told this was a setup fee).  I asked
for a list of the cities who were on the network so I could pick for
access.  After a month and repeated phone calls, no list.  I switched
to MCI.


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

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 13:12:51 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  14-May-1990 1549" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Rural Service Area Lottery for New Hampshire


Contel has informed its customers that they will "soon" have
continuous coverage as far north as North Conway.  But "soon" may mean
eighteen months.  Contel in Atlanta says the Concord cell site is
scheduled to come on line in Q4'90.  But things are complicated.

There was some hope that Contel would have gotten the authority to
provide service outside Hillsborough County to the rest of the state
except for Rockingham County (served by NYNEX) and Strafford County
(served by Star Cellular).

But in its wisdom, the FCC decided that three different "B" carriers
for New Hampshire were not enough.  The two RSAs were awarded to two
different carriers.  A partnership of Dunbarton Telephone Company,
Granite State Telephone Company, ConTel, and maybe others was given
the license for Merrimack County (Concord), Belknap County (Laconia),
and Carroll County (Conway).  Telephone and Data Systems (which is the
parent company of Cellular One of Manchester/Nashua -- the **A**
carrier there) got the **B** license in Cheshire County (Keene),
Sullivan County (Claremont), Grafton County (Lebanon, Franconia,
Littleton), and Coos County (Mt. Washington, Berlin, and north).

The partnership for the central counties would be well advised (from a
good service standpoint) to allow Contel to operate the system for
them as a single system integrated with Manchester/Nashua.  But from a
profit standpoint, they are very likely to decide to operate it as a
separate system, in order to be able to rake in roaming rates in a
more egregious fashion.

Subscribers lose again!


/john

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 14:22:55 mdt
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home Wiring Advice Sought


We're building a house and it's almost time to wire it, so I thought
I'd fish for a little free advice ;-) ...

This is a two-story, wood-frame house with full basement.  I'm
planning to bring in two lines, one for private use and one for my
wife's mail-order business.  We hope to live there a long time, so I'm
going to run a four or five-pair underground cable in from the telco's
connection box (the green thing out by the street) for possible future
additions.

Any suggested changes to the Joe-Average approach of wiring a
four-wire modular jack to every room?  What traps may I be walking
into?  Any recommendations for two-line phones?  Radio Shack's and
Pac*Bell's look o.k., but are they reliable?


Thanks,
John Parsons   [e-mail]  [phone]

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

Subject: Area 908 Prefix Listings
Date: 14 May 90 14:24:51 EDT (Mon)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


The following is a list of all exchanges that are in the 908 area code and
their associated name as it would appear on a phone bill.

Enjoy!

Tom Lowe
[e-mail]

202    NEWBRNSWCK    204    BERNARDSVL     205    METUCHEN
206    PTPLEASANT      213    PHILLIPSBG      214    NEWBRNSWCK
218    SOMERVILLE      219    RED BANK        220    NEWBRNSWCK
221    BERNARDSVL      222    LONGBRANCH      223    MANASQUAN
225    METUCHEN        229    LONGBRANCH      231    SOMERVILLE
232    WESTFIELD       233    WESTFIELD       234    PEAPACK
236    LEBANON         238    SOUTHRIVER      240    TOMS RIVER
241    ROSELLE         246    NEWBRNSWCK      247    NEWBRNSWCK
248    METUCHEN        249    NEWBRNSWCK      251    SOUTHRIVER
254    SOUTHRIVER      255    TOMS RIVER      257    SOUTHRIVER
264    KEYPORT         269    TOMS RIVER      270    TOMS RIVER
271    BOUNDBROOK      272    CRANFORD        273    SUMMIT
274    MONMTH JCT      276    CRANFORD        277    SUMMIT
280    BELMAR          281    BELLE MEAD      283    METUCHEN
286    TOMS RIVER      287    METUCHEN        289    ELIZABETH
290    MATAWAN         291    ATLATCHLDS      295    PTPLEASANT
297    FRANKLINPK      298    ROSELLE         302    BOUNDBROOK
303    FREEHOLD        306    SOMERVILLE      308    FREEHOLD
317    WESTFIELD       321    METUCHEN        322    FANWOOD
323    LAKEHURST       324    PERTHAMBOY      329    MONMTH JCT
341    TOMS RIVER      349    TOMS RIVER      350    LAKEHURST
351    ELIZABETH       352    ELIZABETH       353    ELIZABETH
354    ELIZABETH       355    ELIZABETH       356    BOUNDBROOK
359    BELLE MEAD      360    SOUTHRIVER      362    BLAIRSTOWN
363    LAKEWOOD        364    LAKEWOOD        367    LAKEWOOD
369    NESHANIC        370    LAKEWOOD        381    RAHWAY
382    RAHWAY          388    RAHWAY          389    EATONTOWN
390    SOUTHRIVER      396    RAHWAY          406    PERTHAMBOY
407    PERTHAMBOY      409    FREEHOLD        412    PLAINFIELD
415    FREEHOLD        417    METUCHEN        418    NEWBRNSWCK
419    ELIZABETH       422    FRANKLINPK      431    FREEHOLD
439    OLDWICK         442    PERTHAMBOY      446    ENGLISHTN
449    SPRINGLAKE      453    OXFORD          454    PHILLIPSBG
457    BOUNDBROOK      458    PTPLEASANT      459    HOPE
462    FREEHOLD        463    NEWBRNSWCK      464    SUMMIT
469    BOUNDBROOK    474    LINDEN        475    BELVIDERE
477    PTPLEASANT      479    BLOOMSBURY      486    LINDEN
493    DEAL            494    METUCHEN        495    KEANSBURG
496    COLUMBIA        499    RAHWAY          502    ASBURYPARK
505    TOMS RIVER      506    TOMS RIVER      513    FREEHOLD
517    DEAL            519    NEWBRNSWCK      521    JAMESBURG
522    SUMMIT          524    NEWBRNSWCK      525    SOUTHAMBOY
526    SOMERVILLE      527    ELIZABETH       528    MANASQUAN
530    RED BANK        531    DEAL            532    EATONTOWN
534    WHITEHOUSE      536    ENGLISHTN       537    HAMPTON
541    CARTERET        542    EATONTOWN       544    EATONTOWN
545    NEWBRNSWCK      548    METUCHEN        549    METUCHEN
555    DIR ASST        558    ELIZABETH       560    BOUNDBROOK
561    PLAINFIELD      562    DUNELLEN        563    BOUNDBROOK
566    MATAWAN         571    LONGBRANCH      572    NEWBRNSWCK
574    RAHWAY          576    RED BANK        577    FREEHOLD
580    MILLINGTON      582    SUMMIT          583    MATAWAN
591    MATAWAN         594    RAHWAY          602    WOODBRIDGE
603    METUCHEN        604    MILLINGTON      607    SOUTHAMBOY
610    FREEHOLD        613    SOUTHRIVER      615    MIDDLETOWN
618    LONGBRANCH      619    WASHINGTON      632    METUCHEN
634    WOODBRIDGE      636    WOODBRIDGE      637    GREAT MDW
638    HIGHBRIDGE      647    MILLINGTON      654    WESTFIELD
657    LAKEHURST       658    SOMERVILLE      665    SUMMIT
668    PLAINFIELD      671    MIDDLETOWN      679    SOUTHAMBOY
681    BELMAR          685    SOMERVILLE      686    UNIONVILLE
687    UNIONVILLE      688    UNIONVILLE      689    WASHINGTON
699    NEWBRNSWCK      704    SOMERVILLE      706    MIDDLETOWN
707    SOMERVILLE      709    CRANFORD        713    CLINTON
715    PERTHAMBOY      719    PEAPACK         721    SOUTHAMBOY
722    SOMERVILLE      723    SOUTHRIVER      725    SOMERVILLE
727    SOUTHAMBOY      730    CLINTON         735    CLINTON
737    RAHWAY          738    PERTHAMBOY      739    KEYPORT
741    RED BANK        745    NEWBRNSWCK      747    RED BANK
750    WOODBRIDGE      752    DUNELLEN        753    PLAINFIELD
754    PLAINFIELD      755    PLAINFIELD      756    PLAINFIELD
757    PLAINFIELD      758    RED BANK        760    RAHWAY
766    BERNARDSVL      769    PLAINSFLD       771    SUMMIT
774    ASBURYPARK      775    ASBURYPARK      776    ASBURYPARK
780    FREEHOLD        781    PEAPACK         782    FLEMINGTON
787    KEANSBURG       788    FLEMINGTON      789    WESTFIELD
793    SEASIDE PK      805    BOUNDBROOK      806    FLEMINGTON
813    HACKETTSTN      815    RAHWAY          819    NEWBRNSWCK
820    ELIZABETH       821    FRANKLINPK      826    PERTHAMBOY
828    NEWBRNSWCK      830    SEASIDE PK      832    CALIFON
834    HOLMDEL         840    PTPLEASANT      842    RED BANK
844    BOUNDBROOK      846    NEWBRNSWCK      849    LAKEHURST
850    HACKETTSTN      851    UNIONVILLE      852    HACKETTSTN
855    WOODBRIDGE      859    PHILLIPSBG      862    LINDEN
870    LONGBRANCH      872    ATLATCHLDS      873    EMILLSTONE
874    BELLE MEAD      876    LONGVALLEY      878    NEWBRNSWCK
879    CHESTER         880    NEWBRNSWCK      883    NEWBRNSWCK
885    BOUNDBROOK      888    KEYPORT         889    FANWOOD
892    PTPLEASANT      899    PTPLEASANT      901    LAKEWOOD
905    LAKEWOOD        906    METUCHEN        913    RAHWAY
918    ASBURYPARK      919    FARMINGDL       920    PTPLEASANT
922    ASBURYPARK      925    LINDEN          928    LAKEWOOD
929    TOMS RIVER      931    CRANFORD        932    NEWBRNSWCK
937    NEWBRNSWCK      938    FARMINGDL       946    HOLMDEL
949    HOLMDEL         953    BERNARDSVL      954    FRANKLINPK
957    MIDDLETOWN      964    UNIONVILLE      965    ELIZABETH
968    DUNELLEN        969    CARTERET        972    ENGLISHTN
974    SPRINGLAKE      975    HOLMDEL         980    BOUNDBROOK
981    DUNELLEN        985    NEWBRNSWCK      988    ASBURYPARK
995    MILFORD         996    FRENCHTOWN      ---     ----------

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #348
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04204;
          15 May 90 3:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08589;
          15 May 90 2:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05740;
          15 May 90 1:12 CDT
Date:     Tue, 15 May 90 0:14:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #349
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 May 90 00:13:42 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 349

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cincinnati Bell Workers on Strike [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Tim Steele]
    Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Evelyn C. Leeper]
    Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code" [Macy Hallock]
    Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code" [Tom Neff]
    Re: High Tech and Law Enforcement [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Las Vegas Payphones [Peter Weiss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 23:04:27 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cincinnati Bell Workers on Strike


About 3000 union employees of Cincinnati Bell went on strike Sunday
morning, leaving management personnel to run operations. The dispute
centered on health benefits, and a plan by the company which would
require employees to pay part of their health premiums.

Talks between Cincinnati Bell and the Communications Workers of
America broke off after a fourteen hour bargaining session Saturday
afternoon and evening.

Clerical workers, directory assistance operators, linemen, installers
and repair personnel are all involved in the work stoppage. No
immediate resolution is in sight.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 16:04:24 BST
From: Tim Steele <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain


The wiring is actually rather elegant, and goes like this:

            1
A --------- 2
            3
            4
B --------- 5
            6

The 'master socket' contains a capacitor and resistor wired in series
across 2 and 5 with the junction connected to pin 4.  All extension
sockets are wired in parallel with the master socket.

Pins 1 and 6 are reserved for ISDX (digital telephony).
Pins 2 and 5 are for connection to the line.
Pin 3 is for earth recall - it can be connected to earth at the socket
for PABX applications.  The phone connects 2 to 3 when the RECALL
button is pressed.
Pin 4 drives the bells/ringers on all the phones.

The reason for this bizarre arrangement is to prevent extension bells
tinkling when one extension dials out using pulse (LD) dialling.  Each
phone therefore shorts out pin 4 to pin 5 when dialling.

If there is only one phone connected to the line, of course, this is
all a bit superfluous.

The reason for the resistor is to provide an impedance across the line
even if all the phones are unplugged.  This means the phone company
(BT) can test your line remotely.

The previous system was much less elegant - phones had chunky
headphone-style plugs with four conductors, and the master phone (the
first one installed) was wired directly into the wall to prevent its
being unplugged (for the reason given above).  The bells in each
extension were wired *in series*, resulting in a nightmare for the
installer in trying to work out which wire went where!  In practice,
of course, BT installers used any old wire they had in the back of the
van resulting in some real messes.

In addition, the new plugs and sockets use insulation displacement
(IDC) technology, whereas the old system used good old screw terminals
in the sockets and soldering in the plugs.

I'd be very interested if someone can post how this problem is
overcome in the US.

Thanks,

Tim

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain
Date: 13 May 90 15:52:19 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, mitel!spock![e-mail] (Tom
Gray) writes:

> re - wiring of a British Telephone

> The question of the wiring of the ringer for a british telephone also
> caused me some trouble.

> In North America, the telephones are wired with a blocking capacitor
> in the ringer to prevent the telephone from drawing battery when on
> hook.

> In the British system this capacitor is wired into the modular jack and
> three (three! count them!) wires are taken to the telephone. These are
> designated A - our tip, B - our ring and C (maybe) to carry ringing.

> I suppose this practice was used to reduce costs or eliminate some of
> the REN of the line. Some BT telephone contain a blocking capacitor
> and can be wired for North American use - others can't.

> The only reliable way to solve this problem is to create a UK jack
> with the blocking capacitor and a connection to a standard North
> American jack. If this is of interest to you, I can dig out the wiring
> required for this.

I have watched this debate for a while, I e-mailed the original poster
and he has thanked me for the help. But to answer the questions of all
the curious here is the gaff. I believe that Aussie phones work the
same way.

First the UK (British Telecom) jack layout:


               British Telecom Auxiliary Jack Wiring

        British phones have three wires. There are two wires A & B (Tip &
Ring) coming into a house.  There is no protector. In the primary jack
in the house is a 2 uF capacitor. On the end of this cap is the third
wire. The AC ringing signal is fed to the phone on this wire and its
DC counterpart. See diagram:


                  ----| |------O (3)
                  |
                  |
    (A) O----------------------O (2)



    (B) O----------------------O (5)

        Note:  The Numbers in the diagram are the numbers engraved on
the jack terminals. If the phone rings continuously, reverse 2 and 5.
The ringer is fed by AC current on pins 3 and 5.

        BT  consider the A terminal to be ground. B is measured as 45
to 50 volts above ground.

        Wiring Colour Codes:
        The standard inside wire is classic "3 pair". A jack is wired
as follows:

        Pin #               Wire colour

        2                   Blue/White
        3                   Orange/White
        4                   White/Orange
        5                   White/Blue


    Note that a "Primary Phone", the old one screwed to the wall,
may well have the capacitor inside the phone. It is the auxiliary
(secondry) phones that are wired to the jacks past the first incoming
jack with the 2 uF capacitor.

    The purpose of having the Cap on a third wire is not cost
reduction but the reduction of "Bell Tap" (US Term) or "Bell Tinkle"
(UK Term).  If all the extension phones have their bells fed via the 2
uF cap then there will be no bell tap. In the US The gong ringers are
electro-mechanically resonant or if they are electronic have bell tap
suppression circuitry in them.

    In the US, a gong ringer has a 0.47 uF 250V Mylar cap in
series. An electronic ringer will usually have a 1.0 uf 250V Mylar cap
in series.  To convert a US phone for UK use, attach a lead to the
Capacitor terminal closest to the ringer device and bring that out to
pin 3 on the British Jack. Note that in the UK, electrical shops carry
jacks and will terminate wire with jack plugs to custom make line
cords for you. So yes, you can bring a US line cord into a shop and
have a Western Electric (US) plug on one end to go into the US phone
and a Brit Telecom plug on the other to go into a UK wall jack.

    To convert a UK phone for US use, you need to attach a
capacitor to the third lead and then attach it to one of the other two
leads. It should be the A lead. If the ringer won't ring when you plug
the phone in, flip the leads. Note that UK phones are what is known in
the US as "Quarter Modular". In other words, the line cord is hard
wired into the phone and has a jack plug only on the one end. So to
get it to fit UK jacks, buy a US line cord with spade lugs on one end
and wire it into the British phone.

    I have tried not to make this too long and boring, so I may
have skimped a bit on the explanations.


Yours,

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

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Saturday, 12 May 1990 07:23:44 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service


>No.  Special equipment is needed to detect the tones.  The database
>dictates allowed dialing methods from your phone :

Here in Bell of PA land, if you don't subscribe, you don't get DTMF

>Yes.  The tones will, of course, continue to be passed normally
>through the talk-path, along with all other voice-band frequencies.

A side note: if you've programmed your modem to the lowest duration
and delays for one DTMF processor (possibly the CO), those same values
might not work with another e.g., voice processing equipment.


Peter M.  Weiss                  | 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people)
University Park, PA USA 16802    | Disclaimer -* +* applies herein

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 17:07:49 EDT
From: Evelyn C Leeper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeff Mischkinsky) writes:
> > My experience has been that touch-tone phones will work even if you
> > don't subscribe to touch-tone service.

> A few random data points.  In my old apartment (we moved there in 1984
> or so) we ordered a single non-TT line, and got just that.  A  TT phone
> wouldn't break dial tone.

All you have to do in this case is open up the phone and reverse the
polarity (i.e., swap the red and green wires).  This solves the
"won't-break-dialtone" problem.


Evelyn C. Leeper  |  [phone]  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  [e-mail]

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Mon May 14 09:53:10 1990
Subject: Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code"
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> :
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 347, Message 6 of 10

[...Discussion of shortage of NNX codes in certain areas and Bellcore's
 1995 area code relief plan....]
>It seems to me that the big culprits are CBX customers, who get big
>blocks of numbers, even though they only have a few actual lines.  Is
>that fair?

Well, actually I think Centrex customers historically accounted for
the highest usaage: every station used a separate number.  Since Bell
used excessively high rates for DID to "protect" their Centrex base
for so many years, the use of DID in Customer Provided PBX systems has
only taken off in the past few years.

The radio paging companies have traditionally used large blocks of DID
numbers as well.  Voice mail providers are also using large DID
blocks.  However, the cellular phone carriers are often given complete
NNX's of their own.

Here in 216-land, I count a over a dozen entire NNX codes devoted to
cellular use.  (And for good reason: the cell phone co's are paying
for special regional access and other services)

One factor I haven't seen mentioned in the Digest yet: Small rural
CO's, known as CDO's (Community Dial Office), sometimes only have a
couple hundred lines in service, but use an entire NNX.  Not too far
from here are literally dozens of these small offices...

(Warning! Warning! Nostalgia Attack! Old Timer Alert!).....

One example, mentioned in the Digest earlier is the CDO in beautiful
downtown Burbank ... Ohio, that is ...  When I worked for GTE back in
ca. 1970, this was an old North Electric CX-100 all relay office,
with just over 100 lines in service.  Its now a GTD-5 digital slave site,
but with 300 or so lines, but still uses an entire NNX.

A few notes about good ol' North Electric all relay CO's ... I
remember these dimly, but with great fondness.  These were made in
Galion, Ohio in the 50's and were quite popular at the time with
smaller independant telco's.  (I think first Medina OH dial exchange,
put into service in 1955, was a North CX CO.)  The CX series CO's has
a reputation for reliablility in the face of abuse and neglect that
few systems made today could ever hope to match.

The system was ALL relay.  Nothing else ... not a rotary switch in the
CO (I dimly recall that someone designed a retrofit for the CX's that
had rotary switches in it, but I only saw it once ... probably an
Automatic Electric product ... AE would use rotary switches in nearly
anything they could make...)  Maintenace consisted of cleaning and
adjusting relay contact pile-ups.  Tracing circuits while looking for
trouble was good training (I'd cover the floor with circuit diagrams
and get out my test lamp and work for hours...)  I recall North's
method of drawing circuit diagrams was quite different than AE or WE
did it.

Of course, there were a few drawbacks to the all relay design.  As the
CO grew, expansion consisted of adding lots of cabinets, with even
more cabling than most SXS offices.  Finding people to work on these
was tough, too ... I was one of the few young guys GTE had who learned
how to work on these CO's ... and I loved 'em. They were long since
manufacture discontinued when I was there (North Electric went to
Ericsson design crossbar.  Remember the NX-1/UN-1 and NX-2 and ARD-561
and AKD-741?)?  Most of our CO upgrades were equipment from CO's that
had been removed when they were upgraded to AE SXS (GTE use crossbar?
Hah!  Well, actually, there were a couple NX-1's out there: Brunswick,
Lodi and Wellington I think.)

I was responsible for three North CX type CO's ultimatly ... Sharon
Center, Chatham and Spencer OH.  The last two were purchased by GTE
when they bought out the Chatam Farmer's Mutual Telephone Co.  The
Spencer CO was located in a converted barn and served as the former
company's operations/billing office, too.  Chatham CO was a 8'x10'
brick building, and was a tight fit. Service was a cramped affair ...
I'd throw out station installers when I had to work on the switch in
Chatam ...I 'm not THAT friendly ... and they could run their jumpers
later.

I now have PBX's that hang on the wall and have more lines and far
more functionality than the old CX's, but I sure did like those CX's
better than AE SXS. If nothing else, they were sure easier on you
ears.

Now let's see, who were the old independant CO manufacturers?  There
was North, Leich, Stromberg-Carlson, Kellogg (did they to CO's?),
American, (hmmm ... how about Federal?) ... gosh, that's all I
remember.

That concludes today's telephone nostalgia session ... and that'll teach
you to post on subjects I can associate with ... try and have a frame
slippage error with a relay office!  T1 is the work of the devil,
digital offices are plagued by demons ... (mutter, grumble, rant,
rave.)


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: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code"
Date: 14 May 90 07:12:31 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


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

>Canada is a huge country, but practically the entire
>population lives in a strip 100 miles high and 3000 miles wide
>adjacent to the US border.

Do the upper levels include breathing apparatus? :-)

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Saturday, 12 May 1990 06:59:17 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: High Tech and Law Enforcement


As a reference, check out the telecom-archives available thru FTP
at lcs.mit.edu.  The particular file is called sysops.libel.liability


/Pete

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Saturday, 12 May 1990 18:20:54 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Las Vegas Payphones


In article <[e-mail]>, mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie.gatech.
edu!mit-eddie![e-mail] says:

>It seems that almost all of the payphones in Las Vegas are alternate
>(not Centel).  It also seems that none of them allow 10XXX dialing.  I
>     (deleted)              So, knowing I had just been charged around
>$3 for a 5 second bad connection, I figured I would call "00" for fun.


Gives new meaning to the phrase "one armed bandit"

/Pete

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #349
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04543;
          15 May 90 3:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08589;
          15 May 90 2:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05740;
          15 May 90 1:13 CDT
Date:     Tue, 15 May 90 1:00:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #350
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 May 90 01:00:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 350

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CNCP Telecommunications Becomes Unitel [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC [Spyros Bartsocas]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Numbers [Andrew M. Boardman]
    Re: No ISDN for GTD-5 !! [George Horwath]
    Re: Those New Area Codes [Carl Moore]
    Re: Press "1" Now [Gary Segal]
    Re: Party Line Interface [John R. Levine]
    Re: Canada Has Same Country Code as U.S. [Carl Moore]
    Re: 999 Caller ID in the UK [Julian Hayward]
    Re: More Comments on Costs of Expanding Outside Phone Plant [P. da Silva]
    Re: Interesting DMS Trick [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: Las Vegas Pay Phones [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Alternative to Touch-tone [Charles Buckley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: CNCP Telecommunications Becomes Unitel
Date: 15 May 90 01:03:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> the Moderator, in response to a
description of the renaming of CNCP in Canada writes:

>[Moderator's Note: You make note of 'Rogers Communications ... a major
>player in the Canadian cable television and cellular phone markets',
>and I would like to point out that Rogers Communications is a perfect
>example of an American success story. Thirty years ago, when I first
>met the fellow who started the firm then known as Rogers Telephone
>Answering Service (some twenty years before that), I was impressed
> [ balance of description deleted ]

Sorry, Mr. Moderator, different Rogers.  Rogers Communications in
Canada is definitely 100% Canadian.  The principal Ted Rogers, was
born and bred in Toronto.  He originally started in Broadcasting
(Radio Station CFRB in Toronto the RB standing for Rogers
Broadcasting) and has some ties to TV broadcasting as well.

After the Radio he got heavily involved in Cable TV both in Canada and
then the US through a joint venture with United Artists, I believe.
After that came a major thrust into Cellular through Cantel (the best
cellular system in the world!).  The acquisition of CNCP just
continues an oft- stated dream of being the second telephone company
in Canada.


|||  Marcel D. Mongeon
|||  e-mail:    ... (uunet, maccs)!joymrmn!root  or
|||                                joymrmn!marcelm


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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 10:18:06 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC


>memory).  We had a single business line.  Our line was "muxed" with
>some of the other subscribers nearby.  The line had terrible sound
>quality.  It constantly had a light hissing/static in the background.
>During wet weather it would get considerably worse--sometimes
>rendering the phone unusable.

When I moved to my current appartment, I added a second line to the
appartment, because I did not want to have my modem compete for
telephone time with my appartmentmates.  When the new line was
installed one of the old line jacks suddenly became the new line (New
England Telephone never entered the building).

A year later I started having hissing/static in the background which
as the phone call progressed came to the foreground.  Sometimes, it
would not allow the line to hangup.  Problems similar to what the are
described in the previous posting.  The line would become unusable for
both humans and modems.  We called the New England Telephone, and the
fixed that major problem, but a new problem arose.  When it rains, the
two lines in the house cross.

During the rain, there is no problem, but after the rain we get the
static (less than what it was before), and the next day the two lines
of the appartment are crossed and you can hear one line from the
other, better than if I had called them directly.  We have called New
England Telephone numerous times, but nothing has changed.  Most of
the time they come after things have dried out, so they can not find
anything.  I will be moving to a new building in a couple of weeks, so
I haved decided that I shouldn't bother anymore, and that things will
probably be OK as soon as the line is transfered to the new building.


Spyros Bartsocas
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 06:26:12 EDT
From: "Andrew M. Boardman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Numbers
Organization: Columbia University Department of Quiche Eaters


Tom Ace:

>I'm going to be moving soon, and I'm considering getting a phone
>number ending in -0000 at my new residence.

Edward Greenberg:

>Once I had 541-2345.  It wasn't pleasant.  A few adolescents found me
>and my answering machine, and gave me no piece.  I recommend a less
>distinguished number.

A friend was once trying to get 234-5678.  It was a valid and local
exchange, and the number was not taken.  NYTel would *not* give it to
him, no reason given.  The problem with getting a -0000 number may be
in the getting of it!


Andrew Boardman     no mail to [e-mail], MIT's ITS's are going to die
[e-mail]  ...rutgers!columbia!amb  [e-mail]

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

From: George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No ISDN for GTD-5 !!
Date: 14 May 90 13:59:34 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail] (Jon Baker) writes:
      (regarding comments made by someone else)

>On what facts do you base this assertion that the hardware is good but
>the software has 'always been a problem'?  Further, GTE has not

I don't know what other people base that on, but I'd base it on the
discussions I've had with the factory test people in the AE factory in
Northlake where the thing is built.

>Looking at the history of telecommunications over the last 100 years,
>GTE has not been manufacturing telecom equipment for very long.  It's
>equipment was previously manufactured by Automatic Electric, just as
>AT&T's was manufactured by Western Electric.

Yeah, they haven't been into manufacturing very long and it certainly
didn't take them very long to run Automatic Electric into the ground,
after they bought it.


George Horwath, Motorola C.I.D.    I said that, not my company!
 ...!uunet!motcid!horwath

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 10:53:59 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Those New Area Codes


To summarize:

Presently, area codes are of the form N[01]X, so that there are no
more than 8 x 2 x 10 = 160 codes available.  (Yes, I know about 911
etc.; I'm just putting in an easily-stated upper bound.)

640 newly-available area codes refers to NNX.  (8 x 8 x 10) --
however, other sources in this Digest say they'll start off as NN0
only (64 possible NN0 codes).

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Press "1" Now
Date: 14 May 90 17:27:17 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (Yossi (Joel)) writes:

>"Press 2 for an on-line tutorial [of our phone system]" That's the
>message that greated me when I called Seagate out in California two
>weeks ago.  An "on-line tutorial"?  For the PHONE??  Are they serious?

When I was at Second City ETC a few weeks ago, they performed the
following skit:

A man is sitting on a chair, and falls over, clutching his chest as if
he is having a heart attack.  He reaches up, grabs the phone, and
dials nine-one-one.  We hear:

ring.... ring...

Thank you for calling 911.

If your house is on fire, press 1.
If you are being robbed, press 2.

      -end of skit-

Just think what could be done with E911 and a tone responce system.  :-)


Gary Segal    ...!uunet!motcid!segal        [phone]
Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004
Motorola just passes the above bytes, I decide what value they are,
you decided what value they have.

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

Subject: Re: Party Line Interface
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 14 May 90 12:58:17 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>(I don't think I am giving away any secrets, but this is not for the
>purpose of billing calls to your line-mate's account.  ;-)

My aunt at the family telco in rural Vermont has told me that
subscribers who lied to ONI were always a problem, particularly
teenaged kids.

In their case, the telco is pretty small and they know many of their
subscribers personally, so it was tedious but rarely difficult to get
the right calls billed back to the right place.  ("And tell your kids
to shape up, too.")


Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 11:03:09 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Canada Has Same Country Code as U.S.


Reference has been made to the disruption that would occur if Canada
were put into a separate country code, due to the calls between Canada
and U.S.

Another indicator of U.S./Canada commerce: I heard that when the U.S.
changed the start of Daylight time from last to first Sunday of April,
Canada followed suit.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 999 Caller ID in the UK
Reply-To: [e-mail] (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: The Direct Connection, UK
Date: Mon, 14 May 90 22:09:34 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> thurston%mrc-applied-psychology.
[e-mail] writes:

>how do the police know which payphone he called from?  Does anyone
>know therefore whether 999 in the UK uses Caller ID?

An ex-policeman friend told me that - much like the operator - they
have the ability to hold a call open. You may notice that when you
have used the operator to connect a call for you. If you hang up and
then pick up the phone again you reconnect to the operator.

I assume the police held the line open while they traced the call back
through the exchange.


Julian Hayward

[e-mail]    - OR -    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 20:41:13 -0400
Subject: Re: More Comments on Costs of Expanding Outside Telephone Plant
From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC


How about my hypothetical baby-TIP bus-net box? I realise it's
hypothetical, but it sounds like there's a niche for these things. Why
don't they exist?  Where's my reasoning blown?


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone].  <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.


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

From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting DMS Trick
Date: 15 May 90 00:39:35 GMT
Organization: The Foxtail Group, San Diego, CA


[e-mail] (William Degnan) writes:

>I just hookflash, listen for stutter dial tone and hang up. Then, the
>first call recalls to me.

>One of the best part of this is that I work at home and folks think
>they are being transfered to another department (rather than just from
>the kitchen to my office).

I have three-way calling and this works here as well. I love being
able transfer my clients from the kitchen to the office in the guest
room.  I believe we are on a 5-something ESS.

What is confusing, though, is that often when I hang up on a call, the
phone rings and when I pick it up there is "dead air".  I have not
found a pattern to this.  I may be flashing the switch hook
accidentally at the end of the call, or possibly I may be getting
"second dial tone" at the beginning of the call if the call was made
rapidly after a previous call.  Is there a bug in the generic ?


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 20:59:01 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Las Vegas Pay Phones
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


> Is there any possible grain of truth to all this? Could the CO
> for a city the size of Las Vegas really be that bad? My natural
> tendency is to blame the COCOT, but I've found phone sevice in
> Vegas very bad in the past, ...

As a reasonably frequent visitor to Sin City since the early 1970's, I
have been somewhat fascinated with the phone system there.  Back then
it was mostly (if not all) AE step equipment, and quite funky.

In the mid-late '70's, Centel converted the COs serving the strip and
the downtown casino areas to some type of ESS, the exact type I don't
know, EAX <gag!> perhaps ??

In any case, I don't think it's a technical limitation that your call
could not be placed via carrier of choice.

In the recent years, I have seen an explosion of AOS and COCOTs in Sin
City.  In the hotels and casinos, the phone rip-off is the rule and
not the exception.  I guess the casino managers figure that those who
throw dollar tokens into the slots five-at-a-time are not gonna gripe
at outlandish telephone charges.

> At check in I asked about the charges and carriers for the in-room
> phones. I was given a list of almost reasonable charges. $.50 per
> call plus charges for ANY call including 800. The woman suggested
> using a pay phone in the lobby because the AOS ...

We usually stay at the Stardust (I know it ain't the Ritz, but in LV
you don't hang around the room too much. ;-) where they have what I
consider one of the most liberal policies of all hotels.  Your first
local phone call is $.50.  After that, there is no additional charge.
I don't know what carrier they use for 1+ guest dialing.  I have
always used the 800 number with the FON card when staying there.  One
thing I did notice is that the 800-877-8000 number goes through one of
those hissy analog circuits to who-knows-where before it gets to the
fiber.  FON card calls are billed as originating in LV, though.

About a year ago, I remember seeing a couple of card/coin-operated
COCOTs in the mens' room at the Stardust.  Last trip (January) they
had been taken out, quite recently, it appeared.

With all of the incentives to patronize casinos, such as cheap food,
cheap rooms, free booze, etc., I would think that most of them would
have realistic phone rates.


Good Day!        JSW

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 22:08:15 PDT
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternative to Touch-tone


   [Moderator's Note: In the years before touch tone, the rotary dial on
   an operator's switchboard would spin back *super fast*; about twice as
   fast as the rotary dial on a regular subscriber's phone.  PT]

Danish phone dials were also quite fast - remember getting a nail
hooked by not moving my fingers out of the way in time.  Hurt for a
week.  Probably because your coins simply bought time in the booth;
sunk costs whether or not the call went through!

Think 500's were 10 PPS standard, and there are a number of 20 PPS
capable switches in the US.  Heard Hong Kong had only 10 PPS switches,
but don't know firsthand, and they've probably upgraded since.
Faster? don't know.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #350
******************************