Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss351-400

Text File | 1990-05-31 | 859KB | 20,838 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12771;
          16 May 90 5:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00169;
          16 May 90 3:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18588;
          16 May 90 2:23 CDT
Date:     Wed, 16 May 90 1:27:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #351
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 May 90 01:26:25 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 351

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [A. Nonymous]
    Auto-Collect From Payphone [Mark Lowe]
    Royal Canadian Mounted Police Communications System [Nigel Allen]
    Korea Tidbits [Ken Dykes]
    AT&T "Excellence" [Carol Springs]
    1-900-STOPPER [Subodh Bapat]
    The COCOTS Are Coming! [Nigel Whitfield]
    Why Go Back to the Operator? [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Someone-Someplace <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 90 02:26:24 CDT
Subject: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?


[Moderator's Note: The original letter, with author's identification
intact, is in my files. The situation is a bit sensitive right now,
and I agreed to post this. The name of the former employer is also
deleted.  PT]

Patrick:

My tenure at the (deleted) Telephone Company has abrubtly ended. I had
been wandering around the company's Xenix system while I was at work,
and they didn't like it. (As a disclaimer, I didn't do any damage,
wasn't stealing proprietary info, etc.) I was doing it out of sheer
boredom.

I feel the need to let them know about the gaping (and I mean gaping)
computer and physical security holes they have, but I'm not sure about
the best way to approach it (or even if I should). I felt that since
you have quite a bit of experience and wisdom, you might be a good
person to bounce this off of.

Just to give you an idea of the scope of the security problems, here's
a couple:

    1. Several root/privileged accounts with no password. This was
on a system with dial in lines. All of the accounts had standard,
easily guessable names.

    2. All of the CSR accounts had no passwords, and were also
easily guessable (first names). Direct access to Xenix was available
from the CSR accounts.

    3. All of the dial-in lines for the switches in (town 1, town
2, and town 3) have the same password that hasn't been changed in
eons.  (I think this is their biggest potential problem).

    4. One of the entranceways to the switch/radio room was in a
hallway that was publicly accessible in an office building with alot
of traffic. The only lock on the door is a push button lock with a TWO
digit combo. No key lock, no deadbolt. Nothing.

It goes on...

How do you think I should approach it? The person that is
administering the system knows very little about Unix system admin, so
they rely on the company they bought the system from (this company
provides the whole billing system). Should I stick my neck out and
write them a letter, or should I just drop the situation? In the back
of my mind I'm kind of afraid that there may be security problems
later, and that the finger may come pointing at me.  I haven't passed
any info to anyone (other than this general info to you) and I don't
intend to take this any further.

I appreciate your time and help, and I look forward to your response.

(Any reply from you will be held in strict confidence. I just need a
sounding board to see if I'd be doing the Right Thing.)

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

[Moderator's Note: Well readers, what do *you* suggest? Post your
comments here, this person will see them. My suggestion was to simply
walk away and ignore it. The company would have to prove who was
responsible for any vandalism or hacking, etc.    PT]

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 02:20 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Auto-Collect From Payphone


While traipsing through a Texaco today, I needed to place a collect
call to a company in Austin.  While this was acceptable to the
company, they would require information about who I needed to talk to
(or an extension) so they could verify with that person that I was
known to them.

Well, the payphone was one of those nice, hi-tech, talking,
LCD-display-mongering, ultra-user-friendly models.  It wanted to do
EVERYTHING!  This included playing operator!

I entered 0-512-xxx-xxxx and almost immediately an electronic voice
comes on and says "This is the operator ... if you would like to make a
collect call, press 1" which I immediately did.  Then, the mystery
voice said, "At the tone, please state your name."  I heard and
obeyed ... "Mark Lowe."

The phone plays it back for me ... "Your name is ... (me recorded
digitally and very nicely I might add) 'Mark Lowe.'"

The connection is then made ... and the lady who answers must have
thought it was a joke!  The voice said "You are receiving a collect
call.  To accept, enter 1; to refuse, enter 0 and hang up."

The next thing I heard was a female synthetic voice repeating OVER AND
OVER "Hang up and try your call again."

Needless to say, I decided to wait until I got to a REAL phone.

Talk about taking AOS just a STEP too far!!


Mark C. Lowe - KB5III

[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 00:23:37 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Communications System


Here is a "fact sheet" from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that
describes the history of its telecommunications services. A complete
book of fact sheets, covering everything from drug enforcement and
police dog services to the RCMP band, is available free of charge
from: Communications and Media Relations Directorate, Royal Canadian
Mounted Police, 1200 Vanier Parkway, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0R2.

Telecommunications  (Fact Sheet No. 21)

Telecommunications Services is responsible for the direction and
coordination of all units formed for the purpose of providing
telecommunications systems and services in support of the programs and
activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Included in these systems are: communications centres (administrative
and operations); mobile radio services; telephone and data security,
integrity and availability; Rapid Fax; the Canadian Police Information
Centre and many more.

Systems are basically regional in scope (such as: Southwestern Ontario
Communications System [SOCS], the Province of Alberta Communications
System [PACS}, the Embassy Patrol Communications System within the
National Capital Region, the Interior of British Columbia
Communications System [IBCCS] and many more); however, several meet
the national position/posture of the Force.

HISTORY

In the early years, telegraph systems were used; however, telephones
were soon adopted as the service became available.

In 1938 an agreement was reached with regional radio station CKCK to
broadcast police bulletins. This marked the official beginning of
radio as a means of communication within the Force.

1939 marked the installation of the first station-to-car radio system
at St. Charles, Manitoba.

In 1947 installations in Manitoba were enlarged to create a
communications network that covered the three prairie provinces.

Communications were gradually expnaded until two-way radios became
standard equipment in most police cars, ships, aircraft, detachments
and other establishments maintained by the RCMP throughout the
country.

Appointed as Canadian representative to Interpol in 1949, the Force
established communication with police organizations world wide.

The early 1950's saw the installation of Telex equipment to the RCMP's
growing communications system. In 1967 wirephoto facsimiles were added
to the Force's communications systems. A documents facsimiles system
was added in the mid-1980s. Because of this latest addition, the
amount of Telex equipment still in service is minimal.

TODAY

The wirephoto and documents facsimiles allow reproduction of
photographs, fingerprints and documents to be transmitted across the
country. This network has kep pace with technology and now reaches all
sub-divisions and many detachments throughout Canada.

The total number of persons Force-wide engaged in communications
activities exceeds 1,000.

The Force's telecommunications network is reported to be the biggest
non-military, mobile communications system in the world. It comprises
approximately 7,000 mobile radios, 7,000 portable radios, 1,021
detachment base stations, 520 repeater stations, 55 communications
centres and 50 workshops.

REFERENCES

RCMP Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3

The Pictorial History of the RCMP, S. Horrall, McGraw-Hill Ryerson

(end of Fact Sheet No. 21)

Editorial comments from NDA: I'm not clear whether the RCMP pioneered
the police use of some of these technologies, or followed the lead of
U.S. or other Canadian police forces.  Nonetheless, this is an
interesting bit of history.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:221/171
UUCP: uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!250!438!Nigel.Allen
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 09:55:45 EDT
From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Korea Tidbits

  I was in Seoul, Korea for the last 10 days ... I picked up a copy of
a magazine called "Electronics Korea (A Business Korea Publication)"
which has news excerpts about the computer industry, etc.  Well, lo
and behold a "regional operating company" is spreading it's wings...


 CLINCHING A DEAL WITH KTA

In January, NYNEX Corporation signed a memorandum of understanding
with the Korean Telecommunications Authority at KTA headquarters in
Seoul.  The cooperative agreement was signed in absentia by Mr
W.C.Ferguson, Chairman and CEO of NYNEX and Mr. Rhee Haewook,
president of KTA.

Under terms of the agreement there will be an exchange of marketing
and technical information between the two companies as well as the
exchange of personnel.  THe companies will explore the feasibility of
joint marketing and technical research projects.

After signing the agreement, Mr. Ferguson stated, "NYNEX seeks to
develop relationships with telecommunications organiazations like KTA
all over the world in order to better serve the complex needs of
multinational customers."  He added that "forming key partnerships and
alliances with telecommunication authorities outside the US is a
fundamental element in NYNEX's global strategy."

NYNEX has signed similar agreements with a number of
telecommunications authorities in Europe and the Pacific Basin region,
including Nippon Telegraph & Telephone, Singapore Telecom, Telecom
Australia, the DGT of Taiwan, France Telecom, the Dutch PTT, Italy's
STET, Spain's Telefonica and Data Communications Corporation of Korea.

             -------end excerpt-------

DataCom Korea runs their x25 network, x.400 service etc, like
Telenet/Datapac.

One of the business contacts I was working with tells me that AT&T
is/has supplied several #5ESS hardware.

My personal usage of the phone system compares "favourably :-)" with
usage of phones during my visits to the USofA.  Quite clean sounding
lines, quick routing & connection.

My hotel in Seoul allowed room dialed long distance dialing, the room
paperwork said "a w1,500 service charge shall apply to each long
distance call" (the currency is about us$1==w705 approx, so w1,500
about $2.13) my call from 00:14:57 to 00:54:00 to Canada cost me
w19,291 (approx $27.36us)

Two local calls, no timing on the bill, were w150 and w450.  the w150
was definitly a lot closer physically to my hotel area (like six blocks
away).  (w150==$0.22, w450==$0.64)


 Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W]
    [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]        watmath!kgdykes
    [e-mail]         [e-mail]

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T "Excellence"
Date: 15 May 90 13:00:42 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


Because I will be traveling overseas in a few months and want to have
easy use of AT&T's USADIRECT service for dialing the States, I decided
to order a regular AT&T calling card yesterday.  (I suspect that using
my NET calling card number would work just fine -- in fact, since I
didn't bother asking for a non-phone number card, the AT&T number will
no doubt be the same -- but I didn't want to chance AT&T's overseas
billing accepting customers only on phone card calls.)  The customer
service rep seemed a little confused that I would want an AT&T card
without changing my default carrier, but she processed the order
anyway.  At the end of the call, she asked, "And would you say that I
gave you excellent service this evening?"  I said "Yes" to avoid any
hassle, but I was floored.

I find myself wondering whether that line is just to associate AT&T and
"excellence" in customers' minds (in my mind, it's more AT&T and
"chutzpah" at this point) or whether AT&T is planning a marketing
campaign saying "Ninety-nine per cent of our customer service callers
rated AT&T's service as 'excellent'..."

Incidentally, I decided to order the AT&T card after finding that
Sprint does not yet offer access to Sprint operators from the country
I'll be in.  When the Sprint rep asked me where, specifically, I'd be
traveling and I said "the Netherlands," she asked me whether that was
the United Kingdom.

A side note: Sprint has finally announced Sprint Plus to its current
customers in SprintLine, the insert that comes with the monthly bill.
(It makes sense; some people at this point would be thinking of
switching to Reach Out America or to MCI's plan if something like
Sprint Plus weren't available.)  This month's brochure also contains
info on the Sprint Visa.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: 1-900-STOPPER
Date: Mon, 14 May 90 9:32:52 EDT


National Public Radio (5-11-90) reports that a firm called Private
Lines Inc. in Los Angeles is offering a Caller-ID blocking service
for people who do not want their outgoing ANI revealed. They have set
up a 900 service which can be called from anywhere (1-900-STOPPER)
which basically simply gives you another dial tone. In response to
this dial tone, you then dial the number you actually want to call.
The 900 service does not pass on your ANI, not does it maintain any
database anywhere linking your incoming ANI to the outgoing call you
make through it. The tab: $2.00/minute.

The owner admits that he has not anticipated situations in which he
may be required by law enforcement agencies to maintain a linking
database in case it is determined that criminal activity is being
conducted using his service.

As Robert Siegel of NPR speculated, the price of freedom may be
eternal vigilance, but the price of privacy seems to be $2.00/minute.


Subodh Bapat         novavax!rm1![e-mail]     OR      [e-mail]
MS E-204, P.O.Box 407044, Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340  [phone]

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

Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: The COCOTS Are Coming!
Date: 15 May 90 15:04:02 BST (Tue)
From: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>


Last week I was in a restaurant in central London, which used to have
an ordinary payphone in it. That payphone is still there, but a new
one has appeared next to it.

The signs on the new phone, which only accepts credit cards, say that
it is a "3C Communications Payphone." There is no tariff listed
anywhere near it.  Rather than allow people to dial the operator in
the normal way, so that people can use their BT charge cards or have a
call charged to their home bill, the 3C phone had various odd
features:

Emergency calls (999) had a special button to press.  Directory
enquiries and the "3C helpline" were all accessed by pressing # and
then a single digit.

I've never seen anything like this in the UK before, and I didn't have
time to ring the helpline and find out. Anyone else come across these
things in the UK yet?


Nigel Whitfield                                         120 Canterbury Road
[e-mail]                                    Harrow, HA1 4PB
[e-mail]                                 081-861 5106

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 10:26:52 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Go Back to the Operator?


When I make a self-service credit-card call via any carrier, I try to
get back to the dial tone when I am done, to be sure the charging has
stopped.  I know that when I do this when using AT&T, my attempt to
hang up sometimes only "flashes the switchhook" and sends me back to
the AT&T operator.  Why?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #351
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15209;
          16 May 90 6:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00169;
          16 May 90 3:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag18588;
          16 May 90 2:25 CDT
Date:     Wed, 16 May 90 1:59:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #352
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 May 90 01:58:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 352

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Legislation Regulating COCOTs and AOSs (Splashing) [Ihor J. Kinal]
    Re: Voice Information Services [Sam Ho]
    Re: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code" [David Tamkin]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [David Tamkin]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Roy Smith]
    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [Julian Macassey]
    Re: AOSs, COCOTs and Hotels [Paul S. Sawyer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 23:56:12 GMT


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail]
(Andrew M. Boardman):

| 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!

Ticketron has a number in the 216 area code which ends in 0000 (to be
exact, 524-0000); I would expect that "easy to remember" numbers like
that would be snapped up by commercial types.  Of course, they may
regret it after they start getting hundreds of calls from kids playing
with the phone....


Me: Brandon S. Allbery            VHF: KB8JRR on 224.50 (Lake County, OH)
Internet: [e-mail]        Delphi: ALLBERY
uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery    America OnLine: BrandonA or KB8JRR

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 14 May 90 21:10:00 EST
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers


 ....replying to [e-mail]

Out of consideration to people who might be calling your from a
rotary-dial telephone, don't choose a number ending in 0000, as that
represents 40 pulses to dial the final four digits.

Before touch-tone phones became commonplace, large business users
would prefer numbers ending 1111 (or perhaps 1212) as their primary
number, because such numbers would be the fastest to dial from a
rotary dial. (The best known telephone number in Toronto is 967-1111,
the central order number for the Pizza Pizza chain.) The alternative
1212 ending might be preferable because people might forget how many
ones they had dialled, which is probably why long distance directory
assistance is 555-1212 rather than 555-1111. (And in the days of
step-by-step exchanges, sometimes it wasn't even necessary to dial the
final digit of a number ending in 11. You would hear a ringing signal
once you had dialled the sixth digit of 368-6041, CNCP
Telecommunications' Toronto telegraph office, as all the 368-604x
numbers were telegraph office numbers, as were the 368-605x and
probably some others as well. This was probably true for a lot of
large PBXs and reservation bureaux.)

With a 0000 telephone number, you wouldn't just have to worry about
the local kids.  You'd also be bothered by calls from bored Telecom
Digest readers looking for interesting test tones and telco recorded
announcements. <grin, I think>


 * Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto, Canada (Opus 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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 12:58:40 EDT
From: Ihor J Kinal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Legislation Regulating COCOTs and AOSs [splashing]
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> 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.

INSTRASTATE CALLS ARE TYPICALLY MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN INTERSTATE.

Just to cite two examples: I remember before divestiture, living in
New York, and noting that a typical call from NY City to Buffalo
[about 400 miles] was more expensive than a call to California.

A couple months ago, I was flying to Dallas - my plane got diverted to
Austin [a couple hundred miles south of Dallas].  I called back to New
Jersey [some 1400 miles away], using a credit card, then continued to
call Dallas.  I was surprised that the New Jersey calls, although they
lasted several minutes more than the Dallas call, came out costing
less.  In fact, it would have been cheaper if the person I called in
New Jersey then bridged my call back to Dallas. [Based on geography,
it wouldn't surprise me to see my call routed thru Dallas on its way
to New Jersey].

NOTE THAT IN ALL CASES THE SAME COMPANY COMPLETED THE CALLS.

It seems strange, but I guess FCC competitive rates don't apply
intra-state.


#include standard disclaimers.

Ihor Kinal
att!cbnewsh!ijk

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 10:15:16 PDT
From: Sam Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Information Services


Here are some more touch-tone information services:
These are all in Seattle.

Seattle Times Infoline
206-464-2000
Has local weather (990x)
National Accu-Weather (90xx)
Dow Jones
Stock quotes
Soap opera Summary

American Directory Company Yellow Pages That Talk
206-624-4500
Contains a variety of recorded advertising
Public-service type announcements:
  Zoo, aquarium, first aid, Medical help, opera, etc.

Radio and TV stations:
  e.g. KCMS, KCIS, by call letters (5247 & 5267)
  KING, KOMO by frequency (1090, 1000)
  KMPS by frequency repeated (9494)
  KING-TV by channel repeated (5555)

Horoscopes and other miscellaneous stuff which I don't remember.

Western District Bankruptcy Court
206-442-8543
Type in the name of a debtor on the touch-tone keypad.
E.g. Johnson, West = 56467669378#

Oh, also, two major bank ATM networks have locator services:
Plus: 1-800-THE-PLUS
Cirrus: 1-800-4CIRRUS

Both of these want an NPA and exchange, to provide the nearest
ATMs to that location.


Sam Ho
[e-mail]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Telco Relationship with Ohio PUC
Date: 15 May 90 18:16:56 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> 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 may just be urban legend, but when I was in Rocheter, NY about
ten years ago the story went that Rochester Tel had a field in
customer service records that denoted whether you had ever complained
to the PUC (or was it PSC in NY?).  If this field was non-blank, the
word was that it entitled you to superior service responses!


Craig R. Watkins        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:        CRW%HRB@PSUECL

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 20:27 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code"


Macy Hallock wrote in volume 10, issue 349:

| 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...

Perhaps it is impossible on the equipment in use in those CDO's, and
perhaps the need for prefixes in area code 216 is not critical enough
to change subscribers' telephone numbers over it, but I've noticed
that sharing prefixes is apparently possible.  It beats me how other
switches know where to route a call to a split prefix, since when I've
asked how to tell before dialing where the number is served (say, by
blocks of consecutive numbers assigned to one office or the other),
the answer from the provider has always been a synonym of "duh".

In northeastern Illinois, (708) 531 is partly in the Bellwood CO and
partly in Hillside.  There are rate centers named Bellwood, Hillside,
and Maywood, with some Maywood prefixes in the Bellwood CO and some in
Hillside.  Both parts of 531 are in the Maywood rate center, but
Illinois Bell charges for local calls according to distance between
CO's, so if Bellwood is in one band from your CO and Hillside in
another, you have no idea which rate you pay for a call to a number on
the 531 prefix.

Our other two shared prefixes are easier to tell: you just ask, "Is
this a mobile phone?"  (312) 569 has some lines belonging to Cellular
One (recently relocated from the Schaumburg switch [Roselle rate
center] to their Chicago switch [Chicago Zone 1]) and some belonging
to Illinois Bell for dedicated foreign exchange service to the
northwest suburbs: the lines are actually switched in the Elk Grove CO
but calls are billed as if to or from the Newcastle CO in Chicago Zone
3.

The other one is easier yet: Ameritech Mobile's lines on (312) 590
[formerly Northbrook switch and rate center, now in their Congress
switch in Chicago Zone 1] remained in 312 but Illinois Bell's lines on
the 590 prefix [Arlington Heights CO and rate center] are now in area
code 708.

So apparently different CO's can share a prefix.


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: Tue, 15 May 90 20:31 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service


Peter Weiss wrote in volume 10, issue 349:

| 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.

No kidding!  The tones on my BellSouth Associate II are brief blips,
no matter how long one holds the button down.  My pay-by-phone service
frequently misses them and sometimes my voice mailbox can't catch them
either.  It helps if I key the sequences slowly (no more than perhaps
one keypress per second) or, strangely, if I store them in memory and
let them be sent from memory locations rather than by individual
keypresses, even though the tones are just as staccato and far more
rapid.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 15:10:36 GMT


I wrote:

> A TT phone wouldn't break dial tone.

[e-mail] (Evelyn C Leeper) replied:

> open up the phone and reverse the polarity (i.e., swap the red and
> green wires).  This solves the "won't-break-dialtone" problem.

    Perhaps my use of the phrase "break dialtone" was improper.  I
think the problem Evelyn's suggestion solves is not having power to
the tone generator in the phone, so when you press the button you
don't get any tone.  That's not what I had.  I would get a tone, but
when I released the button, I still had dialtone.  That's what I meant
by "not breaking dialtone".  Is that the canonical definition?


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: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought
Date: 16 May 90 05:07:07 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> 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.

    Get the Telco to put in a six pair drop with a network interface.

> 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?

    I am not really going to consider what would be flung into the
average house - quad wire all round.

    My suggestion if you are going to do it yourself is put in six
pair 22 gauge wire. At least one jack per room and include the
crapper, even if you never put a jack there.

    Now six pair is a minimum. In my opinion twelve would be
better.  Note that putting wire in is a hassle. It is a real pain when
the house is built and decorated and large furniture is in the way.
Bung it all in now and forget it. Sure two line only requires two
pair. What if you get a fax for the mail order biz? What about modems?
Think ahead. Wire is pretty cheap. Ripping the house apart later to
slip in another pair in is pretty damn expensive.

    Bring all the wire to a central point. A closet or corner of
the basement. Make sure there is a power outlet there. Punch the wires
down onto "66 blocks". Now you can feed individual jacks or put a key
system or PBX in at a later date. You may consider running conduit
from the jacks to the central point. If you do it with conduit, you
can "pull" more cable later - You could even pull coax or fiber-optic
later. You can use plastic flexiduct type conduit, you don't have to
use the electrical aluminium stuff.

    And now two line phones. The Pac-Bell ones if they are made by
Telequest are junk, save your money. Panasonic have some nice 2 line
phones.  I can't comment on the Rat-Shack phones, but some of their
feature phones are Panasonics in Rat-Shack cases.

    Consider also putting in duplex jacks and have one jack per
line.  Then of course if you have installed right, slipping in a small
key system will be a breeze.


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

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOSs, COCOTs and Hotels
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 17:15:19 GMT


I was in New Jersey last week, staying at a no-frills motel named
Mcintosh or Macintosh (not Apple 8-) where they seem to emphasize
telephone convenience for guests.  Their local calls are free, they DO
NOT add surcharges on long distance, and their 1+ carrier is AT&T.  At
least three different printed items stated this, and the desk clerk
emphasized it in her "motel features" speech.  This seems to be a
small chain, at least three in N.J.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #352
******************************











ISSUES REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 353 WILL COME AFTER 354.


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07589;
          17 May 90 1:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07519;
          16 May 90 23:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28084;
          16 May 90 22:39 CDT
Date:     Wed, 16 May 90 21:57:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #354
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 May 90 21:55:50 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 354

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Leonard Rose Indicted by Federal Grand Jury [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Marty Schulman]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Peter da Silva]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Peter Weiss]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Jeffrey M. Schweiger]
    Re: Toll Switching Centers for Area Code 809 [David Leibold]
    Re: Flip Side of Caller ID [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [David Carter]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Glynne Tolar]
    Re: Interesting DMS Trick [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Julian Macassey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 19:22:21 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Leonard Rose Indicted by Federal Grand Jury


Leonard Rose Jr., computer consultant, system administrator for
'netsys' and former Usenet participant was indicted Tuesday by a
federal grand jury for allegedly helping others break into computer
systems throughout the country.  In addition, Rose is charged in an
alleged scheme to steal and give out closely guarded software for AT&T
UNIX computer systems.  AT&T says about one million UNIX computers are
in use in the country.  For now, I will resist the strong temptation
to say 'I told you so'.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 13:01:50 EDT
From: Marty Schulman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?


Perhaps that title should read "...Gaping Security Holes..."

Does the Public Utilities Commision oversee this telephone company?
What about a board of directors, or other group with a direct
financial interest?

Since you're already been let go, what risk would be involved in
sending a letter to the head of security, and sending a
(return-receipt-requested?)  copy to the PUC or board of governors or
whatever?  Then you've covered yourself, and you've alerted both the
people who administer the system and the people who should care the
most.

                    Marty

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 21:32:32 -0400
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC


I would write a letter to the person accountable for security
explaining what the holes are, how they could be exploited, and how to
fix them. Send it certified mail and keep a photocopy.

I don't know the circumstances in which you left the company, but
since you seem to feel ethically bound to help solve the problem (as I
would be) this is should force them to act *and* cover your rear.

Personally, I would have alerted them to the problem *before* leaving...


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone].  <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 06:00 EDT
From: Peter Weiss [phone] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?


In article <[e-mail]>, you say:

>(Any reply from you will be held in strict confidence. I just need a
>sounding board to see if I'd be doing the Right Thing.)

There are other Usenet groups that could possibly be a better forum
for this discussion:

alt.security
bit.listserv.security
comp.risks
comp.security.announce
misc.security

My guess would be misc.security or perhaps alt.security.


Peter M. Weiss                   |  (this line intentionally left blank)
31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | 2 4 6 8 We don't want to calculate!
University Park, PA USA 16802    | Disclaimer -* +* applies herein

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 08:28:16 PDT
From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


I'm not all that knowledgeable on the question raised, but it occurs
to me that fowarding the edited post to the RISKS group, might get the
question viewed by some of the leading professionals in the computer
security field.


Jeff Schweiger      CompuServe:  74236,1645    Standard Disclaimer
ARPAnet (Defense Data Network):                [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, I imagine any of the newsgroups named by
Mssrs. Weiss and Schweiger would find A. Nonymous' dilemma to be of
interest in further discussion.   PT]

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Switching Centers for Area Code 809
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Leibold)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 03:13:30 GMT


As far as 809 Directory Assistance goes, wasn't there a posting some
time back that AT&T has set up something of a service which allows 1
809 555.1212 to go to an AT&T operator who asks for the island or
region, then transfers over to the appropriate operator for the island
requested?

Meanwhile, I once saw a phone book from the Caribbean mention routings
for long distance into the U.S. and Canada, where the Canadian routing
was listed as going into Montreal. Years ago, attempts at dialing 1
809 555.1212 from Ontario met with an announcement generated in
Montreal (a "514" recording identifier). Nowadays, attempts to do 1
809 555.1212 are blocked at the nearest toll switch; that is, it won't
leave the area code anymore.

Attempts to dial 1 905 555.1212 years ago also used to be intercepted
outside of area code from Canada, down in 214 or something as I
recall. That, too, passed away with more localised interception.

Hope many of you enjoy the NNX listings for 809 ... does anyone know
when Trinidad and Tobago go off on their own country code (296) and
get out of the NANP?


|| [e-mail]  / David Leibold

[Moderator's Note: Mr. Leibold's reference was to the 'npa.809.prefix'
file in Telecom Archives.  (ftp lcs.mit.edu)   PT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 15:04:18 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Flip Side of Caller-ID
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


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

>[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.

This is not strictly true.  You can patent methods and uses, which is
why some software is patentable.  Suppose you come up with a better
way to tan leather: you microwave it for 112 minutes.  You can get a
patent on the method (or idea) of tanning leather by microwaving it.
I know of a patent which covers the use of a sodium fluoride solution
for the treatment of acne; they haven't patented the solution (which
is basically your standard fluoride mouthwash), just the use of the
solution to treat acne. (There is not much evidence that it works
better than soap and water, BTW.)

The idea of using a 900 number to avoid ANI would probably be
patentable if it were not so obvious.  It is explicitly not allowed to
grant a patent for something "obvious to anyone skilled in the art,"
and I think that is the case here.


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

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 18:52:19 -0400
From: David Carter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Network 23


In addition to the useful suggestions that Julian Macassey made in his
followup posting, it has been mentioned here previously (and I have
observed firsthand) that if you have multiple phone lines on a multi
pair cable, and you use one line for fax or modem, you will probably
be able to hear it faintly when you use another line for voice at the
same time.  If you think this might bother you at all (it did me),
then run separate cables.  Perhaps two two-pair cables to each room, or
more.  Multiple modem/fax lines don't *seem* to interfere with each
other, but with higher data rate devices (e.g. 19200 bps or even ISDN)
this might become a problem.

Make sure the pairs are twisted!  This definitely will improve the
crosstalk and noise problems.  You may have to peel back the jacket to
verify that the pairs are twisted.

Consider including a phone jack behind your television set.  Some
cable TV systems use telephone lines for things like Pay Per View and
interactive TV.  Yours might not have it now, but could add it.  You
probably should also build in an easy way to get new cables there
(conduit to basement and make sure you can get from there outside to
where the wires will come in) when they expand the number of coax's or
change over to fiber.

And finally, put in a huge conduit to get from the basement to the
attic.  I've known several people in two-story houses who wanted to
add new phone jacks or cable TV drops to a room upstairs, and the only
way they could do it was by running wires under the carpet up the
stairs or on the exterior of the house.

Makes me want to build a new house so I can add all these neato
high-tech things that are coming.


David Carter
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gtnetdc
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Glynne Tolar)
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers
Date: 16 May 90 23:36:08 GMT


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

Speaking of easy phone numbers, just exactly how do you get them?
When I called my phone company they told me I had to take whatever
came across the computer.  If I did not like it she could ask for
another number.  Are you suposed to make the service rep sit there for
an hour or more looking for the number you would like?  What do
businesses do?  My guess is the phone company has a different policy
for business customers.

What does your phone company do?


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.


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell takes suggestions, and will fill them
except under certain circumstances.  Try consulting a criss-cross book
and looking for idle, and desirable numbers. Detirmine if in fact they
are not being used, and when you call telco ask for them by number.
See if the rep will comply. Usually they will.   PT]

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

Date: 16-MAY-1990 02:15:08.33
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting DMS Trick


Hmm ... you say I can flash the hookswitch, get the three-way tone, hang up
and it will ring? (IE, not dial a number on the second dial tone?)

Doesn't seem to work from "my" DMS-100, but then again, mine is a DMS
which gives a re-order instead of a busy signal!

(OK, OK, so the DMS only does that SOME of the time, but in twenty years
on my crossbar it's never done that once! (Of course, my crossbar has
never been able to do call-waiting or three-way calling either! :-) )


Doug

[e-mail] /@wesleyan.bitnet /and locals know the rest!

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain
Date: 16 May 90 06:25:24 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> 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.

> I'd be very interested if someone can post how this problem is
> overcome in the US.


    In the US, bell tap (Bell tinkle) is usually not a problem. It
occurs as a problem mainly with imported phones.

    In the US there are two types of ringers: Gong ringers (the
old fashioned bells) and Electronic ringers (the chirpers and
warblers).  The usual reason for the electronic jobbies is cost. It
costs about $4.00 for a gong ringer and $2.00 for an electronic
ringer. Of course, electronic key systems don't have the poop for a
gong ringer so demand a piezo device.

    The usual ringing voltage supplied in the US varies between 40
and 130 Volts. This voltage depends upon a few factors: Distance from
the CO (Exchange) which cause voltage drop across the length of wire.
The other major factor is the load on the line which translates into
the number of ringers across the line. In the US, a standard gong
ringer is assigned a "Ringer Equivalence Number" of 1. A standard
phone line will ring 5 of these ringers or an REN of 5. Some
electronic ringers have RENs of 0.5 etc so you can usually get more of
these on the line than gongs. But alas the electronic ones are not as
loud and are especially hard to hear above loud rock music.

    None of the above has yet answered the question which was how
do they beat bell tap in the the US. This is done two ways. First of
all, the old fashioned way, or how to do it with a gong ringer.

    Pretty simple in theory, but sometimes a bitch to manufacture.
You make the bell "electro-mechanically resonant". In the US, the
standard frequency of the ringing signal is 20 Hz, this is known as
type A.  But there are several frequencies that can be used. These
frequencies are spelled out in several documents, one of these is FCC
Rules and Regulations Part 68 CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE
TELEPHONE NETWORK. Below is an abbreviated partial list from that
document.

TYPE     Frequency
 A        20 Hz +- 3  30 Hz +- 3
 B        15.3  to 68.0 Hz
 C        15.3  to 17.4
 N        65.4 to 68.0

    A gong ringer, by design of the coil and clapper mechanism is
designed to respond to only a certain frequency. The ringer can be
"tuned" by adjusting a bias spring. This way a ringer ignores dial
pulses and hook-switch flashes. Believe or not, using these bells,
bell tap is just about unknown in the US.

    The common ringing voltage is 20 Hz. The reason for all the
other frequencies is usually party lines - different frequencies for
different subscribers, as well as different grounding schemes. Note
that the Type A ringer is resonant to 30 Hz as well as 20 Hz. In the
US the AC line frequency is 60 Hz and the ringing voltage from 1A2 key
systems is half the line voltage - 30 Hz.

    One part of the US that uses funny ringing frequencies is
Hawaii.  Years ago happy vacationers used to rip off the GTE phones in
hawaii and wonder why the ringers wouldn't work when they plugged them
in at home. I once had a rural police chief bring me his ripped off
Hawaiian GTE phone because it couldn't ring. The local Pacific Bell
guys couldn't figure out why it wouldn't ring. They applied the right
ring voltage, just not the right frequency.

    The Type B specification, is for the electronic ringers. They
respond to just about any frequency. In practice, many Type B ringers
will respond at 100 Hz and above. They do not bell tap because they
have a circuit built in to them which provides a form of hysteresis.
The AC ringing voltage has to be continuously present for a certain
length of time before the output turns on to drive a piezo element
etc. I have noticed that some electronic ringers from Europe bell tap.
One phone I recall had a Mitel ringer chip. Upon inspection, I noticed
that the R/C bell tap suppression components had been left out. I
added them and the bell tap went away.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #354
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07962;
          17 May 90 2:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28084;
          16 May 90 22:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23970;
          16 May 90 21:34 CDT
Date:     Wed, 16 May 90 21:00:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #353
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 May 90 21:00:34 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 353

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    2600 Magazine Article on Jolnet, et al [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Jonathan A. Solomon]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Ken Leonard]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [John R. Galloway Jr.]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Wally Kramer]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Isaac Rabinovitch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 20:02:38 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: 2600 Magazine Article on Jolnet, et al


This is as good a time as any to mention a new exhibit in the Telecom
Archives donated by folks involved with {2600 Magazine}. The Spring,
1990 issue of that magazine has an interesting article on the fiasco
at Jolnet, et al, and it has been offered to the Digest for
publication as well.

Due to its length, it cannot be transmitted as a Digest, or even as a
special issue. It *will be* available in the archives starting this
weekend for pulling by anyone interested.  2600 Magazine has requested
that we not have it available until the magazine itself is released,
so I have to keep it restricted until sometime this weekend. I've read
it, and I strongly recommend you pull the file and read it also.

Look for the file 'jolnet-2600.magazine.art' beginning May 20 in the
Telecom Archives.

FTP:    'ftp lcs.mit.edu'   use anonymous login    'cd telecom-archives'
MAIL SERVER:  Send letter with FTP commands to '[e-mail]'


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 1990 17:19:09 EDT
From: "Jonathan A. Solomon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?


Well, Patrick, I suggest that A. Nonymous drop the issue. The security
holes are (at least IMHO) planted there to find the crooks, and also
as a way to prevent someone from having to go through the pain and
anguish of "what's my password this week".

Kevin Mitnick was caught on a COSMOS system which had no security, and
that wasn't changed even though he was caught. They just sat there in
the security headquarters and waited for the next person to hit the
bait (sort of like your story).

Just because there's a security problem does NOT require you to fix
it.  You may wish to take the risk or you may have some other way of
doing security ... Think of it like CALL TRACE. You get a bogus call,
you have the choice of typing the code to trace the call or not. I
don't think BELL has any idea of how to do passwords right, since they
don't have passworded phone numbers.... :-)

Also, I should point out that Xenix is sold "AS IS" and if you want it
fixed you can 1) hire a contractor, or 2) beg the company to fix it.
Both options cost big bucks.


jsol

[Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon was the founder of TELECOM Digest and
served as the Moderator here for several years.   PT]

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

From: Ken Leonard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Date: 16 May 90 13:09:58 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Leonard <gvlv1![e-mail]>
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, NISD, Great Valley Laboratory


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Someone-Someplace)
writes:

* My tenure at the (deleted) Telephone Company has abrubtly ended. I had
* been wandering around the company's Xenix system while I was at work,
* and they didn't like it. (As a disclaimer, I didn't do any damage,

* I feel the need to let them know about the gaping (and I mean gaping)
* computer and physical security holes they have, but I'm not sure about
* the best way to approach it (or even if I should). I felt that since

* How do you think I should approach it? The person that is

(IMHO)
1) Do what you know is right.  Tell them about it.  Tell them everything
you know in as much detail as you can muster.

2) Cover your tail in respect of being able to prove that you told
them.  Go to you family attorney (like, who drafted your will) and
have her send your letter with a cover letter clearly stating that
your original is on file for proof.  Make darn sure that you get proof
of delivery to a responsible _individual_.  Any decent attorney should
charge you less than $50.00 for the whole thing, including keeping the
letter and proof of delivery in-file.

3) Make _darn_ sure that you personal files, hardcopy and in any
computer you have at home, are _squeaky_ clean.  And don't forget your
archive and backup disks.

4) Then, let them go to hell in their own basket because they will
almost certainly ignore the whole thing until someday when the system
comes crashing down around on their heads.


Regards,
Ken

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

From: "John R. Galloway Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Date: 16 May 90 17:08:02 GMT
Organization: Galloway Research


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Someone-Someplace)
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 351, Message 1 of 8

[description of security holes in phone systems and past employees
request for help in how/if do tell them deleted]

>[Moderator's Note: Well readers, what do *you* suggest? Post your
>comments here, this person will see them. My suggestion was to simply
>walk away and ignore it. The company would have to prove who was
>responsible for any vandalism or hacking, etc.    PT]

  I disagree completely on PT's suggestion of just walking away.  If
you passed someone's house whom you were not really friends with but
had known for a time recently and saw that their front door was wide
open and you knew this was not what the owner wanted, would you just
walk by?  I wouldn't (or I hope I wouldn't).

  I suggest you send a letter to the highest level person (manager) in
the company that you have at least some relationship with (i.e. who
will know you) or the division director if no one comes to mind, and
outline just as you have done here what the problems are and (in
similarly general fashion) what the solutions are.  Make it clear that
you have no intention of using or passing along such information.
Suggest you have a meeting with the relavant folks to discuss security
issues.  Since the intended outcome of such a meeting will be to get
them focused on security, not just get details of what specific things
to do, it shouldn't take more than an hour or so, so I suggest not
even charging them for it.

  As far as being suspected of any future security breaks, one of the
outcomes of this meeting, or even the letter should be to make it
clear that there are many people with similar access and knowledge.
Also before you get into all this, you might want to "complete"
whatever conversations might be going on for you and management over
your departure from the company.  E.G.  if you are pissed off about
it, tell them so, if they suspect you of something ask them to tell
you so, etc.  The point here would be to keep that issue seperate from
the security discussions and not have such colored by those present
thinking about ("oh yea this is that disgruntled guy we fired..."). I
am not suggesting that you will necessarily make up and be rehired and
all will be happy ever after, just that the two issues (being let go
and the security problems) need to be kept seperate, but both dealt
with.

   Hope that wasn't toooo long.  Good luck.

    -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!!

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 12:36:36 PDT
From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Organization: Microwave & RF Instruments, Tektronix, Beaverton, Oregon


I'd write an anonymous letter.  For someone apparently so concerned
about the problem, doing nothing is not going to satisfy you.

The letter should be sent to lots (dozens) of relevant people so it
can't be easily dismissed.  It should contain specific easily-testable
information that non-computer-literate people can test on their own,
including how to look at (but not change) sensitive information.  The
letter needn't be exhaustive, but contain enough to get somebody fired
up to call a security expert.

Some hints to keep a letter anonymous (for maximum personal protection):

 1.  Write without using proper sentences (just use lists), as writing style
     is identifying and difficult to change.

 2.  Avoid giving information which only you would know.  Keep it vague if
     this is unavoidable.

 3.  Use an ordinary printer or typewriter with normal ink/ribbon.  No
     handwriting.  (Don't cut letters out of magazines--that's almost as
     good as handwriting.)

 4.  Send clean photocopies from a really good copy machine.  Or a bad
     one with public access like in a drugstore or whatever (wear dark
     sunglasses & hat).

 5.  Don't get fingerprints on the letter/envelope.  Use a wet sponge for
     sealing the envelope & attaching the stamp.

 6.  Mail it from downtown of a big city so the postmark isn't incriminating.
     Be somewhere far away you can document before and after postmark time.
     The idea is to throw doubt on whether you could have done it; someone
     else can mail it for you when you're in Hawaii.


[e-mail] (Wally Kramer) 503 627 2363
Software Contractor from Step Technology, Inc.  503 244 1239

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Date: 16 May 90 18:51:51 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System


Yes, I have experienced this same response during my tenure at
(deleted) Corp, a large aerospace and defense contractor.  What
happened to you is unfortunate, but not that uncommon.  Unfortunately,
boredom doesn't count too high on the reasons for doing such things.
The bottom line is that you probably did bend/break more than a few
rules that you knew you shouldn't, and you knew it when you did it.  I
did.  Motivation adds light to the picture, but doesn't change any of
the things you did.

>I feel the need to let them know about the gaping (and I mean gaping)
>computer and physical security holes they have, but I'm not sure about
>the best way to approach it (or even if I should).

Such systems usually do have craters (not holes) in the security setup
when they exist.  It's all a function of how intelligent the system
administrator is.  It also reflects somewhat on the managment policy.
(Mr. Manager says, "I thought Fred was in charge of that.  I'm sure
Fred would change it if he thought it was a problem."  Fred says, "I
just work here. I don't set policy.  If they want a secure system,
they need to tell me.")

>Just to give you an idea of the scope of the security problems, here's
>a couple:

 [   4 easy-to-violate security problems deleted    ]

>How do you think I should approach it? The person that is
>administering the system knows very little about Unix system admin, so
>they rely on the company they bought the system from (this company
>provides the whole billing system). Should I stick my neck out and
>write them a letter, or should I just drop the situation?

Well, what is the system used for?  If it is just a general tool and
is not counted on as a required part of operations, I guess that it
isn't that important.  If it is used for billing or contains sensative
information, they have a much bigger problem.  It appears that they DO
use it for billing, but this wasn't highly apparent from your original
post.  If I was you, I'd wait about three or four months (go find
another job, you have to eat), and then call the personnel dept. and
ask for a copy of your employee record.  Read it carefully so you know
what they may be telling those who call for references and security
clearances.  Other than that, don't do anything.  A letter from a
disgruntled former employee isn't going to be taken strongly by anyone
who will do something.  It will always be 'business as usual'.

Follow Patrick's advice, and let it drop.  I hope you learned some
valuable lessons.  I know I did in my version of this story.  In the
future, don't lie about why you parted with the company, but don't
make an obvious point about providing information as to what happened.
If someone asks and you trust them, tell them the whole story.

Otherwise, let the incident grow old and move on.  Just remember that
you have to trust who you tell.  People have very big mouths and long
memories for this kind of saga.  Not that it is something to hide, but
it is (at least, for me) a sensative part of my past that most won't
understand and don't really need to know about.

>In the back of my mind I'm kind of afraid that there may be
>security problems later, and that the finger may come pointing at me.

I wouldn't worry about finger pointing.  There isn't much of anything
you can do that would be effective, so let it drop.


   -dave

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 15:36:49 CDT
From: Steve Wolfson <motcid!marble![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?


Personally I don't think you owe them anything but if you really want
to let them know, then perhaps if you have a friend in the
organization who could point this info out to them.  But again, they
might accuse your friend of looking where he or she wasn't supposed to
be and fire your friend.

Since they canned you just for looking, I suspect they aren't going to
be grateful to you for pointing out the security problems.  Sounds
like the management believes in security by keeping people in the
dark, which never really works very well.  You've already had enough
grief, don't risk any more by being nice and setting yourself to be
put between a rock and a hard place.


Stephen Wolfson                E-Mail: ...!uunet!motcid!wolfsons
Motorola Cellular                    or
1501 W. Shure Dr.  IL27-1155                   [e-mail]
Arlington Heights, IL

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

From: Rabinovitch Isaac <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Date: 16 May 90 18:12:51 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


(Moderator suggested walking away, and ignoring it.)

Alas, it ain't that simple.  Even if they can't *prove* Mr. Someone's
guilt in subsequent "vandalism", that doesn't prevent them from
accussing him.  ("DISGRUNTLED FORMER EMPLOYEE VANDALIZES EQUIPMENT.")
These accusations can lead to equipment confiscation, criminal charges
(which can be expensive, even if they don't stand up in court) and
what amounts to blacklisting.  And if they *do* get in trouble, it's
very likely that they *will* go after him.  In my experience, computer
centers with inept and/or inadequate security always give more
priority to finding someone to who can be plausibly threatened (before
the fact) or accused (after the fact) then actually attempting to fix
the original security problem.  After all, they're innocent victims,
right?

I'm not sure there are any really good solutions for someone who can't
convince anybody that the Emperor is naked.  I've found myself in a
similar situation, and was lucky not to lose my job for "defending"
vandalism.  (Sorry, I don't care to post the details.)  If I ever got
in such a situation again, I'd probably just carefully document all
the security holes, and send copies to all relevant parties, includes
the law enforcement people.  That way, at least "malice" would be hard
to establish once the unmentionable substances became airborne.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #353
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10699;
          17 May 90 3:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12131;
          17 May 90 0:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07519;
          16 May 90 23:45 CDT
Date:     Wed, 16 May 90 23:06:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #355
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 May 90 23:06:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 355

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Press "1" Now [Steve Baumgarten]
    Re: Press "1" Now [Ronald L. Fletcher]
    Re: AOSs, COCOTs and Hotels [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Area 908 Prefix Listings [Carl Moore]
    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [Richard Kovalcik]
    Re: Questions About Ultraphone 100 [James Blocker]
    Re: Auto-Collect From Payphone [Rob Warnock]
    Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [Alex Pournelle]
    Re: AT&T "Excellence" [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Interesting DMS Trick [Douglas Mason]
    Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service [Ronald L. Fletcher]
    900-PREVIEW [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed May 16 10:41:30 1990
From: Steve Baumgarten <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Press "1" Now


Gary Korenek ([e-mail]) writes:

> 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.

Although I understand what you're getting at, I can't agree with your
conclusion.  I think you're making the common mistake of assuming that
a wealth of options necessitates a confusing and non-intuitive user
interface.

To take an example from the computer world, the Macintosh provides
much more power and many more options to the novice user than does a
traditional PC or mainframe, yet it is considerably easier to use and
understand than either.

Small changes to the user interface of any complicated piece of
equipment (be it computer, telephone, car radio, etc.) can make a
significant difference in how a user perceives it.  How many of us
have fumbled with a poorly designed car radio, cursing the poor and
confusing layout of the controls (which are frequently clustered in an
illogical or confusing manner, or made smaller than necessary for
"aesthetic" reasons)?

We recently had a brand new Dictaphone system installed in our office,
and since the system is all digital, it provides many more features
than did the original, tape-based, model.  The units themselves also
look almost exactly like a standard office telephone, and they work on
a standard PBX system (two big pluses).

But the secretaries found it much more difficult and frustrating to
use than they did the old system, for the most part because Dictaphone
did not spend enough time on the system's user interface.

Fortunately, Dictaphone is a very responsive company and have been
very willing to work with us to get their system to the point that the
instructions to use it have been reduced to a few brief sentences.
Our secretaries are now much more comfortable using the system, and
training has become all but unnecessary.

> 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.  :-)

Sadly this is all too often the case.  But especially with things like
telephones (technology that we use every day), people should not have
to put up with inferior or annoying user interfaces, or forgo many
useful features simply because they can't remember how to use them.

The definitive book in this area is Donald Norman's "The Psychology of
Everyday Things", in which he discusses at great length all of the
terrible things designers can do to make conceptually simple objects
(from telephones to cars to bathroom fixtures) nearly impossible for
average people to use with any consistent degree of success.

Had Toshiba asked *anyone* to test their system before releasing it,
they would have heard about the lack of dialing feedback and about how
annoying it is.  Now that the product has been released, all they can
do is sit back and lose sales while they think of a way to correct the
problem.


   Steve Baumgarten
   Davis Polk & Wardwell
   [e-mail]
   cmcl2!esquire!baumgart

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 12:51:42 EDT
From: Ronald L Fletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Press "1" Now
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


One voice response system I didn't see listed is actually a very
useful one. It is Western Digital's technical hotline at
1-800-832-4778 This system will walk you through a disk
problem/installation procedure (provided you are using their
controllers). It is a pretty detailed system as it includes info on
all their controllers and suggested settings (interleaves and such)
for many of the most popular drives.  It even says things like, "Check
the number on your controller now, the system will disconnect, to
return to this point in the procedure dial *22 (or somesuch number) at
the initial voice prompt." We found it really quite helpful when we
were doing a disk upgrade about 10 PM one night.


Ron Fletcher
att!mtgzy!rlf

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOSs, COCOTs and Hotels
Date: 16 May 90 14:21:12 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


I do a lot of 800 calling from hotels.  Some charge the same for 800
as local calls; some don't.  One tip that I've learned:

Often hotels tell you to dial 9 for local and 8 for long distance.
Usually, it seems that 800 calls will go out on either.  More than one
hotel that I have stayed at has charged the local call charge (eg
$0.50 - $0.95) for 800 calls placed on the 9-lines, but has not
charged for them when dialed on the 8-lines.

Of course it's all in the programming and the situation may actually
be reversed at some properties, however I'll stick to dialing 8 myself.

Remember as you leave your hotel room to grab the comment card so you
can tell the hotel what you think of their phone charges on the flight
home ...


Craig R. Watkins        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:        CRW%HRB@PSUECL

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 13:48:30 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area 908 Prefix Listings


Inclusion of Elizabeth means that 908 would reach up at least to exit
13 of the New Jersey Turnpike; I also see Roselle, Unionville,
Carteret, Rahway, and Woodbridge in 908.  When I get around to it, I
can print out the list and mail it to Pilot Books in Babylon, N.Y.;
they are publisher of the zip-area code directory referred to
recently.

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

From: Richard Kovalcik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought
Reply-To: Richard Kovalcik <[e-mail]>
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 19:34:02 GMT


A builder I trust says that he always pulls two quad phone cables.  He
says that running two lines on one quad or 6-wire cable leads to cross
talk.  This is something you might want to consider ...

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 14:32:15 CDT
From: James Blocker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About Ultraphone 100


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George
Pell) writes:

>Does anyone have any information on the "Ultraphone 100" system?

Back in 1983-1984, when I was still working for United Technologies, I
did some work on a project called "Ultraphone".  We were to supply a
small switch (actually a 250-line PBX) to be used with a rural radio
telephone system being developed by other companies.  The names of the
companies escape me now, but I believe that International Mobile
Machines was one of the players at the time.

Your other details (430 - 477 MHz antenna and used in Oregon) would be
consistent with the project I worked on.

>Is this system digital, and therefore relatively secure?  What else
>can anyone tell me about it.

Our switch and the telephones connected to it were digital.  The voice
channel was standard 64kbps u-law PCM; a separate control channel
operating at 8kbps was also employed.

If in fact this system is the same one that I worked on, it is
relatively secure due to the fact of it being digital.  Even though no
scrambling technique was involved, a normal UHF receiver would be
incapable of demodulating the digital transmission.

I left United Technologies while this project was going on.
Unfortunately, I don't know what happened to it, but it sounds like
the one I had worked on for awhile.


Jim Blocker (KF5IW)

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 03:02:45 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Auto-Collect From Payphone
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| While traipsing through a Texaco today, I needed to place a collect
| call to a company... they would require... who I needed to talk to...
| The phone plays it back for me ... "Your name is ... (me recorded
| digitally and very nicely I might add) 'Mark Lowe.'"
| The connection is then made ... and the lady who answers must have
| thought it was a joke!  The voice said "You are receiving a collect
| call.  To accept, enter 1; to refuse, enter 0 and hang up."

I suspect that what the other party hears is in fact, "You are
receiving a collect call from [in your voice] 'Mark Lowe'.  To accept,
enter 1; to refuse, enter 0 and hang up."

So try giving your name as "Mark Lowe, calling Department Foo". If you
say it fast enough and run together, it may work.

(It's legal, as you aren't trying to evade the toll by using the
covert channel to pass your actual message.)


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: Alex Pournelle <elroy!grian![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier
Organization: Workman & Associates
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 08:34:34 GMT


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.

> And besides, now the less informed can't make long distance calls from
> my home.

Umm, do they still charge you for that "optional" "non-basic"
long-distance tariff?  Now, is it just me, or would this kind of
billing throw lawsuits around the magistrate's corner office in any
other field?  Yeah, the basic rate is $9.00 or whatever per month--but
you can't have it without the ($3 and climbing) long-distance add-on!

Or am I wrong -- and there is a way, with enough patience and coaching
of the P*bell 811-SUCKERS girls, to order up a "local only" line?


    Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker
    Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others
    ...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: [phone]
    fax: [phone]    bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 16 May 1990 05:41:29 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T "Excellence"


In article <[e-mail]>, drilex![e-mail] (Carol
Springs) says:

>At the end of the call, she asked, "And would you say that I gave you
>excellent service this evening?"  I said "Yes" to avoid any hassle.

I wonder if her supervisor was listening in on (oops, monitoring) the
conversation?


/Pete

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting DMS Trick
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Date: Tue, 15 May 90 12:29:53 GMT


Speaking of interesting phone tricks, I stumbled upon another that I
have found other people to have discovered, too.  This is actually a
little more dirty than the beforementioned tricks, and not meant to be
a "feature" I am sure!

Under the ESS#2 switch I was, I had call-waiting.  I was talking to a
friend that was local and during the conversation her call waiting
went off.  She went and answered it and I waited in limbo on the
"other line".  Well, she was gone for several minutes.

While she was gone, MY call waiting went off and I answered it.  So
now she is on HER other line, and I am on MY "other line", while both
of us are still connected.  I hung up with my call, switched back over
and suddenly I was IN her conversation!

So, we played around and learned this little trick:

- Call someone up that you know has call waiting and is in the midst of a
  conversation.

- When the answer, ask for someone non-existant or simply sit there mute.
  Eventually they will hang up and switch over to the other conversation,
  except you aren't really "hung up", you are merely in limbo.

- Using a second phone line, call yourself.  Answer you call waiting then
  switch back.  You are now in the called party conversation!

Life IS stranger than fiction.  Further playing around revealed that
this worked only locally (no big suprise) but it DID work in many
other areas with simular switches!

Can anyone explain this occurance?


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 12:29:48 EDT
From: Ronald L Fletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone Service
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Just of couple of notes on the TT thread:

If you have a tone phone and go off-hook and you press a button and
hear both dialtone and the touch-tone frequency, yet you cannot break
dialtone, this is not a tip and ring (red and green) reversal problem.
The tones dont care about polarity as they are AC and will be heard by
the CO as long as they can be generated by the phone.  The tip and
ring reversal (rip and ting) is only a problem in those older phones
that do not have a polarity guard circuit. The polarity guard circuit
ensures the tone generator in the phone gets the correct polarity to
generate the tones. The reversal problem is identifiable by a
distinctive clicking sound and the muting of the dialtone heard in the
receiver when you press a key on the TT pad (and dialtone is not
broken).

The former problem is caused by the CO not having a TTR (Touch Tone
Receiver) enabled for your loop (or of course the CO does not offer TT
service).  Many CO's can enable or disable the TTR's on a line by line
basis. Here in NJ (notably the Brunswick areas: New,East,South) NJB
has seen fit to disable the TTR's on loops where the billing does not
include the $1.10 charge for TT service. We discovered this when a
relative who had been getting the free TT service had it stop working
all of a sudden in August of 1989. The relative called me and I said
swap the red and green wires, he said now it just clicks. I said call
NJB, he did and NJB said something to the tune of, "We are conducting
an audit of our rotary customers, would you like TT service added? It
is only an additional $1.10 per month."

I always wondered just how profitable this audit turned out to be as a
number of people who told me this happened to them "just said no" and
switched back to rotary (or pulse) dialing. So NJB didn't get the
$1.10 and the CO switch gets to spend more time processing their
calls.


    Ron Fletcher
    att!mtgzy!rlf

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 11:15:57 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900-PREVIEW


900-PREVIEW is a motion-picture preview.  The initial menu says to
touch 1 on touch-tone phone or dial 2 on a rotary phone.  (Hadn't
heard of options like that before; I have heard of "stay on the line"
for rotary phone.)

To select a movie, you're to punch in the first three letters of the
title.  And it does account for Q and Z; it says to punch one for
those letters.  (Between one and one-half and two years ago, this
Digest mentioned a phone poll regarding U.S. vice-presidential
candidates Bentsen and Quayle, and people were told to press B or Q,
respectively.  That poll was rendered invalid because telephone
keypads [also dials] have no Q.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #355
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11664;
          17 May 90 3:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04598;
          17 May 90 1:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12131;
          17 May 90 0:50 CDT
Date:     Thu, 17 May 90 0:07:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #356
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 May 90 00:07:09 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 356

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    London Code Split [Nigel Whitfield]
    The Bounders! [Nigel Whitfield]
    Phone Conferences [Kevin Ashford]
    Interoffice Trunk Signaling Methods [Larry Lippman]
    Verification of Numbers Furnished to ONI [Larry Lippman]
    Online CCITT Standards [Mark C. Lowe]
    I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Daniel Jacobson]
    Proposed 900 Block and Operator Call Complete [Thomas Lapp]
    950 Numbers in Canada [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing [Peter J. Dotzauer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: London Code Split
Date: 15 May 90 14:59:32 BST (Tue)
From: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>


Well, it happened more or less as planned, complete with one of the
most pointless television programmes that I have ever had the
misfortune to watch.

Both old and new codes were working in parallel for a time before the
split, and on the morning after, I did a few checks. This is what
happened:

All long distance calls to 01 were being intercepted with a message
telling people to use the correct code, though it didn't say which
code to use.

Calls from my 861 number (081 area) could be placed to local numbers
in the normal way.

Calls to 240, 388, 831 and 409 (all 071) could be placed without using
the new code.

A call from Kew Gardens (081) to Fulham 385 (071) was placed on the
Sunday afternoon without needing a code.

Calling from 861 to 403 without a code resulted in a failed call, with
no recorded message. 403 is in the City area, close to London Bridge.

Monday afternoon it was necessary to use a code when calling from
Leicester Square (071) to 861 and 460 numbers. Failure to use a code
generated an intercept message.

 From Wednesday, all calls that I attempted to make across the
boundary failed.

So, it looks like the cut-over was not as sudden as BT would have had
us believe, but then that's BT for you.....

Hope I've got all those numbers right - I don't have a list with me.


Nigel Whitfield                                         120 Canterbury Road
[e-mail]                                    Harrow, HA1 4PB
[e-mail]                                 081-861 5106

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

Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Bounders!
Date: 15 May 90 15:13:10 BST (Tue)
From: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>


Since I'm at a bit of a loose end at the moment, I thought I'd jot
down a few things about those lovable (!?!) rogues at British Telecom
to entertain and inform the readers of the Digest.

Until fairly recently, it was possible to walk up to most modern BT
payphones around London (and apparently elsewhere) and tap 131 to
access Mercury. The phones would then switch to tone dialling if they
weren't already set up to do so, allowing you to key in your Mercury
access code and make calls that would appear on your monthly
statement.

Almost all the payphones that I have tried to do this on lately have
been modified so that the keypad is disabled once you dial 131, and
the signal tone given as if you'd called the operator, making it
rather difficult to use Mercury from a BT payphone. It is not possible
to use your Mercury account from a Mercury payphone.

Payphones in pubs, restaurants and other off-street locations can
still be used in this way, but the number seems to be dwindling.

The {London Evening Standard} reported recently that BT have withdrawn
their tone generating keypads from sale because of a loophole that
allowed people to use them to make free calls from coinboxes. I don't
know what this loophole was, but the Standard reported it as simply
having to press two digits.

Finally, the well worn and to my mind untruthful BT slogan "It's you
we answer to." Hmmm. Wandering High Street Kensington one day, I came
across a pen that had been dropped. It bore the British Telecom logo,
and a slogan, which seems to be more indicative of the way they
conduct themselves that the usual advertising - "British Telecom -
Calling For Profit".

Well, that's enough rambling for now. I could moan about BT for
ages....


Nigel Whitfield                                         120 Canterbury Road
[e-mail]                                    Harrow, HA1 4PB
[e-mail]                                 081-861 5106

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Ashford)
Subject: Phone Conferences
Date: 15 May 90 20:36:02 GMT
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA


Hello,

I would like to put together a list of 'phone confrences' or 'talk
lines'. Anyone who has telephone numbers to such systems, please email
them to me and I will post the numbers back to the group all at once.

I'm not intrested in 976/900 numbers; only 1-800 or 1-areacode numbers.

Thanks,

Kevin

UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!maverick
ARPA: crash!pnet01![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]
AT&T: [phone]  [VoiceMail System]

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

Subject: Interoffice Trunk Signaling Methods
Date: 15 May 90 23:16:44 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew
Boardman) writes:

> 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?

    I do not have enough information to address the specific
instances which you describe, but I can offer some general comments
which most likely apply to what you have observed - which was probably
unmuted impulse noise from DC interoffice trunk signaling.

    While many people think of interoffice trunk signaling in
terms of MF, T1-carrier or CCIS, in which case tone or digital (i.e.,
out of band) signaling is used to transport the four or more
terminating digits of the called number, signaling methods are still
in use which send dial pulses.  In many metropolitan areas interoffice
trunks exist as individual *metallic* circuits without the benefit of
T1 or other carrier apparatus.  Under these circumstances, especially
in older XBAR offices, various DC signaling schemes will be utilized
on these trunks.  New York City is a prime example where some CO's are
only a mile or two apart; the least expensive interoffice trunks would
therefore be simple two-wire metallic circuits.

    Older metallic interoffice trunks often employ dial pulses at
10 or 20 pps to convey the four or more terminating digits of call.
Various DC signaling systems have been employed to establish a line
discipline for on-hook/off-hook status, dial pulse transmission, and
answer supervision.  Such DC signaling systems include, but are not
limited to:

1.    Loop Reverse Battery Signaling is used on one-way trunks only,
    and is similar to subscriber loop dial pulsing.  Seizure at
    the calling office consists of a loop closure in series with
    a supervisory relay which operates on loop reversal returned
    by the called office when the called party answers.  Loop
    Reverse Battery Signaling is somewhat limited in loop
    resistance range.

2.    Battery and Ground Pulsing is used for greater loop range.
    It is similar to (1) above, except that during pulsing the
    calling office trunk circuit switches the loop between ground
    and resistance battery, effectively doubling the available
    loop current to operate the "A" pulsing relay in the called
    office trunk circuit.  Answer supervision is made through
    loop reversal as in (1) above.

3.    High-Low Reverse Battery Signaling is similar to (1) above,
    but a sensitive polar relay is used at the calling office
    to not only detect answer supervision, but to indicate
    that the trunk is out of service due to loop failure or
    an intentional make-busy condition at the called office.

4.    Reverse Battery High-Low Signaling, similar to but *not* to
    be confused with (3) above, is primarily used on DSA and TSPS
    circuits when a subscriber places an operator-assisted call.

5.    DX signaling uses a balanced differential current scheme and
    results in the creation of E&M leads at both ends.  DX signaling
    can be used on both 2-wire and 4-wire circuits.  It should be
    pointed out that E&M lead signaling is short range signaling
    which is *only* used within the confines of a central office.
    What is commonly referred to as E&M lead signaling really uses
    other means (such as a DX set or SF signaling unit) to derive
    the actual E&M leads.  DX signaling can be used on metallic
    circuits of a dozen or more miles in length.

6.    As a point of historical interest only since all panel apparatus
    has now gone to the Central Office in the Sky :-), another
    type of pulsing known as revertive pulsing was used between
    panel and other types of CO's.  Revertive pulsing was, well,
    *different*.  The calling office would seize the trunk, and
    would count pulses sent back to it from the panel office until
    the correct number was received, at which it would tell the
    called office to stop.  This start-stop sequence would be
    repeated for each digit.

    In non-common control SxS and XY CO's the dial pulses sent
over the above signaling methods were generated by the subscriber
dial.  In all other CO's the signaling pulses were created at either
10 or 20 pps by means of a outgoing sender.  All ESS offices have the
capability of sending DC signaling for the above type of trunks.


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: Verification of Numbers Furnished to ONI
Date: 15 May 90 23:36:51 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> 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.

    There *is* a verification system of sorts which has been
implemented to deter ONI "fibbing" :-).

    It has been almost twenty years since I saw such an
installation at a Late Great Bell System facility, so details are a
bit fuzzy.  However, when the ONI operator keypulsed the digits into
the CAMA entry position, a special outgoing verification trunk would
dial the number in the originating CO.  If the number tested busy,
then the call "passed".  If the number did NOT test busy, the test
failed and the ONI operator would challenge the caller.  The given
number - if false and not busy - did not ring when dialed by the
special verification circuit, however.

    Obviously, if a false number were given and it happened to be
busy at the time, the verification test would be satisfied.  However,
such incidence was rare enough that a deterrent effect was created.

    I do not know what percentage of ONI circuits were equipped
with the above verification feature.  Those independent operating
telephone companies with whom I am familiar and which utilized AT&T
DSA, CAMA and toll facilities and which also had ONI never had such
ONI verification circuits.


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: Tue, 15 May 90 01:41 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Online CCITT Standards


This request has been made by myself and others with no results.  Are
there absolutely NO FTPable CCITT standards?  Someone somewhere must
know!  It's a quest...


Mark C. Lowe - KB5III

[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 22:04:02 CDT
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


Say I live in areacode 708 (Suburban Chicago).  I program up my phone
with lots of Chicago numbers (1-312-XXX-XXXX).  One day me and phone
go and spend the week at uncle Billy's in Chicago.  Now I got to
reprogram my phone to edit out all those 1-312 areacodes if I want the
phone to work there [or else listen to the helpful recording].  Isn't
that dumb?


[e-mail]    [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Are you saying eleven digit dialing should be
mandatory throughout 312/708, even for the folks who make all/most of
their calls on one side or the other, or are you saying eleven digit
dialing intra-areacode should be optional, with telco absorbing the
first four digits (1-312 or 1-708) when they are not needed?  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 90 20:32:02 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proposed 900 Block and Operator Call Complete

In the Public Notices section of the {Wilmington (DE) News-Journal}
there was an interesting item by Diamond State Telephone.

One proposal was a 900 block where you could ask them to block all 900
calls from your line.  The price was free to install it, and free to
reinstate it.  However, after that there was a non-recurring fee of
$40/$120 (res/bus) to change it after that.  Seems rather fair to me.

The other proposal was a service that if you called DA for a number,
you could ask them to go ahead and connect you after looking the
number up.  Cost will be $0.30 per call.

                         - tom

internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1         Location: Newark, DE, USA
Quote   : The only way to win thermonuclear war is not to play.

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: 950 Numbers in Canada
Date: 16 May 90 14:53:47 GMT
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


I have frequently seen mention of 950 telephone numbers.  Up here in
Canada, because we have yet to discover alternate long distance
service, they don't really mean anything (I think).

Can some of these 950 numbers be dialed over an 800 number?  If so,
would someone mind sending me or posting a list of all of the
different 800-950 numbers.  I would like to see if these can be dialed
from Canada.  If they are, I can then get a family member to subscribe
to one of them for me and then use an alternate carrier.

Thanks.

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


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

From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing?
Date: 16 May 90 15:06:41 GMT
Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC


Is there a device that can be connected to a telephone or a telephone
line that causes a light bulb to blink, whenever the telephone rings?

This way, one will not miss a call when he has his headphones on.
Also, such a device would be useful for people with hearing problems.


Peter J Dotzauer, Analyt. Cartography & GIS, Dept. 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]


[Moderator's Note: Radio Shack has various devices like this, as do
most telephone supply catalogs, and phone center stores.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #356
******************************











Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14717;
          17 May 90 4:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10858;
          17 May 90 2:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04598;
          17 May 90 1:54 CDT
Date:     Thu, 17 May 90 1:13:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #357
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 May 90 01:12:24 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 357

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Voice Information Services [Andrew H. Colby]
    Re: 917 Area Code [New York Times via Carl Moore]
    Re: 900-STOPPER [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [Mark Earle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 11:17:52 EDT
From: Andrew H Colby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Information Services
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner, NJ, USA


On 13 May 90 18:32:16 GMT well![e-mail] (Frank G Kienast) wrote:

> 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

I must have missed Frank's original posting, but in Hunterdon County,
New Jersey (served by United Telephone System, not New Jersey Bell)
there is a free service listed in the phone book called ``Talking
Fingers.''  The service is run by DirectoriesAmerica, Inc.  To access
it call [phone] (from a touch-tone phone).  The following codes
are available:

                           General
1000    Help

                      News and Financial
1210    National News Update          1212    International News Update
1220    Business News Headlines        1222    Stock Market Report
1223    Bond Market Report        1224    NYSE Stock Report
1226    Tax Tips            1228    Investment Line

                           Lottery
1110    New Jersey            1120    New York
1130    Pennsylvania

                           Weather
1603    Local (Hunterdon County, NJ)    1699    National
1599    Allentown            1600    Atlanta
1610    Baltimore            1615    Boston
1620    Chicago                1647    Kansas City
1650    Los Angeles            1655    Miami
1660    New York City            1665    Philadelphia
1695    Washington, D.C.

                          Sports
1300    National Sports Brief         1320    NFL Report
1325    NBA Report            1330    Major League Baseball
1350    NCAA Top 25 Scoreboard        1352    Local (Hunterdon County) Sport
1360    Sportsworld Trivia

                     Soap Opera Updates
1800    All My Children            1805    Another World
1810    As the World Turns        1815    The Bold and the Beautiful
1820    Days of Our Lives        1825    General Hospital
1830    Guiding Light            1835    Loving
1840    One Life to Live        1845    Generations
1850    Santa Barbara            1855    The Young and the Restless
1860    Dallas                1865    Dynasty
1870    Falcon Crest              1875    Knots Landing
1885    LA Law                1890    Thirtysomething
1880    Soap Scene (report on the soap stars)

                         Horoscopes
1715    Interstellar Forecast (Zodiac summary)
1700    Is Your Birthday Today?        1701    Aquarius
1702    Pisces                1703    Aries
1704    Taurus                1705    Gemini
1706    Cancer                1707    Leo
1708    Virgo                1709    Libra
1710    Scorpio                1711    Sagittarius
1712    Capricorn

                      Trivia Corner
1360    Sportsworld Trivia        1503    Interactive Trivia
1504    What's Hot....What's Not    1505    Hollywood Trivia
1507    Historical Trivia

                      Just for Kids
1508    Today's Funny Fact        1509    Joke of the Day
1510    Adventure Corner        1513    Story Corner
1515    Mr. Knowledge

                   Music, Video and T.V.
1900    Video Review            1905    Hot Video Rentals
1910    Hollywood Starline        1915    Rock Tracks
1916    Top Ten Singles            1917    Top Ten Albums
1925    Top Ten Movies            1926    Movie Reviews
1980    This Week on TV            1981    TV Tonight

                   Regional Attractions
1400    Community Calendar        1402    Places to Visit
1403    Kid's Community            1405    Area Concert Connection
1421    The Meadowlands            1422    Garden State Arts Center
1423    Atlantic City Headliners    1540    Baltimore's Inner Harbor
1550    New York City Activities/Events    1555    Philadelphia Activities/Events


Andrew H. Colby
  e-mail  [e-mail]      USmail  room 2W-D07
  voice   [phone]                  184 Liberty Corner Road
  fax     [phone]                  P.O. Box 4908
                                         Warren, NJ  07060-0908

I have no connections with New Jersey Bell, United Telephone System,
or DirectoriesAmerica, Inc., other than as a paying customer.

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 13:26:37 EDT
From:  Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 917 Area Code (New York Times Article)


Article starts on page B-1 on April 19, 1990 ("Additional Area Code Is
Planned In Manhattan") and continues on page B-9 ("Telephone Company
Plans 917 Area Code for New York City").  It says the new area code is
coming in about two or three years.  Here's the last part of the
article:

***

'Overlay' May Be Costly

One possible solution to the shortage of telephone numbers is to
assign the addition area code to customers who use cellular phones and
beepers in the geographical territory served by the 212 code. That
approach, which is called an "overlay" because the new code would be
"laid over" the 212 area, would require use of the 917 code for calls
placed to some customers in the current 212 area code.

But the [Public Service] commission said the overlay system would pose
technical difficulties for New York Telephone and confuse customers
who would have to determine the correct area code to reach people who
live in the Bronx and Manhattan.  The "overlay" would also cost more
to install because the company would have to design a new network --
within the current 212 one -- for the 917 area code.

Assigning the new area code to the Bronx would solve the problem only
temporarily, because New York Telephone would soon run out of numbers
for Manhattan, which is experiencing most of the growth in telephone
lines, the commission said.

Another possibility would be to split Manhattan and assign one portion
the 917 area code.  Eli Noam, a business professor of Columbia
University who serves on the commission, said a split of Manhattan by
area codes would also cause too much confusion.

"You can just imagine what sensitivities we would raise by taking the
212 area code away from the East Side and letting it remain on the
West, or what would happen in a north-south situation," Mr. Noam said.

He said the phone company probably could slow demand for new telephone
numbers by charging business customers a fee for warehousing numbers
they do not use.  He estimated that there are perhaps "millions of
telephone numbers assigned to business switchboards that are not being
used."

***

END OF ARTICLE.  Earlier it notes that "some businesses warehouse
phone lines and thus numbers in case their companies grow."  Also,
there was some uproar about the 1984 removal of Brooklyn, Queens, and
Staten Island from the 212 area; I recall reading and hearing about
the 212 Cafe located in what is now 718, and the song lament ending
with "When we were 2 1 2."  310 in Los Angeles is planned to be
geographical; was there also uproar about it?

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

Date: 16-MAY-1990 15:33:50.39
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900-STOPPER


In regard to dialing 1-900-STOPPER to prevent your call from being
ID'd, aren't there better (and cheaper!) ways to do this?

 From what I understand through my limited experience with Caller*ID
in New Jersey Bell territory, you only get calls from within Jersey
Bell's service area. So a call from New York City, maybe three miles
away from the exchange in New Jersey offering CLASS services, will not
result in a number being displayed. (Assuming the caller used AT&T or
a LD Company. It *MAY* be displayed if the caller used 10NYT [New York
Tel] or 10NJB [New Jersey Bell], which have a special agreement by
which the local companies can carry certain North Jersey - New York
City area calls. I never got to try this, though...)

Moreover, let's say you make the call with your Bell/AT&T Calling
Card. From what I've seen, the number you are calling from doesn't
show, so that's another way to avoid Caller*ID. And note that with
AT&T's Reach Out America Calling Card Option, callers who have
accounts with certain BOCs can pay direct-dial (non-Calling Card)
rates after 10PM for inter-state calls, avoiding the eighty cent
surcharge. So, EVEN IF all direct dial interstate calls were to show
up on Caller*ID, if I wanted to make a call and not have my number
show up (and not pay anything extra), I would wait till 10PM, dial my
interstate call then, and pay the SAME rate that I would pay for a
direct dialed call.  I would attain the benefits of using
1-900-STOPPER (no Caller*ID), but not pay anything close to the cost
of using it!

Taking this one step further, let's assume that five years from now
all calls, handled either locally or LD, will show the number via
Caller*ID. OK, fine, but what if you use MCI , Sprint, Allnet, or some
small 800 LD company that you can access via 950, 800, or even a local
access number? Do you think it likely that MCI and Sprint will pass
the number along from their 950/800 access numbers to the local Bell
Co. at the receiving end for display on Caller*ID? And even if Sprint
and MCI do, what about some small, rural LD company that has only a
local access number?

IE, let's say there's a company called "SmallTel" serving the Truckee,
CA area.  It has a local access number for LD calls made within the
local Truckee area, and an 800 number so callers can use the service
while traveling. To use SmallTel, you have to dial the local access
number (or 800), enter your code, and then enter the destination
number, very much in the same manner that one would have used MCI or
Allnet before 1+ and 10XXX access. Would SmallTel want to waste time
and money getting Caller*ID from the local port, and then pass it on
to the receiving Bell Co. so the Bell's customers can get Caller*ID?
Probably not, especially if Caller*ID is not available in the Truckee
area.  (And I'm not sure, but if Truckee is served by GTE then even if
Caller*ID were available you'd get the wrong number half of the time! :-) )

So all I need do, assuming all the methods above won't work, is get an
account with SmallTel, then call to SmallTel's local port (at about
11.5 cents per minute, night rate AT&T Reach Out) , dial my code, and
make whatever calls I want without Caller*ID.

Finally, if ALL that doesn't work, and I don't have access to a PBX or
some sort of system that sends out a "generic" number (or one of a
group of "generic" numbers) for outgoing calls, I can always take my
mobile phone out of my service area, wait for the ROAM light to come
on, and make all the calls I want free of caller ID. (Whenever I ROAM,
and I make calls from the ROAM area with my calling card, I only get
the out-dial number of the ROAM port, and not my mobile number.) A bit
more expensive, but that will work too!

Or, I can use a marine band radio, call the Marine Operator, and place
the call through her! I wonder what Caller*ID would say then! :-)

So I'm not sure what all the big deal about 1-900-STOPPER is? Unless
I'm missing something obvious, it would seem to me that there are many
other alternatives to 900-STOPPER which are either the same price or
only marginally more expensive than a direct (regular) call which
would show Caller*ID.


Doug

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

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 21:11:59 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought


I would suggest the following:

In each room (rest rooms, utility closets for the wash machine, and
any closet big enough to stand in) put a box. I use all plastic boxes,
and use 3/4" inside diamater plastic white plumbing (cheap) PVC as my
conduit for these types of jobs.

Anyhow, run conduit from each box to a central closet, or corner of
basement. As another poster indicated, make sure there is a properly
wired 110v outlet box, and preferably, it should be on it's own
circuit breaker. You might ALSO, to the outside somewhere, run two
number 12 or 14 conductor wires to provide for battery backup.  I
prefer batteries to be outside.

I would use twelve-pair wiring to all boxes in all rooms. Why limit
yourself? Wire is cheap NOW, compared to ripping things apart THEN.

Also-in each conduit run from a box to the central location, place a
pull-string (I use the heaviest (60 lb) monofilament fishing line I
can find). This will let you pull additional wires later with no
problems (or at least minimal problems)

I would also, in any livable room (non-closets) place, on the wall
opposite from the box for the phone connections, another box. Put the
box at about two foot off the floor level. Run four pair wire to
these. Run these four pairs to the same central location. From these
two foot boxes, run pvc up to about a foot from the ceiling. Run two
pairs up this pvc. This is for (a) phone across room w/out wires
across floor (b)speakers for a central background music system (c)
intercom wiring, if you install a central intercom system. It's also a
way to get another line or two into a room easily.

TAG EACH WIRE at the central location carefully. You'll forget after
a year or two! I usually put the pvc's in a row  | | | | on a piece
of plywood, note what comes from where, and further, record it with
other important household papers.

I'd ALSO run (in PVC again, maybe 1/2" inside diam) wires (two pair)
to each window, door, garage door, etc. This would be for future
security system/burglar alarm. Windows, put the wire the same spot
next to each casing, usually center on one side or the other. Doors,
hinge side, top of the casing.

Finally, I'd run two pairs (in PVC) to each door for an outside
speaker connection for an intercom.

I'd also run a six pair buried below the frost line in thick walled
CPVC (the kind rated for hot water use) out to the end of the drive.
This would be for a post, to stick a key in, or operate a combination,
to open the garage door when it's raining. Forget those radio-operated
things. I disconnect the receiver and use only hard wired key
switches. Makes the thief's job that much harder.  Of course, for the
above ground part of this "get in the garage in the rain" one should
'harden' it w/metal conduit for the exposed part, or some other
method.

I just did (three months ago) a house like I've described above for a
friend. The studs were up, and electricians had run their conduits.
At this point, it took my friend and I two full days of eight to ten
hours (fair amount of breaks for soda and story-swapping). Materials
costs, was (including the wire, 66 blocks, a punch tool for him, RJ
jacks for the phones, misc, misc, tie wraps, etc etc. was right around
$800. That ain't cheap. BUT, it covers:

Phones: two to six lines. Plus the extra jacks/room.  Intercoms: all
rooms Security wiring: we ran wires if there was "any" question that
it might be wanted someday.  Secure access to garage: (well, not
really -- a standard garage roll up door is about the least secure
thing there is, really!) Think about it a bit ... 8' un-supported
panels, thin, usually, cheap track hardware.

Stereo/music system wires

Oh yeah! Outside speaker wiring under eaves, and in a conduit to the
middle of the non-yard (in case of pool) we also ran a twelve-pair out
there for possilbe phones/intercoms...

Anyhow, I hope this gives some ideas. It really *is* much cheaper and
more convenient to do it when the house is still open. I charge a LOT
by the hour to pull wires in existing structures (not "installer"
wiring, but clean, impossible to find, NICE wiring) which is what most
of us really would want.


 | [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   |
 |         "The System IS The Solution"                 |

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #357
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01245;
          17 May 90 21:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09021;
          17 May 90 20:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13872;
          17 May 90 19:03 CDT
Date:     Thu, 17 May 90 18:30:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #358
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 May 90 18:30:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 358

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint Outage -- Fiber Cut in Massachusetts [Steve Elias]
    US Sprint Outage in Massachusetts Fixed [Steve Elias]
    Ted Rogers (was: CNCP Telecommunications Becomes Unitel) [Mark Brader]
    Re: The Bounders! [John Slater]
    AT&T NAVSTAR/GPS News Excerpts [James Price Salsman]
    809 Routing and Directory Assistance [John R. Covert]
    Metallic Interoffice Circuits and Audible Outpulsing [Joseph Pistritto]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Outage -- Fiber Cut in Massachusetts
Date: Thu, 17 May 90 11:41:38 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Sprint access from Boston is out as of 11:30 AM 5/17.  Apparently
there is a fiber cut in Massachusetts somewhere.  Also, a big Sprint
fiber in NJ was cut yesterday.


/eli

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: US Sprint Outage in Massachusetts Fixed
Date: Thu, 17 May 90 14:13:41 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


As of 1415 EST, it appears that the cut Sprint fiber cable in
Massachusetts has been fixed.


/eli

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ted Rogers (was: CNCP Telecommunications Becomes Unitel)
Date: Wed, 16 May 1990 05:16:46 -0400

> 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.

Actually, the Rogers of CFRB was Ted Rogers Senior (1900-1939), while
the Rogers of Rogers Communications is his son, Ted Rogers Junior
(1933?-).  And the RB stands for Rogers *Batteryless*, and thereby
hangs a tale.

 |  By the end of the First World War, Rogers, already well known
 |  in amateur radio circles ... was thinking seriously about the
 |  problems of voice reception.  By then the storage batteries that
 |  were causing parlor floors to part company from their skirting
 |  boards were being replaced by lighter dry cells.  Unfortunately, when
 |  these began to run down after a few hours' operation, they caused the
 |  receivers to emit screams of agony--which in turn caused listeners
 |  to do the same. ...

 |  In 1924 he read about the work of a Mr. F. S. McCullogh of Pittsburgh,
 |  who had invented an alternating current tube.  Rogers journeyed to
 |  Pittsburgh ... it proved to be a disappointingly crude device.
 |  While it had eliminated the piercing screams, it had replaced them
 |  with an unmelodious mains hum that made reception almost equally
 |  uncomfortable.

 |  ... Rogers purchased the Canadian rights to the tube.  He ... succeeded
 |  in turning it into a workable device by the end of the year.  The following
 |  June, he took out a patent on his rectifier.

 |  ... a radio historian, Ormond Raby, says that by the time Rogers'
 |  batteryless receiver appeared, "other light socket sets had now,
 |  of course, come on to the market in great quantity...", ... [but]
 |  the Rogers set was, in the opinion of the patent attorneys, the
 |  best of the lot.

 |  ... Rogers' batteryless sets rapidly gained so commanding a place
 |  in the market, despite their cost (his first five-tube mantel set
 |  cost $260, plus another $45 for the loudspeaker [this in 1925!])
 |  that the competition became alarmed.  After Rogers had been in
 |  business for a few months, his rectifier tubes started to fail at
 |  a rate that threatened the sales of his receivers.  According to
 |  a contemporary, Norm Olding, "Ted worked for twenty to twenty-four
 |  hours a day in an attempt to locate the source of the trouble, and
 |  discovered it was due to faulty filament materials..."

 |  It turned out that the filament wire was from a firm that had conn-
 |  ections with a rival manufacturer.  Ted Rogers was being sabotaged.
 |  When he started importing the filament wire from Europe, the trouble
 |  with his rectifiers cleared up instantly.

 |  ... Soon after incorporating the Standard Radio Manufacturing Company
 |  for the marketing of his batteryless sets, it occurred to Rogers that
 |  he was not likely to greatly increase the sales of his receivers
 |  unless there was something worth receiving.

 |  In 1927, five stations catered to the relatively substantial Toronto-
 |  area market.  Ted did not feel that their program quality did justice
 |  to his equipment.

 |  Their transmission quality was even worse.  French horns blared like
 |  foghorns, sopranos sounded as if they were singing in a particularly
 |  deep bathtub while simultaneously ingesting pieces of pumice.
 |  Moreover, [there was] interference from scores of American stations...

 |  Accordingly, Rogers decided to apply the idea of batteryless reception
 |  to the transmitting end, and in 1927 he founded what is believed to
 |  be the first batteryless broadcasting station in the world, CFRB.

Well, actually "batteryless" was a slight exaggeration.

 |  "In fact, in Ted Rogers' first batteryless set, I put the battery in",
 |  [Bill] Baker said [to the author], chuckling obscurely from the depths
 |  of his favorite armchair.

 |  "Eh?"

 |  "At that time they hadn't learned to put C bias in the set", Baker
 |  explained.  "So in the bottom of the set I put the C bias battery
 |  that would last the lifetime of the 'batteryless' receiver."

Excerpts from "Sinc, Betty, and the Morning Man: The Story of CFRB" by
Donald Jack, 1977, Macmillan of Canada, ISBN 0-7705-1516-9.


Mark Brader            "[This computation] assumed that everything
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto         would work, a happy state of affairs found
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]     only in fiction."    -- Tom Clancy

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

From: "John Slater" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Bounders!
Date: 17 May 90 14:32:08 GMT
Reply-To: "John Slater <[e-mail]>


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

>Almost all the payphones that I have tried to do this on lately have
>been modified so that the keypad is disabled once you dial 131, and
>the signal tone given as if you'd called the operator, making it
>rather difficult to use Mercury from a BT payphone. It is not possible
>to use your Mercury account from a Mercury payphone.

Yes it is, if you use a pocket touch-tone pad (you know, the kind that
drug dealers use :-) to do all the dialling (including the initial 131
- MF often works to the switch even if the phone still uses pulse).
But bear in mind that as Mercury's business expands, they bring in
more switches, and you find that use of a particular Mercury code is
getting restricted closer and closer to the place it's supposed to be
used from.  I live in south London, about 6 miles from the centre. I
used to be able to use my Mercury account from anywhere in the west
end, but not anymore.

>Payphones in pubs, restaurants and other off-street locations can
>still be used in this way, but the number seems to be dwindling.

This is indeed true - but I haven't noticed the dwindling!

>The {London Evening Standard} reported recently that BT have withdrawn
>their tone generating keypads from sale because of a loophole that
>allowed people to use them to make free calls from coinboxes. I don't
>know what this loophole was, but the Standard reported it as simply
>having to press two digits.

This was hilarious! One report claimed BT have already lost 15,000,000
pounds through this bug. Apparently it's a special test code for
engineers to disable the requirement for coins to be inserted before
dialling.  BT are now running round the country to all 80,000
payphones patching the software in the phones (apparently they can't
do this from the switch).  I believe they previously had to visit all
the phones to disable 131 as well - maybe this was when the bug crept
in?

I think the two-digit thing was a red herring. I heard it was five
digits - this was from an ex-BT employee, but he said he "couldn't
remember" the digits!

This was a great story. It's good to see giants tremble ...


John

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 18:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Price Salsman <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T NAVSTAR/GPS News Excerpts


 From _Data_Communications_ (ISSN 0363-6399) vol. 19, no. 6, May 1990, page 56
(c) 1990 McGraw-Hill Inc


DOD DITHERS DIGITAL DATA

Telephone network synchronization is an unlikely topic for heated
controversey, but that is what the U.S. Department of Defense has
provoked by tampering with the Navstar Global Positioning Satellite
(GPS) system that AT&T plans to use as a network clock.

GPS is a group of 13 satellites now in operation and 27 more to be
launched by 1994 [I believe this is in error, as there are to be 27
total satellites in the constellation --jps], each of which produces
and encrypted P code that the military uses to guide missles, and
another signal, called the Clear/Acquisition signal, that has been
available for commercial uses like surveying and timing communications
networks.

But the DoD has decided that even the C/A signal is too accurate to be
generally available, so it has begun a practice it calls "selective
availability."  That delicious piece of bureaucratese means that the
DoD will introduce random noise on the C/A signal, known in some
circles as "dithering," to make it dificult or even impossible to use.

Meanwhile, some commercial equiptment manufacturers and users, such as
land surveyors, are already relying on the signal and now are angry
that the DoD is changing the rules.  "There is a big controversey
about why the government is doing this," says Jim Jespersen, a staff
member of the time and frequency division of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (Boulder, Colo.), "especially since the
threat from the Russians is not so severe."  [The "Russians" have a
very accurate GPS system of their own, called GLONASS, so someone is
confused here... --jps]

GPS is run by the U.S. Air Force Systems Command's Space Division in
Los Angeles.  The officer in charge of the project, Col. Marty Runkle
of the Joint Program Office, could not be reached for comment.

As for AT&T, George Zampetti, a Bell Laboratories scientist who is in
charge of developing AT&T's synchronization scheme, says that the
company plans to use the C/A signal even if it is ditthered.

Zampetti and John Abate, another Bell Labs scientist, say AT&T will
use 3B2 computers to filter out the noise to get close to the true
signal.  Filtering will slow down but not eliminate the use of GPS,
Abate says.

"We could go a month and still maintain" on error in 100 billion
events, Zampetti says.

The key to the system is Rubidium clocks that actually pass timing to
AT&T's switches and transmission network.  Those Rubidium clocks can
maintain network timing to meet requirements of ANSI and CCITT
standards, Zampetti says.  AT&T would use GPS to calibrate and monitor
the rubidium clocks.  -John T. Mulqueen

[The main article (of which that was a sidebar) talks about MCI and
Sprint's use of Loran, atomic clocks, and describes GPS.  The ANSI
standard in question is T1.101, by committee T1X1.3, which describes
syncronization for high-bandwidth long-haul digital transmission.
--jps]

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 07:08:43 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  17-May-1990 0933" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 809 Routing and Directory Assistance

>As far as 809 Directory Assistance goes, wasn't there a posting some
>time back that AT&T has set up something of a service which allows 1
>809 555.1212 to go to an AT&T operator who asks for the island or
>region, then transfers over to the appropriate operator for the island
>requested?

Since the very early days of DDD, 809 DA was handled from a cord board
first in downtown Jacksonville and then in Jacksonville Beach.  Today,
calls go to a TSPS operator in Jacksonville.  These operators have
always asked you for the destination and have then extended the call
to local directory assistance.

Canada has never had access to this service.  Canadians must dial
their "0" operator and ask for the desired island.

>What's the toll center for 809

Just like 212 and most area codes, 809 has several toll centers.  And
just like any other area code with several toll centers, each local
toll center does six-digit translation of the number to determine
which toll center to route traffic to.  If there's enough traffic
volume, the originating toll center may have direct trunks to, say,
Puerto Rico, but send traffic to all other parts of 809 to
Jacksonville.  Recently some 809 traffic has been moved into the large
international gateway in Atlanta.

 From Canada, all 809 traffic is handled via Montreal, though local
toll centers check the validity of the six-digit code before passing
the call.

>does anyone know when Trinidad and Tobago go off on their own country code
>(296) and get out of the NANP?

There are no plans to actually use 296.  Trinidad and Tobago merely
applied for the country code to be sure they could have one, but
intend to stay in the North American Integrated Numbering Plan Area.
There are certain very significant economic advantages to having a
number that looks like all the rest of the North American numbers.
They may reconsider their plans to stay in 809 if 809 splits or if
they run out of local numbers.


/john

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

Subject: Metallic Interoffice Circuits and  Audible Outpulsing
Date: Thu, 17 May 90 10:01:27 MESZ
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>

One of the places I hear this ALL THE TIME, is in India.  You can here
it even when dialing in internationally.  My wife's parents live in
Dehra Dun, India, which is served via a terrestrial microwave link
from the south to New Dehli, (it may attach to other towns as well
along the way).  Their central office is crossbar.  Dehra Dun is one
of the towns you can dial directly from overseas (most small towns
can't be accessed directly in India, but all the best private schools
in India are in Dehra Dun, so they have STD service).  After dialing,
and getting a satellite circuit to Dehli (usually noisy), you can hear
20pps outpulsing of the STD code for Dehra Dun (135) and then your
number (5 digits in my case).  Then after a 10 to 30 seconds delay,
either ringing or nothing.  I believe the explanation about metallic
circuits allowing this, perhaps the office with the microwave network
is so connected to the satellite terminal.  Amusingly, you don't
usually hear this when dialing a number in Dehli.

Another amusing thing about calling India is that call supervision is
sometimes not returned (you seem to always have an audio path during
dialing, the ringing you hear comes from the DehraDun switch in my
case), so that after your called party picks up, you can often talk
for several minutes for free! (this happens about 20% of the time
actually, and on some days 100%).  In the case, the local phone system
eventually times out and drops the connection, (usually after about 2
-3 minutes).

And here's a hazard to DDD you probably haven't thought of.  My
mother-in-law had the ability to make direct trunk calls (called STD
in India) from her phone, but had to have it disabled (which can be
done on a per-line basis there, they raise your basic rate if you have
STD capability), because of all the fradulently billed calls on her
bill.  Seems it's common practice for craftspeople to dial their
friends and stuff the extra charges onto some random STD customer's
bill.  Since call detail is NOT provided, just # of minutes to each
destination, it's real hard to fight this.

                                        -jcp-

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


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #358
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06680;
          18 May 90 12:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26457;
          18 May 90 0:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00958;
          17 May 90 23:08 CDT
Date:     Thu, 17 May 90 23:05:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #359
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 May 90 23:05:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 359

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T USA-Direct [Bill Nickless]
    Won't Break Dialtone (was Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone) [B. Kantor]
    Trunk Interface Development System (was: T1 Boards/Platforms) [B. Clements]
    Information Needed: Virtual Modem Pool? [Myranda A. Johnson]
    Telco Billing Brings Surprises [Mark Earle]
    Questions About ISDN [Dave McCracken]
    Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount [Curtis Reid]
    Automatic "Collect" [John Higdon]
    Hotel Phone Charges [Jim Gottlieb]
    ATT: "Software Defined Network" [Steve Elias]
    The So-Called Long-Distance Add-on [John R. Covert]
    SW Bell Voice Activated Phone? [Steve Wolfson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 09:43:48 CDT
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T USA-Direct


In TELECOM Digest Volume 10 Issue 351 Carol Springs wrote of her
experience with an AT&T Calling Card representative.  She expressed
concern that although she had a BOC calling card, and the AT&T calling
card she was ordering would probably have the same numbers on it, she
would be unable to use the BOC calling card with the USA-DIRECT
service from AT&T.

She is right.  Last summer I was in the United Kingdom and tried to
use my Michigan Bell calling card number to reach back to my home in
Michigan.  (I was even calling the same number as the card was issued
for.)

AT&T didn't accept the card as valid.

Moral: If you're going to use USA-DIRECT, get a real-live AT&T calling
card.  Maybe even the Universal Card (?).


detour mail to [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Won't Break Dialtone (was Re: Pricing vrs. Cost of Touch-tone)
Date: 16 May 90 15:20:01 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


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

>> A TT phone wouldn't break dial tone.

If you have a TouchTone phone that generates tones, but won't break
dialtone, it might be caused by these defects: 1) low level,
2) distorted tones, 3) off-frequency tones.

Check to see if your dial will produce a single tone when two buttons
in a single column or row are pressed.  If so, you can listen to them;
they should be of equal volume and sound pure.  Take another phone
off-hook on the same line, break dialtone with it, and then push the
buttons on the suspect phone whilst listening on the second phone.  If
they sound LOUD and pure, 1 and 2 are probably not the problem.

To check the frequency of the tones when the phone can't dial well
enough to break the dialtone, use the column/row pure tone trick on
BOTH phones simultaneously and listen to the beat note between them.
It should be real slow - if you can hear a fast beat or there's a
notable difference in the pitches you hear between the two phones,
it's a frequency problem.

The older TouchTone dials used ferrite cup-cores with a tuning slug to
generate the tones; if dropped or shocked hard enough, the cores might
crack, or the glue holding the two parts might come unstuck, or the
tuning slug might move.  Sometimes that's repairable.  But with old
dials going for $1 or $2 in the electro-junk stores, it might not be
worth messing with it much - just change the dial.


    - Brian

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

Subject: Trunk Interface Development System (was: T1 Boards/ Platforms)
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 11:50:29 -0400
From: [e-mail]


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

>I am looking for a platform for some experiments in T1 restoration.

>Mail direct and I'll summarize if interest warrants.

I have the same sort of question, but for analog trunk interfaces.
Who are vendors for such things, and/or what are the right trade rags
to browse to find such vendors?

What I need is a card that has (in the optimum case):

    one to four interfaces to E&M PBX trunks (to connect to
        a plain vanilla analog SX-200 PBX, for example),

    Does A/D conversion (codec), preferably ADPCM or something
    better than 64KBPS,

    Generates/reads DTMF and call progress signals,

    Does call setup/teardown,

    Plugs into a standard bus for control/data  (Multibus, PC/AT,
    VME or whatever).

I understand this stuff in the abstract, but now I need to get some
real hardware and I don't know who to call.

Thanks for any advice,  I'll post a summary too if I get any good info.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: "23457-Myranda A Johnson(4482" <nvuxh![e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed: Virtual Modem Pool?
Date: 16 May 90 19:35:27 GMT


A friend of mine is looking for information to help him on his job.
The problem seems to be there are many callers (voice and modem) to
the system he is working on.  From my understanding, he works on a
hotline system servicing customers of their products to help solve
problems.  In order to service a customer, the hotline attendant
accesses the system through the local computer at their site.

He wants information on a product that will serve as a virtual circuit
so that the many calls that arrive are queued with some time limit on
how long they can be in the queue.  The expected number of calls is
1000 or more simultaneously (something like a virtual modem pool or
automatic call distributor.)

Does any one have any information about some type of machine or device
(or know where he can obtain info) that can meet his needs?

Thanks!

Myranda Johnson
 ...!bellcore!nvuxh!maj5

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 90 19:52:07 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco Billing Brings Surprises


This month, I received a few surprises in my phone bill from
Southwestern Bell Telephone company, serving me in Corpus Christi,
TX, 512-855-xxxx.

First, was a page, (page 7, not an 'insert' or anything, same header
as the rest of the bill).

   Additional Line
    1 minute quiz

Do you value convenience and peace of mind?
Do you have children between the ages of 11 and 19?
Do you have a roomate?
Are you an adult whose parents live with you?
Do you have a home computer?
---------------------------------<<< Emphasis mine!
Do you have adult children living at home?
Does anyone in your household work "after hours" at home?

If you answered yes to one or more questions, consider a second
telephone line. It could make your home a more convenient place to
live. To order, or for more information, call your SWB service
representative.

 =====end of advertising text=====

Well, I called. Specifically, I asked if the computer and person
working at home, would still qualify that second line as a residence
rate. They emphatically said yes.  Further, if you wish, you may have
the second number listed in either the white business OR residential
pages. ONLY if you wish to have a yellow-pages listing are you to be
billed at the business rate (note, there will be a yp listing, in the
appropriate category of business; but you are still billed residence,
UNLESS you wish to have a YP addvertisement of multiple-category
listing.

This seems somewhat of a reversal. I also asked "what if I wish to
have my computer answer my second phone, for other computer users to
call and leave me messages?"  Again, "no problem" still residence
rate.

Interesting.

I didn't have the nerve to ask about paying computer users :-)
(I don't charge at all for my bbs).

I got a further surprise in this month's billing:

Page 8 had the MCI [------- line out of the M logo, and billed me
$1.95 for a one minute collect call. For a call (to me at area code
512) from area code 316, Garden City, KS.

I remember sleepily answering and accepting this call, even though it
turned out to be a wrong number. (Fourteen hour days do that to ya!)

My problems are:

On this line, ITT/Metromedia (LDS) is my default 1+ carrier. How does
MCI enter into this?

1.95 for one minute?!!!!!!! This was at 9:23 pm local time on April 16.
(Monday evening local time).

The number listed for MCI Communications billing inquiries is
1-951-7009, a free call. This is the SAME number listed elsewhere in
the bill for problems with AT&T AND SWB billing questions.

I guess I'm liable, since I *did* accept it. But, what a rate! I do
intend to inquire about how MCI ended up billing me. I would have
thought that MY choice of LD carrier would "win". At this point, I
suspect the calling person had MCI as their default.

I'll let y'all know if I turn up anything further.


 | [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   |


[Moderator's Note: Admittedly, $1.95 for one minute seems like a
strange price, but remember, the call was handled by MCI, the company
which saves you money on your long distance bill.  I'm sitting here
trying to keep a straight face and not smirk as I type this.  PT]

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

Subject: Questions About ISDN
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 15:39:43 CDT
From: [e-mail]


I have recently been hearing about ISDN from various places and began
reading comp.dcom.telecom on Usenet.  I am now very interested in
finding out more about it, both for my own use and for the good of
Dell Computer.  I thought you might be able to point me in the right
direction to answer my questions.

How do I get a copy of the standard, and is it complete or just in
draft form?  Is there hardware currently available in the form of
PC-AT network boards?  voice phones?  Has anyone written a driver to
run TCP/IP over ISDN?  for SV streams?  How do I set up my house with
both a PC with a board and one or more regular phones?  Can I use
standard phones with a converter downstream or do I have to replace
all my phones?  What wiring do I need going into my house to support
this?

Thanks for any answers or pointers you might be able to provide.


Dave McCracken      [e-mail]      [phone]
Dell Computer       9505 Arboretum Blvd    Austin, TX 78759-7299

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 09:48 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount


I heard a disturbing news that AT&T may consider removing the TDD Long
Distance Toll Call discounts when AT&T does its own billing.  The
rationale for this is that no other services like MCI or Sprint offer
this discount so why should AT&T.

AT&T has a strong loyal base of handicapped and disabled customers.
If something like this discount goes away, I'm sure that other
services for handicapped customers will also go away, too.

I can't get any information from AT&T so I do not know what's the real
scoop but I would be very disappointed that I can't rely on AT&T
anymore.  I chose AT&T over other carriers because of their
attentiveness and responsiveness to hearing-impaired and handicapped
customers.

Can any TELECOM readers comment on this?  AT&T, don't consider removing TDD
discounts!!

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

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

Subject: Automatic "Collect"
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 17 May 90 02:34:17 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


I just returned from a three-day trip to probably the most rural area
in California short of Death Valley: the very northern/central part of
the state near the Oregon border. There were some interesting
telephone-related thing there, but for openers here is something you
might find in your own town.

In Yreka, there were two COCOTs that have the automatic "collect"
function discussed a while back in this group. It is completely
contained in the phone. When you place the call, you are asked to say
your name which is recorded in the instrument. The unit then dials the
call, announces a collect call to the recipient using your recorded
name as the call originator. The recipient is then asked to press "1"
if they accept, or "0" if they refuse. If they do nothing, the
request, including your name, is repeated.

Now here is the shocker. If they still do nothing (as might happen if
they have a rotary phone or simply hang up), the call goes through!
This means that if the hapless recipient has a rotary phone, he/she
may find some outrageous AOS charge on the bill from someone they
don't even know.

BTW, if you are wondering who the test victim was... The IBT Chicago
Newsline is going to be surprised to get a collect call from Yreka!
And please, no flames about how the poor AOS or COCOT operator blah,
blah, blah. This nonsense (automated collect call placing that doesn't
work right) cannot be taken seriously, except as something to be
reported to a bunch of people at regulatory agencies who couldn't care
less.

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

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel Phone Charges
Date: 17 May 90 10:04:46 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


In a hotel in California recently, the following was posted in the
room (approximate text from memory):

    "In accordance with Assembly Bill 689, we are informing you of
    charges for telephone calls made from your room.  The cost of
    the calls is based on AT&T rates plus mark-up and the duration
    of the calls, but not less than $0.95 per call."

I don't know if they were complying with the letter of the law in
Assembly Bill 689, but they were sure avoiding the intent.  They might
as well have said, "We'll charge you whatever we feel like charging
you and we're not going to tell you how much."  What the hell does
"AT&T rates plus mark-up" mean?  How much mark-up?

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: ATT: "Software Defined Network"
Date: Thu, 17 May 90 09:59:50 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


My new ATT card is quite nifty in that it does not list the entire PIN
on the card.  But I'm wondering about "Software Defined Network"...
Has ATT just figured out how to use software to configure their
network?  Why are they boasting about something which is old news?

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 07:16:36 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  17-May-1990 1012" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The So-Called Long-Distance Add-on


Alex Pournelle recently asked a question asked and answered a few
hundred times in TELECOM Digest: "Can I order a local only line and
not pay the long-distance add-on."

There is _no_ long-distance add-on.  The only relationship that the
access charge has to long distance is that it replaces the subsidy
that AT&T used to pay local phone companies out of the old, higher,
long distance rates.

Long distance companies no longer subsidize local service, as in the
past.  Rather than force the local telcos to go through rate hearings
in each state to replace the revenue formerly obtained by artificially
high long distance rates, the FCC mandated a specific amount to be
charged as a part of local service.


/john

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

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: SW Bell Voice Activated Phone?
Date: 17 May 90 16:44:04 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I recently saw an ad for a Southwestern Bell Phone that activates its
memory #'s via voice recognition.  Any comments on how good this phone
really works?  The fact the it is being sold through DAMARK (closeout
specialists) may already indicate this phone didn't do so well in the
market.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #359
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06901;
          18 May 90 13:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15230;
          18 May 90 2:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28013;
          18 May 90 1:12 CDT
Date:     Fri, 18 May 90 0:21:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #360
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 May 90 00:20:39 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 360

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [F. E. Carey]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing? [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing? [Marvin Jones]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rabinovitch Isaac <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Date: 17 May 90 18:46:10 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


[e-mail] (Daniel Jacobson) writes:

>Say I live in areacode 708 (Suburban Chicago).  I program up my phone
>with lots of Chicago numbers (1-312-XXX-XXXX).  One day me and phone
>go and spend the week at uncle Billy's in Chicago.  Now I got to
>reprogram my phone to edit out all those 1-312 areacodes if I want the
>phone to work there [or else listen to the helpful recording].  Isn't
>that dumb?

The dumb one is the phone (or dialing software, which I use).  It
should allow you to enter a "local" area code and automatically delete
them from local calls.  Silly, in an age where portability (as in
laptops with built-in modems) is all the rage.

It's *really* frustrating when software designers neglect to think
through issues like this.  For example, which should a terminal
emulating program do when it the modem gives a "VOICE" return code?
Obviously, it should stop and demand correction from the nearest
carbon-based unit.  But not only do none of them provide this feature,
but many are factory-configured to treat "VOICE" the same as "BUSY" --
which usually implies redialling the number!  Hopefully, that hasn't
yet led to violence....

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

Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
From: ihlpa![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 17 May 90 16:36:00 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Are you saying eleven digit dialing should be
> mandatory throughout 312/708, even for the folks who make all/most of
> their calls on one side or the other, or are you saying eleven digit
> dialing intra-areacode should be optional, with telco absorbing the
> first four digits (1-312 or 1-708) when they are not needed?  PT]

The latter.  I don't care how they are absorbed.  The only change from
the current North American system I want is so 1-XXX-YYY-YYYY no
longer would fail just because you happen to be in areacode XXX.

Imagine in the year 2020, you, the CEO of BigCo, Inc., are passing
(unaware) thru Pittsburgh PA on the Lubra-Tube(tm) intracontinental
transit system of the future.  "Dammit Jenkins, the phone failed
again...  Hmm... Chen is in Pittsburgh, and we are in [you glance at
your skymap] ...Pittsburgh... {snarl, growl} ...if only those TELECOM
Digest folks' idea back in 19... 90[!] was adopted..."


[e-mail]  Naperville IL USA  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Well, you know some cellular companies already
allow this. Ameritech Mobile has optional *ten* digit dialing (no
leading '1' required) everywhere, including within the same area code.
Where a local prefix matches an area code elsewhere, (i.e. my
cellphone number is 312-415-xxxx) then the leading '1' is required.
If we ever go to mandatory eleven digit dialing, then we can actually
get by with ten digits, since the first three would always be presumed
to be an area code, and the leading '1' would be assumed in every
case. Oddly enough here, we can even dial cellular-to-cellular
inter-area (312/708) with *seven* digits. Apparently no prefix
duplication yet, where cellular is concerned.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 13:25:52 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


I think he meant the latter.  I agree with him, and I would like to
see "Syntax U" (as a previous telecom reader has dubbed it, the "U"
denoting "Universal") available throughout the whole NANP, not just in
(say) the Chicago area.  I expect that plenty of other people will
start sharing this sentiment in the next few years, as cellular phones
(and portable computers with modems) become ever more widespread, and
as area codes become geographically smaller.

People will resent the fact that their pre-programmed numbers will
suddenly become unusable just because they crossed a geographic
boundary.  I already find it annoying to receive a "We're sorry, it is
not necessary to dial the area code..." message -- if the telco is
smart enough to figure that out for me, why can't it be smart enough
to put me through to the desired number?


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

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 16:32:45 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


[Description of security holes in phone systems and past employees
request for help in how/if do tell them deleted.]

I guess I fall between the two positions most widely espoused.  I
think that the former employee should tell the employer that serious
security flaws exist, but (s)he *should not* explain what they are in
any detail. Rather, (s)he should offer to explain them to a
responsible party if asked to.

My concern is that 1) if (s)he says nothing, (s)he could later be held
negligent in his/her duties and liable for damage caused by the
security holes, and 2) if (s)he say too much, (s)he could be teaching
more people how to break security at that phone company, and again be
liable.

Note: I am not an attorney, I just get paranoid.


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

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 08:59:00 EDT
From: F E Carey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>My tenure at the (deleted) Telephone Company has abrubtly ended. I had
>been wandering around the company's Xenix system while I was at work,
>and they didn't like it. (As a disclaimer, I didn't do any damage,
>wasn't stealing proprietary info, etc.) I was doing it out of sheer
>boredom.

>I feel the need to let them know about the gaping (and I mean gaping)
>computer and physical security holes they have, but I'm not sure about
>the best way to approach it (or even if I should).

If the "(deleted)" Telephone Company is one of the Bell Regional
Operating Companies (i.e. formerly Bell System) I'd suggest reporting
your concerns to two places - the security management of the phone
company and to Bellcore.  Bellcore provides R&D and tech support to
the regional companies.  I can get you a name and phone number at
Bellcore and probably for most operating companies.

If the "deleted" phone company is AT&T I'd suggest you report your
concern to AT&T Corporate Security.  Again, I'll get you a name and
phone number over there, too, or if you want to supply your info
directly to me I'll see that it gets to the proper person.

Call or e-mail for more specifics or if you want to chat.


Frank Carey
Corporate Computer Security Manager
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Whippany, N. J.
201/386-2618
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Date: 18 May 90 00:12:21 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]> (Someone-Someplace) writes:

> My tenure at the (deleted) Telephone Company has abrubtly ended. I had
> been wandering around the company's Xenix system while I was at work,
> and they didn't like it. (As a disclaimer, I didn't do any damage,
> wasn't stealing proprietary info, etc.) I was doing it out of sheer
> boredom.

    While I am certain that there are Telecom Digest readers who
will disagree with my opinion, I have absolutely *no* sympathy for your
predicament.

    Would you walk into various offices and start looking through
unlocked desk drawers and filing cabinets to relieve your "boredom"?
I suspect not.  However, why is it that people without a justifiable
*need* think it is "okay" to "wander about" a computer system?  This
is really tantamount to the same act as rifling desks and filing
cabinets, but without the same risk of detection.

> I feel the need to let them know about the gaping (and I mean gaping)
> computer and physical security holes they have, but I'm not sure about
> the best way to approach it (or even if I should).

    I suspect your "need" is born of the guilt of trespass.  In my
travels I have found that most people who *volunteer* information
about security flaws in a manner which is not part of their regular
job responsibilities are usually trying to hide something and I tend
to be suspicious of their motives.  Since you have not claimed to have
held a system administrator function or management position, pointing
out security flaws is not really your job responsibility.  Security
issues are a *sensitive* topic, and right or wrong, management does
not usually appreciate unsolicited advice on this topic.

> How do you think I should approach it?
> [Moderator's Note: Well readers, what do *you* suggest? Post your
> comments here, this person will see them. My suggestion was to simply
> walk away and ignore it. The company would have to prove who was
> responsible for any vandalism or hacking, etc.    PT]

    I fully agree with the Moderator.  Extending to you the
benefit of the doubt that your motives are genuinely pristine and
altruistic, this is NOT YOUR PROBLEM, and YOU WILL GET NO REWARD for
disclosing this information to management.  More likely than not,
should you do elect to disclose the information, your action in doing
so will make you a suspect for *something*.

    I would suggest that you chalk this up as one of life's many
"lessons", get on with your career, and try not to get in the same
situation a second time.


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: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Mon May 14 10:01:56 1990
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Numbers
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> Tom Ace writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 347, Message 9 of 10

>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;

Didn't you read my article on our old 800-727-3000 number?  I suggest
you reconsider.  And be sure ask if the number was assigned to a
business before it was assigned to you.  There are a few business that
changes numbers once is a while to escape creditors ... and heaven
help you if it was a fax or modem line before you got it.

I suggest you get a number associated with a simple, nondescript
word ... like 555-FONE or something ... how 'bout 555-UNIX...

(I knew the outfit that had the number 800-F*CKYOU at one time.  Boy,
did they get some weird calls.)

Some telephone operators still think that 00xx and 99xx numbers are
pay-phones, too. This was a common telco assignment practice in the
60's and 70's.


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: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers
Date: 17 May 90 18:58:50 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> Speaking of easy phone numbers, just exactly how do you get them?
> What does your phone company do?

For most of the last ten years Bell of PA simply gave you whatever you
wanted if they could.  Within the last year I added a line and asked
for the next number in sequence with my other lines.  That was going
to cost me $25 (one time charge, I think).  I told them to forget it
and they grabbed some other random number.


Craig R. Watkins        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:        CRW%HRB@PSUECL

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 16:54:11 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glynne
Tolar) writes:

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

>Speaking of easy phone numbers, just exactly how do you get them?

In San Francisco, PacBell will let you specify any number that is
unused from any exchange in your area, for $5 setup and $1.50/month.
That's how I got my number.  I gave the phone co. a list of literally
50 numbers, and they found that my *45th* choice was available.  Note
that for free, they give you a choice of three numbers that they
supply.

In Rochester, NY, RochTel would not even listen to you ask for a
number, saying that under no circumstances were they allowed to let a
residence customer pick his number.  They may let business customers
pick numbers.

BTW, A friend of mine got the number 221-2212, and later changed it
since he averaged more than one "wrong number" per day (usually some
three-year old playing with the phone).


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

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

Date: Thu 17 May 90 09:39:19-PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing?


A simple and cheap way to add "visual aid" to a telephone is to use a
neon-type lamp, like the ones in night-lights. You see these used as
message lights in hotel phones. It's not bright but it works if you
can see the phone. You can get these frobs at Radio Shack for probably
less than a dollar. Simply connect it accross the phone line. The
resistance is huge, the current draw extremely low, it's magic.


Ole

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

From: Marvin Jones <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing?
Date: 17 May 90 18:07:49 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Peter J. Dotzauer) writes:

> Is there a device that can be connected to a telephone or a telephone
> line that causes a light bulb to blink, whenever the telephone rings?

> [Moderator's Note: Radio Shack has various devices like this, as do
> most telephone supply catalogs, and phone center stores.  PT]

What everyone here in "cubicle-land" does is to purchase a neon panel
lamp assembly (as used for AC power "on" indicators on projects) and
wire it in parallel with the phone.  At normal 48 volts, the lamp is
inactive. But the 90 volt ringing is enough to trigger the neon bulb.
Pretty straightforward.

This is so popular in cubicle offices because everyone's phones sound
the same!  Arrggh!  This way, you can look across the room and see if
your little light is flashing, and can then do a directed call
pick-up.

=== Marvin Jones === Optilink Corp. === Petaluma, CA === 707.795.9444 X206 ===
=== UUCP: {uunet, tekbspa, pyramid, pixar}!optilink!jones ====================
=== CIS: 71320,3637 or [e-mail] === AOL: mjones

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #360
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06975;
          18 May 90 13:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25494;
          18 May 90 3:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15230;
          18 May 90 2:16 CDT
Date:     Fri, 18 May 90 1:20:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #361
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 May 90 01:20:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 361

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Use of US Phone in India [Subodh Bapat]
    Re: Online CCITT Standards [John R. Covert]
    Re: Phone Conferences [Tom Lowe]
    Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code" [Dave Levenson]
    Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [John Higdon]
    New Sprint Promotion [Steve Baumgarten]
    Telebit vs. Sprint [John R. Levine]
    The Ultimate T-T Voice-Response System [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought
Date: 18 May 90 04:06:44 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> In addition to the useful suggestions that Julian Macassey made in his
> followup posting, it has been mentioned here previously (and I have
> observed firsthand) that if you have multiple phone lines on a multi
> pair cable, and you use one line for fax or modem, you will probably
> be able to hear it faintly when you use another line for voice at the
> same time.  If you think this might bother you at all (it did me),
> then run separate cables.  Perhaps two two-pair cables to each room, or
> more.  Multiple modem/fax lines don't *seem* to interfere with each
> other, but with higher data rate devices (e.g. 19200 bps or even ISDN)
> this might become a problem.

> Make sure the pairs are twisted!  This definitely will improve the
> crosstalk and noise problems.  You may have to peel back the jacket to
> verify that the pairs are twisted.

    I just couldn't let this pass. If you have twisted pair cable,
you can run anything down it. Consider this. Having a 9600 baud modem,
a FAX and a regular POTS phone run down some 3 pair wiring in your
house for say 150 feet max. This should work fine, it does for people
all the time. If you get cross talk from doing that I suggest you are
not using twisted pair but quad. I said don't use quad. If 150 feet of
twisted pair in the same sheath causes crosstalk, how the hell does it
not cause crosstalk for the next 16,000 feet while it goes in a cable
with hundreds more pairs to the Central Office?

    So use twisted pair, not quad. Quad may cause crosstalk and
noise.  How do you tell the difference? Quad is usually RED, GREEN,
YELLOW and BLACK wire. It is not twisted, it is the usual wire
installed in houses. Twisted pair usually uses the standard Telco
color code, white/blue, white/orange/ white/green. It is usually 3
pair minimum, yes I have seen two pair, it is very rare.

    Yes, I do know something about this and yes only yesterday I
was running four wire 9600 baud data and Broadcast telephone call in
audio down the same 25 pair cable. You can be sure I really checked
those. I really checked for noise, I even had the phone line through a
PA amp feeding a speaker. No modem noise. Those wires ran together
down a 25 pair for 150 feet, then into the telco closet where they
went into a monster 300 pair cable and half a mile to the CO. Yes, I
do have noise problems with the CO, they are working on it. But the
cable to the CO is good.


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

> A builder I trust says that he always pulls two quad phone cables.  He
> says that running two lines on one quad or 6-wire cable leads to cross
> talk.  This is something you might want to consider ...

    Please ask the builder to use twisted pair. If quad beat cross
talk it would be used by telephone people for that purpose as well as
builders. The phone company brings its wires to your builders
construction sites via twisted pair.


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

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 16:45:01 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


Actually, I would suggest using Belden *shielded* twisted pair,
many-pair.  Although you'll get different color codes, you won't have
problems with cross talk, and you can even use the wire to hook up
intercoms, remote stereos, whatever.  The Belden "Beld-foil" gives
excellent shielding yet is easy to work with and not too expensive.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain
Date: 18 May 90 00:30:06 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 354, Message 11 of 11

>In the US, a standard gong
>ringer is assigned a "Ringer Equivalence Number" of 1. A standard
>phone line will ring 5 of these ringers or an REN of 5. Some
>electronic ringers have RENs of 0.5 etc so you can usually get more of
>these on the line than gongs.

What is the conversion factor between RENs and somthing your average
EE can understand, like "milliamps at 90vrms, 20Hz?"

I've been thinking about how to build a ring generator for some
homebrew-PBX experiments, and would like to know how much current I
need to put out per phone.


Steve Tell  [e-mail]    CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Use of US Phone in India
Date: Wed, 16 May 90 9:43:03 EDT


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

>     Will a cheapy speakerphone which draws its amps from the
>   phone line work in India?

Yes, the current ratings are generallly the same, although you will
need one of those adapters to convert the RJ11 jack to the two-pin
twisted pair outlets common in India. If your speakerphone has
higher-than- normal power requirements in the US, however, its
behavior elsewhere may be unpredictable.

> Does India use the same pulse/tones that we do?

Pulse yes, tone no.


Subodh Bapat         novavax!rm1![e-mail]     OR      [e-mail]
MS E-204, P.O.Box 407044, Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340  [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 06:31:10 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  17-May-1990 0931" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Online CCITT Standards


>are there absolutely NO FTPable CCITT standards?

Of course not.  CCITT, ECMA, ISO, ANSI, BSI, DIN, ... standards are
copyrighted and sold at a price high enough to help pay the
administrative costs of the standard organizations staff.


/john

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

Subject: Re: Phone Conferences
Date: 17 May 90 09:07:17 EDT (Thu)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


AT&T has a conference service called Alliance Teleconferencing.  It
isn't a talkline in the sense that you call in and talk to several
other random callers.  It is designed for small to large conference
calls (Up to fifty or more locations can be handled at once).  They
have several ways to do it ... one is on demand..i.e. you call their
number and a speech response system talks you through setting up the
conference.

If you have a large conference, you can reserve however many ports you
are going to need so that you are guaranteed to have them available at
the time you want.  Or you can reserve a a 'Meet Me' conference where
you give all the people you want in the conference a special phone
number to dial at a specific time.  They call that number and are
automatically added to the conference.  This can be at your expense or
theirs.  An attendant can place all the calls to the locations for you
if you like.  Also, for all types of conferences, the controller can
request an attendant for assistance at any time (I think).  I'm sure
there are other options and features that I forgot or don't know
about.

I don't know anything about prices, capacities, etc.  I just know this
stuff as a frequent user.

To access the service, call:
0-700-456-1000  (yes, that's a 0 first, and it's a 700 number)
If AT&T is NOT your default carrier, dial 10288-0-700-456-1000

For Alliance information, call 1-800-662-3499.  This is a speech
response system that will give you all sorts of information about
using it, as well as a opportunity to request a brochure.  Call It!

(These are my opinions and statements.  They are unofficial and
possibly wrong.  PLEASE CALL 1-800-662-3499 BEFORE USING ALLIANCE!!!!!)


Tom Lowe
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Hello Sweetheart, Get Me An Area Code"
Date: 17 May 90 21:46:34 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Perhaps it is impossible on the equipment in use in those CDO's, and
> perhaps the need for prefixes in area code 216 is not critical enough
> to change subscribers' telephone numbers over it, but I've noticed
> that sharing prefixes is apparently possible.  It beats me how other
> switches know where to route a call to a split prefix, since when I've
> asked how to tell before dialing where the number is served (say, by
> blocks of consecutive numbers assigned to one office or the other),
> the answer from the provider has always been a synonym of "duh".

In some cases, the local service is provided not by a CDO but by an
RSM, a Remote Switch Module, which acts like a single frame of a CO
but connected remotely.  All of the intelligence is in the host CO,
but the local battery and tone plant, and some concentration, and
originating register equipment is located near the served subscribers.
In this case, the prefix belongs to the host CO and it decides based
upon the directory number, whether the call goes to a
directly-connected subscriber or an RSM-connected subscriber.

In other cases, a tandem switch somewhere must be smart enough to
perform translation on more than the prefix, if multiple end-offices
use the same prefix.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 201 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier
Date: 17 May 90 20:44:32 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Alex Pournelle <elroy!grian![e-mail]> writes:

> Umm, do they still charge you for that "optional" "non-basic"
> long-distance tariff?  Now, is it just me, or would this kind of
> billing throw lawsuits around the magistrate's corner office in any
> other field?  Yeah, the basic rate is $9.00 or whatever per month--but
> you can't have it without the ($3 and climbing) long-distance add-on!

> Or am I wrong -- and there is a way, with enough patience and coaching
> of the P*bell 811-SUCKERS girls, to order up a "local only" line?

I swear, the biggest mistake of the decade was to include the words,
"long distance" in the MFJ-mandated surcharge name. It seems like
every other week someone refers to it as though it was some kind of
charge for some specific service (usually long distance), and that if
you could cancel this service (long distance), you could avoid the
charge.

The FCC surcharge (currently $3.00 per line) is to protect the profits
of the local telco. It is not for "equal access service". It is not so
that you can make calls outside of your LATA. It is not so that you
can receive long distance calls. It has NOTHING to do with long
distance.  You cannot avoid the charge. You must pay it. If the line
has dial tone, it has "the charge". It was NEVER optional.

This is the charge. This is the charge on your phone. Any questions?
[With apologies to Partnership for a Drug-Free America.]


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

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

Date: Thu May 17 23:12:04 1990
From: Steve Baumgarten <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: New Sprint Promotion
Organization: Davis Polk & Wardwell


Anyone see the "1 Free Month" Sprint commercials on television yet?
There was so much fine print that it wasn't exactly clear what it was
they were offering you, although there's no doubt that one month of
unlimited long distance calling for no charge is definitely not it.

(How naive do they think we are, anyway?  I mean, we're all veterans
of the fabulous WD-40 promotion, right?)

Has anyone found out any more about this promotion yet?  Maybe we
should start a Sprint promotion pool: everyone kicks in a buck and the
person who guesses the most restrictions and gotchas wins.  I'll
start:

    1. "One month" means one "average" month, meaning:
    2. you won't see any kind of refund until your third bill
           (at least).

Maybe it's really what it sounds like; I mean, they're not allowed to
lie on TV, right?

- Steve Baumgarten
  Davis Polk & Wardwell
  [e-mail]



[Moderator's Note: In fairness to Sprint, when my third bill arrived a
few days ago it had eight dollars and some change credited for one
hour of calling plus applicable tax. I now have a credit balance on my
FON card.  Regards this latest promotion, perhaps a 'free month' means
they are going to start some sort of monthly service charge or
handling charge, and respondents to the television ad, calling via a
900 number, will get the service charge waived the first month. :)   PT]

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

Subject: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 0:11:48 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


I used to think my needs were simple: I have a computer here in
Cambridge that needs to talk uucp to a friend in Santa Monica CA.  We
each have a Telebit modem.  Until recently, I was using Sprint quite
sucessfully.  I gather that Sprint has installed a bunch of new echo
suppressors which are misconfigured in a way that clobbers a Telebit,
in any event my uucp throughput in PEP mode recently dropped from 850
cps to 210.  OK, no problem, it's a competitive world, I told the
modem to dial 10222 to use MCI, but throughput is no better.  It's
still OK with AT&T, but they don't give me the multi-line volume
discounts I get from Sprint.

Can anyone suggest a way to persuade Sprint to clean up their act?  I
saw the note from the person who administers an enormous corporate
account and got instant action, but I'm just a normal little
$100/month subscriber.  Arrgh.


Regards,
John

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

Subject: The Ultimate T-T Voice-Response Message
Date: 18 May 90 00:28:09 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>

    As an amusing commentary on the increasing use of voice response
systems with touch-tone entry, imagine the following auto-attendant
message:

    "Thank you for calling Nine One One.  If you are calling from a
touch-tone telephone and your house is on fire please press 1 now.  If
you require an ambulance press 2.  If your house is being burglarized
press 3 ..."

    :-)

    Credit for the above actually belongs to a reader of the
newsgroup misc.emerg-services; I am ashamed to admit that I
inadvertently deleted the file containing the original author's name.


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 #361
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13430;
          19 May 90 3:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12023;
          19 May 90 1:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07063;
          19 May 90 0:22 CDT
Date:     Fri, 18 May 90 23:26:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #362
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 May 90 23:26:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 362

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Long Distance Calls at Local Rate in Denmark [Per G|tterup]
    AT&T's Software Defined Network [John R. Covert]
    Request for Info on AT&T's SDN [John Koontz]
    Non-Cellular Mobile Phones [Will Martin]
    Banks Charge Universal Card Violates Laws [Steve Baumgarten]
    Deep Discounts on LD Calls [TELECOM Moderator]
    Administrivia: Lost Messages [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Per G|tterup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Calls at Local Rate in Denmark
Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 08:42:46 GMT


Until recently when the Danish telcos expanded the areacodes from
01-09 to real two-digit numbers, you could make a long distance call
at the rate of a local call by simply dialing your own areacode first
before you dialed the recipient's number (including his/her real
areacode).

Example: Being in area 01 (Copenhagen) and wanting to dial someone in
Aarhus (areacode 06) you simply dialed 01-06 XX XX XX (local six digit
number).

It worked everywhere, even from all kinds of payphones etc. and was
only disabled when the areacode change came (Jan 2, 1990), and then
probably only because they had to make drastic changes at the
exchanges. It had been pos- sible for a very long time (10-15 years or
more?) and it survived the half- way change of making the (old)
areacode mandatory even on local calls.

It also worked on international calls (I'm told) and they're (were)
usually very expensive, something like $2-$5 per minute! - It has
become somewhat cheaper now - A call to USA would then have been at a
rate of $2.35 per minute, now it's only $1.45 per minute ... (all day
and night).

I wonder just how much revenue was lost due to this little trick,
because everybody knew about it, maybe just except the people at the
telcos!

This could also be the reason why calls and subscription are more than
twice as expensive as the rest of Europe or US!

Note: Even though the instructions on the payphones say: Pick up the
handset, insert coins, dial - You didn't have to insert anything until
the call went through (the recipients phone started ringing).


Hi from Per, an eager reader in Denmark (soon moving to US)

| Per Gotterup                        | "The most mercifull thing in the   |
| Student, DIKU (Inst. of Comp. Sci.) | world, I think, is the inability   |
| University of Copenhagen, Denmark   | of the human mind to correlate all |
| Internet: [e-mail]    | its contents."  - H.P. Lovecraft - |

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 05:45:45 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  18-May-1990 0847" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T's Software Defined Network


>But I'm wondering about "Software Defined Network"...  Has ATT just
>figured out how to use software to configure their network?  Why are
>they boasting about something which is old news?

What they're boasting about is using software to define _your_ private
network.  This is a new offering.

Many companies have private networks where offices all over the world
are accessible on a seven digit basis using an internal numbering
scheme.  The company's PBXs define the network, i.e. which tie lines
to use, or, in some cases (with sophisticated enough PBXs), public
network translations for the numbers.

The problem has always been how to support very small offices, offices
too small to have a PBX capable of handling these translations, or how
to help people on the road with translations of seven digit internal
numbers to the full public network number.

Enter SDN.  With SDN, AT&T will provide you switched private network
traffic, with your own private numbering plan.  There are several
access methods:

    1. Dedicated trunks to the nearest toll switch (in and out).
    2. Regular trunks from your local telco, with AT&T/SDN (10732)
       as your default carrier.  On net calls are dialled with NPA 700.
    3. An 800 number which accepts an SDN calling card and translates
       the resulting call with your private network's translations.

/john

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

From: John Koontz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Info on AT&T's SDN
Date: 18 May 90 17:31:52 GMT
Organization: V-Systems, Inc. -- Santa Ana, CA


Does anyone know anything about AT&T's Software Defined Network (SDN)
One Plus Services?  A friend of mine went to a presentation by a
company called Paragon Communications (out of Van Nuys, California)
and their agent Aracorp about how reps can earn big $$s by signing up
companies to switch over to AT&T's SDN.  Paragon will pay reps 5% of
the long distance bill of anyone they can sign up for 48 months.

Before my friends quits her job, I'd be interested in learning more
about this service and Paragon/Aracorp.  Can anyone enlighten me?
Type slowly, I'm not fluent in Telecom.


John Koontz, V-Systems, Inc.     [phone]
{attmail uunet}!vsi!john         [e-mail]
        "Sometimes I wish Natural Selection worked faster."

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 10:56:11 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Non-Cellular Mobile Phones


What is the situation these days with non-cellular mobile phones, the
ones that had been around for decades and worked in the VHF range? It
was my understanding that one of the primary motivations for the
development of cell-phone technology was the fact that those VHF
allocations for mobile phone use were terribly overcrowded in many
metropolitan areas (during the business day, I suppose), and that to
get a new mobile phone was practically impossible in those regions --
there was a long waiting list and new phones could only be activated
if old ones were removed from service.

There are still many areas of the country where there is no cellular
coverage, and rural areas probably will never get cellular
installations, due to the low number of likely customers. So there
still is a need for the VHF mobile-phone service. However, I would
also have expected that many people with VHF mobile phones who used
them only within metropolitan areas would have switched over to
cellular. This would have freed up a lot of capacity in that service,
so that those people who really needed the VHF mobiles could get them.

Am I right in this supposition?  What is the VHF mobile phone
availability situation now?  Are these services provided only by the
BOC's and equivalent telcos, or are there independents in this area,
the way there are in cellular phone service?  Does it appear that VHF
mobile phones will continue to be available in the future, or are they
being phased out in some areas?  Are there still areas where VHF
mobile phone service is "saturated" and there are still waiting lists
to get them?

How do the economics of the two systems compare, both in the costs of
operation to the service provider, and in the cost to the user (both
in the initial equipment installation, and in the per-call or monthly
billing charges)?

I get the impression that cellular costs much more in the way of
hardware to the cellular company, what with the need to install the
separate cells' towers, antennae, and electronics, but then the
operation is just about all automatic. The VHF systems have less
hardware costs, being a relatively simple mobile-radio setup, but are
not as automated, requiring human operator intervention, and thus have
higher continuing operational expenses. Is this correct?

Does anyone make user hardware that combines the two technologies, or
does someone who needs to access both versions (such as a salesperson
who covers a range of urban and rural accounts) need to have two
mobile phone installations in his/her vehicle -- one VHF and one
cellular?

 From the user's point of view, are there any technical or operational
advantages to the older VHF system versus cellular, or is it always in
the user's best interest to switch from VHF to cellular if it is
available and serves the areas they travel in?

I assume there are stretches of the West and maybe mountainous areas
in other parts of the country where there is no access to either VHF
or cellular phone service. Is there enough market in these regions,
all put together, to give an incentive for some other mobile-phone
technology, such as using satellites, to be developed and installed? I
seem to recall reading mentions of some sort of phone service being
tied in with the Global Positioning Satellites (GPS) or other
equivalent satellite-based locator-type services. What is the
situation in this area? Would this eventually replace the VHF mobile
phone systesm, or only supplement them? Does anyone foresee a time
when there will be no more VHF mobiles?


Regards, Will Martin

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

Date: Fri May 18 09:04:38 1990
From: Steve Baumgarten <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Banks Charge Universal Card Violates Laws
Organization: Davis Polk & Wardwell


Excerpted from {The New York Times}, Friday May 18, 1990, Page D1:

    The American Telephone and Telegraph Company's complex
    arrangements to sponsor a bank credit card are drawing criticism
    from rivals in the business.

    In the last several days, four large banks have filed protests
    with Federal and state regulators, arguing that the terms of the
    company's sponsorship of the card violates banking and
    communications laws.

    The A.T.&T. Universal card is a telephone calling card and general
    purpose credit card.  The Universal Bank, a subsidiary of the
    Synovous Financial Corporation in Columbus, Ga., has issued the
    card in Visa and Mastercard versions.

    [ ... ]

    At the end of each day, A.T.&T. buys from Universal all the
    charges, telephone and otherwise, made by card users.  The company
    then bills thee customers, charging them interest and lates fees
    if they delay or skip payments.

    Citicorp, the Chase Manhattan Bank, the BankAmerica Corporation,
    and the Maryland National Bank have asked the Federal Reserve
    Board, the Federal Communications Commission and the Georgia
    Banking Department to investigate A.T.&T.'s relationship with
    Universal.

    James L. Bailey, the group executive who heads the domestic credit
    card operations of Citibank, said his company was concerned that
    A.T.&T. was in effect an affiliate of Universal and was
    essentially issuing the credit cards itself.

    "The bank is solely a funding vehicle for an unregulated
    affiliate," he said.  "They have set up a system where the
    regulators have no control over who is taking the risk."

    The banks want an investigation to insure that A.T.&T. is
    competing on equal terms, he said.

    [ ... ]

    A.T.&T. [maintains that its] legal position [...] is similar to
    that of the several thousand athletic teams, charitable
    organizations and other corporations that sponsor Mastercard and
    Visa cards.

    Universal has four employees and $3 million in assets, which is
    small for an operation that could issue five million cards, Mr.
    Bailey said [...].

    The banks, which rank among the nation's five largest issuers of
    bank cards, say that A.T.&T. controls Universal Bank without
    having obtained the Federal Reserve Board's permission to become a
    bank holding company.  The banks also say that A.T.&T. or
    Universal should have made a tariff filing with the F.C.C. before
    offering reduced rates on credit card calls and before charging
    interest and late fees on bills that may include charges for these
    calls.

    [ ... ]

    The banks also argue that Universal is effectively reselling
    telecommunications services in violation of its charter.  Universal
    pays A.T.&T. the full rate for long-distance credit card calls and
    then bills customers for 90 percent of the amount.

    The banks say that A.T.&T. is indirectly compensating Universal
    for the 10 percent discount.

    A.T.&T. does not control Universal because it holds no stock in
    the company [...].  Universal is not reselling telecommunications
    services because it is not buying capacity on the A.T.&T. network
    [according company executives].

    Elgie Holstein, the executive director of Bank Card Holders of
    America, a consumer group based in Herndon, Va., suggested that
    the banks might be seeking to restrict entry into one of their
    most profitable markets.  The same big banks have been buying the
    credit card portfolios of smaller rivals, and their complaints
    that A.T.&T.'s actions may be unfair or anticompetitive are "a bit
    like being called ugly by a frog," he said.

[End excerpt]

Mr. Holstein has a point; a friend (who works for Citicorp) and I
have, over the past few years, made a game of finding and reporting
all the regulatory violations in which Citibank engages, purposefully
and not.  To their credit, when we tell them that, for example,
regulations prohibit unlimited transfers to and from Insured Money
Market accounts, they usually bring themselves into compliance with
the law.

But these banks didn't become the country- and world-spanning monsters
they are without, shall we say, stretching some of the interstate
banking regulations to the breaking point.  That AT&T now wants to hop
on the gravy train of extortionist interest rates and 2% merchant fees
is not surprising, and although Citibank claims that the Universal
card hasn't diminished the number of applicants for Citibank's own
cards, it's interesting to note that there was a distinct lack of
interest on the part of these banks when Sears decided to get itself
into the credit card business several years ago with Discover.

Of course, Discover has until this year lost an incredible sum of
money, and at the time it was introduced it had neither a substantial
merchant nor customer base.  But AT&T managed, within the first few
months, to snatch a quarter of a million potential or current
customers away from these banks, and now that it looks like they have
some competition for the first time in quite a while, they sound very
nervous indeed.

But if *I* were Citibank, I don't think I'd ever pick up the phone and
call the Fed about *anything*...

(Maybe it was an anonymous tip -- unless of course the Fed has Caller
ID... :-)


 Steve Baumgarten
 Davis Polk & Wardwell
 [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 2:09:01 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deep Discounts on LD Calls


An advertisement mailed to me recently offers 'deep discounts of up to
fifty percent while using major carriers'. They offer rates 'as low as
thirteen cents per minute, 24 hours per day nationwide'.

In addition, they offer a flat rate travel card, and a flat rate
voicemail service using an 800 number.

They will send a 'free discount rate kit' to all potential BUSINESS
customers upon request.  They say that no orders can be processed
without a telephone number, apparently so that someone can call you
back with specifics and to sign you up, etc.

Western Telecom
1544 West Peralta Avenue
Mesa, AZ  85202

Phone: [phone]   Ext: 322-1051


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 2:22:12 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Lost Messages


Two or three messages in the inbound queue were lost prior to
publication early Friday morning. I cannot reconstruct them. If you
received an autoreply from me time-stamped in the 11 PM (5/17) through
2:00 AM (5/18) time period, and your message has NOT appeared in this
issue of the Digest or one of the Friday morning issues, then you
should presume it was lost, and resubmit it.  Sorry.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #362
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13528;
          19 May 90 3:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12023;
          19 May 90 1:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07063;
          19 May 90 0:23 CDT
Date:     Sat, 19 May 90 0:02:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #363
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 May 90 00:02:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 363

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telco Billing Brings Surprises [David Tamkin]
    Re: Telco Billing Brings Surprises [John R. Covert]
    Re: Telco Billing Brings Surprises [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [John Higdon]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Re: New Sprint Promotion [William C. DenBesten]
    Re: New Sprint Promotion [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Sprint Card / WD40 Update [Chris Jones]
    Re: Sprint Outage -- Fiber Cut in Massachusetts [Dick Jackson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco Billing Brings Surprises
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 1:53:51 CDT


Mark Earle wrote in volume 10, issue 359:

| This month, I received a few surprises in my phone bill from
| Southwestern Bell Telephone company.

| Page 8 had the MCI [------- line out of the M logo, and billed me
| $1.95 for a one minute collect call. For a call (to me at area code
| 512) from area code 316, Garden City, KS.  I remember sleepily answering
| and accepting this call, even though it turned out to be a wrong number.

| On this line, ITT/Metromedia (LDS) is my default 1+ carrier. How does
| MCI enter into this?

The caller selects the carrier.  If someone dials 0 512 855 XXXX or 00
from a coin phone or a private phone where MCI is the primary carrier
or dials 10222 0 512 855 XXXX or 1022200 from a phone where MCI
accepts 10XXX dialing, the call will be placed via MCI.  (I'm not sure
whether it is 1022200 or 102220; it is 102880 for an AT&T operator but
1033300 for a US Sprint operator, unless one of them is your primary
carrier and thus is reachable with 00.)

When the MCI operator called to ask whether you would accept the
charges for a call from whoever it was, the operator should have
identified himself or herself as "the MCI operator."  At least, in my
experience, MCI operators have made it clear who they are on collect
calls.

| 1.95 for one minute?!!!!!!! This was at 9:23 pm local time on April 16.
| (Monday evening local time).

That's an easy one!  $1.80 surcharge for an operator assisted call
plus 15c for one minute at evening rates from Garden City to Corpus
Christi.

| The number listed for MCI Communications billing inquiries is
| 1-951-7009, a free call. This is the SAME number listed elsewhere in
| the bill for problems with AT&T AND SWB billing questions.

It's SWBT's number.  They handle your local bill, no matter what
companies they are collecting for.  If there is a problem, it affects
the amount of money Southwestern Bell expects from you and, if it's
over a charge from an LD carrier or AOS, it affects how much money the
carrier or AOS can expect from SWBT.  If there is a dispute over how
much money you will remit to SWBT, SWBT needs to know.

| I do intend to inquire about how MCI ended up billing me. I would have
| thought that MY choice of LD carrier would "win". At this point, I
| suspect the calling person had MCI as their default.

I once was under instructions to place a collect call to an MCI
office.  My default carrier is Telecom*USA, so I decided to see what
would happen.  The MCI employee was away from her desk and had her
answering machine on, so the Telecom*USA operator told me to try
later.  When I tried later I had lost my nerve, so I dialed
102220-NPA-NNX-XXXX and placed it through MCI.  So call me chicken.
Cluck cluck.

Tell SWBT that it was a wrong number.  You were sleepy and the name
sounded like that of a relative, so you accepted the call but it
turned out to be a total stranger who had a wrong number.  They should
credit you for $1.95 plus applicable taxes and charge it back to MCI.


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: Fri, 18 May 90 06:07:51 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  18-May-1990 0904" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco Billing Brings Surprises


>Page 8 had the MCI ... logo, and billed me $1.95 for a one minute
>collect call. ... I remember sleepily answering and accepting this
>call, even though it turned out to be a wrong number.
>I guess I'm liable, since I *did* accept it.

Nope, in this great land of ours you're not ever liable for wrong
numbers (except on 800 service, and then you've got _some_ leeway).
Presumably you were told by the operator that this was a collect call
from "Bill", and you thought you knew "Bill", but it turned out that
it was a different "Bill" who had dialled a wrong number.

>The number listed for MCI Communications billing inquiries is
>1-951-7009, a free call. This is the SAME number listed elsewhere in
>the bill for problems with AT&T AND SWB billing questions.

Since MCI doesn't have an account open for you, they did the billing
through your local telco; your local telco, as part of what MCI pays
them to do billing, has also agreed to handle billing problems.  Just
call the number and tell them you misunderstood the name, and that it
was a wrong number.

>On this line, ITT/Metromedia (LDS) is my default 1+ carrier. How does
>MCI enter into this?  I suspect the calling person had MCI as their default.

Correct.

The carrier was determined by the caller.  The caller dialled 0+ from
an MCI equipped line, or explicitly dialled 10222+0+.  MCI handled the
call, on MCI lines, and you accepted it (before it turned out to be a
wrong number).

>1.95 for one minute?!!!!!!!

Not that much more than what AT&T would have charged.  AT&T has a
$1.75 surcharge for the first minute on any 0+ collect call (and a
$2.50 surcharge if you just dial "0" when you could have dialled
"0+").

/john

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco Billing Brings Surprises
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 12:12:49 EDT


 From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>

>Page 8 had the MCI [------- line out of the M logo, and billed me
>$1.95 for a one minute collect call. For a call (to me at area code
>512) from area code 316, Garden City, KS.

>On this line, ITT/Metromedia (LDS) is my default 1+ carrier. How does
>MCI enter into this?

The LD company was selected by the caller, irrespective of your
default LD company.

>[Moderator's Note: Admittedly, $1.95 for one minute seems like a
>strange price, but remember, the call was handled by MCI, the company
>which saves you money on your long distance bill....

Even ATT charges higher for collect than for credit card calls.  I
don't feel we know enough about the call to judge; could it have been
person- to-person?  Me, I switched to Sprint.  And for out-of-the-house
calls, I now get my 10% discount with the ATT/Universal card.

>   ...  I'm sitting here
>trying to keep a straight face and not smirk as I type this.  PT]

And failing utterly to keep the smirk out of your fingers.  :-)


[e-mail]
[phone]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 18 May 90 12:51:38 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John R. Levine <[e-mail]> writes:

> I gather that Sprint has installed a bunch of new echo
> suppressors which are misconfigured in a way that clobbers a Telebit,
> in any event my uucp throughput in PEP mode recently dropped from 850
> cps to 210.

I have learned indirectly through Pac*Bell that 2400 bps is the max
that carriers consider to be required to pass through a standard
dialup circuit. In other words, if you complain that the line quality
is poor enough to inhibit 2400 bps transmission, they will fix it. If
you complain that V.32 or PEP is having trouble, you may get waved
off. A totally unsubstantiated rumor states that the carriers are
doing this on purpose to get people to go for more expensive "data"
service.

When I had a uucp connection to a site in St. Marys, KS we used AT&T.
Suddenly, the Telebit modems could not even complete a successful
conversation. In our trouble shooting efforts, we talked over the
circuit and it sounded fine. A call to AT&T got instant action. I got
hourly updates and by that evening, everything was back to normal. All
they told me was that there was some problem in the digital carrier
and that the calls would be re-routed until the problem was corrected.
We never had another problem, and we were not big-time customers but
rather residential accounts.

> Can anyone suggest a way to persuade Sprint to clean up their act?  I
> saw the note from the person who administers an enormous corporate
> account and got instant action, but I'm just a normal little
> $100/month subscriber.  Arrgh.

I would handle it in a straightforward manner. If anyone at Sprint
seems uninterested, then tell them that AT&T seems to be more
interested in their service to ALL of their customers. Sprint is very
PR sensitive right now. As far as MCI goes, don't bother. They haven't
a clue.

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

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 18 May 90 19:20:06 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System


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

>Until recently, I was using Sprint quite
>sucessfully.  I gather that Sprint has installed a bunch of new echo
>suppressors which are misconfigured in a way that clobbers a Telebit,
>in any event my uucp throughput in PEP mode recently dropped from 850
>cps to 210.  OK, no problem, it's a competitive world, I told the
>modem to dial 10222 to use MCI, but throughput is no better.  It's
>still OK with AT&T, but they don't give me the multi-line volume
>discounts I get from Sprint.

>Can anyone suggest a way to persuade Sprint to clean up their act?  I
>saw the note from the person who administers an enormous corporate
>account and got instant action, but I'm just a normal little
>$100/month subscriber.  Arrgh.

It's not Sprint or MCI, it's the Telebit.  From my understanding,
Telebit modems don't work worth squat when the signal is digitized.
Seems that the digitizing screws up the phasing of the modem signal
(why? I don't know) and AT&T uses analog all along the signal path.
Just a side effect of the 'all fiber' types of network installations
that Sprint brags about.  I found out about this from an ex-roommate
of mine that is a modem design engineer at Telebit.  He was a bit hazy
as to the exact reasons, but said that Telebit knows quite well about
the effect.  If there is interest, e-mail me and I'll ask him for a
more detailed description of the problem causes and what Telebit plans
on doing about it (if anything).

Knowing the types of folk that hang out in this conference, I'm
betting there will be several requests for more info and those that
tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because THEY use 'xyz'
setup with 'abc' as an alternate LD carrier with Telebits and it works
fine.  Your right, I'm not sure of the details, but can try to find
out if interest is expressed.


dave

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

From: "William C. DenBesten" <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Sprint Promotion
Date: 18 May 90 15:28:23 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Steve Baumgarten):

> Anyone see the "1 Free Month" Sprint commercials on television yet?
>     1. "One month" means one "average" month, meaning:
>     2. you won't see any kind of refund until your third bill

They kept mentioning $25.00, which I suspect is what they give you.
The fine print said that the credit would appear on your _sixth_ bill.


William C. DenBesten   is   [e-mail]  or   [e-mail]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Sprint Promotion
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 12:32:34 EDT

 From: Steve Baumgarten <[e-mail]>

>Anyone see the "1 Free Month" Sprint commercials on television yet?
>There was so much fine print that it wasn't exactly clear what it was
>they were offering you, although there's no doubt that one month of
>unlimited long distance calling for no charge is definitely not it.

>    1. "One month" means one "average" month, meaning:
>    2. you won't see any kind of refund until your third bill
>           (at least).

I have never paid a lot of attention to their TV ads, but I watch
their magazine and direct mail material.  There the fine print is
always that it really means a credit equal to so many hours of calling
some distance at some time period (this is always spelled out, I just
don't remember) to be credited to your bill.  They also say when it
will be credited.

I switched to Sprint in part because their Sprint Plus looked
reasonable (plus no monthly charge and a minimum I always exceed) and
in part because they offered $25 free calling.  This easily covered
the $5 local switchover charge and was in fact credited on my January
bill as they said it would be.

Note that when ATT says they will pay your charge to switch over (or
switch back) in one of their promotions, they also say in fine print
that the credit will come three months later.  They want to make sure
you'll stay for a while at least!

>   ...  Regards this latest promotion, perhaps a 'free month' means
>they are going to start some sort of monthly service charge or
>handling charge ... [moderator's note]

I doubt it.


[e-mail]
[phone]

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 90 10:55:46 EDT
From: Chris Jones <ksr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Card / WD40 Update
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp


In article <[e-mail]> Andy Malis) writes:

>My third Sprint invoice just arrived, without the WD-40 60 free
>minutes credit ... it would be posted to my account in ANOTHER three
>months.

>[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.

I've been following this discussion semi-interestedly, and when I was
in a drug store this weekend I spotted a can of WD-40 with a little
pamphlet attached to it.  I pulled it off and read it.  On one side it
has a series of pictures and text describing uses of WD-40.  On the
other it says "CALL & COLLECT FREE wit WD-40: 60 minutes of
long-distance phone calls."  In fine print at the bottom of the third
of four panels on this side is a footnote, which reads:

"* The 60 minute free offer is for a credit equal to 60 minutes in
interstate calling per account at the US Sprint 3,000 mile interstate
night/weekend rate.  Credit for surcharge not included.  This offer is
valid only for new FONCARD customers and may not be used in
conjunction with any other promotion.  Credit will be issued on the
first month's invoice.  The offer expires September 30, 1990."
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
There seems to be some outright misrepresentation going on here.


Chris Jones    [e-mail]    uunet!ksr!clj    harvard!ksr!clj


[Moderator's Note: Outright misrepresentation?  So what else is old?
One reason -- perhaps the main reason -- the OCC's have flourished to
the extent they have in the past ten years has been the general
ignorance of the American public regarding how their phones work and
why they work that way. For many, when the OCC telemarketer called,
all they heard was the implied, 'get one over on AT&T' message.  And
anti-ATT feelings have been strong enough in the past that this
implied message worked very well.   PT]

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

From: Dick Jackson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Outage -- Fiber Cut in Massachusetts
Date: 18 May 90 14:51:19 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica


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

>Sprint access from Boston is out as of 11:30 AM 5/17.  Apparently
>there is a fiber cut in Massachusetts somewhere.  Also, a big Sprint
>fiber in NJ was cut yesterday.

I attended a presentation by Sprint about a year ago and pressed them
on the diversity of their network. They got back to me with maps, and
descriptions etc. showing that apparently they were diverse down to
the interconnect with the LEC.

I would be grateful if someone with deep knowledge of Sprint could
explain the fiber cut in MA and how it resulted in service loss.


Dick Jackson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #363
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16078;
          19 May 90 4:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01748;
          19 May 90 2:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac12023;
          19 May 90 1:30 CDT
Date:     Sat, 19 May 90 0:47:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #364
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 May 90 00:46:58 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 364

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing? [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing? [Jim Rees]
    Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing? [Larry Lippman]
    Re: 900-STOPPER [David Tamkin]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Karl Denninger]
    Re: Use of US Phone in India [Sanjay Hiranandani]
    Re: Interesting DMS Trick [Wally Kramer]
    Re: Auto-Collect From Payphone [David Tamkin]
    The Phrack Story [Emmanuel Goldstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 12:22:28 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing?
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> optilink![e-mail] (Marvin
Jones) writes:

| In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
| (Peter J. Dotzauer) writes:

| > Is there a device that can be connected to a telephone or a telephone
| > line that causes a light bulb to blink, whenever the telephone rings?

| What everyone here in "cubicle-land" does is to purchase a neon panel
| lamp assembly (as used for AC power "on" indicators on projects) and
| wire it in parallel with the phone.  At normal 48 volts, the lamp is
| inactive. But the 90 volt ringing is enough to trigger the neon bulb.

Note what he said: "a neon panel lamp ASSEMBLY". That's the kind with
a built-in limiting resistor. Good.

If any of you kids are going to be trying this at home, do *NOT* use a
raw NE-52 or equivalent across a phone line without a limiting
resistor.  While it takes about 90v to *start* conducting, the voltage
instantly drops to 40-60v or less, which could cause it to glow
forever. (Until you answer the phone. Hmmm... a "call missed"
light?!?)

Worse, if you're really unlucky and are real close to the CO, the
current can be high enough to drive some of the smaller neons down
from the "glow" range into the "arc" range, where the voltage is just
a few volts. NOT GOOD!  Little neons can blow up and spray glass! Or
less violently, it can just hold your line off-hook forever...

Either buy an already resistor'd assembly like <optilink!jones>
mentions, or stick in a series resistor.  A good value might be
something high enough to avoid the above ills while being low enough
to get a good light. Just off the top of my head, try something like
22K (1 watt) in each leg (44K total).  (The "1 watt" is not because
you need it in normal operation, but to protect the resistors from
metallic [transverse] surges, like the bit of lightening that gets
through the demark arrestor.) That will give you a couple of milliamps
during ringing, which should be enough.


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311


[Moderator's Note: From Radio Shack I got a neon test thing. I cut off
the leads, and tied it across the tip and ring. I have a WE 2515 phone
(two line/single turn button) phone. The neon bulb sits inside the
phone next to the clear plastic knob, which in effect illuminates
everytime a call rings on line one. (Bell on that phone is on line one
also; I can cut it off. Line two has a side ringer.)  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Telephone Blinking Instead of Ringing?
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 18:42:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, optilink![e-mail] (Marvin
Jones) writes:

> What everyone here in "cubicle-land" does is to purchase a neon panel
> lamp assembly...

Make sure you've got a whole assembly, with the 100k dropping
resistor.  If you just wire a plain neon lamp across the phone line
you'll short it out.

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

Subject: Neon Ringing Indicators
Date: 18 May 90 23:54:05 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ole J.
Jacobsen) writes:

> A simple and cheap way to add "visual aid" to a telephone is to use a
> neon-type lamp, like the ones in night-lights. You see these used as
> message lights in hotel phones. It's not bright but it works if you
> can see the phone. You can get these frobs at Radio Shack for probably
> less than a dollar. Simply connect it accross the phone line. The
> resistance is huge, the current draw extremely low, it's magic.

    A word of caution on the above: the neon lamp *must* have a
current limiting resistance, otherwise the lamp will draw enough
current to trip the ringing voltage.  Many self-contained pilot lamp
assemblies (i.e., the type with attached insulated wire leads which
pushes through a panel) have such a current limiting resistor
built-in.  However, a discrete neon lamp, such as an NE-2, NE-51,
etc., obviously does not.  If you are going to use a discrete neon
lamp in a holder or by soldering to the leads, a typical current
limiting resistor should be at least 22,000 ohms.


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, 17 May 90 19:57 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900-STOPPER


Douglas Scott Reuben wrote in volume 10, issue 357:

| In regard to dialing 1-900-STOPPER to prevent your call from being ID'd,
| aren't there better (and cheaper!) ways to do this?

Mr. Reuben detailed some ideas, including these:

| [going to another LATA to make the call from there]

That involves the time and expense and annoyance of the trip.  The
long-distance charges may be less than $2 a minute, but unless the
call is to last a very long time or you started out very close to the
LATA boundary, saving the difference between $2 a minute and the LD
charges probably won't justify the time and costs of travel.

| [using a card from a long-distance company who won't pass Caller-ID]

As long as calling card has no startup charge and no monthly or annual
fee (and either no monthly minimum or a minimum you easily reach),
that one may work.

| [taking one's mobile phone out of the service area and paying roam rates]

Only *if* one already owns a mobile phone and is already paying the
monthly charges for maintaining a mobile service account and *if* the
savings between $2.00 per minute and roam rates cover the daily
roaming fee and *if* the savings between $2.00 per minute and roam
rates cover the money and time expenses of traveling outside your
local cellular coverage area.  If you can put the call (where you want
to mask Caller-ID) off until a day when you were going to be out of
area and were going to pay a roaming fee anyway, then this will work
well.  Buying a cellular phone and maintaining a cellular service
account and traveling out of area and paying roam rates just to
circumvent Caller-ID without going through 1-900-STOPPER might be
slightly penny-wise but would be extremely pound-foolish.

| [using a marine band radio and calling through the marine operator]

Again, you'd have to want to mask Caller-ID on a heck of a lot of
calls to buy a marine radio just for that if you don't already own
one.

| So I'm not sure what all the big deal about 1-900-STOPPER is?  Unless
| I'm missing something obvious, it would seem to me that there are many
| other alternatives to 900-STOPPER which are either the same price or
| only marginally more expensive than a direct (regular) call which would
| show Caller*ID.

Yes, Doug was missing something obvious.  He was considering only the
marginal per-minute cost of each call without the underlying expenses
of using each method.  Except for the calling card, each included
investments in equipment or additional service accounts or extra time
and travel.  If you already own the marine radio or the cellular phone
or if you already have a trip planned to another LATA before you want
to place the call, those can work.  For the average person who might
want to mask Caller-ID for about one ten-minute call every six months
or so, an atom smasher, with apologies to Augie Doggie and Doggie
Daddy, is not a more efficient way to crack a walnut.


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: You don't have to even bother roaming. If my
cellular phone number is captured, a call to IBT Name and Address
Bureau (312 or 708) 796-9600 produces a response, "Its a mobile
number. We don't have any other information." (click).  That seems to
be the rule on all cell numbers in this area.  PT]

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

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCSNet - Wheeling, IL
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 19:57:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Someone-Someplace) writes:

>I feel the need to let them know about the gaping (and I mean gaping)
>computer and physical security holes they have, but I'm not sure about
>the best way to approach it (or even if I should). I felt that since
>you have quite a bit of experience and wisdom, you might be a good
>person to bounce this off of.

>[Moderator's Note: Well readers, what do *you* suggest? Post your
>comments here, this person will see them. My suggestion was to simply
>walk away and ignore it. The company would have to prove who was
>responsible for any vandalism or hacking, etc.    PT]

I would agree.

If you concerned about them possibly having a problem, publish
anything you can that isn't proprietary.  That ought to really get
them motivated to fix the problems.  As long as you don't breach any
confidences or proprietary information, you can't be prosecuted or
sued for doing it.

If you "report" it privately, not only are you then flagged as a
potential break-in suspect, but the number of said suspects is
artificially limited.  The company will be strongly motivated to do
NOTHING, increasing the possibility that there will be trouble, and
you will get to defend yourself from said trouble.

If you tell them about the trouble, and tell them that 24 hours from
your notification you're going to make the public parts known (say,
through another posting to this forum :-) then they will be >strongly<
motivated to plug the holes immediately.

Your only other real alternative is to ignore it.

Do you like this former employer?

I would >not< report it privately and keep it under wraps.  To do so,
especially given the magnitude of the problems, is inviting a visit
from the Gendarme sometime in the future.


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


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

From: Sanjay Hiranandani <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Use of US Phone in India
Date: 18 May 90 12:55:35 GMT
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: SUNY-Binghamton Computer Center


In article <[e-mail]> mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat@
uunet.uu.net (Subodh Bapat) writes:

>> Does India use the same pulse/tones that we do?

>Pulse yes, tone no.

Not entirely true ... A few of the bigger cities are now gradually
moving over to tones, from pulse. In fact my parents' home.. (in
Bombay) has tone dialing phones; also there's all the fancy things
like call-waiting, call forwarding, conference calling.. etc.

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 11:51:32 PDT
From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting DMS Trick
Organization: Microwave & RF Instruments, Tektronix, Beaverton, Oregon


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
[Volume 10, Issue 355, Message 10 of 12] writes:

[description of back-to-back holding of call waiting resulting in
an unintended three-way conversation when done within in an exchange]

> Can anyone explain this occurance?

Sounds like faulty software (or product evaluation, design,
engineering or maybe the engineer -- naaawwww must be the equipment on
the customer's premises :-)).

Look at it this way: the odds are against making this stuff work.  The
number of ways for it to work right are countable (like maybe a few
dozen) but the number of ways for it to work wrong (or not at all) are
uncountable (like billions and billions).  However, given enough
monkey engineers and enough time you could replace AT&T.

Of course, the job of a real engineer is to overcome those odds.


[e-mail] (Wally Kramer) 503 627 2363
(Software Engineer) Contractor from Step Technology, Inc.  503 244 1239

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 19:10 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Auto-Collect From Payphone


Mark Lowe wrote in volume 10, issue 351:

| The connection is then made ... and the lady who answers must have
| thought it was a joke!  The voice said "You are receiving a collect
| call.  To accept, enter 1; to refuse, enter 0 and hang up."

We don't know whether it was supposed to say, "a collect call from
Mark Lowe," instead of simply "a collect call;" whether that
information was supposed to come after the menu (poor planning if it
was) but never arrived; whether it was on its way but there was so
long a pause that the recipient figured she'd never hear who was
calling; or whether one of those choices was actually to find out who
it was and then make a decision (probably 1 to listen for the name
before deciding and 0 to refuse outright), but it was very badly
worded.  Whatever, it came out sounding like a choice of accepting or
refusing unconditionally, so of course the receptionist turned the
call down.

| The next thing I heard was a female synthetic voice repeating OVER AND
| OVER "Hang up and try your call again."

Caught in a loop, huh?

| Needless to say, I decided to wait until I got to a REAL phone.  Talk
| about taking AOS just a STEP too far!!

Can't blame you for that.  With that system the AOS gets no collect
calls completed, so you know what it probably does?  It bills the
recipient for a one-minute collect call from the splashing point
anyway.


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: Tue, 15 May 90 02:38:06 pdt
From: Emmanuel Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Phrack Story


Greetings!

What follows is an advance copy of two articles appearing in the new
issue of 2600 Magazine. Our spring issue is being released on Friday.
You have our permission to distribute this any time after then if you
so desire.  The articles have to do with the whole
Phrack/LOD/E911/Steve Jackson/jolnet sordid affair. We think your
readers might find it interesting, whether or not they actually agree
with it.

We hope you'll be able to put this into one of your special issues.
In any event, keep up the good work!


Emmanuel

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

The above is a letter I received a few days ago. Attached to it were
the articles mentioned, to which I alluded in the Digest a couple days
ago. Although the length prohibits transmission as a regular (or
special issue) Digest, it can be handled with ease by ftp.

To help with distribution, for one week from today, I will forward the
file to anyone writing to '[e-mail]'. Do not mix
up messages to the Digest with requests for this file. Do not add
personal comments you want me to answer. Just write a single line
asking for the 2600 articles, and **include an address*. I CANNOT IN
ALL CASES RELY ON THE 'FROM' WITH YOUR LETTER.

You will get the usual autoreply saying I got your message ... and you
will get the above file ASAP. Obviously, if you can ftp it yourself I
would much prefer that you do so ... or use the '[e-mail]'
server if possible.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #364
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19021;
          19 May 90 5:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30129;
          19 May 90 3:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01748;
          19 May 90 2:34 CDT
Date:     Sat, 19 May 90 1:31:48 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #365
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 May 90 01:31:32 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 365

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Interstate Access Charge [Christopher Ambler]
    Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier [David Tamkin]
    The Mis-Named FCC-Mandated Charge [Will Martin]
    Re: Line Slip [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [John Parsons]
    Re: AT&T NAVSTAR/GPS News Excerpts [Roy Smith]
    Re: Problems with NXX-0000 Type Numbers [David Tamkin]
    Drug Dealers and Caller ID [John Bruner]
    Pulse Speed (was Re: Alternative to Touch Tone) [David Lewis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Subject: Intrastate Access Charge
Date: Sat, 19 May 90 1:28:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Organization: Fantasy, Incorported: Reality None of Our Business.


I recently ordered another line for my BBS. I had been waiting for
this line to become available (54-FUBAR :-)), and it finally did, so I
called.

I talked to the service woman, and told her that I would like a third
service to my apartment, measured rate, no touchtone, no inside wire
maintenance, and that the line is already in existance, as when I got
my second service, the nice lineman put in 4 lines and my own network
interface box for my apartment. She took down all the information and
told me:

  Service (mearured rate) : $5.15
  Custom Number           : $1.50

  Total Per Month         : $6.65

  Plus a $10 charge for the custom number at startup.

Ok, no big deal, and I said ok, do it. She assured me that that's all
that would be on my bill.

So I get my confirmation in the mail, and there's also this $3.50 per
month "interstate access" charge. I specifically got a measured rate
line because I'm not making any calls on it. It's incoming only. So
what is it? What can I do?


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


[Moderator's Note: Is this a new record for this question being asked?
It was covered in issues 359 and 361 earlier this week. Okay, for
people still unclear on the concept, the answer is you cannot avoid
it. You must pay it. I am not going to impose on Mr. Covert to respond
once again, for the second time this week.  The two messages which
follow will answer in more detail.  PT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Have No Default Long Distance Carrier
Date: Thu, 17 May 90 20:00:40 CDT


In volume 10, issue 355, Alex Pournelle responds to Brian Litzinger's
previous avowal that he has no default inter-exchange carrier:

| Umm, do they still charge you for that "optional" "non-basic" long-
| distance tariff?  Now, is it just me, or would this kind of billing
| throw lawsuits around the magistrate's corner office in any other field?
| Yeah, the basic rate is $9.00 or whatever per month -- but you can't have
| it without the ($3 and climbing) long-distance add-on!

This has been discussed at length before.  Brian can still receive
long-distance calls and still place them with 10XXX, so he still gets
something for paying the subscriber line charge.

| Or am I wrong -- and there is a way, with enough patience and coaching
| of the P*bell 811-SUCKERS, to order up a "local only" line?

On this desired local-only line, is 10XXX also disabled and are
incoming inter-LATA calls refused for you at your switch?  I'm sure no
such thing is tariffed, and if it were, the cost of having 10XXX and
incoming LD calls blocked would run you a higher per-month fee than
the subscriber line charge -- that is, if you would even then be able
to get out of paying the subscriber line charge.


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: Fri, 18 May 90 12:31:18 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Mis-Named FCC-Mandated Charge


Reference recent postings on the nature of the surcharge and how it
cannot be avoided by not having a default LD carrier, etc.:

On my SW Bell bill, this is referred to as "Federal End User Common
Line Charge". It is $3.50. I have ordinary rotary-dial flat-rate
(unmeasured) service in St. Louis City. [SW Bell doesn't seem to know
that "end-user" should be hyphenated... :-)]

I note people on the list stating that they pay $3.00 even. First off,
if this is an FCC-mandated surcharge, and thus national in scope, why
is it higher here than elsewhere? What is the justification for it
varying from region to region? Should it not be identical nationwide?

Secondly, this charge has risen over its life. I seem to recall it
started out at $1.50, though that may have been $2.00. I can
understand the motivation behind the charge, to replace the revenue
lost from kickbacks from LD service (I may not *like* it, but I can
*understand* it... Grrrr... :-), but what possible excuse can there be
for it having *risen*? The kickback-revenue was lost when the breakup
and deregulation occurred, and the charge was instituted then. Over
the ensuing years, it should have decreased, so as to be phased out,
not increased. Who paid off who to get *this* gravy train?

Is the income from this surcharge treated differently, for accounting
purposes, than the income from the "real" charges for telephone
service by the BOCs/telcos? Or does it all just get dumped into the
same pot?  (I have this image of the cellar of the new SW Bell
building here looking like Scrooge McDuck's money vault... :-)

Lastly, is there any official plan for this charge to *ever* go away?
Or will we have it for eternity? I would have thought that there would
have been some intent, in the breakup/deregulation mess, to eventually
have these industries support themselves, without such artificial rate
adjustments as this surcharge. Isn't that what "deregulation" implies?

I would have thought that part of the breakup order would be to tell
the BOCs/telcos that "to cushion the shock of losing the subsidy from
the LD carrier(s), you will get this special income for <n> years, to
give you that much time to plan and institute rate restructuring and
internal economies so as to live within the income from your
customers' payments alone," or words to that effect. The actual
situation seems to be just the reverse -- the BOCs get a
constantly-increasing subsidy gouged out of the ratepayers under the
guise of the FCC mandate. Is there any economic plan or design behind
this scheme to produce some particular result (other than to give the
BOC management thicker marble around their swimming pools, that is)?


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

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Slip
Date: 18 May 90 20:12:42 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

> 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?

That's a good start but you still haven't determined which end is the
likely culprit.  Alas, unless you are paying for "data" lines, that
task still falls on you as the end user.  Try calling in from some
different locations; if the problem persists, then it is probably on
the "host" end.

A couple of thoughts come to mind.  Is the computer or serial port
cabling at either end near other power lines or florescent lights
(including conduit runs and extension cords)?  I have seen induction
put noise into a serial cable and this usually affects all speeds of
transmission.

To repeat an earlier suggestion: After you determine which end is
causing the problem (and assuming it is chronic and repeatable) AND
you have eliminated the station equipment as a possible cause, then by
all means, report noise on the line(s) to Ma Bell.  These problems
eventually get resolved but some take a LONG time and the ultimate fix
in not always in the Telco equipment.

Now for what I consider the ultimate in nasty "line noise" problems:
 From home, I call a Unix box with a USR 14.4 at both ends.  When in
the shell on the Unix box I NEVER have anything appear on the screen
that looks like line noise (as it should be since the USRs are running
in error correcting mode).  The hooker is that I DO see things that
look like line noise when I run the BBS program on the Unix machine.
Now we can add a new posibility the the list of things that cause
"line noise"; software!!!!!!  ;-).


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 13:45:33 mdt
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought


My original post:

> We're building a house and it's almost time to wire it, so I thought
> I'd fish for a little free advice...

Egad!  I'm awash in free advice!  Netfolk are so generous, I love it.
Wish I could respond to all the email, but I'm a novice emailer.

Anyway, the consensus is that as far as inside wiring goes, there's no
such thing as overkill.  I was afraid of that ;-) So I'm selling some
"doggie" mutual fund shares and investing in commodities -- copper and
conduit!

Again, thanks for all the advice and clever tips.


John Parsons  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: AT&T NAVSTAR/GPS News Excerpts
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Fri, 18 May 90 19:06:46 GMT


> But the DoD has decided that even the C/A signal is too accurate to be
> generally available, so it has begun a practice it calls "selective
> availability."  That delicious piece of bureaucratese means that the
> DoD will introduce random noise on the C/A signal, known in some
> circles as "dithering," to make it dificult or even impossible to use.

    If I understand things properly (somebody please correct me if
I'm wrong), the C/A signal has *always* had the noise added to it;
that's what makes it less accurate than the encrypted signal.  This
has lead to a technique known as "differential GPS" which was, I
believe, developed by the Coast Guard.

    Let's say you have a ship that needs to know its position very
accurately (for example, a buoy tender trying to place a navigational
aide exactly where the charts indicate it should be).  It has a GPS
rcvr on board, but can only get the fuzzed-up signal.  Let's also say
you have a fixed land station which knows its position quite well.
The land station receives the fuzzed GPS signal, takes where GPS says
it is, subtracts that from where it knows it is, and computes the
instantaneous GPS error.  It then transmits that error to the offshore
ship, which adds it to where its GPS box says it is to get where it
really is.  I believe the USCG has been using this technique, or at
least is experimenting with it.  The technique depends on the
positional error due to the added noise being the same everywhere, or
at least over a given area of some size.


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

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

Date: Thu, 17 May 90 19:55 CDT
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems with NXX-0000 Type Numbers


Glynne Tolar wrote in volume 10, issue 354:

| Speaking of easy phone numbers, just exactly how do you get them?  When
| I called my phone company they told me I had to take whatever came
| across the computer.  If I did not like it she could ask for another
| number.  Are you supposed to make the service rep sit there for an hour
| or more looking for the number you would like?  What do businesses do?
| My guess is the phone company has a different policy for business
| customers.

They probably charge businesses for assigning a special telephone
number, even if it's in the appropriate local CO.

| What does your phone company do?

Patrick Townson answered:

: Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell takes suggestions, and will fill them
: except under certain circumstances.

My own experiences with residential lines in Chicago with both
Illinois Bell and Centel are that the service representative, *if* you
bring up the matter of wanting to select the number, will offer a list
of the next four or five numbers coming to the top of the list.  You
may select one of them or let them assign you the topmost.


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: I do my own 'homework' and find out what desirable
numbers are idle. I make the list of ten or so numbers, then call the
Business Office. I ask, "Can I have such and such?". The rep checks
and almost every time says okay. And there is no special ongoing
monthly fee for the number, either.   PT]

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 08:55:49 CDT
From: John Bruner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Drug Dealers and Caller ID


There was a submission in the RISKS digest (volume 9, number 22) that
had been forwarded from ClariNet, which quoted a UPI news story about
Baltimore drug dealers and Caller ID.  The conditions under which it
appeared in RISKS prevent me from quoting it here; however, I suggest
that anyone who is interested in this topic take a look at it.

The gist of the story is that drug dealers are using Caller ID to
screen out calls from unfamiliar numbers.  If the call doesn't come
from a recognized prefix (or from a recognized payphone number) the
dealer is suspicious, and he may not even answer the call.


John Bruner    Center for Supercomputing R&D, University of Illinois
    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: David Lewis <nvuxr![e-mail]>
Subject: Pulse Speed (was Re: Alternative to Touch Tone)
Date: 18 May 90 18:05:49 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


[various articles about using "fast dial pulse" with autodialing modems
etc. as an alternative to DTMF deleted for brevity's sake...]

I dug out the Authoritative Reference, the LATA Switching System
Generic Requirements (LSSGR).  In particular, LSSGR Section 6,
Signaling.

According to the LSSGR, switching systems for BOC use should have the
capability of detecting pulses at a speed of 7.5 to 12 pulses per
second, and a percent break of 58 to 64 percent.

Further, an off-hook interval of as little as 300 ms should be
recognized as an interdigital time.

Thus, the "fastest" you can dial a single DP digit is 83 ms for each
integer value of the digit, minus 35 ms: 12 pps => 83 ms/pulse; 58%
break => 48 ms break + 35 ms off-hook.

The "fastest" you can dial using DP is therefore (300 ms + 83 ms *
digit integer value - 35 ms) per digit (348 ms to DP a '1', 1095 ms to
DP a '0') minus 300 ms (no interdigit timing after the final digit).

Also according to the LSSGR, the switching systems should recognize
DTMF digit and interdigit periods as short as 40 ms, and may accept
digit and interdigit periods as short as 23 ms.  Therefore, the
"fastest" you can reliably dial DTMF is 80 ms per digit, except for
the final digit which is 40 ms.

Note: numbers extracted from TR-TSY-000506, Switching: LSSGR Section
6, Issue 2, July 1987 (A module of TR-TSY-000064, LATA Switching
System Generic Requirements).  TR-TSY-000506 is Copyright C. 1980,
1985, 1986, 1987 Bell Communications Research Inc.

It's also a handy document to have around.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #365
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18702;
          19 May 90 17:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01663;
          19 May 90 15:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19941;
          19 May 90 14:41 CDT
Date:     Sat, 19 May 90 14:24:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #366
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 May 90 14:24:39 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 366

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Special Issue: RISKS Commentaries [TELECOM Moderator]
    NRI's Knowbot; Privacy [Computerworld, via Fred E.J. Linton]
    Cellular Phone Billing Oddities [Douglas Mason]
    Forced Unlisting [John Higdon]
    Distributed TELCO [Joe Stong]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [John Higdon]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [John R. Levine]
    Re: Auto-Collect From a Payphone [[e-mail]]
    Re: Phone Conferences [William Degnan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 May 90 13:37:42 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: RISKS Commentaries


Recently a number of articles appeared in RISKS relating to telephone
security and related problems. Will Martin forwarded this with the
suggestion that comp.dcom.telecom/TELECOM Digest readers might be
interested in seeing them. I assume many of you already read RISKS,
but since some of you may not see it or receive it at your site, a
special issue of the Digest being distributed Saturday afternoon will
include many of these items.

Included will be a piece from someone alleging mis-use of Caller ID by
a Police Department. This piece was sent to me by someone else, and I
turned it down for the reason that such an item here would only cause
a major backlog of replies and comments on the subject that I am
ill-equipped to deal with and most of you are bored from reading.

So these articles -- and in particular the 'mis-use of Caller ID' item
which will be sent to you should have responses directed to RISKS --
if in fact you wish to respond at all. I am passing these along only
as a courtesy to those who have not seen them; not because I need more
replies here than I am already receiving.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: 19-MAY-1990 04:54:38.83
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NRI's Knowbot; Privacy


A couple of articles from "COMPUTERWORLD" of May 14 may interest TELECOMers.

Page 66 describes a "Knowbot Information Service" (KIS) being developed by
NRI to facilitate e-mail address lookup for Internet users: quoting briefly,
"A KIS user enters the last name of the person sought.  A Knowbot searches
each of the major Internet directories, then returns the full names of all
users with that last name [and their] source, E-mail address, telephone ... .
KIS searches ... Network Information Center at SRI ... MCI ... and more ... "

On page 127 it is stated: "Already this year, New York and Maryland
have passed laws that prevent merchants from forcing consumers to
write telephone numbers and addresses on credit-card slips."

I'd welcome more detail on either of these items than "COMPUTERWORLD" provides.


Fred  <[e-mail]>  <fejlinton@{ mcimail.com | attmail }>

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Billing Oddities
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Date: Thu, 17 May 90 19:14:40 GMT


Kick in a little imagination:

Currently, in Kalamazoo Michigan I have Century Cellunet as my
cellular provider.  My rates are $7.50/month and $.35 and $.15 for
peak and off-peak, respectively.

Now I imagine that many of you would be happy at that, but here comes
the interesting part.

I am moving to Grand Rapids, which is about forty miles to the north.
Close enough that it is almost a local call there from here in
Kalamazoo.  But, there is a different Century Cellunet office there.
The rates there are $7.50/month and $.45/minute regardless of
peak/off-peak.

Since I have to move and have two cellular phones with service,
suddenly I see myself re-evaluating the importance of having both
phones!  I call up my local Century Cellunet office (who have been
good to me) and ask them if what I hear is correct.  Here is the story
they tell me:

All Century Cellunet offices in Michigan are allowed to set their own
rates based on what the competition is.  Since Cellular One across
town has their rates at $7.50 and .35/.15, that is what they set
theirs at.

Grand Rapids, even as close as it is, does not have that competition,
so they have the higher rates.

I asked him if there was anything I could do to keep the lower rates.
Grand Rapids even wanted me to pay $35 to change over to their more
expensive plan.

He said that if I kept my Kalamazoo service, I could be up there, make
all the calls I want and be charged my regular .35/.15 AND I wouldn't
ever get any roaming fees or anything like that.  The only catch is
that if someone wanted to call me they would have to either call my
Kalamazoo cellular number or call the Grand Rapids roam number.  There
are no additional or strange charges for someone calling my Kalamazoo
number and having it ring in Grand Rapids.  I am billed airtime only.

I think having people call a Kalamazoo number is a small price to pay
for keeping such low rates!  I don't get many incoming calls anyways,
and if it is important, a call to Kalamazoo is not too big of a
problem.

Strange marketing schemes!


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |

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

Subject: Forced Unlisting
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 19 May 90 05:38:29 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In my quest for account security with Pac*Bell, it appears that I have
shot myself in the foot. For years, I have had consolidated billing at
my residence, enabling the receipt of only two bills each month for
ten lines. There were two groups: measured and unmeasured. One of my
unmeasured lines was listed and was also the billing number for its
group.

Then I got a brilliant idea. Why not make the billing number one of
the unlisted lines so that if anyone tried to impersonate me at the
business office, they would be unable to find the account because
there would be no account info under the listed number. After a
considerable amount of "supervisor intervention", this is exactly what
they did.  "That'll show any sneaky SOBs they can't fool with my
account", I thought.

Then yesterday, a highly-placed employee of Pac*Bell, one who keeps me
well informed about matters that transpire within the hallowed halls
of the utility, called with some info. "By the way", he said, "I had
to really scrounge to find your number since it's not listed with DA."

"Oh, sure it is", I replied. When we hung up, I called DA and sure
enough, no "John Higdon" listed in San Jose. What? I've been listed in
the directory since high school, and I won't even tell you when that
was. A call to the business office revealed the problem. It seems that
while you can "unlist" numbers behind a listed pilot number, you can't
list numbers behind an unlisted pilot number. So there it is, folks.
Give up security, or give up a listing in the phone book.

Well, since I am actually in the book until next March (I made my
changes after the cutoff for the last directory), there is time to
consider my course of action very carefully.

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 90 04:01:29 -0700
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distributed TELCO


Copyright 1990, Joseph Stong.  You must give these ideas away freely.
Used here with permission of the author.

Imagine a small box on the rooftop of your house.  The box has four
"eyeballs" pointed towards four of your neighbors, to the north, south,
east, and west.  The box has a small power cable, and a couple of
pieces of coax leading into the house.  Inside the house are slightly
fat phone jacks, that connect into both pieces of coax.  Another
device that looks like an unusually fat phone jack has a thinwire
Ethernet connector on it.  Each of your neighbors has a similar
arrangement.

You buy the box at a store.  You plug ordinary telephones into the
jacks.  Upon picking up a telephone for the first time after connecting
up the system, the phone says, your telephone number is 412346,234457
please enter the names for your directory listing.  You key the name
that will list you in the electronic directory.

This is an oversimplified idealization, for the purpose of getting
folks to visualize how a such a system would work.  The "transducers"
on the four sides of the eyeball box could be microwave transmitter
receiver pairs, or infrared LED/photodiode pairs to go to a piece of
fiber that you throw over the fence to your neighbor's house.

Your box would cooperatively switch the datastream from other
conversations on to their eventual destination.  Your box would
participate in the systemwide directory keeping.  Your box, upon
coming on line, would determine which sites it was between, to
determine your pseudo-latitude-longitude "telephone number".

There might be 16 sq cm of mass produced silicon VLSI in the box
itself, which might cost $400.  The phones would be ordinary
telephones.  You might be able to have 32 phone lines and an ethernet,
before having to buy another box.  Between boxes, the data rate would
be 100Mbaud.  The two coax line downlink into the house would be about
11Mbaud, with the $30 "phone jacks" being little more than shift
registers and D-A and A-D converters to pick off signals from the
synchronous coax lines.

What does it achieve?  The elimination of a local TELCO.  The
elimination of a tree structure of wiring, replacing it with a large
redundant grid.  The elimination of local phone bills.  Indeed, many
"eyeballs" at the edge of town might end up being pointed at a
long-distance carrier system, though some would go to longer pieces of
repeatered fiber to rural subscribers.

The system is cooperative, and self maintaining.  The software on the
silicon in the eyeball box itsself would be designed to be function
without any centralized "management", doing location determination and
routing by itsself, like UseNet or Internet without the
administrators.

This is an assemblage of ideas from other folks.  I've added and
embellished, but I didn't come up with the original concept.

I'd love to hear about how this system could be made to work.  If you
post, please copy it to me in mail, as I have trouble keeping up with
the volume in mod.telecom.


    Joe Stong    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But replies to Mr. Stong in the mail should also be
copied to telecom. Thanks.  PT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 19 May 90 01:24:38 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]> writes:

> It's not Sprint or MCI, it's the Telebit.  From my understanding,
> Telebit modems don't work worth squat when the signal is digitized.
> Seems that the digitizing screws up the phasing of the modem signal
> (why? I don't know) and AT&T uses analog all along the signal path.

Sorry, completely untrue. AT&T has very few analog paths left in its
network. Most calls today travel on digital paths, even short distance
local. Virtually all Bay Area calls between COs travel on digital
carrier. If Telebit modems didn't work on digitized audio, the whole
UUCP network couldn't exist.

There isn't one of my fifteen UUCP neighbors that isn't reached
through a digital connection. In addition, two of them have DID
numbers for their Telebits that are on the station side of a digital
PBX.  Connections to my southern California neighbors are carried by
AT&T who uses PacNet, Pacific Bell's statewide fiber optic network.

> Just a side effect of the 'all fiber' types of network installations
> that Sprint brags about.  I found out about this from an ex-roommate
> of mine that is a modem design engineer at Telebit.

Sorry, again, but "digital" is not the problem, regardless of what
your ex-roommate may have thought. What IS causing the problem is
Sprint; probably the new echo suppressors and adaptive equalizers. If
Telebits couldn't work over digital circuits, they would be useless
indeed. But as I pointed out above, my three Telebits talk over
nothing but digital circuits, with a typical throughput of 850 to 900
cps.

> If there is interest, e-mail me and I'll ask him for a
> more detailed description of the problem causes and what Telebit plans
> on doing about it (if anything).

I think we'd all like to hear about this, considering that Telebits
work on *most* digital circuits just fine.


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

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

Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 19 May 90 10:53:06 EDT (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 363, Message 5 of 9

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

>>[my Telebit throughput via Sprint recently became terrible, MCI's just as
>bad, AT&T is somewhat better]

>It's not Sprint or MCI, it's the Telebit.  From my understanding,
>Telebit modems don't work worth squat when the signal is digitized.
>... AT&T uses analog all along the signal path

That can't possibly be it.  For one thing, Sprint provided perfectly
fine Telebit performance until a few weeks ago.  For another, AT&T
digitizes signals all over the place, indeed they invented most of the
digital transmission technology.

In the meantime, I received a message suggesting that Sprint's new
echo suppressors are probably more CCITT compliant than the old ones,
and there may be an incompatibility with the PEP protocol.  But what's
really amazing is that my Telebit throughput has suddenly recovered.
Now I routinely get well over 1000 cps coast to coast, better than
ever before.  Perhaps our pals at Sprint read the digest and, to their
credit, respond to customer needs.  (Take that, AT&T lovers.)


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

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 90 06:09 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Auto-Collect From a Payphone


In my original post, I left out the fact that the phone DID play back
my recorded name statement.  One of the problems with the entire idea
of the automation is that the calling party's name is all that can be
given.  Of course, one COULD say "John Doe calling for Jim Doe," I
guess.

Who can say?  I wouldn't be surprised if the called party DID get
billed for a one-minute collect call from the AOS!  They have to make
their money SOMEHOW!


Mark C. Lowe - KB5III

[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 15:14:15 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Conferences


In a message of <May 15 20:36> Kevin Ashford ([e-mail])
writes:

>I would like to put together a list of 'phone conferences' or 'talk'

You might see if you can find "The Incredible Dial-A-Message
Directory" C 1985, by Mark C. Guncheon, Published by Contemporary
Books, Inc, Chicago. LC 85-7767. ISBN 0-8092-5338-0

Or in Canada, contact Beaverbooks, Ltd, Markham, Ont.

Well, sure it is a little out of date, but it might give you some
ideas. There might be a newer version ... or you might compile a newer
version.

Here's one for the collection: Dial-the-Atheist 512 458-5731.


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]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #366
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21485;
          19 May 90 18:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29935;
          19 May 90 16:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01663;
          19 May 90 15:46 CDT
Date:     Sat, 19 May 90 15:03:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: RISKS Commentaries
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 May 90 15:00:00 CDT    Special: RISKS Commentaries

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom-Related Postings From RISKS [Will Martin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 10:55:00 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom-Related Postings From RISKS


Patrick, The following items are all phone-related postings from the
past three issues (89-91) of the RISKS Digest; I thought you might
want to include them in a regular or special issue of TELECOM Digest,
since I don't recall seeing the exact same items there:

********

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 12:17:44 MDT
From: [e-mail] (Gail L Barlich)
Subject: Phone System Problems

I began my undergraduate education at a church-related college in
Texas.  To handle long distance calls from dorm phones the phone
company issued everyone "student billing cards."  The phone company
waved the deposit because of the reputation (?) of the school.

Then I transferred and again decided to live in the dorm.  I contacted
the phone company and explained how I had a "student" card in Texas.
They had a similar deal but required that a heftly deposit remain on
account.  I explained that I had a card in Texas with no deposit.  The
woman suggested that I write a letter about my previous account and
include my card number if possible.  A few weeks later I was issued a
"student" card without a deposit because the "the computer" showed
that my Texas card was actually a "normal" billing card and I had a
good payment history.  They could not issue a "normal" card for a dorm
resident.

Each new school year I would call the phone company and confirm that
my card was still active.  Each year I had the same card number.

Well, my last year I got lazy.  I just began using it like usual and
never got a complaint from an operator.  I was making calls during the
day related to job hunting, so I expected horrible bills.  The months
went by, but no bills came.  I called the phone company in December.
Somehow I had visions of the university holding my diploma if I had
outstanding bills.  The phone person insisted that my account showed
zero.  Then I talked to the supervisor, and he also stated that my
account was entirely paid with no phone calls on record for my card or
my dorm phone number.  I told him exactly where I had been calling and
the charges I expected.  One week later a programmer called and
congratulated me on beating the phone system.  Apparently my "student"
card had some kind of odd designator on the number that merged it into
the "normal" card database.  The phone company had actually terminated
the "student" card program many months before.  My number had survived
but with no connections into billing.  The employee informed me that
my card had been terminated in good standing.

So I got out into the real world and called to get a telephone hooked
up.  I carefully gave them both "student" numbers.  They told me that
no deposit would be required because of my excellent payment
history...

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

Date: Wed, 02 May 90 14:40:19 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone System Problems


I don't know if these two stories shed any light on the problems, but
they're illustrative of system-level failures.

When I lived in Durham, NC, during the early 1970s, the local phone
system (GTE) did not have Automatic Number Identification (ANI) on
long-distance calls.  As a result, whenever you placed such a call
(and you could direct-dial), an operator would come online and ask
what number you were calling from.  The possibilities for error and
fraud are, of course, obvious, and it was always a subject of much
discussion what checking was done.  Did they at least have information
on your exchange?  Could they tell if the alleged calling line was
actually busy?  And most important, what happened to misattributed
calls?  One prevalent local rumor had it that such calls, when
challenged, were randomly assigned to other phone lines, in proportion
to the number of actual calls.  That theory always seemed improbable,
but...

One day, we receive a bill showing a call to %Fayetteville.  Now, we
knew that none of us had ever called Fayetteville, much less
%Fayetteville, so we went through the usual ritual of calling up to
complain.  The response this time was totally unexpected.  ``I'm
sorry, sir, but our records show that that charge has already been
investigated from a previous bill, and found to be justified.''  That
was totally erroneous, and we could prove it -- we had all of our
phone bills going back for quite some time.  I told the agent this;
she relented, and took the charge off the bill.

We never did figure out where that call came from, what the % meant,
or why GTE tried to claim that it was a call we had previously
challenged.

The second incident happened several years later, in Chapel Hill,
after Southern Bell had (by order of the State Utilities Commission)
bought out the local university-owned phone system, but before they'd
had a chance to upgrade it to use a switch not seemingly hand-built by
Strowger himself.  They were running out of phone numbers on the
exchanges, and they didn't want to expand the old switch because they
were frantically trying to replace it with an ESS.  So new customers,
especially in the southern part of the service, were assigned phone
numbers on the university Centrex system, and hence could abbreviate
much of their dialing.  In particular, when I wanted to call the port
selector at the Comp Center, I'd dial 3-9911, instead of 933-9911.
Now, I had one of the old mechanical, card-operated autodialers that
somehow the local phone company didn't know about.  This beast dialed
quickly (for a pulse dialer), and sometimes the switch couldn't keep
up.  So, when the second digit arrived too soon, it would reset, and
give me dial tone again -- just in time for the last three digits,
911...

The rest of the Chapel Hill phone system was on a par with the switch,
but I'll omit the details; they belong in Telecom Digest, or maybe the
Museum of Horrors.
                         --Steve Bellovin

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

Date: Wed, 2 May 90 15:40:08 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: More Phone Problems


This is in relation to phone company billing practices, both ATT and
Sprint.  First an observation about AT&T and "instant credit".

When one gets a bad international line, AT&T does not expect payment
for the call.  One can just call the operator, tell them what
happened, and forget about it.  Well, this is incorrect: one must call
twice.  The first call is right after the problem occurs.  The
operators cheerfully agree to immediate credit.  At the end of the
month, lo and behold, the call is still billed.  This gives rise to a
second call which finally settles the matter.

It happened to me, and others I asked (I'm a graduate student, with
lots of foreign nationals in the department.)  I've once seen a
friend's bill with a dozen or so failed overseas calls.  All one
minute long, all one right after another.  All called in to the
operator as soon as they were made.

It's enough to make one suspect that it's deliberate; corporate
customers especially might not keep accurate track of all short
overseas calls.

Now the Sprint story.

A few months ago (Jan 20), I had occasion to make an international
call to Europe (Romania).  Not being up-to-date on the latest prices
(I asked the operators, and apparently prices are no longer
distributed; I guess you're expected to call every time you want to
check.)  I called the long-distance carriers I knew about, found that
Sprint had the lowest rates by a fair margin, so I called them through
their access number (my primary carrier is AT&T).

When the bill arrived, it was about 50% higher than I expected.  I
called Sprint (Mar 2), and asked about their rates again, and they
again quoted the same numbers.  I then mentioned the bill.  The
operator did some more checking, then announced that yes, apparently
they changed their rates at the beginning of the year (Jan 1), and
that billing was done based on the new rates.  She was apologetic, and
said she would call this to the company's attention.

Apparently Sprint was still giving out the old rates, three months
after new rates were in effect!
                                              Andras

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

Date: Thu, 3 May 90 01:14:28 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Avi Belinsky)
Subject: Phone Switch Resets (Webber, RISKS-9.88)


    Some interesting but unimportant trivia about this case.  When
I used to work at Bell Northern Research (research arm of Northern
Telecom) someone in the know told me about this story.  Apparently it
was known internally as the gold ring problem.  A disgruntled employee
would run his gold wedding ring along the back of the Printed Circuit
Boards and short the system, resetting it.

    For a telephone switch provider, where down time called for in
tenders is one hour per forty years, the damage to their reputation
was enormous.  Apparently they lost millions tracking down this "bug"
and even more in lost sales from the bad reputation this flagship
switch generated.  I believe they tracked it down by matching operator
logs with system resets.

    I heard that the operator was later found floating dead in the
Ottawa river :-)


Avi Belinsky                 Electrical Engineering, University of Waterloo

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

Date: Tue, 8 May 90 09:46:06 -0700
From: "David G. Novick" <[e-mail]>
Subject: `Hacker' Alters Phone Services


The Spring, 1990, issue of Visions, the Oregon Graduate Institute's
quarterly magazine, has an interesting article on a man who broke into
telephone computers, creating the kinds of disruptions that have been
discussed lately on RISKS.  The programmer, named Corey Lindsly, lives
in Portland, OR.  He was eventually arrested and pled guilty to a
felony count of stealing long-distance phone service.  Here is an
excerpt.

David

    Confessions of a Computer Hacker
    by Michael Rose
    Visions (Oregon Graduate Institute quarterly magazine)
    Spring, 1990
 ...

Perhaps the most disturbing part of Lindsly's adventures was his
penetration of AT&T Switching Control Center Systems.  These sensitive
computers support long distance telephone service.  System
administrators for 17 of these computers spent over 520 hours mopping
up Lindsly's damages.

According to [AT&T New Jersey manager of corporate security Allen]
Thompson, Lindsly could have "severely disrupted" the nations's
telephone service.

Lindsly, however, bristles at the suggestion of his doing potentially
dangerous stunts.  Anything beyond harmless pranks is "beneath the
hacker ethic and uncouth," he says.

He does admit to disconnecting phones, changing billing status, and
adding custom calling features.  He also likes to convert residential
lines to coin class service, so when the unwitting homeowner picked up
his phone, a recorded voice would tell him to deposit 25 cents.

"Swapping people's phone numbers ... now that was great trick," he
recalls, with obvious amusement.  "You would have your next door
neighbor's number and he would have yours, and people would call you
and and ask for your neighbor, and vice versa, and everyone's getting
totally confused."

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

Date: Thu, 10 May 90 09:48:33 -0700
From: "David A. Honig" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Risks of Caller Identification


I recently had an unpleasant taste of the disadvantages of the caller
identification that may be more widespread soon.

A few weeks ago I called the university police's business line from my
office phone and asked a few minutes of questions about how to find
out about outstanding warrants (I had heard of someone getting
arrested while renewing his driver's license).  I informed the
officer that I spoke with that this was entirely moot. After receiving
my replies, I thought that was the end of it.

Thus you can imagine my surprise and annoyance to find that two
uniformed, armed officers and their sergeant came to my workplace
(having located that using the campus centrex's caller-id ability on
phones with appropriate displays), spoke with my coworkers, knocked on
my office door, and via suprise and intimidation verified my ID. This
permitted them to run a warrant check on me.  I was clean, which was
no surprise to me.  They skulked away shortly thereafter.

Conversations with the chief of police indicated that the rather
zealous instigating officer's behavior was within "acceptable" bounds,
and if you raise "enough" suspicion (on a slow day?), this constitutes
justification for nosing about your workplace.

The RISK is that the officer wouldn't have been able to easily trace
the number except for the abilities of the private exchange.

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

Date: 12 May 90 11:42:00 MDT
From: "Gary McClelland" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Avoiding ANI by Dialing 1-900    (Gary McClelland)


Summary of report on All Things Considered (NPR), Friday, May 11, 1990:

Private LInes, Inc. of Beverly Hills provides a telephone service for
those wanting to avoid automatic number indentification.  You simply
call a 900 number which then lets you call out through Private Lines
WATS numbers.  ANI at the receiving end of course then displays only
the Beverly Hills number of Private Lines.  NPR interviewed president
of Private LInes who defended need for such a service.  He of course
said that the service was not intended to help obscene callers and
their rates would make obscene calling through Private LInes a very
expensive habit ($2/minute, I think).  (NPR noted that ANI had already
resulted in several arrests of obscene callers in the Atlantic
Southern area where ANI is heavily promoted for that purpose.)  He
cited the following legitimate reasons for avoiding ANI and any
billing record of the numbers called.  (1) Boss is quietly working on
a merger deal and doesn't want secretaries and accountants in the firm
noticing a sudden increase in calls to a particular other firm. (2)
Separated spouse wants to call kids but doesn't want spouse to know
from where he or she is calling.  (3) Caller to crisis line or crime
tip line wants to guarantee annonymity.


Gary McClelland        [e-mail]

***End of extract***

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: RISKS Commentaries
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23935;
          19 May 90 19:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08439;
          19 May 90 17:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac29935;
          19 May 90 16:50 CDT
Date:     Sat, 19 May 90 16:35:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #367
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 May 90 16:35:04 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 367

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pulse Speed (was Re: Alternative to Touch Tone) [C. D. Covington]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: AT&T's Software Defined Network [Eric Schnoebelen]
    Re: Line Slip [Richard H. Gumpertz]
    Re: Sprint Card / WD40 Update [Henry Mensch]
    Re: 900-STOPPER [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Measured Service [Jonathan A. Solomon]
    Public FAX Machine at Post Office [TELECOM Moderator]
    Where Can I Buy Caller ID Equipment? [Mike Black]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "C. D. Covington" <uafhcx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pulse Speed (was Re: Alternative to Touch Tone)
Date: 19 May 90 19:06:00 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville


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

> I dug out the Authoritative Reference, the LATA Switching System
> Generic Requirements (LSSGR).  In particular, LSSGR Section 6, Signaling.
> It's also a handy document to have around.

It's also $1825.00 for the paying crowd.  Ouch.


C. David Covington (WA5TGF)  [e-mail]     [phone]
Asst Prof, Elec Eng          Univ of Arkansas        Fayetteville, AR 72701

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

From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sat, 19 May 90 18:54:01 GMT

As quoted from <[e-mail]> by claris!netcom!ergo@
ames.arc.nasa.gov (Rabinovitch Isaac):

| It's *really* frustrating when software designers neglect to think
| through issues like this.  For example, which should a terminal
| emulating program do when it the modem gives a "VOICE" return code?
| Obviously, it should stop and demand correction from the nearest
| carbon-based unit.  But not only do none of them provide this feature,
| but many are factory-configured to treat "VOICE" the same as "BUSY" --
| which usually implies redialling the number!  Hopefully, that hasn't
| yet led to violence....

My old US Robotics Microlink 2400 modem (now out of service, along
with the rest of the computer it's installed in) mis-identified a busy
signal as VOICE about a third of the time.  This may be why VOICE is
treated the same as BUSY.

Many terminal programs can be configured as to the result codes they
recognize.  You might try changing VOICE to an error result.  Or, if
all else fails, use a binary file editor to change "VOICE" to
something random.


Me: Brandon S. Allbery            VHF: KB8JRR on 224.50 (Lake County, OH)
Internet: [e-mail]        Delphi: ALLBERY
uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery    America OnLine: BrandonA or KB8JRR

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

From: Eric Schnoebelen <egsner.cirr.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Software Defined Network
Date: 19 May 90 17:41:44 GMT
Organization: Central Iowa (Model) Railroad, Dallas, Tx.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert 18-May-1990 0847) writes:

- >But I'm wondering about "Software Defined Network"...  Has ATT just
- >figured out how to use software to configure their network?  Why are
- >they boasting about something which is old news?

- >What they're boasting about is using software to define _your_ private
- >network.  This is a new offering.

        This is a new offering?  I have been hearing of AT&T's SDN for
at least two years.  Granted, for the most of those two years, I was
working for a network design house (JBA, Inc.)

        The other major interlata carriers also provide similar
services, and have since at least early '87 (at least for corporate
size accounts, like GM, Hughes, Unical, etc.) MCI offers VNET, which
has at least three rate levels, and Sprint offers VPnet (I believe
that is what it is called.) The other carriers also offer something
similar.

        The virtual network services (which is what SDN, VNET and
VPnet are) are very useful for integrating small and large networks
together.  Major corporations have been using them for the last few
years to get their low use, out of the way sites (like the GM owned
Bill's Chevy, in Timbuckto) connected to the main network, without
having to pay for dedicated lines.

        Networks of this form are generally called Hybrid network,
since they contain the normal private network dedicated lines, plus
the addition of the virtual network services.  The two major network
design software houses, Telco Research, and JBA, have been supporting
this sort of network design since '86, and I believe that JBA may have
been the first.  [I no longer work directly for JBA, but there are
still lots of friends over there!]


Eric Schnoebelen        [e-mail]        [e-mail]

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

From: "Richard H. Gumpertz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Slip
Date: 19 May 90 15:44:17 GMT
Reply-To: "Richard H. Gumpertz" <cpsolv![e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 336, Message 10 of 15

>We have similar problems, but at 2400 baud. The sequence of characters
>is always "~r" or "<DEL>{". The same behaviour has been observed with

The last time I had problems with this, it turned out to be the PBX.
The trunk line cards had two settings for the 4-2 line hybrid: 600 and
900 ohm.  Due to the QA testing procedure testing 600 ohm last, that
is the way they were shipped.  Unfortunately, 900 ohm is usually a
better approximation of correct balance for most CO lines in the USA
(your mileage may vary).

Anyway, each time a trunk card was replaced in the switch, we got ~r
and the like on our modems.  We finally got all the technicians
trained to set the jumper before installing a new card and we never
had the problem again.


 | Richard H. Gumpertz    [e-mail]    [phone] or [phone] |
 | Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749 |

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 90 14:42:32 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Card / WD40 Update
Reply-To: [e-mail]


My credit didn't turn up, either, so I called and got an
overly-pleasant southern gentleman on the line who organized the
credit (it amounts to something like $7.50 or so).  It will appear on
my bill in the next 45 days (why so long?).

He was prepared to give me a spiel about how the promotion works, but
(armed with the information on the can) he applied the credit
immediately.

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


[Moderator's Note: The reason for the 45-day quote on the credit was
because they bill in cycles. Charges/credits arriving within a day or
so of the cycle billing cutoff are too late for inclusion in the bill
currently being prepared. Those charges/credits will be held for the
next bill, which will be 30 days later, more or less. He could have as
likewise told you, "The credit will appear on your next bill or the
one following" and been accurate in his statement.  PT]

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

Date: 19-MAY-1990 15:57:55.56
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900-STOPPER


One other way to defeat Caller*ID would be to go down to your local
COCOT and use their AOS ... Or, if no COCOT is available, dial your
favorite AOS's Equal Access code from a Bell phone and place the call
through them.

(Of course the call would probably cost a *LOT* more than $2, but it
still is another way to defeat 900-STOPPER! :-)  )

Speaking of COCOTs, the matter of COCOTs making their own collect
calls came up on the Digest recently. These are the type that have a
voice- synthesized recording saying "Hello, this is your operator...to
place a Collect Call, dial "1" now. For operator assistance, please
press 3."  After you press "1" (assuming you want a collect call), the
COCOT asks you to state your name, records it digitally (?), and then
calls the desired party to ascertain whether they will accept charges
for the call.

Assuming all this works, and assuming the called party accepts the
call, how is this billed? IE, since this doesn't go through an AOS,
how does the payphone tell whatever billing agency it uses the costs
of the call? Does the COCOT upload the call data to some service
overnight? (In a similar manner to those COCOTS, which I suspect are
now illegal, which used to take your calling card number, try it out
on the Bell/AT&T Calling Card system, and if it worked put the call
through direct-dial but billed you at whatever ridiculous rates the
merchant set.)

Also, does the merchant make more from these sort of calls than those
handled by the AOS? IE, is there a difference in what the merchant who
owns the COCOT makes if I dial "1" to make a collect call via the
COCOT or dial "3" to make a collect call through the AOS?

I've also noticed that after a certain period of time, the COCOT will
just let the call through, and usually not hang up. I've never tried
calling myself this way, but I wonder if the COCOT decides to bill you
in a case like this...  (Knowing how AOSs work, probably yes!)

New England Tel. has a automated collect call/third party call system,
which is somewhat similar, yet *it* can't be fooled into letting the
call through like the COCOT does. For example, the COCOT system has no
way of checking that the number you are calling can accept collect
calls. It has a limited capacity to filter out collect calls to
Area-code-555-1212 calls and numbers like that (976, etc...), but will
allow collect calls to almost ANY other number, even 936 information
numbers.

So you could call another payphone from the COCOT, a friend at that
payphone could accept the charges, and the COCOT would let the call
through, thinking it was a valid destination number. The New England
Tel system would never allow this, as it checks a database of all
"allowable" phone numbers, and if it sees a payphone will say "That
number is a payphone and can not accept collect calls".

I still don't see why merchants think COCOTs are "good for business"! :-)


Doug

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

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 1990 16:39:25 EDT
From: "Jonathan A. Solomon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Measured Service


I'd like to reduce the cost of having phone service to the bare
minimum, but I have to maintain two lines since I have a modem (well,
my conscience tells me I don't REALLY have to maintain two lines). One
of those lines has to be flat rate. The other could be measured. If I
could find DEFINITE quotes from the PUC regulations regarding
telephone service, or a way of fighting the NET service reps who don't
seem to want to let me have that sort of service configuration, please
respond to [e-mail].

Just so you understand the magnitude of this, I was originally
spending $100.00/month on local phone service. Metropolitan service,
custom calling, two or three lines depending, 800 service. I now have
it down to $30.00. Measured service on one line would bring the cost
down to $20.00.  I can't do with measured service on my data line
since I am on it quite a bit.


jsol

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 90 15:52:00 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public FAX Machine at Post Office


When I went to my post office box Friday night, I found a new
convenience had been installed in the lobby, namely a public FAX
machine, which for $8.50 per three minutes, will send or receive FAX
documents from anywhere.

This particular post office branch, called 'Loop Station', is located
at 211 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60604. It is open 24 hours,
seven days per week, and its only purpose is to serve about 10,000
post office boxes in the 60690 zip code, which is strictly boxes -- no
actual street addresses. The post office is heavily dominated by the
large banks and other business houses in downtown Chicago. There are
very few 'private' individuals holding boxes there. A call counter for
large packages (and 'phantom box', i.e. remittance-banking, etc), a
copy machine, pay phones (genuine Illinois Bell, thank you!) and some
vending machines for postage stamps made up the scene. I like doing
business there because of the anomynity: go in at 3 AM on Tuesday to
get your mail if you like.

As of Friday, a coin-operated FAX machine was added. Using your credit
card in the slot on the machine, you can send or receive FAX messages.
*The use of the attached phone does not require your credit card*
however, as a few simple experiments demonstrated.

A video display guides you through the process. You touch the screen
on the appropriate menu item, then it gives further instructions, etc.
One menu item was entitled, 'Call for Customer Assistance'. You were
then instructed to lift the handset attached and wait for an answer.

Lifting the handset without touching the screen produced a dead line,
much like an old-fashioned coin phone with no money deposited.
Touching the 'customer service' option on the menu brought the phone
to life with dial tone. About three seconds later, an autodialer tone
dialed a number somewhere, which connected to the company which had
installed the machine. Flashing the switchook at that point
disconnected the call to customer service, and returned dial tone. A
pocket dialer held to the handset at that point allowed calls
anywhere! I should mention the 'phone' in this case was simply an
armored handset attached to the FAX machine, which itself was a rather
large device -- almost the size of a large copy machine such as used
in a big office.

The strangest part of all this was the way the phone line to the FAX
machine had been connected: The usual four-conductor phone cable came
out the back side, was tacked on the side of the wall over to one of
the payphones, and a standard modular jack had been mounted there with
two-sided tape on the wall. Plugging into the modular jack with a
phone produced the results expected: A dial tone to anywhere. No need
at that point to deceive the FAX machine and its autodialer! From the
modular jack, the wires ran into the wall next to the payphone,
obviously just tying into some unused pair at that point.

I am tempted to spend $8.50 to receive a FAX there so it will tell me
what number the other end must dial to reach me. Or maybe instead of
that approach it dials the other end and they must go into 'send' mode
rather than 'receive mode'.

In any event, isn't it strange and quite a security risk to have an
open phone line, so easily defeated, in a public place open 24 hours
per day?  Why don't the people who provide those services ask
*someone* for assistance or advice before they go off on a tangent
putting their machines in?  I'll be surprised if that corner of the
lobby in the post office doesn't soon become a phraud-hive, to say
nothing of vandalism to the flimsy wiring and phone jack.


Patrick Townson
Post Office Box 1570
Chicago, IL 60690

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

From: Mike Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where Can I Buy Caller ID Equipment?
Date: 19 May 90 15:41:53 GMT
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA


What's available for providing Caller ID to a home user?  I've heard a
lot about it recently but haven't seen any product availability.

Mike

[Moderator's Note: If you haven't received mail order solicitations
and notices from your local telco, then Caller ID is not yet available
in your area. There are boxes for sale from various mail-order
sources, but they are for naught until your telco actually starts
sending out the information. Don't bother buying a box until you can
actually use it; and when that time comes your telco among others will
have plenty to tell you on the subject.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #367
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01203;
          20 May 90 12:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05808;
          20 May 90 11:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26162;
          20 May 90 9:56 CDT
Date:     Sun, 20 May 90 9:24:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #368
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 May 90 09:24:01 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 368

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Micro-PBX For Home Use [Dave Platt]
    FCC REN Numbers (was: BT Phones, etc) [Julian Macassey]
    Telephones, Technology, and the Media [John Higdon]
    Interesting Police Technology [Douglas Mason]
    Need New UUCP Access [Brian Capouch]
    Verification of Numbers Furnished to ONI [David Lesher]
    Re: Banks Charge Universal Card Violates Laws [Dave Rand]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: Public FAX Machine at Post Office [Henry Mensch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Platt <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 90 22:00:20 PDT
Subject: Micro-PBX For Home Use


I've decided that it's time to do something more flexible with our two
phone lines, than the current setup (one for voice, one for outgoing
modem calls).  At a minimum, I'd like to be able to use the second
line as a forward-when-busy catcher for the first line, and have our
answering machine be able to pick up either line ... my wife spends a
fair bit of time on the phone to clients during the day, hates to miss
calls, and _really_ dislikes Call Waiting.

Having the two lines combined into a hunt-group isn't a problem ($20
setup fee, plus $.50/line/month); it's cheaper in the long run than
programmable call-forwarding.  However, we have a substantial
investment in single-line phone equipment (speakerphone, dialer,
answering machine, etc.), and I'd rather not dump it all and buy
two-line versions.  I'd like to have some additional flexibility for
the future, too.

The least expensive approach would seem to be a $22 gadget from Radio
Splut, which will enable the single-line answering machine to pick up
whichever line happens to ring.  For a similar amount of money, I
could add a two-line selector to our main telephone, and leave the
other equipment in a strictly single-line mode.

What other solutions are available today?  I remember reading a digest
article a while ago about a nice micro-PBX (sort of), which would
support several outside lines, half a dozen or more stations (standard
tone phones, I believe), and could be programmed quite flexibly.  I
_think_ the unit in question was a Panasonic ... unfortunately, I
failed to save the article.

What are people using for this sort of situation?  How expensive is
it?  Is it affected by the anti-dumping tariff which I understand is
now in place?  Will it be upgradable to support basic ISDN subscriber
(2B+D) capabilities?  What are its quirks and benefits?

Please email responses if possible; I'll send a summary to the
moderator for posting if appropriate.

advTHANKSance!


Dave Platt                                             VOICE: [phone]
  UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt   DOMAIN: [e-mail]
  INTERNET:       coherent![e-mail],  [e-mail]
  USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc.  3350 West Bayshore #205  Palo Alto CA 94303

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC REN Numbers (Was: BT Phones, etc)
Date: 20 May 90 01:24:44 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
> writes:
> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 354, Message 11 of 11

> >In the US, a standard gong
> >ringer is assigned a "Ringer Equivalence Number" of 1. A standard
> >phone line will ring 5 of these ringers or an REN of 5. Some
> >electronic ringers have RENs of 0.5 etc so you can usually get more of
> >these on the line than gongs.

> What is the conversion factor between RENs and somthing your average
> EE can understand, like "milliamps at 90vrms, 20Hz?"

> I've been thinking about how to build a ring generator for some
> homebrew-PBX experiments, and would like to know how much current I
> need to put out per phone.

    Anyone wanting to design and build telephone equipment needs a
copy of Part 68. In there, in the wonderful obtuseness of Bureaucrat
speak is everything you want to know.

    In part 68, "Paragraph 68.312 On-hook impedance limitations"
Read section D "Ringer Equivalence Definition" That will refer you to
the notorious Table 1. To save you the trouble of waiting for your own
copy of Part 68, here is the pertinent line from Table 1.

Ringing | Range of compatible   | Simulated ringing voltage |Imped-
 type   | ringing frequencies Hz| superimposed on 525 V DC  | ance
        |                       |                           |limita-
        |                       |                           | ion
        |                       |                           | (ohms)
   A      20 +- 3 and 30 +- 3      40 to 130 volts rms        1400
                                                              1000
   B         15.3 to 68.0          40 to 150 volts rms        1600


    Now take the above data and read D (iv) which says:

    (iv) Five times the impedance limitation listed in Table I,
(sic) below, divided by the minimum measured ac impedance, defined as
in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, during the application of
simulated ringing as listed in Table I.

    Pretty clear and simple eh?

    Anyhow, don't forget that Part 68 is an FCC doc dealing with
registration of equipment (Phones, modems etc) connected to the
telephone network (Stuff plugged into jacks, or as Bell used to say
"Customer Provided Equipment - CPE). There is no doubt a Bell doc on
what sort of guff a ring generator should spew out. For collectors of
such matters, the Bell Pub dealing with POTS telephone specs is Bell
Pub 48005. A good read with some obtuse language and requirements that
used to baffle AT&T folks when I asked for clarification.

    Gazing through my Bellcore catalog, I see Bell Pub 43001 -
Metallic facilities Central Offices. This could have ringing info, for
$99.75 you can buy it and find out.

    Hope this helps.


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

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

Subject: Telephones, Technology, and the Media
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 19 May 90 21:51:08 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Think of the last story you read in the newspaper concerning any
technological matter. Was it complete, or was it simplified to the
point that little useful information was available? What information
there was, was it accurate, misleading, or downright erroneous?

How on earth can the public be expected to make rational decisions
regarding its telecommunications when the media (the prime source of
current affairs education for the great unwashed) does such a
miserable job of presenting the biggest legal upset of all time:
divestiture? OK, what got Higdon started *this* time, you ask? It was
the "2600" article.

The media thrives on sensationalism. If some kid stumbles onto the
password for the root access for some company's computer, the media
will look for any way to assure the public that "no lives were lost,
and there were apparently no injuries." Accuracy in the reporting of
hackers' exploits? Why bother?! Accuracy when informing the public
about the ramifications of the new telephonic choices in the
marketplace? Well, only if it swings, if you know what I mean.

Remember, we are dealing with an institution with a highly-visible
double standard. Drug problem? Well, it's going to take extreme
measures to deal with that, even the suspension of a few
constitutional rights. Computer hacking? Now, that's really scary. The
newspapers and broadcasters have been more than eager to tell us that
Morris got just a slap on the wrist. To hear it told, he probably
should have been strung up. Never mind that notables such as Steve
Wozniak have gently pointed out that computer hacking is not nearly
the threat to mankind that those who's livelihood depend on the
opposite perception by the public say it is. The media says, "Sweep
them all into the jug."

But let one Sheriff's deputy stroll into the city room and ask for
some reporter's notes on a sensitive case. The front and editorial
pages light up with the latest assault on "the rights of a free
press". The weeping and wailing abounds.

That having been said, why would we even consider that an article on
"Long Distance Providers" would contain any more than a ghostly
outline of reality? It would seem that our friendly print and
electronic journalists consider the public to be completely
uninterested in matters such as telephony, particularly on a technical
level. Maybe they are right, but it would be different if something
other than a lackluster, error-ridden presentation was offered.

Until the day comes when those who profess to provide us with
information actually do so, anyone wanting to gather enough data to
make informed choices, or simply wanting to form some intelligent
opinions will have to dig out the facts from alternative sources, of
which is forum is one.


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

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

From: Douglas Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Police Technology
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Douglas Mason)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Date: Sat, 19 May 90 23:57:19 GMT


Something interesting that the police in Ottawa County (Holland,
Michigan) are doing now is putting cellular phones and fax machines in
their police cars!

While cellular phones are increasingly more common in police cars, fax
machines are new.  Holland, Michigan is the first to use such devices
in all of the police cars and trucks.

Also, all of the area judges have fax machines at their homes.  What
is the reason for all of this?

Now, when police find that they have a potential arrest situation,
they can get a fax of the search warrant or arrest warrant signed by a
judge to them in seconds.  If they have a suspicious car or truck
pulled over a search warrant takes only a matter of seconds, 24 hours
a day.

The cellular phones also allow an increasing degree of security from
(most) police scanners.

Found this out when I was in Holland over the weekend.  Thought it
might be interesting to some of the fellow net-people.  I'm not so
sure I like the idea of the fax machines.  I hear that people get
instant warrants for "drunk driving" now and the like.  Apparently the
judges have a rotating schedule to be bothered in the middle of the
night to sign these faxes.


Douglas T. Mason | [e-mail] or dtmason@m-net |


[Moderator's Note: In Chicago, a limited number of police cars have
been equipped with terminals for several years; the number of cars
thus equipped is growing, it may be up to 25 percent now. These
terminals can do license plate checks as well as get records from the
NCIC, a federal data base of criminals.  For the rest of the police
cars, the officers have to call in their request, and wait 5-20
minutes for a response, depending.  While the police radios transmit
in the 460.05 ==> 460.500 range, the terminals are up around 812 megs
someplace.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 90 16:52:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brian Capouch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need New UUCP Access


I'm about to lose part of my connection to the Internet, and need to
seek out some help from Digest readers.

How can I supplant my current on-line access, at least as far as email
is concerned, with access through UUCP?  My machine is a Mac; I'm in
possession of UUCP software for the machine, but don't know either
where or how to obtain a dial-up hook to send/receive mail.

I would be grateful for any help that could be proffered.  If it
wouldn't be of interest to the group as a whole, please email me
directly.  Thanks in advance.


Brian Capouch
Saint Joseph's College
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Isn't there some public access site near you which
would allow you to poll them?  PT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Verification of Numbers Furnished to ONI
Date: Sat, 19 May 90 18:42:25 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


|    There *is* a verification system of sorts which has been
|implemented to deter ONI "fibbing" :-).

(Larry goes on to describe a 'busy test' method)

One problem. Lots of ONI calls were/are on party lines. Give another
party's #....

I'm not sure how this fits, but my friend JB once took a TT phone to
his (party line service) parent's in Avon, OH (216-937). In those
days, that was part of Lorain Telephone Co. The 'undertaker' CO was
just down the street. You could almost here it from the road as you
drove by ;-}

The TT set work fine on local calls, as the switch faithfully
outpulsed each tone's translation. (yawn) But when he made a LD call,
the intercept operator came up with a very puzzled note to her
'nummberlpeze' query.  She asked him to call again. He did, with a
rotary set. She sounded relieved.

Any idea what was going on?

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

From: Dave Rand <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Banks Charge Universal Card Violates Laws
Organization: Association for the Prevention of Polar Bears and Kangaroos
Date: Sat, 19 May 90 20:56:07 GMT


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

>Excerpted from {The New York Times}, Friday May 18, 1990, Page D1:

>    The American Telephone and Telegraph Company's complex
>    arrangements to sponsor a bank credit card are drawing criticism
>    from rivals in the business.


U S Sprint, not to be outdone, has included the following notice in
the latest bill (arrived today).

"Now... a VISA card and a US Sprint FONCARD _all in one!_

The buying power of Visa, America's most valued credit card and the
calling ability of the US Sprint FONCARD, America's only 100% digital
_F_iber _O_ptic _N_etwork log distance travel card.  _Together in one
card._ A card that offers exceptional advantages - including all the
travel benegits of the Visa Gold Card."

APR for purchases is listed as 17.99%, with a $25/year Annual Fee.
The card is issed through State Street Bank and Trust company, Boston,
MA.  Additional disclosure information/changes are available from
800-446-7625.

Looks like this is just the beginning.


Dave Rand
{pyramid|mips|sun|vsi1}!daver!dlr    Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 90 15:58:33 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint


Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>...

> It's not Sprint or MCI, it's the Telebit.  From my understanding,
> Telebit modems don't work worth squat when the signal is digitized.
> Seems that the digitizing screws up the phasing of the modem signal
> (why? I don't know) and AT&T uses analog all along the signal path.

I question this.  In some AT&T education I received recently, the
instructors (who are employed by AT&T) said in the class that the
channels between POPs are now all fiber (or 98% or so).  If you get
analog, it is in that distance between the AT&T POP and your local
office and/or out to your site.  Even if AT&T is not 100% fiber
between POPs, your chances of getting a fiber link over a switched
channel are pretty good.

So this is why I am surprised to hear your say that AT&T uses analog
the whole way.

> the effect.  If there is interest, e-mail me and I'll ask him for a
> more detailed description of the problem causes and what Telebit plans
> on doing about it (if anything).

You knew we'd be doing this: Please get us more details on this
problem.

                         - tom

internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1         Location: Newark, DE, USA

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

Date: Sat, 19 May 90 22:59:20 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Public FAX Machine at Post Office
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Australia Post has provided a similar service for some time ...


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #368
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01376;
          20 May 90 23:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22125;
          20 May 90 22:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03497;
          20 May 90 21:05 CDT
Date:     Sun, 20 May 90 20:27:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #369
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 May 90 20:26:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 369

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 900-STOPPER [Jonathan A. Solomon]
    900-STOPPER Alternatives (was Re: 900-STOPPER) [David Tamkin]
    Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media [Paul Colley]
    Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: Measured Service [Jerry Leichter]
    Re: 950 Numbers in Canada [David Tamkin]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Robert Gutierrez]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 May 1990 18:49:40 EDT
From: "Jonathan A. Solomon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900-STOPPER


That last message about ANI describes a problem that can't be fixed.
Calling a crisis line or having a divorced spouce calling their kids
may be a crime if ani is not provided. Also, a boss can easily get a
private number (and most bosses have that) which is not connected to
the secretaries line and which is billed directly to his office (where
he can tell if his secretary opened it and subsequently fire her).

Allowing someone to call a 1-900 number to avoid ANI is like telling
someone to dial my number and have me forward it. I suspect you can
get sued for providing such a service in violation of the law. To do
it right would require an operator.

You either have ANI or you don't. 1-900-KILL-ANI is on my bill, so if
officers want to check out if I had called 1-212-234-5234 they can
assume that if they know more about the case that 1-900-KILL-ANI will
give them a clue, and a court order will cause the 900 number provider
to give up the number (I'm sure they keep track ... they have to). So
much for breaking the law.

I can imagine some insurance companies and merchants using this
service to harrass customers into purchasing their services, foiling
the ANI services, but you have to admit, $2/minute is alot to spend
for anonymity, especially when it can't be guaranteed.


I have spoken.
jsol

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 90 18:40 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900-STOPPER Alternatives (was 900-STOPPER)


Patrick Townson wrote in volume 10, issue 364, regarding use of a
cellular phone to stymie Caller-ID:

|[Moderator's Note: You don't have to even bother roaming.  If my cellular
|phone number is captured, a call to IBT Name and Address Bureau (312 or
|708) 796-9600 produces a response, "It's a mobile number.  We don't have
|any other information." (click).  That seems to be the rule on all cell
|numbers in this area.  PT]

Actually, that would apply to any unlisted number.  My point, however,
is that silence from the Customer Name and Address people is not
enough protection.  The callee cannot get your address and thus cannot
send you junk mail or knock on your door, but it (along with everyone
who buys its lists) still knows that the number from which you dialed
belongs to someone who expressed an interest in the callee's service
or product.  Maybe your name has to go onto the list as unknown, but
your phone number still gets keypunched, and you get the pleasure of
receiving telemarketing calls and paying for the airtime to hear them.

At least, I'm assuming that staying off telemarketing lists is the
reason you want to place the unidentified call.  An unlisted but
displayed number wouldn't stop an obscene phone call investigation, I
trust, but as far as I know neither Patrick nor Doug would have that
particular reason to mask Caller-ID.

Moreover, a callee with Call Block can add the originating number of
the most recent caller to the refusal list without needing to know the
number, so if the number is delivered, even if CNA won't say who has
it, it can still be added.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Colley)
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 20 May 90 20:06:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 368, Message 3 of 9

>Think of the last story you read in the newspaper concerning any
>technological matter. Was it complete, or was it simplified to the
>point that little useful information was available? What information
>there was, was it accurate, misleading, or downright erroneous?

>But let one Sheriff's deputy stroll into the city room and ask for
>some reporter's notes on a sensitive case. The front and editorial
>pages light up with the latest assault on "the rights of a free
>press". The weeping and wailing abounds.

Maybe there is hope yet.  My ``favourite'' daily paper here is the
{Toronto Star}, and appears to be heavily computerized.  At least, they
blame some types of errors on the software used in composing news
articles...

Perhaps this is just another ``blame the computer'' excuse, but if
they really are using computers as much as they claim, maybe we can
hope for more technically literate and informed reporting in the
future.

Perhaps all that is needed (in regards to the 2600 article) is to get
the press addicted to the benefits of electronic mail.  Interception
of anyone's electronic mail and seizure of the computers used may then
generate ``front and editorial pages lit up with the latest assault on
the rights of a free society'' (changing John's statement).


  Paul Colley
  Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
  Waterloo, Canada
  [e-mail] or .ca


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

From: "j. eric townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media
Date: Sun, 20 May 90 18:11:46 CDT


I think this discussion might belong in comp.dcom.telecom for a couple
of more messages.  (My qualifications to make such a statement: I'll
take my Journalism BA/minor COSC this fall, and either take a BSCS or
enter grad school in communications theory next fall...)

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

>How on earth can the public be expected to make rational decisions
>regarding its telecommunications when the media (the prime source of
>current affairs education for the great unwashed) does such a
>miserable job of presenting the biggest legal upset of all time:
>divestiture?

Technical stories do not sell newspapers, unfortunately.  In more than
one of my journalism classes, we discussed how technical an article
can get before people stop reading it.

The biggest problem: A news story has to explain enough background so
that the story will make sense to people who don't understand what a
PBX is, or why password security is flaky, etc.

The second biggest problem is lack of knowledge on the reporter's
part.  Most major papers still don't have any sort of "technology
beat", where a reporter who knows what a PBX is (and better still, how
to talk about it in English :-) regularly covers technology stories.

Combine the lack of concern with technology as a beat with the
amazingly low salaries of most reporters, and you get bad journalism.
The salaries really are miserable.  A few years ago, starting salary
at the New York Times for a reporter was around $45,000 a year.
Realize that you need probably 5-10 years of experience at a major
daily to get hired at the NYT as a "real" reporter.  (And a few year's
experience at least at a small daily or weekly to get on to a major
daily.)

I'd like to do a technology beat at a paper, but I can't afford to.
If I'm going to take a writing job, it's going to be technical
writing, so I can at least pay my bills and support my 'puter habit.

>Remember, we are dealing with an institution with a highly-visible
>double standard. Drug problem? Well, it's going to take extreme
>measures to deal with that, even the suspension of a few
>constitutional rights.

I challenge you to show me a newspaper editorial that suggests
suspending the constitution to solve any of our current problems.

>Until the day comes when those who profess to provide us with
>information actually do so, anyone wanting to gather enough data to
>make informed choices, or simply wanting to form some intelligent
>opinions will have to dig out the facts from alternative sources, of
>which is forum is one.

Uh, if you think you can get (and trust) your information from only
one source, you should rethink your belief system.  I read the NYT on
a regular basis, but I don't automagically believe everything (or
anything) I read there.

2600 is a low-rent journal for techies (which isn't bad, it's just the
part of the world they occupy).

Finally, if you think it's so easy, give it a try yourself. :-).
There are plenty of papers that'd love to pay you about $25,000/yr for
you to relate your knowledge gained at a much higher expense.


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]    Bitnet: jet@UHOU    Skate UNIX(r).

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 90 10:16:15 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Measured Service


Jonathan Solomon would like to know if there is a way to get measured
service on one of two lines, flat rate on the other.  My experience
has been that this is officially forbidden.  However, telco's don't go
very far out of their way to check - in fact, they usually ASK you if
there is another phone line at the same address.  You can simply say
"no".

Of course, if you are having the two lines billed together, this
probably won't work, as it'll show up on the service records.  Get
them to send you separate bills first - no cost, minor hassle.  (I
used to send the two bills back in a single envelope with a single
check; I marked the check with the amounts to credit to each line.  In
several years, they only got this wrong once, applying the entire
check to one of the two lines.  No big deal; the total amount of money
was the same, I just had to allocate it to correct the imbalance on
the next bill.)  I'd give them at least a couple of days after that
change before trying to get the service class changed, just to let
things settle down.

It's not nice to lie to Mom, but sometimes it's the only way to get
things done.

        -- Jerry

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 90 18:49 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950 Numbers in Canada


Marcel Mongeon wrote in volume 10, issue 356:

|I have frequently seen mention of 950 telephone numbers.  Up here in
|Canada, because we have yet to discover alternate long distance service,
|they don't really mean anything (I think).

|Can some of these 950 numbers be dialed over an 800 number?  If so, would
|someone mind sending me or posting a list of all of the different 800-950
|numbers.  I would like to see if these can be dialed from Canada.  If
|they are, I can then get a family member to subscribe to one of them for
|me and then use an alternate carrier.

US Sprint no longer uses a 950 number but has switched to 800.
Telecom*USA never did use 950, and I believe AT&T never did either.
(Actually, I have no idea how to place a call through AT&T from a
phone where 10288 is blocked.)  US Sprint and Telecom*USA have also
both told me that their calling cards will not function from Canada.

MCI uses both 950-1022 and 800-950-1022 (in the 800 pseudo-NPA, 950 is
an ordinary prefix, but it belongs to MCI and they take advantage of
its recognition factor).  MCI told me that dialing 1-800-950-1022 (but
not 950-1022) and using an MCI calling card will work from Canada, but
I don't know whether their rates would be any lower than Bell Canada's
are.  MCI bills my charges directly to my MasterCard (they also accept
VISA); they might not do that for a card issued by a Canadian bank,
and you'd somehow have to pay them in US funds.

Moreover, MCI will not open an account with a Canadian billing
address.  You'd have to get some relative or friend in the United
States to own the account.  I'd advise, after my own difficulties with
MCI's trying to reaffiliate me, asking someone who already has MCI as
primary 1+ carrier to request an additional calling card (which you
would use) or finding someone who has successfully established a
calling card-only account with MCI to request an additional card.
Either of those options lets out having your billing sent to
MasterCard or VISA; you'd somehow have to reimburse the owners of the
account (in green money) for your share of a combined bill.  On the
other hand, your calls and theirs would accumulate together toward
volume discounts.

If you want to try to use charge card billing to make the funds
conversion simpler, you could ask a friend in the US who has no
relation with MCI to try to open a calling-card only account (that way
all charges on the account would be yours to pay, though the rep I
spoke with wasn't sure whether MCI could set up billing to a charge
card issued by a Canadian bank anyway), but your friend would risk
going through what I did, so I recommend a relative for this approach:
friends, after all, can be lost.

MCI's customer service number (1-800-444-4444) is dialable from Canada
if you have more questions.  I've no relationship with them except as
a [note absence of adjective] customer.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 21 May 90 00:07:11 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet Network Operations.


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> I have learned indirectly through Pac*Bell that 2400 bps is the max
> that carriers consider to be required to pass through a standard
> dialup circuit. In other words, if you complain that the line quality
> is poor enough to inhibit 2400 bps transmission, they will fix it. If
> you complain that V.32 or PEP is having trouble, you may get waved
> off. A totally unsubstantiated rumor states that the carriers are
> doing this on purpose to get people to go for more expensive "data"
> service.

This is absolutely true at MCI.  Even though Customer Service (and
even the Trouble Reporting Centers) will take the report, as soon as
the trouble "ticket" reaches the regional Data Support group, and they
see it above 2400 baud, they bring out the corporate policy book and
quote it, chapter and verse.  When the customer says what should I do,
then they 'recommend' a data line! ... to a dial-up customer!  (Gee,
let's see, a data line to all the computers I call, hmmm ... how much
did you say!!!)

The only exception is National Accounts, period. (i.e.: Boeing,
Bechtel, Lockheed, etc...)

> ...As far as MCI goes, don't bother. They haven't a clue.

Oh, they have a clue. As a matter of fact, they know exactly what they're
doing ... going after business accounts!  Can't waste money on residental
customers ... not a fast enough rate of return.

You do know it takes three trouble reports entered in their customer
service computer to generate a REAL trouble ticket, and those reports
have to match each other ... otherwise, it's the bit bucket it goes
to.

Kinda funny in that when I worked there, I always used Sprint for my
V.32 connections (9600 baud) when MCI couldn't even make it through an
opening handshake.  When I told their Data Support people that MCI's
gotta be the worst for dial-up communcations, they said "Absolutely
true!".


   Robert Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet Project - Network Operations Center.
   Moffett Feild, California.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #369
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22480;
          21 May 90 8:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15672;
          21 May 90 7:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28397;
          21 May 90 6:10 CDT
Date:     Mon, 21 May 90 5:45:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #370
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 May 90 05:44:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 370

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cellular Buyers' Guide Wanted / New Cellular User [Steve Huff]
    AT&T International Calling  [Ken Jongsma]
    ANI Failure Results in ONI [Larry Lippman]
    Area Code 809 DA from Canada [Linc Madison]
    Customized Telephone Numbers (Was NXX-0000) [David Tamkin]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Numbers [Ed Horch]
    Re: Public FAX Machine at Post Office [David Lesher]
    Re: Public FAX Machine at Post Office [Linc Madison]
    Re: Public FAX Machine at Post Office [Piet van Oostrum]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [David Tamkin]
    Re: Interesting Police Technology [Bill Cavanaugh]
    Re: Interesting Police Technology [Gary Bridgewater]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Buyers' Guide Wanted / New Cellular User
Date: 20 May 90 10:46:16 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


My roommates and I think we have justified buying a cellular phone.
Due to our location (Lawrence) and where the three of us are from
(Kansas City), a cellular call between the two cities is considered
local.  Based on our expensive long distance bills between the two
cities, a cellular phone is almost a break-even deal.  (We'll pay an
extra $2 a month, but thats the comparitive price of technology :-) ).

Two retail stores, Silo and Venture, are advertising a bare bones
Novatel for $250, including the battery pack.  This deal requires you
to sign up with Cellular One, for a minimum of three months.

What we would like to know is what features on cellular phones are
considered necessary, nice, or worthless.  Is the cheap Novatel a
decent phone?  Can a modem be hooked up to it (or any other cellular)?
Basically, were looking for a cellular buyers' guide for people who
are buying their first.

I'll compile a list of suggestions and features, and post if no other
buyers' guide is available.

Thanks for your help.


Steve Huff
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

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

Subject: AT&T International Calling
Date: Sun, 20 May 90 17:35:35 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Having followed the recent discussions about whether or not you could
call from one country to another billing to your AT&T card, with
neither country being the US, I offer the following:

>From an AT&T International Traveler Newsletter:

Now, call anywhere in the world from the United Kingdom - with the
AT&T Card!  The AT&T Card now lets you call worldwide from the UK and
have your calls billed directly to your AT&T Card.

The new service is simple to use. When calling other countries from
the UK, just dial the local international [almost an oxymoron, eh? - KJ]
operator at 155. Give him or her your regular AT&T card number.

Calls are billed by British Telecom International at BTTs current rate
for operator assisted international calls. The costs of your calls are
converted to US Currency on your AT&T bill. AT&T does not charge for
this service.

Note: Continue to use the USA Direct access number 0800-89-0011
anytime you call the States from the UK.

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

Subject: Re: ANI Failure Results in ONI
Date: 20 May 90 23:23:21 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> |    There *is* a verification system of sorts which has been
> |implemented to deter ONI "fibbing" :-).

> (Larry goes on to describe a 'busy test' method)
> One problem. Lots of ONI calls were/are on party lines. Give another
> party's #....

    People who were inclined to, uh, "fib" generally would not do
that for two reasons: (1) a subscriber usually would not know the full
directory number of another party on their line since they cannot dial
that number directly, but must instead use a single-digit revertive
ringing code number; and (2) even if a dishonest subscriber knew the
full directory number of another party on their line, I suspect they
would not use it since it is "too close to home".

> I'm not sure how this fits, but my friend JB once took a TT phone to
> his (party line service) parent's in Avon, OH (216-937). In those
> days, that was part of Lorain Telephone Co.
> The TT set work fine on local calls, as the switch faithfully
> outpulsed each tone's translation. (yawn) But when he made a LD call,
> the intercept operator came up with a very puzzled note to her
> 'nummberpleze' query.  She asked him to call again. He did, with a
> rotary set. She sounded relieved.

> Any idea what was going on?

    This is pure speculation since I have no idea what type of CO
apparatus or CAMA/toll ticketing apparatus serves the Lorain, OH area.

    However, I have a scenario which *exactly* explains the above
observation.  Assume that: (1) the party line was a two-party line;
(2) the CO was equipped for ANI on two-party calls; (3) the particular
subscriber line being used was the "tip party"; (4) the assignment for
the "ring party" (i.e., no balanced ground) was vacant; and (5) the
touch-tone telephone was not arranged for "tip party" ground.

    The ANI apparatus (or ESS or whatever) is unable to ANI the
calling party because there is no valid "ring party" for the CO line
equipment assigned to this subscriber.  Therefore, the CAMA (or other)
apparatus hiccups and routes the call to ONI with a *trouble flag*
indicating that ANI failed.  This is why the ONI operator sounded
puzzled.

    The above scenario assumes: (1) intelligent ANI; (2)
intelligent toll tandem office; and (3) TSPS or an intelligent ONI
position.

    As an example (I have to pick something specific), if this
were a WECO SxS office equipped with ANI-C or ANI-D, there is an
explicit wiring option for two-party lines where only *one* party is
assigned.  If the assigned party is the "tip party" and a "ring party"
is detected, the MF outpulser would automatically send the code for
ONI intercept with a trouble flag.  This is contained in "information
digit" sent immediately following the KP signal.  For those into
arcane details, the identification digit is "0" for normal ANI, "1"
for normal ONI, and "2" for ONI with ANI failure.

    So, the point is, if this happened in a WECO office with ANI-C
or ANI-D where the ONI was handled by TSPS, the TSPS operator would
known that an ANI failure had occurred.  For older CAMA installations
where dedicated ONI operator positions were employed, I don't know
whether or not the ONI operator received an ANI failure indication.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 01:19:50 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code 809 DA from Canada
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Why are calls to 809-555-1212 blocked from Canada?  Seems rather strange.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 90 18:29 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customized Telephone Numbers (Was NXX-0000)


Patrick Townson comments in volume 10, issue 365, about requesting
custom telephone numbers:

|[Moderator's Note: I do my own 'homework' and find out what desirable
|numbers are idle.  I make the list of ten or so numbers, then call the
|Business Office.  I ask, "Can I have such and such?"  The rep checks and
|almost every time says okay.  And there is no special ongoing monthly fee
|for the number, either.  PT]

On the three occasions to which I referred when I said that IBT and
Centel had offered me a short list to choose from, I had not requested
any *specific* number but merely the chance to make my own selection.

However, in 1984 a friend and I were setting up a BBS, and we did the
very homework of which Patrick speaks.  We finally came up with three
numbers to ask for.  Everyone at Illinois Bell simply repeated
unyieldingly that each of those numbers was somehow reserved or
unavailable, and yes, they acknowledged that they were not currently
in use, but tough luck.  (One of the inexplicably denied numbers I
still remember: 312-BOREDOM.  312-GODDAMN already belonged to a VFW
post.)


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]


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

From: Ed Horch <argon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Numbers
Date: 20 May 90 18:18:07 GMT
Reply-To: Ed Horch <argon![e-mail]>
Organization: Lightspace Designs, Highland Park, NJ


>I'm going to be moving soon, and I'm considering getting a phone
>number ending in -0000 at my new residence.

One more caveat.  My number is NXX-0008.  I get lots of wrong numbers
from people dialing NXX-008?, due to TT keypad bounce.  I suspect the
problem gets worse the more repeated digits you have.

BTW, this is another argument against the odious practice some TT sets
have with generating specific tone envelopes no matter how long the
keys are pressed.  In most cases of key bounce, the key bounces for so
short a time that the CO wouldn't treat it as two separate key-
presses.  However, if the set is doing the timing, it will often
artificially hold the key "up" long enough (45ms?) to generate two
distinct digits.


Ed

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Public FAX Machine at Post Office
Date: Sun, 20 May 90 13:59:49 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


PT remarks on a unprotected public phone on a FAX machine.

Over the years, I've seen several such. American Express had a cash
machine at Detroit airport. It had a handy Slime-line (tm) Customer
Service phone hanging next to it. The sign said

    'pick up phone, push button {next to phone}
    to reach Customer Service'

And you guessed it - the TT pad on the phone still worked. If I
had known the number, I would have called the IBT newsline. ;-}

At the office in the 'Quads', the general aviation area @ Cleveland
Hopkins, the desk had two phones - a restricted airport one and an
outside one. The employee carefully locked the latter in his desk, BUT
the RJ-11's were on the back of his desk, just waiting to be swapped.


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: Mon, 21 May 90 01:42:14 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Public FAX Machine at Post Office
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Henry Mensch writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 368, Message 9 of 9

>Australia Post has provided a similar service for some time ...

Well, the places I've seen it (Australia and Greece), you handed your
fax document to a postal employee.  Do they have *unattended* fax
machines?


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Public FAX Machine at Post Office
Date: 21 May 90 11:19:03 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


In-Reply-To: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)

The Dutch PTT recently also introduced a public Fax service. It costs
Dfl 2.50 (a little bit more that $1) per page. Only for domestic
calls. You cannot receive, only send.

Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 90 18:25 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint


John Higdon wrote in volume 10, issue 366:

|Connections to my southern California neighbors are carried by AT&T, who
|uses PacNet, Pacific Bell's statewide fiber optic network.

PacNet is also the name of the packet-switching network that provides
data connections to Guam and the Northern Marianas.  It is not
affiliated with Pac*Bell nor Pacific Telesis.

Just what the field needs: more confusion.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

From: Bill Cavanaugh <tronsbox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Police Technology
Date: 21 May 90 06:00:12 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: In Chicago, a limited number of police cars have
>been equipped with terminals for several years; the number of cars
>thus equipped is growing, it may be up to 25 percent now.

I remember seeing this technology in the fictional Chicago of the
Blues Brothers movie, and being impressed.  I thought that it was just
in the movies!


Bill Cavanaugh       uunet!tronsbox!bleys

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

From: Gary Bridgewater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Police Technology
Date: 21 May 90 06:10:22 GMT
Reply-To:  [e-mail]
Organization: Data General SDD, Sunnyvale, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
Mason) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 368, Message 4 of 9

>Something interesting that the police in Ottawa County (Holland,
>Michigan) are doing now is putting cellular phones and fax machines in
>their police cars!

>[Moderator's Note: In Chicago, a limited number of police cars have
>been equipped with terminals for several years; the number of cars
>thus equipped is growing, it may be up to 25 percent now. These
>terminals can do license plate checks as well as get records from the
>NCIC, a federal data base of criminals.  For the rest of the police
>cars, the officers have to call in their request, and wait 5-20
>minutes for a response, depending.  While the police radios transmit
>in the 460.05 ==> 460.500 range, the terminals are up around 812 megs
>someplace.  PT]

Arapahoe County in Colorado had this system ten years ago.  (I taught
a course for their systems people) Their absolutely favorite part of
the system - based on radio modems - was that it was unmonitorable.

They staged a very big drug raid and the dealers - surrounded by all
manner of scanners, monitors, stolen police radios, etc.  were caught
totally by surprise since the whole thing was coordinated via
terminals.

The modems, as I recall, used two FM bands simultaneously to further
foil people who might (eventually) have stolen terminals.

The computer system setup was an interesting exercise in hot backup.
There were three CPUs - one hot, one warm and one being serviced, used
by programmers for testing, etc.  There were three sets of disk drives
each dual ported to two of the systems.  The warm system got all the
hot system traffic and kept its disk up-to-date so if the hot system's
disk died the warm system's disk was available.  The hot system could
also feed the test system's disk so the test system could monitor the
activity and run new software against it.  All were on UPS with motor
generators available.


Gary Bridgewater, Data General Corporation,
Sunnyvale California [e-mail] or {amdahl,aeras,amdcad}!dgcad!gary

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #370
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25563;
          21 May 90 9:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00833;
          21 May 90 8:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15672;
          21 May 90 7:15 CDT
Date:     Mon, 21 May 90 6:31:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #371
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 May 90 06:30:40 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 371

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media [John Higdon]
    Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media [Joel Yossi]
    Re: 950 Numbers in Canada [Ravinder Bhumbla]
    Re: 950 Numbers in Canada [Linc Madison]
    Re: Distributed TELCO [David Tamkin]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [John Higdon]
    Re: FCC REN Numbers (Was: BT Phones, etc) [Stephen J. Friedl]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Linc Madison]
    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [Joe Stong]
    Starline and CLASS Not Compatible [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media
Date: 20 May 90 21:51:55 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"j. eric townsend" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I challenge you to show me a newspaper editorial that suggests
> suspending the constitution to solve any of our current problems.

How many issues of the "San Jose Mercury" would you like that have
editorials that say something to the effect, "While it may seem
extreme to [walk all over this particular constitutional guarantee]
but the problems caused by [the current societal affront of the day]
require drastic solutions"? "Serious problems" include: computer
hacking, drugs, street crime, terrorism, and abortion. Unlike the the
Digest, I use old newspapers for the cat box and don't have them
available to send to you. (The rest of them go to the recycler.)

> Uh, if you think you can get (and trust) your information from only
> one source, you should rethink your belief system.  I read the NYT on
> a regular basis, but I don't automagically believe everything (or
> anything) I read there.

Never, ever think that I trust anything I read anywhere. Every source
of information has its noise level. But unfortunately, even when you
filter out the noise, there isn't very much useful "signal" left in
your average newspaper or radio or TV news report. Mentioning the
Digest as a source of information is not to imply that everything
herein is accurate; quite the contrary. But after you strip off the
garbage, there is a considerable amount of useful information left
over.

> 2600 is a low-rent journal for techies (which isn't bad, it's just the
> part of the world they occupy).

Frankly, I've never read 2600, other than the article transmitted this
weekend.

> Finally, if you think it's so easy, give it a try yourself. :-).
> There are plenty of papers that'd love to pay you about $25,000/yr for
> you to relate your knowledge gained at a much higher expense.

I have written many, many articles for small publications and trade
magazines (some have even been printed :-). In some cases the pay was
really poor ($0). But that's beside the point. We are not living in
the 1950's anymore. Technology is a way of life and the sooner the
majority of the population becomes technically literate, the better
off we will be. Law enforcement won't have to chase boogeymen, judges
won't have to rule from total bewilderment, and the average person
won't have to be intimidated when the telco rep asks all those
embarrasing questions.


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

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

From: "Yossi (Joel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media
Date: 21 May 90 09:57:56 GMT
Reply-To: "Yossi (Joel" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. Tech., Haifa Israel


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]>
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 368, Message 3 of 9

>Think of the last story you read in the newspaper concerning any
>technological matter. Was it complete, or was it simplified to the
>point that little useful information was available? What information
>there was, was it accurate, misleading, or downright erroneous?

Actually, anyone who has first-hand knowledge about >any< article in
the newspapers knows how inaccurate the reporting can be.  When I see
something in the Times, say, I generally assume it's accurate, in
spite of the fact that whenever I've read about anything about which I
have first hand knowledge, I've found dozens of errors.  It's not just
technology they can't quite get right....


Joel
([e-mail] -or- [e-mail])

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

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950 Numbers in Canada
Date: 21 May 90 05:21:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


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

>US Sprint no longer uses a 950 number but has switched to 800.
>Telecom*USA never did use 950, and I believe AT&T never did either.
>(Actually, I have no idea how to place a call through AT&T from a
>phone where 10288 is blocked.)

    That is a problem I have also come across recently.  I have an
office phone which can be used to make only local and 800- calls.  I
want to use my AT&T calling card, especially on weekends when it costs
the same as calling from home when you have a Reach Out America plan.
I wonder if someone can suggest a way to do this. The AT&T operator
told me that there was no way to get around this problem. :-(

    I am managing at present by using the US Sprint/WD-40 card as
the Sprint FONCARD calls are dialled using an 800 number.


Ravinder Bhumbla    [e-mail]    Office Phone: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 01:54:41 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950 Numbers in Canada
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


David Tamkin discussed how to get an MCI card for a subscriber in
Canada, without worrying about having the "co-conspirator" in the US
involuntarily switched to MCI 1+ service.  There's a very simple
method that I used when I requested my MCI card-only account: as the
contact phone, I gave them the BOC payphone in the hall.  I very
carefully pointed out to them, "this number is a payphone, it's not
mine, I can't bill to it, but you can generally reach me there during
reasonable hours."  So, for example, if your "co-conspirator" has a
payphone at work, it's an ideal "contact number" for a card-only
account.

(Of course, if it happens to be a COCOT and it gets involuntarily
switched to MCI service, so much the better ... ;-] )


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 00:15 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distributed TELCO


Joe Stong <[e-mail]> wrote in volume 10, issue 366:

|Upon picking up a telephone for the first time after connecting up the
|system, the phone says, your telephone number is 412346,234457 please
|enter the names for your directory listing.  You key the name that will
|list you in the electronic directory.

Someone has to administer the directory.  Someone has to make sure
that the voice is there to ask you for your listing information.
Someone has to make sure that it doesn't ask again unless you
specifically want to change your listing.

|Your box would cooperatively switch the datastream from other conversa-
|tions on to their eventual destination.  Your box would participate in
|the systemwide directory keeping.  Your box, upon coming on line, would
|determine which sites it was between, to determine your pseudo-latitude-
|longitude "telephone number".

Someone has to maintain and update the routing tables.  Someone,
again, has to administer the directory.  Someone has to force the
uncooperative to let other calls be routed through their boxes.

|What does it achieve?  The elimination of a local TELCO.  The elimination
|of local phone bills.

How?  It replaces telcos as we now know them with something else,
something else that must be paid for.  There's still a bill to pay;
all you've done is change the telco bill to a bill by some other name.

|The system is cooperative, and self maintaining.

Self-maintaining?  It neither heals like a live organism if damaged
nor keeps its own users in line if they decide to cause problems.
Pardon my skepticism, Mr. Stong.  You couldn't possibly have meant it
the way it sounds.  Hardware cannot maintain itself; there needs to be
a staff of repair personnel, and they need tools and supplies.
Hardware certainly cannot discipline its users into keeping the
cooperative's rules.  Repair and administration cost money, so there
is still a bill to pay.

|The software on the silicon in the eyeball box itself would be designed
|to function without any centralized management, doing location deter-
|mination and routing by itself, like Usenet or Internet without the
|administrators.

But who updates its databases (or the central database from which the
eyeball box downloads its own copies of the updates)?  Who installs
upgrades to the software itself?

Maybe you and your friends have already covered many of these
questions -- they certainly sprang to my mind pretty quickly -- and
you left the answers out of your Telecom submission to save space?


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 20 May 90 22:08:01 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]> writes:

> Kinda funny in that when I worked there, I always used Sprint for my
> V.32 connections (9600 baud) when MCI couldn't even make it through an
> opening handshake.  When I told their Data Support people that MCI's
> gotta be the worst for dial-up communcations, they said "Absolutely
> true!".

Last year sometime, one of my UUCP neighbors did some informal tests
on the various carriers using PEP. AT&T and Sprint came off with the
fastest throughput (with Sprint having a slight edge--could have been
a statistical aberation) with all the other carriers significantly
poorer. If memory serves, MCI was just a little better than half the
speed of AT&T (if the modems could train in the first place). This
would mean that to be cost-effective, MCI rates would have to be half
those of AT&T.

As far as I am concerned, MCI is not a real player for serious long
distance users. While they may have lots of "suits" running around
schmoozing it up to their corporate customers, the service they
provide is substandard to either Sprint or AT&T by an amount far
exceeding any discount they provide.


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

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 03:49:35 -0400
From: mtndew![e-mail]
Subject: Re: FCC REN Numbers (Was: BT Phones, etc)


Julian Macassey writes about RENs (Ringer Equivalence Numbers),
quoting chapter and verse from FCC part 68 rules.  This comes at a
fortuitous time because I was just wondering about it myself.

Why do the RENs vary?  I have noticed quite a wide range of ringer
equivalences, and while thinking about this I came up with a bunch of
statements that a telephone designer might make about them.  Which of
these are true or likely and which are false?

    "physical bells take 1.0 REN, that's just the way it is"

    "it's harder to make the ringer circuit with lower RENs"

    "lower REN is better because you can get more instruments
     on a line"

    "we didn't really think about the REN when we built the
     phone, that's just what it ended up being"

    "the phone switch likes higher REN phones better"

    "we always built phones with REN=xx and saw no reason to change"

    "if the REN is too low, it will trigger sporadically (say,
     via pulse dialing on another extension"

    "off-the-shelf phone line interfaces have REN=xx so that's
     why we used it".

Should one even bother to look at the REN when buying a phone?


Thanks,
Steve

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

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 00:54:45 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 360, Message 1 of 11

>[e-mail] (Daniel Jacobson) writes:

>>[Isn't it dumb that you can't dial 1-NPA-Number for local calls,
>> 'cause maybe you've got your phone programmed with some numbers
>> and then you take the phone to a place local to some of them.]

>The dumb one is the phone (or dialing software, which I use).  It
>should allow you to enter a "local" area code and automatically delete
>them from local calls.  Silly, in an age where portability (as in
>laptops with built-in modems) is all the rage.

But that doesn't work.  What if you're in Tyler, Texas?  It's in A/C
214 with Dallas (soon to be split off into 903, but the point will
remain for locations like Longview and Texarkana).  To dial long
distance numbers within the same area code, you MUST dial
1-214-Number, even though it's the same area code.  Dialing just the 7
digits gets an intercept telling you that you must dial a 1 or 0 and
the area code to complete this call.

Your system will say, "oh, that's the same area code as what's 'local'
so I don't dial the area code."  The only way to actually distinguish
the cases is to have a complete database of the local prefixes.  There
are also other special cases that no programmer would bother to
anticipate (and indeed could not have anticipated more than a year or
two ago) like "Metro" dialing in Dallas/Fort Worth -- to reach a
number in the other area code, you must dial NPA-NXX-XXXX *WITHOUT* a
"1".  Dialing "1+" to a local number in the other area code gets an
intercept that "Dialing 1 is not required on this call."

The long and the short of it is that there is no practical way to do
what you are suggesting, short of maintaining an up-to-the-minute
database of telephone prefixes and dialing rules among them.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 01:19:11 -0700
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought


By the way, beware: ordinary "quad wire" IS NOT twisted pairs.  It is
much more prone to picking up electrical noise than real twisted
pairs.

In my old apartment, wired with quad wire, I could hear my modem on
the voice line that shared the same piece of quad wire.

I've seen wire in buildings with as few as three twisted pairs, but
nothing smaller.

I had a bit of grief with a leased line that was wired inside the
building with quad wire.  Much noise went away in doing the inside
wiring with twisted pairs.  It was in a tire re-treading plant,
complete with huge compressors and electric ovens.


Joe Stong    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 6:18:50 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Starline and CLASS Not Compatible


I had been planning to order one or more of the CLASS features for my
lines when they became available in my CO this month and next. We will
be getting the usual fare: Distinctive Ringing, Call Screening,
Redial, Return Last Call, and others.

I was advised by two service representatives at Illinois Bell that the
CLASS features will not work for subscribers who have Starline, a
residential version of Centrex.

The problem seems to be the assignment of feature codes: *8 is used by
Starline to place calls on hold. *8X is used by CLASS to turn off
certain features. Why didn't anyone think of that when this software
was being written?

So my choice now is to give up Starline and install the CLASS features
of my choice, or do without CLASS. But the conflict with *8 should
only cause problems for two features: the one where you add selected
numbers to be screened or blocked, and the one where you add numbers
to a directory which are to be given special identifying rings when
the call comes in. Yet Bell says Distinctive Ringing (two or three CO
numbers camped on the same line) won't work either. Any ideas why?


PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #371
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17230;
          22 May 90 3:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21317;
          22 May 90 1:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09459;
          22 May 90 0:22 CDT
Date:     Mon, 21 May 90 23:59:48 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #372
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 May 90 23:59:25 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 372

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Distributed TELCO [Karl Denninger]
    Re: Distributed TELCO [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media [Tom Neff]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Alan Millar]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Peter Desnoyers]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [John Higdon]
    Re: Deep Discounts on LD Calls [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distributed TELCO
Reply-To: Karl Denninger <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCSNet - Wheeling, IL
Date: Mon, 21 May 90 14:12:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Stong) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 366, Message 5 of 9

>before having to buy another box.  Between boxes, the data rate would
>be 100Mbaud.  The two coax line downlink into the house would be about
>11Mbaud, with the $30 "phone jacks" being little more than shift
>registers and D-A and A-D converters to pick off signals from the
>synchronous coax lines.

>What does it achieve?  The elimination of a local TELCO.  The
>elimination of a tree structure of wiring, replacing it with a large
>redundant grid.  The elimination of local phone bills.  Indeed, many
>"eyeballs" at the edge of town might end up being pointed at a
>long-distance carrier system, though some would go to longer pieces of
>repeatered fiber to rural subscribers.

I like this a LOT.

Let's build a few.  Show 'em working, then mass produce the suckers.
Drive these people called "Ma Bell" right out of business in the
cities.  With some work you can do the same in the rural areas too.

I bet a >lot< of people would pay $400 or so, once, to have these
boxes.  No more phone bills.  No more telco.  No more hassles.

Redundancy is a key point.  Any one box going out of service won't
affect routing much at all.

Focused "eyes" are another key point of the system.  However, I'd like
to add one feature -- one "roaming" eye that looks for a pilot carrier
in a 360 degree arc.  If it finds one, it plays "radar" to find out
whether or not it's closer than what you're linked with now -- and if
so, suggests to the owner that he/she realign the other eyes for
better performance.

I bet the government wouldn't like this one little bit.  There's some
evidence that the present "raid the system" mentality has more than a
little to do with the closely-knit information net we take for
granted; the ability to get messages from one coast to the other in
minutes is VERY powerful.  And when one considers that you could build
in encryption hardware, conversations have the potential to be TRULY
private.

I could handle some of the embedded software; any hardware hackers out
there want to tackle this?  Infrared LED is probably the best idea for
short distances; the problem with Microwave is that it requires a
license, and I bet you'll have trouble getting one from the FCC when
they figure out what you're up to (and they will -- fast!)


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


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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 22:54:30 -0400
From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distributed TELCO
Organization: North Coast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH


In article <[e-mail]> ["Distributed TELCO"], [e-mail].
edu wrote:

[description of distributed telephone setup with repeaters]

Your idea isn't all that new; packet radio ham operators with
digipeaters are probably doing the same thing within a mile of you,
only it's digital.  However, digital voice packet radio is under
development, and chances are that you've even got *that* nearby if
it's in use anywhere...  It is as yet slow, but that's a matter of FCC
regulations and bandwidth restrictions.  With microwaves to play with
and commercial interest, it's all but current technology.

I bet the RBOC's don't want to hear about it, though....


Me: Brandon S. Allbery            VHF: KB8JRR on 224.50 (Lake County, OH)
Internet: [e-mail]        Delphi: ALLBERY
uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery    America OnLine: BrandonA or KB8JRR

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 19:26:25 CDT
From: "j. eric townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics


[e-mail] wrote:

>"j. eric townsend" <[e-mail]> writes:
>> Finally, if you think it's so easy, give it a try yourself. :-).
>> There are plenty of papers that'd love to pay you about $25,000/yr for
>> you to relate your knowledge gained at a much higher expense.

>I have written many, many articles for small publications and trade
>magazines (some have even been printed :-). In some cases the pay was
>really poor ($0). But that's beside the point.

No, that's the point exactly.  Until the media can afford (or decides
to afford, in the case of broadcast) to hire technical people capable
of explaining technology in simple terms, with no buzzwords, the
masses will not be technically literate (unless they learn it on their
own).

The masses derive most of their knowledge from the media
(unfortunately :-).  Issues such as computer security are not
complicated.  Thanks to the media, however, I've met several people
who *should* know better (including CS profs) who think that the RKM
Internet Worm could have attacked *any* machine on the Internet,
whether it be a PDP-11, a Sun4/60, or a 386 box.

Some of this is the fault of the story contacts as well.  If you are
asked to give an interview on say, PBX security, offer to review the
reporter's story before they submit it.  Say something like: "I
understand this PBX stuff is a little tricky because it's so new, and
I was wondering if you'd like me to go over your final copy before you
submit it so that we can be sure that the PBX-related facts are
correct."  (When I did stories on molecular biology, something I know
virtually nothing about, I asked the subject if they would look over
my story to make sure I'd gotten it right.)

Another tip: don't give reporters product info handouts when they ask
for information about a certain piece of equipment.  *I* can't figure
out some of the ones related to equipment I want to purchase, so how
can a non-techie be expected to comprehend any of it.  (Remember the
number of "Cray on a chip" stories when the i860 was announced?  Who
out there has gotten cray performance from any i860 system? :-)


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

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

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media
Date: 21 May 90 15:15:25 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (j. eric townsend) writes:

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

>Technical stories do not sell newspapers, unfortunately.  In more than
>one of my journalism classes, we discussed how technical an article
>can get before people stop reading it.

>The biggest problem: A news story has to explain enough background so
>that the story will make sense to people who don't understand what a
>PBX is, or why password security is flaky, etc.

    Problems in reporting technology impact has certainly been
going on a long time.  About 8-10 years ago a couple high school
students from Palatine "hacked" their way on to a timeshare system of
DePaul university. The {Chicago Reader} did a front page article on
this incredibly clever act.  The Reader reporter interviewed me since
I was in charge of a similar system at Harper College, and we were
leasing time to the high school district that the break-in artists
came from.  He was not at all interested in learning about the fact
that these guys broke in more by luck, and stupidity on the part of
the managers of DePaul's time share system. He was more interested in
the people aspects, motivations etc.  So I suspect that some reporters
could care less about being technically accurate since it could ruin
their story.

What did these early hackers do?  The system was a Hewlett Packard
HP-2000.  It ran time share Basic, which had alot of extended features
that were the equivalent of system calls, the ability to do shared
read/write disk access and a number of other features.  These features
were known to have bugs that could be used to do some things the
designers never intended.  Unfortunately our would-be hackers were
never even that clever to use these security holes.  What they did is
very simple.

The HP-2000 had the equivalent of a root account, though it wasn't
quite as powerful as the UNIX root.  The HP-2000 also used timed
access for logins, it allowed you to login any number of times up to
the time out limit.  Security was provided by a one to six character
password.  DePaul had two flaws, first, they had their logins set to
the maximum timeout of 255 seconds, second DePaul was known to have
created all of their passwords set to be 3 control characters followed
by three non-control characters (sort of cuts down on the
permutations).

So our clever "hackers" broke in by dialing up with their Commodore
and trusty 300 baud modem.  Then they had software that went AAA, AAB
etc.  until they found the password.  They then managed to break into
the rest of the system since DePaul's system managers left a straight
ascii file with the accounts and passwords for the rest system on the
root account.  One of these clever programmers got caught by sending
threats to the system console, demanding a piece of public domain s/w.
Harper had protected itself against this type of attack by a login
program written by a friend of mine that allowed three login tries
before kicking you off the system and logging illegal attempts, it
also locked out logins after a set number of evictions.  This was
easily accomplished by setting the system passwords to null.  The
system always went through a HELLO program and the Harper Password
checker was written using this feature.  The root account maintained
both types of passwords in case of failure by the local software.  All
of our passwords were encrypted.

This system also had (3780?) RJE capability to the mainframe and at
the time they were worried that they might have gotten in to change
grades on the IBM (they couldn't even log in to an IBM let alone hack
it.).


Stephen Wolfson                E-Mail: ...!uunet!motcid!wolfsons
Motorola Cellular                    or
1501 W. Shure Dr.  IL27-1155                   [e-mail]
Arlington Heights, IL

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media
Date: 21 May 90 03:26:21 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


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

>Think of the last story you read in the newspaper concerning any
>technological matter. Was it complete, or was it simplified to the
>point that little useful information was available? What information
>there was, was it accurate, misleading, or downright erroneous?

This is true about EVERYTHING, not just technology.  No matter what
the subject is, if you are an expert and you read the newspaper you
groan.  Newspapers ALWAYS get the details wrong, because it's
impossible to be infallible in fifty things at once, on deadline, at
reporters' pay.

It's worth remembering this when reading articles about subjects we're
NOT experts in.  That sidebar on trade negotiations in Singapore has
just as many gaffes per column inch as the feature on fiber optics.
However to most of us technology nuts the Singapore errors are
acceptable because it's enough to know the general outline of what's
going on.  Well, hard as it is to swallow, the same thing's true for
others about tech stuff!

Sure, I cringe when AP gets an orbit backwards or misidentifies a
computer I work with, but that doesn't mean that the overall job
journalists are doing is a failure.  It just means that the responsible
way to read the news is to look for the "big picture" and reserve
judgment on the details for later.

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: Mon, 21-May-90 08:22:57 PDT


On Telebit modems not working through Sprint and/or MCI:

I used to work for a company called Granger Associates (before it got
sucked under by DSC, but that's another story :-)

One of their "big" products was ADPCM T-1 multiplexers, which they
sold to the long-distance carriers for equal-access expansion.  With
this ADPCM multiplexer, they could squeeze 44 voice channels out of a
T-1 circuit, instead of just 23.

While not affecting voice very much, it really killed modem traffic.

I don't know if this is thr problem affecting you, but many
"improvements" for voice never take into account modem traffic.


Alan Millar     [e-mail]

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

From: Peter Desnoyers <codex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 21 May 90 14:37:29 GMT
Organization: Codex Corp., Canton MA


claris!netcom![e-mail] (Dave Mc Mahan) writes:

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

>>Until recently, I was using Sprint quite
>>sucessfully.  I gather that Sprint has installed a bunch of new echo
>>suppressors which are misconfigured in a way that clobbers a Telebit,
>>in any event my uucp throughput in PEP mode recently dropped from 850
>>cps to 210.

>It's not Sprint or MCI, it's the Telebit.  From my understanding,
>Telebit modems don't work worth squat when the signal is digitized.
>Seems that the digitizing screws up the phasing of the modem signal
>(why? I don't know)

Actually, the Telebit modulation scheme seems to be designed to be
carried over digital lines - hence the 8kHz sampling rate. What could
possibly screw it up is ADPCM encoding, which encodes audio at
32kbit/sec instead of 64kbit/sec. It's obviously a lot harder to
squeeze 10-15kbit/sec out of a line with a total capacity (before
analog loop impairments, etc.) of 32kbit/sec instead of 64.

I don't know whether ADPCM is used by any US long-distance carriers,
however. (It certainly gets used in private networks, though.)

                Peter Desnoyers

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 21 May 90 11:57:37 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Tamkin <[e-mail]> writes:

> PacNet is also the name of the packet-switching network that provides
> data connections to Guam and the Northern Marianas.  It is not
> affiliated with Pac*Bell nor Pacific Telesis.

Not to be argumentative, but AT&T *does* use Pac*Bell's fiber optic
network in California, AND Pac*Bell employees that I have talked to
always refer to it as "PacNet". If there is a *real* PacNet, then I am
unaware of it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.


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

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 11:52 CDT
Subject: Re: Deep Discounts on LD Calls
From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Reply-to: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC


What's the 800 number for the AT&T credit card again?


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone].  <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #372
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18264;
          22 May 90 4:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15608;
          22 May 90 2:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21317;
          22 May 90 1:26 CDT
Date:     Tue, 22 May 90 0:47:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #373
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 May 90 00:47:01 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 373

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Measured Service [Carol Springs]
    Re: Measured Service [Lang Zerner]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [John Higdon]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Dana H. Myers]
    Re: Customized Telephone Numbers (Was NXX-0000) [Bob Clements]
    Re: Line Slip [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Non-Cellular Mobile Phones [David Barts]
    Re: Articles in 2600 Magazine [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Starline and CLASS Not Compatible [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T Software Defined Network [Paul Flynn]
    Data Access Lines [Jeremy Grodberg]
    System 85 Components [Mike Bunnell]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carol Springs <#axiom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Measured Service
Date: Mon, 21 May 90 10:21:09 EDT


Jonathan A. Solomon writes in Vol. 10, Issue 367, about wanting
definitive quotes from PUC regulations regarding whether he's allowed
to have a measured service line in addition to his flat rate line.
New England Telephone has been telling him that he can't; i.e., that
the second line has to be flat rate as well.

I have asked New England Telephone in the past for copies of these
regulations, without result.  However, I have been assured by the
Massachusetts Public Utilities Department that there are indeed
regulations specifying that customers here can't have it both ways
within one household.  The rationale seems to be that measured service
in Massachusetts exists as a lifeline service for those who can't pay
the higher phone rates, and if you can afford one flat rate line in
your household you obviously aren't in this category.  NET didn't like
the fact that some households used to have a measured service line for
incoming calls only, so it managed to have the rules changed in its
favor.  (I'm amused by the way NET tells people asking for such a line
in addition to their flat rate line that "FCC regulations" prevent
them from granting the request, when it was, of course, NET that
initiated the regulatory process in the first place.)

I suggest that Mr. Solomon or anyone else in this area who's
interested in more information call the Public Utilities Department at
617-727-3500.  It's been a while since I've spoken with these people
and my facts may be rusty.

To all those Massachusetts NET customers who currently have both a
flat rate and a measured service line in their home: Congratulations!
Just hope that you never have to move or otherwise change your
service, and NET may never notice your good fortune.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 13:51:08 PDT
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Measured Service
Organization: The Great Escape, Inc.


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

>Jonathan Solomon would like to know if there is a way to get measured
>service on one of two lines, flat rate on the other.  My experience
>has been that this is officially forbidden.

Huh?  I've got a *hunt group* whose primary line is flat rate and
whose remaining lines are measured.  I ordered the lines at different
times, but the telco knows about all of them whenever I call with
service requests or queries (they always ask which of my n lines I'm
talking about).

Pacific Bell is my BOC.  Even given that they seem to have no problems
with it, I'm curious -- why *would* they?

Be seeing you...

Lang Zerner

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Numbers
Date: 21 May 90 11:52:07 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ed Horch <argon![e-mail]> writes:

> BTW, this is another argument against the odious practice some TT sets
> have with generating specific tone envelopes no matter how long the
> keys are pressed.  In most cases of key bounce, the key bounces for so
> short a time that the CO wouldn't treat it as two separate key-
> presses.  However, if the set is doing the timing, it will often
> artificially hold the key "up" long enough (45ms?) to generate two
> distinct digits.

This is also a marvelous argument against all of those PBX and
electonic key systems that have proprietary sets that send a little
generic "beep" back to the user. Toshiba, NEC, some ITT and others use
this stupid method of "confirming" a key press. If you can't actually
hear the DTMF go out over the line, how on earth are you supposed to
know if you are really dialing correctly? I would reject out of hand
any telephone system that does not: 1. Provide DTMF as long as the key
is pressed (necessary for most voice mail usage); and 2. Provide
actual representation of the DTMF as sent to the CO.

If some systems can do it then it's technically possible and no one
should settle for less.


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

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

From: <mtxinu!uunet.UU.NET!lcc!lando.la.locus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers
Date: 21 May 90 20:03:06 GMT
Reply-To: <mtxinu!uunet.UU.NET!lcc!locus.com![e-mail]>
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA


In article <[e-mail]> "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <allbery@
ncoast.org> writes:

>Ticketron has a number in the 216 area code which ends in 0000 (to be
>exact, 524-0000); I would expect that "easy to remember" numbers like
>that would be snapped up by commercial types.  Of course, they may
>regret it after they start getting hundreds of calls from kids playing
>with the phone....

  I once had the telephone number 893-3825 aka 8 WE-F*CK. I got a lot
of phone calls from kids, and one or two from folks looking for an
escort service. :-)


Dana H. Myers KK6JQ         | Views expressed here are
[phone] (ex WA6ZGB)    | mine and do not necessarily
[e-mail]                | reflect those of my employer

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

Subject: Re: Customized Telephone Numbers (Was NXX-0000)
Date: Mon, 21 May 90 09:30:05 -0400
From: [e-mail]


Regarding requesting a specific phone number, here are a couple of
experiences from New England Tel (Boston area).

David Tamkin relates:

>Everyone at Illinois Bell simply repeated
>unyieldingly that each of those numbers was somehow reserved or
>unavailable, and yes, they acknowledged that they were not currently
>in use, but tough luck.

One possible explanation: When I first moved into my present house, I
asked for a specific number, namely my previous apartment number with
one digit changed (617-891-xxxx to 617-861-xxxx).  I was told I
couldn't have it because it was "not available".  It turns out that
number was in a block of numbers they were holding for expansion of a
Centrex in 617-861.

Some years later I decided to give up and pay for a change of numbers
due to steadily increasing wrong number rate (my number was a simple
dialing error away from a growing business).  I had learned over the
years that it is much more productive to deal with bureaucrats in
person rather than over the phone.  They find it harder to ignore the
fact that a real person is making the request if you are facing them
across a desk rather than over a phone line.  So I went to the
business office and said that since I was paying for the change I
wanted to look at my choices.  With some reluctance, they showed me
the list of numbers they had to assign that day.  There were about
twenty numbers on it and I picked one that seemed reasonable.  I
didn't try for a specific unassigned number, though.

[P.S.: No responses yet to my request for info on trunk interface
cards in Volume 10 Issue 359.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.]


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Line Slip
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 21 May 90 15:56:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Ken Abrams <pallas!kabra437@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

> I have seen induction put noise into a serial cable and this usually
> affects all speeds of transmission.

It's not between the serial ports and the modems. We have literally
hundreds of serial cables running along the same path, with no other
lines showing a problem.


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone].  <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.

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

From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Non-Cellular Mobile Phones
Date: 18 May 90 15:56:11 GMT


[e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:

> There are still many areas of the country where there is no cellular
> coverage, and rural areas probably will never get cellular
> installations, due to the low number of likely customers. So there
> still is a need for the VHF mobile-phone service. However, I would
> also have expected that many people with VHF mobile phones who used
> them only within metropolitan areas would have switched over to
> cellular. This would have freed up a lot of capacity in that service,
> so that those people who really needed the VHF mobiles could get them.

About three years ago, I was riding in a friend's car in rural
northern New Mexico, when to my surprise, he picked up a cellular
phone and started dialing a call.  My thoughts were ``Now wait a
minute!  This is impossible -- cellular phones are only implemented in
the largest metropolitan areas and New Mexico, with an average of 10
people per square mile, has *got* to be one of the last places in the
country to get cellular phone service.  *That* probably won't happen
for another ten years or more.''  What further floored me was that we
were at least thirty miles from the nearest incorporated city or town!

After he had finished his call, I asked him how it was possible
(disclaimer: he wasn't very technically knowledgeable) and the answer
was something along the lines of: ``The phone company says the
cellular phone will work from anywhere you can see Tesuque Peak
(12,000 feet) or Sandia Mountain (10,500 feet).''  Fascinating!  Two
*giant* cells, each covering several thousand square miles!  Five or
six such cells would cover the Rio Grande Valley from the Texas border
to Colorado.

So anyplace can have cellular phones; just make the cells big enough
so that each cell has enough customers to support it.  Of course, it
helps to have `natural radio towers' that rise a mile or more over the
surrounding terrain!

Now this was several years ago, so its possible the situation is
changed by now.  I wouldn't be surprised if they've had to do
something to split Albuquerque into several cells instead of being
served by the same Sandia Peak `mega-cell' the rest of central NM was
(is?) served by.  It is also possible that the phone wasn't cellular
but IMTS.  I know from the antenna that it was definitely not a VHF
radiophone.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Articles in 2600 Magazine
Date: 21 May 90 14:20:18 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


I sent a copy of the 2600 Mag article to an interested buddy who works
in a CO. For job security reasons does not want to identify himself,
but sent me the following which may be food for thought.

                   ----------------------
Fascinating....

I run a 1AESS that is the E-911 tandem for the local NSOC (7 offices).
There HAS to be more to this LoD thing than what is in the article.
The E-911 is one of the most secure systems in the telephone network.
Most all is input manually for security reasons. To the best of my
knowledge there is *NO* way to access the system remotely. The E-911
section in my building is staffed only by management personnel and the
entire section has restricted access with a high security key card
system that is more sophisticated than your local bank autoteller.  I
do not have access to that part of the building. I have always thought
that the company was a little paranoid about the system. The info in
the article sort of backs up that conclusion.

                         Fred

Posted by:

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: Starline and CLASS Not Compatible
Date: 21 May 90 12:09:49 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On May 21 at  6:31, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> Yet Bell says Distinctive Ringing (two or three CO
> numbers camped on the same line) won't work either. Any ideas why?

When Pac*Bell offered 976 blocking for the first time a while back,
you could not get it if you had Commstar II (a version of Starline).
Apparently, the hack that they had devised for blocking didn't work
with subscribers on Centrex ports.

I suspect that the same principle applies here. It's not really the *8
conflict that's the problem, but rather that they just can't get the
CLASS features to work on Centrex ports. You might see if CLASS
features are offered to Centrex customers.

Gee, Patrick, maybe you'll have to go back to a PBX :-)


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri May 18 17:35:37 EDT 1990
Subject: Re: AT&T Software Defined Network


In TELECOM Digest V10 #359, [e-mail] asks about the phrase
"Software Defined Network" on his new AT&T calling card and wonders if
we just figured out how to make use of software in our network.

Software Defined Network Service (SDN) is a service that has been
tariffed since 1984.  It's a service usually used by business
customers with multiple locations.  One of the features of the service
offers calling card usage at SDN rates.  Did you got your new card
from your employer?  SDN rates dropped considerably last year and many
new customers signed up.  The phrase "Software Defined Network" on
your card refers to the SDN service, not to some brand new capability
in our network.


Paul Flynn, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 10:57:21 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data Access Lines


I asked Pacific Bell to send me information about Data Access lines,
since I am thinking about getting a 9600 baud modem. (Those plans are
on hold, but that's another story.)  The flyer they sent me quoted the
specifications listed below.  I have a degree in Electrical
Engineering and a background in audio/video equipment and terminology,
but have still never run into most of the units and measurements they
quoted.  Would anyone care to explain them?

              Technical Standards for Data Access Lines
        Attenuation Distortion (slope)                -1 to +3 dB
        C-Message Noise                               20 dBrnC
        Impulse Noise                                 59 dBrnCO
        Relative Delay (1000 to 2604 Hz)              200 usec.

Of course I have guesses about what all this means, but I'd like to hear
from anyone who is *sure* of what a dBrnCO is.


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

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 13:12 EST
From: Nutsy Fagen <[e-mail]>
Subject: System 85 Components


Does anyone know were I can get 'summary' descriptions of all the
major blocks of hardware needed to make an ATT System 85 work?

I recently had the opportunity to see the inards of one of our campus
Node Rooms.  Most equipment was self-explanatory, but a few of the
labels will a little vague for someone with no real knowledge of the
system.  (Compounded by the fact that I had a wonderful cold, and was
walking between the 85 degree computer room and the 50 degree outside
air we were blowing into it :(

Thanks!

Mike

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #373
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20263;
          22 May 90 5:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14763;
          22 May 90 3:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15608;
          22 May 90 2:30 CDT
Date:     Tue, 22 May 90 1:58:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #374
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 May 90 01:58:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 374

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint Outage in Massachusetts Caused by MCI Crew [Steve Elias]
    Re: Sprint Outage -- Fiber Cut in Massachusetts [Tom Perrine]
    MCI Shortsightedness (was Re: Telebit vs. Sprint) [Robert Gutierrez]
    Volume Control on Public Phones [Roy Smith]
    Summary: Transmitting Video over Phone Lines [Mike Burrell]
    Sprint Visa Card [Carol Springs]
    Re: The Mis-Named FCC-Mandated Charge [Fred R. Goldstein]
    TDD Dual Party Relay Service Begins June 10 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Chicago Area Help Wanted: Deliver Directories [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Outage in Massachusetts Caused by MCI Crew
Date: Mon, 21 May 90 15:06:36 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


{Network World} today reports that the Massachusetts outage was caused
by an MCI construction crew working in a railroad yard in Palmer last
Thursday.  They cut a fiber link which carried 57 T-3 circuits.
Yikes.  Sprint service to an "undisclosed number" of customers in
Mass, NH, and Rhode Island was out for 3.5 hours.

One day earlier, a New Jersey utility worker bulldozing tree stumps
cut a fiber cable co-owned by Williams Telecom and US Sprint.  This
one knocked out 226 T-3 circuits.  Double yikes.  MCI leases capacity
on this fiber, btw.  Service was out for about 6 hours.

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

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Outage -- Fiber Cut in Massachusetts
Date: 21 May 90 21:55:29 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


>>Sprint access from Boston is out as of 11:30 AM 5/17.  Apparently
>>there is a fiber cut in Massachusetts somewhere.  Also, a big Sprint
>>fiber in NJ was cut yesterday.

>I attended a presentation by Sprint about a year ago and pressed them
>on the diversity of their network. They got back to me with maps, and
>descriptions etc. showing that apparently they were diverse down to
>the interconnect with the LEC.

"Diverse" does not neccessarily mean "redundant" :-) And what *was*
redundant may not remain redundant. Several years ago, the Northeast
was isolated from the ARPAnet for several days when an AT&T fiber was
cut.

The original redundant lines (copper or microwave?) had been carefully
routed through *many* different COs/routes, BUT when the fiber routes
were installed and the traffic was moved, no one noticed that the
(logical) lines were supposed to be redundant, and routed accordingly.
All of the supposedly "redundant" lines ended up in the same fiber
"cable", and when the backhoe came along...

It was the "talk of the net" for weeks. Does anyone remember any more
details?


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


[Moderator's Note: The Great Fire of Mother's Day, 1988 in Hinsdale,
IL did not bode well for sites in the Chicago area, either. Both
Usenet and Fidonet sites were disconnected from each other for varying
periods of time during May that year.  PT]

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

From: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Shortsightedness (was Re: Telebit vs. Sprint)
Date: 22 May 90 01:44:41 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet Network Operations.


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

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

> > Kinda funny in that when I worked there, I always used Sprint for my
> > V.32 connections (9600 baud) when MCI couldn't even make it through an
> > opening handshake....

> As far as I am concerned, MCI is not a real player for serious long
> distance users. While they may have lots of "suits" running around
> schmoozing it up to their corporate customers, the service they
> provide is substandard to either Sprint or AT&T by an amount far
> exceeding any discount they provide.

The problem really is nobody realizes that MCI has been courting
business ever since (William) McGowan started it all as an OCC back in
the 60's (as Microwave Communications Inc, what 'MCI' stands for,
though the original name had been long since abandoned years ago).
When I took a company instruction class when I started working there,
it was a wealth of information concerning it's history (basically a
well condensed version of McGowan's book), and the one point that was
always clear was that McGowan really only wanted big business, because
that was where the money was at.  This should have been clear to
anybody who knows even basic MCI history when they started with leased
lines for the trucking history (and starting the whole OCC [Other
Common Carrier] industry itself).

Why MCI went into the residential long-lines business is anybody's
guess.  Yes, sure McGowan says it was the next natural step for them
to 'compete' with AT&T (and maybe pride, but the only pride in
servicing the public I ever saw was from his partner, V. Orville
Wright), but I suspect that McGowan only wanted residential service to
use what would have been otherwise unused capacity on their fledging
network.  Of course, the residental market took off so much that they
ended up taking too much room on "their" network, and had to expand it
(much to their dismay) to keep their original targets from suffering
 ... which was the businesses.

At this point, McGowan couldn't back out of the residental market
because of the uproar that would happen (which they could probably
handle), but more likely the pressure AT&T would put on Washington
D.C. saying that MCI really never wanted to encourage competition in
the long distance market, they just wanted to bulldoze AT&T out of the
way (via the courts) to fatten their pockets.

(I usually don't do this, but this posting make me nervous):

The opinons expressed herein do not represent NASA, NASA Science
Internet Project, or my employer (Sterling Software), and thus are not
responsible for such opinons expressed.


   Robert Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet Project - Network Operations Center.
   Moffett Field, California.

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 15:18:29 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Volume Control on Public Phones


I saw something this morning I've never seen before.  In a pay phone
at a service area on the NJ Turnpike, there was a button to press to
adjust the volume (each press makes is louder).  Has anybody ever seen
one of these before?  It looked like a standard AT&T coin phone in a
booth.


/roy

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

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 16:10 EST
From: Nutsy Fagen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Summary: Transmitting Video Over Phone Lines


Several weeks ago, I requested information to assist me in remotely
viewing a computer display.  Due to the number of replies I received,
this is a general response to everyone.

My original concept of 'straight' video over the phone lines was pretty
much blown out of the water.  Anything clear enough to read would cost
at least $5,000 for the equipment.

However, almost everyone reply mentioned using a program which
interactively communicates between the host and remote station (via
modem/com port).  The programs suggested were:

              PCAnywhere, call [phone]
              Carbon Copy (Meridian Technology)
              Remote (Microstuf)
              PCRemote (PC Magazine, several months ago)

The first three cost $100-$200, the third is public domain.  I haven't
had the opportunity to use any of the programs, so I can't comment on
their effectiveness.

Unfortunately, the budget recently slammed shut, so we can't even
purchase the modem required to use the public domain software.
Hopefully this information will benefit the rest of you also
interested.

Have fun!


Mike Bunnell

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Visa Card
Date: 22 May 90 01:02:57 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


Dave Rand writes:

>U S Sprint, not to be outdone, has included the following notice in
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the latest bill (arrived today).
>"Now... a VISA card and a US Sprint FONCARD _all in one!_

Actually, my May/June insert claims that "US Sprint was the first long
distance company to introduce a card of this kind."

Don't recall whether Sprint has hyped its card to its entire customer
base before -- they may actually mean "first to test market such a
card."

MCI gets around the regulatory issues by allowing its customers to
charge their phone calls to bank-issued Visas.  MCI has cut deals with
a number of Visa issuers, with more being added.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Mis-Named FCC-Mandated Charge
Date: 21 May 90 16:33:33 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


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

>I note people on the list stating that they pay $3.00 even. First off,
>if this is an FCC-mandated surcharge, and thus national in scope, why
>is it higher here than elsewhere? What is the justification for it
>varying from region to region? Should it not be identical nationwide?

There's an FCC-imposed _cap_ on it, but the telco can charge less than
the cap for residential subscribers.  The FCC must approve the rate.
It tends to be higher in rural states, where the cost of local service
delivery is higher.

>Secondly, this charge has risen over its life. I seem to recall it
>started out at $1.50, though that may have been $2.00. I can
>understand the motivation behind the charge, to replace the revenue
>lost from kickbacks from LD service (I may not *like* it, but I can
>*understand* it... Grrrr... :-), but what possible excuse can there be
>for it having *risen*? The kickback-revenue was lost when the breakup
>and deregulation occurred, and the charge was instituted then. Over
>the ensuing years, it should have decreased, so as to be phased out,
>not increased. Who paid off who to get *this* gravy train?

The kickback from LD _calls_ has been reduced and continues to be
reduced, but the separations formulae which put much of the cost of
local telephone service into the interstate jurisdiction haven't been
reduced accordingly.  Thus the fixed charges (which replace part of
the cents per minute of LD calls) go up in order to make up the
difference.  It used to be that heavy callers subsidized light
callers.  That's less true now, though still true to some extent.

The gravy train leads to places like Wyoming and North Dakota, where
the average cost to deliver local telephone service is much higher
than average.  (Beehive Tel. in Utah invests $7000 per subscriber
line.  See Art Brothers' column in Telephone Engineer & Management.
The national average is more like $1000.)

In order to keep this flowing, separations cauases about 30% of the
non-traffic-sensitive (NTS) cost (not _price_) of local service to be
put under federal jurisdiction.  That's for the line, not for calls
(which would be traffic-sensitive).  Given an average NTS subscriber
line _cost_ of about $20/month, and a 30%ish federal share, the
$6/month cap is reasonable.  It's lower here in Mass. since the NTS
cost is only about $13/month, per NETel filings.

>Is the income from this surcharge treated differently, for accounting
>purposes, than the income from the "real" charges for telephone
>service by the BOCs/telcos? Or does it all just get dumped into the
>same pot?  (I have this image of the cellar of the new SW Bell
>building here looking like Scrooge McDuck's money vault... :-)

It's all "real" income, but this is FCC-regulated rather than
state-regulated.  The pots are handled differently; the federal pot is
skimmed for a special fund to subsidize high-cost rural telcos.
Otherwise, rates in the boonies would be a LOT higher than they are.
City rates would be a little lower.

>Lastly, is there any official plan for this charge to *ever* go away?

Of course not, since it's as much a part of your bill as the
state-regulated part!  The only way it would go away is if Congress
modified the Communications Act, and there's no good reason to do that
here.  The telcos are guaranteed a fair rate of return, and if they
didn't get it one way, they'd get it another way.


Fred R. Goldstein
[e-mail]   or [e-mail]
voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission

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

Date: Tue, 22 May 90 1:21:17 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TDD Dual Party Relay Service Begins June 10


Starting June 10, 1990, all telephone companies in Illinois, in
cooperation with the Illinois Telecommunications Access Corporation
and AT&T, will begin providing *Dual Party Relay Service* within
Illinois.

*Dual Party Relay Service* makes it possible for persons who use a TDD
(a typing device used by deaf or hearing-impaired persons for
telecommunication) and persons who use normal telephone service to
communicate through the aid of a specially trained relay operator.

For example, a person who uses a TDD will be able to call his or her
doctor, or the doctor can call a patient who uses a TDD without buying
special equipment. Until now, both parties needed TDD's to
communicate.

The Illinois Relay Center is located in Chicago and will operate 24
hours per day, seven days a week, including all holidays. Access to
the Relay Center will be via toll-free numbers. TDD users should call
1-800-526-0844 to make outgoing calls. Persons using a regular voice
phone should call 1-800-526-0857 to request connection to the TDD of a
deaf person. Calls completed through the relay operators will be
billed at regular telephone company rates.

Under the new law in Illinois, ITAC also distributes TDD's to
qualified Illinois residents who are deaf or hearing-impaired. For
more information on ITAC, call or write:

   Illinois Telecommunications Access Corporation
   Post Office Box 64509
   Chicago, IL 60664
   Phone: [phone] (Voice)   312-419-4211 (TDD)


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Tue, 22 May 90 1:08:39 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Chicago Area Help Wanted: Deliver Directories


Illinois Bell is looking for part time employees this summer during
June and July to deliver a few million copies of the 1990 edition of
the {Ameritech Pages Plus} -- the Chicago alphabetical phone
directory.  Generally, routes are available all over the metro area.
Applicants must be age 18 or older, and have an insured automobile.

In addition, other temporary work may be available, loading and
unloading directories. Some clerical work may be available. For more
information, print out this message, answering the questions given
below.

Mail the answered questions to:

Ameritech Directory Distribution
Post Office Box 413
Bedford Park, IL 60499-0413   *DO NOT TELEPHONE or APPLY IN PERSON*


Name___________________________________________________________

Address________________________________________________________

City__________________________State________Zip_________________

Home Phone_____________________________________________________

How many hours per day between 8 AM and dusk do you have
available for this work?  What days of the week?

_______________________________________________________________

Would you prefer:  Clerical work_______Loading/Unloading_______

If you are not available, please mention this employment opportunity
to a friend, relative or neighbor.

Ameritech/Illinois Bell is an Equal Opportunity Employer   m/f/h

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #374
******************************











ISSUE 375 DELAYED IN TRANSMISSION. IT FOLLOWS 377 IN THIS ARCHIVES.

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17334;
          23 May 90 5:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13505;
          23 May 90 3:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09718;
          23 May 90 2:38 CDT
Date:     Wed, 23 May 90 2:21:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #376
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 May 90 02:20:28 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 376

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Distributed TELCO [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Distributed TELCO [C. D. Covington]
    Unlimited Cellular Calling in DC Metro Area? [John L. Shelton]
    Re: Customized Telephone Numbers (Was NXX-0000) [Phil Brownfield]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distributed TELCO
Date: 22 May 90 05:46:24 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


>|Upon picking up a telephone for the first time after connecting up the
>|system, the phone says, your telephone number is 412346,234457 please
>|enter the names for your directory listing.  You key the name that will
>|list you in the electronic directory.

>Someone has to administer the directory.  Someone has to make sure
>that the voice is there to ask you for your listing information.

A directory requires little administration if each box can hold the
entire planetary-system-wide directory.  The box knows your own entry
(it could be in EAROM or something), and if the full directory got
scrambled or lost, it could get it from a neighbor.  Adding or
changing your entry could be broadcast to all nodes.  Directory
entries could be broadcast periodically (every few months) or when
it's evident that there's a problem.  A small store-and-forward
capability for changes would help here for temporarily down nodes.

If the nodes can't hold the whole directory, and you've got bandwith
to burn, there's always the flood propogation of a query, with the
identified box(es) responding, "That's me!", along with the full
entry.

Do residential-type users even need or want a directory entry anyway?
How many would have directory entries today if it cost money to be
*LISTED*, at, say, half the rate for a business listing of similar
size?  Businesses certainly spend enough money in an obnoxious manner
telling you how to call them through numerous channels - telemarketing
unfortunately being one of them - even though the directories exist.

This scheme does, of course, assume that nobody will try to pretend to
be someone else.  Nobody really cares if most of the residential
entries are for "Fido" and "Tabby", except people really named "Fido"
or "Tabby".

>Someone has to make sure that it doesn't ask again unless you
>specifically want to change your listing.

My VCR already knows whether it needs to go through the
what-channels-are-active procedure or not when it powers up,
presumably by noting whether its battery-backed-up RAM got wiped by a
long stay at the repair center.

>Someone has to maintain and update the routing tables.  Someone,

Doesn't the Internet have this done automatically?  All a node needs
initially is its direct neighbors.

>again, has to administer the directory.  Someone has to force the
>uncooperative to let other calls be routed through their boxes.

The uncooperative may be less of a problem than the special cases,
especially if the hardware is built so shutting off pass-through calls
isn't at all convenient or possible.  But who wants their box
permanently overloaded by setting up the first USA-Europe link?  Who
wants to talk to Europe badly enough to pay for the extra cost for the
extraordinary hardware needed for such a link?  Who worries about
whether there is enough capacity into an area, until the person
controlling that box takes it down and moves?  Who worries about
whether the net becomes partitioned, or some area can't be hooked in
at all? Who worries about whether police and fire communications can
be knocked out by the failure of any one of several boxes? These are
the problems that will kill the scheme.

Unfortunately, you also have to worry about the scum who think it's
fun to write a "box virus", create obscene directory entries, direct
calls to competitors to them instead, and spy on other people's
conversations.

 From the hardware description, I'd imagine it might work well within
an urban area.  Assume an 'eye' can see up to a couple of miles, line
of sight only.  Now, who pays for extra "relay" boxes in the
"boondocks" farmland and mountains between large cities, and the
structures to mount them on, and the power wiring to run them?  Who
arranges to get over geographical and political obstacles, like lakes,
rivers, hills, and wide areas of freeway and parks?

(One technical question, though. An "eye" looks south from my house,
and sees seven "eyes" within one degree of arc and a half-mile looking
north at it.  Some of these are partially covered by the others.
These are, of course, a row of houses each talking to the next.  I
want to talk to the closest one.  But won't they interfere with each
other?)

>How?  It replaces telcos as we now know them with something else,
>something else that must be paid for.  There's still a bill to pay;
>all you've done is change the telco bill to a bill by some other name.

I think this bill works just like your TV (non-cable) bill: you pay
for the TV, and for the power to run it, and if it breaks, you get it
fixed or buy another one.  If you want upgrades, buy an upgrade, or a
whole new unit.  However, if the only thing broken is the link between
you and one neighbor (who's at the end of a street and cut off), and
the problem is in your fourth 'eye', you may not feel like having it
fixed, because it doesn't bother you.  And besides, why can't the guy
across the street get HIS fourth eye fixed (it went out last year) and
get the cut-off neighbor connected?

>the way it sounds.  Hardware cannot maintain itself; there needs to be
>a staff of repair personnel, and they need tools and supplies.

The box vendor(s) will be glad to supply these - probably at an
inflated price, just like appliance, consumer electronics, and
(consumer) computer repair works now, including the service contracts
that seem to cover a lot more than they really do.  Or, you just chuck
the box and buy a new one.

In the future you won't have to worry about such issues, due to the
War on Drugs.  Here will be the phone book:

0 - A recording of this list
1 - A long distance call.  You will be connected to the next or previous
    person to make a long distance call in another area.
2 (C) - Collect call.  You will be connected to the next available
    person who accepted a collect call.
3 (D) - Drug Dealers, or at least people who pretend to be drug dealers.
3 (F) - Drug Enforcement Administration "Fink" line
4 (I) - International call.  You will be connected to the next or previous
    person to make an international call in another country.
5 (L) - Local call.  You will be connected to the next or previous person
    to make a local call in your area.
6 (O) - Official Government Information
7 (P) - Police Tip line
8 (800) - Accept a collect call.  You will be connected to the next available
    person who makes a collect call.
9 (911) - Emergency services

Anyone possessing a telephone with something known as a 'ringer' or
'bell', or claiming to know their own 'telephone number' is subject to
heavy fines and imprisonment for revealing telephone company secrets.

Your telephone bill will include itemized costs for the cost of taping
your calls, and the cost of someone reviewing it, and the cost of
arresting you or the other party, if necessary.  The Government Is
Your Friend!


Gordon L. Burditt
sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: "C. D. Covington" <uafhcx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distributed TELCO
Date: 22 May 90 14:02:27 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville


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

> there want to tackle this?  Infrared LED is probably the best idea for

   I have thought about this type of link for many different
applications, particularly since it is not regulated.  What I keep
coming up against is the fact that this would be only a fair weather
system.  I have real doubts as to how infrared would do in rain and
fog over any kind of useful distance.

   After reading the original article, I began wondering if a local
traffic concentrating mechanism of the type you describe might be
effective when combined with a (more traditional) sparse tree.  I can
envision this sort of thing getting started in some neighborhood in
the Bay Area where everyone is high tech.  There is nothing against
starting a cooperative, like Cable & Wireless (TDX) did when they were
getting started.  Only we are talking about setting up a local
neighborhood cooperative instead of a diverse business cooperative.

   I keep coming back to the old low powered radio link solution.
Perhaps my ham radio background is coming through, or maybe the four
years in 2-way FM radio design at Motorola, or perhaps it's the
comments I saw from the sovam.uucp contributor about *leapfrog*
technology which could bypass both copper and fiber and set up a
completely wireless cellular-like local plant.  Reallocating local
loops is not possible, where radio channels are as flexible as they
come.

   Maybe the real idea that gets stuck in my head has its roots in the
fact that I have a cordless phone at home.  This is not an amazing
fact particularly considering the installed base of cordless phones.
Couple this with the density of cordless phones in my neighborhood and
you get a real interference problem.  I would not be surprised to find
out that over 50% of my neighbors have cordless phones.  That's
certainly the case for my immediate neighbors.  Based on the sources
of interference I have tracked down a couple of times, they don't have
to be that close to cause problems, particularly false ringing.

   Anyway, all this rambling brings me to the following anecdote which
I came close to posting when it happened, but it is even more relevant
to the current topic, so I include it here for your
consideration/entertainment.

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

   I was standing about one foot from my cordless base making a series
of local phone calls.  I turned the remote on to get dial tone for the
next call, but I noticed that it seemed strangely weak, not like it
was for the previous call.  It occured to me that the likelihood of
picking up someone else's base unit was very small unless they had 1)
the same manufacturer and 2) the same 'security code' (in quotes, keep
reading).  To eliminate this *remote* possibility (I had been having
problems with the phone itself, locking up and putting noise on the
line), I pulled the power cord on my base unit.  No change.  I then
proceeded to dial my own phone number.  An extension rang.
Whoooooaaa.  I understand interference, but picking up someone else's
phone is completely unacceptable.

   Well, this must just be an immediate neighbor.  So using my quick
mind I thought all I had to do was to try my neighbors' phone numbers
to see who would return a busy signal.  After three or four attempts,
no such luck.  Well, I was having to baby sit for the kids, so I
couldn't leave the house for very long at a time but I did manage to
stroll around the block while trying to determine the source of the
signal through signal strength differences.  I could travel over about
a one block square and still pick up this guy's phone, but it wasn't
getting any stronger, so I couldn't tell where he was.

   After noticing that the signal seemed to be stronger in my back
yard than the front, I wondered if it might possibly be coming from
the next street over.  Now we live with our back yard in the flood
plan of a creek.  From my back fence to the back fence of the next
house across the creek is about 100 yards.  Well, I was having some
trouble telling this guy's dial tone from other interfering
conversations, so I told my son I would call him on the phone next to
the computer where he was playing games with his sister.  I told him
just to keep talking back and forth to verify the identity of the
signal.

   I lost him once as I crossed the bridge on the creek and had to
redial.  After that the signal got stronger and stronger as I went
down the street on the other side of the creek until it began to fade
some.  I then backed up to the point where the signal seemed to be the
strongest and stepped back and forth across the street to try to tell
which side of the street I should try.  It wasn't obvious but I took a
chance on the house on the side of the street *away* from the creek.

   The signal became *very* clear as I approached the front door.  I
knocked.  I explained to the man who came to the door who the heck I
was and what in the world I was doing.  He was holding one child and
another was standing by him.  He was quite understanding.  "Do you
have a cordless phone, by any chance?" I asked.  "Yes I do."  "Is it
by any chance a GE cordless phone," I asked.  After entering the home
and going to his phone, it was indeed a GE.  "What is the security
code on the bottom of the phone."  We turned the two handsets over and
the exact same security code appeared on identical equipment.  Amazing
Watson.  We exchanged names and phone numbers in case of any
inexplicable calls on our respective phone bills.

   I submit at this point that the technology responsible for the
cordless phone revolution has reached its limit and we must move
toward the next generation technology which will almost certainly
involve spread spectrum encoding.  This has been on the minds of
everyone in this industry I would guess as I first heard about it ten
years ago.  This is the only real way to simultaneously solve the
interference problem and install a high level of security.

   I relate this story to point out this problem once again and also
suggest the spread spectrum radio link as the medium of choice for the
NeighborTel concept.  The remaining problem, as well as the reason we
don't all have spread spectrum cordless phones, is cost.  Oh well.

   If the telco has the resources to replace copper with fiber fast
enough to keep up with ISDN features coming down the pike, then all of
this will not be competitive.  If we still have copper five or ten
years from now, then there may be some real possibilities for
distributed systems.


C. David Covington (WA5TGF)  [e-mail]     [phone]
Asst Prof, Elec Eng          Univ of Arkansas        Fayetteville, AR 72701

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

Date: Tue, 22 May 90 13:34:49 PDT
From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unlimited Cellular Calling in DC Metro Area?


While visiting the DC area, I noticed several advertisements for
cellular phones claiming unlimited night/weekend calling (7pm-7am) at
no additional charge for the $39.95 monthly rate.

Seems pretty amazing.  Is this for real?


=John=

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

Subject: Re: Customized Telephone Numbers (Was NXX-0000)
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor, Austin, Texas
Date: 22 May 90 21:01:26 CDT (Tue)
Reply-To: oakhill!motaus![e-mail]
From: Phil Brownfield <oakhill![e-mail]>


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

>I was told I couldn't have it because it was "not available".
>It turns out that number was in a block of numbers they were
>holding for expansion of a Centrex in 617-861.

Is this another possibility: Might an unused phone number be
unavailable for reissue if it was only recently disconnected from a
previous user?


Phil Brownfield
[e-mail]
{cs.utexas.edu!oakhill, mcdchg}!motaus!phil

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #376
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18670;
          23 May 90 6:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01945;
          23 May 90 4:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac13505;
          23 May 90 3:45 CDT
Date:     Wed, 23 May 90 2:47:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #377
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 May 90 02:45:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 377

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Data Access Lines [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Data Access Lines [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: FCC REN Numbers (Was: BT Phones, etc) [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Area 908 Prefix Listings [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: Interesting Police Technology [Mike Koziol]
    Re: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers [Nigel Allen]
    10XXX Bugs [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Data Access Line
Date: 23 May 90 00:05:39 EDT (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)
writes:

> I asked Pacific Bell to send me information about Data Access lines,
> since I am thinking about getting a 9600 baud modem.
> The flyer they sent me quoted the specifications listed below.
> Would anyone care to explain them?

>               Technical Standards for Data Access Lines
>         Attenuation Distortion (slope)                -1 to +3 dB

    This specification really describes the frequency response
characteristics of the data access line.  This parameter is a
deviation range in dB from a FLAT frequency response in the range of
300 to 3,000 Hz.

>         C-Message Noise                               20 dBrnC

    This specification describes noise level in dB *above* a
reference level of -90 dBm (1 picowatt).  The "C" means that the
measurement is compensated according to the C-message weighting curve,
which adjusts the measurement to more realistically approximate both
the characteristics of the human ear and the transmission of the WECO
500-type telephone set.

>         Impulse Noise                                 59 dBrnCO

    This specification describes noise level in dB above a
reference level of -90 dBm adjusted for C-message weighting, and
*further* adjusted by the loss of the subscriber CO loop itself.  The
"0" at the end refers to adding the subscriber loop loss to the noise
measurement in dBrnC.

>         Relative Delay (1000 to 2604 Hz)              200 usec.

    This is more correctly referred to as envelope delay
distortion, and represents the maximum phase shift of a signal
expressed in a unit of time.  To put this figure in perspective, bear
in mind that 200 usec is 0.2 times the period of one cycle of a 1 kHz
signal, or stated another way, a phase shift of 72 degrees.
Obviously, as the frequency increases, the implication of a fixed 200
usec delay interval becomes more severe!

> Of course I have guesses about what all this means, but I'd like to hear
> from anyone who is *sure* of what a dBrnCO is.

    Trust me :-), I am *sure* what dBrnC 0 (often written with a
space between the C and the zero) means.

    It is important to remember that the above data access line
specifications are from the subscriber location to the CO *only*, and
may have little meaning if you are calling outside your own CO.  In
fact, these figures may have little meaning in calling another
subscriber in your own CO *unless* they, too, have a data access line!

    I have oversimplified many of the above definitions, but they
are accurate as stated; unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment
to offer a more comprehensive answer.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Date: 22 May 90 19:47:49 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)
writes:

>Of course I have guesses about what all this means, but I'd like to hear
>from anyone who is *sure* of what a dBrnCO is.

dB is a relative measure of voltage or power.  In telecom, you get
zillions of suffixes which tell you "relative to what", and in some
cases the measurement condition. [1]

dBm is commonly used to specify a level referenced to a "digital
milliwatt" signal.  This is a 1004Hz sine wave of 1mW power into
600ohms.

dBrn is the signal level relative to a reference noise value of 1pW.
0dBrn = 1pW = -90dBm.

dBrnC indicates that the measurement has been made with a C-message
weighting filter.  This filter emulates the response of the human ear.
That is, a measurement in dBrnC is power over the range of hearing
relative to a 1pW noise source.

dBrnC0 indicates that the reference is against a zero transmission
level.  That is, it is similar to dBrnC, but the reference is not a
1pW noise source but rather the residual noise when no signal is
applied.

>        C-Message Noise                               20 dBrnC
>        Impulse Noise                                 59 dBrnCO

Here is what I think they are saying.  Since:

    dB = 10 * log(P1/P2)        (for power measurements)
    dB = 20 * log(V1/V2)        (for voltage measurements)

They are saying the residual noise on the line after applying
C-Message filtering is:

    20dB = 10 * log(P/1pW)        (from def'n of dBrnC)

    or P = 10^(20/10) * 1pW = 100pW

And the random impulse noise is:

    59dB = 10 * log(P/100pw)    (from def'n of dBm0, with 100pW ref)

    or P = 10^(59/10) * 100pw = 79mW

Objectives for noise are generally about 28dBrnC for short-haul (<60
miles) lines and 34dBrnC for long-haul (<1000 miles) lines.  You can
probably get by with 15dB to 25dB S/N for error-free digital
transmission. [2] I'm not sure what kind of levels you'd like to see
for a 9600bps modem.  Maybe the manufacturer can provide these
numbers.

[1] Motorola Telecommunications Devices Databook.  There are a whole slew
    of dB definitions in the glossary.  (However, I'll probably stop using
    their products now that they've joined the piss-in-a-bottle mania.)

[2] Digital Telephony.  John C. Bellamy, John Wiley & Sons, 1982.  Very
    good reference for digital telecom.


Chip Rosenthal                            |  You aren't some icon carved out
[e-mail]                  |  of soap, sent down here to clean
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  up my reputation.  -John Hiatt

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN Numbers (Was: BT Phones, etc)
Date: 22 May 90 15:16:11 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> Julian Macassey writes about RENs (Ringer Equivalence Numbers),
> quoting chapter and verse from FCC part 68 rules.  This comes at a
> fortuitous time because I was just wondering about it myself.

> Why do the RENs vary?  I have noticed quite a wide range of ringer
> equivalences, and while thinking about this I came up with a bunch of
> statements that a telephone designer might make about them.  Which of
> these are true or likely and which are false?

    RENs vary because different designs of ringers consume
different amounts of power. The same reason Horse Power varies.

>     "physical bells take 1.0 REN, that's just the way it is"
>
    Physical Bells, or gong ringers as they are known take an REN
(Ringer Equivalence Number) of 1.0 A because they are the standard by
which other devices are measured. The classic gong ringer in Western
Electric telephone is the standard ringer. I have seen Korean
telephones with gong ringers rated at 3.0 A. Yup, two of those phones
on the same line would not ring.

>     "it's harder to make the ringer circuit with lower RENs"

    It's very easy, but seeing as the REN is an indication of
power consumption, a low REN ringer may not be heard. The purpose of
ringers is to be heard. The most efficient ringer, if hearing and
directionality is important, is the classic gong ringer (REN 1.0 A).
Modems, phone answering machines etc, often have an REN of 0.0. They
just need to sniff the AC voltage to then get the logic to grab the
line etc. Yes, you could make a REN 0.0 device that would power a
steam whistle. But most of the world's ringers are self powered.

>     "lower REN is better because you can get more instruments
>      on a line"

    Yes, this is true. The telco claims that they can ring a total
REN of 5.0. So you could have ten 0.5 REN phones on line.

>     "we didn't really think about the REN when we built the
>      phone, that's just what it ended up being"

    This is partially true. The power consumed by the ringer has
always been important. In the old days, the company that built the
ringers also built the ring generators, so they were matched. When
subscriber equipment was deregulated, the FCC and Ma Bell came up with
the REN to enable ringers to be measured. I am sure that to this day
that AT&T have massive docs describing ringers and ring generators.

>     "the phone switch likes higher REN phones better"

    Nope, Higher REN phones consume more power. The telco worries
that you are using their power. I had a hilarious meeting with AT&T
dweebs once about on-hook power consumption and what it would cost
them in extra batteries if every subscriber took 1 Ma while on hook to
run dialer memories etc. If your phone has an REN of 0.2, they are
quite happy.

>     "we always built phones with REN=xx and saw no reason to change"

    Nope, They built standard electro-mechanically resonant gong
ringers because they gave the highest SPL per Watt. To this day, their
is not a better ringer known to me than a classic AT&T double gong
ringer.  They are not cheap, electronic ringers are much cheaper.

>     "if the REN is too low, it will trigger sporadically (say,
>      via pulse dialing on another extension"

    If the REN is too low, nothing will happen, except it will
consume less power. The REN can be 0.0, look at your modem. The
sporadic triggering you talk of, called "bell tap" in the trade, is
causeed by poorly designed ringers of any REN. The 3.0 REN monster I
mentioned above bell tapped.

>     "off-the-shelf phone line interfaces have REN=xx so that's
>      why we used it".

    I don't understand this statement.

> Should one even bother to look at the REN when buying a phone?

    Yes, if you have more than one instrument on a line, it is
important.  If the Telco will ring ringers up to a total of 5 REN and
you add another instrument bringing your REN to or above the limit,
several things may happen:

    All the bells will stop ringing. Some of the bells will stop
ringing.  Some will stop and others will be weak. They will all be
weak.


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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 90 11:43:49 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area 908 Prefix Listings
Organization: Summit NJ


> Inclusion of Elizabeth means that 908 would reach up at least to exit
> 13 of the New Jersey Turnpike; I also see Roselle, Unionville,
> Carteret, Rahway, and Woodbridge in 908.

As I remember the map that was published in the {Newark Star Ledger}
last year, in the eastern part of the state, Union County (Elizabeth
and points south) is in 908, while Essex County (Newark and north)
remains in 201.

One impact of this is that the town of Springfield will have numbers
in both area codes.  While Springfield in wholly in Union County, it
is served by the Summit (Union County), Unionville (Union in Union
County), and Millburn (Essex County) central offices.

Also I don't know how this will affect the phones in terminal A of
Newark Airport (which is in Elizabeth); unless NJ Bell had made it
easy by connecting them to a Newark central office.


Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

Date: Tue, 22 May 90 19:51:18 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Police Technology

     The computer terminals used in police cars are called Mobile Data
Terminals (MDT's). They are becoming quite popular because the police
officer is able to do his own lookup of license plates and suspect
information. In addition the information to the terminal is not easily
intercepted by scanner users so it is secure. The police officer can
also communicate with other cars or with their dispatcher with out
anyone else (suspect standing outside of the car for instance) knowing
the contents of the conversation.

Various "hot" keys are usually included so the officer can hit a key
when his status changes and this information can instantly be relayed
to the police dispatcher. Another nice feature is that forms can be
stored in the MDT and be called up on the screen. The officer fills in
the blanks and his report is transmitted to the records section with
no more human intervention needed for data entry.

     A couple of years ago I saw a talk on the Dallas Texas MDT setup.
It is possible (though not often used) for a police officer to
communicate with a water control facility computer located in another
state from his car through the municipal computer system. Dallas is
currently spending more for the electronics in a car (radar, cellular
phone, radio for automatic vehicle locator, data radio for MDT and
voice radio) than they spend for the car.

     I priced out an MDT system for a three car university campus
safety department. Basic cost for a terminal and radio is $3000/car
and the central computer that communicates with up to fifteen cars is
about $45,000.

     Anyway, I got a bit long winded and it doesn't deal much with
telecom issues but its one of my areas of interest.

     BTW, the manufacturers rep yold me that L.A. County bought 1200
or MDT's and the New York City Fire Department and EMS plan on having
all of their vehicles equipped with MDT's within a couple of years and
all of their dispatching will take place over them.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 18 May 90  0:00:00 EST
Subject: Problems With NXX-0000 Type Numbers


In-Reply-To: [e-mail]

 >Speaking of easy phone numbers, just exactly how do you get them?

Bell Canada will provide "premium" telephone numbers to both residence
and business customers, for an initial fee of about $25 and a
continuing monthly fee.

This service is relatively recent (within the past two years).

One non-profit organization that closed its Toronto office for a few
months and then asked for its old telephone number back was hit with
Bell's charge for a "premium" telephone number.  I didn't think there
was anything "premium" about [phone], so I suggested to the
organization's one Toronto employee that he dispute the charge with
Bell.  I don't know what happened afterwards.


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

 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

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

Subject: 10XXX Bugs
Date: Mon, 21 May 90 23:46:34 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


During a recent trip to Buffalo, I made the following observations:

1) Dialing 10XXX + 1 700 555.4141 generally didn't work too well.
   For instance, 10333 (Sprint) or 10222 (MCI) + 1 700 555.4141 got
   AT&T's long distance network recording. 10555 (Telesphere) just
   got a fast busy signal.

2) You can't dial 10222 + 1 800 888.1800, which is supposed to be one
   of MCI's numbers! (Presumably, 1 + 800 888.1800 should do it).
   Of course, mixing and matching various 10XXX on 800 number calls
   would only get the recording that the number could not be dialed
   with the selected carrier.

3) At least the 10555 0# worked to get a Telesphere operator...


[e-mail]    David Leibold

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #377
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19826;
          23 May 90 6:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13505;
          23 May 90 3:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09718;
          23 May 90 2:38 CDT
Date:     Wed, 23 May 90 1:57:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #375
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 May 90 01:57:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 375

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media [Bob Sutterfield]
    Re: Data Access Lines [John Higdon]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: Online CCITT Standards [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Herman Silbiger]
    Re: Volume Control on Public Phones [Paul Colley]
    Re: Volume Control on Public Phones [Carl Moore]
    Re: Volume Control on Public Phones [Mark Brader]
    Re: Measured Service [John Higdon]
    Re: Non-Cellular Mobile Phones [John Higdon]
    Re: Non-Cellular Mobile Phones [Russ Kepler]
    Re: New Sprint Promotion [Javier Henderson]
    Re: I Want To Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 22 May 90 06:35:17 GMT


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

- ...No matter what
-the subject is, if you are an expert and you read the newspaper you
-groan.  Newspapers ALWAYS get the details wrong, because it's
-impossible to be infallible in fifty things at once, on deadline, at
-reporters' pay.

I believe it was Mark Twain (who is always filed under "C" in the
public library, along with Lewis Carroll) who noted that Newspapers
are 100% accurate -- except in those few instances where you know what
really happened.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology and the Media
Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Date: Tue, 22 May 90 14:03:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (j. eric
townsend) writes:

>If you are asked to give an interview on say, PBX security, offer
>to review the reporter's story before they submit it.

In connection with the times I sat for interviews regarding the
Internet Worm, I always offered just such a service.  Almost
uniformly, the response was a semi-hostile glare followed by "our
editors have a policy of not allowing our stories to be censored."

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Date: 22 May 90 02:52:39 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]> writes:

> I asked Pacific Bell to send me information about Data Access lines,

I haven't the foggiest concerning a dBrnCO, but I will tell you that
you might want to consider trying your future 9600 bps modems over
ordinary lines before you shell out for Data Access Lines. In the
crowd that I hang out in, there are many, many Trailblazers
functioning just fine on standard run-of-the-mill residence and
business lines, with throughputs approaching the theoretical limits
for the modems. Any slight increase would most likely not pay the
additional freight for the line.

The Data Access Line is just like the new way of handling PBX trunks.
Used to be that when you ordered a PBX trunk, they guaranteed it would
meet spec and did whatever conditioning was necessary to achieve it.
Now they offer two grades: Premium and Standard. Standard costs what
they have always cost but there are no guarantees: you get what you
get. Premium is what they used to provide but, you guessed it, comes
at a premium price, well over and above what a trunk used to cost.

The long and the short of it is: if you are anywhere near the CO,
don't bother with a Data Access Line.


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

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 22 May 90 19:07:32 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


>One of their "big" products was ADPCM T-1 multiplexers, which they
>sold to the long-distance carriers for equal-access expansion. [...]
>While not affecting voice very much, it really killed modem traffic.

Hmmm...  I'd suspect the ADPCM implementation.  I know those guys did
their own.  Was it fully G.721 complaint?  V22.bis and lower runs just
fine with ADPCM.  The original G.721 did have problems, but the final
version works.  Note that you can have 32K voice compression without
meeting the spec, which might compress voice just fine but trash modem
traffic.  (The problem was that the CCITT released a G.721 with
problems on modems, the ANSI T1Y1 committee fixed it, and CCITT
revised G.721 with the new algorithm.)


Chip Rosenthal                            |  You aren't some icon carved out
[e-mail]                  |  of soap, sent down here to clean
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260  |  up my reputation.  -John Hiatt

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

Date: Tue, 22 May 90 08:02:12 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Online CCITT Standards
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| This request has been made by myself and others with no results.  Are
| there absolutely NO FTPable CCITT standards?  Someone somewhere must
| know!  It's a quest...

Such a thing would be illegal. The CCITT (and ANSI and IEEE) standards
are copyrighted, and the standards organizations are largely supported
through the sales of their standards documents. They would disappove
strongly of anyone typing in one of their docs and putting it online.

CCITT/ISO/IEEE/ANSI != RFC. (Too bad.)

It is often the case that *draft* standards are available for free
(hardcopy only) while the standard is being developed...  But once the
standard is finalized, you can't get the drafts (at any price).


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: Sun, 20 May 90 20:30:25 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> 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

This does not seem to be true any more.  I have a British phone, which
had modular plugs at both ends.  It looked like it was hard wired into
the telephone end, but when I took the cover off, there was a modular
plug inside.  It took me a while to figure out that 2 and 5 were tip &
ring, not 3 and 4!


Herman Silbiger
[e-mail]
attmail!hsilbiger

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Colley)
Subject: Re: Volume Control on Public Phones
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 22 May 90 19:10:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 374, Message 4 of 9

>I saw something this morning I've never seen before.  In a pay phone
>at a service area on the NJ Turnpike, there was a button to press to
>adjust the volume (each press makes is louder).  Has anybody ever seen
>one of these before?  It looked like a standard AT&T coin phone in a
>booth.

Phones with volume controls are fairly common here in Ontario, and
have been around for a few years.

Most areas which have more than two or three pay phones have one with
a volume control.  The phones are marked with a sign above the phone
(a stylized white ear on a blue background).

They seem identical to a normal pay phone, except for a sort of a
rocker switch in the handset.  Holding one side of the switch
progressively increases the volume, the other side decreases it.

Such groups of pay phones also usually have one phone at wheelchair
height.

I've seen a similar arrangement on an otherwise normal rotary phone at
my Aunt's apartment (she is hard of hearing).  I don't know if it is
supplied by the phone company.


Paul Colley
Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Canada
[e-mail] or .ca

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

Date: Tue, 22 May 90 10:10:52 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Volume Control on Public Phones


I think I've seen such adjustable-volume phones many times.

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Volume Control on Public Phones
Date: Wed, 23 May 1990 00:14:43 -0400


> I saw something this morning I've never seen before.  In a pay phone
> at a service area on the NJ Turnpike, there was a button to press to
> adjust the volume (each press makes it louder).

There are a fair number of these at busy payphone locations, such as
main subway stations, here in Toronto.  You're only supposed to need
to use the adjustment if you have impaired hearing.


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto    "Email isn't worth the paper it's
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]         printed on" -- Brian T. Schellenberger

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Measured Service
Date: 22 May 90 02:30:32 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Carol Springs <#axiom![e-mail]> writes:

> The rationale seems to be that measured service
> in Massachusetts exists as a lifeline service for those who can't pay
> the higher phone rates, and if you can afford one flat rate line in
> your household you obviously aren't in this category.

I'll never bad-mouth the California "lifeline" service ever again, if
that is what makes it so we can still have a mix of measured and
unmeasured lines in one household. In the residence world, unmeasured
is referred to as "premium" service, measured is referred to as
"standard" service, and lifeline is, of course, lifeline. While
lifeline is a form of measured service, it is different than
"standard" in that you get an "untimed" Zone 1 call allowance. In
regular measured services, all calls are timed. In any event, I have five
unmeasured, four measured and one Inwats in one residence.

Lang Zerner <[e-mail]> writes:

> Huh?  I've got a *hunt group* whose primary line is flat rate and
> whose remaining lines are measured.

In Pac*Bell land, the only two firm requirements for hunting are that
the numbers bear the same prefix and that the lines are billed to the
same party. Other than that it's anything goes. Of course some
mechanical offices (of which there are plenty in Backward*Bell land)
have other restrictions concerning jumping over other numbers,
backwards, etc.


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

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Non-Cellular Mobile Phones
Date: 22 May 90 02:41:27 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Barts <[e-mail]> writes:

> Fascinating!  Two
> *giant* cells, each covering several thousand square miles!  Five or
> six such cells would cover the Rio Grande Valley from the Texas border
> to Colorado.

> So anyplace can have cellular phones; just make the cells big enough
> so that each cell has enough customers to support it.

Not to detract from your utter amazement, but I do believe that was
the original concept of cellular. To wit: in areas with few users the
cells would be large (maybe even huge). As the density increased, then
more channels would be required. To get these, the cells would become
smaller and the channels reused more frequently.

This is why the system has control over the mobile's power output: if
the mobile is transmitting only the power necessary to reach the cell
site that it is working, the chances of interfering with other cells
is minimized. This is why also that you will find metropolitan systems
adding cell sites: in order to get more channels as the number of
subscribers increases.

What you have described to us is the other end of the spectrum. Most
of us see the congestion in metro areas, but don't get to see how the
other side of the coin is.


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

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

From: Russ Kepler <bbx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Non-Cellular Mobile Phones
Date: 22 May 90 13:40:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Russ Kepler)
Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM


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

>[talks about person in New Mexico making cellular call 30 mi
>from the nearest city]

>Now this was several years ago, so its possible the situation is
>changed by now.  I wouldn't be surprised if they've had to do
>something to split Albuquerque into several cells instead of being
>served by the same Sandia Peak `mega-cell' the rest of central NM was
>(is?) served by.  It is also possible that the phone wasn't cellular
>but IMTS.  I know from the antenna that it was definitely not a VHF
>radiophone.

Still the same.  I regularly make calls using a handheld (still want
to call it a handy talkie...) from up to 100 mi away.  Just so long as
you can hit Sandia Crest.  I've always had an urge to try from
Flagstaff - I used to hit the two meter repeater from there and think
I could probably hit the cell given a little power boost.  I've never
gone into roam so I must be missing Santa Fe.  We have employees that
use the cellular from Gallup (90 mi west), avoiding the LD charges.

It's possible that they've split Albuquerque into multiple cells.  But
I don't think that this precludes a wide area coverage and local area
coverage, cells shouldn't have to be physically adjacent and one
should be able to be 'surrounded' by another.

Side note of historical interest:

Around here it's normal to think in terms of line-of-sight.  When I
was in high school I did a bit of a summer job providing
communications for a Boy Scout Camp in Chimayo (north of Santa Fe twenty
miles of so).  The communications were done using a handy talkie the
size of a cinder block that I recharged from my car.  I used an
extension full wave antenna and hit the repeater eighty miles south every
time.  From there it was a phone patch - Albuquerque local calls from
up north.  Unfortunately there wasn't a repeater with phone patch in
Santa Fe so we couldn't make 'local' calls.


Russ Kepler -  Basis Int'l     SNAIL:  5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
UUCP: bbx.basis.com!russ                                    PHONE: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New Sprint Promotion
Date: 21 May 90 17:37:55 GMT
Organization: Hamilton Avnet Computer; Culver City, CA


>     1. "One month" means one "average" month, meaning:
>     2. you won't see any kind of refund until your third bill
>            (at least).

I received a flyer back in October '89 with a similar offer, and the
conditions were that a 'free month' would be a $25 credit to be
applied to the January '90 bill (which they did).

So far, looks like the same kind of promo.


Javier Henderson     | crash!simpact!hamavnet!henderson | These opinions
Engineering Services | Ham Packet: N6VBG @ KD7XG-1      | are all mine.
Hamilton Avnet       | WWIVNet: 1@2397                  |

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

Date: Tue, 22 May 90 10:59:31 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call


Isn't dialing 0+citycode within your own city code permitted in the
U.K.?  (That leading 0 is not used on incoming international calls.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #375
******************************

ISSUES 376 AND 377 APPEAR AHEAD OF 375 DUE TO REVERSAL IN
TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 378 IS NEXT.











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07105;
          24 May 90 0:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06243;
          23 May 90 22:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28068;
          23 May 90 21:52 CDT
Date:     Wed, 23 May 90 20:54:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #378
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 May 90 20:54:01 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 378

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Rose Posts His Status [Len Rose, via [e-mail]]
    Looking For Telephone Equipment Retailers [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
    Telephone Directory Database on CD-ROM [Nigel Allen]
    Toll Switching Centers for Area Code 809 [Nigel Allen]
    ESS Historical Note [Mark Baker]
    NN0-style NPAs and Order of Assignment [David Leibold]
    AT&T Having Second Thoughts? [Don H. Kemp]
    His Master's Voice [Andy Behrens]
    Censorship? (was Re: Telephones, Technology and Media [J. Eric Townsend]
    Light Guidance Transmission Systems [Ken McVay]
    Correction to 908 Areacode Exchange List [Tom Lowe]
    Distinctive Ringing Recognition [Dave Burke]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 May 90 23:23 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Len Rose Posts His Status


I picked this up in some groups that discuss AT&T 3B2 systems, and
thought it might be of interest to Telecom readers.  Paul

  From: [e-mail] (Len Rose)
  Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,u3b.misc
  Subject: It's Official
  Date: 21 May 90 04:18:54 GMT
  Reply-To: [e-mail] (Len Rose,Netsys)
  Organization: Netsys in Exile..

  Hi All.

   I am now indicted with five felony counts. I even made the front page of
   the Baltimore papers. Should anyone wish to call and hear the true story,
   rather than what the US Attorney said in his Press Conference, I will be
   glad to relate it. Meanwhile, still no netsys.com .. (they still have my
   stuff)

   Sorry for all the committments I have been unable to fulfill. I will be back
   soon with more delightful tales (who knows, If Clifford Stoll can
   write one, so can I)..  The truth shall be told.

   Len

   [e-mail] (now in hands of the S.S.)

   PS.. have laptop will travel (or rather communicate)

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Telephone Equipment Retailers
Date: 22 May 90 07:37:19 GMT
Organization: KZSU, Stanford -- "Radio At Fault"


I'm sort of a budding do-it-yourselfer, but am having trouble ordering
the following equipment:

    o    Butt set. Not some crufty, light plastic piece o' crud
        "test set." I want a butt set. I want to be able to drop
        it from the top of a telephone pole someday and have it
        remain whole.

    o    One of them little boxes that puts a tone across a pair.

    o    a #415 (or so?) punchdown tool

    o    a place to find a cheap Panasonic or similar PBX or key
        system to install in a house I'm going to live in.

Hello Direct doesn't really have the stuff. Graybar in San Jose,
whoever they are, won't sell to me, because I don't have a "California
Reseller Certificate."

Patrick (or someone) posted the catalog of a mail order place in
Florida a while back, and I ordered their catalog -- and am still
waiting.

So, does anyone have a list of retail equipment catalogs, or 800
numbers, or anything?


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 18 May 90  0:00:00 EST
Subject: Telephone Directory Database on CD-ROM


Bell Canada's directory subsidiary, Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc.,
markets a telephone directory database for Ontario and Quebec
provinces on CD-ROM.  According to the ad I saw, "It's versatile --
you can search by name, address, telephone or postal code. And it's
fast and easy to use -- the average search takes only seconds."

No price was quoted in the ad, but if you would like more information,
please contact:

 Info-Direct
 Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc.
 55 Town Centre Court, Suite 502
 Scarborough, Ontario
 Canada M1P 4X5
 telephone [phone]

On a related topic, Northern Telecom has put the manuals for the
DMS-100 switch on CD-ROM. This isn't news; I think it happened a year
or two ago. I'm not sure how often the CR-ROM is updated.

The Forgotten Rebels album "Surfin' on Heroin" is available on CD, but
this is probably not of great interest to most Telecom Digest readers.
"The Party is the Most Precious Thing" by the Canadian Cultural
Workers Committee is not available on CD, and in all probability never
will be.


 MaS Relayer v1.00.00
 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST
 Internet: [e-mail]
 UUCP:     ...tmsoft!masnet!f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org!nigel.allen

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 18 May 90  7:00:00 EST
Subject: Toll Switching Centers for Area Code 809


I think -- based on two call attempts this morning -- that directory
assistance calls from Canada to area code 809 points are handled in
the Caribbean countries themselves.

I just dialled zero in Toronto and asked for directory assistance for
the Cayman Islands. The Toronto operator then connected me with
another operator (male, standard North American accent), and announced
"it's Canada calling, a customer on the line for numbers only". I'm
not sure, but it may have been a satellite circuit. In case anyone is
interested, the phone number of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
in Grand Cayman is [phone].

I also tried for a Jamaica number, but Jamaica directory assistance
wasn't answering (within eight rings), so my operator said to try
again later.

On a related topic: I understand that an AT&T international operator
center in the southern U.S. was closed in the last few years. (Does
Jacksonville sound right?) Did this handle operator-assisted traffic
to the Caribbean?


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

 MaS Relayer v1.00.00
 Message gatewayed by MaS Network Software and Consulting/HST
 Internet: [e-mail]
 UUCP:     ...tmsoft!masnet!f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org!nigel.allen

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 22 May 1990 7:54-EST
Subject: ESS Historical Note


Historical Note:

Wednesday, May 30, 1990 is the 25th anniversary of the cutover of the
first No. 1 Electronic Switching System (ESS)* in Succasunna, New
Jersey.

At 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, May 30, 1965, 4,300 customers in Succasunna,
New Jersey were receiving dial tone from a computer controlled
switching system.  These customers now had available to them such
features as: add-on (three-way calling), abbreviated dialing (speed
calling), and temporary transfer (call forwarding).  1 ESS also
provided for a more flexible assignment of directory numbers to
physical line pairs and a more flexible assignment of business
features such as hunting or extension dialing than did
electromechanical switches.

Over 300 1 ESS switches, including Succasunna, are still is service
around the country.  Many of the other hundreds of 1 ESS switches that
were in service have either been replaced by digital switching systems
or upgraded to a 1A ESS switching system.

For fairly detailed technical information regarding 1 ESS, read:

The Bell System Technical Journal, September 1964
(2 part issue devoted to 1 ESS)

Bell Laboratories Record, June 1965
(issue devoted to 1 ESS)

Electronics magazine, October 19, 1964, pp 72-86.

The Bell System Technical Journal, February 1977
(issue devoted to the 1A processor for 1A ESS and 4 ESS)

* Electronic Switching System is a trademark of AT&T


Mark Baker
AT&T Network Systems

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

Subject: NN0-style NPAs and Order of Assignment
Date: Mon, 21 May 90 23:52:06 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


I got hold of the list of NN0-type NPAs which are supposed to be put
into service once the normal NPAs run out. They are (left to right,
then down):

260  480  520  590  650  220  250  490  660  680  720  730  850  940
230  240  290  470  550  580  740  930  450  760  880  570  380  460
980  860  960  990  970# 350  540  820  840  690  770  890  320  370
790  280  640  750  270  430  630  670  560  330  340  390  620  830
920  360  440  780  870  420  530

970# - reserved for plant testing exchange/area code
950 - used for carrier access - don't know where it will fit in in
      the ordering of the new NPAs, if it will be assigned at all

I wonder how Bellcore ever arrived at the ordering of these NPA's and
why. One possible rule would be to assign different first digits for
each subsequent NPA so as to avoid confusion, but this wouldn't
explain how 730 follows 720 for instance.

It appears that this ordering was in place for the last 15 years or
more, considering that it was mentioned as far back as Notes on
Distance Dialing (1975).

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

Subject: AT&T Having Second Thoughts?
Date: Tue, 22 May 90 12:06:04 EDT
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


Looks like AT&T might have opened Pandora's Box...

     AT&T NEWS BRIEFS (From AT&T's Consultant Liason Program)

     Monday, May 21, 1990


     AGGREGATION AGGRAVATION -- ... To cut business long-distance bills
     by up to 20 percent, [Gerald Pfleger's] Mid-Com Inc. and ... other
     companies have latched onto a controversial technique known as
     call aggregation [in which] the phone traffic of many unrelated
     businesses [is combined to] ... qualify for the maximum discounts
     that AT&T and other carriers give to their biggest customers.
     Although aggregation began less than two years ago, it is already
     slicing rates on 3 percent of U.S. long-distance traffic. ... AT&T
     at first looked fairly kindly on aggregators.  They were seen as a
     cheap way to augment AT&T Business Communications Services. ...
     Now, alarmed by the rapid growth of aggregation ... [AT&T] is
     trying to rein in the aggregators. ... [It] named Michael Keith
     director of distribution strategy and alternate channels and told
     him to get tough on aggregators.  He cut back all joint marketing
     programs and ended marketing efforts with companies that aggregate
     SDN, which requires costly programming by AT&T. ... AT&T could get
     tougher. ... The FCC is debating whether the company should still
     be considered the dominant carrier.  If that changes, aggregators
     could suffer. ... They subsist on fleeting price discrepancies,
     Keith contends.  "One move to the left, and they're all gone," he
     says. ... [Pfleger says] AT&T can't limit aggregation too much
     without offending customers. ... AT&T's Keith says there's some
     truth to that. ... Business Week, p. 101, 5/28.


Don H Kemp            "Always listen to experts.  They'll
B B & K Associates, Inc.         tell you what can't be done, and
Rutland, VT             why.  Then do it."
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk                         Lazarus Long

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

From: Andy Behrens <[e-mail]>
Subject: His Master's Voice
Date: 22 May 90 18:25:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse


 From a bill insert sent to customers of Illinois Bell, as quoted in
"Spy" Magazine.

        WHEN YOUR PET'S ALONE, PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL

    If you're like a lot of other pet owners, you probably wonder
    how your pet is getting along when you're at work.  There's no way
    to tell for sure, of course, but there is a way you can communicate.
    All you need is an answering machine. ... Just dial your home
    number and let it ring until your answering machine picks up the
    call.  Listen for the beep and then start talking.  You can address
    your pet by name, just as you would if you were at home.  It really
    doesn't matter what you say after that, because it's the sound of
    your voice your pet appreciates the most. ... Remember to turn up
    the volume a little on your answering machine, so your pet can hear
    you.

Andy Behrens, Burlington Coat Factory

[Moderator's Note: Andy and/or the magazine are NOT making this up.
The above was in the April, 1990 issue of {Telebriefs}, the little
tract Illinois Bell includes with the bills each month.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 18:10:28 CDT
From: "j. eric townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Censorship? (was Re: Telephones, Technology and Media
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics


In article <[e-mail]> somebody wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (j. eric
>townsend) writes:
>>If you are asked to give an interview on say, PBX security, offer
>>to review the reporter's story before they submit it.

>In connection with the times I sat for interviews regarding the
>Internet Worm, I always offered just such a service.  Almost
>uniformly, the response was a semi-hostile glare followed by "our
>editors have a policy of not allowing our stories to be censored."

1.  Explain to them that you don't want to censor the story, but make
sure the facts are correct.

2.  Call the reporter's editor, and explain the situation to them.
Something like: "It's not the tone or point of view I'm worried about;
it's the facts regarding the technology.  I want to insure that you
represent the technology correctly in your story."

Any editor who calls this "story censorship" should probably be fired...


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet: jet@UHOU
Skate UNIX(r).

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken McVay)
Subject: Light Guidance Transmission Systems
Date: 22 May 90 19:20:45 GMT


British Columbia Telephone, our provincial carrier, recently completed
their end of the cross-Canada fibre-optic network. They spent a great
deal of cash while they were building the system to describe the
benefits to their customers.

In general, I understand that capability and service will improve due
to the decreased noise levels and increased capacity, but I'd
appreciate some knowledgable discussion about the technical
aspects/advantages of fibre-optics from the folks working with the
technology.

Clearly, we can expect improved facsimile performance, ditto other
types of modems, cleaner voice calls, etc. but isn't it likely that
the improved technology will of itself generate _new_ technology? I.E.
aren't we going to see that "extra capacity" put to work almost
immediately, as r&d produces new toys to take advantage of it?

If so, what might we expect?

How much advantage will be seen in the hinterlands, which still rely
on old, outdated technology to deliver their traffic?

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

Subject: Correction to 908 Areacode Exchange List
Date: 22 May 90 22:24:36 EDT (Tue)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


An observant reader pointed out two missing exchanges in the 908 area
code list I recently posted to the Digest.  I also checked my list
against a list that NJ Bell inserted in the latest phone bills which I
received yesterday and found another missing exchange.

Please add the following to your lists.

244    TOMS RIVER NJ
245    ROSELLE    NJ
841    STROUDSBG  NJ

Sorry for the missing entries!  If I have still missed any entries,
kindly let me know and I will fix the list and check my eyes!


Tom Lowe
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 May 90 07:53:00 EDT
From: "VAXB::DBURKE" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distinctive Ringing Recognition


Hi,
    NYNEX (or NET) has just release something called RingMate (I
assume trademarked).  This allows me to have two different incoming
telephone numbers, one for me and one for the kids, all tied to the
same telephones I have now, with a distinctive ringing feature to
allow me to recognize which number is being called.  This is a nice
feature, except I'd like to get a black box that will switch to
answering machine A for me and answering machine B for the kids.

Is there such a box?

The tone pattern is standard ring for my regular line, and two longs
for the kiddie line.


(PS - from what I understand, this is a very limited availability service).

Thanks,

Dave Burke
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell, among other Bell telcos, offers this
service in a limited number of areas. Our version allows two or three
other numbers to be camped on the main line. In the promotional
literature from IBT is a caveat that '....answering machines or
services will probably be unable to distinquish one call from
another...'   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #378
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10674;
          24 May 90 1:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06243;
          23 May 90 22:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28068;
          23 May 90 21:53 CDT
Date:     Wed, 23 May 90 21:45:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #379
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 May 90 21:44:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 379

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Yemen & Yemen [Dolf Grunbauer]
    Interesting East Berlin Phone Number [Bob Goudreau]
    Joined Countries [Dave Esan]
    Choosing no Long Distance Carrier (was: I Have no LDC) [Brian Litzinger]
    Remote Location Telephone Service [Joseph Szewczak]
    Facsimile Over 32K Voice Lines [Tom Neiss]
    Cordless Telephone Dies [[e-mail]]
    Getting the Phone Number You Want [M.G. Stinnett]
    Re: Drug Dealers and Caller ID [Eric Black]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Ge' Weijers]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: 10XXX Bugs [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Philips Information Systems, P.O. Box 245,
Subject: Yemen & Yemen
Date: Wed, 23 May 90 13:51:32 MET
From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>


Patrick,

I heard on the news that the Arab Republic of Yemen (country code:
967) and the Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen (country code: 969)
reunited on the 22nd of May 1990. Do you know which country code they
are going to use or will they keep both country codes ?


Dolf Grunbauer      Tel: [phone] Internet [e-mail]
Philips Information Systems            UUCP     ...!mcsun!philapd!dolf
Dept. BS Software,  P.O. Box 245, 7300 AE Apeldoorn, The Netherlands

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 12:15:53 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting East Berlin Phone Number
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


There's an interesting ad by Salomon Brothers (an American investment
bank) in the most recent issue of the _Economist_:


    OPEN FOR BUSINESS

    We're very pleased to announce the opening of our office
    in East Berlin.
    ...
    If you are considering doing business in Eastern Europe,
    call Salomon Brothers in East Berlin at 49-161-2610935.


Note the telephone number: 49 is the country code of *West* Germany,
not East Germany (which is +37).

I've consulted my _AT&T_International_Dialing_Directory_, and 161 does
not appear as an area code in either Germany.  (West Berlin is +49-30;
East Berlin is +37-2).  In fact, it appears that no codes in either
country begin with the digit 1.

Do any of our German readers out there in telecom land know what's
going on here?  My guess is that it's one of the following two
scenarios:

1)  With German monetary union and German political union just around
    the corner, German telephonic union has already been reached, and
    parts (or all) of East Germany have been assigned West German
    area codes.

2)  The "161" is just a special West German dialing prefix that is
    used to reach East German numbers, similar to the Britain/Ireland
    or US/Mexico shortcuts.  The actual phone number cited above is
    thus probably [phone].

Given that no area codes currently begin with "1", I'm inclined to
speculate that "1" is a prefix for special services in Germany, which
makes the second scenario the more plausible.  Is this the case?


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

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Joined Countries
Date: 23 May 90 15:06:56 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


The Yemen Arab Republic (country code 967) and the People's Democratic
Republic of Yemen (country code 969) announced recently that they will
merge and form a new country called (surprise) Yemen.

Has anyone heard or thought of what will happen to the country codes?
Will they merge into one, or will the North still be 967 and the south
be 969?

When Tanganika (255) merged with Zanzibar (259) to form Tanzania they
kept both country codes.  Of course, Zanzibar, an island, is
physically removed from what was Tanganika.

Does anyone know the intentions of the soon to be united Germanys in
regard to dialling patterns to what is presently East Germany (DDR),
and which will soon be part of a single Germany?

Thanks.

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

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

From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Choosing No Long Distance Carrier (was: I Have no LDC)
Date: Wed, 23 May 90 0:10:52 PDT


My original posting was about my having stumbled onto not having a
default long distance carrier.  By 'stumbled' I mean that I had a
default long distance carrier and through what I consider no effort on
my part I no longer have one.  Just happened one day.

Several people responded that having no default long distance carrier
can happen in the normal course of business. I.E. you just ask for no
long distance carrier.

Well, the PacBell representative I spoke with disagrees.  He said that
I must choose a default long distance carrier.  He even showed my the
form he was filling out, and under long distance carriers was: AT&T,
MCI, Sprint ... However, None, was nowhere to be found.  There wasn't
even a blank line or other field.

I suspect that if I had pushed the point and talked to a supervisor I
could have gotten my wish.  But selecting 'None' for a long distance
carrier is definitely not as easy as "Just Say No" (at least where I
live).


<>  Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
<>  [e-mail]      {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian
<>  VOICE: 408 377 9950      FAX: [phone]
<>  Disclaimer: Above are my opinions and probably wrong.

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 07:52:38 EDT
From: Joseph Szewczak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote Location Telephone Service


Would you please refer this request for information to the appropriate
place or person:

    Deep Springs College, a small (24 students) and unique academic
institution located on the CA-NV border is seeking to improve its
present telephone service.  The college is located in a remote valley
between the Inyo and White Mtns. of CA.  The present phone service
operates by radio link and provides only one line, which is unsuitable
for data communication.  We would like to have more than one line, and
have data capability.  Stringing wires would cost $100,000 to
$200,000.  Would it be cost effective to set up a satelite link?  How
do we go about this, and who do we contact?  Are there any other
options?

    I welcome any suggestions, including those with a commercial
interest in the project. Please respond to:

         Joe Szewczak <[e-mail]>

I will be here until the middle of July.  Thank you.

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 08:19:01 EST
From: Tom Neiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Facsimile Over 32K Voice Lines
Organization: State University of New York - Central Administration


Has anyone experienced difficulty in sending FAXES over compressed voice
lines?  If so,  what was the solution?


Tom Neiss

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 09:51 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cordless Telephone Dies

I own a Panasonic cordless phone (I forget the model number; not the
cheapest, but probably the next cheapest).  It has worked fine since I
bought it about a year ago.

Recently (about a week ago) it started behaving badly.  When picked up
from its base unit, the "low battery" light began flashing, and it
only worked for perhaps 30 seconds before dying in a cloud of
interfearence, and a series of clicks spaced about a half a second
apart.

On the off-chance that the nicad battery failed to charge properly, I
reinserted it in the base unit, waited overnight, and tried again.
Same result.  On the off-chance that the nicad battery had developed a
'memory' problem, I disconnected the base unit, left the remote on,
and left it overnight.  When I came down the next morning, the 'low
battery' light had ceased flashing (not enough power, I guess) but it
was still ticking as described in the second paragraph above.

1.  Any guesses?

2.  How can I test the battery and/or the recharger?  I own a
multimeter, but have no idea of what the readings are supposed to be.

3.  As an aside, I broke the antenna several months ago, and no local
repair/electronic shops here carried an exact replacement.  I replaced
it with a Radio Schlock 'rubber' antenna which worked fine.  But where
in the world does one get parts, and why don't the stores that sell
the units and repair them sell the parts?

Thanks.

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 18:41:57 -0500
From: "M.G. Stinnett" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting the Phone Number You Want
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo


My wife was a service rep for Northwestern Bell for nine years. She
related the following tidbits:

Getting the phone number you want: If it's available, the service rep
can get it for you. The rep may have to do a little extra work, but
they can find out. How do you get them to do it without charging?  It
helps a lot if you're very friendly and personable when you call.  The
best reps will know how, and may be willing to do it, but there is no
way to guarantee it. But a cheerful voice goes a long way.

The same goes for getting the line turned on quickly. Good reps know
who to call at the board to get it done in a couple of minutes. It's
kind of a "could you do this for me? The paperwork is on the way."
situation. If you're friendly on the phone, the rep may do it for you.
If you need it for a genuine reason, let the rep know. Don't lie; they
hear enough requests to spot the genuine from the lies.  But do be
cheerful. One rep who worked with my wife received a call from a
doctor who had just moved to a certain town in Minnesota famous for
its medical clinic. The doctor was very gruff and demanded that the
phone be turned on that day, because he had to be able to get calls
from the clinic.

She asked if they could contact him now. Of course, he replied; I have
a beeper. Well then, she said, I guess you really don't need it on
today after all, do you?

Another thing to do when calling for service is to let the rep know
exactly the nature of the service you want, even if you think you
already know what features you need. My wife took a call from one man
who wanted two lines with automatic transfer and a few other things.
She asked a few questions and then suggested a system they had
(CaroLine, I think) which had all the features he needed plus a few
more, and which would save him over $100 a month compared to the
system he asked for. Of course, she cost the company some revenue, but
bought a very satisfied customer.

Not all service reps will provide this level of service, or have the
knowledge and experience to do it. But if you "feel out" the rep in
the initial moments of the call, you might be able to tell that you're
talking to a dud, at which point you can claim time problems and say
you'll call back later. When you call again, chances are very good
you'll reach another rep.

By the same token, if you find one of the jewels who goes the extra
mile, write down the name so you can ask for that rep the next time
you call. They'll grumble if you ask for a specific rep, but if you
preservere they'll connect you.

And finally, when you do get great service, write a letter to the
office manager (the rep will tell you where to write if you ask).
Tell them that Mr. or Ms. Rep treated you well and left you with a
good impression of the company. These letters are very important; with
most service reps on a union contract, they can be one of the few
things that get the rep a little added recognition.

Of course, if the rep is a total idiot, you should write about them,
too.


M. G.

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 11:34:59 PDT
From: Eric Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Drug Dealers and Caller ID


Hmmm... If drug dealers are using CID for their own nefarious
purposes, then how long can it be before the same telcos and local
authorities who replaced tone-dialed payphones with rotary-dialed due
to misguided reaction to who-knows-how-much-or-little public pressure
also make CID unavailable?

How long can one sentence get and still be almost readable? :-)


Eric Black  Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089
         Email: [e-mail]     Voice: [phone]

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

From: Ge' Weijers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Date: 23 May 90 10:15:19 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


If the system contains sensitive (customer) information I'd write a
letter to the state Telecom watchdog committee, or a member of the
state legislation interested in these matters. Send a CC to the
chairman of the company.  I suppose they can't sue you for telling
THEM.  After that I'd walk away from it.

The company probably deserves what it gets.

kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman) writes:
>    While I am certain that there are TELECOM Digest readers who
>will disagree with my opinion, I have absolutely *no* sympathy for your
>predicament.

>    Would you walk into various offices and start looking through
>unlocked desk drawers and filing cabinets to relieve your "boredom"?
>I suspect not.  However, why is it that people without a justifiable
>*need* think it is "okay" to "wander about" a computer system?  This
>is really tantamount to the same act as rifling desks and filing
>cabinets, but without the same risk of detection.

Depends on what you call 'wandering about'. If you look into your
colleagues files on such a system then you are trespassing. Checking
or altering your mother's phone bill does not get my sympathy either.
Checking the password file for password-less system account and the
likes is, in your analogy, checking the locks. If I check whether all
doors are locked in the office before I leave I'm not trespassing. I
do not expect to be fired for that.

System files are part of the locking mechanism, most are not useful in
itself.

It sounds a lot like a setup to catch intruders. Nobody is interested
in security on this system, but they find out people 'wandering'
about.


Ge' Weijers                                    Internet/UUCP: [e-mail]
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science,   (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge)
University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1
6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands              tel. [phone] (UTC-2)

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 23 May 90 18:57:55 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


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

>As far as I am concerned, MCI is not a real player for serious long
>distance users. While they may have lots of "suits" running around
>schmoozing it up to their corporate customers, the service they
>provide is substandard to either Sprint or AT&T by an amount far
>exceeding any discount they provide.

I must agree.  Unfortunately, I bet that most of the executive
committees who decide to go with MCI do so based only on pieces of
paper and never once actually pick up the phone to try the service.

This is the same reason why PBX manufacturers can and do get away with
stupid feature implementation.  The buying decisions are made after
reading proposals in a cute binder.  But they never so much as spend
ten minutes to see how the phone feels, sounds, etc.

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 11:42:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10XXX Bugs


800-888-1800 is supposed to be one of MCI's numbers?  That number has
popped up in a couple of cases where calls by me to a 900 number could
not be completed as dialed.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #379
******************************












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29413;
          24 May 90 10:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29903;
          24 May 90 9:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16828;
          24 May 90 8:00 CDT
Date:     Thu, 24 May 90 7:19:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #380
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 May 90 07:18:04 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 380

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Stamford, CT 18 Hour Phone Outage! [Peter Neumann, RISKS, via D. Lesher]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [John Slater]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [David Tamkin]
    Re: FCC REN Numbers [David Tamkin]
    Re: FCC REN Numbers [Stuart Friedberg]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Randy Bush]
    Re: Measured Service, Really Mixed Service [David Lesher]
    Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media [Nigel Allen]
    Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons [rec.humor, via D. Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stamford 18 Hour Phone Outage!
Date: Wed, 23 May 90 17:57:15 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>

 [Moderator's Note: David wrote to send along this item from RISKS.  PT]

 From comp.risks Wed May 23 17:57:11 1990
 Date: Mon, 21 May 1990 18:10:52 PDT
 From: "Peter G. Neumann" <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Stamford CT 18-hour telephone switch outage affects 27,000 lines

At 2:42am on Thursday, 17 May, a Number 1A ESS switch (vintage 1973)
in Stamford, Connecticut, broke down and for 18 hours blocked all
residential and most business local calls (affecting 27,000
subscribers in exchanges 324, 326, 348, 351, 356, 358, 896, 964, 965,
969, 977, 979).  (The same switch had broken down on 19-20 December
1985 for five hours, affecting 34,000 subscribers.  Two such outages
on the same switch is a very rare occurrence indeed.)

The outage occurred while technicians were doing routine maintenance
to update the database of phones served by that switch (12 of
Stamford's 17 exchanges).  The switch computer rejected the update and
shut itself down.  The backup system also failed.  The eventual return
to service followed extensive remote diagnostics from the AT&T
Technology Center in Indian Hill, Illinois.  However, the cause still
remains unknown as of this afternoon (Monday).

[Source: three articles by Seth Amgott in {The Advocate}, Stamford CT,
18 and 19 May 1990, plus phone conversations.]

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

From: "John Slater" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Date: 23 May 90 15:15:50 GMT
Reply-To: "John Slater" <[e-mail]>


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

>Isn't dialing 0+citycode within your own city code permitted in the
>U.K.?  (That leading 0 is not used on incoming international calls.)

Yes indeed. This has only been true in the last few years as BT has
modernised the network.


John

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 15:39 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call


Dan Jacobson had introduced the subject by stating how annoying it was
to have to reprogram his telephone's memory locations when he crossed
an area code boundary, adding 1-NPA to the numbers in the area code he
just left and removing 1-NPA from those in the area code he had
entered, plus having to change everything back when he returned;

Isaac Rabinovitch had commented that the telephone should be
intelligent enough to do this for him; all he should have to reprogram
would be a single location where the telephone stored the area code in
which it currently was being used;

Linc Madison wrote in volume 10, issue 371:

|[ ... that there are places where intra-NPA toll calls must be dialed as
|1-NPA-NXX-XXXX {or, for that matter, 1-NNX-XXXX with NPA forbidden} and
|firmware that drops the 1-NPA when the NPA of the number in repertory
|matches the one in which you sit will fail; and ...

|... that there are places where local inter-NPA dialing is NPA-NXX-XXXX
|{or NNX-XXXX with NPA forbidden} with the leading 1 forbidden, and
|firmware that adds 1-NPA to all numbers outside the local area code would
|fail;]

|The long and the short of it is that there is no practical way to do what
|you are suggesting, short of maintaining an up-to-the-minute database of
|telephone prefixes and dialing rules among them.

That is all the more reason that eleven-digit dialing should always be
permitted, even when it is not required and seven or eight or ten
digits would do.  Dialing 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX within the NANP is totally
unambiguous and doesn't require a time-out, so there really is no
justification that I can see for rejecting it.  I submitted a question
to the Digest about two months ago, asking what possible cause there
could be to forbid eleven-digit local dialing, and no one responded.
I can think of reasons not to require it, but proscription is not the
only alternative to requirement.

There are certain calls on which I would dearly love to be allowed to
dial 1-312-NXX-XXXX within 312.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 15:42 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN Numbers


In volume 10, issue 377, Julian Macassey answered some of Steve
Friedl's questions about FCC ringer equivalence numbers.

I have three far simpler ones (I guess):

1. What does the B or A after an REN mean?

2. If the ringer on a telephone can be turned off, does it no longer
count in figuring the total REN load on a line?

3. Two of my modems *do* have REN's, though neither has any sort of
bell or gong.  They check in at "0.4 1.2B" and "0.5A 1.6B"
respectively.  My other modem has a speaker and thus does make a noise
(but the speaker is powered by the electric utility, not the telco);
it has an FCC ID but no REN on it at all.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

From: Stuart Friedberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN Numbers
Date: 23 May 90 22:27:32 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


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

>     "it's harder to make the ringer circuit with lower RENs"

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

>    It's very easy, but seeing as the REN is an indication of
>power consumption, a low REN ringer may not be heard. The purpose of
>ringers is to be heard. The most efficient ringer, if hearing and
>directionality is important, is the classic gong ringer (REN 1.0 A).
>Modems, phone answering machines etc, often have an REN of 0.0. They
>just need to sniff the AC voltage to then get the logic to grab the
>line etc. Yes, you could make a REN 0.0 device that would power a
>steam whistle. But most of the world's ringers are self powered.

Not all answering machines are so clever.  I have a CodeAPhone 3750,
which requires an external 13.5V power supply, with a REN of 1.7B (or
was it 1.7C?).  Ringing clearly isn't limited by what the CO can
supply, and I can't imagine why it needs that much ringing "juice".
But perhaps I don't understand REN B's and C's.  Can someone help me
out?


Stu Friedberg ([e-mail])

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

From: Randy Bush <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue May 22 23:37:33 1990
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint


[e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:

> In the meantime, I received a message suggesting that Sprint's new
> echo suppressors are probably more CCITT compliant than the old ones,
> and there may be an incompatibility with the PEP protocol.  But what's
> really amazing is that my Telebit throughput has suddenly recovered.
> Now I routinely get well over 1000 cps coast to coast, better than
> ever before.  Perhaps our pals at Sprint read the digest and, to their
> credit, respond to customer needs.  (Take that, AT&T lovers.)

Then would you please please tell them about the problems developing
in Australia and HK.  Recently PEP to and within Oceania has gone down
to 350-400cps, where it used to be 800-900 (and sometimes 1000).  We
are told that it is a change in the local services there, and not
satellite changes.  Links to Europe and Africa seem not to have
suffered.

Notably, V.32 seems not to be affected.  Getting 950-1100cps.


 ..!{uunet,qiclab,intelhf}!m2xenix!randy   [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Measured Service, Really Mixed Service
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers
Date: Thu, 24 May 90 00:36:46 GMT


I'm surprised at Lang's success at mixing service classes in one
address. Both Ohio Bell and C+P would't let you touch this with a ten
foot {telephone} pole.....

Since the parts of both states I lived in offered unmeasured
residence, but NOT business, they also fought tooth and nail against
combined business/residence installations. I remember one customer of
ours who had 20+ trunks in rotary at their office, and multiple OPX
drops off of the first line in each of the {owners} homes. One brother
moved, and we ordered three residence, two LMC lines {that remoted the
radios} and one OPX, to the new address; OBT made all the flat rate
residence lines metered. Big fight. I think we just dropped the OPX's
and rented another LMC that WE hooked across the pair in the switch.
That was cheaper, too.

For other folks, there are several tactics. The best is a duplex
house.  Maybe it wasn't supposed to BE one, but can you convert the
basement, long enough to satisfy the installer ;-}? Right behind this
is a good friend neighbor. String a few pairs along the fence.....

About the only tactic I have heard that works with Ma fully
in_the_know (vs. what they don't know won't hurt them) is to request a
"mother-in-law phone". I guess they figure any poor soul whose m.i.l.
is moving in deserves a break. They, however do tend to get a mite bit
paranoid when you want ten such lines, in rotary, and each one answers
with Blazer-squawk. ;-}


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: Since Illinois Bell no longer has any flat rate
service, the issue is moot here. They do offer *untimed* local calls
to a defined area around you to residence phones, but they still
charge a unit for the call. Business customers do not get that much.
Whether the location is eligible for residence service or not depends
on the street address. IBT consults their records, and decides what is
appropriate. They *never* object to installing a business line in a
residence; however they *always* object to residence service at a
place they consider a business location.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 20 May 90 17:00:26 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology, and the Media


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

 >Think of the last story you read in the newspaper concerning any
 >technological matter. Was it complete, or was it simplified to the
 >point that little useful information was available? What information
 >there was, was it accurate, misleading, or downright erroneous?

Most journalists don't have the background to properly cover stories
about science and technology.  This is why big-city newspapers usually
assign high-technology stories to a single writer, or to a handful of
them.

I have an idea which might eventually raise the quality of
telecommunications journalism.  Why not call your local journalism
school or student newspaper, and offer to talk to a class about
current issues in telecommunications, and how to cover them?

I know that some regular participants in this echo are university
faculty members, and that others may have worked as teaching
assistants.  I'd particularly encourage those of you with teaching
experience to offer your services in this project, but anybody who is
articulate and well-organized could probably help journalism students
to develop a better understanding of this fascinating subject of
telecommunications.


Nigel Allen                      telephone [phone]
52 Manchester Avenue             fax [phone]
Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3         [e-mail]
Canada

Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:221/171
UUCP: uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!250!438!Nigel.Allen
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons
Date: Wed, 23 May 90 18:54:05 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Since David Lesher opened this issue of TELECOM
Digest, I decided to ask him to give the Benediction also.  PT]


 From rec.humor Wed May 23 18:54:02 1990
 From: [e-mail] (BACS Data Communications Group)
 Newsgroups: rec.humor
 Subject: pj on TPC
 Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
 Date: 22 May 90 16:25:29 GMT

In _Popular Communications_ magazine, June 1990, p. 4, the editor, Tom
Kneitel, tells of his woes with The Phone Company's call-waiting
service, and how he got the runaround when he tried to cancel it.  He
wasted their time in turn: [Grammar as published.]

"Whom do you suppose it was at the phone company that came up with the
idea of putting area codes in parenthesis, as in (800)-555-1212.
Doesn't appear to serve any practical purpose, nor does it match up
very will with the rues governing the use of parenthesis...

"The other day, I called telco... I told them that I had discovered my
phone might be defective because it was missing the symbols necessary
to dial long distance calls.  I said that I could find a star and a
crosshatch on the buttons, but not those curved ones that go around
the area code.  How was I to make any long distance calls if my phone
was missing those buttons?

"I got the impression that even though they...had...heard it all, this
one was a bombshell that caught them off guard.  A surprising string
of supervisors and managers took the time to tell me that it wasn't
necessary to actually include the curved symbols in my dialing, but
they either handed me off to someone else, or promised to call me back
when I demanded to know why the curved lines were there if they were
meaningless.

"Another twenty minutes of being pushed on this end and I suspect they
would have promised to send over a telephone with parenthesis buttons
because it was the only way to finally get rid of me.

"Even so, it was less than an hour of enjoyment for me as they
squirmed to keep a straight face while dealing with a crackpot... A
small price they paid for the year of beeping I endured as a result of
their infernal _Call Waiting_."

           -----------  furthermore  -----------

ojo:  Why did they have to change the 911 emergency phone number in
<neighboring state>?

Because the <natives> couldn't find the eleven on their phones.


Frank     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Make the appropriate substitutions above according
to your own personal prejudices.  This reminds me of the time I was on
duty at my switchboard and a call came in from someone at a pay
station. They asked for a particular extension; I rang it but there
was no answer.  Calling party asked if *I* would return their ten
cents! :) Seriously, would I make it up?  To really see just how
stupid people can be, try running a switchboard for a few
months/years. My ears are still callused from things people said, and
what they called me, etc.  I was cussed, ridiculed, praised, and
propositioned. Finally I put up a little sign on the board which said,
"I am not a fast operator. Nor am I a slow operator. I am merely a
half-fast operator."   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #380
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20388;
          24 May 90 23:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21080;
          24 May 90 22:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04727;
          24 May 90 21:07 CDT
Date:     Thu, 24 May 90 20:18:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #381
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 May 90 20:17:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 381

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Who are the Biggest Users of Telecom? [TELECOM Moderator]
    Sprint WD-40 Surprises [Carol Springs]
    Dimension 2000 Dilemma [Hugh D. Meier]
    Technology Trends [Jeanne P. Bayerl]
    AT&T Commits Universal Card Fraud [Brian Litzinger]
    Panel (ugh!) Switches [Jack Winslade]
    Singapore 2000 Exhibition [TELECOM Moderator]
    Interesting East Berlin Number is West German Cellular [John R. Covert]
    Re: Fascist Ma Bell [Jim Harkins]
    Re: ESS Historical Note [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Interesting Police Technology [John Debert]
    Re: Volume Control on Public Phones [Eric Black]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 18:35:22 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who are the Biggest Users of Telecom?


According to {Communications Week}, in its second annual report, the
top one hundred users of telecommuications services include many
telecommunications companies themselves.

Governments were not included in the ranking. The top ten are as
follows --

    1. General Motors
    2. American Telephone and Telegraph
    3. International Business Machines
    4. General Electric
    5. Ford Motor Company
    6. Sears
    7. Citicorp
    8. Texas Air
    9. United Parcel Service
   10. Mobil Oil Company

Skipping through the list, other large users include --

   15. BellSouth
   28. Bell Atlantic
   35. Southwestern Bell
   46. Ameritech
   63. NYNEX
   83. Pacific Telesis
   89. US West

Monthly billings for the top ten are in the millions of dollars per
month. It is interesting to note that AT&T spends more per month on
its own telephone/communications requirements than any of its largest
customers except General Motors. If federal, state or municipal
governments were included in the list, the top ten still would change
very little, except that Uncle Sugar would bump the first ten down a
notch, and a couple of large states would further scatter the top ten.

The three largest customers in Chicago are in order, the City of
Chicago itself, the University of Chicago, and Standard Oil a/k/a
Amoco. But their monthly bills are only about a million dollars each
 ... and neither Amoco or U of C made the top ten.

My assumption about the bunch of them is they probably get their
trouble tickets opened and handled promptly!  :)


PT

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint WD-40 Surprises
Date: 23 May 90 16:17:31 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


Can the Digest bear one more article on Sprint WD-40 account hassles?
I'll 'fess up -- I wanted my free hour despite the fact that I already
had a Sprint FONcard.  So I figured I'd get a card by giving them my
work phone number and work address, rationalizing that since I get
reimbursed for business calls, I really would use the extra card for
separate accounting (someday ... maybe).

My first bill came with a 90-cent phone call charge and an extra $10
charge labeled "FON card non-recurring charge."  Fine, I thought, I
got what I deserved.  I sent Sprint a check for 90 cents and wrote
customer service, enclosing the new FONcard.  In the letter, I said
that I hadn't been told about the $10 surcharge, and would they please
credit that charge and then cancel my account?  Shortly thereafter, I
got a call at work from Sprint, saying that they were doing as I'd
requested and were crediting the $10 and canceling the account.

Today I got a second invoice from Sprint at work.  I opened it,
expecting to see a bill either for $.00 or for the original $10 (since
the bill might not reflect the $10 credit yet).  Here is the invoice,
word for word:

         Balance from last invoice          $ 10.90
         Prior period credits               $ 10.00
         Payment received  4/27/90          $   .90      Thank you
         Unpaid balance                     $   .00   as of 05/13/90

     Call activity through  5/12/90
                                             Charges     Credits
                                          -------------------------
       Total usage                            $   .00
       FON card non-recurring charge          $ 10.00
       60 min free/acct                       $   .00
       Total feature awards                   $   .00
       Federal excise tax                     $   .00
       Current invoice total                  $ 10.00
       Total amount due                       $ 10.00

In other words, Sprint credited me with $10 as requested -- then
charged me again for the same $10!  "Non-recurring charge," indeed...

Never again.  Never again.  Never again.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 14:47:29 EDT
From: "Hugh D. Meier" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dimension 2000 Dilemma


I have recently replaced a DIM 2000PBX (with an SL-100 sn) and now am
faced with a room full of old equipment.  I am beginning to
investigate Dimension customers to inquire if they need spare parts.
I have also contacted Farm- stead Group without much luck.

I will appreciate any advice / experience in this area.  I would
particularly like if a group would come and disassemble and take away
the equipment after they purchase it.  Hope this is not too abitious.

I can be contacted E-mail: [e-mail] or post to TELECOM.  If
E-mail is abundant, I will post summary.  Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 15:16:32 EDT
From: Jeanne P Bayerl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Technology Trends


I'm trying to assess technology trends in the telecom industry,
particularly in COs, Network Services, ISDN (market penetration,
offerings, tariffs), Long Distance services, CLASS offerings, Centrex,
etc.  Does anyone have any insight on what to expect in these areas?


Thanks in advance!
Jeanne Bayerl

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

From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Commits Universal Card Fraud
Date: Wed, 23 May 90 13:59:41 PDT


A quote from a letter I received from AT&T:

    Mr. Brian Litzinger...

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

I, of course, have never applied for an AT&T Universal Card.  In fact,
I've never applied for any VISA, MASTERCARD or similar card.

Now I expect it is my responsibility to clean this mess up.  My
valuable time writing, calling, tracking down the right agency, the
right person, clearing their credit query from my credit history ...

And you thought MCI's switching people without permission was rude!

[Financial Analyst's Note: Yes, credit checks (inquiries) are kept
track of in your credit history and some organizations will count them
against you if you have some that are not followed up by the granting
of some sort of credit.]


<>  Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
<>  [e-mail]      {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian
<>  Disclaimer: Above are my opinions and probably wrong.


[Moderator's Note: I really think 'fraud' was a bit harsh. Either
someone submitted your name, or another person with the same name
applied and in the process your name and address were picked up in
error. I doubt they simply went through phone books looking for names
of people they could 'defraud'.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 10:34:57 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panel (ugh!) Switches
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <16 May 90 03:16:44>, Larry Lippman writes:

 >6. As a point of historical interest only since all panel apparatus
 > has now gone to the Central Office in the Sky :-), ...
 > The calling office would seize the trunk, and would count pulses sent
 > back to it from the panel office until ...

I've been fascinated with the panel switches (Ma Bell's answer to Rube
Goldberg) ever since seeing an aging one in action back in 1971 or so.
If I remember my facts correctly, the revertive pulse-counting method
was necessary because the speed of the rollers driving the rods up the
frames was not exact, and this provided the feedback necessary to
locate the correct contacts.

Another thing that I found peculiar to this particular installation
was that an adjoining #1 crossbar office was also equipped with this
type of revertive-pulse sending system, which made the crossbar office
look like a panel office as far as interoffice signaling was
concerned.

<warning: nostalgia alert>

One bit of trivia that I have stumbled upon is that Ma Bell's first
full-scale panel installation was right here in Omaha in 1921.  I've
located a news article about it, and I'll send it in to the Digest as
soon as I'm through typing it in.  (It's not THAT long. ;-)

When I was served by this panel office, I had lousy service, and after
seeing the switch in action I understand why.  It might have been
state of the art for the Roaring 20's, but in the 70's it was holding
on by a thread.  Line noise was common.  Had I been a modemer then, I
would have been SOL.  When calling a busy number in the same office, I
remember it would sometimes ring (back to the caller) up to two times
or so and then sputter a bit and finally send back the busy tone.  I
also remember picking up the phone and getting dumped right in the
middle of another conversation instead of a dial tone.

Another thing was that I >>SWEAR<< I heard a distinctive set of clicks
when I was on the phone and someone else was trying to phone me.
(1920's Call Waiting ??)  On several occasions when this happened,
someone WAS doing just that.  The switchman said this was not the
case.  Coincidence ??

Good Day!      JSW

(Yes, I have hugged my cat today.  All four of them.  ;-)

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


[Moderator's Note: We had one particularly memorable panel office
here. That office, known as Chicago-Wabash went from Panel to ESS in
1974.  From funky ringing signals and trashed out relays to custom
calling features overnight. The last two or three years the Panel was
in operation, it was common to call a busy number, but get two or
three rings before it caught up with the 'busy signal' which it then
put on your line. And when connecting to a number in that CO: 'chunk,
ka-chunk, bang-bang, ka-chunk, CRASH! ring, ring', then an answer.
Unofficially it was called 'the Wabash Cannonball'.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 18:38:09 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Singapore 2000 Exhibition


Prototypes of futuristic portable personal telecommunications gadgets
will be on display at the 18-day Singapore 2000-Global Technopolis
exhibition starting June 7.  Singapore Telecom, AT&T, NEC, Telerate
and others will be exhibiting their offerings in the Global
Telecommunications Pavilion. It should be worth a visit. If any of our
far-eastern/Australian readers happen to attend, please report back.
Of course, any Americans attending are welcome to write an article
also.


PT

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 22:35:25 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  24-May-1990 0117" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting East Berlin Number is West German Cellular


>    If you are considering doing business in Eastern Europe,
>    call Salomon Brothers in East Berlin at 49-161-2610935.

The TELECOM Digest Archives have a wealth of information, including
the answer to this question.  The number is a West German C-Netz
cellular phone.  Operating it in East Berlin (or in any country other
than West Germany, even just over the border) is not technically
legal.  Theoretically, when you drive from West Germany to West
Berlin, you have to pay the East German border guards a fee for the
right to keep your phone in the car and turned _off_.

Things are changing, and although I doubt that what this company is
doing is legal yet, they're not likely to get into serious trouble.

Incoming calls to cellular phones in Germany are paid by the caller.
There's no extra charge for calling a cellular number from outside the
country -- it's actually much cheaper to call from Amsterdam or even
from the U.S. at certain times than from within Germany, where it's
about $1.00 per minute during the peak period at current exchange
rates.

Don't try to call it on Sprint, it won't work.  When I was over there
with a phone rented from Sixt/Budget Rent-a-Car, I could be reached
via AT&T, but not on MCI or Sprint.  MCI has since fixed the problem.

At the time of this writing, you get the recording "Zu diesem
Anschluss besteht zur Zeit keine Funkverbindung" which means "There is
currently no radio contact with this station."  The phone is turned
off or has been out of range for a long time; there's a different
recording if the phone is out of range but has been within range in
the last few minutes.


/john

[Moderator's Note: Mr. Covert wrote an interesting article on cellular
service in West Germany which appeared in TELECOM Digest on June 20,
1989. (Volume 9, Issue 204). If further reading is desired, you may
pull the archives file, '1989.vol9.iss201-250'.   PT]

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

From: Jim Harkins <sagpd1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fascist Ma Bell
Date: 23 May 90 22:45:34 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Harkins <sagpd1![e-mail]>
Organization: Scientific Atlanta, Government Products Div, San Diego, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ray Dueland) writes:

> 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.

So tell me, what are they going to do if (when?) these things get
posted on [usenet | internet | bitnet | foonet]?  Seems to me that if
Ma Bell wants to make the quarterly report look good all they do is
post these numbers themselves, then confiscate all those networked
machines the next day :-)


jim        jharkins@sagpd1

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 24 May 1990 07:55:46 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ESS Historical Note


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says:

>Historical Note:

>Wednesday, May 30, 1990 is the 25th anniversary of the cutover of the
>first No. 1 Electronic Switching System (ESS)* in Succasunna, New
>Jersey.

I wonder how frequently the *location* of these historical telecom
events is based on geography relative to the manufacture and the
CO?


Peter M. Weiss 31 Shields Bldg University Park, PA USA 16802


[Moderator's Note: 1965 was about the time that Morris, IL also got an
experimental ESS office.  PT]

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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Police Technology
Date: 24 May 90 07:43:18 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


San Jose PD uses MDT's, or, as they call them, MCT's which are put in
all field supervisor's cars plus quite a few MERGE cars as well as the
BIG boss's cars. Recently, they moved from 460MHz to somewhere-I-have-
yet-to-find.

I have heard the transmissions to and from these units and estimate
the rate at about 1200baud. It shouldn't be too hard for someone with
perhaps a TNC to connect their scanner to a terminal and read the
traffic.


J. DeBert
[e-mail]
 ...!apple!netcom!onymouse
CI$: 75530,347 | GEnie: onymouse
P.O.Box 51067 Pacific Grove, CA 93950

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 09:46:59 PDT
From: Eric Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Volume Control on Public Phones


>  You're only supposed to need to use the adjustment if you have
>  impaired hearing.

I am glad to see that such phones (with amplified handsets) are fairly
common at airports; often I get off a plane with hearing temporarily
impaired due to air pressure not yet equalized in my
ear/head/whatever.

(Then, right in the middle of a conversation, with phone volume turned
up LOAD, my ears finally *pop!*, and after a blast from the phone
handset I'm deaf again :-)


Eric Black    "Garbage in, Gospel out"
Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089
Email: [e-mail]     Voice: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #381
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23529;
          25 May 90 1:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14838;
          24 May 90 23:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21080;
          24 May 90 22:11 CDT
Date:     Thu, 24 May 90 21:22:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #382
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 May 90 21:22:22 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 382

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Data Access Lines [Tom Gray]
    Re: Data Access Lines [Paul Elliott]
    Re: Cordless Telephone Dies [Robert Stratton]
    Re: Cordless Telephone Dies [Stephen J. Friedl]
    Re: AT&T Software Defined Network [Bryan M. Richardson]
    Re: System 85 Components [Ronald L. Fletcher]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [John R. Levine]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Mark Brader]
    Re: The So-Called Long-Distance Add-on [Larry Geary]
    Re: His Master's Voice [Lou Judice]
    Re: Auto-collect From a Pay Phone [Subodh Bapat]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Date: 24 May 90 12:38:23 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


I expected a great many people to answer with the definitions of the
telephony impairment parameters requested in the original message.
Here is my attempt:

dbrNC0  -       This is a measure of noise db's relative to the noise
                level (-90dbm or 1 picowatt) with C message frequency
                weighting measured at the 0 transmission level point.

impulse noise - A count of the hits above a specifice noise level
                in a specific period of time - a measure of the pops
                on the line.

gain slope  -   A measure of the frequency response of insertion loss
                three frequencies are used 440, 1000 and 2800Hz at 0dBm.
                The difference in insertion loss between these frequencies
                is a measure of the flatness of the insertion loss and
                thus of the linearity of the circuit. 2800Hz was chosen
                for data, 440 for voice and 1000 since it is standard.
                Other combinations (say 1000 and 2800 only) ar also used.

envelope delay - This is the difference in the phase delays between
                different frequencies. If the phase delay for a circuit
                is not linear, the shape of the signal transmitted through
                it will be distorted. This is very important for data lines
                since pulse shape fidelity is required for proper detection
                of the signal.

                Strictly speaking envelope delay is the negative slope of the
                phase delay.

re: Larry Lippman's definitions of the telephony impairment measurements.

I hate to disagree with Mr. Lippman's definitions but they are not
accurate.

The 0 in DbrnC0 refers to the 0 TLP (transmission level point). The
TLP concept refers to a system for making measurements of anlog
signals at different points in the network. The 0 TLP is usually the
digital signal or a mythical point in the centre of an analog switch.
If a signal of 0 dbm is measured at the 0 TLP it will read 0dbM on a
physical meter.  If 6db's of loss are provided in a circuit which
reduces the TLP to the -6 point, the physical signal will read -6dbm.
To avoid confusion, meters are arranged to take into account fixed
losses with the TLP concept. Meters with this ability will give
readings of 0dbm at both the 0 and -6 point in this instance. This
reduces confustion in making transmission measurements.

Impulse noise does not refer to noise adjusted for the loss in the
subscribers loop. It is a measure of noise hits above a specific noise
level. It is a measure of the pops on the line. In the case described,
the telco will guarantee no npisnoise hits above 59dbrnC0. Other specs
could be to provide fewer than say 15 hits per day above 40dbrnC0.

Envelope distortion is a measure of the non-linearity of the phase
delay.  A fixed 200 microsecond delay for all frequencies is perfectly
acceptable.  It would just delay the data pulse train by 200
microseconds. This is just a description of the finite speed of
electircal signals. The problem occurs if there is different deays for
different frequencies. This will distort the pulse shapes and make
detection more difficult. The eye pattern will be impaired. Envelope
distortion is the negative derivative of the phase delay response of
the circuit.

The definition of gain slope was more or less accurate. Different
frequencies other than the ones given can be used.

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

From: Paul Elliott x225 <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Line
Date: 24 May 90 16:42:55 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
writes:

[(excellent explanation of telecom transmission parameters)]

> >         Relative Delay (1000 to 2604 Hz)              200 usec.

>     This is more correctly referred to as envelope delay
> distortion, and represents the maximum phase shift of a signal
> expressed in a unit of time.  To put this figure in perspective, bear
> in mind that 200 usec is 0.2 times the period of one cycle of a 1 kHz
> signal, or stated another way, a phase shift of 72 degrees.
> Obviously, as the frequency increases, the implication of a fixed 200
                                                              ^^^^^^^^^
> usec delay interval becomes more severe!
  ^^^^^^^^^^

I am not sure exactly which type of delay is being referred to here,
but note that a *fixed*delay* creates no phase distortion at all.
Don't be confused by the fact that a given fixed delay can be equated
to a different phase shift at different frequencies, what is really
happening is that all components of the signal are being time-offset
(delayed) by a fixed amount, and thus retain the original
phase-relationship.

(No doubt Larry knows all this, I was just a bit confused by the
terminology.)

If the 200 usec delay is a differential delay, or group delay
distortion, then signals of different frequencies will be delayed by
different amounts, and phase distortion *will* result.

Now, what *is* "Relative Delay"?  (Sounds like differential/group
delay to me.)


      Paul M. Elliott      Optilink Corporation     [phone]
            {uunet, pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott

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

From: Robert Stratton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Telephone Dies
Date: 24 May 90 13:37:53 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Stratton <grebyn![e-mail]>
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA, USA


Re: Panasonic cordless phones and clicks...

I recently bought a Panasonic cordless for my mother, and was quite
annoyed that while/after dialing a number, I would hear loud clicks
with the pulsing you described for several seconds (up to 20).

After a little scanner experimentation/deduction, it seems that the
clicking is actually the sound of the receiver's scanning mechanism
attempting to find a clear channel. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to
stop immediately after finding one. :-(

Have you checked your charger output terminals with a voltmeter? I'd
be interested to hear what you're actually getting from the charger
transformer.


Bob Stratton       | INET: [e-mail]; UUCP: grebyn!strat, well!strat
Stratton Sys.Design| GEnie: R.STRATTON32;    DELPHI: RJSIII
Alexandria, VA     | PSTN: [phone] (H)  [phone] (W)

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 14:18:41 -0400
From: mtndew![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cordless Telephone Dies


> But where in the world does one get parts [for Panasonic phones]

Parts for Panasonic phones can be ordered from Pacific Coast Parts in
southern CA.  Their number is [phone] (in CA, at least), or +1
213 515 0207.  They are nice to work with and they do return their
phone calls.

"Satisfied customer only" disclaimers apply.


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

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 12:21:44 EDT
From: Bryan M Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Software Defined Network
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>In TELECOM Digest V10 #359, [e-mail] asks about the phrase
>"Software Defined Network" on his new AT&T calling card and wonders if
>we just figured out how to make use of software in our network.

>Software Defined Network Service (SDN) is a service that has been
>tariffed since 1984.  It's a service usually used by business
>customers with multiple locations.

Let me explain my background -- I work in 4 ESS development planning
working new features for SDN.  SDN was tariffed in September, 1985,
and became generally available for customer use in the beginning of
1986 (testing occured prior to this time).

As John Higdon explained, there are many ways to access the "virtual
private network," one of which is by a 0+ calling card access.  The
customer is able to choose options for what appears on the card, and
apparently the original poster's company has chosen to have "Software
Defined Network" among the words on the card.

SDN is networking solution offered by AT&T to the largest customers --
typically those placing millions of minutes of calls a year.  If there
are specific questions regarding the service, I'll be happy to answer
them.


Bryan Richardson, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
att!attbl!ihuxz!bmr  [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 15:34:35 EDT
From: Ronald L Fletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: System 85 Components
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Does anyone know were I can get 'summary' descriptions of all the
> major blocks of hardware needed to make an ATT System 85 work?

What you want is a "Definity Generic 2 and System 85 Description
Manual."  This is a reference manual which will give an overview of
each circuit pack and how all the pieces work together. I have not
personally read this document, but the same doc for System 75 was
quite enlightening. I dont believe this doc is shipped with the
customer docs when a system is purchased, but some customers do order
it, so check around the switch room and with the switch administrator.
If you cant find it and would like to purchase it, call the AT&T
documentation hotline at 1-800-432-6600 and ask for doc number
555104-201, it is $79.00.

> Thanks!
> Mike

You're welcome!

Ron Fletcher
att!mtgzy!rlf

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

Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Date: Wed, 23 May 90 21:34:18 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


While watching the rain at my beach house in New Jersey last weekend,
I did a little phone number experimentation.

Readers may recall that New Jersey is one of the few places to have a
strict implementation of NANP dialing, e.g. seven digits with no area
code or else 1+10 digits, completely independent of whether the number
called is local, toll, inter- or intra-lata.  In has to be, since the
201 area and its soon to be split 908 area have many NXX prefixes, and
even though 609 has no NXX, some of the NXX prefixes in 201 are
dialable from 609 as seven-digit local calls.

I was surprised to discover that any number that I could dial as seven
digits, I could also dial as 1-609-NNX-XXXX.  This included local,
intra-lata, and inter-lata calls.  (My beach house is in one of the
smallest latas in the country, consting of the small and not very
populous strip of the 609 NPA along the coast.)

Since New Jersey is now almost entirely ESS except perhaps for some of
the independent telcos in the northwest part of the state, I expect
that this sort of dialing should work most places in the state.


Regards,

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

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Date: Thu, 24 May 1990 19:32:40 -0400


> Dan Jacobson had introduced the subject by stating how annoying it was
> to have to reprogram his telephone's memory locations when he crossed
> an area code boundary ... Isaac Rabinovitch had commented that the
> telephone should be intelligent enough to do this for him ...
> I submitted a question to the Digest about two months ago, asking what
> possible cause there could be to forbid eleven-digit local dialing ...

Implementation issues aside, there is a simple reason to forbid it,
one which has certainly been mentioned in this forum in the past.
Certainly it is not that strong a reason, but in the traditional
environment where people were NOT carrying telephones with memories
all over the place, it was the most relevant one.

If I dial 1-416-759-0000, it is rejected because that is not the way
to dial the local number 759-0000, and *therefore I must have
misdialed*.  Perhaps I really wanted 1-415-759-0000, say; San
Francisco instead of Toronto.  So why bother the poor wretch who has
that number in Toronto?

In the old days when "leading 1 means long distance" applied here,
this argument was even stronger, as this would also apply if I dialed
1-416-759-0000 from, say, Hamilton, within area 416 but not a local
call.  Now, however, we have to dial an area code on all long distance
calls, and 1-416-759-0000 is the way to dial Toronto's 759-0000 from
Hamilton.

(I know that 759 exists in Toronto and San Francisco.  I don't know if
759-0000 exists and I'd rather you did not dial it to find out!)


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]
    "Have you ever heard [my honesty] questioned?"
    "I never even heard it mentioned."    -- Every Day's a Holiday

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

Date: Wed, 23 May 90 14:49:38 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The So-Called Long-Distance Add-on


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert 17-May-1990 1012) writes:

>There is _no_ long-distance add-on.  The only relationship that the
>access charge has to long distance is that it replaces the subsidy
>that AT&T used to pay local phone companies out of the old, higher,
>long distance rates.

Now that the Baby Bells have grown up, does anyone see a chance of the
access charge being repealed?


Larry Geary: [e-mail]
         [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 07:52:59 PDT
From: Lou Judice <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: His Master's Voice


I've had exactly the opposite problem. When my answering machine picks
up and someone talks, my two cats immediately jump up and start
playing with the buttons, invariably rewinding it, or in one case,
fast fowarding it to the end of the tape.

I've turned the volume all the way down to avoid missed messages.


/ljj

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Auto-collect From a Pay Phone
Date: Thu, 24 May 90 8:53:42 EDT


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

> In my original post, I left out the fact that the phone DID play back
> my recorded name statement.  One of the problems with the entire idea
> of the automation is that the calling party's name is all that can be
> given.

That's not a problem, it's a design restriction.

If they didn't restrict it to name only, you could always say, "Jim,
this is John. Call me back at 555-1234." Jim could then press 2 to
refuse the collect call, and dial you right back, thus avoiding paying
collect-call charges.

> Of course, one COULD say "John Doe calling for Jim Doe," I guess.

In general you could get any one-way message across for free ("Honey,
the flight came in on time, I'll call you tomorrow at 9 pm") and your
wife could then refuse the call.


Subodh Bapat         novavax!rm1![e-mail]     OR      [e-mail]
MS E-204, P.O.Box 407044, Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340  [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #382
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02570;
          25 May 90 4:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20623;
          25 May 90 3:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18340;
          25 May 90 2:16 CDT
Date:     Fri, 25 May 90 1:33:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #383
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 May 90 01:32:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 383

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling [Carl Moore]
    Re: AT&T "Excellence" [Todd Inch]
    Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought [Todd Inch]
    Re: Distinctive Ringing Recognition [John Higdon]
    Re: Telephones, Technology and Media [Paul S. R. Chisholm]
    Re: Online CCITT Standards -- There is a Way! [John Gilmore]
    Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount [M. Berch]
    New Telephone Tax Hits California Users [TELECOM Moderator]
    Switchboard Operations [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 13:43:41 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling


A call placed from Delaware to most of the 215 area (and vice versa)
is interstate and intraLATA (Philadelphia LATA).  I don't know what
the status of the carriers is there.  (I.e., can you use another car-
rier besides Diamond State/Bell of Pa.?)

Bell of Pa. & NJ Bell are authorized as carriers between Philadelphia
(Pa.)  metro and nearby New Jersey areas.  A similar setup exists
between northern New Jersey and New York City.  (I don't know about
suburbs in 914 area in New York State.)

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T "Excellence"
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 May 90 21:58:43 GMT


[e-mail] (Peter Weiss) and drilex![e-mail]
(Carol Springs) discuss AT&T asking if the customer received
"excellent service".

My wife called AT&T yesterday and asked them to drop our "Reach Out
Washington" (which wasn't saving us any money :-() and got the same
"Did I give you excellent service?" question at the end of the call.

Yes, she did get good service, the rep didn't try to talk her out of
it or anything and understood her request.

My bet is on a new slogan for their TV commercials.


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Wiring Advice Sought
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 May 90 22:28:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
writes that it is illogical to get crosstalk between twisted pairs in
a multi-pair cable considering that all the pairs are in one cable on
their way to the CO without any problems.

Thanks for saving me the typing, I couldn't agree more.

It is critical, however, to make sure that each line is actually on
one "pair".  For instance, the Blue/White and White/Blue striped wires
form a pair and should be used for one line.  Use the Orange/White
PAIR for the next line, etc.

Note the difference between two-pair and four-conductor wire: you can
run two lines on two pair, one line on each pair.  You shouldn't do
this on the four conductor because the Red/Green aren't twisted
separately from the Black/Yellow.  There *are no* pairs in that stuff.
Yes, I learned this the hard way.

If you're not sure about the cable, strip off a foot or two of the
outer sheathing.  You should be able to see if they're twisted pairs
or not.

Also, the further you run on non-paired wire, the worse off you are.
For very short distances there shouldn't be a problem.

I'm not sure the four-conductor stuff is twisted at all.  It's hard to
tell since the outer sheathing isn't "hollow" and can't be stripped
off easily without untwisting the conductors.  If it's not twisted and
you run two of these cables next to each other, you'll still have the
same cross-talk problem.

Anybody know for sure, or does it depend on the particular cable?

All this applies to the flexible flat "modular" style (usually silver
colored) cable, too.  Don't use that stuff for "permanent" wiring -
just between the phone sets and the wall.


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Recognition
Date: 24 May 90 20:27:09 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"VAXB::DBURKE" <[e-mail]> writes:

> The tone pattern is standard ring for my regular line, and two longs
> for the kiddie line.

> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell, among other Bell telcos, offers this
> service in a limited number of areas. Our version allows two or three
> other numbers to be camped on the main line.

This is one of the things (along with Centrex, pagers, answering
services, and other heavy DID customers) that is responsible for the
depletion of our NPAs. CLASS could eliminate much of the waste. For
instance, answering services would see which customer was forwarding
to their *one* number and answer accordingly. No DID required.

Distinctive ringing could function based on the number of the caller,
not the number called. Granted, the functionality would be slightly
different, but would be a good, efficient alternative.

For some reason (probably the availability of cheap DID), vast blocks
of numbers have been assigned for the use of what can best be
described as "signaling" services. This is exactly what distinctive
ringing is: two numbers are assigned just so the phone will ring
differently, signaling the called party what number the caller dialed.
What a waste.


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


[Moderator's Note: One of the Illinois Bell CLASS features does just
what you propose: It allows the callee to designate up to ten callers
whose calls will generate a different sounding ring. Unfortunatly,
there is only one 'different sound' -- up to ten numbers you designate
will have this characteristic. And of course, until they are likewise
in an office properly equipped, merely designating them on your end
does not make them behave that way.  PT]

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones, Technology and Media
Date: 25 May 90 04:24:24 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (j. eric
townsend) writes:

> If you are asked to give an interview on say, PBX security, offer to
> review the reporter's story before they submit it.

In article <[e-mail]> somebody wrote:

> In connection with the times I sat for interviews regarding the
> Internet Worm, I always offered just such a service.  Almost
> uniformly, the response was a semi-hostile glare followed by "our
> editors have a policy of not allowing our stories to be censored."

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (j. eric townsend)
suggests some nicer ways of putting this, so you won't be accused of
censorship.  (Make it an offer, and make it clear that you only want to
help them get the technology right.)

I've written a few articles for PC MAGAZINE.  This mostly bi-weekly
periodical runs under a *much* looser schedule than a daily newspaper
(thanks to Tom Neff for the description of what newspapers are like).
Reviewers were required to summarize the factual statements, and go
over them with the vendors; e-mailing the draft, or reading over the
phone, was standard practice.  There was *no* requirement to let the
vendors challenge a writer's opinions or conclusions.

It did take some time when I had to work around a PR flack.  If I had
a good technical contact (who was *allowed* to answer such questions
from the press), it only took a few minutes.


Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
The above is a statement of fact about one company's practice at one
time, and possibly today.  "PC", believe it or not, is a registered
trademark of Ziff Communications Co., as is "PC Magazine".

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 18:26:02 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Online CCITT Standards -- There is a Way!


[e-mail] (Rob Warnock) wrote:

> The CCITT (and ANSI and IEEE) standards
> are copyrighted, and the standards organizations are largely supported
> through the sales of their standards documents. They would disappove
> strongly of anyone typing in one of their docs and putting it online.

> CCITT/ISO/IEEE/ANSI != RFC. (Too bad.)

> It is often the case that *draft* standards are available for free
> (hardcopy only) while the standard is being developed...  But once the
> standard is finalized, you can't get the drafts (at any price).

It's in the interest of these organizations to make standards
expensive.  It is counter to the interests of the users (who wrote the
standards).

These standards are *all* written by committees made up of whoever
wants to participate.  The standards bureacracies just do [a small
part of] the administrative work involved.  Most of the work is
donated by committee members and their companies, particularly the
chairman.

Suppose the standards committee explicitly placed the final draft copy
into the public domain.  Better yet, the editor of the standard and/or
the committee could copyleft the standard.

If the final draft standard is public domain, the CCITT (et al) will
be able to claim a copyright on the version they publish -- but anyone
will be able to pass around the identical final draft in electronic
form at no cost.  Furthermore, there are actually regulations and/or
laws against companies selling things to the government that are
public domain, so it might end up that the CCITT would be in violation
of those laws in so far as it sold copies of the standard to
governments.

If the final draft standard is copylefted [copyright by someone, with
an explicit notice that it and derived works can only be redistributed
if the recipient can redistribute under the same terms], even the
versions you might buy from CCITT will have to permit copying by
xerography as well as by OCR and posting-to-the-net.

The ownership of a document written by a committee has probably been
addressed somewhere but it's clear it isn't a work-for-hire since the
CCITT, etc, are not paying them to write it.  They're volunteers
working toward a common goal.  So they collectively own it and can
decide on its fate.

I'm sure the first committee to do this would get a lot of pressure
from the standards org but in the end if the committee stands firm,
there is nothing the bureaucraps can do except to refuse the draft
copy, start another committee, and hope it doesn't happen again.  Of
course, the same people can join the new committee -- if it ain't open
to the public, it ain't developing a public standard.  Meanwhile, the
industry will implement the draft, since it will be widely available,
and will start noticing that maybe they don't need these dinosaur
bureacracies getting in their way anyway.

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

From: "Michael C. Berch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount
Date: 25 May 90 01:03:48 GMT
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, Calif. USA


In the referenced article, [e-mail] (Curtis E. Reid) writes:

> I heard a disturbing news that AT&T may consider removing the TDD Long
> Distance Toll Call discounts when AT&T does its own billing.  The
> rationale for this is that no other services like MCI or Sprint offer
> this discount so why should AT&T.

> AT&T has a strong loyal base of handicapped and disabled customers.
> If something like this discount goes away, I'm sure that other
> services for handicapped customers will also go away, too.

> Can any TELECOM readers comment on this?  AT&T, don't consider
> removing TDD discounts!!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the justification
for discounts for TDD customers?  I can see doing it if the bandwidth
of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are
effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for
the same amount of time as hearing people, but I have not heard that
argument brought up.  (And in which case I think there is a good
argument for the discount, or at least a special TDD rate structure.)

I don't object to AT&T's providing special services to TDD users that
cost AT&T extra but are required in order to make TDD service work
(e.g., TDD operator/trouble reporting services) but I don't see the
reason for giving a certain class of people a discount simply because
of a disability (or because of their race, religion, ethnic origin,
etc.).  Discounts for the economically disadvantaged are another case
entirely, and while I do not think that general ratepayers (or telco
shareholders) should have to subsidize "lifeline" service, telcos
offer such services because they are required to by state regulators.
I assume there is no such requirement for AT&T, MCI, Sprint, or others
providing LD service but not dial tone.


Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 18:40:33 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Phone Tax Hits California Users


The {Los Angeles Times} reports that telephone customers in Los
Angeles and throughout the state will pay an increased tax of 3.4% on
their long-distance calls within California, effective July 1, to help
pay for basic telephone service for low-income households.


PT

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switchboard Operations
Date: 24 May 90 21:23:29 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On May 24 at  7:19, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> To really see just how stupid people can be, try running a
> switchboard for a few months/years.

Not for months or years, but I have, on occasion, tended the
switchboard for a couple of my clients for the afternoon. My clients
are radio stations with good sized PBXs. What calls them can only be
described as an alternative species. At the AOR (Album Oriented Rock)
station, there are apparently subhuman types that grunt things like,
"Kenuplay grateflded?" "I'm sorry, you will have to call the "Jock
Line" [sounds like something from a fitness center, or a outlet that
sells athletic supporters] "and talk to the person on the air."
"Hayman, cnt you jst gifm da messge?" "OK, sure will." [RELEASE]

Or how about, "Lemme talk to Bob Smith [salestype]"? "I'm sorry, Bob
is out of the office. May I take a message?" "That [expletive deleted]
is never in. You tell him that he has until 4:30 PM and that's that."
[And that's that? Are they going to break his legs? Reposess his BMW?]
CLICK! Message to Bob: "Unknown caller says you have until 4:30..."

Oh, well. Sometime I'll have to tell you about the callers to the
other station whose demographics have been described as "60 to
deceased", if you can stay awake...

> Finally I put up a little sign on the board which said,
> "I am not a fast operator. Nor am I a slow operator. I am merely a
> half-fast operator."   PT]

How about, "I'm in-operative"?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #383
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04528;
          25 May 90 5:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21693;
          25 May 90 4:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20623;
          25 May 90 3:21 CDT
Date:     Fri, 25 May 90 2:42:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #384
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 May 90 02:41:39 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 384

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development [John Gilmore]
    Alternate Reading For Telecom Folks: alt.fax Newsgroup [Nigel Allen]
    Meeting Notice: Florida OPC Discusses Caller ID  [David Lesher]
    AT&T LD Directory Assistance Free Call Eliminated [David Lesher]
    TDD Specs [Tad Cook]
    Toronto Area Information Services [David Leibold]
    Re: Panel (ugh!) Switches [John Higdon]
    Re: Panel (ugh!) Switches [[e-mail]]
    Re: Looking For Telephone Equipment Retailers [John Higdon]
    Special AT&T Discount Period Tonight Only [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Getting the Phone Number You Want [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 19:15:20 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development


I heard rumors of a digital cellular telephone standard among DSP
folks, and tracked them down.

The draft standard is called "IS 54" and its project number is 2215.
It is currently not available anywhere; they ran out of the drafts,
and it won't be published for about a month.  This is your standards
bureacracy serving *you*!

The draft will eventually be published for public comment by EIA in DC
(202 457 4900).  The contact person there is Eric Schiml in the
Telecommunications Industry Association upstairs, at [phone].
The chairman of the committee is Peter Nurse of Novatel, at +1 403 295
4673.

The description I have heard of the standard is that it is being
rushed through in order to make more capacity in the cellular systems
in major metro areas.  By DSPing voice down to 8Kbits/sec, they can
put three separate conversations on each existing cellular channel.
Of course, the resulting voices are not nearly as intelligible, and
it's probably all but useless for modem traffic.  The three
conversations are time-multiplexed onto the channel by synchronizing
the three cellular phones to alternately transmit 5ms frames such
that, when received at the cell after the speed-of-light transmission
delay, they occur at different times and thus don't interfere.

The standard makes no provision for data traffic and no provision for
encryption, even though it is digital end-to-end.  The engineers I've
spoken with seem to think that its "privacy" will be improved because
it's digital, i.e. a scanner won't be able to decode the interleaved
binary signal.  Of course, each phone built to this standard will have
the circuitry to do that, and nobody will modify the ROMs or improve
the scanners.  More security-by-obscurity.

I originally wanted to track down the committee to discuss the
requirements of Dynabooks for reliable, nationwide, mobile digital
data service.  But these folks aren't doing anything like that.  In
fact, one engineer told me he thought Dynabooks were a bad idea
because "people shouldn't be reading while they are driving"!!!  The
whole idea is to sell more yak-wuile-you-drive to yups, they don't
have any idea where the real portable digital markets are at.  Real
workstations will be palm-sized and portable in 1993 or so, long
before the telcos are ready to network them *cheaply* in an office or
neighborhood while having them able to remain online on the net (at a
price) while traveling all over the country.  What hacker,
stockbroker, student, reporter, ... would be without one?  Anybody got
an angle by which we can bypass the telcos and do it right while they
blunder?

The plan is to reallocate some of the current analog cellular
frequencies for this IS 54 bastard digital cellular service, in
crowded metro areas.  Probably the small towns would never get this
equipment.  But what is worse is that the act of deploying it in a
metro area will REDUCE the number of analog frequencies available.
The people who already have cellular phones will get WORSE congestion
and fewer frequencies.  The people who buy new digital cellular phones
will get shitty voice quality and phones that won't work at all in
minor markets, or for modems or fax machines.  The folks who want real
mobile digital telecommunications, even at phone company prices, won't
get anything.  Ditto the folks who want real privacy on mobile phones.
(Remember Heinlein's "hush and scramble" features in every phone?  "We
have the technology" -- we just aren't deploying it.)

The only ones who win from IS 54 are the cellular carriers (who expand
their customer base without deploying more cells) and the phone makers
(who make people buy another phone as they crowd more early adopters
into fewer analog channels).  And guess who's writing this standard?

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

Subject: Alternate Reading For Telecom Folks: alt.fax Newsgroup
Date: Thu, 24 May 90 19:31:50 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>


Regular TELECOM Digest readers may be interested in alt.fax, a
newsgroup dealing specifically with fax machines.  I don't know who
started it or where to pick it up, if your system doesn't already
receive it.

Another newsgroup in the alt.* hierarchy is alt.cosuard, where the
long-running battle between Texas sysops and Southwestern Bell over
which BBSes should be charged business rates is discussed.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meeting Notice: Florida OPC Discussing Caller ID
Date: Thu, 24 May 90 22:56:39 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


NOTE: This is *NOT* a discussion topic. It is a meeting notice.

The Florida Office of the Public Counsel is holding a meeting on {yep}
Caller I.D. It's at Room 4, 18th floor, Metro-Dade Center on 30 May
1400-1700. It says here the Public Counsel represents consumers before
Public Service Commission. I will NOT post details to c.d.t, but will
email them on request.

Remember: This is *NOT* a discussion topic. It is a meeting notice.


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: ATT LD Directory Assistance Free Call Eliminated
Date: Thu, 24 May 90 23:06:26 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


According to an ad in MacPaper, ATT filed to drop its present allowance
of one 'free' LD D.A. call per month, effective sometime this month.


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: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: TDD Specs
Date: 24 May 90 19:29:37 GMT
Organization: very little


Where can I get signalling specifications for Terminal Devices for the
Deaf?  Does Bellcore or CCITT maintain these?  Anyone know a good
published source?  I don't know much more than the fact that they use
45.45 baud Baudot code.

If anyone wants to share some knowledge on this, call me at
800-824-9719 or 206-881-7000 between 7:30am-4pm PDT and ask for PAUL
COOK.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad    or, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Toronto Area Information Services
Date: Wed, 23 May 90 19:43:41 EDT
From: woody <contact![e-mail]>


Here is a list of some Toronto (area 416) numbers that can use tones to
access various information services...

947.3333 - Dial a Law - get (unofficial) Canadian legal advice on various stuff

393.7911 - Gray Coach - Toronto bus information schedules/fares

366.8411 - VIA Rail - train schedules/fares - unlike Gray Coach, you can
           get info on return trips as well

778.5555 - Tele Personals - personal and 'companion' ads, ranging from tame
           to ultra-perverted. Chat line available, men get charged a small
           fee by the minute, women go on free at last report (due to woman
           shortage).

393.4636 - Toronto Transit Commission just installed their own touch tone
           service. They seem to have a botch-up so far as one can dial,
           get the initial welcome that invites touch tone users to press
           their keys for general information. However, trying to get an
           operator after this can result in a busy signal after you connect
           with the initial welcome. Pay phone users must love this one.
           (and I got the busy signals just after rush hour at that...)

           Tonight, I noticed that the touch tone service on the TTC's
           info number was not in effect. Perhaps this is just
           experimental, or for peak times only.

238.1010 - Talking Yellow Pages - there are a number of these popping up
           in various cities - check your phone books for one near you.


|| [e-mail]  / David Leibold

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panel (ugh!) Switches
Date: 24 May 90 22:20:27 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jack Winslade <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've been fascinated with the panel switches (Ma Bell's answer to Rube
> Goldberg) ever since seeing an aging one in action back in 1971 or so.

Panel was almost universal in San Francisco and Oakland up until the
early 70's. Obviously, exchanges added in the '50s onward were
crossbar and later, ESS, but there was a substantial penetration of
these impressive machines. Having grown up in Oakland, I'll never
forget the sound of the phone.

> If I remember my facts correctly, the revertive pulse-counting method
> was necessary because the speed of the rollers driving the rods up the
> frames was not exact, and this provided the feedback necessary to
> locate the correct contacts.

That is correct, and it also accounted for the horrendous noise that
you heard, particularly between dialed digits. These rollers would
slip and slide, even with heavy maintenance. Sometimes the rods
couldn't make it to their destination, and the call would fail. This
is why the switch was so unreliable.

> Another thing that I found peculiar to this particular installation
> was that an adjoining #1 crossbar office was also equipped with this
> type of revertive-pulse sending system, which made the crossbar office
> look like a panel office as far as interoffice signaling was
> concerned.

This was a typical situation: panel offices were usually neighbored by
#1 crossbar because they could be made to speak the same language,
revertive pulsing. The down side of this was that panel was
particularly incompatible with SXS, which is one reason you would have
a lot of panel in an area (such as SF/Oakland) OR you would have a lot
of SXS (such as LA). Fortunately, the crossbar became a life saver in
that it could speak equally well to SXS or to panel and frequently
served as a translating link between these offices.

BTW, to the best of my knowledge, the Telephone Pioneers of San
Francisco have a small, fully operative, section of a panel office
somewhere in San Francisco. For a while it was located in the old
Larkin St. CO, but I believe it has moved from there. (How on earth
would anyone move such a thing?)


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

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

Date: Thu, 24 May 90 22:34:28 -0700
From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panel (ugh!) Switches


>From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>

>Another thing that I found peculiar to this particular installation
>was that an adjoining #1 crossbar office was also equipped with this
>type of revertive-pulse sending system, which made the crossbar office
>look like a panel office as far as interoffice signaling was
>concerned.

I remember when #1 ESS was new some at Bell Labs mentioned the irony
that there were ESS offices signaling revertive pulsing to crossbar
offices.  The reason was that the ESS office had replaced a panel
office and they didn't want to change all the trunks in the crossbar
office to something more modern at the same time they were cutting
over to the ESS.

>[Moderator's Note: 1965 was about the time that Morris, IL also got an
>experimental ESS office.  PT]

1965?!  Wasn't Morris the city in IL that had an earlier experimental
ESS using vacuum tube and magnetic drum technology?  Or do I have the
city wrong? Or do you have the date wrong?


Peter M. Weiss  31 Shields Bldg, University Park, PA  USA  16802

[Moderator's Note: Morris was the first, I believe, with vacuum tubes,
etc. This would have been a few years earlier. Then about the time New
Jersey got theirs, Morris also got a new system. That's the way I
remember it.  PT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Telephone Equipment Retailers
Date: 24 May 90 20:32:55 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hello Direct doesn't really have the stuff. Graybar in San Jose,
> whoever they are, won't sell to me, because I don't have a "California
> Reseller Certificate."

Price the list you posted, contact me, and I'll be happy to pick up
the stuff for you at Graybar. I have bought from them for years
without the slightest problem (as an individual), and have never, ever
shown them a resale certificate (and have always paid sales tax on the
purchase).


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

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 2:11:55 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special AT&T Discount Period Tonight Only


This is sort of a late notice, but Friday night AT&T has a special one
night only deal going on where all calls during the 5 PM - 10 PM
period will be eleven cents per minute *or less* throughout the United
States. This means the maximum cost for a ten minute call tonight only
will be $1.10.

AT&T is doing this as a special promotion to start off the three day
holiday weekend of reduced calling rates.

Obviously, you know how to route your long distance traffic tonight.
For more specifics and verification, call AT&T Customer Service at
1-800-222-0300.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 02:24 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting the Phone Number You Want


M. G. Stinnett wrote in volume 10, issue 379:

|Another thing to do when calling for service is to let the rep know
|exactly the nature of the service you want, even if you think you already
|know what features you need.  My wife took a call from one man who wanted
|two lines with automatic transfer and a few other things.  She asked a
|few questions and then suggested a system they had (CaroLine, I think)
|which had all the features he needed plus a few more, and which would
|save him over $100 a month compared to the system he asked for.  Of
|course, she cost the company some revenue, but bought a very satisfied
|customer.

She cost Northwestern Bell nothing and saved them a bit of work and a
lot of annoyance.  In a short time the customer would have found out
about CaroLine anyway and demanded a retroactive refund from
Northwestern Bell for the difference in cost and a switch to CaroLine
without a service charge for the change.  Moreover, he'd have
complained left and right about the rep who misled him when he first
started service and gotten her into trouble.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #384
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05475;
          26 May 90 0:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18860;
          25 May 90 22:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13789;
          25 May 90 21:45 CDT
Date:     Fri, 25 May 90 21:30:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #385
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 May 90 21:30:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 385

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Choosing No Long Distance Carrier (was: I Have no LDC) [John Higdon]
    Re: Choosing No Long Distance Carrier (was: I Have no LDC) [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Interesting East Berlin Number is West German Cellular [Steve Forrette]
    Re: The So-Called Long-Distance Add-on [Macy M. Hallock]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Dave Levenson]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [David Tamkin]
    Re: TDD Specs [Peter Weiss]
    Re: TDD Specs [Ken Harrenstien]
    Re: Telebit vs. Sprint [Stephen E. Grove]
    Re: Data Access Lines [Stephen E. Grove]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Choosing No Long Distance Carrier (was: I Have no LDC)
Date: 24 May 90 20:45:07 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]> writes:

> Several people responded that having no default long distance carrier
> can happen in the normal course of business. I.E. you just ask for no
> long distance carrier.

> Well, the PacBell representative I spoke with disagrees.

Double Well, that representative should be reported. I order telephone
lines constantly for remote broadcasts and other purposes where they
want a phone on the site. These are the questions I am *always* asked
and the answers I give:

Jack type:    RJ11C

Touch tone:    Yes

LD Carrier:    None

"Fine, thank you for your order, Mr. Higdon."

Ordering lines with no carrier is SOP. I'm beginning to believe that
the greenest trainees are put in the residence service order
department. Do what I do: whenever you order residence service (and
I've ordered plenty of that in my time) ask immediately to speak to a
supervisor. Say, "I have a complex order here and I don't want to have
to repeat it all twice -- once to you and again to the person you will
have to turn me over to." If you are dealing with service in the San
Jose area, ask for Chris or Mrs. Ford at 811-5700.


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

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 00:59:23 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Choosing No Long Distance Carrier (was: I Have no LDC)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>Well, the PacBell representative I spoke with disagrees.  He said that
>I must choose a default long distance carrier.

When I had two lines installed in PacBell territory this past January,
I had no problems when I requested no long distance carrier, other
than a somewhat confused "Why would anyone want to do that?"
Furthermore, the PacBell rep told me that I would have six months to
change it to the carrier of my choice for free - after that, it would
cost me the $5 or whatever it is.  I recently made my selection, and
the rep indeed said "Oh, I see ... Your service is less than six
months old, so there's no charge."

BTW, I had done this for security reasons, hoping that it would throw
off someone tapping into my line.  (I'm not all that paranoid - there
have been several instances of this during the past year where I
live).  When I first signed up for service, the rep indicated that the
error recording would be non-descript.  But, actually, it was quite
descriptive.  Basically, it said "This call requires a long distance
company access code.  Please hang up and redial the call using the
code."  My second line was on another exchange (#5 xbar of all
things), and that recording went as far as directing me to the Yellow
Pages to find long distance companies to call!

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 01:27:16 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting East Berlin Number is West German Cellular
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 381, Message 8 of 12

>>    If you are considering doing business in Eastern Europe,
>>    call Salomon Brothers in East Berlin at 49-161-2610935.

>At the time of this writing, you get the recording "Zu diesem
>Anschluss besteht zur Zeit keine Funkverbindung" which means "There is
>currently no radio contact with this station."  The phone is turned
>off or has been out of range for a long time; there's a different
>recording if the phone is out of range but has been within range in
>the last few minutes.

All right, all right, you guys have really done it this time!  I
wanted to hear the German recording for myself, so I gave it a try.
After a few seconds there was a single frequency tone that came on and
off about every second.  I thought "Hm, I wonder what that means?"  I
quickly inferred that it was a RINGING sound, as a click was heard,
then "Goodentag" or however you spell it.  A moment later, it was
followed by a "uh, Hello?"  I can't wait to get the bill!

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

From: fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Fri May 25 08:59:56 1990
Subject: Re: The So-Called Long-Distance Add-on
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


>Now that the Baby Bells have grown up, does anyone see a chance of the
>access charge being repealed?

You are really asking: will the LEC's willingly give up this source of
revenue?  One that they do not have to justify before the state PUC's.
one that they only have to calculate in the most cursory of manners to
the FCC?  One that the FCC has stipulated as fundemental to current
rate structures?  One that benefits the LEC's without creating any
controversy or negative publicity?

To put it mildly:  I think not.

IMHO, only a complete revamp of national telecommunications policy
accompanied by a redesign of mandated LEC accounting procedures would
ever allow this to happen.  Telecom policy is not a priority of anyone
in government, at least anyone I know of who might be able to make it
happen.  Mark me down as skeptical....


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: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Date: 25 May 90 21:38:40 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[in Jew Jersey]:
> I was surprised to discover that any number that I could dial as seven
> digits, I could also dial as 1-609-NNX-XXXX.  This included local,
> intra-lata, and inter-lata calls.  (My beach house is in one of the
> smallest latas in the country, consting of the small and not very
> populous strip of the 609 NPA along the coast.)

I have noticed that I can use the home area code everywhere I've tried
it in New Jersey.  This includes a half-dozen central offices in the
North Jersey LATA (201 and 908).


Dave Levenson            Voice: 201 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 19:12 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call


In volume 10, issue 382, Mark Brader offered one reason that eleven-
digit local dialing is forbidden where it isn't required:

|Implementation issues aside,

Political implementation or engineering implementation?

|there is a simple reason to forbid it, one which has certainly been
|mentioned in this forum in the past.

Mr. Brader's explanation boiled down to this: Mother is as positive as
ever that she knows what is best for us better than we know ourselves,
and if we dial any sequence we don't *have* to, it can't be that we
have our reasons for doing something we thought of on our own.  No, we
helplessly stupid customers must have made a mistake, so she's going
to protect us from ourselves by forbidding whatever she doesn't
require.  That way we're relieved of thinking.  How nice of her.  That
way she's relieved of admitting that we can think.  How nice for her.
It's another case of "We don't let you suspend Call Waiting any more
because people who did were missing important calls."

|Certainly it is not that strong a reason, but in the traditional
|environment where people were NOT carrying telephones with memories
|{nor laptop computers --DWT} all over the place, it was the most
|relevant one.

The traditional environment where Mother knows all and customers know
nothing, that is.  I'm not taking it out on Mr. Brader and don't want
this to sound as if I were; I'm peed at the telco attitude.

Near my home a frontier between two telco satrapies repeatedly abuts,
crosses, adjoins, tickles, body-slams, splatters, and generally abuses
the three borderlines between 708 and 312.  Living here, I know the
boundaries very well, but most people who pass through do not and
often tend to guess wrong about which town they're in.  The area here
is infested with COCOTs, particularly in the Illinois Bell portions.
Many of them have no telephone numbers on their faces; those that do
often have only seven digits or still read "312" even though they are
now in 708.

Most Illinois Bell pay phones have just a sticker to put "708" over
"312" (and you cannot tell one that really is in 312 from one in 708
whose sticker fell off unless you know the exact boundaries or know
which prefixes are which) and their instruction cards speak
generically of "this area code" and "other area codes."  (During the
grace period I saw a 708 sticker on a payphone in what was to remain
in 312.  The owner of the business told me that someone from Illinois
Bell had come in, told him his location would be in 708, and put the
sticker onto the coin phone; I suggested he check with Illinois Bell
again before changing his stationery.)

As for COCOTs, forget about any clarity in dialing instructions.  Most
of them have no instruction cards at all or silly generic ones that
equate "local calls" with seven-digit dialing and "long-distance
calls" with eleven-digit dialing.  And of course, God forbid that a
COCOT should bear its own number so that you know which area code
you're dialing from if you don't have the boundary line memorized.

So when you want to place a call from an unlabeled pay phone that is,
let's say, in 312, to another number in 312, but you think you are in
708 and dial 1312 in front, you can't get through (and COCOTs probably
don't tell you what went wrong nor return your money).  There's no
reason for that.  It makes no sense whatever.

Centel-owned coin phones are very clear about it: their instruction
cards state "You are dialing from area code 312" or "You are dialing
from area code 708."  They still don't let you dial eleven digits
within your own NPA if you wish, but there is less reason to try.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Friday, 25 May 1990 07:15:41 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD Specs


Though not necessarily an answer to your question, the
telecom-archives available FTP lcs.mit.edu has a file called
deaf.communicate.on.tdd which contains pointers to other archive
files.


Peter M.  Weiss | 31 Shields Bldg | University Park, PA USA 16802

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 18:06:31 PDT
From: Ken Harrenstien <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD Specs


[Posting a response is easier than calling those phone numbers.]

I recall that the TDD manufacturers, under EIA auspices, were working
on a standard to pin down all of the various TDD specifications.  I
don't know, however, if the EIA actually has a final result or not.
My guess would be not, but it's certainly worth a try.  I don't have a
number handy but their office is in the other Washington (DC); try
asking directory assistance for the Electronic Industries Association.
Let us know if there's any news!

Basically the old-style TDDs use 5-bit Baudot (American Communications
set), 1.5 stop bit, 45.45 baud, with the Weitbrecht modem (U.S. Pat.
No. 3,507,997 if you must know).  The latter is half-duplex, 1400Hz
mark, 1800Hz space, plus a somewhat undefined 100ms "holding tone"
duration after last bit (otherwise the quiescent marking state would
maintain a continuous 1400Hz tone).

I don't know of any easily available published references.  They do
exist; we even wrote some of them as SRI project reports (you don't
think I memorize patent numbers, do you?), but they're hard to get.
That's why I suggest finding out if the EIA has come out with anything
yet.  Maybe Curtis Reid, another TDD-cognizant Telecom reader, knows
of other alternatives.  You can always send direct e-mail if you have
specific technical questions.


Ken

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

From: "S. E. Grove" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit vs. Sprint
Date: 25 May 90 17:20:52 GMT
Reply-To: "S. E. Grove" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


Pac Bell has a dial up distribution network that they have called
PacNet. But the fiber optic network for internal company use only, is
call PBNet. The reason for the internal company use only is that we
are not allowed to switch calls interlata, except for ourselves.  If
AT&T sent a message over PacNet to Pac Bell it would most likely
travel on PBNet.


    Stephen Grove
    Comm. Tech. ESS Pac Bell  Sonoma County, Calif

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

From: "S. E. Grove" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Date: 25 May 90 18:06:35 GMT
Reply-To: "S. E. Grove" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)
writes:

>              Technical Standards for Data Access Lines
>        Attenuation Distortion (slope)                -1 to +3 dB
>        C-Message Noise                               20 dBrnC
>        Impulse Noise                                 59 dBrnCO
>        Relative Delay (1000 to 2604 Hz)              200 usec.

SLOPE means no more than 1 db higher than the reference level of 1khz
measured with 900 ohms impedance, and no more than 3 db greater loss
that the reference. This is measured in the range of 300hz to 3000hz,
unless you ask and pay for higher line conditioning, C4 is measured up
to 3400hz, if I remember.  All my books are in a locker and therefore
not available.

C-message noise 0 dbrn is equivalent to -65 db (again I am relying on
memory, and I haven't lined up data circuits for a living for ten
years), the c refers to a weighting filter, calculated to reduce the
effect of noise at frequencies that don't effect the data.

Impulse noise is noise of very short duration, sometimes unnoticable
to the human ear, but at the speed of 9600 Baud a real deterrent.

Relative Delay has to do with the delay of various frequencies
reaching the terminating modem in reference to the fastest frequency,
within the bandwith. The fastest frequency can vary, though it is
usually around 2400hz. This could affect the shape of the analog
envelope of the signal and make it harder for the detection circuits
in the modem to determine space or mark.

At 9600 baud you are dealing with a 209 type data set which uses tri
bits (000,001,010,011,etc) to reduce the actual line speed and eight
phase 'phase modulation'.


Stephen Grove Pac Bell, Comm. Tech. ESS; Sonoma County, Calif.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #385
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07474;
          26 May 90 1:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20678;
          25 May 90 23:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18860;
          25 May 90 22:51 CDT
Date:     Fri, 25 May 90 22:11:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #386
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 May 90 22:10:58 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 386

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FCC REN Numbers [Tad Cook]
    Re: FCC REN Numbers [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling [John Cowan]
    Re: Who are the Biggest Users of Telecom? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Correction to 908 Areacode Exchange List [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development [Christopher Pikus]
    Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD LD Discount [Ken Harrenstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN Numbers
Date: 25 May 90 22:18:14 GMT
Organization: very little


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

> In volume 10, issue 377, Julian Macassey answered some of Steve
> Friedl's questions about FCC ringer equivalence numbers.
> I have three far simpler ones (I guess):

> 1. What does the B or A after an REN mean?

A B type ringer must respond to 16 to 68 Hz ringing frequency, and an
A ringer only responds to 20 or 30 Hz, +/- 3 Hz.

> 2. If the ringer on a telephone can be turned off, does it no longer
> count in figuring the total REN load on a line?

A phone with the ringer turned off SHOULD have no REN load on the
line, but I could imagine an electronic ringer that still has it's
detector across the line, but the sound source is off.

> 3. Two of my modems *do* have REN's, though neither has any sort of
> bell or gong.  They check in at "0.4 1.2B" and "0.5A 1.6B"
> respectively.  My other modem has a speaker and thus does make a noise
> (but the speaker is powered by the electric utility, not the telco);
> it has an FCC ID but no REN on it at all.

What's the question?

There are other ringer types (A thru N) for different ringing
frequencies.  The B type is not frequency selective, but all of the
others are.  This allows frequency selective ringing on party lines.

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

> > What is the conversion factor between RENs and somthing your average
> > EE can understand, like "milliamps at 90vrms, 20Hz?"

A ringing generator that is capable of powering 5 REN should be able
to supply ABOUT 5 watts.


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: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN Numbers
Date: 26 May 90 01:41:14 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> In volume 10, issue 377, Julian Macassey answered some of Steve
> Friedl's questions about FCC ringer equivalence numbers.
> I have three far simpler ones (I guess):

> 1. What does the B or A after an REN mean?

    I think I covered this in an earlier posting, but then I could
have glossed over it. The letter at the end of the REN numbers covers
the "Ringing type" from the notorious Table I. A Ringing type A ringer
is sensitive to 20 Hz +-3 and 30 Hz +-3. A B type ringer is sensitive
to AC voltage between 15.3 and 68.0 Hz. Just for the curious, a C type
ringer is sensitive between 15.3 and 17.4 Hz. There are many classes
of ringers. I know that the class is supposed to refer to the
frequency coverage, but owing to obscurity in the FCC regs, some labs
measure type B ringers (Electronic warble type) as a type A so they
can get a lower REN.

This does not make it a type A ringer. This makes it a type B ringer
measured as a type B. Apart from type B, other ringers cover a narrow
frequency range. This frequency selectivity is sometimes used with
party lines. It is also one of the factors that limits bell tap in US
phones. See an earlier posting of mine where I waffle about this. Yes,
most Type B ringers will also respond to frequencies above 68 Hz, like
100 Hz.

> 2. If the ringer on a telephone can be turned off, does it no longer
> count in figuring the total REN load on a line?

     I wish this was true. If you look carefully, you will notice
that only the output transducer (fancy name for gong, Loudspeaker or
piezo disc) is disconnected, but that the power consuming stuff is
still on line. In a gong ringer the "off button" is often an arm that
obstructs the striker, so no power is saved by turning it off. With
electronic ringers, depending on the design, some power may be saved.
I have quietly campaigned to have the off switch disconnect the ringer
from the line. It does not disconnect the ringer because, it always
used to be that way. But that was then when there was maybe only one
instrument on the line. These days, you may want the ringer off,
because you have too many on line. To take a ringer off line you have
to actually disconnect it internally.

In the old days, the gong ringer circuit was left in circuit at all
times so the telco could sling an AC test circuit down the line at the
dead of night and the ringer provided a return path. Note recent
postings about strange telephone modems etc going chirp in the night.
They also had records of your normal impedance, so any change could
tell them if water was seeping into the line etc. It also told them
that you had bootlegged a phone on the line. They then got snotty.
Most techie types then learned to disconnect the ringer on any
bootlegged phones. Now many residential lines have tons of ringers on
them and they change continually - must drive the test board guys nuts
 - any comments from CO types? Most electronic ringers do not provide
a good profile to telco test circuits, the exception I know about is
the Motorola ringer IC. Motorola does it with a chain of Zeners.

    So one other point, the "low" or "medium" switch on most
electronic ringers is in fact a resistor switched between the ringer
IC and the transducer, so the volume is low, but the power consumption
is often just as high. My ideal electronic ringer would have the low
switch put the resistor on the line before the ringer IC and the off
switch would remove the whole circuit from the line. Yes, I know that
if the "low" resistor is before the IC, it will make the circuit
touchy in the low mode, depending on available power it would either
make no difference in volume or silence the bugger entirely.

> 3. Two of my modems *do* have REN's, though neither has any sort of
> bell or gong.  They check in at "0.4 1.2B" and "0.5A 1.6B"
> respectively.  My other modem has a speaker and thus does make a noise
> (but the speaker is powered by the electric utility, not the telco);
> it has an FCC ID but no REN on it at all.

    If the REN is below a 0.1 REN, it can be listed as 0.0 or
nothing at all put on the label. See above for dreary details on the
funny A and B numbers. In truth, all modems I have seen are type B
ringers. To prove this, feed say 60V at 60 Hz (yes power via a regular
transformer) to a modem, betya it picks up if in answer mode.

    I wrote extensively about all this ringer stuff years ago in
Popular Communications mag, but I suppose it wasn't all that popular
then.  Plus of course the editors used to bugger and censor my text so
some of the more esoteric stuff was jumbled and meaningless by the
time it reached the public and vulgar gaze.


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 Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interstate, IntraLATA Calling
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Fri, 25 May 90 13:39:29 GMT


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

>Bell of Pa. & NJ Bell are authorized as carriers between Philadelphia
>(Pa.)  metro and nearby New Jersey areas.  A similar setup exists
>between northern New Jersey and New York City.  (I don't know about
>suburbs in 914 area in New York State.)

Westchester County (area code 914) is part of the NYC LATA, which also
includes all of Long Island (516), Rockland County (across the river
from Westchester), and parts of other counties, including a bit of
Connecticut (area code 203), which is served by NYTel for historical
reasons.

On another topic currently agitating the Digest: I believe that
1-212-7D works OK within the 212 area, but haven't checked lately.  It
may depend on one's CO.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

Subject: Re: Who are the Biggest Users of Telecom?
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 25 May 90 13:08:24 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>    8. Texas Air

That's very peculiar.  I'd expect that the telecom needs of an airline
would be partly hooking up all of their own offices and terminals, but
even more hooking up all of the travel agencies that subscribe to
their CRS.  American's Sabre and United's Apollo are much more widely
used than is Texas Air's System One, and American and United are
enormous airlines in their own right.  (United sold Apollo to a
nominally separate organization called Covia, but I'd have thought
they'd take the telecom with them.)  It's hard to believe that Texas
Air uses more telecom than either AMR or UAL.

>   15. BellSouth
>   89. US West

I thought the RBOCs were roughly the same size.  Admittedly, Bell
South has bought a lot of cellular operators outside their own area,
but it's hard to imagine a disparity like this.

There's no doubt that all of the organizations on the list are huge
telecom users, but I wouldn't give much credence to the ranking.


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

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 15:03:09 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Correction to 908 Areacode Exchange List
Organization: Summit NJ


> Please add the following to your lists.

> 841    STROUDSBG  NJ

Unless the Delaware River shifted in the last three days, I thought
Stroudsburg was in PA.

Also, the following little tidbits of information appeared in a phone
bill insert:

     1.    The use of 908 will be mandatory on June 8, 1991.

     2. The 908 area code will first appear in the Monmouth
    County phone book, which will come out on June 14, 1990.

     3.    908 is functional.

     4.    We will still be able to use 7 digits for all local calls
    (which in the case of my Summit, NJ central office, means
    that calls to Millburn, Madison, and South Orange will
    remain at 7 digits).

    What I am curious about though is how many central office
    codes will this tie up in both 201 and 908?


Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

From: "Christopher J. Pikus" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development
Date: 25 May 90 21:45:01 GMT
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, Ca.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John Gilmore):

> I heard rumors of a digital cellular telephone standard among DSP
> folks, and tracked them down.

> The draft standard is called "IS 54" and its project number is 2215.

> The standard makes no provision for data traffic and no provision for
> encryption, even though it is digital end-to-end.  The engineers I've

> The only ones who win from IS 54 are the cellular carriers (who expand
> their customer base without deploying more cells) and the phone makers
> (who make people buy another phone as they crowd more early adopters
> into fewer analog channels).  And guess who's writing this standard?

    An alternate path being explored is a joint project between
Pac Bell Cellular in Los Angeles and Qualcomm in San Diego. I had an
opportunity to view a technology demonstration last novenber.

     They are using something called CDMA (Code Division Multiple
Access) that uses a technique similar to sattelite communications
(Qualcomms expertise). All transmitters use the same frequency with no
time division; each one running with output power down at the noise
floor.  Each phone convolves their voice data with a special 32 bit
number which a digital modem at the other end searches for.  Thus each
phone is secure from each other (different keys); the others look like
noise to each phone.

    As for datacomm, the data bandwidth is flexible, you pay for
what you need, (with tradeoff in quality/datarate). i.e. 8/16 kbs for
voice and 64 kbs for data. The bandwidth limitation is soft since as
the channel hits capacity, the b.e.r. will slowly climb.

    At the technology demonstration, Pac Bell was saying that if
they alloc'd 10% of their service (42 channels) to this digital, they
could increase capacity by a factor of 2-3 FOR THE WHOLE SERVICE.

    The people at Qualcomm were saying that a phone could be built
that swings both ways; current technology analog and this digital
service with the addition of a few DSP chips.

    It appears that Pac Bell doesn't have time to wait for a
standards commitee and decided that an early deployment of a superior
system will create a de-facto standard.


Regards,

Christopher J. Pikus,               Megatek Corp.
INTERNET:     [e-mail]      San Diego, CA
UUCP:         ...!uunet!megatek!cjp

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 17:34:43 PDT
From: Ken Harrenstien <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount


>Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the justification
>for discounts for TDD customers?  I can see doing it if the bandwidth
>of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are
>effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for
>the same amount of time as hearing people, but I have not heard that
>argument brought up.  (And in which case I think there is a good
>argument for the discount, or at least a special TDD rate structure.)

Indeed, this is the rationale.  The standard figure in the literature
I've seen has been a 5:1 ratio; that is, a conversation via TDD takes
five times as long as a voice call to convey the same information.
The discount, however, does NOT follow this ratio.  I'm not sure
exactly what it amounts to -- the one time I tried to get an
explanation out of a telco billing person, I was told it just meant
the lowest possible rate was applied (ie night rate) instead of the
normal rate.  The bill always simply says "DN".  So it doesn't do me
any good to schedule my calls for the evening instead of the daytime.

One other aspect of this discount, at least here in California, is
that it ONLY applies to calls made from a single line identified as
belonging to a TDD subscriber.  I cannot have two lines and have the
discount on both.  It also does NOT apply to calls I make with a
calling card, or calls I charge to that number, or even calls made to
that number.  So in my opinion it's a pretty feeble gesture.  You'd
think the simple thing to do would be to just charge everything
normally and factor the total by .50 or whatever, but no.

Oh yeah, while I'm ranting about bills, any long-distance (but
intrastate) charges I incur when using the California Relay Service
are printed as calls to "Cal Relay" (instead of, say "San Jose" or
"Sacramento"), even though they show the correct destination number.
So it is a little harder for me to figure out where I was really
calling.  As for interstate calls, the Relay service can't call out of
state -- no calls, no billing problem.  Gee, maybe we should carry
this idea to its logical extreme ... no telco, no telco hassles!

I haven't heard anything about removing the discount, but I imagine it
would be done quietly in any case.  Someone did tell me a couple days
ago about a radio report that AT&T would be introducing a nationwide
TDD relay service, but I haven't seen anything in print, so this may
only be a rumor or a misinterpretation.


Ken

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #386
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10091;
          26 May 90 2:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23795;
          26 May 90 0:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac20678;
          25 May 90 23:54 CDT
Date:     Fri, 25 May 90 23:32:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #387
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 May 90 23:31:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 387

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Distinctive Ringing Recognition [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Distinctive Ringing Recognition [Tad Cook]
    Re: Data Access Lines [John Higdon]
    Re: Customized Telephone Numbers (Was NXX-0000) [Subodh Bapat]
    Re: His Master's Voice [David Tamkin]
    Re: New Tax Hits California Users [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Sprint/WD40 Offer [Jeff Jonas]
    More on Stamford 1AESS Crash [Peter Neumann, RISKS via David Lesher]
    System 75 Question [Leslie Mikesell]
    Motorola's Products - Response to Chip Rosenthal [Gary Segal]
    10-NYT and 10-NJB [Jeff Jonas]
    Memorial Day *Not* A Cell Phone Holiday? [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 May 90 03:18:30 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Recognition
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| > The tone pattern is standard ring for my regular line, and two longs
| > for the kiddie line.
| This is one of the things (along with Centrex, pagers, answering
| services, and other heavy DID customers) that is responsible for the
| depletion of our NPAs. CLASS could eliminate much of the waste. For
| instance, answering services would see which customer was forwarding
| to their *one* number and answer accordingly. No DID required.

I'm suddenly (if whimsically) struck by the analogy to computer
networking.  What we have had up 'til now is "hot to host"
connections. Maybe (given the capabilities coming in ISDN) we need to
add "port numbers" to our NPA plan?  1/2- ;-}

So just like HostA connecting to hostB says what well-know service is
wanted at hostB by specifying a port (a.k.a. socket) number, maybe
there could be a way to append a port number ("sub-listing number"?)
to a standard number:

    "Dial 1-800-555-1212-#57 for information regarding 'love lines'"

or personalized listings in phone books:

    Doe, John E., family.....555-1212
      John E.................555-1212#31
      Mary Sue...............555-1212#32
      Billy..................555-1212#33
      Suzie..................555-1212#34
      BBS....................555-1212#38
      FAX....................555-1212#39

And of course, if you could provide a *source* "port" number when
placing a call (maybe with a *NN before the call?), you could
authenticate yourself or provide distinctive ringing, or whatever.
(Yes, I *know* the BSD hack of "ports < 1024" is not secure!)

Just a thought...   ;-}


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: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Recognition
Date: 25 May 90 21:48:28 GMT
Organization: very little


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
mil (VAXB::DBURKE) writes:

>     NYNEX (or NET) has just release something called RingMate (I
> assume trademarked).  This allows me to have two different incoming
> telephone numbers, one for me and one for the kids, all tied to the
> same telephones I have now, with a distinctive ringing feature to
> allow me to recognize which number is being called.  This is a nice
> feature, except I'd like to get a black box that will switch to
> answering machine A for me and answering machine B for the kids.

> Is there such a box?

I have used a service like this for adding a fax machine to a voice
line without the annoyance of those darn "fax switches" that attempt
to switch the call after answer.

Check out the Autoline Plus, from:

ITS Communications Corp.
Endicott, NY 13760
Phone: [phone]

Sorry, but I don't have a street address or non-WATS telephone number.

This box has three outputs for up to three numbers assigned to one
line.  If you tell them you are a dealer, you can get a sample for
under $100.  It works great!


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]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Date: 24 May 90 21:40:57 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]> writes:

> dBm is commonly used to specify a level referenced to a "digital
                                                           ^^^^^^^
> milliwatt" signal.  This is a 1004Hz sine wave of 1mW power into
> 600ohms.

What was it before digital technology? I've always heard it referred
to as simply the "milliwatt". Also, to be technically pure, dBm can be
a reference to one milliwatt into any impedance, as long as it's a
milliwatt. The 600 ohms comes into play because everyone knows that
that when you measure 0.775 volts on across 600 ohms, you have a
milliwatt. If you measure 0.949 volts across 900 ohms, you still have
a milliwatt. And it is still 0 dBm.


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

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

From: Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customized Telephone Numbers (Was NXX-0000)
Date: 25 May 90 18:10:14 GMT
Organization: the boundary between UNIX and sanity


Does anyone out there have the source for a C program (or possibly an
awk script) to take a given seven-letter string and map it to its
corresponding seven-digit sequence using a standard telephone keypad
mapping?

Also, how about the other way round - given a telephone number,
generate from it all combinations of keypad-derivable seven-letter
strings?

(I'm tired of looking at my phone every time I want to do the
translation - and too lazy to spend the few minutes it would take to
write it!)


Subodh Bapat         novavax!rm1![e-mail]     OR      [e-mail]
MS E-204, P.O.Box 407044, Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340  [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 19:19 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: His Master's Voice


Lou Judice wrote in volume 10, issue 382, about Illinois Bell's ad
campaign that suggests phoning your answering machine at home to give
your pet the reassurance of hearing your voice over the speaker:

|I've had exactly the opposite problem.  When my answering machine picks
|up and someone talks, my two cats immediately jump up and start playing
|with the buttons, invariably rewinding it, or in one case, fast-
|forwarding it to the end of the tape.  I've turned the volume all the way
|down to avoid missed messages.

That pretty much explains why Illinois Bell always features dogs in
the print ads and television commercials for this campaign.  (There's
also the factor that hearing your voice say its name doesn't mean
diddly to the stereotypically aloof housecat of urban folklore.)

Turning down the speaker when you're not home (and the speaker is
therefore unneeded) is one solution if you can't find a cat-proof
place for the answering machine.  Others are switching to voice mail
or replacing the answering machine's built-in speaker with one placed
some distance away, so that the voice coming out of it will attract
the cats to a location where they can do no harm.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: New Phone Tax Hits California Users
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 25 May 90 14:37:45 GMT


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

> an increased tax of 3.4% on their long-distance calls within California,...
> to help pay for basic telephone service for low-income households.

Isn't this supposed to be included in your phone bill anyway?
Universal service, and all that stuff.


Peter da Silva. [phone].
<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

[Moderator's Note: Well, you would think so. I guess the California
legislature disagrees.  PT]

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

From: Jeff Jonas <synsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint/WD40 Offer
Date: 24 May 90 12:36:46 GMT
Organization: Synergistic Systems, Silver Spring, MD


I got a FON card with the WD-40 offer.  The first bill had a $10 "FON
card non-recurring charge".  Customer service said that's because I
have a stand-alone account.  My SECOND bill ALSO had a $10 "FON card
non-recurring charge".  [non-recurring indeed!]  Customer service said
that I'd get a $20 credit on my next bill.  Let's see if my third bill
had the $20 credit and the "free hour".

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on Stamford 1AESS crash
Date: Fri, 25 May 90 21:40:40 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>

     From comp.risks Fri May 25 21:40:37 1990
     Date: Fri, 25 May 1990 14:37:39 PDT
     From: "Peter G. Neumann" <[e-mail]>
     Subject: More on Stamford CT Telephone Switch Outage (RISKS-9.93)

AT&T announced today that they have resolved most of the cause of last
Thursday's 18-hour local-call switch outage.  Apparently 10,000
subscribers were being moved from the #1A ESS to the new #5 ESS.
During the cutover there is apparently a two minute atomic-action
interval during which nothing works.  Due to a burp, call storage was
lost altogether.  They found procesor problems that have STILL not
been diagnosed.  They also found a cable that had been incorectly
connected last summer, and that remained undetected until the crash.
When the backup failed as well, diagnostics could not be run except by
old-fashioned oscilloscopic probes.  [Source: Brief phone conversation
with Seth Angott of {The Advocate} in Stamford CT.  Any inaccuracies are
mine.]

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

From: Leslie Mikesell <[e-mail]>
Subject: System 75 Question
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Date: Fri, 25 May 90 18:23:46 GMT


Does anyone know if it is possible to make a system 75 switch do
automatic trunk routing but *not* automatic queuing on certain calls?
My modems don't really appreciate the effort that the switch makes to
complete the call and ring them back long after the computer program
that initiated the call has given up.


Les Mikesell
  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 10:13:04 CDT
From: Gary Segal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Motorola's Products - Response to Chip Rosenthal


[Moderator's Note: Since I permitted Chip Rosenthal's entire article
to be posted the other day -- including the comments on drug testing
 -- I thought it only fair to print this one response from an employee
of Motorola.  PT]

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

The following expresses the opinion of one employee of Motorola, and
in no way represents the opinions or positions of Motorola INC.

[e-mail] (Chip Rosenthal) writes:
[excellent description of dB, dBrn, e.t.c. deleted]

>[1] Motorola Telecommunications Devices Databook.  There are a whole slew
>    of dB definitions in the glossary.  (However, I'll probably stop using
>    their products now that they've joined the piss-in-a-bottle mania.)

As an employee of Motorola who is not terribly thrilled by the new
mandatory drug testing (MDT) policy, I ask you not to consider this
issue when evaluating our products.

By declining to purchase our products because of a policy towards
employees, you are atempting to involve yourself in the
employee-management relations of Motorola.  As you are not related to
Motorola, other than as a (hopefully satisfied) customer, these
concerns are none of your business, unless you feel that the quality
of the products we produce is below your standards.  You are now
attempting to impose your views upon Motorola's employees, which is
precisely the problem that we have now; our management is trying to
force MDT on us.

While I probably agree with your views on MDT, I feel that any
problems with MDT must be worked out between the employees and
management of Motorola.  If you and others like you were to stop
buying our products, business will slow, and some employees may lose
their jobs.  Management will most likely not correlate this downturn in
business to reluctance from customers to buy from a company with MDT.
However, if just one employee refuses to take the test, and is fired,
and then sues Motorola, the message is much clearer.  Or if an
engineer delivers his or her resignation to George Fisher (CEO) with
the reason being that he or she does not agree to MDT, again, a clear
message is delievered.  By not purchasing Motorola products, you will
not send a clear message to our management, but instead you will close
yourself to a large base of very useful and competitive products.

If the activities of a company produce an external effect that you
disagree with, you may have reason to not consider it's products.
(For example, investment in S. Africa, pollution from factories, too
much trafic on the local roads from the plant in your neighborhood).
However, I feel that Motorola's MDT does not have an effect on you,
because your rights and trust have not been compromised.

If you feel that when any company starts a MDT program, that encourges
other companies to do so as well, consider that by creating a MDT
policy, Motorola has raised the chances that a test case will be
brought, and this is really what we need to clear up the issue.
However, any case that is brought must come from an empolyee, not a
customer.

If you want to make a stand against MDT, lobby your state and federal
congressmen to make MDT illegal.  You can make send a much clearer
message to Motorola by having your state or the US outlaw MDT instead
of not buying our products.

The bottom line for a product purchase decision should be performance
and cost, not the employee/management relations of the company
producing the product.  These issues are best handled by the people
involved, and not the customers.


Gary Segal    ...!uunet!motcid!segal        [phone]
Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004

The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue
the opinions of Motorola INC.

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

From: Jeff Jonas <synsys![e-mail]>
Subject: 10-NYT and 10-NJB
Date: 24 May 90 12:36:46 GMT
Organization: Synergistic Systems, Silver Spring, MD


I've seen ads in the PATH trains for the "New York Connection" where
NY-NJ calls are handled via the local telco by dialing "NJB" or "NYT"
prefixes.  Would someone please elaborate?

1) A number to call for information ...
    (my local rep didn't know what I was talking about)

2) The EXACT name of the program (so I can ask for the right thing) ...

3) Why I can't get it here in Ulster county ...

4) How the local telco got a waiver to give long distance service ...

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

Date: Fri, 25 May 90 2:31:17 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Memorial Day *Not* A Cell Phone Holiday?


It came as a surprise to me today to find out that Ameritech Mobile
does *not* count Memorial Day as a holiday for the purpose of off-peak
rates. I think however that Cellular One/Chicago does observe the
holiday for billing purposes.

What about YOUR cellular service? Don't get caught hanging on the
phone a lot all day Monday thinking you are on one rate when you are
actually on another!  Confirm with your carrier today.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #387
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03894;
          26 May 90 13:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10451;
          26 May 90 12:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11452;
          26 May 90 11:05 CDT
Date:     Sat, 26 May 90 10:42:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #388
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 May 90 10:42:10 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 388

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Memories: AT&T Enters Computer Business [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: AT&T Commits Universal Card Fraud [John Higdon]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Dan Sahlin]
    Re: Joined Countries [Dan Sahlin]
    NYNEX Info-Look [Jeff Jonas]
    Again, a Small Problem [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 May 90 10:26:02 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Memories: AT&T Enters Computer Business


Here was a topic of major interest in the fall of 1981, as reported in
TELECOM Digest, during September that year.

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

  Date: 5 Sep 1981 14:06:36-PDT
  From: IngVAX.geoff at Berkeley
  Subject: Judge Approves AT&T Expansion


Copyright (C) 1981, Washington Post Company, Saturday, September 5, 1981

    A federal judge yesterday gave American Telephone and Telegraph
Co.  permission to compete for the first time in the computer and
data-processing business -- a ruling that could have an explosive
impact on the future of the telecommunications industry.

    Handing the Communications giant a major victory in its bid to
enter lucrative new business areas, Judge Vincent P. Biunno of the
U.S. District Court in New Jersey ruled that AT&T could offer
data-processing because it is a communications service.

    Under a consent decree AT&T signed with the government 25 years
ago, the company has been barred from offering any noncommunications
service.  Until yesterday's ruling, that meant AT&T could not offer
computer services.

    "It seems to the court beyond dispute that AT&T ... will be
engaging in the business of furnishing communications services and
facilities" by providing data-processing services, Biunno wrote.  The
ruling was handed down from the New Jersey court because that was here
the original 1956 consent decree was filed.

    The decision means that beginning as early as March 1, AT&T will
be able to become a direct competitor with International Business
Machines Corp. and other major computer companies.

    What's more, the Bell System will be able to offer a wide variety
of telephone equipment and services, ranging from the black
rotary-dial phone to highly sophisticated computer services, without
any of the government pricing restraints it now must follow.

    The judge's decision, however, by no means puts to rest the
current congressional debate over AT&T's future structure and its role
in the telecommunications industry.  Congress is considering
legislation to allow AT&T to offer data communications services,
although it would bar the communications giant from offering
electronic newspapers and up-to-the minute advertising.  Debate on the
issue is expected to continue shortly after Congress returns from its
August recess.

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

  Date: Friday, 11 Sep 1981 16:04-PDT
  To: unix-wizards at SRI-UNIX
  Cc: mike at RAND-UNIX
  Subject: New computer company?
  From: mike at RAND-UNIX

The following rumor was news to me.  I have no way of knowing if there
is any truth to it but my source is well connected with the computer
industry.

He claims that the Bell System computer subsidiary, whatever it will
be called, will announce a computer system within six months.  The
computer looks like "a cross between a vax and a MAC 32". (The MAC 32
was an array processor, I understand).  Speed is said to be about 70%
faster than a vax.  It runs Unix.  It has 512 32-bit registers.

No information about what it will cost, when it will be announced,
what sort of bus, etc.  Supposedly it will be used in the ESS in place
of the PDP 11.

Does anyone care to refute or elaborate upon this rumor?

Michael Wahrman

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

  Date: 14 September 1981 09:22-EDT
  From: Andrew Tannenbaum <TRB at MIT-MC>
  Subject: New Bell System Computer
  cc: "mike@rand-unix, unix-wizards" at SRI-UNIX

Dear, dear.  The Bell System is very touchy about its employees
divulging proprietary information about its products.  You can't get
fired from Bell Labs for being incompetent, just for screwing your
secretary or smoking dope or drinking beer in your office, or
divulging proprietary information.

Sooner or later, the Bell System will be able to release its computers
for sale.  Sooner will be in more than six months though, you can rest
assured.  The wheels of justice turn S-L-O-W-L-Y.

If some Bell System drone reports on proprietary products he does so
at personal risk (possibly great).  I can say that the MAC32 is NOT an
array processor, and that Bell Labs is working on processors to use in
their switching systems, even ones that run UNIX (our
telecommunications support operating system).  Have fun generating
rumors, just don't attach your names to them.  And do try to make them
somewhat accurate.  Should the Bell System just start offering its
computers for sale (without clearing up small legal details), it would
be sued several times.  When the Bell System decides let you know
about its computers (as soon as the government lets us sell them to
you), we'll let you know.

    Andy Tannenbaum
    Bell Labs Whippany, NJ

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

  Date: 12 Sep 1981 02:51:28-PDT
  From: purdue!cak at Berkeley
  Subject: the Bell Computer


I suspect that the computer that Bell will announce as their first
product is the 3B<simplex>. As far as I have heard, the 3B is a
machine that was patterned somewhat after the VAX, but with high
reliability for ESS applications in mind. It can run either in a
simplex/single processor mode, which is probably what will be sold, or
in a duplex/dual processor mode, each processor watching the other
(like Tandem NONSTOP systems), for ESS applications. They hope for
something like 1 day in 40 years downtime. It does run unix, I talk to
people in the Labs who use it every day.

    Chris Kent (purdue!cak)

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

Date: 14 Sep 1981 13:36:46-PDT
From: menlo70!hao!cires!harkins at Berkeley
re: Mike Wahr's query about the "bell machine"


I have not seen anything announced, BUT... about 3 months ago there
was an ad in Computerworld I think that was asking for marketing types
for a "new line of mini and micro computers" ergo, the rumor nearly
has to be true.
                  ------------------------------

  Date: 12 Sep 1981 03:30:47-PDT
  From: CSVAX.dmr at Berkeley
  Subject: Bell Computer Company


I can't confirm or deny the rumors reported by Mike@Rand-Unix relating
to the purported Bell System computer company, but his informant
doesn't have good gen on the potential hardware.

There are two processors.  One (currently called the 3B-20) comes in
two forms: simplex and duplex.  Both are built of commercial MSI.  The
simplex is a conventional midicomputer in packaging and the like.  The
duplex runs on 48 volts, looks like an ESS machine, and has two
mutually-checking processors.  It will be used as the processor for #5
ESS.  It runs DMERT, a real-time kernel (successor to MERT, see the
Unix BSTJ issue).  A version of Unix is one of the supervisors that
can run under DMERT.

The simplex, on the other hand, is being pushed reasonably hard
internally (inside BTL) as an alternative to the Vax both for
conventional computing and especially for OSSs ("operational support
systems", machines for trouble reporting, record-keeping, and the
like). It runs a version of Unix that is a straightforward port of the
internally supported system.

Then, there is the 3B-5.  This is based on an internally developed LSI
processor chip lately called the BELLMAC(tm)-32, previously called the
MAC-32.  It does not exist as a "system" yet, but there are working
chips.  Although its existence has been announced, I suspect most of
the details about design rules and the like are still proprietary--
fortunately I don't remember them.  It is, however, quite large in
area.  It gave rise to the joke that whereas the early, non-working
LSI chips from most projects are made into souvenir tie tacks, the
MAC-32 was being turned into belt buckles.

The two processors are "assembly-language compatible" in that there is
an assembler for their common machine language, which is called IS-25.
(IS- instruction set; 25- the old number of the organization that
developed it.  A year ago all organizations in BTL were renumbered.)
The compatibility extends to the instructions and address modes,
though there can be differences in bit encoding, and some of the odder
instructions aren't in the MAC-32.

IS-25 is very strongly influenced by the Vax. The instructions and
address modes are, in fact, nearly identical, though some of the
especially recondite Vaxisms were dropped.  I don't know how many
registers there are internally, but the programmer sees 16 (32 bits
each).  Neither machine has anything to do with array processing.

        Dennis Ritchie

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

I thought Digest readers today would enjoy seeing what the Digest
readers in the fall of 1981 were discussing in this forum each day.
And of course, soon thereafter the "Bell System Computers" did come
around, in a big way.

Happy holiday!

Patrick Townson

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Commits Universal Card Fraud
Date: 24 May 90 21:59:49 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On May 24 at 20:18, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> I doubt they simply went through phone books looking for names
> of people they could 'defraud'.  PT]

Oh, I don't know about that. Back when I was much younger (and
sillier), I used to sit down with the various trade magazines and fill
out all the business reply cards requesting info on everything from
equipment to trade schools. The only thing was: the name and address
that went on each card was that of someone I had a current grudge
against.


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

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

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 26 May 90 14:18:22 GMT


In Stockholm I just found out that it now is possible to dial the local
area code even for a local call.  They must have changed that fairly
recently.  Last week when I was in Dalecarlia (in the countryside) I could
not dial the local area code.  I do hope they will make it possible there
too, as Sweden has about 200 different area codes, and if you are
travelling around it is almost impossible to know in which area code you
are.

Being successful on using the local area code, I tried to use the
county code too. It worked!  I do hope I'm charged as a local call
anyway.  Are there more places in the world where you may make a local
call using the country number?

We are getting closer and closer to the ultimate goal: The number you
dial only depends on the phone you are dialing to, and not on the
phone you are dialing from.  Unfortunately Sweden uses "009" as the
international prefix, but I understand that it will be changed into
"00" within about five years.

All Stockholm numbers (08 area) starting with 4 or 5 seem to be
possible to dial with an additional leading 6. So my home number may
now alternatively be dialled as "430120" or as "00946-86430120"!


        /Dan Sahlin             email: [e-mail]

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

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Joined Countries
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 26 May 90 14:44:11 GMT


moscom![e-mail] (Dave Esan) writes:

>Does anyone know the intentions of the soon to be united Germanys in
>regard to dialling patterns to what is presently East Germany (DDR),
>and which will soon be part of a single Germany?

I do not know what decisions that have been taken, but Western Germany
has always had area codes reserved for Eastern Germany, so a
unification here would be very simple.

If the country code of Eastern Germany (37) is released, it could be
reused for the "new" Baltic states.  As we are running out of country
codes in Europe, the code could best be used for producing ten country
numbers: 370, 371, etc.

Today I read in the morning paper about plans for Estonia to use the
Swedish telecommunication satellite Tele-X.  I do hope that this will
make it possible to dial Tallin directly.  I can dial directly almost
anywhere in the world, but I can't dial directly to the Baltic states,
which are neighbors to Sweden.


    /Dan Sahlin     email: [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Jonas <synsys![e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX Info-Look
Date: 24 May 90 12:36:46 GMT
Organization: Synergistic Systems, Silver Spring, MD


NYNEX has an information gateway service.  It's essentially a
dataswitch.  There are numbers in area codes 212, 718, 516 and 914.
It's made very clear that the providers are NOT associated with NYNEX,
that NYNEX only provides the access and the dataswitch help menus
(which include a directory of services).

1) Has this been tried elsewhere?  (I recall some slight mention of
other failures of similar programs).

2) The directions state: "If you have a party line, your connection
can be interrupted by another party's incoming or outgoing calls".  I
thought that modems were forbidden on party lines.

3) Why would someone have a group with this as opposed to say,
Compuserve or Genie?  Its only advantages could be keeping things
regional (NY only) or low cost.

You login with your New York Telephone calling card number.  It shows
up on your phone bill under the "Data services" heading.  It's like
900 numbers for your computer.  Each service charges by the minute,
and shows up on your phone bill.

800-338-2720 is the customer service number.

Free software is provided (for Mac or PCs).  It emulates a vt100, and
handles videotext (minitel and Alex).  It's configurable much like
Procomm (modem initialization, prefix, suffix, wait charcter, ...) so
it should work with non Hayes compatible modems (quite unlike the
Prodigy software).

I tried it a few times, but I prefer USENET for now.  I don't need
computer chat lines, and there are NO technical forums.

Phone switches used to be wired, now they're wierd.  :)


Jeffrey Jonas
[e-mail]


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

Date: Sat, 26 May 90 7:38:10 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Again, a Small Problem


Once again, there was a small loss from the inbound queue, early
Saturday morning. Two messages, including one on MCI in Area 512, were
dumped unprocessed. The submitters who received a receipt from me
dated in the wee hours of Saturday morning (like prior to about 7 AM,
5/26/90) should resubmit their article if it is not seen in this
issue.  I am reviewing this problem, which seems to be sporadic.


PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #388
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02204;
          27 May 90 0:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02217;
          26 May 90 23:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20838;
          26 May 90 22:09 CDT
Date:     Sat, 26 May 90 21:46:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #389
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 May 90 21:45:20 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 389

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Interesting Police Technology [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: Data Access Lines [Tom Gray]
    Re: Customized Telephone Number [Patricia O'connor]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Daniel Jacobson]
    Re: Sprint/WD40 Offer [Carol Springs]
    Re: FCC REN's [David Tamkin]
    Jargon Overload! (Not a Flame!) [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    A Request For Technical Info on Telecom [Mary J. Leugers]
    Correction: City Code (Minitel Access, London) [Carl Moore]
    Re: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons [Stuart Lynne]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Police Technology
Date: 26 May 90 16:29:09 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


claris!netcom![e-mail] (John Debert) writes:
(about computer terminals in police cars)

>I have heard the transmissions to and from these units and estimate
>the rate at about 1200baud. It shouldn't be too hard for someone with
>perhaps a TNC to connect their scanner to a terminal and read the
>traffic.

True.  But it ought to be possible to encrypt transmissions, if they
haven't already done so.  I don't know if it's actually possible to
provide an unbreakable encryption method (this was claimed at one
time; I haven't followed the issue closely but I understand there are
doubts) but at least it can put evesdropping out of the reach of the
less resourceful villains.

For that matter, they could do the same thing with voice channels, but
it's a whole lot easier to do this with the relatively small number of
bits in a data channel.

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Date: 26 May 90 15:34:12 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 387, Message 3 of 12

>Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]> writes:

>> dBm is commonly used to specify a level referenced to a "digital
                                ^^^^^^^
>> milliwatt" signal.  This is a 1004Hz sine wave of 1mW power into
>> 600ohms.

>What was it before digital technology? I've always heard it referred
>to as simply the "milliwatt". Also, to be technically pure, dBm can be
>a reference to one milliwatt into any impedance, as long as it's a
>milliwatt. The 600 ohms comes into play because everyone knows that
>that when you measure 0.775 volts on across 600 ohms, you have a
>milliwatt. If you measure 0.949 volts across 900 ohms, you still have
>a milliwatt. And it is still 0 dBm.

The digital milliwatt is defined in the CCITT standards. It is a
sequence of eight PCM codes which when repeated in sequence produce a
1KHz tone.  The digital miiliwatt is a means of defining the
relationship between the analog and digital domains. Note that digital
milliwatt or the digital test sequence produces a 1Khz tone when
decoded not 1004Hz.

1004Hz digital tones are commonly used since it requires 2000 PCM
samples to produce a single cycle of the tone. This produces a more
exhaustive test of the decoders of PCM then the eight samples: of the
strictly deefined 1Khz DTS.

Because of roundoff error in the PCM sequences for the tones the 1Khz
DTS will produce a level that is approximately .1db different than the
1004Hz tone. Thus for accurate level allignment of a PCM decoder the
strict 1KHz DTS must be used. Thus the 1004Hz sequences are suitable
for production or field testing of a PCM circuit but truly accurate
allignments must use the DTS.

I agree with Mr. Higdon in that dbm refers to one milliwatt in any
impedance at any frequency. Indeed, even fibre optic transmitters and
receivers are specified in dbm and their operating frequencies are
rather higher than 1Khz.

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

From: Patricia O'connor <farcomp!Patricia.O'[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customized Telephone Number
Date: 24 May 90 07:20:44 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA


Like you, I've had success getting 'easy to remember' numbers.  When I
call for new service, I simply ask for one.  In both Mountain Bell and
Pacific Bell territory, they offered a selection to choose from.  My
Tucson number was 885-8850.


PatiO

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

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 90 18:41:37 CDT
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


[e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:

:If I dial 1-416-759-0000, it is rejected because that is not the way
:to dial the local number 759-0000, and *therefore I must have
:misdialed*.  Perhaps I really wanted 1-415-759-0000, say; San
:Francisco instead of Toronto.  So why bother the poor wretch who has
:that number in Toronto?

Hmmm, it is protecting you from misdialing one out of the 150+ North
American areacodes ... but you might have dialed 412, 413, 414, etc.
when intending for 415.  So there's only one poor wretch out of 150
that will be spared being woken up by fumble-fingers via this
"feature".


[e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint/WD40 Offer
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 27 May 90 00:20:36 GMT


Jeff Jonas writes:

>I got a FON card with the WD-40 offer.  The first bill had a $10 "FON
>card non-recurring charge".  Customer service said that's because I
>have a stand-alone account.

Now this is fascinating, because when I gave Sprint my work number, I
was never asked whether I had an account with US Sprint already.  The
name in Sprint's records for my home account is "C. Springs."  "Carol
Springs" works in a different city from the one in which C. Springs
lives.  In short, Sprint could make a good guess that I was the same
person (I may well be the only Springs in area code 617), but if
that's what it was using as its criterion for adding the surcharge it
seems a little slimy.  (Almost as slimy as my ordering the unneeded
card in the first place.)

I would think that the $10 (now $20) surcharge in my case is more
likely to have been due to my having given a business phone
number--Sprint certainly knows it's a business number, since I've been
getting the business version of its inserts on that account.  But I
think Patrick gave his work number to Sprint also and never got the
surcharge.

As I said, never again.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Actually, I gave Sprint the number of my voicemail
box, which is a DID trunk at Central Telephone Company. I have not yet
heard if it has been converted to Sprint one-plus yet.  :) And, no, I
did not get a one-time charge, or a two-time charge either, for that
matter.  PT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN's
Date: Sat, 26 May 90 17:20:36 CDT


In volume 10, issue 386, Tad Cook and Julian Macassey both replied to
my earlier questions about ringer equivalency numbers.  Below, "DT>"
prefaces what I asked in an earlier submission.  My current comments
are flush left.

DT> 1. What does the B or A after an REN mean?

TC> A B type ringer must respond to 16 to 68 Hz ringing frequency, and
TC> an A ringer only responds to 20 or 30 Hz, +/- 3 Hz.

Frequency of what, if I may ask?  That question has been slid on past
throughout this discussion under the assumption that everyone must
already know.  It certainly isn't the pitch of the ringer's sound, and
it isn't the frequency at which the AC is alternated...or is it?

DT> 2. If the ringer on a telephone can be turned off, does it no longer
DT> count in figuring the total REN load on a line?

TC> A phone with the ringer turned off SHOULD have no REN load on the
TC> line, but I could imagine an electronic ringer that still has its
TC> detector across the line, but the sound source is off.

So the REN has nothing to do with powering the ringer so much as with
recognizing *whether* to sound the ringer?

DT> 3. Two of my modems *do* have REN's, though neither has any sort of
DT> bell or gong.  They check in at "0.4 1.2B" and "0.5A 1.6B"
DT> respectively.  My other modem has a speaker and thus does make a noise
DT> (but the speaker is powered by the electric utility, not the telco);
DT> it has an FCC ID but no REN on it at all.

TC> What's the question?

Good point; I realized that myself after rereading my own words in the
Digest.  Somebody had said that yes, there could be 0 REN's: look at a
modem or an answering machine for examples.  So I looked at my modem
and at my answering machine (which reads 0.4 B) and said, gee, hey,
these numbers are not zero.

Those were Cook; these are Macassey:

DT> 1. What does the B or A after an REN mean?

JM> I think I covered this in an earlier posting, but then I could have
JM> glossed over it.

Maybe you did, but when you and the other techie types in this Digest
write at each other's level, my eyes (and the eyes of other readers)
glaze over and roll backwards.  You could put "the surf was great off
Los Angeles today" into the middle and most of us wouldn't be able to
read through the technical stuff to find that.  Yes, this digest-cum-
noozgroop is the place to discuss the technical end as well as the
user's end, but please understand that a non-techie reader like me can
miss something written deep inside an incomprehensible submission
about the specifics of the guts of wires and switches.

If it's any consolation, if you did cover that in another posting, you
probably explained it in a way I couldn't have understood if I had
read it, so I'd have had to ask again regardless.

JM> See an earlier posting of mine where I waffle about this.

I can't read your crackers, let alone your waffles.  If you ever post
a brioche, I won't even try.

DT> 2. If the ringer on a telephone can be turned off, does it no longer
DT> count in figuring the total REN load on a line?

JM> [Essentially, Macassey's reply was that if you shut off the ringer
JM>  switch on the outside of the telephone, no, but if you open the
JM>  phone up and disconnect the wiring to the entire ringing circuit
JM>  (not just the part that makes the noise), yes.  At least I guess
JM>  that's what he was trying to say.]

All I know is this: if the phones whose ringers I have shut off do
count toward the allowed REN total, it beats the heck out of me how
the remaining ones still ring loud enough to wake me up when my mother
decides to play alarm clock.  ("This is your mother, David," she
records on my answering machine as if I couldn't recognize her voice.
"I know it's early, but" she's decided to phone me anyway, almost
always about something that could have gone unsaid altogether.)

DT> 3. [See quote of my #3 above if you want to reread it.]

JM> ... In truth, all modems I have seen are type B ringers.  To prove
JM> this, feed say 60V at 60 Hz (yes power via a regular transformer)
JM> to a modem; betya it picks up if in answer mode.

May those among the readership who do not own the equipment to feed
voltage X at frequency Y into the inwards of appliance Z nor the tools
and know-how to fix the damage afterward be excused from this project,
please?  "Betya" you didn't know there were any of us here.

JM> I wrote extensively about all this ringer stuff years ago in Popular
JM> Communications mag, but I suppose it wasn't all that popular then.
JM> Plus of course the editors used to bugger and censor my text so some
JM> of the more esoteric stuff was jumbled and meaningless by the time it
JM> reached the public and vulgar gaze.

The editors didn't have to do that.  The esoteric stuff is already
meaningless to the public gaze without their help.  All you experts,
please be tolerant if we ask for a re-explanation of something in more
common terms or if we don't realize that a question is equivalent to
one posed previously in thick jargon.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Jargon Overload!  (Not a Flame!)
Date: 26 May 90 16:40:58 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>"VAXB::DBURKE" <[e-mail]> writes:

>This is one of the things (along with Centrex, pagers, answering
>services, and other heavy DID customers) that is responsible for the
>depletion of our NPAs. CLASS could eliminate much of the waste. For
>instance, answering services would see which customer was forwarding
>to their *one* number and answer accordingly. No DID required.

ARRRGH!

Sorry.  I'm not criticising Mr. Burke.  His language is part of his
expertise, after all.  But my lack of experience in the telecom world
leaves me without the vocabulary to follow many of the interesting and
important discussions in this conference.  I have *no* idea what a
DID, an NPA or a CLASS is (though I suspect they are vorpal and
puissant entities).  Could somebody post a lexicon for the benefit of
folks like me?

Please note that I'm *not* criticizing anybody's writing style.

[Moderator's Note: It would seem to me David Tamkin and yourself have
similar complaints, and the answer for both of you may be to obtain
copies of the glossary files in the Telecom Archives. Look for the
file entitled 'phrack.glossary'. The Telecom Archives is FTP
accessible at lcs.mit.edu, using anonymous login.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 1990 16:13:09 EDT
From: "Mary J. Leugers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Request For Technical Info on Telecom


I am in the process of organizing a reading list for an individualized
studies class entitled 'Intro to the Technology of Telecom' and, as I
am a novice myself, I was wondering if I could get some help from some
of you.

The class is aimed at graduate students in communications who have no
experience in the engineering realm.  It is expected that the class will
get an introduction to the physical realm of telecom along with the
present standards and the implications for policy.  The more info I
have, the better, so I would appreciate if you would take a minute to
pass along some readings you think might be useful.

Thanks,

           Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications

             Mary Leugers                   1971 Neil Avenue
      Graduate Research Associate           210 Baker Systems
                                            Columbus, OH 43210-1271
               E-mail:                      Phone:  [phone]
   [e-mail]        Fax:    [phone]
                                            Home:   [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 90 13:36:48 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction: City Code (Minitel Access, London)


I had edited the following to reflect a note in Telecom about the move
of these Minitel access numbers from the old 01 area in London.  Now,
I find 437 and 439 listed in 071 in lists I have.

United Kingdom -------------------
 +++ London          081-437-4393
 +++ London          081-439-4055

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

From: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons
Date: 26 May 90 19:58:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates


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

}ojo:  Why did they have to change the 911 emergency phone number in
}<neighboring state>?

}Because the <natives> couldn't find the eleven on their phones.

So they changed it to 9-1-1.

I hope we don't have an emergencies here, my phone doesn't have a "-" key!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #389
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28565;
          27 May 90 12:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18545;
          27 May 90 11:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10484;
          27 May 90 10:15 CDT
Date:     Sun, 27 May 90 10:05:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #390
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 May 90 10:05:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 390

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Memories: A Look at 1982 [TELECOM Moderator]
    #0 ESS [David Lesher]
    Re: Censorship? (was Re: Telephones, Technology and Media) [Mitch Wagner]
    Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD LD Discount [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Customized Telephone Numbers [David Lesher]
    Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter" [Henry Mensch]
    Bibliography: Sysop Liability [Mike Riddle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 May 90 22:35:03 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Memories: A Look at 1982


As the year 1982, and volume 2 of TELECOM Digest got underway, two
items of interest over the New Year's holiday were the annoucement of
AT&T's divestiture, and the coming of Picturephone in a big way.

Here are some comments from Volume 2, Issues 1 and 2.

   Date:      29 Dec 81 22:23:16-EDT (Tue)
   From:      Randall Gellens <gellens.CC@UDel>
   Subject:   AT&T Videophone Links
   Via:  UDel-CC; 29 Dec 81 22:25-EST

{San Francisco Chronicle}, Wed., December 23, 1981:

Washington:

The American Telephone and Telegraph Co. yesterday proposed offering a
two-way video teleconference service beginning in 1982...AT&T said the
new, full-color Picturphone Meeting Service will be available in 16
cities in 1982 and a total of 42 cities by the end of 1983....

If the FCC approves the service, it will first be offered between New
York City and Washington, D.C., beginning next March.

The service would be made available to customers in two ways: through
a public room built by AT&T in each of the 42 cities, or through
private rooms on customer premises.  It would be provided over a
digital network of satellite and Earth facilities.

Any room, public or private, would be able to communicate with any
other room on the video network....

Typical charges for a customer using two public rooms to conduct a
one-hour meeting between New York and Washington would be $1340.  A
similar meeting between New York and Los Angles would cost $2380.

In the case of private rooms, usage charges would be lower: $600 for a
one-hour New York-Washington session and $1640 for the New York-Los
Angles session.

Customers installing private rooms would pay a one-time installation
charge of $124,800, as well as monthly equipment rental and access
fees of $13,420.  There would also be a monthly charge of $250 per
mile to connect each room to Bell System facilities.

Customers would have the option of providing equipment themselves, the
company said.

                                   United Press

   Date:  9 January 1982 13:15-PST
   From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at Rutgers>
   Subject: AT&T Monopoly on local phone service disbanded

[The first paragraph of this article had to be ad-lib'd by yours truly
since that part of the Associated Press article was unreadable --JSol]

The big anti-trust suit over AT&T is over. AT&T has agreed to split
off the local phone companies into their own separate entities, which
will be regulated. The subsidiaries remaining (Bell Labs, Western
Electric, and Long Lines) will be unregulated and will be permitted to
compete in the free market (Meaning they can sell telephones to the
General Public). The following phone companies must be divested by the
American Telephone Company within 18 months, under terms of the
agreement reached yesterday:

    -The New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.
    -The New York Telephone Co.
    -The New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.
    -The Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania.
    -The Diamond State Telephone Co.
    -The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., serving Washington, D.C.
    -The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Maryland.
    -The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Virginia.
    -The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of West Virginia.
    -The Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
    -The South Central Bell Telephone Co.
    -The Ohio Bell Telephone Co.
    -The Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
    -The Indiana Bell Telephone Co. Inc.
    -The Wisconsin Telephone Co.
    -The Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
    -The Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
    -The Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
    -The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.
    -The Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.
    -The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.
    -The Bell Telephone Co. of Nevada.

    The Bell Telephone Co. of Nevada is actually a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., rather than
directly owned by AT&T.

    Company officials said Friday the consent decree does not yet
address the question of whether AT&T will be required to divest itself
of its minority interests in two other local operating companies: The
Southern New England Telephone Co. and Cincinnati Bell Inc.

    Date: 4 Jan 1982 10:40:27-PST
    From: cbosgd!mark at Berkeley
    Subject: Picturephone Service

Funny, but our TV news stations just made the announcement a couple
weeks ago that Ohio Bell is NOW OFFERING this picturephone meeting
service in Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinatti, and I got the
impression that it's been available in some of the more major cities
already.  I certainly did not get the impression that it was pending
FCC approval.

By the way, I was one of the guinea pigs when BTL was developing this.
It was pretty neat!  The only weird thing is that there is a delay of
about .75 seconds between when you say/do something and when the guy
at the other end hears/sees it, due to satelite delays and processing.
This means it will be 1.5 seconds between the time you do something
and when you see the response.  Since you are otherwise under the
impression that you are meeting face to face with the person, it feels
a little weird not to get instant response to a facial inflection or
interruption.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: #0 ESS
Date: Sat, 26 May 90 16:06:50 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>

In the early 60's a friend got transferred to N.J to help in ESS
development work. I remember him mentioning one, ahem, minor problem
that kept recurring.

Seems the switch would be all up and happy, but when REALLY busy, for
some reason it would 'forget' about some calls already in progress.
They were still talking, but when the switch went to use the
?connector/level or whateever they called it? and found it "occupied"
it got upset.

The only way to pacify it was to let it restart. In other words, knock
down EVERY call in the switch and start at zero.

Glad they fixed THAT one before installation. Can you imagine the mess
of rebooting the biggest tandem switch in NYC or Chicago at ten AM? On
a regular basis?


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: Mitch Wagner <utoday![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Censorship? (was Re: Telephones, Technology and Media
Date: 26 May 90 18:19:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (j. eric
townsend) writes:

#In article <[e-mail]> somebody wrote:

#>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (j. eric
#>townsend) writes:
#>>If you are asked to give an interview on say, PBX security, offer
#>>to review the reporter's story before they submit it.

#>In connection with the times I sat for interviews regarding the
#>Internet Worm, I always offered just such a service.  Almost
#>uniformly, the response was a semi-hostile glare followed by "our
#>editors have a policy of not allowing our stories to be censored."

#1.  Explain to them that you don't want to censor the story, but make
#sure the facts are correct.

#2.  Call the reporter's editor, and explain the situation to them.
#Something like: "It's not the tone or point of view I'm worried about;
#it's the facts regarding the technology.  I want to insure that you
#represent the technology correctly in your story."

#Any editor who calls this "story censorship" should probably be fired...

Just $.02 here from someone who spent almost four years working for
daily newspapers, as a reporter:

The reason for the traditional prohibition against allowing sources to
read stories in advance is twofold. One is to avoid giving an unfair
advantage to the proponents of one point of view over the proponents
of another point of view.

(I'm anticipating here that someone is going to reply, "But, the time
I asked to read an article, I wasn't espousing any particular point of
view. I was just trying to get the facts out!"

(But I'm sure there was someone who would disagree with every word you
said in the article, who would have said the same exact thing to
the reporter.)

The second reason is practicality. It takes an awful long time for a
layman to review an article, and more than half the time, said layman
will come back with the most incredibly nitpicky changes, which require
time-consuming fights/diplomatic meetings to convince said layman that
the changes just weren't worth it.

This is not to excuse newspapers for errors of fact; just to explain
some of the reasons why review-by-sources isn't allowed.

Just a point of view.


Mitch               [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount
Date: Sat, 26 May 90 8:50:17 EDT
From: ndallen <contact![e-mail]>
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>


[speculation that AT&T may eliminate the 50% discount on TDD calls]

The rationale for the discount, IMHO, is not that TDD users are
economically disadvantaged.  It's that TDD calls take longer than
corresponding voice calls, so the discount means that a TDD
conversation that transmits as much information as a voice call that
takes half as long will be changed the same amount.

Bell Canada offers a 50% discount on long distance to registered TDD
users, and as far as I know, has no plans to eliminate the discount.
Of course, it would require CRTC approval to do so.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customized Telephone Numbers
Date: Sun, 27 May 90 9:55:44 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Alas, this seems to be another area where the LEC's get starry-eyed
and see:
        Revenue Source!
        Revenue Source!

It used to be that you had to be 'somebody' to get one. Me? Well, I
asked my friends at test board. They gave me the number for
"assigning", the folks who kept track. They (assuming I was the
business office, since no one else would have the number to call them)
told me to "Tell the sub{scriber} that it's a business nopay
disconnect" meaning that I might lost of calls from bill collectors
and such. Then you called the rep and got the same song and dance each
time: "The Telephone Company assigns all numbers, but {special favor
implied} if it is available, I will see if you can have it"

Now, SBT wants a fee for trying ($5.00 I think) up to 6 numbers.  They
tell you to try all the ones you like, and choose "not in service"
ones.  The problem with THAT is the large # of reserved assignments,
such as DID blocks, and Centrucks ;-}. I went through about 150
combinations before I got the present one. Unassigned, but reserved
was a real gem xxUNIXV. Oh well, this is a BSD machine, anyhow.
NET-NEWS didn't fit my CO assignment.

C+P is a lower life form, IMHO. They not only want a flat charge, but
something like $1.50/month too! Sorry, but I won't pay that.

Moral: the only rational way to do it is get an insider to help you.
Chances are she or he can do it for free.


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: Sun, 27 May 90 02:10:45 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Organization: MIT Project Athena Network Services Evangelist
Subject: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter"


I received this letter in the mail today:

Dear Henry Mensch:

In the next two weeks, Boston Gas Company will be in your neighborhood
to install a new meter reading system.  This new system will enable us
to read your meter accurately on a monthly basis without the necessity
of a meter reader entering your home.

A Boston Gas service representative will be at your home to install a
new, specially-equipped gas meter.  The inconvenience to you will be
minimal, the meter change will take about twenty-five minutes and will
be performed at no charge to you.  We will then be able to read your
meter accurately by radio signal from a computer equipped van as we
drive down your street.

Once the new meter reading system is installed, you will soon begin to
receive your monthly bills based on actual, not estimated, readings.
without the inconveniences associated with conventional meter reading.

We are very excited about this meter reading system and believe that
it will continue to improve our service to you.  We appreciate your
cooperation.

                                Sincerely,


                                Domenic A. Barbero, Jr.
                                Manager
                                Customer Activities


(n.b. -- All capitalization in the letter is mine; the letter was
computer-generated and printed in upper case).

Now, aside from not including very many details of this new system
(does it continuously broadcast use?  If not, then how does it know to
broadcast?  how is the signal encoded?  ...), one wonders what gives
boston gas company the idea that I want them to install a radio
transmitter in my home.


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

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 90 17:09:52 EDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bibliography: Sysop Liability
Reply-to: [e-mail]


I posted the following list to this newsgroup some time ago, but
recent events cause me to repost it.  (I'm sure our esteemed moderator
will kill it if it's unnecessarily duplicative.)

The following law review articles should be available at the law
library near you, or through interlibrary loan.  They all touch on
issues related to recent inquiries about system operator liability and
privilege occasioned by recent law enforcement activities.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it's pretty good, and will
give any interested party a starting point for further research.

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

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

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

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

While oriented toward Bulletin Board Systems, the analysis provided
would appear to fit larger applications, such as this newsgroup.  When
reading them, remember that three were written before the ECPA was
enacted, and that there has been little reported litigation involving
the ECPA.  In legal terms, the law is "unsettled."

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.  Anyone seeking legal advice should
contact an attorney.  No warranties of any kind are offered or implied.
(My wife doesn't pay any attention to me, and I don't mind myself very
often, so why should you?)


   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3
 * Origin: [1:285/27@fidonet] The Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #390
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01841;
          28 May 90 14:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29290;
          28 May 90 13:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28790;
          28 May 90 12:22 CDT
Date:     Mon, 28 May 90 11:24:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #391
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 May 90 11:23:50 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 391

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ANI and CID Are NOT the Same Thing [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD LD Discount [Joel Yossi]
    Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD LD Discount [Linc Madison]
    Re: Interesting Police Technology [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter" [Roy Smith]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [David Leibold]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: NYNEX's Info-Look [Henry Mensch]
    Re: Data Access Lines [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Remote Location Telephone Service [Linc Madison]
    Re: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons [Linc Madison]
    Re: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons [Craig Dickson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 May 90 21:16:47 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI and CID Are NOT the Same Thing


I was talking to a telephone rep. the other day about CID, and found
out that CID and ANI are not the same thing.  I had been assuming that
they were.

ANI (Automatic? Number Identification) is the telephone number
associated with the bill on the phone you are calling from.  CID
(Caller ID) is the phone number of the station (telephone line) you
are calling from.  Note the difference: if I have it arranged so that
all of my <n> numbers are billed to the same account, then the ANI of
all the lines is the same.  The CID, however, is unique to each line.

Maybe this was pointed out before in Telecom, but if so, I missed it,
and I apologize for bringing it up again.


      - tom

internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Europe Bitnet: THOMAS1@GRATHUN1         Location: Newark, DE, USA


[Moderator's Note: It was brought up one time, as part of, IMHO, a
very specious argument about Caller*ID, to wit: 'Caller*ID is bad
because business places will get our telephone numbers and we are
likely to get unwanted telephone sales calls as a result.' It was
pointed out that ANI, while technically a different service, provides
the same end results when you dial an 800 number, albiet 'they' get
your main listed number rather than the specific line you are calling
from.  PT]

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

From: "Yossi (Joel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount
Date: 27 May 90 06:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: "Yossi (Joel" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. Tech., Haifa Israel


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Berch) writes:

>In the referenced article, [e-mail] (Curtis E. Reid) writes:

>> I heard a disturbing news that AT&T may consider removing the TDD Long
>> Distance Toll Call discounts when AT&T does its own billing. [...]

>> Can any TELECOM readers comment on this?  AT&T, don't consider
>> removing TDD discounts!!

>Please don't take this the wrong way, but what is the justification
>for discounts for TDD customers?  I can see doing it if the bandwidth
>of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are
>effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for
>the same amount of time as hearing people, but I have not heard that
>argument brought up.  (And in which case I think there is a good
>argument for the discount, or at least a special TDD rate structure.)

The rational is that the same phone call should cost the same to
everyone.  For the same reason that folks with old switch equipment
aren't charged extra for the additional upkeep costs, TDD users
shouldn't be charged extra just because they have to converse at 48
baud.

Also, at least in the past, AT&T has been a service-oriented business.
They don't charge for wrong numbers, for busy signals, calls that were
never completed, etc.  They regularly absorb some operating costs to
keep their services attractive and equitable.


Joel
([e-mail] -or- [e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 03:59:37 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alert: AT&T May Consider Removing TDD Long Distance Discount
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Having made one TDD-to-TDD call and several TDD-relay calls, I can
verify that even with fast typists, TDD calls have much slower
throughput than voice.  Speaking, I can about keep pace with text
rolling across my CRT at 1200 bps and can with a little effort almost
keep up with 2400 bps.  Someone quoted TDD standards as being 45 bps;
even if it's old TTY at 110 bps, it's still slow.  My roommate who
heard me on a relay call once asked,
"why...........were............you.............talking..........
 .......so..........slowly.....?"

(BTW, in case you're curious, I can type about 120 wpm, which is well
into the range of professional typists, and TDD was still painfully slow.
For a comparison, try a "talk" connection on UNIX, and then halve it.)


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Police Technology
Date: 27 May 90 14:44:53 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


The older data terminals (such as the "MODAT") didn't send ASCII, and
it wasn't 10-bit async frames.  What was actually being sent was the
raster image of the characters to be printed, a scanline at a time, on
the assumption that if mobile chop (brief periods of squelch closure
due to nulls in coverage in a moving car) or ignition noise pulses
were to eat some of the data stream, you'd only lose a few dots and
the human eye/mind could easily fill in the missing data, since the
image of a character contains a LOT of redundant information (just
consider how easily you can read a bad photocopy).

Those were the days when microprocessors like the 8080 had only been
on the market a year or so, and they cost $125 each, so there weren't
many outside the lab.

Nowadays more sophisticated error-correction systems are used,
although I'm not up on the exact details.  I'll try to find out -
although I'm not in the two-way business anymore, lots of friends
still are.

In any case, I've done some snooping, and nothing I have here will
decode the radio teleprinter stuff I can hear on my spy radio, which
means that it's either encrypted and/or it's not ASCII, Baudot, AX.25,
SITOR, nor some other common codes.


    - Brian

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter"
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Mon, 28 May 90 14:03:03 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Mensch) writes:

> We will then be able to read your meter accurately by radio signal
> from a computer equipped van as we drive down your street.

    Sounds like the Cat Detector Van from the Ministry of Housing!
Anyway, I can't help with Henry's question, but have one of my own on
a similar subject.

    A few (ten?) years ago, Hackensack Water Company installed an
automated meter reading gizmo on my parents' water meter (and a new
meter, equipped for said gizmo).  There is a cable running from the
meter to a plastic box around 6" x 9" x 2" (about big enough to be a
late 1970's line-powered 1200 bps modem, I guess) and some quad cable
from there to Tip/Ring on the phone entrance block.  Anybody know
exactly how this works?  Either it is programmed to place a local call
in the middle of the night to some data-collection number, or maybe
HWCo has permission from NJBell to run some sort of data-over-voice
carrier on top of their wires?  Anybody know for sure?

    What would be more interesting if there was some sort of
standardized meter-to-recorder interface which all the various
utilities used.  Then you could design a multi-port version of the box
described above and the water, gas, and electric meters could all plug
into it.


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] (woody)
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Leibold)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Mon, 28 May 90 01:53:22 GMT


I found a report of someone in 416 being able to dial 416 + local
number and getting the local number (no 1+ in front, though). This was
after the cutover in March to allow for NXX prefixes.


|| [e-mail] // David Leibold

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Date: 27 May 90 17:01:10 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290}


kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman) writes:

>> I feel the need to let them know about the gaping (and I mean gaping)
>> computer and physical security holes they have, but I'm not sure about
>> the best way to approach it (or even if I should).

>    I suspect your "need" is born of the guilt of trespass.  In my
>travels I have found that most people who *volunteer* information
>about security flaws in a manner which is not part of their regular
>job responsibilities are usually trying to hide something and I tend
>to be suspicious of their motives.

I've been holding this message in my NN directory for over a week, so
I could summon up a semi-mature response.  Here's a try.

Lippman is confusing ignorance with innocence and lack of accountability
with lack of responsibility.

Our anonymous might well have been "trespassing" (though Lippman
ignores the legal responsibility of the "offended" party in this sort
of property rights issue).  But what in Watergate's Name has that got
to do with anything? If somebody sees your house being robbed, you
expect them to do something about it, even if that somebody is a
peeping tom.  Attacking our "snoop" instead of dealing with the moral
issues is an Ad Hominem argument, which is Latin for "Stick to the
Facts, damnit."

>Security issues are a *sensitive* topic, and right or wrong,
>management does not usually appreciate unsolicited advice on this topic.

And why do you suppose that is?  (Socratic/rhetorical question.)

>    I fully agree with the Moderator.  Extending to you the
>benefit of the doubt that your motives are genuinely pristine and
>altruistic, this is NOT YOUR PROBLEM, and YOU WILL GET NO REWARD for
>disclosing this information to management.  More likely than not,
>should you do elect to disclose the information, your action in doing
>so will make you a suspect for *something*.

As I said in a previous posting, it's easy to get burned by a security
problem, even if you're not responsible for it.  True, bringing that
to public attention raises your risk factor, but that's a self-
preservation issue, not an ethical one!  In any case, your "if nobody
knows it's a problem, it's not a problem" attitude is childish.

>I would suggest that you chalk this up as one of life's many
>"lessons", get on with your career, and try not to get in the same
>situation a second time.

Such situations are unavoidable.  You cannot work in a multiuser
environment without encountering security slipups.  And a computer
professional who takes no interest in how his system works and what
might go wrong with it is in the wrong job.

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

Date: Sun, 27 May 90 18:08:25 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX's Info-Look
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Part of the problem seems to be that just having a NYNEX calling card
is not enough; you (seemingly) have to tell them what your card number
(and PIN) is, so they can make you known to the system.  This is
obviously a bad idea, imho.


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

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

Date: Sun, 27 May 90 19:44:46 EDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Jeremy Goldberg asked about technical specifications for Data Access
Lines, and received many good replies.  One of his basic reason for
asking, however, has not been addressed.

Jeremy wants to use a Telebit 9600 bps modem, and his version of Ma
Bell said that only < 2400 was guaranteed on a voice line.  My
understanding is that a 9600 bps modem actually operates at 2400 baud,
with 4 levels, creating a 9600 bps signal.  This method was used
precisely because of the inherent bandwidth of a "normal" voice line.
It seems to me that whoever told him 9600 wouldn't work on a "normal"
line either didn't understand 9600 bps methodology or was trying to
sell up.

Can anyone smarter than I (that's most of you) comment on this aspect
of his problem?


   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3
 * Origin: [1:285/27@fidonet] The Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 02:59:29 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Location Telephone Service
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Joe Szewczak writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 379, Message 5 of 12

>Would you please refer this request for information to the appropriate
>place or person:

>    Deep Springs College, a small (24 students) and unique academic
>institution located on the CA-NV border is seeking to improve its
>present telephone service. ...
>Please respond to:

>         Joe Szewczak <[e-mail]>
                                 ^^^^^^^

Probably just a typo, but...  Just in case anyone tried to answer this
one and got bounced, the address should be brownVm instead of brownWm
, unless Camp Bruno has added a new machine.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]
I have no connection to either Deep Springs College or Brown Univ.

[Moderator's Note: It was a typo, and should 'brownvm'. Sorry.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 03:12:35 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Well, my own Sainted Mother not-so-very-many years ago asked me where to
find the "plus" for "one-plus" dialing....  (Realio-trulio)


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun May 27 08:54:15 1990
From: Craig Dickson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons


This isn't strictly a telecom matter, but I was reminded of it by your
recent remark along the lines of, "If you want to know how stupid
people can be, try working on a telephone switchboard."

A friend of mine works for a bank here in California, in the
Electronic Fund Transfer (I think that's what they call it)
department.  If you think you get dummies on a switchboard, then you
have no idea what people will do with ATM's.

People feed ATM's all sorts of cards.  Drivers licenses, Social
Security cards, anything.  People damage their cards and try to tape
them back together.  One idiot even tried to feed a machine a card
that had been torn in half and then STAPLED back together.  (After the
repair bill the bank sent him, he probably will never do that again.)
Some people try to TALK to the machines.

But this is my all-time favorite of the weird-but-true anecdotes she
tells me:

A couple of weeks after San Francisco's davastating earthquake last
year, she got an irate call from a customer in that city, demanding to
know why his local ATM still wasn't working.  She asked what branch
that was, and he said, "The Marina branch."

After taking a few seconds to recover from her surprise, she said, as
calmly as possible, "Does the fact that the building is missing two
walls and the roof suggest anything to you?"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #391
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04479;
          28 May 90 15:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27475;
          28 May 90 14:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29290;
          28 May 90 13:27 CDT
Date:     Mon, 28 May 90 13:08:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #392
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 May 90 13:08:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 392

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    My List of North American Area Codes [Michael A. Shiels]
    My List of World Wide Codes [Michael A. Shiels]
    900-based Legal Services: A Report [Leonard P. Levine]
    Re: New Phone Tax Hits California Users [Linc Madison]
    Unitel Long Distance Bid in Canada [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: My List of North American Area Codes
Reply-To: "Michael A. Shiels" <tmsoft![e-mail]>
Organization: MaS Network Software and Consulting
Date: 27 May 90 12:52:35 EDT (Sun)
From: tmsoft![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Although we have run similar lists from time to
time, since new readers are always asking for a copy and not everyone
has access to the Telecom Archives, here is another copy. This one is
somewhat more up to date, since it includes projections for the next
two years.   PT]

1-200-  (Unused)        1-201-  New Jersey         1-202-  Washington DC
1-203-  Connecticut         1-204-  Manitoba           1-205-  Alabama
1-206-  Washington        1-207-  Maine              1-208-  Idaho
1-209-  California        1-210-  (Unused)           1-211-  (Unused)
1-212-  New York NY        1-213-  Los Angeles CA     1-214-  Texas
1-215-  Pennsylvania        1-216-  Ohio           1-217-  Illinois
1-218-  Minnesota        1-219-  Indiana            1-300-  (Unused)
1-301-  Maryland        1-302-  Delaware           1-303-  Colorado
1-304-  West Virginia        1-305-  Florida           1-306-  Saskatchewan
1-307-  Wyoming            1-308-  Nebraska           1-309-  Illinois
1-310-  Los Angeles, CA (effective '92)                1-311-  (Unused)
1-312-  Chicago IL        1-313-  Detroit MI           1-314-  Missouri
1-315-  New York        1-316-  Kansas             1-317-  Indiana
1-318-  Louisiana        1-319-  Iowa           1-400-  (Unused)
1-401-  Rhode Island        1-402-  Nebraska           1-403-  AB,NWT,Yukon
1-404-  Georgia             1-405-  Oklahoma           1-406-  Montana
1-407-  Florida            1-408-  California         1-409-  Texas
1-410-  (Unused)        1-411-  (Unused)           1-412-  Pennsylvania
1-413-  Massachusetts        1-414-  Wisconsin          1-415-  San Fran, CA
1-417-  Missouri        1-418-  Quebec             1-419-  Ohio
1-500-  (Unused)        1-501-  Arkansas           1-502-  Kentucky
1-503-  Oregon            1-504-  Louisiana           1-505-  New Mexico
1-506-  New Brunswick        1-507-  New Mexico           1-508-  Massachusetts
1-509-  Washington          1-510-  California (effective '91)
1-511-  (Unused)        1-512-  Texas           1-513-  Ohio
1-514-  Montreal, PQ        1-515-  Iowa               1-516-  New York
1-517-  Michigan        1-518-  New York           1-519-  S.W. Ontario
1-600-  (Unused)        1-601-  Mississippi        1-602-  Arizona
1-603-  New Hampshire       1-604-  British Columbia   1-605-  South Dakota
1-606-  Kentucky        1-607-  New York           1-608-  Wisconsin
1-609-  New Jersey        1-610-  (TWX - Unused)     1-611-  (Unused)
1-612-  Minnesota        1-613-  Ottawa,Kingston ON 1-614-  Ohio
1-615-  Tennessee           1-616-  Michigan           1-617-  Massachusetts
1-618-  Illinois        1-619-  California         1-700-  Special Services
1-701-  North Dakota        1-702-  Nevada             1-703-  Virginia
1-704-  North Carolina      1-705-  Barrie, Peterborough, North Bay ON
1-706-  (was Mexico - currently unused)                1-707-  California
1-708-  Chgo. Suburbs, IL   1-709-  Newfoundland       1-710-  Federal Gov't
1-711-  (Unused)        1-712-  Iowa               1-713-  Texas
1-714-  California          1-715-  Wisconsin          1-716-  New York
1-717-  Pennsylvania        1-718-  New York, NY       1-719-  Colorado
1-800-  800 Service (toll-free)                   1-801-  Utah
1-802-  Vermont             1-803-  South Carolina     1-804-  Virginia
1-805-  California        1-806-  Texas              1-807-  NW Ontario
1-808-  Hawaii            1-809-  Various Caribbean Islands; Puerto Rico
1-810-  (TWX - Unused)        1-811-  (Unused)            1-812-  Indiana
1-813-  Florida             1-814-  Pennsylvania       1-815-  Illinois
1-816-  Missouri        1-817-  Texas              1-818-  California
1-819-  Western Quebec, eastern NWT
1-900-  900 service - can be costly!                   1-901-  Tennessee
1-902-  Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island
1-903-  Texas (effective fall '90)                     1-904-  Florida
1-905-  (was Mexico City - now unused)                 1-906-  Michigan
1-907-  Alaska              1-908-  New Jersey (effective early '91)
1-909-  (currently unused)  1-910-  (TWX - Unused)     1-911-  (Unused)
1-912-  Georgia             1-913-  Kansas             1-914-  New York
1-915-  Texas            1-916-  California1        1-917-  (unused)
1-918-  Oklahoma            1-919-  North Carolina

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

Subject: My List of World Wide Codes
Reply-To: "Michael A. Shiels" <tmsoft![e-mail]>
Organization: MaS Network Software and Consulting
Date: 27 May 90 12:57:17 EDT (Sun)
From: tmsoft![e-mail]


    20-     Egypt            210-    (reserved for Morocco)
    211-    (reserved for Morocco)    212-    Morocco
    213-    Algeria            214-    (reserved for Algeria)
    215-    (reserved for Algeria)    216-    Tunisia
    217-    (reserved for Tunisia)    218-    Libya
    219-    (reserved for Libya)    220-    Gambia
    221-    Senegal            222-    Mauritania
    223-    Mali            224-    Guinea
    225-    Cote d'Ivoire          226-    Burkina Faso
    227-    Niger            228-    Togolese Republic
    229-    Benin            230-    Mauritius
    231-    Liberia            232-    Sierra Leone
    233-    Ghana            234-    Nigeria
    235-    Chad            236-    Central African Republic
    237-    Cameroon            238-    Cape Verde
    239-    Sao Tome & Principe        240-    Equatorial Guinea
    241-    Gabonese Republic        242-    Congo
    243-    Zaire            244-    Angola
    245-    Guinea-Bissau        246-    Diego-Garcia
    247-    Ascension            248-    Seychelles
    249-    Sudan            250-    Rwandese Republic
    251-    Ethiopia            252-    Somalia
    253-    Djibouti            254-    Kenya
    255-    Tanzania            256-    Uganda
    257-    Burundi            258-    Mozambique
    259-    Zanzibar (Tanzania)        260-    Zambia
    261-    Madagascar            262-    Reunion (French Republic)
    263-    Zimbabwe            264-    Namibia
    265-    Malawi                266-    Lesotho
    267-    Botswana            268-    Swaziland
    269-    Mayotte Island        27-     South Africa
    297-    Aruba            298-    Faroe Islands
    299-    Greenland            30-     Greece
    31-     Netherlands            32-     Belgium
    33-     France, Andorra, Monaco    34-     Spain
    350-    Gibraltar            351-    Portugal
    352-    Luxembourg            353-    Eire (Irish Republic)
    354-    Iceland            355-    Albania
    356-    Malta            357-    Cyprus
    358-    Finland            359-    Bulgaria
    36-     Hungary            37-     East Germany
    38-     Yugoslavia            39-     Italy, San Marino
    40-     Romania            41-     Switzerland, Liechtenstein
    42-     Czechoslovakia        43-     Austria
    44-     United Kingdom        45-     Denmark
    46-     Sweden            47-     Norway
    48-     Poland            49-     West Germany
    500-    Falkland Islands        501-    Belize
    502-    Guatemala            503-    El Salvador
    504-    Honduras            505-    Nicaragua
    506-    Costa Rica            507-    Panama
    508-    St Pierre & Miquelon    509-    Haiti
    51-     Peru            52-     Mexico
    53-     Cuba            54-     Argentina
    55-     Brazil            56-     Chile
    57-     Colombia            58-     Venezuela
    590-    Guadeloupe            591-    Bolivia
    592-    Guyana            593-    Ecuador
    594-    Guiana (French)        95-     Paraguay
    596-    French Antilles        97-     Suriname
    598-    Uruguay (East Republic)    599-    Netherlands Antilles
    60-     Malaysia            61-     Australia
    62-     Indonesia            63-     Philippines
    64-     New Zealand            65-     Singapore
    66-     Thailand            670-    Marianna Islands
    671-    Guam            672-    Christmas, Cocos, Norfolk Is.
    673-    Brunei Darrusalm            74-     Nauru
    675-    Papua New Guinea        676-    Tonga
    677-    Solomon Islands        678-    Vanuatu
    679-    Fiji Islands        680-    Palau
    681-    Wallis and Fortuna        682-    Cook Islands
    683-    Niue Island            684-    American Samoa
    685-    Western Samoa        686-    Kiribati
    687-    New Caledonia        688-    Tuvalu, Saipan
    689-    French Polynesia        690-    Tokelan
    691-    F.S. of Polynesia        692-    Marshall Islands
    7-      The Soviet Union         81-     Japan
    82-     South Korea            84-     Vietnam
    850-    North Korea (Democratic Rep)852-    Hong Kong
    853-    Macao            855-    Kampuchea
    856-    Laos            86-     China
    871-    Inmarsat (Atlantic)        872-    Inmarsat (Pacific)
    873-    Inmarsat (Indian)        880-    Bangladesh
    886-    Taiwan            90-     Turkey
    91-     India            92-     Pakistan
    93-     Afghanistan            94-     Sri Lanka
    95-     Burma            960-    Maldives
    961-    Lebanon            962-    Jordan
    963-    Syrian Arab Republic    964-    Iraq
    965-    Kuwait            966-    Saudi Arabia
    967-    Yemen Arab Republic        968-    Oman
    969-    Yemen Democratic Republic    971-    United Arab Emirates
    972-    Israel            73-     Bahrain
    974-    Qatar            976-    Mongolia
    977-    Nepal            98-     Iran


[Moderator's Note: The above are always prefaced with either 011 (for
direct dialing) or 01 (for credit card, collect or third number
billing). Then a city code, comparable to a USA area code, follows the
above in most cases, prior to the actual local number. Countries not
listed above are not dialable; calls for those points are made through
the operator.  PT]

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900-based Legal Services; A Report
Date: 28 May 90 16:10:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


This is a report about an article in a freebee magazine concerning a
legal firm that deals with clients exclusively over a 900 based
telephone line.  The magazine can be reached at InfoText Magazine;
34700 Coast Highway, suite 309; Capistrano Beach, CA 92624; (714)
493-2434.  Needless to say I have no affiliation except as a
subscriber.

Beginning on page 34 of the May 1990 issue is a report of an interview
with Michael Cane, founder of the company.  Cane reported the
following numbers: More than 40 calls per day at $3.00/minute are
received with the average call running 13 minutes.  (I compute that
this brings them $400,000/year.)  The article describes the staff
indicating only that two are receptionists but shows a picture of 12
people captioned as "the staff at Tele-Lawyer".

The on line computerized database of information used is discussed,
the problems in working with 900 based services in California is
addressed, and advertising problems are covered.  Services described
include business, personal injury, tax, family, debtor/creditor rights
and bankruptcy, real estate, landlord-tenant, immigration, criminal
law and procedure, probate, retirement/social security, and consumer
protection.  Printed responses from the company are by fax or mail,
and legal forms are available.

This is the first report I have seen about a non-sleeze 900 service.
I have no idea how well it can work but think that the numbers and
facts reported above will be interesting to this audience.

About the magazine, there are EXTENSIVE advertisements for 900
equipment providers (people who provide 900-based systems for people
like the lawyer above) and articles of some interest.  The May issue
has an article by Senator Kohl (WI) discussing his bill in favor of
Caller ID with call blocking and call trace.  None of the ideas he
presents are foreign to this audience but it is a pleasure to see them
expressed by my Senator.

The magazine has a 900 number permitting people who want to subscribe
to this controlled-circulation (free for first 12 months) magazine to
do so for a one time $9.95 charge (gotcha).  Sorry folks, I just do
not remember that number.


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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 03:53:18 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Phone Tax Hits California Users
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Patrick writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 383, Message 8 of 9

>The {Los Angeles Times} reports that telephone customers in Los
>Angeles and throughout the state will pay an increased tax of 3.4% on
>their long-distance calls within California, effective July 1, to help
>pay for basic telephone service for low-income households.

As I understand it, the flat fee each subscriber paid to underwrite
Universal Lifeline service is switching to a percentage tax.  I'm a
little puzzled, though, 'cause I thought they already did this -- for
which reason I now see blurbs in my MCI and Sprint bills.  (Maybe that
one was the TDD tax or the 911 tax or one of the others.)

That touches on another issue that I was about to write about, though:
Sprint has recently (beginning of the year?) decided to apply the city
of Berkeley's local utility tax to *all* of my long-distance calls
instead of only the in-state calls.  I find this rather curious since
it's illegal for the city of Berkeley to tax out-of-state calls.
Also, neither MCI (on an MCI Card with a Berkeley billing address) nor
AT&T (on 10288 calls from my home number) bills city utility tax on
out-of state calls.

I called Sprint and got a considerable run-around (including being
told to call back to a number in Burlingame -- long-distance!) and
then was told, "yes, we applied the 6.5% city utility tax to all of
your calls."  Yes, I noticed that.  That doesn't answer my question
as to what gives them the (mistaken) impression it's legal.

This tax, by the way, is general revenue for the city.  Thank you,
Prop's 4 and 13!


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 10:57:50 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unitel Long Distance Bid in Canada


A new exhibit in the TELECOM Archives file is a copy of the petition
filed by Unitel to become an authorized long distance carrier in
Canada. This file was supplied by our Canadian reader, David Leibold.

Also I want to point out that due to the increasing size of the
archives, some sub-directories are being being established at this
time. All security/phreak/phraud files are being moved into a
sub-directory. Some additional movement of files will be done of this
nature, so you might want to review the main directory and
sub-directories carefully next time you pull a file.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #392
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07331;
          28 May 90 17:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08195;
          28 May 90 15:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27475;
          28 May 90 14:31 CDT
Date:     Mon, 28 May 90 13:45:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #393
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 May 90 13:45:43 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 393

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Mobile Data Terminals [Roger Theriault]
    Re: FCC REN's [Julian Macassey]
    M.S. Thesis on Ohio Computer Network [Alex Cruz and Jane Fraser]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Theriault <mdivax1!theriaul>
Subject: Mobile Data Terminals
Date: 28 May 90 16:27:22 GMT
Reply-To: mdivax1!theriaul (Roger Theriault)
Organization: Mobile Data International, Richmond, B.C., Canada


I have noticed some discussion here recently about mobile data
technology (terminals in police cars - is it for real?) and can assure
telecom readers that indeed this technology is here - the company I
work for, Mobile Data International (MDI), designs and manufactures
complete mobile data communications systems.

In addition to the police cars mentioned already, you can find
terminals in your favorite taxicab, fire trucks, ambulances and EMT
vehicles, and utility vehicles such as gas companies, electric,
cablevision, and even automobile association vehicles.  Federal
Express trucks all have them (the secret of their success?) and other
applications are just now being invented.

This is not that new, just check out the October, 1982 issue of
National Geographic for a photo of the Vancouver Police Department's
MDT. A recent rerun of "Hill Street Blues" showed what these terminals
can do.  The police can use their terminals to check licence plates
before they approach a vehicle they have stopped. In some cases this
has saved the lives of the officers when they approach a suspected
murderer etc...

>From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 390, Message 6 of 7

(Henry discloses a letter from Boston Gas Company)
>We will then be able to read your meter accurately by radio
>signal from a computer equipped van as we drive down your street.

I must admit don't know anything about the meter-reading stuff, but
Boston Gas will also have MDTs (Mobile Data Terminals) in their
vehicles, which communicate with the gas company dispatchers. These
terminals do not communicate with the gas meters, but I would expect
there would be some sort of additional system in the truck to do so.
The terminals are used to dispatch trucks for repair work, and the
technicians can query the company mainframe for additional details.

>From: claris!netcom![e-mail] (Isaac Rabinovitch)
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 389, Message 1 of 10

>claris!netcom![e-mail] (John Debert) writes:
>(about computer terminals in police cars)
>>I have heard the transmissions to and from these units and estimate
>>the rate at about 1200baud. It shouldn't be too hard for someone with
>>perhaps a TNC to connect their scanner to a terminal and read the
>>traffic.

>True.  But it ought to be possible to encrypt transmissions, if they
>haven't already done so.  I don't know if it's actually possible to
>provide an unbreakable encryption method (this was claimed at one
>time; I haven't followed the issue closely but I understand there are
>doubts) but at least it can put evesdropping out of the reach of the
>less resourceful villains.

I'm afraid that even without an encryption method, due to the error
correction algorithms, etc ... it would be next to impossible for a
villain to listen to such data traffic. And if he could, why does he
need to steal to make a living??

>From: [e-mail] (John Gilmore)
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 384, Message 1 of 11

>whole idea is to sell more yak-wuile-you-drive to yups, they don't
>have any idea where the real portable digital markets are at.  Real
>workstations will be palm-sized and portable in 1993 or so, long
>before the telcos are ready to network them *cheaply* in an office or
>neighborhood while having them able to remain online on the net (at a
>price) while traveling all over the country.  What hacker,
>stockbroker, student, reporter, ... would be without one?  Anybody got
>an angle by which we can bypass the telcos and do it right while they
>blunder?

If I'm not mistaken, there are nationwide data networks available
right now. They are *NOT* run by the telcos, to my knowledge.

In my opinion, cellular phones are for talking on. I can't understand
why anyone would want to connect a fax machine to one. It is like
encoding a tv signal and transmitting it on a voice-grade phone line,
isn't it?  If the coax (or fibre) exists, use it!  Then, later, stick
a phone on the extra bandwidth... (just my humble opinion :-)

DISCLAIMER: I do not speak for Motorola Inc. or MDI. The opinions related
in this message are all mine, and the fact that I am a proud employee of
MDI may color my commentary, but that is my fault, not my employer's.


Roger Theriault      mdivax1![e-mail]
                     {uw-beaver,uunet}!van-bc!mdivax1!theriaul

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN's
Date: 28 May 90 16:48:59 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> In volume 10, issue 386, Tad Cook and Julian Macassey both replied to
> my earlier questions about ringer equivalency numbers.  Below, "DT>"
> prefaces what I asked in an earlier submission.  My current comments
> are flush left.

> DT> 1. What does the B or A after an REN mean?

> TC> A B type ringer must respond to 16 to 68 Hz ringing frequency, and
> TC> an A ringer only responds to 20 or 30 Hz, +/- 3 Hz.

> Frequency of what, if I may ask?  That question has been slid on past
> throughout this discussion under the assumption that everyone must
> already know.  It certainly isn't the pitch of the ringer's sound, and
> it isn't the frequency at which the AC is alternated...or is it?

    This is the frequency of the AC ringing voltage. The standard
ringing signal is a voltage between 40 and 150 Volts at 20 Hz. The
ringer has a capacitor between it and the phone line. This cap blocks
DC voltage so it doesn't ring when the normal 48V DC line voltage is
on the line.  The capacitor (0.47 uF for Gong ringers, 1 uF for
electronic ringers usually) passes AC blocks DC. Yes, I know gong
ringers will not ring when DC voltage is applied across them, they
will just consume power relative to their DC resistance. But
electronic ringers will warble merrily with DC across them. So yes,
the Hz thing is the frequency at which the AC is alternated.

> DT> 2. If the ringer on a telephone can be turned off, does it no longer
> DT> count in figuring the total REN load on a line?

> recognizing *whether* to sound the ringer?

    As I have stated before, the REN is a measure of the power
consumed by the ringer. Tad Cook was not really correct in stating
that turning the ringer off removes the load. As a rule, it doesn't,
it just silences the transducer. In a gong ringer, it merely
mechanically stills the clapper. This means that power is being
consumed. My previous posting rambled on this at some length. A ringer
is not a "logic" device, it doesn't make decisions, it is like a light
bulb.  Light bulbs consume power, a 100 Watt bulb uses half the power
of a 200 Watt lighbulb. A circuit can only tolerate so many watts
(usually stated in Amps because the Voltage is known). Put too many
light bulbs on a circuit and you blow a breaker. If you used a small
generator or battery and put too many light bulbs on the circuit, they
would get dimmer if you added too many. If you put enough on, they
would lower the voltage so much that they would cease to glow,
although collectively they would consume all the power the gerator
could put out. With the Electrical grid pumping out megawatts it takes
special circumstances to cause these "brownouts". Alas, the ringing
generator at the phone company is five Watts or so and over five
ringers is liable to cause a brownout.

> Good point; I realized that myself after rereading my own words in the
> Digest.  Somebody had said that yes, there could be 0 REN's: look at a
> modem or an answering machine for examples.  So I looked at my modem
> and at my answering machine (which reads 0.4 B) and said, gee, hey,
> these numbers are not zero.

    Yes, as I said before, if it consumes less than 0.1 REN it is
registered as 0.0. To know that a line is ringing and pick up a line
as a modem, phone answering machine, voice mail system would do, you
just need to detect that old AC voltage. You do not need to consume
the voltage to drive relays etc, you can use the electrical company to
do that.

    But many modems and answering machines consume ringing power
to drive circuitry, some even use a ringer chip and then use the
rectified output of the ringer chip to drive logic. A KISS approach
that uses power. You don't have to do it this way, but it is neat and
simple. Also most modems are the only device on the line so the power
consumption is not important. Answering machines on the other hand
almost always share the line with other devices - yes phones with real
ringers - so can often be the straw that breaks the camels back. Often
the first device to malfunction when too many ringers get on the line
is the phone answering machine. I have found that Panasonic answering
machines, despite all the wonderful things I say about them, to be the
most sensitive to ringing voltage. Yes, as you add ringers (RENs) to
the line, the ringing voltage will drop.

> DT> 1. What does the B or A after an REN mean?

> JM> I think I covered this in an earlier posting, but then I could have
> JM> glossed over it.

> Maybe you did, but when you and the other techie types in this Digest
> write at each other's level, my eyes (and the eyes of other readers)
> glaze over and roll backwards.  You could put "the surf was great off
> Los Angeles today" into the middle and most of us wouldn't be able to
> read through the technical stuff to find that.  Yes, this digest-cum-
> noozgroop is the place to discuss the technical end as well as the
> user's end, but please understand that a non-techie reader like me can
> miss something written deep inside an incomprehensible submission
> about the specifics of the guts of wires and switches.

    I have done my best to explain this stuff to the non
technical. But I assume that if someone wants to know how a ringer
works that they do understand Ohms law and a few basics. To explain it
to my mother, I would just say, ringers use power just like light
bulbs and you cant have too many. When you turn off a ringer, you
don't switch it off like a light bulb, you just mute it's output, like
putting a black bag over a light bulb. But then I assume my mother
doesn't read this stuff.  She doesn't think I understand any of it
anyhow. My neighbour says that Malibu had radical waves this morning.

> If it's any consolation, if you did cover that in another posting, you
> probably explained it in a way I couldn't have understood if I had
> read it, so I'd have had to ask again regardless.

> DT> 2. If the ringer on a telephone can be turned off, does it no longer
> DT> count in figuring the total REN load on a line?

> JM> [Essentially, Macassey's reply was that if you shut off the ringer
> JM>  switch on the outside of the telephone, no, but if you open the
> JM>  phone up and disconnect the wiring to the entire ringing circuit
> JM>  (not just the part that makes the noise), yes.  At least I guess
> JM>  that's what he was trying to say.]

    Yes, he is saying exactly that. See my "mother explanation" above.

> All I know is this: if the phones whose ringers I have shut off do
> count toward the allowed REN total, it beats the heck out of me how
> the remaining ones still ring loud enough to wake me up when my mother
> decides to play alarm clock.

    Well if you have five REN 1 ringers and they all ring when
"on" and you shut off four then the remaining on ringer will ring. The
other four are still consuming power, but you can't hear them. Just
like black bags over light bulbs, you can't see the light, but you are
still consuming power. So of course the remaining ones will still ring
loud enough.  Why shouldn't they? They did before you turned some off,
but the load on the line is the same.

> JM> ... In truth, all modems I have seen are type B ringers.  To prove
> JM> this, feed say 60V at 60 Hz (yes power via a regular transformer)
> JM> to a modem; betya it picks up if in answer mode.

> May those among the readership who do not own the equipment to feed
> voltage X at frequency Y into the inwards of appliance Z nor the tools
> and know-how to fix the damage afterward be excused from this project,
> please?  "Betya" you didn't know there were any of us here.

    Ok, so I mentioned the simplest, cheapest, easiest way to test
a ringer. Use a regular Rat Shack power transformer. This is so if
anyone who want's to mess with wires to prove or disprove what I say
can do it.

    If anyone really wants to know more etc, they can always
mail me, phone me or even take me out to eat in a really sleezy and
disreputable joint and pick my brains. It is not my intent to
obfuscate this stuff, I leave that to professionals - the writers of
computer manuals (-:


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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 13:55 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: M.S. Thesis on Ohio Computer Network


Recently, we requested help from the readers for a M.S. thesis in
progress.  We received many helpful responses and would like to thank
you for your help.

The completed M.S. thesis is now available from CAST, the Center for
Advanced Study in Telecommunications, at the Ohio State University.
The thesis is an evaluation of an Ohio public computer network for
small and medium size companies.

You can obtain a copy of the thesis by replying to this posting; by
writing to CAST, The Ohio State University, 210 Baker Systems, 1971
Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210; or by calling 614-292-8444.

We are distributing it free of charge in the hope that you will pass
it along to other readers and that you will give us feedback on the
content.

The thesis will also form the basis for a one-day symposium to be held
in Columbus on Thursday, August 9.  The rest of this posting is a
background description for the symposium.

            ----------

Computer networks are proliferating.  Some networks are supported by
public funds supported for education and research purposes, for
example, BITNET.  Many small bulletin boards are privately run to
serve the interest groups of hobbyists.  Commercial networks, such as
Compuserve, provide networks for business purposes for a fee, often
quite large.

Existing computer network do not address the business needs of small
and medium sized companies.  Since such companies often provide a
great deal of employment and a great deal of growth in employment, but
are often technologically behind larger companies, there are large
opportunities to enhance economic development by providing various
services to such companies.  Services might include electronic mail,
electronic file exchange, bulletin boards, and access to large
computers.

Development of such a network might be a suitable use of public funds.
The State of Ohio might consider encouraging such a network as a way
of aiding small and medium sized companies to grow and to convert to
producing products needed in a peace economy.  Several other states
(and several countries in Europe) have started such networks.

The next CAST symposium, tentatively scheduled for August 9 in
Columbus, will address three questions concerning public computer
networks for small and medium sized companies: what is, what could be
and what should be.  We anticipate having speakers on using
telecommunications for economic development, on existing networks in
Ohio, in other states, and perhaps in Europe, and on the State of
Ohio's activities in economic development.

Alex Cruz
Jane Fraser

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #393
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09902;
          29 May 90 5:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23551;
          29 May 90 3:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01459;
          29 May 90 2:37 CDT
Date:     Tue, 29 May 90 1:54:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #394
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 May 90 01:52:58 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 394

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Magic '90: Walt Disney Seminar [TELECOM Moderator]
    Translating Alpha Phone Numbers [Todd Inch]
    Re: Customized Telephone Numbers [Ray Spalding]
    Re: Bibliography: Sysop Liability [Peter Weiss]
    Re: AT&T "Excellence" [Todd Inch]
    Re: Data Access Lines [John Higdon]
    Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development [John Gilmore]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [Michael Coleman]
    Re: TDD Long Distance Discount [John Gilmore]
    Are You a Phreak and/or Cracker? [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 May 90 0:43:55 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Magic '90: Walt Disney Seminar


Walt Disney World is doing something unique late this summer. In
connection with their telephone company subsidiary 'Vista-United
Communications', they are offering a four day seminar at their resort
in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, September 7-10, 1990.

This very detailed program will cover several aspects of
telecommunications and will include an in-depth look at the operations
of Vista-United.

What the seminar includes:

   Opening night reception
   Breakfast and lunch each day
   All instruction and classroom materials
   List of all conference participants and presenters
   Reference manual of course content
   On-site guided tours examining the telecommunication operations at WDW
   One-on-one discussions and meetings with Disney telecom people
   Closing banquet and Disney extravaganza
   A Four-Day general passport good for admission to all parks; all exhibits
   One night's admission to Pleasure Island
   Free, unlimited use of the WDW transportation system


The topics to be covered during the four day seminar include:

   Expanding Your ACD advantage
   The Team Approach to Managing Project Installations
   Preparing for the Unexpected: Disaster Recovery
   Network Management: A Close Look at Disney Telecom Operations
   Staying State of the Art
   The World of Fiber Optics
   Innovations in Technology

Facilities tours will include:

   Walt Disney Travel Company, Inc. - the ACD handling traffic there.
   Walt Disney World Central Reservations Office - a meeting with the
      management of the telecom facilities in the world's largest
      central reservations operation. See the ACD there.

   Vista-United Telephone Company - a meeting with executives there to
   discuss the several components of their operation, including
   voicemail, pagers, pay telephones, operator services, cable installation,
   network management, and ISDN.

   Information Processing - a meeting with executives of the WDW
   Master Command Center. A look at the mainframes and other areas of
   the computer facilities.

The cost:  $995 per person for the four day seminar. This includes
unlimited admission to *everything* in your spare time, as noted
above, including breakfast and lunch daily, and the first and last
night's dinners.

Accomodations: All participants will be housed at the Disney
Contemporary Resort. Rates are $145 - $180 per night, based on single
or double occupancy.  Two participants could easily share a room.

Registration and information: Phone [phone] between 8:30 AM and
5:30 PM Eastern Time. Fax inquiries to 407-363-6636. If you prefer,
you may write to:

Walt Disney Seminar Productions
Post Office Box 10,000
Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830-1000

You may call the above number to receive a complete copy of the
brochure (eight pages) I used to type the excerpts above if you want a
fully detailed schedule of classes, tours and exhibitions in the
seminar.

I think it is safe to say Mickey Mouse is not in charge of telecom and
Goofy does not set the long distance rates at WDW.  :) :)

WDW/Vista-United seems to be a very well-run and very technically
complex organization.  If you can spare the bucks and the first week
of September, I recommend attending.


PT

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Translating Alpha Phone Numbers
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 May 90 22:36:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat@
uunet.uu.net (Bapat) want's to convert phone numbers with letters
to numeric, and has access to a Unix machine.

The following should do it.  "tr" will translate a character in the
first string to a corresponding character in the second string.

BTW:  tr "[a-z]" "[A-Z]"    will convert lower-case strings to all
uppercase, which is irrelevant to this topic, but useful.

     --------------------  cut here  ---------------------------
:
#  Shell script to convert alpha-containing phone number to all numeric.
#  Put phone number on command line or wait for prompt.
#
if [ -z "$1" ]
  then
    echo "Phone number containing characters? \c"
    read phnnum
  else
    phnnum="$1"
fi
if echo "$phnnum" | grep 'q\|Q\|z\|Z' > /dev/null
  then
    echo "There's no Q or Z on the phone dial."
    exit 1
fi
echo "$phnnum" | tr "aAbBcCdDeEfFgGhHiIjJkKlLmMnNoOpPrRsStTuUvVwWxXyY" \
                    "222222333333444444555555666666777777888888999999"
exit
     --------------------  cut here  ---------------------------


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

From: Ray Spalding <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customized Telephone Numbers
Date: 28 May 90 20:05:52 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


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

>Alas, this seems to be another area where the LEC's get starry-eyed
>and see:
>        Revenue Source!
>        Revenue Source!

Indeed.  On page 18 of the Atlanta directory, titled "Prices of
Services", it says in part:

    Stylist(R) Service:  Your phone number can "spell"
    a word by using the letters that correspond
    to your phone number...............$2.50 per month

And, my experience has been that if you don't request this service,
you get a number with zeros and/or ones in it -- they're reserving the
"lettered" digits for people who are willing to pay for them.


Ray Spalding, Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0275
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!cc100aa
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 28 May 1990 16:47:39 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bibliography: Sysop Liability


More on this subject can be found in the telecom-archives via Anon.
FTP lcs.mit.edu under sysops.libel.liability.  Please note the
extensive footnotes and references.


Peter M.  Weiss | 31 Shields Bldg | University Park, PA USA 16802

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T "Excellence"
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 May 90 22:45:02 GMT


I wrote:

>My wife called AT&T yesterday and asked them to drop our "Reach Out
>Washington" (which wasn't saving us any money :-() and got the same
>"Did I give you excellent service?" question at the end of the call.

>Yes, she did get good service, the rep didn't try to talk her out of
>it or anything and understood her request.

Well, I just got the phone bill and they hadn't cancelled the plan.

When we called, they couldn't find a record of the cancellation request.

So much for "excellent service."  Although they didn't ask this time,
the rep did warn that "this call may be being monitored for excellent
service" at the beginning of the call.

Maybe we should have asked if we could change our response on that first
call.  :-)


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Date: 28 May 90 13:21:35 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Mike Riddle <[e-mail]> writes:

> My understanding is that a 9600 bps modem actually operates at 2400 baud,
> with 4 levels, creating a 9600 bps signal.  This method was used
> precisely because of the inherent bandwidth of a "normal" voice line.
> It seems to me that whoever told him 9600 wouldn't work on a "normal"
> line either didn't understand 9600 bps methodology or was trying to
> sell up.

I don't have the reference in front of my and can't give a detailed
explanation of PEP (Packetized Ensemble Protocol), but it is somewhat
more complex than that. PEP (I don't know anything at all about the
theory of v.32) tries for as many as 512 separate carriers (each
operating very slowly) over the line. During training and negotiation,
carriers that are unusable because of line quality are locked out.
This is why PEP can be so variable in terms of throughput. If line
conditions change significantly, the modems will renegotiate.

1200 and 2400 bps modems don't operate at 1200 and 2400 baud,
respectively, but rather at a slower baud rate and carry 4 or 8 bits
per baud. This is accomplished by introducing a phase (and in the case
of 2400, amplitude) component.

BTW, most people don't understand 9600 bps methodology.


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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 21:59:43 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development


One of the engineers I spoke with about the digital cellular stuff
wants it made clear that his opinions are only opinions, not word from
on high.  My statement that I spoke with "engineers" make him think
that people will believe they're facts.  Alas, if only people took my
pronouncements as fact because I'm an engineer...

So far nobody is claiming that the privacy of IS 54's digital cellular
system is really great, just that it's slightly better than analog
cellular.  What burns me is that they could have made it *really
great* with relatively trivial spec and software changes (encryption)
but didn't bother.  (Yes, the changes are "relatively" trivial if you
examine the protocol they are running here.)

He also wants a chance to retract the comment about Dynabooks and
driving; given that a large majority of the cellular phones are
currently sold for cars (my guess -- anyone have figures?), I can see
why he would have equated cellular with car.

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

From: Michael Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call
Date: 29 May 90 05:41:17 GMT


I visited Kansas City over the weekend and discovered an annoying
quirk in the local phone system.

I was trying to dial a number in Kansas (area code 913) from Missouri
(816).  The number was about 30 miles off, but is considered "local"
in the sense that one just dials seven digits.

Having been out of the area for a while, I dialed the normal 11 digits
that one would dial in Los Angeles (for example) to do the same thing.
The bizarre thing was that although I was calling from a residence, I
got connected to a recording stating something along the lines of
"This number cannot be dialed directly from a pay phone..."

I called the operator, who gave a more helpful error message ("I think
I know what's wrong...")


Mike

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 22:51:31 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD Long Distance Discount


> I can see doing it if the bandwidth
> of TDD devices is so much smaller than voice that deaf people are
> effectively paying more for less effective use of the same circuit for
> the same amount of time as hearing people...

[e-mail] (Ken Harrenstien) wrote:

> Indeed, this is the rationale.  The standard figure in the literature
> I've seen has been a 5:1 ratio; that is, a conversation via TDD takes
> five times as long as a voice call to convey the same information.

So, since I use Telebit modems and can send in two minutes what would
take thirty minutes by voice, I should be charged 15x the voice rate for
my long distance calls?  I should move netnews over dozens of TDD's,
so I can get those really cheap rates!

Not only do deaf people burn up more time on the lines than the
average subscriber, but they get charged less for it?  Why don't they
get surcharged instead, like BBS systems in some places?

Besides the general public being ripped off to pay the phone bills of
the deaf, there is also the topic of TDD design itself.  Years ago, a
few companies made combination TDD's with 300-baud modems as well as
Weitbrecht modems built in.  Most deaf people didn't buy them.  That's
why they are now stuck with 45 baud modems -- they didn't buy faster
ones when they were offerred.  Nowadays you could get 1200 or 2400 for
the same price (it's all in one chip) but still they buy 45's.

What is worse, California phone subscribers are also being ripped off
so PacBell can BUY these obsolete devices and GIVE them to the deaf!
I already object to their forcing me to subsidize deaf people as a
class, but if I chose myself to subsidize any deaf people, I'd at
least give them a decent modem, or a fax machine, not this trash.

> Oh yeah, while I'm ranting about bills, [various rants about the
> California Relay Service, a "free" service that lets deaf people TDD
> to the service which reads their message to hearing people and vice
> verse.  By "free" I mean "you and I pay for it, not its users".]

Why isn't there a free relay service for email users to send to and
receive from fax machines?  I mean, we are at a severe disadvantage
when *everybody* has a fax machine except us!  Or howabout a
Fax-to-voice service for the blind?  And a voice-to-explanations
service for the stupid?  How can you advocate helping the deaf without
helping all the other "deserving" multitudes?

Personally I think helping people should be voluntary.  I don't like
the kind of "help" the government gives.

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 90 1:35:10 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are You a Phreak and/or Cracker?


The subject line says it all: It is time for the first annual poll of
TELECOM Digest readers, to detirmine how many of you fit into one of
the above categories.

The two questions I would like answered are:

  1) Have you made one or more phraud calls in the past six months?
     (yes or no)

  2) Have you broken into a computer, or gained unlawful access to a
     computer in the past six months?  (yes or no)

I realize these are rather sensitive questions to ask, and since most
of you probably do not know how to send an anonymous message over the
net, I have provided a work-around.

I want you to flip a coin, any coin. Don't tell me how it lands.
If it lands heads up, answer the above two questions truthfully. If it
lands tails up, then answer these two questions instead:

   1) Have you eaten a hamburger for lunch in the past two weeks?
      (yes or no)

   2) Have you gone inside the usual bank you do business with in the
      past two weeks?  (yes or no)

Based on the coin-flip, answer the first two questions or the last two
questions. Send a message to '[e-mail]' with the
subject header 'questions', and a single line of text using the
appropriate text from the following:

1.  Yes  Yes
2.  No   Yes
3.  Yes  No
4.  No   No

Please do not include anything for the Digest and do not include
personal comments you want me to answer.  Repeat: DO NOT advise me of
the results of the coin-toss.  The results will be posted here in a
couple weeks.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #394
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05850;
          30 May 90 4:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00712;
          30 May 90 2:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02757;
          30 May 90 1:48 CDT
Date:     Wed, 30 May 90 1:03:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #395
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 May 90 01:03:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 395

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Data Access Lines [Rob Warnock]
    Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development [Don Alvarez]
    Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development [Patrick L. Reilly]
    Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter" [Dan Johnson]
    Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter" [Jon Baker]
    Re: 10XXX Bugs [Dan Lance]
    Re: Correction to 908 Areacode Exchange List [Carl Moore]
    Re: Correction to 908 Areacode Exchange List [Tom Lowe]
    Re: Customized Telephone Numbers [Amanda Walker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 05:22:18 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| Mike Riddle <[e-mail]> writes:

| > My understanding is that a 9600 bps modem actually operates at 2400 baud,
| > with 4 levels, creating a 9600 bps signal...

| I don't have the reference in front of my and can't give a detailed
| explanation of PEP (Packetized Ensemble Protocol), but it is somewhat
| more complex than that. PEP (I don't know anything at all about the
| theory of v.32) tries for as many as 512 separate carriers (each
| operating very slowly) over the line...

Excerpts (scraps, really, the original is almost 300 lines) from a
document posted to comp.dcom.modems 6 Mar 90 by Mike Ballard & Cerifin
Castillo of Telebit (write to <[e-mail]> for more info):

    Telebit Corporation      Revision 1.01        01 DECEMBER 1989
           A BRIEF TECHNICAL OVERVIEW OF TELEBIT MODEMS
    ...
    This technique (DAMQAM) divides the voice bandwidth into 511
    individual channels each capable of passing 2, 4, or 6 bits per
    baud based on the measured characteristics of the individual
    frequencies associated with each channel.  On a typical phone
    connection, the modem uses a subset of about 400 of those channels.

    Each time the modem connects to a circuit established on the dialup
    Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), the TELEBIT modem
        measures the quality of the connection, and determines the usable
        subset of the 511 carriers.  The aggregate sum of bits modulated
        on this subset of carriers multiplied times the baud rate yields
        a bit per second rate that on a local telephone connection
        (i.e. round trip through your local telco) is 18031 bps.  This
        18031 bps is then reduced by about 20% to allow for the CRC overhead,
        to about 14400 bps of data throughput.
    ...
    The modem operates at 7.35 and 88.26 baud, transparently changing
    baud rates to accomodate the pace and quantity of data traffic.
    When in "interactive mode" the modem sends data using 11 msec
    packets (which run at 88.26 baud). Each packet contains 15 bytes
    of data. In "file transfer mode" the modem uses 136 msec packets
    (that transfer at 7.35 baud) that contain 256 bytes of data.
    The TrailBlazer decides which packet size to use on an ongoing
    dynamic basis. No intervention from the user is required.

So the rate never exceeds 88.26 baud. Your local telco ought to be able to
do *that* at least...  ;-}   ;-}


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

From: Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development
Date: 29 May 90 15:42:19 GMT
Reply-To: Don Alvarez <[e-mail]>
Organization: Princeton University


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

>So far nobody is claiming that the privacy of IS 54's digital cellular
>system is really great, just that it's slightly better than analog
>cellular.  What burns me is that they could have made it *really
>great* with relatively trivial spec and software changes (encryption)
>but didn't bother.  (Yes, the changes are "relatively" trivial if you
>examine the protocol they are running here.)

I have no idea what protocol they are running, but I do know that
creating a system that allows for secure and trusted communications
between large numbers of remote devices is never trivial.

Providing *encrypted* communications is trivial (rec.funny readers use
rot-13 "encryption" all the time, for example) , but providing
*secure* and *trusted* communications is.  Secure communications mean
that only the sender and the intended recipient can read (or in this
case listen to) the communication.  Trusted communications add caveats
that one can detect interuption of service, replay or delay of
messages, etc.

The important point for a cellular phone link is that encrypted does
not mean secure.  If you and I wanted to exchange encrypted mail over
the internet, we'd have to first agree on and somehow exchange our
encryption key without anyone else discovering it for it to be secure.
The same is true for cellular phones, only there the key exchange has
to be automatic and transparent to the user.

How do your phone and my phone agree upon and exchange an encryption
key without allowing eavesdroppers to pick up the key?  We can't just
use public key encryption techniques, because of the following
senario:

    A wants to call B.  A says "I need B's public key".  C hears
    the request, and quickly replies "B's public key is foo".
    C then says "I need B's public key," and waits for B to reply
    "My public key is bar."  A now tries to talk to B.  A encrypts
    the communication using foo, and sends it out.  C decrypts it
    (since C knows how to decrypt foo), copies it, and reencrypts it
    using bar (which only B knows how to decrypt).  B recieves it,
    decrypts it, and says "I just got a message from A which was
    encrypted in a way that no one else can decrypt, so it is secure."
    Likewise, C can catch B request for A's public key and listen
    to the return half of the call.

Somehow, your phone and my phone need to already share a unique key
with each other inorder to exchange the key they will use in their
communications.  That is a chicken and egg problem.  The solution,
clearly is to have a secure "directory server", which shares a
different unique key with every phone in the system.  This is a
reasonably tractable solution (the number of keys grows only with N,
each phone needs only a single key, and distribution of that key can
be done when the phone is manufactured), and forms the basis of MIT's
Kerberos system for secure and trusted logins to Unix boxes. (<-

Actually, Kerberos uses secret key encryption rather than public key
encryption, because the security of the method is unaffected and a
careful accounting of messages reveals that more packets need to be
exchanged to start up a conversation using public key than is needed
to start up one using secret key).  The problem is that the directory
server is now a tremendous single point of failure.  Anyone who cracks
any directory server anywhere instantly renders the entire security
algorythm null and void.  Worse, *every phone* would have to be sent
back to the manufacturer to get a new secret key burned in (otherwise
there would be no way to trust that the new key was not intercepted if
it was reprogrammed remotely).

That would be prohibitively expensive, so it would never happen.  But
we all know that somewhere out there is a nasty who would manage to
crack into one of these servers (you've got to admit they'd be real
attractive nuisances).  Now you have a system that everyone believes
is secure, but actually provides little or no more real security than
current cellular phones.

In short, providing secure and trusted communications over a "hostile"
network is not trivial, and in my opinion providing a false sense of
security about ones communications is worse than providing no
security.


don alvarez
Princeton Univ. Physics Dept.
[phone]

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

From: "Patrick L. Reilly" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BAD Digital Cellular Standard Under Development
Date: 29 May 90 17:32:04 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


If you want to compare the various upcoming cellular developments,
look up "What's Ahead Worldwide for Digital Cellular", by A. Slekys,
in the May, 1990 issue of Mobile Radio Technology.

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

From: Dan Johnson <acd4![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter"
Date: Tue, 29 May 90 17:24:24 EST


In Volume 10, Issue 391, Message 5 of 12 [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
writes:

>     Sounds like the Cat Detector Van from the Ministry of Housing!

There are two things that I would like to point out about this.
First, the Cat Detector Van was actually from the Ministry of Housinge
(it was spelled that way on the van).  Second, the UK really does have
TV detector vans which are used to find people using TV sets without a
license.  This earned a passing mention in RISKS DIGEST 9.94 (the
licenses, not the vans).


Daniel W. Johnson              Applied Computing Devices, Inc.
UUCP: ...!uunet!acd4!dwj       Earth: 39 25 02 N / 87 19 55 W (approx.)
ARPA: acd4![e-mail]    Compu$erve: 71520,367

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter"
Date: 29 May 90 23:49:44 GMT
Organization: gte


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

>     A few (ten?) years ago, Hackensack Water Company installed an
> automated meter reading gizmo on my parents' water meter (and a new
> meter, equipped for said gizmo).  There is a cable running from the
> meter to a plastic box around 6" x 9" x 2" (about big enough to be a
> late 1970's line-powered 1200 bps modem, I guess) and some quad cable
> from there to Tip/Ring on the phone entrance block.  Anybody know
> exactly how this works?  Either it is programmed to place a local call
> in the middle of the night to some data-collection number, or maybe
> HWCo has permission from NJBell to run some sort of data-over-voice
> carrier on top of their wires?  Anybody know for sure?

The utility runs a special trunk to the CO.  The trunk is siezed, and
the utility's equipment sends tones to the CO indicating which
subscriber line it wishes to connect to.  The CO pulls a path from the
utility's special trunk to the subscriber's line.  Note - the line is
not rung; a path is just built.  The utility sends some tones to the
'box' at the customer's premise, activating it and requesting the
current reading.  The box sends some tones back indicating the current
reading.  If the subscriber goes off-hook, or if a call is placed to
the subscriber, while this is going on, the connection is immediately
aborted.  Pretty nifty, huh?

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

From: Dan Lance <mailrus!citi!gatech!ukma!corpane![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10XXX Bugs
Date: 29 May 90 14:58:47 GMT
Reply-To: Dan Lance <mailrus!citi!gatech!ukma!corpane![e-mail]>
Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail] (woody)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 377, Message 7 of 7

>During a recent trip to Buffalo, I made the following observations:

>1) Dialing 10XXX + 1 700 555.4141 generally didn't work too well.
>   For instance, 10333 (Sprint) or 10222 (MCI) + 1 700 555.4141 got
>   AT&T's long distance network recording. 10555 (Telesphere) just
>   got a fast busy signal.

>2) You can't dial 10222 + 1 800 888.1800, which is supposed to be one
>   of MCI's numbers! (Presumably, 1 + 800 888.1800 should do it).
>   Of course, mixing and matching various 10XXX on 800 number calls
>   would only get the recording that the number could not be dialed
>   with the selected carrier.

>3) At least the 10555 0# worked to get a Telesphere operator...

I recently made a trip to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where I tried to make
a call from a Wisconsin Bell payphone which was clearly labeled "The
long distance carrier for inter-LATA calls from this phone is (very
large type) AT&T".  Wrong!

Dialing 1 502 244 xxxx (ka-bong) followed by my AT&T card number
produced a recording: "MCI is unable to process your card number.
Please enter a valid card number."

After a moment's pause, I tried 10288 1 502 244 xxxx (ka-bong)
card-number, which got me "Thank you for using AT&T" and a completed
call.

I don't have an account with MCI, and my AT&T card is a student card,
which is not associated with any specific phone number.  I assume from
previous messages to the Digest that if I had a normal AT&T card (one
associated with my home phone number) MCI would have completed my call
and billed me for it.

I'm interested in how common this type of sleazy diversion is, and how
Wisconsin Bell can get away with claiming that calls are routed by
default through AT&T when in fact they go through MCI.  Can my calls
get routed through another long distance carrier when I use 10288? If
MCI had completed my call, would I have been liable for the charges?


Dan Lance / Corpane Industries, Inc. / Louisville, KY / [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 90 9:13:05 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Correction to 908 Areacode Exchange List


I have indeed seen 841 Stroudsburg in other lists for the
(pre-908-split) 201 area.  Yes, it's the name of a town across the
river, and this situation happens the other way around with Belvidere
(475 prefix in what will become area 908).  Just across the Delaware
River is, if I recall correctly, 215-498 also using the place name
Belvidere.  (215-area prefix list available in the Philadelphia
directory.)

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

Subject: Re: Correction to 908 Areacode Exchange List
Date: 29 May 90 09:22:44 EDT (Tue)
From: Tom Lowe <[e-mail]>


S M Krieger <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Please add the following to your lists.

>> 841    STROUDSBG  NJ

> Unless the Delaware River shifted in the last three days, I thought
> Stroudsburg was in PA.

I thought the same thing, but what you see above is exactly what
should appears on your phone bill if you call 908-841-XXXX (or 201-841
for now) There is also a STROUDSBG PA in the list:

717-223    STROUDSBG PA        717-420    STROUDSBG PA
717-421    STROUDSBG PA        717-424    STROUDSBG PA
717-476    STROUDSBG PA        717-620    STROUDSBG PA
717-629    STROUDSBG PA

> Also, the following little tidbits of information appeared in a phone
> bill insert:

>      4.    We will still be able to use 7 digits for all local calls
>     (which in the case of my Summit, NJ central office, means
>     that calls to Millburn, Madison, and South Orange will
>     remain at 7 digits).

>     What I am curious about though is how many central office
>     codes will this tie up in both 201 and 908?

I read in an article in a newspaper a couple days ago that we will
have to use area codes for all calls outside our area code, including
local, after the statewide 911 system goes into effect (sometime in
1992, if I remember correctly).  Anyone know why this is the case?


Tom Lowe
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Customized Telephone Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA
Date: Tue, 29 May 90 17:53:53 GMT


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

> C+P is a lower life form, IMHO.

Indeed.  If air time was a little cheaper, I'd drop my C&P home phone
completely and just use my cell phone.  They really make a person
appreciate the value of competition in the marketplace...

No independent telcos around Reston that I've found, though :-(.


Amanda Walker

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #395
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08034;
          30 May 90 5:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13289;
          30 May 90 3:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00712;
          30 May 90 2:53 CDT
Date:     Wed, 30 May 90 2:06:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #396
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 May 90 02:05:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 396

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Data Access Lines [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: A Request For Technical Info on Telecom [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain [Dave Horsfall]
    Re: FCC REN Numbers [Todd Inch]
    Re: My List of World Wide Codes [Jim Breen]
    Re: My List of North American Area Codes [Mark Brader]
    Re: My List of North American Area Codes [Colin Plumb]
    AT&T Finally Learns USA Country Code [Jim Rees]
    Why Texas Air Uses So Much Phone Service [Will Martin]
    Communications Publishing Service [Bill Berbenich]
    AT&T Billing Alert [Jeremy Grodberg]
    TDD Cost and Technology Issues [Michael C. Berch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines
Date: 29 May 90 05:07:40 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

>Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]> writes:
>> dBm is commonly used to specify a level referenced to a "digital milliwatt"
>> signal.  This is a 1004Hz sine wave of 1mW power into 600ohms.

>What was it before digital technology? I've always heard it referred
>to as simply the "milliwatt".

Of course, you are correct.  dBm is power relative to a milliwatt.  I
slipped into that thinking because the bench work I've always done was
with digital equipment.

>Also, to be technically pure, dBm can be a reference to one milliwatt
>into any impedance, as long as it's a milliwatt.

Right.  The 600ohms is a common impedance, and would be the required
termination if you were to feed the digital milliwatt pattern into,
say a CODEC, and want to really get a milliwatt of power delivered.

>And it is still 0 dBm.

I stand, if not corrected, then at least clarified and unconfused :-)


Chip Rosenthal
[e-mail]
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Request For Technical Info on Telecom
Date: 29 May 90 05:15:08 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


[e-mail] (Mary J. Leugers) writes:

>The class is aimed at graduate students in communications who have no
>experience in the engineering realm.

A most readable book is the |Understanding Telephone Electronics| book
by Fike and Friend of the T.I. Learning Center.  It's available
through Radio Shack, SAMs, the Telecom Library, and gadzillions of
other places.  The Telecom Library's telno is 1-800-LIBRARY.  All
folks reading this group/list should have a copy of their catalog
(right next to their Hello Direct catalog :-).


Chip Rosenthal
[e-mail]
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260

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

From: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connection of a British Phone Outside Britain
Date: 29 May 90 04:08:08 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Horsfall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA


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

| I believe that Aussie phones work the same way.

|                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.

Australian phones are similar, but not quite the same.  My memory is
getting hazy, but this is what I recall:

The pair from the exchange appear on pins 2 and 6 of a (comparatively)
enormous 4-pronged device (2 conductors per prong, with a keyed
dummy).

The blocking capacitor is installed in the "first" telephone in the
system, with the extensions being wired in series/parallel with three
conductors (bells in series via pin 3, transceivers in parallel) and
the capacitors are bypassed on the extensions.  Typically, the "first"
handset has its plug screwed into the jack, so it cannot be removed.
In these days of electronic ringers, the point is moot.

You could always tell when someone (illegally) wired their phones;
they either tinkled when somebody dialled (mis-wired), or they didn't
ring when the main phone did (bell disconnected to stop the Telecom
Thought Police from investigating a sudden change in REN...).
Nowadays, the demarcation point is the first telephone jack in the
premises (if a household) or the termination panel (if
business/flats), and you can plug in what you like after that (but
must still be approved).

Other pins had various uses: 1 & 5 were typically used for modems, etc
(2 & 6 went to modem, phone went to 1 & 5 from modem), and I believe
pins 3 & 4 were remote bells.  There were many configurations.


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)  Alcatel STC Australia  [e-mail]
[e-mail]  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN Numbers
Reply-To: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 May 90 14:02:22 GMT


Note: I attempted to post the below on May 22 but must have fouled up.
Since then, I've read numerous responses.  Hopefully, this is a little
less technical.  Watts = Volts * Amps, so if Volts is constant, you
can substitute "Amps" in my analogy below, if that is any help.

Somebody mentioned the phone company should be supplying roughly 5
Watts of ring juice, so maybe my analogy was more technically correct
that I had intended. :-)

To clear up possible confusion about the effect of the on/off switch:
On many phones, especially ones with mechanical bells, this will not
effect the REN at all - it still draws just as much current.  On some,
it may draw a little less current and have a lower effective REN than
the FCC sticker shows.  On very few phones, this may disconnect the
entire ringer circuit from the line and therefore change the REN to
0.0.

On all phones with mechanical bells that I've seen, (insert non-expert
disclaimer here) simply disconnecting the bell inside (with wire
cutters, screwdriver, or a do-it-yourself switch) would have the
effect of drawing no ringing current, thus 0.0 REN.

My favorite method of adding a bell switch to a mechanical bell phone
is to wire the bell to an unused line wire (black or yellow) and then
add one of those cheap hanging-lamp style cord switches to the line
cord.  This avoids having to drill holes in the phone, etc.  If you
did this to all the phones in your house, you could turn on/off all
the bells at the phone by your bed.

(Write me for details, it's really to boring and elementary for most
readers.)

My original non-posted article:

Stephen J. Friedl, a 3B2-kind-of-guy, asks about REN's and what good
they are.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought
of it as if Ringer Equivalence Numbers were like Watts, that is, the
electrical power required for and drawn by the bell/ringer/chime/etc
during ringing.

For example, if you have a power supply which will safely supply five
watts, you can add any combination of loads which total no more than
five watts.

Each household appliance, for example, is rated X watts on its
nameplate and consumes approximately that much.  Add the watts of the
appliances on a circuit to find the total and check if the circuit can
safely supply that much.

It's possible to build an appliance (ringer) to consume fewer watts by
having a more efficient design or by providing less output (noise.)

Most physical bells are designed to use 1.0 REN's because that's the
way they've been for years and it's an acceptable standard which is
fairly cost-effective to achive.

Most "chirpy" ringers use less because they are electronic and
peizo-electric (more efficient and, IMHO, more annoying) rather than
electromechanical like the standard gong-style bells.  Or, some of
them on "powered" phones use amplifiers which cause some of the watts
come from the AC power supply instead of the phone line.

The Phone Company's (Central Office) Switch or a PBX, or whatever is
driving the bells, shouldn't "care" how much you're using as long as
you're under the maximum rated "load" - more load will just draw more
current.

Of course, as you approach the maximum load or surpass it, there will
be significant voltage drops and/or current increases (Ohm's law)
which will result in not enough voltage to ring all ringers and/or
activating a "circuit-breaker" or equivalent overcurrent protection
circuit in the switch or pbx.

I've always heard that the "standard" switch or pbx will power about five
REN's worth of ringer-load, but I've had six or seven hooked up before.
I've also noticed the performance of the bells degrade as you add too
many, due to low voltage.

If the REN's are smaller per phone, or on the average, then you can
add more phones.  So, you should pay attention if you are approaching
five or more REN's on one line, but this isn't a problem for most
people.

I've never seen a bell with greather than 1.0 REN, except maybe some
oddities I build myself, which the FCC never tested. :-)

A side note: Due to inexpensive construction, most cheap electronic
phones with non-gong ringers (the J-Mart $8 models) will ring at lower
voltages than they really should and often chirp when someone pulse
dials on an extension phone (called bell-tap).  They usually also have
less than 1.0 REN's, but these are two effects from one cause (cheap
but efficient all-electronic circuitry) rather than a cause and effect
of each other.


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology,
Mukilteo WA   [phone]   UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi
ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My List of World Wide Codes
Organization: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Melb., Australia
Date: Tue, 29 May 90 23:09:12 GMT

[ lots of country codes deleted  ]
>     974-    Qatar            976-    Mongolia
>     977-    Nepal            98-     Iran

> [Moderator's Note: The above are always prefaced with either 011 (for
                                   ******
> direct dialing) or 01 (for credit card, collect or third number
> billing). Then a city code, comparable to a USA area code, follows the
> above in most cases, prior to the actual local number. Countries not
> listed above are not dialable; calls for those points are made through
> the operator.  PT]

Patrick, Patrick! PLEASE remember that your group is read all over the
world. Your comment above is true for callers in the USA, and
practically nowhere else. International access codes differ from
country to country. For example, in Australia we have 0011 for
ordinary IDD, 0012 for IDD with ring-back prices, 0015 for IDD with
echo disabled, etc. etc.


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

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

From:    Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My List of North American Area Codes
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date:    Tue, 29 May 1990 03:07:33 -0400


I like that!  The correct title of the posting would have been "My
List of *Other* North American Area Codes".  The list skips 416.  The
article was posted from tmsoft, in Toronto, in area code 416.


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

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

From: colin_plumb <contact![e-mail]>
Date: Tue May 29 11:53:27 1990
Subject: Re: My List of North American Area Codes
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


I just came back from England, and noticed that one of the country
codes they listed in their phone book was 1 809 (they even put the
space in).  How many countries have no country code but "1"?


Colin

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: AT&T Finally Learns USA Country Code
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 29 May 90 16:46:59 GMT


I live in the USA.  Sometimes when I'm bored I like to call the
operator and ask, "What is the country code for the USA?"  (An amusing
variation on this is to ask for the country code for Canada.)  I've
been doing this for years and never got the right answer.  Usually I
get shuttled to various supervisors for about ten minutes, and the
final answer is almost always, "There is no country code for the USA."

Today, for the first time, I got the correct answer from an AT&T
operator.  She put me on hold for about five minutes then came back
with it.  I'll be trying MCI and Sprint operators tonight.

By the way, the USA country code still isn't given in any USA
telephone directory I've ever seen.  Burkino Faso?  OK.  Vanuato?  No
problem.  USA?  Forget it!

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 90 11:02:56 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Texas Air Uses So Much Phone Service


"Texas Air" is the holding company that owns not only the airline by
that name, but also New York Air, Continental, and TWA.  (Those
include the lines that were taken over by this group, and no longer
have separate identities, like Ozark.) Also, Northwest merged its
reservations system into TWA's, so all those airlines' phone usage is
merged under the "Texas Air" entry.

(Source: newspaper articles in the {St. Louis Post-Dispatch} on Carl
Icahn and what fate is in store for TWA [which has its hub here in St.
Louis and thus is of much local interest].)


Regards, Will

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 90 13:15:26 EDT
From: Bill Berbenich <bill@shannon>
Subject: Communications Publishing Service


Does anyone have the address and phone number for 'Communications
Publishing Service?'  They put out various books of a telecom nature
and I'd like to get in contact with them.  Please e-mail directly to
me, no use in cluttering the list up.


Thanks,

Bill Berbenich       internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 15:57:22 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Billing Alert


   In case you haven't heard, as of July 1, AT&T will begin billing
for *all* long distance directory assitance calls.  Currently, they
let customers make one free long distance DA call a month.


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

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

From: "Michael C. Berch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: TDD Cost and Technology Issues
Date: 29 May 90 06:59:07 GMT
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, Calif. USA


Thanks to Ken Harrenstien and others who pointed out the rationale
behind call discounts for TDD users (i.e, that the limited bandwidth
of TDD calls requires that TDD users must make much longer calls
compared to voice users for the same amount of information exchanged).
This makes sense.

The obvious next question is, is there any hope in sight for changing
the TDD standard to something more, uh, *modern* than 45.5 or 48 baud
(this is Baudot code, right, not ASCII?)?  I understand that no
teletype-like exchange can realistically be expected to approach the
information content of a voice conversation, but are deaf people going
to be stuck with 45.5 baud forever?  I can't imagine that given
today's miniaturization of components and automated manufacturing
techniques, a device can't be built that will communicate at least 2
orders of magnitude faster at an order of magnitude less cost than
TDDs of the 1970s...

Is anybody working on this, from the standards side, or the technology
side?


Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #396
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20971;
          30 May 90 23:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06660;
          30 May 90 22:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13452;
          30 May 90 21:00 CDT
Date:     Wed, 30 May 90 20:02:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #397
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 May 90 20:02:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 397

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Legion of Doom" Indictment [Eduardo Krell]
    Online Access to Library Card Catalog [Jon Zeeff]
    Modem Connections While Camping [J. Philip Miller]
    Defeating 800 ANI & Caller*ID Using the "O" Operator [Steve L. Rhoades]
    MCI PrimeTime, Call Pacific, Call Europe, Call Canada [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Municipal Taxation of Interstate Long Distance Phone Charges [S. Forrette]
    AT&TMail, MCI, or IBM IN Global Mail? [Joe Jesson]
    PacBell Dropping Charge for Touch-Tone Service [Christopher J. Pikus]
    Another Clue to Possible E. German Prefixes [J. Stephen Reed]
    Ship to Shore Ripoff? [Carl Moore]
    Panasonic VA-616 Cards/Phones [Owen Scott Medd]
    New Double-jack Wall Plates, Crosstalk? [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 12:42:21 EDT
Subject: "Legion of Doom" Indictment


Computer Consultant Could get 32 Years If Convicted of Source-Code Theft

Baltimore - A Middletown, Md., man faces as many as 32 years in prison
and nearly $1 million in fines if convicted of being involved in the
"Legion of Doom" nationwide group of Unix computer buffs now facing
the wrath of federal investigators.

The U.S. Attorney's Office here on May 15 announced the indictment of
Leonard Rose, 31, a computer consultant also known as "Terminus," on
charges that he stole Unix source code from AT&T and distributed two
"Trojan Horse" programs designed to allow for unauthorized access to
computer systems. Incidents occurred between May, 1988 and January,
1990, according to the indictment.

The five-count indictment, handed down by a federal grand jury,
charges Rose with violations of interstate transportation laws and the
federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Rose faces as many as 32 years
in prison, plus a maximum fine of $950,000.

He is the third person to be indicted who was accused of being
connected with the so-called Legion of Doom. Robert J. Riggs, a
21-year-old DeVry Institute student from Decantur, Ga., and Craig M.
Neidorf, 19, a University of Missouri student from Columbia, Mo., also
have been indicted.

Rose's indictment stemmed from a federal investigation that began in
Chicago and led investigators to Missouri and Maryland, assistant U.S.
Attorney David King said. While executing a search warrant in
Missouri, investigators uncovered evidence Rose was transporting
stolen Unix 3.2 source code, King said. Investigators then obtained a
warrant to search Rose's computer system and found the stolen source
code, King added.

He said the Trojan Horse programs were substitutes for a legitimate
sign-in or log-in program, with a separate shell for collecting user
log-ins or passwords.

"Whoever substituted [the Trojan Horse program] could get passwords to
use the system any way he or she wanted to," King said.

The indictment was a result of a long-term investigation by the U.S.
Secret Service, and was issued one week after federal authorities
raided computer systems at 27 sites across the United States.
Investigators seized 23,000 computer disks from suspects accused of
being responsible for more than $50 million in thefts and damages. The
Secret Service at that time announced that five people have been
arrested in February in connection with the investigation.

King said he was unaware if Rose indictment was related to the raids
made earlier this month.

"We don't just go out and investigate people because we want to throw
them in jail. We investigate them because they commit an offense.  The
grand jury was satisfied," King said.

The U.S. Attorney's Office said the investigation revealed individuals
had accessed computers belonging to federal research centers, schools
and private businesses. King would not name any of the victims
involved.

Rose was associated with the Legion of Doom and operated his own
computer system known as Netsys, according to the indictment. His
electronic mailing address was Netsys!len, the document said.

The Legion, according to the indictment, gained fraudulent,
unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of stealing
software; stole proprietary source code and other information;
disseminated information about gaining illegal access, and made
telephone calls at the expense of other people.


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

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

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

From: Jon Zeeff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Online Access to Library Card Catalog
Organization: Branch Technology
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 18:40:35 GMT


In the "for what it's worth" department, the U of Michigan's card
catalog is available online (for free).  You can call [phone]
(2400 bps) or telnet to hermes.merit.edu.  Enter "MIRLYN" as the Which
Host? prompt and follow the directions.  It can be quite helpful when
you are searching for a book (by keyword, author or title).


Jon Zeeff (NIC handle JZ)     [e-mail]

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Connections While Camping
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 29 May 90 16:50:29 GMT


I am getting ready to take a trip west and will be camping for much of
the time.  Since I normally never leave home without a computer, I
have been contemplating how I can get my regular fix of
comp.dcom.telecom while I am gone.

I have the usual assortment of modular phone cords with alligator
clips and gizmoes to replace the mouthpiece of a standard phone, but
think that these are unlikely to work from the pay phones which are
usually about the best you can find in a campground.

I suppose that I could get a cellular phone, but I have not kept up
with the modem technology for use with cellular's.

Suggestions?


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

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

Date: Sat, 26 May 90 14:17:02 PDT
From: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Defeating 800 ANI & Caller*ID Using the "O" Operator


When calling an 800 number from my Pasadena, CA exchange (818-794 -
1AESS), I have found that I can prevent the called party from
receiving my number simply by routing the call through the "O"
operator (Pac*Bell's TOPS).

Normally, when I call one of MCI's, SPRINT's or AT&T's 800 numbers, my
number will show up on the called party's call detail.  If I simply
Dial "O", and "have trouble reaching 800-xxx-xxxx" the call detail
doesn't have my number. (Yes, the TOPS operator does have it.)  I've
only tried this with the above-mentioned 800 providers.

My question: Is this just a fluke ?  Is there some type of convention
for TOPS to pass the calling number to the 800 service provider ?  Has
anyone else tried this ?  Does it work elsewhere ?

On a related question: For those of you with Caller*ID, what happens
when you get a call routed through the "O" operator ?  (the called
party being someone that you would normally get a calling number from
on your Caller*ID display).


Steve

Internet:  [e-mail]     UUCP:....elroy!cit-vax!riot!slr
US MAIL: P.O. Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023      VOICE:[phone]

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 90 18:16:42 PDT
From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI PrimeTime, Call Pacific, Call Europe, Call Canada


Here's the latest on MCI's discount calling plans:

MCI PrimeTime (for calls inside the US): $8.75 per month includes one
hour of calling.  Additional minutes are billed at $6.50/hr (about 11
cents/min).  Plan hours are M-F 5pm to 8am, all day Sat and Sun
*except* Sun 5pm-11pm.  Subscribers also get a 10% discount on calls
made during non-plan hours.  In California, MCI California PrimeTime
covers in-state calls.  PrimeTime may not cover in-state calls for
subscribers in other states: check before ordering.

MCI Call Europe (for calls to Western Europe): $3.00 per month plus 59
cents per minute, M-F 3pm-8am, all day Sat and Sun.

MCI Call Pacific (for calls to Pacific Rim): $3.00 per month plus 79
cents per minute, M-F 10pm-2pm, all day Sat and Sun.

MCI Call Canada (for calls to Canada): $3.00 per month plus 19 cents
per minute, M-F 5pm-8am, all day Sat and Sun.

Note that the $3.00/month subscriber fees do not include any calling
time, and you have to pay a separate fee for each plan you subscribe
to.

Call MCI at 1 800 955 1624 for verification and for further details.

Please note: I am not affiliated with MCI, and this information is
provided second hand as a service to TELECOM Digest readers.  I make
no promises as to the accuracy of this information, and disclaim all
warranties.  Check the rates with MCI before ordering.  My Employer
wishes I weren't doing this, so please don't even ask them about it.


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

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

Date: Tue, 29 May 90 17:11:15 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Municipal Taxation of Interstate Long Distance Phone Charges


A couple of days ago someone who lives in Berkeley mentioned that
their US Sprint bill had charges for the City of Berkeley tax applied
to all calls, not just intra-state ones.  I checked into this a bit,
and finally tracked someone down in the Berkeley city offices that had
some background.  She read me part of an article that appeared in the
San Francisco Chronicle on January 11, 1989, which stated:

"The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for local governments to
tax inter-state phone calls."

Maybe this is old news to most of you, but not to me.  Anyway, I guess
we'll just have to live with this one...

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

From: joe jesson <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&TMail, MCI, or IBM IN Global Mail????
Reply-To: joe jesson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 02:15:10 GMT


  Would like to tie a large company-wide network to a large gateway
for PROFS to Telex, FAX, Internet, etc. and would like to select
either AT&TMail, IBM IN, UUNET, or SoftSwitch (own a small switch).

Rumors have it that AT&TMail is *expensive* and uses a Bisync (what?)
link and Internet is *only* for research. Maybe IBM IN the best???

Give me your thoughts!!


joe

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

From: "Christopher J. Pikus" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBell Dropping Charge for Touch-Tone Service
Date: 30 May 90 08:31:50 GMT
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, Ca.


    It was only a few weeks ago we were discussing the "Cost
versus price" of Touch tone service. I believe we generally agreed
that while touch tone service cost practically nothing, the RBOCs
charged for this "premium" feature based upon perceived value (one of
them marketing terms :-)).

    Today in my phone bill was a little leaflet saying that they
will be eliminating the charge for touch tone.  The actual text is as
follows:

        "--Most residential customers have Touch-Tone Service
    and pay $1.20 per month for it. The connection charge
    is $3. Those charges will be eliminated under the CPUC
    order, and all residential customer will receive Touch-
    Tone automatically. ....."

        "... Also we are proposing that business customers re-
    ceive Touch-Tone Service as part of their basic service.
    ...."

I believe the CPUC document describing this is: "CPUC Decision
D.89-10-031".

Now I'm waiting for Pac Bell to charge a premium for using the pulse
dialing "feature". :-)


Regards,

Christopher J. Pikus,               Megatek Corp.
INTERNET:     [e-mail]      San Diego, CA
UUCP:         ...!uunet!megatek!cjp

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 18:29 EST
From: "J. Stephen Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Clue to Possible E. German Prefixes


Some messages about a week ago dealt with Salomon Brothers opening an
office in East Germany, but with a telephone number that was prefixed
for a West German cellular exchange.  The original msg asked whether a
contingency plan with as-yet-unused prefixes was being put into effect
for East Germany, pending the reunification.

I may have a clue as to how they are thinking, from parallel facts in
the postal world.

West German postal codes are normally four digits, ranging from 1000
(West Berlin) to 7999.  An article in the Germany Philatelic Society
magazine noted that according to a Deutsche Bundespost bulletin some
years ago, the 8000s and 9000s are reserved for "other German
regions".  The editor of the magazine investigated further and found
that those numbers were, in fact, being held primarily for East
Germany.  Or, as they called it in the 50s and 60s, "die sogenannte
DDR" ("the so-called 'German Democratic Republic'").

(Digression: Note the word "primarily" in the last paragraph.  It
seems obvious that not all Federal Republic bureaucrats have given up
on getting back the territories now held by Poland, as Chancellor Kohl
now has given up, albeit under pressure.)

Since the Bundespost is the same PTT that controls the phone system, I
would be surprised if some codes for exchanges haven't been set aside
as well.  I seriously doubt that both country codes would persist
(unlike the two Yemens, or Tanzania).


Steve Reed * Liberty Network, Ltd. * P.O. Box 11296 * Chicago, IL 60611
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 10:39:26 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ship to Shore Ripoff?


In the news (and not just locally Philadelphia etc.) this week was a
cruise ship which got stuck on a sand bar off Cumberland County, NJ in
the Delaware Bay.  After the passengers were evacuated, word came from
them (reaching me via KYW news-radio in Phila.) that it wasn't all one
big happy pary on board.

Among the things they were irate about was being charged $15 a minute to
call anxious relatives.  Also, a line formed at the single phone available.

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

From: Owen Scott Medd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic VA-616 Cards/Phones
Organization: Ocwen Trading, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 23:11:46 GMT


We're the proud (?) owners of a Panasonic VA-616 KSU.  Our local
distributer has informed us that he can no longer obtain line cards or
phones for the thing.

[ I know I'm going to regret this. ]

I'm soliciting information that will lead to establishing contact with
establishments who have parts for this Panasonic KSU.  I'd be happy to
summarize the information I get if anyone else cares.

Thanks,

Owen

USMail:   Ocwen Trading, Inc., 101 N. Main, Suite 410, Ann Arbor, MI  48104
Phone:      [phone]    FAX:    [phone]
UUCP:      <backbone>!umich!leebai!osm
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: New Double-jack Wall Plates, Crosstalk?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 16:29:19 GMT


We just had new phone service hooked up, two lines: one for data, the
other for voice. Instead of designating one jack for data and hooking
up the rest for voice, my wife let them install a new kind of
wallplate with two lines at each point:


    +-------------+
    |             |
    |  +--+ +--+  |
    |  |  | |  |  |
    |  +--+ +--+  |
    |             |
    +-------------+

I presume they have hooked red-green up on one line, and yellow-black
on the other. I haven't had time to check it or even pop a plate
(moving is *such* fun), but if they did this I should expect some
crosstalk. Has anyone else seen this setup? If there is a crosstalk
problem, what should I do?


`-_-' Peter da Silva. [phone]. <[e-mail]>
 'U`  Have you hugged your wolf today?  <[e-mail]>
@FIN  Dirty words: Zhghnyyl erphefvir vayvar shapgvbaf.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #397
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21625;
          31 May 90 0:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06660;
          30 May 90 22:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13452;
          30 May 90 21:00 CDT
Date:     Wed, 30 May 90 20:50:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #398
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 May 90 20:50:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 398

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter" [Peter Weiss]
    Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter" [James Blocker]
    Re: 10XXX Bugs [John Higdon]
    Re: Panel (ugh!) Switches [Don H. Kemp]
    Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole? [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Why Texas Air Uses So Much Phone Service [Jeffrey Silber]
    Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call [David Tamkin]
    Re: FCC REN Numbers [David Tamkin]
    Re: Irish Phone Service [David Tocher]
    Re: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: AT&T Finally Learns USA Country Code [Guy Middleton]
    Use of Area Code 202 [Carl Moore]
    Caller-ID Theory and Operation [Sameer Siddiqui]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 30 May 1990 06:46:49 EDT
From: Peter Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter"


In article <[e-mail]>, asuvax!gtephx!mothra!bakerj@
ncar.ucar.edu (Jon Baker) says:

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

>The utility runs a special trunk to the CO.  The trunk is siezed, and
>the utility's equipment sends tones to the CO indicating which
>subscriber line it wishes to connect to.

Does this mean they only install this stuff at dwellings that have
telephone circuits installed?  Are there any implications on what kind
of circuits?  What happens if a data call is in progress?  If measured
service, who foots the cost of the call?  Is there an implied theft of
(telephone) service from the subscriber's point of view?  What does
the FCC & PUC think of all this?  If this is saving the utility money,
will it be reflected back into the rates?

I guess these are rhetorical questions since I don't really want to
start a flame war.


/Pete

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 17:37:21 CDT
From: James Blocker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Boston Gas "Specially-equipped Gas Meter"


In message <[e-mail]> (Volume 10, Issue 390, Message 6 of 7),
[e-mail] (Henry Mensch) writes:

[form letter from gas company describing new remotely read meters deleted]

>Now, aside from not including very many details of this new system
>(does it continuously broadcast use?  If not, then how does it know to
>broadcast?  how is the signal encoded?  ...), one wonders what gives
>boston gas company the idea that I want them to install a radio
>transmitter in my home.

This sounds very much like a system that I saw a presentation on
sometime in the mid-70's.  I don't remember a lot of the details, but
this should answer at least some of your questions.

This particular remote meter reading system had two antennas, a
varactor (frequency) tripler, and some circuitry to fetch the current
meter reading (be it cu. ft. of gas, gallons of water, kwh, or
whatever).

The system worked by having a van drive down an alley or street
transmitting a continuous carrier on a given frequency (say 450 MHz).
This RF energy was received through the first antenna (your receiving
antenna) and tripled up to your transmitting frequency (say 1350 MHz)
by the varactor tripler.  The associated meter reading circuitry
sensed the presence of RF (I believe it was even powered by the
received RF energy) and modulated the transmitter with your meter
information by keying the output of the tripler on and off at a
certain bit rate.  A serial number and checksum was also included as
part of this transmission to guard against false readings.

The van then would have a receiver operating at three times its
transmitting frequency, demodulate your transmission and feed that
into a computer (possibly through a serial port) for storage of the
meter reading.

What I thought was so slick about this system was that it was mostly
passive from the customer's (your) standpoint.  No external power was
required, since it was powered off of received RF and it did not
transmit unless a carrier of the proper frequency and adequate
strength was in the vicinity.

Unfortunately, I am very hazy on the details as far as the actual
frequencies involved and the data format.  After your new "remote
reading" meter is installed, I'd be interested in hearing what it
actually looks like and if it is close to the system I have described.


Jim Blocker (KF5IW)
Currently working at, but not representing, Rockwell International
 ..!texbell!texsun!digi!fozzy!phoenix!blocker

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10XXX Bugs
Date: 30 May 90 02:48:05 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dan Lance <mailrus!citi!gatech!ukma!corpane![e-mail]> writes:

> I'm interested in how common this type of sleazy diversion is, and how
> Wisconsin Bell can get away with claiming that calls are routed by
> default through AT&T when in fact they go through MCI.  Can my calls
> get routed through another long distance carrier when I use 10288?

It was probably just an error on someone's part that the wrong default
carrier appeared on the card. The owner or operator of the property
where the phone was located could have requested some change and not
updated the card, or Wisconsin Bell could have made a mistake in
placing the card or programming the default. Probably nothing sinister
here.

If the phone in question is an LEC pay phone, then 10288 should get
you AT&T. If the phone is a COCOT, then anything goes. More than
likely in that event, your call would just be blocked.

> If MCI had completed my call, would I have been liable for the charges?

Of course. If you mistakenly buy a ticket on United instead of USAir
and fly to LA, you will still have to pay your Amex when the bill
comes. When it comes to long distance, it is Caveat Emptor. It is up
to you to learn how to tell if your call is being handled by the
carrier of your choice. Now if you could prove fraud...


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

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

From: Don H Kemp <uvm-gen!teletech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panel (ugh!) Switches
Date: 30 May 90 12:29:50 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John Higdon):

> Jack Winslade <[e-mail]> writes:

>> I've been fascinated with the panel switches (Ma Bell's answer to Rube
>> Goldberg) ever since seeing an aging one in action back in 1971 or so.

> Panel was almost universal in San Francisco and Oakland up until the
> early 70's. Obviously, exchanges added in the '50s onward were
> crossbar and later, ESS, but there was a substantial penetration of
> these impressive machines. Having grown up in Oakland, I'll never
> forget the sound of the phone.

Ah yes, panel!  In 1965 (or so) I worked in San Francisco's Market CO,
where we had the best of all worlds.  At that time there were (as I
recall) two panel offices, two #1 crossbar, and one #5 crossbar.  The
panel offices took up more than twice the time that the three others
took.  I can still recall having to poke around finding a stuck rod to
release it.  Once in a while an entire bank would drop at once.  The
crash seemed to shake the entire floor.


Don H Kemp
B B & K Associates, Inc.
Rutland, VT
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

From: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Tell Someone About a Security Hole?
Date: 30 May 90 13:25:45 GMT
Reply-To: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Organization: BBN Communications Corporation


In article <[e-mail]> claris!netcom![e-mail]
(Isaac Rabinovitch) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 391, Message 7 of 12

|Our anonymous might well have been "trespassing" (though Lippman
|ignores the legal responsibility of the "offended" party in this sort
|of property rights issue)....

An interesting legal theory (which I don't understand very well and
which may only apply to some other area of law) is called something
like "attractive nuisance" -- if the owner of a property leaves a
ladder up to his second story window and a kid climbing it to break in
falls and injures himself, the owner may be liable for damages even
though the injured party was committing a criminal act.  (I don't know
whether that somehow excuses the criminal act.)

Could it be the employer who leaves a system sitting around with
security holes waiting to be entered shares some guilt or is at least
liable for some damages for injuries to the employee which result from
his being fired?  Far out speculation; I'm sure the lawyers hereabouts
will flatten this idea fast.


    /JBL

Nets: [e-mail]    or {...}!bbn!levin     POTS: [phone]

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

From: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Texas Air Uses So Much Phone Service
Date: 30 May 90 14:50:45 GMT
Reply-To: Jeffrey Silber <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Theory Center, Cornell University, Ithaca NY


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

>"Texas Air" is the holding company that owns not only the airline by
>that name, but also New York Air, Continental, and TWA.

Texas Air does not, to the best of my knowledge, own TWA.  They do,
however, own Eastern.  Carl Icahn led the buyout (and partly owns)
TWA.


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

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 16:21 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Dial the Area Code Even on a Local Call


David Leibold wrote in volume 10, issue 391:

|I found a report of someone in 416 being able to dial 416 + local number
|and getting the local number (no 1+ in front, though).  This was after
|the cutover in March to allow for NXX prefixes.

Hmm.  Was that on a call that normally requires 1-416-NXX-XXXX or on
one that normally requires dialing seven digits?

Central Telephone, through some overlooked bit of code, allows
customers in 312 to dial anywhere in area code 815, inter-LATA or
intra-LATA, with ten digits.  [A large part of area code 815 is in the
Chicago LATA.  If the ten-digit call is to a prefix outside the
Chicago LATA, Centel passes the call to the dialer's primary long-
distance carrier.]  That won't work for calls to area code 708 (which
is nearer than 815) or to other places in 312, though.

Centel customer service personnel have, in the last couple weeks,
become very familiar with the two bugs in their billing software that
have been hitting me since the 312/708 split (well, one of them was
cured March 12).  My mentions of them have been greeted with "oh yes"
as I start to describe the problems instead of "really?" after I've
finished.  The programmers are working on a fix, they tell me.  I'll
believe it when the fix is working on my bills.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 16:25 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC REN Numbers


Todd Inch wrote in volume 10, issue 396:

:I've always heard that the "standard" switch or pbx will power about five
:REN's worth of ringer-load, but I've had six or seven hooked up before.

Aha.  So that must be the reason I can connect 5.9 REN's of telephones
plus .8 REN's of modems and answering machines and still get blasted
out of bed if I don't turn the ringers off!  Thank you, Mr. Inch.  I
wish your article had made it through the first time.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (DAVID TOCHER X2293, ROOM B3039)
Subject: Re: Irish Phone Service
Date: 30 May 90 10:49:50 GMT
Organization: University of Limerick, Ireland


The reason the dialling codes from Ireland to the UK are not in the
usual international form is easily explained. The north of Ireland is
part of Ireland ( articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution) and hence it
was not acceptable to dial Belfast with an international dialling
code. As Belfast is part of British Telecom network all the Ireland to
UK codes are affected.


David Tocher EI2AMB Dept of Mathematics,
University of Limerick, Ireland.

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! A Phone Without the ( and ) Buttons
Date: 30 May 90 21:58:14 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

# If you think you get dummies on a switchboard, then you
# have no idea what people will do with ATM's.
   .....

# After taking a few seconds to recover from her surprise, she said, as
# calmly as possible, "Does the fact that the building is missing two
# walls and the roof suggest anything to you?"

I've got one almost as good.  My wife was working as a teller for
Santa Monica Bank in the early 1980s, when ATMs were still a bit of a
novelty.  One day, a guy with a very pronounced New York City accent
walked in and informed them -- rather loudly and angrily -- "Hey!
Your coffee machine don't work!" and stalked out.

It took them several minutes to figure out that he was attempting to
purchase coffee from the ATM.


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

From: Guy Middleton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Finally Learns USA Country Code
Organization: University of Waterloo Math Faculty Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 21:51:33 GMT


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

> I live in the USA.  Sometimes when I'm bored I like to call the
> operator and ask, "What is the country code for the USA?"  (An amusing
> variation on this is to ask for the country code for Canada.)  I've
> been doing this for years and never got the right answer.  Usually I
> get shuttled to various supervisors for about ten minutes, and the
> final answer is almost always, "There is no country code for the USA."

Strictly speaking, isn't it true that neither the USA nor Canada have
country codes?  Both countries are in Zone 1, I believe, and there is
nothing else in Zone 1, so there is no real confusion.  All the
country codes seem to be at least two digits long, so if codes are
ever assigned, they could be 10 and 11.

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 17:16:55 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Use of Area Code 202


Case in point for area code 202 being used in the suburbs: I see a
contractor's name and address in Arlington, with phone given as
703-xxx-xxxx, where the prefix is indeed Arlington, not Washington.
Then it says "FTS installations, dial 202-xxx-xxxx."  What impact does
the prefix shortage (and the upcoming requirement to dial area code on
local calls crossing NPA border in Washington DC area) have on this?

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 16:44:41 EDT
From: Sameer Siddiqui <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Theory and Operation
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Hi folks,

I am interested in learning more about the Caller-ID service offered by
the RBOCs esp. NJ Bell. Some of the questions I have are:

- Is it a propriatary service/product?
- Is it available or going to be available nationwide?
- Is it part of ISDN service?
- Do you need the decoder/display box or can you get a PC to do the work?

etc etc etc.

Any source of information would be welcome.

Thank you all.


Sameer Siddiqui

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #398
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23317;
          31 May 90 0:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06982;
          30 May 90 23:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06660;
          30 May 90 22:07 CDT
Date:     Wed, 30 May 90 21:45:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #399
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 May 90 21:44:32 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 399

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Mobile Data Terminals [Rob Gutierrez]
    Re: Data Access Lines [David Tamkin]
    Re: TDD Long Distance Discount [Tad Cook]
    Re: TDD Long Distance Discount [John Higdon]
    Re: TDD Cost and Technology Issues [Roy Smith]
    TDD's and Faster Speeds [Joseph C. Pistritto]
    Sprint Service: Business / Non-Business [Steve Elias]
    Special Issue: UK Telephone System [TELECOM Moderator]
    InfoText Magazine (Was: 900-based Legal Services) [Wayne Correia]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mobile Data Terminals
Date: 31 May 90 01:25:49 GMT
Reply-To: Rob Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center


mdivax1![e-mail]  writes:

> I have noticed some discussion here recently about mobile data
> technology (terminals in police cars - is it for real?) and can assure
> telecom readers that indeed this technology is here - the company I
> work for, Mobile Data International (MDI), designs and manufactures
> complete mobile data communications systems.

> This is not that new, just check out the October, 1982 issue of
> National Geographic for a photo of the Vancouver Police Department's
> MDT.....

I have seen, and have been aware of MDT's being used by police
departments since 1973!

Not too many people seem to remember the first big installation of
MDT's was at the Oakland (California) Police Dept in 1973.  It used
GTE "Datacom's", which were huge terminals, and used a real CRT
(Cathode Ray Tube) to display four lines of twenty-five characters.  A
roomate of mine was able to procure the "Users Manual" to operate and
also look up codes for the messages displayed on the CRT.  These were
used also with a CAD (Computer Aided Dispatching) system, which GTE
was pushing as an "all-in-one solution to the rising crime rate", and
Oakland was very much appropriate for that quote.  The system was
funded by a government grant to see how MDT's would work in the real
world.

The terminals were not initially well received because the police
officers thought this was an excuse for the City of Oakland to reduce
staffing in the cars from two-man to one-man, and then have that one
man actually look away from the "suspect" while doing the queries on
the MDT. (First Commanment in Police Academy: Thou Shalt NEVER Looketh
Away From Thy Suspect, EVER!).

The grant money eventually ran out about three or four years later,
and the MDT's were eventually scrapped (they did keep the remaining
ones working as long as possible, cannabalizing the others to do so).

The police officers did accept the terminals when they discovered it
was actually faster than waiting in line for subject and auto queries
on the radio. (Yes, you were given a number on the query channel (Ch.
3) during busy times, like Friday/Saturday nights! Sometimes waiting
behind up to six to eight other officers!).  They were sorely missed
when the query radio channel crowded up again.


   Robert Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet Project - Network Operations Center.
   Moffett Feild, California.


[Moderator's Note: The Chicago PD was using these terminals on a
limited basis in the middle '70's, and they have not really increased
their usage now, fifteen years later. Still, only a few cars are
equipped. Calling on the radio for information frequently results in a
long delay here, and worse yet are the times when the dispatcher
responds saying the system is down, and to try again in twenty
minutes.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 16:35 EST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Access Lines


Mike Riddle wrote in volume 10, issue 391:

|Jeremy [Grodberg] wants to use a Telebit 9600 bps modem, and his version
|of Ma Bell said that only < 2400 {actually, <= 2400 --DWT} was guaranteed
|on a voice line.

|My understanding is that a 9600 bps modem actually operates at 2400 baud
|with four levels, creating a 9600 bps signal.  This method was used
|precisely because of the inherent bandwidth of a "normal" voice line.  It
|seems to me that whoever told him 9600 wouldn't work on a "normal" line
|either didn't understand 9600 bps methodology or was trying to sell up.

John Higdon commented in volume 10, issue 394:

:1200 and 2400 bps modems don't operate at 1200 and 2400 baud
:respectively, but rather at a slower baud rate and carry four or eight
:bits per baud.  This is accomplished by introducing a phase (and in the
:case of 2400, amplitude) component.

1200 bps and 2400 bps modems operate at 600 baud with two or four bits
of information in every baud.

In volume 10, issue 395, Rob Warnock quoted an official description of
PEP and observed:

+So the rate never exceeds 88.26 baud. Your local telco ought to be able
+to do *that* at least.

And I think that's the problem: Jeremy's telco promises that ordinary
lines will support 600 baud (regardless of bps counts attained through
artifice or cunning) but not the 2400 baud possibly required for 9600
bps.  {I won't venture a guess whether he needs 2400 baud modulation
for 9600 bps as Mike said or only 88.26 baud as Rob quoted.} The reps
are told that voice lines can handle 2400 bps (the presumed speed
limit for 600 baud) but reliability at [the higher baud rates possibly
needed for] higher data rates requires premium service.

If PEP is modulated only at 7.35 or 88.26 baud, it should be no
difficulty for the local lines to carry it, unless shoving so many
bits into so few bauds requires so many carrier pitches that local
telco lines might not be reliably able to discriminate that fine.


David Tamkin  P. O. Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  [phone]
MCI Mail: 426-1818   CIS: 73720,1570   GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  [phone]

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD Long Distance Discount
Date: 30 May 90 06:03:45 GMT
Organization: very little


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

> Not only do deaf people burn up more time on the lines than the
> average subscriber, but they get charged less for it?  Why don't they
> get surcharged instead, like BBS systems in some places?

Because the idea is to try to DECREASE the isolation of deaf folks,
not increase it!  Besides, a really SMART network should be able to
handle LOTS of 45 baud TDD calls over the same bandwidth as one voice
call.

> Besides the general public being ripped off to pay the phone bills of
> the deaf, there is also the topic of TDD design itself.  Years ago, a

RIPPED OFF???  Yeah, "screw all the deaf folks ... let the 'free
market determine their fate!"

> few companies made combination TDD's with 300-baud modems as well as
> Weitbrecht modems built in.  Most deaf people didn't buy them.  That's
> why they are now stuck with 45 baud modems -- they didn't buy faster
> ones when they were offerred.  Nowadays you could get 1200 or 2400 for
> the same price (it's all in one chip) but still they buy 45's.

This is bullshit.  Most of the TDDs today have both 45 baud Baudot and
300 baud ASCII.  From a practical standpoint, most people don't type
faster than 45 baud (60 WPM) anyway.

> I already object to their forcing me to subsidize deaf people as a
> class, but if I chose myself to subsidize any deaf people, I'd at
> least give them a decent modem, or a fax machine, not this trash.

You are just plain selfish.  These people are incredibly isolated, and
now that a little bit is FINALLY being done to help, YOU CAN"T STAND
IT!

> Oh yeah, while I'm ranting about bills, [various rants about the
> California Relay Service, a "free" service that lets deaf people TDD
> to the service which reads their message to hearing people and vice
> verse.  By "free" I mean "you and I pay for it, not its users".]

> Why isn't there a free relay service for email users to send to and
> receive from fax machines?  I mean, we are at a severe disadvantage
> when *everybody* has a fax machine except us!  Or howabout a

Go buy a fax machine then!  Don't bellyache about the deaf!

> Personally I think helping people should be voluntary.  I don't like
> the kind of "help" the government gives.

Well, I have been doing voluntary work to help hearing impaired folks
for quite some time now, and the volunteer efforts alone haven't cut
it!  If you object to the rest of us getting the government involved,
what have YOU been doing to help??


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]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD Long Distance Discount
Date: 30 May 90 04:01:56 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John Gilmore <[e-mail]> writes:

> Besides the general public being ripped off to pay the phone bills of
> the deaf, there is also the topic of TDD design itself.

Then there's the Lifeline business. Remember the original concept? In
our modern society, the theory went, those with less than normal means
still needed the security of a telephone, particularly the elderly. So
that these people could afford a telephone, a special low rate
(subsidized by all of the rest of us, and now even billed as a
"lifeline surcharge") was created with a very small local calling
allowance. Well, that seemed slightly reasonable: the phone was really
necessary for emergencies and this subsidized rate would make it
available for those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

Then someone pointed out that those with lifeline service were also
too poor to go anywhere or do anything and passed the hours talking on
the phone. Since the cost could go through the roof with the limited
measured service, the guilt squad decreed that lifeline should also be
unmeasured. Done [said the king with a stroke].

My question is why stop there? How about free flat-rate long distance?
How about free 976 (and just bill the providers as if they had
recieved a pay call, but of course they don't get paid)?

> And a voice-to-explanations service for the stupid?

I love it! But it would have to be paid for with a surcharge on people
with IQs over 70.

> Personally I think helping people should be voluntary.  I don't like
> the kind of "help" the government gives.

Unfortunately, utilities are a favorite target for the "assistance
afficiandos". You know, give away the first few cubic feet, kilowatts,
etc., then charge like hell for any amount over that. It's called
"social manipulation pricing".  The telephone, being just a bit
different, requires a different contortion of rates.  It has to have a
special rate available only to the target beneficiaries, and a
surcharge is collected from everyone else.

Frankly, I think it's unfair that I have to pay so much for my
telephone lines. Why can't I get ten lines at lifeline rates? Then my
money could go for things I REALLY want.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: TDD Cost and Technology Issues
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 12:25:06 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael C. Berch) writes:

> I understand that no teletype-like exchange can realistically be expected
> to approach the information content of a voice conversation, but are deaf
> people going to be stuck with 45.5 baud forever?

    Why limit TDD to teletype-like exchange?  Since we're talking
about wholesale replacing of an existing standard with a better one,
why not go whole hog and do it right?  Even something as simple as a
tele-etch-a-sketch would be a great help at communications, and should
be able to easily fit into a 9600 bps data circuit (which we all know
can be crammed onto a regular voice line using V.32, PEP, or similar
technology).

    I could imagine something like a 12" x 12" digitizing tablet
with stylus (or a mouse) for sending simple drawings and a 512 x 512 x
1 bitmap screen for showing what is being drawn.  Such a device built
today shouldn't cost any more than a Teletype(tm) did 20 years ago,
and in fact probably a lot less, consisdering that what I've described
is basically a Mac Plus which is rumored to have a manufacturing cost
of just a few hundred dollars.  Of course, such a device would have to
be downward compatable with the old baudot machines since we can't
expect everyone to switch overnight.

    In fact, such a device would be useful for voice conversations
too (anybody who has seen John Maden do his "magic crayon"
play-by-play knows what I mean), but it would actually be easier to
multiplex the keyboard and stylus/mouse data streams (since they are
both already digital) than it would be to multiplex voice and
stylus/mouse.


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!"

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

Subject: TDD's and Faster Speeds
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 15:18:31 MESZ
From: "Joseph C. Pistritto" <[e-mail]>

A significant problem for upgrading TDD's is the installed base.  I
bet there's a lot of these out there, so any new device would have to
speak 45 baud as well as 300 or 1200 or 2400 or whatever.  Now
actually, this is more of a problem than you think.  Most baud rate
generator/modem chips don't support baud rates below 110 any more, and
if they do the only choice is usually 75, (used for lots of newswire
services, maybe even still for Telex).  Also, this is a 5 bit code if
I remember correctly, and lots of chips don't support 5 bits any more
either.  This would probably complicate the design by several more
chips than would otherwise be needed, raising the price.  I don't know
what the average income level of a deaf person is, but I bet it would
take a while for this idea to gain acceptance.  Although I'd think the
the ability to use online services like Compuserve and BIX would be
work something to at least a reasonable number.


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

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

Subject: Sprint Service: Business / Non-Business
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 20:17:15 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


I think that anyone can sign up for a Sprint business account.  Just
think of a fun name for your business, and away you go.

This gives you the advantage of lower prices via Sprint's volume
discounts, a plethora of cross referenced billing information, more
informative "news bulletins", and the option of having an 800 number
installed for $10 per month.  Some of these features may be available
on residential accounts by now...


/eli

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

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 21:00:12 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: UK Telephone System


Clive Feather has graciously sent along a lengthy essay describing in
detail the workings of the telephone network in the UK. I will be
sending this out as a special issue over the weekend, probably on
Saturday.


PT

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

From: Wayne Correia <[e-mail]>
Subject: InfoText Magazine (Was: 900-based Legal Services)
Date: 31 May 90 01:40:13 GMT
Organization: Dev. Tech. Support, Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA.


>The magazine has a 900 number permitting people who want to subscribe
>to this controlled-circulation (free for first 12 months) magazine to
>do so for a one time $9.95 charge (gotcha).  Sorry folks, I just do
>not remember that number.

The 900 number for a subscription to InfoText Magazine is 900
INFO-TEXt.  Remember that it costs $9.95 for the call.

Of course, if you're cheap, you might try to just FAX them a request
for a free subscription at 714-493-3018. Don't tell them I sent you.

Wayne

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #399
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27703;
          31 May 90 2:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30319;
          31 May 90 1:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04153;
          31 May 90 0:11 CDT
Date:     Wed, 30 May 90 23:09:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #400
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 May 90 23:09:09 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 400

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: My List of World Wide Codes [John R. Covert]
    Re: My List of World Wide Codes [Peter J. Dotzauer]
    Re: My List of World Wide Codes [Steve Pershing]
    Re: My List of North American Area Codes [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: TDD Long Distance Discount [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Ohio Bell vrs. Cincinnati Bell [Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 May 90 06:18:49 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  30-May-1990 0816" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My List of World Wide Codes


Michael's list was actually not quite as correct or complete as the
official list based on the CCITT Blue Book which I posted in V10#85
back in February.  But since it is substantially complete, I'll not
post that again, and will limit myself to a few comments:

259, though assigned to Zanzibar, is not in use.  Zanzibar is reached
via Tanzania, 255, with city code 54.  This gives us a hint about what
is likely to happen with Yemen.  Since Aden was not diallable from any
known western country, but Yemen was, it is likely that the expansion
of service into the united country will use the Yemen code, but it is
unlikely that the combined country will give up the extra code,
keeping it reserved for future use.  Though we don't know what will
happen with Germany, there is the possibilty that Germany will make
the East German codes diallable as West German codes by prefixing them
with "3" ("30" is currently the only "3" code in use in West Germany,
and is used for Berlin).  But this does not mean that Germany will
give up 37.

Michael lists 269 as Mayotte.  Now we get into how politics affects
the assignment of country codes.  Mayotte is an island in a group of
islands known as the Comoros Islands.  In 1975, the Comoros
unilaterally declared independence from France and formed the Federal
Islamic Republic of the Comoros.  The island of Mayotte voted to
remain part of France, an action which is not recognized by the
Comoros, nor by the United Nations, which tends to look askance at
colonialism, even when the residents indicate that they want to remain
part of a first world country.  Thus the CCITT Blue Book lists the
code as assigned to the Comoros, though, in fact, it is only usable to
reach Mayotte, since the rest of the Comoros have not made any
telephonic progress since separating from France.  (Another example of
politics affecting the assignment of country codes is the fact that
the CCITT does not list the fact that most countries use "886" to
reach Taiwan.  When Taiwan first became diallable, it was dialled
using "86", since it was the U.N. member at the time.  It lost the
code as part of being replaced in the U.N. with PRC representatives.
The PRC has informed the CCITT that "866" has been assigned to Taiwan,
but I would not expect anyone to use that instead of "886".)

Continuing with far-flung parts of France, Michael lists 590 as
Guadeloupe, but 596 as "French Antilles" which is not really correct.
The French Antilles consist of the two French Departments of
Guadeloupe and Martinique.  Unlike Mayotte, which is a territory,
these two departments are as much a part of France as any other
department in metropolitan France.  590 is Guadeloupe, which includes
the French side of St. Martin, the island of St. Barthelemy, the
islande of Marie-Galante, and Guadeloupe itself.  596 is just
Martinique.  There is still six digit dialing between 590 and 596,
though the correct code must be dialled from outside.  BTW, dialling
metropolitan France from these islands is not done by dialling the
international access code "19" and then "33", since the French
dialling pattern uses that sequence followed by another country code
to indicate that you want the French overseas operator for that
country.  Instead, you dial as within France: just "16" and the number
(with the leading "1" for the Paris region).

670 is listed as "Mariana Islands" but is in fact the "Northern
Mariana Islands" including the principal island of Saipan.

Michael's list does not include two assignments that I suspect may not
be used for a while, if ever.  San Marino, though still diallable with
the Italian country code 39 and city code 541 has been assigned its
own code: 295.  And Trinidad and Tobago has been assigned 296,
although the manager of their network planning department has told me
that they have no plans to leave the North American Numbering Plan
area code 809 -- they just asked for the code and got it.

And finally, though not confirmed, Bhutan has reportedly been assigned
the code 975.  A backwards country from both a transportation and
communications standpoint, it is not likely to be diallable soon.

The moderator added a note that Michael's list included only diallable
countries.  In fact, with the exceptions noted above, it included all
countries which have codes assigned, whether diallable or not.  The
only place listed as a political entity in the Britannica 1990 Book of
the Year which does not have a code assigned is Pitcairn Island.

There are a large number of countries not diallable, and, as a reader
from Australia pointed out, the list of diallable countries differs
from country to country.  It's not even the same between the U.S. and
Canada.  For example, Canada (and most of the rest of the world) can
dial Cuba (53), whereas the U.S.  can only dial Guantanamo Bay U.S.
Naval Station (53 99), which is not dialable from anywhere else!  On
the other hand, Canada cannot dial St. Pierre and Miquelon (508) even
though it's only a couple of miles away from the coast, yet most of
the rest of the world can!

The following list of codes includes all of those codes dialable from
the U.S. via the major carriers.  AT&T serves the most countries; but
Sprint makes the appearance of doing so by sending calls to countries
it does not serve via AT&T circuits.  In addition, there are three
places to which AT&T only provides operator service, whereas Sprint
provides direct dial service.  These are indicated in parens.  The
problem is that Sprint has never notified the local operating
companies that these codes should be opened in local central offices;
thus they are not diallable except in a few places (mostly U.S. West)
where the local operating company has decided to put all codes in
CCITT E.163 in, whether anyone serves them or not.  It should also be
noted that AT&T serves every country in the world, although those not
listed are served by operators only, whereas Sprint and other OCCs
only serve diallable countries.  AT&T has announced that dial service
to Mayotte (currently Sprint only) is coming.

20  212 213 216 218  220 221 223 224 225 226 227 228 229
230 231 232 233 234 237 238  241 243 247 248  250 251 253 254 255 256
260 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 (269)  27  297 298 299
30 31 32 33 34 350 351 352 353 354 356 357 358 359
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509
51 52 5399 54 55 56 57 58
590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599
60 61 62 63 64 65 66
670 671 673 (674) 675 676 (677) 679 684 685 686 687 689 691 692
7
81 82 852 853 86 871 872 873 880 886
90 91 92 94 95 960 962 964 965 966 967 968 971 972 973 974 977 98

And finally, Colin Plumb asks which countries are part of the North
American Intergrated Numbering Plan Area (code 1).  They are:

    Canada, USA including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,
    Jamaica, Barbados, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Cayman Islands,
    British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Bahamas, Dominica, Dominican
    Republic, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Christopher and Nevis,
    St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Bequia, Mustique,
    Prune (Palm) Island, Union Island), Trinidad and Tobago.

What you will note about this list is that it includes the USA plus
all members of the British Commonwealth in the Caribbean and North
Atlantic.  This definitively (at least for now) answers the question
of why some places are in +1 809 and why some have their own code.


/john

P.S.: Michael's other list indicates that 905 and 706 "were" Mexico.
 From his point of view, outside the U.S., they never were.  From the
U.S. they still are and will be until discontinued in February 1991.

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

From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My List of World Wide Codes
Date: 30 May 90 14:17:52 GMT
Organization: Ohio State Univ IRCC


In article <[e-mail]> "Michael A. Shiels" <tmsoft!mshiels@
uunet.uu.net> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 392, Message 2 of 5

>    66-     Thailand            670-    Marianna Islands
>    687-    New Caledonia        688-    Tuvalu, Saipan

Saipan is a part of the Mariana Islands. Not only that, it comprises
about 90 percent of its population. The rest is mainly on Tinian and
Rota.  Why does Saipan, a part of the Commonwealth of the Mariana
Islands, have an area code together with a relatively distant country
of 9 South Pacific Atolls (Tuvalu), while the rest of the Marianas has
another area code.

>    689-    French Polynesia        690-    Tokelan
                                                ^^^^^^^
Should be Tokelau (a New Zealand territory).


Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cart.& GIS, Dept.of Geogr., OSU, Columbus, OH 43210-1361
    TEL [phone]  FAX [phone]  FIDO 1:226/330  CCnet mapvxa::pjd
      INTERNET [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]    [128.146.1.5]
        BITNET pjd@ohstvmb       UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd

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

Subject: Re: My List of World Wide Codes
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 90 13:51:01 PDT
Organization: The Questor Project, Vancouver BC, Canada


Now that we have a list of world-wide country codes, does anyone have
access to a relatively complete world-wide list of regional/city codes
to go along with them?

It would be a useful posting for future reference (unless they change
often).


Internet: [e-mail]          |POST: 1027 Davie Street, Box 486
Phones:  Voice & FAX:  [phone]     |      Vancouver, British Columbia
         Data/BBS:     [phone]     |      Canada  V6E 4L2

[Moderator's Note: It's not that they 'change often' (although they
do change), but rather, the inefficiency and wasted space of printing
such a humongous and time-consuming (for you to type in, for readers
to view, and most important! for me to edit) list in this forum. AT&T
or the long-distance carrier of your choice has lots of books, charts
and printed reference materials you can order if you feel you must
have a list of everything, everywhere. The front pages of your local
phone book probably contain many city codes for starters.   PT]

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

Date: 30-MAY-1990 02:59:07.60
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My List of North American Area Codes


Something else I noticed (from another one of Pat's postings, this one
dealing with the "new" area codes in a revised area code list...):

Perhaps I missed this in the discussion, but I noticed area codes like
"411", "211", "611", "811", "511", and "200".

Now 411 is used quite universally for Directory Assistance (DA)
    611 is used similarly for repair.
    811 is used by Pac*Bell for calls to their offices, etc.
    211 is used in New York City to call for credit. (The ops. don't handle
        credit requests there.)
    511 is used in Rcohester for ANA. (or whatever you call the automatic
        number announcement.)
    911 is used for emergency services
    200 is used for the same purpose in NE Tel territory. (200-222-2222,
        I think...).

While I realize that it is POSSIBLE to use these numbers as area codes
by placing a 1+ in front of them to distinguish the "area code" call
from the "local service" call, in many areas, these X11 services take
a 1+ in front of them.

For example, in Connecticut, you must dial 1+411 for DA. (I think this
is done so DA access can be restricted ... you don't need to dial
1+611 for repair.)  I think this may also be so for Louisiana and some
areas of Oregon, but I can't recall specifically ... (anyone in Bend,
Oregon know if you need to dial 1+411? Or was it 1+555-1212? I never
did it because they charge *50 cents* for a DA call from a payphone!)

In some areas in New England, you need to dial 1-200-222-2222 for ANA
(this doesn't seem to be universal though).

Moreover, 1-611 is permitted (although by no means required) from what
appear to be 1/AESS exchanges in the New York City area.

So if those numbers are to be used as area codes, how will the present
system be changed to accommodate the new are codes? Won't this be VERY
confusing, as most customers who know "411" as directory assistance,
"611" as repair, and "911" as Emerncy services tend to think of such
numbers as "special" and thus reserved for such special uses?

I would think that if anything, these numbers will be assigned last,
way after 510, 310, etc. are all used up.

Additionally, when we go to full 1+ dialing, where (almost) any three
digits can be an area code, won't 1+xxx-xxxx dialing have to go away?
IE, right now, I dial 1-890-1611 for NY Tel repair (upstate). Won't
this be confusing to the switch when they assign area code "890"? IE,
the switch will have to "time-out" to see if you mean "area code 890
plus 7 more digits" or "toll call to number 890-xxxx". I'd personally
prefer, if it becomes necessary, to get rid of in-area code 1+ dialing
over having to wait for a call to timeout ... (Of course this is
ALREADY a problem with 0+xxx-xxxx calls, but that can wait till
another time! :-) )


Doug

[e-mail]/@eagle.wesleyan.edu

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

Date: 29-MAY-1990 12:58:39.99
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TDD Long Distance Discount


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

> Why isn't there a free relay service for email users to send to and
> receive from fax machines? ...  Or howabout a
> Fax-to-voice service for the blind?

    It's not _quite_ free, but darned close: -- both AT&T Mail and
MCI Mail certainly _send_ e-mail _to_ fax machines, at very nominal
charges (and at least one of these outfits will also send e-mail to a
teleprinter).  Unconfirmed rumors (who knows, maybe they're even
unwarranted :-) ) suggest they may _eventually_ serve as fax
receiver/forwarders for their customers, as well, forwarding fax
printout via USPS (this, however, is not yet an announced service).

    Not Fax-to-voice but e-mail-to-voice is a current offering at
least of AT&T Mail (available, though I've never used it, from any TT
phone in the US, maybe elsewhere -- 800 number and keypad overlay were
provided with AT&T Mail's new customer documentation package when I
joined up).


Fred <[e-mail]> <attmail!fejlinton>
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: 30-MAY-1990 02:51:19
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ohio Bell vrs. Cincinnati Bell


After reading Pat's 1982 re-posting of the Digest, I was wondering as
to why there is an "Ohio Bell" telco and at the same time a
"Cincinnati Bell" company as well?

I've wondered about this for some time, but never bothered to ask...

Is Cincinnati surrounded by a lot of GTE's or other independents so
there is some physical separation between the two? Or is the reason
for the presence of two Bell Companies in the same state based on
historical reasons?  (I realize that Cincinnati Bell was never
controlled by AT&T, and thus not a "real" Bell Company, yet why would
AT&T perpetuate a system like this in Ohio when it would seem logical
to incorporate Cincinnati Bell into the larger (?) Ohio Bell...?)

Just curious...

Doug

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


[Moderator's Note: AT&T cannot 'incorporate' or take over what they do
not own, any more than you or I can confiscate something belonging to
someone else. They have never owned other than a small, minority share
in Cincinnati Bell, despite the similar sounding 'Bell' name. At the
same time, what was AT&T to call the company they *did* own in Ohio?  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #400
******************************